Sitting of 11 April 1956

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION (NO. 2) [MONEY]
  Committee to consider of authorising, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, payments to be made under any Act of the present Session transferring to and vesting in the Admiralty the railway authorised by the Cleobury Mortimer and Ditton Priors Light Railway Order, 1901 (Queen's Recommendation signified), Tomorrow.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  SHIPPING

    Seaborne Trade
    Mr. G. Thomasasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what proportion of the world's seaborne trade was carried in British tramp steamers in 1939 and 1955, respectively.
    The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Harold Watkinson): I regret that the information requested is not available.

    Merchant Fleet
    Mr. G. Thomasasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what percentage proportion of our total Merchant Service was represented by ore-carrying ships, tankers and liners, respectively, in 1939 and in 1956.
    Mr. Watkinson: In September, 1939, 57 per cent. of the gross tonnage of the United Kingdom Merchant Fleet was liners and 18 per cent. tankers. The corresponding percentages in January, 1956, were 51 per cent. and 28 per cent.
    178
    There were no vessels specially constructed to carry ore in the United Kingdom fleet in 1939. There were ten such vessels at 1st January, 1956, but their total tonnage was less than half of 1 per cent. of the total fleet.

    Ballast Sailings (North American Ports)
    Mr. G. Thomasasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation to what extent there has been an increase in the numbers of merchant vessels leaving this country in ballast seeking cargo in the North American ports during the past two months; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Watkinson: Some 201 merchant vessels of all flags left the United Kingdom in ballast during January and February, 1956, bound for North American ports as compared with 205 vessels during the corresponding two months of 1955. There does not appear to be anything exceptional in these movements.
    Mr. Thomas: Does this represent any considerable increase during the past few years?
    Mr. Watkinson: As far as I can see from the figures, no.

    Shipowners' Liability (Draft Convention)
    Mr. Knox Cunninghamasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he is aware of the judicial opinion expressed in the case of the "Landeer," reported in (1955) 2 Lloyd's List Rep. 554, that the limit of liability in merchant shipping cases was fixed nearly 100 years ago when the value of money was greater, that the size of a limitation fund may be quite out of line with the realities of a case, and that the monetary limits are overdue for review; and whether he will undertake a review preparatory to legislation.
    Mr. Watkinson: Yes, Sir, I am aware of the judicial opinion expressed in this case, but in regard to the second part of the Question I have nothing to add to the replies given by my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary on 8th February last.
    Mr. Knox Cunningham: Can my right hon. Friend give any indication of the date of the conference for the proposed

    179
    convention on the subject of limitation of liability? If he cannot give that date, will he assure the House that Her Majesty's Government will take the initiative in calling such a conference and getting some action on this point?
    Mr. Watkinson: I cannot say that at this moment, but I will write to my hon. Friend and try to give some information.
    Mr. Awbery: Has not the time come for a comprehensive review of merchant shipping laws, especially those affecting the safety of life at sea? Will the Minister examine the matter?
    Mr. Watkinson: That hardly arises from this Question, but I will look at it.

  TRANSPORT

    Suggestions Scheme
    Mr. Pageasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what organised suggestion scheme is in operation in his Department; how many suggestions are received from employees through that organisation annually; how many are adopted; what awards are made for such suggestions; and what he estimates to be the savings made by the adoption of employees' suggestions.
    Mr. Watkinson: The staff have a standing invitation to submit suggestions to improve methods of work and increase efficiency. A joint committee of the Departmental Whitley Council satisfies itself that every suggestion is given full and unbiased consideration in the Department, obtains advice from the responsible officers about the merits of each suggestion, ascertains to what extent it is being put into effect and recommends awards for the more meritorious.
    The average number of suggestions received is 180 a year. Approximately one in six is adopted and attracts a cash award. Awards range mostly between two and five guineas, but substantially larger awards are made in important cases. While many of the suggestions lead to substantial savings of money and effort, others are concerned variously with safety, health, effectiveness, convenience and amenity. It is not possible to estimate the financial benefits of the scheme, but I am satisfied that they are appreciable.
    Mr. Page: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that his scheme compares favourably with those adopted by some of the more successful commercial firms in this sphere, as the figures of the number of suggestions coming forward seem a little low. Would he investigate this a little further?
    Mr. Watkinson: I think that if the majority of British industry did what my own Department is doing we should see a bigger increase in the number of suggestion schemes. While I agree that we might, and I hope will, do more, I also hope that my hon. Friend's question will encourage private firms to adopt more of these schemes.

    Caravans
    Major Anstruther-Grayasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will give figures to show the present number of caravans in the United Kingdom and the increase in this number over the last 12 months.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Hugh Molson): I have no information which would enable me to answer my hon. and gallant Friend's Question.
    Major Anstruther-Gray: Arising out of that reply, would not some figures of this sort be helpful in making people appreciate how vastly the habit of taking a holiday in a caravan is expanding and, in particular, causing local authorities to make provision to welcome people who wish to spend a caravan holiday?
    Mr. Molson: The statistics of road vehicles are a by-product of the procedure for imposing Vehicle Excise Duty. That is payable only on mechanically propelled vehicles, and therefore we have no record of those which are merely trailed.
    Mr. Callaghan: Is it the case that the Ministry is considering restrictions in the use of caravans on the roads during holiday periods? If so, can the users of them have some early information, because there will be a need to adjust their holidays?
    Mr. Molson: Any consideration that we may be giving to the matter has not reached a point where it would be desirable to give any indication to the public of what is going on in our minds.
    Mr. Callaghan rose—
    Mr. Speaker: I think that that matter goes beyond the main Question, which asked only for the number of caravans.

    Driving Licences
    Mr. P. Wellsasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what type of licence is issued to drivers taking their test on tractors.
    Mr. Molson: The type of licence issued depends on the classification for driving test purposes of the tractor on which the test is taken. If the test is taken on a track-laying agricultural tractor which is steered by its own tracks the licence is limited to Group F; if taken on any other type of agricultural tractor, the licence is for Group B; if taken on any other type of tractor the licence is for Group A and, provided the test has been taken since 1st December, 1948, for Group B also.
    Mr. Wells: Is the Minister aware that a number of drivers who fail on a number of occasions to pass the car driving test subsequently take the test on a tractor and are then able to drive motor cars and other vehicles listed in Group A?
    Mr. Molson: I think the hon. Member is referring to the re-classification which took place on 1st December, 1948. Under the arrangements as they have now been revised, a person passing a test on or after that date on a Group A vehicle is automatically authorised to drive an agricultural tractor. Previously, that was not the case and the retrospective operation was not authorised, but we intend to try to deal with that under the Road Traffic Bill.
    Mr. Wells: If I send the Minister particulars of cases where individuals have been turned down after a test for car driving but subsequently have been granted a licence to drive a tractor belonging to a county council, will he look into that?
    Mr. Molson: Yes, I will certainly look into the point.
    Mr. Osborneasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he is aware that a completely deaf man was recently convicted in the Mansion House Court for driving a van whilst holding a
    182
    provisional licence, not accompanied by a qualified driver; and, in view of the increasing number of deaths due to motor accidents, if he will introduce legislation prohibiting the deaf, epileptic and those with defective eyesight, from obtaining driving licences.
    Mr. Molson: I have seen reports of this case. The law already provides that persons who suffer from epilepsy or who are unable to read a vehicle number plate—with glasses if worn—at a distance of 25 yards in good daylight cannot be granted a driving licence. Persons who are deaf may be granted a substantive licence if they pass the driving test. I see no reason at present to alter the position.
    Mr. Osborne: What is the position where people who have a driving licence become subject to these diseases and are, therefore, dangerous when they have a car in their charge? Does my hon. Friend think that the penalties are sufficiently adequate for people who do not keep the law in this respect?
    Mr. Molson: Every time a driver applies for the renewal of a licence he is obliged to answer the twelfth question in the application form, which reads as follows:
    "Do you suffer from epilepsy, or from sudden attacks of disabling giddiness or fainting?"
    and the fifteenth question:
    "Are you suffering from any other disease, mental or physical, or disability which would be likely to cause the driving by you of a motor vehicle to be a source of danger to the public?"
    Every year, anyone holding a driving licence is under an obligation to answer those questions.

    Vehicle Testing Stations
    Sir F. Medlicottasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if his attention has been drawn to the fact that at the testing station at Hendon during January, it was found that attention to brakes, steering, tyres, or headlights, was needed in respect of 97 per cent. of cars registered before 1945, 85 per cent. of cars registered between 1945 and 1953, and 66 per cent. of cars registered since 1953; and if, in view of the implications of these figures, he will now plan for an early increase in the number of testing stations.
    Mr. Watkinson: I agree with my hon. Friend that these figures show the real need on safety grounds for this testing service, but I have no plans for opening further testing stations in advance of any general scheme of vehicle testing which may be instituted if Parliament gives its assent to the proposals on this subject which I have tabled for inclusion in the Road Traffic Bill.
    Sir F. Medlicott: Does not it appear that these figures are most disturbing and that they prove the need for the compulsory testing of all road vehicles?
    Mr. Ernest Davies: Can the Minister tell us what has happened to the Road Traffic Bill? It is now at least twelve weeks since the Bill was reported to the House, and these matters are waiting attention. In view of the increasing number of road accidents, is not it important that we should speed up the passage of the Bill?
    Mr. Watkinson: I quite agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, Central (Sir F. Medlicott) that anybody who has studied the Hendon figures must draw the conclusion that we ought to have some kind of testing service. On the point put by the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies), I hope that we shall see the passing of the Bill before long.

  RAILWAYS

    Accident, Knutsford
    Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenportasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will make a statement with regard to the railway accident which occurred near Knutsford Station on Monday, 13th February.
    Mr. Watkinson: This was a minor derailment of three goods wagons during shunting operations. It involved no personal injuries and did not affect the safety of passenger traffic.

    Freight Charges (Increases)
    Mr. Ernest Daviesasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what advice he has received from the Transport Tribunal, following his consultation with them, regarding the application for an increase in railway freight charges; and what action he proposes to take in regard thereto.
    Mr. Watkinson: I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the advice which I have received from the permanent members of the Tribunal sitting as a consultative committee and have added certain comments. In their memorandum they give an objective survey of the financial position of the Commission since 1947 which shows the serious deficiencies of revenue in relation to expenditure. On this basis they recommend that regulations be made authorising the increases proposed by the Commission.
    The Government, however, for the reasons which I gave to the House on 19th March, still consider that it is in the national interest to authorise for an interim period of six months lower increases than those recommended.
    I shall therefore lay before the House regulations which will authorise the Commission, as from 23rd April, 1956, to increase the railway freight, dock and canal charges now in operation by 5 per cent. generally, but by 7½ per cent. in the case of railway freight charges for merchandise by goods train in consignments of under one ton and for merchandise by passenger train, and by 12½ per cent. in the case of railway freight charges for returned empties. This is on the clear understanding that these charges will have to be re-examined in the light of the circumstances that will exist in six months' time.
    Mr. Davies: Do I take it from that reply that the Minister is setting aside the advice given by the Transport Tribunal? Is not it a fact that it has accepted the application of the Transport Commission for an increase of 10 per cent. in freight charges and he has decided that only the lower charges shall be imposed? What is the purpose of consulting the Tribunal and then ignoring its advice? Is not he making a rubber stamp of the Tribunal, and what has it to say about this?
    Mr. Watkinson: The answer is that I have kept in close touch with the Tribunal. The fact is correct, as the hon. Gentleman has said. Both the Commission and myself are, in this instance, not taking the advice of the Tribunal.
    Mr. Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question? What is the point of consulting? Is not the Minister going beyond the terms of the

    185
    1953 Act in this respect where he is instructed to consult the Tribunal and consider its advice? What has led him to ignore the advice of the Tribunal?
    Mr. Watkinson: The answer to the first part of the supplementary question is that I am responsible to the House of Commons and not the Transport Tribunal. That is, I think, a rather important point. The Tribunal gives me advice. I can take it or not as I think fit. As I have said, I am the responsible Minister and the Tribunal is not in any way responsible or answerable to the House.
    Mr. G. Wilson: To get the matter in proper perspective, can my right hon. Friend give us, in money, the difference between the 5 per cent. authorised and the 10 per cent. proposed?
    Mr. Watkinson: I think I can do that. I think the best figure, to put it in perspective, is this: the amount that the Commission and myself are sacrificing by deferring for six months what the Tribunal has recommended is £8 million, against a total turnover of the Commission of £700 million.
    Mr. Callaghan: In view of the fact that the Minister accepts responsibility for what has been done, which will involve the Commission in a loss of £17 million a year, may I ask him what specific proposals he is putting for consideration as to the way in which the Commission can either hope to earn additional revenue or, alternatively, cut out uneconomic services?
    Mr. Watkinson: The position, if I may make it plain, is that the Commission takes full responsibility for the passenger charges which they are not implementing and I, of course, can only take the responsibility for freight because, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the Commission need not now consult me about passenger charges at all; so we are both equally guilty, if that is the view.
    What is much more important is what the hon. Gentleman asked, and that is what will be done in the six month period. I have already said, both in my statement and in answers in the House, that the Commission and I together are undertaking a major review of the financial and economic prospects. That will be pressed forward. It will certainly
    186
    have to include looking at all un-remunerative services and, in due course, the views which the Commission come to will be presented by me to the House.
    MEMORANDUM FOR THE MINISTER OF TRANSPORT AND CIVIL AVIATION BY THE PERMANENT MEMBERS OF THE TRANSPORT TRIBUNAL ACTING AS A CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE UNDER SECTION 82 OF THE TRANSPORT ACT, 1947
    1. We received on 20th March, 1956, Mr. Willis' letter of that day informing us that following upon an application made to you by the British Transport Commission on the 21st February you were minded in the exercise of the power contained in s. 82 (1) of the Transport Act, 1947, to make regulations authorising the Commission to make certain increases in their railway freight, dock and canal charges, and, in pursuance of the proviso to that subsection, asking for our advice with respect to the making of such regulations.
    A copy of Mr. Willis' letter is for the purposes of record annexed hereto.
    2. By their application the Commission asked that regulations should be made empowering them "to increase their railway freight charges by 10 per cent., except in the case of merchandise traffic by goods train in consignments of under I ton and merchandise by passenger train, where the increase sought is 15 per cent., and returned empties, where the increase sought is 25 per cent.; and to increase their dock and canal charges by 7½ per cent." It was estimated that such increases would in a full year produce additional revenue mounting to £24·8m.
    3. The Commission's request was supported by an explanatory memorandum with three statistical appendices.
    We have, as you will he aware, recently concluded an inquiry extending over 44 days into a Railway Freight Charges Scheme and have in addition had in December last and February of this year occasion to examine the financial position of the Commission in connection with applications made to us under s. 23 of the Transport Act, 1953. We have of course taken the information so gained into account in considering the memorandum and its appendices furnished to you by the Commission.
    4. The Commission are required by s. 3 (4) of the Transport Act, 1947, to secure that their revenue "is not less than sufficient for making provision for the meeting of charges properly chargeable to revenue taking one year with another" and by s. 92 of the same Act "to establish and maintain a general reserve" for the purpose (inter alia) of preventing "frequent fluctuations" in their charges.
    The following facts demonstrate (a) the extent to which the Commission have fallen short of these statutory obligations and (b) that their failure to meet them is attributable to the insufficient earnings of British Railways:

    (1) In only three out of the eight years, 1948–1955 inclusive during which they have carried on business, viz. in 1951, 1952 and

    187
    1953, have they been able to meet the "charges properly chargeable to revenue".

    (2) By the end of 1955 their accumulated deficit was over £69m.

    (3) British Railways form so large a part of the Commission's undertaking that it is essential if the Commission are to be able to perform their statutory obligations that British Railways shall, taking one year with another, "pay their way" in the sense of earning a sufficient surplus over their working expenses to provide a fair contribution to the central charges of the Commission.

    (4) In only one of the eight years 1948–1955 inclusive, viz. in 1952, have British Railways paid their way in the sense stated above. Over the whole eight years they have fallen short of doing so by approximately £100m.

    (5) Taking the last of the eight years, viz. 1955, by itself, according to the best estimate available the operations of the Commission as a whole resulted in a deficiency of £30·5m. while British Railways, treated as a separate undertaking, failed to "pay their way" by approximately £38m.

    5. The facts summarised in the preceding paragraph speak for themselves. They would be sufficiently grave even if it were possible to expect that the financial fortunes of the Commission would at all events be no worse in the immediate future than they have been in the past. No such mitigated hope can be entertained unless substantial relief can be afforded.
    Among the tables appended to the Commission's application was an estimate of the net receipts of the Commission at current rates and charges in a "future year". This table neglected the increases in passenger fares sanctioned by us as a temporary measure under s. 23 of the 1953 Act in December last which are calculated to produce in the case of the London Transport undertaking £3·4m. a year and in the case of British Railways £0·5m. The question whether these temporary increases ought to be made permanent is a matter for our decision after the public inquiry prescribed by s. 23 has been held. Without in any way prejudging the results of this inquiry we propose for the purposes of this memorandum to treat the Commission's estimate of their financial prospects in a future year as improved to the extent of these provisional increases which are now in fact in operation.
    Subject to this qualification we see no good reason for doubting any of the figures in the estimate. What it reveals, after allowing for the revenue from these provisional increases, is that in the absence of any further remedial measures—

    (1) the Commission's deficit would by the end of this future year have increased by £55m. so as to make their accumulated deficit more than £124m.;

    (2) that British Railways would in that year have failed to pay their way by approximately £55·5m.

    The further worsening of the Commission's prospects so revealed is attributable in the main to increases in prices and wages the cost of which to the Commission will be not less than £30m. a year.
    6. The Commission aim at reducing this more than alarming prospective deficiency by increasing their charges to an extent calculated to produce additional revenue amounting—

    (1) in the case of British Railways to £31 m.

    (2) in the case of Docks and Canals to £0·8m.

    (3) in the case of the London Transport undertaking to £2·2m.

    (4) in the case of British Road Services and the Provincial and Scottish Passenger Road Services to £3m.

    It is to be observed that even were the Commission's aim to be fully attained the future year would still show a deficit of £18m. and British Railways would still be failing to pay their way by approximately £24·5m.
    7. Of the additional £31·8m. which the Commission hoped to be able to obtain from British Railways and their Docks and Canals £24·8m. were to be obtained by means of the increases for which they have sought your sanction and £4·2m. from increases in passenger fares for the making of which they do not require either your or our sanction. The receipt of the remaining £2·8m. was contingent upon the Postmaster-General agreeing to increases in the rates for mails and parcels post bringing in a further £2m. a year and upon our acceding to an application to be made to us under Section 23 of the 1953 Act for temporary increases in passenger fares calculated to produce £0·8m. a year.
    8. It is unnecessary to say more of the increases referred to under heads (3) and (4) in paragraph 6 than—

    (1) that the obtaining of £0·7m. out of the £2·2m. to be sought from the London Transport services was contingent upon a further Order being made by us under Section 23 of the 1953 Act, and

    (2) that the increased charges referred to under head (4) did not require either your or our sanction and are in fact already partly in operation.

    9. We are of course in strictness solely concerned with the question whether the Commission should be enabled by regulations to obtain a further £24·8m. a year by the proposed increases in their railway freight, docks and canal charges. It is obvious, however, that the expediency of affording them this particular measure of relief cannot properly be considered without reference to the other measures which are or can be made available to them.
    10. As we understand the statement made in the House of Commons on March 19th and Mr. Willis' letter of March 20th you are, as at present advised, of opinion that it is expedient—

    (1) that the regulations you are minded to make should be so framed as to reduce

    189
    the amount sought by the Commission from £24·8m. a year to approximately £14·1m.

    (2) that the additional revenue which the Commission hoped to secure from increased passenger fares by the measures indicated in paragraphs 7 and 8 above should be reduced from £5·7m. to £1m.

    We have been informed by the Commission that if the other increases sought by them are scaled down to this extent it is unlikely that more than £0·6m. could be obtained by way of increases in the charges for the carriage of mails and the parcels post. In the result, therefore, the £37m. at which the Commission aimed would be reduced to £20·2m.
    To reduce the additional revenue sought by the Commission to this figure will mean that in the absence of some radical change for the better their accumulated deficit will increase at the rate of more than £650,000 a week. And even if, after an experimental period of six months, they were enabled to bring into operation the whole of the measures they now propose their accumulated deficit would by the end of 1956 have been swollen by about £35m. and would stand at over £104m.
    11. We note from Mr. Willis' letter that in arriving at your provisional opinions you have taken account "of the signs which exist that renewed and strenuous efforts will improve the financial outlook on the railways through more efficient working arising from better relations in the industry" We of course share the hopes so expressed. We must, however, point out, first that the estimates put before you by the Commission allow for some improvements in efficiency and, secondly, that it is impossible to suppose that any conceivable improvement in efficiency could do more than reduce the gap of £18m. which would still separate the Commission from solvency even if all the measures proposed by them were put into full effect.
    12. We regret that we are unable to agree with the provisional decisions which you have reached. It may be that there are considerations not expressed in your statement to the House of Commons or in Mr. Willis' letter which are thought to make it necessary to disregard at all events for the time being the obligations and interests of the Commission. It is no part of our duty to discuss this possibility even if we considered ourselves competent to do so. We are expressly prohibited by s. 85 of the 1947 Act from doing anything which would in our opinion prevent the Commission "from discharging their general duty to secure that their revenue is not less than sufficient for making provision for the meeting of charges properly chargeable to revenue taking one year with another".
    We think that in the light of the past history and present prospects of the Commission it is plainly necessary that they should be enabled to take all such measures as are available to stay the progressive deterioration of their financial position and that the increases for which they have sought your sanction are urgently necessary if this object is to be attained.
    We recommend accordingly that regulations be made authorising the increases proposed by the Commission.
    HUBERT HULL.
    A. E. SEWELL.
    J. C. POOLE.
    3rd April, 1956.
    COPY
    MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT AND CIVIL AVIATION,
    Berkeley Square House,
    London, W.1.
    RC.7/1/019
    20th March, 1956.
    SIR,
    I am directed by the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation to inform you that the British Transport Commission have applied to him for authority under section 82 of the Transport Act, 1947, to make an increase of 10 per cent. in their railway freight charges, except (a) in the case of merchandise traffic by goods train in consignments of under one ton and merchandise by passenger train, where the increase sought is 15 per cent., and (b) returned empties, where the increase sought is 25 per cent.; and to increase their dock and canal charges by 7½ per cent. Enclosed are four copies of a letter and memorandum from the Commission.
    The Minister is impressed with the importance of authorising some immediate increases in these charges. He is, however, of the opinion that, in determining what those increases should be, account should be taken of the signs which exist that renewed and strenuous efforts will improve the financial outlook on the railways through more efficient working arising from better relations in the industry and that it would be in the national interest that a reasonable opportunity should be given for the measures necessary to this end to be put in train. The Minister has consulted the Commission, who have expressed their desire to co-operate fully in this policy and have informed him that they will defer those increases in certain fares on London Transport services and British Railways for which they have made application to the Transport Tribunal under section 23 of the Transport Act, 1953.
    The Minister considers, therefore, that while regulations should be made under section 82 with a view to ensuring a sufficient revenue to the Commission, it would be expedient that the increases which these regulations should authorise should for the next six months be limited to one half of those proposed by the Commission, except in the case of the dock and canal charges where the increase should in his view be limited to one of 5 per cent. instead of being 7½ per cent. as proposed.
    I am accordingly directed by the Minister, in pursuance of the provisions of section 82, to ask the advice of the permanent members of the Transport Tribunal, acting as a consultative committee, with respect to the making of regulations under section 82 to the effect suggested in the preceding paragraph or otherwise.
    The Minister would be glad to receive this advice as soon as possible.
    Copies of the statement which the Minister made in the House of Commons yesterday are enclosed for your information.
    I am Sir.
    Your obedient Servant.
    (Sgd.) J. R. WILLIS.
    Hubert Hull, Esq., C.B.E.,
    Transport Tribunal,
    Watergate House,
    15, York Buildings,
    Adelphi, W.C.2.
    Comments by the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation on specific points in the Memorandum by the Permanent Members of the Transport Tribunal
    It was the facts of the financial position of the railways, clearly brought out in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the memorandum, that caused the Government to take the view set out in the statement made to the House on 19th March and in the letter referring the matter to the Permanent Members of the Transport Tribunal acting as a consultative committee. Their memorandum is factual and does not seek to analyse the causes which have produced this situation. It is right to say that the Government do not regard the situation as in any way irremediable.
    Whilst the Minister takes full responsibility for the opinion expressed that for an interim period of six months the increases authorised ought not in the national interest to amount to the full increase proposed by the Commission, he thinks it right in view of any possible misconception of the wording of paragraph 10 of the memorandum to make it clear that the decision in regard to passenger fares neither to use to the full their existing powers nor to seek additional powers from the Transport Tribunal was taken by the Commission as an earnest of their desire to co-operate fully in this matter.
    The whole position must be re-assessed in six months' time in the light of the plans drawn up by the Commission during this period to improve their operating position. This is a vital factor in the attitude taken by the Minister and by the Commission and is of considerable importance in relation to paragraphs 10 and 11 of the memorandum.
    As regards paragraph 12 the statement made to the House on 19th March was made with a full consciousness of the statutory duties imposed on the Commission and involves no disregard of their duties since it proposed only that, in present conditions and for a period limited to six months, the increases in charges should be on the lines indicated in that statement.

  ROADS

    School, Nuneaton (Crossing Patrol)
    Mr. Bowlesasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what steps he will take to ensure greater road safety for the children of St. Joseph's Roman Catholic School, Coton Road, Nuneaton.
    Mr. Molson: The best safeguard for schoolchildren is an adult patrol, and I understand the provision of one is now being considered.
    Mr. Bowles: What powers has the Parliamentary Secretary's right hon. Friend to compel a local authority or local road safety committee to take steps if, in the opinion of the Minister, they should be taken?
    Mr. Molson: My right hon. Friend has no powers in this matter. It is the Home Secretary who is responsible for the general administration of the Act. The initiative lies with the county council which, I believe, is considering the matter, and the police are in favour of the provision of a patrol.

    Watford By-pass (Aldenham—Bushey Junction)
    Mr. Russellasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation why traffic conditions at the junction of the Aldenham—Bushey road with the Watford by-pass are not suitable for control by traffic lights.
    Mr. Molson: The junction is in open country and traffic speeds on the by-pass are high. In such conditions experience has shown that traffic signals are not suitable, as drivers may be travelling too fast to stop with safety if the lights change.
    Mr. Russell: Would my hon. Friend agree that that difficulty occurs at any traffic lights when driving too fast to be able to stop with safety? Will he agree that, in view of the large amount of traffic, a roundabout at this junction would soon get clogged up as many similar roundabouts do?
    Mr. Molson: No, I do not agree with what my hon. Friend has suggested. In the case of junctions in built-up areas traffic lights are obviously the most efficient way of dealing with the problem, but in an open area on a by-pass road where high speeds are reached traffic lights are extremely dangerous. Our attention has been drawn to the fact that this junction had a bad record, and for that reason we are putting in a roundabout.

    Watford Way (Lay-bys)
    Mr. Russellasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will have one or two lay-bys constructed for northbound traffic on Watford Way between Page Street and Mill Hill Circus.
    Mr. Molson: Yes, Sir. Lay-bys will be constructed on each of the new dual carriageways about half-a-mile north of the Page Street roundabout.

    Hyde Park Corner and Marble Arch
    Mr. Russellasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation, in view of the delay in carrying out the proposed road improvements at Hyde Park Corner and Marble Arch, what steps he is taking to prevent the congestion, frequently caused even in off-peak hours, by intersecting streams of traffic bringing one another to a complete standstill.
    Mr. Watkinson: I think that in all the circumstances the present arrangements at Hyde Park are as good as can be managed until the road works are done. I understand from the Commissioner that police are always on duty during the busy traffic hours at these places, and that conditions at off-peak hours do not normally give rise to undue difficulties.
    Mr. Russell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that even at off-peak hours both these junctions are very busy and that sometimes traffic gets completely interlocked? In circumstances like that, does not he think that the roundabout system breaks down and that traffic lights would be a much better way of regulating the traffic?
    Mr. Watkinson: That is not entirely the view of my experts. I think the present arrangement is about the best we can provide until we alter the whole system.

    Speed Limit
    Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he has now decided to increase the speed limit in the London area.
    Mr. Watkinson: I have nothing as yet to add to the answers which I gave to Questions on this subject by the hon. and gallant Member and the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) on 21st March.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Does the Minister think it worth while, for the sake
    194
    of saving a few seconds on a journey, to increase the danger to life and limb in the London area? Surely he cannot want the accident rate to go up as fast as the cost of living?
    Mr. Watkinson: I think the hon. and gallant Member had better read the Report and then he will see what it is all about.
    Mr. Callaghan: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that he can increase the speed limit in the centre of London as much as he likes, but none of us will be able to go any faster.

  CIVIL AVIATION

    Airways (Safety Rules)
    Mr. P. O'Neillasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what rules military and other aircraft have to observe when flying in the vicinity of civil aircraft corridors in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Watkinson: When aircraft are flying under visual flight rules there are no special restrictions applying to their flight in the vicinity of airways. Under instrument flight rules, however, all civil aircraft must obtain permission from air traffic control before crossing an airway. Military aircraft, other than fighters, normally do the same, but if they cannot they must cross at pre-determined heights different from those being used by aircraft flying on the airway. Fighter aircraft usually cross airways under radar control, but exceptionally may use the procedures applicable to other military aircraft.
    Mr. O'Neill: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that with the increasing speeds of modern aircraft it is vitally important that these rules should be rigidly observed? Is he satisfied that they are so observed? Can he tell me who is responsible for reporting breaches of these rules and whether such breaches as occur are diligently reported?
    Mr. Watkinson: I quite agree it is very important with the much increased congestion, particularly near large aerodromes, that everybody should very strictly observe the rules. I do not think I ought to comment in detail on the case which perhaps my hon. Friend has in mind, or on what arises from it, until we have the report of the inquiry.
    Mr. Ernest Davies: Is it not equally a question of whether the rules are sufficient

    195
    to meet the problems of the present day? Will the right hon. Gentleman consider looking into those rules to see whether they should be revised in view of the incident referred to?
    Mr. Watkinson: This matter will be reviewed when we have the report.
    Mr. McKibbin: Is the Minister aware that the latest American and Swiss aircraft are fitted with forward radar which permits them to detour bad weather zones? Could that system not be adopted to avoid the possibility of collisions in the air by civil aircraft?
    Mr. Watkinson: I will certainly have a look at that suggestion.
    Mr. Rankin: Is it not the case that the military and civil machines, especially near London Airport, usually fly under separate control? Is it possible for those controls to be synchronised so as to prevent the possibility of what almost happened a week ago?
    Mr. Watkinson: That is a good suggestion, and I will certainly look into it.

    NON-ATTRIBUTABLE PENSIONS OF SERVICE WIDOWS

    (1)

    (2)

    (3)

    (4)

    (5)

    (6)

    (7)

    (8)

    Husband's rank (a)

    1939 Basic Rate

    January, 1952

    December, 1952

    1956

    Basic Rate plus pensions increase (b)

    Col. (3) expressed as percentage of Col. (2)

    New Basic Rates

    Col. (5) expressed as percentage of Col. (2)

    New Basic Rates Col. (5) plus 5 per cent.

    Col. (7) expressed as percentage of Col. (2)

    £

    £

    per cent.

    £

    per cent.

    £

    per cent.

    Field Marshal

    …

    300

    360

    120

    500

    166

    525

    175

    General

    …

    …

    225

    285

    127

    425

    189

    446

    198

    Lieutenant-General

    187

    10s.

    244

    130

    350

    187

    367

    196

    Major-General

    …

    150

    195

    130

    300

    200

    315

    210

    Brigadier

    …

    …

    120

    160

    133

    250

    208

    262

    218

    Colonel

    …

    …

    100

    140

    140

    220

    220

    231

    231

    Lieutenant-Colonel

    90

    126

    140

    180

    200

    189

    210

    Major

    …

    …

    70

    98

    140

    140

    200

    147

    210

    Captain

    …

    …

    50

    70

    140

    110

    220

    115

    230

    Lieutenant

    …

    45

    63

    140

    110

    244

    115

    255

    Cost of Living/Retail Prices Index

    100

    175

    182

    202 (January)

    (a) Army ranks are given for convenience.

    (b) The rates of pension issuable (subject to income qualification) under the Pensions Increase measures introduced in 1944 and 1947 to widows having dependants (of specified relationships) other than children eligible for pension from Service funds. See also note (c).

    (c) A widow was eligible for Pensions Increase at January, 1952, only if her income did not exceed a specified limit and she satisfied one of the following conditions:

    (i) she had attained the age of 40 years, or

    (ii) she had a dependant of a specified relationship, or

    (iii) she was incapacitated.

  MINISTRY OF DEFENCE

    Widows' Pensions
    Dame Irene Wardasked the Minister of Defence how far the non-attributable service widow's pension had fallen in money terms below the rise in the cost of living from 1939 to January, 1952; what was the position in December, 1952; and what would be the effect of a 5 per cent rise.
    The Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Nigel Birch): I have been asked to reply.
    As the Answer consists of a table of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Dame Irene Ward: In view of the fact that the Minister of Defence announced a 5 per cent. increase without any figures, is my right hon. Friend aware that I am deeply suspicious, as it was 100 years, up to 1952, before the basic pension of this unfortunate class was raised? I will wait until next week to see how I get on when I have read the Answer.
    Following are the figures:

    Suggestions Scheme
    Mr. Pageasked the Minister of Defence what organised suggestion scheme is in operation in his Department; how many suggestions are received from employees through that organisation annually; how many are adopted; what awards are made for such suggestions; and what he estimates to be the savings made by the adoption of employees' suggestions.
    Mr. Birch: I have been asked to reply.
    No such scheme is in operation in the Ministry of Defence.

  ICELANDIC FISHERIES DISPUTE
  Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of the fact that the talks in which the Government of Britain are now engaged under the auspices of the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation on the subject of the Icelandic fisheries dispute are being treated as private, although they vitally concern the British fishing industry and British consumers, if he will take steps to issue a White Paper or otherwise inform Parliament of their scope, purpose, and result.
  The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Anthony Nutting): Yes, Sir. At the appropriate time.

  ST. LUCIA (GUIDED MISSILES TRACKING STATION)
  Mrs. Castleasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the agreement between the United States Government and Her Majesty's Government to extend the Bahamas long-range proving ground for guided missiles to St. Lucia in the West Indies has yet been signed.
  Mr. Nutting: No, Sir, but I hope negotions will be concluded at an early date.
  Mrs. Castle: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what is holding up the signing of this agreement? Does not he think it is a most unsatisfactory situation that work should at
  198
  present be going on by the American Air Force to prepare this base for reactivation when this House is not aware of the terms of the agreement which is to be concluded and might not be willing to accept that agreement? Does not he think that the work should stop until the House has seen the whole matter?
  Mr. Nutting: As I think the hon. Lady knows, what has so far been holding up the negotiations has been the question of jurisdiction over the American construction engineers and the observers who will be operating this tracking station. That difficulty has now been ironed out. There is still a small point connected with the acquisition of and payment for the sites. We hope that that will be ironed out in the next few days and the agreement duly signed.

  MIDDLE EAST (INFORMATION SERVICES)
  Dame Irene Wardasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the British and Allied case in the Middle East requires to be put with greater force and in a modern manner; and what steps he will take to ensure that we shall win the battle of words.
  Mr. Nutting: My right hon. and learned Friend is certainly aware of this need. Improvements have been made in our organisation. Further steps which might be taken were discussed at a conference of information officers from Her Majesty's Missions in the region held recently in Beirut. My right hon. and learned Friend is now studying the recommendations made.
  Dame Irene Ward: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that it is not improvements that are necessary but a complete revolution?
  Hon. Members: Answer.
  Mr. Peytonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what consultations he has had with the British Broadcasting Corporation to satisfy himself that the British Broadcasting Corporation have the resources and technical facilities necessary to ensure a sufficient and regular presentation of the British case in the Middle East.
  Mr. Nutting: Consultations have been in progress for some time between my right hon. Friend's Department and the B.B.C. about improving the Corporation's resources and technical facilities for broadcasting to the Middle East. One serious difficulty however is the rate at which the cost continues to rise of the Corporation's external services as a whole.
  Mr. Peyton: Does my right hon. Friend not agree that this matter is becoming of increasing urgency in view of the deplorable hostility shown by the Egyptian Government? Would he not further agree that expenditure of time and money now is probably likely to save something far more painful later?
  Mr. Nutting: Yes, Sir. We are expanding the Arabic services and additional money is being made available in 1956–57 to step up the efforts in this direction in the Middle East.
  Mr. Dugdale: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are many criticisms in the Middle East of these British broadcasts? Will he see that a copy of at least some of these broadcasts is placed in the Library of the House so that hon. Members can have an opportunity of seeing whether they are good, bad or indifferent?
  Mr. Nutting: I will certainly examine the right hon. Gentleman's request.
  Sir Alan Gomme-Duncan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that certain of the broadcasts now being sent out by the B.B.C. to Cairo contain a great deal of material which is absolutely nonsense as far as presenting the British case is concerned?
  Mr. Nutting: If my hon. and gallant Friend cares to draw my attention to any case in point, I will, of course, examine it.

  FOREIGN SERVICE (DONALD MACLEAN)
  Dame Irene Wardasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why it was decided to retain Maclean in the Foreign Service after his behaviour in Cairo.
  Mr. Nutting: I have nothing to add to the statement on this point made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the
  200
  Exchequer in the course of his speech on 7th November, 1955.
  Dame Irene Ward: Would my right hon. Friend, in the interests of the foreign service which he is supposed to represent—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—kindly tell us whether, in fact, Maclean was retained at the Foreign Office through the recommendation of the Ambassador, the Establishment Department of the Foreign Office, or by political interference? Will he bear in mind that it is absolutely urgent that the country should be told, because the way the information has been withheld is absolutely scandalous? I do not care what anybody has said in the past.
  Mr. Nutting: No information has been withheld from the hon. Lady or from the House of Commons. The circumstances and the reasons for Maclean's retention in the Foreign Service after the episodes in Cairo were fully explained at great length to the House by the Chancellor of the Exchequer last November. As to his re-appointment as head of the American Department, that was done in accordance with normal procedure at that time, a procedure which has now been altered.

  COLONEL-GENERAL SEROV (VISIT)
  Mr. Peytonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the reason for Colonel-General Serov's official visit to the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Nutting: Her Majesty's Government requested the Soviet authorities to send a security officer to the United Kingdom to co-operate with the British security authorities in preparation for the Soviet leaders' visit. The Soviet Government nominated Colonel-General Serov, who arived here on 22nd March and left on 27th March.
  Mr. Peyton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is considerable relief that Colonel-General Serov is not returning to this country? Is he also aware of the very widespread feeling of deep disgust at the fact that this appalling person should ever have been permitted to make a special visit to this country?
  Mr. Nutting: We certainly did not suggest to the Soviet authorities that they

  201
  should nominate this particular individual. We asked them to send a security officer to co-operate with us about security arrangements. I certainly share my hon. Friend's satisfaction that Colonel-General Serov is not returning to this country.

  CHINA (TRADE)
  Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will now make a statement on the consultations that have taken place about the embargo on trade with China; what further consultations or negotiations are to take place; and what action is intended.
  Mr. Chapmanasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what further attempts he has made to secure a discussion on the ban on export of commercial vehicles to China in the China Committee of the Paris Consultative Group; and when he expects to announce a final decision on this matter.
  Mr. Swinglerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if a date has now been fixed for the discussion of controls on trade with China by the China Committee of the Paris Consultative Group and if he will use this opportunity to initiate proposals for the relaxation of the embargo.
  Mr. Allaunasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will press for the removal of water pumps and electrical engines from the list of goods which are at present banned from export from Britain to China.
  Mr. Nutting: Consultations are proceeding and it is hoped that the China Committee will shortly be convened to discuss this subject.
  Mr. Chapman: While we are very glad to see the announcement in this morning's Press that some tractors are now to be exported to China, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us roughly how many are involved, what are the prospects of orders following on these first sample orders, and what are the prospects now for a similar relaxation for commercial vehicles?
  Mr. Nutting: As to the export of tractors, this was licensed in accordance
  202
  with the approved China Committee exemptions procedure, and members of the China Committee were duly notified. The numbers involved, I think, are about sixty tractors. As to other exemptions and relaxations, that matter must await—and I ask the hon. Member to bide his time in patience and await—the further conclusions of the China Committee when it meets to conduct a general review of the strategic list.
  Mr. Swingler: Does the announcement in today's Press of this relaxation in the case of tractors herald further proposals being made by Her Majesty's Government for relaxation in other respects?
  Mr. Nutting: I would prefer not to add to the Answer which I have given to the Question, and, in particular, to the answer which I have just given to the supplementary asked by the hon. Member for Northfield (Mr. Chapman).
  Mr. Allaun: Does not the Minister think that the embargo on such exports as water pumps and electric motors demonstrates the damage being done to British trade by the present list—its harmfulness to friendly relationships and, indeed, its utter stupidity?
  Mr. Nutting: I do not agree that these lists were stupidly or unnecessarily restricted. As to the water pumps to which the hon. Member refers, certain water pumps are not on the control list and certain others are. Those that are on the control list are for use—or can be of use—in atomic energy establishments, and I feel that the House would not wish us to assist in that kind of export of important strategic material to China or to the Soviet bloc.
  Mr. Shinwell: What is the use, at this stage, of retaining this embargo? Do the Government expect a resumption of hostilities in the Far East? Are they not aware that we cannot afford to lose trade? In fact, many of our so-called Allies are engaged in such trade with China. Why are we lagging behind? Why are not the Government a little more forthcoming in this matter?
  Mr. Nutting: I am well aware of the considerations in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman and in the mind of the House in this matter. We are consulting with our Allies on this point—they are

  203
  fully aware of our point of view—and I hope that some further satisfaction and, possibly, relaxation of the list will emerge from the review to be conducted by the China Committee.
  Mr. Dudley Williams: Will the Minister bear in mind that there is not much point in increasing our exports to China when the only thing which we are likely to get in exchange is a load of ginger?
  Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps are being taken to enable British concerns to resume normal trading and commercial relations with China and to permit the resumption of the pre-war arrangements for the exchange of engineering students.
  Mr. Nutting: All normal facilities are given to British concerns who wish to develop trade with China in non-strategic goods. Her Majesty's Government have given their support to the Sino-British Trade Committee in their efforts to promote such commercial exchanges.
  The answer to the second part of the Question is, "None, Sir."
  Mr. Ellis Smith: Does the Minister not agree that it is in days of adversity that we learn who are our best friends; that China is now in need of economic co-operation, and that some of us who were engaged on this type of work for years prior to the war know that managements desire to resume normal trading relations—and is not this the time to do it? With regard to the exchange of students, some of us have been responsible for training hundreds of students. The present Prime Minister of China is eager that this practice should be resumed. Would it not be a good thing if we took the initiative by agreeing to a resumption?
  Mr. Nutting: As I think the hon. Gentleman is aware—as he studies these matters very closely—trade in non-strategic goods between this country and China is on the increase, and I feel sure that he will join with me in welcoming that. As to students coming to this country, Her Majesty's Government would be prepared to examine each application on its merits, but as I am sure the hon. Member will appreciate there are considerations which must be borne in mind, including security.

  ANGLO-EGYPTIAN AGREEMENT
  Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will invite representatives of the Arab nations composed of the Middle East Arab States to meet him for the purpose of considering a new agreement or modifications to the Anglo-Egyptian Agreement of 1954, and to make preparations for a mutual economic agreement and lasting economic co-operation.
  Mr. Nutting: No, Sir. Any modification of the Anglo-Egyptian Agreement would be a matter for the Egyptian Government and Her Majesty's Government alone. As regards economic matters, there exists, in the Economic Committee of the Bagdad Pact, an organisation which is designed to promote widespread economic co-operation in the area and is now meeting in Tehran.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: Without for one moment trying to minimise the difficulties involved in this Question, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, as he cannot accept the proposals contained in it, he will consider further proposals in order that we can take positive action to deal with the difficulties in this area and so to avoid what could take place?
  Mr. Nutting: As I think the hon. Gentleman knows, the Anglo-Egyptian Agreement deals entirely with the base and not with economic questions. As to economic developments in the Middle East, we are making a promising start. As the hon. Gentleman will have observed in the Press this morning, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury has pledged specific aid on behalf of the United Kingdom for the economic development of the Bagdad Pact countries. That is a start, and we wish to continue in that vein.

  MARSHALL ISLANDS PETITION (HYDROGEN BOMB TESTS)
  Mr. Swinglerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what instructions he gave to the United Kingdom representative on the Trusteeship Council of the United Nations organisation concerning Her Majesty's Government's

  205
  attitude to the petition from the Marshall Islands against further hydrogen bomb tests in the Pacific.
  Mr. Nutting: The United Kingdom representative on the Trusteeship Council voted in favour of a resolution which noted the petition and made recommendations for safety measures, and for claims and compensation. Copies of the Report of the Petitions Committee and of this resolution have been placed in the Library of the House.
  Mr. Swingler: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask if he does not think that we as islanders should have the utmost sympathy with the Marshall Islanders in their desire to prevent further pollution of the atmosphere and menace to peaceful fishermen in that area? Would not this have been a wonderful opportunity for expressing the desire of millions of people everywhere that an all round stoppage of these tests should be organised?
  Mr. Nutting: As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is amongst the many features of the disarmament agreement which I am personally trying to achieve at this time at Lancaster House with the Russians. As to the question of the Marshall Islands, I think he can rest assured that the recommendations for safety measures as well as for claims for compensation which have been made will be carried out.

  DISARMAMENT DISCUSSIONS
  Mr. Warbeyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of the discussions in the Disarmament Sub-Committee.
  Mr. Swinglerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the latest developments in the negotiations for an international agreement on disarmament.
  Mr. Nutting: My right hon. and learned Friend hopes to make a statement on the disarmament discussions early next week.
  Mr. Warbey: Yes, but in view of the fact that there is now a very large measure of agreement between the various members of the Disarmament
  206
  Sub-Committee, can the right hon. Gentleman say now whether he accepts M. Moch's principle of having as much disarmament as can be effectively controlled? If so, why cannot the British, French and Russian proposals already made form the basis of an agreed disarmament convention?
  Mr. Nutting: The hon. Gentleman should not exaggerate the area of common ground between us. I am always very ready to search for common ground, but he must not exaggerate that which exists. As to M. Moch's proposals, I have not only accepted his principle: I am happy and proud to co-sponsor his plan.
  Mr. Swingler: Will the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the majority of the proposals that were recently put forward by the Soviet delegate were proposals which have at one time or another been put forward by the Western Powers in the last few years?
  Mr. Nutting: Of course, I am not saying there is not an area of common ground between us. I was asking the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend not to exaggerate the area.
  Mr. Wigg: Would the right hon. Gentleman not assist the education of public opinion in this country by making quite sure that Foreign Office spokesmen who are deputed to comment on proposals which are put forward by Governments with whom he is negotiating do so in a competent fashion and not in the irresponsible, rather wicked way in which M. Gromyko's proposals were handled the weekend before last?
  Mr. Nutting: I certainly agree with the premise of the hon. Gentleman's question. As to handling disarmament in a competent way, he will, I am sure, understand that it is one of the most difficult and technical subjects for anybody to handle in dealings with the Press or with the public.

  EGYPTIAN BROADCASTING OFFICIALS (TRAINING)
  Mr. Peytonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many Egyptian broadcasting technicians have been trained in this country under the

  207
  sponsorship of his Department; and how many it is intended to train in the future.
  Mr. Nutting: No such technicians have been trained under Foreign Office sponsorship, but, with the approval of Her Majesty's Government, and as a result of arrangements made between the B.B.C. and the Egyptian State Broadcasting Service in June, 1955, six officials of the Egyptian State Broadcasting Service were taken for training by the B.B.C. under their scheme for training technicians from Foreign Broadcasting Administrations. Under these arrangements three more officials will be accepted during this year and two in 1957.
  Mr. Peyton: Does not my right hon. Friend think that this extraordinarily quixotic arrangement should be stopped forthwith until and unless the Egyptian Government give and observe an undertaking to restrain the stream of lying and vicious propaganda now directed against this country by Cairo radio?
  Mr. Nutting: None of the officials accepted, I can assure my hon. Friend, was connected with the type of broadcasts to which he has referred, namely, the Voice of the Arabs broadcasts which are ostensibly independent of the Egyptian radio. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] As to the general question involved, this is part of a general system under which since June, 1955, 92 people from the Commonwealth and 40 from foreign countries have been accepted for training in this kind of work.
  Mr. Robens: Does the right hon. Gentleman really believe that the Voice of the Arabs is free from the Egyptian Government? Does he really believe that?
  Mr. Nutting: No. I do not believe that for a moment. All I am saying is that the technicians and officials trained in this country have nothing to do with those broadcasts.
  Captain Waterhouse: Are we to take it that an assurance was given that those men would not be used in that way? Or has it just happened that they are not?
  Mr. Nutting: We took care to find out whether they were or whether they were not.

  ATOMIC ENERGY

    Dounreay Station (Overtime Working)
    Sir D. Robertsonasked the Lord Privy Seal if he is aware that a 68-hour week is being worked at Dounreay; that other essential building work on housing, schools, slum clearance, and agriculture cannot be manned unless similar excessive overtime earnings are paid; and if he will direct the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority to operate two 8-hour shifts per day at Dounreay in future.
    The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): I am informed by the Atomic Energy Authority that the single shift system at present operating at Dounreay is necessary to complete the work in time for the station to fulfil its function in the nuclear power programme. Recruitment of two 8-hour shifts, if this were possible, would mean an increase of at least 40 per cent. in the labour force, amounting to 800 more men at the peak period. In the Authority's opinion this would cause more local disturbance than the present arrangements.
    Sir D. Robertson: Is the situation not wholly unsatisfactory when the economy of Caithness and Sutherland is completely distorted because of a cost-plus contract which causes the men to work excessive hours and makes it impossible for other essential work to be carried out? Why do the Government support a policy so inflationary and harmful as this? When other civil engineering contractors are able to work two 8-hour shifts, why is it impossible for that to be done at Dounreay?
    Mr. Butler: It is not impossible to work a two-shift system, but I have indicated that the Authority has informed us that it would mean the introduction of some 800 more men at peak periods, and that would do more to upset the economy of that part of the world my hon. Friend represents. Moreover, the information the Authority has provided my noble Friend and me is that the economy is not, in fact, distorted, and although there are obvious local objections from one point of view and another, this is probably the best way in which we can make progress in a singularly difficult problem.
    Mr. G. Wilson: Can my right hon. Friend give us an assurance that no steps will be taken which will in any way delay the Dounreay project, which is absolutely vital to the future of our country?
    Mr. Butler: That is one of the reasons why this rather exceptional course is being followed and why these rather exceptional hours are being worked.
    Mr. Callaghan: Over what period is the 68-hour week being worked? Does the right hon. Gentleman think he can get value for money or really get the work well done if a 68-hour week is worked for any length of time?
    Mr. Butler: I have gone into this in some detail, because I anticipated that hon. Members would ask me such a question as that. The usual leave periods occur every eight weeks. There are the usual remissions which occur when such long hours have to be worked. If the hon. Gentleman would like me to, I will send him particulars of the way the hours are spaced out and of the amount of leave allotted to the workers.

    State and Private Industry (Relationship)
    Mr. Warbeyasked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on the progress made by the Atomic Energy Authority in research on the non-military use of energy derived from the fusion of light elements.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: The investigation of the possibilities of obtaining economic power from controlled thermonuclear reactions is part of the Authority's research programme.
    Mr. Warbey: How is it that the spokesman of the Atomic Energy Authority, according to Press reports, can say that the Authority is prepared to tell private industry all it knows about these processes? In view of the vast importance of this matter can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Government are exercising control over what the A.E.A. does or not?
    Mr. Butler: That is rather a matter covered by the next Question on the Paper and by answers I have given to the hon. Gentleman in reply to previous Questions. I am satisfied that this is the only way we can make progress in this matter,
    210
    and I am satisfied also that, until we get a little more experience of the particularly intricate question the hon. Gentleman asks, I cannot give any more information.
    Mr. Warbey: Does the right hon. Gentleman really mean to say that the Authority is prepared to give information about fusion processes to private industry?
    Mr. Butler: I cannot add to the information already given of the methods of control provided under the Acts in question to the Authority itself.
    Mr. Hobson: Will the right hon. Gentleman be very careful before he passes any information of the character asked for in the Question about nuclear fusion?
    Mr. Butler: Naturally, I would be careful, but a good deal of the information has been published already at Geneva and elsewhere.
    Mr. Hobson: Not on the point mentioned in the Question.
    Mr. Warbeyasked the Lord Privy Seal what limitations are at present imposed on the number, type, and capacity of nuclear reactors which may be constructed, owned, and operated in the United Kingdom by private industry.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: There are no statutory limitations; but as I pointed out to the hon. Member on 21st March, any control necessary in this field can at present be secured through the Atomic Energy Authority's monopoly of fissile material.
    Mr. Warbey: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen from Press reports that the Atomic Energy Authority is now apparently prepared to encourage private industry to construct its own nuclear reactors without limit? Is this the Government's policy? Is not the matter now really getting out of hand and is it not time that a licensing system was introduced?
    Mr. Butler: No, Sir. I have said already that my noble Friend has in reserve certain powers under the Act in question, to which I referred in answer to the previous Question. We think that we need the help of private industry, and to that extent we may differ from

    211
    the hon. Member and some of his hon. Friends, but we also think that we have in reserve the powers necessary, and so much information has been published with relation to this activity in Geneva and elsewhere that we do not think that any abuse has arisen.
    Mr. Nabarro: Was not the primary and fundamental purpose of the Atomic Energy Act, 1953, at all stages in its progress in the House to secure the maximum possible co-operation between every branch of the privately owned electrical and mechanical engineering industries in this country with the Atomic Energy Authority?
    Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. As I have previously explained in reference to previous Acts, that was one of the objects.

  EAST AFRICAN ROYAL COMMISSION (REPORT)
  Mr. J. Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will issue a White Paper setting forth the Government's conclusions in the recommendations of the East African Royal Commission 1953–55 Report.
  The Minister of State for Colonial Affairs (Mr. John Hare): My right hon. Friend is now considering despatches from the three East African Governors and the Administrator of the East Africa High Commission which gave their views on the Report. He intends to publish these despatches as a White Paper as soon as possible, together with a Memorandum commenting on them.
  Mr. Johnson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the House will be glad to hear that reply? It is almost twelve months since this Report, the most important document ever published on East Africa, appeared, and a debate in the House is needed at the earliest possible moment.
  Mr. Hare: As the hon. Member is aware, this was a very important Commission, and the territories concerned have given intense examination to the matter. They have sent their views to us at length, and they must be considered with great care.

  MAURITIUS (LONDON OFFICE)
  Mr. J. Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will now make a statement regarding the appointment of a Commissioner for the Government of Mauritius and the opening of an office in London to look after the interests of the Colony in the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Hare: As the hon. Member is aware, sugar accounts for 97 per cent. of Mauritius' exports and the industry has its own representative in London. The hon. Member's suggestion was brought to the attention of the Governor who has informed my right hon. Friend that the other main concern of the Mauritius Government in this country is the interests and welfare of its students and a re-organisation of the present arrangements in this field is now under consideration.
  Mr. Johnson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Labour Party in Mauritius, the biggest single party and the majority party in the Legislative Council, is not satisfied with the position? Is he aware that I am glad that he is considering this matter, because the people there want someone in a London office to publicise what is happening in the Colony, particularly when the Government of the day have this iniquitous proposal of proportional representation in the new Constitution?
  Mr. Hare: I cannot agree with the hon. Member that the proposals now being considered are iniquitous. When some Ministerial system is introduced in Mauritius it may be that that will be the proper time to consider what the hon. Member has in mind.

  CENTRAL AFRICAN FEDERATION (CADET CORPS)
  Mr. Dugdaleasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why the cadet corps which was planned for Munali African School is not now to be formed.
  Mr. Hare: As the formation of cadet corps is a matter for the Federal Government, I am not in a position to answer this Question.
  Mr. Dugdale: Will the right hon. Gentleman not agree that it is desirable that Africans as well as Europeans

  213
  should play a part in the defence of the country? If that is so, is it not wrong that cadet corps should exist only in European schools and not in African schools?
  Mr. Hare: The right hon. Member cannot expect me to comment on something which is not the responsibility of my Department.

  KENYA (FEDERATION OF LABOUR)
  Mrs. Castleasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement on the decision of the Kenya Government with regard to the cancellation of the registration of the Federation of Labour.
  Mr. J. Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what communications he has had with the Governor of Kenya regarding the cancellation of the registration of the Kenya Federation of Labour; and what steps he has taken in this matter.
  Mr. Fenner Brockwayasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if a decision has now been reached regarding the continued registration of the Kenya Federation of Labour.
  Mr. Hare: The Kenya Federation of Labour has now given an assurance that it is its intention to respect the legal requirements which its continued registration demands. It has also stated that its officers will not be permitted in their official capacity to participate in political activities inconsistent with the conditions of registration. The Registrar of Societies has informed the Federation that it is not intended to cancel its registration so long as these assurances are maintained.
  Mrs. Castle: Is it not now quite clear that the Kenya Federation of Labour has always been within its legal rights in expressing opinions on such matters as African franchise, African education and other related issues, for doing which it has been recently attacked? Will the right hon. Gentleman not approach the Kenya Government and ask them in future to be more helpful to the trade union movement in Kenya instead of trying to persecute it in this way?
  Mr. Hare: I do not accept the hon. Lady's suggestion that the Kenya Govern-anent have been persecuting the trade union movement in Kenya. I should like to take the opportunity of expressing my thanks to Sir Vincent Tewson for the part which he privately played during his visit. Now that we have arrived at a satisfactory solution, it would be a great pity for us to try to disturb it.
  Mr. Bevan: How can the Minister suggest that a satisfactory solution has been achieved here when it was, in fact, as a result of intimidation? How can the trade union operate in this matter when so narrow an interpretation is placed upon its powers? It is a kind of blue pencil on the union all the time. It does not know what to do.
  Mr. Hare: It is no use the right hon. Gentleman exaggerating the facts as they are. Kenya is under an emergency, and the law of the country has laid down in the Emergency (Societies) Regulation, 1956, that African political associations should be confined to district and local areas and not be Colony-wide. This is a part of regulations which are necessary as long as the emergency continues.
  Mr. Bevan: I understood that it was an interpretation of the rights of a union on registration upon the formation of a union.
  Mr. Hare: I think that the right hon. Gentleman is wrong. The Registrar asked for certain assurances from the Kenya Federation of Labour. Those assurances have been given in a letter and the Registrar is satisfied.
  Mr. Johnson: Does not the Minister think it a pity that this shabby business was ever begun? It has taken the good offices and the goodwill of Sir Vincent Tewson to settle the matter. Will the Minister give the House an assurance that he and the Colonial Secretary will be eternally vigilant in seeing that a few European members of the Legislative Council cannot do this sort of thing again?
  Mr. Hare: Again, I must assure the hon. Gentleman that, in the opinion of the Government of Kenya, these regulations are necessary while the emergency continues. I hope that they are temporary arrangements, but as long as this

  215
  condition continues, and as long as the causes of it remain, so that trouble is liable to break out again, these regulations are necessary.
  Mr. F. Brockway: May I ask the hon. Gentleman why the Federation of Labour in Kenya should not have the same rights as are enjoyed by the Trades Union Congress in this country and in many Commonwealth countries?
  Mr. Hare: For the very good reason, thank God, that in this country we have not had Mau Mau.

POST OFFICE (INCREASED CHARGES)
The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:
63. MR. KEEGAN: To ask the Postmaster-General what increases in Post Office charges he intends to introduce in order to meet the cost to the Post Office of the recent additional wage awards and railway freight charges.
The Postmaster-General (Dr. Charles Hill): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I will answer Question No. 63.
The House will recall that on 31st March it was announced that an immediate general increase in the salaries and wages of civil servants was being given in order to bring them into fair comparison with conditions in outside industry. This, together with other increases in wages and costs since last autumn, has added £20 million a year to the expenses of running the Post Office.
I am seeking to absorb as much of this increase as possible by greater efficiency and economy. I estimate that, after allowing for such saving, and a reduction of the surplus, it will be necessary to raise an additional £15 million this year to meet this bill.
I will now give the House the main changes; a tabulated list will be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Telephones
From 1st July, the subscribers' fees for local calls will be increased from 2d. to 2½d. per stage. From 1st January next year the minimum fee for a call from a call office will be increased from 3d. to 4d. From 1st July this year the call
216
office fees for greater distances will become 6d., 9d. and 1s., and the charges for evening trunk calls will become generally about two-thirds of the day rate. It is not proposed to reduce the 100 free calls for residential subscribers or to increase telephone rentals.
Postal
On the postal side the minimum postage rate for printed papers and samples will be changed from 1½d. for 2 ounces to 2d. for 4 ounces. The effect of this will be that printed papers weighing 2 ounces or less will be ½d. more than at present and printed papers weighing over 2 ounces will be ½d. less than at present. For newspapers the rate per copy will be changed to 2d. for the first 6 ounces and then 1d. per 6 ounces.
The registration service costs us so much more than it yields that I propose to raise the minimum inland registration fee from 6d. to 1s. At the same time, I propose to double the maximum compensation paid for loss on letters sent by registered post at the basic fee. The minimum fee for money orders will be raised to 1s. with a consequential addition of 4d. on each subsequent step with parallel changes in the C.O.D. service.
Corresponding to whatever increase is made in railway freight charges to the Post Office, there will be an increase in inland parcel post charges. Except possibly for parcels, the postal changes will take effect from 1st June. No increase will be made in postal orders, in overseas rates, in postcards or in ordinary letters.
Mr. Keegan: Could my right hon. Friend assure the House that the bulk of these increases has been caused by the recent Civil Service wage increases? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Further, will he say what services have been running at a loss?
Dr. Hill: It is true that the bulk of this additional cost is due to the recent wage awards, and it is also true that almost all the increases are based on those services which have been running at a loss.
Mr. Ness Edwards: Do I take it, Mr. Speaker, that we shall be discussing these matters on warrants and regulations that will be laid before the House later? If so, we can then discuss how this burden

217
has been spread. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if these increases were necessary to pay decent wages in the Post Office there would be no opposition on this side of the House? We are not satisfied, however, that this burden has been spread in the right way. Nor are we satisfied that Post Office finances have been handled in such a way as to make these further charges unnecessary. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that since he and his colleagues have been in charge of the Post Office, the increase in charges has amounted to £100 million a year, and that this is a very bad example to the country of the policy of stabilising prices?
Dr. Hill: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the usual opportunities for discussion will obtain now, as they did when he raised charges in 1951. On the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion that £100 million has been added to Post Office tariffs in the last five years, the figure is, in fact, £70 million. [HON. MEMBERS: "Resign."] During that time wage increases have amounted to £67 million. These increased charges stem from the increases given to the Civil Service under the Tomlin formula, which provides that the pay of civil servants shall be related to the pay in comparable industries outside. The £20 million stems almost entirely from those general awards.
Mr. Ness Edwards: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is only three months ago since he told a similar tale to this House? When he told that tale to the House he provided for £25 million more for the Treasury. Surely he is misleading the country and the House about Post Office finances?
Dr. Hill: The negotiations for the Civil Service award were completed less than a fortnight ago, and these increased charges—not the whole amount—stem from that award. If the right hon. Gentleman is criticising that award, he should say so.
Hon. Members: Answer.
Mr. Speaker: Order, order. Mr. Osborne.
Mr. Osborne: Can my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that the economies he hopes to effect will not result in a reduction of the services which he now provides, either in scope or quality?
Dr. Hill: I can assure my hon. Friend that the economies proposed do not involve a contraction of the services.
Mr. Hobson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these increases in Post Office charges are becoming an annual curtain-raiser to the Budget. The right hon. Gentleman has endeavoured to spread the charges. Could he say why there have been increases in trunk charges, which are already the most profitable part of the network and making substantial profits?
Dr. Hill: The increase is in respect of the evening trunk calls, the so-called cheaper trunk calls. The difficulty which has arisen there is that the evening traffic has been such as to involve the construction of trunk links which are not needed during the day time.
Dame Irene Ward: Am I correct in understanding that these economies are to meet the additional £15 million to which my right hon. Friend referred?
Dr. Hill: My hon. Friend could not have heard my statement. The full bill which falls on the Post Office as a result of the recent developments I have described is £20 million; and £15 million of that are to be raised by increased tariffs. The rest is to be secured by economies and a modest reduction in the surplus.
Mr. J. Griffiths: Will the Postmaster-General tell us what surplus he is budgeting for? Secondly, will he tell us whether the increase which he has now announced arises from the fact that during the past few years the policy of the Government has led to wage increases all over the country? May I further ask whether the right hon. Gentleman proposes to take an early opportunity of broadcasting to the nation in order to explain these things in the light of the Government's Election pledges?
Dr. Hill: I will take the questions in order. First, there is here involved an estimated surplus of £3 million for the present year. In reply to the right hon. Gentleman's second question, I can hardly add to the answer I have already given, namely, that these increases stern from wage increases.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. There is no Question before the House.
Following is the list:

TELEPHONE TARIFF CHANGES

Subscribers

Call-Offices

Present

Proposed

Present

Proposed

Local calls:

Up to 5 miles

…

…

…

…

2d.

2½d.

3d.

4d.

From 5 to 7½ miles

…

…

…

4d.

5d.

4d.

6d.

From 7½ to 12½ miles

…

…

…

6d.

7½d.

6d.

9d.

From 12½ to 15 miles

…

…

…

8d.

10d.

8d.

1/-

Trunk calls

Cheap Rate: (6.0 p.m. to 10.30 p.m.)

From 15 to 20 miles

…

…

…

8d.

10d.

9d.

1/1d.

From 20 to 25 miles

…

…

…

8d.

10d.

11d.

1/1d.

From 25 to 35 miles

…

…

…

9d.

1/-

1/-

1/3d.

From 35 to 50 miles

…

…

…

1/2d.

1/3d.

1/5d.

1/6d.

From 50 to 75 miles

…

…

…

1/6d.

1/6d.

1/9d.

1/9d.

From 75 to 125 miles

…

…

…

1/6d.

2/-

1/9d.

2/3d.

Over 125 miles

…

…

…

…

1/6d.

2/6d.

1/9d.

2/9d.

Alarm calls

…

…

…

…

…

6d.

5d.

6d.

6d.

Note 1. Business small user subscribers are at present charged 50 per cent. more than the normal tariff for their first 300 local calls annually; under the new tariff the first 240 calls a year will be so surcharged.

Note 2. Residence rentals include 100 free calls a year, worth 16/8d. under the present tariff and £1 0s. 10d. under the new tariff.

Note 3. The rebate for coin box subscribers will be:—For local calls, ⅛ of the Call Office charge; for trunk calls 1d. per call as at present.

Note 4. All changes will apply from 1st July, 1956, except those in respect of the charge for, and rebate on, calls up to 5 miles made from call offices and coin-boxes which will apply from 1st January, 1957.

POSTAL TARIFF CHANGES

—

Present

Proposed

Inland printed papers (including those to the Irish Republic) and Samples

1½d. for 2 oz., then 1d. for 2 oz.

2d. for 4 oz., then 1d. for 2 oz

Inland newspapers (including those to the Irish Republic) (per copy).

1½d. for 4 oz., then ½d. for 4 oz.

2d. for 6 oz., then 1d. for 6 oz.

*Inland registration (including service to Irish Republic)—

minimum fee

…

…

…

…

…

6d., covering compensation up to £5

1/-, covering compensation up to £10.

additional fee covering compensation up to £20

1d.

1d.

additional fee per £20 maximum compensation, up to £400.

1d.

1d.

Inland money orders (including those to the Irish Republic)—

For an amount not exceeding £10

…

…

8d.

1/-

For each subsequent £10 or fraction thereof up to £50

2d.

2d.

For the issue of a duplicate money order or the renewal of void order.

1/-

1/4d.

Inland cash on delivery fees—

Fee for trade charge not exceeding £1

…

10d.

1/2d.

Over £1 and not exceeding £2

…

…

…

1/-

1/4d.

Over £2 and not exceeding £5

…

…

…

1/2d.

1/6d.

For each subsequent £5 up to £40

…

…

2d.

2d.

For the renewal of a void order

…

…

1/-

1/4d.

Inland parcels

…

…

…

…

…

…

Rates to be reviewed in the light of any increase in railway rates.

Parcels to the Irish Republic

…

…

…

* It is also proposed to charge an extra ½d. for registered envelopes sizes F, G and H, and an extra 2d. for size K.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS
  Service Departments and Ministry of Supply (Economy)
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 20th April, I shall call attention to the need for economy in the Service Departments and the Ministry of Supply, and move a Resolution.

  Rating and Land Drainage
  Mr. Deer: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 20th April, I shall call attention to the inequalities and anomalies of the
  222
  present system of rating and land drainage, and move a Resolution.

  Old-Age Pensioners
  Mr. Owen: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 20th April, I shall call attention to the need for an improvement in the lot of the old-age pensioners, and move a Resolution.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Proceedings on the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation Bill be 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

  RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES [MONEY]
  Resolution reported,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the registration and judicial investigation of certain restrictive trading agreements, and for the prohibition of such agreements when found contrary to the public interest, it is expedient to authorise—

  (1) The payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

  (a) sums required for the payment of remuneration of the Registrar to be appointed under the said Act of the present Session, and of expenses of the said Registrar (including remuneration of assistant registrars and other officers and servants of the Registrar);

  (b) sums required for the payment of remuneration of appointed members of a new Court to be constituted under the said Act, and of expenses of the said Court (including remuneration of officers and servants of the said Court);

  (c) sums required for the payment of pensions, allowances or gratuities, or contributions or other payments towards provision for pensions, allowances or gratuities, to or in respect of persons who have held office as Registrar appointed under the said Act or as appointed members of the Court constituted thereunder;

  (d) any increase attributable to the said Act in the sums payable out of moneys so provided under the Superannuation Acts, 1834 to 1950.

  (2) The charging on and issue out of the Consolidated Fund, and the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament, of any increase in the sums required respectively to be charged on and issued out of that Fund or to be paid out of moneys so provided which is attributable to provisions of the said Act of the present Session increasing the maximum numbers of puisne judges of the High Court and judges of the Court of Session who may be appointed.

  (3) The payment into the Exchequer of any sums required to be so paid by any provision of the said Act of the present Session.

  Resolution agreed to.

  RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES BILL
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

  RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES BILL

    Clause 1.—(APPOINTMENT AND FUNCTIONS OF REGISTRAR.)
    3.46 p.m.
    Sir John Barlow: I beg to move, in page 1, line 9, to leave out "Her Majesty may" and to insert "the Attorney General shall".
    The Chairman: It would, I think, be convenient to the Committee if, together with this Amendment, were taken the following, all dealing with the same subject:
    In line 9, leave out "Her Majesty may" and insert "the Lord Chancellor shall".
    In line 9, leave out "Her Majesty may appoint" and insert "there shall be".
    In line 10, after "may", insert:
    "on the recommendation of the Lord Chancellor".
    In line 12, leave out from "Registrar)"to end of line and insert:
    "Every Registrar shall be appointed by and shall hold office during the pleasure of the President of the Board of Trade".
    In line 12, leave out from "Registrar")"to end of line.
    In line 12, at end insert:
    (2) Subject to the preceding subsection, the Registrar shall hold office for such period not less than three years as may be determined at the time of his appointment and shall be eligible for re-appointment:
    Provided that:

    (a) the Registrar may at any time by notice in writing to the Lord Chancellor resign his office;

    (b) the Lord Chancellor may, if he thinks fit, remove the Registrar for inability or misbehaviour.

    Sir John Barlow: The Bill is obviously likely to be a controversial one in various aspects. It is, I believe, the first Bill of its kind that this Parliament has ever discussed. For that reason, it is arousing great interest, and the fact that there are over 40 pages of Amendments shows the extent of the interest on all sides of the House. I propose, therefore, to be very brief in my remarks.

    225
    In any consideration of the main elements of the Bill, it is of the utmost importance that the balance should be held fairly between industry, distributor and consumer; in other words, that the Bill, when it becomes an Act, should deal fairly with the public interest from all points of view.
    This legislation is being put through at an exceptional period, a period of over-employment, a period when many so-called restrictive practices exist, practices which arose as a result of the difficult times of 20 years ago in the middle 1930s. The House will recall that at that time there was great unemployment; industry was largely unorganised; and all the economists, together with, I think, the Board of Trade, advised industry most strongly to get together and rationalise production, prices, and so forth. That process took many years to achieve; it matured only very gradually, but it is the basis from which arise the so-called restrictive practices of today.
    This period of over-employment is the very opposite of the period in which these practices were started, and we must take the greatest care to see that the Bill will work fairly in all circumstances, and especially in normal circumstances.
    The point I wish to make is directed particularly to the appointment of the Registrar. In his Second Reading speech on 6th March, the President of the Board of Trade said, with great profundity and sagacity:
    "If we are to have a register, we must have a Registrar".
    With that I entirely agree. He went on to say:
    "The task of the Registrar is twofold. First of all, it is to keep the register".
    We all agree with that; but then the right hon. Gentleman seems to add somewhat to the burden by saying the task of keeping the register is quite a large and difficult administrative task, adding that the second task will be to initiate proceedings before the court. He continued:
    "The Registrar will be advised by the Treasury Solicitor, and will be represented before the court by counsel nominated by the Attorney-General."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th March, 1956; Vol. 346, c. 1943.]
    That seems to me to be a very curious mixture. First of all, the Registrar is to be appointed by the Queen. What
    226
    exactly is meant by that? Is he to be appointed by the Lord Chancellor? Is it to be on the advice of the Prime Minister, or who is to be the nominator of this individual? Secondly, he is to be advised by the Treasury Solicitor, and apparently the Attorney-General will provide counsel, so that three different people are involved in the one office of the Registrar. That seems to me far too complicated.
    Why should not the Registrar be appointed by the Attorney-General and be answerable through him to the House? The Registrar will be a man of immense power and it is fitting and right that he should be directly answerable to the House. I have no doubt that he will be a man of very high qualifications, although, there again, I see no qualifications set down in the Bill.
    It seems to me that far too many people are involved with the Registrar, and I urge most strongly that he should be appointed by the Attorney-General and should be answerable, through him, to the House. As the Bill stands, it might be most difficult for hon. Members to know to whom they should address Questions. That ought to be made much clearer. If three different people are involved, as they are at present, it will be most difficult for hon. Members to table Questions when they wish.
    I cannot emphasise too much that it is essential that such an important official shall have the confidence of everyone in the country. This is a new type of legislation. We do not wish to make mistakes. It is essential that industry should have confidence in this individual and that he should not remain the hyphenated individual at present outlined in the Bill.
    Mrs. Barbara Castle: I gather, Sir Charles, that you wish me to put the arguments for the Amendments standing in my name, in line 9 to leave out "Her Majesty may appoint" and to insert "there shall be"; and in line 12, to leave out from "Registrar)" to the end of the line and to insert:
    "Every Registrar shall be appointed by and shall hold office during the pleasure of the President of the Board of Trade".)
    With many of the arguments which we have heard from the hon. Baronet the Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Sir J. Barlow) I am inclined to agree. I would certainly agree with him that there

    227
    is great public interest in the question of restrictive practices, and I would entirely agree with him that it is a matter over which we must keep the maximum Parliamentary control. I would also agree with him that the rather mysterious formula in the Clause for the appointment of the Registrar is one which requires more explanation from the Government, and I would therefore support him in the probing efforts which he has made to find out exactly what the Government have in mind in adopting this unusual formula for the appointment of the Registrar.
    We on this side of the Committee have made our position on the Bill perfectly clear. We quarrel with the whole concept behind the Government's machinery for dealing with restrictive practices because we do not think the question as to which restrictive practices are or are not in the public interest is a legalistic question at all. We believe that it is a matter of economic and political concern. As the President of the Board of Trade himself so excellently put it in an earlier debate, there is nothing "either criminal or even morally repulsive" about these practices. They
    "may be good, bad or indifferent from the economic point of view, but no one can say that they are a sin."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th July, 1955 Vol. 543, c. 1940.]
    Our attitude, therefore, in agreement with the right hon. Gentleman's point of view, is that the decision on these practices is economic, and if this is true about the adjudication of the practices themselves, it is even more true about their registration. We believe it is imperative that the activities of the Registrar should be subject to the fullest scrutiny and control by Parliament, and I frankly admit that we are suspicious that, in adopting this formula for the appointment, the Government are trying to take the question of registration out of politics and out of the field of Parliamentary control and to make it very difficult for us to ask questions in the House to discover whether the process of registration is being conducted properly and quickly enough.
    Let me give an example. In Clause 11 the Registrar has power to discover whether agreements which ought to be registered do, in fact, exist. He has a job
    228
    of research and detection, and whether or not he is doing it properly is surely a matter which ought to be subject to the scrutiny of the House and about which we ought to be able to ask Questions. By adopting the Government's formula for the appointment we get back to the legalistic approach to the Registrar, as though he were in the same category as a High Court judge, above the political battle and above detailed Parliamentary control. From our point of view that is not good enough. We cannot understand why the President has not adopted the same methods as, for instance, in the case of the Registrar of Companies. What is so different about the Registrar under the Bill that his appointment should be one for Her Majesty, advised in some mysterious way which is not disclosed.
    We see the Registrar as part and parcel of the job of tracking down restrictive practices in pursuance of the policy agreed by the House—a policy for which the President is responsible to the House. We therefore say that the President should appoint the Registrar and that the right hon. Gentleman's responsibility for answering in the House for the Registrar's activities is very clear.
    What is the purpose behind the Government's formula? What does the President see in the status, activities and responsibilities of the Registrar that he should be selected in a special manner? What will be the practical effect of the formula that he shall hold office "during Her Majesty's pleasure"? Does this mean that if some think that he is not being active enough in tracking down what agreements ought to be registered, we cannot query the Registrar as being an unsuitable appointment and one which ought to be changed? We feel that there are some important answers which the Government must give in this matter.
    4.0 p.m.
    Is it that the President of the Board of Trade is looking on the Registrar more as an initiator of proceedings before the Court and that he must therefore have this more judicial status? If so, that means that we are here once again paying the price for the Government's having adopted a Court procedure instead of a tribunal procedure and a legalistic approach instead of an economic and a political approach. We shall certainly make it clear to the President that we do

    229
    not foresee the future of the control of restrictive practices in this country as one in which we have a Registrar above the political battle, a court of legalistic status, with Parliament nowhere in the picture. We intend to keep Parliament in the picture all along the line, and we are pressing our suggestion as a first step.
    Sir Lancelot Joynson-Hicks: On all sides of the Committee there is considerable agreement that it would not be fair for Parliament, in initiating this new procedure, to become divorced from its responsibility by not having someone on the Government Treasury Bench responsible for answering for the Registrar. To that extent I agree with the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle). From that point I depart entirely from everything she has said. She has completely misconceived the object of the Registrar and the general approach of the Bill towards the registration of restrictive trade practices. I do not propose to pursue the line of argument which she put before the Committee.
    I should like to pursue the line of argument advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Sir J. Barlow). He and I have views in exceedingly close accord, and, in fact, I will adopt and accept all his arguments save one. That one is that the Attorney-General is the proper Minister to have the responsibility of appointing the Registrar. There is not a great deal of practical difference between my hon. Friend's view and my own, because if my proposal, that the Lord Chancellor should be the Minister responsible for the appointment, is accepted, the Attorney-General, as his spokesman in this House, will still be responsible for answering Questions about it, should any Question be put down.
    The important point, as was stressed by my hon. Friend, is that the Registrar himself must be not only independent, but must be seen to be and recognised by industry as a whole to be independent. If he is an appointee of the Attorney-General, I greatly fear that that recognition of his independence will not be apparent to industry as a whole. To take but one instance it is the Registrar who is required to instruct the Attorney-General's nominees about matters which
    230
    appear before the Court, and to prepare and present the case before the Court.
    If the appointee of the Attorney-General instructs the nominees of the Attorney-General, there is a considerable chance that the public will come to the conclusion that it is the Attorney-General himself who is doing what is being done. That is undesirable, and the Registrar would be placed in what would become the invidious position of being confused with the advocate who is to lay the matters before the Court. To take a simple example; every hon. Member is exceedingly anxious that there should be no question of an appearance on behalf of the Registrar being in the nature of a prosecution.
    The duty of counsel is to lay facts before the Court fairly and squarely for all the parties who are represented. It is not his duty to take sides. But if—and I say only if—a nominee of the Attorney-General who was appearing as an advocate were to slide into the position of being a prosecutor, then inevitably the Registrar, if he was responsible to the Attorney-General would be tarred with the same brush. I see no reason why that risk should be run.
    I therefore consider that it is essential that we should get the responsibility for the Registrar away from the Attorney-General if we are to do what I think is universally desired to preserve the Registrar's independence and the semblance of his independence as well. The Government themselves have recognised that need in the way in which they have drafted the Bill. They have inserted in the Bill the provision that the Registrar shall be appointed by Her Majesty, than which nothing could be more calculated to ensure the recognition of his independence.
    However, we cannot do that, because, as I have said, this is an entirely new venture. Parliament is setting up not only a new procedure, but a new Court and a new approach towards the whole of the inquiry into this kind of business. Having set up the machinery, Parliament cannot possibly divorce itself from all responsibility. Accordingly, we must have available to the House a Minister who can accept responsibility to Parliament.

    231
    The question is, who is the appropriate Minister? I do not concur with my hon. Friend that it is the Attorney-General, for the reasons I have given. I certainly cannot agree with the hon. Lady that it is the President of the Board of Trade. That would inevitably be calculated to introduce the worst possible relations between industry and that Government Department. The third and last suggestion is the Lord Chancellor. That suggestion is contained in an Amendment which I hope to have the opportunity of moving later.
    The Lord Chancellor may well be regarded as an unusual person for this purpose, but he already plays a very big part in the Bill. He is a desirable person to have the responsibility for this officer. The Lord Chancellor nominates the English judges to their appointments. He recommends to Her Majesty the other members who are to form the Court with the judges; he removes those other members; he appoints the officers and the servants of the Court; he determines the fees of the Court and he makes the rules of the Court.
    He therefore already has a very substantial part indeed to play in the existing organisation. If the Registrar can also come under his wing, so to speak, he will not only have the dignity, which he ought to have, of being comparable to the judges of the Court who are appointed by the Lord Chancellor, but he will also gain benefit by that degree of independence which the Lord Chancellor always sheds upon all the appointments which he makes. For those reasons the Registrar should be and, in fact, must be responsible to the Lord Chancellor and therefore appointed by him.
    Mr. A. J. Irvine: The Committee will appreciate that the Bill gives very extensive powers to the Registrar. Just because that is so, great importance attaches to the question of the status which he is to possess and to the responsibility for his appointment. It is quite clear that the Registrar will first of all keep the register. He is to decide as among agreements which come to his knowledge which are to be regarded as being subject to registration. He will also initiate the proceedings which are to take place before the Court. That is to say, he will determine which agreements coming to his knowledge
    232
    and appearing on the register are agreements whose effect on the public interest should be brought before the Court for consideration. Finally, he has the power to go to the Court, after a determination has been arrived at, and to move for that determination to be reviewed. So the powers that we are discussing are very extensive and very important.
    I do not think that their full extent will come entirely within the knowledge of the Committee until our discussions have proceeded further and until, in particular, the full effect of the provisions of Clause 5 have been explained by the Government. What the Committee is doing in setting up this appointment of a Registrar in Clause 1 is, in the field of restrictive practices, to appoint a public prosecutor. That is what he will be. He will take the initiative, and he will be responsible for determining which restrictive trade practices in the country are to come before the Court and receive the attention of the Court.
    I should have thought that on both sides of the Committee it might have been agreed that we were making a sufficient innovation in our legal system in inviting judges of the High Court to apply their minds to issues of public interest in matters of trade and commerce without introducing the additional startling innovation of creating an officer who is to fulfil, as I have said, this rôle of public prosecutor on such matters. He will have to apply his mind to controversial questions of policy affecting trade and commerce. The problems will be often of a very controversial and difficult character.
    That seems to me to be a factor which makes the question of his appointment one of very great importance. It is upon his application, under Clause 15, that the Court will exercise jurisdiction in any particular case, and it is rather important to observe that under Clause 1 the Board of Trade's powers are confined to issuing directions as to the order in which the proceedings are taken. In other words, there is no provision for the Board of Trade to issue directions that particular proceedings shall be taken or that a particular restrictive agreement shall be brought before the Court.
    The express powers conferred on the Board of Trade are confined, it appears,

    233
    to the sequence in which proceedings are taken. What is the consequence of all this? The consequence, as it appears to me, is that unless the Registrar is made quite clearly and explicitly responsible to the Board of Trade there may be a most serious conflict between the Government of the day and the Registrar upon matters of prime importance affecting the development of trade and commercial policy.
    4.15 p.m.
    We can easily have, if the Bill goes forward in its present form, a situation in which the Government of the country think that a given restrictive practice is contrary to the public interest and the Registrar thinks that it is not contrary to the public interest, and the Government, as the Bill stands, will be powerless in that context. That seems to us on this side of the Committee to be a good reason for writing into the Bill an express provision to make clear the responsibility of the Registrar to a Government Department.
    In the last analysis, the determination of what is in the public interest is with the electorate. The electors' altered views on policy are reflected by a change of Government and a change in the person who is holding the office of President of the Board of Trade. That being so, it is, in our view, entirely wrong to set up a Registrar who can entirely disregard these changes of opinion about what is the true public interest in terms of commercial and trade policy. What we are doing, unless we are very vigilant, is to set up an important official with very great powers—a public prosecutor, as I have ventured to describe him—in the field of restrictive trade practices, whose distinctive feature, because he is not answerable to any Government Department, will be that he will be able entirely or very largely to ignore changes of policy which the electors at General Elections have expressed to be desirable. We regard that as a considerable risk.
    Mr. John Arbuthnot: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the Registrar ought to be subject to every political wind that blows and every political pressure?
    Mr. Irvine: I am not suggesting anything of the kind. I am suggesting that if there is a change of Government, if, in other words, there is a different conception
    234
    of where the public interest lies in matters of trade and commercial policy, it is reasonable that the Registrar should have regard to it and should take account of it. It appears to me that he is much more likely to do that if he is answerable to a Department. I am not suggesting anything so extreme as the hon. Member suggests.
    What is happening in this Clause is perfectly clear. It is that an overworked and overburdened Executive are referring certain matters which are appropriate to their own field to the judiciary. That is what is occurring. It is not merely handing what should be their own burden and their own responsibility over to the judiciary, but it is also handing a separate part of the burden over to this official. What the Executive are saying to the court is, "These are problems which we should decide, but we have not the time and capacity and therefore we are giving them to you to decide."
    In addition, it is giving to the Registrar the freedom to determine what questions shall be put to the Court. We regard that as giving to this officer too great a power. We say that if he is to have power to anything like this extent, he should be quite clearly and explicitly responsible to a Government Department. The matter of the initiating of procedure before the Court appears, on the whole, to be the most important factor to be borne in mind, but, of course, it is not the only one.
    Another Clause empowers the Registrar to serve notice upon any party to a registrable agreement requiring him to make good his failure to register. The same conflict and cleavage may occur under this head between the Government and the Registrar. A Government Department, such as the Board of Trade, knowing perfectly well of the existence of what it regards as an undesirable restrictive trade practice, and being quite satisfied, from its knowledge and experience, that an agreement exists which should be registered, may be powerless to persuade the Registrar to serve a default notice, under Clause 8, upon a party to that agreement.
    Again, under Clause 17, the Registrar is given the power to which I referred earlier, namely, to go to the Court in cases where it has determined that there is an agreement contrary to the public

    235
    interest and has made an order, and to ask the Court to review and change the order because of some change in circumstances which has occurred.
    The Board of Trade may have good reasons of policy for desiring that a decision of the Court should be reviewed under that Clause, but it will be entirely powerless in the matter because the Registrar is not responsible to it, and, applying his own individual judgment to these complicated and difficult matters year after year, may choose not to bring matters forward for review by the Court. He may go on insisting upon this, utterly regardless of what the electors have said and of the opinion of the Government of the day.
    It seems to me that the object of this Clause should really be twofold. If the Registrar wants to serve a notice, or to commence proceedings, and the Board of Trade does not want to do so, the Registrar should be free to do it. Equivalently, if the Board of Trade wants to serve a notice or to commence proceedings, it should be obligatory upon the Registrar to act accordingly.
    All that one can say about the Bill is that it does not make any such provision. It leans towards the fault of giving the Registrar too wide a scope and too great a freedom to ignore Government policy. The Registrar will be a very important official, and we say that the Bill will make him too important. In our view, explicit limitations should be placed upon his power and a much clearer indication given as to where his responsibilities will lie.
    Sir James Hutchison: I do not want to spend too much time trying to discriminate between the legal niceties raised by the two Amendments which have been put down by my hon. Friends, as between the powers of the Attorney-General and the Lord Chancellor, but I want to make two comments upon speeches which have been made by hon. Members opposite. First, the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) wanted the Registrar to be made dependent upon and subservient to the Board of Trade. Throughout the whole passage of the Bill we must watch very carefully that we do not tend to alienate industry and commerce from the Board of Trade. Industry and commerce now
    236
    tend to regard—and should tend to regard—the Board of Trade and the President thereof as their friend and helper, and to identify the Board of Trade with action which comes very near to prosecution will be damning to the relationship between the two.
    The arguments adduced by the hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) were the most curious arguments in favour of what he proposes that I have listened to. Time and again he emphasised that the Registrar would be a very important man, and should carry on his work independent of what the electors said at General Elections. He has just now conceived, however, that the Registrar could be swayed by the winds of political fashion, and indicated that he thought that the Registrar should be so swayed. That is a very dangerous innovation to introduce into our form of Government. If we want to make a change in legislation, Parliament should do it, and we should not rely upon a Registrar, standing apart, to try to interpret the will of the country. I hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend will accept either of the two Amendments in the names of my hon. Friends but will reject those put forward from the Benches opposite.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: I oppose the Amendment. It seems to me that the question at issue in each of the Amendments which we are discussing is whether the Registrar should be appointed by a political officer, or, in time-honoured fashion, by Her Majesty. My first Amendment provides that he should be appointed by the Crown, on the recommendation of the Lord Chancellor. I oppose the Amendment which has been moved because it tends to diminish the status of the Registrar; because it is a break with precedent and tradition, and because it may reduce the efficiency of the Registrar. It is common ground here that the Registrar will be a very important official; as important, in his own way, as a High Court judge. Therefore, in my submission, he should be appointed in the same manner as a High Court judge, namely, by the Crown, upon the recommendation of the Lord Chancellor.
    The reasons which have been given in favour of the Amendment seem to me to be quite inadequate, and do not deal with the questions which I have just

    237
    adumbrated about the status, efficiency and usefulness of the Registrar. I am in agreement with everyone who has spoken so far about the importance of the office of the Registrar and the duties that he will have to perform. In my submission, that makes it desirable to accept my Amendment. It accords with usage and practice; it is upon the same lines as is the appointment of a High Court judge, and it accords with the manner in which Clause 4 provides for the appointment of certain members of the Restrictive Practices Court, as it is in the Bill, or, as I hope it will be, the tribunal, when the Bill becomes an Act.
    It is obvious that the Registrar will have very important duties to perform. Some speakers have suggested that he should be appointed by somebody who is answerable to the electors. That kind of argument could be applied to the appointment of a High Court judge.
    Mr. A. J. Irvine indicated dissent.
    Mr. Hughes: Are High Court judges to be appointed by persons answerable to the electors? That is a false argument.
    Mr. Irvine: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware of the difference between an advocate and a judge?
    Mr. Hughes: I am discussing the difference, not between an advocate and a judge, but between the Registrar and a judge. My argument is that the Registrar will have such important duties to perform, and will be so exalted a personage, that he should be appointed in the same manner as a judge—by persons who are above politics. He should be appointed not by the Lord Chancellor or the President of the Board of Trade, but by the Crown, on the recommendation of the Lord Chancellor.
    4.30 p.m.
    It is the settled practice by Statute that holders of very high offices are usually appointed by the Crown, on the recommendation of the Lord Chancellor. My argument has much precedent behind it. Any variation from this practice usually depends upon the lower status of the particular office. The fourth Amendment on the Order Paper is the one which I hope the Minister will accept, namely, that the Registrar should be appointed by the Crown, on the recommendation of the Lord Chancellor.
    The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Thorneycroft): It might be convenient if I said a few words at this stage. We are considering a series of Amendments containing a variety of suggestions on who ought to advise about the appointment of the Registrar.
    Some hon. Members think it ought to be the President of the Board of Trade. The hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), in a very forceful and clearly reasoned speech, made out the case that it ought to be the President of the Board of Trade. There are quite logical arguments for that view. Other hon. Members think it ought to be the Attorney-General, and among them is my hon. Friend the Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Sir J. Barlow). Others, again—they have the advantage of being on both sides of the Committee—like my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Sir L. Joynson-Hicks) and the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes), think that neither of those previous suggestions is right and that the correct person is the Lord Chancellor.
    The Bill says that the Registrar shall be appointed by Her Majesty, but hon. Gentlemen know that that means Her Majesty advised by the First Lord of the Treasury, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I say to some of my hon. Friends that I do not know that we should get greater security by giving the job to me rather than to the Prime Minister. We cannot go very much higher than that in the appointment of an officer whose duties, it has been rightly said, will be extremely important.
    Two distinct issues are running through this discussion. One is whether anybody should be answerable for the exact policy in the arguments that will be put forward in the Court. The hon. and learned Member for Leicester North-East (Sir Ungoed-Thomas) shakes his head in dissent, while his hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn nods, and it was to her speech that I was addressing myself. No? I am sorry. I thought the hon. and learned Member shook his head.
    There is a second issue, which concerns very deeply some of my hon. Friends. It is that the conduct of the appointment should be in the highest traditions of the English Bar, so that no criticism whatever can be directed to the

    239
    way in which the case is presented and the cross-examination goes on. I share that view and I think that it would be shared by all sides of the Committee. Indeed, I can help hon. Members who feel that way not by accepting any of the Amendments—which, I hope, will not be pressed—but by saying that these cases will, in fact, be conducted by counsel nominated by the Attorney-General. Legal advice will be by the Treasury Solicitor, whose staff will have to be enlarged to deal with this side of the work.
    Whether it is strictly necessary or not, I am prepared to write into Clause 18 the fact that the cases will be conducted by counsel so nominated. That will demonstrate that if there is any misconduct in the handling of any particular case it will certainly not occur on more than one occasion.
    Mr. M. Turner-Samuels: Is there not another and even more important matter than the conduct of the proceedings, the reference of the matter to the Court at all?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I will deal with that point in due course.
    The hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn made absolutely plain the reasons for her Amendment. She wanted a Minister to be responsible because she wanted him to be subjected to questioning in the House of Commons. We have to choose between a judicial and an administrative solution to these problems. I have always admitted that there was a case for either. I listened to the very able arguments on the Second Reading in favour of an administrative tribunal. I will not discuss them now because we shall come to that point on Clause 2. We must now assume that it is to be a judicial tribunal for the purpose of the argument.
    We cannot have both. It is illusory to imagine that we can have debates in the House of Commons and Questions to Ministers, whether to the Attorney-General or to the President of the Board of Trade, on policies which are being pursued, at the same time as these matters are being discussed and argued on criteria laid down under Clause 16 in a judicial way and in front of a judicial court.
    Mrs. Castle: How then does the right hon. Gentleman describe the activities of the Registrar in discovering whether agreements exist or not? Surely that is an administrative matter.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: Certainly that is an administrative side and we shall come to it in Clause 8, when we discuss how it should be discharged but no Departmental Minister should be examined as to the policies which are being pursued.
    The matter was even more clearly put by the hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine). I ask my hon. Friends to pay attention to his speech, because that is the logical end of some of the Amendments which they themselves have put forward, although it is not their intention one bit. Their intention is one which I fully share: it is to ensure that these cases are properly conducted, and I agree with that.
    The logical end to making a Departmental Minister responsible is that which was so much desired by the hon. Member for Edge Hill, namely, that the policy should change with each Election and that the whole conduct of these affairs should be subjected to the pressures which can be exercised in the House of Commons. I am not complaining about pressures in the House of Commons; it is right that there should be. If we decide that something is to be judicially decided we cannot have it decided by pressures in the House of Commons. The two are quite separate and clearly distinct.
    Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas: I am following with great interest the case made by the right hon. Gentleman, but it depends entirely on how far the case is justiciable.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I agree. That is a fair point and we shall discuss it either on Clause 2 or Clause 16. It does not prejudice the hon. and learned Gentleman's case to assume for the moment that the Bill is as it is and contemplates a judicial solution. If we are to have a judicial solution, these other suggestions are inimical to the judicial approach.
    The hon. Member for Edge Hill asked other questions. He said that the Registrar was in the same sort of position as the Director of Public Prosecutions or a public prosecutor. That is wholly misconceived. That is not the position of

    241
    the Registrar at all, who has not discretion about bringing cases forward. In principle, all the cases which are subject to the Orders made under later Clauses have to be registered. There can be discretion but, in principle, the cases have to be registered. Having been registered, they have to be called up. There is no question about that; there is no discretion there.
    There is discretion with the President of the Board of Trade. It is laid down that the President of the Board of Trade will have the power to give directions as to the order in which these particular cases should be heard, for the obvious reason that if there were some particular ring or an agreement which happened to be of special interest or special importance it would be possible for the President of the Board of Trade to issue a direction that it should be taken next or that it should be taken early. Similarly, another limitation on the powers of the Registrar, and something which is firmly and quite rightly kept in the hands of the House of Commons, is which group of practices should be registered. We could decide, when practices were registered, the order in which they should be called up.
    Thirdly, as to the procedure in the Court, that is subject to the rules of the Court. We are proposing to accept a later Amendment that will make these rules subject to the negative Resolution of the House of Commons, so that we shall have some control there. Similarly, with regard to the arrangements affecting registration, these, too, are within the proper control of the House of Commons, in so far as the House of Commons can approve or disapprove of the rules laid down, and that seems to me to be the right rôle of the House of Commons.
    Mr. A. J. Irvine: I should like to get the provisions of the Bill quite clear. It is true, is it not, that the Registrar, and he alone, can ensure that a certain agreement is brought before the Court?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: It is the Registrar's responsibility. He is the only person who can initiate the proceedings, but the President of the Board of Trade can issue directions as to the order in which cases are taken. Therefore, if there is a particular case which the President of the Board of Trade thinks ought to be taken early, either because he thinks it is a
    242
    social evil or because it could set a precedent for many other cases, that might be a perfectly good reason for asking that that particular case should be heard early. He could ensure that it was the next one to come before the Court in that way, and, within the limits of the Bill, the powers are retained.
    I am bound to make plain what I feel and what is laid down in the Bill—that I would regard any system which made a Departmental Minister responsible for answering day-to-day Questions in the House of Commons as to what was or was not being done by the Registrar, or what arguments were or were not being advanced, as something which was quite contrary to the important principles laid down here.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: There is this fundamental aspect of the matter which the right hon. Gentleman has not touched upon. Why should Her Majesty, in making the appointment, be denied the assistance which the recommendation of the Lord Chancellor could give her?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: Her Majesty will be advised by the Prime Minister, and in this Government I feel fairly confident that the Prime Minister and the Lord Chancellor will probably be of one mind.
    4.45 p.m.
    Mr. Douglas Jay: I am bound to say that the speech of the President of the Board of Trade, if I understood him aright, has, if anything, increased rather than diminished our anxieties about the extent to which he is taking this business out of parliamentary accountability. It seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman is using the device, which is no doubt a perfectly proper and customary one, of advice by the Prime Minister to the Queen about a new appointment as a method of making it almost impossible to ask a Question in the House about this business at any stage.
    May I say, for the sake of clarity, that I understand that for procedural reasons we cannot carry this matter to a Division on the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), as we should have preferred, and that, therefore, we have selected the Amendment we are actually discussing now and which, from our point of view, is only second best.

    243
    This is an important debate. The hon. Member for Scotstoun (Sir J. Hutchison) said that it was vital in all this that the Board of Trade should be regarded as the friend of industry and commerce. I agree with that, to some extent, but I think that we on this side of the Committee approach the whole matter from this point of view. We think that it is essential that this Bill should above all set out to protect the consumer and the ordinary housewife from exploitation, and it is the duty of the Board of Trade in all this to function as the protector of the consumer.
    That is why we wish to see rather more teeth in the Bill; and I should like the Bill to have some large teeth, like the wolf in the fable of "Little Red Riding Hood," but I am afraid that the President's Bill at present resembles the grandmother rather than the wolf. It seems to us to be most essential that the Bill should contain some direct form of parliamentary accountability.
    Squadron Leader A. E. Cooper: For the sake of accuracy, would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it was the wolf that got killed, and that the grandmother was saved?
    Mr. Jay: I am well aware of that, but I am afraid that in this case the Bill in its present form is more likely to be devoured by the monopolists than vice-versa.
    Our view is that there should be accountability to Parliament and that one Minister should be responsible. In reply to the speech of the President, and accepting his view that for the moment we must assume that there is to be Court responsibility for deciding actual cases, the argument is still perfectly legitimate, even though there is a Court, that the Registrar should be appointed by and be responsible to the President of the Board of Trade and not, as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, by the Sovereign. I think that parliamentary responsibility for this Registrar, from the point of view of the consumer, is especially important for these reasons.
    In the first place, as we all agree, the first main job of the Registrar is to initiate the proceedings. The Bill lays down in Clause 1 that the Registrar is charged with the duty of initiating such
    244
    proceedings, and the actual order in which it is done is a matter on which the President can be prodded, if I may use that word.
    Mr. Charles Doughty: Surely the first duty of the Registrar is not to initiate the proceedings but to maintain a register, which is a different matter.
    Mr. Jay: That is quite clear; I said that it was his first important duty, but I will not argue that with the hon. Gentleman.
    What is worrying us is that, though the President can instruct the Registrar as to the public interest or the order in which he takes these proceedings, he has no power to say that these proceedings shall be taken at a particular rate. It is true that he can say that case A should be taken first, followed by B and C, but we wish to see these cases taken in five years, not fifty years. On that point, it seems to us that there is no adequate power.
    Secondly, in Clause 15, I think the President will agree, the Registrar has the power—and I left out this part in the Second Reading Debate in trying to trace it out—after the Court has decided that a particular practice is against the public interest, nevertheless to say that nothing further shall happen at all, because it is only on the application of the Registrar that any action can actually be taken to stop what is going on. It seems to us that that is a very vital power in the whole process, and if there is no full accountability, I think the President is rather in danger, though I am sure that it is not his intention, of setting up an official of immense power, almost a dictator, over a large field of industry, but with very little accountability to anybody at all.
    I think it would be preferable to place the responsibility for the appointment on the Lord Chancellor or the Attorney-General, and there is no very big distinction there—rather than have the arrangement which the President is proposing. Nevertheless, we on this side, with the possible exception of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes), prefer that if we are choosing between one Minister and another the responsibility should fairly and squarely be placed on the President of the Board of Trade.

    245
    Briefly, the reasons for that are as follows. After all, the right hon. Gentleman represents the Department responsible for industrial policy in general; that has always been the settled rule. He is responsible also for protection of the consumer, which, I emphasise again, is the main objective of the whole of this enterprise. We might sometimes think that the right hon. Gentleman is not responsible for the protection of the consumer, because Ministers in the present Government are fond of repudiating responsibility for all kinds of things—for example, exports and full employment, and I do not know what it will be next. But we hope that the right hon. Gentleman still regards himself as responsible for the protection of the consumer.
    Throughout the whole of the legislation of the last few years, the President of the Board of Trade has had formal responsibility for the subject of monopolies and restrictive practices. As several hon. Members opposite have said today, we are in danger of getting into a complicated administrative muddle. After all, the Monopolies Commission is still in existence, and we are to have the Lord Chancellor and the Attorney-General coming in. The Registrar is now to be separated from the Board of Trade and, of course, we have continuing responsibility by the Board of Trade itself.
    I find it very difficult to believe that we will get a smooth and effective procedure in that extremely complicated setup. We could at least simplify it to some extent if we placed the main responsibility firmly on the President of the Board of Trade.
    Mr. Peter Remnant: We all agree about the need to protect the consumer. Will the right hon. Gentleman later be suggesting that "consumer" should be substituted for "public interest"?
    Mr. Jay: What we will suggest, although it is probably not relevant or in order at this stage, is that there should be more consumer representation among the non-legal members of the Court, if the Committee decides to proceed with the proposal to have the Court.
    Before we finally decide this issue, can the President of the Board of Trade tell us what exactly is implied by the statement
    246
    that the appointments will be made by the Prime Minister? What sort of Questions will it be possible to ask in the House about the whole business? Will it be possible to ask Questions other than those to the Prime Minister about why he appointed a certain individual as Registrar rather than somebody else? Obviously, I take it, that much will be possible.
    Will it be possible to ask why, although the Board of Trade has designated a certain class of practices for registration, several months have elapsed and practically no proceedings have been taken by the Registrar? Will it be possible to ask why the whole procedure is moving so slowly? Will it be possible, by some parliamentary procedure, to urge the President to speed up the whole process in the interest of the consumer?
    Will it be possible to ask a Question concerning the Registrar's functions under Clause 15? If it happens that after this very long process, which we examined on Second Reading, the Court finally decides that a certain practice is contrary to the public interest but that a substantial period elapses and no further action is taken by the Registrar, will it be possible to put down a Question—presumably, to the Prime Minister—on that subject? A great deal turns on whether we can have an assurance that there will be at least a reasonable measure of parliamentary accountability and the opportunity for hon. Members to ask Questions on all these major points.
    Sir Lionel Heald: I listened very carefully to what my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade said and I was impressed by his advice to the Committee. He was right in saying that the greatest concern, certainly amongst a number of my hon. Friends on this side, relates to the conduct of proceedings and to the guarantee, of which my right hon. Friend himself spoke on Second Reading, that all sides would be heard and all parties properly represented. I quite agree that from that aspect the appointment of the Registrar is not really a very relevant or important factor.
    If, as my right hon. Friends says, that matter will be dealt with by the Prime Minister, and if the Prime Minister deals with it, as no doubt he will, on the basis of appointing a man who would be able

    247
    to exhibit independence and confidence in himself—although, of course, it is not possible to ask that the Registrar should be given the same status as a High Court judge or anything of that nature—I think the House would probably be prepared to accept the position that an appointment of that kind would be a guarantee of independent action. I quite agree with the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), however, that it would be desirable to make clear the position as regards the extent to which Questions will be permissible.
    Having got so far, I agree with my right hon. Friend that the most important matter is the guarantee that proceedings will be conducted in a fair and impartial manner, but what he has said so far—that he proposes to provide that counsel shall be nominated by the Attorney-General—is really no guarantee whatever, for the only concern of the Attorney-General would be whether a proper person had been appointed.
    If any hon. Member wanted to ask a Question, the only Question he could ask would be why Mr. X had been appointed when he was not perhaps a suitable man for the job. The Attorney-General would be able to escape from any difficulty or criticism by saying, "I am not concerned with what the man says when he gets there. I am concerned only with whether a fit and proper person is appointed." Therefore, although it would be out of order for me to discuss it now, in hoping that I will have the opportunity later to move a subsequent Amendment which appears in my name, I am bound to say that my hon. Friends and I will press very strongly for something much more on the lines that we indicate in our Amendment.
    What my right hon. Friend said today covers only part of the undertaking that he gave to the House on Second Reading. He then referred to the task of the Registrar in initiating proceedings, and he said:
    "The Registrar will be advised by the Treasury Solicitor, and will be represented before the court by counsel nominated by the Attorney-General."
    So far so good, but my right hon. Friend went on to say:
    "It will be the duty of the Registrar to ensure that all relevant facts are placed before
    248
    the court, and he will consult the Attorney-General, through the Treasury Solicitor, on any matters of doubt or difficulty."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th March, 1956; Vol. 549, c. 1943–4.]
    From my experience, I assure my right hon. Friend that nomination does not carry with it any such obligation. Therefore, we really must ask my right hon. Friend and my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General to think again about this.
    Subject to that, having heard the speeches from both sides, and particularly, one might say, having heard one or two of the speeches from the other side, I think there is a great deal in what my right hon. Friend has said about the constitutional position. I personally would be prepared to let this matter go on the basis that my right hon. Friend has suggested, on the very clear understanding that we want something much more definite as regards the conduct of the proceedings.
    5.0 p.m.
    Mr. Wilfred Fienburgh: The main difficulty about this batch of legal Amendments, from both sides of the Committee, is that in their respective ways they are typical of a deep division of opinion as to how this whole business is to be tackled. On one side there is the judicial approach and on our side of the Committee there is the politico-economic approach. It is impossible to bridge that gap by any purely legalistic conception of who is to do the appointment of the Registrar.
    What we have in mind in our whole approach to the matter is that, once appointed, the Registrar shall be the sharp end of the nation's machinery to deal with restrictive practices. He will not be simply an amorphous bureaucrat sitting at the seat of custom. He will not be part of the judicial structure of the country. He will be the sharp end of a political and economic instrument designed to achieve political and economic aims.
    The danger into which hon. Members opposite are falling is that they are trying to place these problems in the same kind of category as the common law. In other words, they suggest that it may be possible for us to say, "It is wrong to steal"; and it is then possible for the Government to say, "It having been laid

    249
    down that it is wrong to steal, we now step out of the operation and leave it to the judiciary to punish people who are caught stealing."
    For that simple analogy the purely judicial approach is right and proper, but what we are saying, in effect, in this Bill is that it is wrong to commit certain practices but that on investigation we may decide that some of those practices are quite proper. There is therefore no blanket objection or condemnation; there is imposed upon a general category of condemnation a value judgment which enables somebody somewhere to say that, although the whole series of restrictive practices is wrong, some are right and we will allow those which are right to continue.
    We argue that these are not justiciable issues; those are political and economic issues. That is why we are anxious that the Registrar, who is to be the sharp end of these operations, should be answerable politically to Parliament in some way or another.
    The President has over-argued his case to some extent in that in part he has accepted the need for some political supervision. When we asked for a definition of what was meant by the statement in the Bill that the Registrar would be appointed by Her Majesty, the President was quick to point out that in effect it will be a recommendation and an appointment by the Prime Minister, who is the highest political authority. In trying to meet our argument, the right hon. Gentleman was therefore so quick to shelter himself behind the fact that, in effect, it would be a political appointment, that he implicitly accepted our case that some political supervision over the activities of the registrar is necessary. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, indeed. When we asked whether he would leave the appointment to Her Majesty; like a flash he replied, "Of course not; it will be the Prime Minister who will make the appointment and he is the highest political authority. What are you grumbling about? There is a degree of political control and supervision."
    Later, in response to another argument, he said that the Prime Minister would obviously be in agreement with the Lord Chancellor upon the matter. But he still did not answer the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for
    250
    Battersea, North (Mr. Jay). If, in effect, it is practically a Prime Minister's appointment, through whom are we to exercise some political supervision in the House? By the right hon. Gentleman's nods and head shakings we gathered that we were to have some opportunity, although not a right, to question the appointment, but not the way in which the appointee fulfils his functions.
    It would be naïve to assume that the President will be a complete political neuter in these matters. It is obvious that, whoever appoints the Registrar, the President's Department will constantly have to refer issues to the Registrar and will have to have discussions and contacts practically week to week, if not day to day, with the Registrar in the exercise of the President's political functions. If the President is not to do that he will opt out of the whole business altogether.
    I am afraid that, in effect, there will be some degree of political supervision and some degree of political contact between the President and the Registrar but that when we in the House seek to press the President on the methods which he is deploying, upon his tactics and his general approach, we shall be faced with an iron curtain behind which the right hon. Gentleman will say, "You may not question me on those matters because this man is not my appointee." So the President will get the best of all possible worlds. Unless he is prepared to abdicate a wide field of responsibility to this appointee, he will have to maintain some kind of executive connection with the Registrar; but at the same time he will not be answerable to the House about those negotiations and talks. Thus he will be enjoying a degree of power without accountability which we think is not sustainable.
    That is why we ask that he should put firmly in the Statute what we think will be effectively the case, and that he should give Parliament the right to question him. That is why we propose this approach. It is nonsense for the right hon. Gentleman to suggest that hon. Members will be seeking to put down Questions while cases are coming before the judicial tribunal and before the judiciary.
    The functions of the Government and the whole of the machine are clearly divided into two parts; one is initiation

    251
    and the other is the judicial action following that initiation. If we may use such an analogy about any judicial body, the second is the sausage machine; but the most important matter is the rate at which things are fed into the sausage machine. We do not accept for a moment the President's case that on the basis of the Bill this is to be a judicial operation; but assuming for one moment that we do accept it, is there any reason at all that there should not be some political supervision of at least the rate at which things are fed into the judicial sausage machine, its scope and direction?
    Mr. Leslie Hale: I have been following this very able argument with considerable admiration. It seems to me that once the Minister has handed a matter to the Registrar we shall not only have no new rights to criticise but we shall be deprived of our old rights to criticise. We may find ourselves unable to raise issues of great national importance because the President will say, "This has been handed to the Registrar and it is up to the Registrar, in the exercise of his quasi-judicial functions, to decide when and how it should be dealt with."
    Mr. Fienburgh: My hon. Friend is right and I was perhaps too elliptic in the argument, when I envisaged an iron curtain coming down. It would come down not simply on the particular matter being discussed at the moment, but as an iron curtain behind which the President could shelter quite happily from a whole range of questions dealing generally with restrictive practices—questions which we are allowed to put on the Order Paper at the moment.
    Before we go much further with the debate, the President must answer the questions put to him by my right hon. Friend, which I have tried to emphasise. Is this or is it not in any way to be a political appointment? The right hon. Gentleman sought to imply that in effect it would be a political appointment. If it is to be a political appointment by the Prime Minister, what questions may we ask the Prime Minister upon it? Are we to be allowed to question him only upon the name of the appointee? Are we not to be allowed to question him upon the methods of operation of the appointee?
    252
    We are not discussing the B.B.C., nor the appointment of bishops. We are discussing the creation of a new type of technical economic instrument which should have far-reaching effects upon the economic structure of the country. Although it may be arguable that the Prime Minister should appoint the chairman of the B.B.C. and should not be pressed on his administration after the appointment has been made, that analogy cannot be sustained for one moment when we are examining the creation of this new economic instrument.
    Are we to be allowed to probe questions further? Are we to be denied rights of questioning which we have already on these matters? Before we go much further we must really winkle the President from behind the iron curtain and ask him to reply to this question. In so doing, we must emphasise the main point—that there is a fundamental difference between us. That will be admitted. There is a judicial approach, on the one side, and a politico-economic approach on the other, but, given those differences of approach, the President of the Board of Trade surely must be as concerned as we are that he shall not create—perhaps inadvertently—a new type of structure which would deny to Parliament some measure of political control which it has at the moment.
    Mr. Reader Harris: I do not quite follow all the arguments of the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Fienburgh), although in general I support the right to question someone on the Front Bench on the activities of the Registrar. It does not seem that he will have an opportunity to exercise politico-economic judgment because his duties are laid down. I cannot see what discretion he is to have, but possibly he will have some discretion as to whether he takes a decision a year later or not. At all events, I do not want to detract from the argument of the hon. Member, but to add another argument.
    It seems to me that to a certain extent the Registrar will be a civil servant, because he will have certain administrative duties. He will have to collect facts and figures for registration to lay before the Court. Under Clause 11 he is to have the same sort of powers which the police might have—the right to walk into

    253
    a firm's premises, to examine its books and take photostat copies of invoices and that sort of thing. What is more, he is to have the right to do all those things without the authority of a court and can do it off his own bat. Supposing he does something which is considered by the firm concerned to be objectionable and the firm thinks it is being imposed on by Gestapo methods used by the Registrar? Has the firm no right of redress? Cannot a Member of Parliament ask a Question of a Minister about the activities of the Registrar?
    I am very concerned that industry generally should have some confidence in this man. At the moment, I am frightened that very soon he may become known not as the Registrar of Restrictive Trading Agreements, but the Commissar of Restrictive Trade Practices, and that would not be a good thing. Therefore, I would support the right of questioning the President of the Board of Trade, at any rate on the administrative activities of the Registrar.
    Mr. Frederick Mulley: I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will note that every speech made so far, with perhaps the one exception of the former Attorney-General, has urged upon him to do nothing in the Bill to take away the rights of Question and Answer in this House.
    I think it was unfortunate that today the President began proceedings on this Bill with one of the oldest Parliamentary tricks in the book by replying very literally to the Amendment, which was a paving Amendment, to build up a series of points. The President addressed his remarks almost exclusively to the fact of the appointment of the Registrar. Of course, we realise that the appointment will be exercised on the advice of the Ministers of the day. I am sure that on this side of the Committee and on the other side there are no doubts that a fit and proper person will be appointed as Registrar, but the point of the Amendment, linked with others on the Notice Paper, is to preserve some ministerial responsibility over the Registrar. That is not because we believe that he will be a man who has to be watched day by day by the Minister concerned, but simply to preserve the rights of hon. Members to put Questions on the Order Paper.
    254
    5.15 p.m.
    Some of my hon. Friends expressed doubts whether Answers would be obtained from the President of the Board of Trade, but I am in doubt whether we would even get Questions on to the Order Paper in the first instance if the Clause goes through in the form in which the President wants it to go through. Many hon. Members opposite have, over the years since 1945, spoken against the practice, which is all too prevalent, of taking matters outside the power of this House—outside the elected assembly. Whilst we may differ about which Minister should answer at the Box, I hope we are all agreed that there should be some Minister responsible for answering Questions on the jurisdiction and conduct of the Registrar.
    We might perhaps be able to resolve the difficulty when the Question is put from the Chair as, presumably, it will be in the form, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause." Whether we think the Attorney-General should answer Questions on this matter, or that it should be the Lord Chancellor or the President of the Board of Trade, we can go into the Lobby to vote against the Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question." I do hope that when the matter is pressed to a Division we shall have a large number of hon. Members opposite with us in the Lobby seeking to preserve the rights of hon. Members of this House.
    In view of the debate, it may well be that the President or the Parliamentary Secretary may have second thoughts on this question. Let it be quite clear that we are not concerned, and never have been concerned, with any suggestion that some quite unsuitable, disreputable person might be appointed as Registrar. What we want to preserve and to have written into the Bill is that there should be sufficient ministerial responsibility so that we can put Questions to a Minister, should the need arise.
    I feel that the debate has been fogged by what in several cases seemed to be a complete misrepresentation of what the functions of the Registrar are to be. It was suggested by several hon. Members that he should be completely independent and exercise a judicial function. Some one unfamiliar with the terms of the Bill and listening to the debate might think that he was to be the judge in the Court.

    255
    As the hon. Member for Heston and Isleworth (Mr. R. Harris) pointed out in a very powerful intervention, we might consider, when we debate Clause 11, that the Registrar has too great administrative powers. There is certainly no question in my mind that he should have nothing but administrative duties to perform.
    If we are to build him up as someone beyond Parliament, appointed at the pleasure of Her Majesty and completely independent, for what do we want all the paraphernalia of a Court? The whole point of having a Registrar is to see that the administrative provisions of the Act shall be complied with. It may well be that, not through any lack of diligence, but because of certain policies pursued by the Registrar, we may want to put Questions and raise matters in this House.
    As a parallel, I would remind the House that all hon. Members will, at some time or other, have had correspondence with the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance concerning the powers and statutory duties of the Minister under the National Insurance Acts. We then get the kind of Answer, which is probably quite proper as the Acts stand, that the Minister can do nothing about some question because of the statutory provisions of an Act and because of his powers under it. We should all object very strongly if, because the Act said certain things, we were not able to ask Questions of the Minister concerning his responsibilities under the Act. He can only do things in so far as the law permits him, but we want to be able to raise matters affecting constituents, even though—unless the law is amended—the Minister cannot meet our point of view.
    The parallel arises in this instance. Under Clause 11 all sorts of matters can arise. Constituents may expect their hon. Member to raise matters in debate, but the Member, as I understand the Clause, may be forbidden even to put a Question on the Order Paper.
    There is a large body of opinion on the benches opposite, and unanimous opinion on this side of the Committee, that at least some Minister should be responsible to answer those Questions. I do not think it matters quite so much which Minister it is. I was surprised by the hon. Member for Scotstoun (Sir J. Hutchison), who suggested that manufacturers and commerce generally would
    256
    look with disfavour on the Board of Trade if the Board of Trade were the responsible Department in this connection. I should have thought that the only ground on which commercial interests would object to the Board of Trade would be if the Board of Trade were slack and lazy in applying the powers of the Bill to abolish restrictive practices, because commercial interests, believing as we are always told, in the efficacity of free competition—
    The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Malcolm MacPherson): The hon. Gentleman is going a little wide now. I think that he should come back to the specific point of the Amendment.
    Mr. Mulley: I was trying to show why the Board of Trade would be the appropriate Department. Rather than lose the confidence of manufacturers by pursuing the vigorous policy which we want the Board of Trade to pursue, I suggest that that attitude would gain confidence. For reasons which have been expressed more powerfully than I could express them, I am sure that the Board of Trade would be the appropriate Department. However, rather than lose the right of hon. Members to put Questions, I think we would all settle for the Attorney-General. I ask the President of the Board of Trade to give consideration to the point so that we do not, through arguing which of the three Ministries should be involved, lose the principle of the right of hon. Members to put Questions.
    Mr. Doughty: The hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) spoke of Questions being answered in the House, but other hon. Members opposite gave the secret away. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) said that, of course, the Bill was designed to protect the public. That is entirely true, but one does not protect the public by exposing the industries that supply it with its goods, be they big or small, to the changes of the political wind, which may change rapidly or slowly. From year to year, or from week to week, the industries would not know what their position was and what their powers and limitations were if they were subject to this political wind. Therefore, it is necessary, desirable and most important that some body should be set up that can try these matters in a calm non-political atmosphere.

    257
    The Court which it is proposed to set up and to which the Registrar will refer these questions is far and away the best tribunal for the purpose. The Registrar is a man of immense power over industry, and if he is to be directed and counter-directed by Presidents of the Board of Trade giving him political directions, it will be quite impossible for him properly to carry on with his job with any sort of continuity entirely from the political arena, and his duties should be confined to what is set down I the Bill.
    Mr. Hale: That is exactly what the Board of Trade can do. It can go to the Registrar and say "We have a lot of Tory members who are interested in beer and we do not want this matter to be raised. Deal with something else nice and quiet, like tin tacks. Put that first ad beer at the end of the list." The only power given to the Board of Trade is the power to take the big thing out of the list and shove in a little one.
    Mr. Doughty: There is nothing about beer or tin tacks in the Bill. Obviously, the hon. Gentleman has not read it. That is exactly what the President can be questioned about. My right hon. Friend has the power of direction, and he can be questioned as to directions which he has given or failed to give. The hon. Gentleman is not correct.
    Mr. Jay: Is not my hon. Friend perfectly correct, and is it not true that the hon. and learned Gentleman has not read the Bill? Does not Clause 1 say that the order in which proceedings are initiated is the one responsibility of the Board of Trade? Clearly, that means the question as to which type of case and which type of industry is taken first.
    Mr. Doughty: The right hon. Gentleman did not follow what I said, which was that was exactly the type of question which could be put to the President of the Board of Trade: namely, why or why not a certain sort of industry, be it beer or tin tacks, has been put down for discussion higher up on the list. That being so, I am in entire agreement with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, who said what we did not want day to day administration, the day to day lack of administration—if that be alleged—the day to day decisions and conduct of inquiries made the subject of
    258
    Questions, Adjournment debates and all the proceedings of the House of Commons which can be used.
    However, there are matters dealing with the speed of administration, etc., on which it would be advisable for somebody to be answerable in the House. Therefore, if the Lord Chancellor were to appoint this Registrar—and here I am in agreement with my hon. Friend he Member for Chichester (Sir L. Joynson-Hicks)—then he Attorney-General would be answerable, to a limited extent, for his behaviour, though not for questions of detailed administration. So far as that goes, I support the Amendment.
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: The whole Committee, and in particular the President of the Board of Trade, will agree that although this is in a sense a narrow mater it is one of the greatest importance. The Registrar, obviously, will pay a pivotal part in the new structure the Bill seeks to create. He is to have very important functions, and it is most important that he should not in the end turn out to be an instrument of camouflage. It is because of the functions that the Registrar has to perform and because of the nature of the whole subject of restrictive agreements and so on, that the question of his appointment—who is to appoint him and what Parliamentary control there is to be over him—is of the first importance.
    One feature that strikes the eye straight away is that there are to be proceedings to go before a Court, and the Registrar is to be the fist stage in getting a grip on those proceedings; that is to say, that the proceedings will be initiated by him. The first point, therefore, that must be considered is how soon is the matter to be sub judice and to what extent. When is Parliament, the public and he Press or anyone else to be precluded from raising the matter or asking any question about it? That is why I say that it is most essential that the appointment of Registrar should not in any way be an instrument of camouflage.
    The right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) referred to the conduct of proceedings. I agree that it is quiet elementary that if anyone is appointed by the Attorney-General as counsel in these proceedings he would obviously be a competent person. Clearly,

    259
    the Attorney-General will not appoint anybody who he believes to be otherwise, but I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that that is merely a preliminary function. Apart from the choice of counsel, it does not decide what course the proceedings should take or how the proceedings are to be conducted. It is no good closing our eyes to the fact that these proceedings cannot be divorced from political considerations. I mean political in the best sense of the word; political in the sense of protecting the public interest. Everything that is concerned with protecting the public interest is political.
    5.30 p.m.
    I suppose that our sole and main purpose here is that we should, in everything we do, seek to protect the public interest. Therefore, this matter of trade restriction, in its whole scope, is obviously something which impinges on the public interest. It is brought here to be dealt with because the public interest has been so evaded and outraged for years that we have to try to do something about it. Public interest obviously goes to the very heart of the matter, and whether it is before a court of law or before any other tribunal or functionary the issue involved must be political. That being so, the question of who appoints the functionary and what control there is to be over him does, undoubtedly, become very important.
    What will happen as matters now stand is that if an hon. Member puts down a Question he will be told that nothing can be done about it because the matter is sub judice. That is exactly what will happen, not because the President of the Board of Trade—or the Government—wants to go out of his way to adopt that attitude, but because this Act of Parliament by its provisions will set up a screen which will stand between the Member of Parliament, the public and the Press and an investigation by Parliament into any of these agreements.
    That is a very serious matter, because, instead of providing machinery and means for the public to attack and investigate these outrages, these restrictions, this Bill, when enacted, is to be a door that closes itself upon the public in that very respect. This matter is because of that
    260
    really much more important than the President would have us believe.
    The President of the Board of Trade is a very reasonable fellow as a rule, and I am sure he will not deny that what I am about to say is the fact, namely, that this matter is really striking at important vested and political interests. There is no doubt about it that big business and commerce have their grip upon articles, commodities and trade to such an extent that the public has had to raise its voice and the Government have been forced to bring in a Measure of this kind. Does the President deny that these special interests are involved? Of course he does not and he cannot do so. And the very fact that interests of that kind are involved makes the position of the Registrar such that the character of his appointment and his status and functions becomes very important.
    It is said that the appointment is to be made by Her Majesty, but that terminology means only that the appointment will be on the recommendation of the Prime Minister to Her Majesty. The effect of that is that the appointment is entirely taken away from any definite Government Department. It is made a matter personal to the Prime Minister, and it will really become impossible in detail either to question the appointment or anything concerned with it or its performance then or thereafter.
    It would be another matter, of course, if the President of the Board of Trade were associated with the appointment. If it was his preferment and the officer had to function under the President there would obviously be a right all the time and from time to time as matters arose to put Questions on them to the President of the Board of Trade. But what is being done by this Bill—deliberately, in my submission—is that the Registrar is being appointed not by the President of the Board of Trade, but by the Prime Minister in order that that facility that Parliament should have may be obviated. That is really a very dangerous course to adopt from the point of view of the public interest.
    The right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey said that in the course of the conduct of the proceedings under the Bill it would be necessary to make sure that all sides should be represented, and that the matter should be carried out in a full

    261
    and fair way. One of the great difficulties in connection with the functions and the appointment of the Registrar is that the one party who matters, who is really concerned and whose vital interests are wrapped up with the reason why this legislation is introduced at all is the public, and there is absolutely no machinery through the Registrar for the representation of the public at all.
    As I understand it, the Registrar, whoever appoints him, is to be appointed for the purpose of having restrictive agreements registered. That is to be his function, and on that head alone it is very important who appoints him from the standpoint of Parliamentary control.
    The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): It does not seem to me that the purpose for which the Registrar is appointed comes under this Amendment.
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: With great respect, Sir Rhys, the purposes do affect the political position.
    The Deputy-Chairman: This Amendment deals with who shall appoint the Registrar.
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: Yes, and with great respect that is exactly my point, and it becomes important whether it is an appointment by a Minister or by Her Majesty on the recommendation of the Prime Minister.
    The Registrar has to initiate proceedings. He is not bound by this Bill to bring any proceedings. Why I say that this is germane to the Amendment is that if there were political control that could be dealt with by this House, but as there is not to be political control—because there will not be appointment by any Departmental Minister—that in my humble submission that is not only relevant, but very paramount indeed. I am perfectly certain that the President wants to protect all these matters, and he therefore really must look at them again.
    Another thing in which Parliament would have been interested—and about which it might be that Questions would have been asked had Parliament had any control over the matter and if the President had made the appointment—is as to whether the Registrar is to be both prosecutor and also counsel for the defence. As I have said before, I do not see how
    262
    the public is to be represented at all. That is why it is interesting in this connection to note that this idea of registration is actually against the majority view of the members of the Monopolies Commission.
    The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. and learned Member is straying now very far from the Amendment.
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: With respect, Sir Rhys, my submission is that every argument which affords a good reason why there should be appointment by the President of the Board of Trade so as to bring the matter under supervision by Parliament is relevant to this Amendment, and all these arguments appertain to that. It seems to me that these are the only arguments that can be usefully advanced in this case, and my submission is that they are cogent ones. They are the only arguments that can be advanced to underpin the contention that the appointment as provided for in Clause I is wrong and that the Clause should be amended in order that the President of the Board of Trade or some other Ministerial personage other than the Prime Minister should make the appointment so that control can be kept by the House of Commons. However, I need not pursue the matter any further because I think I have made the points I wanted to make.
    There is the further question which the Committee will have to consider in connection with the Registrar, namely, that of informal and industrial agreements which have not to be registered. In conclusion, I would therefore ask the President of the Board of Trade to look at the whole matter again to try to remove the obscurity that there is about the status, the functions and the appointment of the Registrar, and to take good care that the appointment shall be made in such a way that the objective which the Bill is supposed to have and should have, namely, the public interest, is fully and effectively served.
    Mr. Philip Bell: I have been trying to remember what we were talking about. I have been distracted a, good deal. I thought we were discussing who should make the appointment. The really important thing about that, apparently, is that the person who makes the appointment or recommends the appointment should be a person who can

    263
    be examined in the House. That seems to me to be the issue. I do not understand that there is any dispute on either side of the Committee that we certainly want somebody of whom we can ask some questions.
    I am not quite sure of the explanation that the President of the Board of Trade gave, but he indicated that some Questions might be answered, if the appointment were made on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, by the Prime Minister himself. Whether that would be a good, effective or sufficient thing or not seems to depend on what the Registrar has to do. There has been a good deal of discussion about his having an important job, about his having to be very careful, and so on. Somebody described him as a political spearhead or a commissar. What has he to do? It seems to me that one should first think what he has to do before one can best answer the question about who should appoint him.
    This Clause indicates broadly but clearly what he has to do. He has to maintain a register, and then he has to take proceedings.
    Mr. Hale: What about Clause 11?
    Mr. Bell: His duties are divided, and that is part of his duty to maintain a register. Let us not be distracted, if we can help it, by Clause 11.
    The Deputy-Chairman: We have not reached Clause 11 yet.
    Mr. Bell: I have been distracted again.
    Mr. Hale: On a point of order. This difficulty in Committee has been growing consistently in the last few months. The President of the Board of Trade dealt very fully with this matter, and the hon. Member for Heston and Isleworth (Mr. R. Harris) was allowed to make a speech about Clause 11, because we were discussing the two matters, the appointment of the Registrar and the question whether the Registrar should be a judge or a company official or a policeman, and that is obviously relevant to the question who should appoint him. If under Clause 11 he is to be a policeman, it would, I should have thought, be a matter for the Home Secretary. We have sat for an hour and a half and heard several Members discussing this matter at very great length
    264
    and now, with a temporary change in the occupancy of the Chair, several hon. Members who have been waiting here to speak and who have matters of value to put forward on what has been so long debated learn that they are out of order.
    5.45 p.m.
    The Deputy-Chairman: I made no comment at all about what has been discussed, but it seemed to me that the point of the Amendment is a simple one—who should appoint the Registrar. That is the only thing to discuss on this Amendment.
    Mr. Jay: I think it is relevant, Sir Rhys, to the question who should appoint the Registrar to consider what he has to do. Throughout the debate so far hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have quoted various other Clauses in which important powers of the Registrar are set out, and I submit that it was in order for them to do so, and that the hon. and learned Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Philip Bell) was in order in what he was saying.
    The Deputy-Chairman: Yes, if there was merely a reference to Clause 11, be it so.
    Mr. Bell: I am embarrassed by my friends, Sir Rhys.
    I was saying that before we could decide who should appoint and, therefore, who should answer Questions, we should take a quick look at the Registrar's functions, which, I suggested, were divided into two, first the maintenance of the register and then the taking of proceedings. The Registrar has, apart from waiting for custom, to stir it up if there is not enough custom. That appears later. The Registrar may, perhaps, not understand a practice, and may be in some doubt about it; and he has the power to take the opinion of the Court. So far, his duties are in a certain sense administrative.
    I should think that in these days the question whether a practice should be registered or information given about it is not the sort of matter with which we should burden the Prime Minister, by compelling him to inform himself about those details. These little details about why the Registrar did not go to the Court before he accepted a registration, or why he did not accept it, are not

    265
    things with which we should burden Prime Ministers in these busy days. Prime Ministers, from whichever party they may be drawn, have already enough to do without informing themselves in detail about the administrative technique of the Registrar. That is all that this amounts to.
    The second of his duties is the taking of proceedings. It may be said—I hope, not so seriously—that there might be some jiggery-pokery about that. It might be said that he was unwilling to take them or delayed taking them, or that he had a friend involved. Some suggestion might be made that the Measure broke down because of the obstinacy of the Registrar, and it might be said that this was serious, destroying the effect of the Measure, and must be dealt with at the highest level by the Prime Minister. That is possibly a tenable view why he should answer on that part of the Registrar's functions, but, even so, we must consider all that is involved in somebody informing himself of the facts. He would have to be a lawyer. The taking of proceedings involves legal machinery and legal acts. Therefore, it would seem to me that there must be an overwhelming reason shown why the Prime Minister should have to inform himself about the details of the proceedings having or having not been taken.
    I think we can exaggerate the importance of the position of the Registrar. The Prime Minister already recommends the appointments of bishops and other very highly placed people. The Registrar has a nice, comfortable, snug appointment—I am not denying that—but is it really so big and so magnificent that the Prime Minister should be brought into the making of the appointment? I am sure people would have equal confidence in an appointment made by the Lord Chancellor or by the President of the Board of Trade. At the moment, I am not overwhelmingly convinced that this is an appointment which must be made on the recommendation of the Prime Minister. I feel that there are strong objections to the appointment being made by the President of the Board of Trade, but the Lord Chancellor who makes so many of these analagous appointments would seem to be the obvious and proper person.
    Mr. Eric Fletcher: I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will reconsider this matter in the light of the very cogent appeal made to him from both sides of the Committee. I listened very carefully to what the President said. I do not think that he had really understood the force of the arguments adduced on both sides of the Committee in support of the Amendment.
    I am not particularly concerned whether the appointment is made by the Lord Chancellor or by the President of the Board of Trade. The issue is whether there should be some Minister responsible for the appointment and therefore answerable for the conduct of the Registrar. As the President of the Board of Trade said, there is an issue between us on whether the machinery whereby the whole of this process should be dealt with should be a court or a tribunal. We are not concerned with that issue here, but the position of the Registrar is quite different. The Registrar is the person who initiates the proceedings. I do not agree with the President that there is no responsibility upon him to initiate.
    I should like to remind the President of what he said on Second Reading. The right hon. Gentleman said:
    "… on the question of the Registrar, we shall listen with close attention to any comments which the House should make,"—
    The right hon. Gentleman has had a great many comments made to him from both sides of this Chamber before and since he made that remark. He added:
    "and express our determination that the proceedings and procedures should be both effective and just. …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th March, 1956; Vol. 549, c. 1944.]
    Whether the Registrar is appointed by the Prime Minister or anybody else, his independence and integrity will not be in doubt. We are not concerned with that.
    We are concerned with the effectiveness of the steps which the Registrar is to take, because we believe that the whole success—if there is to be any success—of the Bill, will depend upon the energy and the drive which the Registrar puts into carrying the Bill into operation. That is why we think it so important that the Registrar should not be some person removed from all possibility of control, questioning and examination but should be somebody for whom some Minister

    267
    should be responsible, so that if there is any delay and any lack of drive or energy on the part of the Registrar in taking the multitude of steps which he will take under the Bill, Questions can be put to the Minister responsible. That is not an unreasonable thing to ask.
    The functions of the Registrar will not be judicial, they will be administrative. There is plenty of precedent in our constitutional arrangements for asking Ministers of the Crown why a certain initiative has not been taken in starting certain prosecutions and inquiries. Questions are put to the President of the Board of Trade almost daily about how many prosecutions he has inaugurated under such and such an Act, whether it be the Films Act or the Merchandise Marks Act or any other, because the public, and Members of Parliament as their representative, are concerned to see that there is drive and energy on the part of the Minister responsible for seeing that the law of the land is carried out.
    It is no whit less important, but, on the contrary, far more important, that there should be some machinery to enable Members of Parliament to ginger up the Government of the day in seeing that the Registrar gets on with his job. As I read the Bill, there is no obligation upon him to take any steps to bring any particular agreement before the Court at any particular time.
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: Or at all.
    Mr. Fletcher: We have Amendments on the Order Paper to make it quite clear that it shall be the duty of the Registrar, when agreements are registered, to bring them before the Court, but the Bill as it stands merely says that he is charged with taking proceedings and does not say when or where. All we are asking for is that a Minister of the Crown shall be responsible so that Questions can be asked about the speed, efficiency and activity of the Registrar.
    I am sure that the President would agree that he has given himself power in the Bill to give directions to the Registrar as to the priorities. Therefore, presumably, under his own Bill the right hon. Gentleman can be questioned about those directions. Surely, it cannot be any more embarrassing or any less desirable that he should be asked questions about the energy or the speed shown by
    268
    the Registrar in taking proceedings at all before any question of priorities arises.
    The object of the Amendment is not, as the President seemed to suggest, to enable the Registrar always to be pestered on questions of detail as to what he is doing. He has very responsible functions to fulfil, but so have a great many other people who are responsible and answerable to the Minister of the day in relation to Parliamentary Questions. We believe that the rôle of the Registrar will be essential to the success of the Bill, and I believe that the Amendment really marks the acid test of the sincerity of the Government's desire to make the Bill work. We all know that the President of the Board of Trade has had a good deal of difficulty with some of his ministerial colleagues and back benchers about the Bill as a whole. I am prepared to accept the President's own words on Second Reading, that he wants to make the Bill effective and is prepared to listen to suggestions to make the rôle of the Registrar effective.
    I do not particularly mind whether it be the President, the Lord Chancellor, the Attorney-General or the Home Secretary, but unless some Minister is made responsible and answerable for questions of this kind, I think that the President stands convicted at the outset of our discussion of depriving the Bill of the first vital element which will enable heart to be put into it and enable Parliament to maintain control of the degree of energy with which the Bill's provisions can be made effective.
    I put these suggestions forward in the most constructive sense, and I hope that, coupled with the arguments put forward from the other side of the Committee, they will lead the President not to close his mind but to accept one or other of the Amendments which we are discussing.
    Sir J. Barlow: In view of the statement made by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Hon. Members: No.
    6.0 p.m.
    Mr. Jay: On a point of order. Sir Rhys. Before we proceed to a Division, should I be in order in asking the President of the Board of Trade several questions arising out of his speech? First,

    269
    under the plan which he proposes, supposing that an hon. Member of this House thought that the Registrar was not proceeding sufficiently quickly in initiating proceedings, or supposing he thought that the Registrar was exceeding his powers in the way indicated by the hon. Member for Heston and Isleworth (Mr. R. Harris), would it be open to him to put down a Question in this House either to the Prime Minister or to the President of the Board of Trade?
    Secondly, if that is not so, in view of the fact that questions on restrictive practices under the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices (Inquiry and Control) Act, 1948, are admissible in this House, would not the effect of this legislation be to take the whole matter much further away from Parliamentary control? Thirdly, in view of the almost unanimous opinion of speakers this afternoon that there should be clear responsibility on one Minister or another, and in view of what the right hon. Gentleman himself said on Second Reading, which has been quoted, will he either accept one of these Amendments or else undertake now to reconsider the matter?
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I will certainly answer those questions, taking the big point first. It is true to say that if we accept that responsibility for deciding some of these great and important issues is to be moved right out of the sphere of the Executive and handed over to that of the judiciary, plainly the appropriateness of Parliamentary Questions on certain aspects is sensibly diminished. That is a fair answer to the question, and I put it as clearly and specifically as possible. I will not elaborate that further because on a later Amendment we shall debate the real issue about which many of us have been speaking.
    If the House really wants the President of the Board of Trade to be responsible, the answer is not to ask him small questions about the administrative functions of the Registrar. The answer is to make him responsible, and there is an Amendment down to that effect, providing that instead of judicial procedure there shall be responsibility through the Minister.
    With regard to Parliamentary Questions generally, it is not for me to say precisely what Questions would or would not be in order, but I can say, broadly
    270
    speaking, that where ministerial responsibility exists, as it does on a number of Clauses in respect of timing and order and the particular cases to come forward, it would appear at first sight that Questions could probably be put. Parliamentary control also exists on a number of other matters through the negative procedure and through the rules of procedure both of the Court and the Registrar, etc.
    The big question which the right hon. Gentleman fairly put to me is how far a Departmental Minister can answer for these matters. The answer is that it will certainly be less in so far as this is a matter for the Court rather than for the House of Commons.
    Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: It would mean then, would it not, that no Question could be asked in the House about the speed at which the Registrar was bringing forward cases before the Court, and that no Question could be asked as to the behaviour of the Registrar in conducting the wide powers given to him under Clause 11?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I do not think that that would be quite correct. As I say, I shall not commit myself as to what Questions would or would not be in order, because that would not be a proper thing for me to say. The Board of Trade has powers as to the order in which these cases are brought forward, and it is plain to me at any rate that if there are cases of special importance for one reason or another, the President could be asked why he had not issued directions for a certain one to be taken first.
    Mr. Hale: The President of the Board of Trade has made a reply and I have no intention of intervening, but, with respect, his reply was based on a misapprehension of the situation about Parliamentary Questions. The right hon. Gentleman spoke as if he thought that there was no power in this House to raise Questions on judicial matters. No one has suggested that it is desirable that a power should be given to raise questions which arise upon cases that are being heard by Her Majesty's judges.
    No one would suggest that this House should have power to put down Questions asking whether a verdict was right or whether a plaintiff was properly represented, or questions criticising the procedure in any court. Yet the President of the Board of Trade said that once

    271
    this matter becomes quasi-judicial it ceases to be a matter for the Executive and passes out of the control of Parliament.
    We have the fullest power of asking Questions here about Her Majesty's judges and we have the duty to put Questions. We have a right to question whether the business of the courts is being carried on speedily or not. We have a right to know whether there are too many cases in the Chancery Court for the number of Chancery judges. We have a right to know whether they are having too long holidays. Indeed, we would ask questions about that if we were not conscious that we are as big sinners as they are—
    The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member is really getting away from the Amendment.
    Mr. Hale: But, Sir Rhys, the right hon. Gentleman made an intervention in which he was purporting to reply to a debate which has lasted two hours. The Minister said that if we accepted the position that the appointment of the Registrar is a judicial appointment, then it follows as a matter of course—
    Mr. Thorneycroft indicated dissent.
    Mr. Hale: Well, is of a judicial nature. I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman if he wants to correct what he said, but I understood him to say that. If he did not say that, he did not say anything, because the tenor of his argument was that once we have accepted the fact that the Registrar is a person acting in a quasi-judicial capacity then he is not a member of the Executive and he is not subject to the questioning that applies to the Executive. I say that this House of Commons cannot afford to fritter away its rights of questioning without finding out from the Minister whether he has taken the trouble to ascertain just what the Bill means, just what its effect would be, and then what the effect of the Amendment would be.
    When I was a young and exceedingly innocent Member—probably even more innocent than I am now—I was persuaded to vote in Committee on the coal nationalisation Bill for a proposal that we could not ask Questions about coal nationalisation here. I can remember that I was greatly impressed by the
    272
    arguments, and I was as naïve as possible. It was said that we would not want to put down Questions asking why Bill Jones had his car in Scarborough on a Saturday morning when he ought to be working at the Coal Board.
    We can ask Questions about every little postmistress earning 30s. a week if we wish. Of course we ought to have the power, but it must be wisely exercised. The point is that in the course of this debate the President has not given the slightest indication of the number of agreements which he thinks exist. [An HON. MEMBER: "He does not know."] There is practically nothing that the right hon. Gentleman knows, but there may be matters about which he has some inkling. We may be getting to the point when we shall not get much measure of agreement. The President has said that we are now discussing the question of whether we can question agreements until the office is opened.
    But there are a lot of agreements, and, therefore, the first duty of the Registrar, sitting, as my hon. Friend so brilliantly described him, as an amorphous bureaucrat, on something—presumably a bottomless pit—on his first morning in the office, with or without a body and with or without a seat, will be to consider a mass of agreements, each of which will need to be inspected and each of which will need to be recorded. Indeed, his first duty, namely, the order in which he puts them in the book, is of some relevance.
    It is true that under Clause I the Registrar has power to take these things out of their order. Here is a man who has power to appoint assistant registrars. He can breed, so to speak. Apparently, with the permission of the Treasury, he can breed without control and to any extent he likes. Surely this is not a matter which should pass out of our cognisance. As you have so wisely said, we cannot discuss Clause 11—
    The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member is going very wide, even on this Amendment.
    Mr. Hale: I appreciate that, Sir Rhys. I am very often accused of being too wide. My doctor told me the same thing only yesterday, and I have some pills which, I hope, will do something about it.

    273
    The position is this. Here is a gentleman who is to be placed in a position such as no one has been placed in before. I am not against that; there is a great deal to be said for it. I am not here to criticise. I understand that those who made observations about Clause 11, when they were in order, were doing so from a quite different point of view from my own. I know that. But here is a man who is going to be one-third policeman, one-third judge, and one-third Executive—a 100 per cent. amorphous official.
    The President really should answer. With some ingenuity the right hon. Gentleman has referred to Clause 11. This is precisely the matter we are discussing, and I am keeping myself very closely within the bounds of order. He said that this very Clause merely says that the Registrar shall be appointed by Her Majesty.
    Mr. Ede: Who removes him?
    Mr. Hale: I am much obliged to my right hon. Friend. Who removes him? Is it Her Majesty? The President has said that we all know what that means. This was his whole argument some two hours ago, and I am now replying to it. This does not actually mean that the Crown will act without the advice and assistance of those whom, in the old days, we used to call—I rather like the phrase—the personal servants of the Crown. He said that the principal personal servant, the Prime Minister, is there to appoint him in the first instance, even though the Registrar may appoint the assistant registrars. He said there is no one higher. Technically speaking, according to the table of precedence, that is not true, but one cannot go much higher than that, and I am sure Richard Strong will agree. There it is; the Prime Minister appoints.
    When we come to the other Clause which I should be out of order in developing, it does not say that at all. Somebody is named. It is the Lord Chancellor who advises the Queen. It is all put in. We all recall how that is done; we have had explanations about that. A former Lord Chancellor, I think Lord Halsbury, said, when asked why he had appointed two men to vacant places on the bench, that it was much less serious for everybody that there should be two judges who did not know much about the law than that there should be two Tory Members who
    274
    finished up in the Bankruptcy Court. We have some fair indication of the sort of considerations which will operate in the mind of the Lord Chancellor in respectfully tendering the advice which would be necessary to implement this Bill.
    We still come back to the point which has not been answered. My right hon. Friends have put it quite specifically, and I apologise for repeating what they say. I do it because I would like an answer, not because I do not think they put it with more ability and cogency than I could hope to command. If we accept this Clause without amendment, what is the position to be? Can we put down Questions and ask whether there has been registration in the register of a restrictive agreement relating to the Motor Garages Equipment Manufacturing Association—I think that is the correct title, speaking from memory—upon which I questioned the right hon. Gentleman some months ago?
    6.15 p.m.
    I do not regard the privilege of questioning the right hon. Gentleman as one of very great value, because I do not remember ever getting any information as a result, except the useful information that the right hon. Gentleman did not want to give information. But there it was; I put the Question down.
    Once this Measure is passed, shall I be able to ask, "Has this agreement been recorded?" This is vital. If it has not been recorded, shall I be able to ask whether the Registrar will exercise his powers under Clause 11 and look into it? That is vital. If it has been recorded, shall I be able to ask when it will be brought before the Court? That is vital. I do not think I am exaggerating when I say we have two or three hundred agreements involved here. It must run into hundreds. [An HON. MEMBER: "Thousands."] I should not be surprised. In the course of the last three years in Parliament, I have ceased to be surprised at anything, even telephone charges.
    Can we ask those questions? Does the right hon. Gentleman know? I always have a personal regard for the right hon. Gentleman. He is always so charming, so kindly, and so uninformative, that one feels a certain tenderness

    275
    towards him. There can be only one theory now after three hours of debate; either the President knows and will not tell us, which appears to me as a possible theory, or he has never troubled to inquire into this extremely important matter at all, or he has inquired and nobody is quite sure.
    The situation is not a very dignified one for this Committee. Questions are put time after time. Why are they not answered? One may talk about the responsible Minister; indeed, I felt like moving at a later stage a Clause to suggest that the nominated Minister exercising such responsibility as he now enjoys, or exercising those limited powers which he enjoys—
    The Deputy-Chairman: Order. That proposal will certainly have to be in a different Clause.
    Mr. Hale: I am much obliged, Sir Rhys. I am grateful for that invitation, and I shall remember it when we come to it. The President really should deal with this. The question has been put to him with complete courtesy and it is a matter of importance. Are we to be in a position to ask about these agreements or not?
    Sir L. Heald: Is it in order for hon. Members to applaud themselves even before they have sat down?
    The Deputy-Chairman: It is difficult enough to deal with this actual Amendment, without going into that.
    Mr. Hale: I shall not sit down before I have finished. My clap, to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman was referring, was a gesture by which I was trying to apply a little modest emphasis to my remarks, because I thought I had reached a point of some importance, after a little delay perhaps in getting to it. Shall I be able to put down that Question about agreements, and to whom? Will there be an attempt to say this is a judicial matter, a matter entirely in the courts and therefore passed out of the control of the Executive? The Committee should have that answer before this discussion is concluded.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I can put the answer rather more shortly than the question. There would be no need to ask the Question because all the hon. Gentleman would have to do would be to look at the register.
    Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 248, Noes 212.

    Division No. 136.]

    AYES

    [6.19 p.m.

    Agnew, Cmdr, P. G.

    Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.:

    Aitken, W. T.

    Burden, F. F. A.

    Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

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

    Butcher, Sir Herbert

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Alport, C. J. M.

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

    Fell, A.

    Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

    Campbell, Sir David

    Finlay, Graeme

    Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

    Carr, Robert

    Fisher, Nigel

    Arbuthnot, John

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Fletcher-Cooke. C.

    Armstrong, C. W.

    Channon, H.

    Fort, R.

    Atkins, H. E.

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Foster, John

    Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

    Fraser, Sr Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale)

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Cole, Norman

    Freeth, D. K.

    Balniel, Lord

    Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

    Barber, Anthony

    Cooper-Key, E. M.

    George, J. C. (Pollok)

    Barlow, Sir John

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

    Gibson-Watt, D.

    Barter, John

    Corfield, Capt. F. V.

    Glover, D.

    Baxter, Sir Beverley

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Gomme-Dunan, Col. Sir Alan

    Beamish, Maj. Tufton

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Gough, C. F. H.

    Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

    Crouch, R. F.

    Gower, H. R.

    Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

    Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

    Graham, Sir Fergus

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald

    Cunningham, Knox

    Grant, W. (Woodside)

    Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)

    Biggs-Davison, J. A.

    Davidson, Viscountess

    Green, A.

    Bishop, F. P.

    D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    Body, R. F.

    Deedes, W. F.

    Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

    Boothby, Sir Robert

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

    Bossom, Sir A. C.

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

    Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.

    Doughty, C. J. A.

    Gurden, Harold

    Braine, B. R.

    Drayson, G. B.

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

    du Cann, E. D. L.

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Brooman-White, R. C.

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

    Harrison, A. B. C. (Malden)

    Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)

    Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    Bryan, P.

    Duthie, W. S.

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

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

    Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (Warwick&L'm'tn)

    Harvie-Watt, Sir George

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Macdonald, Sir Peter

    Robson-Brown, W.

    Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.

    Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

    Roper, Sir Harold

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    McKibbin, A. J.

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

    Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Russell, R. S.

    Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

    McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

    Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.

    Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

    Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

    Maddan, Martin

    Sharples, R. C.

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

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

    Shepherd, William

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

    Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

    Holland-Martin, C. J.

    Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

    Soames, Capt. C.

    Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

    Marlowe, A. A. H.

    Spearman, A. C. M.

    Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence

    Marshall, Douglas

    Speir, R. M.

    Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

    Mathew, R.

    Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)

    Howard, John (Test)

    Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.

    Stevens, Geoffrey

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

    Mawby, R. L.

    Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)

    Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

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

    Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

    Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

    Medlicott, Sir Frank

    Studholme, H. G.

    Hulbert, Sir Norman

    Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

    Summers, G. S. (Aylesbury)

    Hurd, A. R.

    Moore, Sir Thomas

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'h'gh, W.)

    Morrison, John (Salisbury)

    Teeling, W.

    Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)

    Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Hyde, Montgomery

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

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

    Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.

    Nairn, D. L. S.

    Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Neave, Airey

    Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

    Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch)

    Tilney, John (Wavertree)

    Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

    Noble, Comdr, A. H. P.

    Touche, Sir Gordon

    Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

    Nugent, G. R. H.

    Turner, H. F. L.

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)

    Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

    Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Joseph, Sir Keith

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

    Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot

    Osborne, C.

    Vickers, Miss J. H.

    Kaberry, D.

    Page, R. G.

    Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

    Keegan, D.

    Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

    Walker-Smith, D. C.

    Kerr, H. W.

    Partridge, E.

    Wall, Major Patrick

    Kershaw, J. A.

    Peyton, J. W. W.

    Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

    Kimball, M.

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

    Kirk, P. M.

    Pitt, Miss E. M.

    Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

    Lambert, Hon. G.

    Pott, H. P.

    Whitelaw, W. S. I. (Penrith & Border)

    Lambton, Viscount

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

    Leavey, J. A.

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

    Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

    Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

    Profumo, J. D.

    Wills, G. (Bridgwater)

    Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

    Raikes, Sir Victor

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

    Redmayne, M.

    Wood, Hon. R.

    Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Woollam, John Victor

    Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)

    Remnant, Hon. P. Renton, D. L. M.

    Yates, William (The Wrekin)

    Low, Rt. Hon. A. R. W.

    Renton, D. L. M.

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

    Rippon, A. G. F.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick)

    Robertson, Sir David

    Mr. Oakshott and Mr. Godber.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

    NOES

    Ainsley, J. W.

    Champion, A. J.

    Fletcher, Eric

    Albu, A. H.

    Chapman, W. D.

    Forman, J. C.

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Chetwynd, G. R.

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

    Clunie, J.

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

    Anderson, Frank

    Coldrick, W.

    Gibson, C. W.

    Awbery, S. S.

    Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

    Gooch, E. G.

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch & Finsbury)

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    Balfour, A.

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Greenwood, Anthony

    Bartley, P.

    Cove, W. G.

    Grey, C. F.

    Benson, G.

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Beswick, F.

    Cronin, J. D.

    Griffiths, William (Exchange)

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

    Crossman, R. H. S.

    Grimond, J.

    Blenkinsop, A.

    Cullen, Mrs. A.

    Hale, Leslie

    Blyton, W. R.

    Daines, P.

    Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Boardman, H.

    Darling, George (Hillsborough)

    Hamilton, W. W.

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

    Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

    Hannan, W.

    Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W.)

    Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

    Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

    Bowles, F. G.

    Dodds, N. N.

    Hastings, S.

    Boyd, T. C.

    Donnelly, D. L.

    Hayman, F. H.

    Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

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

    Healey, Denis

    Brockway, A. F.

    Dye, S.

    Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    Hewitson, Capt. M.

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Hobson, C. R.

    Burton, Miss F. E.

    Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

    Holman, P.

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)

    Holmes, Horace

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

    Holt, A. F.

    Callaghan, L. J.

    Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

    Houghton, Douglas

    Carmichael, J.

    Fienburgh, W.

    Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

    Castle, Mrs. B. A.

    Finch, H. J.

    Howell, Denis (All Saints)

    278

    279

    Hubbard, T. F.

    Monslow, W.

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Moody, A. S.

    Snow, J. W.

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Mort, D. L.

    Sparks, J. A.

    Hunter, A. E.

    Moyle, A.

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Mulley, F. W.

    Stones, W. (Consett)

    Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

    Oliver, G. H.

    Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Oram, A. E.

    Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)

    Irving, S. (Dartford)

    Oswald, T.

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

    Owen, W. J.

    Swingler, S. T.

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

    Paget, R. T.

    Sylvester, G. O.

    Jeger, George (Goole)

    Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)

    Taylor, John (West Lothian)

    Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn & St. Pncs, S.)

    Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

    Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)

    Palmer, A. M. F.

    Thornton, E.

    Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

    Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

    Turner-Samuels, M.

    Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

    Pargiter, G. A.

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Parker, J.

    Viant, S. P.

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Parkin, B. T.

    Warbey, W. N.

    Kenyon, C.

    Paton, J.

    Watkins, T. E.

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Pearson, A.

    Weitzman, D.

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Plummer, Sir Leslie

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Lawson, G. M.

    Popplewell, E.

    West, D. G.

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Wheeldon, W. E.

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

    White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

    Lewis, Arthur

    Proctor, W. T.

    White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Pryde, D. J.

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

    Randall, H. E.

    Willey, Frederick

    Logan, D. G.

    Rankin, John

    Williams, David (Neath)

    Mahon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Redhead, E. C.

    Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)

    MacColl, J. E.

    Reeves, J.

    Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)

    McGhee, H. G.

    Rhodes, H.

    Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

    McGovern, J.

    Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

    Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

    McLeavy, Frank

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Winterbottom, Richard

    Mahon, Simon

    Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Ross, William

    Woof, R. E.

    Mann, Mrs. Jean

    Royle, C.

    Yates, V. (Ladywood)

    Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

    Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

    Zilliacus, K.

    Mason, Roy

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Mellish, R. J.

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Messer, Sir F.

    Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

    Mr. Short and Mr. Deer.

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Skeffington, A. M.

    6.30 p.m.
    Mr. Remnant: I beg to move, in page 1, line 12, after "Registrar")", to insert:
    "who shall be a barrister or solicitor of not less than seven years standing and".
    The Deputy-Chairman: It might be for the convenience of the Committee to deal, at the same time, with the Amendment in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes), in page 1, line 12, after "Registrar)", insert:
    "who shall be either a practising barrister or a practising solicitor in either case of not less than ten years' standing and".
    Mr. Remnant: I hope to deal briefly with this Amendment, Sir Rhys, partly because I intend to keep within the rules of order. My Amendment seeks to make the Registrar a barrister or solicitor of not less than seven years' standing. What I am saying is largely interrogatory. While the duties of the Registrar are referred to and described in various parts of the Bill, and will no doubt be the subject of further discussion as the Bill proceeds through Committee, there has not been, as far as I am aware, any indication of the type of qualifications or
    280
    characteristics which will be sought in the gentleman concerned.
    However, there was a remark in the speech of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade earlier today which made me think that perhaps he was coming to the same conclusion as my hon. Friends and I have reached. He referred to the desirability of the proceedings before the Court being in the highest traditions of the English Bar. We will all agree with that. A number of us think that if the Registrar had legal qualifications, and was of sufficient standing, that might make a material contribution towards the high level of the proceedings before the Court.
    It is easy enough to decide what type of man is not required, but it must be remembered that this is obviously a key post from a number of different points of view. He will be largely responsible for seeing that the Bill works satisfactorily, and that it has a chance to work and whether it continues to retain the respect of all the parties concerned in the judgments of the Court. I do not lean over quite so far towards the consumer

    281
    interest as did the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), although I will gladly accept that the consumers" point of view is important. I prefer the expression "public interest," which has a much wider scope.
    One obviously wishes to exclude from this position any man who has held a high executive post in industry, or a high post in trade union circles. Their functions, as set out in Clause 4, will be as members of the Court, where they will have a very useful and helpful part to play. The primary essential requirement of the Registrar is complete impartiality so that he will have the respect not only of all those appearing before the Court and giving evidence, but of those who will be affected by the judgments of the Court.
    I am afraid that that will probably rule out an hon. Member or right hon. Member from being appointed as Registrar, but I do not believe that the Registrar's position will suffer from that. An analytical mind, a knowledge of proceedings and an ability to sift facts and opinions, must be some of the cardinal essentials in the Registrar's make-up. He should have a legal qualification or an accountancy qualification and I prefer the legal one. I assure hon. Members that I am not getting paid for this brief.
    I am seeking to inquire from my right hon. Friend whether he will give us an indiction of what type of man he intends to seek to hold this office. I want to go rather further in the segregation of this individual and the Court from the political atmosphere by not wanting someone who is trained in the Civil Service.
    Mr. J. T. Price: The hon. Member's argument is most interesting. I am as concerned as he that the right man should be appointed to the key position. However, is not the logic of his argument in favour of another restrictive practice, to create a sort of closed shop in this sphere? Does that not seem incongruous in the rest of the Bill?
    Mr. Remnant: The hon. Member is quite right in that, but he is speaking in the belief that all restrictive practices are bad. That is an opinion with which I should not entirely concur, otherwise they could be wholly banned without the procedure of the Court. I hope that my
    282
    right hon. Friend will be able to tell us what qualities he seeks in the man to be appointed.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: I agree with many of the arguments adduced by the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Remnant), but I have a numerical or mathematical difference with him. Instead of seven years, I suggest ten years. I profoundly disagree with the interruption of my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) about a closed shop. It is a question not of a closed shop, but of having a man fit for the job. I can put my argument very briefly, especially in view of what has been said by the hon. Member for Wokingham. The Registrar is obviously a person who should have legal qualifications, expert training and long experience. It is on the length of the experience that I differ with the hon. Member for Wokingham. One has only to look at Clause I (2) to see the nature of the functions which the Registrar will have to discharge and the qualities of mind and experience which he will need to apply to them.
    I shall put my argument under three heads, which, I hope, will become a lawyer. The first is that the Registrar should be a barrister or a solicitor. Clause 1 (2) shows the kind of duty which he will be called upon to perform. It says that he
    "shall be charged with the duty of maintaining a register of agreements. …"
    That requires a modicum of legal knowledge and training. The agreements are to be
    "subject to registration under this Part of this Act. …"
    That requires a construction of the terms of the Act. He has the duty of taking proceedings. We get more and more legalistic as we go along. The duty of taking proceedings obviously involves having a lawyer. Those proceedings are taken
    "(subject Ito such directions as may be given by the Board of Trade with respect to the order in which such proceedings are to be taken) in respect of the agreements of which particulars are from time to time entered or filed in the register."
    It does not require much argument to satisfy any normal mind that the qualifications which a barrister or solicitor enjoys will be useful in discharging those functions.

    283
    I turn to the second aspect, which is practising. Here, I begin to differ with the hon. Member for Wokingham. The Registrar should be not merely an admitted solicitor, or a called barrister, but he should be in actual practice.
    In the olden days, and indeed today, many a young man was called to the Bar for the purpose of getting sufficient knowledge of the law to enable him to manage the estates that he inherited. That is not the kind of person who should be appointed Registrar. He should be a person who is actually practising and whose knowledge of the law is sharpened and brought up-to-date, so that he may deal with the exigencies of the situation in which he will find himself. Therefore, he should be practising and have been practising for a reasonable period of time.
    That brings me to my third point. I submit that seven years is too short a period. It should be at least ten years. On these grounds, therefore, I ask the Committee and the Minister to accept my argument and the Amendment, which will provide that the Registrar shall be either a practising barrister or a practising solicitor—I concede that to the other branch of the profession—in either case of not less than ten years' standing.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I would thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Remnant) and the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) for having put down and supported this Amendment in order that we may search our minds as to the sort of man we contemplate for the important post of Registrar. Although I would urge them not to press for this Amendment, I can assure them that I am not far removed from what either of them has said as to the type of man who is required for a post of this character.
    A lawyer, or a man with legal training, obviously has very considerable qualifications for this type of post. To say that we could have only someone with legal experience is, of course, a restrictive Amendment. It would restrict not only my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, or myself, or whoever is doing it now, but it would restrict in the future any change, and, as someone, I think, said on the last Amendment we were discussing, no one has any doubt whatever that every
    284
    attempt will be made to have the best qualified man we possibly can for the job.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he is straining the word "restrictive" when he says that. Would he say that it is restrictive to provide that a surgeon in a hospital should be a practising surgeon?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: The hon. and learned Gentleman must not be too indignant with me. I did not mean that it was restrictive within the meaning of the Restrictive Trade Practices Bill. I meant that it would restrict anybody in the appointment of a Registrar to someone with these particular qualifications when it might—I do not say that it would—be important, either now or some time in the future, to appoint someone else very well qualified for this particular post. Of course, the Registrar must have, as my hon. Friend said, the qualifications of an analytical mind and fairmindedness, and he must also have, if I may say so, not inconsiderable administrative skill, because this is quite a big administrative job.
    He should have, if possible, some knowledge—I am inclined to agree that we cannot pick an industrialist—and experience of this immensely complicated field, to put it no higher, which would be a considerable advantage in discharging this particular function. I only mention these matters to indicate that there are other factors than those enumerated which, I think, anyone responsible for the appointment would have to bear in mind.
    Whoever is appointed will, of course, have very skilled legal assistance at his disposal. I have said before, and I say again, that the Treasury Solicitor himself will be responsible for giving legal advice to the Registrar, whether the Registrar has legal qualifications or not. He will be there for that purpose. Of course, the conduct of the case in Court will not be by the Registrar in person; it will be by skilled counsel nominated by the Attorney-General.
    I am in general sympathy with what both hon. Members have said. I hope that they will not press for this Amendment, but will leave it free to whoever makes this appointment to choose the best man possible for the task.
    6.45 p.m.
    Sir Leslie Plummer: I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will not make up his mind that he is too much in sympathy with what has been said by the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Remnant) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes). I hope that he will not be convinced until he has read the report in HANSARD. I understand that the hon. Member for Wokingham's argument was that he would not like to see a civil servant doing this job. Why would he not like to see a civil servant doing it? If we are looking for people with keen, analytical, fair minds, why should not we look to the Civil Service?
    Why should not we look outside the realms of the legal profession? If we are to go to the most restrictive profession there is in the country, we are going to people whose minds are not always as open as one thinks they are. Indeed, the fact that there are more Conservative lawyers than Socialist lawyers in the House of Commons shows how unprogressive the lawyer is.
    I think that it is far too dangerous a proposition to ask people who have very close political alliances to find someone from their ranks who may well have to take quasi-political decisions. I would rather that we had an industrialist or a trade unionist, and would certainly like to have a distinguished civil servant in whom this country has reposed the greatest confidence. We should not go to people who, by their very nature, are not the right sort of people for the job. I am not convinced by the hon. Member for Wokingham and certainly not by my hon. and learned Friend, who has put up the most bigoted and restrictive argument that I have ever heard him make. I am sorry to say this to him because I admire his legal mind so much, but I think that on this occasion he really has gone over the edge.
    I ask the President of the Board of Trade not to listen to the arguments which have been put forward, and I hope that the Committee will express its decision in the Division Lobby against the Amendment.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. Arthur Holt: I beg to move, in page 1, line 13, after "charged", to insert:
    "(subject to such directions as may be given by the Board of Trade)".
    The Temporary Chairman (Sir Gordon Touche): I think it might be for the convenience of the Committee to discuss together the Amendments in page 2, line 1, leave out from "Court" to "in" in line 3; and in page 2, line 4, at end insert:
    (3) The Registrar shall take such proceedings subject to any directions of the Board of Trade under subsection (2) of this section in respect of every agreement as soon as practicable after the particulars thereof have been registered under this Part of this Act.
    It will be for the Chair to decide whether we have a Division on them separately or not.
    Mr. E. Fletcher: They raise quite separate points, Sir Gordon.
    Mr. Holt: The purpose of the Amendment has been extensively covered by the earlier debates this afternoon, and I do not wish to go into it in the detail which I might otherwise have done.
    The Liberal Party has accepted, on balance, the idea contained in the Bill that these matters should be considered by a court and not a tribunal, but although we agree that there should be no interference with the activities of that court we see no reason why the Registrar should be put into a similarly inaccessible position. We feel that it is taking far too great a risk to put him out of the reach of Parliament. That is the purpose of the Amendment, which is linked with the Amendment in page 2, line 1, in the names of hon. Members of the official Opposition, my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) and myself.
    Earlier this afternoon the attitude of the President about Questions which might be put in relation to the Registrar was a little alarming. I was also alarmed by some of the speeches of hon. Members opposite in regard to their idea of what Questions might be put to him, and also about the pressure that might be put upon the Registrar through him. We have to take the risk that political pressures, designed in some cases to slow down the activities of the Registrar and the Court, may be brought to bear—but I hope that other pressures will also be exerted to hasten those activities. No Government can escape that responsibility. When they have designated a restrictive practice and submitted it to the Registrar, who has registered it, we cannot interfere with the decision of the Court when it considers

    287
    the matter. That is something which we must reluctantly accept.
    I should like the Minister to devote some time to explaining in detail the kind of Questions which the Government consider to be acceptable. They should say frankly whether or not they want to have any Questions asked of them except in the limited context to which the President has already referred. We shall then know where we are. One of the President's hon. Friends asked whether, in the event of proceedings appearing not to be progressing quickly enough, the Government considered that a Question upon that point could be asked in the House, and the President could do something about it. It is essential that the House should retain that power. If the Amendment is badly worded, or goes too wide, and it is thought that Parliament would be interfering in the work of the Registrar in all kinds of ridiculous ways, which would in the end only defeat the purpose of the Bill, let us be told that, and we shall be ready to alter the wording, or put down another Amendment.
    When a certain practice, such as level tendering, has been brought to the notice of the Registrar, and all firms who engage in this practice have been told to register with the Registrar, if an hon. Member hears that a certain firm is indulging in this practice and has not registered, can that Member raise a Question upon that point? Can he ask what the Government are doing about it? Can the President either look at the matter himself or tell the Registrar to go into it? Secondly, when a firm or group of firms has registered this practice, can we inquire why—if it should so happen—that that matter has been on the register for so many months or, perhaps, so many years and has still not been before the Court? Do the Government agree that such a Question can be asked?
    Finally, has the House of Commons sufficient control over the momentum of these proceedings') If we consider that it is too slow, can we ask Questions about it? Has the President or the Government the power to speed up the proceedings? I believe that hon. Members should have the right to ask Questions which will help to get the thing moving.
    Mr. E. Fletcher: I support the Amendment. At the same time, I want to say a
    288
    few words not so much about the Amendment in page 2, line 1, which is, in a sense, consequential upon the Amendment which we have been discussing during the last two or three hours, but rather about the Amendment in page 2, line 4.
    I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt) that our object in putting down these Amendments and probing the intentions of the Government on this Clause is to test their bona fides, and the extent to which they wish to make a success of the Bill. I liked the phrase used by the hon. Member for Bolton, West. We want to make sure that the momentum of these proceedings is maintained with the maximum efficiency.
    Everybody who has taken an interest in the Bill has noticed that almost every section of the Press—including The Times, the Manchester Guardian, the Economist and the Observer—distrusts the Government because it feels that they do not really seriously intend to make the Bill work effectively and speedily. This series of Amendments tries to strengthen the Bill—to put teeth into it—so that when it is passed into law there will be no opportunity on the part of the Registrar or the President of the Board of Trade, or, indeed, anybody else, to slow up the proceedings which may be taken under it. It is common ground between us that the time is overdue for these restrictive practices to be cut away and abolished if British industry is to be free.
    I hope that we shall have a better response from the Parliamentary Secretary than we got from the President. It was very largely as a result of speeches made by hon. Members on this side of the House during the Second Reading debate that we were able to extract from the Parliamentary Secretary a promise that within two or three months he would see that there was registration of common prices, level tendering and collective discrimination. That was but a little advance upon anything that was said by the President or any other Government spokesman, but it was a start in the right direction. I very much hope that, as a result of the pressure which we shall continue to bring to bear, and which is being supported by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, the Parliamentary Secretary will appreciate the necessity of closing many of the existing loopholes

    289
    in the Bill, to which we have drawn his attention in these Amendments, and upon which the Press have commented.
    7.0 p.m.
    Let me take the Amendment in page 2, line 4, which was put down to make it explicitly the responsibility of the Registrar to take the appropriate steps without delay as soon as agreements were registered. The obligation put upon the Registrar under the Bill to take proceedings strikes me as nebulous. The Clause says that
    "The Registrar shall be charged with the duty of … taking proceedings."
    That is not clear. I know of no precedent which uses that language. I should prefer to say, as we suggest, that
    "The Registrar shall take such proceedings subject to any directions of the Board of Trade under subsection (2) of this section in respect of every agreement as soon as practicable after the particulars thereof have been registered under this Part of this Act."
    We recognise that a great deal of work might have to be done after the Bill is passed, but we see no reason why there should be delay. We appreciate that administrative arrangements will have to be made. There is no reason why they should not be made on such a scale and with sufficient forethought to enable proceedings to be taken where necessary very soon after the agreements are registered.
    One result of the Bill may well be, as has been found in other countries, that the mere fact that legislation of this sort exists will deter many companies and industries from carrying on restrictive practices that hitherto have been lawful. One result of the Amendment would be to make it known that public opinion is entirely against monopoly. There may not be so many agreements to be registered under the Bill as my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) foreshadowed, but whatever the number may be we want' the Registrar, his department and the Board of Trade to be fully equipped to deal with the situation as soon as it arises and as soon as agreements are registered. For those reasons I hope that this particular Amendment will be accepted.
    In the Amendments proposed by the hon. Member for Bolton, West we are back on a subject related to the one
    290
    we were discussing before the last Division. We support these Amendments. By refusal to accept our proposal that the Registrar should be appointed by the President of the Board of Trade the Government have denied the full right of Parliamentary Questions to Ministers to which we are now entitled. We want the maximum possible interrogation of the President of the Board of Trade about the activities of the Registrar.
    I invite the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us the object of the insertion of the words in brackets in lines 1 to 3 in page 2 of the Bill, giving the Board of Trade power to give direction about the priority of proceedings. What degree of interference with the activities of the Registrar does the President of the Board of Trade envisage? Is this consistent with the claim that the right hon. Gentleman made a few moments ago that the Registrar should be removed from politics and from any contamination with the President of the Board of Trade? I know that the right hon. Gentleman did not use that language, but I could not think of the words he actually used. I hope I am expressing the sense of what he said.
    The right hon. Gentleman resisted our proposal because he wanted the Registrar to preserve independence, but he cannot have it both ways. We want the fullest possible momentum of action by the Registrar. We fear that the President of the Board of Trade is not merely denying to Parliament the opportunity of stirring up the momentum of action by the Registrar but is holding back action which the Registrar, left to his own independent judgment, might want to take. We are afraid that the Registrar, who would otherwise get on with the job and refer to the Court agreements which he found vicious, will be hampered by restrictions from the Board of Trade. That would be quite wrong.
    I am glad to think that if that happens we shall have the opportunity of Parliamentary Questions, but that is only second best to us. We should prefer the Bill to be rewritten so as to ensure it is the express duty of the Registrar to bring all registered agreements to the Court and of the President of the Board of Trade to stir him up in doing his job, while we can put down Parliamentary Questions to that end. We do not want the President of the Board of Trade to have any right, such as is now in the Bill, to hold

    291
    up the proceedings by changing the priorities and perhaps override a decision which the Registrar might have taken.
    Mr. Mulley: I support the Amendments in the names of the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt) and my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher). There is no need to emphasise the point, which was made very forcefully from both sides of the Committee, about the importance of maintaining parliamentary control over the administration of the Bill.
    Having failed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East said, to persuade the Government on the last Amendment, despite considerable vocal but no voting support from Government benches, we hope that the Government will accept these Amendments. They will give the Board of Trade a much wider field of activity and control than will the very restrictive words in page 2. I hope that the Minister will explain why the Board of Trade wishes to interest itself only in the order of proceedings. This fact arouses very great suspicion.
    The only purpose which one can imagine for restricting its activities to the matter of the order is perhaps to delay some items which might be politically embarrassing. Despite what was said earlier about the Registrar and the whole practice of the Bill being outside parliamentary and political control, it seems that by sticking only to the question of the order of the proceedings, it might be for defensive rather than aggressive reasons that the Board of Trade wishes to have this particular power. If it wants to see that the practices are dealt with as speedily and as effectively as possible, surely it would prefer the words of the Amendment, namely,
    "(subject to such directions as may be given by the Board of Trade)"
    without imposing upon itself the very restrictive provision of confining its powers to the order of the proceedings. Even if it is thought that the problem will arise only in respect of the order, I still cannot see why the Board of Trade should want that written into the Bill, and why it does not trust itself sufficiently to be given wider powers so that if need be it could use them.
    We are all venturing into rather uncharted seas. This is an entirely new
    292
    departure, both from the point of view of the law and that of the practice of business and commerce. We do not really know, until registration takes place and until the Court begins to function, how the Act will work out, and it seems to me that by restricting themselves to this very small point, the Ministers at the Board of Trade are probably presenting themselves with problems for the future. For that reason, I hope the Government will at least accept the first Amendment.
    I do not think there should be any need to commend the third of the Amendments we are discussing, which proposes to add words to provide that action shall be taken
    "as soon as practical after the particulars thereof have been registered under this Part of this Act."
    Whatever the Ministers' views may be about the other Amendments, surely if they believe in the object of this Bill, they would want to see written into it some words of that sort. It might well be said that they are satisfied that all reasonable speed will be pursued by those responsible for taking proceedings, but if that is their intention and if they want things to go through as speedily as possible, what possible harm could come from having the words written into the Bill itself?
    I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will not fall back on the line of defence that this is not really the kind of language which the Parliamentary draftsmen would like to see in the Bill. Of course, we on this side of the Committee are handicapped because we do not have the very skilful and very technical advice which is available to the Government, though I should say, in making that observation, that I am casting no reflection on my right hon. and hon. Friends, who have worked so hard to prepare these Amendments.
    We hope that the Minister will say that he will look at the words of the Amendment, and, if he finds that they are not suitable, will take the opportunity of finding suitable words for the Report stage.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Derek Walker-Smith): The Committee will be grateful to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) for drawing attention to these points in so clear and concise a

    293
    manner. As the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) pointed out in a sort of preliminary intervention, these Amendments raise very different issues.
    The Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt) would give a further power to the Board of Trade in regard to directions, whereas the first Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Islington, East would take away from the Board of Trade the power of direction which the Bill at present contains. The third Amendment which we are discussing in this series really only derives its force and significance from the second of these Amendments. It only adds anything to the Bill or alters the effect of the Bill if the power of the Board of Trade to give directions under the Clause is taken away, as is suggested in the second of these three Amendments.
    7.15 p.m.
    In regard to the first of these Amendments, that in the name of the hon. Member for Bolton, West, it was suggested by him that, as the Clause at present stands, the Registrar is out of reach of Parliament, to use his somewhat far-reaching words, and he says that the Registrar should be placed in an accessible position. Then, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Park, suggested that the Board of Trade was interested only in the question of the order of the proceedings. Of course, with great respect to the hon. Gentleman, it is a clear non sequitur to say that, because that is the only matter in which the power of giving directions is taken in this Clause, it is therefore the only matter in which the Board of Trade is interested or in which there is accountability to Parliament.
    Similarly, in answer to the point put by the hon. Member for Bolton, West, if, as I am sure he has done already, he will go through this Bill, he will see that there are statutory provisions in it which give guidance to the Registrar in regard to his duties, and that with that statutory guidance there is also provided appropriate accountability to Parliament.
    Mr. A. J. Irvine: Is it not quite clear that there is no power of directions by the Board of Trade or by any Government Department to the Registrar to initiate proceedings?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: The hon. Gentleman knows very well that such a provision would be otiose. Where we have a statutory duty placed upon a person by Parliament, we would not also have a power to give directions to precisely the same effect by a Minister or Government Department. That would be redundant, and the statutory duty is quite clearly spelled out in the Clause.
    If I might refer the Committee to the guidance which, in fact, is already contained in this Bill, I should like to say that it has the effect of leaving the matters with which the Registrar has to deal without guidance within a very narrow ambit indeed. Apart from the Clause with which we are at present dealing and the power to give directions as to the order in which proceedings shall be taken, which is the power which the hon. Gentleman wants to omit, the hon. Gentleman and the Committee will see that in Clause 7 of the Bill the Board of Trade determines when agreements will be registered. Clause 8 defines the particulars which are to be registered, Clause 9 gives the Board of Trade a responsibility in regard to the special section of the register, and Clause 10 provides for the procedure for the rectification of the register. All these important matters are governed by the guidance contained in the Statute, and so, in effect, the discretion of the Registrar and the ambit within which he moves without a precise statutory guidance is confined to the matters governed by the regulations which he is empowered to make in respect of detailed matters under Clause 14.
    Those regulations—I am sure that the hon. Member will welcome this—will, in fact, be made subject to parliamentary control, because there is an Amendment to that effect on the Notice Paper, in Clause 14, page 13, line 7, leave out from "be" to end of Clause and add:
    "subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament".
    which we propose to accept. Therefore, at each stage the Registrar will have the appropriate statutory guidance and there will be the appropriate degree of parliamentary supervision and control. That being so, I hope the hon. Member will agree that it would be unnecessary and would be prejudicial to good administration to add to all that the detailed

    295
    executive supervision of all these minutiae of the Registrar's functions by the Board of Trade.
    Mr. Holt: In case the hon. and learned Gentleman is not specifically answering my questions, do I understand him to mean that because of the provisions in Clause 8 it would be possible to ask the President of the Board of Trade why a certain agreement to which several companies were party had not been registered when that type of agreement had been ordered by the Board of Trade to be registered?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: That kind of procedure would be rather like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Let me take a hypothetical case. If the hon. Member considers that he has reason to believe that a company which is party to an agreement has not registered an agreement which ought to be registered within the provisions of the Bill, one would have thought that the simple and obvious duty of the citizen, whether a Member of Parliament or otherwise, would be to say so to the Registrar. If a person chose to say so to the Registrar through a Minister of the Board of Trade, I have no doubt that his information would be passed on with the maximum of celerity. Then, there is a statutory procedure whereby the Registrar is able to see whether his suspicions are well founded. It is a matter of quite simple administration and it really does not raise these rather larger and wider constitutional issues with which the hon. Member is seeking to invest it.
    Mr. Holt: The hon. and learned Member may be right, but what would happen if I were to go to the Registrar and get an unsatisfactory answer from him?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: It depends upon what the hon. Member calls "an unsatisfactory answer." The Registrar would either say—I am taking the least likely hypothesis first—that the hon. Member was mistaken and that the agreement was, in fact, registered. In that case, there would presumably be nothing further to do about it. Or the Registrar would say that the company had not registered the agreement but that another party to it had registered it and that, therefore, the agreement as such was
    296
    registered and, in due course, proceedings in regard to it would be taken. Or he might say that the agreement was not one which in his view fell to be registered. That is a question of law, and it must be a question of law as to whether a specific agreement falls within the definition. It is not a question upon which much illumination could be cast by the process of Question and Answer in the House at Question Time.
    Mr. Jay: Although that may all be true, will the Parliamentary Secretary answer the question which was actually asked: would it be possible for the hon. Member, as a Member of Parliament, to put down such a Question; and if so, to which Minister?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: I thought I had substantially answered the question by indicating that whatever the position might be, there would be no point in taking that course because a much more simple procedure would lie ready to hand. As to whether the hon. Member could put a Question on that point, I would echo what has already been said by my right hon. Friend: it is not for me hypothetically and in advance to define what Questions would be accepted by the Table and what Questions could be asked in the House. It has already been mentioned this evening that these are matters which, as experience of the nationalised industries has shown, can only be worked out, according to the procedure and practice of the House, as we go along.
    Mr. Mulley: The hon. and learned Gentleman was good enough to give the sequence of events up to the point of registration of an agreement. Does he now say that automatically every agreement which is registered will go to Court? Has the Registrar no discretion whatever in whether he submits agreements to the Court? That is a vital point to which we need to know the answer.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: I am obliged to the hon. Member, who is, however, moving ahead a little fast. I was coming to that point, which more properly belongs to the later Amendment, but since the hon. Member has put it I will, if convenient to the Committee, take it now.

    297
    The Clause lays upon the Registrar the statutory duty of initiating proceedings in regard to registrable agreements. The statutory duty laid upon the Registrar would not, in my opinion, be satisfied if there were registrable agreements in respect of which he could initiate proceedings and which were not subject to any direction by the President of the Board of Trade under the Clause. If the Registrar failed to initiate proceedings within a reasonable time in respect of an agreement in those circumstances, he would no doubt be in breach of his statutory duty. In other words, if there was a queue of registrable agreements waiting to have proceedings taken and if the Registrar simply sat back in his office and did not take any proceedings whatever, he would be in breach of his statutory duty.
    Mr. E. Fletcher: This is very important. Is the Parliamentary Secretary now saying that, a number of registrable agreements having been registered, the President of the Board of Trade would give directions that some of them need not be brought to court before a whole series of other agreements had been heard and disposed of?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: This illustrates the inconvenience of taking the argument out of its logical sequence in response to the interventions of hon. Members opposite.
    What the Clause does is, first, to place upon the Registrar a statutory duty to initiate or take proceedings before the Court in respect of the agreements of which the particulars are filed in the register. His duty in that regard is governed at any particular time by any direction he may receive from the Board of Trade as to the order of those proceedings. There is nothing sinister about the desire of the Board of Trade to have power to give directions. It is obviously necessary and useful that, more particularly in the early stages of these proceedings, there should be that power.
    To take the most obvious instance, it would obviously be desirable in the early stages of this jurisdiction to have machinery to secure that an appropriate representative selection of cases reached the courts first, with the object of dealing first with the matters of prime public importance and also of seeking to establish a helpful corpus of case law. That is the primary reason for the power to give directions as to orders. If the second
    298
    Amendment were carried—I hope that it will not be pressed, but if it were carried and that power were omitted it would no longer be open to the Board of Trade to give those directions and so establish that useful course of proceedings.
    7.30 p.m.
    It is, of course, true that even if that power were not vested in the Board of Trade it might, in theory, be possible for the Registrar himself to arrange his list—if I may use that term—on that same principle, but I think the Committee will readily apprehend and agree that, certainly in the early stages of this matter, the Board of Trade is more likely to have the knowledge to enable it to do this by these directions than will the Registrar in the early phase of his conduct of his important duties. That is why the power of direction is there but, subject to that, in principle, all registered agreements will, in due course, come for judicial examination on the initiative of the Registrar.
    Mr. Fletcher: I am anxious to get this procedure right. May we take it that those directions will be made public and announced in the House, so that Members of Parliament will know what directions are given from time to time by the Board of Trade to the Registrar with regard to this priority and order?
    Mr. Henry Usborne: Before the hon. and learned Gentleman replies to that question, perhaps I can ask this one. I am fairly new to this. I have tried to study it but I am in rather a fog, and other hon. Members may also be interested in this point. Are the Government now saying that every trade agreement that falls to be registered is automatically to be transferred to a Court to be examined judicially to see whether it is, within the meaning of the Act, anti-social? If that is so, I realise that some order has to be given as to the sequence of a mass of agreements which will be rapidly registered. Manifestly, no Court—or sets of Courts—could speedily deal with what may amount, perhaps, to thousands of agreements.
    On the other hand, I frankly admit that it had never occurred to me that every trade agreement that comes to be registrable will necessarily be assumed to be anti-social. It seems to me that there is bound to be some doubt, and I had thought that where there was doubt it was

    299
    the duty of the Registrar to refer a doubtful trade agreement to the Court for judicial decision. I may be very simple about this, but I should like that cleared up.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: I would not say that the hon. Member is simple at all, but he is rather going ahead—and when he uses the term "anti-social" he is rather paraphrasing the contents of the Bill. We are here really only concerned with the relatively narrow point of the procedure and machinery. I was seeking to explain why this power of direction was given, and then I was asked whether it would be a public power of direction.
    As the Committee sees, there is nothing in the Bill which compels directions to be public. Directions are no new things in statutes. Normally, there is nothing to compel them to be public, but there is no reason at all why such directions should not be divulged. There is, on the face of it—subject to the cautionary words which I used before, and which my right hon. Friend used earlier—no reason why the President of the Board of Trade should not be asked a Parliamentary Question about an order for direction. Certainly, there will be nothing to hide in regard to those directions which will be made for the sort of reason which I have just enunciated.
    Mr. Usborne rose—
    Mr. Walker-Smith: I have given way rather a lot, and the hon. Gentleman did go so wide when I gave way before that I feel that if I give way to him again we may be carried forward in the Bill, Sir Charles, further than you would wish in the discussion of this rather narrow Amendment.
    Perhaps I may just deal with the last point, which is whether the language of the third Amendment adds anything to this Bill. The position is this. The language of the third Amendment only has a real effect on this Bill if the second Amendment is carried and it is allied to the taking away of the power of the Board of Trade to give directions. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) shakes his head but, with respect, it is so, because, as I have just explained, in principle all these agreements will come for their judicial examination by the Court on the
    300
    initiative of the Registrar, and there is a statutory duty imposed upon him to initiate those proceedings.
    Where a statutory duty is laid in an Act of Parliament upon any person, it is quite clearly implicit not only that he shall discharge that statutory duty but shall discharge it with reasonable speed and efficiency; indeed, I might say with the highest common factor of speed and efficiency together. That is why I tell the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield, Park, that there is no need to write that into the Statute. It is not merely, as he seemed to think, an unreasonable draftsman's prejudice. As I am sure he knows very well, it is contrary to the canons of construction to put into an Act of Parliament any language which is otiose and unnecessary.
    Mr. Mulley: Surely the hon. and learned Gentleman is not saying that he understands, as a lawyer, that "reasonable" amounts to exactly the same thing as "as soon as practicable". Would he advise someone who was under an obligation to do something in a reasonable time that he was to do it as soon as practicable or as soon as reasonable? There is a distinct difference.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: "As soon as practicable" would, in my view, mean in a context such as this "as soon as reasonably practicable". Is it suggested by hon. Gentlemen opposite that a statutory duty should be laid upon the Registrar to push ahead having regard only to the criterion of speed and disregarding all other criteria of efficiency and fair dealing? Is that what the right hon. Gentleman suggests?
    Mr. Jay: That is exactly why we say "as soon as practicable".
    Mr. Walker-Smith: It is already implicit in the language of the Bill, and it is really not necessary to write in these words unless, as I say, the power to give directions is to be done away with. If the power of direction remains then, of course, the taking of the proceedings will be governed by those directions. But, subject to that, there will be the positive duty to take the proceedings, and the implied duty to take them as soon as reasonably practicable.
    In those circumstances, that Amendment does not add to the intention and

    301
    effect of the Bill. So far as the other two Amendments go, I hope that in the light of what I said earlier the hon. Member for Bolton, West will not wish to press his first Amendment and that the hon. Member for Islington, East, now agrees that the direction-giving power of the Board is a useful one and that he will, therefore, not wish to press the second Amendment.
    Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: The emphasis which I put on the last Amendment of this group of which the hon. Gentleman was talking is that every agreement is affected. Are we to understand now, as I thought I had understood from the hon. Gentleman's reply, that in the case of every agreement the Registrar must take proceedings? As I read subsection (2) it seemed to me there might be a discretion left to the Registrar whether to take proceedings or not.
    I appreciate exactly what the hon. Gentleman said about the general duty of taking proceedings, and that if proceedings must be taken that duty must be carried out. We gained the impression that there was the duty on the Registrar to take proceedings in respect of every agreement that was registered. As I understand the hon. Gentleman, there is that duty, and I should like him to confirm that or to qualify it.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: I am sorry if I did not make it clear, but I hoped that I had made it clear that there is a statutory duty upon him to take the proceedings, and that, in my view, he would be in breach of the statutory duty if there was a registered agreement and there was a vacancy in the list, so to speak, and the Court was idle and he did not initiate proceedings before it. The power of the Board of Trade to give directions may mean that reference to an agreement will be deferred, but this will have no effect on what, I think, the hon. and learned Gentleman called the main momentum of the proceedings.
    Mr. Usborne: The Parliamentary Secretary should not think he can save time by refusing to answer questions which I put or anybody else puts. I am glad that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) came to my aid and extracted the answer from him which I
    302
    was unable to get myself. This is a vitally important point. If it is true, and if it is the intention of the Government that every registrable agreement shall automatically, having been registered, be referred to the Court, it is abundantly clear to me that the Government do not mean the Bill to be implemented, because there will be so many agreements registered, many of which will be manifestly not anti-social at all; and if they are all to be turned to the Court it is in order that some which may be anti-social shall be kept a long way back in the queue, while those which are perfectly in order shall be used to take up the time of the Court.
    It cannot be true, and I cannot believe it to be the practical intention of the Government, that every registrable agreement shall automatically be referred to the Court or to any other tribunal, with the difference only that the Government shall decide priority on occasions whenever the President of the Board of Trade wishes to exercise his power. It does not seem to me at all likely, to put it mildly. If this be so, if in practice every registered agreement is not automatically to be turned over to the Court for examination, and if that is the way in which the Bill is to work in practice—I am sure it is the only way it can work—it seems to be more than ever important that at this juncture, now, on this Clause, there is a point of view, which should be thoroughly ventilated.
    I am prepared to admit that the Parliamentary Secretary, in making his first reply to the case for these Amendments, made a case which was fairly convincing, to the effect that the insertion of these words is not necessary at this point, because, as he said, later there is an Amendment, which the Government are prepared to accept, which would make it perfectly clear that Parliament would have influence; in other words, Parliamentary Questions could be asked so that public opinion could be brought to bear on a trade agreement which appeared al any given moment to the public to be anti-social.
    If the Bill is to work and is to be effective it will be effective not because it instigates successful prosecutions. Personally, I hope that in due course there will be very few prosecutions. I hope that the effect of the Bill will be that traders

    303
    will be made vividly aware that restrictive trade practices are not popular with the people of this country. The traders will always be asking what at any given moment is an anti-social restrictive trade practice. The view of what is an anti-social restrictive trade practice varies with the climate of public opinion from month to month, from year to year, from decade to decade. I hope that the Bill will have a deterrent effect. I think it will have failed if a large number of prosecutions have to be undertaken. What we hope is that the traders will not do these things, will not make anti-social agreements which we are now trying to stop and to prevent from happening.
    7.45 p.m.
    Because the Bill is a piece of preventive mechanism, rather than a method of raising revenue by imposing fines, it seems to me most important that the state of public opinion about anti-social trading acts should be able to be clearly and quickly and easily reflected by Parliament so that at any moment traders may know what public opinion is. There are traders who continuously stay at their own desks, and are totally unaware of the state of public opinion. One may draw their attention to the nature of a series of trade agreements which they have made, and, after a time, they are thoroughly shocked by the anti-social nature of agreements whose character, hitherto, they had not even noticed. I have spent some of my time on that job myself, and I know that that is not uncommon. It seems to me, therefore, very important that Parliament should be able to bring its influence to bear on the agreements.
    If it is made perfectly clear that the Registrar can be influenced by public opinion, reflected through Parliamentary Questions, I shall not cavil any more; I shall not worry too much if these Amendments are not made; if these words are not inserted in this Clause. But I want to be perfectly certain that Parliament will be able to reflect public opinion, and that the Registrar shall know exactly what kind of restrictive agreements are at any moment regarded as anti-social, so that he may feel urgently the obligation to refer those agreements to the tribunal.
    304
    Although the Government reserve the right to arrange the order of reference in certain circumstances, I suppose that the Registrar, being human, may occasionally let his opinion be known to the relevant Government Department in order that the priority may be altered. I should like to extract again an answer to this question, because it is crucial: is it really the intention of the Government that every registerable trade agreement is automatically and immediately as soon as practicable, to go to this tribunal for investigation? If that is the intention the public had better know it now.
    Mr. J. Grimond: I am prompted to speak by what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade said about Parliamentary Questions. I can well understand that there is a case for excluding the Registrar from Parliamentary Questions altogether. It would probably be most undesirable, for instance, if Parliamentary Questions were continually asked about the Director of Public Prosecutions. The President of the Board of Trade has indicated that that may be the Government's view in this case, but the case for allowing Parliamentary Questions about the general work of the Registrar is a strong one. Above all, I feel that we should be fairly clear about the Government's intentions in this matter.
    The Parliamentary Secretary pointed to certain subsequent Clauses in which Parliamentary Questions and control are clearly envisaged, but when he came to answer the specific questions of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt) he was unclear. He answered the point by saying that the kind of information which my hon. Friend mentioned could be obtained by direct application to the Registrar.
    We cannot allow that to pass. If it were always said that where information can be found in other ways Parliamentary Questions are unnecessary, many enjoyable hours would be lost to hon. Members. After all, a very large proportion of Questions asked in the House could be answered by research, but the fun is in having the right to have a Minister at the Dispatch Box to answer them. We cannot have this provision ruled out because answers to Parliamentary Questions might be found in the Encyclopaedia

    305
    Britannica. If the Parliamentary Secretary has any doubt about that, let him look back on past experience in the House when in opposition, and study the words of the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) on the subject of Parliamentary Questions.
    Apart from specific matters in which Parliamentary control is envisaged, I should like to know whether the Government believe that the Registrar's work should be something that can be brought up at Question Time in the House and examined. On the whole, I think that it would be a good thing. The last word on the subject belongs to Mr. Speaker, but when we consider the muddle we have got into in the case of the nationalised industries, it would be as well to have clearer light thrown on this subject by the Government before we part with the Amendment.
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: The President of the Board of Trade and his Parliamentary Secretary are lawyers, and I observe that sitting very near to them is the Attorney-General. Their presence is very timely, and I hope that it will be helpful in relation to the question which I wish to pose to them. I heard the Parliamentary Secretary, apparently with great conviction, inform the Committee that there was a duty on the Registrar to bring proceedings in connection with all agreements that were registered. With great respect to the hon. and learned Gentleman, I wish to doubt that and would draw his attention to certain words which are the foundation for that doubt.
    Let me say, first, by way of premise, that the words of subsection (2) are in no sense comprehensive or mandatory. I invite the Parliamentary Secretary to apply his mind again to them, and cogitate for a moment or two about the scope of their meaning. Let us study the efficacy of these words. The Clause is no use unless the words are so comprehensive and mandatory as to put it beyond a peradventure, as we have been told, that every agreement registered will undoubtedly have to be subject to proceedings in the Court. Let us see whether the subsection will have the strength to carry it all that distance. I suggest that it will do nothing of the sort.
    306
    The Clause says that the Registrar will be charged with the duty of
    "… taking proceedings before the Court … in respect of the agreements of which particulars are from time to time entered or filed in the register."
    The Clause does not describe completely and comprehensively or in any mandatory form what the proceedings are to be. I do not know whether the duty of the Registrar will be discharged as long as he takes some proceedings, whatever they may lack in efficacy with regard to doing anything of practical importance in respect of these agreements. In my submission, the words are not even as good as that. They leave discretion with the Registrar but do not say that he has positively to do anything. The President of the Board of Trade and the Parliamentary Secretary appear to be shaking their heads in unison, but the shaking of their heads does not shake my opinion.
    The words are so indeterminate and indecisive that they certainly do not conclusively assert that the Registrar must bring proceedings in every case. The Clause states that a duty will be imposed upon the Registrar to bring proceedings, but the duty is of a nature which requires the person concerned to consider, what, in his discretion, ought to be his discharge of it. If the Registrar thinks it inconsistent with his duty to bring these proceedings, not only will he not bring them but it would be in derogation of the very words of the Clause for him to do so.
    Mr. E. Fletcher: Would my hon. and learned Friend agree that if the Registrar interpreted his duty as my hon. and learned Friend interprets it, and decided that he had discretion and in some cases should not proceed, nobody could do anything about it and there would be no sanction exercisable against him by anybody?
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: With that intelligent anticipation for which he is noted, my hon. Friend has mentioned the point I wish next to make.
    It is perfectly clear from the language of the Clause, which seeks to impose a duty upon the Registrar which he must exercise with judgment and discretion, that where he uses his discretion and does not in some cases bring proceedings which he ought to bring, there is

    307
    no method whereby his action or inaction can be questioned in any way. There is absolutely no doubt about that, and I notice with great satisfaction that neither the Minister nor the Parliamentary Secretary is now shaking his head.
    There is not the slightest doubt about it that if anybody went to court in such a case the answer would be non tui negotii, that is to say, "It is none of your business." There is not a single person, including even that potent ministerial personage the President of the Board of Trade, who would have any power whatsoever to intervene in the matter to see that the Registrar's duty was being carried out.
    8.0 p.m.
    So the matter is left in this way, that the House of Commons and the Government are completely disarmed by the Clause. Unbridled power is put into the hands of the Registrar to dictate, either wrongly or rightly, whether any proceedings ought to be brought in these matters. That cannot be right. My submission is that it is wrong, and can only be condemned as a legal situation in a matter of this importance to the public interest.
    Therefore, notwithstanding the gay assurance of and the conclusive assertion made by the Parliamentary Secretary—about which the hon. Gentleman does not look quite as happy now as he did before—I put it to the hon. and learned Gentleman, and to his overlord the President of the Board of Trade, that this is a matter which terminologically must be looked at again. I accept that both the right hon. Gentleman and his Parliamentary Secretary—and, in a kind of flanking way, the Attorney-General—desire that the Registrar should not only be able to bring proceedings but that he must do so in respect of each and every one of these restrictive agreements. I concede that they no doubt both want to do that, but I point out to them that the wording of this subsection does not enforce it, and that it should be their duty, as well as their wish, to so tighten the language of this subsection that there can be no shadow of doubt about it.
    Mrs. Castle: I followed with great care the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary, but I was not satisfied at the end that the hon. Gentleman had answered the points and arguments about the three
    308
    Amendments which we are now discussing. It seemed to me that he was trying to have it both ways. The issue between us is one of the parliamentary accountability of the Registrar. That was the point which the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt) argued specifically in connection with his Amendment, the purpose of which was to give parliamentary oversight to all aspects of registration and to all aspects of initiating proceedings.
    Mr. Walker-Smith indicated assent.
    Mrs. Castle: The hon. Gentleman nods, so I am interpreting aright.
    What was his reply? He did not say, as his right hon. Friend had done earlier, "But such parliamentary accountability is undesirable". On the contrary, he changed his ground. I am sorry that the President of the Board of Trade was out of the Chamber at the time because he might want to repudiate the statement made by his hon. Friend. Indeed, we find sometimes that the Minister says something, then pops out for a cup of tea, and that the Parliamentary Secretary says something entirely different. This is extremely hard on those of us who are trying to follow a consistent and logical line of thought. That is what happened this afternoon.
    I jotted down what the Parliamentary Secretary said to the hon. Member for Bolton, West. The hon. and learned Gentleman said, "There is no great substance in this. You are arguing about a pinpoint, because in all the later Clauses of the Bill there are statutory provisions governing the activities of the Registrar", and he listed Clauses 7, 8. 10, etc.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft indicated assent.
    Mrs. Castle: Even the President of the Board of Trade is nodding his head as though to indicate that he likes parliamentary accountability by the Registrar. I do not know where we are getting.
    However, to return to the Parliamentary Secretary, he said that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bolton, West was not needed because the later Clauses contain statutory provisions which make the Registrar subject to parliamentary accountability.
    I listened as carefully as I could to the illustrations given by the hon. Gentleman. In trying to follow the complicated

    309
    arguments put forward this evening on these Amendments one thing seemed to me to emerge clearly. It was that there is parliamentary accountability for the order of procedure but that there is not parliamentary accountability for the speed of action or for the initiation of action.
    That is the important distinction between us because order of priority is not the same as speed of action. Nor is it necessarily the same as thoroughness of action. It would by no means meet our point, which is that we want Parliament to have the right to query the speed with which the Registrar is acting, both in the process of registration and in the process of taking proceedings, as well as to be able to query the order of priorities.
    We go further than that. I ask the President of the Board of Trade to follow carefully what is being said because it is the substance of our argument, which is advanced with seriousness and not merely to score a debating point. If it is said that the Registrar has a statutory duty to take proceedings for which he is not accountable to Parliament through the President of the Board of Trade, but is accountable under the law because he will be in breach of Statute if he does not take proceedings; if, on top of that, it is said, "Oh, but we will give to the President of the Board of Trade the right to interfere with the proceedings of the Registrar by fixing priorities, and in that respect there will be Parliamentary accountability", then we are getting the worst of both worlds. That is so because if somebody can call the Registrar to account in breach of Statute, he will be in a position to claim that he is not a free agent because there are fears of interference by the President of the Board of Trade as to the order in which he carries out his work.
    It would appear to me, therefore, that it would be possible so to confuse the situation between these two positions that we should get neither legal sanction against the Registrar nor Parliamentary sanction. This is the case which we on this side of the Committee are making, and which the hon. Member for Bolton, West was making, namely, that Parliament must either take complete control of the registration process and the procedure activity or it must get out of the picture altogether. If Parliament and the
    310
    President of the Board of Trade have no control over the speed of action, I suggest sincerely to the right hon. Gentleman that to put into Clause 2 power for the President of the Board of Trade to fix the order of proceedings is bound to create the suspicion that the purpose is not speed but slowing up.
    After all, what is a priority? A priority means pushing something back in order to push forward something else. If something goes to the top it means that something else has to go further back. Therefore, if the President of the Board of Trade is not accountable to Parliament for the speed at which the machinery works, then for the right hon. Gentleman to have delaying powers by fixing the order of priorities is to get the worst of both worlds. So I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that if he wants to meet the legitimate anxieties which have been expressed from this side of the Committee, he must take these three Amendments together and must accept them together. He must accept the first one in the name of the hon. Member for Bolton, West, which gives the power of Parliamentary control over the process of registration and of the initiation of proceedings.
    This, therefore, becomes in substitution for the dangerous parenthesis in page 2, line 1—in our view a dangerous parenthesis if it is there only in isolation. We want to have that parenthesis taken out, not in order to remove any Parliamentary control at all but in order to substitute a more nearly complete Parliamentary control such as we find in the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Bolton, West. Then, when we have done that, we take the second Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher), which has the advantage of laying down an obligation for speedy action, subject to the directions of the Board of Trade, which then become the sort of directions which can be given under the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Bolton, West and not merely the directions envisaged by the parenthesis in subsection (2).
    If, in view of the President's notorious hostility to Parliamentary Questions on this matter, the Parliamentary Secretary is not prepared to accept the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member

    311
    for Bolton, West, he really must accept the second Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East. If the President of the Board of Trade refuses to take responsibility for speed of action in this procedure, and can therefore say that we cannot question him in the House of Commons as to the speed with which the process works, as to the speed of registration, as to the speed with which the taking of proceedings follows registration, then we must turn to him and say, "If we cannot, once this Measure is passed, question its administration in the House, let us now have a few more guarantees of speedy action in the Bill itself".
    If we are to lose control of the administration of this procedure once the Bill is passed, then the Bill must be a great deal more specific as regards the rate at which the whole job is tackled. That is what the second Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East, ensures. It can stand alone; it has a great deal of virtue in its own right I should prefer it to be linked with the other two. Failing willingness to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bolton, West, then I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that he will stand very much under suspicion if he does not accept this second commitment to put in the Bill itself a specific obligation that the Registrar shall take such proceedings as soon as practicable.
    Having listened with all the care and respect I could to the Parliamentary Secretary, I am still not satisfied as to the reasons why he will not accept these Amendments. I believe that there are many hon. Members on the other side of the Committee also who are deeply unhappy about the situation. We are finding a strange kind of hybrid legislation coming before us now in which we do not know who is the final arbiter. We want to ensure that the House of Commons has the final word.
    Mr. Jay: The more I hear from the Government in this Committee, the more disappointed I am and the more concerned about their intentions in regard to this Bill. I was particularly disappointed at what the Parliamentary Secretary said tonight because we did; on Second Reading at least, succeed in goading him into eventually giving some undertakings
    312
    which the President was apparently unable to give earlier in the debate.
    Tonight, however, the Parliamentary Secretary on being asked by the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt) just what parliamentary responsibility there was in this matter and what Questions could be asked, said, first of all, that we could find that out in some way other than by means of Questions. Then, when pressed further, he said he really did not quite know tonight what sort of Questions one would be able to ask, but it was not really a matter of great importance.
    8.15 p.m.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: I did not say it was unimportant. I said that it was not for me to answer.
    Mr. Jay: Very well; the Parliamentary Secretary said that he was unable to answer that question.
    However, this Committee is being asked to take a decision on these matters tonight and before taking that decision we ought to hear relevant answers to the relevant questions. With all respect to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) this is not just a matter of fun in parliamentary Questions, as I think he will agree. It really is a question of parliamentary accountability and of precisely what power we are here giving to which Government Department.
    I support both the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bolton, West, and the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher). Both those Amendments stand up after the criticism made of them by the Parliamentary Secretary. The Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East does this—if the words are not precisely correct, this is, at any rate, the intention: first, it says beyond any doubt that the Registrar shall take proceedings; secondly, it says that he shall take them as quickly as practicable. The Parliamentary Secretary told us that that means "as quickly as is reasonably practicable", and I am quite prepared to accept that amendment anyway.
    The Parliamentary Secretary's only argument against this proposal was that all those provisions are implicit in this Clause in any case. If it is implicit, why not make it explicit and put it beyond any shadow of doubt? There is at least some

    313
    shadow of doubt here. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) took a different legal view from that of the Parliamentary Secretary. Whoever may be correct, there is some doubt. Why not, then, accept this Amendment and put the matter beyond any reasonable doubt?
    The hon. Member for Bolton, West, whom I think in this matter I can call my hon. Friend, wants to give the President an indubitable power over the rate at which these proceedings are taken. I entirely support the Government in wishing to have power over the order in which matters are handled; we do not object to that at all, but we think it is not enough. They should have power both over the order and over the rate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) said, the rate is a very different matter from the order. I believe that the geological ages occurred in a certain order, but they also occurred at a very slow rate. We do not want to see these proceedings under this Bill going forward at any sort of geological rate.
    When one looks at the Bill and asks what is really going to happen, one of the weaknesses which strikes one is that it is not clear what is to happen after registration. What impulse is there, what momentum is there, as one hon. Member said, to make sure that the Registrar really moves quickly? Surely, this question of momentum and the rate at which the whole operation moves forward is essentially one for Government and for Parliament, and, indeed, in the last resort, for the electorate.
    Certain hon. Members opposite have said tonight that we do not want political interference or the behaviour of the Registrar altering with the swing of different Governments. That may perhaps he true in the judicial treatment of individual
    cases and individual parties, but surely the question of the rate at which this whole operation proceeds is essentially something which we want the electorate to decide. Some hon. Members opposite have spoken tonight almost as if they wanted to take economic policy out of the hands of the electorate altogether.
    The Parliamentary Secretary's next statement was that it was all right because the Registrar would go ahead under the provisions of the Bill and that if he did not, he would be in breach of his statutory obligation. No doubt that is correct, but before we part with the Amendment we should like to know what happens if the Registrar is in breach of his statutory obligation, who does something about it, what can be done about it, and what action the House can take to ensure that somebody does something effective.
    After all, if an official of the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance suddenly and arbitrarily ceased paying benefit to someone who was entitled to it, it would be the task of the Minister to step in and ensure that the official carried out his statutory obligation, and if the Minister did not do so it would, in the last resort, be within the power of the House to prod the Minister into doing so. Why should not there be similar procedure in this instance?
    If there is some ministerial procedure which will come into force to ensure that the Registrar does his job, may we be told what it is? Unless the Parliamentary Secretary can satisfy us on this point, I advise my hon. Friends to press both Amendments to a vote.
    Question put, That those words be there inserted:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 204, Noes 243.

    Division No. 137.]

    AYES

    [8.22 p.m.

    Ainsley, J. W.

    Blyton, W. R.

    Callaghan, L. J.

    Albu, A. H.

    Boardman, H.

    Carmichael, J.

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

    Castle, Mrs. B. A.

    Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

    Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W.)

    Champion, A. J.

    Anderson, Frank

    Boyd, T. C.

    Chapman, W. D.

    Awbery, S. S.

    Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

    Chetwynd, G. R.

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Brookway, A. F.

    Clunie, J.

    Balfour, A.

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Coldrick, W.

    Bartley, P.

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

    Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch & Finsbury)

    Benson, G.

    Burke, W. A.

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Beswick, F.

    Burton, Miss F. E.

    Cove, W. G.

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

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Blenkinsop, A.

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Cronin, J. D.

    Crossman, R. H. S.

    Irving, S. (Dartford)

    Pryde, D. J.

    Cullen, Mrs. A.

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

    Randall, H. E.

    Daines, P.

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

    Rankin, John

    Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

    Jeger, George (Goole)

    Redhead, E. C.

    Darling, George (Hillsborough)

    Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn & St. Pnos, S.)

    Reeves, J.

    Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

    Johnson, James (Rugby)

    Rhodes, H.

    Deer, G.

    Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)

    Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

    Dodds, N. N.

    Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Donnelly, D. L.

    Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

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

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

    Dye, S.

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Ross, William

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. G.

    Kenyon, C.

    Royle, C.

    Edelman, M.

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Short, E. W.

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Lawson, G. M.

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Skeffington, A. M.

    Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

    Lewis, Arthur

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Fienburgh, W.

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Sparks, J. A.

    Finch, H. J.

    Logan, D. G.

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

    Fletcher, Eric

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Stones, W. (Consett)

    Forman, J. C.

    MacColl, J. E.

    Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    McGhee, H. G.

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

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

    McGovern, J.

    Swingler, S. T.

    Gibson, C. W.

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Sylvester, G. O.

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    McLeavy, Frank

    Taylor, John (West Lothian)

    Greenwood, Anthony

    Mahon, Simon

    Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Grey, C. F.

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Turner-Samuels, M.

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Mann, Mrs. Jean

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    Griffiths, William (Exchange)

    Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

    Viant, S. P.

    Grimond, J.

    Mason, Roy

    Wade, D. W.

    Hale, Leslie

    Mellish, R. J.

    Warbey, W. N.

    Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Messer, Sir F.

    Watkins, T. E.

    Hamilton, W. W.

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Weitzman, D.

    Hannan, W.

    Monslow, W.

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

    Moody, A. S.

    West, D. G.

    Hastings, S.

    Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

    Wheeldon, W. E.

    Hayman, F. H.

    Mort, D. L.

    White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

    Healey, Denis

    Moyle, A.

    White Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Mulley, F. W.

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Hewitson, Capt. M.

    Oliver, G. H.

    Willey, Frederick

    Hobson, C. R.

    Oram, A. E.

    Williams, David (Neath)

    Holmes, Horace

    Oswald, T.

    Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)

    Holt, A. F.

    Owen, W. J.

    Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)

    Houghton, Douglas

    Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)

    Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

    Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

    Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

    Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

    Howell, Denis (All Saints)

    Palmer, A. M. F.

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

    Hubbard, T. F.

    Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

    Winterbottom, Richard

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Parker, J.

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Parkin, B. T.

    Woof, R. E.

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Paton, J.

    Yates, V. (Ladywood)

    Hunter, A. E.

    Pearson, A.

    Zilliacus, K.

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Popplewell, E.

    Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

    Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Proctor, W. T.

    Mr. Holmes and Mr. J. T. Price

    NOES

    Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.

    Dance, J. C. G.

    Aitken, W. T.

    Braine, B. R.

    Davidson, Viscountess

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

    Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

    D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Alport, C. J. M.

    Brooman-White, R. C.

    Deedes, W. F.

    Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

    Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

    Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

    Bryan, P.

    Doughty, C. J. A.

    Arbuthnot, John

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

    Drayson, G. B.

    Armstrong, C. W.

    Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

    du Cann, E. D. L.

    Astor, Hon. J. J.

    Burden, F. F. A.

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

    Atkins, H. E.

    Butcher, Sir Herbert

    Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

    Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

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

    Duthie, W. S.

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Campbell, Sir David

    Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (Warwick & L'm'tn)

    Balniel, Lord

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

    Barlow, Sir John

    Channon, H.

    Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

    Barter, John

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Baxter, Sir Beverley

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

    Fell, A.

    Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

    Cole, Norman

    Finlay, Graeme

    Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

    Cooper-Key, E. M.

    Fisher, Nigel

    Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

    Fletcher-Cooke, C.

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald

    Corfield, Capt. F. V.

    Fort, R.

    Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Foster, John

    Biggs-Davison, J. A.

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale)

    Bishop, F. P.

    Crouch, R. F.

    Freeth, D. K.

    Body, R. F.

    Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

    Boothby, Sir Robert

    Cunningham, Knox

    George, J. C. (Pollok)

    Bossom, Sir A. C.

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Gibson-Watt, D.

    316

    317

    Glover, D.

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Raikes, Sir Victor

    Godber, J. B.

    Leavey, J. A.

    Redmayne, M.

    Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan

    Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Gough, C. F. H.

    Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

    Remnant, Hon. P.

    Gower, H. R.

    Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

    Renton, D. L. M.

    Graham, Sir Fergus

    Lindsay, Martin (Sollhull)

    Rippon, A. G. F.

    Grant, W. (Woodside)

    Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)

    Robertson, Sir David

    Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)

    Low, Rt. Hon. A. R. W.

    Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

    Green, A.

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

    Robson-Brown, W.

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick)

    Roper, Sir Harold

    Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

    Macdonald, Sir Peter

    Russell, R. S.

    Gurden, Harold

    McKibbin, A. J.

    Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Sharples, R. C.

    Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

    McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

    Shepherd, William

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

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

    Maddan, Martin

    Soames, Capt. C.

    Harvie-Watt, Sir George

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

    Spearman, A. C. M.

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

    Speir, R. M.

    Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.

    Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

    Stevens, Geoffrey

    Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

    Marlowe, A. A. H.

    Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)

    Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

    Marples, A. E.

    Studholme, H. G.

    Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

    Marshall, Douglas

    Summers, G. S. (Aylesbury)

    Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

    Mathew, R.

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Maude, Angus

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.

    Teeling, W.

    Holland-Martin, C. J.

    Mawby, R. L.

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

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

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

    Horobin, Sir Ian

    Medlicott, Sir Frank

    Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.

    Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence

    Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

    Thornton, Kemsley, C. N.

    Howard, John (Test)

    Moore, Sir Thomas

    Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

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

    Morrison, John (Salisbury)

    Tilney, John (Wavertree)

    Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

    Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

    Touche, Sir Gordon

    Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

    Turner, H. F. L.

    Hulbert, Sir Norman

    Nairn, D. L. S.

    Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

    Hurd, A. R.

    Neave, Airey

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)

    Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch)

    Vickers, Miss J. H.

    Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)

    Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

    Vosper, D. F.

    Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.

    Nugent, G. R. H.

    Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Oakshott, H. D.

    Walker-Smith, D. C.

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)

    Wall, Major Patrick

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

    Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

    Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

    Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

    Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-S-Mare)

    Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Osborne, C.

    Whitelaw, W. S. I. (Penrith & Border)

    Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)

    Page, R. G.

    Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

    Joseph, Sir Keith

    Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

    Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

    Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot

    Partridge, E.

    Wills, G. (Bridgwater)

    Kaberry, D.

    Peyton, J. W. W.

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Keegan, D.

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Wood, Hon. R.

    Kerr, H. W.

    Pitt, Miss E. M.

    Woollam, John Victor

    Kershaw, J. A.

    Pott, H. P.

    Yates, William (The Wrekin)

    Kimball, M.

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Kirk, P. M.

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Lambert, Hon. G.

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

    Colonel J. H Harrison and

    Lambton, Viscount

    Profumo, J. D.

    Mr. Barber.

    8.30 p.m.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: I beg to move, in page 1, line 13, after "of", to insert "preparing, compiling and".
    This Amendment speaks for itself. It is very simple and I appeal to the President of the Board of Trade to accept it. It is obvious that one of the duties of the Registrar will be to maintain a register. He cannot maintain a register unless he compiles it. My Amendment logically provides that he should prepare and compile as well as maintain a register. One has only to look at subsection (2) to see how important this is. The register is the foundation of his job. He cannot do his work unless he has the register. He has the duty of maintaining the register, without the duty of compiling or
    318
    preparing it. Something is obviously lacking and my Amendment supplies that which is lacking.
    It is the foundation of his work, because he maintains a register of agreements which are subject to registration under this part of the Act. That is tremendously important. It is the basis not only of his jurisdiction, but also of the prosecution which it may be necessary for him to bring. He also has the duty of taking proceedings before the Court, subject to such directions as may be given by the Board of Trade. It is perfectly clear that the register is no mere unimportant appendage of his work, but its very foundation. I hope that the President will agree that my Amendment supplies in logic and common sense that

    319
    which is missing from the subsection and that he will accept it.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) for putting down this helpful Amendment. I think there is no reason why it should not be accepted and incorporated in the Bill. There is no doubt that the Registrar will have the duty not only of maintaining but preparing and compiling the register.
    I think that perhaps drafting purists might say that it is unnecessary, but, at the same time, I am happy that these words should be inserted, the more so
    because I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have shown willingness to press on with the Bill, and I think that most of us would like to see whether we can get Clause 1 tonight.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendment proposed: In page 2, line 4, at end insert:
    (3) The Registrar shall take such proceedings subject to any directions of the Board of Trade under subsection (2) of this section in respect of every agreement as soon as practicable after the particulars thereof have been registered under this Part of this Act.—[Mr. E. Fletcher.]
    The Committee divided: Ayes 203, Noes 244.

    Division No. 138.]

    AYES

    [8.36 p.m.

    Ainsley, J. W.

    Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Albu, A. H.

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)

    Lewis, Arthur

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

    Fienburgh, W.

    Logan, D. G.

    Anderson, Frank

    Finch, H. J.

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Awbery, S. S.

    Fletcher, Eric

    MacColl, J. E.

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Forman, J. C.

    McGhee, H. G.

    Balfour, A.

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    McGovern, J.

    Bartley, P.

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

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Benson, G.

    Gibson, C. W.

    McLeavy, Frank

    Beswick, F.

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    Mahon, Simon

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

    Greenwood, Anthony

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Blenkinsop, A.

    Grey, C. F.

    Mann, Mrs. Jean

    Blyton, W. R.

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

    Boardman, H.

    Griffiths, William (Exchange)

    Mason, Roy

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

    Grimond, J.

    Mellish, R. J.

    Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W.)

    Hale, Leslie

    Messer, Sir F.

    Boyd, T. G.

    Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

    Hamilton, W. W.

    Monslow, W.

    Brockway, A. F.

    Hannan, W.

    Moody, A. S.

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

    Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Hastings, S.

    Mort, D. L.

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Hayman, F. H.

    Moyle, A.

    Burke, W. A.

    Healey, Denis

    Mulley, F. W.

    Burton, Miss F. E.

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Oliver, G. H.

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Hobson, C. R.

    Oram, A. E.

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Holman, P.

    Oswald, T.

    Callaghan, L. J.

    Holmes, Horace

    Owen, W. J.

    Carmichael, J.

    Holt, A. F.

    Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)

    Castle, Mrs. B. A.

    Houghton, Douglas

    Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

    Champion, A. J.

    Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

    Palmer, A. M. F.

    Chapman, W. D.

    Howell, Denis (All Saints)

    Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

    Chetwynd, G. R.

    Hubbard, T. F.

    Parkin, B. T.

    Clunie, J.

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Paton, J.

    Coldrick, W.

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Peart, T. F.

    Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Popplewell, E.

    Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch & Finsbury)

    Hunter, A. E.

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

    Cove, W. G.

    Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

    Proctor, W. T.

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Pryde, D. J.

    Cronin, J. D.

    Irving, S. (Dartford)

    Randall, H. E.

    Crossman, R. H. S.

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

    Rankin, John

    Cullen, Mrs. A.

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

    Redhead, E. C.

    Daines, P.

    Jeger, George (Goole)

    Reeves, J.

    Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

    Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn & St. Pncs, S.)

    Rhodes, H.

    Darling, George (Hillsborough)

    Johnson, James (Rugby)

    Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

    Davies, Stephen, (Merthyr)

    Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Deer, G.

    Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

    Robinson, Kenneth, (St. Pancras, N.)

    Dodds, N. N.

    Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

    Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

    Donnelly, D. L.

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Ross, William

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

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Royle, C.

    Dye, S.

    Kenyon, C.

    Short, E. W.

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Edelman, M.

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    Lawson, G. M.

    Skeffington, A. M.

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Sparks, J. A.

    Wade, D. W.

    Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

    Warbey, W. N.

    Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)

    Stones, W. (Consett)

    Watkins, T. E.

    Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

    Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)

    Weitzman, D.

    Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

    Swingler, S. T.

    West, D. G.

    Winterbottom, Richard

    Sylvester, G. O.

    Wheeldon, W. E.

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Taylor, John (West Lothian)

    White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

    Woof, R. E.

    Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)

    Yates, V. (Ladywood)

    Turner-Samuels, M.

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Zilliacus, K.

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    Willey, Frederick

    Viant, S. P.

    Williams, David (Neath)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Mr. Simmons and Mr. Pearson.

    NOES

    Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

    Finlay, Graeme

    Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfieid)

    Aitken, W. T.

    Fisher, Nigel

    Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

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

    Fletcher-Cooke, C.

    Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)

    Alport, C. J. M.

    Fort, R.

    Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)

    Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

    Foster, John

    Low, Rt. Hon. A. R. W.

    Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

    Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

    Arbuthnot, John

    Freeth, D. K.

    Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick)

    Armstrong, C. W.

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Astor, Hon. J. J.

    George, J. C. (Pollok)

    Macdonald, Sir Peter

    Atkins, H. E.

    Gibson-Watt, D.

    McKibbin, A. J.

    Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

    Glover, D.

    Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan

    McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

    Balniel, Lord

    Gower, H. R.

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Barlow, Sir John

    Graham, Sir Fergus

    Maddan, Martin

    Barter, John

    Grant, W. (Woodside)

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

    Baxter, Sir Beverley

    Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R. (Nantwich)

    Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

    Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

    Green, A.

    Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

    Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    Marlowe, A. A. H.

    Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

    Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

    Marples, A. E.

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald

    Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

    Marshall, Douglas

    Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

    Gurden, Harold

    Mathew, R.

    Biggs-Davison, J. A.

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Maude, Angus

    Bishop, F. P.

    Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

    Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.

    Body, R. F.

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    Mawby, R. L.

    Boothby, Sir Robert

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

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

    Bossom, Sir A. C.

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

    Medlicott, Sir Frank

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.

    Harvie-Watt, Sir George

    Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

    Braine, B. R.

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Moore, Sir Thomas

    Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.

    Morrison, John (Salisbury)

    Brooman-White, R. C.

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

    Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)

    Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

    Bryan, P.

    Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

    Nairn, D. L. S.

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

    Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

    Neave, Airey

    Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

    Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

    Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch)

    Burden, F. F. A.

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

    Butcher, Sir Herbert

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Nugent, G. R. H.

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

    Holland-Martin C. J.

    Oakshott, H. D.

    Campbell, Sir David

    Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

    Carr, Robert

    Horobin, Sir Ian

    O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

    Channon, H.

    Howard, John (Test)..

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Chichester-Clark, R.

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

    Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-S-Mare)

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

    Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

    Osborne, C.

    Cole, Norman

    Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

    Page, R. G.

    Cooper-Key, E. M.

    Hulbert, Sir Norman

    Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

    Hurd, A. R.

    Partridge, E.

    Corfield, Capt. F. V.

    Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)

    Peyton, J. W. W.

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.

    Pitt, Miss E. M.

    Crouch, R. F.

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Pott, H. P.

    Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Norhwood)

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Cunningham, Knox

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

    Dance, J. C. G.

    Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

    Profumo, J. D.

    Davidson, Viscountess

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Raikes, Sir Victor

    D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)

    Redmayne, M.

    Deedes, W. F.

    Joseph, Sir Keith

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

    Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot

    Remnant, Hon. P.

    Doughty, C. J. A.

    Kaberry, D.

    Renton, D. L. M.

    Drayson, G. B.

    Keegan, D.

    Rippon, A. G. F.

    du Cann, E. D. L.

    Kerr, H. W.

    Robertson, Sir David

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

    Kershaw, J. A.

    Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

    Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

    Kimball, M.

    Robson-Brown, W.

    Duthie, W. S.

    Kirk, P. M.

    Roper, Sir Harold

    Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (Warwick & L'm'tn)

    Lambert, Hon. G.

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

    Lambton, Viscount

    Russell, R. S.

    Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Leavey, J. A.

    Shepherd, William

    Fell, A.

    Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

    Sharples, R. C.

    322

    323

    Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

    Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.

    Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

    Soames, Capt. C.

    Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

    Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

    Spearman, A. C. M.

    Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

    Whitelaw, W. S. I. (Penrith & Border)

    Speir, R. M.

    Tilney, John (Wavertree)

    Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

    Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)

    Touche, Sir Gordon

    Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

    Stevens, Geoffrey

    Turner, H. F. L.

    Wills, G. (Bridgwater)

    Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)

    Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Studholme, H. G.

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Wood, Hon. R.

    Summers, G. S. (Aylesbury)

    Vickers, Miss J. H.

    Woollam, John Victor

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Vosper, D. F.

    Yates, William (The Wrekin)

    Teeling, W.

    Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Walker-Smith, D. C.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Wall, Major Patrick

    Mr. Godber and Mr. Barber.

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

    Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

    Resolution agreed to.

    8.45 p.m.
    Sir L. Heald: I beg to move, in page 2, line 4, at the end to insert:
    (3) The preparation and presentation of any proceedings so taken by the Registrar shall be conducted under the directions of Her Majesty's Attorney-General by the Treasury Solicitor whose duty it shall be to ensure that all relevant facts and circumstances are before the Court whether they tend in favour of or against the interests of any party to any such agreement.
    The Amendment has achieved more importance as the result of our Committee debates. We have accepted the principle that the actions of the Registrar are not to be questionable by Parliamentary Question to Ministers. There is no machinery in the Bill which would enable anyone to secure any kind of control over the way in which the Registrar carries out his functions. The function with which we are now particularly concerned is that of taking proceedings, under Clause 1.
    When the matter was before the House on Second Reading my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade was emphatic, as indeed he was this afternoon, about the importance of ensuring complete confidence in the manner in which the proceedings are conducted before the Restrictive Practices Court. Let me quote what my right hon. Friend said:
    "The task of Registrar is twofold. First of all, it is to keep the register, which I may add is quite a large and difficult administrative task, and, second, to initiate proceedings before the court about which I shall speak presently. The Registrar will be advised by the Treasury Solicitor, and will be represented before the court by counsel nominated by the Attorney-General. It will be the duty of the Registrar to ensure that all relevant facts are placed before the court, and he will consult the Attorney-General, through the Treasury Solicitor, on any matters of doubt or difficulty.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th March, 1956; Vol. 549, c. 1943.]
    The part of that statement dealing with nomination of counsel by the Attorney-General is very satisfactory as far as it
    324
    goes, but it only means that the Attorney-General will be responsible for seeing that suitable and competent counsel are instructed. It says nothing at all about the nature of the instructions or the way in which counsel conduct the proceedings, so long as they do so in a proper manner. Therefore, it would be entirely wrong and illusory to suppose that a provision limited to counsel being nominated by the Attorney-General provides any safeguard about how the proceedings should be conducted. We know that it is not the intention that there should be anything in the nature of a prosecution, but normally, when counsel appear in court, they are instructed to represent a point of view.
    If we leave the Bill as it is, counsel will represent the point of view of the Registrar, who is custodian of the register. His business is to see that the register is in order, is maintained in its proper, pristine virginity and is in every way in order. If nothing else were put into the Bill, the ordinary and proper job of counsel appearing on behalf of the Registrar would be to see that agreements remained on the register and were not taken off. Looking at the thing in the most literal way, if the Registrar lost all of his cases it is clear that he would have nothing left on his register.
    Therefore, the normal thing would be for the Registrar to be there represented by counsel defending his decision, in effect, that these things should be maintained on the register. That is the reason why we thought it was desirable that this matter should be ventilated, and when it had been ventilated my right hon. Friend made the matter quite clear in these words:
    "It will be the duty of the Registrar to ensure that all relevant facts are placed before the court, and he will consult the Attorney-General, through the Treasury Solicitor, on any matters of doubt or difficulty."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th March, 1956; Vol. 549, c. 1943.]

    325
    As the Bill stands, there is no provision of that kind, and there is no justification for consultation with the Attorney-General. It just is not provided for. As I understand it, from what my right hon. Friend said a short time ago, it is intended by the Government to propose an Amendment in due course which will provide that counsel are to be nominated by the Attorney-General. That will not have the effect which has been stated by my right hon. Friend, and it cannot possibly have that effect. The mere nomination of counsel by the Attorney-General will have no such effect at all.
    There is no reason whatever, first of all, why the Treasury Solicitor should be concerned in the matter, though he can, of course, be directed to represent anyone whom it is thought suitable that he should represent—and he represented the Archbishop of Canterbury in some famous proceedings. There is no reason why he should not be brought in, and I do not suggest the contrary for a moment, but as regards consultation between him and the Attorney-General on the conduct of the proceedings the mere nomination of counsel will have no effect whatever.
    That is why we have put down this Amendment, which proposes the following words:
    "The preparation and presentation of any proceedings so taken by the Registrar shall be conducted under the directions of Her Majesty's Attorney General by the Treasury Solicitor whose duty it shall be to ensure that all relevant facts and circumstances are before the Court whether they tend in favour of or against the interests of any party to any such agreement."
    There is nothing novel about that language. It is actually taken from the Civil Aviation (Investigation of Accidents) Regulations, which were produced in 1951. As some hon. Members here this evening will, I know, remember, these amended regulations were produced to meet certain criticisms which were very much on the lines of those with which the Committee is concerned this evening.
    It had been pointed out that in the investigation of aircraft accidents there was not adequate provision for the safeguarding of the interests of all parties concerned. There were occasions, for example in earlier inquiries when it had not been possible to ask questions on behalf of the dead pilot, and it was said—I do not say it was justified at all—that
    326
    accidents were sometimes put down to the inefficiency of the pilot who was not there to answer, whereas if the matter had been properly investigated, it would have been found to have been due to a different cause.
    It was as a result of that criticism that a Parliamentary committee was appointed and this procedure was laid down. Perhaps I may be excused—I do not mind pleading guilty to it—for being prejudiced about this, because this is the procedure that was used, for example, in the Comet inquiry, when I think it was generally agreed that good results were obtained, the presence of the Attorney-General and his general control over the proceedings being taken by everyone concerned as a guarantee of impartiality and fairness.
    I should be very surprised to find this evening that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General thought that it was something to be objected to or to be resisted, when everyone was very anxious to have the guarantee of his benevolence and impartial supervision of this matter. No one, therefore, should suggest that we are imposing anything upon him. We are merely asking him to exercise a power which has been exercised by Attorney-Generals for hundreds of years, which is a guarantee to everyone, if I may so put it, that the game will be straight. I see no reason whatever why anyone should object to undertaking the duties laid down in the proposed subsection.
    If we are told that the fact that counsel are nominated by the Attorney-General should be sufficient guarantee that everything will be in order, from a moral point of view we know that that is so. We are not, however, dealing now with moral issues but with an Act of Parliament. In enacting that Act of Parliament, especially when dealing with an entirely new form of procedure, we surely are entitled to have the matter laid down in black and white.
    I feel convinced that the Amendment would impose nothing on anyone. We are doing nothing except to pay a great compliment to the office which is held by my right hon. and learned Friend in saying that if his name is associated with the matter in this way—not the mere naming of counsel, which would involve no guarantee as to what would happen when they act apart from the fact that

    327
    they would behave properly—we would be giving to everyone a guarantee that proceedings would be fair and square and above board. This, I hope, my right hon. and learned Friend will be prepared to accept.
    Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I am very puzzled by the real object of the Amendment. I take it that the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) wants the proceedings to which the Clause relates to be conducted in the proper way. We are in complete agreement with him on that; everybody, on all sides, wants that to be done. I followed his speech with the very greatest care to ascertain exactly what he had in mind, in what way he considered that these proceedings would not be properly conducted, what specific fear he had about them, what he was afraid would happen, and against what precise eventuality he wanted to provide.
    Therefore, although we on this side of the Committee are exceedingly anxious, first, that the proceedings should be immaculately conducted, and, secondly, that there should be the fullest Parliamentary responsibility, as we have pressed throughout the discussion on the Clause, yet when I come to consider the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment, which he has put forward with every intention of improving the Bill, I am at a complete loss to understand what the phobia is against which he is trying to provide.
    The Amendment falls into two parts, the first dealing with the preparation and presentation of proceedings and the second with ensuring that all relevant facts are put before the Court. I will deal with the two parts quite separately. To deal with the first part, relating to the preparation and presentation of any proceedings, of course I accept at once what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that that is not the same as having counsel nominated by the Attorney-General. Nomination by the Attorney-General is one thing. The preparation and presentation of proceedings is an entirely different matter. Therefore, the right hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to provide against some fear which is not provided against by nomination by the Attorney-General. I really fail to understand precisely what that fear is. Preparation
    328
    and presentation of proceedings is not the same as nomination by the Attorney-General. Consequently, it is not the same as initiating proceedings.
    9.0 p.m.
    We have been very much concerned in the debates which have taken place on earlier Amendments that there should be a speeding up of these proceedings and Parliamentary control of the pace at which the proceedings are brought. But this Amendment does not help in that respect at all. Therefore, none of us on this side of the Committee is going to be seduced in favour of the Amendment by any thought that it is going to help to speed up the proceedings. The Amendment deals with an entirely different matter from the initiation of proceedings, namely, with the actual preparation and presentation of them after they have been initiated. It does not affect the pace of the proceedings in any way whatsoever.
    If this Clause is agreed to, the duty will already have been put upon the Registrar to take the proceedings. That duty is imposed upon the Registrar by subsection (2). But, although he has the legal duty and the statutory obligation to take the proceedings, nevertheless it is sought to inject, at a later stage, another person who is to be responsible for the preparation and presentation of the proceedings.
    It is a very odd conception that when there is one person upon whom Parliament is imposing the duty of taking the proceedings, we should interfere with him in the performance of that duty by saying that somebody else shall be responsible for the preparation and presentation of the proceedings. Surely if a Parliamentary duty is imposed upon the Registrar to take the proceedings he must clearly be the person who pursues them to a conclusion. Therefore, under this Amendment we merely have, as it were, interference by another person with the course of duty of the Registrar.
    The right hon. and learned Gentleman said—and this was the crux of his argument—that he was concerned about the way in which the proceedings would be conducted. Let us just examine that statement. Whatever it may mean on analysis, that, I gather, covers the right hon. and learned Gentleman's concern in regard to this Amendment—the way in

    329
    which the proceedings are conducted. We have here counsel nominated by the Attorney-General, a Registrar appointed by the Queen upon whom is imposed a statutory duty by Parliament, and we have, or shall have unless our Amendments are carried, a High Court judge presiding over a court before which these proceedings are to be conducted. We have here rules of court which will be drawn up for dealing with this matter.
    Is it really going to be suggested that with this overwhelming mass of respectability there is going to be some fear concerning the way in which the proceedings are conducted? If I understand the intention rightly, that really amounts to an aspersion which is almost intolerable. What kind of proceeding is this, and what really is the concern of the right hon. and learned Gentleman? Perhaps we see something of the concern in the second part of the Amendment, to which I am now coming, relating to the person
    "… whose duty it shall be to ensure that all relevant facts and circumstances are before the Court …"
    Let us be a little careful about this. I would agree at once with the right hon. and learned Gentleman and so, I am sure, would the Attorney-General, that when counsel is nominated by the Attorney-General—for instance, in Revenue cases and anything of that kind—that counsel must conduct proceedings with the utmost candour, must hold nothing up his sleeve and must, of course, be completely frank with the Court and suppress nothing in his presentation to it. We expect from counsel a degree of frankness and candour which is completely unexceptionable.
    It is a very different matter to make it the statutory duty of the person responsible for the proceedings to put all relevant facts and circumstances before the Court. That means that he has to find out all the relevant facts and circumstances: it means that the duty is on him to ascertain and to provide all the relevant facts and circumstances. Consider, then, what the effect of that is on, for instance, the onus of proof contained in Clause 16.
    Clause 16 provides that the onus of proof shall be on the person who is responsible for the restrictive trade practice, but this Amendment says that although the onus of proof in Clause 16 lies upon the person responsible for the
    330
    restrictive trade practice, nevertheless all the relevant facts and circumstances are to be brought before the Court, not by that person but by the Registrar or by the person acting on his behalf. In other words, this Amendment goes very far towards torpedoing the onus of proof established by Clause 16, and which, as the President has said, is crucial in his approach to this Bill.
    Let us consider the matter just a little further. The right hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to consider that this Court should somehow or other be in much the same position as an inquiry into a Comet disaster or something of that sort. I should feel a good deal of sympathy with his approach if in this case the Court were merely a court of inquiry, and if the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Commission had been preserved as a method of inquiry into whether or not a restrictive practice was subject to objection. There would then be a great deal to be said for this Amendment.
    What the President of the Board of Trade is putting forward in this Bill, however, is not at all the approach of an inquiry. It is the very opposite approach—the approach of a court of law, and it is crucial to his presentation of this Bill that there should be a court of law. As we have understood him on Second Reading, and as he has reiterated in the course of Committee—we are opposed to him on the point, of course—it is on the footing that there is a court of law.
    If there is a court of law we are not dealing with Comet inquiries. We have no fear of the interested parties not being represented, because interested parties would be covered by rules of court. All provision of that kind would be looked after by rules of court. We are dealing here with what is deliberately made an action inter partes before a court of law; an action between two parties, by one against another—not in the nature of a criminal prosecution, of course; we know that perfectly well, but a civil action between two parties in which one will be the Registrar whose duty—it is essential to the whole of this conception of the Bill—is to put forward the public point of view on the one hand as against the point of view put forward by the person who is responsible for the restrictive practice.

    331
    It is the very essence of court procedure in this country that there should be one party on the one side presenting his case as strongly as he can from that side and another party on the other side presenting his case from his point of view, and that there should be a judge—in this case, there is to be a High Court judge—to decide between them, having heard both sides, fully and properly represented.
    Sir L. Heald: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree, then, with his hon. Friend who earlier today said that the Registrar should be regarded as a kind of Director of Public Prosecutions? Would he agree with that?
    Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: No. I do not agree. It depends on the use of words, of course.
    I made it perfectly clear on Second Reading that we do not take the view that there should be a criminal offence, and, therefore, there is no suggestion of a Director of Public Prosecutions in the technical sense of the term. What my hon. Friend doubtless had in mind was that there would be one party on the one side and another on the other.
    There is no question of a criminal offence involved here; nor do we on this side of the Committee hold that there should be a criminal offence. We are simply dealing with an action inter partes, and in it the Registrar's duty is to present one side of the picture as vigorously, as fairly and as properly as possible. That is the whole essence of court procedure in civil actions. That does not involve any unfairness and it does not involve any jiggery-pokery. For these reasons, we on this side of the Committee consider that this is a dangerous Amendment, and we are opposed to it.
    Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: The remarks of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) make me think there is more in the Amendment than I at first thought, and I should like one or another of my right hon. Friends to say whether they agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman—as I gather they do, judging from the way they received his remarks—that the duties of counsel appearing for the Registrar are by no means as impartial as those which my right hon. and
    332
    learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) would wish to see.
    The nub of the Amendment is surely that there shall be in the instructions given to counsel all relevant facts and circumstances. Whether the Amendment is accepted or not, there is no question, of course, that counsel will not be perfectly candid within the limits of his instructions. We all agree that everything counsel knows and considers relevant he will bring before the Court, if only to seek to show that it is not as important as his opponent will, no doubt, make it out to be. However, the question here is, what is in his brief? That is a vital matter, and it becomes more vital when we consider Clause 16, which, for this purpose, we must do.
    In Clause 16, there are stated factors which are peculiarly within the knowledge of the Government. I refer to paragraph (f). It is within the knowledge of the Registrar, because of the powers he has of discovering things, whether, for example, the removal of the restriction
    "would be likely to have a serious and persistent adverse effect on the general level of unemployment in an area. …"
    That is to be an issue, and that is a matter of which the person seeking to defend the interests of the public has far greater knowledge than has the representative whose agreement is impugned, and he has far more direct ways of finding it out.
    9.15 p.m.
    Similarly, there is the final and overall requirement
    "… that the restriction has not operated and is not calculated to operate to an unreasonable extent to the detriment of persons not parties to the agreement …"
    That is something on which I should have thought there might be a good deal of knowledge and evidence in the possession of public authorities which it would be much harder for the party whose agreement is being impugned to find out.
    All that is intended is that it should be a duty upon the Registrar in preparing the case, and it should be a duty in preparing the brief for the counsel nominated by my right hon. Friend, that the Registrar should not ignore those matters but should do his best to find out what they are and that they should be brought before the Court by counsel

    333
    appearing for the Registrar. I do not think that the Amendment goes beyond that. If so, it seems to me that we should like to hear from one of my right hon. Friends whether, in the Government's opinion, that would automatically follow without the Amendment.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Let me say at once to my hon. Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) that I hold the view that the Amendment goes a good deal further than he appeared to imagine in his remarks, and that I share the view of the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) that this would be a dangerous Amendment to incorporate in the Bill. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) and I are really agreed about what at least, understood to be the main objective that he had in mind, which was that these cases, or call them what we will, should be fairly and properly conducted.
    I believe that that is a principal factor in the views of hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. In an attempt to meet his view, I suggested earlier to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey that I would incorporate in a later Clause an actual provision that counsel appearing should be nominated by the Attorney-General. I gather that he was not particularly impressed by that proposal. I am still prepared to do so if he thinks that it would help him in any way, but surely the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East is right.
    If we have a Registrar appointed by the Queen and we have rules of court laid down with all the care with which rules of court are laid down and incidentally—under an Amendment which we intend to accept—scrutinised by the House of Commons; if we have counsel appearing in cases, and we have cases in which a High Court judge not only decides the case but presides over what is taking place, surely he will not tolerate any sort of impropriety, malpractice or misconduct in the way in which cases are brought before him.
    To put into a Statute that in some way or another
    "The preparation and presentation of any proceedings so taken by the Registrar shall be conducted under the directions of Her Majesty's Attorney-General …"
    334
    seems to me to be turning the Attorney-General into a sort of solicitor for this purpose. I do not believe that that is a right and proper thing to do. I agree that there are examples which could be given, such as aircraft inquiries, but they are not on all fours with the proceedings under this Bill. This will not be a roving inquiry; this will not be an inquisitorial approach. It will be a proceeding before the Court, in which there is an issue to be decided.
    That brings me to the second part of the Amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for Darwen asked me how impartial counsel would be, or some question of that character. The job of counsel will be to put the facts fairly and squarely before the Court. Let us be clear that there is an issue before the Court, and the House of Commons will determine what that issue is. We may have a lot of argument about it, and it may be controversial to arrive at what is the issue. However, I have made it plain in my speeches that in this issue the onus is to rest squarely upon the shoulders of those industries or parties which wish to maintain the agreement.
    If the onus is to rest upon them, it would appear that they may have to say something themselves in the first instance in order to discharge the onus which Parliament, if it so desires, places upon the shoulders of such parties. I do not say that these words necessarily shift the onus, but certainly they blur the question considerably. Let us take an imaginary case in order to show the essential part of the onus of proof. Suppose there was a case in which no evidence was given upon either side. If the onus of proof was against the agreement, the decision would be against the agreement. If, at this stage, however, we write into the Statute terms specifying that one of the parties is responsible for bringing all the facts before the Court, we shall effectively blur what I regard as one of the essentials of the procedures laid down in the Bill and, in my view, a necessary concomitant to a judicial approach to it.
    We all agree that if, in the conduct of proceedings counsel in such a position is seized of some knowledge which comes to his attention through the careful inquiries that have been made, it is his duty to produce it. I have not had the same experience in the courts as either

    335
    the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Leicester, North-East or as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey, though I was a barrister and practising for some time. Yet all of us know that in these cases it is the duty of counsel to behave with the utmost frankness and candour. If there are facts which could be helpful to another view, they should certainly be disclosed and, of course they will be disclosed.
    However that is a very different thing from putting upon counsel a statutory responsibility to deploy the full facts on both sides before anything else has happened. So, whilst fully appreciating the motives which my right hon. and learned Friend had in mind in putting down this Amendment, and the manner in which he has argued it, I do not believe that there is much between us. I think he is as anxious as I am that these cases should be properly conducted. He is anxious that counsel should behave with frankness and candour. I can give him full assurance upon that matter, and I hope that, with those assurances, he will see his way to withdraw the Amendment.
    Mr. Donald Wade: I am glad that the President of the Board of Trade has expressed the view that this is a dangerous Amendment. It may not be so intended by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald), but it raises serious and important issues. One of the reasons for the uneasiness expressed earlier this evening on the question of accountability arises from uncertainty about the nature of the office of Registrar which is being created under the Bill and uncertainty about the functions of the Registrar. It seems to be assumed that all that is required is to set up this machinery, to create a register and a Registrar, and to give him the duty of bringing these proceedings.
    The Bill only sets up machinery; what really matters is the way in which it operates and the persons who are to have the duty of operating the machinery. The Registrar will be a person of very great importance. Either during the debate on Second Reading, I think, or in an earlier debate, the President of the Board of Trade made it clear that he did not wish to take upon his own shoulders the task
    336
    of carrying into effect the primary object of the Bill; he did not wish to be involved himself in bringing cases before the Court. The Registrar was to be appointed to perform that duty.
    It must be made quite clear that someone must have this primary duty of ensuring that the objects of the Bill are carried out. That duty involves more than just being a Registrar. I am not at all sure that the term "Registrar" is not a misnomer. It seems to imply that all he has to do is to keep a register, although, of course, it is provided that he is to bring these cases before the Court. He is more than a Registrar. He has these extremely important functions of presenting a case to the Court.
    The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member seems to be dealing with an Amendment other than the one on the Paper.
    Mr. Wade: I am obliged, Sir Rhys; I am coming now to the point, and I was just using the expression which is used in the Amendment, "the presentation of any proceedings". It is surely most important that the Registrar should have the task of preparing the brief and presenting the case. I need not labour the matter further, because the President of the Board of Trade has already expressed his view. I am quite convinced that he is right in asking the right hon. Gentleman not to press this Amendment.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: I oppose this Amendment because, in my view, it is redundant, almost tautological, and would complicate and delay proceedings. It would delay the initiation, the presentation, the conduct, and the decision of proceedings contemplated by this Clause. By subsection (2) it is provided that it is the duty of the Registrar to take proceedings subject to the directions of the Board of Trade. This Amendment would contradict and reverse the procedure contemplated by subsection (2).
    The expression "take proceedings" which we find in subsection (2) is very wide. It includes every phase of the proceedings and does not mean merely the initiation of them. It includes the collecting and presentation of evidence. Yet this Amendment would seek to do in another way, a contradictory way, that which is already covered by subsection (2). The two things are inconsistent.

    337
    If this Amendment be not passed, what is the alternative? We must rely upon subsection (2). Subsection (2) is explicit; it says that the Registrar shall be charged with the duty of maintaining a register of agreements subject to registration, and shall take proceedings before the Court, subject to such directions as may be given by the Board of Trade.
    9.30 p.m.
    The Amendment seeks to alter that and to provide that
    "The preparation and presentation of any proceedings so taken by the Registrar shall be conducted under the directions of Her Majesty's Attorney General by the Treasury Solicitor."
    Therefore, instead of proceedings being initiated and carried out by one individual, the Registrar, or by his Department, other Departments are to be imported into the matter. Under subsection (2) the Registrar has to conduct the proceedings under the direction of the Board of Trade, but the Amendment would also bring in the Attorney-General and the Treasury Solicitor.
    The Amendment seems to be entirely redundant and unnecessary. As I appealed successfully to the President of the Board of Trade to accept an earlier Amendment, I now appeal to him to look at this Amendment in a commonsense way and reject it.
    Sir L. Heald: My right hon. Friend said that he did not think there was very much between us, but I am afraid that I must disagree with that statement. I believe there is a very great deal between us. There is between us a matter of very great fundamental importance in the way of principle.
    After a great deal of debate, we have agreed that the Registrar should be created as an entirely new kind of official, not answerable to Parliament in any way for the manner in which he carries out his duties. When I raised the matter with my right hon. Friend, I understood him to say and to mean—it was on that basis that I did not discuss the matter further—that he intended to provide that the proceedings would be conducted in such a way that we should ensure that we should not lose anything by our inability to ask Questions in Parliament.
    338
    I must say that I was misled in accepting that view. I should have pursued the matter much further earlier upon Clause 1 if I had thought that the attitude would be adopted, as apparently it is now, that the proceedings are to be regarded as proceedings in which the Registrar has to go as hard as he can, subject to counsel behaving in the usual proper way, to get these things kept on the register.
    The alliance disclosed this evening between my right hon. Friend and the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) causes me considerable concern, and I believe that that concern will be felt in the country when people appreciate what is being done.
    If it will not be possible for the Registrar to be questioned about his actions, supposing that he were to be conducting his proceedings in a way which was not thought to be entirely fair, it is wrong—it would, indeed, be misleading if it were persisted in—for my right hon. Friend to suggest that a sufficient safeguard is the fact that efficient, competent and reliable counsel are employed. As my hon. Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) pointed out, it depends what is counsel's brief, and there is nothing whatever in the Bill to compel the Registrar to put in counsel's brief anything which will be of assistance to the other side.
    Under Clause 16 one of the things that has to be done by the person whose agreement is being investigated is to prove a negative, that his agreement has not operated, and is not calculated to operate, to the detriment of other people. Who will know the facts about that? The man himself cannot possibly know them. If there are facts which are to his benefit, they can only be known to the Registrar if he has made proper inquiries. I am sorry to say that my right hon. Friend appears to contemplate that the Registrar should not bring those facts before the Court, because my right hon. Friend is objecting to a provision that both sides of the case should be brought forward. I regard that with great regret and I believe that it will be so regarded all over the country, if he continues to hold that view.

    339
    I am glad to find one right hon. Gentleman opposite, the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), agreeing with me. I have disagreed with him over many things, but I have agreed with him over some of the things which I think most important, like the liberty of the subject. I believe that he agrees with me in this serious and important matter. I do not believe that even on this side of the Committee its importance is fully appreciated. Obviously, for any one in my position to embark on dividing against the Government will not help anybody. Fortunately, it is not necessary to vote or to divide the Committee in order to express one's opinion. I can do so in a very strong way, and I have done so this evening. I believe that the Bill can be made into a good Bill, but what has been done this evening in refusing this Amendment will make it not a good Bill, but a bad one.
    Mr. Ede: The right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) said that he and I have very often differed. Whether as a Minister of the Crown, or as a leading member of a great local authority, I have always believed that it is the duty of those who appear for the public to see that all the facts are before any tribunal. They are representing not merely those who have briefed them, but the man on the other side and, indeed, the whole public. Until a decision has been reached, they owe as great a duty to the man on the other side as to anybody else.
    It is only on the second part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment that I wish to speak. It is only with the utmost reluctance that I differ from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas), but on a matter of such fundamental justice it is essential that one should preserve a reasonable amount of independence. I understood the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey and my hon. and learned Friend, who are both lawyers, to say that it would be the duty of counsel to see that all these matters were put before the Court, but then the President of the Board of Trade seemed to think that because the onus of proof lay in a particular way in this particular case, that would remove that liability.
    340
    It is always a very risky thing in the House of Commons to reverse the ordinary burden of proof in a Measure. Having reversed it, it becomes all the more important—and I speak as a layman—that those who appear for the public should represent all the public. The Registrar is a public official, no matter with what else he may be charged. He is placed in an astounding position, because no matter how much the House may object to what he does or does not do, he can be removed from his position by Parliament only by an Address passed by both Houses of Parliament. That puts him in a very strong position. All that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Chertsey is asking is that the Registrar, placed' in a highly-privileged position and with the powers that he has, should make quite certain that he serves all the public all the time. That, I should have thought, was the duty of every public official.
    I am not prepared to argue about the first part of the Amendment—that is a matter upon which the lawyers can have, their own field day—but on the latter question, which, I believe, is fundamental to the liberty of the subject, I think that the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey is right. It is the duty of everyone to see—as learned counsel conducting a prosecution for murder is always careful to say in his opening speech—that all the facts shall be brought before the court, so far as he knows them.
    Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I have not disagreed with a single thing which my right hon. Friend has said. I think that we are in complete agreement as to the candour and duty of counsel to put everything fully before the court. The danger of the Amendment is not that at all. It is that it torpedoes the onus of proof provided under Clause 16, which is an entirely different point.
    Mr. Ede: My hon. and learned Friend appears to be agreeing with himself and with me at the same time, because I devoted some time to saying that I regarded the question of shifting the onus of proof as putting an additional liability on those who conduct the case. I hope that the President of the Board of Trade, if he cannot meet us on this tonight, will agree, between now and the Report stage, further seriously to consider this matter.
    The Attorney-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller): I think there is very little difference between what the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) said and what the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) said. I should like to make quite clear that it is my view, too, that without this Amendment being in the Bill, it will be the duty of counsel appearing for the Registrar to put before the Court all the facts in his possession which will tend to assist the Court in the task which it has to perform; and if the Court wants further assistance on any point or any information it will be the duty of counsel, so far as he can, to give that assistance.
    I cannot conceive for a moment any reason to suppose that counsel conducting a case for the Registrar will not do so in conformity with the highest standards of the profession and with a desire to assist in the administration of justice. That will be done, in my belief, in these proceedings without any Amendment of this sort. Everyone wants it to be done. But the last part of the Amendment goes a good deal further than that.
    I think that the right hon. Gentleman failed to appreciate from the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech the objection which he had to that extension as provided by the last part of the Amendment. The last part of the Amendment does not alone deal with the duty of counsel or with the duty of the Treasury Solicitor. The Treasury Solicitor, of course, provides the information for the conduct by counsel of the case in an aircraft accident inquiry, and no doubt the Treasury Solicitor will do all that he can to find out all the relevant facts for use by the Court. The Amendment puts a statutory duty on the Treasury Solicitor to find out all the relevant facts in relation to a restrictive agreement and in many cases that would be almost an impossible burden to discharge.
    I would say, in conclusion, that I do not myself think that there is any justification whatsoever for any fear that these cases will not be conducted properly and in accordance with the traditions of the
    342
    Bar on behalf of the Registrar. I feel certain that any relevant facts which are known to the Treasury Solicitor or the Registrar will be put by counsel before the Court.
    9.45 p.m.
    Mr. Austen Albu: It seems to me that the difficulty which the Government find themselves in and the criticism which they are receiving arise from the fact that the Court is only a partially judicial body and that the matters which it has to consider are matters which some right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the Committee obviously do not consider to be capable of proof in a court of law, in the way in which matters normally are decided in such a court.
    I am fairly innocent of court procedure—thank goodness—but I have always understood that it was the business of counsel—while certainly assisting the Court to the best of their ability—to do their best for their own clients I should have thought that if counsel on either side were in any way to pull his punches in arguing his case the court, rather than being assisted, would find it more difficult to come to a decision. When the hon. Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) asked how the public was to know whether cases would be fairly conducted, he cast a reflection on the Bench which I have never heard cast in the House before.
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: I never said any such thing. The hon. Member must be referring to somebody else.
    Mr. Albu: I suggest that the hon. Member refers to HANSARD tomorrow. He said that he had some doubt whether, under the present procedure, cases would be fairly conducted or fairly heard.
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: The question I asked was whether it would be the duty of the Registrar so to draw instructions to counsel appearing before him as to ensure that all the relevant facts are put before him.
    Mr. Albu: I am sorry, but the hon. Member quite clearly used the word "fairly". I have always understood that it was the business of the judge hearing a case to ensure that the facts were put

    343
    to him and the court. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Then how does any court ever know whether all the facts are being put before it?
    In recent debates we have had many discussions about the degree to which the truth can be discovered in a court, and surely this is exactly the same case. The Government are asking the Committee to agree that a judicial court, with a judge as chairman, should decide upon the facts—and I have always understood that the best way of arriving at all the facts was for counsel on both sides to put their cases as strongly as they could. I cannot see how a court can arrive at any decision in any other way. If counsel on one side is putting one and a half cases against counsel on the other side it seems to me that it is very difficult for a court to come to a decision.
    I cannot understand the arguments which have been put forward. They seem to derive from a complete misconception of the objects of the Clause. The Court is not being asked to decide upon practices which are considered to be wrong from the point of economic policy. The Court is being asked to consider whether there should be exceptions in certain cases. It seems to me, as the President has said, that this is an occasion upon which those who wish to continue these practices should themselves be made to make out a very strong case to the Court. As the President also said, they should be made to take the initiative. I cannot understand the arguments of my hon. and learned Friend, which seem to derive from a misunderstanding of the real intentions of the Bill.
    Mr. Remnant: I should not like it to be thought that because some hon. Members on this side of the Committee have not spoken in support of my right hon. and learned Friend there are not a considerable number who support him. The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) rather wondered what all this was about. I can give him the analogy of the hallmark on silverware. I am speaking entirely from the point of view of somebody concerned in industry whose agreements may come before the Court.
    In the same way as a piece of silverware is of greater value if it bears a hallmark so, from my position in industry, I
    344
    feel that if the Attorney-General would accept this rôle, the decisions of the Court would be much more respected by the industries concerned. I am not thinking of the technicalities, or whether the whole thing is right or wrong. I beg my right hon. Friend to have a very close look at this point before the Report stage. I support the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), who asked whether some improvement cannot be made in this respect.
    Sir J. Barlow: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Remnant). In the Second Reading debate my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade made a statement that all relevant facts would be placed before the Court. The Amendment, as I understand it, merely puts that promise into words. I am not convinced at all by the arguments of my hon. and learned Friend. This is a very important point, and I very much hope that the President of the Board of Trade will look into it again.
    Mr. E. Fletcher: Government supporters feel so strongly on this matter that I hope they will divide the Committee. It seems a little odd that they should express themselves with such vehemence, but apparently are not prepared to test the Committee on the subject. I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will not give way.
    There is only one answer to the points which are put forward. The right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) and my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) appeared to think not only that there might be some lack of candour on the part of counsel conducting a case but some difficulty in getting at the facts on the part of the Treasury Solicitor instructing counsel. The right hon. and learned Gentleman appeared to think that there were certain cases in which the facts would be particularly within the province of the Registrar. I imagine the answer to be that the opposite party to any proceedings will have the fullest opportunity of obtaining from the Registrar any facts relevant to put before the Court, under Clause 16.

    345
    Surely it should be the duty of the opposite parties concerned, rather than of counsel for the Registrar, to elicit in the preliminary stages, by the process of discovery laid down in the rules of the Court, all particulars and relevant facts. Presumably no difficulty will be put in the way of the other side in obtaining those facts. Therefore any failure to obtain full discovery would presumably be the fault of the other parties to the proceedings and not that of the Registrar.
    Amendment negatived.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I beg to move, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
    We have had a considerable debate, and have already disposed of Clause 1 and are about to move on to Clause 2. We shall be starting substantial debates on Clause 2, and perhaps, in these circumstances, it would be a convenient course for the Committee if we were not to proceed further this evening.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: If I may say so, I think that that would be a sensible course. We have made progress, we have disposed of Clause 1, and I am quite agreeable to the course which the hon. and learned Gentleman has proposed.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

  AGRICULTURAL MORTGAGE CORPORATION BILL
  Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time and passed.

  SLUM CLEARANCE (COMPENSATION) [MONEY]
  Resolution reported,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make additional provision for payments in respect of certain unfit houses subject to compulsory purchase, clearance, demolition or closing orders, it is expedient to
  346
  authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase in the sums payable under any other enactment out of moneys so provided which is attributable to any provision of the said Act of the present Session providing—

  A. That where a house which has been wholly or partly occupied as a private dwelling by (or by a member of the family of) a person who acquired an interest in that house by purchase for value during the period commencing with the first day of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, and ending immediately before the thirteenth day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty-five, has, at any time during the ten years commencing with the said thirteenth day of December, been purchased at site value in pursuance of a compulsory purchase order or vacated in pursuance of a clearance order, demolition order or closing order, and at the date when the house was purchased compulsorily or, as the case may be, vacated the person aforesaid or a member of his family was still entitled to an interest in the house, the appropriate authority shall make in respect of that interest a payment of the specified amount;

  B. That where, on or after the said thirteenth day of December, a house has been purchased at site value in pursuance of a compulsory purchase order or vacated in pursuance of a clearance order or demolition order, and that house was occupied at the date of the making of the order wholly or partly for the purposes of a business, the appropriate authority shall make in respect of any interest in that house, which, at the date when the house was purchased compulsorily or, as the case may be, vacated, was held by the person entitled to the receipts of the business a payment of the specified amount;

  C. For the variation, for the purposes of any payment made on or after the said thirteenth day of December under section forty-two of the Housing Act, 1936, of the multipliers specified with respect to rateable value in paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of that section;

  D. That where a house has, on or after the said thirteenth day of December, been vacated in pursuance of a demolition order or closing order or purchased compulsorily under section three of the Housing Repairs and Rents Act, 1954. and, leaving out of account any defects in respect of any such matters as are mentioned in paragraphs (b) to (c) of subsection (1) of section nine of the said Act of 1954 the house has been well maintained, the appropriate authority shall make to any person by whom or at whose expense the work to which the good maintenance of the house is attributable was carried out the like payment as would have fallen to be so made under the said section forty-two if the house had been a house to which that section applies and directions had been given by the Minister of Housing and Local Government for the making of a payment thereunder.

  In this Resolution—

  "appropriate authority" means the authority by whom the compulsory purchase, clearance, demolition, or closing order in question was made;

  "clearance order" means an order under section twenty-six of the Housing Act, 1936;

  "closing order" means an order under section ten of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1953;

  "demolition order" means an order under section eleven of the Housing Act, 1936;

  "house" includes any building constructed or adapted wholly or partly as, or for the purposes of a dwelling:

  "site value" to relation to the compulsory purchase of a house, means compensation in respect thereof assessed in accordance with the provisions of subsection (4) of section sixteen, or subsection (2) or (3) of section forty, of the Housing Act, 1936;

  "specified amount", in relation to a payment in respect of an interest in a house, means an amount equal to the difference between:—

  (a) the compensation payable in respect of the compulsory purchase of that interest if that compensation fell to be assessed in accordance with subsections (1) and (4) of section forty of the Housing Act, 1936, and, in the case of a house subject to a clearance, demolition or closing order, if the making of that order were the service of the notice to treat; and

  (b) the compensation which was or would have been payable in respect of the interest in connection with the compulsory purchase of the house at site value,

  being in each case the compensation payable apart from any payment under section thirty-one or thirty-five of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1954.

  HOSPITAL NURSES (SHORTAGE)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. R. Thompson.]
  9.58 p.m.
  Dr. A. D. D. Broughton: I am very glad to have this opportunity of raising in the House the important subject of the shortage of nurses in hospitals. The House will remember that I have asked a number of Questions on this subject recently, and I am very sorry that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health
  348
  seemed to resent my asking them. She concluded her Answer to my last Question on the 12th March by saying that she deplored my cries of "Woe, woe." I hope that I shall be able to convince her and the House this evening that there is a real problem to be faced.
  It is all very well for the Minister to attempt to brush aside this problem by saying that there are now more nurses than there were at the time of the inception of the Service. That is certainly so, but more were needed. There are still not enough, and their distribution is very uneven. I should like to take the case of my own constituency by way of illustration. A constituent of mine who is a doctor gave me the letter which I hold in my hand. It is from the Dewsbury, Batley and Mir-field Hospital Management Committee, it is dated 16th February, 1956, and is addressed to all general practitioners.
  It is a long letter, and I hope I may be excused if I do not read all of it, but I should like to read some parts of it. It starts by saying:
  "This letter is addressed to you in the nature of an earnest appeal for your co-operation in prevention of what might well mean the complete breakdown of the general nursing service at Staincliffe General Hospital."
  Later, it states:
  "You are, I am confident, fully aware of the precarious position in which most general hospitals in the country find themselves in relation to trained nursing staff, but you may not be fully conversant with the local position.
  The position is such that extraordinary measures must be taken immediately to reduce the demands on the beds in Staincliffe General Hospital."
  The letter further states:
  "A conference attended by consultants was held a few days ago, and the conclusions reached have been considered by the Executive Committee, who have decided that a number of beds at Staincliffe General Hospital including medical, surgical and gynaecological, must, as from today, be closed. Whilst this step is being taken at this stage at Staincliffe General Hospital only, both the General Hospital, Dewsbury"—
  It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Godber.]
  Dr. Broughton: The letter continues:
  "Whilst this step is being taken at this stage at Staincliffe General Hospital only, both the General Hospital, Dewsbury, and the General Hospital, Batley, are facing a similar situation, and no increased use of beds at either of these two hospitals is possible."
  The letter concluded by saying:
  "I am to ask your forbearance on those occasions which will inevitably arise when you will request the admission of a patient to hospital and be refused. The medical staff at hospitals have been instructed by the hospital management committee to refuse to admit cases when the available staffed beds are filled."
  The sending of that letter was a drastic step which the hospital management committee was forced to take. The doctor who gave me the letter stated that he had been refused admission for a patient suffering from pneumonia, although the patient's home was a slum dwelling and no fit place in which to treat a seriously ill person.
  On 5th March, in answer to a Question of mine, the Parliamentary Secretary informed me that twelve beds in Batley General Hospital and seventy in Staincliffe General Hospital were closed on account of shortage of nursing staff. Many of my constituents, particularly in Morley, use the Leeds General Infirmary, and we might well ask what is the position at that great teaching hospital.
  The Yorkshire Post, in its issue of 5th October, 1955, reported that beds were closed at the Leeds General Infirmary because of shortage of nursing staff. In an excellent article dealing with this problem, in that issue of the paper, a Leeds doctor was quoted as having said:
  "The Nurses' Training School at the General Infirmary at Leeds has always been recognised as one of the leading schools of nursing in the country, offering as it does an experience and reputation second to none. It was, therefore, a shock to me to learn that even the General Infirmary is short of nurses at a time when the nursing side is in the hands of probably the most popular and capable Matron the Infirmary has ever had …"
  In one of the Batley local newspapers, The News, which is a widely read weekly paper in my constituency, was a leading article on 17th March headed "Shortage of Nurses", in which the Editor said:
  "The situation is critical. One cannot be complacent about it."
  The fact is that there is a shortage of hospital beds for my constituents due to
  350
  a shortage of nurses. I should be neglecting my duty to the people who sent me to Parliament if I did not cry "woe" in this House on their behalf.
  Lest it be thought that this problem is confined to my constituency alone, I should like to remind both the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary of a Question that was put to the right hon. Gentleman on 27th February by my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. A. Roberts). My hon. Friend asked the Minister
  "how many nurses are needed to meet the normal requirements in the Leeds Regional Hospital Board area; and which are the districts where the greatest shortage exists."
  The right hon. Gentleman replied:
  "The Regional Hospital Board estimates the shortage at about 2,400. The greatest shortages are in the groups managed by the Wakefield (A), Storthes Hall, Huddersfield, and Middleton and Grassington Hospital Management Committees."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th February, 1956; Vol. 549, c. 822.]
  That figure of 2,400 shows that there is a serious shortage of nurses in Yorkshire. In examining that reply by the Minister, I notice that my own district is not included among the worst affected. Therefore, bad as I have shown the situation to be for my constituents, it is even worse in other parts of Yorkshire. I am quite justified, therefore, in crying "woe" on behalf of Yorkshire.
  But the problem is not confined to my own county alone: it is a national problem. On 12th March, I asked the Minister of Health
  "how many beds were closed in hospitals under the control of each of the regional hospital boards … by reason of a shortage of nursing staff. … —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th March, 1956; Vol. 550, c. 3.]
  The right hon. Gentleman gave me some figures in a Written Answer. I found that the Leeds Region had 687 beds closed, that the South-East Metropolitan Region had 4,529 beds closed, and when I added up the figures I found that the total for England and Wales was 16,665 beds closed through lack of nursing staff. Those figures relate to the position as it was on 30th September, 1955. I have reason to believe that since then the position has grown worse. I estimate that since then about 100 beds have been closed in hospitals serving my constituency.

  351
  The national figure is now probably at least 20,000 beds closed owing to the shortage of nursing staff. Therefore, I think that I am entitled to cry "woe" on behalf of the whole country. All these thousands of closed beds make nonsense of plans for extending existing hospitals and for building new ones. We cannot staff the beds which we already have. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to deny that there is a problem, and a very serious one at that. Let me say at once that I do not blame the Minister or any of his predecessors for the present position. It is a state of affairs that has come about through no one's fault, but it is one that demands immediate attention.
  Let us now consider how the problem is to be examined and what are the principal questions that should be asked. I would say that there are three principal questions. The first is, why are not more women entering the nursing profession? The second is, why are so many women leaving the profession before completing their training? The third is, why are so many leaving hospital after completing their training? When the Minister comes to consider the answer to the first of those questions, I suggest that he should pay particular attention to rates of pay, conditions of work and to the living conditions of nurses.
  I was pleased to see in the newspapers today an announcement that there is to be an improvement in nurses' pay, and I hope that when the Parliamentary Secretary replies she will give us some further details of that policy. It should be borne in mind that in recruiting nurses there are the competing claims of other professions, of business and of industry. Even in hospitals themselves, other departments draw girls away from nursing and provide interesting work with regular hours and good pay for intelligent and capable young women. Every one of those other posts is important, but the nursing profession is the backbone of the hospital service.
  When considering the answer to the question why so many student nurses are leaving before completing their training, I would remind the Parliamentary Secretary of an Answer which she gave me on 12th March. She then informed me
  352
  that 19,323 student nurses commenced training for admission to the register of nurses in 1955 and that 9,368 discontinued training during that year. In round figures we may say that last year there were 20,000 new entrants and that 10,000 left before the completion of training.
  Similar figures are to be found for a number of years, and there is the same sort of picture in the case of pupil nurses, although in their case both the figures are smaller than those for student nurses. The causes of wastage during training are probably manifold. For example, there is marriage, which may account for as much as 15 per cent., but there are other causes which could be ascertained by a searching inquiry. I think that the Minister should inquire into whether the curriculum of State registered nurses should be reviewed. Why is it necessary to make nurses 50 per cent. doctors? Why are the recommendations of the working party that reported in 1947 not implemented? That working party suggested a two years' basic training which could be followed by further training for those with the ability.
  When we seek an answer to the third question, why so many State registered nurses are leaving hospital, the Minister would find that the local authorities take quite a large number. That, presumably, is unavoidable. I would, however, point out that many are taking posts as nurses with industrial firms. I do not blame the industrialists in the least when they take State registered nurses. The industrialists create the posts as part of industry's welfare services and ask for the best women to fill the posts. Nor do I blame the nurses for taking the posts. The work is easy, the hours are regular, the pay is good. Some of them have little more to do than to hand out aspirin tablets to girls with headaches and to bandage cut fingers. But from a national point of view many first-class nurses are being wasted on that type of work which, in many cases, could be done just as well by capable women trained by the St. John Ambulance Association in first-aid and home nursing.
  I think that I have said enough to convince the Parliamentary Secretary that there is a problem, and a serious one. In the limited amount of time at my disposal

  353
  I have tried to show how very difficult and extremely complicated the problem is. It is sensible to leave matters in the hands of the Whitley Council and the General Nursing Council when all is going well, but when more than 16,000 beds are closed through lack of nursing staff I would say that it is time for the Minister himself to examine thoroughly this whole problem.
  10.13 p.m.
  Mr. William Paling: I wish to support what my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Morley (Dr. Broughton) has said—particularly as he has referred to two hospitals in my own constituency—and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to tell us what is being done to try to solve the problem of the shortage of nurses for hospitals.
  There are two points in particular to which I want to refer, and one of them relates to working conditions. We have a very good example in the two hospitals in Dewsbury—the Staincliffe General Hospital and the Dewsbury General Infirmary. In the General Infirmary working conditions are really first-class and the shortage of nurses there bears no comparison with that at the Staincliffe General Hospital, where working conditions are such as to warrant the attention of the Minister.
  There must be many similar hospitals where, if working conditions were improved, we could attract more young women into the nursing profession. I suggest that a consideration of the difference between those two hospitals shows how necessary it is that some capital expenditure should be diverted in order to improve hospital accommodation, facilities and working conditions.
  In the Staincliffe General Hospital, where the working conditions are not as good as those in the Dewsbury General Infirmary, 70 beds have been closed, 160 people are on the waiting list for admission, and unless conditions are improved we may find more beds being closed because of a shortage of nurses. If the Minister would consider allowing more capital expenditure to such hospitals the working conditions in them could be very greatly improved, and that
  354
  would go a long way towards helping to bring young women into nursing.
  Secondly, I think there is need for the development of the nursing cadet system. We have a system whereby girls of 18 enrol for nursing. There is a big wastage of those, many of whom leave the profession within three or four months of entering it. I wonder whether it would not be better if the cadet system which is tried in various parts of the country were to be made a national scheme, in order to attract girls when they leave school at 15, and to give them preliminary training, so that the wastage, if it occurs, may take place well before they reach 18.
  If we had a cadet system by which we attracted young people at 15 we should be sure of getting far more nurses, because many girls who would like to go into hospital service when they are 15 now take other jobs and, by the time they reach 18, they do not feel like leaving them to go into the hospitals. If we got them when they were younger we should, I am sure, be able to keep them at and after the age of 18 for nursing.
  I want to leave ample time to the Parliamentary Secretary to reply to the debate, so I conclude by saying that I think the Minister agrees that the system must be looked into, and I hope that he and the Parliamentary Secretary will give full attention to these matters and all that my hon. Friend has said.
  10.17 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Patricia Hornsby-Smith): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Batley and Morley (Dr. Broughton) for raising this matter. I apologise most sincerely for not having been here when he began. I am afraid I misjudged by about three minutes the time at which this debate would begin, and my room is farther away from this Chamber than the room of any other Minister.
  While I agree wholeheartedly that there is no reason for complacency in this matter, I am very concerned that in a year when we are doing our utmost to stimulate recruiting campaigns for nurses, and particularly to recruit nurses for mental hospitals by means of the mental health exhibition, we should not paint—

  355
  I will not say too darkly—but in the wrong colours the picture of what has been achieved in recruitment to the nursing profession in the last few years. It is fair to say, as I hope I shall be able to prove to both the hon. Member for Batley and Morley and to the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. William Paling) that the nursing staff situation is certainly not as grave as it has from time to time been represented to be. There has been very substantial and steady progress since the National Health Service came into being.
  The total nursing staff in hospitals in December, 1948, numbered 117,000 full-time; at the end of December, 1955, it was 143,000. There were 20,000 part-time nurses in December, 1948; there are now 32,000. That is an increase of 22 per cent. in our full-time nursing staff and of 60 per cent. in the part-time nursing staff. Of trained nurses there were 44,000 full-time in 1948. We have now 55,000. In 1948, there were 6,000 part-time trained nurses. We have now 12,000. That is an increase of 25 per cent. in the number of full-time nurses and of 100 per cent. in the number of the part-time nurses. It is fair to put these facts on record to show the very real and steady improvement which has been made. We had 42,000 enrolled student nurses in December, 1948, and in December, 1955, we had 48,000, an increase of 14 per cent. Of pupil assistant nurses there were 2,600 in 1948 and 4,000 in 1955, an increase of 54 per cent.
  I have no quarrel with the remarks of the hon. Member for Batley and Morley. I think that our aim is the same. We want more nurses in our hospitals. We disagreed a little in our methods. The hon. Member disagreed with me in my complaint about some hon. Members crying, "Woe, woe." Perhaps my method in the recruiting drive differs from his, because I feel that success breeds success.
  In a year when we are doing our best to stimulate recruitment, it is right that we should show how well we have done so far, whilst recognising, with no complacency, that we must do still better. If we are trying to sell to the public, as it were, a profession into which we are anxious to enrol more recruits, it is right and fair that we should say, as all the
  356
  facts prove, that far from losing its attraction the profession has increased its attraction and has drawn to itself more recruits in the last six years and, we hope, will recruit even more in the coming years.
  Mr. William Paling: I hope that the hon. Lady has the wastage figures.
  Miss Hornsby-Smith: I will deal with that point in the course of my speech.
  During this period there has been an increased demand for womanpower. There has been an increased demand for the type of girl of this educational grade. Teaching, physiotherapy, radiotherapy and occupational therapy all claim the very girls of 18 and 19 years of age whom we require for nursing. In the light of these obstacles, it must surely be accepted that it is a remarkable achievement to be able to claim 26,000 more full-time and 12,000 more part-time nurses than we had when the Service started.
  In placing these facts—and they are facts—before the House, I do not mean to imply in any way that we are complacent about nurse recruiting or that we are not doing everything in our power to stimulate it still further. On the general nursing side, with a few local bad patches—of which the hon. Members' constituencies are two—where general hospital recruiting has not kept up to the national average, the number of students still coming forward is fully adequate for a continuing and steady increase in, the number of nurses. But there is still a grave shortage to be made up on the mental side.
  There are, of course, wide variations in different parts of the country. As the House will be aware, everything possible is being done to remedy the situation in mental and mental deficiency hospitals. In conjunction with the Ministry of Labour and National Service, the Mental Health Exhibition is touring the country. I have already opened several exhibitions myself, and I should like to thank the many hon. Members who have actively associated themselves and helped us in their local campaigns.
  The hon. Member for Batley and Morley made a great point of the number of beds closed through lack of staff. He rightly said that there were 16,665 beds

  357
  closed for this reason, but this does not show a deterioration or worsening of the position, because in December, 1952, there were 23,000 beds closed for lack of staff. It is fair to say, therefore, that there has been real progress in the last four years in bringing into use over 6,000 beds which were closed in 1952 and in reducing the number of beds closed from 23,000 to 16,665. We are not complacent. We want to have the remaining 16,665 opened, but that number is not evidence of a worsening of the position. Rather it is evidence that we have made considerable progress.
  The Dewsbury, Batley and Mirfield Hospital Management Committee has a deficiency of 79 on a total nursing establishment of 437. The shortages in individual hospitals are relatively small, except at the Staincliffe General Hospital, where there is a shortage of 40 on an establishment of 152. Eighty-two beds were closed, of which 70 were in Staincliffe—but this was due to heavy sickness among the nursing staff. The total nursing staff of the group rose from 324 full-time and 72 part-time at the end of 1953 to 356 full-time and 78 part-time at the end of 1954. However, it fell during last year to 318 full-time and 80 part-time. I accept that this indicates a temporary and local recession which calls for an intensification of local effort, and which I can assure hon. Members that the hospital management committee and the regional board are doing their utmost to remedy.
  The Leeds Regional Hospital Board nursing establishment is estimated at 12,450 and their shortage is about 2,400, with the result that there are 687 beds closed at the present time. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Board is not complacent about this, and any help that my right hon. Friend or our officers at the Ministry can give will be forthcoming.
  Now may I deal with the alleged inadequate entry into the nursing service. There was a considerable drop in entry in 1953 and 1954, but not abnormally so, when one compares the lower figures for the female population in the 18–19 age group. In 1955, the figure rose to 18,920, over 1,100 more than were enrolled in 1954. The rate of entry in general nursing is over the whole country satisfactory, but is still inadequate on the mental side.
  358
  The questions of pay and conditions of service are, of course, a matter for the Whitley Council. The hon. Gentleman will have seen in today's reports that the Nurses and Midwives Whitley Council yesterday reached complete agreement on new scales. The increases range from £20 for student nurses to £95 for matrons of the largest hospitals. Staff nurses receive an increase of £30 at the Minimum, and £35 at the maximum; and ward sisters £35 and £40 respectively. A new scheme of training allowance has been introduced for student mental nurses who, in future, will be graded according to age at entry. Those who are 21 or over will start at £390, an increase of £105 over the present rate of pay, which I am sure will be a great stimulus to recruiting.
  At the same time, the new salary scale for women, which is in a transitional stage owing to the implementation of equal pay, will be £417, rising to £522, and in future they will reach their maximum salary in six years instead of in eight, as at present. This affects 200,000 hospital nursing staff.
  I think it is fair to emphasise that nursing is a professional career, and is one of the few professions where payment is made during training. Further, in no hospital does the reduction made from pay for board and lodging meet the actual cost of the food and accommodation provided. So there is, in fact, a hidden increment, as it were, which should be taken into account in assessing nurses' pay. It is true that the hours are longer than those worked by other grades of hospital staff, but it is difficult to see how the service could be maintained if these were to be shortened.
  Wastage has been mentioned. I apologise for galloping, but I have a great deal to say in a little time. Wastage is heavy, particularly among student nurses. Where the educational standards are not sufficiently high to enable the nurse to qualify as a registered nurse, efforts are made to encourage students who may have a genuine vocation for the profession and be good practical nurses, to enroll as assistant nurses. One of the largest items of wastage, however, is matrimony, and the proportion of the wastage from this cause accounted for 1,371 nurses leaving the hospital service last year to marry.

  359
  From this, the hon. Gentleman will see that the path of love runs roughshod through the ranks of our nurses.
  There are also, of course, many who are attracted by nursing, but who may go into other fields of nursing. I do not think that it is a bad thing that many of them go into local authority service. Some go to the Colonies, some into the Services. That in itself is an additional attraction, because of the scope in these other fields which the profession offers. And where we lose by matrimony, we often get them back after marriage as part-time nurses in the local authority service.
  I cannot accept the hon. Member's strictures of the hon. Member for Batley and Morley on the assistant nurse. Whilst it is true that the Working Party on the
  360
  Recruitment and Training of Nurses, in 1947, recommended the abolition of the assistant nurse grade, this recommendation was not accepted by the Ministry as it was felt that the hospital service would never be able to dispense with the services of a grade with a training shorter and more severely practical than that undergone by the fully professional registered nurse. This view was endorsed in 1953 by the Standing Nursing Advisory Committee.
  The Question having been proposed at Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.

ROADS
  Langham-Cockthorpe Road (Alternative)
  Langham-Cockthorpe Road (Alternative)
  Bridge, Edmonton (Replacement)
  Bridge, Edmonton (Replacement)
  Newport (Traffic Conditions)
  Newport (Traffic Conditions)
  Scheme, Shirley
  Scheme, Shirley
TRANSPORT
  Motor Vehicles (Excessive Noise)
  Motor Vehicles (Excessive Noise)
  London Airport (Soviet Jet Aircraft)
  London Airport (Soviet Jet Aircraft)
  Unlit Motor Vehicles (Parking)
  Unlit Motor Vehicles (Parking)
  Pedestrians (Casualties)
  Pedestrians (Casualties)
  Driving Tests (Clutchless Cars)
  Driving Tests (Clutchless Cars)
KENYA
  Swahili Broadcast
  Swahili Broadcast
  African Elections
  African Elections
  TANGANYIKA (SOCIETIES ORDINANCE)
  TANGANYIKA (SOCIETIES ORDINANCE)
NORTHERN RHODESIA
  Flue-Cured Tobacco
  Flue-Cured Tobacco
  Farming Improvement Fund
  Farming Improvement Fund
  GOLD COAST (CONSTITUTION)
  GOLD COAST (CONSTITUTION)
  COLONIAL TERRITORIES (WIRELESS SETS)
  COLONIAL TERRITORIES (WIRELESS SETS)
SHIPBUILDING
  Diesel-Electric Trawlers
  Diesel-Electric Trawlers
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Norfolk
  Norfolk
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Aircraft Silencers
  Aircraft Silencers
  Trooping
  Trooping
  Married Quarters
  Married Quarters
  Soviet Air Forces (Strength)
  Soviet Air Forces (Strength)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Double Taxation Agreements, Colonial Territories
  Double Taxation Agreements, Colonial Territories
EMPLOYMENT
  Atomic Energy Plant, Dounreay
  Atomic Energy Plant, Dounreay
SCOTLAND
  Land Court Report, 1954 (Publication)
  Land Court Report, 1954 (Publication)
BRITISH ARMY
  N.A.A.F.I. (Control)
  N.A.A.F.I. (Control)
  Service Casualties, Cyprus
  Service Casualties, Cyprus
ELECTRICITY
  Underground Gasification (Generation Costs)
  Underground Gasification (Generation Costs)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Wheat (Deficiency Payment)
  Wheat (Deficiency Payment)
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Doctors and Dentists (Pensions)
  Doctors and Dentists (Pensions)
PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Doctors (Unemployment Benefit)
  Doctors (Unemployment Benefit)

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
The Lord Banbury of Southam—Took the Oath.

DOVER CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
HUDDERSFIELD CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

THE AGRICULTURAL PRICE REVIEW
2.35 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH rose to call attention to the condition and prospects of the agricultural industry, with special reference to the Annual Review and Determination of Guarantees, 1956 (Cmd. 9721); and to move for Papers. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion which stands in my name on the Order Paper. I should hope not to have to go over every part of the case which I covered a few weeks ago in the House on this question of fixing agricultural prices and its relation to the general economy of the country, but if your Lordships find that in one or two instances, in making my case on this Paper, some arguments appear to be repetitive, I hope you will forgive me.
On this occasion, the Annual Review and Determination of Guarantees makes one thing tolerably certain from the manner in which it has been received. I do not think there can be any doubt that it has been met by the majority of those in the farming industry with disappointment, gloom and, in many cases, anger. I would not say that that applies to some of the larger and more prosperous farmers who regale us with their views on
960
the industry from time to time in the various farming journals, but certainly, taking the industry as a whole, having regard to the things that are said by the representatives of the three farmers' unions and bearing in mind the views expressed more particularly by the small farmers, who number about two-thirds of the whole of those who are engaged in farming in the country, what I say is true. It is most significant that, for the first time since the inception of these Annual Reviews the Government are prescribing decisions from which, after long discussions, conducted, as I think from reports, in an atmosphere of good will, the leaders of the industry have withheld agreement. They do not agree with the Government's policy. This is the first time that some form of agreement has not been achieved in dealing with this Annual Review and Determination of Guarantees.
The National Farmers' Union say (I am using a much shortened version, but it is as close as possible to what they actually said) that they sought a settlement which, taking account of the national economic situation, would yet give much-needed confidence to the industry as a whole and to what is always important in an industry like farming, the individual producers. The raising of the guarantees, they say, does not necessarily mean a rise in the cost of the subsidies or a rise of farm income. They back up that view by pointing out that, in spite of last year's award of £28 million, the subsidies are already £27 million less than they were a year ago. For, of course, these guarantees when they are made are often not drawn upon to the extent that it is estimated they would cost the Government and the taxpayer when the adjustment is made in the Annual Review.
They say that, although net income may show some increase from improved productivity, there is an outstanding balance of about £24 million of increased costs which they have never been able to meet up to now but which will have to be met out of next year's income, and therefore that £24 million has to be set against the present award which, by any stretch of manipulation of figures, I cannot make to be more than £25¼ million or £25½ million. Therefore, so far as the farmers are concerned, this Review gives them practically nothing at all.

961
Perhaps we shall know presently whether the Government meant that, in fact, to be their objective in going into this Review.
Moreover, that £24 million of outstanding costs makes no allowance whatsoever, at this time of general increase of costs right through the country, for any further costs which will have to be met in the year upon which we in the farming industry are now shortly about to enter. For increased costs which will come during that year there is nothing at all. I know that there is bound to be a lag in dealing with costs of this kind and I do not think the farmers would complain so much about the lag, in principle, so long as it was met. But, in fact, whilst everybody is lecturing the farmer about what he ought or ought not to do, and about how poor and inefficient he is, there is no industry in the country which has suffered so much lack of protection in the normal fiscal sense but which has produced the kind of increase in production or percentage of increased efficiency that has been achieved by the farmers in the country. Starting with their great efforts, for which we should never cease to thank them, in the great crisis of the war, or in the general task assigned to them in the state of bankruptcy in which the country had to meet the post-war situation, they have made a real contribution to the recovery of the general economic situation. I doubt whether they have ever yet been accorded full appreciation for what has been their achievement.
I do not for a moment suggest that that does not mean that there are not ways and means and opportunities for still further increasing the efficiency; but, as I shall try to show later on, a great deal more could be done in that direction if the Government would make up their minds what they want and would fix in the farmer's mind what is the contribution that he is to make to the future task of economic and industrial recovery in general in the country. The farmers say that to equip the industry, to obtain an even greater contribution towards the closing of the trade gap, it must be stressed that this year the total award should have been higher; and it will be for the Parliamentary Secretary, I hope, to justify presently to your Lordships the reason why it should not have been put higher. I think that that will be an
962
essential part of his task in dealing with the debate this afternoon. They also say that this is especially so in view of the steady decline in farm incomes for the past three years.
In the recent debate I endeavoured to show what a strange contrast there was in profits between the returns of industrial companies in the last three or four years, and especially in the year 1955, compared with 1954—and I may say that that is by no means at an end. I do not know whether any paper is more widely read in the community and in your Lordships' House than the Financial Times, and I am quite sure that most of your Lordships are familiar with that important and clearly edited paper. If any of your Lordships happened to read the Financial Times of last Saturday he would have seen that in 1956, for the first quarter of the year, in which 561 industrial companies reported their results, those 561 companies had increased their profits, compared with a year ago, by more than £50 million; and the payments they made to their shareholders were 15 per cent. up on the previous year's share-out. Is there any comparison between that kind of prosperity and the situation in the farming industry, taking it as a whole? Of course there is not.
I cannot for the life of me understand how Ministers have the effrontery to face, the country, and especially the farming industry, with their proposals on this matter, after giving lip service to their pledge to carry out the Agriculture Act, 1947. In the last three years they have been endeavouring most of the time to justify themselves by saying that, after all, there is a case for dealing with the agricultural industry by subsidy, because it is the only industry of its size in the country which is practically without fiscal protection. There is all this prosperity in the country among industries which are working, in the majority of instances, behind large and substantial tariffs, from 15 to 33½ per cent.; and the present Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and his predecessors have endeavoured again and again to justify to the community that the agricultural industry was quite entitled to look for aid by subsidy in place of the fiscal protection which was so widely and freely available to the rest of industry and which has become so profitable.
The farmers further state that the unions are gravely concerned about the way in which the award is allocated amongst the various commodities. They say it is unsound and that it fails to make adequate allowance for the rapidly rising costs, particularly of producers of milk, pigs and eggs. It is not to be wondered at that they point out that these three commodities are the basic products of an enormous number of small farmers in the country, so that the worst impact of this prescribed Government award, without agreement, will be felt most by those least able to withstand it. The unions strongly condemn the abolition of the guaranteed individual price system for fatstock, and point to the corresponding risks in this sphere through the Government's new system of fixing guarantees. I want to ask some questions of the Parliamentary Secretary on that particular point. Finally, the Farmers' Union say:
"when the country's economic position calls for vision and boldness the Government have missed the opportunity of laying a firm foundation for an economic increase in net output which would secure for the country the more certain relief to the balance of payments which they desire to seek."
It seems to me that the Farmers' Union have well stated, in a restrained and reasonable manner, a very strong case against the manner in which this award has been arrived at and decided upon.
Whatever some of your Lordships may think—and we are all entitled to our own opinions—there is no doubt at all in my mind that, as a direct consequence of the review, there is a still greater feeling of that lack of confidence in the industry to which I referred some months ago. I notice that the Fatstock Marketing Corporation area director in the North said the other day that the meat market is in a depressed state and is alarming the producer. I am quite sure that an area director of marketing in what has become a very large and important corporation in the country would not use language like that unless there were something in it; it would not suit his own business to do so. I noticed in a journal a fortnight ago, among comments from individual farmers on this award, that two Kent farmers expressed fear that the ending of the individual guarantees would knock the bottom out of beef production; and I dare say that if the Parliamentary Secretary were perfectly frank with us he would
964
be able to tell us of the strength of the feeling which has been represented to the Ministry by direct correspondence with the Ministry or through conversations with members of the staffs of county advisory committees.
One of them says that if the Government sincerely wish to encourage home production, two things are required: more incentive in prices and strict control of imports. Another pointed out that in their manipulation of the award the Government apparently are increasing the amount of the guarantee for beef production, but he says that, in view of the fact that imports from the Argentine are allowed to increase now at a rate which is quite unusual in post-war experience, the two policies will not run together. I do not think it is argued that Argentine beef should not be available, but there should certainly be some kind of plan and idea in the Government's mind so that the industry may know how much is wanted from producers or how soon they are to be completely shaken; whether all the capital and energy they have put into this postwar turnover to beef production is to be undermined and brought to ruin by the fact that Her Majesty's Government have no general long-term plan and no immediate plan for dealing with the question of the volume of beef to be allowed into the country.
Another of the comments very interesting to read in farming journals, as statements of people who live in areas in which Her Majesty's Government have usually relied for that nice marginal majority which they require in their politics, says:
"When controls came off and beef started coming in, the position became ridiculous."
That comment is not far out as your Lordships will find if you pick up a copy of the Farmer's Weekly and turn to the "Editor's Diary," where matters of importance and note are picked out. Just after the issue of the Government White Paper this paragraph led the editor's notes, headed "Down again":
"Auction prices for fat steers and heifers have dropped again this week, in some instances by more than 20s. per live hundredweight in one week. So far there has not been a corresponding drop in prices for the various cuts in the shops. This has led to some demands from housewives for cheaper chilled meat, supplies of which have been increasing and prices falling."

965
What is the policy of Her Majesty's Government in a situation like that? I fail to find any real indication of one.
I do not think it will hurt to cite one or two more instances of these views. I am not, by any means, taking all that have read, and the Parliamentary Secretary can satisfy himself if he thinks I have taken those which best suit my case, though I am quite sure he will do the same in the answer he makes to me. This statement is made by a West Riding, Yorkshire, farmer: He puts it very succinctly:
"The Price Review is an insult to the industry. The large farmer is the one that has been looked after. It is to the small man that I extend my sympathy."
An East Riding farmer says that the Price Review must be regarded with grave concern by the small farmer; and from the county in which I am glad and proud to say I was born, one of the great counties—the county of Somerset—a farmer says:
"The Government do not want small farmers. They are selling us out."
I can assure Her Majesty's Government that they created something of a feeling amongst farmers in this country by the kind of Review they brought to them this time. Take the opinion of a farmer from near Skipton, in North Yorkshire:
"The Review is a smack in the eye for all those who have responded so well for increased production in the past, for more milk, pigs and eggs. Small farmers would have to revert, as they did in the 'thirties, to a lower standard of living."
Those of us who have carefully studied the history of the early' twenties, after the First Great War, see clearly that the first to suffer were farmers and farm workers, through a policy which aimed not merely at trying to restrict inflation and to keep control of the position but at actual deflation.
A Dorset dairy farmer says:
"The Review, besides being unfair to the farmers, falls short of the spirit of the 1947 Act."
With that statement I most heartily agree. He continues:
"Instead of giving us long-term confidence it gives us an annual attack of the jitters."
Then, quoting from his own figures, he says that, with costs of many milk products up by a 1¼d. a gallon, they are given ½d. a gallon extra, which means
966
a reduction of ¾d. a gallon in profitability, so that it would not now be possible to expand on the basis for which they had hoped. And with such an important representative of Devonshire on the Front Bench as the Government Chief Whip, I must not leave out the comment of a Devon farmer who says that
"This is another nail in the coffin of the small farmer."
I hope that when the Government Chief Whip goes down to his county he will be able to explain that he is not going to he buried yet. Perhaps if he is able to tell of some little change of policy when he gets there, that might help him. If one turns to the paper which, in the old days, was so closely associated in our minds with the Prime Minister, the Yorkshire Post, one finds that that journal expresses regret that this situation should have arisen at the very time when it is so desirable to obtain the greatest possible measure of co-operation from this industry in dealing with the general economic situation.
But perhaps one of the most striking criticisms of the award comes from the Chairman of the Milk Marketing Board. This is certain: whatever the conditions were when the Milk Marketing Board was first introduced, the country as a whole now recognises the services which this organisation has rendered to the nation. The country recognised what the Board did in the war when it was not acting entirely for itself but as a highly efficient machine through which the Government exercised their control. Now the Board are engaged in post-war activities for still further improving not merely the returns but the general standard of efficiency of the constituent members of this great industry. Note the outspoken statement of the Chairman of the Board—it seems to me to be pretty conclusive evidence. This is the comment which is picked out in the headline of the report:
"This Price Review is unfair to dairy farmers."
That is the view of the Chairman of the Milk Marketing Board. He says:
"So far as milk producers are concerned. I have no hesitation in saying that they have not been fairly treated. It is a repetition of what has been going on for several years and I feel that the time has come to speak plainly and tell the Government that we art far from satisfied."

967
He goes on to point out that the costs of the dairy farmers, as ascertained through the Government statistics, have increased by about 9d. a gallon, and the total award in the Price Review for milk producers in this six years in which these increased costs have been incurred has been 6½d. a gallon.
Up to now people in the milk industry, like those in other branches of the farming industry, have been required to absorb increasing costs by increased efficiency. The Parliamentary Secretary will correct me if I am wrong when I say that in the whole of the period covered by the Price Guarantee Reviews the industry has had to absorb by increased efficiency something well over £100 million—some put the figure as high as £112 million. That amount has been absorbed in the face of these rising costs and general difficulties. It is just as well to take note of the point made by Mr. Peacock, the Chairman of the Milk Marketing Board, that whereas farmers' incomes as a whole are not increasing, the value of the incomes of the individual farmers, like those of everyone else who has to handle the pound in this country, has fallen very substantially until it is now only a little more than two-thirds of what it was in 1950. In these circumstances, it seems to us that people in the milk-producing industry ought to be fairly treated.
I consider it essential that we should have some specific pieces of information from the Government to-day. First of all, in view of the fact that I, perhaps, suffer from some lack of perception, compared with those in the Ministry who are daily engaged in running through long drafts and specific figures, I would ask whether the Government could kindly explain to the poor farmer, the sort of farmer I meet in the local beef market on Saturday, exactly how this new form of guarantee for the beef producer is going to work. The Government have removed the individual guarantee to the producer, and, as was pointed out in one place by an auctioneer, no longer shall we hear the cry: "It is all right; do not bother—the Ministry make it up." It is just as well, of course, that a cry of that sort should not be currently raised. But when one comes to ask farmers who are beef producers (I do not happen to be one),
968
"What are you going to do about it?", they all give the same answer. They say: "We have to face a risk we have never had to face before, and we do not know how we are going to get on."
It is not altogether clear to me, but, studying the White Paper to the best of my ability, I gather that the Government, in some way, working on fifty-two weeks a year as a basic average, will make monthly adjustments, according to marketing returns on the first three days of the week. So it would seem that men who wish to take their cattle for sale to the market where they usually sell them will very often (quite without notice, except three days in advance, of what is going on at the other markets) not know what is going to happen to their stock when it gets there. I think it is fundamental that the Parliamentary Secretary should be able to tell the House exactly on what basis the Ministry have worked this matter, and how they are going to secure, at the very time when it is so much to our interest that this branch of agricultural production should be stimulated and speeded up, that in every one of these transactions relating to the sale of cattle the seller will not be worse off than he is already. I can assure the Government that, from my conversations with these farmers, it is clear to me that the farmers have no confidence in them at all. It is just as well, if the aims of the Ministry's policy are to be achieved, that what the Government want to do should be made plain.
There is a further matter. One recognises that there may be some stimulus in the emphasis laid on the production of barley and oats; but it is a very small emphasis that is laid on the production of barley and oats in order to try to reduce imports of feeding-stuffs. The general comment which is made in my neighbourhood, when I speak about this matter to farmers, is: "We do not sell oats on the market, and we do not notice any change. We do not get any payment on oats." The Parliamentary Secretary seems surprised. I suggest to him that he finds out when his Department last paid an acreage payment to producers of oats to be used by themselves on the farm. I think he will find the answer rather surprising. I do not think there has been any such payment in respect of oats in this connection. There has been a small payment on barley; but not really

969
so much as would make it a stimulating factor in the changeover from one to another—unless the Parliamentary Secretary thinks that knocking 1s. 6d. off the wheat payment may turn some wheat growers into growers of barley and oats.
I want to put some particularly pertinent questions to the Minister and would ask him to answer them. I did not think it necessary to give the noble Earl notice because, from his speech last Friday, obviously he is "cribbed" up to the tips of his fingers on the general idea that lies behind Government policy. First, do the Government want a reduction in the volume of the production of milk? Secondly, do they want a reduction in the volume of the production of wheat? Thirdly, do they want a reduction in the volume of the production of eggs? Incidentally, everybody pokes fun at the poultry farmers but, so far as I can understand the figures, they have raised their production of eggs from less than 50 per cent, of the consumption of the country before the war to more than 90 per cent. of what the country uses now. They are entitled to a good deal of thanks and appreciation for such an achievement as that. What do the Government want? Do they want the poultry farmers to go increasing production, or are they to mark time? Let us have an answer.
In regard to pigs, some questions are being asked. It is not so long ago that we listened to the representative of the Government on the Front Bench appealing for an increase of one million in the number of pigs. When we got them, this Government of free enterprise—"Let every man fend for himself, so far as possible"—had nothing to do or say about how to absorb the extra million pigs that had been faithfully produced by the farmers. Are the farmers to make a reduction of pigs this time? How many pigs do you want them to produce? Do you want to give the farmers a chance to do the right thing? Why do you not tell them? Let us know to-day: do you want a reduction in the volume of the production of pigs or do you not? I think that is a fair question to ask.
I have spoken rather longer than I intended, but before I sit down I wish to touch on two other points. One appreciates the general economic position in this country and the need, the sore need, in the interests of all classes in the com-
970
munity, to avoid inflation. There mast be a reasonably steady recovery in our gold and dollar reserves position if we are to remain the banker for the sterling area—that is vital to the condition and prosperity of all classes of the community. But here is a cutting back in the hopes and desires of the farmers for more production which would be likely to assist in that problem. The last time I addressed your Lordships on the agricultural position I said that farmers played a most important part in the prosperity of the engineering and other productive industries. They spend about £600 million a year on machinery and materials. However much it may be said that that is part of the home market, in fact the exporters of agricultural machinery and other farm requirements would never have been able so to reduce their overhead costs on export commodities had it not been for the volume of farmers' purchases. That is a fact. Six hundred million pounds—it could be a great deal more.
When we take the general position of the import problem we have to find how to get imports down to something like equity with exports, or at least, after allowing for invisible exports, to bridge the trade gap with actual physical commodities. Is not the position still that we must have such a long-term policy for the farmer that he can give us a volume of goods for consumption in this country that will save us from importing large quantities of foodstuffs? It is clear from the returns that the increased volume of agricultural produce since before the war is saving us at present-day prices £400 million worth of food imports; if we were back on the old basis of 1939 agricultural production, we should now be having to pay that money for imports. As I have said before, if we gave the proper incentives the farmers of this country could raise that figure of £400 million by another £100 million without much trouble. But I notice a change in the attitude of the Government—and the farmers notice it. That is what made the man I quoted say that it is not in accordance with the policy of the 1947 Act.
Down in my part of the country the Parliamentary Secretary has become front page news, and when Parliamentary Secretaries, speaking on Government

971
policy, occupy the front pages it is because the papers in the farming areas are taking full notice and want their farmers to know what is going on. I have read with great care this probably abridged report. One has always to be fair to Ministers because we know how often a newspaper report is not complete, and I must allow him to fill in any gaps. What the noble Earl says is that we must look to the agricultural industry to go on reducing the need for support. At the annual meeting of the Northumberland County Land Owners Association, the noble Earl said (and this is what I want to stress) that the Government had concluded that national requirements could best be met by intensifying the policy of decontrol which they had started to develop four years ago. He said:
"Decontrol has not in any way detracted from the industry's general prosperity or from the service it gives to its customers."
Is the noble Earl guilty? The noble Earl accepts those words. Well, that is a fine thing to say at this stage! According to the Parliamentary Secretary, the cost is now too high to the country for those subsidies which he and his Minister, and his Minister's predecessors, have constantly justified as being the reasonable set-off to the farmers for their lack of the fiscal protection that all these other profitable industries get. They have abandoned that, according to this statement. Yes, the noble Earl has. I know you want to do it slowly and steadily, as you go along; but in principle you have abandoned it.
You say you cannot afford it. I tell you that you cannot afford to do without a prosperous agriculture. That is the real position of the country. In the near future you will have to face—and this is as certain as I stand at this Box—a demand from the farmworkers for proper wages, a demand for what, in the opinion of many of us, is overdue. The farm-workers have not been met fully this last time. The appointed members of the Wages Board on this occasion were acting in accordance with what they no doubt thought was the Government policy: "If you want to rest the prices, let us have a rest on wages." The position, in my view, is most serious. I shall leave it to my noble friend Lord Listowel to deal in more detail with the position of the
972
workers and the general drift from the land. That drift is going on steadily. One can never quote too often Oliver Goldsmith in The Deserted Village:
"III fares the land, to hastening ills a prey, Where wealth accumulates, and men decay."
3.20 p.m.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: My Lords, I cannot help admiring the extreme vigour with which the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, has presented his Motion in your Lordships' House this afternoon. In view of possible economic troubles that the industry may have to face in the years to come, it is to me, at any rate, as an old farmer, a source of comfort to realise that so important a Member of your Lordships' House as the Leader of the Opposition is such an ardent champion of agriculture and the agricultural industry of this country, and will be prepared to stand up for the reasonable claims of our greatest and most vital industry.
I realise that in certain things I shall say this afternoon I shall not receive the entire and enthusiastic support of every Member of your Lordships' House. When the noble Viscount emphasises the lack of confidence that is evinced by the agricultural community in this country at the present time, it is, in my opinion, not due so much, or mainly, to this particular Review of agricultural prices as to the fact that year after year the whole of the economic position of the industry comes to be overhauled by the Government, in consultation with the Farmers' Union. The perpetual differences in the economic policy of the Government for the time being in themselves create an unstable atmosphere in the industry in which we are all, I hope, predominantly interested. Why must there be an Annual Review of price levels? Surely, there would be a greater feeling of security and confidence among the agricultural community if these Reviews took place at longer intervals. I should prefer them to take place every five years; or, if that is impossible, every three years—always, I suppose, taking into account such variations in the minimum agricultural workers' wage as may have some influence upon the prices it may be desirable for the Government to fix.
I want to say this, because I feel strongly about it. I absolutely deplore

973
the explosive, almost revolutionary, language in regard to this particular scale of agricultural prices that has been used by many responsible people, some of them chairmen of local branches of the National Farmers' Union. In the first place, I regard it as inconsistent with the dignity and prestige of this great industry. When I look back upon the past history of the agricultural industry of this country, and remember such leaders of progressive opinion and practice as old Jethro Tull, "Turnip" Townshend, Coke of Norfolk, Sir John Bennet Lawes, and others, I am sure they would deprecate such excessive verbiage and revolutionary language by responsible farmers in expressing criticisms of such variations as have been made in this Price Review.
The noble Viscount opposite has quoted certain relatively moderate statements, though no doubt somewhat vigorously expressed; but there are other statements that have found their way into the agricultural and popular Press, such as:
"We propose, if this is Government policy, to pour our milk down the drains";
"We strongly advocate 'go slow' tactics in agricultural production";
and,
"We advocate discontinuance of service on the part of farmers on county agricultural committees."
That is language which I deplore as unworthy of the leaders of this great industry, and certainly language which the pioneers of old would have strongly deprecated.
I notice that the noble Viscount, although proving himself to be a vigorous champion of the agricultural industry, has made no reference whatever to the particular movement, at any rate in industrial and commercial circles, with which he has been mainly associaed—namely, co-operation. This afternoon I am going to venture to say that if only, when we talk about small-scale husbandry, we could emphasise a great deal more the enormous importance of agricultural cooperation—such as is found in every other civilised country where small farmers have to make a living, and which, after all, in their cases is the best substitute for adequate capital—more than half the troubles afflicting the small husbandman in this country would either disappear or be largely solved. I should
974
like to hear far more emphasis placed upon this matter of agricultural cooperation than, as a rule, is put upon it in this highly individualistic country; and there is no man more capable of emphasising its importance than the noble Viscount who has moved this Motion.
The larger farmers in this country cannot be accused of making a poor living out of their calling to-day. On the whole, they are doing fairly well. The best farmers in Britain are among the best farmers in the world. If I have a criticism at all to make about the farmers of Great Britain, it is that there is still plenty of scope for improvement by the average farmer, just as there is plenty of scope for improvement in the average livestock of this country. But turning to the small husbandman, I should like seriously to suggest to your Lordships that to too great an extent he apes the larger farmer; and Governments of different complexions appear to support him in that process of economic imitation. In my humble judgment, there is far more scope for intensive cultivation, intensive land management in this country, than obtains here to-day, including market gardening, pigs and poultry if you like; the raising of store cattle, particularly in hilly areas; and the more it is possible to associate part-time employment with forestry operations, as happens in so many cases, the better. But I venture to say that if the small husbandman is going to rely for his economic salvation—and often without the invaluable factor of co-operative methods—upon the practices of the larger farmer in this country, and if the Government are prepared to support him, then it will be a poor look-out for him in years to come.
I live in an area where there is enormous scope for the development of market gardening and other forms of intensive husbandry at a good margin of profit. But when we find the small farmer depending far his living very largely upon dairy cattle producing no more than, say, 500 to 530 gallons of milk, and very often purchasing overseas feeding-stuffs in order to produce his milk, and being provided with the subsidy the Government provides, all I can say is that it is a poor bargain for the taxpayers of this country. Bearing in mind that the average production of what I

975
may call a well-behaved cow or heifer in the other civilised countries of the world is 700 gallons, and that we are subsidising the small dairy farmer out of the public purse when he keeps cattle which can yield no more than 500 or 520 gallons a year, I say that it is bad for the small farmer and very bad for the taxpayers of this country. I give that as an instance of what I have in mind.
Let me take as my contrast that remarkable little country, Denmark. The farmers of Denmark are not Government-controlled: they are self-controlled, or, as I prefer to call it, mutually controlled. They control themselves and each other without any pressure on the part of the Government; and they succeed through sheer hard work, enterprise and cooperation—and in Denmark, after all, co-operation has been reduced to a fine art. Can we not learn something from a country like that? There is a good old Latin phrase fas est et ab hoste doceri, which I prefer to interpret as, "It is right and proper to take lessons even from a competitor." I am not quite sure whether the literal meaning of "hostis" might be included, because I believe there is a great deal we can learn from our potential enemy, Russia, in regard to scientific methods and in regard to economic co-operation.
I do not wish to stress this matter unduly, but I do want most earnestly—because I am sure it is going to come in this country—to urge the small husbandman in this country (I am not talking about the family farmer, who depends for his living on the activities of himself and his family, but about the man who has to employ workers, many of whom are now financially far better off than himself, and with far fewer responsibilities) that the methods that are adopted by so many of the smaller husbandmen in other civilised countries are worthy of adoption here and will come to be adopted here in due course; but always backed, and emphatically backed, by economic cooperation. For my part, I strongly advocate that the Government should give no support out of the public purse to anyone engaged in small-scale husbandry, unless he belongs to a properly administered, well-conducted, co-operative society, such as obtains in every other civilised country in the world where small farmers make a good living—even, if I may say so, with
976
full knowledge of conditions, in New Zealand, which I know perhaps at least as well as I know this country and where, without co-operation, in the North Island it would be quite impossible for the smaller man (and most of them are small men) to make a reasonable living.
I have, unfortunately, to catch a train to my somewhat distant home this afternoon, but I should like to add this comment. I am an old man, in my eighty-ninth year, and I have spent my life both vocationally and in a Parliamentary sense predominantly in the pursuit in one way or another of the greatest and most vital industry of this country. I cannot keep silent on an occasion like this without urging the present Government and future Governments to consider much more carefully, so far as the small husbandman is concerned, the methods adopted in other countries and whether the lot of these people cannot be made far more tolerable and profitable than it is under existing conditions here to-day.
3.40 p.m.
LORD WALPOLE: My Lords, since this is the first occasion upon which I have had the honour to address your Lordships, I trust that you will extend to me your usual patience and long-suffering which is normally conceded on such an occasion and will forgive my shortcomings, which will no doubt make themselves more apparent as my speech proceeds. As I am myself a farmer it is perhaps fitting that I should launch forth on this subject, and I hope that I may be able to make some slight contribution to this debate this afternoon.
The Motion before us draws attention, amongst other things, to the conditions in the agricultural industry. I think that perhaps this may be summed up in five words—"as usual, in the doldrums". For some time now I have been of the opinion that the agricultural industry would operate on a far more prosperous footing if it could be completely independent of the political field and treated like other industries with protective tariffs and the operation of free markets. However, I do not see any immediate prospect of the Government giving up this political "baby", for they have a chosen method of pegging food prices which otherwise must be very considerably increased. It is closely bound up with our economic situation generally but is, I believe, to the detriment of the industry

977
and is apt to cause very serious disagreements and misunderstandings between the agricultural community and those who live in the towns and cities.
If agriculture is to be a prosperous industry, which I am sure is the hope and desire of the whole country, then I earnestly implore the Government to change their methods and embark upon a really long-term policy. Why should a farmer bear the continual anxiety of wondering what is going to happen at the next Price Review and where the axe is going to fall? Agriculture needs long-term planning. One cannot just press a button and turn from the production of one article to the production of another. In this connection, may I put forward the suggestion that, in framing this long-term policy, the Government should invite the co-operation of all the political Parties, so that if at any time there should be a change of Government it will not automatically follow that there will be a change of policy as well. I can see no reason why this course could not be adopted and the agricultural industry put on the firm, long-term basis which it so richly deserves.
I should now like to turn for a moment to the Price Review. To my mind, this is most disappointing and, as the noble Viscount who opened this debate said, it is a little disturbing that, for the first time in history, agreement could not he reached between the Government and the National Farmers' Union. If the Government are going to continue their control of agriculture, then they must reimburse the farmer adequately for the rise in costs and wages. We cannot pass on that increase as other industries do. As I see it, the Government are trying to have the best of both worlds. We are told to increase our efficiency and at the same time have our incomes cut by inadequate recoupment—to say nothing of the credit squeeze and its effect on capital improvements, which is bound to have a crippling effect on the industry.
With regard to milk, which has been mentioned here this afternoon, I too am not quite clear in my own mind whether the Government want us to go on producing milk or not. We were given every encouragement to do so a few years ago, but it appears that the Government have now changed their minds and want us to concentrate on beef. Will the Minister, I
978
wonder, again change his mind next February and ask us to concentrate on some other commodity? To offset these rising costs of milk production, we are offered a halfpenny a gallon which, as has already been stated, is totally inadequate and is neither one thing nor the other. It neither covers the increased cost which the industry has to bear nor gives any incentive. Milk production is a specialised subject and a long-term business. Some people are sometimes apt to forget that it is a seven-days-a-week job; and in these days men are not easily attracted to working seven days a week. I have touched only on the fringe of this large and complex subject. There are many and various aspects which will no doubt be brought up this afternoon, but I feel that if Her Majesty's Government could produce a really long-term policy it would give much-needed encouragement to the farmers of this country and would stimulate an industry which is suffering from such a feeling of frustration and insecurity.
3.48 p.m.
THE EARL OF HALIFAX: My Lords, it has been a happy coincidence of juxtaposition that your Lordships have had an opportunity this afternoon of listening, in succession, to one of the oldest of our Members, the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, and then to one whom this House has not had the pleasure of hearing before. I have no doubt that the noble Lord who has just sat down, in the admirable speech to which we have listened, has felt himself stimulated by the secret of perpetual youth of which the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, is so eloquent a master, judging by the speech which he made to us a few minutes ago. Your Lordships will be happy at having had the opportunity of hearing both of them and will hope that we may often have a similar opportunity in the future.
In the few remarks that I wish to make I shall, perforce, as I reach them, deal with one or two of the points which my noble friend who spoke last made with great force, but I should like to approach them from a somewhat different angle. I was not able to be in your Lordships' House on what I suppose was the last occasion when the noble Viscount opposite introduced a debate on this matter of agriculture. I had the opportunity of reading what passed, but I was not my-

979
self present. I remember an earlier debate, also introduced, I think, by the noble Viscount, in which he laid considerable stress upon the lack of confidence which he then alleged existed in the farming community. At that time I ventured to differ from him and to express the feeling that that assertion of lack of confidence was exaggerated and did not really reflect any substantial condition in the mind of the ordinary farmer. To-day I would take a different view and would go a long way with the noble Viscount who introduced the debate and with others who have spoken in feeling that, rightly or wrongly—I am not arguing that for the moment—there is to-day a considerable lack of confidence in the agricultural mind, due to causes with which we are all sufficiently familiar, but which are bound to exercise a damaging effect upon agricultural production unless Her Majesty's Government can put them right.
In anything that I say I would ask my noble friend who speaks for agriculture in this House not to judge me to be critical in the sense of not appreciating how extreme are the difficulties with which Her Majesty's Government have to deal. I do not think anybody ought to begin to have an opinion about farming or agriculture to-day unless he realises the extreme difficulties in which those who have responsibility for dealing with the industry are placed. The other point which I think it is important to remember is that although no doubt there are cases to-day of farmers who are still doing extremely well—large and small farmers—I do not think it is an answer to a debate of this sort to produce this or that instance of a farmer who is doing well because it is at the broad average of the industry that one has to look. I do not believe it would be true to say that the industry as a whole was either so prosperous or so confident of its prosperity as to be able to put its best into production in present conditions.
My Lords, it is quite true, as the noble Viscount said, that farmers are most dissatisfied with the Price Review. The thinking farmers that I have met are inclined to feel that the Price Review and the Government's attitude to it have been dictated by consideration of world prices as they are to-day rather than by the
980
words laid down in the 1947 Act in regard to proper remuneration, adequate return and so on. As the noble Viscount and others have pointed out, the farmers' ground for dissatisfaction goes back to the several Price Reviews of the last few years in each of which farmers think that they have "dropped" so many millions of money—I use the colloquial short phrase—in spite of the rising cost of living and of their £ not being worth any more than anybody else's £. They have been told that they have to meet and absorb all that by increased efficiency, which presumably means the use of more technical methods and more and more capital equipment. No doubt there is room for more technical methods, but it is not so easy to expand capital equipment on a shrinking income and, as the noble Lord who spoke last reminded us, with the restriction of credit. Therefore, the farmer is left with a feeling that he is being rather let down and he does not quite know where he stands.
It sounds a hard thing to say, but I do not think that he would have felt so aggrieved, as many farmers do feel to-day, if he had been told definitely by the Government, flat out from the start: "We do not think that home-grown food is quite as important as we did in the war. For various reasons we want to import more. We have got to free the markets, and therefore all farmers had better get it into their minds that farming is not going to be quite so prosperous as it has been in the last few years." But, of course, that was not what the Government did say. The Government began by asking the farmer to produce more, with special emphasis on meat. Then followed, fairly soon, what I may term, for short, the great pig muddle. That did not do the Government any good—it may not have been their fault, but it certainly did them no good. Now has come the news and the knowledge of greatly increased imports from the Argentine, to which again the noble Viscount drew attention, all of which leads the thinking farmer to fear that beef, on which great emphasis was laid, is going to have a difficult time.
That is the background against which the farmer reads that his Union and the Government have for the first time failed to agree. In my judgment, the noble Lord who spoke last is perfectly right in

981
saying that that in itself is a most important event in agricultural history—that they should have failed to agree. I do not develop the point, but I think it is quite true that the small man feels that what has happened in regard to milk, eggs and pigs together add up to a pretty raw deal for him. But the thing that upset farmers more than anything else was, I would suppose, the abolition of the individual guarantee. I shall be interested to hear what my noble friend may say about that. If he can explain to me, in the short limits of a speech from the Front Bench, how the new guarantee works, I shall respect him even more than I do to-day. I, and I imagine most of your Lordships who are interested, have sat down and been over the thing time and again. It is most difficult to understand how it is going to work.
It is all very well to say, as is true, that it must work, and that the price will be adjusted on the average of the markets for the first three days. But the ordinary farmer who has a few fat cattle to sell does not know how to begin doing that; all he can do is to make up his mind roughly what price he thinks he ought to get, send his cattle to the market, and, if they do not get somewhere near that price, bring them back again. That is what farmers are doing. A week or two ago, when I happened to meet two quite large farmers in my part of the world, they said substantially the same thing. At this time of the year they had been in the habit of buying store cattle to feed off their grass, and they had always known fairly well what they were going to get for the weight of cattle when they sold them. Now they do not know. They cannot make a rough guess, and therefore they have both said the same thing—namely, "It is too much of a venture or gamble and we are doubtful whether we shall do it." They are not unique men; they are just farming men, and if they feel like that, others are going to feel the same. What effect is that going to have on a person like any one of your Lordships who may breed to sell store cattle? We are going to look down our noses and wonder whether it is a good thing for us to put into breeding as much money as we thought right before.
That would do the very thing that the Government do not want to do—namely, introduce uncertainty into that field of
982
agricultural production, meat, where they wanted to create the greatest degree of certainty. I think that is unfortunate. Beef production is a very long business. Compare the agricultural job with the ordinary work of a manufacturer. When a manufacturer begins to manufacture something he has a fairly good idea of what it is going to sell for when he has made it. The farmer is manufacturing beef, and when he starts producing his cows he ought to have a fairly good idea of what the fat beast will sell for in three years' time. That is asking a lot, of course, but he does not even get near it to-day, because, as I see it, it is a pure gamble until he knows what is the Government's mind on the main questions.
That brings me to the last thing I want to say. I was delighted to hear the noble Lord who spoke last, following the line taken by the noble Viscount, lay the emphasis he did on the importance and desirability for Her Majesty's Government, if they can do so, to declare their long-term intentions. I think that in the Price Review there were no words more calculated to relieve discouragement than the suggestion that the Government were willing to discuss long-term policy. What exactly do we mean by that phrase when we use it? I certainly would suppose that it was obviously out of the question for any Government to offer what might be called a rigid or inflexible price structure. That cannot be done. Sit long-term policy can stand for something different, and I should have thought that, by agreement between the parties, which should not be too difficult to achieve, Her Majesty's Government might be able to say: "For the next ten years we want to produce in this country X-million tons of meat, X-million gallons of milk" and so on, having that as an agreed policy between the parties, with a guarantee for those stated quantities and a price based on production costs with a reasonable profit margin.
It is obvious that if something of that kind were said, imports would have to be so arranged as to dovetail into that agricultural policy. I recognise that, with the freeing of markets, Government control would obviously be more difficult, but I am also convinced that some such measure of control will be essential if any long-term policy worthy of the name (and

983
that is the only thing which will achieve what agriculture needs) is to be workable. There is no need, and I am not sure that it would not be out of place in this debate, to develop how deeply all the argument we are having this afternoon cuts into the whole economics of the agricultural industry. Over and over again in this House, and again in the speech which has been quoted this afternoon, we have reminded ourselves of how difficult it is for one of the partners in the agricultural industry to maintain on farms capital equipment, and so on, unless he can get a reasonable reward and return on his capital. The only way he can get that is by increased rents from the farmer, and many have secured those increased rents; but if the foundation of security is to be withdrawn from the farmer the whole structure falls away as one, like a pack of cards. That is why it is of such essential importance for Her Majesty's Government to apply their best minds and judgment, in consultation with those most closely concerned, to the devising of a real, long-term policy that will give security to those who, by their enterprise and efficiency, may be judged to deserve it.
4.5 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I ask your Lordships' indulgence for venturing to intervene, in a maiden speech, in a debate upon a subject so complex and difficult. I notice that many of the experts in your Lordships' House on the subject of agriculture are apparently not to take part in this debate to-day. That I should be speaking when they are to remain silent is certainly the measure of my inexperience. I have studied the Government's Annual Review for 1956 with careful attention and have read with great interest the reactions to it as interpreted by the farmers' unions. In the few observations which, with your Lordships' indulgence, I propose to make I should perhaps make it clear that I shall be speaking primarily as a domiciled Scotsman, although I have agricultural interests in England also.
As your Lordships are well aware, the 1956 Price Review has not met with a favourable reception from the spokesmen of the National Farmers' Union for Scotland. The spirited and courageously blunt defence of Government policy made
984
by my honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, speaking in Glasgow last month, was attacked by a battery of questions and criticisms by N.F.U. leaders. I must confess that I was disappointed that the questions were not more imaginative and the criticisms more constructive. I think that, basically, the farmers are simply fighting for a reasonable degree of stability, and they are not really attracted by the prospect of the industry being allowed to become more competitive and less dependent upon the Exchequer.
I find it impossible not to have sympathy with the farmers' anxiety and apparent lack of courage. As your Lordships know full well, there are many active farmers alive to-day who remember the lean years preceding the 1914 war, who remember clearly the Government aid given to them during that war, who remember the clamour for cheap food—"Your bread will cost you more" and other such phrases during the slump years. They remember their vital rôle and rich rewards in the Second World War and they look back with keen nostalgia to the happy days of peace-time cosseting. Now, in the words of a member of the Perth branch of the National Farmers' Union (my own home market town), many of them seriously wonder
"whether the Government will regard overproduction at home as being the precise moment at which cheaper commodities from overseas become available."
Your Lordships know that these fears are groundless, but they are deep, and it will take more to uproot them than earnest repetitions of Government spokesmen that it is the determined policy of Her Majesty's Government that so long as Britain prospers, so long shall farming flourish.
No part of this Review has been met with more enthusiasm than the undertaking embodied in its last paragraph—the undertaking to consider whether any practicable methods can be found of providing longer-term assurances than obtain under the present system. It is my belief that only when such methods have been found and clearly stated will British agriculture be able to reach maximum efficiency, for only then will careful, forward planning be possible. Now, alas! there is, I believe, general agreement that there are

985
the greatest difficulties in the way of finding a long-term policy for agriculture that can be made sufficiently adaptable to meet the changes of our economic and strategic position in the world. None the less, I am convinced that, given good will all round, such methods can be found; and I do most earnestly beg the Government to give this matter their determined consideration.
My own personal experience of active farming has been mainly in the dairying business—and that only since the war; but I have learnt from some bitter experiences what a highly complicated and chancy business it is. It takes years to build up a first-class herd, for it takes years for mistakes or successes in breeding policy to become apparent. A bull is proven only after six long, anxious years. Imagine the complications if it took as long to be able to assess the qualities of a high business executive or (with great respect) a Cabinet Minister! No, my Lords, despite the high state of the mechanisation of the industry, despite our outrageous successes in interfering with the normal processes of nature—poor old hens cooped up in batteries, not even knowing whether it is night or clay; cows deprived of their proper mates, and serving only as incubators—despite such progress, the operation of farming continues to be a slow and long-term business, and only through long-term planning can it be successfully carried out.
It appears, from a study of the Review, that a certain degree of the emphasis on milk production has been switched to beef. It is, of course, understood that under the Agriculture Act as it stands the Government must fix guarantees at such a level as will encourage products in short supply and discourage the increased production of those of which there is a sufficiency. In a free economy, the ordinary laws of supply and demand would gradually achieve this, bat in a controlled economy with guaranteed prices (and British agriculture cannot stand without guaranteed prices) the effect of the manipulation of the price mechanism tends to be harsh and sudden. So we now have farmers who were lured into the dairying business by the attraction of high prices and the monthly milk cheque (it may well be that some of them should never have gone into the dairying business at all) suddenly feeling
986
the cold breeze of unprofitability. They have sunk capital in dairying equipment, and they have spent money in bringing their buildings up to the standards very properly required of them. My Lords, if switch to beef they must, they will not thank the Government for the profits they were able to make out of milk; they will only blame them for their loss in capital equipment. I do not pretend that I can see the solution to this difficulty, but I cannot pretend to myself either that the present system may not cause hardship.
I welcome the emphasis that is being placed upon home-grown feeding-stuffs, and particularly upon grass. The introduction of grants up to a total of £200,000 for the construction of silos will be a great help to the industry. I only wish that my noble friend the noble Earl who is to reply to this debate could give me an assurance that this grant will be retrospective, for only three years ago I installed at one of my own dairies, at a cost of £600, three permanent silos. I have not regretted a penny of the money spent, but I should naturally feel a little jealous of the Government aid for the hindermost. Your Lordships will not need to be reminded that in premyxomatosis days it was the soft underbelly of the rabbit that ran away with, or fouled, much of our corn crops and our precious grazing. I do most sincerely hope that, as an earnest of their will to help farmers carry out their exhortations, the Government will take an ear].y opportunity of giving effect to my noble friend Lord Merthyr's Rabbits Bill.
Finally—and I apologise for having spoken at such length—may I say a few words about rents? Already the noble Earl who spoke before me has touched on this subject. The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, at the meeting in Glasgow to which I have already alluded, called attention to the decrease in investment in the improvement of land and buildings. He pointed out that this is principally due to the fact that the farm rents received by landlords have not increased sufficiently to enable landlords to be able to carry out their responsibilities. From figures which I think are reliable, I find that the total rise in rents in Scotland since 1940 is only just over 15½ per cent., a small figure indeed when one considers that increased build-

987
ing costs must be about 400 per cent. over the 1939 figure. Farming under the landlord and tenant system is a partnership, and unless the landlord, as well as the tenant, receives a fair return on his investment, that partnership will break down.
4.20 p.m.
LORD ARCHIBALD: My Lords, it again falls to be my very pleasant duty in an agricultural debate to congratulate a noble Lord on an outstanding maiden speech. I am sure that the charming, witty and extremely well-informed speech to which we have just listened has been heard with pleasure in all parts of the House, and we shall all look forward to hearing the noble Lord speak many times in the future on this and other subjects.
I am in the not uncommon position, when it comes to about the middle of a debate, of finding that some of my best points have already been made—more effectively, of course, than I could make them—and there are a number of holes in my speech which I shall have to try to jump over as best I may. I do not want, if I can avoid it, to go over a lot of the ground that has already been covered, but I think that we must go back to the point made by my noble leader in his vigorous and very thorough coverage of the ground: that this year's under-recoupment of £12 million is only part of a process that has been going on for years, and that under-recoupment over the last eight years is estimated conservatively to be of the order of £100 million. I am not going to suggest that that would necessarily have been a bad thing in all circumstances. If, from increased efficiency, the industry had been able to absorb that £100 million of under-recouped extra costs without farm income falling, then it would have been something of which the industry might have been proud and the country generally would have received the economic advantage. But if we look at the graph of total income in this country over that period, we see that it is a steadily rising line, while the graph of farm income goes up, at the beginning of the period, then flattens off, and in the last few years has been going down. In other words, the under-recoupment of £100 million has been more than the industry could properly carry.
988
We have to look at the fall in farm income and see what its effect is on the different parts of farming economy in general. I am not concerned with those to whom some reference has been made this afternoon, the big and prosperous farmers, because generally they will be in the position to make such changes in policy as will keep their heads above water. Reference has been made to the fact that this Price Review bears with particular hardship on the small man. I should like to submit to your Lordships two sets of figures which have recently been issued and which I think illustrate the point. The first set of figures is from the Agricultural Departments and shows that the net income in 1954–55 of the average 30-acre dairy holding was estimated at £530, before allowing anything for the labour of the farmer and his wife—that is to say, the return on capital and the labour of the farmer and his wife was less than the average earnings of the industrial worker. I think that it is on that type of small dairy holding that the under-recoupment in this Review in regard to milk will fall most severely.
The other set of figures, covering a rather different range, was produced by the economists of the Farmers' Union. Although some might say that they are prejudiced parties, I do not think that their economists are likely to produce unreliable figures. Their sample accounts show that the net income of 318 mainly dairying holdings of under 50 acres averages only £7 a week, about 5s. more than the statutory minimum wage of the agricultural workers. In my opinion, these are the people who are particularly hit by this Price Review. That is the first effect, on the smallholders.
Then there is the important question of what is likely to be the effect on increased production in general, assuming that the Government still want that increase to 160 per cent. of which they spoke a year or two ago. Increased production on any side of farming means, first of all, increased expenditure, whether it be the question of using more fertilisers (in which case the fertilisers have to be paid for a long time before the returns come in from the crops) or a question of feeding a few more bullocks for three years to meet the Government's request for more beef, in which case the feeding-stuffs have to be bought during those three years. Whatever type of enhanced production

989
the farmer may aim at, it means finding more money out of a falling farm income and, as someone has already said, with the credit squeeze to contend with in addition.
Moreover, as everyone in farming knows, one of the most urgent needs of agriculture is the provision of either new or modernised buildings. Most of the farm buildings in this country to-day were built a hundred years or more ago and are hopelessly out-of-date. Improvisation after improvisation has taken place, but I would still say that unsuitable farm buildings are more wasteful of labour than any other single thing on the farm. While field work has been highly mechanised, farm buildings are still responsible for a vast amount of unnecessary, heavy, individual, manual labour. But where is the money to come from to provide improved or, better still, new farm buildings, if the fall in farm incomes which has been taking place over recent years is to be continued, and possibly accentuated as a result of the Government policy indicated in this White Paper?
Arising from the question of farm buildings, may I point out that the whole question of fixed investment in agriculture wants some consideration. If noble Lords will look at the Economic Survey for 1955, they will see an important table on page 8 which gives gross fixed investment for industry for the period from 1951 to 1955. The figures are all converted to 1948 prices, so that we do not have to be concerned about changes in the value of money: it is a strict comparison. We find that between 1951 and 1955 the total for all industries has gone up from £1,500 million to £2,000 million, an increase of about 33⅓ per cent., but for agriculture, forestry and fishing, the amount has gone down from £74 million, in 1951, to £72 million, in 1955, having been as low as £61 million in one of the years between. It is unfortunate that agriculture, forestry and fishing should be grouped together. I hope that in future years these figures can be given separately in the Economic Survey, because one cannot see exactly whether the fall is mainly in agriculture, in fishing or in forestry, and we must assume that it applies to all three industries that are grouped together. The outstanding point is that when the gross fixed investment of industry at a whole is increasing steadily, it should be
990
falling in that group. I cannot see how it could be otherwise, when farm income is falling in roughly the same period.
So far this afternoon little has been said on the details of the Price Review with regard to a subject on which I have bored your Lordships on more than one occasion—namely, pigs. I am not on this occasion going to make much of a point about the 6d. a score reduction in the price of pigs. The pig producers who have been able to survive the cuts in price of the last two years will no doubt also manage to survive this much smaller cut. However, I should like your Lordships to look at what has happened on pig prices over the past six years. In 1951 the price went up 5s. a score; in 1952 it went up 1s. 6d. a score, and in 1953 by 8d. a score—that is, up 7s. 2d. a score on three years. Then the tide turned. In 1954 there was a 3s. a score reduction; in 1955, a 2s. 6d. a score reduction; and in 1956, 6d. a score reduction—that is to say, a total reduction of 6s. a score. If one takes into account the fall in the value of the £ during the period, it will be seen that, so far as price is concerned, the pig producer is now back to where he started in 1951. I can only say that to call that a policy is somewhat absurd.
The main point I want to make about pigs, however, concerns paragraph 20 of the White Paper, which says:
"Moreover, in accordance with their policy of encouraging the production of carcases of the quality required by the market, the Government intend to introduce a more rigorous specification. A minimum carcase length measurement will be introduced with effect from 25th March, 1957, or at an earlier date, subject to six months' notice, and the other specifications may be modified, subject to six months' notice."
I should like to ask the noble Earl who is to reply: what are the Government doing in order to help pig producers to get the higher quality of animal that is required to give this carcase that will satisfy the more rigorous specification? The answer may be:, "We are going to have progeny testing stations." Let me remind the House of the history of that matter. In the White Paper on the Price Review in 1954 the Government lint referred to these progeny testing stations and said:
"In order to assist producers in improving the quality of their stock … the Government are considering proposals for the introduction

991
of a Pig Recording Scheme and for the extension of the arrangements for progeny testing at present conducted by the National Pig Breeders' Association."
That was in 1954. What happened? In the debate on that Price Review I made a plea for urgency in setting up these progeny testing stations, pointing out that there was really no need (to use the words of the White Paper) for consideration of the matter; that everything that could be known about the subject was known, and that what was wanted was a decision to go on and build them.
In our debate on agriculture in January, 1955, I again asked for speed. Fifteen months have past, and unless something has happened recently which I have overlooked, I think I am right in saying that not one station has yet been opened, although in January, 1955, the Parliamentary Secretary assured the House [OFFICIAL REPORT, VOl. 190, col. 789]:
"… we are also making good progress with the scheme for establishing five stations in Great Britain for the progeny testing of boars, at a capital cost of about £400,000."
As I say, it is fifteen months since we were told that good progress was being made, but, so far as I know, we have not a single progeny testing station in operation yet. Before I continue, I should like to ask the noble Earl this question, in parenthesis. When these stations are finally built, who will own them? The capital cost is being financed by deduction of 1d. a score from the price paid to the pig producers, and that is to be continued until the new increased estimate of the capital cost has been recovered. Will the progeny testing stations then belong to the pig producers, whose 1d. a score has paid for them, or will they continue to belong to the Government?
Leaving that point aside, I venture to suggest that with such a dilatory approach to this all-important question of progeny testing stations, it is (to put it colloquially) "rather a nerve" on the part of the Government to talk about introducing "a more rigorous specification" at six months' notice. I think they have got their priorities wrong here; they have, in fact, put the cart before the horse. Here again, it is the small man who is going to suffer. The big breeder can have his own records of litter testing,
992
can do his own culling and so gradually work up to a better quality. But the small man, who is unable to do that, is at the mercy of the market; and at the moment, without progeny testing records available, he is in the position, to use the old phrase, of having to buy a pig in a poke.
I should like to ask the noble Earl two questions, both of which may be naïve. I can assure him that they are not loaded questions, but are quite simple ones. First of all, would he explain, in view of the decrease in the guaranteed price for wheat and the increase for coarse grains, how the balance of payments is going to be helped if we have to import more wheat instead of importing coarse grains? If, in fact, a farmer grows a ton less wheat and a ton more coarse grains, and we therefore import a ton more wheat and a ton less of coarse grains, how exactly will the balance of payments problem be helped? The second question, which is purely on a point of explanation, is this. In the White Paper there is a reference to the increased calf subsidy for steer calves, but unfortunately the wording appears to some of my farmer friends to be a little ambiguous. It says:
"In accordance with the policy of encouraging beef production, the rate of calf subsidy will be increased to £8 10s. 0d. in respect of steer calves born on or after"
a certain date. I gather that some people read that to mean that the rate of subsidy will be increased, and will in future be confined to steer calves, while others read it as meaning that the rate will be increased in respect of steer calves but will remain at the former level so far as heifer calves are concerned. I think it will be agreed that the wording is a little ambiguous and may be read one way or the other, and an explanation on that would be most useful.
I have one final point in regard to what I would call, not long-term policy but long-term intentions. None of us would suggest that it is possible to guarantee farmers high prices for all time for everything they want to produce. A balance must be held between what is in the agricultural interest and what is in the national interest, although, broadly speaking, I do not think that anything which is good for agriculture will be bad for the national economy. But there must be a balance, and I think it should not be difficult to indicate the extent of increased

993
production which is desired from agriculture as long as we have a balance of payments problem—and we are likely to have that as far ahead as anyone can see. I would ask the Government to remember in office what they said during the passage of the Agriculture Act when they were in Opposition. It was best summed up by Sir Thomas Dugdale, who was then speaking from the Conservative Front Opposition Bench, and who subsequently became Minister of Agriculture. If I may paraphrase what he said, he asked the Labour Government to give an undertaking that, no matter what pressure there was in years to come upon our markets to absorb export surpluses from overseas countries, British agriculture would be adequately protected. That was the Conservative view at that time. Does it remain the view of Her Majesty's Government at the present time?
4.42 p.m.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: My Lords, I am sure we are all grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, for introducing this most important subject. After all, in dealing with agriculture we are dealing with probably the greatest of our basic industries and an industry upon whose prosperity the whole countryside depends. But, unfortunately, it is, I think, as so many of your Lordships have said to-day, the only industry which annually is put under a microscope and examined, which has all its faults and virtues pointed out to it, and for which eventually a policy is produced for the next year. I feel that that has the most unsettling effect on the industry. Therefore I welcome the paragraph in the Price Review which encourages us to think that the Government, with the help, we hope, of the farmers' leaders, will really get down to producing a long-term policy for agriculture. One realises the enormous difficulties. It is incredibly difficult to forecast the future, but I feel it is essential that something should be done on these lines, because this Annual Review is a most upsetting policy. Unfortunately, that is the position at the moment—we have this Review, and this afternoon it is our duty to examine it.
I am perhaps one of the few people to-day who, in talking to quite a number of farmers, have not found them quite so shaken by this Review as some of your Lordships to whom we have listened this
994
afternoon have found them. I have not found any farmer who said, "What a marvellous Review! I never expected anything so wonderful as this." A number of farmers have thought that, in the circumstances, taking the whole situation, the Review was as good as they could reasonably expect. What is the position in the industry? As has been pointed out, at the moment it is producing as much as it has ever produced before-155 per cent. of the pre-war production—and it is increasing in efficiency at the rate of some £30 million a year. This is a fine record, and one must congratulate the industry on its tremendous achievement. But had the basic policy over the last few years been unsound I do not think we should have reached that position to-day.
What must be the object of this Review? I think the main object must be to ensure the steady progress of the industry, to enable it to play its maximum part in our balance of payments difficulties, and to ensure a reasonable livelihood for those engaged in it. So far as production is concerned, the position at the moment is that we are, I think, producing mere corn than ever before, but on a reduced acreage. On the other hand, we have more grass than we have animals to eat it. At the same time, we are producing rather too much milk. If one takes the January figures, at the time of the highest cost of production there were 34 million gallons of milk to go to manufacture. In fact, the production of milk far exceeds the market at the moment. We are producing a large number of pigs and a large number of eggs. Would it be right to encourage the increase of production in those three commodities? In the Review a halfpenny a gallon has been put on milk, but I agree that that does not meet the full extra cost of production. But, apart from that, we must not forget that we have also an increase in the fertiliser subsidy, and there is no doubt that fertilisers, particularly the nitrogenous ones, play an extremely high part in the production of milk. There is also the grant for silos, which again will help us make the fullest use of the grass and our own home-produced feedingstuffs in the production of milk, and try so far as possible to avoid using the high-cost imported feedingstuffs.
As my noble friend Lord Bledisloe so rightly said, at the moment the average

995
production is far too low. It is in the neighbourhood of 520 gallons a cow, and, surely, there must be some scope for the milk industry to cut its costs by increased efficiency Then we have the pigs. I have spoken to a number of producers of pigs, and I do not believe that at the moment the efficient producer is very worried. I do not think the efficient producer of pigs is necessarily the large producer; there are a number of small producers who are extremely efficient. I believe that over the last few years the pig producer has had an extremely raw deal, because it has been difficult to follow what the policy is. One moment one is asked to produce more pigs, as the noble Lord, Lord Archibald, so rightly said; the next moment one is obviously supposed not to have so many pigs.
With the position as it is at the moment, I think it would be wrong to give any encouragement to people to come into pig-breeding from outside, and if there were any increase in price it would tend to do that, as we have seen in the past. Every time there has been an increase in the price of pigs, the increase in the number of pigs has been astronomical and extremely rapid. The moment the producer sees the green light with the pig, his numbers can be increased in a very short time. There comes a time in the life of every lady pig when it has to be decided whether she becomes a mother or bacon. If it is decided that she shall become a mother, within a very short time she will produce a large litter of pigs, and one's number of pigs will rise rapidly. So, in the pig industry, the first thing on which we must concentrate is increasing efficiency. There I am entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Archibald, that we must encourage particularly the progeny-testing stations and every other means of increasing efficiency. Another product about which there is a certain amount of dissatisfaction is eggs. I am not an egg producer, and I find it remarkable, if producing eggs is so unprofitable, how the number of poultry generally over the last year has increased—and not only the number of poultry but the production. If it is so unprofitable, those figures seem to be rather astonishing.
996
Surely the right thing to do, and what the Price Review is encouraging, is to increase the production of beef, to make the fullest use of our surplus grassland. There I have my first real criticism of the present system. I do not quarrel with the price—I think the guaranteed price is satisfactory and reasonable—but the administration of the guarantees at the moment is unsatisfactory. It is not really inherent in this Price Review but springs from the last Price Review. There is the question of the rolling average, which means that the price is based on the average of prices for the last twelve months. That seems to me to be too lone a period. It means that the person who is selling cattle now is getting a low price and a low subsidy because somebody else sold cattle at a high price a year ago. Although these average prices are all very well, we must try to see that the subsidy goes to the person who really needs it. If the price of cattle is low now and high in six months' time and I sell in six months' time, I shall get not only a better price but also an increased subsidy. I cannot feel that that is right. But, on the whole, it seems to me that the Price Review is the logical outcome of the diagnosis of the condition of the industry at the moment. There has been a considerable amount of support for it in a number of the more responsible papers. We should not at the moment criticise it too harshly, but should hope that during the next year the increase in the prosperity of the industry will continue.
4.57 p.m.
LORD LUKE: My Lords, we have had an interesting debate so far. I should like to pay a tribute to the noble Lords who have taken part, more especially to the two noble Lords, Lord Walpole and Lord Lansdowne, who made their maiden speeches, and to the noble Earl, Lord Halifax, for I feel that it is one of the tenets of your Lordships' House that on each subject that is debated we bring together Peers who have practical experience of the subject in hand. Your Lordships will be glad to know that at this stage of the debate, about half-way through, a great number of things can be left out of my speech, which I therefore hope will be commendably short. But I do not think we have yet heard anything about the condition of the country as a whole. I suggest—I may be wrong—that

997
this Price Review is possibly meant to be farming's contribution to the "squeeze" campaign. We have established, presumably, that there is a gap between the rise in the subsidies and the rise in the costs of farming production. Other industries have not had price reviews but they are all being asked to keep prices down. Here, agriculture has been offered a rise in price though we know full well that it does not cover the costs. However, if this is a process of mopping up money for disinflationary purposes, agriculture as a whole will not be averse to making its contribution.
I want to deal with only two points this afternoon. The first is the fear of greater imports of beef from the Argentine; and the second relates to capital for agriculture. On the first subject, concerning how much beef will be coming from the Argentine, I, in common with others, look at this question with considerable fear for the cattle breeders of the United Kingdom, because if we are to see a return to the sort of imports of chilled beef that we knew between the wars, without restriction, then obviously, unless the Government adopt other measures, we shall notice a considerable change in the price that our own farmers can get for beef; and with a narrowing margin I think there is no question of costs remaining stable or falling; they will probably rise all the time.
Apart from that, I am wondering whether we cannot turn our thoughts a little more towards what can be done with scientific feeding. In this regard I am glad to see that there is Government encouragement for more home grown feedingstuffs. I think that we in the farming community must try to learn what research can teach us; for what is it we need to do? We know, as the noble Earl, Lord Halifax, has already said, that this is a long-term business, and I suppose that breeding cattle is the longest-term business in agriculture. We need to turn our minds to earlier maturity so that we can bring the cattle to market earlier and thereby shorten the whole process. As cattle raising is a long-term business, it obviously needs long-term security. I make no apology for repeating that. I think every noble Lord has already said it, and I hope that every
998
other noble Lord will continue to say it throughout this debate.
This production is unlike production in other spheres of our economy. As the noble Earl has said, any other production can be switched off quickly, and so can cattle breeding be switched off quickly; but you can quickly switch on machine production and get the process going again, with a quick return. That is something that you cannot do with cattle raising. I say this to Her Majesty's Government: that if we help the Argentine trade by taking imports of meat, then there should be the quid pro quo of greater exports to the Argentine, so helping our whole export position, not excluding our export of breeding cattle.
If imported meat takes too great a share of the United Kingdom market, then I hope that Her Majesty's Government will not only watch the matter carefully but will take steps to support home production or at least to counter the threat. It is only fair, as I think was said by the noble Viscount who opened the debate, that if the Government are not prepared to do this they should say so and not allow the industry to draft into an unsatisfactory position. Might we not see another Government publication similar to the popular White Paper just published on the whole economic situation? That is most readable. I do not say that this Annual Review and Determination of Guarantees is not readable, but I think it could he made more readable to some of us who cannot quite get all its points. Even this afternoon noble Lords have been asking questions of detail about what some parts of it mean.
I would remind your Lordships that breeding beef in the Argentine—about which I have a certain amount of knowledge—is a rather easier matter than in this country. Beef production anywhere in the world is more costly than it used to be, but we have to remember that countries in the Southern Hemisphere have a great advantage over us in that winter feeding is not necessary. It is on just this particular differential, if I may so call it, that the Government ought to have their eye, and they should remember that it is not quite fair competition that our own agricultural industry is facing. May I also remind them that there is a difference in seasons. The best time for maturing and fattening cattle in the

999
Argentine is not the same as here, and if, in the negotiations which I understand are going on, that matter could be brought in, I think it would be helpful, so that the flush of imported meat does not occur at the same time as our own flush in this country.
My Lords, a word about capital. It is a truism to say that land itself is capital; but the return in production is slower, more long-term than in any other industry, and I would suggest that there is not much in the way of reserves. Again, as we have heard stressed this afternoon, this is especially so with small farmers. I was particularly struck by what was said by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, in his excellent speech, about co-operation among farmers. I hope that that will strike a note. I believe that there are some co-operative societies which work most satisfactorily, but I do not believe this to be a common matter.
In regard to the question of capital, whether large or small, for agriculture, I think it is generally agreed that this must come from outside, and of course it is not as readily available as it might be. We find that the best farming land is being farmed well; as such it is likely to attract capital for further development. Units then tend to grow bigger, and we find them reaching their most economic working size. The smaller farmer tends to be short of capital and, as we well know, the marginal farmer usually lacks capital altogether, even though he needs it most. This has rightly been the subject of Government assistance. Subsidies have been a form of capital assistance; without that assistance and in default of assured markets, farming obviously makes progress backwards. If farming had to do without Government assistance, it would have to get it from somewhere or else it could not exist. To a certain extent, farming is under-capitalised. There are critics who may say, perhaps not too loudly, "Well, let it die. Bring food in cheaply from overseas." I would remind your Lordships that it is not as cheap as it used to be.
There is none of us, I think, who would really wish to see agriculture in that position. But if the industry is to be kept efficient, and if it is to be kept prosperous, then it needs to attract capital and it needs to attract good
1000
men, and for this it needs a long-term view and long-term prospects. Compared with other industries it is not at all an easy matter for agriculture to raise capital. As has already been pointed out, other industries have profits and dividends to attract capital; not so the farmer. I conclude by saying that in agriculture capital is needed. There is the land itself; there is equipment—most necessary if farming is to become ever more efficient—and there is working capital. All of these rely on a sufficient return to make the whole work well. So, just as the industry must, in its very nature, take a long-term view, is it too much to ask Her Majesty's Government to take as long-term a view as farming itself?
5.10 p.m.
LORD WISE: My Lords, in the first place I should like to extend my good wishes to the noble Lord, Lord Walpole, as coming from Norfolk, on his maiden speech. I do so the more warmly because his distinguished predecessor of over 200 years ago occupied in the other place the representative seat which I occupied a few years ago; so that I speak with some background.
This is possibly the most important agricultural debate that we have had in your Lordships' House for many a long day, and curiously enough it has shown, from both sides of the House, some consensus of opinion about the present position of the farming industry. As has been said, the Price Review has had an extraordinary reception in the country as a whole. I cannot remember a Review which has met with such opposition. Though I do not suppose it is possible at this time to amend it, I hope that in the months ahead we shall have from Her Majesty's Government a long-term policy under which agriculture will be assured of more consideration than it has received during the last two or three weeks.
The noble Lord who has just sat down referred, with a good deal of sympathy for British farming, to the difference between Argentine imported beef and the home product. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will carefully consider the points which he made and how the importation of Argentine beef is sometimes to the detriment of the home producer. The noble Lord also

1001
referred to the crisis. I hold the view that, if any interest should suffer as a result of the credit squeeze and the economic crisis which this country is experiencing at the present time, it should not be the farming industry. We in the farming industry are in no way responsible for the present economic and financial crisis. We are not an exporting industry. We have done our job and have produced the home products which were needed. We have suffered from, lack of capital. We are suffering now through the high rates of interest charged on the borrowing of capital. We are suffering very greatly from the action of the Government in this respect.
My noble leader referred to a speech which the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn made a few days ago, of which I found a copy in another agricultural paper in another county. With all fairness and kindness I wish to refer to what the noble Earl said. My noble leader picked up the same point: that the Government had concluded that national requirements could best be met by intensifying the policy of decontrol which they had started to develop four years ago. That particular statement needs to be examined very closely. I do not know where that is at present leading the farming industry, and I feel that it is extremely dangerous to say to the farming industry now that in the years to come everything is to be decontrolled. If you say that, you pay lip service to Part I of the Agriculture Act, as my noble friend mentioned; but it will be impossible to implement Part I of the Act unless there is a fair measure of control. It is impossible to guarantee prices or assure markets, and if it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government, in years to come, once again to open agriculture as a free-for-all, then we in the industry have due cause to be very agitated about what the future may bring for us.
We well remember the days of free enterprise and free markets, and the iniquities which followed that particular method in our industry. Are we going to allow, under free markets and free systems, vested interests outside to fix our prices as they used to do? Are we to allow those London meetings which at the beginning of each week fixed agricultural prices in the markets for the whole of that week? We must have a measure of control, with the Government
1002
behind us, and I sincerely hope that what I read into the speech of the noble Earl is not, in fact, the definite intention of Her Majesty's Government; and I hope that he will be able, to explain that. In the years between the wars we went through chaotic and depressive conditions, and we certainly do not want those conditions to come again in the agricultural industry. I should rather like to hear the noble Earl speak from his practical experience on these matters, and not from his brief, and I should like him to tell me when, as a farmer, he was better off—under control or under a free marketing system. If he spoke as a farmer to a farmer I am certain we should agree as to when we were both better off.
I want to deal very briefly with the question of beef, which is very important. Lately, I have been alarmed at the drop in the price per live, cwt. for fat cattle. A few weeks ago they dropped to almost the lowest level, though now they are gradually rising. Perhaps I do not understand the finer arts in matters of this kind, but I cannot understand why we produce fat cattle of a certain grade in one year, as we did last year, and receive anything from 180s. to 190s. per live cwt. and this year go to tie markets and find the same cattle selling for 120s. or 130s. per live cwt. That does not happen in other industries. If people produce a motor car or some other mechanical device in one year, the price is a certain figure; and it is the same in the next year; but in agriculture we never know from market to market, or from day to day, what the prices are likely to be.
Listen to this example of stupidity. Two or three weeks ago, in a market it East Anglia which I know well, a fairly big farmer sent twenty-five fat cattle to market. He happened to pick on that particular day and lost £500; he lost £20 a head on twenty-five cattle, compared to the price he would have received if he had sold those cattle a month before or a month later. That stupidity is borne out by prices quoted in the Farmer's Weekly of March 23, which speaks of cattle prices going up everywhere with an increase of 33s. per live cwt. and similar such figures. That was a jump of nearly £20 per head on one weekly market. Can your Lordships imagine the feelings of a farmer who sent his cattle to the same market and received 33s. a live cwt. less

1003
than he would have received had he sent them seven days later? That is the kind of thing I want to overcome in our industry. But I warn the Government that they cannot accomplish that under a system of free enterprise or free markets. There must be control, as there was during the war. The Government are talking in terms of long-term policy. Have they envisaged that, if war came in the next two or three years, we in agriculture should have to go back to the policy which was adopted in the war years; that free markets and attachments of that sort would immediately have to be swept on one side? Full Government control would have to come in once again.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL ST. ALDWYN): Of course it would. And there would be rationing at the other end.
LORD WISE: That may be. In war circumstances, we should need to have rationing. We should also meet once again the best customer that British agriculture ever had—the Ministry of Food; and we should be certain as to which way we were going.
I want now for a moment or two to speak on the subject of the smallholder. This afternoon, pigs, milk and poultry have all been mentioned, and my noble friend from Norfolk, in the last speech to which your Lordships listened, suggested that it would not much matter if we reduced the production of pigs, milk or eggs. But those particular commodities are the bread and butter of the small farmer: he has to produce them, and he has to be safeguarded. Where is the safeguard in the present Review of Prices? Mention has been made of 6d. per score off pig prices, and a halfpenny per gallon on milk—the last, incidentally, has been referred to as an insult to the dairy industry. An increase of a halfpenny on milk does not half meet the extra cost of production. And there is no change in the price of eggs. The small farmer is in a very precarious position at the present time. He has a few head of stock to send to market, and if he meets a bad market such as I have described, he can lose pretty well the whole of his capital in one deal.
1004
I have here a point which I wish to make and perhaps noble Lords will check me on it—it relates to the question of bankruptcies in agriculture and kindred trades. One can hardly ever pick up the weekly records of bankruptcies without finding one or two farmers in the list. And, strangely, in this morning's edition of The Times there is a list of the bankruptcies recorded during the last week. Ignoring the High Court cases, there are eighteen cases of bankruptcies in the Provinces, and seven of those eighteen are bankruptcies of farmers, smallholders, or other people concerned with the land. I do not say that "the writing is on the wall," but it is important to take stock of these matters when we are talking about a successful and prosperous agriculture. Of course men did go bankrupt in the past we know; but the fact remains that, week by week, we are now finding farmers in the bankruptcy courts, whereas two or three years ago such a thing was almost unheard of.
We have been told this afternoon about profits and losses. I have here details of a case which will show your Lordships the position of the small farmer to-day. If noble Lords who are engaged in the farming industry will make a mental note of the figures which I give, I think they will say that the man concerned ought to have made a decent living. The man concerned is a farmer. He has sixty acres; he runs 1,800 laying hens, forty-five sows and gilts, and 300 fattening pigs. He has ten acres of sugar beet. His books are all properly kept, but instead of showing a very decent living, as they should—for he is a man of intelligence, and works hard—his books last year showed a loss. It was not a paper loss but a definite loss of capital and profit. I am alarmed at this sort of thing happening in my own industry.
I wish to make a plea to the Government to take good stock of the position of the young man. What is the inducement at the present time to the young man to go into agriculture? He cannot borrow; he cannot buy; and prices are high and credit facilities limited. He has the greatest difficulty in getting a farm to rent—a farm of any standing at all—and he wonders what the future holds for him. Figures relating to the incomes of small farmers have been quoted by my noble friend Lord Archibald. As has

1005
been stated, those incomes are practically negligible and little, if at all, better than those of the ordinary agricultural worker. Where is the incentive, from the Government or anyone else, for the young man to go into the agricultural industry? He has seen his father farming fairly successfully during the war years, with everything controlled; he now sees losses being incurred in the industry and the whole business becoming very haphazard. The result is that he enters another industry where he is sure of getting a decent living in return for an honest day's work. I hope that we shall not let the industry further lapse, or allow it to revert to the state which we know it was in between the wars.
One final word. The noble Earl, Lord Halifax, referred to the question of control in a long-term policy. I think that is important—I mentioned it a moment ago in connection with the question of the war risk. I therefore suggest to the Government that, instead of being a little theoretical on the question of freeing the industry, they should look back and note what a great success was made of the industry during the period of the war years, and the years immediately following the war, when the industry was prosperous, when production was rising, and when we had control and good, steady, stable markets.
5.30 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I trust that what I have to say this afternoon will not take up a great deal of your Lordships' time. I want to touch on one aspect which I think has so far been by-passed. I have been surprised at the hostility shown by some farmers towards the Price Review. Although I seem to be rather a lone bird in this respect, I was surprised that the guarantees were put as high as they are. I should like to associate myself heartily with the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, in his utter condemnation of the extreme and pugnacious verbosities which have fallen from some people who are supposed to be the leaders, or who, I rather fancy, would like to be the leaders, of the farming community. Whatever may be 'the justification, I feel that what they have said is completely divorced from the dignity which is expected of agriculture.
1006
In all the criticisms that have been made, I have not, I think, heard or read one criticism of the Price Review in which agriculture has not been the sole and only interest mentioned. I do not believe I have read or heard one criticism of the Price Review in which consideration of the present economic position of the country has been given as much weight as the interests of agriculture. It is about the economic position that I should like to say a few words. There is a feeling in this country to-day of "I want 10s. a week more. It does not matter if, because of my increase, the cost of living goes up 8s.; I shall still be 2s. better off." That feeling permeates every single union, nearly every single business, and, if we are honest, nearly every single individual. It is that attitude which is utterly ruining this country. The country is riddled with it, and it is that form of egotistical outlook which is destroying the confidence that many people would have in this country. People in all walks of life tend to think only of their own points of view, without thinking of their industry or business in relation to the economy of the country as a whole. I feel that that attitude is also prominent among the criticisms made of the Price Review.
I should welcome not only a guaranteed extra £25 million but a factual extra £50 million. Of course, it could he well employed; and the country and agriculture, farmers and farm workers alike, would all benefit from it. But, frankly, I do not believe that that would be the right course to take. I think that if an extra £50 million were given to the farmers, they would still come out with a tremendous criticism. I believe that if we gave them the earth, there would still be criticism, if not from the farmers then front the townsfolk. I sincerely support the Government because I feel that they have been as fair and as just as they reasonably could be. If we are going to criticise the Price Review, we must criticise it in the light of the whole economic situation, without bias; and if we do that, I am sure we shall agree that we could not expect the Government to have done much more.
It is said that there is anxiety in the agricultural industry. There is a degree of anxiety, and rightly so. In my estimation, there should be a degree of anxiety in every single industry at this present time, for if there are industries which are

1007
completely devoid of any tinge of anxiety, then those industries are doing nothing at all to help the country get back to its correct position. Unpleasant though it may be, the farming community is having to absorb some of its costs. The farmers should be proud of being asked to do that, of being given the chance of showing the way to other industries in adopting the principle that if the country is prosperous then the individual will be prosperous, as opposed to the misguided view that if the individual is prosperous then the country will be prosperous. I hope that agriculture will not be left on a pinnacle of its own in this respect, and that other industries also will endeavour to curtail their costs and thus keep their prices low. I can only think that, in present circumstances, the Government have given agriculture a fair, reasonable and just Price Review. But I would ask the Government to do one thing—and this is a reiteration of a sentiment I put forward in the last debate on agriculture in your Lordships' House. I would ask the Government to bear in mind most strongly the possibility in future of giving greater grants for capital expenditure, so that the effects will be felt over many years in lieu of some of the more limited forms of annual grants which last for one year and then gently lapse into oblivion.
5.38 p.m.
LORD MELCHETT: My Lords on the whole the Government have been under rather severe fire this afternoon from all sides of your Lordships' House and I find myself probably in a minority, amongst those who welcome the Price Review and the statements of policy which are contained in the White Paper. I should like to echo the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Halifax, who said that the people responsible for dealing with the vexed problems of agricultural policy are in an extremely difficult position. I believe that those who give serious thought to the whole question of future production policy realise that it is not easy to make adjustments which will be both practicable to administer and carry out and which at the same time will be reasonably effective. My own feeling is that the Review has given the farmers a fair deal, taking all the circumstances into account, and they have
1008
not been asked to make such a great contribution by way of additional effort.
Much has been said about the increase of efficiency in the industry, and about how much has been absorbed by the farming community in additional costs, but I think that we should face the fact that there is still an enormous amount of inefficiency, judged purely on economic grounds, in many farming enterprises. Often comparisons are drawn between the cost of production in this country and in Denmark and Holland. In many instances, there is a great deal of inefficiency—I do not mean in the sense of people not working hard or not trying hard, but simply that we are continuing to pursue rather inefficient methods or out-of-date techniques. To go on simply adding to the prices and raising the subsidies when the costs of production rise each year can only perpetuate the existing inefficiencies in the system. It is mainly for this reason that I think the Government have been brave and reasonable in facing up to the principle of not recouping the whole of the additional cost at this time.
I particularly welcome the increase in the production grants for fertilisers, and also the new grant for silos, which I believe to be an enlightened move that should increase the production of feeding-stuffs from our own resources in this country. Probably the most important paragraph in the White Paper is that at the end, which leads us to hope that there may be longer-term assurances as a result of which we can have a little more forward planning. I am among the large number of your Lordships who have contributed to the debate this afternoon who believe that forward planning is necessary. I do not believe that a long-Wm policy which guarantees specific prices and specific markets for individual commodities is necessary or practicable. I cannot follow my noble friend Lord Luke, who said that it is essential in agriculture and not so essential in other industries. It is just as difficult in a manufacturing industry to lay down a big plant, to make plans for years ahead, to carry out research and often make pilot plant experiments. In a manufacturing industry one is often committed, if not so far ahead, almost as far ahead as is a farmer breeding beef cattle. I am unable to follow the argument which

1009
insists that agriculture needs something different, something more specific and far-reaching in long-term guarantees, from what is enjoyed by other industries.
I do not want to follow noble Lords who have dealt with many specific items in the Price Review, but I should like to make two suggestions in relation to "more forward planning", as it is called in the White Paper, which I feel the Government might consider. In the paragraph which deals with production policy the White Paper says:
"But even greater emphasis than before must be put on the substitution of homegrown products (mainly grass and other feeding-stuffs) for imports, and on economies in the use of imported materials."
I think I am right in saying that words to that effect have appeared in practically every Economic Survey and every Price Review since 1952. The actual practical encouragement that has been given to people to make better use of home-produced materials, particularly grass, and to substitute them for imports, has never so far matched the urgency of the tone of the pronouncements on policy. I am of the opinion that the present proposals will not achieve anything worth while by way of results.
The silo grant is a move in the right direction; and the small increase in the price for coarse grains may have a little effect. But if one puts against these small incentives the fact that the Government have completely freed the import of feeding-stuffs—limitless dollars are provided for those people importing feeding-stuffs, an advantage which is granted to very few categories of importers in this country at the present time—and then subsidise the end livestock products in the chain of production, it means only that a much greater incentive is given to people to use the imported feeding-stuffs, since the prices which are fixed in the Review allow for the more or less limitless use of feeding-stuffs at the market prices. If the Government are really serious about their grassland policy, could we not have a grassland production subsidy? I do not mean merely a grant for putting up silos, but to bring grass among the crops which receive direct support. I know there would be great difficulty in arriving at a satisfactory system of measurement and in administering a subsidy of that sort, but I do not think the difficulty insuperable, and I
1010
believe that the actual results, in terms of increased production from our own farms, would make up for any slight inefficiencies or shortcomings in the subsidy scheme itself.
The Government themselves have pointed out in the White Paper that the increase in the area of grass has now out-stripped the number of grass-eating animals. And even before this trend developed, the O.E.E.C. Report which followed a survey of grassland production in North-West Europe put this country one from the bottom of all countries in North-West Europe—in fact the output, in terms of energy per acre, from our grassland was only about half that of Holland. That is a disturbing thought, when we enjoy a better climate and, on the whole, more favourable soil conditions than countries on the other side of the Channel. An immense amount could be done to increase our output and thereby save the import of feeding-stuffs. I think the most important point in this respect is that it has been shown by the most progressive and efficient grassland farmers that intensive production can be carried out at lower cost, and therefore with higher profits, than by relying to such a large extent on imported feeding-stuffs, or feeding-stuffs brought on to the farm.
I believe that the extent to which we are dependent at the present time on feeding-stuffs brought from abroad is little realised. The national dairy herd last year, which averaged only 700 gallons of milk per cow, consumed 3½ lb. of imported concentrates for every gallon of milk produced, which is practically all the energy required for the production of a gallon of milk. This means to say that the only contribution our farms made to the national dairy herd last year was simply to keep the cows alive. To me that is a most sobering thought, and I earnestly ask the Government whether they cannot devise some system of increasing the incentives for farmers to make the maximum use of their grassland which is now once again far and away the biggest acreage of all farm crops in this country.
We are sometimes asked why, if it is more profitable to farm grassland intensively, more farmers do not do it, and why it is necessary to provide an incentive. It is worth mentioning that such farming requires a great deal more effort on the

1011
part of the farmer. He has to lay down pedigree grass leys, use larger quantities of fertilisers, buy electric fences, learn new techniques and from every point of view make a greater effort and enter into more risks. So long as he can make a profit, or a reasonably good living, by buying most of what he requires to feed his animals out of the bag delivered to the farm, with guaranteed quality, there is little incentive for him to depart into unknown risks and to try to learn new systems of husbandry. It is for this reason that I feel there is a great deal to be said for trying to find some way of producing a positive incentive to get grassland production on to a more intensive system.
I do not wish to detain your Lordships unduly, but I should like to make one other point in relation to the future planning of commodity production, as I think it is referred to in the White Paper. The Government indicate in the paragraph under "Commodity Policy" the directions in which they would like to see production develop. However much one reads into that short statement, it amounts to little more than an increase in production of meat, everything else to go along more or less as it is, with perhaps a little more efficiency and a little more home production. Personally, I should have thought that, in the general economic circumstances in which this country finds itself at the moment, a rather disturbing statement of the Government's long-term view. Anyone who has studied the energy requirements of this country in about ten years' time knows well that, even if atomic energy makes the contribution we expect, we shall have to import an enormously increased amount of fuel to provide the electric and other power which it is forecast will be essential to keep industry going.
So far as one can see, the simple fact is that we shall not be able to do that and import food on the same scale or in the same proportion as we are doing at the present time. Of course there are many other factors to take into account, such as the import of raw materials and other things which we simply do not possess in this country. On the other hand, the one natural resource of which we are well endowed is our land. We
1012
have an ideal climate for growing food, second probably only to that of New Zealand. We have rich soil, ample knowledge and skill, and the possibilities of increasing our home production of food more cheaply and more efficiently would seem to be about the one direction in which we could make a real contribution to our balance of payments problem over the next few years.
Various estimates have been made of the additional import savings which could be made. I think the noble Viscount who opened the debate mentioned £100 million. I believe that in five or six years we could save, without much difficulty, about £200 million. That would need an increase in production in all commodities: wheat, from improved varieties which can be produced quite cheaply over most of the country; poultry; pig meat—in fact, the whole range of commodities. I should have thought that it would be disappointing to many people if the forward planning is to be based merely on getting more or less the same volume of production as we have at the moment. Much as one would welcome a forward plan, I hope that the Government will give serious thought as to whether, written into that plan, there is not a need for some indication that over the next few years we are going to set our sights a little higher and aim at saving at least £100 million worth of food imports in the next five years.
5.56 p.m.
LORD FORBES: My Lords, may I at the outset apologise to the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, for not being here at the beginning of the debate? I excuse myself on the ground that I was attending the wedding of a Member of your Lordships' House. Taking a broad look at this Review, I think one can say that, owing to the country's economic situation, it is a fair Review, not only for the farmer but also for the country. Although profitability of farming has been falling during the last three years, farmers have once more been asked to tighten their belts. This is undoubtedly a great challenge which I am certain will be accepted by the farmers, provided—and "provided" is the key word—the Government themselves and all other industries tighten their belts, because we are all in this economic battle together.

1013
There is one statement in the Review that I am certain all farmers must welcome, and that is that consideration will be given as to whether longer-term assurances can be devised. If this means that the farmer will be able to plan with confidence in the future and that he will not have to undergo that agony every Spring of wondering whether the Government will put him out with a whiff of chloroform or give him a tonic, then I support the idea wholeheartedly. I wish to congratulate Her Majesty's Government on stating in paragraph 33 of the Review that they are to seek the necessary legislative powers to make grants towards the construction of silos. I welcome this particularly, as during the last debate on agriculture I advocated that such a step should be taken. There are no details in the White Paper as to the details of this grant towards silo construction, and I hope the noble Earl, when he replies for the Government, will be able to enlighten us further. I hope that the words "construction of silos" will be taken to include the roofing of this valuable feeding-stuff against rain and snow. It would be a retrograde step not to include roofing of this feeding-stuff which is already saving the country many tons of imports.
Roofing of silage was first of all carried out by agricultural research workers at Hillsborough in Northern Ireland. There it was found that silage with a roof over it had a far higher feeding value than silage without a roof. Soon farmers became interested in this, and the next step was the introduction in Northern Ireland of a 50 per cent. grant towards the construction of permanent roofed silage pits. The result of this was phenomenal, because in 1948 there were 59 silos in Northern Ireland, and in 1953 there were 1,500, of which 1,200 were roofed. Trials were also carried out by the Edinburgh and East of Scotland College of Agriculture. That college covers an area of only moderate rainfall. There it was found that up to 30 per cent. of the silage in a pit could loose the majority of its feeding value through seepage of rain and snow. This represents the loss of a very large amount of feeding-stuffs which would otherwise have to be made good by imports. This loss must not be allowed to go on; we just cannot afford it.
1014
In the debate last February the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, suggested that the cost of erecting; silos was relatively small. I find that to erect a silo to hold 150 tons and to put a permanent roof over it costs about £500. Today, when farmers have very little capital, I do not think one can call that a relatively small sum. Therefore I sincerely hope that Her Majesty's Government will obtain the necessary legislative powers. I advocate strongly that grants should be given towards the construction of permanent roofed silos and, where silos already exist, towards the permanent roofing of them.
Next, I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to a system of farming known as alternate husbandry. As your Lordships probably know, this system means that each field has a period of years under arable crops alternating with periods of grass. There is nothing rigid about this system in fact, flexibility of cropping is its great merit. The great feature of this system is that, while the field is in grass and is being properly grazed, it builds up fertility which is then cashed out by growing heavy cereal crops with much less fertiliser. The result is, more at less cost. Surely that is what Her Majesty's Government are asking the farmer to do: bring down the unit cost of production. More at less cost certainly seems to have a Scottish flavour about it, so it is not surprising that we find that alternate husbandry was probably practised by the Scottish monks in the fifteenth century and at any rate has been developed in Scotland since 1730.
Other advantages of this system include more productive grass, which means a better soil structure, and it is also an aid towards controlling animal disease and weeds. During the First World War it was estimated that production in Scotland per acre from crops and grass was 20 per cent. higher than in England, and as a result Scottish farmers were less dependent on imported feeding-stuffs and could carry more cattle per acre. This superiority in husbandry was undoubtedly due to the fact that a greater proportion of alternate husbandry was practised in Scotland than in England. Surely alternate husbandry should be practised wherever land can be economically ploughed, as it seems to be the answer to the Government's aim of more coarse

1015
grains, less imported feed and a reduction in the unit costs of production.
Ploughing grants are already encouraging alternate husbandry, as it gives the farmer an incentive to plough up grass; but does everyone realise the great benefit to be derived from ploughing up productive grass as opposed to old and unproductive grass? It is the productive grass ploughed down, and not the old unproductive grass, that gives the fertility build-up for the succeeding crops. I am not for one moment advocating organic farming. But I would say that, when sowing a cereal crop after productive grass, the farmer can save at least 2 cwt. of fertiliser per acre. That means a saving of about 45s. an acre, taking into consideration the fertiliser grant, or about 62s. 6d. without the fertiliser grant. It is also a saving to the country because less fertiliser has to be imported.
Bound up with this is the need for good grass seed to produce good grass. Your Lordships may recall that in the debate on agriculture in February I drew your Lordships' attention to a scheme called the National Scheme for Comprehensive Certification of Herbage Seeds. The noble Earl who replied for the Government stated that the Government supported this scheme most wholeheartedly and he did not know if it required any further support. I think this scheme will require further support. Initially, the cost of these very good seeds is bound to be high until farmers come to realise the great benefits to be derived from them. Then consumption will rise and the cost of production should come down. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will consider this point, as I feel that once the scheme is on its feet it will be absolutely self-supporting; but it may need some help to get it on its feet. The question is: do we know all there is to be known about grass and its fertility building abilities? I think the answer is "No". I therefore suggest to Her Majesty's Government that a committee should be set up to inquire into the abilities of grass to profit the national farming economy. It is imperative that the farmer and the nation should know all about grass and should be able to profit from its great qualities.
Now, with all humility, I should like to give a warning to Her Majesty's
1016
Government for the future. This Review will have the effect of reducing what has been a narrow margin of profit to the farmers to even narrower proportions. It will therefore kill any hope that the farmer has of making a surplus to plough back into his farm in the form of profits. I maintain that the Government's aim of reducing unit costs of production can be carried out to a certain extent by increasing yields, by better management, especially grassland management, and by alternate husbandry, but some day—and perhaps that day is not too far distant—increased production and a reduction in the unit cost of production will come only through increased capital so that we can rebuild our many antiquated and totally inadequate farm buildings. Most of our farm buildings are inefficient, because they waste not only manpower but also man hours. It is true to say that many of our buildings are more inefficient than we ourselves think.
It may interest your Lordships to know that last month an adviser from the British. Productivity Council carried out a time and motion study on a forty-cow dairy farm in the North-East of Scotland. The buildings of this farm were, if anything, above the average for the locality and were well above the national average. Yet it was found that the cowman on this farm had to walk no less than 3,000 miles in carrying out his duties during the year. Before we can plan the most suitable building there must be research into the construction of farm buildings. The Agricultural Research Council spend some £3 million a year on agricultural research. Why cannot some of this money be spent on research into farm buildings? The agricultural land services and the colleges in Scotland advise the farmer, but they have not the technical data to fall back on and they have not the facilities for research. I hope that Her Majesty's Government are fully conscious of this need for capital in the industry and that they will take the necessary steps before a crisis through lack of capital arises in the industry.
Finally I should like to draw the attention of Her Majesty's Government to the fact that, for the good of the nation, there must be a better understanding between the agricultural population and the urban population. The urban population have little conception as to what subsidies

1017
mean to them. How few housewives realise that agricultural subsidies, by increasing home food production, are directly in their interest? Other industries must also realise that agriculture is not a favoured industry. Other industries get their protection from the Government in the form of tariffs, but tariffs do not get the banner headlines that agricultural subsidies receive. It is up to the Government and the National Farmers' Union to make the Government's aim in granting agricultural subsidies crystal clear in the plainest possible language to everyone. The Government and the National Farmers' Union know the facts, but to the layman these facts are hidden in clouds of complicated figures and academic statements. The trouble is that to-day the nation knows too much about our diplomacy and too little about the facts that the people should understand and are entitled to know about. I submit most earnestly that there is a real need to-day for a fuller understanding in the countryside and in the towns of what is needed, what is being achieved, and what has to be achieved. It is essential for the wellbeing of the nation that Her Majesty's Government should put this matter right without delay.
6.14 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, in the course of the debate which was opened with such robust good sense by my noble friend and Leader we have already listened to twelve speeches from noble Lords all of whom have a personal and intimate knowledge of farming. I think I have heard pretty well everything that every noble Lord has said, and I have calculated that of all the speakers, most of whom sit on the Government Benches and Benches opposite, only three—the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, the noble Lord, Lord Melchett (whose support was, I thought, considerably qualified) and the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, who has just spoken—did not say, or at least imply in what they said, that there is something radically wrong in the Government's agricultural policy.
This debate on the Price Review is an annual opportunity for scrutinising the Government's stewardship of agriculture; and, casting my mind back, I do not remember a single occasion in the last five years under successive Conservative Governments on which there has been
1018
so much criticism from noble Lords, on both sides of the House, of Government policy. This House is not a representative body, of course, but I think your Lordships would agree that it is more representative of farming opinion than of any other section of opinion in the country. For this reason alone, I hope that the Government will pay special attention to what has been said in the debate.
I was asking myself whether there is any common factor in the dissatisfaction that has been expressed. I think there is, and it is that what most speakers found unsatisfactory about this year's Annual Price Review was its failure to put forward either a medium-term or a long-term policy for agriculture. A large number of noble Lords (I will not mention their names) emphasised the need for a long-term or medium-term policy for agriculture. I thought that the noble Earl, Lord Halifax, did us a special service by defining what is meant by a medium or a long term policy. Clearly, this is an extremely vague term, and I would subscribe to his definition when he said that what it meant was that the Government should express intentions which would be carried out over a period of something like ten years. After listening to the noble Earl, Lord Halifax, I felt strongly minded to tear up my notes and to tell your Lordships that my speech had already been made, but I resisted that inclination because I felt that I should be lacking in my duty to my noble friends who had asked me to wind up this debate on their behalf, although I feel that your Lordships may think otherwise. However, that may be, having listened for a long period of time to the speeches of the noble Earl both as a Cabinet Minister and as a Back Bencher, I think that never has any speech of his been more charged with wisdom than the one to which we have listened this afternoon.
My Lords, what is the position at the moment, looking at Government policy entirely from the angle of the time factor? Of course, the livestock farmer can look ahead for one year, while the arable farmer is rather better off in that he can look ahead for eighteen months until we come to next year's harvest. But after that short period of time no one knows what the policy of the Government is going to be. We cannot tell whether

1019
livestock or some other farm product—the Government have changed their minds frequently in the last few years—is going to be encouraged, or indeed to what extent, if we fail to stop the present movement of inflation, the rise in farm costs will have to be carried by the industry. Indeed, the Government themselves appear to acknowledge the inadequacy of the short-term policy set out in the Review and the need for assurances that Government support will continue for more than the period of two years.
I should like to quote what I think is a most important reference in the Review to the time factor in the policy. Paragraph 36 has, I think, been mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Melchett and Lord Amherst of Hackney, and also by the noble Earl, Lord Halifax. This paragraph reads as follows:
"The Government recognise that each Annual Review by its nature can afford assurance for only a comparatively short time ahead and that, if longer-term assurances could be made more effective, this would help the industry in its forward planning. Accordingly they will consider whether any practicable methods of providing such assurances of support for the industry can he devised."
This is, at any rate, as several noble Lords have said, a gleam of light, although it may be somewhat faint and remote. But why have the Government lost so much time in starting this vital consideration of the time factor, because they must have known for many years past that farmers are losing the measure of confidence they need to go in for forward planning? Surely the plain fact is that, so long as farmers can see no further than a year or two ahead, which is the furthest distance ahead they can see with the help of an Annual Price Review, then the general uncertainty and lack of confidence, which has never been more widespread in the industry than it is at the present time, will—greatly to the regret of all of us—continue.
What is lacking in Government policy, as Her Majesty's Government themselves seem to realise, is that for a healthy agriculture we require a long-term policy in the sense defined by the noble Earl, Lord Halifax, that will give farmers enough confidence to plan their operations over a period of years. Such a policy must, of course, be consistently and continuously carried out and, therefore, must be acceptable to all political Parties. I
1020
want here to make a suggestion which may or may not be a good one but I believe is worth considering. Although other noble Lords who have expressed their view about the need for a long-term policy have not also expressed this doubt, I am rather doubtful whether such a radical change of policy could be brought about without the assistance and advice of a Royal Commission on agriculture. I was glad to note that the agricultural correspondent of the Observer, in an article in that newspaper on the Price Review, supported the opinion which I had very tentatively ventured to express in our last agricultural debate: that a Royal Commission is really essential. I know that there are arguments against it—the factor of delay and so on and if the policy could be produced without the delay through appointing a Royal Commission no-one would be more delighted than I should be. But I should like to know what Her Majesty's Government think of this proposal. If there has to be an inquiry before a new policy can be devised., surely a Royal Commission would, at any rate, carry far more weight with the farming community and the political Parties than any other form of inquiry.
I should like to mention just three of the key problems which, if they cannot be dealt with in any other way and without an inquiry, should be submitted to a Royal Commission. They certainly will not be solved while Her Majesty's Government refuse to make up their mind about them and allow the industry to go on drifting as it is at the present time. Here is the first and, to my mind, key question: what level of agricultural production can we afford, in the long run, in this country in competition with food- stuffs sold at world prices? Her Majesty's Government tell us that they are aiming at a level of output 60 per cent. above the pre-war level, which is, of course, only 5 per cent. more than the total output forecast in the White Paper for the current year. I take it that this really means that Her Majesty's Government would like to stabilise home food production at very little above its present level. And I think that that was the interpretation put on the Government's policy by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett.
One thing is perfectly clear: if this is done, then agriculture will not be able to make to our balance of payments the

1021
contribution which it could make, particularly by saving imports of animal feedingstuffs—this could not be brought about unless production were expanded considerably above the present level. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, would agree with that view. He said agriculture should enable us to save another £100 million in imports after a period of about five years. My Party believes that farm output could still be increased by about one-third, with a corresponding saving in imports. This is a very important divergence of view between responsible persons and Parties all of whom are anxious to promote the economic welfare of the country and the welfare of agriculture within that broader framework. That being so, surely we should have the best possible advice we can get on the economic merits of these different and opposite views.
Here again, I believe there is a case for an inquiry. If we knew the answer to this question, farmers would also have a rough idea of the long-term relationship between arable land and grass. At the moment, of course, our tillage acreage is still dwindling. We lost another half million acres last year which has to be added to the half million acres lost in the year before, so that, in all, we have lost in the last two years about one million tillage acres. Her Majesty's Government offer us no guidance at all about the point at which this very alarming shrinkage should stop and where the line should be drawn. What is the wretched farmer to do when the Government offer no guidance and change their minds constantly about the relationship of arable land to grass?
It was only three or four years ago, in 1952, that Her Majesty's Government were asking farmers for another one million tillage acres. The target has been dropped and now there is absolutely no word about the future. We are told in the White Paper that the Government want "a large arable area" (those are the words used), with the main emphasis on wheat crops to save imports. Everyone will agree with this aim, of course, but how large an area do the Government want? That is what farmers would like to know. That is the question they are asking, and the question which Her Majesty's Government have not answered. Moreover, if the Government want this large arable area, in spite of the reduc-
1022
tion which has taken place in the last few years, how are they going to induce farmers to retain this substantial area under the plough while their costs continue to soar? When a farmer has to face larger hills his obvious course is to resort to grass. These are questions which not only are not answered, but acre not even asked in the White Paper.
That brings me to the second really cardinal problem for agriculture, which has already been mentioned by several speakers in the course of the debate: that of finding cheap medium or long term credit, particularly for the small men, like tenant farmers or owner-occupiers, who cannot afford to borrow from the banks and in any case have little security to offer. The noble Lord, Lord Luke, among other speakers, referred to the need for capital especially for the small man, and this need is emphasised by the present credit position. Her Majesty's Government have, rightly, made a great effort to exempt farmers from the short-term restrictions of the credit squeeze; but however that may be, the difficulty of borrowing at present rates of interest is just as serious for farmers as for anyone else. What is needed is money for long-term improvements which must be made if we are to increase output and to lower costs. My noble friend Lord Archibald, in the course of his remarkable speech, referred to the alarming fact that the volume of fixed capital equipment in agriculture is now lower in real terms than it was in 1948. I will not mention figures because they were mentioned by my noble friend; but surely it is lack of confidence among farmers, combined with this lack of credit, that has prevented the making of long-term improvements on which the future of the industry will depend.
One very important aspect of capital investment is expenditure of landlords on their own property in keeping it in what they regard as reasonably good order. At the present time the biggest obstacle to good estate management, which every landlord wants, is the level of farm rent. The noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, gave us some exceedingly interesting figures about Scotland, and said that rents in Scotland had increased by only 15 per cent. since 1940. I have not the figure; for England, but they are equally striking, and I know that from his experience the noble Earl who is to reply must be very

1023
familiar with them. But they must be equally striking when we compare the rise of rent with the rise in farm incomes and the value of land. There is no doubt that it is the low level of rents which prevents many conscientious landowners from doing what they would like to do—that is, put their property in the best possible order. But the whole question of rent bristles with political difficulties, and it is therefore, I think, a question that could very suitably be referred to a body of impartial persons whose views would carry weight with all political Parties.
Finally, there is another key problem to which I should like very briefly to refer—I was asked particularly to do so by my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition—and that is the problem of the labour force in agriculture; how to stop the drift from the land. We are aware that 34,000 whole-time farm workers left the industry last year. That is the latest figure, based on the December returns. If we go on losing manpower at anything like this rate—or even at half this rate, 15,000 a year—there will very soon be an acute labour shortage and a steep drop in food production. Indeed. I am told that there are now very few branches of the industry that are not complaining of the difficulty of getting labour. This crisis in the industry can be prevented only if measures are taken by the Government and by the industry itself to make the countryside more attractive as a place to live and work in.
It cannot be too often repeated that the main difficulty is the disparity between earnings in agriculture and earnings in manufacturing industries. The gap between the average agricultural wage and the average industrial wage has risen to over £3 a week, and, of course, if pending wage claims in other industries are successful it will soon be even larger. Further consideration should, I think, be given not only to improving the basic wage on which about one quarter of all farm workers live but also to a graduated wage structure for the industry with a higher rate for jobs involving special responsibility and skill. That is just one aspect of the problem of making the countryside more attractive for the young men who grow up there. Surely what we need is an inquiry into the changes in social conditions—because, of course, life in the
1024
country is bound up with many other things than conditions in the industry—and alterations in conditions of work, or changes of this kind, which would be an inducement for young villagers to stay in their villages instead of going off to find better paid employment in the towns.
There is one other matter which I think ought to be looked at carefully. I was reminded of this by the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, to which we all listened with special respect and interest. The noble Viscount said that one of the factors that may be causing anxiety and uncertainty in the industry is the fact that the whole price structure is reviewed every year, and he suggested that there might be a review every five years instead of an annual review. I should have thought that that was very much a matter that should be inquired into at the earliest possible moment. I earnestly hope that the Government will consider (if they have not already done so) the desirability of an inquiry—which might take the form of a Royal Commission or it might, of course, be done in some other way—into the key problems of agriculture, with a view to getting the best possible expert advice before any new long-term policy is worked out. If such a policy can be worked out without any preliminary inquiry, naturally we shall be more than delighted to see it.
6.35 p.m.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I think we have had a debate on agriculture of a very high standard indeed. We have had three speeches which are of particular moment. First, there was the speech of my noble friend, Lord Bledisloe. As the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, said, we always listen to him with great respect, and although it is a good many years since he said he was speaking on agriculture in this House for the last time, we hope we shall continue for many years to come to hear him speaking at the very high standard at which he spoke to-day. I should also like to congratulate the two noble Lords who made their maiden speeches to-day. I hope we shall hear from them on many occasions in the future and that they will not confine their activities to agriculture only. When, shortly before the Recess, we had a general debate on agriculture—also on a Motion by the noble Viscount opposite—I stressed that these Reviews were not

1025
annual upheavals of policy, and that the Government would not be making any drastic cuts in the guarantees or changes in production policy. I think the White Paper makes it amply clear that we have not done any of these things but that we have developed our policy consistently and in accordance with the needs both of the nation and of the farming industry.
As was brought out by several speakers, and particularly, I thought, by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, this year's Review has been a difficult one. On the one hand we have had to take into consideration the inflationary pressure from which our economy has been suffering and the consequent need to ensure that every pound of Government spending can be justified up to the very hilt. If we had made any excessive increase in the amount of Government support we should have added to the inflationary pressure and possibly also have aggravated our balance of payments troubles by increasing the amount of imported feeding-stuffs. On the other hand we had our statutory duty to assure the industry a fair return, and we had to ensure that our determinations would not result in the nation having to spend more on food from abroad. We have tried to strike the right balance between these sometimes conflicting needs, and I am sure that the award of an increase of some £25 million in the value of the price guarantees and production grants is just and fair to the nation as well as to agriculture.
Our general objectives continue to be the highest production that can be achieved economically and efficiently in accordance with the needs of the market, and steadily increasing technical efficiency and lowering costs. It is often Laid in very general terms, and it has been hinted at this afternoon as well, that the more food we produce at home the less we need to import, and it is argued from this that any increase of agricultural production is bound to save foreign currency. In fact, it is not quite so simple as that. For any possible increase in production there are numbers of other factors to be considered besides the saving of direct imports of food. For instance, will it cost more in imported animal feeding-stuffs? Will it cost a lot in labour and materials and finance that might be better spent in expanding some other industry which might also save imports or increase
1026
exports? What imports should we save? Where do they come from and what part do they play in our general overseas trade? All these questions must be considered before we can decide whether or not it is desirable to encourage expansion in any particular direction.
Our conclusions have led us this year to reaffirm our general policy for agriculture and to put even greater stress on the need to substitute home-grown products, mainly grass and other feeding-stuffs, for imports and on the need for economy in the use of imported material. I am sure that there is great scope for development here. If we concentrate on this aspect, we shall be able to increase the industry's net output far more economically than by an indiscriminate expansion of end products, and we shall be able to make a sure contribution to the nation's balance of payments. Accordingly, we are doing all we can to encourage the maintenance of a large arable area, with the emphasis on feed crops and improved yields. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, asked me to say what area we required. I cannot give it in terms of acres, but I emphasise that we want as large an arable area as we can reasonably get. We should also like the production of beef, mutton and lamb to be increased.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, could the noble Earl be more specific? My noble friend pointed out that we have lost in two years a million acres of tillage. Three nears ago the Government were anxious to get even more land under tillage than then existed. I can find no hope or confidence in the agricultural industry in the statement just made by the noble Earl. Would he go so far as to say that the Government want more acres restored to tillage than were in tillage at the beginning?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: I certainly should not go so far as to say that we want that million acres restored to tillage. We do want a considerable arable area and, of course, a high percentage of that million acres has, in fact, remained arable.
THE EARL OF LTSTOWEL: My Lords, does the noble Earl want a larger acreage than he has at present, and is part of the

1027
5 per cent. expansion, which apparently he still wants, an expansion of the arable acreage?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: Yes; we could certainly do with that.
The noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, said that we ought to tell the farmers what level of output we wanted for various commodities. He asked whether we wanted a reduction in the output of wheat, of milk and of pigs, and whether we wanted egg production to remain as it is now. We have stated our intention in these matters a great many times and, I think, in the clearest and simplest of language. The noble Viscount need only read the relevant paragraphs of the White Paper to which he has drawn the attention of the House. In the case of milk, we stated the production objective in the 1954 White Paper and, to show that our policy is consistent, we repeated it in the 1955 White Paper and again this year. We want the output to be established a little below the present level, so as to avoid an unmanageable amount of milk having to be sold for manufacturing purposes and to avoid a further increase in the subsidy.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I ask whether that was the policy agreed between the Ministry and the Milk Marketing Board? Are we to understand that the dairy industry is to be stabilised at nothing more than the present amount of milk produce manufactured from milk?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: We feel that any expansion in milk consumption must be in the form of liquid milk. I do not think I can go into full details now, but the reason is that, unlike other countries which are much more suited for manufacturing from milk, because it fits in with their economy, it is not suitable for this country to do so on a large scale.
In the case of eggs, we think that the general output is sufficient and that any expansion must depend on a firmer market or on a reduction in cost. We originally said this in 1954, and again we have stuck to it. In the 1955 White Paper, we said that we could not afford any further expansion in the production of pigs, at least until the cost could be
1028
substantially reduced; and that still holds good. I think that that is clear from this year's White Paper.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I shall read the noble Earl's speech carefully to-morrow morning, and I want to get this clear. I pointed out the fact, which the noble Earl knows well, that the Government asked for an additional million pigs three or four years ago, but when the pigs were produced there was a muddle in handling them. I want to know now whether what the noble Earl says means that he does not want pig production to be above the amount it was when the Government asked for a million extra pigs, because the apparent policy of the Government is to deter even the maintenance of the present figure.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: I am afraid that I have not the exact figures with me, but I think I am right in saying that when pig production was at its peak it was considerably more than one million above the figure when we first started asking for an increase. The figure now is certainly very considerably more.
LORD ARCHIBALD: My Lords, does the noble Earl not recollect that 600,000 out of the million asked for had been achieved when the price was cut by 3s. a score?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: I should not like to accept the figure of 600,000.
LORD ARCHIBALD: I think that that figure has been given in the House before and has not been challenged.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: I should not like to argue with the noble Lord here and now, but I feel that he is wrong. I will certainly check that. In the case of wheat, we feel that there is no longer any case for a disproportionate amount of the subsidy for cereals to be paid on wheat. We want to maintain a large arable area, but emphasis should be on feed crops and improved yields.
I should like to take issue with the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, on one matter which he raised at the end of his speech, when he made what I felt was rather an improper suggestion. He said that when the Agricultural Wages Board made their recent decisions, the independent members were

1029
acting in accordance with Government policy. He implied that their function on the Board was as instruments of Government policy. It is the duty of the Board to have regard to the public interest, and that is what they do. If their decisions are in accordance with Government policy, that is because our policy is also directed towards the public interest and not because of any instructions from the Government. They do not get any such instructions; they never have had them, and I hope they never will.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER or HILLSBOROUGH: I think that when the noble Earl reads Hansard to-morrow he will see that I never suggested that they had instructions from the Government. I said that no doubt they were trying to meet the situation from the point of view of the Government's general policy.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: With respect, I do not think that that was the general impression created on the House.
The noble Lord, Lord Archibald, asked me about progeny-testing stations. I know it has been a long time since they were first started, but, as I am sure the noble Lord will appreciate, there has had to be considerable consultation with various sections of the industry and, as he probably knows, it has not been easy to get agreement. However, that has all been settled now, and we hope that the first station will be operating by the beginning of next year.
The noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, and various other noble Lords, asked if I could give a little more clarification about the fatstock guarantees. We shall, I hope, in a few days' time be publishing a small pamphlet which will be going to all farmers in the country explaining this matter in considerable detail, and, with your Lordships' permission, I would sooner leave it until that is in your hands rather than try to explain it this evening. The noble Lord, Lord Archibald, also asked what is going to happen if we get a reduced production of wheat in this country. First of all, about half of the production of wheat at the present time goes for use as feeding-stuffs. So that, although the acreage of wheat for feeding-stuffs may go down, an increase in the acreage of other corn suitable for feeding-stuffs may
1030
well replace it. In addition, there is available quite a lot of wheat in Australia at reasonable prices if we have to make up any reduced production in this country. The noble Lord asked, also, what exactly was the position of the calf subsidy. The position is that on heifer calves the subsidy is still £7 10s., and on steer calves the subsidy is £8 10s.
The noble Lord, Lord Forbes, made some kind remarks about silos. We have not yet actually settled the details of how we propose to work the grants on silos, but I agree with the noble Lord about the importance of a roof in the wetter areas, and we would propose that the expenditure on a roof should rank for grant under any scheme which is finally evolved. I am not sure that I can go all the way with the noble Lord in saying that a permanent roof is essential in all areas, but I will bear in mind what he has said. I also agree with him about the big advantages to be gained from a scheme for certified herbage seeds. My Department has supported this scheme throughout, and I think I can say that we have taken a prominent part in its development. Officers of the National Agricultural Advisory Service will inspect the growing crops and our county field officers will take independent samples of the final product for check testing. We hope that the assurance of quality which will attach to the new certification trade mark will help to sell the certified seed to a wider circle of farmers and that it will earn a high enough premium over commercial seed to justify the extra trouble taken in its production. This will depend to some extent on publicity, and we are helping on this, too. Our National Agricultural Advisory Service officers are recommending the improved strains to farmers at every opportunity. We shall watch the progress of the scheme with close attention and continue to help wherever we can. On the question of leys, I cannot really agree with the noble Lord that there are grounds for setting up a Commission to study the question.
The noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, has expressed concern about the alteration in the guarantee arrangements, particularly the discontinuance of the individual guarantee for livestock. Your Lordships will remember that this particular device was brought in at the time of decontrol of

1031
fatstock, when many farmers doubted whether it would be possible to make the auction markets run smoothly. We intended to provide a safeguard against any serious imperfections there might have been in the auction markets. But experience has shown that the individual guarantees have had serious disadvantages. They have tended to distort the normal market influences and to weaken the tone of the market because they may remove some of the seller's incentive to get the best out of the market. They have also made the system complicated and have cost quite a lot in administrative charges. In fact, the auction markets are now working reasonably well, and the stage has been reached when the risks which these arrangements were intended to meet no longer justify the complications and the elaborate machinery involved. I will not try to pretend that some producers might not be adversely affected in the short term by the removal of this guarantee. But I am sure the vast majority will benefit from the simplification and from the removal of unpredictable and distorting elements in the marketing of fatstock.
The individual guarantees were never intended to provide a floor price for the industry as a whole. The main thing is the deficiency payment which makes up any deficiency between the average market price and the standard price. In future there will be only one deficiency payment for each group of fatstock. This will be the difference between the standard price and the average realised price for that group of fatstock. In the case of cattle and sheep, the standard prices are being increased substantially. In the case of pigs there is a small reduction. The new standard prices should, however, give substantial assurances to the producers. In addition, so as to provide even more stability, the single deficiency payment will be adjusted as and when necessary to ensure that the average total return to producers each week remains within a predetermined range on either side of the standard price.
I have outlined some of the decisions taken in the light of this year's Review, and I should now like to say a few things about their probable effects on the industry. Several noble Lords have been rather dogmatic about the effects of our
1032
determinations on the industry's income, so I feel that I must stress that under present conditions, when most of the produce is sold in a free market, we cannot possibly forecast accurately the effect of any particular determinations on the industry's net income. Producers' returns are influenced by market prices and the level of output, as well as by the level of the guarantees, and we cannot tell what the market prices or the precise output will be.
Returns are also influenced by the trend of costs. However, this £25 million increase in the value of the guarantees, when added to the benefit of increasing efficiency, which should be worth some £25 million for the Review commodities, will be substantially more than the total increase in cost since the last Review. This, as has already been mentioned, was some £37 million for Review commodities, and included some £12 million of costs which have already affected the net income of the industry during the current year. Put in another way, the broad effect is to leave at least a substantial part of the increase in efficiency of the industry available towards improving its net income and meeting any further increases in cost, though as the Government's measures against inflation take effect, we must, I think, all hope that this problem of increasing costs will become less serious; and in any case we shall again take due account of increased costs at the next Annual Review.
There has been a good deal of talk this afternoon—about so-called under-recoupment—which seems to suggest that the value of the guarantees ought almost automatically to be adjusted each year by the total amount of the change in costs. We cannot accept that suggestion. The effects of the annual determinations of the guarantees cannot be judged except by reference to the trend of net income, which is affected by other factors besides the value of the guarantees and the change in costs, and notably by increasing efficiency. If the trend of net income is satisfactory, as I frankly believe it is, then the under-recoupment must have been more apparent than real. It is true that the actual net income of the industry in the last two years has been lower than in the previous three years, but we have taken full account of that. As is well known, the fall in the actual income in

1033
1954–55 was largely the result of very bad weather, and although there has never been any suggestion that the Government should insulate the farmer in the ordinary way from weather effects, either bad or good, we did make some allowance for this at the 1955 Review, and at this year's Review we have again allowed for the fact that the recovery in 1955–56 has been a slow business and that there is still some way to go.
As regards the trend of net income, however, there was a big increase as a result of the 1947 expansion programme and the injection of finance that was made for that purpose. This brought the net income of the industry by 1949–50 up to a level nearly half as much again as it was before the expansion programme was launched. Since then, it can be said that it has been steady. When measured en a normal weather basis—that is, after allowing for special effects of weather, either good or bad—it has been fluctuating within the range of £290 million and £330 million. Even though other industries may have been going ahead, as compared with agriculture, during the last few years, the stable level of agricultural net income has not been unreasonable in the circumstances. Although I think there is no real foundation for any suggestion that home agriculture as a whole is doing badly, I am frankly far from complacent about the position of the industry. There are still many problems to be faced, and there is the need for the industry to bear its share of the stringencies that are required at present in the general national interest.
An attempt has been made to show that the net income has not been satisfactory by relating it to the gross output over a period of years. This comparison is rather misleading. The industry is not on a "cost-plus" basis—and I am sure the farmers would not wish it to be, although I think some noble Lords this afternoon would like to see it in that condition—and there is no necessary or desirable relationship between the net income and the value of gross output. For example, during the first five or six post-war years, some £80 million to £90 million of war-time feeding-stuffs and fertiliser subsidies were stopped, and The farmers were compensated for this by higher prices. The ratio of net income to gross output declined, and should
1034
naturally have declined, for that reason alone.
In some of the criticisms that have been made this afternoon and in other places, emphasis has been placed on a particular type or class of farmer. It is suggested, for instance, that for a particular commodity the increase in the guarantee is not equal to the increase in cost, and that this means that the income of the producers concerned has been cut by the amount of the difference. This line of criticism disregards all the other respects in which the farmer might be benefiting from the guarantees and the opportunities which might he open to him—and are, in fact, being taken by farmers all the time—to adapt their systems of farming to meet changing circumstances or to increase their efficiency.
In judging the case of the small milk producer, for example, it is not enough to look only at the increase in his costs as compared with the change in the value of the guarantee for milk: it should also be borne in mind that he will probably benefit from the increased guarantee for oats, the increases in the calf subsidy and in other production grants. He is unlikely to employ much labour and will therefore not be so much affected as the larger farmers by the recent wage increase which formed, after all, a substantial part of the increase in costs. Also, his efficiency should be increasing steadily as milk yields continue to go up and advantage is taken of farm management advice, as the production and use of grass is improved, and so on. All this will improve his net income. Similar considerations apply to the small egg producer and, I would add, to the small pig producer as well, except that it is more usual for a small pig unit to be run with a small milk or egg unit rather than as a separate business. In the case of both pigs and eggs, the cost increases have been comparatively small, and efficiency in production is, I am glad to say, advancing steadily.
This does not mean, however, that we are lacking in sympathy for the special needs of the small farmers—indeed, we had them very much in mind at this last Review. As has been mentioned by several noble Lords this afternoon, on the whole they are concerned mostly with the production of milk, pigs and eggs, though the very mixed character of our farming is such that no one product can be said

1035
to be primarily the small man's concern. The increase in the guarantee on milk is, in fact, rather more than would really seem to us to accord with our objectives—repeated consistently at each of the last three Annual Reviews—of an output somewhat lower than at present, and greater reliance on home-grown feed which should be cheaper than imported feed. But we have made the increase after taking into account the increased costs because we realise that milk production is a very important part of our agricultural economy, that it is faced with special difficulties, such as the seven-day week, and that there are many small dairy farmers who depend mainly on milk for their livelihood.
In the case of eggs and pigs, the trend towards increasing efficiency is stronger than for milk. The effect of the determinations on these products should be to leave average profitability much the same as it is at present. I do not think that that could, by any stretch of the imagination, be called harsh treatment. It is a sign both of our desire to provide stability and of our concern for the smaller producers. These determinations have been made notwithstanding our anxiety about the burden of imported feeding-stuffs on the balance of payments, the risks of over-production and the weight of the Exchequer liability on this group of products.
I know that there are some groups of farms (particularly dairy farms of small acreages and low incomes) which are having special difficulties, but we cannot hope to use the guarantees to solve all the special problems of a particular group. We shall always be ready to consider any new ideas, but I am afraid that any proposal for selective treatment, such as the use of the guarantees to ensure higher returns to some producers than to others for the same product, bristles with difficulties. We have therefore thought it the best policy to provide for similar treatment of all producers concerned with a particular product. But where it is practicable to help in a particular problem we shall continue to do so—for example, we are raising the maximum rate of grant under the marginal production schemes for work on marginal farms.
The point which most noble Lords have touched on this afternoon is the last para-
1036
graph of the White Paper. A great deal has been said about a long-term policy and, as I replied in the last debate we had on agriculture, in the last resort the farmers' confidence in the future depends not on Annual Reviews, or on statutory obligations, or on elaborate statements of policy, but on faith in the Government's sincerity when it promises not to withdraw its support. That is still my view. But we naturally had your Lordships' views much in mind during this Review and, as I have said, in the last paragraph of the White Paper we said we recognised that each Review, by its nature, could afford assurances for only a comparatively short time ahead, and that if longer-term assurances could be made more effective this would help the industry in its forward planning. Accordingly, we are considering whether any practical methods of providing such assurances of support can be devised.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: May I interrupt the noble Earl? I think that what he said just now is very important, because he was speaking in the present tense. The White Paper speaks in the future tense. So can I take it from what the noble Earl says that Ministers are at this moment considering the possibility of longer-term assurances for agriculture?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: I cannot say that at this moment there are consultations outside the Ministry, because obviously we have to formulate our own ideas before we can start talks.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I only said "Ministers"—that is, the responsible Government Ministers.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: Yes. As I said, this will not be an easy task and it is no good my pretending that it will. If it were an easy task, it would obviously have been done before. For example, a fundamental difficulty about giving more specific assurances for the future, in the form, for instance, of firm price guarantees for a certain number of years ahead, is that conditions are bound to change, and what may appear to-day to be sensible price levels may in a few years' time be found to be out of line with changed costs or with changed market price levels or with some other vital factor. A workable solution to the problem will not be found without at least a great deal of careful thought;

1037
but we are undertaking a thorough examination of the possibilities, and if anything can be done in this direction we most certainly will do it. I must apologise for delaying your Lordships for so long. I am afraid I have not answered all the questions which have been put to me. Those I have not been able to deal with now I will deal with by writing to noble Lords.
7.17 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, we are greatly obliged to the noble Earl for his long and careful answer, even if he has not replied to all our points. The oats acreage payment is something about which I may perhaps hear from him, but I must say that we on this side of the House appreciate the way in which your Lordships as a whole have responded in this debate to the consideration of the question. As the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, has said, it has been a very good debate all through. If I have said anything at all likely to offend the Front Bench opposite by reason of any lack of proper courtesy, or anything of that kind, I willingly withdraw it.
We certainly have had an exceedingly good debate. I wonder what some of the agricultural community will think of this last statement about the long-term policy, because I have seen a long-term policy pressed for for the last five years at least—or almost five years, anyway. This is the first time that I have seen anything as solid as this promise in the last paragraph of the White Paper. The noble Earl's remark that if it had been easy it would have been done before, reminds me of a quotation. Was it not Bernard Shaw who said that
1038
"Christianity has been found difficult, so it has not been tried"?
I do not think that is quite the basis upon which we should base our thoughts for progress in this or any other industry or sphere in the country. However, on this matter we naturally do not want to divide; we want to do the best we can for the industry all the way round. I shall look especially at the OFFICIAL REPORT to read what I said on the matter about which the noble Earl complained, and if there is anything to apologise for I will write to him with the greatest possible pleasure. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

CLEAN AIR BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
CASTLE GATE CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH BURIAL GROUND (NOTTINGHAM) BILL
Reported, without amendment.
BARRY CORPORATION (BARRY HARBOUR) BILL
The Queen's consent signified, and Bill reported with an Amendment.

IPSWICH DOCK BILL
Reported, without amendment.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past seven o'clock.