Sitting of 29 March 1955

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  MINISTRY OF WORKS

    Golf School, Regent's Park
    Sir W. Wakefieldasked the Minister of Works if he will now make arrangements for the golf school in Regent's Park to be reopened, operating under arrangements or a licence similar to those under which the tennis courts, etc., operate, for the enjoyment and convenience of the public.
    The Minister of Works (Mr. Nigel Birch): There is still a golf school in Regent's Park, and I doubt if there is a demand for a second school.
    Sir W. Wakefield: Could the Minister state the whereabouts of the golf school in Regent's Park?
    Mr. Birch: It is on the north side on the old Baptist College site, I am told.

    Ancient Monuments, Great Chesterford
    Mr. E. Fletcherasked the Minister of Works whether his attention has been called to considerable unauthorised interference with the ancient monuments at Great Chesterford, Essex, scheduled by his Department; and what steps he is taking to prevent the threatened damage to these monuments.
    Mr. Birch: Yes, Sir. The gravel company concerned has been notified of the Ministry's requirements. Arrangements will be made to have the important remains examined and recorded.
    Mr. Fletcher: Yes, but is the Minister aware that unless drastic steps are taken earlier to do something about these gravel pit excavations, there is a grave
    176
    risk that the important historical evidence on this site of the continuity between the Roman and Saxon period may be destroyed? Will the Minister take energetic steps to see that this historical evidence is preserved and recorded before it is destroyed?
    Mr. Birch: I am aware of the importance of this site, and we are taking appropriate action.

    Nuclear Power Stations (Study Teams)
    Mr. Jannerasked the Minister of Works if he is aware that some of the large engineering firms in the country have announced the formation of a joint team of nuclear physicists, engineers and boiler technicians to study the problems of designing larger and more powerful atomic power stations for industrial nuclear power development; and if he will appoint liaison officers to maintain contact between this team and Government Departments.
    Mr. Birch: These teams have been formed by the firms concerned under the auspices of the Atomic Energy Authority and the electricity authorities to work on the design of the nuclear power stations in the 10-year programme outlined in the recent White Paper Cmd. 9389.

    Atomic Energy Authority (Libraries)
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Minister of Works to what extent the library of the Atomic Energy Authority can be used by members of the general public who wish to study the latest information on the peaceful and warlike uses of atomic energy.
    Mr. Birch: Members of the general public can borrow books and papers from Atomic Energy Authority libraries through the national inter-library lending system. Application should be made through a local public or university library.

    St. George's Day (Flag)
    11 and 12. Brigadier Raynerasked the Minister of Works (1) if he will arrange for the flag of St. George to be flown on all Government buildings in London on St. George's Day, 23rd April;

    177
    (2) if he will arrange for the flag of St. George to be flown on all Government buildings in Scotland and Wales on St. George's Day, 23rd April.
    Mr. Birch: No. Sir. St. George's Day is not appointed for flying flags on Government buildings.
    Brigadier Rayner: Should we not take a little more pride in that flag which led all our arms to victory up to the time of the Armada, and should not St. George's Day give the Scots a chance of paying graceful homage to the senior partner in the Union, from whom they have reaped so many blessings? Indeed, should not the Welsh, too, pay tribute to the Mother Country under whose wing they have sheltered so effectively?
    Mr. Birch: My hon. and gallant Friend is full of admirable ideas, but the Union has been in existence for some time, and it is generally a mistake to incite a civil war if it can be avoided.
    Mr. Woodburn: Is this Question an indication that there are some more dragons appearing in some parts of the House?

    Hyde Park (Access Tunnels)
    Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Minister of Works what consideration he has given to proposals for access to Hyde Park by means of tunnels at Hyde Park Corner and elsewhere.
    Mr. Birch: Proposals of this kind are being considered in connection with the road improvement scheme which is under examination for this area.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Has the right hon. Gentleman said whether, in principle, he agrees with the proposal? Is it now the policy of Her Majesty's Government to continue using the Royal Parks to get the Minister of Transport out of the jam in which he finds himself? Has the right hon. Gentleman any idea how much the tunnels will cost, and to what extent they will interfere with the amenities of the Royal Parks?
    Mr. Birch: I said that consideration was being given to the matter. I cannot answer these questions until that consideration is complete.
    Mr. E. Fletcher: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that for pedestrians this is the most dangerous crossing
    178
    in London? It is almost impossible to cross it. It is high time something was done about it.

    Traffic, Kensington Gardens and Hyde Park
    Mr. Langford-Holtasked the Minister of Works why he has not consulted motoring organisations and other public bodies before deciding to deny to traffic access to the carriageway between Queen's Gate and Coalbrookdale Gate which was previously open to traffic.
    Mr. Birch: In these matters I rely on the advice of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation and the Commissioner of Police.
    Mr. Langford-Holt: Does not my right hon. Friend think that such organisations as the A.A. and R.A.C., in addition to local authorities, ought to be consulted on such matters?
    Mr. Birch: We are certainly always ready to receive representations on these matters, but it is not general practice to consult outside organisations.
    Mr. Langford-Holt: Is my right hon. Friend aware that such organisations cannot make representations unless they know in advance what the proposals of my right hon. Friend and the Minister of Transport are? That is essential.
    Mr. Birch: I think that my hon. Friend has been talking about the past and not the future.

    Brickmaking Experiments (Application)
    Mr. Doddsasked the Minister of Works what practical application has been made of the successful experiments at the Building Research Station, Garston, Hertfordshire, of producing good quality bricks from 85 per cent. pulverised fuel ash waste at power stations and 15 per cent. clay.
    Mr. Birch: The large-scale application of the results of these experiments raises technical and economic problems which the brickmakers are considering. Some brickmakers are now using a small proportion of fly ash in their regular production.
    Mr. Dodds: Is the right hon. Gentleman optimistic about the future of the proposal?
    Mr. Birch: It is not an easy matter. It is not economic to transport fly ash any great distance. One has to have suitable clay and fly ash close together. The matter raises a lot of problems.

  PALACE OF WESTMINSTER

    Commons Chamber (Acoustics)
    Mr. John Hallasked the Minister of Works if he will take action to improve the acoustics of the Chamber of the House of Commons.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works (Mr. J. R. Bevins): Yes, Sir. I am having the matter examined and improvements will be made if they are found possible.
    Mr. Hall: Whilst thanking my hon. Friend for that sympathetic reply, might I ask if he is aware that hon. Members who sit at this end of the Chamber will be glad if, as a result of his investigations, they no longer have to sit with their ears glued to the loud-speakers in an attitude of inebriated contortionists?
    Mr. Bevins: Yes, we will take that into account.
    Mrs. Hill: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that I did not realise that his answer was a sympathetic one because I could not hear him?
    Sir F. Medlicott: Is the Minister aware that if all hon. Members would speak with the admirable clarity of the hon. Member who asked the Question, the acoustics would be perfectly all right?
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we can hear quite enough as it is; we do not want to hear much more.

    Temperature Control
    Mr. Crouchasked the Minister of Works how many persons are employed to check the temperature in the Chamber and rooms in the Palace of Westminster; and the annual cost.
    Mr. Bevins: Control Room staff check the temperature in the Commons Chamber and Division Lobbies. Three attendants check temperatures in the rest of the Palace as part of their duties. The cost of these services in wages is approximately £1,000 a year.
    Mr. Crouch: Is my hon. Friend aware that these men work in pairs, that one takes the temperature and the other writes it down in a book, and that separate pairs work on separate floors? What action do they take when they find that the temperature is not to their liking?
    Mr. Bevins: That may have been the case until recently, but it is not now. Appropriate action has been taken.

    Glass Ash Trays
    Mr. Crouchasked the Minister of Works when the last purchase of glass ash-trays was made for use in the Palace of Westminster; and the cost and country of origin.
    Mr. Bevins: Two dozen glass ash-trays were bought from a British manufacturer in July, 1954, at 3s. bd. each.
    Mr. Crouch: Is my hon. Friend aware that I have seen ash-trays here marked " Made in Germany "? Surely, as long as supplies are available, we should use British furnishings in the Palace of Westminster?
    Mr. Bevins: These ash-trays were used in the area under the jurisdiction of the Kitchen Committee, and were not the responsibility of my right hon. Friend. I cannot speak for the fiscal policy of the Committee but its financial policy has worked out all right.
    Mr. Daises: Is the Minister aware that on the other side of the balance sheet we still have, in the bathroom, hair brushes from Victorian days?

    New Palace Yard (Surface)
    Mr. Russellasked the Minister of Works if he will arrange for the cobblestones on the north side of New Palace Yard to be replaced by a smoother surface.
    Mr. Birch: There will be additional traffic over this part of the yard while the Clock Tower is under repair, and I do not think we should carry out improvements while this work is going on.
    Mr. Russell: Will my right hon. Friend undertake to carry out improvements after the work is finished? Is he aware that it must be many years since some of the cobblestones were repaired, and some of them are in an appalling state?
    Mr. Birch: We will certainly bear that in mind. I think my hon. Friend is right.

    RESEARCH

      Medical Research (Cat Stealing)
      Mr. Peter Freemanasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works as representing the Lord President of the Council, whether he is aware that a number of cases have recently been brought to the courts of cat stealing on a large scale and that several people have been convicted for this offence; that these cats have been stolen for sale to medical research laboratories, as admitted in court; that the cost of the defence and the fines have in some cases been paid by the Medical Research Council and that they have employed the same counsel, details about whom have been sent to him, in most of the cases; what authority exists for the payment of such expenses out of public funds; how much has been spent on each of these cases in the last six months; and what action he proposes to take to prevent a recurrence of such incidents.
      Mr. Bevins: I am glad to have the opportunity of stating, quite unequivocally, that there is no truth whatever in the hon. Member's allegations against the Medical Research Council.
      Mr. Freeman: Will the Parliamentary Secretary make further inquiries, in view of the fact that counsel who defended these cases is known to have made a voluntary statement that the fines and costs have been paid either by the Medical Research Council or one of its members; and this is further confirmed by a Mr. Taylor, of 13, Rectory Square, London, E.1, who supplies over 100 cats a week, most of which have been stolen, to the Medical Research Council? Also, that the same counsel was employed to defend Mr. Taylor, and has been employed by him on repeated occasions—
      Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is asking a very long supplementary question.
      Mr. Freeman: It is a very important Question.
      Mr. Speaker: No doubt it is, but there are other hon. Members who have equally important Questions they wish to ask.
      Mr. Freeman: If I might conclude, some brothers named Bailey were recently ordered to pay £170 in fines and costs, and they have admitted that in that case
      182
      the cats stolen were sent direct to the Medical Research Council. In view of this, will the hon. Gentleman make further inquiries?
      Sir H. Butcher: On a point of order. Might I ask, you, Mr. Speaker, to protect the value of Question Time by restraining the hon. Member from giving information rather than seeking it?
      Mr. Bevins: My noble Friend has been into the matter with the most meticulous care, and he is satisfied that none of the suggestions contained in the Question is based on evidence. The barrister whose name was supplied to my noble Friend by the hon. Member has had no contacts of any sort with the Medical Research Council. As for the statements made in court by defendants, defendants sometimes tell the truth and sometimes they do not.
      Mr. Freeman: In view of the very unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment on the earliest possible moment.

      Nuclear Weapon Tests (Genetic Effects)
      Mr. E. Fletcherasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, as representing the Lord President of the Council, what progress has been made in the investigations concerning the genetic effects of increased radioactivity due to the explosion of nuclear weapons; and when he expects that it will be possible to begin research on measures designed to counteract these effects.
      Mr. Bevins: Research on the genetic effects of radioactivity is necessarily of a long-term nature, but a certain amount of progress has been made and results are published in the scientific Press as they become available. The Medical Research Council's programme has, for the past eight years, included work on means of protection against the effects of radiation.
      Mr. Fletcher: While I appreciate that, does the Minister realise that the public are becoming increasingly concerned to know what British scientists feel about the precise effect on the future of the human race of these nuclear explosions, are anxious to have full information in a convenient form and are also anxious that the Minister's Department should be

      183
      able to assure them that some research is being conducted into what countermeasures can be investigated and taken?
      Mr. Bevins: The urgency of the work is well appreciated, and it is, of course. going forward on an expanding scale. However, I am bound to say that none of the radioprotectors or regenerators that have so far been discovered have any effect on genetic damage to animals or human beings.

      London Atmosphere (Radioactive Content)
      Dr. Strossasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, as representing the Lord President of the Council, on what evidence his estimate that there was no significant increase in the radioactive content of London's atmosphere during recent years was based.
      Mr. Bevins: The estimate was based on measurements made in London periodically since 1947.
      Dr. Stross: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that hon. Members from both sides of the House who, as ordinary members of the Parliamentary and Scientific Association, went to the Chester Beatty Research Institute, were informed that the radioactive contamination of the atmosphere of London—measurements have been taken at Fulham for many years—is 10 times as high now as when the measurements first commenced, and was 300 times the normal during the great fog of 1952? In view of that, will the Parliamentary Secretary say whether that was taken into account and whether he will check it for us, and would he not think that that is significant?
      Mr. Bevins: I have checked the statement that appeared in the hon. Member's pamphlet that radioactivity in London had increased 10 times. I am afraid that there must have been a misunderstanding when the hon. Member and other hon. Members visited the Institute, because I am assured that the increase in radioactivity since 1947 has been negligible. It is true that the measurements that are taken are very limited, and have been limited in the past, and the evidence is not conclusive in its present form. Nevertheless, I should like to refute the statement that there has been a very large increase in radioactivity.
      Dr. Stross: Will the Parliamentary Secretary check that point with the Chester Beatty Research Institute, where I checked it, and make certain that the facts given to those of us who were present were as I have quoted? If he finds them confirmed, it may be he will find it is because measurements have been taken there for 25 years.
      Mr. Bevins: I have checked with the Institute through my noble Friend. The Institute denies that the statement was made, and says that, if such a statement was made, there has been a misunderstanding on one side or the other.

      Radiobiological Research, Harwell
      Dr. Strossasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, as representing the Lord President of the Council, whether he will make arrangements, after the Easter Recess, for the Medical Director of the Radiobiological Research Unit at Harwell to address Members of both Houses of Parliament on the research he is conducting on the effects upon the reproductive cells of mice exposed to radiation; and whether the work done has yet reached the stage at which publication would now be helpful.
      Mr. Bevins: No, Sir. The proper channel for the transmission of information of this character to Parliament is through the responsible Minister.
      Dr. Stross: Would the Parliamentary Secretary tell me who is the responsible Minister in this case? Is there any reason why this gentleman should not come and speak to Members of the House of Commons, to Members of both Houses of Parliament, so that we can get all the facts established? Is he not further aware that there is a growing suspicion that the Government are rather anxious to suggest that there is no specific possible danger of any kind, whatever is going on, and that that really cannot be the truth at all?
      Mr. Bevins: I can assure the hon. Member that there is no intention on the part of the Government to conceal information from the House, but perhaps he would be good enough to await the reply which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is giving to a relevant Question later today.
      Mr. Strachey: Does not the Parliamentary Secretary think that the fact that there is much conflict of evidence, as he suggests, on this matter is an overwhelming case for a much more comprehensive inquiry?
      Mr. Bevins: I am not suggesting that there is any conflict of evidence at all. I suggested that there has been a misunderstanding.

    BRITISH ARMY

      Personal Case
      Mr. Usborneasked the Secretary of State for War when he expects to be able to answer the letter dated 4th November, 1954, written to him by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley, regarding the treatment of Private Trevor Floyd at Castle Bromwich.
      The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Antony Head): My hon. Friend has written several times to the hon. Member about this case, his final letter being on 25th February, 1955.
      Mr. Usborne: Does the Secretary of State realise that that letter was not received until after I had put my Question on the Order Paper; and that, secondly, the information in it is totally incorrect? Is he not aware that the letter to me says that Trevor Floyd, the man in question, was posted to light duties as a sick man. In fact, I have in my hand a letter from the commanding officer saying that for five weeks he, the commanding officer, did not know that Floyd was a sick man at all, and that he was in fact on ordinary duties for all those five weeks. When the C.O. eventually learnt of Floyd's condition, he wrote:
      " You can be assured however that light duties will now be given him."
      Mr. Speaker: Order. I must protest against hon. Members trying to make Question Time the same sort of occasion as Motions for the Adjournment, and dealing with cases at that length. It is not fair to other hon. Members.
      Mr. Head: If the hon. Member will send me that letter, I will look into it. This happened in 1950, and it is going a long way back, but I should like to look into it.

      Anti-aircraft Site, Dartford Heath
      Mr. Doddsasked the Secretary of State for War when Dartford Heath is to be cleared of the remaining evidence of a former anti-aircraft strong point; and on what date it is contemplated that all of the Heath will be restored to the public by his Department in its natural state.
      Mr. Head: The anti-aircraft site was returned to its owner, the local authority, on 8th March. It was advised that it could seek financial assistance towards the cost of removing the anti-aircraft structures.
      Mr. Langford-Holt: Is my hon. Friend aware of a similar structure situated in my constituency, about which I have communicated with him, and in the case of which he has consistently refused any assistance?
      Mr. Speaker: This Question is about Dartford Heath.

      Waringfield Military Hospital, County Down
      Captain Orrasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will make a statement about the future of Waring-field Military Hospital, County Down.
      Mr. Head: We hope to lease the site of Waringfield Military Hospital until a new military hospital at Lisburn is completed. Waringfield Military Hospital will then be closed.
      Captain Orr: Would my right hon. Friend agree that it is high time that a permanent military hospital was built, and this collection of obsolete shacks and the ground upon which it stands handed back to the original owner?
      Mr. Head: Yes, Sir.

      Barracks and Military Hospitals, Northern Ireland
      Mr. McKibbinasked the Secretary of State for War what establishments in Northern Ireland he has included in his plan for spending f15 million over the next three years in building and modernising barracks and military hospitals.
      Mr. Head: We plan to begin modernising Palace Barracks, Holywood, and the Infantry Depots at Omagh and Armagh, to complete Thiepval Barracks, Lisburn, and to start work on a new military hospital, also at Lisburn.
      Mr. McKibbin: Would my right hon. Friend care to comment on the recent statement made by Lieut.-General Cantlie, former Director of the R.A.M.C., who said that there had not been a hospital built at home for 50 years, and that there was a scandalously bad one in Northern Ireland?
      Mr. Head: My answer is a comment that we are building a new hospital in Northern Ireland.
      Mr. McKibbin: I am sorry; I did not clearly hear what was said in the main answer.

      Sites, Gibraltar (Civil Development)
      Mr. Doddsasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware of the urgency of giving up premises in Gibraltar formerly used by the services to enable the earliest possible commencement to be made in providing houses for civilian use; and what action is being taken to cut out avoidable delay.
      Lieut.-Commander Maydonasked the Secretary of State for War what progress is being made at Gibraltar in vacating premises, until recently occupied by the Service Departments inside the town area, in order to provide additional space for civilian housing.
      Mr. Head: The Army is mainly concerned. One large site in the town area has already been vacated and sold for civil development. Other sites will shortly be offered for sale and the remainder sold as soon as the building of alternative accommodation has been completed.
      Mr. Dodds: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that this is to do with the building of alternative accommodation? Does he not appreciate that there is a desperate shortage of housing in Gibraltar? It is one of the greatest needs of these intensely loyal people, who should be given every assistance to be able properly to settle down in that strategic part of the world.
      Mr. Head: I am all in favour of it. We are trying to build alternative accommodation, but that has to be cleared by the Gibraltar Government.
      Lieut.-Commander Maydon: Can my right hon. Friend give some rough estimate of when the alternative barracks are likely to be completed?
      Mr. Head: Negotiations have been going on between the Colonial Office and the Government of Gibraltar, and we cannot make a start until they are concluded.

      645 Light A.A. Regiment (Headquarters)
      Mr. John Hallasked the Secretary of State for War if he will locate the regimental headquarters of 645 Light Anti-Aircraft Regiment, Royal Artillery (Buckinghamshire), Territorial Army, at High Wycombe.
      Mr. Head: This regiment is to be amalgamated with two others to form a new light anti-aircraft regiment. The new unit must be suitably represented in Berkshire, Oxfordshire, and Surrey, as well as in Buckinghamshire. Buckinghamshire will have two batteries, but I am afraid that the regimental headquarters must be situated centrally at Reading, where suitable accommodation and staff already exist.

      Infantry Boys' Battalion, Plymouth
      Sir F. Medlicottasked the Secretary of State for War what action he has taken in respect of Company Sergeant-Major Walker and Corporal Shaw of the Infantry Boys' Battalion, Plymouth, consequent on the death of Private Peter Foden on 28th October, 1954.
      Mr. Head: Following a court of inquiry a summary of evidence was taken, which included evidence from the boys at present in prison. A most careful examination of this did not reveal grounds for taking disciplinary action.
      Sir F. Medlicott: Does my right hon. Friend not recall that at the assizes these two non-commissioned officers were accused of inciting the offence for which these 10 boys are now serving terms of imprisonment? Should it not have been made clear some time ago that these N.C.Os. would be punished, or removed from the Army, or cleared of the charges?
      Mr. Head: I think that my hon. Friend is wrong in saying that they were " accused " of this. We went into the question extremely carefully by a summary of evidence and the court of inquiry itself, and I am quite satisfied that there was not sufficient evidence to take disciplinary action.
      Sir F. Medlicottasked the Secretary of State for War what steps he has taken in respect of the administration, supervision and disciplinary arrangements of the Infantry Boys' Battalion at Plymouth, following the death of Private Peter Foden and the criticisms made by Mr. Justice Byrne at the Hampshire Assizes.
      Mr. Head: Following the death of Boy Foden I took immediate steps regarding supervision and daily routine at the Infantry Boys' Battalion. The battalion has been reorganised; there has been an increase in supervisory staff; evening activities, games and competitions have been increased, and special steps have been taken to ensure a high standard of entry to the battalion.
      Sir F. Medlicott: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recall that the judge at the assizes said that the military authorities had failed in their duty to look after these boys, and asked for an assurance that such an appalling episode would never occur again? Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that beyond any doubt whatever he has taken the steps necessary to meet those criticisms?
      Mr. Head: I have just told the hon. Gentleman the immediate steps. I have had this special report prepared and I intend to lay it before the House, together with details of the action I am taking.
      Mr. Bellenger: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that incidents like this cast unpleasant reflections on the officers of the units concerned? Therefore, what steps is he taking in respect of the incident in relation to the commanding and other officers who were responsible for discipline there?
      Mr. Head: There is a new commanding officer at this boys' battalion, and the staff has been both reorganised and increased. I am only too well aware of the responsibility that we owe to parents
      190
      of those in boys' units. I have had this special report made. It is a most valuable report, and I am grateful to the experts who made it. I am determined that we shall get things running on the lines we owe to the parents.
      Mr. Wigg: Is the right hon. Gentleman quite sure that he is being frank with the House? Earlier he said that he had put forward two N.C.Os., or one officer and one N.C.O., for a summary of evidence. Does this mean that charges were preferred against them and then dropped?
      Mr. Head: No, Sir. I stated that a court of inquiry was held, followed by a summary of evidence, to see whether there was evidence for further disciplinary action. It was found that there was not. That does not arise on this Question.
      Mr. Dugdale: Can the Secretary of State assure us that the previous commanding officer of the unit has not been transferred to a similar unit, but that he is in fact doing different work?
      Mr. Head: Certainly he has not been transferred to a similar unit. There is not another unit like this.

      Wellington Barracks, Bury (Medical Arrangements)
      Mr. Fortasked the Secretary of State for War what changes were made in the medical arrangements at Wellington Barracks, Bury, after the inquest on the late Fusilier Donald Hope.
      Mr. Head: The orderly concerned in the case of Fusilier Hope was, in his own interest, moved to other duties.
      Mr. Fort: Has any more staff been appointed there since the orderly concerned in that case was moved elsewhere? If so, how many?
      Mr. Head: No additional staff has been appointed.

      Nutrition Adviser (Advertisement)
      Mr. Wiggasked the Secretary of State for War what consultations he had with outside professional bodies before issuing his advertisement in " The Times " for a nutrition adviser for the Army.
      Mr. Head: None.
      Mr. Wiggasked the Secretary of State for War why he did not consult Dr. D. P. Cuthbertson, the Director of the Rowett Institute, and why he did not consult the British Dietetic Association before issuing his advertisement in " The Times " for a nutrition adviser forthe Army.
      Mr. Head: This position was not considered of sufficient importance to justify consultation with the British Dietetic Association.
      Mr. Wigg: Do not the right hon. Gentleman's replies to this and the previous Question gloss over a piece of gross maladministration by his Department, in that the Army has no nutrition policy and yet published an advertisement in " The Times " for a nutrition adviser who could not possibly have the requested qualifications?
      Mr. Head: We have a policy in this respect. Apparently the words " nutrition " and " dietetic " have different meanings, and the way we used the expression attached undue importance to a post which was only a minor post.
      Mr. Shinwell: When did the right hon. Gentleman decide to have a nutrition adviser? Are not the best nutrition advisers the men themselves when they get the food placed before them?
      Mr. Head: If I may say so, the right hon. Gentleman is talking a lot of sense. But it was considered that this particular post, which was just a minor one, was necessary for analysis of different types of rations.
      Mr. Wigg: Is it not a fact that Dr. Cuthbertson is Honorary Nutrition Adviser to the Army, and that the Army published the advertisement without consulting him?
      Mr. Head: We published an advertisement for a minor post.
      Mr. Mellish: Why have a nutrition expert when soldiers get what we used to get-brown stew and steak-and-kidney pie?

      Boys' Units (Report)
      Sir F. Medlicottasked the Secretary of State for War if he will make public the proceedings of the court of inquiry and the Report on the running
      192
      of boys' units in the Army which he set up as a result of the death of Private Peter Foden.
      Mr. Head: I have now had time to consider the Report on the running of boys' units and the action which we should take to meet its recommendations. I am having this Report, together with our proposals for action, printed, and will very shortly make them available to the House. The court of inquiry proceedings are privileged documents and we cannot, therefore, publish them.
      Sir F. Medlicott: Pending the examination of this Report, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether commanding officers of units of this kind are informed of the previous record of the boys who arrive in their battalions?
      Mr. Head: Yes, Sir. We have made arrangements for a much more careful inquiry in the future.

      Member's Letters (Replies)
      Mr. Keenanasked the Secretary of State for War when the hon. Member for Kirkdale will get replies to his complaints sent by letters on 28th February, 1955, 2nd March, 1955, and 12th March, 1955, about the sentences passed on three National Service men whose homes are in Kirkdale, and the stoppage of allotments to their mothers; and why it takes many weeks, or longer, for replies to be sent to Members of Parliament about Army matters.
      Mr. Head: My hon. Friend replied to the hon. Member's first two letters on 16th and 24th March respectively and I acknowledged the last on 14th March. We have had to make special and detailed inquiries in the Canal Zone. I will let the hon. Member have the final answer very shortly.
      Mr. Keenan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the harsh sentences that are passed in the Zone-in these cases, six, seven and nine months-for offences which in " civvy street " would probably be met by a 40s. fine? I wanted to put the words " harsh sentences " in my Question but they were refused at the Table. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will consider, in the cases of these young soldiers: who are very often boys, suspending the sentences

      193
      and giving them a chance, rather than penalising them when they are away from home. Further, can the right hon. Gentleman give a reply to the last part of the Question, and tell me why it takes the Army so long to reply to inquiries? I have had only half a reply to the three questions I asked.
      Mr. Head: These sentences are different from those in civil life. These men were charged with striking a superior officer. That is a very much more serious charge than one of common assault.

      Bandsman's Death (Court of Inquiry)
      Mr. Keenanasked the Secretary of State for War if he has considered the case reported recently of the death of Bandsman George Fletcher on whom an inquest was held, and the failure of those in charge at the barracks concerned to secure early medical treatment; and what action he is taking to assure parents that their boys in the Army are living under reasonable conditions.
      Mr. Head: I am waiting for the proceedings of a court of inquiry set up to investigate this sad case, and am not yet in a position to make any comments.
      Mr. Keenan: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to go very carefully into this matter, especially in view of the complaints there have been of similar incidents concerning young soldiers in different units? Is he aware that this kind of report-and we do not get all the reports of bad cases like this-disturbs the parents of National Service men? Unless the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to do something better, and to regulate the conduct of N.C.O.s and some officers, he will have difficulty with parents of boys who are away from home.

      Regular Soldiers (Physical Standards)
      Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for War why Regular Service men who are now discharged on medical grounds subsequently called up for National Service and then given tasks unaffected by their disability are not given that facility in the Regular Forces; and whether he will arrange for those so
      194
      affected to continue to fulfil their Regular engagement but have their service curtailed to no more than the two years that they would spend in National Service.
      Mr. Head: Regular soldiers who fall below the physical standard for their own arm but remain fit for employment as Regulars elsewhere are invited to transfer to complete their engagement. They are not, however, compelled to do so, and may elect to take their discharge instead. In that case they may be called upon to fulfil their National Service liability.
      Mr. Sorensen: Is the Secretary of State aware that there are examples of those who have been found unable to perform certain duties in the Regular Army having been discharged and then called up for National Service? Surely, it follows that if they can perform tasks as National Service men, similar tasks could be performed by them in the Regular Army?
      Mr. Head: No, Sir. They can voluntarily transfer to another arm as Regulars and complete their Regular engagements, or they can terminate their Regular service and do the remainder of their service as National Service.

      Malaya and South-East Asia (Defence)
      Mr. Bellengerasked the Secretary of State for War the effect in saving of manpower on the British Army of the Australian and New Zealand participation in the defence of Malaya and the South-East Asia area.
      Mr. Head: So far as Australia is concerned, the matter is now being considered by their Government. New Zealand will send a Special Air Service Squadron to Malaya which will meet an existing commitment.
      Mr. Bellenger: Can the Secretary of State say whether that is all that New Zealand is going to do? Are not they making arrangements for a division, in certain circumstances, for the defence of the South-East Asia area? Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the British Army will benefit, as far as individual postings are concerned in that area, by the saving of journeys of British soldiers to the area for defence purposes?
      Mr. Head: I understood the right hon. Gentleman's Question to refer to the contribution now, in peace. If he is referring to possible contributions in war, I do not think that that has an immediate effect on our manpower problem in peace.
      Mr. Bellenger: Does this mean that there will be no saving whatever of British Army manpower under the new arrangement?
      Mr. Head: Until the size and nature of the Australian contribution is decided. I cannot answer that question.
      Mr. Wigg: Is not it likely that the contributions from both Australia and New Zealand will be very small, in view of the fact that the total size of the New Zealand Army is about 2,000 and that of the Australian Army about 40,000?
      Mr. Head: Yes, Sir. I should like to say that this contribution from New Zealand is a most welcome and important one, but it will not have a major effect on our manpower commitments.

      Web Equipment Renovator
      Mr. Bellengerasked the Secretary of State for War why the Army continues to use out-of-date cleaning material, such as blanco; and when he is introducing more labour-saving personal equipment in order to economise in manpower.
      Mr. Head: Blanco has been replaced by a new cleaner called " Web Equipment Renovator." This is already being used at home and I hope that enough will soon be available for the Army overseas as well. We have also introduced untarnishable metal fittings on web equipment and untarnishable buttons, and this will save time but not manpower.
      Mr. Bellenger: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has had, as I have, personal experience of this renovator, as he calls it? Does he realise that even today, with this new web equipment cleaner, there is a tremendous amount of time wasted, apart from the necessary time spent on smartness? Cannot he save manpower in the same way as housewives have saved it by not blackleading their grates?
      Mr. Head: I have seen this stuff, and I think it is much quicker and easier to use than blanco. I also think that the untarnishable buttons will save a lot of time.
      Captain Pilkington: Will my right hon. Friend see that a tin of blanco is put in the Imperial War Museum?
      Mr. Dodds: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that those now using this new web equipment cleaning material say that it is much too expensive? What has he to say about that?
      Mr. Head: I do not know the comparative price, but I am told that it lasts longer than blanco.
      Mr. Renton: Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that he is not oblivious of the moral advantages of a little spit and polish?
      Mr. Head: This stuff does not in any way diminish smartness. The new buttons shine, and the new web equipment renovator makes a belt look just as good as did blanco.
      Mr. G. Jeger: The name of this new material seems to be very long. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what the soldiers call it?

      Anti-Aircraft Command
      Mr. Bellengerasked the Secretary of State for War the size of Anti-Aircraft Command immediately before the announcement to disband that force was made.
      Mr. Head: We do not disclose this.
      Mr. Bellenger: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he does not disclose this information for security reasons, or to save himself embarrassment?
      Mr. Head: I think that the right hon. Gentleman will realise that were we to disclose the complete number of units and order of battle of Anti-Aircraft Command, even though it is abolished, it would be an invaluable check on sources of information for other intelligence services.

    NUCLEAR RADIATION (MEDICAL ASPECTS)
    Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Prime Minister whether he will now agree to publish a White Paper containing all available facts and information, together with the report received from British scientists, on the effects of continuing radioactive contamination of the world's atmosphere.
    The Prime Minister (Sir Winston Churchill): The Government have already invited the Medical Research Council to review the existing scientific information on the medical aspects of nuclear radiation and to prepare a report. The report will cover the medical aspects of nuclear radiation, including the genetic aspects. It will review existing scientific information and set forth the most up to date information and the latest research results available. The report will be laid as a White Paper.
    Dr. Stross: Can the Prime Minister say whether, included in the White Paper, there will also be as full an account as possible of the contamination of the atmosphere both in London and the major cities of Britain, if that information is made available to the Medical Research Council?
    The Prime Minister: I think I can say straight away that among other material which we shall place before the Council will be a copy of the HANSARD containing a Question of this character.

    COTTON TEXTILE INDUSTRY (DEPUTATION)
    Mr. Thorntonasked the Prime Minister what proposals he has to make, consequent upon his meeting, on 24th March, with representatives of all sections of the cotton textile industry.
    Mr. H. Hyndasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement about his interview with representatives of the cotton textile industry on 24th March.
    Mr. Draysonasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement arising out of his meeting with leaders of the Lancashire cotton textile industry on Thursday, 24th March.
    The Prime Minister: The deputation from the Cotton Board developed their case fully and fairly, and I am much obliged to them for doing so.
    The situation facing the cotton industry, both from the fall in export demand and from the rise in certain imports, is one that demands and is receiving the earnest and urgent consideration of Her Majesty's Government. As the Cotton Board themselves recognise, weighty and substantial and far-reaching issues of policy are involved, and we shall announce our policy on these matters, as we hope, before we separate for Easter.
    Mr. Thornton: While thanking the Prime Minister for his personal interest in this matter, may I say that I sincerely hope that he will deal with it as being serious and urgent? Is the Prime Minister aware that, since the preparation of the statements presented to him last Thursday, there has been a further serious deterioration in the position, and that employment exchanges in the cotton towns are recruiting additional staff to cope with the anticipated widespread extended stoppages over the Easter period? Does the Prime Minister not agree that under present trading conditions the cotton textile industry is having to carry a totally disproportionate burden of the policy in the interests of expanding Commonwealth trade?
    The Prime Minister: All these matters are, and will be, taken into consideration.
    Mr. H. Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is now nearly nine months since the Cotton Board raised this question with the President of the Board of Trade as a matter of urgency, and that the situation has got worse since that time, even, as my hon. Friend said, since last Thursday's meeting? Will the Prime Minister ensure that any statement made before Easter is adequate to deal with the situation?
    The Prime Minister: I hope that it will be made before Easter. As to its adequacy, everyone will judge for himself.
    Mr. K. Thompson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the reply which he has given about this very important question will give great satisfaction—[HON. MEMBERS: " Oh."]—to those of us who are in Lancashire—the knowledge that he has the matter in hand, in contrast with

    199
    the conditions which prevailed in 1951, when hon. Members opposite were afraid of it?
    The Prime Minister: The cotton question is a very intricate one. Personally, I have very keen feelings about it, from my early youth. I think it would be a pity if it were to become a purely party issue between both sides; because each can find fault with the other and each can bid against the other in promises which might not be in proper relation to the broad general interests of the country.
    Mr. Rhodes: Is the Prime Minister aware that a great measure of confidence could be restored to Lancashire very quickly if the Government could find out from America what are their proposals for the disposal of their surplus stocks of cotton; and that if he would bend his mind to that problem and intervene personally, or send the President of the Board of Trade, as a matter of urgency, during the next few days, he would do an inestimable service to Lancashire?
    The Prime Minister: Constructive suggestions of that character will certainly be borne in mind by the Government.

    FOUR-POWER TALKS
    Mr. Warbeyasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the recent official statements of President Eisenhower and the French Prime Minister, he will now make fresh proposals for a four-Power Conference, including a suggested date for its convening.
    The Prime Minister: Things certainly seem to have taken a friendly turn lately. I have never departed in any way from my view that a top-level meeting without agenda might be a hopeful manner of approaching the solution to these world problems. It might be helpful to have the wish and the will expressed from the summit and the agreements of heads of Governments recorded in broad and simple terms if any can be reached. These can then be studied and implemented on the official level.
    This procedure, like all others, may fail to reach an agreement, but there might be a better chance of success if the initiative came from the summit. So far, however, the heads of Governments have not agreed to this method.
    200
    Meanwhile as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said in the House yesterday, nothing is excluded from our minds in the way of machinery to bring about the results we all require. In view of the recent statements by President Eisenhower, by the French Prime Minister and by Marshal Bulganin, we must not lose patience or courage.
    It is the duty of Her Majsty's Government to maintain the closest contact with their Allies upon this dominating question.
    Mr. Warbey: Does the reply of the Prime Minister indicate that he still intends to push ahead with the idea of a meeting at the top level? Can he say whether he hopes to achieve one in time to be able to participate in it himself?
    The Prime Minister: The future is veiled in obscurity, and I should not like to plunge too deeply into it this afternoon.

    TRADE AND COMMERCE

      Cutlery Exports (American Tariff Rates)
      Mr. P. Robertsasked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to encourage the United States Tariff Commission to reduce the tariff status of cutlery, knives and similar articles made in this country and exported to the United States of America, in view of our need for dollars.
      The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. A. R. W. Low): Under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the United States Government have already made the maximum reductions in tariff rates at present permitted by United States law in favour of cutlery of the kinds we export to the United States.
      Mr. Roberts: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we are now discussing the question of classification of various kinds, and that the United States tariff on pen knives, for instance, is as much as 264 per cent.? Has not the time come when my right hon. Friend may be able to help on the question of reclassification?
      Mr. Low: I will certainly look at the point, but my hon. Friend's Question relates, I think, to duties.

      Cotton Textile Industry (Deputation)
      Mrs. Castleasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the results of this meeting with the Cotton Board on the question of imports of Indian cloth.
      Mr. Leeasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the recently-announced Australian import restrictions, he has any policy statement to make with respect to the Lancashire textile industry.
      Mr. Low: I would refer the hon. Members to the answers just given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
      Mrs. Castle: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that since the President of the Board of Trade and the Prime Minister saw the Cotton Board, 70 workers at one cotton mill in my constituency have been thrown out of work, another mill is going on a four-day week from 1st April, and yet a third mill employing 500 workers is closing down for an extended stoppage over Easter? In view of the fact that every extension of short time and every stoppage of work causes human hardship, ought we not to treat this matter with greater urgency?
      Mr. Low: We are certainly treating the matter as my right hon. Friend treated it, with proper concern. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for what she has said.

      Unemployment Survey, North-West Wales
      Mr. C. Hughesasked the President of the Board of Trade if the survey by his Department of the unemployment problems of North-West Wales has yet been completed: and if he will make a statement.
      The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Henry Strauss): Yes, Sir. Since the answer is long, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
      Mr. Hughes: While thanking the Minister for instituting this inquiry into what is a very grave and important problem, may I ask him whether he can now say if it is proposed to schedule these counties as a Development Area or to give them some comparable status?
      Mr. Strauss: It is not proposed to make a Development Area, but, for the rest, I would ask the hon. Gentleman to be good enough to study the answer.
      Mr. J. Griffiths: If it is not proposed to schedule this area as a Development Area, may I ask the Minister, in view of the continuing decline of its major industry, the slate industry, what other steps and under what other provision and Statute do the Government propose to deal with this situation.
      Mr. Strauss: That is dealt with in the answer.
      Following is the answer:
      The Surveys by the Ministry of Labour and the Board of Trade have been completed. The Government recognise that there is a special problem of unemployment in parts of the area surveyed and accept that some further industrial development is needed; but my right hon. Friend is not satisfied that scheduling under the Distribution of Industry Act would be appropriate as a means of dealing with the problem.
      We shall try to steer suitable industry to the area, and my right hon. Friend understands that the Development Commission will be prepared to consider recommending further assistance on a limited scale in the building of factories in suitable cases. A small factory has just been built at Llangefni with the help of the Development Fund, and the Commission has at present under consideration a proposal for a factory of some 30.000 sq. ft. there.

      Australian Import Restrictions
      Mr. Edelmanasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the damaging effect which the new Australian restrictions on imports will have on the British motor industry; and what action he is taking to deal with this situation.
      Mr. Low: The effect of the restrictions on the motor industry's exports to Australia is not expected to be severe, and I am glad to note that the industry is confident that it will be able to offset loss of trade in Australia by gains in other markets.
      Mr. Edelman: Although the Minister says that the effect is not expected to be so bad, is he aware that it is anticipated that the total loss of exports will amount to the value of £3 million; and will he and his right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply consult directly with the motor industry in order to try to find alternative markets?
      Mr. Low: We are, of course, always in touch with the motor industry on this and other important matters. The industry has recently stated that, despite the checks in shipments to Australia, it is still confident that it will be able to raise its world exports above the 1954 level. More will be sent to other markets, especially to South Africa.
      Mr. Malcolm MacPhersonasked the President of the Board of Trade to what extent the import restrictions recently announced by Australia are likely to affect exports of cast-iron goods from this country.
      Mr. Low: The Australian quotas for rain-water pipes and certain types of stoves are to be cut by 15 per cent. The category B quotas covering most other cast-iron goods are to be cut by one-third. But importers are free to use the category B quotas on a wide range of alternative goods from a wide range of countries, and it is, therefore, impossible to forecast the effect of the recent restrictions on particular United Kingdom exports.
      Mr. MacPherson: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall the very severe effect which the previous Australian import cuts had on the light castings export trade, and does he realise that in the last week or two short-time working has begun again in this industry? Will he take steps to see that as few as possible of our markets in Australia are lost?
      Mr. Low: As the hon. Gentleman is probably aware, the present cuts are much less severe than those in 1952. He is also probably aware of the inter-Departmental inquiry that took place following the 1952 cuts, and of the subsequent report which tended to show that the difficulties in 1952 were not solely due to Australian import cuts.

      Monopolies Commission
      Major Legge-Bourkeasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will examine the possibility of bringing the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes within the purview of the Monopolies Commission.
      Mr. H. Strauss: No, Sir.
      Major Legge-Bourke: After that rather unsatisfactory reply, would my hon. and learned Friend please look at the Manual
      204
      of Catering Services, 1954, page 13, paragraph (c), which I think will be informative to him?
      Mr. Strauss: My hon. and gallant Friend will appreciate that was only dealing with the monopoly aspect. The conditions to which the 1948 Act applies are not satisfied in the case of these Institutes, but if my hon. and gallant Friend wishes to put any further Questions on the subject, he should address them to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence.
      Major Legge-Bourke: On a point of order. In view of the enormous importance of this matter of the N.A.A.F.I. to every serving man, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment, with your approval, Mr. Speaker, I hope, on a Tuesday or Thursday.

      G.A.T.T. (Revised Text)
      Mr. N. Macphersonasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will publish the revised text of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade as finally agreed at the Geneva Conference and incorporating the amendments agreed thereat.
      Mr. Low: Yes, Sir. Next week.

      Merchandise (Quality Marks)
      Mr. Awberyasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the deterioration in the quality of a number of goods such as furniture, clothing and boots, and that all people are not experts in detecting faults; and if he will consider introducing a utility tab or some mark to indicate the quality of the goods being purchased.
      Mr. H. Strauss: I do not agree with the hon. Member that the quality of these goods has deteriorated. With regard to the second part of the Question, I would refer him to the answer that my right hon. Friend gave on 22nd February to a Question on this subject by the hon. Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton).
      Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware that there are faults in clothing, furniture and boots which cannot be detected by the housewife, but only by an inspector, and that if an inspector saw them and marked them before they were put on the market, it would give the housewife a

      205
      protection which she has not got at the present time? May I inform the hon. and learned Gentleman that he is misinformed in saying that there is no deterioration in the goods produced today, and that the good tradesman would welcome such a reform?
      Mr. Strauss: I am afraid that my information differs entirely from that of the hon. Gentleman.

      Overseas Tenders (Prices)
      Mr. Jayasked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he proposes to take to restrain United Kingdom firms from agreeing on identical prices when tendering for contracts overseas.
      Mr. H. Strauss: My right hon. Friend has no powers to intervene, except where the Monopolies Commission has reported that such an arrangement is against the public interest.
      Mr. Jay: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware of the recent case of cable exports to New Zealand, where identical prices are reported to have been quoted? Does he not think that this may be damaging to the reputation of British exports?
      Mr. Strauss: There is a later Question on that subject on the Order Paper.

      Newsprint and Paper Stocks
      Mr. Grimondasked the President of the Board of Trade what considerations have led him to restrict imports of newsprint while encouraging its export.
      Mr. Low: Both are restricted. Imports are at present controlled for balance of payments reasons. Exports, which are limited to 150,000 tons per annum, go almost entirely to Commonwealth countries. They are made under valuable longterm contracts, and great importance is attached to them by the Commonwealth countries concerned and by our newsprint manufacturers.
      Mr. Grimond: While not underestimating the importance of exports, is it not the case that all the newspapers of this country are complaining of a lack of newsprint at the present time, and will the right hon. Gentleman not do something about it?
      Mr. Low: The House may not be aware that in the five years since 1950 there has been an increase in the amount of exports allowed of 50,000 tons, and an increase in imports of nearly 300,000 tons.
      Mr. Grimondasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is satisfied that there will be adequate stocks of paper, other than newsprint, in the country over the next three months; and if he will make a statement.
      Mr. Low: I have no comprehensive figures for stocks of paper other than newsprint, but supplies are considerably higher than in the past three years, and I do not expect any serious shortage of paper for essential purposes over the next three months. Imports are still controlled for balance of payments reasons, but will be somewhat higher than last year.
      Mr. Grimond: Are we to take it that the Minister's answer means that the next three months will be a time of particular importance from the newsprint point of view?
      Mr. Low: I have only taken it as the next period because the hon. Member specifically referred to it in his Question. In the interests of the House and the country, I ought to make this clear, because the hon. Gentleman's Question did not relate to newsprint.
      Mr. Grimondasked the President of the Board of Trade why he proposes to continue the control of newsprint up to 1958; and why the Government themselves will not exercise the control directly.
      Mr. Low: The Government must continue the control of imports of newsprint so long as balance of payments considerations require it. So long as supplies of newsprint are limited some control over its distribution is necessary. It is the Government's view that this control, which involves detailed arrangements inside the newspaper industry, is best exercised by the industry itself.
      The scheme at present under consideration by the industry is based on a four-year period ending in 1958, but contains provision for earlier termination if all parties agree, and subject to the approval of my right hon. Friend.
      Mr. Grimond: Are not very large amounts of dollars being spent upon much less essential commodities than newsprint? Are we to take it that control will be terminated before 1958 if the situation improves?
      Mr. Low: The import control is necessary so long as balance-of-payments considerations make it necessary.
      Mr. Gordon Walker: Can the hon. Member say whether it is true that, whilst newsprint is short, the Government's regulations prohibit newspapers from using alternatives to newsprint?
      Mr. Low: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will put down that question so that I can be clear exactly what point he is raising.
      Mr. Gordon Walker: Is the hon. Member aware that " The Times " is eager to use something other than newsprint for printing its newspaper?
      Mr. Low: If that is so, the right hon. Gentleman is raising another question, because this one refers to newsprint.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Lord Privy Seal whether he has any statement to make about the course of business today?
The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank): Yes, Sir. We hope that it will be agreeable to the House tonight, after the business already announced has been dealt with, to consider a Resolution in Committee of Ways and Means authorising an Amendment to the Requisitioned Houses and Housing (Amendment) Bill which will remedy a technical defect arising out of the reconsideration of an Amendment which was agreed to in the Standing Committee. It was an Opposition Amendment, which was accepted, and this is the consequence of it.
We shall then resume the Committee stage of the Children and Young Persons (Harmful Publications) Bill, as I announced last evening, when we reported Progress.
Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  EARL LLOYD-GEORGE OF DWYFOR (MONUMENT)
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]
  Resolved, nemine contradicente,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that Her Majesty will give directions that a Monument be erected at the public charge to the memory of the late Right Honourable the Earl Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, 0.M., with an inscription expressive of the high sense entertained by this House of the eminent services rendered by him to the Country and to the Commonwealth and Empire in Parliament, and in great Offices of State. and to assure Her Majesty that this House will make good the expenses attending the same.—[Mr. Crookshank.]
  Resolution to be reported.
  Report to be received Tomorrow.

CROFTERS (SCOTLAND) BILL
Order for consideration (as amended in the Standing Committee), read.
Bill recommitted to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the Amendments to Clause 16, page 14. lines 28 and 30, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. James Stuart.—[Mr. Snadden.]
Bill immediately considered in Committee.
[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

CROFTERS (SCOTLAND) BILL

  Clause 16. —(VACANT CROFTS.)
  3.35 p.m.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. McNair Snadden): I beg to move, in page 14, line 28, at the end, to insert:
  (7) Where a croft has, in consequence of the making of an order under subsection (1) of section seventeen of this Act or under subsection (5) of section twenty-one thereof, become vacant and has remained unlet for a period of six months beginning with the date on which the croft so became vacant, the Secretary of State shall, if the landlord, at any time within three months after the expiry of the period aforesaid, gives notice to the Secretary of State requiring him so to do, direct that the croft shall cease to be a croft and shall purchase the buildings on the croft.
  The Committee will remember that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Argyll (Major McCallum), during the discussion in Standing Committee, raised

  209
  the question of compensation to a landlord who found that his croft was unlettable because of an action of the Crofters Commission. In my reply, I then pointed out that this contingency was a very remote one, and could happen only in certain circumstances, into which I shall not go at the moment, but I gave an undertaking to see whether anything should be done in this matter. On considering it, we feel that it is possible that a croft might, because of the action of the Commission, be found to be unlettable, in which case the landlord would have to pay compensation to an outgoing crofter who was dispossessed by the action of the Commission, without being in any way able to recoup himself, because the croft was unlettable.
  The Amendment would enable the landlord to require the Secretary of State, in the circumstances envisaged, to declare that the croft shall cease to be a croft and to purchase the buildings upon it. This is in line with the taking over by the Secretary of State of buildings rendered redundant upon the reletting of the croft by the Commission under another Clause. I think it is a reasonable thing to do, and it puts this matter in line with what we are doing in another part of the Bill.
  Mr. Thomas Fraser: I cannot see any need for the Amendment. It provides that when an order has been made under Clause 17 (1) and the croft becomes a vacant croft, the landlord may direct the Secretary of State to purchase the buildings on the croft, but under subsection (1) the Commission, in determining whether or not to make an order terminating the tenancy of an absentee crofter, has to take into account the question whether—and I quote from Clause 17 (1, b)—
  " it is in the general interest of the crofting community in the district in which the croft is situate that the tenancy of the crofter should be terminated and the croft let to some other person or persons."
  If the tenancy of the absentee tenant has been terminated and the croft has been let to some other person or persons it is exceedingly difficult to see that the making of an order could put the landlord at such a disadvantage that he should be empowered to require the Secretary of State to purchase the buildings upon that croft.
  I do not think that the Amendment fits into the Clause at all. I can well under-
  210
  stand subsection (6) of the Clause giving power to the landlord to require the Secretary of State to purchase the buildings, because the Commission has determined the croft to be a vacant croft and because the Commission has taken certain buildings from the land in the croft and has given the land to another croft to be worked as part of and for the enlargement of that other croft.
  In the proposed new subsection there is no suggestion that the land has been severed from the croft or is to be worked as an enlargement of an adjacent croft. It is just because at some time the Commission has acted upon the provisions of Clause 17 (1), has declared a croft to be vacant and has provided for its being let to some other crofter. It is very wrong that, in those circumstances, the landlord should be enabled to direct the Secretary of State to purchase the buildings and the croft. He may well make it impossible for this croft land ever to be worked in future as part of a croft at all. Presumably, that would be running counter to the whole purpose of the Bill.
  We think there has been no justification offered for putting forward the proposed new subsection. I hope that we shall have some justification offered for it, or a willingness on the part of the Government not to push it.
  Mr. Soadden: The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) will recall that I pointed out in Committee that the chances of this position happening were remote, in that the Commission, in the case of dispossessing an absentee crofter, would probably in nine cases out of ten be quite certain that it could re-let the croft before it dismissed the absentee. If the crofter were dispossessed under the good husbandry Clause the crofting Commission would be certain that it could re-let the croft. There is the remote contingency that after having done this, the Commission finds that the croft is unlettable. The landlord would then be confronted with paying compensation to the outgoing tenant.
  The Amendment is a reasonable one to meet the case in which, because of the action of the Commission, a landlord becomes liable to pay compensation to an outgoing tenant while unable to re-let the croft, and I have no hesitation in asking the Committee to accept it.
  Major D. McCallum: I had doubts on this matter. I have now heard the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) express his view that the proposed new subsection is not necessary. The Minister has pointed out that we are legislating for what is likely to be the very rare occasion that a croft, by reason of action of the Commission or the Secretary of State, has become unlettable and the landlord has to pay compensation to the outgoing tenant. He then finds himself with buildings with which he can do nothing. Such a case is likely to occur very rarely, but it is a matter of justice to the landlord that we should pass this Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: In page 14, line 30, after the first " of," insert:
  " subsection (6) of this section or under."—[Mr. Snadden.]
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended (in the Standing Committee and on recommittal), considered.

  Clause 1.—(CONSTITUTION AND GENERAL FUNCTIONS OF CROFTERS COMMISSION.)
  Amendment made: In page 2, line 1, leave out from beginning to " carry " and insert " the Commission shall."—[Mr. Snadden.]
  3.45 p.m.
  Mr. Snadden: I beg to move, in page 2, line 3, at the end, to insert:
  "and in carrying out their functions shall have regard to local circumstances and conditions."
  In Committee, the Opposition put down an Amendment to this subsection to insert:
  " the requirements of local circumstances and conditions and the general requirements of the crofting counties of any part thereof and subject to."
  Hon. Gentlemen opposite will remember that after discussion of the Amendment I undertook to consider whether words could be inserted to meet at least some part of the Amendment. I said that we did not find ourselves able to accept the whole of it, for reasons which I gave with regard to its very wide application to the whole of the crofting counties. I said I would see whether we could accept the other part.
  212
  This we have done by putting down an Amendment requiring local circumstances and conditions to be taken into account. I am thus fulfilling the promise I made in Committee.
  Mr. T. Fraser: We are most grateful to the Joint Under-Secretary for giving effect to his promise, which is reported in col. 19 of the Report of the Scottish Standing Committee for 22nd February this year. We said that we would await what he was able to put on the Paper and decide whether to put something down. The hon. Gentleman has put this Amendment down, which, in fact, gives effect to the promise he made.
  The view was expressed by many of my hon. Friends in the Committee that the whole Amendment that we then proposed was reasonable. We feel a little regret that the Minister has gone only half-way to meet us, but I imagine that we ought to be grateful for small mercies and must accept what we have now got.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Snadden: I beg to move, in page 2, line 7, at the end, to insert:
  (4) The Commission shall include members with knowledge of crofting conditions and at least one member who can speak the Gaelic language.
  There was considerable discussion on this question in Committee. The Opposition put down this Amendment:
  (4) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State in appointing the Commission to ensure that one or more of the members is a person who can speak the Gaelic language, that one or more of the members is a person who has practical experience of crofting and that a majority of the members have knowledge of crofting conditions.
  The Government indicated that they would accept that part of the Amendment which referred to the necessity to have a Gaelic speaker on the Commission. I gave that undertaking. We felt that it would make things rather difficult for the Secretary of State, and, in particular, for any future Secretary of State, if we went further and accepted the whole Opposition Amendment, because it would be tying and binding them in their future choice of members. After listening to the views expressed, I said that we had accepted the Gaelic speaker idea and would again look at the second part of the Amendment and consider how far we

  213
  could go to meet the arguments advanced by hon. Members opposite.
  Every hon. Member will agree that, whoever the Secretary of State may be, the most important thing is that we should have the best people selected to be members of the Commission. On inquiry, I am informed that experience has shown that it is often unwise to lay down in a statute of this sort too strict or too elaborate qualifications. They could easily lead to difficulty after the initial appointments had been made. It is possibly quite a simple matter to fulfil certain qualifications initially—when we are starting afresh—but we do not want to go so far that we may so bind future Secretaries of State for Scotland as to prevent the best people being elected to the Commission.
  For example, in the initial stages it may be possible to appoint a member to the Crofters Commission who has the best practical experience of crofting and who has a knowledge of the Gaelic language. That is quite possible. Looking a little further ahead, there may come a time when the Minister may have to replace that member on retirement and it may well be that the person whom he has in mind as best able to serve on the Commission could fulfil only one of the conditions laid down by statute. Therefore, although we are able to accept the principle of the Gaelic speaker, and have incorporated it in this Amendment, here again we have not been able to meet the Opposition entirely.
  The Amendment takes this as far as we think it wise to go having regard to the duties that will fall upon any future Secretary of State when he re-appoints people. It recognises the importance of having on the Commission some members possessing a knowledge of crofting conditions. It also meets the views of the Committee in favour of including a member who can speak the Gaelic language. With that explanation, I hope that the House will accept the Amendment.
  Mr. Hector McNeil: The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will not be surprised to learn that we are disappointed by the Government's response. I can scarcely imagine anyone on the Front Bench opposite who could have made such an answer with more reluctance than, I am sure, did the hon. Gentleman.
  214
  The hon. Gentleman is a practical farmer, who, quite apart from his Governmental capacity, has given great service to farming. He knows that this Commission is to take over the role of the agricultural executive committee for this very huge area. Would he suggest to his professional brethren in Perthshire or Stirlingshire that there should be an agricultural executive committee which had in its membership not one man having practical knowledge and experience of the industry? Of course he would not. He would not dare. Yes, despite arguments which were not seriously contested in Committee, he now says " I cannot do this." Why? Because he considered the difficulties of the Commission? Not at all. It is because he is concerned about the difficulties of a Secretary of State. That is certainly the wrong approach.
  I do not want to be ungracious. The Joint Under-Secretary was anxious to meet us and brought an intimate knowledge of the situation to the Committee's service. I do not want to appear ungrateful. But now, not having seriously contested that aspect of the argument in Committee, the Government say, " We are sorry; we cannot do anything about it." It really is a disappointing reply and one that may seriously embarrass the Commission. The Commission cannot be thought to be best endowed for its work if it is without a man having practical experience of this localised, complex and highly peculiar industry.
  Moreover, if there is not such a person necessarily and statutorily on the Commission, it will in some degree forfeit the confidence of the people to whom it must immediately appeal. It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to say that it may turn out that such a person may be on the Commission. The crofters will not be looking at this in terms of what a benevolent Secretary of State may do for them. They will expect their reasonable demands to be met. In this case, those demands will not be met.
  In Committee, we made three points—I think all of equal worth. I would not say that the Government's concession is the least important, but the point from which the Under-Secretary of State has run away—that of practical knowledge—is certainly the most important. Perhaps,

  215
  also, we were not quite right in using in our Amendment the words:
  "…a person who can speak the Gaelic language…"
  I think we could have found a more facile phrase. In conversation we talk of a Gaelic speaker. I hope that this phrase will not be taken by a lawyer to mean that because a man writes the language he is disqualified. " Gaelic speaker " would be a better phrase.
  I plead with the hon. Gentleman to consider whether, in the light of arguments which were not contested from the other side except by one hon. Gentleman, he cannot find an opportunity in another place to put right this omission. There will otherwise undoubtedly be a great deal of criticism from the people who will come under the régime of the Commission.
  Mr. John MacLeod: I do not quite understand the adamant disappointment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil). I take it that it is to the omission of the word " practical " that he objects. Or does he object to all the members not having a knowledge of crofting?
  Mr. McNeil: No. We made three points. We did not press the point about a majority having a knowledge of crofting conditions. I think that our strongest argument was directed to the necessity of having a man from the field, as it were.
  Mr. MacLeod: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there should be members with a practical knowledge of crofting, but I do not believe that in this case a majority is really vitally necessary.
  The right hon. Gentleman mentioned agricultural executive committees, but the Crofters Commission will have powers far wider than the agricultural executive committees have ever had. It has many things to look into. For example, it can take over the powers of the landlord. I hope it was a slip on his part, but I am disappointed that the right hon. Gentleman did not acknowledge that both the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. N. McLean) and I put down an Amendment that there should be a Gaelic speaker.
  4.0 p.m.
  Mr. McNeil: I should have acknowledged it. I should remember it particularly because I was concerned with some of the difficulties in which the hon. Gentleman found himself.
  Mr. MacLeod: I want to acknowledge my appreciation, and that of all people in the crofting communities, of the fact that the Government have seen fit to put down this Amendment. It will certainly mean a great deal to the people in the areas concerned, and it will facilitate the Commission in its work.
  Mr. J. Grimond: I take it that it is clear that, after this Bill has passed into law, the members of the agricultural executive committees will lose their authority in enforcing good husbandry on crofts, and that that authority will pass to the Commission. If that is so, it is important that the same standard shall be enforced by the Commission as has hitherto been enforced by the agricultural executive committees. There are many districts where one holding is a croft and the next one is not a croft. One will be under the Commission and the other will not.
  May I take it that the Commission will probably use the same officers as the agricultural executive committees do now, so that there will be people with a practical knowledge applying the same standards as are set out in the Fourth Schedule to crofts and to holdings which are not crofts?
  Major McCallum: I should like to follow what has been said by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), who put his finger on a point which the right hon. Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil) overlooked. The right hon. Gentleman spoke about this vast area which the Crofters Commission is to look after. It will not look after that area. It will only look after the crofting areas in the crofting counties, which is a different matter. As the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said, the powers of the agricultural executive committees and of the Crofters Commission are quite different; but surely, in matters of good husbandry, the same standards will be followed and possibly the same officers will be employed in watching the good husbandry of crofts and of neighbouring farms.

  217
  The other point I want to mention is this. If the Crofters Commission is composed of normal, intelligent people, and is set up by a normal, intelligent Secretary of State, surely it does not require to be laid down here that the members of the Commission shall have a practical knowledge, provided they have a knowledge of crofting.
  Mr. McNeil: Then why bother to include a reference to a Gaelic speaker?
  Major McCallum: A Gaelic speaker is a matter for one area only. A Gaelic speaker will not be of any assistance to the crofters in Orkney or Shetland. But we are anxious that there should be on the Commission one member who is able to speak the Gaelic language. I hope the House will accept this Amendment, which goes a long way to meet the objections which were raised in Committee.
  Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: I will not quarrel with the Minister about the Gaelic-speaking provision, because I think he has met us there. We say that one or more members should be able to speak the Gaelic language, and he says, in his Amendment, " at least one." I cannot imagine that ultimately it will remain at just one. The words " at least one " are perfectly satisfactory, and I have no quarrel with that part of the Amendment.
  As I have indicated before, I do not admit that simply by including a Gaelic speaker on the Commission, the other conditions of our Amendment in Committee have been satisfied. Another Secretary of State, perhaps a less wise one, might appoint a distinguished Gaelic poet with no other qualifications at all, and certainly with no knowledge of crofting. Therefore, to satisfy the Gaelic-speaking condition does not necessarily satisfy the qualification regarding practical experience.
  This qualification is vitally important. We need the most appropriate people on this Commission, people with the best knowledge of conditions in the areas concerned and with the best administrative experience. While we may differ about what section of the community these people should be drawn from—such as schoolmasters, the professional classes, and so on—nevertheless, we have agreed generally that the provision should be wide enough to enable the Secretary of
  218
  State to find the best people for the job. I am sure that we all agree that the best qualifications are those appropriate to the problems which have to be solved.
  To ask that the Commission shall include persons with practical experience of crofting is not unreasonable. There is no provision in this Amendment for including those with practical experience of crofting, and I am afraid there will be disappointment among the crofting communities if this Amendment is accepted. I am sure that it would add prestige to the Commission and would in every way bring good will to that body in its work from the very beginning if we could all agree on the necessity for including persons with practical knowledge of crofting.
  I have further criticism of the Amendment. Looking at it in conjunction with our Amendment in Committee, in which we asked that there should be a majority of members with knowledge of crofting conditions, in the Amendment under discussion there is no reference to a majority of such persons. To say
  " shall include members with knowledge of crofting conditions "
  does not in any way define the qualifications which we seek. We might have on the Commission two members with a knowledge of crofting conditions, however vague, and four members with no knowledge whatsoever.
  We do not quarrel with the Gaelic-speaking part of this Amendment. " At least one " is satisfactory. We feel, however, that the Commission would be weakened considerably if it did not include members with a practical knowledge of crofting and a majority, at any rate, with a knowledge of crofting conditions. I do not mean that a member should have had an ancestor who owned a croft a hundred years ago. At least one person should have a practical knowledge of crofting and the majority should have a really good knowledge of crofting conditions. These conditions are not in this Amendment, and I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has not seen fit to strengthen it.
  Mr. E. G. Willis: I reinforce the plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles (Mr. M. MacMillan) because that was the aspect with which I was primarily con-

  219
  cerned during the Committee stage, namely, that a majority of the members of the Commission should have some knowledge of crofting conditions.
  The Government's Amendment is a rather strange one. It provides that the Commission shall include members with knowledge of crofting conditions. Surely it is not expected that the Government would appoint a Commission with no members who had knowledge of crofting conditions. Therefore, why include such words? They seem to me to be meaningless. I should have thought that at least a majority of the members should have some knowledge of crofting conditions.
  We have been told that the Commission will deal with a vast range of subjects. The subjects are all related to crofting. No matter what the subject is, the Commission will be dealing with it only in so far as it affects crofting areas. Surely, to understand any problem, no matter whether it is one very closely associated with cultivation of the croft or remote from the actual cultivation, it has to be taken into consideration in terms of the crofting community. I should have thought that even when dealing with the wider problems it was necessary to have knowledge of crofting conditions.
  The Government ought to look at their Amendment again, when the Bill goes to another place, and try to make the composition of the Commission a little clearer. The first part of the Amendment seems to be meaningless unless it is assumed that the Government would appoint a Commission with no one on it having knowledge of crofting conditions. There ought to be a positive provision that someone shall have practical experience of crofting.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil) pointed out, that is important in view of the obligations resting on the Commission for the actual husbandry of the crofts and for other reasons. It is a very modest request that at least a majority of the members of a commission dealing with crofting should have some knowledge of crofting. I am surprised that the Government have not yielded on this point.
  Mr. A. C. Manuel: I am very pleased that the Government have decided to include a Gaelic speaker,
  220
  which should be very useful indeed when the Commission gets to work.
  However, my faith is a little shaken in respect of what I anticipated the Commission would attempt when I consider what has happened to other parts of the Amendment put forward during the Committee stage. I am shocked that the Joint Under-Secretary, who has a vast knowledge of agriculture and conditions in the crofting counties, should coolly state that he does not think it necessary that even one person on the Commission should have a practical knowledge of crofting.
  I am surprised at the acceptance of this by hon. Members opposite from the Highlands, for it is their responsibility more than it is mine. I have roots there and, naturally, I am concerned about it. The hon. and gallant Member for Argyll (Major McCallum) thought the members would have practical experience anyhow. Seemingly, the Government wish to guard against that. The statement by the Joint Under-Secretary conveyed to me that no working crofter would be on the Commission. The Secretary of State has, apparently, made up his mind, and he must bear some responsibility—
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. James Stuart): I have not made up my mind on the point about which the hon. Gentleman is speaking. There may well be such a person on the Commission.
  Mr. Manuel: I take it that the right hon. Gentleman welcomes my criticism.
  Mr. Stuart: We should welcome a practical, working crofter provided he is suitable. I have not made up my mind to exclude such a person.
  4.15 p.m.
  Mr. Manuel: If the Secretary of State is as forthcoming as that, then I am sorry.
  The position now is that if, in any of the Highland counties, there is a practical crofter who can attend meetings, talk intelligently and get on with five other people, he may be appointed to the Commission. I cannot imagine that the right hon. Gentleman will not be able to find suitable types of person still in the Highlands although we have exported many elsewhere who are now engaged in commerce, industry, medicine and other useful activities. I hope that as a result of

  221
  the Secretary of State's intervention we have a good chance of getting at least one such person on the Commission.
  I feel that the wording proposed by the Secretary of State:
  " The Commission shall include members with knowledge of crofting conditions…."
  gives a wrong impression, as if such persons might be excluded. Why should the wording be in that form? Those interested in the matter would conclude from reading the reports of our deliberations in Committee that people who had a knowledge of crofting conditions would be included. I ask the Secretary of State to consider the picas which have been made about the appointment of persons with practical knowledge of crofting.
  Mr. Snadden: The answer to what has been said can be summed up briefly in this manner. The Secretary of State will do his very best to get a crofter, a man with practical experience, on the Commission. Such a man will not be excluded because he is a crofter. We shall do our very best to find the right type of person, but he will need to be the most suitable person. We want on the Commission the most suitable people.
  In the Amendment we meet the point about a Gaelic speaker, but we do not want to bind the Secretary of State or future Secretaries of State. There may be available an extremely able practical man with a good knowledge of crofting conditions who is not necessarily a crofter. It would not be right to bind the Secretary of State and future Secretaries of State specifically to appoint a crofter. Others who are not necessarily crofters may be more suitable for the task. It would be unwise to go as far as has been suggested. We must leave future Secretaries of State free to do the best they can.
  In setting up the Commission, on which the Bill hangs, my right hon. Friend will try to get the best and most practical men, men with a real knowledge of the crofting areas. No one need be afraid of that. If we can find a crofter for the Commission he will certainly be on it. We want to be sure, however, that he will be the best man.
  The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) asked if it was a fact that the Commission would take
  222
  over the powers of the agricultural executive committees to dispossess for bad husbandry. He also asked whether it would be the same officers on whom the Commission would rely for advice. The answer is that the Commission does, in fact, receive such powers under the Bill. But I should like to make it clear that they are slightly different in that the standards of good or bad husbandry of the crofters take into account provisions that do not apply to the ordinary farmer. The standards will be slightly different because these are, in fact, part-time people.
  Generally speaking, the officers who advise the A.E.C.s would be the same people, but not necessarily so in every case. It would depend on the particular circumstances. I hope that hon. Members opposite will realise that we are really out for the same thing which they are out for, but we do not want to fetter a future Minister by laying down in the statute that someone must be a crofter. in case it should be difficult to do this in making re-appointments.
  Mr. T. Fraser: All of us on this side are most disappointed with the Joint Under-Secretary of State. He has said that if the Secretary of State can find one practical crofter among all the thousands of crofters who is suitable for appointment, then, of course, he will be appointed.
  Mr. J. Stuart: I did not say only one.
  Mr. Fraser: The Secretary of State himself said that if he could find a practical crofter who was suitable for the job, he would welcome him on the Commission.
  Mr. Stuart: May I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that we might have a crofter, who had vacated his croft and gone to farm elsewhere on the mainland, who would be a most suitable man for the job? It would be a great pity to make this too strict.
  Mr. Fraser: That person, of course, would have been eligible if our advice had been taken, because we said that he had to be a person with practical experience of crofting.
  There is no occupant of the Government Front Bench who would say that it would be wrong for Parliament to decide that the Crofters Commission, which has such authority in the crofting area, which

  223
  is to take over the functions of the agricultural executive committees in the crofting areas, which is to supervise good husbandry in the crofting areas, should be without one single person who has practical experience of crofting. No one would say that it should be without one person who has practical experience of crofting.
  The Joint Under-Secretary has led us to believe that when the Commission is appointed it will contain at least one person who has practical experience of crofting. The hon. and gallant Member for Argyll (Major McCallum) said that we could all trust the Secretary of State. Let me put to him what he said in Committee. II: was this:
  " We must ensure that whoever is appointed to the Commission must have knowledge of the subject with which the Commission is to deal, because, otherwise, I cannot see how the Commission is to work at all."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. Scottish Standing Committee, 22nd February, 1955, c. 45.]
  If it is so necessary to have at least one person with practical knowledge of crofting conditions, surely Parliament not only has the right but the duty to say so in the Act of Parliament which provides for setting up the Commission.
  If we do not say in the Act that there must be at least one person with practical experience of crofting, having regard to what the Joint Under-Secretary has said about binding a future Secretary of State, we are making it quite clear that a future Secretary of State will be free to choose six good men and true to serve on the Commission, not one of whom has any practical experience of crofting conditions.
  These are the persons who are to supervise crofting. They are to see whether or not the crofter is cultivating his land according to the rules of good husbandry. They are the persons who are to deal with the absentee crofter, to deal with vacant crofts, and who are to enlarge existing crofts and take into account what is likely to be of benefit to the crofting area as a whole, without one single person among them with any practical experience of crofting. It is unthinkable that Parliament should give its blessing to the setting up of a Commission which did not contain one or more persons with practical experience of crofting
  The closest analogy which we can get is an analogy with the agricultural executive
  224
  committee. Most of the agricultural executive committees are composed of people who, in the main, have knowledge and practical experience of agriculture. The agricultural industry would expect that to be so, mainly or wholly, but in most cases it could be said of the people serving on the committees that they are all knowledgeable of agriculture and all have practical experience of agriculture.
  Those of us who are not in agriculture say that it is right that, with these great duties given to agricultural executive committees by statute, they should be composed mainly—we do not say exclusively —of persons with practical experience of agriculture. Why should the crofters not be so provided for in the statute, so that at least one person with practical experience and practical knowledge of their difficulties and their industry shall be a member of the Commission from which so much is expected?
  If the Commission is to do the job which all of us expect it to do, it must surely have people with practical experience of crofting in its membership. Even the Taylor Commission, which was set up to make the inquiry, had among its members persons with practical experience of crofting. I am reminded that it was my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil) who set up the Taylor Commission. In any case, this Commission did not consist wholly—one—would not expect it to—of persons of practical knowledge and experience of crofting conditions, but it had within its membership persons who were informed about crofting conditions and who could speak the language.
  I am certain that the Taylor's Commission was more acceptable in the crofting districts, when it went round gathering evidence, because it had among its membership persons with knowledge of crofting conditions. I cannot believe that the Government take the view that the Commission which is to be set up by this Bill is calculated to win and hold the confidence of the crofters in the crofting areas if it does not have one or more of its members who are persons with experience in crofting.
  The Joint Under-Secretary need not say that he will amend the Bill here and now. Let him tell us that between now and the Bill being considered in Committee in another place he will have another look

  225
  at it. He promised to consider this point in Committee between the Committee stage and the Report stage. He has told us that as a result of his further consideration he does not feel able to meet us and to provide that there shall be one or more persons with practical experience on the Commission. Let him now say that he will give this matter some further thought before the Bill reaches another place. Let it not go out to the crofters for whom we are legislating that we consider it would be fitting for the Crofters Commission to be set up without a crofter on it.
  4.30 p.m.
  Mr. David J. Pryde: I am sure that the Joint Under-Secretary will recognise the justice of our case. In this Amendment the Government concede nothing, because the point about a member speaking the Gaelic language was conceded in 1886.
  The Joint Under-Secretary was neither effective nor convincing in his reply. He said that it would be left open to a future Secretary of State to do certain things. Let me remind him that other Secretaries of State will not take the trouble to turn up the answer which has been made. If this is left as it is, they will be able to put just anyone on the Commission. I appeal to the Government to reconsider the position. We want to try to pass satisfactory legislation. If this is allowed to go on, I am sure the Government will agree that it is slipshod legislation which will not satisfy those who have to scratch the soil of Scotland for a living. I add my appeal to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser).
  Mr. M. MacMillan: I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend. Some of us would feel like going into the Lobby against this Amendment if it did not involve the concession about speaking the Gaelic language—
  The Chairman: Is the hon. Member making a second speech?
  Mr. MacMillan: No, Sir Charles, I was trying to ask the Secretary of State—
  The Chairman: It is not a speech?
  Mr. MacMillan: No. not unless I am provoked.
  Many of us would feel like going into the Lobby and voting against this Amendment were it not for the fact that the
  226
  concession about Gaelic speaking is involved. I ask the Secretary of State to make it easier for us by considering giving a further concession which we regard as right to be embodied in this part of the Bill, namely, to make sure that there will be a person with practical experience of crofting on the Commission, in terms of his own definition. Will the Secretary of State concede some form of wording which would bring in a person with practical experience of crofting? That person may be one who has been a crofter but is now a farmer, a schoolmaster, a lawyer, or a civil servant.
  Mr. J. Stuart: I assure the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. M. MacMillan) and those who have spoken on this stage of the Bill on this subject that since the Committee stage we have given very careful consideration to this point. I am, of course, quite willing to say that we will look at it again to see whether we can improve upon it in any way, but I would not be fair to hon. Members if I said I thought I could alter the wording which we now propose to insert in the Bill.
  Although, as the House knows, I was not present during the Committee stage, I have read the Official Report of the proceedings of the Committee and I have it here. I am glad to say that I think we are now in agreement on the subject of the Gaelic-speaking member, but I am really nervous about fettering a future Secretary of State too much because the whole object must be to get the best men on the Commission. This Amendment does not exclude any working crofter or any man with practical experience of crofting.
  The right hon. Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil) has had experience of getting people to work on bodies like this. The Commission is a small body which will have important work to perform and it is vital to its success to get the right people on it. Not everyone whom one may want would be prepared to accept the job of sitting on a body such as this. I think the House would be well advised not to fetter whoever occupies the office I have the honour to occupy at present.
  As I endeavoured to say in an interruption, we would welcome a man with practical experience on to the Commission. He would not be excluded; we would welcome more than one. But I

  227
  would rather not lay it down in an Act of Parliament that certain people with certain experience have got to be on a Commission such as this as it is not just a question of farming a croft. The Commission has to deal with much wider work and I think it very important that we should get the right persons for the job.
  At the same time, I repeat that we will look at the matter again. I shall speak to my noble Friend who will be dealing with the matter in another place, and if we can devise any wording which we think will be more satisfactory to hon. Members opposite I shall not hesitate to adopt it.
  Mr. McNeil: Does the right hon. Gentleman doubt his ability to secure one man having practical experience of crofting who is suitable for the Commission? Does he think that that would be difficult? Does he doubt his ability to choose from the crofting community such a man? If not, why does he not agree?
  Mr. Stuart: As this is still a Bill and not an Act of Parliament, I have not been able to approach anyone to sit on the Commission, but when I am in a position to do so I shall take the first opportunity of discovering whether a man with practical experience as a crofter is suitable for the job.
  Major McCallum: is my right hon. Friend aware that in the Commission set up by the right hon. Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil) to go into the whole crofting question there was only one crofter and that she voted against?
  Mr. McNeil: I am sure the hon. and gallant Member does me an injustice. We are not proposing that a crofter should be on this Commission but, in the terms we originally used, that someone with practical knowledge of crofting should serve on it. That criterion, applied to the Taylor Commission, would give us three people.
  Amendment agreed to.

  Clause 2.—(PARTICULAR POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE COMMISSION.)
  Mr. Suadden: I beg to move, in page 2, line 13, to leave out from " keep" to the end of line 19 and to insert:
  "under general review all matters relating to crofts and crofting conditions, including, without prejudice to the foregoing generality, land
  228
  settlement, the improvement of land and livestock, the planting of trees, the supply of agricultural equipment and requisites, the marketing of agricultural produce, experimental work on crofting methods, the provision of demonstration crofts, the needs of the cofting communities for public services of all kinds, the provision of social amenities and the need for industries to provide supplementary occupations for crofters or work for their families; and to make such recommendations as they may think fit on any of the matters aforesaid."
  It will be recalled that the Opposition, in Committee, moved an Amendment to subsection (1) of Clause 2, which sets out the powers and duties of the Commission, adding the duty to make recommendations to the Secretary of State on all or any of 16 matters which were listed in a Schedule attached to the Amendment. The subjects covered in that Schedule were extensive and I do not think that the House would wish me to go over each item. We felt that the Clause as already amended met the intentions of the Opposition, but, in the light of very strong arguments, advanced from both sides of the Committee during our discussion, I undertook to reconsider whether it would be possible to meet the arguments that had been put forward.
  The Amendment has given us considerable thought. At first, it seemed that it might be better to have a Schedule, but the later advice which I have received is that the best method is not to include a further Schedule, but that the more appropriate course is to put it in the Clause. In Committee, one hon. Member opposite used the expression " signpost " or " fingerpost," as pointing to something at the end of the Bill. We feel that it is much better to put these so-called teeth into the Bill in this Clause, which concerns the powers and duties of the Corn mission. We have done that and we indicate the matters which the Commission should keep under review and on which it should, as it thinks fit, make recommendations.
  The Amendment substitutes a new paragraph (a) for the existing paragraphs (a) and (b). The new paragraph covers the matters which were included in the proposed Schedule so far as they are appropriate for consideration by the Crofters Commission. If the Amendment is examined, it will be found that in some cases we have, in fact, strengthened what was proposed in Committee. We have

  229
  not only covered the matters that were proposed for the Schedule, but we have added other things.
  Mr. T. Fraser: We are indebted to the hon. Gentleman for the Amendment, which gives effect to a suggestion which we made in Committee. We put down an Amendment of a few words to the Clause and a Schedule at the end of the Bill. We are not ourselves competent to decide in which part of the Bill it is better to make the insertion. Before the Schedule appeared on the Order Paper originally, some of my hon. and hon. Friends had the whole thing written out for addition to the body of the Clause. Then we were advised that it would be tidier to do it in the form of a Schedule, so we did it in that way.
  It matters little whether this provision is embodied in the Clause or is set out in a Schedule, with a signpost, to which the Joint Under-Secretary referred, in the Clause pointing to the Schedule. The important thing is that the Commission has now been given particular power in the Bill to do a lot of things which Parliament will be seen to have considered it desirable for the Commission to do.
  It was at one time thought that the Commission could be trusted to do all those things without any signpost being put into the Bill. However, strong argument was advanced from both sides in favour of particularising many things upon which Parliament considered it necessary that the new Commission should focus attention. There might be argument whether, in some respects, the new proposals are stronger or less strong than the proposals contained in our Amendment in Committee, but, broadly speaking, the new Amendment does what the Opposition, in their Amendment, wanted.
  It would be a waste of breath now to particularise too much and examine whether in relation to one service or another the hon. Gentleman's Amendment is stronger or less strong than our previous Amendment. I merely thank the Joint Under-Secretary for meeting us in the way he has done.
  Amendment agreed to.
  4.45 p.m.
  The Lord Advocate (Mr. W. R. Milligan): I beg to move, in page 2, line 20, at the end, to insert " with any body or person."
  230
  In Committee an Amendment was moved proposing the addition of words to suggest certain peoples and bodies with whom collaboration might take place. I undertook to consider whether those words should be accepted or whether it might not be better to put in, as we now suggest, " with any body or person."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendments made: In page 2, line 26, leave out " the Commission " and insert " they."
  In page 2, leave out lines 28 to 30 and insert:
  (e) to exercise the powers conferred on them by this Act in such manner as may seem to them in each case desirable.—[The Lord Advocate.]

  Clause 10.—(BEQUEST OF CROFT.)
  The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 7, line 7, to leave out subsection (6) and insert:
  (6) Subject to the foregoing provisions of this section, any question arising with respect to the validity or effect of the bequest shall be determined by any court having jurisdiction to determine the validity and effect of the whole testamentary writings of the deceased crofter.
  There was considerable discussion on the Clause during the Committee stage, particularly as to whether any question of the validity of a bequest should ultimately be decided, if taken to court, by the Land Court or by the sheriff court. A Government Amendment was then introduced by the terms of which such a matter was to be remitted to the sheriff court or to the Court of Session.
  On further consideration, we think that those words were not very appropriate. It is just conceivable that the will of the crofter might not be a Scottish will. It might conceivably be an English or Canadian will, or a will from a foreign country; and to meet that extremely unlikely eventuality, we propose the Amendment.
  The House will notice also that in the Amendment we refer to
  " the whole testamentary writings of the deceased crofter."
  The purpose of that is to ensure that the matter should go to a court of appropriate jurisdiction only when anything other than purely the croft itself is in issue.
  Mr. McNeil: I am not anxious to argue the point, and I approach this legal problem with my usual diffidence. I

  231
  simply want to understand that last phrase of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. When he says that the Amendment refers to " the whole testamentary writings ", does that mean that where nothing else than the croft is involved any decision would be taken by the Land Court; or do I misunderstand the Lord Advocate?
  Mr. Willis: I wanted to ask the same question and to know how exactly the new subsection affects the present functions of the Land Court. As I read it, it means that cases which at present go to the Land Court will continue to do so.
  The Lord Advocate: The position is that the Land Court has been accustomed, since it was set up in 1911, to deal with a large number of matters, some of which were within the terms of the Act and within the Court's jurisdiction and others which it is arguable were outwith its jurisdiction, and it has been a great convenience that the Land Court should deal with those matters. It is perfectly arguable, certainly on the construction of the statute by the Land Court, that the Court is entitled to deal with the bequest of a croft, but it is much more doubtful whether it is entitled to deal with a will which bequeaths something over and above the croft.
  If the Amendment is accepted, a testamentary disposition which includes something over and above the croft will have to be dealt with in a court of appropriate jurisdiction, which is not the Land Court. If the disposition deals only with a croft, the Land Court, subject to anyone disputing its jurisdiction in the matter—which is unlikely at this date—will continue to adjudicate. It has been very convenient to go to the Land Court for certain of these testamentary questions in the past, because it might well be that the parties were already in the Land Court because of other things such as the suitability of legatees. While the parties were having those matters considered, it was obviously desirable that the Land Court might consider other matters as well, but, as will be seen from Clause 10, the question of the suitability of legatees will be now considered by the Commission, and, therefore, the parties are not so likely to be in the Land Court in the future.
  Amendment agreed to.

  Clause 16. —(VACANT CROFTS.)
  The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 14, line 46, to leave out "so directs " and insert:
  " directs under this subsection or under subsection (7) of this section that a croft shall cease to be a croft."
  This is purely a drafting Amendment. It is consequential upon the Amendment made on recommittal to insert a new subsection (7) in the Clause.
  Mr. T. Fraser: I take it that the Amendment bears out something which I said in the course of discussion on Recommittal, namely, that this presupposes that land which has hitherto been a croft will cease to be a croft because the Commission has declared the croft vacant under Clause 17 or has terminated the tenancy of an unsatisfactory tenant for bad husbandry under Clause 21. Therefore, in those circumstances, we shall find the Commission taking out of crofting husbandry land which has hitherto belonged to the croft. It is in those circumstances that buildings will be separated from the land. The Secretary of State will be required now to purchase buildings notwithstanding that he will have little use for them, since they are no longer going to be attached to the croft land.
  The Lord Advocate: A situation of that kind might arise but, so far from the Secretary of State having to have the houses, there was considerable discussion in Committee about the desirability of the Secretary of State having a pool of houses, for example, for aged crofters. Therefore, some good may come out of this.
  Amendment agreed to.
  The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 15, line 14, to leave out " (3) to (8) of this section shall " and insert:
  " (1) and (9) of this section shall not."
  The purpose of the Amendment and of the Amendment which follows is merely to remove doubt, which I hope it does, and to show the close relationship between crofts declared vacant and vacant crofts. It is purely intended to make the matter more intelligible, and I hope that hon. Members will realise that that is what it does.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: In page 15, line 17, leave out from " vacant " to end of line 18.—[The Lord Advocate.]

  Clause 17.—(ABSENTEE CROFTERS.)
  Mr. Snadden: I beg to move, in page 15, line 32, after " shall " to insert:
  " take into consideration all the circumstances of the case, including the extent, if any, to which the croft is being worked and, where the croft is being worked by a member of the crofter's family, the nature of the arrangements under which it is being so worked, and shall."
  The House will remember that, when we discussed Clause 17 in Committee, the Opposition moved an Amendment inserting an additional condition which would have to be fulfilled before the Commission could terminate the tenancy of an absentee crofter. It was that the croft was not ordinarily cultivated by the crofter or a member of his family, with or without hired labour. The Opposition's general line of argument was that since the main purpose of providing power for the dispossession of absentee crofters was to ensure that the crofts were properly worked and that the tenants were people who took part in the life of the crofting community, the Commission should take account of the extent to which the croft was being worked and it should not have the power to terminate the tenancy where the crofter had made reasonable arrangements for a member of his family to work the croft on his behalf.
  That argument was based on the formula that the general conditions of a crofting tenancy entitled a crofter to have the croft worked by himself or a member of his family. Anyone who pauses to think about this matter will see that there is a wide variety of cases to be considered. A crofter may be more or less a permanent resident abroad and have little intention of ever returning to this country, and it may well be that his brother is working the croft with no security of tenure at all. In such circumstances, it may be only right that the absentee
  234
  should be dispossessed and the brother who works the croft should have the croft.
  The hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. M. MacMillan) drew attention to this question when he said:
  " There have been some very hard cases where individuals have gone away and left the croft in the hands of somebody else who has cultivated it, and cultivated it well, and who then came back and dispossessed the genuine cultivator who lived on it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 10th March, 1955, c. 262.]
  That is one case.
  5.0 p.m.
  On the other hand, one has the case of a crofter who may well leave a township to earn his living somewhere else but, in doing that, may make a quite satisfactory arrangement for a relative to work the croft on his behalf, and the relative may be the crofter of an adjoining croft. Those are extreme cases. We know that in between there may be other cases. By and large, we feel that the right course here is to leave the decision to the discretion of the Commission. However, we agree that the points raised in Committee were of considerable importance, and we feel that the Commission should be given some guidance on this matter. The only possible way of doing that is that it should take these matters into account.
  The Amendment provides that before making an order for dispossession of an absentee tenant the Commission shall take all circumstances into account. It is required to consider the extent to which the croft has been worked, and if the croft is being worked by a member of the absentee's family the Commission has further to consider the actual nature of the arrangements that have been made. I think we have in this way met the general point which was raised in Committee, and it is in the light of these considerations that the Commission will exercise its discretion.

ROYAL ASSENT
5.2 p.m.
Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.
The House went:—and, having returned;
Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to—

1. Consolidated Fund Act, 1955.

2. New Towns Act, 1955.

3. Cocos Islands Act, 1955.

4. Colonial Development and Welfare Act, 1955.

5. Fisheries Act, 1955.

6. Northern Ireland Act, 1955.

7. Public Works Loans Act, 1955.

8. Transport (Borrowing Powers) Act, 1955.

9. National Service Act, 1955.

10. Trustee Savings Banks (Pensions) Act, 1955.

11. Rural Water Supplies and Sewerage Act, 1955.

12. Imperial War Museum Act, 1955.

13. Chatham Intra Charity of Richard Watts and other Charities Scheme Confirmation Act, 1955.

14. University of Hull Act, 1955,

and to the following Measure passed under the provisions of the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919:
Inspection of Churches Measure, 1955.

CROFTERS (SCOTLAND) BILL
As amended, again considered.

Clause 17.—(ABSENTEE CROFTERS.)
Amendment proposed: In page 15, line 32, after " shall " insert:
" take into consideration all the circumstances of the case, including the extent, if any, to which the croft is being worked and, where the croft is being worked by a member of the crofter's family, the nature of the arrangements under which it is being so worked, and shall." —[Mr. Snadden.]
5.15 p.m.
Mr. T. Fraser: The Joint Under-Secretary of State has shown that the Amendment covers most of the contingencies which my hon. Friend had in mind when another Amendment was discussed during the Committee stage. The difference between that Amendment and this one is that the present Amendment
236
gives direction to the Commission but leaves the Commission free to exercise its discretion as to whether it will terminate a tenancy; whereas the Amendment which my hon. Friends argued rather strongly during the Committee stage was calculated to provide that the Commission could not terminate the tenancy in certain circumstances.
For instance, it would not be free to terminate the tenancy if the croft was being reasonably well run by a member of the crofter's family who was living in the house, or if it was being well worked even by hired labour. My hon. Friends take the view that the tenancy ought not to be terminated unless the tenant of the croft is found to be guilty of bad husbandry; in short, that the main criterion should be whether the croft land was being worked properly.
I am sure my hon. Friends will agree that this Amendment, as explained by the Under-Secretary of State, will cover most of the contingencies we foresaw during the Committee stage. I suggest, however, that there might still be contingencies which will not be covered. I know that after I have mentioned these the hon. Gentleman may be able to say that they will be so rare that we need not provide for them. Yet the Government have provided by Amendments this afternoon for a contingency which they think will not arise, namely, that after a tenancy has been terminated under this Clause to make way for another person, the croft will still be vacant. They have provided, therefore, for a most exceptional contingency.
Dealing with the position of the members of the crofter's family, I myself argued during the Committee stage for the protection of the crofter who was necessarily absent from his croft house for a period in pursuit of his employment. I gave the example of an employee of the Forestry Commission. In this Bill we are asking Parliament to desire that afforestation in the crofting areas should be extended. The Forestry Commission may take a crofter into its employment because of this extension of activity in the crofting areas, and the crofter may go to another area, leaving his house perhaps for a period of years. If he leaves a member of the family in the house-his son or daughter, brother or sister, father or mother-whilst he is away

237
in employment with the Forestry Commission, and if that person is securing that the land is properly cultivated, we think that the new Commission should not terminate the tenancy of that man.
As the Amendment is drawn, I believe that the Commission would take into account the arrangement made between the tenant crofter and the member of his family. It may well be that it is better that the Commission should have discretionary power in this matter and should be free to take into account the arrangement under which a member of the family is cultivating a croft.
It may well be, as the Under-Secretary has said, that it would be better to terminate the tenancy of the now absent crofter and transfer it to the relative who is cultivating the croft, but I have in mind the contingency under which, having taken those things into account, the Commission would terminate the tenancy of a crofter, when a member of his family is cultivating the croft and living in the croft house under a most amicable arrangement with the tenant, and then the croft might be given to another less deserving application.
If we follow the contingency of the exceptional circumstances advocated during the discussion of an earlier Amendment, the croft may well be left vacant and the Secretary of State may be required by the landlord to purchase the buildings and the croft when all the time the tenant did not want to give up the tenancy at all and the croft land was being properly cultivated by a member of his family. It may be that that is a far-fetched contingency, but it is only a slight advance on the contingency mentioned by the Under-Secretary of State on an earlier Amendment.
I feel sure that the Government have gone a considerable way to meet us in the Amendment, although I am not altogether certain that they have gone far enough. Subject to what my hon. Friends say, I do not propose to oppose the Amendment.
Mr. M. MacMillan: I am somewhat in the same difficulty, in that I am not sure how far the Amendment has gone to meet the purposes of the Amendment which we moved in Committee. The Joint Under-Secretary quoted me not so much
238
against myself as against one part of an argument, for I think I was fair enough to put the two sides of the argument very carefully. The hon. Gentleman has taken a slight liberty in quoting one part against another with rather more force than that which I used myself in trying to be as impartial as I could. I forgive him for that, however, and I will not attempt to use the other part too forcefully against the part which he quoted, because to some extent I should be arguing against myself.
I visualise that a number of difficulties will still remain under the Amendment. I believe that in any case of dispossession, where a local sense of injustice exists, it is the most difficult place in the world to re-let the croft; and I am thinking of places like the Western Isles, in particular. There are loyalties even to the smalltime wrong-doer, if I may put it that way. The man who has been away but who is still regarded as a genuine crofter and who regards the croft as his home base will be forgiven many things if he genuinely wants to come home. Dispossession is regarded as a pretty rough thing, and it is still very difficult to find in the same village anybody who will take on the croft when someone else has been dispossessed and where a sense of injustice has been left behind.
That is the sort of thing, I know, which has to be left largely to the discretion of the Crofters Commission and we can only hope that it will have sufficient knowledge of the local conditions to deal with these cases, which I think the Joint Under-Secretary understands as well as I do, and a knowledge of what makes up the local feeling and public opinion in relation to crofting and the crofting way of life.
Where the difficulty arose, I think, for hon. Members who spoke critically from both sides of the House were the provisions of subsection (1, a). Where we have difficulties as Highland Members is particularly in trying to justify the distinction which was made, the apparent discrimination, against the crofter-absentee as compared with the farmer-absentee or the landlord absentee. That has still to be justified. If it is a case of bad husbandry, provision is made for it in the Bill, just as provision is made in the case of farmers, but this is not simply a case

239
of bad husbandry but also a case of absenteeism.
I know that the intention is to cover blatant absenteeism and neglect of the croft and of responsibility for the croft and its maintenance, but since cultivation and good husbandry are both covered elsewhere in the Bill in several ways, and since penalties are available under the good husbandry provision, it is difficult to justify the penal action here of virtual eviction and dispossession purely on the ground that a person has been away from what he or she still regards genuinely as the home base, especially as a crofter has to be away at times for the reasonable earning of his livelihood.
My right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) made the point very well indeed in Committee when he explained that many crofters leave the croft to earn a living for a year or two, and perhaps longer, and that they are the very people to whom we owe a great deal, because they bring fresh capital into the crofting community which otherwise they could not provide from their own resources. My right hon. Friend made an extremely good point there.
As long as the crofter's family is resident on the croft and he is coming to and fro, provision is made for him. To that extent there is no change. It may be that he is a forestry worker, and again provision is made for him, even if he is away for a long period. But the moment he takes his family away with him, knowing that he is to be away for a fairly long period, the difficulty arises. Surely it is desirable in many cases that he should take his family with him. None of us could object to that. But the moment he does so his claim to residence and security of tenure as a crofter may well disappear. That, I think, worried hon. Members on both sides of the House when we were discussing the matter in another part of the building.
From that point of view, we are not yet covered. I know that a lot is left to the discretion of the Commission, and I argued elsewhere that we do not want to tie down the Commission in the greatest detail on every point. We have to give it considerable freedom, considerable elbow room. We have to assume
240
that the members will be intelligent people who will be able and anxious to work with local people and to some extent will fit into local conditions while trying to usurp local conditions for the greater purpose of improving crofting and the crofting way of life and making it generally more remunerative.
But we have these doubts, and there remains in the Bill the provision that a crofter must ordinarily be resident
" on, or within two miles of, the croft."
We have not got away from that and it still remains a condition, subject to the discretion of the Commission, as one of the points which are mentioned in the Amendment.
We stressed that more attention should be given to good husbandry and cultivation—that is all that is asked of every other cultivator, every farmer—rather than to a man's physical presence on the croft or within two miles of it. On this side of the House, at least, we still feel that the important things are that the land should be kept in good heart and proper cultivation, not necessarily that the man should be resident
" on, or within two miles of, the croft."
The Amendment is an excellent piece of draftsmanship, but I do not admit for a minute that it covers the point which we had in mind in our Amendment. I am sorry that it is not a good deal stronger, but I recognise that the Government can bring sufficient pressure to bear upon us in the counting of heads if we carry the matter into the Lobby. We will therefore not vote against the Amendment. I am grateful to the Under-Secretary and the Secretary of State for coming part of the way to meet us. The rest can only be left, and I hope and believe that ultimately it can safely be left, to the good sense and discretion of the Crofters Commission.
5.30 p.m.
Mr. McNeil: I hope that I will not abuse your patience, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if I leave that topic and deal with another. This is a demand by the Government that the Commission must take account of an arrangement which a crofter may make by which a member or members of his family takes care of the croft. That is very reasonable, and anyone who understands that situation understands it to be reasonable. Our complaint is that it does

241
not take account of the whole length of the practice. An interesting point arises. If the crofter is entitled to do that, surely the crofter should be equally entitled to make arrangements about the habitation of his own house by members of his family.
That was the point I raised with the Lord Advocate during the Committee stage. He was kind enough to write to me, but it was not a very kind letter, saying:
"…I undertook…. to look into the question of sub-letting of crofts, which you had raised.
There is nothing to prevent a crofter from making arrangements to have members of his family staying with him, but, of course, he can only sub-let in accordance with the provisions of Paragraph 5 of the Second Schedule."
That was very decent of the Lord Advocate, but that was precisely the point about which we had been arguing. We have been trying to make the point that it was normal practice—and in many cases a necessity—that the crofter should have the right, without recourse to the landlord, to make such sub-letting arrangements in relation to his house on the croft for his family. I thought that the Lord Advocate would have admitted that necessity. Plainly, he is now in a peculiar position. Of course, the Government will tell the Commission to take account of the fact that it may be perfectly appropriate for a crofter to undertake that the care of the croft shall reside with a member of his family. But that same crofter will not have the right to say to that member of the family, " In taking care of my croft and maintaining the necessary standard of husbandry, you nevertheless cannot enjoy any part of my home."
It is obviously a non sequitur, and perhaps the Lord Advocate will undertake —I shall be puzzled if he does not—squarely to face my point, which is that if the crofter has the right to decide which member of his family will cultivate the croft, he must also have a right to see his house is sub-let in certain circumstances—I hope in all circumstances—to members of his family. We raised the point at some length in Committee of how in the case of bereavement, illness, domestic accidents, or of an ageing crofter, the best arrangement would be for the crofter to sub-let part of his house. I hope that the Lord Advocate will find it appropriate to reply to this point before we leave the Amendment.
The Lord Advocate: May I add to the somewhat brief letter I wrote to the right hon. Gentleman? The position is that a crofter is entitled to sub-let to anybody with the leave of his landlord. That is one of the statutory conditions. I am not for the moment referring to summer visitors and the like. The condition of which we were thinking in the Amendment is the case where a member of the family has not got a sub-let from the crofter but has been acting on behalf of the crofter. The title to the croft is still in the crofter and there is a family arrangement between them which does not mean to sublet. A sub-let is different from a family arrangement, because in a sub-let the person with the sub-lease has certain legal rights as between the landlord and the tenant, and it is only right that the landlord should have an opportunity of having to consent to that. Any domestic arrangement between the crofter and any of his relations is certainly permissible, provided it stops short of sub-letting.
Mr. McNeil: Why should a crofter's daughter, for example, forgo the right to which every other citizen has a claim, for example, rent in respect of National Assistance? Under this strange exclusion she cannot make an arrangement with her father no matter how aged or poor he may be. The Lord Advocate has taken us back to the point that there are certain conditions attached to a statutory tenancy. We are again arguing that these attachments are unjust and are a visitation upon the crofter. That is precisely what I am arguing, and I do not think it is an answer to speak of the conditions.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The right hon. Member for Greenock cannot make another speech.
Mr. McNeil: I am sorry. I wish that the Lord Advocate would deal with my argument before he deserts the Amendment.
Mr. Manuel: When dealing with this topic, which is important, in the Scottish Grand Committee, I posed a question about a crofter who was keenly concerned to increase his stock and make a good job of his crofting activities. In order to get more winter feed he managed to secure a croft which was more than two miles away from the croft in which he resided. Can I have an assurance that in those circumstances, with two

243
crofts or even three, two or more miles away from the croft in which he resides, he would be allowed to continue using the other croft to increase his store of winter feed and thus be able to keep a larger head of stock?
Mr. Snadden: The Commission would, of course, take that into account. That is not the kind of person we are out to prevent. The Commission would take into account the fact that he was more than two miles away, but we only mentioned two miles to give them some sort of yardstick. There would be no fear of what the hon. Member has mentioned arising in the case he mentioned.
Amendment agreed to.

Clause 18.—(AGED CROFTERS.)
Mr. Snadden: I beg to move, in page 18, line 42, at the end, to insert:
(4) Where a conveyance in feu has been granted under this section the person to whom it is granted and the wife or husband of that person shall, so long as either of them continues to occupy the subjects conveyed, continue to enjoy any right to cut and take peats for the use of those subjects which they enjoyed when the authorisation aforesaid was granted.
This Amendment is to meet a point which was raised by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) during the Committee stage. It is to enable an aged crofter who gives up his croft to have such rights of peat banks and access as may seem reasonable to the Commission. The hon. Member suggested that such provision might be put in the feu charter. I told him that although his Amendment was not acceptable in the form in which he moved it, we would accept the principle and endeavour to meet his point. We have done that in this Amendment, which retains for the aged crofter and his wife the right to cut peat so long as they continue to occupy the house. These words fulfil the object which the hon. Member had in mind.
Mr. Grimond: I am very grateful to the Government for the Amendment. Naturally I do not want to make any difficulties about it, but there are two questions I should like to ask. The Amendment goes a little further than I had intended in my Amendment. I had tried to leave the Commission some discretion so that it could either allow the aged crofter to keep the whole of the
244
rights to peat or it could divide them between the aged crofter and the incoming crofter, because it is conceivable that the incoming crofter might also want some peat. I take it that the Government might answer that an arrangement could be come to between them and that possibly the aged crofter could sublet peat rights.
The second point is: what happens to the peat rights when the aged crofter and his wife are dead? Do they revert to the incoming crofter who holds the croft lands or to the landlord? I will not press for an answer now but I think that that is a point of importance. To whom do the rights go? Perhaps at some future stage an answer might be given.
Mr. Snadden: Speaking offhand, I think that they would revert to the incoming crofter.
Mr. M. MacMillan: This happens to be one of those little things on which crofters and grazings committees are particularly touchy. I do not know why, because in some areas where they cut hardly any peat at all this is still regarded as an extremely important right, to make sure that nobody else cuts it. I have almost painful recollections of its importance in my first election campaign in 1935 when the quite unscrupulous local Liberals of those days—there are fewer Liberals today so there must be fewer unscrupulous ones too—slyly organised a propaganda scare against me that because I lived in one village if I were elected the neighbouring village would be deprived of its peat banks.
That story, spread by the Liberals had, I have no doubt, its effect. We exposed the outrageous falsehood of the whole thing; and I am convinced their chicanery over peat-cutting was part of what led to the downfall of the Liberals in the Highlands generally. Nevertheless, it is an illustration of how seriously the matter of peat-cutting rights was taken even in the higher political levels of the Liberal Party.
Mr. Manuel: This is a most interesting bit of history. I take it that the Liberals expected my hon. Friend to set the heather on fire and so destroy the peat bank?
Mr. MacMillan: The Liberals were worried lest I should set somebody else's, political peat on fire.

245
Unless there is the closest consultation by the Commission with the grazings committees then, even on small issues such as this, all sorts of little local complications can arise. If the Commission (start fiddling about with rights of this kind, then there may be difficulties. However, I have no doubt that the Commission will consult with everybody concerned. I hope that it will take into account the feelings of the grazings committees before new people are afforded any rights in the local peat banks.
Amendment agreed to.

Clause 23.—(SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS AC TO LOANS.)
Amendment made: In page 28, line 46, at end, insert " or subsection (7)."—[Mr. Snadden.]

Clause 28.—(PROVISIONS AS TO COTTARS.)
5.45 p.m.
Mr. Snadden: I beg to move, in page 33, line 36, to leave out subsection (3).
The House will recall that in Standing Committee my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Angus (Captain Duncan), who is not in his place today, raised the question of the crofters' grazing rights. He was afraid that, because of the wording of this subsection, which mentions the Land Court, there might be a conflict between the Land Court and the Commission.
In reply, I pointed out that the Clause as a whole was a straight re-enactment and that on reconsidering it at that time we were of the opinion that it was completely out of date because it referred only to the cottar's traditional grazing rights, established over many years of custom. It did not go any further than that. We now find, on examination of the subsection, that all these cases have long ago been cleared up and the provision has fallen into complete disuse. Because of that, we feel that the best thing to do is to delete the subsection.
Amendment agreed to.

Clause 39.—(TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS AND SAVINGS.)
The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 39, line 15, at the end, insert:
(4) Notwithstanding anything in this Act, the right of any person to succeed to the tenancy of a holding, whether by virtue of a bequest made by the tenant thereof or by
246
virtue of the right to the tenancy having devolved upon the heir-at-law of the tenant, shall, if the tenant died before the commencement of this Act, be determined as if this Act had not passed.
The Amendment will no doubt rejoice the heart of the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel). Its effect is to provide for cases where crofters have died before the Bill becomes an Act. It provides that the arrangement for succession will take place under the old law and not under the new law.
Amendment agreed to.
Order for Third Reading read.—
[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]
5.48 p.m.
Mr. J. Stuart: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Perhaps I ought to say that I am sorry that I was not present during the Committee stage, but I moved the Second Reading of the Bill and at that time I expressed the hope that it would not arouse any very serious party controversy but would be welcomed in general by all parties in the House. I am glad to say that discussions in Committee and on Report fulfilled this hope because, apart from a number of points of difference on which Amendments were put down, there has been a general measure of agreement about the objects of the Bill and the desirability of passing it into law.
On Second Reading, I expressed the Government's thanks and my personal thanks to Principal Sir Thomas Taylor and his colleagues for their labours on the Commission and for the admirable Report which they produced. I happen to know a little of the immense amount of work which the Commission had to undertake and I know, also, that Sir Thomas Taylor himself did a great deal of work in providing us with this excellent Report. I am glad to think that he will see some of the results of his labours having legislative effect so soon and so expeditiously.
It is not always the case that reports of such commissions can be carried into effect so expeditiously. I am glad to have been able to take some small part in bringing this about. I have heard it suggested, in this House and elsewhere, that Governments sometimes appoint commissions to waste time rather than to achieve results. I have even heard it suggested

247
that the reports of commissions have been known to find their way into pigeon-holes from which they have never managed to struggle out again into the light of day.
That has not been so in this case. Though the right hon. Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil) was responsible for setting up the Commission, I am glad to think that we have been able to introduce a Bill so soon after the Commission reported. I hope that now we are taking the first step towards making this Bill law, subject, of course, to its having a fairly easy passage through another place which, I trust, it will receive.
As I have already said, I was not able to attend the meetings of the Standing Committee, and I should like to express my sincere thanks to my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State-my hon. Friend the Member for West Perth (Mr. Snaddenk)—and to my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate for the admirable job they did in Committee. It proves once again, if proof be needed, that no man is indispensable. On future occasions I hope that together they will be able to conduct many more Bills in Committee. I certainly wish them well, and thank them sincerely.
I should also like to express my gratitude to hon. Members of all parties who represent Highland constituencies. They have been able to make valuable contributions to the debates because of their special knowledge of the problems dealt with in this Bill. I am glad they have given such useful help, because these problems are not entirely free from an element of controversy. I appreciate, too, the helpful attitude adopted by hon. Members on both sides of the House. Having accepted the main principles of the Taylor Report, and of the Bill, they addressed themselves to endeavouring to improve the Bill and did not attempt to delay it. This helpful co-operation has resulted in a number of improvements to the Measure, and I hope that it will now be regarded as an effective instrument for implementing the report of the Taylor Committee.
The discussions both in this House and in Committee have served several useful purposes. They have brought before the public the problems of the crofting communities and have revealed the lines along which some of these problems may be
248
solved. They have also clarified many issues which will face the new Crofters Commission when it is set up. The Commission will have an onerous task to perform. I hope that our debates have done something to prove to the crofters that the Government, and Parliament, are alive to their problems and needs; that we are anxious to help, and desirous of strengthening and maintaining that contribution which the crofting communities can make to our national life.
If the Bill meets with the approval of the House, we shall be echoing the sentiments expressed in the Taylor Report, not only that the crofting communities deserve to be saved from extinction, but that their restoration can be brought about. I hope, as a result of this Bill, that new life and new heart will be put into these areas. The first step of course, is the passage of the Bill, and thereafter will come the most important task of setting up the Crofters Commission. I shall take careful note of the suggestions and remarks which have been made by hon. Members. I have read the reports of the proceedings in Committee and listened to what has been said today. It is essential that the Commission be composed of the right people and the best people and, so far as possible, of representatives with special knowledge of the conditions in the crofting areas.
I hope that the Commission may be assured that it will have the good will and good wishes of every right hon. and hon. Member. As we know, there is no magical remedy which may be applied to cure the problems which will confront the new Commission. What is required is a well-conceived policy which must be carried out and maintained resolutely over a period of years. In this Bill we have such a policy and I repeat that I am glad to think that it has been generally accepted by all parties. I commend the Bill to the House.
5.56 p.m.
Mr. Grimond: I have no intention of adding much more now to the volume of advice offered to the Government and that which will be offered to the Commission when it is set up. There is, however, one last point which I think should be reiterated. I hope that the Government will persuade the Treasury to offer a good salary to the chairman of the Commission when they find him.

249
Secondly, I hope that they may be able to offer some assurance to the members of the Commission that they can settle down to this job knowing that they have sufficient time before them; that the Commission may be given some assurance about security of tenure. It is no use appointing a chairman of the Commission for a few years and asking him to live in Inverness, or wherever else it may be, with the feeling that he may possibly lose his job after having settled down there.
I wish I could share the high hopes for the Bill which have been expressed by the Secretary of State. I am doubtful whether the Bill alone will repopulate the very depopulated Highland glens, but, such as it is, I welcome it and wish to speed it on its way.
5.57 p.m.
Mr. M. MacMillan: I am sure I shall be expressing the opinion of my hon. Friends if I thank the right hon. Gentleman for all that is best in this Bill. I consider that there is a lot of good in it provided, as we have said so often in this House, that the right people get down to the job and are supplied with adequate finances and armed with the right powers. Only time will tell whether all these needs will be fulfilled. We wish the right hon. Gentleman well in his task of appointing the members of the Commission and supporting them in their labours.
If I may strike a personal note, I think that all of us, on this side of the House at any rate, missed the right hon. Gentleman during our Committee discussions. But I can assure him that the Joint Under-Secretary carried out his duties as though the Secretary of State had not existed, and was not needed. Our relations with the Joint Under-Secretary throughout the Committee stage were of the best, in spite of the fact that many controversial arguments were raised, generally by hon. Members on this side of the House.
I should like to thank the Joint Under-Secretary for his helpfulness and the way in which he met us over a number of Amendments. I would also compliment him on the adept way in which he managed to get rid of some Amendments, and the manner in which he offered us a great many words without giving us any-
250
thing of substance. That may be an advantage to a man in his office.
In a few days I shall be going back to my constituency and my crofter constituents. There, I shall be answerable for the defects in this Bill. It is I who will suffer for anything which is wrong with this Measure—not the Secretary of State, or the Joint Under-Secretary, or my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser), or my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil). I shall have to explain to my constituents why we did not tear the Bill to shreds during the Committee stage. Hon. Members representing constituencies there will be answerable in the Highlands and Islands to the local crofters and grazing committees. Even the absentee crofters will turn up to criticise us.
Mr. McNeil: I hope that my hon. Friend will note that there are in my division a few of the absentee crofters for whom he pleaded.
Mr. MacMillan: When I saw the result of the last General Election in Greenock I had no doubt that my right hon. Friend must have many intelligent people from the Highlands in his constituency—and we hope to see some of them appointed to the Commission in due course.
This is not the Bill that we in the Labour Party should have introduced. Ours, in the nature of things, would have been a much better one. I am sure that nobody, on either side of the House, would say that the Bill will do all the things which are necessary to solve the problems of the Highlands and Islands. They are many and varied, and involve long-term treatment and close attention over many years. They will also involve the expenditure of a great deal of money in respect of which we hope and believe there will be a greater return to the nation if it is properly applied.
Hon. Members have shown various degrees of enthusiasm about the idea of a Highland executive authority. I shall not raise that matter now, because it would not be permissible. Divisions of opinion have occurred between hon. Members on each side of the House as to whether we should have such an authority. Both parties are divided on it. I understand that even the Liberal Party

251
is divided against himself—if I may say so in the light of its present representation in the House—upon that issue; though that party supports Scottish Home Rule more directly than others. At least, I think he does.
We recognise that the Bill has a limited purpose, and, also, that it was skilfully drafted within its limits. Our criticisms were directed to trying to widen its scope and powers, to increase the provision of money, and to make sure, as far as possible, that people with the most appropriate and suitable qualifications were appointed to carry out its functions. All things considered, I, for one, am prepared to face my grazings committees and electors of all parties and tell them that I know that the purpose and intention of the Government upon this occasion have been wholly in the interests of the crofters and of Highland development. The novelty of such a statement from me ought to appeal to my constituents.
Whether the Bill will fall short of that purpose or fulfil it is something which only time can tell, but we wish it well and we wish the Commission well. With that intention, we have supported the Bill and tried to improve it by moving what we hoped were constructive Amendments during the Committee stage and again in our comments today. We hope that the Bill will succeed in its purpose.
6.3 p.m.
Colonel Alan Gomme-Duncan: I have no crofting problem in my part of Perthshire, but I think it is desirable that all hon. Members who are not directly concerned with crofting problems should support any action that may be taken to ease those problems. It has been said that the Bill may not do much to repopulate the crofting areas, and that may or may not be true, but one thing which is quite certain is that it will at least help to prevent their further depopulation, and if the Bill is successful to that extent it will certainly not have been a waste of time.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Angus (Captain Duncan), who also has no crofting problems in his constituency, has rendered signal service to the Bill by his efforts during the Committee stage. With great respect and diffidence I urge all hon. Members, whichever
252
constituency they represent, to associate themselves with the problem of keeping Highland life going in the crofting counties. Anything that we can say or do to help we should do. Although we are not directly concerned with the crofting counties we have an interest in the welfare of our country as a whole, of which those counties represent an important part.
I am sure that my right hon. Friend will take the utmost care over the selection of members of the Commission, upon which the success or failure of the Bill completely depends. I am sure we can rely upon him to do his utmost, because the job to be done is worthy of the best men.
6.5 p.m.
Mr. Willis: I join with my hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles (Mr. M. MacMillan) in expressing appreciation to the Joint Under-Secretary for the manner in which he conducted the Bill during the Committee stage and the spirit in which he co-operated with us and showed a willingness to accept some of our Amendments.
I cannot help feeling that the Bill does not go very far towards what we should like to see done in the Highlands. It is true that it sets up the Crofters Commission and gives it wide powers over crofting matters such as the cultivation of land and the reorganisation of townships, but its success will depend upon the setting in which that work takes place and, therefore, upon the solution of a vast number of other problems.
During the Committee stage we tried to tackle those problems by inserting a schedule, the principle of which was accepted by the Government and is now incorporated in Clause 2 (1), but that subsection merely gives the Crofters Commission powers to make recommendations to the Secretary of State. The position, therefore, is that the Commission might be able to pursue a very energetic course in respect of those functions for which it has executive powers, but whether or not that does all that we require depends entirely upon the Government's attitude to the recommendations which will be made to them in respect of the large number of items detailed in Clause 2.
Some people looked forward to the establishment of a kind of development authority for the Highlands, but what we

253
have actually done is to make the Secretary of State a kind of development authority. The Commission is given powers to make recommendations upon a vast number of subjects which we have all agreed are necessary if the crofting community is to enjoy a degree of prosperity and the Highland areas are to be repopulated, but fundamentally the achievement of that aim will depend upon the Government and especially upon the Secretary of State and his ability to extract money from the Exchequer. I hope that the Government will act rather more promptly in connection with the recommendations which are likely to be made by the Commission than they have done in many cases in the past in connection with recommendations made by the Highland Panel and other bodies. My hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles would probably agree with that. A great responsibility is certainly placed upon the Secretary of State.
My next point concerns the introduction of the sheriff court and Court of Session into the procedure affecting the Highlands, and the taking away of certain powers from the Land Court and vesting them in the Commission. I can appreciate the reasons which made the Government transfer certain functions from the Land Court to the Commission, where such functions are concerned purely with the activities of the Commission; but I am not so happy about the introduction of the sheriff court and the Court of Session into the procedure affecting the Highlands, because that seems to be going back upon the attitude and outlook which led to the setting up of the Land Court, which was part and parcel of a scheme to enable crofters' problems to be dealt with without expense. Here, we introduce a procedure which entails expense.
I am particularly glad that the Lord Advocate seems to have changed his mind on the question of bequests and the Land Court. The idea that he expressed vigorously in Committee, that these were legal points that ought to be settled by the sheriff court and the Court of Session seems to be no longer valid. This afternoon we have changed the Bill, and introduced a new subsection which goes back to the old procedure. The arguments of the Lord Advocate do not seem to have been very good. If they were not very good in regard to this point I suggest that they are not very good in relation
254
to the other part of the Bill in which he has introduced the Court of Session procedure. His arguments in support of it were exactly the same as he adduced in support of the sheriff court and Court of Session procedure for bequests.
Replying to a question put to him about the new subsection, the Lord Advocate's answer was that the existing procedure was still to be carried out. He was asked specifically about that point. I hope he will look at the sheriff court and the Court of Session procedure again, and will decide to make a further change. Because somebody in St. Andrew's House thinks it is good to give jobs to some of the sheriffs in the Highlands is no reason for altering the principle that has been growing up of crofters getting their difficulties settled by the Land Court. That was a recognition of the fact that legal proceedings are expensive, and that in the case of the crofting community we should try to avoid expense. When the Bill goes to another place, the Government should look at this matter again.
I welcome the Bill because it does something for the Highlands. It will depend largely upon the Secretary of State whether the Crofters Commission proves a success or not, because he can determine the conditions within which it will work. I appeal to the Government to give the Crofters Commission conditions in which it can work to bring about the realisation of what we all wish to achieve.
6.14 p.m.
Major McCallum: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) said that on the appointments made by the Secretary of State the success of the Bill would depend. That is what everybody realises throughout Scotland. Every crofter knows that the personnel of the Commission will make or mar the Bill.
Mr. Willis: The hon. and gallant Gentleman appears to have misunderstood me. I was not referring to the appointments but to the readiness with which the Secretary of State for Scotland accepts recommendations made by the Commission when they come along.
Major McCallum: The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the recommendations of the Highland Panel. The present Secretary of State and his predecessors did quite a lot in the way of accepting the recommendations of that organisa-

255
tion. I do not understand why there should be doubt about any Secretary of State now, or in the future, acting upon the recommendations of the Crofters Commission when it is set up.
I am convinced that the Bill will be a great success, but many crofters do not believe it. A leading journal in the Highlands was all against the introduction of the Bill. I shall be meeting people on that journal next week and shall have to account to them. I am convinced that the Bill will be a success and that it is necessary in order to obtain better conditions for the crofters.
During the passage of the Bill I have always said that in appointing people to replace casualties among members of the Commission any Secretary of State for Scotland would select people who were most suitable for appointment. On that ground we shall be able to convince the crofters that the Bill, far from being unnecessary, will improve their position, their security and their future in the Highlands. I welcome the Bill.
6.16 p.m.
Mr. Manuel: I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Argyll (Major McCallum) that some people in the Highlands are rather lukewarm about the Bill and the Crofters Commission. We, who have been dealing with the Bill, recognise that great benefits can be achieved from it if we get a proper Commission. We all sincerely hope that the Commission will have great success, and that its work will be for the lasting good of the population throughout the Highlands. That is what we have all been attempting to do at all stages of the Bill.
I would ask the Government one or two questions, the first of which is about the new subsection (7) that we have accepted this afternoon to Clause 16, to deal with the situation where a croft becomes vacant, and, after six months, the landlord can give notice to the Secretary of State, who must then purchase the buildings on the croft. Is that not an unprecedented power of direction for any landlord to have? I do not know of any similar direction at the disposal of the crofters. Have the Government really made up their minds on this point?
It has been argued that the landlord will need to pay compensation to the out-
256
going tenant. Have the Government assessed the cheapest way for them to approach the matter? Are they to become the possessors of a lot of old buildings on a number of crofts in the crofting counties? What use are the Government to make of them?
Captain J. A. L. Duncan: The hon. Member says that this provision is unprecedented. If he looks at Clause 16 (6, b) he will find that the same procedure applies there.
Mr. Manuel: It is a new principle for a landlord to direct the Secretary of State. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman says that it is in another portion of the Bill then the Secretary of State is twice directed by the same people. The crofter has not a similar power to direct the Secretary of State to purchase something from him.
The point was made about compensation being paid to the outgoing crofter. Has the cost of that been assessed against the cost of purchasing the buildings? Would not the latter be a better method? It would at least make some use of the buildings and the landlord would have some responsibility for them. Otherwise, what will the Secretary of State do with all these outbuildings?
Mr. Snadden: It seems to me that the hon. Member has rather an exaggerated idea about this. The Amendment was put in to deal with the very remote contingency of a croft which, because of an action of the Commission, was unlettable. The landlord has, under the Bill, no control over what the Commission may do. All the Amendment says is that if by any action of the Commission the croft is found to be unlettable, the crofter's outgoing will be met by the Secretary of State.
Mr. Manuel: And the landlord is protected. That is in the tradition of the Tory party. I do not expect anything else.
The Lord Advocate rather twitted me when he spoke to the Amendment in page 39, line 15, but he has added some further legal phraseology there to something which is already complicated. He will remember that in Committee I discussed subsection (4) with him at some length. I take it that that subsection now becomes (5), but all that rigmarole that was so criticised by both sides of the

257
Committee remains in its entirety. I do not intend to read the subsection again— I inflicted it on the Committee once before. I will only say for the benefit of the Sassenachs now present, who do not know what it means, that it talks about
"… any order, rule, regulation, record, application, reference, appointment, loan, agreement, finding or award made…"
It goes on almost without limit; one would think that the subsection would never end.
I regret that this has not been simplified; that this unintelligible, legalistic jargon has been kept in its entirety. Nearly all the Bill is very acceptable to many of us but this subsection in its present form is unacceptable. I hope that the Lord Advocate will clearly explain why its present form is necessary. Quite frankly, he did not convey any feeling of confidence in his case when he spoke in Committee. I am quite convinced that no long-practising politician could have produced this subsection. It must have been produced by the Lord Advocate or by some other lawyer.
Mr. William Ross: Or by the last Lord Advocate.
Mr. Manuel: At any rate, we can safely agree that this has been produced by a lawyer. I wonder whether this was a first essay by the Lord Advocate in drawing up a subsection.
The Lord Advocate: I do not want to interrupt unduly, but it was not my first attempt at drawing up a Clause. I found the wording in a Clause passed by the previous Administration.
Mr. Manuel: I remember that we did have some distinctly unintelligible things, but I was talking in a democratic sense. I know that before coming here the Lord Advocate did certain Government work in an office to which he had not been elected. I was fearful that he had been bothered with this in his digestive organs during the recent by-election in Edinburgh. If so, it is no wonder that he erupted it when he came here. He must have felt that he had to get it out of his system.
I am not sure what subsection (4) is intended to do. Can the Lord Advocate tell us that it does what it is intended to do? Is he certain that the subsection
258
covers every eventuality, incident, occurrence, affair, transaction, fact, phenomenon, advent, business, concern, circumstance, opportunity, casualty, happening, accident, adventure, passage, crisis, emergency, contingency and consequence? Is he certain that all the reiterations he has used cover all the events I have just listed?
Mr. Thomas Hubbard: I am sure that the House is grateful to my hon. Friend for going so carefully into this. I have not yet heard the Government say anything about atomic stations, the hydrogen bomb, poaching or a General Election. Is there something still to be mentioned for protection here?
Mr. Manuel: I do not wish to go too far beyond subsection (4), but, arising from what my hon. Friend has just said, the Lord Advocate could look at, say, war damage protection.
If the Lord Advocate can assure us that the subsection does what he intends it to do, that it meets all the contingencies I have enumerated, and that when the Bill becomes an Act it will do what it says, we shall accept it and we shall just have to make the best of it.
The Lord Advocate: I can respect the assurance that I gave in Committee on that matter.
6.29 p.m.
Mr. John MacLeod: I should like to give my blessing to the Bill and to congratulate the Secretary of State. He said this afternoon that the Bill at least brought Highland problems and affairs before the general public. I think he has done something in bringing those problems before the Cabinet and in getting the Bill through so expeditiously following the Taylor Report.
I should also like to congratulate the Joint Under-Secretary of State, because it is rather remarkable that during the whole passage of the Bill so far there have been no Divisions—I must also congratulate the Opposition on that. I believe that it was my hon. Friend's diplomatic and able handling of the Bill, in Committee, and his open-mindedness, that made that possible.
I thank the Government for the Amendments which they have accepted, particularly my own and those of my hon. Friends. I believe that it is good that

259
the Land Court should have back, probably, some of the powers proposed to be taken from it when the Bill was introduced. The question of bequests has been mentioned. I hope the Lord Advocate has read the case of Donald v. Donald and that he is convinced that the Land Court should be consulted where bequests are involved.
This Bill brings new hope to the Highlands and I feel that the new Commission has a stimulating challenge which I hope it will accept. I am sure it will do a tremendous amount. Of course, it will not do all we want for the Highland areas but it should go a tremendous way towards stimulating new hope and bringing new life into the Highlands.
I will conclude by quoting what the Taylor Commission says at the end of its Report:
"But time is running very short and if the chance is not taken now it will be gone for good."
I hope that the Commission will act expeditiously when it comes into being.
6.32 p.m.
Mr. T. Fraser: We have nearly reached the end of our consideration of this Bill, unless, of course, it is sent back to us from another place with some Amendments. I sincerely hope that it will be sent back with at least one Amendment.
The Secretary of State was very properly congratulated upon introducing the Bill and upon so readily showing his awareness of the problems and his willingness to give effect to the recommendations of the Taylor Commission. This afternoon he has said, very rightly, that Principal Sir Thomas Taylor should feel honoured that we in Parliament have so readily enacted his recommendations.
It has been said that we had no Divisions at any stage of this Bill. That is true, despite the fact that we have made many Amendments to the Bill. I think we have greatly improved it, and great credit is due to the Joint Under-Secretary of State, who handled the Bill in a most competent manner. Might I say to some of his hon. Friends that today and in the future they will be delighted that he was not over-influenced by their contributions in Committee, because after they had so vigorously opposed what was perhaps the
260
most important Amendment on the Order Paper, and the Under-Secretary himself had also rejected the Amendment, after further speeches were made some hon. Members opposite changed their minds about the Amendment. Indeed, one hon. Member opposite, after having rejected an Amendment on Thursday, on the following Tuesday apologised for not having had time to examine the Amendment before he made his speech. By this time he had made two speeches on the same Amendment and they were completely opposed to each other.
It is, therefore, greatly to the credit of the Under-Secretary that he considered all the Amendments objectively, that he listened carefully to the speeches which were made from either side of the Committee and weighed them and took a decision upon them on their merits and not by reference to the side of the Committee from which the recommendations came. That is why we did not have any Divisions. We considered it to be unwise and not very clever to have Divisions when we could see that the Under-Secretary was genuinely concerned to make this a good Bill rather than to make political capital out of it.
That we wish the Bill well goes without saying. We all agree that it is essential to the successful operation of this Bill that a good Commission should be appointed, that suitable persons are appointed to it. As the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) has said, it is important that we should pay these people adequately for the job which we are asking them to undertake. They have not been given an easy task. They should feel that we are behind them in tackling a problem which is now almost 200 years old. We have had this problem for about 200 years and it has been examined by successive Commissions for more than 150 years. Now this Commission has told us that this is our last chance. That is why we have the right and the duty to be careful in framing this legislation.
The Commission must have the confidence of the crofters. It cannot succeed in its work without that confidence. We have said in the course of our discussion on Report that the Commission can only have the confidence of the crofters if at least one member of the Commission is a person with practical experience of crofting. We genuinely believe that.

261
May I say to the Secretary of State that the crofters in all the crofting areas in the North of Scotland will read what we have said in Committee and in the House on this subject. They will know that we in Parliament have been discussing a proposal that one or more of the members of the Crofters Commission should be a person with practical experience of crofting. If they know that we in Parliament have decided against making this provision in the Bill, then the Commission will not have the confidence of the crofters from the outset. I beg the Secretary of State to bear that fact in mind and to ensure that when the Bill is considered in another place it is amended to provide that at least one member of the Commission shall be a person with practical experience of crofting.
The Bill by itself is not enough. The new Commission will only succeed, and this Measure will only succeed in bringing about the recovery of the crofting areas in the crofting counties, if, first, the Crofters Commission brings the right recommendations to the Secretary of State, and, secondly, if the Secretary of State has the authority and the approval of the Treasury to make generous grants to the crofters for land improvement, for the purchase of fertilisers and feedingstuffs, for the improvement of roads, for the marketing of produce and to assist the crofters in meeting the unduly high freight charges.
The Taylor Commission did not merely recommend the setting up of a Crofters Commission. It pointed to the need for the new Commission to have adequate funds at its disposal in order to finance the recovery of the crofting communities. We have had explained to us why the new Commission could not have the necessary finance for the purpose and that there must be someone accountable to Parliament. Therefore, it must be the Secretary of State.
The Bill will only be a success if, over the years, the Secretary of State, whoever he may be from time to time, has the approval of the Treasury to spend money
262
generously in seeking to give new heart to those people in the crofting areas who have lived in penury for so long.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

PENSIONS (INDIA, PAKISTAN AND BURMA) [MONEY]
Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to enable effect to be given to arrangements as to pensions and connected matters made or to be made between Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and the Government of India or the Government of Pakistan, and to amend the law in relation to certain pensions and other benefits arising out of service in or connected with India, Pakistan or Burma, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament

(a) of any moneys required by the Secretary of State for discharging his functions under the said Act of the present Session in relation to any such arrangements (whether for providing pensions or benefits or for his administrative expenses);

(b) of any moneys otherwise payable by virtue of any such arrangements by Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom (other than moneys which, by virtue of the National Loans Act, 1939, fall to be paid out of the Consolidated Fund);

(c) of any moneys required to make good income tax for which relief has not otherwise been given which is deducted under the law of India or the law of Burma from any such pensions as may be specified in the said Act of the present Session;

(d) of any increase of any pension and any increase in the administrative expenses of any Minister attributable to the application or extended application, with or without adaptation or modification, of any provisions of the Pensions (Increase) Acts, 1944 and 1947, the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1952, the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1954, or the Superannuation Act, 1949, to such pensions or persons as may be specified in the said Act of the present Session,

and the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament, or out of the Consolidated Fund, or into the Exchequer, of any moneys falling to be paid therefrom or thereto by reason of the application of sections six and eight of the Pensions Commutation Act, 1871, to pensions commutations arising by virtue of the said Act of the present Session.
Resolution agreed to.

PENSIONS (INDIA, PAKISTAN AND BURMA) BILL
Considered in Committee.
[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]
Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

PENSIONS (INDIA, PAKISTAN AND BURMA) BILL

  Clause 3.-(EXTENSION TO CERTAIN PERSONS AND PENSIONS OF PROVISIONS IN SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1949, AND PENSIONS (INCREASE) ACTS.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
  6.42 p.m.
  Mr. Gordon Walker: May I ask a couple of questions? In line 40 we have the word " may." I take it that this is one of the terms of art which in fact means " shall." I never understand why we have to say " may " on a number of occasions when we mean " shall," and I should like an assurance that this means that in fact it will be done.
  More important than that, in each of the paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) occur the rather formidable words:
  " with such adaptations and modifications as may be specified in the rules … "
  In other words, as the Bill stands the Treasury has complete licence to alter or modify the rights of pensioners under these paragraphs in any way it wishes. I do not doubt that this is designed only to enable the Treasury to make minor changes which are necessary, but it seems to me that these are far reaching words, and I do not know whether the Government could find more limited words to give the Treasury power to do something which I am sure is intended shall be quite minor and limited. These are far-reaching powers, greater indeed than those which we have ourselves taken in the Bill.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Douglas Dodds-Parker): The right hon. Gentleman has far longer experience of legislation than I have, and I think he will find that the Acts which he supported involved the use of the word " may."
  Mr. Gordon Walker: Very reluctantly.
  Mr. Dodds-Parker: It was used rather than the term " shall," which he would like to see in the Bill. I think that in any Bill of this type he will find that the word " may " is always used. The only consolation must be that those who put this word in the drafts will themselves enjoy the pensions and other rewards inasmuch as they are writing legislation which applies to themselves. In the same way I think that in the Civil Service leave is said to be a privilege and not a right, but few of this resolute body of men and women would carry on if they did not get their leave. Whatever the right hon. Member may feel about this, I think we can rest assured that these individuals will enjoy the benefit which we wish to give them under the Bill.
  The right hon. Gentleman also referred to the use of the words
  " with such adaptations and modifications as may be specified in the rules…"
  When the Acts which are set forth in the Second Schedule were applied, they were Acts of universal application for this country. If under the Bill we applied them to all the individuals specified in other parts of the Acts, all would become entitled to all of the benefits, but it is specified earlier in the Bill that in fact the application is restricted to a group of individuals who are living in the United Kingdom or whose pensions are expressed in sterling. I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the Second Schedule, Part I (1).
  This may be clearer if we refer to a similar Act, the Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1948, which the last Administration saw fit to apply to certain categories of Indian and Pakistan pensioners. Section 5 of that Act set out:
  " This section shall apply to any pension payable in respect of service to His Majesty out of the revenues of India or Pakistan to any person resident in the United Kingdom, or, where the pension is expressed in sterling, in any other place…"
  In other words, the Government of the day saw fit to apply these provisions only to those who were resident in the United Kingdom or where the pension was expressed in sterling and not universally to all those who enjoyed a pension
  " payable in respect of service to His Majesty out of the revenues of India or Pakistan."
  Similarly, in this case, it has been seen fit to insert these words so that these

  265
  Acts of Parliament, which will be applied to these individuals, will be applied to those who are set forth in other parts of the Bill.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clauses 4 and 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  First Schedule agreed to.

  Second Schedule
  Motion made, and Question proposed, " That the Schedule be the Second Schedule to the Bill."
  Mr. Gordon Walker: I am in doubt about the meaning of this Schedule and the difference between Part I and Part II. Part I applies to pensioners in India and Pakistan and Part II to pensioners in Burma. I cannot understand why there are so many differences between the two sets of pensioners. Part I deals with the Pensions (Increase) Acts, 1944, 1947, 1952 and 1954, whereas Part II deals only with the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1952.
  Secondly, a lot of people are set out who are entitled to these pensions under Part I—quite an elaborate description—whereas when we come to Part II we find that it is only,
  " A pension payable to or in respect of a European warrant officer of the Royal Indian Marine."
  That is a very small category of persons. No doubt there is an explanation of why, on the face of it, there are these marked differences, and I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would explain.
  Mr. Dodds-Parker: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for having raised these points. Part I refers to India, as he said, and we always refer to the 1944, 1947 and 1954 Acts together.
  The parent Act was that of 1944, and these three Acts restored the cost of living cuts which were made in the pensions between 1922 and 1935. Whereas these cuts were made to certain categories of Indian pensions, they were not made to any categories of Burma pensions and therefore there is no need to apply the 1944, 1947 and 1954 Acts, which hang
  266
  together, to the second category, the Burma pensioners.
  The Royal Indian Marine is a distinguished body of men which was not part of the Armed Forces. If it had been, it would have been covered by the prerogative. To make matters clear, it has therefore been thought best to insert these words in the Bill. On page 8 of the Second Schedule, Part I (4) reads:
  " A pension payable to or in respect of a European officer of the Royal Indian Marine."
  These officers suffered cuts between 1922 and 1935 and therefore enjoyed restoration of those cuts under the 1944, 1947 and 1954 Acts.
  In Part II it reads:
  " A pension payable to or in respect of a European warrant officer…."
  They were the lowest rank concerned and as they did not suffer any cuts between 1922 and 1935, it has therefore not been necessary to restore the cuts. It is therefore only the 1952 Act which applies in that case.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill reported, without Amendment.
  6.50 p.m.
  Mr. Dodds-Parker: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  May I make clear what is to be done about payment, and how that is to be arranged. We are near the target date of the take-over, which is 31st March, the day after tomorrow, and, therefore, all these pensionary payments, as I have explained, will in future be paid out of the Votes, and in due course a new Estimate will be presented to the House. Pending the approval of this Estimate, it is proposed that payment of the pensions should be made from the Civil Contingencies Fund, and I hope that the House will agree that in the circumstances that will be convenient.
  I should like to thank Members in all parts of the House for expediting the passage of the Bill so that it can be passed by 31st March.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

WAYS AND MEANS [24th March]

  ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS)
  Resolution reported,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session concerning customs duties in the Isle of Man, it is expedient to authorise provisions with respect to the payment into the Exchequer of any of the proceeds of such duties.
  Resolution agreed to.

ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL
Considered in Committee.
[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL

  Clause 1.—(CONFIRMATION OF TYNWALD RESOLUTIONS.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  " That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  6.54 p.m.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: The Financial Secretary will remember that on Second Reading we gave general approval to this Bill. I then indicated on behalf of my hon. Friends on this side that we should, in all probability, be raising certain queries when we reached the Committee stage.
  As this is a new departure and there are certain points which, to me at least, are not clear, even though they may be clear to other hon. Members, it is, I think, well to get them on the record. I should, therefore, like to put one or two questions to the hon. Gentleman and I hope that he will be good enough to let us have a reply. I understand that up to now, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer makes certain changes to the Customs duties in his Budget, they are later, by a resolution of Tynwald, applied to the Isle of Man, and we then pass an Act in this House which gives them statutory authority.
  That procedure is to be changed. In future the resolution of Tynwald dealing with changes in Customs duties will be validated by an Order in Council. I understand that that Order will, in fact, be a Statutory Instrument which will be presented to this House. I should like to know whether the Statutory Instrument, the Order in Council, is to require the affirmative or only the negative procedure.
  The hon. Gentleman, on Second Reading, was pleased to indicate—and we
  268
  share his pleasure—that the Isle of Man will now be in a position to fix its own Customs duties. What does that mean? Does it mean that, although it has a right to fix the duties, it will, in effect, always fix them at the same rates as the Imperial Parliament does. Will they, as they now do, follow the opening of the Budget by the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
  Are we also to understand that the Order in Council, when it is presented to the House—whichever procedure is to be adopted with regard to it—will be presented in draft? Otherwise it would appear that Parliament would be nothing more than a rubber stamp. It would be interesting to have the views of the hon. Gentleman on these points and such others as my hon. Friends may wish to put on this Clause.
  7.0 p.m.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Henry Brooke): I am glad to reply to the questions of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall). He asked about the procedure. He indicated that after the Chancellor of the Exchequer had presented his Budget in this House there might be resolutions passed by the Tynwald, and he asked whether those resolutions might depend on what the Budget contained.
  I think he will agree that the interesting case is the one where there are changes in the Customs tariff of this country. It is normal for Tynwald then to pass resolutions which may not precisely repeat the changes in the United Kingdom Budget, because the Isle of Man tariff is not identical with ours, but which, in the past, have broadly followed those changes.
  Under the 1887 Act, the Tynwald resolution could be given provisional effect so that a change in the tariff of this country might, if the Isle of Man authority thought fit, operate immediately in the Isle of Man and thereby not give rise, for instance, to the temptation of smuggling if there had been a sharp change here and no change there. I ought to explain that the Tynwald resolution, if it is to be given provisional effect under the 1887 Act, must receive the approval of the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury here, and this Bill makes no change in those arrangements for a Tynwald resolution securing provisional effect.

  269
  What the Bill does is as follows. Hitherto, every Tynwald resolution has had, within a certain time, to be validated by an Act of Parliament here. In future, validation will not be done by Act of Parliament but by Order in Council. When Tynwald passes a resolution of any sort relating to Customs tariffs it will, in the normal course, be validated by an Order in Council made over here. That is the plan, but I want to make it quite clear to the Committee that this Bill in no way alters the arrangements by which the Tynwald resolution to make an immediate change in the Isle of Man tariff will have provisional effect pending further validation.
  The right hon. Member asked about the right of the Isle of Man to fix its own Customs duties. The Isle of Man has a tariff it has fixed itself in the first instance, but which is incorporated in Acts of Parliament, and that tariff is not identical with ours. In future, the Customs tariff of the island will get transferred from being embodied in Acts of Parliament here to being embodied in a series of Tynwald resolutions which will have been validated by Order in Council.
  The right hon. Member asked about the form of the Order in Council. As laid down in subsection (4), the Order must be laid before Parliament, but that does not include either the affirmative or negative procedure here. I should like to explain that there is a very sound and logical reason for that, as all the other legislation of Tynwald affecting the Isle of Man is given effect by a similar procedure. It is not customary nor statutory that Tynwald resolutions concerning matters far away from Customs operation or procedure should be confirmed by Orders in Council subject to Parliamentary procedure. In this Bill, we are simply following the broad precedent the House of Commons has accepted and enacted in other Isle of Man legislation.
  Mr. Ede: The statement of the Financial Secretary might be read as meaning that in future the resolutions of Tynwald with regard to Customs and Excise become effective when, as he says, they are validated by the Privy Council without this House being able to intervene.
  I imagine that that is not really what the hon. Gentleman intended to convey,
  270
  for is it not a fact that these resolutions are not sent direct from Tynwald to the Privy Council but to the Privy Council through the Secretary of State for the Home Department? In this case, and in the case of the Channel Islands—which sometimes are facetiously alluded to in the Civil Service as " The Home Office Colonies "—the Home Secretary has to assume some responsibility for recommending the resolutions to the Privy Council.
  On occasions when he has found it rather difficult so to commend them, whether in respect of the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands, he has made representations first to the authorities of the island concerned that unless the resolutions are modified in a certain way he will find it difficult to submit them to the Privy Council for validation.
  I take it that it will be the responsibility of a member of Her Majesty's Government—presumably still the Secretary of State for the Home Department, but possibly in the matter of Customs either the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or the Home Secretary after consultation with the Chancellor—to examine these resolutions to make quite certain that they are not so outrageous as to offend the susceptibilities of this House.
  I do not want to suggest that such a thing is likely to happen at the moment, but, after all, here we are dealing with a constitutional principle that goes back very far into the mists of antiquity and stretches forward into what the Prime Minister this afternoon described as " the obscurity of the future." I think that the Committee will want to be assured that there is still some power of making representation to the islands, both before and after the resolutions of Tynwald have been passed, should the necessity arise. I hope we can have an assurance from the hon. Gentleman that that is the case.
  Mr. H. Brooke: I should like to clarify this matter. As regards representations made before a resolution of Tynwald is passed, it is a little difficult to define the situation. I think that perhaps what the right hon. Member is most concerned about is that a situation should not arise in which Tynwald was seeking to do something which, on the face of it, appeared thoroughly unacceptable to the United Kingdom and yet it might appear

  271
  from this Bill that it had to be automatically validated by the Privy Council. I am sure the right hon. Member will agree that in view of our past experience and friendly relations with the island it is to be regarded as most unlikely that such a situation would arise.
  I entirely recognise, however, that the possibility exists and I think it is right that I should state what would happen in such circumstances, even if it is an entirely theoretical contingency. For instance, to take a simple case, it might be that Tynwald, completely inadvertently, passed a resolution which would seek to alter the island tariff in a way inconsistent with our international obligations. I think that that is as good an example as one could imagine.
  Let me tell the Committee clearly that there is nothing in this Bill which would compel the Government of the United Kingdom to advise Her Majesty to confirm any particular resolution by Order in Council. A position might conceivably be reached—I emphasise " conceivably " —where the Government felt unable to advise that such an Order in Council should be made. Further, as I explained on Second Reading, nothing in this Bill derogates from the right of this Parliament, if it thinks fit, to pass legislation on any Isle of Man matter. But we all hope that these difficulties and differences will not arise.
  We all hope that matters will go as smoothly and amicably in the future as they have gone in the past. I hope that now I have explained the situation as fully as I can, the Committee will agree that United Kingdom rights are safeguarded and we can properly take this step, which I am sure the right hon. Member will support me in saying will be a source of pride to the island.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 2.—(REMOVAL OF CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS ON DISPOSITION OF PROCEEDS OF CUSTOMS DUTIES.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: I have no desire to hold up proceedings, or to keep the Committee sitting unduly long, particu-
  272
  larly as there are other important matters to which we desire to proceed, but there are one or two questions which, I think, should be put on this Clause.
  The Financial Secretary dealt broadly with what is contained in the Clause and indicated that a formula has been negotiated. I gather that it has now been accepted by the Isle of Man authorities. It would be interesting to the Committee if we could be told, briefly, what that formula is. At the moment, under the 1866 Act the Isle of Man pays us £10,000 a year and, under an agreement come to, I think, in 1949, it agreed to step that amount up, but we were not able to accept the extra money because of the provisions of the 1866 Act. For about four years that money has been put into cold storage.
  As I understood the hon. Gentleman when he moved the Second Reading, there is now about £300,000 lying ready for the Imperial Exchequer immediately this Bill is passed. That works out at about £75,000 to £80,000 a year. Can we, therefore, take it that under the formula, we shall be getting at least £100,000 a year for the future, and possibly more?
  Mr. H. Brooke: I welcome the opportunity to explain to the Committee the working of the formula. First, I must weary the Committee with an explanation of the Common Purse arrangements, because the formula depends on that.
  To the best of my knowledge, there are no cases where the Isle of Man Customs duty is higher than the United Kingdom Customs duty, but there are certain instances where it is lower. The Committee will readily understand that on any commodity for which the Isle of Man duty is lower, the importer takes care to see that the article has not borne the United Kingdom duty, or that if it has paid that, drawback has been secured. In those cases, therefore, the duty is paid on importation into the island at the lower rate and the island retains the proceeds of all those duties. But there are other articles on which the duty is identical, and in those cases what are called the Common Purse arrangements operate.
  The whole of the duty on those articles, wherever it is collected, whether in the

  273
  United Kingdom or in the island, is paid into the Imperial Exchequer, and the island is subsequently credited with the amount of duty payable on its estimated consumption of such articles. The estimated consumption is calculated by multiplying the resident population of the island, plus an artificial fiscal equivalent, so called, in respect of visitors, by the average consumption per head in the United Kingdom. That is the Common Purse.
  Hitherto, the contribution to the United Kingdom, as the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) has said, has been £10,000. In 1949, an agreement was reached with the Isle of Man authorities and a Tynwald resolution was passed on the basis of this agreement that for a period of five years beginning 1st April, 1950, the island's contribution, instead of a fixed sum of £10,000, should be an amount equal to 5 per cent. of the Common Purse proceeds. This has had the effect of increasing the contribution from £10,000 to about £90,000 a year; but only £10,000 of that has been payable over to us, because the 1866 Act stipulates £10,000 no less and no more. That is how, since 1st April, 1950, these additional sums have been accumulating. As I explained on Second Reading, at the end of the last financial year the accumulation was in the region of £300,000, and a further sum, which may be about £80,000, will have accumulated at the close of the current financial year, which ends this week.
  The purpose of the Clause is to make it possible to pay into the Imperial Exchequer both these additional sums and any future contributions which, subsequently, it may be agreed that the island should make.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time and passed.

INDUSTRIAL INJURIES (COLLIERY WORKERS)
7.15 p.m.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. Ernest Marples): I beg to move,
That the Draft National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) (Colliery Workers Supplementary Scheme) Amendment Order, 1955, a copy of which was laid before this House on 10th March, be approved.
Under the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, there is a scheme known as the Colliery Workers Supplementary Scheme, which, in respect of colliery accidents and diseases, provides supplementary benefits for persons receiving benefit under the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act. The payment is not made from the Exchequer or the Industrial Injuries Fund. It is made from moneys provided by the Fund, which is formed by contributions from the National Coal Board—which gives 4d. a ton on the total saleable tonnage of deep-mined coal—and of 4d. a week from male employees. The Government Actuary, who acts as the actuary for the scheme, is satisfied that the Fund can carry this burden.
Payments under the scheme have always borne a certain relationship to Industrial Injuries benefits. As the House knows, those benefits have recently been increased. The Order, therefore, increases the supplementary benefits under the scheme to bring them into line with those now current for Industrial Injuries benefit. In other words, it preserves the same relationship and proportion. The representative national committee is responsible for the scheme and has asked for this change. It is uncontroversial and, I think, acceptable and agreeable to the whole House.
7.17 p.m.
Mr. Bernard Taylor: We are obliged to the Parliamentary Secretary for his explanation of the Order. On behalf of my hon. and right hon. Friends, I am glad to say that we not only agree with it but welcome it. As the Parliamentary Secretary has said, this is a national scheme operated by the Coal Board and by the National Union of Mineworkers, and it is subscribed to by both those bodies.

275
It might be appropriate for me to mention that this is the only supplementary scheme under Section 83 of the 1946 Act. While there are altogether more than 20 million Class I insured employees, this is the only industry with less than 750,000 employees to have taken advantage of that Section of the Act.
It was said in another place last week that these proposed increases in benefits from the supplementary scheme would cost about £400,000 in the first year. That gives some idea of the high incidence of accidents in mining. I know that both the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers are anxious that this change should come into operation when the increased Industrial Injuries benefits take effect on 19th May. Can the Parliamentary Secretary assure us that the administrative arrangements in his Department are so far advanced that the operative date for these payments from the supplementary scheme will be 19th May, the same as in the case of benefits under the Industrial Injuries Scheme? Having made those few observations, I repeat that we on this side welcome the Order and agree with it.
Mr. Marples: It is proposed, as from 19th May, that most of the benefits will be paid and, as from 25th April, 1955, it is also proposed to increase the rate of supplementary widow's pension. I think, therefore, that the answer to the hon. Member is that the majority of the benefits will be paid on 19th May.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Draft National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) (Colliery Workers Supplementary Scheme) Amendment Order, 1955, a copy of which was laid before this House on 10th March, be approved.

WAYS AND MEANS
Considered in Committee.
[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

REQUISITIONED HOUSES
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That where, under any Act of the present Session to repeal the power to requisition land for housing purposes under Defence Regulations and transfer to local authorities in England and Wales the right to possession of requisitioned houses for a limited period, any sums are payable by a local authority to the landlord of a dwelling on account of rent which, by virtue of the said Act, is irrecoverable from the tenant, those sums shall be deemed for the purposes of the enactments relating to income tax to be received by the landlord as rent paid by the tenant.—[Mr. H. Brooke.]
7.21 p.m.
Mr. Glenvil Hall: Surely we should have a Minister from the Department concerned on the Front Bench opposite. I know that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has his name to the Motion and that technically he is responsible, but we are often told when we make a complaint that he is not on the Front Bench that we have the Minister from the Department and therefore have all that matters. Tonight we have no one from the Department. Surely this is a gross discourtesy to the Committee.
7.22 p.m.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Henry Brooke): I think that I can help the Committee. This is not an ordinary Money Resolution in Committee of the whole House. This is one of the rare occasions when a Resolution has to be considered in Committee of Ways and Means. As the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) knows, there is a difference in that case, and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is the Minister in charge of all Ways and Means Resolutions of this character. The right hon. Member has asked me to speak, and I gladly respond by explaining how this matter arises.
The Committee will see that the Order Paper contains a Motion by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government to re-commit the Requisitioned Houses and Housing (Amendment)

277
Bill as amended, in respect of certain Amendments. One of these Amendments, which I believe is of interest to hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, would be out of order if a Ways and Means Resolution of this character had not been previously carried in Committee of Ways and Means and reported to the House, because the purpose of that Amendment is to put beyond doubt that certain sums received by the owner of a house from the local authority shall be liable to Income Tax in his hands.
I do not think that there is any dubiety anywhere that they should be liable to tax. I do not want to prejudge that Amendment. All that I say now is that it is desirable that if the Bill is recommitted the Committee should have an opportunity to consider that Amendment. Unless the Committee of Ways and Means agree to the Resolution this evening, it would be impossible for the Committee to do that because it would be out of order.
7.26 p.m.
Mr. G. R. Mitchison: This is rather an odd business. If this Resolution means anything, it means that the hon. Gentleman is committing the supreme sin for a Financial Secretary of anticipating his right hon. Friend's Budget. I strongly suspect that the real truth of the matter is that these payments would have been liable to Income Tax anyhow. Perhaps, as has been suggested, the Resolution is only to put the matter beyond doubt, but in fact the doubt, if there is one, or the tax, if there is one, does not arise because of any amendment of the Bill. It is merely concerned with the question of the times at which payments should be made.
If there is now any doubt about the matter, there was exactly the same doubt when the original Bill was introduced. The Treasury watchdog must for one moment have been sleeping in his kennel, since when, he has no doubt awakened and we hear his bark tonight. What it comes to is that the Treasury were asleep. Let us note the occasion.
Question put and agreed to
Resolved,
That where, under any Act of the present Session to repeal the power to requisition land for housing purposes under Defence Regulations and transfer to local authorities in
278
England and Wales the right to possession of requisitioned houses for a limited period, any sums are payable by a local authority to the landlord of a dwelling on account of rent which, by virtue of the said Act, is irrecoverable from the tenant, those sums shall be deemed for the purposes of the enactments relating to income tax to be received by the landlord as rent paid by the tenant.
To report Resolution and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. Redmayne.]
Report to be received Tomorrow; Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS (HARMFUL PUBLICATIONS) BILL
Considered in Committee. [Progress, 28th March.]
[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS (HARMFUL PUBLICATIONS) BILL

  Clause 3.-(POWER TO SEARCH FOR, AND DISPOSE OF, WORKS TO WHICH THIS ACT APPLIES AND ARTICLES FOR PRINTING THEM.)
  7.28 p.m.
  Mr. Roy Jenkins: I beg to move in page 2, line 1, after " information " to insert " on oath."
  This is a very small Amendment which, I think, will not keep the Committtee for more than a few moments. It may be that the Government will be able to clear up quickly the doubt in my mind which led to my putting the Amendment on the Order Paper.
  Clause 3 (1) seems a little peculiar because, as far as I can see, information can be laid before the justices which can lead to the issuing of a warrant to arrest a person without such information having to be laid upon oath, whereas a little later the same subsection provides that there must be written information, substantiated on oath before a search warrant can be issued in order to search premises and obtain copies of the materials about which there is complaint.
  It seems to me rather peculiar that the provision " on oath " should be specified in one case and not in the other. I am sure that the Government wish to avoid any frivolous proceedings of any kind arising under the Bill and it appears to me that that object might be achieved by inserting " on oath " in the first line of the Clause.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth): The Amendment in its present form is not really satisfactory since it might imply that the original information must be on oath even where a summons is issued and there is no intention of applying for a search warrant. Under the law it is not necessary that information on which a summons is issued should be on oath, and there is no justification for departing from that general rule in this case.
  But the hon. Member has put a point of interest. If the object is to ensure that in any case where an application has to be made for a search warrant the original information on which the summons is issued should also be on oath, I think that he has put a valid point and one which shall be looked into between now and the next stage of the Bill. I will give an undertaking to that effect if the hon. Member is prepared to withdraw his Amendment.
  Mr. Jenkins: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his undertaking to look at this point again, but it seems to me peculiar that if, in accordance with the general practice of the law, information must be laid on oath before a search warrant can be issued, it should be thought unreasonable that it should be laid on oath before a person could be arrested. That is a point which occurred to me, and I hope the Under-Secretary will bear it in mind. However, in view of what he has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: I beg to move, in page 2, line 23, to leave out from " work " to " and " in line 25.
  As hon. Members will see, the effect of this Amendment would be to leave out the words:
  " and any copies of any other work which the constable has reasonable cause to believe to be one to which this Act applies…"
  It seems to me that the whole of this Clause gives powers of search to a police constable which are too wide in the circumstances.
  Let me say straight away that I do not think my Amendment can in itself stand, but it is put in this way so that
  280
  the Government will have an opportunity to look at the Clause again. The difficulty which arises in this. Under Clause 3 (1) information is to be laid before a justice of the peace in respect of a work which is described as a relevant work, and if he is satisfied by written information on oath that there is reasonable ground for suspecting that a person has in his possession or under his control that relevant work or any other work to which it applies, then a search warrant will be issued.
  So off goes the police officer in pursuance of his duty to find the work which has been laid down in the information. But he is not allowed to have a free roam around the publisher's premises. When he arrives at the premises, it seems to me that what he will be able to do is not merely to seize the work which is the subject matter of the information, but also he will have the opportunity to roam round the publisher's premises and at the same time seize anything else which he wishes to take. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend—and I am surprised at him —says " Why not? " It is the whole essence of the system of Government in this country that we do not allow people into private premises to seize anything other than that about which there is reasonable and proper suspicion and about which information has been laid on oath.
  The whole purpose of the Clause is that written information must be given and substantiated on oath that there is a reasonable belief that there exists a work of a relevant nature or any other work to which the Bill applies. I should like to give this example. It is one thing for a police constable to seize horror comics, but it is quite another thing to go to premises and seize dirty postcards or something else which a police constable may think is wrong.
  What I am venturing to submit is that we are not going to be bound by what a police constable thinks is wrong material. The proper criterion is what a justice of the peace thinks to be wrong material. I suggest that this Clause is too wide. I may be wrong on this. It may be that the Government can satisfy us that the powers of search are not wider than are required, but of one thing I am quite sure—and one would have the support of the Home Secretary in this—that if the powers are

  281
  too wide and will catch within their ambit not merely horror comics but also other material, then this Clause needs to be looked at again If we can convince the Home Office of that, I am certain that we shall elicit the sympathy of my right hon. and gallant Friend. So I am moving this Amendment by way of exploration more than anything else.
  Mr. F. Blackburn: Are not the fears of the hon. Member unfounded, because Clause 3 (1) (i) says:
  "…. any other work which the constable has reasonable cause to believe to be one to which this Act applies."
  Therefore the matters to which the hon. Gentleman refers do not come into it at all.
  Mr.Rees-Davies: I have considered that point. If we look at the first paragraph we see that subsection (1) lays down that information has to be laid before a justice of the peace about a person who is suspected of committing an offence in order to issue a warrant. That is the first matter.
  Mr. Blackburn: I was only stressing the last few words
  "…to be one to which this Act applies."
  Mr. Rees-Davies: Oh yes, but it seems to me that it is the police constable's test which is applied and not that of the justice of the peace. I am putting forward this Amendment with no absolute certainty. I may be wrong about this. I say that quite freely, but I say that it would be quite a serious matter to give a police constable powers which are wider than are required. I want the Home Secretary to look at it and see that we are not doing that. It is for that reason that I am putting the Amendment forward.
  I will conclude with these points. If it is not the relevant work, then I am not altogether sure why we need the words:
  "… or any other work to which this Act applies."
  That, of course, is contained in Clause 3 (1, a) and is again mentioned in this paragraph (i). It will be seen that it says:
  " any copies of the relevant work … "
  which is the subject matter of the information. We are going to give a justice of the peace the right to issue
  282
  a warrant if there is a suspicion that a person has in his possession or control any copies not only of the relevant work but of
  " any other work to which the Act applies."
  On that a search warrant can be issued, and it seems to me that the power is rather wide. So I invite the Government to look at the Clause to see whether the powers are not wider than are necessary.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: If this Bill becomes law, the distribution of harmful publications, if it is carried on, will be done in secrecy, and it will be difficult for the police to obtain evidence on which to base proceedings in respect of a particular work. The whole object of the powers of search and seizure given by this Clause is to enable the police, once proceedings have been initiated, to search the premises of the person concerned and to prevent the further circulation of the horror publications by seizing any other copies of a particular work, and, of course, copies of any other works to which they have reasonable cause to believe that the Bill applies.
  No copies seized can be destroyed unless the person concerned is convicted in respect of each individual work. There are, therefore, ample safeguards against any abuse of the power of seizure. I may add that the
  Mr. Rees-Davies: I think that the point has entirely escaped my hon. Friend. Suppose a police officer arrives at the premises and, when he is there, finds that the owner is a purveyor of pornography, which is quite different from horror comics; and that the policeman says, " I am going to seize the Decameron,' because I think he is going to try to introduce a pornographic edition of it." Would my hon. Friend deal with that point?
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: The hon. Member is making his speech twice over. 1 have not yet had an opportunity to answer that point. I was proposing to mention another matter before dealing with that.
  The powers provided by Clause 3 are much less drastic than those in the Obscene Publications Act, 1857, which enable premises to be searched and articles to be seized without any criminal proceedings being brought against the person concerned. My hon. Friend said

  283
  that the words he proposes to leave out might refer to dirty postcards. Of course, they could refer to no such thing. The words are
  " any other work to which this Act applies."
  In other words, a work within the definition in Clause 1 of the Bill. That certainly does not mean dirty postcards.
  My hon. Friend went on to suggest that notwithstanding that the Bill does not apply to such works, nevertheless they may be seized. Of course, in seizing works, the police would first have to have reasonable cause to believe that they were works to which the Bill applied. They would also have to see that the Bill did apply. If they did not do so, they would not be covered by this Measure and their seizure would not be made lawful by this Bill. I do not think that my hon. Friend should press his Amendment.
  7.45 p.m.
  Mr. Ede: I hope that the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) will withdraw this Amendment. I wish to support the views advanced by the Joint Under-Secretary. The books at which the Bill is aimed appear periodically, and different issues are generally to be found on the same stall or in the same bookshop. If we have to specify the January issue, or the February issue, or the August issue, and so on, before these works can be seized, I think that we should be putting a hindrance in the way of the police in dealing with notorious offenders, which is something we should not wish to do.
  An officer might go to premises in the first instance to see, for example, the January issue of a publication.which was the one that he was after. He might notice a pile of such publications in some obscure corner of the shop—because, as the hon. Gentleman says, this will be carried on with some degree of secrecy. Before getting to the January issue he might have to examine several others which would be immune from action. I can visualise that his activities might be hampered and an unnecessary amount of extra work created for him.
  I do not think that the fears expressed by the hon. Member are justified, and he might find that he is supporting the people whom, I am sure, he does not wish to support. I am convinced by what has been said by the Joint Under-Secretary
  284
  that this is a reasonable arrangement to make the Bill workable.
  Mr. Roy Jenkins: Suppose a constable obtained a warrant under this Bill and went to the publisher's premises or to a bookshop, or some other place, to seize certain specific material. Suppose he seized material which he has reason to believe might be subject to proceedings under the Obscene Publications Act. Can he take such material and bring proceedings under a different Act, or must he get another warrant in order so to do?
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: He could not seize such material under the cover of this Bill. Whether or not he would be in a position to take action under another Act is quite irrelevant to the matter we are discussing.
  Mr. Rees-Davies: In the light of the observations, both from the Joint Under-Secretary and the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. Kenneth Robinson: I beg to move, in page 2, line 45, at the end, to add:
  (4) Where such matter as is referred to in subsection (1) above is seized, the police shall within a reasonable time bring proceedings under section two against the person from whom the matter was seized and unless the court otherwise order the matter shall be returned forthwith to the person from whom it was seized.
  This Amendment deals with the situation after seizure. It is quite a simple Amendment with, I think, quite a reasonable purpose. The object is to make sure that, having seized a work under this Bill, the police and the authorities will act quickly in bringing a prosecution. It may well be, through some dilatoriness on the part of the police, or some doubt which may have overtaken them about whether the publication is one on which proceedings should be instituted, that they may drag the matter on for weeks, perhaps months, during the whole of which time the Sword of Damocles is hanging over the publisher—it may be quite unjustly.
  The only purpose of this Amendment is to say that, within a reasonable time after seizure, the police shall bring proceedings against the person from whom they have seized the material. I hope that the Joint

  285
  Under-Secretary will consider this a perfectly reasonable safeguard.
  Mr. William Keenan: What is a reasonable time?
  Mr. Robinson: It cannot in any way create a loophole in the Bill, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider it favourably.
  Mr. Blackburn: May I ask my hon. Friend to deal with the last part of the Amendment?
  Mr. Robinson: I should have thought that it was completely self-explanatory. If proceedings are not brought in respect of the work seized, it is perfectly reasonable that the work should be returned to the publisher.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: This Amendment is unnecessary for the following reason. So far as England and Wales are concerned, the Police Property Act, 1897, provides that where any property has come into the possession of the police in connection with any criminal charge
  " a court of summary jurisdiction may on application either by an officer of police or by a claimant of the property make an order for the delivery of the property to the person appearing to the magistrate or court to be the owner thereof."
  The person whose property is seized by virtue of a warrant granted under Clause 3 of this Bill could, therefore, make an application to the court if proceedings were not brought within a reasonable time. It would be for the court to say what was a reasonable time. In those circumstances, I hope that the hon. Member will not press his Amendment.
  Mr. Robinson: In view of the explanation of the Joint Under-Secretary of State, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. K. Robinson: I beg to move, in page 2, line 45, at the end, to add:
  (4) No destruction of any matter seized shall take place until the expiration of the fourteen days allowed by section eighty-four of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952, for the giving of notice of intention to appeal to quarter sessions against the said order, or in the case of a trial before a court other than a magistrate's court until the relevant period for giving notice of appeal has elapsed.
  286
  This, also, is a very simple Amendment, and I do not know whether the Joint Under-Secretary will say that it, too. is unnecessary. But it is surely only right that any matter seized should not be destroyed between the time of its seizure and any appeal that may be made to quarter sessions. I do not think that the Amendment requires any further explanation from me, and I await with interest the response of the hon. Gentleman.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: When I said that the previous Amendment was unnecessary, I did not mean to say that the hon. Gentleman's action in raising the point was unnecessary, because that was a perfectly proper thing to do in Committee. However, I am afraid that this Amendment also is really unnecessary, because the police would never destroy anything if they knew that an appeal was being considered.
  I believe that in the Obscene Publications Act, 1857, there is a provision similar to that intended in this Amendment, and if there was any very strong feeling about it, it would be possible to put in some provision of the kind in this Bill. It does not appear to be necessary, and I would not recommend the Committee to do it, but, if the hon. Gentleman wishes to press the Amendment, I will give an undertaking that the point will be considered.
  Mr. Ede: I think that this is a point which the Government might consider in the light of what the Joint Under-Secretary of State has just said. Mistakes do happen, even with the police, and material might disappear. I speak as one who a few years ago used to see a great deal of gambling material brought into the Epsom Magistrates Court on the day after the Derby. I make no allegations against the Metropolitan Police, for whom I have the greatest respect, but I know that some of the machines brought in disappeared very shortly after the case had been heard, without the unfortunate defendant who had lost them being given any opportunity of considering whether he would add to the fortunes of lawyers by appealing.
  Some of these things might be very tempting to have privately, and I suggest that this is the kind of thing concerning which it would be wise for the Govern-

  287
  ment to consider putting an express provision into the Bill so that nobody could be in any doubt that a wrong would be committed if the property were not available during the days stated.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: The proposal is not altogether simple, but there is a point in it, and my right hon. and gallant Friend will certainly look into the matter to see if he can find some form of words which will meet the point.
  Mr. Robinson: I think that it would be most unfortunate if the Bill omitted a safeguard which was specifically put into the Obscene Publications Act, 1857, but, in view of the undertaking of the Government to look into the matter, and to look favourably upon it, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 4.—(PROHIBITION OF IMPORTATION OF WORKS TO WHICH THIS ACT APPLIES AND ARTICLES FOR PRINTING THEM.)
  Mr. Roy Jenkins: I beg to move, in page 3, line 6, at the end, to add:
  (2) The Customs authorities shall within twenty-eight days bring proceedings under this Act against the person from whom matter was seized, or in the case of non-personal seizure shall within a reasonable time bring proceedings in the appropriate court of law to decide whether the seized matter falls within the provisions of this Act. If such proceedings are not brought within twenty-eight days such seized matter shall be returned forthwith to the person from whom it was seized, or in the case of non-personal seizure to the consignee.
  This is an Amendment of some importance and deals with the proceedings where a seizure is made of publications objected to by the Customs authorities. It also deals with a point which was raised by the hon. and learned Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster), in his speech on Second Reading, when he pointed out, as I readily admit, that the point here raised is one which certainly concerns this Bill, but which goes a little wider inasmuch that it affects the whole procedure of Customs seizure of objectionable literature.
  In this Bill, we are giving the Customs authorities a new power which, up to the present, they have not possessed, and it is,
  288
  therefore, appropriate that we should consider how that power should be exercised. The objection to the procedure which applies to obscene literature—and which would apply to these harmful publications if this Amendment were not accepted—is that if matter is seized by the Customs authorities there is no onus on them to initiate a prosecution against the people from whom such matter is seized, or to take any court action at all, and the matter only comes before a court if the initiative is taken by the person from whom the matter is seized or to whom it is addressed.
  That seems to me to be putting the initiative the wrong way round. One ought not to put the Customs authorities into a position in which they can decide whether or not a matter is objectionable, thus leaving such judgment, in the great number of cases, not to be decided by a court. I suggest that where the Customs authorities think it appropriate, under the terms of this Measure, to seize matter coming into the country, they should initiate a prosecution in the same way as in the case of matter seized by a police officer.
  I speak with some hesitation on this point, and I am sure that the hon. and learned Solicitor-General will correct me if I am wrong, but I think that this provision might actually strengthen the Bill in some respects. 1 am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkdale (Mr. Keenan) will be glad to hear me say that, because, as the Bill stands, there might be a difficulty in taking action on a criminal charge against an importer who might be an important person so far as the dissemination of such literature is concerned.
  This Amendment, like so many others, is not, I agree, perfectly drafted. But the intention is to allow such criminal proceedings to be taken against the importer, and also to move away from the undesirable position in which Customs authorities can take action without having that action decided in a court of law.
  8.0 p.m.
  The Solicitor-General (Sir Harry Hylton-Foster): I should prefer to discuss this matter with the hon. Member for Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) in the wider context in which he is particularly interested when the discussion has reference

  289
  to the wider context. I cannot advise the Committee to accept the Amendment, for reasons which I am not sure the hon. Member has in mind. I am not referring to the actual words of the Amendment, but to the pattern which he proposes to set up by it. He is dealing with two different kinds of seizure, one of which is personal, and which relates to the finding of a horror comic upon a passenger arriving somewhere, and the other non-personal, which deals with the normal case of imported goods.
  The difficulty which this would raise in connection with a passenger is that proceedings would have to be instituted under Clause 2, and it would have to be proved that that passenger had the work in his possession for the purpose of selling it or letting it upon hire. That would obviously be an extremely difficult matter for the prosecution to prove. On the other hand, the mischief to which we are all directing our endeavours is performed once the work comes into the country. The Amendment would, therefore, not be very satisfactory in that respect; it would provide a small let-out in relation to that kind of seizure.
  An entirely different procedure seems to be proposed in the case of non-personal seizure. It is rather difficult to visualise what is involved, because the Amendment does not suggest any power by which the defendant should appear in court, and there is no power in law, under the Customs and Excise Act, 1952, or the Magistrates' Courts Act. In the case of a non-personal seizure, if the person who has had certain works seized wants to protest he can do so but, as the hon. Member will appreciate, in the vast majority of cases concerning the kind of traffic at which we are now aiming the importer does not want to protest; he is only too glad to keep quiet, in which case the works are, in due course, condemned by a court or left seized.
  It does not seem to us to be a good idea to use up the time of the courts by making it necessary to institute proceedings against a person who is only too anxious to leave things alone, rather than have his name mentioned in connection with the importation of such works.
  Mr. Blackburn: Is there to be no punishment of anyone who is trying to import horror comics?
  The Solicitor-General: Such persons would be caught, because they would be offending a Customs regulation. The hon. Member will see that the last words of Clause 4 provide that publications of the kind with which we are dealing come into the category of prohibited importations, and a person importing them will be liable to the usual penalties for trying to evade Customs and Excise provisions.
  If the person whose works have been seized wishes to challenge the seizure there is no difficulty about his doing so. He has a month in which to do so, and he can claim that his goods should not be condemned. The effect of the Amendment would be to create a privileged and completely unique position for horror comics. There does not seem to be any good reason for putting traffickers in horror comics in an especially privileged position.
  The experience of one hundred years has shown that the only sound method of controlling prohibited imports is to give the Customs authorities the power of seizure. This process has been working for a great many years and was last approved by the House when it consolidated the various Customs enactments in 1952.
  Mr, Michael Foot: Can the hon. and learned Gentleman tell us what are the other kinds of commodities which are dealt with under this kind of seizure?
  The Solicitor-General: I could not fully enlighten the hon. Member without reference, but he will be aware that goods are seized by the Customs authorities upon an enormous variety of grounds, such as public safety, national security and smuggling. There does not seem to be any valid reason for distinguishing publications which this House desires to keep out of the country from other matter that might be smuggled.
  There is yet another point to be considered. At present, the would-be trafficker in such publications can take a chance on their not being caught at the docks or on their way into the country. The hon. Member's Amendment would give him another chance. The Customs authorities would then be obliged to bring them before a court, and that court might not feel justified in condemning them. That would seem to provide an additional encouragement to such people.
  Sir Frank Soskice: I hope that the Solicitor-General will tell the Committee that he will give this matter some further thought. His first objection to the Amendment was that it would necessitate the institution of proceedings under Clause 2, which would entail the necessity to prove the intention to sell. I thought that he gave the answer to that objection in the latter part of his speech, when he pointed out that the prosecution would not be instituted under Clause 2 but under the appropriate provisions of the Customs and Excise Act, 1952.
  The Solicitor-General: No; the difficulty is that the Amendment refers to " proceedings under this Act."
  Sir F. Soskice: The Solicitor-General quite properly pointed out that the Committee should in no sense be wedded to the wording of the Amendment, and should pay much more attention to its purpose. That is the usual practice in this House. He also said that there was really no case for making a special exception with respect to this kind of publication.
  I do not hold any brief for such publications, but a great deal of the argument which we have heard has been upon the footing that we are here trespassing—no doubt perfectly justifiably and, indeed, necessarily—upon the complete freedom of publication. I repeat that this is a necessary Bill, but that does not prevent us from making changes where changes are necessary.
  The case for the Amendment is that these types of publication should be differentiated from the wider categories of commerce which are imported in contradiction to the provisions of the Customs and Excise Act and other relative enactments. We say that it is not in the public interest that the Customs authorities should be able to pass judgment upon certain imported publications and that that judgment should, in effect, remain unchallenged, as it virtually does, so long as the onus for testing the validity of the action of the Customs authorities rests upon the importer.
  We say that the condemnation by the Customs authorities is an important matter, which should not take place as a matter of course. If the Customs authorities elect to say that a certain publica-
  292
  tion offends against the provisions of the Bill, public interest requires that that decision should be tested. As the Solicitor-General has pointed out, it will not always be so tested if the onus rests upon the importer, because he may want to keep quiet about the matter.
  We say that the Customs authorities ought, therefore, to be put to their election. Either they are prepared to back their judgment by a prosecution in the courts or they are not—and if they are not the automatic result ought to be that the supposedly offending articles are returned to the importer. There is a case for treating these publications in a different way from that which is accorded to the wider category of imported goods which are prohibited. I simply ask the Solicitor-General to bear in mind the fact that we really have some feelings about the Amendment, which, in the first place, was proposed not by an hon. Member from this side of the House but by the hon. and learned Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster). I put it to the Solicitor-General that this matter requires consideration. I hope he will think about it again and see whether effect cannot be given to the Amendment.
  Mr. Niall Macpherson: The Amendment, as the Solicitor-General says, is in two parts, the first part dealing with personal seizure. We should consider the poor foreigner coming into this country. He does not know the law. Under the Amendment, as I understand the matter, the Customs would have to bring an action against anyone from whom they seized one of these papers.
  Sir F. Soskice: We suggest that the police should have to bring a prosecution if they were not prepared to return the goods.
  Mr. Macpherson: I wonder whether the foreigner would wish this to happen. He would much rather sacrifice one or two publications which he came in with, not knowing that they were contrary to the law, and he would not want to have an action brought against him. We ought to consider the convenience not only of persons who know the law of this country but of persons who will not know the law, whether foreigners, or British subjects who have been abroad for some time.

  293
  I quite understand what the Amendment is driving at, and I agree with something in the second part of it, although I am not certain that this point is not already covered in the Bill. The first part suggests a most cumbersome form of procedure to deal with what is likely to be a very small matter.
  Mr. Keenan: I cannot agree with what was said by the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson). He is very worried about the foreigner's feelings, but the foreigner is not entitled to better treatment than anybody else. One who travels to another country has to do what is expected of him, or accept the consequences. We have to do it when we go abroad. There is no case for consideration there.
  Two points worry me. I am not anxious to make the Bill less effective, but I am not satisfied that the Customs authorities are in a very strong position. I should like to see the position strengthened. It does not seem that action will be taken promptly by the Customs. It may be rather delayed action of the kind about which we have often complained. I agree that there should be a time limit. Where the Customs authorities have made a seizure and proceedings can be taken, the position should not be left there indefinitely. There ought to be a period during which action could be taken. The time that has been suggested is reasonable, and the Government should look at the matter again from that point of view.
  8.15 p.m.
  Mr. Rees-Davies: If we are to extend censorship by Customs, as this proposal undoubtedly does, let us see precisely what will be brought in. Importers with criminal intent will try to bring in not publications, but plates. Plates will be what the Customs will have to detect. The Customs will have to ascertain what is in packages, and which cannot easily be seen. If films or plates are brought in, the Customs will be put into difficulties. I do not think it is practical to ensure the seizure of this class of goods at the moment of entry.
  We are in danger of opening the door very widely to censorship by Customs officers. They are not only to deal with plates of publications, but of other people, since photography is very widespread.
  294
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster) made a very wise speech on this subject during the Second Reading. He said:
  " I am not sure whether somebody who imports a work of this kind is open to punishment under the Bill "—
  he is not, as I see it, open to punishment in the first place—
  " If he is open to punishment under a Section of the Customs Act, I should have thought that that was inadequate and that the Bill ought to provide that anybody who imports a work of this sort should be caught by Clause 2."
  That is strengthened. My hon. and learned Friend went on to say:
  " It is also undesirable that when these works are imported the machinery of prosecution should be started by the Customs and that, in a sense, the person who imports them should have the onus of having to object to the seizure."
  He was asked by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) a question in these terms:
  " The hon. and learned Gentleman has referred to the importation of these publications, but surely it is not so much the importation of the publication as of the plate or film. Would he seek seizure of the plate or film? "
  My hon. and learned Friend replied:
  " Yes, but I would like the Bill to say that if the plates were seized the person importing them should be prosecuted. Most of the prosecutions have occurred under the procedure by which the Customs judge whether the plates infringe an Act of Parliament. They then seize them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd February, 1955; Vol. 537, c. 1090 and 1091.]
  I will just stop there.
  How can they judge, until they have seized the plates first They seize them, and put them under the proper processes in order to see what they are. Then the Customs has to set itself up as deciding whether this is or is not a horror comic. How can it be
  " wholly or mainly a story told in pictures,"
  as Clause 1 requires This is an individual plate and it cannot come within the ambit of Clause 1.
  This is why I think there will be difficulty about this procedure. It certainly will not be easy. I am by no means satisfied that the Amendment has been properly drafted. We are on rather dangerous ground here. I invite the Government. while not giving way to the Amendment, to say that they will look at the matter from that point of view, and

  295
  find something better before the Report stage.
  Mr. Foot: Here, we have a rather topsy-turvy situation. We have had Liberal views coming from the hon. Member for Kirkdale (Mr. Keenan).
  Mr. Keenan: I must protest against my hon. Friend identifying me with Liberal views. That is something which I resent. I was a Socialist probably before my hon. Friend was born.
  Mr. Foot: If my hon. Friend thinks I was trying to insult him he is wrong. I was trying to compliment him. If he thinks my compliments are insults I had better try my insults. I genuinely wanted to pay a tribute to him for his speech, in which he appealed to the Government to exercise a liberal spirit about the Amendment and to recognise the validity in what was proposed. In all fairness to my hon. Friend, I was saying—I know he feels strongly about the rest of the Bill—that it did him credit that he was prepared to support the Amendment. Although I respect his opinions but dislike them very much, I wanted to compliment him.
  I also wanted to illustrate the topsy-turvy situation we have got into on the Amendment. Not only have we had my hon. Friend, I will not say giving the views of Liberalism this time but certainly contradicting what he has said on previous Amendments, but we have had the Opposition Front Bench pressing the Government very hard to accept the Amendment. I am altogether in favour of that slight modification of previous proceedings.
  Even more remarkable, we have had a speech from the National Liberal Party. It is a welcome innovation. I thought we were going to have a full burst of Free Trade doctrine. The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson) spoke for the rights of foreigners, but would not like the protections which we would give them. He thought that this was a good Amendment on that account. Then we heard an hon. Member opposite, who has been a most consistent contributor to these debates, giving better reasons why the Government should accept a different point of view than the Government have been able to advance against
  296
  it. I hope that the Government will accept the technical arguments which have been put forward.
  I confess I was a little dubious about the merits of the Amendment when I heard of it. I was not sure that it was really necessary. When I heard the Solicitor-General I was absolutely convinced of its necessity. The Solicitor-General argued against the Amendment on grounds which really make a laughing stock of a large part of the Bill. He does not seem to understand what we have been arguing about all along. I am glad that we have plenty of time in which to discuss the rest of the Bill, because we may be able to educate the right hon. and learned Gentleman as to what we are concerned about.
  What some of us on this side, and many on the other, have been arguing throughout is that we really think there is some difference between dealing with the publication of ideas, in whatever form, and dealing with other commodities. The main case of the Solicitor-General against this Amendment is to say, " Why should we give special treatment to people who happen to be publishing ideas, however monstrous? "
  Mr. W. R. Williams: Dirty ones.
  Mr. Foot: That is prejudging the issue.
  The Bill is trying to decide which ideas should be denounced as monstrous and damnable and which should not. Here we are dealing with a commodity—the expression of ideas, whether evil or not —and that is a different commodity from soap, coal, coffee and the other things which we import. The Solicitor-General says, " What is the difference? Why should we make any distinction with regard to the printed word or to pictorial representations?"
  Mr. Williams: Why?
  Mr. Foot: This is the reason why many of us have wished to scrutinise this Bill carefully. It is precisely because we do believe that in dealing with the printed or spoken word, or the expression of ideas in any form, different principles should apply than would be applied to the exchange of other commodities. If my hon. Friend does not recognise that distinction he will not be able to accept any case for free speech or freedom of

  297
  the printed word which has been expressed anywhere. The whole case for a different treatment of free speech, the whole case against censorship rests on the fact that the argument for free speech and free opinion—
  The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): I would remind the hon. Member that this Amendment deals only with the time in which proceedings may be brought.
  Mr. Foot: I am perfectly well aware of that, Sir Rhys, but the Solicitor-General rested his case exactly on the ground that if the importers of alleged horror comics were to be distinguished from those of other commodities it would be most unfair. I am arguing—and it is a good Liberal argument, I may say—
  The Deputy-Chairman: I do not object to its being a good Liberal argument as long as it is relevant.
  Mr. Foot: I take the old-fashioned view that good Liberal arguments are always relevant, and that such arguments are particularly relevant when the Solicitor-General says, " I do not draw any distinction between people who are selling ideas, whether good or bad, and people who are selling uranium or nylon stockings."
  I am sure that many of us have had differences with the Customs authorities on many matters. It may be very regrettable, but one of the cases in which the standards of public honesty are perhaps lower than they should be is when a person goes through the Customs. It may be very regrettable, but there are large numbers of people who, although in other matters are law-abiding, when they face the Customs authorities think, " If I can get past here it will be clever."
  Mr. W. R. Williams: Is this a Liberal confession?
  Mr. Foot: It is just that I am more outspoken than many. I am sure that many hon. Members who are now perhaps scorning me have indulged in that or thought that they would like to indulge in a similar case.
  The Deputy-Chairman: This argument is wide of the Amendment. The time in which proceedings shall be taken is the matter before the Committee.
  Mr. Foot: I am sure that the approval with which my views have been accepted shows that there are some who agree with the argument.
  No hon. Member would accept the Customs authorities as the proper body to judge these matters. This Amendment therefore proposes that there should be speedy treatment and that the Customs authorities should not be able to exercise power over publications for a long period. The Amendment has been moved in the most reasonable fashion. The only response is an argument from the right hon. and learned Gentleman that none of us would accept. I should have thought that it would hasten the whole procedure were the Solicitor-General now to withdraw his argument and say that since there has been such a powerful case put from the Opposition Front Bench he is prepared to accede to their demands, particularly in view of the assistance that the Opposition Front Bench has given to the Government in getting the Bill through as speedily as it is going through.
  Mr. Ede: I was born a Liberal. I developed into a Socialist because I saw no other end for Liberalism. I am quite certain that Socialism without Liberalism can be the most appalling tyranny. I say that because we are dealing here with the problem that is presented by the existing Customs law. Documents that may fall within the prohibition of Clause 4 will be seized merely because the Customs think those documents fall within that prohibition. The only way in which that can be tested is by the owner of the publications taking steps for their return. The onus of proceedings is put on him.
  8.30 p.m.
  This Amendment is concerned not so much with the time at which a prosecution takes place as with the fact that a prosecution shall take place. We are not wedded to the exact wording of this Amendment, and the Solicitor-General was generous enough to say that he was not arguing against this Amendment on its mere drafting. He was concerned with the ideas behind the Amendment. All sorts of people in the history of the world have been censors. The clergy and lawyers have been censors. The Lord Chamberlain is a censor of some things in this country, and young men in his office on occasion have to read things that

  299
  they decide would pollute the minds of other people.
  The people who ought not to be censors are Customs officers, and this Clause makes the Customs officer a censor. I would not have thought that one had to be nearly as vigorous a Liberal as I am to resent that. I would have thought that a Home Secretary who also had a Liberal upbringing ought to have some qualms of conscious at having to put before the Committee a Clause which made Customs officer censors. That is the matter at which this Amendment is aimed.
  I am not so much concerned with the foreigner walking down the gang plank with a horror comic in his pocket and who, when he is asked if he has anything to declare, produces it as evidence of the likelihood of his making a good citizen if he comes into this country. I am not concerned with him, because he has got to prove that he has brought it in from the United States of America with the purpose of selling it. I think that it would take a lot of proving, and I very much doubt whether anyone—a Customs officer or the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's immigration officer at the airport—would ever think of proceeding against him on those lines.
  But I am concerned about books and plays and leaving the judgment to the Customs officer. So far as I am concerned, if these are the kinds of publications on which there was a unanimous vote on Second Reading condemning them, I think the person concerned ought to be prosecuted and punished according to law in the appropriate court.
  This is a Bill which has given very serious concern to all of us. If my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot) thinks that on occasion we have been helping the Government too much, I want him to believe that we have done it because we do not want to see free speech villified by accepting under it the kind of thing at which this Bill is aimed. After all, there are some publications which have, no doubt, occurred in the history of the world which my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport might, after much heart searching, think were even a little too thick for him to defend and which, with a sound Methodist upbringing, he might find it within his heart to condemn.
  I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman and the Solicitor-General to believe that our misgivings about this Clause and its application of a censorship by Customs officers are genuine and deeply felt, and I hope that between now and Report they can find something which will relieve our anxiety on this point.
  Mr. Blackburn: I think the Solicitor-General passed over rather lightly the intervention which I made and which I think was relevant to the problem. I do not think he wants to be unfair to the Committee, but if he is to refuse an Amendment of this kind—not necessarily these words—then he ought to be a little more specific about the sort of proceedings which can be taken under existing legislation.
  It is the general view of the Committee that any one who brings these things into the country should receive punishment, and if the Government are not prepared to accept an Amendment on these lines, although not necessarily in these words—for I see that we cannot very well proceed under Clause 2 for importation—then we ought to have a very full explanation of how proceedings can be taken under existing legislation.
  The Solicitor-General: I do not pledge myself to having considered this aspect in detail at the moment, because the Amendment as it stood did not raise it, but clearly somebody evading a Customs prohibition would be subject to Customs penalties, in a bad case going literally as far as imprisonment. Such penalties are, of course, seizure and the usual series of penalties which attach to persons ordinarily called smugglers. After all, this is what the smuggler is doing—importing something to which a statute attaches a prohibition on imports.
  I hope the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) and the right hon. and learned Member for Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice) will accept at once that if they say they are serious in their belief about the Amendment, then the Government will of course accept that proposition, as I should accept it personally, and in consequence would look very carefully at the matter. We will do that. But I do not want to hold out false hopes about it because I feel that in speaking about " censorship " by the Customs in this context one is perhaps being a little artificial —and I use the word " censorship " in

  301
  inverted commas. We have all lived with and not disapproved of " censorship " by the Customs in relation to things like obscene publications or, to take an example admittedly far away, dirty postcards. We have all submitted for a long time to the Customs " censoring " those in the sense in which we are now speaking.
  I assure the hon. Member for Devon-port (Mr. Foot) first of all that I can never conceal my delight at listening to him in the House or elsewhere and secondly, that so far from failing to understand what he has been talking about in the discussion, that has not been my difficulty at all. I understood very well. My difficulty was to understand what it had to do with the kind of publications which we are dealing with in the Bill. That is rather a different matter. I hope and believe that the Customs officer trying to do his best does not want to be a censor of ideas or great works of art or to frustrate creative artistic products. He is only doing his best to try to catch something which we all regard as a horror comic.
  Mr. Maurice Orbach: How can the Customs officer determine that this is a prohibited article under the Act without having examined the whole of it? It must " as a whole," if we read Clause 1, tend to corrupt, and we shall therefore have Customs officers allowing every one to get through smuggling watches and nylon stockings while they are looking at a horror comic in order to be certain that the whole of it would corrupt.
  The Solicitor-General: I hope that by curing one evil we shall not encourage the practice of bringing in watches in one's socks or wherever people do bring them in. I am not giving the hon. Member any tips.
  These publications, in the ordinary way, are delivered in bulk. The matrix case is a different one and is a serious one. I do not think that the question of the publication " as a whole " is a worry, because it conies in " as a whole " in bulk if it comes in printed. The matrix is different. I think one is going a little far in thinking that the Customs officer will make himself the censor of serious literature or of the disseminator of serious ideas. I doubt whether, when he says that, the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot) has
  302
  had time—I was going to say to read, but that is the wrong word to see enough of these horror comics to visualise the object at which we are aiming this Bill.
  It is true that the Lord Chamberlain is allowed to censor, but the difference between the Lord Chamberlain and the Customs officer is that when the Lord Chamberlain says that a bit of strip-tease goes too far and shall not happen, one cannot send him a notice and challenge him in the courts, whereas if the Customs say, " Your publication is a horror comic " and one desires to say that it is not, it is only necessary to send the Customs a notice to make them take proceedings before they can condemn it.
  For these reasons, I do not want to raise false hopes. I would desire to deal with the matter in courtesy, because this is a Bill which has no inter-party element about it at all. We are only trying to get rid of an evil. The right hon. Gentleman has suggested that this matter should be looked at again, and I will, of course, look at it again. But I do not want to create false hopes because it creates great difficulties in relation to Customs practice. I do not believe that there is any grave danger that we should be having our ideas censored by Customs officers as opposed to having horror comics provisionally condemned by them.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 5.—(SHORT TITLE, INTERPRETATION, EXTENT AND COMMENCEMENT.)
  Mr. Roy Jenkins: I beg to move, in page 3, to leave out lines 17 and 18.
  This is another small Amendment with which I do not think it will take very long to deal. The effect of it would be to leave out subsection (3)—
  " No provision of this Act, other than the provisions of the last foregoing section, shall extend to Northern Ireland."
  I have no particular desire to extend this Bill to Northern Ireland, or indeed to anywhere else. I certainly do not want to press this Amendment at all hard, but I should like to know what the Government have in mind about it.
  The provisions of the last foregoing section are specifically applied to Northern Ireland because no doubt it is thought that there may otherwise be a

  303
  loophole in the ringed fence so far as Northern Ireland is concerned. These publications could be bought in Northern Ireland and shipped from there, thus getting round the provisions in that way. What is the Home Secretary expecting? Is he expecting that the Northern Ireland Parliament might take some parallel legislative action? If that is not so, what is the position in the horror comic industry which uproots itself from Leicester or Glasgow, or wherever it has been firmly established, and takes itself to Belfast or London? What then happens? Has the Home Secretary considered the possibilities in that event?
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Major Gwilym Lloyd-George): I can briefly tell the hon. Member the purpose of lines 17 and 18. It is shortly this. If the Amendment were accepted, the effect would be to apply the Bill as a whole to Northern Ireland. Legislation on this kind of question in Northern Ireland is, of course, the constitutional responsibility of the Government of Northern Ireland, except in so far as the prohibition of importation is concerned. That is one of the matters reserved for the United Kingdom Parliament.
  8.45 p.m.
  All that the Clause does is to preserve, as the hon. Member for Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) obviously knows, the Customs fence around the United Kingdom, Great Britain and Northern Ireland, so as to make more effective any legislation which the Northern Ireland Government may in their wisdom care to pass later on. Whether or not the Northern Ireland Parliament passes legislation to deal with this sort of publication, the Clause is needed to make the Customs fence effective without at the same time encroaching on the legislative functions of the Northern Ireland Parliament. Without it, it would be impossible to take effective proceedings against a person in Great Birtain for having imported works in his possession because he could always say he got them from Northern Ireland. I do hope the hon. Member will not press the Amendment.
  Mr. Roy Jenkins: In view of what the Home Secretary has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. N. Macpherson Mr. N. Macpherson rose—
  The Deputy-Chairman: It may be convenient to discuss the next Amendment, in page 3, line 20, at the end to add:
  (5) This Act shall continue in force until the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and sixty-one, and no longer unless Parliament otherwise determines.
  with both the proposed new Clauses headed " Duration."
  Mr. Ede: Is not the same issue raised—the date at which the Act shall expire—in the following Amendment in my name, in line 20? That Amendment seeks to add:
  (5) This Act shall continue in force until the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and sixty-five, and shall then expire, unless Parliament otherwise determines, and upon the expiration of this Act, subsection (2) of section thirty-eight of the Interpretation Act, 1889, shall apply as if this Act had then been repealed by another Act.
  The Deputy-Chairman: If the Committee is agreeable that Amendment could also be discussed at the same time.
  Major Lloyd-George: It may save time if I indicate at the outset that I am prepared to accept the Amendment to line 20 in the name of the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede).
  Mr. Macpherson: I am quite prepared to accept that.
  We took the view that perhaps ten years was a little long in view of the fact that experience could be got of the working of the Bill in a lesser time. It would surely be possible to obtain experience and to see how it was working in a shorter time. But, if it is the general feeling of the Committee that ten years is the appropriate time, I would be quite prepared not to move the Amendment which has been read out by you, Sir Rhys, and which stands in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Maclay).
  Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 3, line 20, at the end, to add:
  (5) This Act shall continue in force until the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and sixty-five, and shall then expire, unless Parliament otherwise determines, and upon the expiration of this Act, subsection (2) of section thirty-eight of the Interpretation Act, 1889, shall apply as if this Act had then been repealed by another Act.

  305
  The reason we selected ten years was this. One knows that the publishers of these publications in this country have temporarily gone out of business, but they have threatened what they will do if this Bill does not become law. We thought it would be as well to give them notice clearly that the House was determined to stamp out these publications. A period much less than ten years might not achieve that purpose.
  Ten years would give any Government that was in power various Governments may be in power within ten years—ample opportunity of seeing how far this trouble has totally disappeared. It is unlikely that people who are hoping that with a short interlude they could start again would feel that they could hold their forces in reserve for ten years and start again. Of course, if a Government came to the conclusion, during the ten years, that the evil had disappeared they could quite well come to the House and ask for the repeal of this Measure. What we are concerned to do is to give the evil doers stern notice that we do not intend that this harmful traffic shall be allowed to continue.
  Major Lloyd-George: I am sure that this Amendment, which I am willing to accept, is the one the Committee would prefer. I should like to add a word to what has been said by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson) thought that perhaps 10 years was too long. We think three, or even six, years is probably too short. I agree with the right hon. Member that we want to make it perfectly plain that we really mean to do away with these publications. I have no doubt that if this Bill had not been brought in the publications would have been resumed. The bringing in of the Bill has practically stopped them. At the same time, we are anxious to make it perfectly plain that the Bill is aimed only at the publications which we have in mind. That is why I am glad to accept the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment.
  Mr. Foot: I am extremely glad that the Government have accepted one of these Amendments. It deals with one of the main concerns which many of us on this side have discussed during the debates on the Bill: that is to say, we feared that
  306
  an Act introduced for an entirely different purpose might, after a number of years, be distorted for a quite opposite purpose.
  When my hon. Friend said earlier that he was desirous of trying to stamp out horror comics, and only horror comics, I accepted that that was what he had been seeking to do throughout, although what many of us have feared is that the Bill was not drawn sufficiently sharply to achieve that result and only that result, and we might have had differences of opinion on the matter.
  Personally, I should prefer the Government to limit the period to a shorter term. It is a fantasy to think that in five or six years' time, if the evil of horror comics is stamped out, the Government would come along one fine day and say, " Here is a Bill which is not in operation and is not having any value. Therefore, we think we will wipe it off the Statute Book." It would be all the more unlikely that the Government would wipe it off if the Act were being improperly used at that time. I should, therefore, prefer a shorter period.
  One of the main demands made during Second Reading was that the Government should fix a period. If they are prepared to accept this proposal, it makes a great difference to the rest of the Bill. I hope that the way in which this pressure was exerted during Second Reading, and the way in which it has influenced the Government, will make the Government understand—and, 1 would have hoped, make the courts understand when they operate the provisions of the Bill—what is the feeling of Parliament about it.
  Although many of us on this side have been criticised by the Government and by the Leader of the House, who has expressed his disappointment that the Bill has not proceeded more rapidly, we have very considerably improved the Bill. We have not been perfectionist in our demands. We have not tried to make a silk purse out of the cow's ear that the Government have offered to us. [HON. MEMBERS: " SOW'S ear.") I am sorry—we have not tried to make a silk purse out of the sow's ear that the Government have offered us. I am sure everyone understood exactly what I meant. Nevertheless, we have done our best. Therefore, the Government ought to be extremely grateful to those who have imported some Liberalism into a Bill

  307
  from which, when it was originally presented, that quality was absent.
  Mr. Ede: Following the metaphor used by my hon. Friend, some of us feel that the Government had the right sow by the ear.
  Mr. N. Macpherson: I agree with the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot) that the climate of opinion and the political atmosphere could considerably alter in ten years' time. I feel that the Committee as a whole is grateful to my right hon. and gallant Friend for the way in which he has considered this matter.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  New Clause.—(RIGHT TO BE HEARD IN COURT.)
  In any prosecution brought under this Act a person who wrote, drew or composed or printed or published the work in respect of which the prosecution is brought, shall be entitled, if he desires, to appear and to be represented in the proceedings and to be heard by the court upon the question whether the work is such a work as is described in section one of this Act.— [Mr. Roy Jenkins.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Roy Jenkins: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
  We seem to have been getting on so well and in such a friendly fashion that one can hardly recognise the Committee when one compares today's sitting with our previous sittings. We have had the Under-Secretary telling us that it was perfectly reasonable to move Amendments in Committee. We were very glad to hear that surprising view expressed from the Treasury Bench. We followed that up with a general good feeling all round, with support from the Government Front Bench, to whch my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot) referred, and by the Government accepting the last Amendment.
  That concession and the concession about the consent of the Attorney-General are important. I am not underestimating the importance of either point. I am grateful to the Home Secretary for going as far, but I feel that those concessions have not completely cleared up all the possible difficulties in relation to the Bill. The proposed new Clause deals
  308
  with perhaps one of the main points of outstanding importance. The provision in the Clause is a very reasonable one indeed. There can be no question at all of the Clause in any way weakening the Bill or in any way making it more possible for people to disseminate horror comics or objectionable publications of any sort.
  The Clause tries to provide against one of the difficulties which has existed in the law relating to objectionable literature up to this time. That is the position in which action is taken against the bookseller but not against the author or publisher, or perhaps against the bookseller and publisher and not against the author. In each case the bookseller is the most likely person to choose to plead guilty in order to avoid trouble to himself. There is then no possibility of the person whose good name is more directly involved than the bookseller's having the opportunity of offering a defence for the book.
  This is a difficulty which I can illustrate by giving one example. I hope that I shall not be accused, not by the Chair but by the Government Front Bench or the Opposition Front Bench, of taking the matter too wide, but in considering how the law works in practice in a comparable field we have to refer to the law in relation to obscene publications. There was an example in relation to the sale of Havelock Ellis's book " Sexual Inversion," in which Havelock Ellis prepared an elaborate defence which he could not present because the bookseller pleaded guilty and the author's case was prejudged. The fact that we are here dealing with a smaller and narrower issue is no reason why it should be dealt with in an unfair and unreasonable way.
  Those who draw, write or in any way produce horror comics may be highly undesirable people, but that is no reason why, if the work for which they have been responsible is made the subject of a criminal charge, they should not be given an opportunity to come before the court to say why, in their view, it ought not to be the subject of a charge. That seems to me an absolutely elementary principle of British justice. I hope that the Clause will not be rejected on the ground, to which the Solicitor-General came very near on a previous Amendment, that because this is not the position

  309
  with regard to the whole law relating to obscene publication, we cannot put this provision in the Bill. We can make a small start here, and I make no secret of the fact that I hope that it will be extended over a wider area.
  This is a provision which cannot weaken the Bill, but which can give people who may have their good names besmirched a reasonable chance to deploy before the court the defence which they wish to put for their work.
  9.0 p.m.
  The Solicitor-General: The hon. Member for Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) points out that the matter of grief in the sense of causing some person to be aggrieved in this context has really arisen in the wider field of obscene publications. But I want to make the point to the Committee that that is really a different case for this reason. This Bill is creating a criminal offence by the selling, letting for hire and so forth of these publications, but under the Obscene Publications Act no offence is created at all. The retailer is not defending under that statute. All that happens is that the particular publication is seized, and one well knows from professional experience how exasperated is the author of a publication which has been seized because he cannot go before the magistrate and say how admirable a work it is because he has no status to be there.
  But with this kind of prosecution the position is different, because here a publication cannot be condemned unless there is somebody before the court who is being challenged on the ground that he has committed a criminal offence by, as the case may be, selling or letting for hire or printing or publishing the publication. He has got to be there. I would suggest that there is much less risk dealing with the publications we are here dealing with than with some work of art or of literary merit.
  But there is this difficulty in practice. Under this new Clause, the prosecution have got to give an opportunity to the person who drew or composed one of these horror comics to be there in person. That would be very difficult in some cases because the creators of these masterpieces of offensive art are not so proud of their work that they sign it. We would have the greatest difficulty in finding out who they are. How on earth one is to provide
  310
  an opportunity for these people to come before the court to defend their works I do not know.
  I cannot provide an opportunity to defend the work unless I notify about the prosecution. But supposing the artist of one of these series of horror pictures happens to be in Philadelphia. I make no accusation against any particular place in the United States, from which I understand many of these publications come. But how can I afford an opportunity to such a person to gratify his desire if I am dealing with the matter on a police basis if I do not know who he is because he does not own his work? Therefore, what is the good of this provision if I do not know the artists concerned?
  There is another difficulty. Suppose we are dealing with works where there are stories told in pictures. I speak rather in ignorance of the matter, but I believe it is found that only one artist relates to one story, but there might be found a number of artists relating to a number of stories and there would be some delay at getting them all identified and giving them the opportunity of gratifying the desire to which this new Clause relates. Under what status do they come?
  In the ordinary kind of case which would arise one would expect that the retailer, having had his stock of what were thought to be obvious horror comics seized, would prefer to plead guilty than advertise that he sold such wares. Is the court not to be able to accept that plea of guilty until it has found and given an opportunity to a variety of American artists to come and explain that these are not horror comics at all? Are proceedings in justice to be held up until that is done?
  I do not at all mock at the underlying idea in this Clause in relation to the wider field to which the hon. Gentleman spoke, which is not here in question. But I submit it would be most impracticable to apply a Clause of this kind which is really unworkable to the kind of publication with which we are dealing. For that reason, I do not advise the Committee to accept the new Clause.
  Mr. Foot: I think that the learned Solicitor-General is quibbling. The purpose of my hon. Friend's new Clause is very simple. It is that if an author or an artist wishes to defend

  311
  himself, and feels that he ought to be able to do so, he should not be prevented because the newsagent, or someone else being prosecuted, pleads guilty.
  Is it beyond the legal ingenuity of the Government and the Solicitor-General to devise means whereby a man so smeared should have the right to defend himself? I do not think that it is. I have no exaggerated opinion of the legal department of the Government, but I believe that if the Government desired to give the man this protection they could do so. Instead of even discussing this new Clause, to decide whether some words might be changed in order to provide this protection, the Solicitor-General has said, " Oh, no, the thing is entirely impracticable."
  It is a perfectly simple purpose which my hon. Friend has in mind, and one which is desirable; as is illustrated by the law on obscene libel, the only experience we have in the operation of this kind of law. Yet the Solicitor-General does not make any attempt to discover whether there is some way to protect a man charged with having engaged in this kind of act, if he wishes to defend himself. The illustration given by my hon. Friend is exactly apposite. Havelock Ellis's book was put in court and a charge made against the bookseller, who pleaded guilty. Havelock Ellis was unable to defend himself, because the bookseller pleaded guilty. An author has no protection, and we are asking that he should be protected.
  If these people are guilty of these horrific crimes, they should have the right, at any rate, to defend themselves, if they wish. To say that it is impossible to devise any legal method by which they can be secured seems to me to be an outrage on commonsense. It would be much better were the Solicitor-General to apply himself to the case which has been put, and to say that if a man's work is to be judged in this way, he should be able to defend himself if he wishes.
  Mr. Keenan: Is it not possible for an author or artist to be brought forward as a witness?
  Major Lloyd-George: So far as we know, the artists and authors do not live in this country at all, and we cannot prosecute outside this country. We do not
  312
  even know their names. I have seen a good many of these publications, but in no publication which I have seen has an author or artist ever signed his name.
  Mr. Ede: In the early 19th and late 18th Centuries one of the ways in which books like " The Age of Reason " and " The Rights of Man " were suppressed was by prosecuting the wretched booksellers, and even their assistants. I have no doubt that we all have a pretty low opinion of people who thought that those works were worthy of prosecution.
  From what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has said, I take it that the reason he does not expect to prosecute any of the authors and artists concerned is because he believes that they live outside the jurisdiction—
  Mr. Rees-Davies: The Home Secretary cannot do so under Clause 2, where it states:
  " A person who prints, publishes, sells or lets on hire…. shall be guilty…"
  Authors and artists are entirely excluded. Therefore they will never be heard in this matter at all.
  Mr. Ede: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing my attention to that. If, in fact, it is the position that even if they were in this country they could not be proceeded against, that might in certain circumstances, well throw an unwarranted singleness of prosecution—if I may use that phrase—on the wretched bookseller or his assistants, who, presumably, would be liable for aiding and abetting the sale of the documents.
  I hope it will be made quite clear that if either an author or an artist concerned with these publications can be found within the jurisdiction, and the Attorney-General finds that there is a case against the publication written or drawn by such a person, steps will be taken to see that proceedings are taken against him and that the wretched bookseller or the librarian is not left to bear the whole brunt of the matter.
  Mr. Rees-Davies: I rise because I am sure that there has been some confusion on this point, and because I wish to support every word which my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General has said. Clause 2 is directed at the printer, the publisher and the retailer only. There is a reason for that. The author has not

  313
  been included, because, in practice, he is quite unable to be found.
  What happens in practice is that the person who wants to purvey this muck gets hold of a number of young artists who are willing to draw this class of material. They do the drawings from which the matrices or the plates are made. Those may well be in foreign countries or in this country, but mainly abroad. Therefore, from the purely practical point of view, I can conceive of no person who had written, drawn or composed the material on those plates wanting to appear before the court.
  I agree with every word of the principle put forward by the hon. Member for Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins). I can imagine nothing worse than the case in which an author of repute has signed his name to a book and is not allowed to appear in court because another person has advised the publisher to plead guilty. Though I am entirely with the hon. Gentleman in this, we should not confuse this Bill and the circumstances in which such a case would arise with the case of the author who may be proceeded against under the Obscene Publications Act.
  There is such a sharp divergence that I cannot agree that in this instance there is any case for putting it into this Clause. Quite frankly, I do not believe that any counsel would find it of any asistance in this case.
  Mr. Roy Jenkins: The hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) started off by saying that he endorsed every word of his hon. and learned Friend, but 1 am bound to say that I found his tone rather different from that of the Solicitor-General. I found it more sympathetic and more convincing, and, in view of that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
  Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

  New Clause.—(ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE.)
  Expert evidence shall be admissible of the religious, moral, legal, artistic, scientific, literary or educational merit or purpose of any publication that as a result of proceedings under this Act is before the court.—[Mr. Roy Jenkins.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  9.15 p.m.
  Mr. Roy Jenkins: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
  This Clause, as its language may indicate, is to some extent analogous to an Amendment to Clause 2 which was moved at an earlier stage in the Bill, though it covers a slightly different point, to which I shall refer in a moment.
  As I understand the position from the arguments adduced upon the previous Motion, there are two alternative lines of approach to this question. The first is that no publication which can possibly be brought under the Bill can have any merit of any sort and the second is that if it has any merit it becomes the more damaging, and one must be especially careful of works which may be well drawn and have artistic merit, because they may nevertheless be corrupt. I suggest that those are two contradictory points of view.
  The point about expert evidence is a fairly simple one. In considering whether a publication is objectionable there ought always to be a possibility of rebuttal on the ground that although the publication might be held by some people to have certain undesirable effects upon some other people, nevertheless it has certain substantial advantages. It would certainly be legitimate to argue that witnesses who had expert knowledge of the subjects dealt with, knew the publication, and were prepared to testify in its favour, should be allowed so to do.
  Under the existing provisions of the law of obscene libel no such evidence is admissible; neither would it be under the provisions of the Bill. I freely admit that the new Clause applies with much greater force to the wider issue which we have had in our minds throughout our discussions. For that reason I shall not press the new Clause nearly as strongly as I should if we were dealing with that wider issue, but it is conceivable that the question may arise in the case of matter proceeded against under the Bill, and I therefore ask the Joint Under-Secretary to consider whether it is not reasonable to insert such a provision.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: The proposed new Clause is unnecessary. In view of the type of publication with which the Bill is concerned and the fact that no proceedings

  315
  can be taken without the consent of the Attorney-General, it is most unlikely that a court would ever require to hear evidence about the sort of matters referred to in the new Clause. I apprehend that in any circumstances in which it was thought necessary to call evidence of this kind, such evidence would clearly be admissible, even without the Clause. I do not think that that evidence could possibly be relevant to the question, but if any relevant evidence of an expert kind were required I imagine that it would be admitted in the ordinary way.
  Mr. Jenkins: I think that the hon. Member is under a genuine misapprehension, which I should like to clear up. Here again we come to the borderline between the law of obscene libel and the law which the Bill would institute, but I should have thought that it would be within the knowledge of the hon. Member that in at least one of the cases in which action was taken in relation to the offence of obscene libel during the last year, expert evidence of the highest calibre was available to the court but was held to be not admissible.
  Why does the hon. Member think that if such evidence existed it would be held to be admissible under the Bill without the new Clause, whereas, during the last year, it has been clearly held not to be admissible in cases relating to the offence of obscene libel?
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: The law relating to obscene libel is quite different from that which would be enacted by the Bill. I do not say that any such evidence as the hon. Member suggests might be brought would always be admissible, but what I do say is that if, in some circumstances which I find it difficult to envisage, such evidence were relevant to the question whether or not the publication tended to corrupt, I apprehend that the court would admit it.
  In any event I must therefore tell the Committee that the proposed alteration is unnecessary and for that reason the proposed new Clause should not be added to the Bill.
  Mr. Roy Jenkins: The remarks which the Under-Secretary of State has made show—and I do not say this disrespectfully—an astonishing ignorance of the problem with which we are dealing. I understand that expert evidence has been
  316
  held to be admissible under the general law because the test of corruption is purely objective. We can only have this objective test where there is a tendency to corrupt. That is repeated in the Bill and it becomes irrelevant that the work has other merit.
  I was shocked to hear the Under-Secretary of State say that he does not appreciate that point, and that the Amendment is unnecessary on that ground. One of the main burdens of our complaint against the Government is that, even having got the consent of the Attorney-General, we cannot think that he might make a mistake. We are continually having to accept that if the Attorney-General says that a prosecution must take place it is inconceivable that anything other than a highly undesirable work is involved. That is not in line with all past experience of the law, and I therefore ask the Under-Secretary to look closely at the matter again in case there is a possibility, which, I admit, is rather remote, that he will correct his previous statement.
  Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: Lord Justice Denning has said that everything that is relevant is admissible and everything that is irrelevant is inadmissible. The only reason why the evidence that the hon. Member for Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) wishes to adduce might be ruled out is on the ground that it tends to usurp the functions of the court and to answer the very questions which the court itself must answer. It wishes to produce an expert in morals among other things who will decide what it is the court's function and sole function to decide. I am not sure whether that is the reason why such evidence is inadmissible under the law of obscene libel and I do not know whether it applies to this question.
  The hon. Member has at least made out a case of doubt, and I would ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to look at it again and consider whether the reason why the proposed new Clause is unnecessary or objectionable is for the reason I have suggested, that it seeks to usurp the functions of the court. We all know how dangerous experts are if they seek to dictate what the court shall decide. If that is the reason why the proposed new Clause is objectionable, then I should be against it.
  Mr. Foot: In the absence of the Attorney-General, the Committee should be able to dispose of this matter quickly. Surely the Under-Secretary would be willing to say that he will look at the proposed new Clause in view of what has been said on both sides, and will make a statement on the Report stage. The Amendment previously moved was concerned partly with the same subject. The Under-Secretary might see whether on a question of law he was correct in what he told us, and whether he will reconsider the whole matter and make a further statement at a later stage.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: From what my hon. Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) said I understood that he put the case as I tried to put it, but in a slightly different way—although I think that I agree with what he said. It amounts to this. If the evidence is relevant it will be admitted. If it it not relevant it is no good saying that by law it shall be admitted. As it will be irrelevant it will be quite unnecessary to admit it. There is no point, therefore, in saying that the court shall admit evidence which is not relevant.
  Mr. Roy Jenkins: To clarify the position perhaps the Joint Under-Secretary will answer a question. We have necessarily to deal with a hypothetical case. If proceedings were taken against a book on the grounds that it was an obscene libel would the court admit as relevant evidence that it had been reviewed by the " Observer," " The Times Literary Supplement," the " Spectator," the " New Statesman " and even the " Tribune "?
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I should not regard anything relating to the law on obscene publications as being relevant to this Bill, as I have said on at least three occasions.
  318
  I must tell the hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Foot) that this point has been very fully considered and that, for the reasons which I have given, I cannot really hold out any hope that we are likely to take any different view in regard to it.
  Question put, and negatived.

  New Clause.—(DEFENCE BEFORE COURT.)
  In any prosecution brought under this Act any person charged with selling or letting on hire a work to which this Act applies shall be entitled to argue that he was unaware of the nature of the work he was selling or letting on hire and no conviction against such a person under this Act shall be possible if this claim is established to the satisfaction of the court.—[Mr. Foot.]
  Brought up and read the First time.
  Mr. Foot: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
  I shall not take up much time because I never like to push at an open door. This is a rare occasion for me. The hon. Gentleman said that he was willing to see whether some protection could be provided for the newsagent or bookseller. Although he did not definitely promise, he said he would look at this before the Report stage and I should not like to upset things at all. I hope that, as he promised, the hon. Gentleman will look carefully at this and come back, on Report, a wiser, more magnanimous and more liberal man than when he came into the general proceedings. I am sure that that is the spirit in which he would like to deal with the matter; that is how I should like it dealt with. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
  Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended to be considered Tomorrow; and to be printed. [Bill 671

WIRELESS AND TELEVISION (INTERFERENCE)
9.29 p.m.
Mr. James MacColl: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Wireless Telegraphy (Control of Interference from Electric Motors) Regulations, 1955 (S.I., 1955, No. 291), dated 23rd February, 1955, a copy of which was laid before this House on 1st March, be annulled.
Perhaps it would be in order to take with this Prayer the one which follows, which relates to the control of interference from refrigerators?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): I think that would be to the advantage of the House. The two Prayers are very much on all fours.
Mr. MacColl: I think it would be to the advantage of the House because, owing to what to outsiders seems a strange procedure, my only object in moving a Prayer against the second Regulations is to show how much better they are than the first.
The first Regulations deal with the problem of the interference caused to television by electric motors. I should like to say at the beginning that I am not one of those who adopt a somewhat superior attitude towards television. I am myself a television fan, and I also have in my house a number of radio sets which are in fairly frequent use and, as far as I know, fully licensed. Therefore, I approach this matter from a perfectly sympathetic point of view, appreciating the difficulty and appreciating also the importance of people behaving like good neighbours and not making a nuisance of themselves to other people. But the acceptance of that general approach does not settle the question whether or not these Regulations are necessary or whether, if they are necessary, they are the kind of Regulations that ought to be laid before the House.
It is possible that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply, who I understand, in the unfortunate absence of the Assistant Postmaster-General, is going to answer some of these points, may be inclined to say that this is all rather a fuss about very little and that there is not really very much involved. Of course,
320
that is a very old and well-worn excuse, and I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary's baby is as small as are most Ministerial ones.
The difference between these Regulations and the ones that follow is this. The second set of Regulations dealing with refrigerators refer to what is to be done in the manufacture of refrigerators, and that is a reasonable thing to do. It is reasonable to say that if somebody is going to put on the market an electrical apparatus, it ought to be made in such a way that it will not be a nuisance to other people. I do not think anyone can quarrel with that.
The present Regulations do not deal with that at all. They deal with the position of private citizens who in their own homes have got electrical apparatus which they have bought in perfectly good faith on the open market and which they have been using in many cases for quite a long time. Therefore, it is a serious matter. I hope that one of the things that the Parliamentary Secretary is going to tell us is precisely what the powers taken under these Regulations are, what the penalties are, what the procedure is as regards enforcement of them and what the right of entry into a house and the right of search are.
I think I know the answer. I think it is contained in Sections 11, 14 and 15 of the Wireless Telegraph Act, 1949, but I think the House and the public are entitled to know precisely what are the duties which have been laid upon them and what are the powers which the Government are taking in order to enforce those duties. They get precious little information from reading the Regulations and that is really the first point I want to make.
These Regulations are not technical Regulations dealing with professional and technical men who, in the normal course of their business, are able to cope with the problem. This is the position of the ordinary member of the public—the enormous numbers of people who have got some type of electrical apparatus and who need to know to what type of apparatus the Regulations are going to apply, what precise test is going to be applied and what they have got to do to comply with the Regulations.
If they try to find out what is involved, most of them, and certainly I, will find it

321
somewhat difficult. The Regulations apply to electric motors
" having a continuous rating of less than 1 horse power per 1,000 revolutions per minute."
How many housewives who have a vacuum cleaner or a refrigerator know whether or not it has
" a continuous rating of less than 1 horse power per 1,000 revolutions per minute "?
What about the electric shaver—a very important and necessary piece of apparatus? I have not the foggiest idea how many horses it takes to shave my five o'clock shadow, and I do not know that I or any other member of the public can be expected to know whether that matter comes within the ambit of the Regulations.
Having ascertained the matter to which it is to apply, it has to conform to a requirement, and the requirement is defined in Regulation 3. This is where the human emotion of the Regulations begins to come out, because it reads:
" The requirement hereinbefore referred to is that when the electric motor is used:

(a) the voltage of electro-magnetic energy at the electric supply line terminals of the electric motor, as measured and computed in accordance with regulation four, shall not exceed:—

(i) seven hundred and fifty microvolts where the measurement is made at any frequency between forty and seventy megacycles per second; ".

That is not the only point. It shall not exceed:

" (ii) one thousand five hundred microvolts where the measurement is made at any frequency between two hundred kilocycles per second and one thousand six hundred and five kilocycles per second; and

(b) the field strength of electro-magnetic energy radiated in any direction from the electric motor, as measured and computed in accordance with regulation four, shall not exceed."

and so on and so forth. That may cause a certain amount of difficulty to the conscientious housewife or the gentleman who is contemplating his electric shaver.
Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: Has the hon. Gentleman looked at page 4 and the paragraph " spurious responses"? He will find that very revealing.
Mr. MacColl: I was warming up to the question of measurement. The next stage in the preparation is, having as it were isolated the matter and having dis-
322
covered the requirement, we have to find out whether or not, as law abiding citizens, we are conforming to these Regulations; and in order to do that we have to use a " calibrated radio receiver " and we read that:
" attenuators calibrated in decibels shall be provided in the input circuits of both R.F. and 1.F. amplifiers."
Of course the Parliamentary Secretary knows what a decibel is, but in case there should be anybody who does not know what a decibel is the Regulations kindly explain, as follows:
" The term ' decibel ' (abbreviated db) expresses the logarithmic ratio of two voltages or e.m.f's. The ratio of two voltages V1 and V2 expressed in decibels is 20 times the logarithm to the base 10 of V1/V2… "
One could go on picking out these points, and I know that it is perfectly easy to get a little amusement out of pulling to pieces the technical jargon of many Orders, but I again emphasise that these are not Regulations passing through in the ordinary course of business to be dealt with by technicians. They vitally affect every householder and every lay person, and if those of us who are sent here by our constituents to represent them have not the foggiest idea as to what most of this means and what a calibrated attenuator is or a decibel or a sine wave. we cannot expect other lay people to know. It is important to know that references to the voltage of a sine wave are to its
" effective or root mean square value,"
and therefore we must keep that in our minds while contemplating our vacuum cleaner.
That is the first point to which I want the Parliamentary Secretary to address himself. To what does it all apply; how do we find out whether it applies to our own piece of mechanism; what do we do when we have found out whether it applies to it?
The second point I want to make concerns penalties. Is it right, as I think is the case, that the Wireless Telegraphy Act allows a right of search? It may be—I do not know—that there is a strong case and that this kind of interference is so vital that it may be the sort of horror comic of the electric world—something for which we must drive a coach

323
and horse through our civil liberties. I do not know.
I do not know what evidence there is that this is necessary, but it is a pretty serious thing when one is quietly using one's electric shaver and contemplating oneself in the mirror if there suddenly pops up a little gentleman in a bowler hat and pin-striped trousers, with an attenuated calibrator or a calibrated attenuator, as the case may be, and starts telling one that the decibels are excessive. [Laughter.] It is all very well for hon. Members to laugh. We are here legislating against the liberty of the subject, and I venture to say that not even my right hon. Friend in his most fervid planning moments would have lightly undertaken something like this.
I am an ardent and fanatical planner, and I am perfectly well aware that where the public interest demands it may be necessary to interfere with the liberty of people and to enforce Regulations of this kind, but I do not believe in snooping and that sort of thing and I ask the Parliamentary Secretary why a Conservative Government, which has set the people free and stands above all for the fact that an Englishman's home is his castle, has found it necessary to prevent one shaving in peace in one's own home and should have the right of search and the right of inspection, not only of one's shaving, but of whether one is using the right amount of decibels.
There is a further point which arises out of these complications. I know that the Parliamentary Secretary may be inclined to say that this is all rather exaggerated stuff and that what will happen is that a nice gentleman from the Post Office will come and tell us that we are causing a little trouble with our Hoover and we had better have something done to it, and that he will himself have the right measuring instruments and so on.
But there is a very real danger here of the exploitation of these Regulations by people with dubious technical qualifications and by the kind of small-time spiv who likes to bluff simple people into thinking that he knows something about this matter. It would be very easy for someone to come knocking at the door, saying, " There have been complaints in the street of your interference. I know a lot about this, and I am very willing to
324
help you." He has a look round and says, " Obviously it is your refrigerator that is causing the trouble." He then tries to sell some kind of phoney and perhaps unnecessary piece of apparatus at considerable expense.
The Parliamentary Secretary may say, " This can be done for a few shillings, but it is easy to convince people that in their case it is a very complicated type of decibel and therefore will have to have a very complicated piece of machinery. There is a danger that because ordinary members of the public cannot understand what the Regulations are about, they are open to exploitation by unscrupulous people. If the Government want legislation on a private and domestic matter like this, it is up to them to make the legislation perfectly clear, plain and simple.
Finally, there is one other point which I want to raise. I am told in my constituency that one—not, perhaps, the most important but a very significant and important—cause of interference to radio is in fact television itself. I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary why is there not a quid pro quo. I am a television fan, and I am not trying to crab television at all, but if it is necessary to interfere with people's private domestic life in order that their neighbours may have decent television reception, why should a quid pro quo not be provided so that people whose radio is interfered with by television can have some kind of protection? That is not provided, I understand, in these Regulations.
I am told that interference is caused to the Third Programme by television. To a Government which wants to desecrate our cultural standards by commercial television, that may seem a matter of very little importance, but I think that my hon. Friends—who always listen to the Third Programme—will agree that this is a matter in which we want to preserve the standards of those who take their listening seriously. Some hon. Member listening quietly to a talk on " Mithraic sex customs " may suddenly find the whole thing distorted and interfered with by the oscillations of the television next door. If there is a real danger of interference by television, surely the Parliamentary Secretary can include that in his Regulations.
I have tried to make the case as best 1 can on this subject because, as I say, it

325
might be a small matter. I should have thought that in the passage of time most electrical apparatus would have the necessary protection automatically put on at the manufacturing end. Surely that is where the advantage of the second Regulations comes in—refrigerators should be tackled in the factories.
In the process of time old electrical apparatus will wear out and be replaced and the problem will become increasingly smaller. I should have thought that with the two great weapons to protect television—that the old-fashioned apparatus will gradually diminish and the fundamental decency and good neighbourliness of most people—this problem would be dealt with. If advised what to do, most people would be most anxious to prevent interference with other people's enjoyment. Approached in the right way, they would do what was necessary perfectly willingly. But, brandish Regulations at them and start rushing around with attenuated calibrators, with decibels and sine waves, quite rightly we put people's backs up. A right-thinking householder does not want a snooper to tell him what to do.
I think the Government are defeating their own ends; they would have been wiser to have left the matter alone, or tackled it in a more tactful way. If we have a law giving the right of search and right of entry into a private house, we must first have an overwhelming need for it and, secondly, make quite certain that the law we are enforcing is so crystal clear that the ordinary layman, the decent citizen, can understand what it is all about. These Regulations are a mockery which ought never to have been laid on the Table of the House.
9.48 p.m.
Mr. F. Blackburn: I beg to second the Motion.
My hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) has dealt so eloquently and comprehensively with these Regulations that it is not necessary for me to add anything to what he has said.
9.49 p.m.
Sir Ian Fraser: If I remember rightly, it was the Labour Government who passed the Bill which gave powers to the Post Office to make Regulations of this kind. I was one of the very few in this House who
326
objected to that Bill at that time. I remember saying that I thought it was up to those who made television sets and who transmit television so to design it that it achieved its purpose without causing inconvenience to millions of householders.
It seems strange that opposition to this set of Regulations should come from hon. Members opposite. If there is any blame in this matter it ought to be squarely placed on the Postmaster-General of five or six years ago, who obtained the powers which are now being criticised. I do not want to make a party point—[Laughter.] —I really do not—but to deal with the merits of this matter, to which there are two sides.
I suppose it is almost impossible to transmit a satisfactory television signal to a fringe area 50 or 60 miles away from the transmitter against a strong wave of local interference. Unless a very good neighbourly attitude is developed among our people, or unless powers of advice or persuasion are available, I suppose that large numbers of people will have their television sets spoilt.
Some of the spoiling is done by public authorities, owners of vehicles—who can quite well afford to fit suppressors—and by railways. In my constituency, an electric railway runs alongside a number of streets, and when it came into operation a few months ago, having been suspended for the war period, it interfered with literally hundreds of people trying to watch their television. I made representations and the Post Office did very well in helping to cure the trouble. No doubt public authorities will take a public interest view about such matters.
I do not think it is really wrong that there should be some power to deal with the matter. What I am not quite so sure about is the power to compel the little person, who does not understand what it is about, to fit apparatus to common household articles.
There is a little lady in my constituency who wrote to me about this very matter. She said, " Am I to be compelled, for the sake of a rich neighbour with a television set, to look at my electric iron, to fit something to my vacuum cleaner, and to consider whether the fan in my kitchen will interfere with his television set? He is rich and I am poor, and if he wants to see better in his television set, let him pay for the suppressor."

327
There is something to be said for that point of view. Why should the poor little person, using his accustomed appliance that he has had for years, be made to pay for the rich neighbour who has a television set? That is the other side of the matter. The Government should hesitate before taking powers to interfere with little people in their homes and their private domestic apparatus.
9.53 p.m.
Mr. Beresford Craddock: I have great sympathy with what has been said in support of the Prayer. I feel that in this matter we are getting ourselves into a completely absurd position.
We are extending the field of regulations for all sorts of electric apparatus, and it seems to me that that is quite absurd when one considers that one of the greatest means of interference with television reception is the aeroplane. I live in Hendon, not far from the Hendon aerodrome, where aircraft are continually taking off and landing. There is constant interference from those aircraft. I am informed by my technical friends that it is quite impossible to do anything with an aircraft engine which would stop that interference.
If that is so, it strikes me as quite absurd that any Government, of whatever complexion, should be indulging in what I am bound to regard as petty restrictions, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) said, may well bear heavily on the small person. I should have thought that the proper way was to turn the whole position the other way round.
I am informed by my technical friends that it is possible to attach a gadget to a television set to screen it and so prevent any interference. If that is correct, and I am told on very high authority that it is, I should have thought that that is the way to tackle this problem. I hope that the Government will look at the matter again on the lines which I have mentioned.
9.55 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Sir Edward Boyle): It might be for the convenience of the House if, at this point, I explained the purpose of the Regulations and answered some of the points which have been put
328
in debate. I am sure that the whole House regrets the absence through illness of my hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General. I am glad to say that he is recovering and that he should be back with us after Easter. I should like to thank the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) for the very agreeable manner in which he moved the Motion. In view of his earlier remarks, I might say that I have neither marital nor parental responsibility.
These Regulations have been made by virtue of powers conferred upon my noble Friend the Postmaster-General by Section 10 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1949, as my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) correctly said. Part II of the 1949 Act requires the Postmaster-General to set up advisory committees to advise him on the substance of any regulations which he may wish to make for dealing with interference from various types of electrical apparatus. As the House will be aware, Regulations have already been made with regard to the ignition systems in motor cars. All new motor cars have had to be fitted with suppressors by the manufacturers, as from 1st July, 1953. There has been pressure on more than one occasion to make this requirement compulsory for old cars as well, but this pressure has been always resisted, for reasons which are outside the scope of this debate.
I pass on to the two sets of Regulations which are being prayed against tonight. I deal, first, with the Regulations relating to refrigerators. Under these Regulations, every electric refrigerator manufactured, assembled or imported after 1st September this year must be fitted by the manufacturer with any necessary suppressors. What about the many thousands of refrigerators sold before 1st September this year? There will be no obligation on any manufacturer with regard to those, but if they cause interference they will come under the other Regulations dealing with small electric motors, which I am about to explain.
Statutory Instrument No. 291, which contains the other Regulations, lays it down that, after 1st September this year, the owner of any new or old appliance which contains a small motor and causes any interference with television or radio sets can be compelled to stop the interference. I will give examples, for which

329
the hon. Member for Widnes asked, of some of the appliances which are most likely to cause trouble. In the home there are vacuum cleaners, sewing machines, hair driers, egg beaters, cake mixers, electric washing machines and electric floor polishers. In industry there are electric drills and tools of that kind.
In passing, I might say, on the point of publicity, that there was a normal Post Office " Press Notice " of these Regulations on 1st March this year. As far as I know, there has been no difficulty in the Press and the general public discovering the main lines of the Regulations. We shall do all we can to see that they are generally known.
The House will have noticed one important difference between the two sets of Regulations. The hon. Member for Widnes alluded to it. Whereas Statutory Instrument No. 292, relating to refrigerators, places an obligation upon the manufacturers, Statutory Instrument No. 291 applies to the users of apparatus which incorporates a small motor. Hon. Members may reasonably ask why we are dealing with refrigerators differently from other apparatus incorporating a motor. The reason is quite simple.
It is that a refrigerator may often be in use throughout the 24 hours of the day and, therefore, can cause much more constant trouble than, for example, a small motor working a sewing machine or a hair drier, which is used only occasionally. Suppose it is a hot summer day, and the family think they would like to watch the television broadcast of the Test Match. It is then quite possible to arrange not to use the hair drier on that day whereas it may be disastrous to turn off the refrigerator. That is why these two sets of Regulations are rather different in form.
I think the House might like to know to what extent refrigerators and small motors have been causing trouble up to now and what action we have already taken. I understand that 2,800 complaints were received about refrigerators during 1954. Most of these complaints arose from old types of refrigerators, and all that was necessary, in the vast majority of cases, was the simple operation of inserting a suppressor.
The figures for interference caused by small motors are interesting. During 1954 there were about 10,000 complaints
330
about sewing machines, 7,500 complaints about hair driers, 4,300 complaints about vacuum cleaners and 3,500 complaints about electric drills. The vast majority of these complaints related to television reception, but quite a substantial number of these small motors affected ordinary sound radio reception as well; and in this connection I should like to emphasise that the Regulations which we are discussing this evening relate to sound broadcasting as well as to television.
This may seem a rather large number of complaints, but it is worth remembering that the sales of these electrical appliances have been extremely large during the past year. For example, I understand that during this period vacuum cleaners have been sold at the rate of 70,000 a month, and electric sewing machines at the rate of about 4,000 a month. All these cases of interference were duly investigated by my noble Friend's Department, and in the majority of cases all that was needed was for suppressors to be fitted. With very few exceptions this was done without any demur, but I should like to make it quite plain that the sole purpose of these two sets of Regulations is to give my noble Friend the Postmaster-General the power to deal effectively with those relatively few cases where the spirit of co-operation has been lacking.
Before I go on to describe how these Regulations will work there are just two other points which I should like to clear up. First, there are, of course, many kinds of electrical appliances which do not use small motors such as electric lamps and electric blankets and the diathermy apparatus which means the sun-ray lamp on the top floor. These have not yet been covered by Regulations, and my noble Friend will receive the necessary advice from the Advisory Committee at a later date.
The same applies to neon signs, about which the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Awbery) asked my hon. Friend on 2nd February. My hon. Friend pointed out, in reply, that neon signs accounted for about 1 per cent. of the interference cases which the Post Office has investigated.
Secondly—and I think this takes up a point which was made by the hon. Member for Widnes—these Regulations do not cover the question of interference

331
caused by television sets to radio sets. Indeed, this type of interference does not come within the scope of Part II of the 1949 Act, but as we are on this subject of interference perhaps I might be allowed to make this very brief comment. One of the conditions under which a person takes out a receiving licence for radio or television is that he does not cause interference with any other radio apparatus. If a man with a television or radio set does cause such interference then, in the last resort, the Post Office would withdraw his licence. If he then continued to use the apparatus without licence he would be committing an offence under Part I of the 1949 Act, and be liable to prosecution. The House will be glad to learn that the Post Office has had to withdraw only three licences for this reason.
This is, clearly, a problem which should be tackled at the manufacturing stage and my noble Friend's Department is discussing it with the radio industry.
Mr. Edward Shackleton: Would the hon. Gentleman also give the figures of the number of complaints he has had on this particular source of interference?
Sir E. Boyle: I have not got those figures because they are not strictly relevant to the debate tonight, but if the hon. Member would like to have them I will see that he gets them.
I should explain briefly to the House how these Regulations will work. Let us suppose that a complaint is received by the Post Office that interference is being caused to a television set or a radio set. Inquiries are made and, let us imagine, the trouble is tracked down in due course and found to be caused by a hair drier. Before the Post Office ask the owner of the hair drier to take any action at all—and certainly before he is asked to spend money—the Post Office would make absolutely sure that all reasonable steps have been taken by the man making the complaint to minimise the interference. I think that that takes up a point made by one of my hon. Friends.
If it becomes plain that the trouble is due to the hair drier and nothing else, the owner would be asked not to use the
332
apparatus at a time when it caused interference or, alternatively, to insert suppressers. In 99 cases out of 100 that would be the end of the matter, but in the hundredth case where the owner of the hair drier, or whatever it might be, refused to co-operate, the Post Office has to serve a notice upon him giving him not less than 28 days in which to put the matter right.
During that time he has, under the Act, the right of appeal to a special tribunal. If he does not appeal, or if his appeal is rejected, then, and only then, if he continues to use the appliance without inserting suppressers, he is committing an offence under the 1949 Act and is liable to prosecution; with a maximum fine of £10 for the first occasion and £50 on any subsequent occasion. Incidentally, the tribunals have already been set up. There is one for England and Wales, one in Scotland and one in Northern Ireland. They can meet in any part of the Kingdom, indeed the Act lays down that they should deal with any particular case at a place reasonably near where the interference occurred.
The hon. Member for Widnes asked about the question of search. There is no automatic right of entry. It is strictly limited by Section 15 of the 1949 Act. If the hon. Member examines that Section, he will see that the right of entry is dependent on the granting of a search warrant by a justice of the peace or in Scotland by a sheriff. It is rigidly circumscribed.
Captain J. A. L. Duncan: In that case, how is the hair drier tracked down?
Sir E. Boyle: I am told that in the majority of cases it is tracked down by apparatus used outside the house and that no right of entry is, in fact, necessary.
Captain Duncan: Then how is it known that it is a hair drier?
Sir E. Boyle: I ought to say a word about the cost of fitting suppressers to existing equipment. I hope that the House will not press me to give exact figures, because the charges are likely to vary considerably. They will depend on the kind of appliance to be suppressed; whether suppression is to be obtained for sound, or television, or both, and, not

333
least, whether the owner fits the suppressors himself or, alternatively, gets a retailer to do the job. Shortly after these Regulations were laid, a spokesman of the raido industry remarked that suppressors for most domestic electrical appliances would cost from 15s. to 30s. I understand that that cost includes the cost of fixing the apparatus, but not what is known technically as " travelling time."
Anyone who possesses a television set knows very well how annoying it is to have the picture continuously cut up by lines splashed across the screen; just as anyone with a radio set knows how exasperating it can be to have a good programme spoiled by loud scratches and crackles caused by a neighbour's electrical apparatus. The only comparable type of annoyance which occurs to me is when a long-playing gramophone record, with what looks like a perfect surface, suddenly develops a noise like a log fire just getting going.
On the other hand, my noble Friend fully recognises that the owners of electrical apparatus have their point of view. The principle of these Regulations is simply to stop interference—or, at least, to reduce it to a low level—when it is unreasonable and when the owner will not take action of his own accord. As I have already stated, I believe that it is only in a small minority of cases that it will be necessary to invoke these Regulations. I hope that, in view of that explanation, hon. Members opposite will feel able to withdraw their Motion.
10.10 p.m.
Mr. Ede: I am quite sure that the whole House would wish to thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply for the very courteous and full way in which he has answered the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl). I do not wish the Assistant Postmaster-General any but I hope it will be conveyed to him that his place has been particularly well filled on this very difficult occasion.
The Parliamentary Secretary seems to live in a rather different world from mine, because he said, " Suppose it is a hot day and the family think they would like to watch a Test Match." But when was a Test Match played on a hot summer's day? If I could feel certain that there would be a hot summer's day on which a
334
Test Match was being played, I should look forward to watching it with great deal more pleasure than I have been able to contemplate doing so during the last three or four years when Test Matches have been played in this country.
Sir E. Boyle: I think that the answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question is the third day of the Test Match at Lords in 1953.
Mr. Ede: When one recollects what happened during the whole of that Test series until Laker and Lock were allowed to play on a wicket which Jupiter Pluvius had prepared for them, it just shows the relevance of the observation which I made on the hon. Gentleman's supposition.
The thing about which I complain in these Regulations is their extreme tech nicality. As the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Beresford-Craddock) said, these Regulations cannot be understood by anybody but a person who is either in the fourth form at a secondary school or who is a technical expert with an expensive training. I have no doubt that small boys would be able to arrange that the Regulations should be complied with at home and would find a good many excuses for staying up late to see that the family did not get into any difficulty through any breach of the law in this respect.
However, I should not have thought that it was necessary to be so highly technical in the matter, which was really the main burden of my hon. Friend's complaint. After all, when we were in office we may have passed the Act, but, at any rate, we did not draft these Regulations, and, in spite of what the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) said, it is the Regulations against which we are praying.
I also wish to emphasise what has been said by the critics of the Regulations and by the Minister himself. In this modern world, with the various forms of domestic apparatus that depend upon the understanding and, at any rate, the application of scientific principles, the habit of good neighbourliness is more than ever important. One must hope that that will be developed.
Just as the raucous loudspeaker tuned in a great deal too loud for the comfort of the neighbourhood is now recognised

335
as a form of social misbehaviour and one to be generally deprecated, so failure to comply with reasonable requirements that one's own apparatus shall not interfere with one's neighbours will come to be regarded as one of the essential social duties in a world where much pleasure can be obtained by the exercise of good neighbourliness and much annoyance caused where that habit is not cultivated.
10.15 p.m.
Mr. Edward Shackleton: I shall detain the House only for a minute. I disagree with my right hon. Friend, not in wishing ill to the Assistant Postmaster-General, but in my view that the way in which these Regulations have been defended by the Parliamentary Secretary shows that a reasonable approach to the House in these matters enables a reasonable answer to be given by it. The Parliamentary Secretary, who certainly had the advantage of not being in the House in 1949, when the original Act was objected to in such stringent and violent language, has shown that the House can face these technical problems.
Despite what my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) has said, I think we have taken a sensible view in this matter, and I hope that when the party opposite find themselves back upon these benches in the near future they will continue to take the reasonable view which has been adopted by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply tonight.
Question put and negatived.

BRITISH MILITARY CEMETERY, JERUSALEM
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Studholme.]
10.16 p.m.
Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: In December, 1917, General Allenby captured the city of Jerusalem, and in so doing became the first Christian commander to capture the Holy City by force of arms for 980 years. He did not leave so many memorials as the Crusaders, but he left a large and beautiful cemetery to the British dead who had fallen in that campaign. It lies to the north-east of the city, near, if not on, Mount Scopus, and throughout the period of the Mandate it was well tended and a credit to us.
I fear that since the mandate came to an end it has fallen into a state of decay, it has not become a wilderness, through no immediate fault of ours. Since the troubles in Palestine between the Israelis and the Arabs, and since the line between them was crystalised so many years ago, this cemetery has been, if not in " NoMan's-Land," at least so near it that it is apparently dangerous for the British to tend it as it should be tended. I was in Jerusalem this January, and many people of all nations and religions commented to me upon this sorry state of affairs and wondered why it was that in an area where there were so many religions the Christians seemed to care so little about their fallen dead that they were apparently not prepared to make their will felt both against the Jewish and Arab contenders.
One of the tests of a nation, and even of a religion—at least in the eyes of strangers or foreigners—is the way that it looks after its fallen dead. If this cemetery, which was something of a showpiece for so many years, is allowed to remain in what I am informed is its present condition—I admit that my information may be out of date, because it is two or three months old—it is inevitable that both Jews and Arabs will feel that we do not care, particularly as we adhere to the United Nations Resolution that Jerusalem is, for many purposes and certainly for this sort of purpose, an International City and that the Christians

337
have rights. This should be said more often than it is said in arguments about the Holy Land. If we do not enforce our rights, other religions will think that we do not care. In a sense, it is not only Britain but Christianity that is on trial.
I would first ask my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if I was right in what I said, that this large and famous cemetery, bearing in it the dead of our great and glorious campaign, is in this state of neglect and decay and, if that is so, what it is proposed to do about it. It is not quite enough to say that we cannot do anything because we are no longer the mandatory Power and have no status there. The resolution of the United Nations is clear to all the world that Jerusalem is, in its language and in the language used in that part of the world, a tertium quid; it is in our view neither Arab nor Israeli. Therefore we have a legal, and certainly a moral, right to see that the plot of land is preserved against the sort of outrage of neglect from which I am told it is at present suffering.
I am told that we have well-wishers in Jerusalem and that at some risk to life and limb boys and men who have served with the British Government when we were the mandatory Power, or have served in the R.A.F., or were trained under the British in one way or another, creep up to the cemetery and put a few flowers there and do what they can in that way. They break in almost against all corners, and with the possibility of being sniped at from one side or the other.
We have a position there which we must maintain, and I seriously suggest that we should consider mounting some sort of guard while the plots and graves are being tended and put into decent condition. I dare say the international legal and political complications would be very great—I do not know—but I should think we might get some agreement from both sides. Perhaps General Burns, United States head of the Armistice Commission, might be asked whether he could proceed under the protection of his authority. It may be outside the scope of his authority, but he has great moral power.
I should have thought that something might be arranged, but even if it cannot be arranged by agreement, I seriously
338
suggest we should consider doing it without agreement. We should, if necessary, go in there with some volunteers—because I feel that we have been rather shamed by those boys and men who have gone in at the risk of their own skins—to protect our people while they are trying to put the cemetery in order, and then withdraw in an orderly way.
The position of the cemetery is very unfortunate in that it is in the most strategic place on the frontier between the two sides—but so is almost every other place on that frontier. I do not think that that excuse is good enough. It is information and encouragement that I seek. I do not wish to attack the Government. Obviously I could not do that —the Government are in a position of great difficulty—but I would end by urging, with all the sincerity I can summon, that this is a matter of very great comment in Jerusalem, in Israel and in Jordan.
This matter is being watched. The people there do not understand why Britain has neglected something of which she was very proud. They regard our actions in this regard as something of a test of our position, and indeed of our belief in the sincerity of the cause in which our men fought, and of our position generally, down indeed to the point of our belief in our own faith.
10.27 p.m.
Major H. Legge-Bourke: This is a lugubrious subject and one on which I do not wish to speak for long. If, in fact, conditions at the cemetery are as my hon. Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) states, he has done a public service in raising this matter tonight. I remember that when fighting was going on out there one of the British graveyards was actually fought over. I do not know whether the one at Jerusalem is the one. If so, it is very regrettable, but I do not wish to say anything to exacerbate feelings between Israel and Jordan and the other neighbouring Arab States which, we know, is not the best.
Jerusalem means something to people of so many religions. Those of us who have been there perhaps feel more deeply than those who have not. This matter should not be regarded purely as one of British prestige. The important thing is

339
that we should try to regard the final resting place of our glorious dead in the same light as we should expect other nations to regard theirs. I should have thought that the right approach was not, as my hon. Friend seemed to suggest, a matter simply of upholding British prestige—although that is involved—but rather to say to both Israelis and Arabs, " You would not like your dead treated in this way; we do not like the resting place of our dead treated like this either. Will you co-operate to the extent of allowing this resting place to be put in order again?"
10.29 p.m.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. R. H. Turton): This is a shameful matter. I confirm all the facts which my hon. Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) mentioned in describing the condition of this cemetery. I am grateful to him for raising this and to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) for supporting what has been said.
In this cemetery there lie the graves of about 2,500 men killed in the First World War; and the names of 3,400 other men whose graves have never been found are recorded there. The vast majority of those 6,000 men came from the United Kingdom, although there are graves and names of men from Australia, South Africa, New Zealand and the British West Indies. It is, therefore, a Commonwealth concern that this cemetery should be cared for in a proper manner, and that it should be a thing of beauty, as the British war cemeteries are throughout the world, in all the battlefields of the last two wars.
Unfortunately, that is not the case with the Mount Scopus cemetery. The cemetery lies in the Mount Scopus demilitarised zone. Under an agreement between the Arab and Jewish commanding officers of 7th July, 1948, it was assigned to United Nations protection, and was to be policed by Israeli and Jordanian police, both responsible to the United Nations Truce Supervision Organisation. The cemetery itself is in the part assigned to the Israeli policing.
During the fighting that has taken place mines were laid by both sides. In the case of the Israelis, mines were laid by
340
them in the cemetery itself, in the case of the Jordanians, just outside the cemetery, but neither side has removed those mines since the fighting stopped. In consequence of that the Imperial War Graves Commission has been unable to maintain the cemetery, and both Her Majesty's representative and the United Nations Truce Supervision Organisation have failed in their attempts to persuade the two sides to allow workmen to go into the cemetery and carry out repairs. For six years the state of tension between Israel and Jordan has prevented any improvement in the situation.
In July of last year, Her Majesty's consul and the Israeli officer commanding the Israeli area of Mount Scopus inspected the cemetery. The Israeli officer noted the condition of the cemetery, the damage to the chapel, and the dilapidation inside the chapel, and seemed at that time prepared to give orders for his men to tidy up the cemetery and to clear the minefield. Then the Imperial War Graves Commission sent two representatives to Jerusalem, and it was then hoped to arrange an agreement between the United Nations Truce Supervision Organisation, the Imperial War Graves Commission and the Israelis for the repair and maintenance of the cemetery.
In January of this year, however, the Israeli Government announced that they would be prepared to negotiate only an agreement covering all British war cemeteries in Israel, including Mount Scopus. As I have explained to the House, this cemetery does not lie in Israeli territory. It lies in United Nations protected territory, and any agreement affecting the cemetery must be negotiated with the Jordanians as well as the Israelis, and must be dealt with quite separately from other cemeteries in Israeli territory. The Jordan Government, in February, 1955, sent General Burns a reply which expressly refused to allow any Jews or Jewish relatives of the dead commemorated in that cemetery to have access to it. I hope the House will realise that, bearing in mind that those men died to obtain freedom for the Arab world.
We are, naturally, very dissatisfied with this position, and I am indeed surprised that two States which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Darwen said, are both deeply religious and have great respect for

341
their own dead, do not feel that this situation reflects great discredit upon them. Her Majesty's Government intend to approach the United Nations Truce Supervision Organisation and the Israeli and Jordan Governments with further proposals for the clearance of the mines and the repair and maintenance of the cemetery. I hope very much that all the Commonwealth countries represented in Israel and Jordan will join in this approach, which affects them as well as us.
This is a United Nations zone. Therefore, we must—and, indeed, we gladly do —use the United Nations machinery to deal with this problem. That is my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Darwen. Let me say again how
342
grateful this country is for the persevering efforts that General Burns has made to try to resolve the problems that lie in this area arising out of the bitter tension between the two sides. I hope that this debate will serve a useful purpose and will have brought home to the Israeli and Jordan Governments that if they desire friendly relations with the Governments of this country and the Commonwealth they must show due reverence to our dead soldiers who are commemorated in the cemetery at Mount Scopus.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty three minutes to Eleven o'clock.

  MEDICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL (RADIATION)
  MEDICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL (RADIATION)
MINISTRY OF WORKS
  British Embassy, Liberia
  British Embassy, Liberia
  Offices, Washington and New Delhi (Expenditure)
  Offices, Washington and New Delhi (Expenditure)
COMMONWEALTH WAR MEMORIAL, BAYEUX
  COMMONWEALTH WAR MEMORIAL, BAYEUX
  COMMONWEALTH WAR MEMORIAL, BAYEUX
BRITISH ARMY
  Barn Fire Accident, Austria (Inquiry)
  Barn Fire Accident, Austria (Inquiry)
  Gun Sites, Breconshire
  Gun Sites, Breconshire
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Factory Building, Scotland
  Factory Building, Scotland
  Hire-purchase Agreements (Misrepresentation)
  Hire-purchase Agreements (Misrepresentation)
  Umbrellas
  Umbrellas
  Overseas Tenders (Prices)
  Overseas Tenders (Prices)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Australian Import Cuts
  Australian Import Cuts
  Public Servants Pensioners Council (Deputation)
  Public Servants Pensioners Council (Deputation)
NATIONAL SMOKE ABATEMENT SOCIETY
  NATIONAL SMOKE ABATEMENT SOCIETY
  NATIONAL SMOKE ABATEMENT SOCIETY
HISTORIC BUILDING LISTS, NORTHERN COUNTIES
  HISTORIC BUILDING LISTS, NORTHERN COUNTIES
  HISTORIC BUILDING LISTS, NORTHERN COUNTIES
HOUSING
  Completions, Manchester
  Completions, Manchester
  Land, Bristol (Public Inquiry)
  Land, Bristol (Public Inquiry)
  Derequisitioned Property, Hackney
  Derequisitioned Property, Hackney
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Private Street Works
  Private Street Works
  Rating Valuations (Retailers' Representations)
  Rating Valuations (Retailers' Representations)
  Town and Country Planning Act (Compensation Payments)
  Town and Country Planning Act (Compensation Payments)
  Housing Costs and Loan Charges
  Housing Costs and Loan Charges
  Harlow (Exchequer Advances)
  Harlow (Exchequer Advances)
  Exchequer Equalisation Grants
  Exchequer Equalisation Grants
EMPLOYMENT
  Manchester
  Manchester
  Motor Industry
  Motor Industry
  Short-Time Working, Lancashire
  Short-Time Working, Lancashire
NATIONAL SERVICE (POLICE CADETS)
  NATIONAL SERVICE (POLICE CADETS)
  NATIONAL SERVICE (POLICE CADETS)
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION (FACTORY INSPECTORATE)
  CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION (FACTORY INSPECTORATE)
  CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION (FACTORY INSPECTORATE)
SCOTLAND
  Swedish Timber Houses
  Swedish Timber Houses
  New Industries, Cumbernauld
  New Industries, Cumbernauld
  Sheep Losses
  Sheep Losses
  Bus Shelters
  Bus Shelters
  Stranded Whales (Disposal)
  Stranded Whales (Disposal)
  Food Poisoning
  Food Poisoning
  Housing (Certificates of Disrepair)
  Housing (Certificates of Disrepair)
DISARMAMENT SUB-COMMITTEE MEETINGS (STATEMENTS)
  DISARMAMENT SUB-COMMITTEE MEETINGS (STATEMENTS)
  DISARMAMENT SUB-COMMITTEE MEETINGS (STATEMENTS)
FORMOSA (SITUATION)
  FORMOSA (SITUATION)
  FORMOSA (SITUATION)
INTER-GOVERNMENTAL COMMITTEE FOR EUROPEAN MIGRATION
  INTER-GOVERNMENTAL COMMITTEE FOR EUROPEAN MIGRATION
  INTER-GOVERNMENTAL COMMITTEE FOR EUROPEAN MIGRATION
FAROE ISLANDS (FISHERY LIMITS)
  FAROE ISLANDS (FISHERY LIMITS)
  FAROE ISLANDS (FISHERY LIMITS)
COAL SUPPLIES, BLETCHLEY
  COAL SUPPLIES, BLETCHLEY
  COAL SUPPLIES, BLETCHLEY
WAR PENSIONS
  WAR PENSIONS
  WAR PENSIONS
AGRICULTURE (TUBERCULOSIS ERADICATION AREAS)
  AGRICULTURE (TUBERCULOSIS ERADICATION AREAS)
  AGRICULTURE (TUBERCULOSIS ERADICATION AREAS)
FISHING INDUSTRY (QUICK FREEZING EQUIPMENT)
  FISHING INDUSTRY (QUICK FREEZING EQUIPMENT)
  FISHING INDUSTRY (QUICK FREEZING EQUIPMENT)
TANGANYIKA (MWANZA AFRICAN UNION BRANCH)
  TANGANYIKA (MWANZA AFRICAN UNION BRANCH)
  TANGANYIKA (MWANZA AFRICAN UNION BRANCH)
NEW SCHOOLS
  NEW SCHOOLS
  NEW SCHOOLS
MANCHESTER AIRPORT (FUTURE)
  MANCHESTER AIRPORT (FUTURE)
  MANCHESTER AIRPORT (FUTURE)
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
  SAINT STEPHEN COLEMAN STREET BILL [H.L.]
  Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name.
  Moved, That Standing Orders Nos. 34 and 41 be considered in order to their being suspended for this day's sitting for the purpose of passing the Consolidated Fund Bill, the National Service Bill, and the Trustee Savings Banks (Pensions) Bill through their remaining stages, and of giving precedence over the Committee stage of the County Courts Bill to the other Orders of the Day.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (THE EARL OF SELKIRK): My Lords, this Bill being in the usual form, with which your Lordships are very familiar, I beg formally to move that it be now read a second time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.
  Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution), Bill read 3a, and passed.

  NATIONAL SERVICE BILL
  2.36 p.m.
  House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
  Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution), Bill read 3a, and passed.

  TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANKS (PENSIONS) BILL
  House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
  Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution), Bill 3a, and passed.

  RURAL WATER SUPPLIES AND SEWERAGE BILL
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
  IMPERIAL WAR MUSEUM BILL
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
  UNIVERSITY OF HULL BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons, agreed to.

  COUNTY COURTS BILL
  2.42 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly.
  [The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair]
  Clause 1:
  Actions of contract or tort, or for money recoverable by statute, and related matters.
  (2) For subsection (1) of section forty-seven of the principal Act there shall be substituted:—
  "(1) Where an action founded on contract or tort is commenced in the High Court which could have been commenced in the county court, then subject to subsections (3) and (4) of this section the plaintiff—

  (a) shall not in any event be entitled to Any more costs of the action than those to which he would have been entitled if

  199
  the action had been brought in the county court; and

  (b) if he recovers a sum less than seventy-five pounds, shall not be entitled to any costs of the action";

  and in subsection (4) of the said section forty-seven (which allows costs on the High Court scale where, in an action in the High Court for a debt or liquidated demand only, twenty pounds or more is recovered without the action proceeding to trial) there shall be substituted for the words "twenty pounds," wherever occurring, the words "forty pounds."
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR)THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR) moved, in subsection (2), in the proposed new subsection (1), after "county court" (where that term is first used) to insert:
  "and the action is not referred for trial to an official referee."
  The noble and learned Viscount said: I beg to move the first Amendment in the Marshalled List. Your Lordships will appreciate that under Section 47 of the principal Act, as amended by Clause 1 (2) of the Bill, certain sanctions in costs are applied where an action founded in contract or tort, which could have been commenced in the county court, is commenced in the High Court. Your Lordships will also know that by the provisions of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925, it is provided that the High Court may refer an action to an official referee for trial if the parties consent, or if the action requires prolonged examination of documents, or scientific or local investigation, or relates to matters of account. Your Lordships will appreciate that, in practice, the order for reference is made by a Master on the summons for directions. Actions of this kind are normally complicated and lengthy, taking, on an average, from two to three days to try. In 1954, 178 actions involving less than £400, mostly originating in London, were tried by official referees. It is clearly undesirable that this body of work should be transferred to the county courts as a result of the sanctions provided by the Bill. The county court, by its nature, is not suitable for these prolonged hearings, therefore we suggest that actions of this kind should be cut out of the provisions of the Bill and should continue to be tried by official referees. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 2, line 1, after ("court") insert the said words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  2.45 p.m.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is little more than a drafting Amendment. The words "in any event," which we propose to omit, are not strictly necessary, and it has been suggested that they could be interpreted as fettering the discretion of the High Court, under Section 47 (3) of the principal Act, to award High Court costs. I do not want that impression to get about, and accordingly I think it is simpler to cut the words out of the Bill. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 2, line 3, leave out ("in any event").(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after subsection (2) to insert:
  "(3) An order under subsection (3) of the said section forty-seven (under which the court may by order exclude or modify the operation of subsection (1) of the section) may be made in any case where it appears to the High Court or a judge thereof (or where the matter is tried before a referee or officer of the Supreme Court, that referee or officer) that there was reasonable ground for supposing the amount recoverable in respect of the plaintiff's claim to be in excess of the amount recoverable in an action commenced in a county court."
  The noble and learned Viscount said: This is an Amendment dealing with a point which I believe is of importance in the eyes of a number of your Lordships. Perhaps I may explain it, and it will then be for your Lordships to consider what further discussions we shall have, and what further Amendments.
  Under Section 47 (3) of the principal Act, the High Court is given a discretion to award High Court costs in an action which could have been commenced in the county court, notwithstanding that, by virtue of Section 47 (1), the plaintiff has recovered an amount which entitles him only to county court costs or to no costs at all. But some matters have turned on the actual wording of this subsection, because under Section 47 (3) a High Court judge can exercise his power to award High Court costs only if he is satisfied, among other things, that there was—and I quote the words in the section—"sufficient reason "for bringing the action in the High Court. The words "sufficient reason" have been considered in the courts on several occasions, and decided cases indicate that the mere fact that the plaintiff's claim has exceeded the limits of county court jurisdiction cannot

  201
  be regarded as "sufficient reason" for bringing the action in the High Court.
  There are a number of cases, but I would refer those noble Lords who are interested in such matters particularly to the case of Finch v. Telegraph Construction and Maintenance Co., Ltd., reported in 1949 All England Reports, Volume 1. In that case, Mr. Justice Devlin considered this difficulty. It was argued against the giving of High Court costs that the words "sufficient reason" implied, if I may put the matter shortly, some special reason. The argument the other way was that the whole background of the case should be considered. The learned judge, although he decided against High Court costs, did not decide that point specifically—which left the matter still subject to discussion. So I thought we ought to clear it up in this Bill. Since this Bill strengthens the costs sanctions, so that they operate up to the limit of county court jurisdiction, it is very desirable that the High Court should not find itself fettered, as a result of decided cases, from exercising its discretion on the ground that the plaintiff's claim exceeded the jurisdiction of the county court. Before awarding High Court costs, the High Court should, however, be satisfied that the plaintiff had reasonable ground for supposing the amount recoverable to be in excess of the amount recoverable in an action commenced in the county court. The Amendment is designed to achieve this object.
  Take the case where a plaintiff fails to get over £400 and gets, say, £325: it would then be possible at the end of the case for the plaintiff to show the judge the medical reports he had at various stages of the case and, if he so desired, the advice he had from his counsel and anything else relevant to the point, and the judge could then decide (if I may take your Lordships back to the words of the Amendment) whether
  "there was reasonable ground for supposing the amount recoverable in respect of the plaintiff's claim to be in excess of the amount recoverable in an action commenced in the county court."
  Far be it from me to suppose or desire that any words of mine spoken at this Box should be taken as guiding judges in the exercise of their judicial functions, but I do not think it would be improper to say that I contemplate that this would cover the case where the amount actually
  202
  recovered was relatively near £400 and there would have been "reasonable ground" for the plaintiff to suppose that he might have got more than that sum. What I want to make clear is that this question is open to the judge in exercising his discretion, and he has not to find any special circumstances, as if it were a test action or anything of that kind, in order to exercise his discretion. I tried to draw the words to give the judge the widest discretion possible on that point.
  I should like to deal shortly with the point that is the subject matter of a further Amendment, because I should not like your Lordships to think that in considering this Amendment I have omitted to put before your Lordships the question of those cases where contributory negligence reduces the damages, a matter which was raised by several noble Lords on the Second Reading of the Bill. In actions in which contributory negligence is an issue, the word "recoverable" refers to the gross damages recoverable by the plantiff before any deduction is made on account of his contributory negligence. Your Lordships will see that that is so, if you would be good enough to consult Section 1 (1) of the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act, 1945. I think there can be no doubt about it, but it is reinforced by the judgment of the Court of Appeal in the case of Kelly v. Stockport Corporation, which is reported in Vol. 1 of All England Reports, 1949. From the wording of the Amendment it is plain that in a case where, for example, the gross damages awarded to a plaintiff are £400 and they are then reduced by reason of his contributory negligence to £200, the High Court may award High Court costs if satisfied that the plaintiff had reasonable ground for supposing his gross damages, without regard to the possibility of deduction for contributory negligence, would exceed £400.
  I hope your Lordships will agree that this is the right way to approach the problem. On the specific point of contributory negligence, after consulting the wording in the Contributory Negligence Act and the judgments of the Court of Appeal in Kelly v. Stockport Corporation and the words of the Bill and the Amendment, I have no doubt that the plaintiff would be safeguarded in these circumstances. I know that this was one point which was worrying your Lordships—cases where the plaintiffs would have been able to

  203
  recover a sum which might have been considerably in excess of £400. In fact, we might have a case where the plaintiff was seven-eighths to blame and might have been able to recover as much as £3,200, only to have this reduced to £400.
  I have assured myself, to the best of my ability, that that difficulty will not arise in these circumstances. That is the purpose of the Amendment that I present, and I hope your Lordships will take the view that it answers the points posed by noble Lords during the Second Reading debate, and that the difficulty of estimating damages is met by giving to the judge who tries an action in the High Court the wide discretion which this Amendment confers upon him, so that if the plaintiff has come within reasonable distance of the £400 and has had reasonable ground for expecting more, he will not be damnified. I have said, "if he conies within reasonable distance," but my Amendment would go farther than that, and I think this is one of its attractions. Take a case which often occurs, where there are two heads of damage: for example, take the case where there are superficial injuries, but the doctors on one side say that these have brought on a disease, or it may be an abortive birth, and there is a heavy medical question whether the injuries have produced the secondary condition. On my Amendment, even though in the outcome the plaintiff recovered, say, only £50 for superficial injuries, the judge would be able to say that on the question of the disease or abortion there obviously was a serious point and though he had decided in favour of the defendant's doctors, he found that the plaintiff had reasonable ground for supposing that the secondary condition would come into the damages, in which case more than £400 would have been awarded. In such a case, although the plaintiff recovers only £50, he would have that discretionary chance of getting High Court costs. I know that many noble Lords are interested in this point; therefore I have taken rather longer to move this Amendment than otherwise I would have done. I beg to move the Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 2, line 14, at end insert the said new subsection.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  2.59 p.m.
  EARL JOWITT EARL JOWITT moved, as an Amendment to the above Amendment, to add to the proposed new subsection:
  "Provided that if the plaintiff recovers three hundred pounds in an action whether founded on tort or on contract he shall be entitled to recover his costs of such action unless the judge certifies that there was no reasonable ground for bringing the action in the High Court."
  The noble and learned Earl said: I am sure that we are all grateful to the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor for the adequate and full explanation he has given of this clause. This is a very good Bill, and, although I do not want to delay its passage, I am sure the noble and learned Viscount will agree that this is an important point, which merits consideration. I am not sure, but I believe that, historically, this Bill was actually drafted in my time as Lord Chancellor. I did not take any steps to put it into force because in those days legal aid did not apply to the county courts, and I thought it unfair to try to push off a great many cases to the county courts, where there was no legal aid, from the High Court, where there was legal aid. But now that the Lord Chancellor has been able to induce his Chancellor of the Exchequer (and it shows what greater control he has over the Chancellor of the Exchequer now than I had over the Chancellor of the Exchequer in my day) it is all to the good.
  This is not a subject which lends itself to easy treatment, I am afraid, and I cannot pretend that any of your Lordships will derive much enjoyment from the speech that I am about to make. But it is an important point, and I think we should get it clear. It deals with a subject which is rather near the heart of the legal profession—what is colloquially referred to as the "cushion." I will tell your Lordships what I mean. I must go back to the County Courts Act, 1934—and the Lord Chancellor will correct me if I am wrong in any statement that I make, because I have not had anybody to assist me in my labours, and I may go wrong. In the year 1934 the limit of the county court jurisdiction was £100. Since, however, an action which could be brought in the county court might be brought in the High Court, the framers of that legislation thought it desirable to have some means of discouraging that; and the obvious means was in regard to costs.

  205
  Therefore, it was laid down that if a plaintiff brought an action in the High Court and recovered less than a certain amount—in the case of an action in tort it was, I believe, £50–he should, subject to the power of the judge to make a special order, get only county court costs. But if he was awarded more than £50 in the High Court action, then automatically he was granted High Court costs. I will give your Lordships a simple illustration. If a man was knocked down by a passing car and brought an action in the High Court, and recovered £55, then he would get costs on the High Court scale, in spite of the fact that £55 was within the limit of £100 and that he might have brought the action in the county court. That was the law then.
  In 1938, by the Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, the limit of the county court jurisdiction was raised to £200, although the cushion remained the same—at least, it became a more adequate cushion, because if a man brought an action in tort in the High Court after 1938, and recovered £55 (that is to say, anything over £50) he was still automatically entitled to recover High Court costs. I think, and the Lord Chancellor thinks, that that is far too generous a cushion, more especially since the Lord Chancellor desires to remove some of these actions from the High Court into the county court, one of his objects being to avoid, to some extent, the congestion which is rearing its ugly head in the High Court. But as he drafted his Bill he had no cushion at all. Here I must explain to your Lordships that the difference between High Court costs and county court costs is not inconsiderable. In the ordinary simple case, I am told that I may assume the difference would be of the order of £50, although it might be more in other cases.
  Let me take £50 as an illustration. It is extremely difficult for a young barrister to answer a client who goes to him and asks: "How much do you think I shall get out of this claim?" The first question he would ask the client would be, "What judge are you coming before?"—because it is notorious and inevitable that, given an unfettered discretion, some men will take a more generous view of damages than others. Unless we have a kind of robot judge (which I hope we never shall have) it is
  206
  impossible to avoid the personal equation coming in. Apart altogether from that, the amount of damages depends so much on how, for instance, the evidence of the doctor comes out, and how the injury is progressing. I would assert that there is no man who, when somebody comes for advice on the amount of damages he is likely to get for an accident, can confidently say that it will be either £500 or £300. What must the barrister then do? We are now, by this Bill, raising the county court jurisdiction to £400. Is he to advise his client to bring his action in the county court? If the man does that, he cannot get more than £400. If, on the other hand, the barrister tells his client to bring his action in the High Court, where he can get £500, £600—or any amount—and, by evil chance, he gets only £300 or £350, then he will get only county court costs, unless the judge makes some special order.
  Let us consider the effect of the Amendment of the Lord Chancellor. It is an Amendment which I welcome as being better than nothing, and as making for improvement of the Bill; but, after all, the wording is only that the judge "may" do this. The Lord Chancellor has done away with the words "sufficient reason," which appeared in the County Courts Act, 1934–wisely, as I think, because that limitation lends itself to all sorts of classifications of what is a good reason, what is not, and the rest—and has adopted at once a simpler test. But he leaves it more to the discretion of the judge. I speak knowingly about this matter, and I am sure the Lord Chancellor will not mind my saying that long exrperience has taught me that nobody can predicate with certainty how the unfettered discretion of a judge will be exercised. After all, Lord Chancellors used to introduce the system of equity, and in its early days equity differed from the rigour of the Common Law by being bound by no rules at all. Equity was what the Lord Chancellor of the day thought was equitable, and it is recorded in Selden's Table Talk that:
  "Equity is a roguish thing, as variable as the Chancellor's foot."
  By that was meant that one man's idea of what is fair, given an unfettered discretion, is bound to differ from that of another man. The effect of the Lord Chancellor's Amendment is simply that, given certain circumstances, the judge may make an order that the costs of an

  207
  action be paid on the High Court scale. Or, of course, he may not.
  Put yourselves for a moment in the position of a judge under the Amendment of the Lord Chancellor. He is not fettered by any rules at all. He has to consider whether there was reasonable ground for supposing that the amount recoverable would be in excess of £400. In a case where £350 has been recovered, the judge might well say that there was reasonable ground for supposing that £400 would be recovered. But he might then say: "How shall I exercise my discretion? Shall I make an order, or shall I let the law take its course?" Unless he does make an order, the plaintiff will get only county court costs. The judge might well say to himself: "The difference involved here is £50. The man has brought his action in the High Court, and unless I make a special order he will get only county court costs. Shall I make a special order? It is quite right, on the one hand, that he might have hoped for more than £400—I think that is reasonable—but on the other hand, he has got only £350. Why should I make the unfortunate defendant pay this extra £50? As between these two men, the plaintiff and the defendant, the plaintiff having recovered £350, one of them has got to pay the £50. Why should I order that the plaintiff should get this £50 extra? Why should I make the defendant pay?" That is the problem with which the judge might be confronted.
  The whole idea of the Lord Chancellor's Amendment is that he should be bound by no fettering rules and, I may say, guided by no fettering rules: it is entirely a matter for his discretion. What I call the "cushion" is removed altogether by this Bill, and all that we get in place of it is the fact that the judge may, quite unfettered, award High Court costs if he thinks there was a reasonable chance for supposing that the plaintiff might get more than the £400. I am not sure that that is very satisfactory. I am not sure that I have anything much better to offer, and I agree with the Lord Chancellor that the full extent of the cushion should go. If it does not go, the main sanction which operates to make people take their cases to the county court will go, too. Therefore I think the Lord Chancellor is right in taking this line. In the Bill I drafted, I guarded myself against
  208
  being dealt with in this way, and no doubt that is exactly what the Lord Chancellor had in mind. I think the point is a difficult one.
  It occurred to me to try to work on these lines. Suppose you gave the judge a pretty broad hint and said "If the man gets £300—which is three-quarters of £400—then let there be a cushion: let him get his High Court costs unless" (I put it the other way round for this purpose) "you decide that there should be only county court costs." That would give the judge a broad hint. The figure of £300 which I put in is, of course, a purely arbitrary figure. I suggest that we might consider working it on these lines, but have some figure which is lower than the maximum which could be recovered, and say: "If you get more than that figure—I take £300 at the moment—"then unless the judge makes an order to the contrary, that shall carry High Court costs. On the other hand, if you get less than that figure, unless the judge makes an order, it shall not carry High Court costs." In that way the plaintiff is given a sort of guiding post by which he can steer his ship. Whether the figure of £300 is right or not I cannot say, but I would point out that it is much more difficult to forecast what the damage is going to be in actions in what is called tort than in actions in contract. In the case of damages for breach of contract, one ought to be able to assess with some degree of accuracy what the amount of the damages should be; but in cases of injury, cases of tort, it is extremely difficult. As I have said before, it is impossible to say what the damages are going to be. Therefore there is something to be said for following the procedure of the County Courts Act, 1934, and for having different figures for actions in contract and those in tort.
  I mention this fact because the Lord Chancellor might like to consider it. I may say at once that I am not going to press my Amendment to a Division, and I shall certainly withdraw it. I am only saying what I do in order that the Lord Chancellor may look at it and consider it, as I will certainly consider his suggestion. I have also considered whether I should have put the sum at £250, or whether I should have put £250 in tort and £350 in contract. Or should as I have done here, put in a figure of £300

  209
  as being midway, and more or less an arbitrary figure for both? All sorts of variants of this figure are possible. From what I have heard from lawyers, I am bound to tell your Lordships that although they think the Lord Chancellor's Amendment is much better than nothing—it does give a judge a discretion—yet they do not think it is in any sense anything like the cushion we had before, and they consider it puts the young barrister in rather an embarrassing position. His man comes to him and says, "I want to bring an action. Shall I bring it in the High Court or the county court?" If the barrister says, "Bring it in the county court," and the county court judge awards him the full £400, which is the most he can give, and says, in giving his judgment, "I am only sorry that I cannot award more, because I think £500) is the least that ought to have been given," imagine the reaction of the litigant. He turns to his solicitor, and his solicitor turns to his counsel, and says, "Look here, you have made a fool of yourself. You have deprived this man of £100 by not bringing the action in the proper place."
  On the other hand, if the barrister says, "We will bring your action in the High Court," and the damages awarded in the High Court are only £350, then, unless the judge makes some order—if the law simply takes its course—the unfortunate litigant will find himself mulcted, in addition to the ordinary costs, of costs to the tune of, say, £50. I am told that that is rather a low estimate, and it might well be £100 which will have to Come out of his damages. That is the dilemma, and that is why we had the cushion in the old days. That is why we welcome the discretion which the Lord Chancellor is giving, but we do point out that the discretion is completely unfettered, and the judge who has to decide whether or not to exercise his discretion may be in great difficulty be-cause one side or the other must bear this loss. The judge will have to decide: "Shall I put it upon the defendant?—after all, he did not bring the action—or shall I put it on the plaintiff?"
  I would therefore suggest to the Lord Chancellor—as I say, it is merely for his consideration—that he might adopt that scheme. I think he is right to leave this
  210
  matter to the unfettered discretion of the judge, but he might give him the kind of hint I have suggested, which would be the effect of my scheme. If the plaintiff recovers a certain amount, a different amount if you like, in actions for tort and in actions for contract—and I am not trying myself at all to what the amount should be—then he should get his costs albeit the action is brought in the High Court. If he recovers less than that amount, then he should not get his High Court costs unless the judge exercises his discretion to that effect. In the one case the discretion must be exercised, and in the other it need not be exercised. It is the onus of proof, or analogous to the onus of proof: if the judge does not make an order in one case, then the law takes its course; if he does not in the other case, then equally the law takes its course. That is the scheme I would commend to the Lord Chancellor for consideration. I am not sure that it will altogether satisfy the Bar Council who, I think, would like to leave something like the cushion of the old days. But I quite understand the Lord Chancellor's reluctance to do that if he wants to get these actions transferred. I have tried to suggest a halfway house, which I most humbly commend to the Lord Chancellor's consideration in order that he may see, after he has considered it, whether or not something on these lines should be adopted.
  I merely add that so far as the drafting of this Amendment is concerned, he need not take too much notice of it. I did myself in a few moments of time, and no doubt if he is going to adopt something of this sort it could be put in much better shape by the Parliamentary draftsman. I consider that the drafting of this Bill is greatly to the credit of the Parliamentary draftsman. If the Lord Chancellor thinks anything of this idea, I hope he will not consider my wording as sacrosanct, but will take the point into consideration and put it into the proper form, whatever it may be. In the meantime, in order that we may have a discussion on this scheme, I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name as an Amendment to the Lord Chancellor's Amendment.
  Amendment to Amendment moved—
  At end of the proposed new subsection insert the said proviso.—(Earl Jowitt.)
  3.20 p.m.
  LORD SILKIN: My Lords, there is little it is necessary to add to the case that my noble and learned friend has just made. It seems to me, as a practitioner, that this Bill puts one in a dilemma in advising a client. I do not want to make too much of that, because there is the even bigger dilemma of whether or not one's client has a case at all, let alone the question of damages. In advising a client, one has to advise on two things: first, is there a case at all; and, secondly, if there is, what are the damages likely to be recovered? I would not stress too hard the particular dilemma whether one should go to the county court or to the High Court, but it is a dilemma all the same. Upon the decision that one makes will rest what may be to the litigant a very considerable sum of money. I think, therefore, that the Amendment which the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has moved is a move in the right direction. Frankly, I cannot see what more one can do than to give the judges discretion in the way in which the Amendment provides, except to give them, in addition, the sort of guidance which the noble and learned Earl has suggested in his Amendment. It really carries the thing a stage further. It not only says that the judges are to have discretion in the manner indicated in the Amendment, but gives them a lead to the way in which they are to exercise it. That is all to the good.
  My noble and learned friend indicated that discretion is a matter which rests very much not only upon the length of a person's foot but very often upon what he has had for breakfast or lunch, or what may have happened in circumstances other than the atmosphere of the court. All these things enter into the way in which discretion is exercised. A judge may be influenced even by the way in which a witness gave his evidence, which may have nothing at all to do with the merits of the matter upon which the judge has to decide. If it is possible to work on the lines that my noble and learned friend has suggested, giving the judges a clear lead to the way in which they are to exercise the discretion, I think that will be all to the good. But there might be the danger of going so far in that direction as really to give them a discretion on the one hand and remove
  212
  it from them on the other. I think that my noble and learned friend has provided a happy medium between going too far in the way of instructing the judges on how they are to exercise their discretion and not giving them any lead at all.
  With him, I agree that the figure is capable of discussion. Broadly, I think that the more simple one can make these things, the better. I agree with my noble and learned friend that there is a theoretical case for trying to make a case of contract more exact than one of tort: it is capable of more exact forecast than in the case of tort. But I think that simplicity is a great advantage. The Amendment of my noble and learned friend provides for a 25 per cent. margin of error, which is not unreasonable. Therefore I hope that the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack will see his way to agree to something of this kind which will give the judges some guide to the manner in which they are to exercise their discretion.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am grateful to the noble and learned Earl for the careful study and presentation that he made of this point, and to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, for giving us his views, based on experience in this problem from his particular angle. I should like to put before you my difficulties on the matter, because I should not like your Lordships to think that this is in any way (it is not) an Amendment on which I have any desire, if I may be colloquial, to "stonewall" or to approach in that way at all. I want to solve the two problems which are before us: first, to draw cases into the county court and thereby relieve congestion in the High Court and reduce the cost of litigation; and, secondly, to do justice to the litigants.
  May I start in the same way as did the noble and learned Earl, with the original wording of the Act of 1934? As I mentioned when I addressed your Lordships last, that had the words "sufficient reason." That was open to the objections which were mentioned. What I tried to do—and I think I have succeeded to that extent—was to make sure that there was no such difficulty about "sufficient reason," but that there was included the position that is met in my

  213
  Amendment: the case where it appears to the High Court judge
  "that there was reasonable ground for supposing the amount recoverable in respect of the plaintiff's claim to be in excess of the amount recoverable in an action in a county court."
  My difficulty arises when one moves from that to the proposal of the noble and learned Earl. So far as my Amendment is concerned, it is true that it is discretionary, but the condition of the discretion is that the judge shall apply his mind to the question: had the plaintiff reasonable grounds for expecting more than £400?
  Now let us assume that the judge considers that point and says: "The plaintiff has recovered only £300. I have looked at his medical reports, I have looked at the advice that he got from counsel at that stage in the case, and I do not think he had reasonable grounds for expecting to get more than £400." He has considered that point and come to the conclusion that there were not reasonable grounds; but the figure is £300. Then he has to consider the noble and learned Earl's Amendment. He says: "Ah! but, £300 having been recovered, the plaintiff is entitled to High Court costs unless I decide that there was not reasonable ground for bringing the action in the High Court." What are the criteria left to him between these two positions? He has already decided that the plaintiff has not satisfied him that there were reasonable grounds for expecting more than £400. He has then to apply his mind to the question in the noble and learned Earl's Amendment. That is very difficult.
  I put out my suggestions for the noble and learned Earl to consider. I am not pontificating on the matter at all. I would suggest that there are only two things which would enable the judge to exercise his power: first, that the plaintiff had been perverse, had been silly and stupid and not looked at the facts of the case, and that no person who approached it with an open mind as opposed to a perverse mind could have expected £400; and secondly, the ordinary default provision as to costs, which I am putting very simply—noble Lords who are in the profession will understand why I am doing it—that the plaintiff, in the conduct of his case, has shown some fault which should be penalised in costs. But, apart from that,
  214
  there are no grounds, there are no facts, as I see it, on which the judge could exercise his discretion, because he has already approached the problem and considered (this is the hypothesis on which we must proceed) that the plaintiff had not reasonable ground.
  The noble and learned Earl put the matter on a question of onus. Of course, onus is a starting gate in litigation. Onus is a help at the beginning of a case, to decide who shall establish certain facts. At the end of the day, when all the points are before the judge, onus is of less importance, because he has to decide whether there were, or were not, reasonable grounds—whichever way you put it, he must decide that question. I have tried to apply my mind as well as I can to the matter, but my trouble has been that the noble and learned Earl's Amendment does not, at the end of the day, provide a discretion; it says that in all except very exceptional cases High Court costs shall be given where the plaintiff recovers £300, unless he has been perverse or in default. It really comes back to saying in a different way that there shall be a cushion or something equivalent to a cushion.
  I should like to consider that point for a moment because, again, I should not like your Lordships to think that I am being insensitive on a difficult point. The noble and learned Earl gave us the history of the matter with complete correctness: I would like to add only some foot-notes. Before 1938, when the limit of jurisdiction was £100, there was the cushion of which the noble and learned Earl spoke, of £50 in cases of tort; there was, as the noble and learned Earl will remember, no cushion in cases of contract. But in 1938 we tried extending the jurisdiction of the county courts to £200, with the proviso that the defendant could remove any claim of between £100 and £200 to the High Court. The effect was that in the last year for which I have figures, the number of claims between £100 and £200 was 4,849—
  EARL, JOWITT: Which were transferred?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: No; they were brought in the county courts—and the number of actions concerning amounts of under £100 brought in the county courts was 571,397. In round figures, that is 5,000 cases between £100 and £200, and 600,000 cases of under

  215
  £100. Therefore I do not think I am making a false point in saying that that attempt to bring cases to the county court largely failed. I am anxious to see that my attempt, for which I am glad that the noble and learned Earl has claimed some paternity, should not fail. I have told your Lordships that we are dealing here with the question of trying to get 1,300 cases transferred from the High Court to the county court. I should think the effect of this proposal would be that something like one-sixth of that number would not come to the county court. I am most ready to consider the matter—I shall, of course, always be delighted to do that.
  I must say that while the noble and learned Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, were speaking, I wondered whether I ought not to consider another possibility. Under the Bill as it now stands, the limit of county court jurisdiction is £400, with power to extend it to £500 by an Affirmative Resolution of both Houses of Parliament. If the cushion were introduced, I should have to consider whether I should not increase the limit, because the effect of introducing the cushion in one way or another would be to exclude so many cases that I want to bring in, in order to establish a balance between the High Court and the county court, and between London and Assize and local jurisdiction.
  The other aspect which I should like the noble and learned Earl to consider is that between the plaintiff and the defendant. The basis of my Amendment is that the plaintiff is bringing his action, and it is for him to satisfy the judge that he had reasonable grounds for bringing the action in the High Court. The trouble in regard to the noble and learned Earl's Amendment is that it puts a negative onus on the defendant. His Amendment puts it the other way round, namely, that the costs shall be allowed unless the judge certifies that there was no reasonable ground for bringing the action in the High Court. The difficulty of proving a negative is something upon which I need not dilate. On the other hand, the plaintiff, who under my Amendment has to prove a positive assertion, is in full command of the facts on which it can be proved. It seems to me, on general principles, that it is difficult to let the plaintiff escape from proving the facts known to him, and to put on to the defendant the onus of
  216
  proving facts of which he cannot have knowledge. Therefore I feel that we have to face the point; do we in one sense or another want a cushion inserted? And if we have such a cushion inserted, are we prepared to take the inevitable result that there will be a considerable decrease in the number of cases that are brought to the county court?
  I have deliberately put my argument in the form of trying to raise questions which I should like noble Lords opposite to consider, as I am sure they will. I will consider what they have said, and I shall be grateful if, on that assumption and assertion that I will consider the matter carefully—I shall be most happy to discuss it with the noble and learned Earl, and with the noble Lord, Lord Silkin as well—the noble and learned Earl will, as he suggested, withdraw the Amendment for to-day. Then, before the Report stage, let us return to this matter, after we have had further opportunity of considering it.
  3.40 p.m.
  LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: Before my noble and learned friend withdraws his Amendment there is a point that I should like to put to the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor. The dilemma which exists here arises from the fact that a person who brings an action in the High Court recovers whatever debt or damages the court may award, even an amount below the limit for county court jurisdiction. If, on the other hand, he brings an action in the county court, he cannot possibly recover more than the limit for county court's jurisdiction, even though the judge may consider that he is entitled to recover more. If the arrangement were made to work reciprocally, so that the county court judge could award more than the amount of that limit by way of debt or damages, but could not award High Court costs, we should not be confronted with this dilemma.
  I can say from my own experience, as a solicitor for more than thirty years, that this is a very serious question. One is faced with great difficulty in advising a client, particularly with regard to actions of tort. In contract, it is easier to predict the possible result, although even in those cases it is not always simple. The Lord Chancellor, out of his experience, will know very well that in

  217
  litigation relating to contracts for building work there is extreme uncertainty, because of the magnitude of possible difference of opinion upon every detail in the contract, over what should be the price and whether or not the work has been done properly. And when it comes to actions of tort, one is in still greater difficulty. I will give noble Lords an illustration from my own knowledge. A man met with a fatal accident in a factory. At the inquest, evidence was given by the police surgeon who had conducted the post-mortem examination. He said, "As a result of my post-mortem examination, I say that this man had not more than two weeks to live." If that was so, the man's chance of recovering any appreciable amount of damages was obviously very small, because his expectation of life was said to be so low. Yet in the end, £750 was recovered for the unfortunate relatives. Faced with a problem of this kind, what is a solicitor to do in advising his client?
  I would draw the attention of the noble and learned Viscount to the wording of his Amendment:
  "…that there was reasonable ground for supposing the amount recoverable…to be in excess of"
  what could have been recovered in the county court. Had the subsection been framed in the way in which the noble and learned Viscount put his argument to the House, that it was reasonable to bring the proceedings in the High Court, that is one proposition; but to say that it was "reasonable" for the plaintiff to expect to recover more than £400 in damages is quite a different proposition. I will not weary your Lordships with details, but it would have been difficult, in the case I have mentioned, to advise my client that it was reasonable to bring these proceedings in the High Court. It would have been difficult to say, "I think you will certainly recover more than £400," but it was reasonable to bring those proceedings and, in the result, was proved so to be.
  If the unfortunate plaintiff is forced, in such a case, to go into the county court, he may be deprived of a sum of money which he or she ought to get. I suggest, with respect, that we ought not to assume what has apparently been assumed throughout the consideration of the relative positions of the county court
  218
  and the High Court—namely, that there ought to be an absolute barrier to prevent anybody from recovering in the county court more than the amount of the limit which is placed there, whatever that may be. It is not so in the High Court; there, if a plaintiff succeeds in a claim but recovers less than the limit, he still gets his award. He may be deprived of some costs, but that is another story. At any rate, judgment is given for whatever the court considers to be the entitlement. I see no reason why in the county court, also, one should not get a judgment for whatever the court thinks is the proper amount.
  3.47 p.m.
  EARL JOWITT: Those are very cogent observations. I shall certainly do what the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor asks. I will withdraw my Amendment, on the understanding that he will consider this matter. The noble and learned Viscount was good enough to say that he would have a discussion with me, and I should be glad to do so, if I thought I could in any way help to solve his difficulty for him. But I believe that it is for him to decide, although whatever he decides will be considered wrong by a large number of people. I hope that he will come to a wise decision. My own feeling is that if this question is to be left to the judge—as it must be—there is something to be said for giving him a hint as to the way in which he should exercise his discretion, otherwise he is completely unfettered.
  It is easy to see whether there is a chance of more than a certain amount being recovered, although I do not much like the idea of counsel's opinion being handed in, because of the possibility of there being dishonourable counsel (I am thinking back to the old days, to my early days at the Bar), who would invariably say, "You ought to get at least £1,000." That opinion would be handed in, and would be held to be good ground for getting High Court costs. I think that would not be a good feature. However this provision is worded, the matter must be left to the discretion of the judge, but it might be well worth while to consider giving a judge a broad hint—depending on the amount, whatever it may be. The question is then: is the judge going to take some special step and exercise discretion at all? A judge may say, "Let

  219
  the law take its course," and if the law takes its course, there would be a different result, according to whether the damages were under or over £300. I quite understand the remarks of the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor about the £500 limit; and that may be right at times. I have no definite views and it may be wiser to go by stages here. With your Lordships' permission, and greatly thanking the noble and learned Viscount for the obvious care and attention he has given to this matter, and knowing that he will look into it again and try to arrive at the best possible solution, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment to the Amendment.
  Amendment to the Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  3.50 p.m.
  EARL JOWITT EARL JOWITT moved, after subsection (2) to insert:
  "() In determining the amount recovered for the purposes of the preceding subsection any reduction by reason of the plaintiff's contributory negligence shall be disregarded."
  The noble and learned Earl said: There is nothing much in this Amendment, because, if I may say so with respect, I agree with the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor: I have very little doubt that this is the law at the present time. Take a simple case under the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act, 1945. Contributory negligence used to be a bar to recovering anything at all. Under that Act, it is no longer a bar but the amount a plaintiff recovers can be reduced, having regard to his own contributory negligence.
  Take the simplest example. A man brings an action for £600 damages—he has to do it in the High Court, of course—and the judge puts the damages at £600. But he says: "This was a case of fiftyfifty—each side was equally to blame. In the circumstances, I divide the £600 by two, and award the plaintiff £300." I think it is pretty plain that that action would automatically carry High Court costs, though the amount actually recovered was only £300. I think so for this reason. I do not believe that that is an action which could have been started in the county court. I know that the Lord Chancellor has dealt with this matter
  220
  —and may I thank him for being good enough to receive a deputation both from the Bar Council and from the Law Society: I know how very grateful both those bodies are to him. He expounded this point, but in some quarters, apparently, there still remains some doubt about it. As I have already said, I humbly agree with the Lord Chancellor that the matter is clear enough. But that being so, would it not be well to have a subsection for the purpose of making it quite plain, so that he who runs may read, and may understand that the law is as the Lord Chancellor and I believe it to be?
  I know that eminent people at the Bar are anxious that this point should be cleared up. We are always desirous of making our law as simple and acceptable as possible, and I would suggest that some subsection on the lines of this Amendment might be considered. I am not wedded to this precise wording, because these are only my own words, put down in a matter of a few minutes, and the Amendment would clearly need to be considered by the experts. But I suggest that something on these lines might well be put in. It would not, of course, alter the law, but it would make it plain, so that anyone, even if he does not know much about the law, would clearly realise how this matter stands. Though I do not intend to press this Amendment, I commend it to the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor for him to see whether something on these lines might be put into the Bill. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 2, line 14, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Earl Jowitt.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It might be convenient if I said another word or two so that the basis of my view—which I was glad to hear is shared by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt—appears quite clearly in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Then if anyone has any further point to make it will be open to him to raise it. The position starts, as I think the noble and learned Earl will agree, with the opening words of Section 47 (1) of the principal Act, the County Courts Act, 1934, both now and as amended by the Bill. Those words are:
  "Where an action founded on contract or tort is commenced in the High Court which could have been commenced in the county court…"

  221
  It is clear that an action such as that mentioned by the noble and learned Earl, where the damages are £600 but are cut down because of contributory negligence to £300, is not an action which could have been commenced in the county court. The case to which I have referred, the case in the Court of Appeal of Kelly v. Stockport Corporation (reported in 1949, I All England Reports, page 893) was decided in relation to the existing limit of £200 on the jurisdiction of the county court, and it was held that an action cannot be commenced in the county court where the damages suffered are more than £200, even though they are reduced, on account of the plaintiff's contributory negligence, to a sum below that figure.
  The case turned on the language of the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act, 1945, and the relevant section, Section 1 (1), reads as follows:
  "Where any person suffers damage as the result partly of his own fault and partly of the fault of any other person or persons, a claim in respect of that damage shall not be defeated by reason of the fault of the person suffering damage,"
  I ask your Lordships' attention to the next words:
  "but the damages recoverable in respect thereof shall be reduced to such extent as the court think just and equitable having regard to the claimant's share in the responsibility for the damage…"
  The effect of this provision is to require the court first to assess the "damages recoverable" (the words to which I drew your Lordships' attention) in respect of the claim for damage suffered by the plaintiff, after which it may proceed to reduce them to take into account the plaintiff's degree of contributory negligence. The decision in the case I have quoted shows that, in deciding whether to bring his action in the High Court or in the county court, the plaintiff must have regard to the gross amount of "damages recoverable" in respect of his injury, without taking into account the possibility of a reduction of those damages by reason of his own contributory negligence. It is certainly not the intention, nor I believe is it the effect, of the Bill to change that decision. That is the law as I understand it.
  I apologise for inflicting it on the House at such length, but I think it is important that one should get it clear. Of course I will look into the noble and learned Earl's
  222
  suggestion. He knows far better than I (he was a Law Officer long before I was, and he has had vast experience) of the traditional reluctance to putting in an addition when the law is believed to be already clear. But I do not want to be hide-bound. Naturally—if I may be quite frank—I shall consult the Parliamentary draftsmen, and try to find whether there are any repercussions. As the noble and learned Earl knows, the danger is that the insertion of some further words may throw a doubt on something else. But I will consider this fully, and if it can be done without raising any difficulty I shall be glad to do it. I hope that the noble and learned Earl will allow me that freedom because he knows that it is a very difficult matter—and he realises what one always has to bear in mind in this connection. I hope that, upon that assurance, the noble and learned Earl will not press the Amendment in this form.
  EARL JOWITT: I certainly shall not press the Amendment. I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor. What he has said makes the matter perfectly plain. If I may say so, I humbly and respectfully agree with everything that he has said. What still impresses me so much is that, even after he had expounded this, some eminent persons, members of the Bar Council, were still worried. Therefore, if there is no objection, it might be as well if the Parliamentary draftsmen, after examining the question, were to put the terms of my Amendment in appropriate language. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 2 [Actions for recovery of, or relating to, land]:
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next two Amendments go together. If I may be quite frank with the Committee, we thought that we had found a good term which expressed the sense in which these words were used, but after mature reflection we thought we had better come back to the words of the Bill, and these have been restored. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 2, line 34, leave out ("full yearly value") and insert ("value by the year").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 3, line 5, leave out ("full yearly value") and insert ("value by the year").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 3 [Admiralty proceedings]:
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment is consequential. It applies to the same matter in Admiralty proceedings. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 3, line 25, at end add—
  ("(3) A certificate may be given under any subsection of the said section fifty-nine in any case where it appears to the High Court or a judge thereof that there was reasonable ground for supposing the amount recoverable in respect of the plaintiff's claim to be in excess of the amount recoverable in proceedings commenced in a county court.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  EARL JOWITT: I agree that this is consequential. If anything comes of our previous discussion, then, of course, some corresponding alteration might have to be made here. The noble and learned Viscount will follow that.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Certainly; I should have said that. I entirely agree.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 4 to 7 agreed to.
  Clause 8 [Increase in number of judges]:
  4.1 p.m.
  EARL JOWITT EARL JOWITT moved to substitute "eighty-five" for "seventy-five." The noble and learned Earl said: This is a very simple matter. I suggest to the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor that he had better take wider discretion than he has given himself in this matter, although it may never be necessary. The number of county court judges who may be appointed at the present time is sixty-five. The noble and learned Viscount is going to increase the number to seventy-five. One thing we have to remember about this Bill is that the county court is supposed to be a poor man's court. It exists primarily for the dealings of simple
  224
  people and small claims, and, whatever we do, we must not interfere with the speedy and satisfactory hearing of the poor man's case because we have these larger claims brought before the county court. I am sure that the noble and learned Viscount would be the first to agree that it would be disastrous if that came about.
  None of us quite knows how this scheme is going to work. It may mean that because of the new extended jurisdiction, the Lord Chancellor will have to appoint a number of new judges to get the work done. I think it is obvious that he will have to appoint new judges. The question is, how many? We on this side think the noble and learned Viscount ought to be trusted. I cannot imagine that any Lord Chancellor will run amok on this matter and appoint county court judges right, left and centre, just for the sake of it. Obviously he would not appoint county court judges unless there was a good need, and I suggest to the noble and learned Viscount that it would be just as well if he took the power, which I suppose in practice he would never exercise without the consent to the Treasury. I suggest that he should take wider discretion than he has already given himself. Accordingly, I beg to move my Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 5, line 13, leave out ("seventy-five") and insert ("eighty-five").—(Earl Jowitt.)
  LORD SILKIN: This is a matter which I raised on Second Reading. The increase of the work of the county courts is something that nobody can forecast. It is not merely the increase which will flow from extending the limits of jurisdiction. As the noble and learned Viscount will know, in the last year or two there has been a considerable increase in the work of the county courts by reason of the legislation which has been passed by Parliament—by, for instance, the Housing Repairs and Rents Act and the Landlord and Tenant Act. What the increase will be is quite incalculable. It seems to me somewhat unwise to fetter the Lord Chancellor by limiting the increase in the number of judges. One knows the difficulty of promoting legislation. If it is found that the county courts are becoming congested, it will take a long time to establish the fact; then there is the time spent on agitation. With all respect to the noble and learned Viscount

  225
  and to whoever sits in his place, I say that these matters do take a long time before they reach him, and it might be several years before an opportunity arises again of increasing the number of judges. Therefore, I should prefer that the noble and learned Viscount should have the right to increase the number of judges according to his discretion, subject, if you like, to the approval of the Treasury. The Amendment raises the maximum to eighty-five instead of seventy-five. I am sure that that would go a long way. I hope that the noble and learned Viscount will see his way either to increase his discretion or accept this Amendment. I am fearful of the effect of the increase in the amount of work. My own forecast is that it will soon justify considerably more than ten additional judges throughout the country. If I am right, there would be considerable congestion before Parliament got round to remedying what they might regard as a small matter.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The only reason why I say anything more than that I should be pleased to consider this, which of course I shall be pleased to do, is that I should like your Lordships to believe that we have given thought to it, and this figure is not really a shot in the dark. I will put frankly before you the way we approached this matter and then your Lordships will be able to judge. We took it on the basis of the jurisdiction going up to £500, because that can be done without further legislation. Then we made the following assumptions. First, we assumed that there would be 1,400 extra cases: your Lordships will remember that I said there would be 1,300 extra with the limit of jurisdiction at £400. If the sanctions were watertight—which is a big "if" on the discussion we have had to-day—1,400 extra cases would come to the county courts Fourteen hundred cases represents one-sixteenth of the number of cases tried in the county courts. The figures to which I referred before were actions brought, but these figures are of cases actually tried. There are now sixty-three judges and one-sixteenth of the judge-power would give me another four judges.
  Then I assumed that the cases that would come to the county courts would be longer cases and I multiplied my number of four by two and a half, in order to allow for the fact that a case in the
  226
  High Court takes roughly about two and a half times the time of a case in the county court. Then I allowed for the possibility that the sanctions will be only two-thirds effective. If your Lordships' speeches to-day are ultimately as persuasive as they were originally, I was right in allowing for the fact that sanctions would not operate fully. I had to make a deduction for that. On the other hand, however, I had to take into account the increase of work resulting from the Landlord and Tenant Act, of which I know something, and from the Housing Repairs and Rents Act, and I thought that these two figures would balance each other. And that is how I get my figure of ten judges. They are uncertain factors. First of all, there is the question of the effectiveness of the sanctions; secondly, the increase of work arising from these new Acts; and thirdly, the difficulty, as the noble and learned Earl knows well, of securing that all the judge-power is employed, because the increases may appear in one part of the country and not in another. Therefore there is a problem here, and again I should like to reconsider it. The Government speaks with one voice, but the one voice represents more than one Department, and I should like to discuss this matter further. I thought it was only right, in view of the argument put forward, that I should deploy my approach to the problem.
  EARL JOWITT: I am grateful to the Lord Chancellor, and, in asking leave to withdraw my Amendment, I suggest he should try the Treasury with the figure of eighty, and he may "get away with it."
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 8 agreed to.
  Clause 9 agreed to.
  Clause 10 [Judge's power as to place of hearing]:
  4.11 p.m.
  EARL JOWITT EARL JOWITT moved to add to the clause:
  "(2) The judge shall have power to transfer a case for hearing to a court outside his jurisdiction with the consent of the Lord Chancellor or of the judge of the district to which it is transferred."
  The noble and learned Earl said: This, again, is a question which I think is rather declaratory of the law, but it is a little odd. If your Lordships look at Clause 10 of the Bill you will see

  227
  the point which arises. It really arises under Section 99 of the County Courts Act, 1934. That section says that the rule committee may make county court rules regulating the practice of the court. Subsection (2) of that section says:
  "The power of making county court rules shall extend to all matters of procedure or practice…"
  Those two matters are perfectly general. Then, having dealt with those general matters, the section goes on to say, in subsection (3):
  "Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions of this section, the power of making county court rules shall extend to—
  (b) prescribing the circumstances in which proceedings may be transferred from one court to another…"
  That is the position as it is to-day. I believe it is correct to say that to-day a county court judge has power to transfer a case from his own circuit to the circuit of another county court judge. I do not believe it is ever done without the consent of the other county court judge, but I am not certain about that. That being so, it seems odd that in Clause 10 of this Bill precise statutory powers are being taken and it is made quite plain that there is power to transfer from one area to another in the same circuit. The concluding words of Clause 10 are:
  "…shall take place in the court for some other district of which he is the judge."
  If you are taking statutory powers to do that, it seems odd that you should not also take statutory powers to do something which is rather larger than that—namely, to transfer from one circuit to another circuit altogether. Therefore, I suggest that this subsection might be put in. It is not that I doubt that what is proposed can be done at present; I believe that under Rule 19 of the County Court Rules it can be done. What I am pointing out is that it seems to me odd that you are here, in Clause 10 of the Bill, dealing with power to transfer a case from one place to another in the same circuit, but you are silent on the bigger question of whether a case can be transferred outside the circuit altogether. I agree that the language of my Amendment is not right. All I want is that the matter shall be considered, and, if it is dealt with, for it to be made plain that a case can be transferred, not only within the circuit, but without the circuit—
  228
  whether it is with or without the consent of the county court judge, or with or without the consent of the Lord Chancellor, I care not.
  I should like to tell noble Lords who do not know what happened in county courts in the old days. When you went there, with what you might well have thought was an important case—though, of course, in those days no case was for more than £100—there would, first of all, be the small business of the day which the judge had to deal with. Then, when he had dealt with that, he would come to your case at a time that might well be fairly late in the afternoon. He would get down to your case. At 6 o'clock (they used to sit until that hour in those days) your case might not be finished, and you would have to come back on the next date when the judge sat in that particular place, which might be a month's time. I have known of cases that had to be adjourned twice: which had been heard on the first day, then heard again a month later and then heard again a month later still. That is most undesirable and it leads to great expense.
  When I appointed the Committee on County Court procedure, they put forward a proposal which I feel is of considerable value. That proposal is in paragraph 28 of their final Report, and is that, so far as London is concerned, a court should be set up, which would sit de die in diem, to which the larger and heavier cases could be transferred, so that the ordinary courts should not get cluttered up with the heavier cases but be able to do their ordinary business, which is of great importance. Whether anything will ever come about on those lines, I do not know. We do not necessarily want a handsome constructure, consonant with the dignity that ought to be the invariable surroundings of the public administration of justice (we have administered justice for a long time in two courts in the Law Courts, which we call the Quadrangle Courts and which are of the plainest, simple, wooden structure, and in which judges of the High Court have often sat) but there must be a building somewhere. It might well be worth an experiment to see whether there cannot be constituted such a court as that, to which could be transferred the rather larger cases, which in the old days we used to refer to as "stickers." If that is to be done, it makes it all the more necessary that it should be plain

  229
  that a case can be transferred from one circuit to another. I am anxious that this matter should be considered for the reasons that I have given. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 5, line 42, at end insert the said subsection.—(Earl Jowitt.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The position at the moment is that there exist two powers. The first is that to which the noble and learned Earl referred: that under Order 16, Rule 1, of the County Court Rules, the judge has power to transfer a case—that is, not the hearing, but the whole proceedings—to a court outside his circuit. He has also power, under Section 38 of the Act of 1934, with the consent of the parties, to transfer a case for hearing by himself to another place within or without his circuit. What Clause 10 seeks to do is to give him power to transfer a case, for hearing only, without the consent of the parties, to another court on his own circuit. That deals generally with the problem which the noble and learned Earl has graphically described, and which I remember so well, of being faced with your case not being able to be heard for perhaps two months until the judge returned to that place.
  We thought that it was right to do that, but we did not think it right to go further and give the judge the right to transfer to a place outside the circuit, because if that is done without the consent of the parties it seems to us to be an inroad into the principle of local administration of justice by the county courts. I hope that I have made the point clear. This is the case where it is transferring not the whole of the action, but the hearing to another court. That was the difficulty that we felt. But we were, of course, very conscious of the passage, to which the noble and learned Earl referred, in paragraph 28 of the Report of the Austin Jones Committee, where they recommended that a central court should be set up in London for the purpose of hearing longer actions transferred to it by surrounding courts.
  My mind is not closed, but for the moment I take some comfort from the fact that in London the procedure under Order 16, Rule 1, of transferring the whole case, so that the interlocutory work goes on in a different court, is not one that would in most cases work adversely to the parties, because it would not be
  230
  much more difficult for either party if interlocutory work were done, say, in Westminster instead of in Lambeth. We felt that that for the moment coped with the situation. But, as I say, we are not closing our eyes ultimately to following the suggestion of the Committee. I should like to consider that when I get a better view of how the county courts operate under the new set-up and of what arrangements will have to be made to deal with the additional work of which we have spoken. For the moment, I hope the noble and learned Earl will allow me, as a start, to confine the judge's power to transferring hearings to towns on the same circuit. I promise him that I will keep the matter under review, and if I find that it is not working well I will reconsider it. But I do not want at the moment to make that additional inroad into the right of trust, and I hope that the noble and learned Earl will find it possible not to press his Amendment.
  EARL JOWITT: I will certainly withdraw my Amendment. All I want the noble and learned Viscount to do is this. If and when in the future he is minded to try the experiment set out in paragraph 28 of the Report, I want to be quite certain that he has the powers to do it. All I am asking him to do is to look at the matter between now and the next stage of the Bill; and if he tells me, "I am satisfied that I have the powers already" then I shall say no more. But if there is any argument or question about that, then I hope he will adopt something on the lines of this Amendment, because it may be a useful experiment to try. It may not be; but let us have our tackle in order, so that if it seems fit we are able to try. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 10 agreed to.
  Clause 11 [Appeals on question of fact, and consequential amendments as to appeal on law]:
  On Question, Whether Clause 11 shall stand part of the Bill?
  EARL JOWITT: I should like to ask a question about this clause. This is the clause which gives a right of appeal on fact, and if I remember aright we are now to have a right of appeal where the damages exceed £200.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The original county court figure.
  EARL JOWITT: I think that is right, because if you are taking the somewhat drastic step of increasing the jurisdiction of the county court from £200 to £400, it is right that you should in that event give the person who thinks he is injured a right of appeal. Of course, if you have a right of appeal on matters which depend on fact, it depends upon what those facts are; and that, in turn, depends on what sort of note the county court judge has taken.
  I can remember cases in the old days where the judge's note was hopelessly inadequate. One counsel, when he got to the Court of Appeal, used to say, "My Lords, what took place was this"; and then the other counsel would say, "What took place was that"—"this" being the exact opposite of "that." There being no adequate note at all, what was the Court of Appeal to do? In the High Court there is always a transcript which can be sent for, in case of need; but in the county court there is not—it depends upon what notes the county court judge chooses to make. He may make many, or he may make none at all. Some county court judges in the old days used laboriously to write down almost everything. Other county court judges, no doubt equally laborious, used to think they could spend their time better in examining the witnesses and seeing how they were behaving, rather than by writing down a great many notes. That is all very well, but how is the Court of Appeal to function if there are no notes of the county court judge?
  I should like to know what the Lord Chancellor can say about this question. It would cost much too much to have a shorthand writer taking a transcript at every county court, added to which I very much doubt whether it would be possible to get the people to do it—I do not think they are there. Therefore, I do not think that is a possible solution. Is a possible solution to have some sort of strip-recording, so that in case of appeal (I see the Postmaster General looking at me, so I must be careful to get my technicalities right) the record might be played back, when, I hope, no question of copyright would arise? Is it possible, by some mechanical contrivance, of which I know little or nothing, to do this? Has it ever
  232
  been tried out? How is the right of appeal to be made effective unless there are notes? Those are the points that occur to me, and I should be grateful to the Lord Chancellor if he could say how his mind is working upon these topics.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have naturally given considerable attention to this point. May I first deal with the mechanical recording suggestions of the noble and learned Earl? He is absolutely right about shorthand writers of the present day—there just do not exist sufficient men of requisite skill who could be used in this way. With regard to the second point, the Evershed Committee tried an experiment with a tape recorder in Westminster County Court in 1950. That was not very successful, partly because tape recording was still in its infancy and partly because it was impossible to distinguish between the voices. I think that idea has a good way to go, although the noble and learned Earl may remember a trial some ten years ago in which a complete sound track was taken when, I think, he was a visitor.
  EARL JOWITT: I certainly do.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That is obviously a matter which must be considered in the future, but I cannot hold out great hopes for the moment. Then one comes to the point which the noble and learned Earl has rightly underlined, the adequacy of the notes. The noble and learned Earl will remember that, when he and I occasionally used to cross swords, the High Court judges had to take their own note. He and I have argued many a case in the Court of Appeal with nothing more than the judge's note. I felt—and I have discussed the matter with the Master of the Rolls—that the best immediate step would be for the Master of the Rolls to be good enough to give a Practice Direction as to the sort of note that the Court of Appeal desired and would welcome. I felt that it would be best if we approached it on that basis. Like the noble and learned Earl, at one time I had a considerable practice in workmen's compensation appeals in the Court of Appeal where, even although the appeal was on points of law, there were very important questions of fact which had to be dealt with, in order to see whether an accident had taken place. On the whole, my experience was that it worked very well.

  233
  I could not agree more than I do with the noble and learned Earl that nothing is worse or more derogatory to the conduct of appellate litigation than the sort of dispute which he pictured between the advocates who appeared in the court below. However, I think a great deal can be done to avoid that if the judges will follow the directions which they will receive. There is just one other point about the shorthand note of which I feel I ought to remind your Lordships. One of our objectives is the reduction in the cost of litigation. Rightly, shorthand notes are a very expensive matter. They are very highly skilled work, especially the taking down of question and answer. I cannot imagine anything more horrible, but it is done with the greatest skill and exactitude. In fact, I often feel that my words must have been greatly improved when I read the shorthand note of them. But it is expensive, and it is bound to be expensive. It is bound to add greatly to the cost of litigation. To throw the cost on to the parties, I think, would be prohibitive. At the moment, to throw it on to the State would be unwise. Therefore, I hope that the noble and learned Earl will accept my assurance that I have considered the point and I trust that this Practice Direction will be of great assistance. I will again, as I am sure he will, keep attention on this matter to see how we progress in these new appeals.
  EARL JOWITT: I am much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount for the care he has taken in answering. Probably this Practice Direction is the best way out of the difficulty. I was always rather against the judges who, all the time when evidence was being given, had their noses buried in their note books, writing down what the witnesses said instead of spending a good deal of time looking at the witnesses. It is all a question of drawing a happy line between the two. I have no doubt that the Practice Direction will be of value. I am grateful to the Lord Chancellor for what he has said.
  Clause 11 agreed to.
  Remaining clause and Schedules agreed to.
  House resumed.
  House adjourned during pleasure.
  House resumed.

  ROYAL COMMISSION
  5.0 p.m.
  The following Bills and Measure received the Royal Assent.

  Consolidated Fund,

  New Towns,

  Cocos Islands,

  Colonial Development and Welfare,

  Fisheries,

  Northern Ireland,

  Public Works Loans,

  Transport (Borrowing Powers),

  National Service,

  Trustee Savings Banks (Pensions),

  Rural Water Supplies and Sewerage,

  Imperial War Museum,

  Chatham Intra Charity of Richard Watts and Other Charities Scheme Confirmation,
  University of Hull.
  Inspection of Churches Measure, 1955.
  House adjourned during pleasure.
  House resumed.

  NEW B.O.A.C. AIRCRAFT
  NEW B.O.A.C. AIRCRAFT
  FATAL ACCIDENTS TO R.A.F. PILOTS
  FATAL ACCIDENTS TO R.A.F. PILOTS