Sitting of 26 April 1956

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  BARRY CORPORATION (BARRY HARBOUR) BILL
  Lords Amendments considered and agreed to.
  SCOTTISH UNION AND NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY BILL
  Read the Third time and passed.
  TEES CONSERVANCY Bill [Lords]
  As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Corporal Punishment
    Mr. Langford-Holtasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many crimes for which flogging was formerly awardable took place in 1948 when that punishment was abolished; what are the figures for the latest available year; and what have been the figures for other years since 1945.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Major Gwilym Lloyd-George): As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Langford-Holt: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend say whether these figures show that since 1948 these crimes for which this punishment was awardable have dropped? Could he tell me the figure for 1948 and the latest figure at his disposal?
    Major Lloyd-George: I think my hon. Friend will see from the figures which I shall circulate that the tendency is definitely for the crimes to have dropped. Although there are queer fluctuations from year to year, the tendency throughout is for the figures to drop.
    Mr. Paton: Will the Home Secretary give an assurance that, in view of these figures, he will stand firm against the rather irresponsible attempts to reintroduce flogging?
    Following is the Answer:
    Before corporal punishment was abolished as a judicial penalty in September, 1948, the principal offences for which it could he imposed were offences under Section 23 (1) of the Larceny Act, 1916, that is robbery with violence, armed robbery and robbery in company with others. The number of offences against Section 23 (1) known to the polices in each year since 1945 is as follows:

    1946

    804

    1977

    842

    1948

    978

    1949

    860

    1950

    812

    1951

    633

    1952

    790

    1953

    754

    1954

    604

    1955

    578

    Separate figures are not available for the other offences for which corporal punishment could be inflicted on adults, but by 1948 it had virtually ceased to be used as a punishment for these offences.
    Mr. N. Pannellasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, in view of the great increase in crimes of violence since the abolition of corporal punishment, he will consider introducing legislation to restore this penalty in appropriate cases.
    Major Lloyd-George: No. Sir. Before corporal punishment was abolished as a judicial penalty in September, 1948, the principal offences for which it could be inflicted were offences under Section 23 (1) of the Larceny Act, 1916, that is, robbery with violence, armed robbery and robbery in company with others. Since 1948 there has been a fairly steady decrease in the number of such offences known to the police.
    Mr. Pannell: While thanking my right hon. and gallant Friend for his reply, may I ask whether he is aware that, despite the decrease since 1948 which he has mentioned, the figures are still several

    1943
    times greater than they were before the war? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Will my right hon. and gallant Friend further take into account crimes of violence generally, and particularly those of felonious and malicious wounding, which increased by 50 per cent. between 1948 and 1954? Will he take this and similar matters into account when reviewing this subject again?
    Major Lloyd-George: Many of the crimes of violence were not those for which the offender was liable to flogging before the abolition. Whilst we all deplore the increase in crimes of violence since 1946, the fact remains that the figures which I am publishing in the OFFICIAL REPORT show that, although there has been a fluctuation from year to year, the trend has been on the downward side.
    Mr. Younger: Is the Home Secretary aware that he has the full support of the great majority of people in the House in resisting the irrational sentiments of this proposal?
    Hon. Members: No.
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Does my right hon. and gallant Friend not see the application of the principle of this trend in the Bill which is now before the House?
    Major Lloyd-George: Not altogether, because we have the lowest figure in the world on the other one.

    Prison Workshop Products (Sale)
    Mr. Patonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how the prices of commodities manufactured in prison workshops for sale to the public are computed.
    Major Lloyd-George: Articles are not normally manufactured in prison workshops for direct sale to the public. A small number of gymnasium mats have been sold to wholesalers for resale to the public. The price of these articles is fixed so that it will not, so far as can be ascertained, undercut prices charged for similar articles by outside manufacturers.
    Mr. Paton: Is the Home Secretary aware that I do not want in any way to hamper the constructive work being done in prison workshops, but there have been
    1944
    complaints from one or two areas that some of the products made in prison workshops have been sold at uneconomic prices to the detriment of products made, for instance, in workshops for the blind? Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman see that the prison products are sold at properly competitive prices?
    Major Lloyd-George: I will certainly consider that suggestion. A large number of the products made in prisons are sold to Government Departments. We do our best to see that the costs that we add to the cost of manufacture bear some relation to costs outside, but I will look into the matter.
    Mr. Hyde: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend draw the attention of the public to the existence of these commodities which are available? Is he aware that, owing to his courtesy, I recently visited Wandsworth Prison, where I gather there is a considerable difficulty in disposing of these products to the public?
    Major Lloyd-George: I will consider my hon. Friend's suggestion.

    Airgun Pellets (Eye Injuries)
    Mrs. Braddockasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that, from January, 1955 to March, 1956, 14 cases of eye injury were dealt with in St. Paul's Eye Hospital, Liverpool, due to injury by airgun pellets; that in all cases either the eye had to be removed or the sight was destroyed; and if, in view of this serious position, he will introduce legislation to make the sale of airguns illegal, excepting under licence as for firearms.
    Major Lloyd-George: I have made inquiries and I am told that the hospital records show only four cases during the period mentioned. I have no evidence to suggest that there has been an increase in accidents caused by air weapons since the report in 1934 of the Departmental Committee on whose recommendations the existing law is based.
    Mrs. Braddock: Is the Home Secretary not aware that this matter requires urgent attention? Is he further aware that since this Question has been on the Order Paper I have received correspondence from all over the country, and that this week there have appeared in the Press two

    1945
    cases of eye injury caused by airguns? Is he also aware that I have quoted the actual figures from St. Paul's Eye Hospital at Liverpool and that there can be no question about those figures? Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman look into this matter, because there is very grave public concern, and it requires immediate legislation?
    Major Lloyd-George: I would not go so far as to agree with the hon. Lady that the matter requires immediate legislation, because the figures, taking the country as a whole, are no different from what they were when the Committee made the report. I am, however, a little worried about the discrepancy in the figures. The figure which the hon. Lady has mentioned is 14. I have had inquiries made through the police and, according to the entry on the books at the hospital, the figure is only four. There is such a big discrepancy that I shall be glad to look into the matter.

    Protection of Birds
    Mr. J. T. Priceasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware of the concern felt by many people interested in the preservation of our native song birds at the effect of the Protection of Birds Act, 1954, which does not safeguard the nests of robins, skylarks and song thrushes against spoliation; and if he will take action to remedy this situation.
    Major Lloyd-George: Under the Protection of Birds Act, 1954, it is an offence to destroy or damage the nests of robins, skylarks and song thrushes.
    Mr. Price: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman now give further consideration to the undertaking that he gave me some months ago that if it were found that the Act of 1954 was not working satisfactorily he would consider bringing forward Amendments? In view of the growing volume of opinion that many of our native birds are being exposed to spoliation of their nests in the springtime, will he give further consideration to this aspect of the matter?
    Major Lloyd-George: I will certainly consider any evidence that may be brought forward, but I think that the hon. Gentleman is mixing up two things: destruction of the nests and the taking
    1946
    of birds' eggs. When passing the Act referred to, Parliament quite clearly decided—and we should realise our responsibility—not to make criminals of small boys who take birds' eggs in the ordinary way. That was the wish to Parliament, and I am only carrying it out.

    Summer Time
    Mr. Hunterasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will now consider extending Summer Time this year to the end of November.
    Major Lloyd-George: No, Sir. I have nothing to add to the answer I gave the hon. Member on 8th March.
    Mr. Hunter: Will the Home Secretary not give this matter some thought and consider it again? Last October, at the end of a wonderful summer, there was great disappointment among the people at the loss of an hour's daylight and sunshine. Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that there is overwhelming public opinion in favour of a longer Summer Time, and will he look into the matter?
    Major Lloyd-George: I should be prepared to look into anything, but I would remind the hon. Gentleman that the times agreed under the Statute are come to as a result of compromise. What is very agreeable in some parts of the country is totally disagreeable in other parts, and we have to do the best we can to get a compromise and meet the wishes of the majority. I am prepared to look into the question again, but we have to consider the country as a whole and not parts of it.
    Mr. Beresford Craddock: I am glad that my right hon. and gallant Friend is to look into this matter again with a view to extending Summer Time at least to the end of October. It always struck me as being rather early.

    Prisoners (Earnings and Working Hours)
    Mr. V. Yatesasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in view of the fact that the average earnings of prisoners in local prisons amounts to 2s. 6d. weekly for flat-rate workers and 2s. 9d. for piece-rate workers, what changes he contemplates in the present system of payment which would result in greater

    1947
    output and efficiency and would assist prisoners on their return to normal life; and when he hopes to put these changes into effect.
    Mr. de Freitasasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what decision he has now reached with regard to increasing the scale of payment for piece-work done by prisoners to enable them to value more what constructive work they do and to allow them, by their own efforts, to accumulate savings which can be used by them to rehabilitate themselves on their release.
    Major Lloyd-George: A scheme has been prepared for improving the present system of prisoners' earnings which will, I hope, have the effect of increasing output and this will be put into effect as soon as financial considerations permit.
    Mr. Yates: Whilst thanking the Home Secretary for that reply, which I am sure will be very acceptable, may I ask him whether, in order to give effect to the fine sentiments he expressed at the weekend, and in order to improve the position of prisoners so that they will be better able to lead normal life outside, he will make the changes very soon and will press the Treasury very hard on the matter?
    Major Lloyd-George: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I am very interested in these matters. It is very important to attend not only to what happens to these prisoners when they get outside but to what happens to them while they are inside.
    Mr. V. Yatesasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many hours prisoners are now working weekly in local prisons; and what action he is taking which would result in a longer and more productive working week.
    Major Lloyd-George: The hours worked vary from one local prison to another and range generally between 23 and 28 hours weekly for men's prisons. Increasing the working hours is mainly a matter of getting more staff for supervision; I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Hyde) on 19th April about recruiting.
    Mr. Yates: While appreciating that answer, may I ask the Home Secretary
    1948
    whether he is not aware that some of the prisoners are not even working 20 hours a week? Should there not be some kind of conference with the people responsible for prison officers to see whether further action can be taken to speed up recruitment for the prison service in order to give a longer working day in the prisons?
    Major Lloyd-George: As my hon. Friend pointed out in answering the Question to which I have just referred, since the new pay award the number of inquiries from people who want to come into the prison service has greatly increased.
    Mr. Paget: Could not something be done to use star prisoners as foremen and thus to some extent get over the difficulties of supervision and give them a sense of responsibility which will prepare them for normal life?
    Major Lloyd-George: I would not like to answer that question without notice. I should certainly like to look into it.
    Mr. Hydeasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the maximum weekly sum a prisoner in a local prison can earn on flat-rate and piecework, respectively.
    Major Lloyd-George: Four shillings is the maximum for flat rates; there is no maximum fixed for piece-work rates.
    Mr. Hyde: Is not my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that the earnings he has mentioned are still the lowest in the world? Could he press forward with whatever steps he has in mind to improve the position and enable prisoners to save something to give them a fresh start in life when they are released?
    Major Lloyd-George: As my hon. Friend will remember, I answered Questions earlier and said that I had a scheme prepared for that.
    Mr. C. Howell: Will the Home Secretary take steps to recommend these prisoners to invest this money in Premium Bonds?

    Women Officers, Strangeways Prison (Accommodation)
    Mr. V. Yatesasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the plans for the provision of accommodation for women officers at Strange-ways Prison, Manchester, have now been

    1949
    finally approved; and when he expects the work to be carried out.
    Major Lloyd-George: A scheme to replace the present quarters inside the walls by a new hostel outside has been approved. Details are being worked out and the plans are almost complete. Work is expected to start this year.
    Mr. Yates: When visiting this prison with another hon. Member recently I was informed that, much to the dissatisfaction of the staff, the plans for these improvements had been declined by the Treasury. May we take it now that these plans are approved and will be put into operation as quickly as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has suggested?
    Major Lloyd-George: The hon. Gentleman will have to take the last part of my answer at its word, which is that the work is expected to be started this year.

    Mr. Bulganin and Mr. Khrushchev (Security Arrangements)
    Mr. Peytonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the security arrangements for the present visit to this country by Marshal Bulganin and Mr. Khrushchev.
    Major Lloyd-George: No, Sir; it would not be in the public interest to make such a statement.
    Mr. Peyton: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that, while there is very great appreciation of their courtesy and of the efficient way in which the police have been carrying out their strange, unaccustomed and difficult duties, it would be as well to feel that in any future event such as this there will be a much nearer approximation to the normal British arrangements than what we have had to put up with during the past week?
    Major Lloyd-George: It can be truly said that if precautions are successful they are inclined to be excessive and if they are not it is the other way round. I am sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate that it would hardly be of value to disclose what the security arrangements are.

    Police (Duties)
    Mr. Awberyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of the time of the Metropolitan
    1950
    Police is now spent on crime detection and prevention, and traffic duties, respectively.
    Major Lloyd-George: About 13 per cent. of the actual strength of the Metropolitan Police are engaged whole-time in the Criminal Investigation Department and about 8 per cent. are employed whole-time on traffic duties. It is not possible to say precisely what proportion of the time of other members of the Force is devoted to these duties, respectively, but it has been estimated that a constable on ordinary street duty for a period of eight hours spends about 17 per cent. of his time directly on crime detection and prevention and about 6 per cent. directly on traffic duties.
    Mr. Awbery: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that it is not long ago that the police did fire-fighting service as well and that when the firefighting service became large enough it was separated from the police? Now that road traffic duties have become so great, will he not also take road traffic duties away from the police? If he is not prepared to do so, what is he going to do to increase recruiting for the police force?
    Major Lloyd-George: That is another question. We are doing everything we can to increase recruitment to the police force by every means. The hon. Gentleman should appreciate that traffic duties and criminal duties are not necessarily mutually exclusive, because many cases in connection with traffic duties are connected with crime. We cannot possibly separate them.
    Mr. Younger: Would not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman agree that the key to the problem is whether or not the duties one talks about require police powers, like powers of arrest? If they require powers of that kind, is it not advisable that those powers should be exercised only by the fully-trained police force?
    Major Lloyd-George: The right hon. Gentleman is quite right. It is a very tricky problem, as he appreciates, to have other special forces simply dealing with traffic problems where traffic affairs are often connected with criminal affairs, and it would be very difficult to differentiate between them.

    Cruelty to Children (Sentences)
    Mr. Grimondasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will review the law relating to cruelty to children, as at present offences against property draw heavier sentences than those against children.
    Major Lloyd-George: Section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, which provides penalties for certain offences of cruelty to children, will be within the terms of reference of the Committee, the proposed appointment of which I announced on 2nd February.
    Mr. Grimond: While thanking the Home Secretary for that answer, and while pointing out that I am not personally, in general, in favour of very heavy prison sentences, may I ask him whether he will also look at the cases reported in the newspapers, from which it seems that most brutal assaults on children draw much lighter sentences than crimes against property or, indeed, crimes against adults?
    Major Lloyd-George: I have no doubt at all that in many cases sentences are given which are far below those which could be given, but that does not show that the law itself is deficient. This Committee is going to look into these matters when it is appointed.
    Mr. Hastings: Will the Home Secretary at the same time give consideration to the question of the early recognition of cruelty to children, because in most cases which come before the courts there is a record of months or even years of cruelty up to that time which has not been recognised by the authorities?
    Major Lloyd-George: While I will certainly do that, I am sure the hon. Gentleman appreciates that in some cases it is not always easy to get the information. That is the difficulty.

    Cenotaph Wreath (Removal of Inscription)
    Major Wallasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department by what authority an inscription was removed from a wreath laid at the Cenotaph by representatives of the N.T.S., the Russian anti-Communist organisation.
    Major Lloyd-George: The inscription was removed on the instructions of a senior police officer, who considered that to allow it to remain on the wreath might well give rise to breaches of the peace.
    Major Wall: Does not my right hon. and gallant Friend feel that this action was uncalled for and unnecessary, particularly in view of the fact that the inscription was perfectly normal? Is he aware there is a certain anxiety that recent security measures are tending to cause the police to act in a manner to which we are not accustomed in this country and which, quite frankly, we do not like?
    Major Lloyd-George: I am afraid that I have to disagree with my hon. and gallant Friend on that. I have never seen such courtesy displayed in very difficult circumstances at any time that I can remember. As for the removal of the inscription, this is a matter of opinion, but I am sure the whole House will agree with me that the use of the Cenotaph for political purposes would be greatly deplored.
    Mr. G. Thomas: Is the Minister aware that we all regard the Cenotaph as a national shrine and that anyone who seeks to advance political views by attaching a slogan to a wreath becomes offensive to people of all parties?

    Street Betting (Convictions)
    Mr. Lewisasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state for the last 12 months the number of persons who have been convicted of street betting in the Metropolitan Police area and in the county borough of West Ham, respectively; and what was the total amount of fines imposed.
    Major Lloyd-George: During the year 1955, 5,203 persons were convicted in the Metropolitan Police District for offences against the Street Betting Act, 1906. Fines and costs, which cannot easily be separated, amounted to £52,440. The corresponding figures for the county borought of West Ham were 423 and £10,300, respectively.
    Mr. Lewis: Could the Home Secretary give an explanation why these people are being prosecuted when they are small bookmakers, whereas the big bookmakers are illegally placing advertisements in all

    1953
    the national Press every day and are carrying on illegal post betting? Both the Home Secretary and the Attorney-General refuse to take action against them. Why not treat the small bookmaker and the big bookmaker alike? Will he not prosecute these people if I submit to him further evidence to that already in his possession?
    Major Lloyd-George: The whole of this question is one which comes within the larger question of the reform of the law which, as I have announced to the House, we propose to undertake at the earliest possible opportunity.
    Mr. Lewis: In view of the fact that the Minister appears to be under some misapprehension, I give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Borstal Institutions (Unconvicted Persons)
    Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many unconvicted persons are at present detained in Borstal institutions.
    Major Lloyd-George: If the hon. and gallant Member's Question refers to those persons at present detained in Borstal institutions who are undergoing Borstal training without having been convicted of any criminal offence, the answer is three.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is it not a very deplorable state of affairs that there should be even three young people in Borstal who have not been convicted of or sentenced on any charge at all? How does it come about that unconvicted persons are in Borstal?
    Major Lloyd-George: It may be deplorable, but it happens to be the law. Those three young girls were sent to an approved school as the result of a probation order. They absconded from the approved school and, under the Act of 1948, were put into Borstal.
    Hon. Members: The Act of 1948.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: They still have not broken the law.

    Adoption of Children (Report)
    Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has now decided what action to take on the Report of the Hurst Committee on the adoption of children.
    Major Lloyd-George: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply that I gave on 7th March to the hon. and learned Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu).
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is not the Home Secretary aware that the Report exposed too many loopholes in the present law permitting the sending of children abroad for adoption and a black market, especially in illegitimate babies? Why is he not doing something about this Report, which was submitted to him in September, 1954, even though certain hon. Members on his side of the House are not a bit interested in the matter?
    Major Lloyd-George: As I have told the hon. and gallant Member before, this requires legislation, and I see no hope of that at the present time.

    Materials (Flammability)
    Mrs. Mannasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the Inter-departmental Committee on Home Safety have studied the research work done by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research on materials for flammability; and what action the committee intend to take to have the information acquired by this research widely known.
    Major Lloyd-George: Yes, Sir. The test of flammability of thin flexible materials devised by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research has been incorporated in a British Standard issued by the British Standards Institution. This is, however, simply a method of test, and wider publicity for it will not of itself reduce the number of accidents. The Committee attach greater importance to the finding of a cheap and effective method of flame-proofing clothing materials and I welcome the efforts being made by the trade to this end.
    Mrs. Mann: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that we are glad that we have a British Standard but that it recognises only the figure of merit material, whereas the great danger is in the sale of the cheap, highly inflammable material? Could not advertisements be placed in the newspapers, or some similar action taken, apart altogether from labelling, stating the time of flammability for certain materials?
    Major Lloyd-George: I will consider, that, although I think that an even better way is the effort which is being made now by the trade to make flame-proof clothing which has already been made.

    Accidents in the Home
    Mrs. Mannasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will ask the Interdepartmental Committee on Home Safety to furnish reports on the incidence of fatal accidents where these are highest in the cities and burghs of Britain so that concentrated propaganda may be stimulated in the areas where it is most required.
    Major Lloyd-George: The figures are not available.
    Mrs. Mann: It is a great tragedy that they are not available, and I should like the Home Secretary to try to have them made available as soon as possible. Would he not agree that if we pin-pointed certain cities, showing their very high death rates through accidents, it would be a spur to these cities themselves to take action in dealing with accidents in the homes?
    Major Lloyd-George: It is not an easy matter, I assure the hon. Lady, because if, for example, there were an accident which involved a number of lives, it would put the figures for that particular place out of all proportion. It is not an easy matter to get figures which would be of value throughout the whole country. But I am prepared to look into this.
    Mrs. Mann: Does not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman recognise that we already do this about road accidents, pinpointing dangerous corners and dangerous cross roads, but that we are doing nothing about home accidents?
    Mr. J. T. Price: While the Home Secretary is gathering further information on this very important question, would he pay particular attention to the large amount of defective electric apparatus of all kinds, which is badly constructed and ill-designed, which is being let loose in the British homes and which in itself is a major factor in causing many home accidents?
    Mrs. Mannasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what
    1956
    action is directed by his Department to lower the casualty rate of accidents in the home; and what agencies are used for this purpose.
    Major Lloyd-George: The design of houses and household appliances and education of the public are important factors in reducing casualties caused by accidents in the home. Advice on the design of houses is given in manuals issued by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, and on the design of appliances by committees of the British Standards Institution on which representatives of various Departments serve. Education is given in schools and by propaganda by a number of agencies, including the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. These various activities are co-ordinated by the Standing Interdepartmental Committee.
    Mrs. Mann: Is not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that accidents in the homes cause thousands more deaths per annum than accidents on the roads? Is he aware that the Minister of Transport has told me that he gives £262,000 per annum for propaganda, whereas the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has told me that he is stopping any further grant to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents in the Homes?
    Major Lloyd-George: I can only say that the machinery for co-ordinating the activities of the various agencies which are concerned in the matter is working well. It is a regrettable but true fact that the vast majority of accidents in the homes involve people over 65 years of age, which makes it a very difficult problem. It is rather surprising, but it is a fact, that the majority are people over 65.
    Mr. Younger: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman confirm or deny the rumour which I frequently hear that there is the greatest possible difficulty in getting the manufacturers of such appliances as electric fires to boost the safer makes at the expense of the more old-fashioned and less safe makes? Is he satisfied, or is he not satisfied, with the co-operation from the commercial trade in this matter?
    Major Lloyd-George: I should like notice of that question. I could not say without notice.

    Penal Institutions (Building Programme)
    Mr. Hydeasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department his plans for building new prisons and other penal institutions; and if he will make a statement.
    Major Lloyd-George: The new building programme comprises two prisons of maximum security, the first of which is in course of erection and should be completed before the end of 1957, while the second is scheduled to start this summer. The psychiatric institution is also scheduled to start this summer. These will be followed in 1957 and 1958 by two Borstals for boys and two for girls.
    Sir T. Moore: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend bear in mind that many more prisons will be required if the death penalty is abolished?

    Strangeways Prison (Diet)
    Mr. Allaunasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that only 1s. worth of meat a week is allowed to prisoners in Strange-ways Prison, Manchester, apart from sausages and bacon; if he will increase this ration; and what is the meat allowance in other prisons.
    Major Lloyd-George: The weekly diet of every prisoner includes fresh meat worth 1s. at wholesale rates in addition to 8 oz. sausage meat, 5 oz. bacon and 2 oz. preserved meat. The diet of prisoners has recently been reviewed and it is not proposed to increase the meat allowance.
    Mr. Allaun: If the morale of prisoners depends, as it does largely, on their food, would the Minister expect good morale on 1s. worth of meat a week?
    Major Lloyd-George: The people of this country did very well on it for a long time. In addition to the figures I have given, there is 1 lb. of fish. Prisoners are weighed regularly. This diet and the effect on the prison population is watched very carefully.

    Lottery Tickets (Sale)
    Sir L. Plummerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take the necessary steps to permit tickets for the Irish Sweep and other similar lotteries to be sold freely in England and Wales.
    Major Lloyd-George: No, Sir.
    Sir L. Plummer: Is the Home Secretary aware that that answer will give immense satisfaction to the Archbishop of Canterbury and, if she can get a word in edgeways, to the Archbishop's wife? Why is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman exercising this restrictive practice? Why does he not allow more "squalid" raffles in this country now that the Government propose to introduce one?
    Major Lloyd-George: I am sure that if the hon. Member puts that question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer he will get a very good answer.

    SCIENCE MUSEUM (DIRECTOR)
    Mr. Albuasked the Minister of Education whether he will make a statement on the appointment of a Director of the Science Museum.
    The Minister of Education (Sir David Eccles): The vacancy has been advertised by the Civil Service Commission and applications are now being considered.
    Mr. Albu: Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm whether it is a fact that the vacancy is still being advertised at a salary lower than that paid for comparable positions in national museums dealing with other subjects? If that is the case, is it not a very invidious comparison?
    Sir D. Eccles: The salary is £2,325. It is somewhat lower than the salary paid, for instance, to the Director of the British Museum, but I think that we had better see how we get on with the applications.

  EDUCATION

    New Schools (Difficult Sites)
    Mr. Haymanasked the Minister of Education what special grants are available to local education authorities for building new schools on difficult sites.
    Sir D. Eccles: I am prepared to increase the limit of cost for individual projects on sites of unusual difficulty. Grant is payable on the additional expenditure involved at the normal rate of 60 per cent.
    Mr. Hayman: Is an additional grant paid on the site deductible from the total grant for the whole of the school building and site?
    Sir D. Eccles: I think that the site is taken into consideration, and if it is decided that it is so difficult that extra money must be spent, that, of course, is added to the total building cost.

    Secondary School Population
    Mr. Mossasked the Minister of Education the number of the secondary school population at the latest available date; and how they are divided among secondary grammar, secondary modern and secondary technical schools, comprehensive schools, and any combination within the tripartite system.
    Sir D. Eccles: In January, 1955, there were about 1,915,000 pupils in the maintained and assisted secondary schools of England and Wales. As the answer to the second part of the Question contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Moss: May we assume that the figures show that the overwhelming majority of the secondary school population is in secondary modern schools or secondary modern departments? In view of paragraph 21 of the White Paper on Secondary Education, will the right hon. Gentleman say what steps he is going to take to give secondary modern schools a status so that they can provide the basic requirements of education without which further education in technical colleges will be a failure?
    Sir D. Eccles: The hon. Member will see that there are about 1¼ million children in secondary modern schools, against 528,000 in grammar schools and 87,000 in technical secondary schools. I agree that we need to raise the status of the secondary modern school, but that is happening all the time and the experiments that are going on are very successful.
    Miss Lee: Does the Minister realise that there is the utmost sympathy on this side of the House with the desire to improve technical and scientific education? Does he further realise that that involves a great deal of expensive equipment and
    1960
    that the only rational way to tackle it is to abandon this foolish division at 11-plus into secondary modern and secondary grammar schools and give children an opportunity to be educated in democratic fashion in comprehensive schools?
    Sir D. Eccles: That does not follow at all. The new secondary modern schools have very good laboratories. The difficulty is going to be in obtaining specialist teachers.
    Following are the figure:

    Numbers of pupils in maintained and assisted secondary schools in England and Wales in January, 1955

    Modern

    1,234,174

    Grammar

    528,455

    Technical

    87,366

    Bilateral

    46,540

    Multilateral

    2,388

    Comprehensive

    15,891

    Total

    1,914,814

    In addition, 198,752 senior pupils were attending primary all-age schools on that date.

    School Age Groups
    Mr. Mossasked the Minister of Education what percentage of each age group was in full-time education at the latest available date, giving figures at 15, 16, 17 and 18–20 years of age.
    Sir D. Eccles: The estimated proportions of the four age-groups named receiving full-time education in the academic year 1954 in universities and in educational establishments recognised by me were 33¼ per cent., 18¼ per cent., 9½ per cent. and 5 per cent., respectively.
    Mr. Moss: Do not these figures compare very unfavourably with those in the United States and in Soviet Russia, and will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he has any reason to think that the figures for Britain will improve, in view of the fact that in the Soviet Union their successful scheme of technical education depends upon whole-time education rather than part-time education?
    Sir D. Eccles: As regards the United States, of course the National Service is different and therefore the figure in the last age group in respect of England and Wales is not a good comparison. As regards Russia, the best information I have is that the percentage of children

    1961
    over the age of 12 in school in this country, let alone the ages in this Question, is very much higher.
    Dame Florence Horsbrugh: Has my right hon. Friend any information he could give us as to the fees that must be paid in Russia for all the schooling?
    Sir D. Eccles: I understand nothing is paid now—they have changed.

    Permanent Secretary, Welsh Department
    Mr. G. Thomasasked the Minister of Education when he proposes to implement the recommendation of the Advisory Council for Wales, that the Secretary of the Welsh Department of his Department should be stationed at Cardiff.
    Sir D. Eccles: This recommendation was very carefully considered before my predecessor made the arrangements described in Circular 17, which are now in force and which I see no reason to change. It is very important that the Permanent Secretary of the Welsh Department should be readily available in London to advise me on educational policy as it concerns Wales, but he also uses the Cardiff Office for such of his work as can best be done there.
    Mr. Thomas: Is the Minister aware that the present position is leading to inconvenience and delay and that we are having to wait at this end for decisions to be taken at Cardiff? Does he not think that he ought to take the advice of the Welsh people on this matter?
    Sir D. Eccles: I consider the interests of the Welsh children, and I am inclined to think that the Secretary of the Welsh Department gets more out of me if he is near me than if he is a long way off.
    Mr. Gower: Has my right hon. Friend noted that since the war, and in recent years particularly, several Departments, including the Ministers of Agriculture, Health and Housing and Local Government, have concentrated more and more of their Welsh work in Cardiff? In any future reconsideration of this problem, will my right hon. Friend consider the possibility that there appears to be a greater separate problem in education than in any other sphere?
    Sir D. Eccles: The one consideration I have in mind is what is best for the Welsh children.

    Community Centres, Wales
    Mr. G. Thomasasked the Minister of Education the number of community centres established in Wales during the past five years; and the total amount contributed towards these centres by his Department.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Dennis Vosper): Grant amounting to £7,035 was authorised towards the provision of eight community centres in Wales in the period 1st April, 1951, to 31st March, 1956.
    Mr. Thomas: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say offhand whether these community centres were scattered over Wales, or were they concentrated in the South?
    Mr. Vosper: I could not answer that question without notice.

    Secondary Modern School, Canterbury (Curtains)
    Mr. L. Thomasasked the Minister of Education if he is aware that curtains provided for the Frank Hooker Secondary Modern School, Canterbury, cost £1,064, of which £979 was spent on curtaining the school hall; and why he approved this expenditure, since it is not in conformity with the Government's appeal for economy in local government expenditure.
    Sir D. Eccles: The cost of the curtains was high because two walls of the assembly hall were made of glass, but I am advised that the cost of two glass walls with curtains was less than that of two solid walls without curtains.
    Mr. Thomas: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is considerable public anxiety as to the degree of vigilance exercised by his Department on such expenditure? Will he take steps to ensure that the architects and designers associated with his Department so design these schools in future that these extravagant furnishings become unnecesary? Is my right hon. Friend further aware that he has aptly described this school hall? It is a veritable glasshouse, much more calculated to develop weeds than lusty young plants?
    Sir D. Eccles: The architects in this case were very clever. They found a method of construction and furnishing that was cheap, and the cost of the equipment of the school hall is well below the average. However, I appreciate what my hon. Friend has said, and I propose shortly to announce limits on the total cost of school furnishings which will give guidance to local authorities.
    Mr. M. Stewart: Could the right hon. Gentleman say how much curtains of this kind would have cost when the present Government came into power, and is it not unreasonable to expect local authorities to keep expenses down when Government policy keeps pushing up the cost of the things they have to buy?
    Sir D. Eccles: I cannot answer the first part of the question, but local authorities are, in fact, being very successful in keeping down the cost of furnishing schools.

    Camp Schools
    Mr. Hydeasked the Minister of Education how many camp schools, established under the National Camps Corporation and leased to local education authorities, for which receivers and managers have been appointed by him, have been sold; and what are his intentions with regard to the future of the camps remaining unsold.
    Sir D. Eccles: Local education authorities have approved in principle the purchase of fifteen of these camps, and are considering that of six more. I hope that these negotiations will be successfully completed and that purchasers will also be found for the remaining seven.
    Mr. Hyde: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if the remaining seven of these schools, which have experienced staffs, cannot be sold, they will be allowed to fall into neglect? Can he not do something to expedite the matter?
    Sir D. Eccles: Four of the seven are now unoccupied.

    Milk
    Mr. Awberyasked the Minister of Education how many schools are now being supplied with milk tablets as a substitute for liquid milk; and what steps
    1964
    he is taking to procure a sufficient supply of fresh milk to meet the requirements of our school population.
    Mr. Vosper: One hundred and twenty-nine in all. Apart from eighteen small isolated schools which no one is prepared to supply, 111 are in Blackpool and Newport where the local education authorities have been unable to obtain fresh milk at a reasonable price. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of a letter which my right hon. Friend sent to all local education authorities last December.
    Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware that liquid milk is far more nourishing than tablets, and that children prefer the natural milk which is being used for other purposes? Will he see that the fresh milk goes to our school children instead of to the purposes for which it is now used?
    Mr. Vosper: It is the desire of my right hon. Friend that liquid milk should be supplied, but there are cases where, for various reasons, this is not always possible.

    Science Teachers (Retired Service Officers)
    Mr. Callaghanasked the Minister of Education what action he has taken to follow up the recent suggestion of the Scientific Advisory Council that retired Service officers should receive training to fit them for science teaching in schools.
    Sir D. Eccles: This is an interesting suggestion, but at present I can add nothing to the reply my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary gave to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) the day before yesterday.
    Mr. Callaghan: When can we expect to see some science teachers drawn from this source, in view of the crippling shortage which we are experiencing at the moment?
    Sir D. Eccles: At the moment the Resettlement Advice Bureau, which is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, is investigating this matter, so far without finding any demand. If we find it is necessary to give some kind of training, we will do so.

    Technical Education Programme
    Mr. Peartasked the Minister of Education what changes are being made in the announced programme for the development of technical education, Command Paper No. 9703, February, 1956, in the light of the Government's economy programme.
    Sir D. Eccles: The Government's plan for the development of technical education is a very special case and will not be involved in the immediate review of expenditure for 1956–57 referred to by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Budget debate.
    Mr. Peart: But is the Minister aware that when I asked for definite assurances from the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury they were not forthcoming? Will the Minister give a definite promise, therefore, that not only will there be no cuts in the technical programme but no delays in building for technical purposes?
    Sir D. Eccles: If the hon. Gentleman will read my answer, I think he will find that it is quite clear. I said, "will not be involved in the immediate review."

    School-leaving Age
    Mr. Lewisasked the Minister of Education when he anticipates extending the present school-leaving age to 17 years.
    Sir D. Eccles: I have no date in mind.
    Mr. Lewis: Has the attention of the Minister been drawn to the statement made by the Soviet Government that they anticipate extending the school-leaving age to 17 within the next five years? Will he examine the position to see that we are not left in a backwater on this question in the same way as we have been on technical education?
    Sir D. Eccles: Yes, Sir, I have seen that statement. The hon. Gentleman will know that children in Russia go to school only at the age of 7, and that they then attend until the age of 12. I am informed that at the present time only in the cities is there a secondary course from 12 to 17, and even in the cities there is not by any means complete coverage.

    COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS OFFICE (SUGGESTIONS SCHEME)
    Mr. Pageasked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations 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.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Commander Allan Noble): There is no such scheme in operation in the Commonwealth Relations Office.
    Mr. Page: Will my hon. and gallant Friend look at the reports from the Canadian Suggestions Award Board and the American National Association for Suggestion Schemes to see what economies can be made by means of these schemes? Perhaps that might be a contribution from his Department to the Chancellor's scheme to save £100 million.
    Commander Noble: We always welcome suggestions, but the work of the Commonwealth Relations Office is largely of an administrative nature and not suitable for such a scheme. However, I will look into the point which has been raised by my hon. Friend.

  CENTRAL AFRICAN FEDERATION

    University College, Salisbury
    Mr. Dugdaleasked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what conditions are attached to the grant made from Colonial Development and Welfare Funds for the foundation of a university college in Salisbury.
    Commander Noble: The grant is subject to the usual conditions which are attached to the issue of Colonial Development and Welfare Funds for the development of higher education. It was also a condition that the recurrent costs should be met from other sources.
    Mr. Dugdale: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that many people who

    1967
    were delighted that there should be a multi-racial university established are deeply disturbed to hear that Africans are to eat in separate dining halls and live in separate houses? Does this form of apartheid have the approval of the Government, and is it in keeping with the ideas which led them to give a grant to this university?
    Commander Noble: I do not accept the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. This is the first multi-racial university in the Federation, and I am sure that the authorities on the spot will make the best arrangements for its success. I am certain that this House will wish the university all success.
    Mr. Bevan: Has not the hon. and gallant Gentleman dodged the main question? I am quite certain that the authorities on the spot will make the best possible use of the physical resources at their disposal, but does the hon. and gallant Gentleman consider the separating of races in an educational institution of this sort of contribution to the multi-racial policy? That is the point raised by my right hon. Friend and which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has not answered.
    Hon. Members: Answer.
    Commander Noble: I think that I answered the right hon. Gentleman—
    Hon. Members: No.
    Mr. Bevan: This is a very important matter which may have the most unfortunate consequences. Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that there are certain developments in the Colonial Office of which many hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House approved? There have been developments towards multiracial policy which have been approved by hon. Members on both sides of the House. Does not the hon. and gallant Gentleman realise that when this reply is read in Africa it will have a most unfortunate effect?
    Commander Noble: Perhaps I might quote to the right hon. Gentleman from the Royal Charter granted to this college in February, 1955:
    "No test of religious belief or profession or race, nationality or class shall be imposed or required of any person in order to entitle him to be admitted. …"
    To go further than that, I would say that I rely on the Federal Government and
    1968
    the council of this university to do what they think is best.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: May I ask the hon. and gallant Member whether he realises that since the end of the war we have established universities in East and in West Africa which are fully multi-racial. Both were helped from the Colonial Development and Welfare Fund, and this one is being helped. Is it true that the conditions are as referred to in his original question by my right hon. Friend? If so, will not this be the first time that we have used funds from this country to establish a university which is not truly multi-racial?
    Commander Noble: There is no question but that this university is multi-racial. Certainly there is segregation—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—but it is at the desire of the people on the spot, and I have great confidence in them.
    Mr. Nicholson: Would it not be wiser and more statesmanlike on the part of hon. Members on both sides of the House to leave this matter for the time being to those on the spot to see how things go on, rather than to try to inject ill-feeling from this country into that part of the world?
    Mr. Gaitskell: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that we on this side of the House take a very serious view of this matter? Will he please explain what he means by "the people on the spot"?
    Commander Noble: I mean, of course, the council of the university.
    Mr. Bevan: The Government will understand that we cannot leave the matter there and that we must take it up in a much more serious way?
    Commander Noble: I would answer the right hon. Gentleman in the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson). I am sure that these things are much better settled by the people on the spot rather than by question and answer in this House.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that this is the first time a grant has been given from the Commonwealth Development and Welfare Fund for higher education and used for purposes not fully multi-racial in the full sense of the word?
    Commander Noble: This is multi-racial in the full sense of the word.
    Mr. G. Thomas: The Conservative sense.
    Mr. Dugdale: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's answer, I beg to give notice that I shall endeavour to raise the matter at the earliest opportunity.

    Ex-Askaris (Disability Pensions)
    Sir L. Plummerasked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what representations he has made to the Government of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland about the disability pensions now being paid to ex-Askaris in Nyasaland.
    Commander Noble: None, Sir. Defence is the Federal responsibility and with effect from 1st July, 1954, the Federal Government assumed full liability for war service pensions payable to ex-Askaris in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland. I am informed that the Federal Government have decided to bring the Nyasaland battalion rates into line, from that date, with the more favourable rates paid to former members of the Northern Rhodesia Regiment.
    Sir L. Plummer: Is the Minister aware that there are about three hundred ex-Askaris in Nyasaland who incurred their wounds when under our control and not under the control of the Federation; that the disability pension for a man with 60 per cent. disability is about 7s. a month and for 100 per cent. disability 9s. a month? Will the hon. Gentleman make representations to the Federal Government that these people be treated as human beings?
    Commander Noble: I will certainly look into the point which the hon. Member has raised, but he will appreciate that any question of what happened before federation is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies.

    GOVERNMENT SURPLUS STORES (DISPOSAL)
    Mr. Doddsasked the Prime Minister if he can yet make a statement following the investigation into the disposal of Government surplus stocks.
    The Prime Minister (Sir Anthony Eden): No, Sir, but I hope to be able to make a statement in the next week or two.
    Mr. Dodds: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he yet recognises the need for dealing effectively with this problem and probing into the murky depths of the racketeers' empire? Can he say whether or not the Committee he has set up will do that and, if not, will he consider setting up a Select Committee for this purpose?
    The Prime Minister: I do not know whether it is in order at Question Time to use the adjectives used by the hon. Gentleman. As he will know, I have had this inquiry made, and I think that the report will be available to me very shortly. I am sorry that because of one or two other preoccupations I have not been able to deal with it lately. I hope, certainly before Whitsun, to make a statement.

    EX-INDIAN ARMY PERSONNEL (PENSIONS)
    Mr. Marloweasked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations whether the Royal Warrant shortly to be published to effect increases in the pensions and retired pay of Service personnel will award increases in pensions to retired personnel of the Indian Army.
    Commander Noble: No, Sir. Any increase in the pensions of retired personnel of the former Indian Army will be dealt with by separate Prerogative Instrument.
    Mr. Marlowe: Will it amount to the same thing or not?
    Commander Noble: Yes, Sir, it will amount to very much the same thing. We hope the increases will take effect from 1st April, 1956, and be available almost immediately after the Pensions (Increase) Bill becomes law.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE

    Wheat and Barley
    Mr. Dyeasked the President of the Board of Trade what quantity of the home-grown crops of wheat and barley harvested in 1955 have been exported up to the latest available date.
    The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. A. R. W. Low): Crops are not distinguished according to year of harvest in the Trade Returns and wheat is not separately distinguished in the Trade Returns. 165,000 tons of barley and 30,000 tons of other unmilled cereals were exported in the period August, 1955, to March, 1956, inclusive.
    Mr. Dye: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why barley sold off the farms at about £22 per ton was exported from East Coast ports and yet farmers are having now to pay £28 a ton for barley imported into this country?
    Mr. Low: I have not exact knowledge about conditions in the market, but I know of no reason why sales should not have been freely negotiated at the ordinary market prices.

    Ottawa Trade Agreements
    Mr. Peytonasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will, in consultation with representatives of the Commonwealth, review the operation of the Ottawa Trade Agreements, particularly the rule permitting the free entry of goods from the Colonies into the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Low: No, Sir.
    Mr. Peyton: Would not my hon. Friend agree that these Agreements were made in circumstances very different from those which now prevail and that therefore they should be re-examined in the light of present day conditions? Is he further aware that they are constituting an increasing competition to certain industries which have been extremely hard pressed?
    Mr. Low: I think that my hon. Friend is particularly concerned about the duty-free entry from the Hong Kong Colony. That, of course, is not the result of any agreement; it is the result of policy embodied in Statute. As my hon. Friend will know, a change of policy would involve serious considerations of colonial policy generally. As was stated in the House a year ago by the Prime Minister, we gave careful consideration to the matter at that time, and Her Majesty's Government are not now prepared, under existing circumstances, to depart from long-established arrangements.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will announce the business for next week?
The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 30TH APRIL—Supply [11th Allotted Day]: Committee, which it is proposed to take formally.
Debate on Opposition Motion relating to Agriculture, which is on the Order Paper.
[That this House is of the opinion that the Annual Review and Determination of Guarantees, 1956, Command Paper No. 9721, together with the Government's continued failure to formulate a long-term plan for agriculture, undermines the confidence of the industry in its future, fails to halt the decline in the numbers of skilled farm workers, and makes it impossible for the industry to assist the nation in its balance of payments problem to the full extent of which agriculture is capable.]
Consideration of the Motion to approve the Additional Import Duties (No. 1) Order relating to Lime Oil and Bananas.
TUESDAY, 1ST MAY, WEDNESDAY, 2ND MAY and THURSDAY, 3RD MAY—Committee stage of the Restrictive Trade Practices Bill.
FRIDAY, 4TH MAY—Consideration of Private Members' Motions.
Mr. Gaitskell: Is the Lord Privy Seal aware that we have a number of subjects which we are anxious to discuss in the House and which seem to us to be a great deal more important than the extremely doubtful Restrictive Trade Practices Bill—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—yes—upon which the Government are insisting and about which we have made a number of criticisms? May I ask him whether he will ensure that between now and Whitsun we shall have reasonable time to discuss those other matters, which include technical education, the Guillebaud Report and a number of Colonial Office matters as well?
Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. Nothing will interrupt the normal flow of the Supply Days, which we shall take in the normal

1973
course of business and I hope that nothing will interrupt the normal flow of Government business, in which we believe, namely, the Restrictive Trade Practices Bill, which we propose to pass through this Parliament. Therefore, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends will have opportunities available to them. For example, I think that there will be a day next week when there will be an opportunity for Supply and the Opposition can raise questions in which they are interested, leaving us the opportunity of putting through our business as well.
Mr. Awbery: Will the Leader of the House find time for the discussion of the Motion in my name on the Order Paper about the price of potatoes, about which housewives are very much disturbed? A fortnight ago potatoes reached famine prices.
[That this House regrets the failure of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to ensure an adequate supply of potatoes in Great Britain at a reasonable price; considers that, as the price of potatoes is governed by supply and demand, his action in leaving the farmers to determine what the supply and prices shall be has resulted in the recent rise in price almost to a famine figure; and calls upon him to take steps to enforce greater production of potatoes in future, so as to avoid the present violent fluctuation of prices.]
Mr. Speaker: We cannot have potatoes now.
Mr. Peart: Do I take it from the Lord Privy Seal's reply that it is not the intention of the Government to take the initiative in arranging a debate on technical education? Surely the right hon. Gentleman remembers past promises on this subject.
Mr. Butler: I have said on more than one occasion that the topic of technical education is of the first importance, but I hope that it will be chosen by the Opposition as one of their first subjects for a forthcoming Supply day. We shall certainly bear it in mind as being a matter which should be discussed in the House and I undertake to the right hon. Gentleman that we will do so; but it could be considered on a Supply day.
Mr. Marquand: The right hon. Gentleman referred to the normal flow of Government business. Does he recollect that on 8th March, when I asked him whether the Government would find time for the Bill to implement improvements in widows' pensions, he replied:
"… we shall certainly take the earliest opportunity."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th March, 1956; Vol. 549, c. 2329.]
Can I have an assurance that that promise has not been forgotten?
Mr. Butler: It has not been forgotten, and I hope that it will not be long before it is implemented.
Mr. C. Howell: Do the Government intend to provide time in the near future to consider the topic of widows' pensions, particularly the 10s. widows, who are having an increasingly difficult time?
Mr. Butler: I cannot give any undertaking on the subject of the 10s. widow, but I can give an undertaking on the other matters to which the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) has referred.
Dame Irene Ward: Can my right hon. Friend say whether legislation about widows' pensions will be introduced this Session, because there seems to be some doubt about the matter? I and many of my hon. Friends think that it is extremely important that we should make progress with that matter. I would rather deal with that than with the Motion of censure on the Government's agricultural policy.
Mr. Butler: For once we are in agreement with the hon. Lady. I hope that we shall soon introduce our legislation. We have made it more comprehensive than was originally intended, and it will include references to widows whom the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East mentioned.
Mr. Hyde: Can my right hon. Friend say when further progress with the Death Penalty (Abolition) Bill is likely to be made?
Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir, as soon as possible; and if the House approaches it in the spirit of yesterday, I see no reason why we should not make very rapid progress with that Bill.

ANGLO-SOVIET DISCUSSIONS (WHITE PAPER)
The Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, with your permission and that of the House, I will make a short statement.
As the House will be aware, the discussions which have been taking place between Her Majesty's Government and the Soviet leaders have been concluded. The results of the talks will be embodied in a statement which will be published early tomorrow.
For the convenience of the House the statement will be laid as a White Paper, which will be available when the House meets tomorrow morning.
Mr. Gaitskell: Am I right in assuming that the Prime Minister will not be able to make a statement in the House tomorrow morning, because he will be seeing the Soviet leaders off at that time?
The Prime Minister: Yes. I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. That will be so. In fact, I shall not have a statement to make, because all I have to say at present is in the document. Much the best way of proceeding from the Parliamentary point of view is to give hon. Members a full opportunity of considering the document, which is not short, and then, if a debate is required, there can be discussions through the usual channels.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Proceedings on the Restrictive Trade Practices Bill 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 BILL
  Considered in Committee. [Progress. 12th April.]
  [Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

  RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES BILL

    Clause 4.—(APPOINTMENT OF OTHER MEMBERS OF COURT.)
    3.39 p.m.
    Amendment made: In page 3, line 36, leave out "this section" and insert:
    "the foregoing subsection."—[Mr. P. Thorneycroft.]
    Mr. A. J. Irvine: I beg to move, in page 3, line 38, to leave out "three" and to insert "five".
    The purpose of this Amendment is to enlarge the minimum period during which a member of the Court, other than the judge, will hold office. On this side of the Committee we regard the period of three years as being a good deal too short a minimum period. We recognise that it is, of course, expressed to be a minimum only, and we appreciate that the intention of the Government may be that these appointments will be made generally for a substantially longer period.
    We believe that three years is too short a minimum period, and that this reflects upon a matter to which we attach great importance, namely, the status of the Court. Further, it is likely to have an adverse effect upon the prospect of getting the best men to serve in these appointments, with all the very onerous and important duties attaching to them.
    If the Bill is passed into law, the Court will be a court of record, a court of high standing, a court possessing an official seal; it will not be a minor tribunal. If the Government's intentions are carried out, the Court will have a very important part to play in the judiciary of this country. In England, three members of it are going to be High Court judges. We on this side of the Committee are determined as we would expect hon. Members on the other side likewise to be determined—that once this Court is constituted its status shall be above all reproach and shall be properly protected and safeguarded. As I am sure the Government will agree, it must be an authoritative body and above all possible allegations of bias.

    1977
    We believe that a minimum period of three years for lay members' membership of the Court is quite insufficient, because if this provision becomes law it will become quite possible for men selected from industry, commerce and trade to sit upon this Court, with their lay member colleagues and a judge, for a period of three years, during that period, for all one knows, overruling the judge upon questions of fact, and then, at the end of so short a period, be able to go back into public affairs, commerce and industry, experience in which is regarded as having qualified them originally for the appointment.
    We believe that to be undesirable. After three years' membership of a court of this kind, a layman may have had sufficient experience of trade, industry, or public affairs, but he will not have had a sufficient experience of the Restrictive Practices Court.
    I am fortified in this argument, I believe, by observations which fell from the lips of the Parliamentary Secretary on the occasion when the Committee last deliberated upon the Bill. He said:
    "Indeed, it was always supposed that maturity of years and reflective disposition were an aid to the exercise of the judicial function."
    I must be pardoned for expressing my liking for that phrase; it is an agreeable phrase and all the more agreeable for expressing a truth. In all seriousness, I feel that one is much more likely to get the reflective disposition which the Government so rightly regard as desirable in any member of the judiciary if a man has a reasonably long period of office. A period of three years, especially in the case of a man who perhaps up to this point has never had any experience in any way of the judicial function is not a long enough time in which he can reasonably be expected to acquire the reflective disposition which the Parliamentary Secretary, in my view so rightly, indicated as desirable.
    Again, quite rightly, if I may say so, the Parliamentary Secretary said on the last occasion that very great importance attached to the members of the Court being able to bring to the problems which confront them a proper objectivity. It is all-important that they should be able to bring to these problems objectivity,
    1978
    detachment and a judicial frame of mind, The Parliamentary Secretary said, also:
    "It was obviously undesirable that anybody should be appointed who was engaged in industry or commerce in such a way as to prejudice his objectivity over these matters."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th April, 1956; 551, c. 504 and 505.]
    3.45 p.m.
    We on this side of the Committee take the view that if members of the Court are to be appointed for three years as a minimum period, it will be very difficult for them to achieve the degree of objectivity which is so obviously desirable. If the minimum period is as short as that, it will be possible for a leader in industry or trade to leave his business or company and serve for this short period as a member of the Court, having, at the same time, an arrangement with his company—which would be a perfectly legitimate and natural arrangement—that after this short tour of duty has been performed he will return to it and there resume the same activities in commerce and trade in which he engaged before.
    To do such a thing should be quite inconsistent with his achieving the desired degree of objectivity. Quite plainly, as I suggest, on that hypothesis, he may well be a party to arriving at decisions upon issues coming before the Court which will very materially affect the business and trade with which he was so recently associated, and to which he expects very shortly to return. That is undesirable.
    In arguing the case for five years, I am arguing for a minimum which I would prefer to be extended. I think five years is probably too short a period; but it is better than three. I conceive that a company may be quite willing to come to an arrangement with one of its officers that he could be released from its activities for a period of three years and return to it at the end of that time on terms which could readily be agreed, whereas the company would be unwilling to allow its officer to be absent from it for a period as long as five years. From this important point of view a five years minimum is a good deal better than three.
    This is the Opposition's object in regard to the Amendment. We approach consideration of the Amendment recognising the fact that the Court will have a high status in the country—we desire that it should—while its duties are performed. We believe that the minimum

    1979
    period of three years, during which lay members of the Court may sit, is too short, reflects upon the status of the Court, is likely to have the result that the best men will not be ready to make themselves available for service and is likely, above all, to have the result that the members of the Court will not have the reflective disposition and objectivity in their consideration of matters which the Government themselves have indicated is desirable.
    The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Thorneycroft): The hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) has put his arguments for substituting five years for three years as the minimum period with great moderation and clarity. I rather agree with his arguments and think there is force in them. The period of three years provided in the Bill is a basic minimum, and I think that it is rather too short. In any normal case I should regard a three-year minimum period, for the reasons advanced by the hon. Gentleman, as too short a period for the purpose that we had in mind. However, I will explain why we have provided a three-year period.
    It was that we felt there might be cases—I do not think that these would be the ordinary cases—where one could only persuade someone whom one really thought would be of value to take on this extremely important and responsible position if the period was a fairly short one. A person might have reached his retiring age in industry and not wish to commit himself for five years and might prefer a three-year appointment. That was our purpose in providing a three-year period.
    Even if we retain the minimum period of three years—I must tell the hon. Member that I was impressed by his arguments—we should normally wish to appoint for a rather longer time. I can go even a little further than that. I should like to consider the hon. Gentleman's arguments. It might be that at a later stage, after reflection, one might somewhat extend the three-year period despite the reasons in favour of it that I have advanced. In any event, whether we have a four or five-year minimum period or not, it is not our purpose to make a habit of appointing people for three years. We ask for that minimum period only to be able to obtain the services of a few people who might otherwise not be available.
    Mr. M. Turner-Samuels: I recognise that at the moment this is purely an experimental matter. While it may not be an exact analogy, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us the minimum period for appointment to tribunals such as National Insurance tribunals and the land tribunals which I believe is somewhat similar?
    Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas: Might I also put a question to the right hon. Gentleman? Perhaps he would then deal with both matters together later.
    I was relieved to hear the President's answer to my hon. Friend's very reasonable case. I want to make it clear what our approach to the problem is and why we are concerned about the Amendment. Earlier, we put forward an Amendment that the lay members of the Court should be full-time, and the Parliamentary Secretary was good enough to say that that would be considered, and on that footing we did not press the matter to a Division. If the President can give any indication of how his mind is working on that subject we should be grateful to know at this stage, but I will not press him if he is not yet in a position to give any further enlightenment.
    This Court will be a high court, and the lay members will be members of a high court. It is not technically a high court, but it is a high court relating to restrictive practices, a court in the same position and with the same status as the High Court. The lay members are judges of a court of High Court status for all purposes except a decision on a question of law. Therefore, it is vitally important that the lay members should be not only as impeccable as High Court judges but should clearly be seen to be as above conflict, as impartial and as free from any possibility of bias on one side or the other as are High Court judges themselves.
    That is one reason why we have pressed for full-time members. It is also relevant to the Amendment. We do not want lay members being introduced in a casual way from industry and going back to industry. Although the President may be satisfied about a certain person—I am sure he would not appoint anybody unless he were satisfied—nevertheless it should be perfectly clear to everybody that there would be no possibility of suggesting that

    1981
    such a person was somehow or other influenced by his connection with industry in exercising his functions, which affect industry so profoundly. It is a risk to take out of industry, for decisions on industrial matters, someone who, even if he is not consciously concerned, nevertheless is affected by the outlook of the industry from which he comes.
    I recognise that that may cut more than one way. It will not necessarily cut in favour of restrictive practices. In a certain case it may cut against restrictive practices. In certain cases we might have coming from industry persons whose inclinations would be for or against restrictive practices. However, I am not concerned with that. What I am concerned with is that whatever the person's bias may be or whatever his bias may appear to be, there should nevertheless not be scope for saying that a member of this court of High Court status might be biased one way or the other.
    We have had great debates on whether this is a justiciable matter or not, and I shall not debate that again, but we are all agreed that the decisions will involve an economic conclusion. Therefore, the lay members of the Court will not merely exercise functions like businessmen on a bench. They will be exercising functions for which they are chosen because of their knowledge of the matter upon which they are going to take a decision. That is the very reason for choosing them. In a way it may be said—I do not want to be misunderstood on this—that they are being chosen to sit in this Court for reasons which automatically expose them to a charge of bias on the matters upon which they will adjudicate.
    4.0 p.m.
    Sir Lancelot Joynson - Hicks: On a point of order. I understood. Sir Charles, that this Amendment dealt purely with the period of office, with substituting five years for three years, and I submit that if the hon. and learned Gentleman is going into the qualities and characteristics of these lay members his speech is out of order.
    The Chairman: We cannot deal with the two figures without giving reasons for the longer period. I think that what is being argued is all right.
    Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman was listening. I
    1982
    explained at the very beginning my reason for supporting my hon. Friend the Member for Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) in suggesting five years instead of three years—that it was allied to there being full-time members. The same reason persuades us to support this Amendment as that in favour of full-time membership. It is the same consideration, which is that these members should not be in and out of the Court. They should be seen to be objective and impartial and there should be no possibility of suggesting bias on the part of these members of the Court. Therefore, the longer the period of appointment the better, because then, quite obviously, the more they are removed from the dust of the conflict.
    I hope, therefore, that despite the reasons which the President of the Board of Trade gave—I would not say for a moment that there is no force in his observations, although, nevertheless, they do not seriously detract from the case put forward by my hon. Friend—the right hon. Gentleman will give serious consideration to the Amendment in the same way as the Parliamentary Secretary promised to give serious consideration to the proposal of full-time membership. I hope that eventually both these Amendments will be accepted. They are both directed to the same point, the impartiality of the members and the fact that that impartiality should be obvious to everybody.
    Sir John Barlow: May I clear up one point? I believe the hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned the appointment of the lay members by the President of the Board of Trade. I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman will find that their appointment is to be made by Her Majesty on the recommendation of the Lord Chancellor.
    Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. That was a slip on my part.
    Mr. Peter Remnant: May I ask my right hon. Friend, when he is giving consideration to this point, to bear very much in mind the point he has already made, that three years is a minimum period and not necessarily the normal period? It appears to me quite likely that the individuals whom he is likely to get to serve as lay members will

    1983
    be getting towards the latter stages of their usefulness. It is not unlikely that in the case of some of them—and I emphasise some of them—their capabilities may deteriorate quite rapidly at the ages that I have in mind. Since it is so essential that all the lay members should be in full possession of all their faculties and acumen, it would be a pity that if an individual seemed to deteriorate after having served three years he should automatically be retained for a further two years. I beg my right hon. Friend to think very carefully about extending the minimum period.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: It seems to me that the reasons given by the Minister for favouring three years rather than five years as a minimum period are quite inadequate. Indeed, I go further and suggest that the argument which he presented is a reason for substituting five years instead of three as a minimum.
    The right hon. Gentleman said that there may be a man whom it would be difficult to induce to accept this office for longer than three years. That is the very thing against which we want to guard. We do not want a man to leave his trading or business interest, or whatever his interest may be, and to sit in the Court merely as a temporary occupant, with a view eventually to going back to his trade or commerce. That point was very properly stressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine). It stands to reason that if a man enters upon these judicial duties in that spirit he is likely to be influenced by considerations which should not influence a person occupying a judicial position.
    The qualities which, in my submission, should be possessed by a judge of this Court should be those of independence—trade interest independence and independence of the environment from which he has sprung—so that he can consider the problems which come before him in an objective way. Another quality which such a judge should possess is the quality of detachment. It is perfectly obvious that it would be much less possible for a person who is occupying the office temporarily for a period of three years to possess the detachment required for the proper carrying out of his judicial duties.
    1984
    He should have knowledge, but he should also have impartiality.
    It should be remembered that this is a court of record and that features of the Court should be not only the independence of its judges, but also the continuity of their duties and certainty over the kind of adjudication which will be the work of the Court. In my opinion this limitation of three years as a minimum is entirely wrong and bad for reasons which I shall put to the Committee very succinctly.
    The present proposal would not give the judges sufficient security of tenure. I am sure the Committee would agree that a judge should have security of tenure in order to enable him to divorce himself from any interests which were his before he took judicial office. A period of three years, even as a minimum, is much too short for that purpose. It would undermine the independence of the judges and would discourage from taking office the type of men most required.
    What is the type of men most required? Those appointed as lay members should be able to separate themselves from their partiality towards their trade interests, and should be able to sit in an Olympian way, detached from those interests, and to adjudicate fairly upon the problems which come before them.
    Another point which has not so far been put forward on this matter is that this limitation will import far too great disparities between the two types of judges who will sit in this Court. We on this side of the Committee were against having a Court at all. We were in favour of having a tribunal upon which these people who in the Clause are called "other members" would be, not members of the Court, but assessors to the president of the tribunal. But be that as it may, the Government have insisted on having a Court, and one which will be a court of record. If it is to be a court of record we desire that it should be a proper court of record, and that there should be equality of status among the judges who compose it. Instead, we have in this Clause, which deals with the appointment of other members of the Court, a very great disparity between the various types of persons who will constitute the Court.
    I beg the Committee to bear in mind that this is not a mere tribunal and that

    1985
    these other members are not merely assessors, as we would have desired them to be, but other members of a judicial court. Clause 3 deals with the nomination of judges as members of the Court. Those judges will be life judges. The Clause which we are considering deals with the appointment of what are called
    "other members of the court"
    and they will be appointed for a minimum of three years. It is perfectly obvious that the disparity between the two kinds of judges in this court of record will be one which will not enable it to function as a court of record should function.
    There is another objection, apart from that of disparity between the two kinds of judges—the judges and the other members—and that is that this minimum period would tend to lead to too great and too frequent changes in the personnel of this court of record. That, in my submission, is a bad thing. There should not be frequent changes. There should be continuity which will enable those whose fortunes will be dealt with by this Court to know with reasonable probability the kind of principles which the Court will administer, and be able to foresee what the result of their affairs coming before the Court is likely to be. This minimum of three years will tend to make all that uncertain.
    If there is one thing which should be a guiding principle in any court, whether it be a court of law or a court dealing with restrictive practices, it is that the decisions of the court should be certain, and it should be possible for the people whose problems will be dealt with to foresee what the result of the deliberations of the Court will be. That would be destroyed or tend to be destroyed, to put it mildly, by this minimum of three years instead of five. I should be strongly in favour of a much longer period than five years, and, indeed, I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Edge Hill suggested that he would be in favour of a longer period than five years. Three years is manifestly too short. It would impair the administration of the court and would be very unsatisfactory so far as the public welfare is concerned.
    There may be other objections, but the nine which I have ventured to submit will, I think, do for the present. So I hope that the Committee will take the view,
    1986
    which I have put before it, that three years is far too short a period and that the period should be at least five years in order to give the various members of this Court a certain equality of status, or as near equality of status as possible, always remembering that it is a court of record and not a tribunal and also that the people called to be members are to be members of a Court and not merely assessors to a tribunal. I support the Amendment.
    4.15 p.m.
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: I am sure that the President of the Board of Trade needs to be very careful about this matter. I should first like to take up the point made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes). He said that the appointment of the judges would be for life. Of course, that is quite wrong. These are judges of the High Court, and it may be that they might sit in this Court for, say, twelve months and then be either translated to another court, or to the Court of Appeal or to the House of Lords and, therefore, it is quite inaccurate to compare the two.
    I do not think that it makes very much difference whether the period is three years or five years. The question of age, and the fact that a person appointed may be elderly was mentioned. I quite agree with the President that we desire to be in a position to be able to appoint a person who may be very suitable at an age when, perhaps, he cannot take the position for five years. That is a possible case, but I do not think that it matters whether it is three years or five years.
    What we want is to be able to appoint a suitable person, regardless of his age, who will be capable and suitable for the job. We ought not to be handicapped, by age or otherwise in selecting a person on the ground of suitability. But there is—I think the President will agree with me on this—another matter which has troubled me very much about this question of three years and I should like the President to follow this argument, because this applies to my side of the Committee as well as to the other side.
    Suppose there is this limit of three years. What I am apprehensive about is that it may be possible, in the case of a person appointed for only three years, to

    1987
    bring political pressure to bear upon him at the end of that time, to the extent that a Government might decide not to appoint him again because he is not liked by them. I ask the President to consider that. It would really be a most serious thing if we had a competent, impartial, capable, experienced, suitable person, a member of the Court, approved by everyone, who, because of his politics or for some other reason, was not liked by the party in power and they could, at the end of three years, say to him, "We shall have nothing more to do with you." I should like the President to consider whether that is a possibility or not. The appointment should be made, as in the case of a judicial appointment, for as long as a person is of good behaviour and competent. There is no need then to fix an age limit.
    An age limit should be fixed, so far as the lay members of the Court are concerned—not the judges—so that it can be said that a lay member should not sit after he is 60 or 65 years' old. That would gain the respect of the public and there would be no suspicion of politics being involved at all. If, at the age of 60, it was thought that a lay member was too old and ought to go, that would be another matter, and not a question of politics.
    I ask the President to consider the effect of this danger, that there may be a suspicion in the mind of the public, or whichever party is in opposition, that a particular person has not been reappointed because of political pressure. These will be important appointments, and I cannot conceive a case in which it is more necessary to eliminate any suspicion of pressure than in the case of the occupancy of a place in this Court dealing with monopolies.
    I sincerely ask the President of the Board of Trade to make the appointments with no regard to whether they are for three years or five years. I ask him to make the appointments in circumstances in which hereafter no one can ever point a finger to the President, from whatever party he comes, and say, "This qualified, competent, capable person has not been reappointed because of political pressure". I hope that the President will accept that as a permanent element in
    1988
    considering the suitability of any appointment of a lay member which may be made to the Court.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: A very wide measure of agreement exists in the Committee on this point. We want the provision framed so that we can get the best people, who will manifestly take a detached and judicial view of these affairs. There are arguments both ways, between the merits of the respective periods of three and five years, and I think that it is possible to exaggerate the advantages of either. The members of the Monopolies Commission were appointed for three years and so were the members of the National Insurance Tribunal, but I am not necessarily guided by precedents, because neither of those bodies is strictly comparable to this one.
    I should like the Committee to allow me to carry out my undertaking to consider the question of the period, and accept my assurance that the longer period would be normal. If, upon reflection, we think that a longer period should be provided, I hope that hon. Members will agree.
    Mr. A. J. Irvine: I very much appreciate the way in which the President dealt with the matter. He has said that he will give consideration to all the arguments. Hon. Members on this side of the Committee attach importance to this matter. Having regard to the way the matter stands, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Irvine: I beg to move, in page 4, line 5, after the first "member", to insert:
    "being a person appearing to him to be qualified as provided in subsection (1) of this section".
    This Amendment has the advantage of being the most incontrovertible proposition that I have ever had the privilege of making in any debate, discussion, or presentation of a case. It is desirable that the temporary members of the Court, who will have all the functions of the appointed members, shall have the qualifications which the Bill says shall attach to the appointed members.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. His

    1989
    argument is incontrovertibly right. Temporary members should have the requisite qualifications. I am very happy to accept the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
    Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I have one question to ask and one point to make. First, can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the remuneration which lay members are likely to receive? Secondly, as the right hon. Gentleman has gathered, hon. Members on this side of the Committee are deeply concerned about the position of the lay members. When we last discussed the Clause I followed all the arguments very carefully. Some of us think that it would be an advantage if we had assessors in place of lay members. I shall not develop that theme now, because we shall put down an Amendment later in order to give the Committee an opportunity of discussing the alternative.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: It would not be possible for me to mention a figure of remuneration because, as is laid down in the Bill, this is a matter for discussion with the Treasury. In view of what the hon. and learned Gentleman has just said, I ought to point out that at present these men will be rather more than assessors, and if they are kept upon the higher level of a judge, their salary ought to reflect that situation. In saying that, however, I must not in any way step in advance of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Mr. William Shepherd: Many of us would like an opportunity of a short discussion upon the rival merits of assessors and lay members. This is a point of considerable importance. We do not want to deal with it now, but it is worth while spending a little time in discussing the respective merits of the two sorts of member. In any event, I hope that whether they be lay members or assessors their salaries will not be less than £4,000 or £5,000 a year. If they were less than that I do not think that we should get the type of person essential for this purpose.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 5.—(AGREEMENTS TO WHICH PART I APPLIES.)
    Mr. John Cronin: I beg to move, in page 4, line 20, after "agreement", to insert:
    "in force at any date after the first day of January, nineteen hundred and fifty-six."
    If left unamended the Clause will have the effect, of providing that only those restrictive agreements will be registrable which are actually in force at the time when the President of the Board of Trade determines. Clause 7 (2) says:
    The foregoing subsection shall come into force on such date as the Board of Trade may by order appoint, and different dates may be appointed under this subsection in relation to agreements of different classes.
    We on this side of the Committee feel that that is a rather unsatisfactory situation. All cases of restrictive agreements which were and have been in operation on and since 1st January of this year should be given the maximum possible publicity.
    There are various reasons for this. First, it is only just and fair that other restrictive practices which will be registrable as the Clause is drafted at present should not suffer by comparison. If the Clause is left unamended in this respect many restrictive practices will cease to be operated, and the general public, the Registrar and the Restrictive Practices Court will know nothing of their nature. It is only natural that those restrictive practices which are the least desirable will be the ones which will cease to be operated, and the result will be that many restrictive practices registered at a later date under the terms of the unamended Clause will receive unfavourable comment to an undeserved extent in comparison with the ones which escape. That would clearly be unjust, and it is very important not only that justice should be done but should manifestly be done.
    There are other important aspects of this matter. The Registrar should have the widest knowledge of all restrictive practices which operate at the present time. If numerous restrictive practices are terminated and are not registrable there will be a serious gap in the Registrar's knowledge and experience, and the same consideration will apply in the case of the Restrictive Practices Court. It is essential that the fullest possible opportunity should be given to the Registrar

    1991
    and the Court to use their experiences effectively, and they can do so only if they have an adequate knowledge of all restrictive agreements as practised now.
    There is yet another aspect of the matter which I mention with some diffidence, because it is largely a legal one. We have to think in terms of this Measure being operated in hundreds of years' time. It is very important that the judges who make decisions then should have a clear idea what they have to decide upon. One of the important tenets of judicial interpretation, I believe, is that when there is doubt, the mischief rule is employed. The mischief rule provides that when there is any doubt as to the interpretation of a Statute it is customary for a judge to assess what Parliament really intended to do, in the light of the mischief which it is intended to remedy. Judges in the near and remote future can have a clear idea of the actual mischief involved only if all restrictive practice agreements which are operating at present are registered and given full publicity.
    4.30 p.m.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: The effect of the Amendment would be to make subject to registration agreements which were in existence on 1st January, 1956, and were subsequently dropped before the passing into effect of the Bill. Not only would they be registered but they would be liable to be called up and examined in front of the courts. I hope that the Committee will not press us to accept that. Let us deal with the living rather than the dead in this matter. It will be a formidable task to deal with effective agreements. Let us deal with those and do not let us clutter up the register with a lot of driftwood which has been forgotten and finished.
    What I liked about the speech of the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) was his statement, with which I agree, that many of the practices will never be put on the register. That is one of the most admirable effects of introducing the Bill—that many industrialists, as we know, have been looking at their arrangements and searching their minds whether they are necessary in this modern age. A great number of them will be put away and never heard of
    1992
    again. If we can get rid of restrictive practices that way it is much more satisfactory than all the courts and tribunals than any of us can create.
    While appreciating the hon. Member's argument, I hope he will agree, on reflection, that the Amendment would make our task more difficult. As it is the wish of both sides of the Committee to get on with the job, I hope he will enable us to do so by not pressing the Amendment to a Division.
    Mr. Douglas Jay: While appreciating the force of the President's argument, may I ask him two questions? No doubt it is desirable that by frightening the associations or industrialists with the tedious prospect of registration—I am merely accepting the right hon. Gentleman's argument—some restrictions should be abolished without anybody having to examine them. We see the force of that, and that is why, in our alternative, we proposed registration over a much wider field than that for which we proposed abolition.
    Nevertheless, does not the right hon. Gentleman think it may be of value to the Registrar, and, indeed, the Board of Trade, to have as wide a knowledge as possible, not merely of agreements which are in force but of agreements which have been in force? It has been said by some critics that the weakness of the Bill is that the Registrar will not know enough about what is going on over the whole field of industry and will not have sufficient evidence by which to investigate where a restriction might be in operation but not registered.
    Secondly, is it clear in the Bill—and by virtue of which words—at what date an agreement has to be in force in order to be subject to registration? We understand the Bill to mean that it has to be in force at the time at which it becomes registrable. If that is so, could the President explain by virtue of which subsection that is laid down?
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: I am quite certain that my hon. Friends would not wish to press this Amendment if, in the end, it proved to be otiose. Suppose an agreement has been in operation prior to the operative commencement of the Act. When the Act is passed, in what way could its provisions be made effectively to apply? I am looking particularly at

    1993
    Clause 15. This troubles me, because the whole Amendment would be otiose without it. I should like the President to consider the point, although he may not be able to answer now.
    If, of course, any part of the provisions of the Bill could seize upon a retrospectively dated agreement to operate for the benefit of the public against some monopolistic action which is harming the public, I should be all in favour of the Amendment, but if the Amendment will merely be redundant and a pious resolution, then it will simply clutter up the Bill, if accepted, with something completely unnecessary and confusing. If the Amendment could serve a real purpose, that would be one thing; but, particularly looking at Clause 15, it seems to me—
    The Temporary Chairman (Mr. H. Hynd): We had better leave Clause 15 until we come to it.
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: With great respect, this is a question whether any restrictive agreement which began before the coming into operation of the Act should be included, and I referred to Clause 15 because that is the operative Clause which might apply, if the Bill applied at all.
    The Temporary Chairman: The hon. and learned Member is asking the Minister to explain the effect of Clause 15, and he is not in order in doing that at this stage.
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: With great respect, I am asking the Minister to consider, not the effect of Clause 15, but whether this Amendment can serve any useful purpose. If it served any useful purpose I would support it, but I cannot see how it would do so. If it does not do so, and the President confirms that it does not do so, I cannot see its use.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: The hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels), with his customary skill, has put his finger unerringly on the problem. The Amendment could serve no useful purpose because if the arrangement were dead, all the other paraphernalia of the Bill would operate on something which had already passed away. I am a fair-minded man: there might be some academic interest in registering such practices, but, in my view, that would be
    1994
    wholly outweighed by the enormous extra work we should put on what will be already an overworked machine. The machine will not suffer from starvation. It is more likely to suffer from surfeit, if anything. In those circumstances, I hope that the Amendment will not be pressed to a Division.
    Mr. Jay: At what date, according to the Bill, does an agreement have to be in force? The President referred to Clause 7 (1), but there appears to be nothing in that subsection dealing with the point.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: It is Clause 7 (2) which has this effect when an order is made bringing a particular category of arrangements into the realm of registration. In that order itself is prescribed the date by which they must be registered. If they are dropped beforehand, they need not be registered. But if they are carried on after the date specified in the order, as laid down in Clause 7 (2), they are caught within the mischief of the Clause.
    Mr. Jay: That was not the question I was asking. I was asking, not the date at which the agreement had to be registered, but the date on which it had to be in force to make it registrable. As I understand it, it is the date on which it becomes registrable.
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: In my submission, Clause 32 (2) covers this point, because it says:
    This Act (except subsection (1) of section seven and section twenty-two) shall come into force on the expiration of the period of one month beginning with the date on which it is passed.
    I take it that would be a relevant test for fixing the date.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: That is so, but the point here is the appointed day when a particular arrangement becomes registrable, which is dealt with in Clause 7.
    Mr. W. J. Taylor: I can well understand the affection of the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) for retrospective legislation, but it was not clear from what he said what action was to be taken after the registration of the practice which may have been in existence on 1st January, 1956. The right hon. Gentleman did not say what he would do with that information, which I submit, would be purely historic. There was nothing illegal about a practice which

    1995
    was in existence on that day. If the arrangement is not effective at that date, then it disappears altogether from the scene, and there is no point in going round snooping into things past and done with. Industry will take heed of the terms of the Bill, and will decide what is to continue or discontinue. There is really no point in going beyond 1st January and registering a lot of practices which will never appear in industry again. I therefore hope that the Committee will reject the Amendment.
    Mr. Donald Wade: May I put a suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman in the form of a question? If the Amendment is not accepted, will the Registrar, when the case is brought before the Court, have any power to ask for information about changes in the agreement that have been made, say, over a period of twelve months prior to registration, since that information might throw some light on the underlying purposes of the agreement?
    Mr. Wilfred Fienburgh: I am very much impressed by the excessive modesty and diffidence of the President on this question, because certainly at some time in the future he will have to make a political justification for this Bill. I should have thought that one of the means by which he could attempt to make a political justification for the Bill was at some subsequent Election, when, surely, the party opposite will be searching for every shred of evidence to prove that they had wisely governed this nation, and when he might be able to point out the number of restrictive practices and improper agreements which had been dropped by the silent pressure of his legislation. He might be able to sustain a case for his legislation, and that is why I am impressed by his modesty and diffidence in not wishing to sustain himself by adopting this proposal.
    On the whole, he may not expect that there will be a great deal of evidence forthcoming on these lines, and, therefore, would rather not have the whole of this matter exposed to public light. If it were only a matter of the retrospective tidying-up of certain holes and corners in economic and industrial history, I should not support the Amendment, but surely there is another factor which is concerned.
    1996
    When I go to my doctor for medical attention, I have to search my memory and disclose to him all the illness which I have had previously. He requires that information in order the better to judge my present condition. Therefore, surely, if we are asking the Registrar, who has a certain investigatory capacity, to maintain not only a register but a general supervisory rôle over restrictive agreements in industry, it is just as well that he should be provided also with a measure of the past history, which might indicate to him something which may be wrong today.
    Therefore, I should think that, when any new task is undertaken, when any Minister is taking up a Ministerial post for the first time, any doctor is investigating a strange complaint, or any industrialist is moving into a new industry, one of the first things which he wants to know before he sets about the task is what has been going on before, because only if he knows something of what was going on before will he be properly armed to exercise his important functions both in the present and in the future.
    4.45 p.m.
    I think there is some substance in the point that we should have on record the restrictive practices structure in industry prior to the introduction of the Bill as a general guide to the nature of restrictive practices in industry, from which the Registrar, the general public and the Minister himself might be able to make certain deductions which will be valid for the present and important for future policy.
    Sir J. Barlow: I do not think we can assume that the connection which the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Fienburgh) suggested between his own illnesses and restrictive practices is valid in any way. It seemed to me that he was looking into rather different fields.
    We are told that there are many restrictive practices which should be changed or dropped altogether. I believe that, very fortunately, many so-called practices have already passed out of existence, and before this Bill becomes an Act I hope and think that many more will do so. What we are afraid of, from the practical point of view, is whether, as soon as these courts begin sitting, they will be rather overwhelmed with work until they have established their case law. It would

    1997
    be very unwise to consider things which have perished in the past, because the courts should consider things which may be against the public interest in the present and in the future. For that reason, I hope that the President will resist this Amendment.
    Mr. Jay: May I make it quite clear that nobody on this side of the Committee has suggested that any proceedings in court should be taken in the case of an agreement which has expired, and that the only question is whether it is valuable, for future purposes, to have it registered.
    Dr. Reginald Bennett: May I take up the point made by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Fienburgh)? He says that when he goes to his doctor, his doctor needs the details of his past history in order to treat his existing illness, but he only goes when he has an existing illness. In this case, the Amendment suggests dealing with practices which have ceased and become historical.
    Mr. Fienburgh: I sometimes go to my doctor when I wish to take out an insurance policy, and he wishes to ensure that the insurance company does not wrongly insure me. I suggest that that is the true parallel. We are trying to ensure the nation against the imposition and retention of restrictive practices, and, therefore, in pursuance of that duty, it is proper for us to know what illnesses there were endemic in the body politic, industrial and economic before we begin investigating a case.
    Mr. Cronin: The debate has taken a somewhat medical turn. On this matter, I am, perhaps, not on wholly unfamiliar ground. It seems to me very important, when diagnosing and treating illnesses, to have a very large fund of knowledge of all previous illnesses, because medical science advances on such experience. So I think that this Amendment would serve a very useful purpose. It is important to provide this information, so that reports on restrictive practices may be available to the Registrar, the Restrictive Practices Court and the general public.
    We on this side of the Committee realise that the Bill, when it becomes law, is going to run into some serious difficulties. It will be difficult to operate, and we therefore feel that we want to do all
    1998
    we can to help towards the successful operation of the Bill. I am quite content to accept the President's reasonable assertion that the Amendment will tend to increase the work of the Registrar. Obviously he will have his hands excessively full and have work which will last for many decades.
    In the circumstances, therefore, with a desire to lessen that work, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Wade: I beg to move, in page 4, line 20, to leave out "between persons" and insert:
    "to which one or more of the parties is a person".
    The Temporary Chairman: I think that it would be for the convenience of the Committee if, with this Amendment we discussed the next Amendment, in page 4. line 20, after "between", to insert:
    "any members of any of the following classes of persons that is to say",
    that in page 4, line 24, to leave out "mutual" and insert "any"; that in the same page and line, to leave out "mutual" and that in line 25, to leave out "whether identical or not".
    Mr. Wade: It might be helpful to the Committee if I first dealt very briefly with the Amendment in page 4, line 25, and that which seeks to have omitted the words "whether identical or not". I would only ask for those words to be omitted if the word "mutual" were omitted. The word "mutual" is one of those which are used rather loosely in the English language, and I am not quite sure what was the intention of the right hon. Gentleman in inserting it in the Clause.
    If the effect of inserting it is that agreements will be registrable only where all parties to the agreement have undertaken precisely the same conditions, then I think that its use would be unfortunate. Furthermore, it would appear to be inconsistent with the use of the words "whether identical or not". "Mutual" is somewhat misleading—or at any rate a little difficult to interpret—and I submit that the Clause would read better and the context would be clearer if that word were omitted, in which case I do not think that it would be necessary to use the words "whether identical or not".

    1999
    Perhaps I may now turn to the main part of my series of Amendments. At the outset, may I say that if the Amendment in page 4, line 20, which seeks to delete "between persons" and to insert:
    "to which one or more of the parties is a person".
    is not acceptable to the Committee, I shall wholeheartedly support the Amendment immediately following it in the name of the hon. Member for Gosport and Fareham (Dr. Bennett). However, one cannot support both at the same time, and for reasons which I shall explain I hope that the Committee will accept the Amendment standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt) and myself. I hope that we may have some assurance from the Minister in this regard.
    There are three objectives underlining these Amendments, and I apologise for having to raise what are really three issues—there are two major issues in one Amendment—but I have not been able to devise any wording which would enable me to raise the different issues in separate Amendments. The first objective is that agreements which are registrable under the Clause should not be limited to agreements between members of one class; that is to say, between one manufacturer and other manufacturers or between one wholesaler and other wholesalers. On my reading of the Clause, there is some doubt as to whether the agreements which are registrable are so limited. It is important that there should be no misunderstanding about this—that it should be quite clear that an agreement may be capable of being registered even though the parties to it may not all be of one class; that there may be included parties who are, say, manufacturers or wholesalers or retailers.
    Mr. Philip Bell: Does the hon. Member intend by his alteration to include firms which are carrying on business in this country and have an agreement with a firm carrying on business outside the country?
    Mr. Wade: I appreciate the point which the hon. and learned Gentleman has raised and, if I may, I shall deal with it a little later.
    If the Clause were so limited it would provide an obvious loophole. One would
    2000
    only have to add to the agreement a party who was not a member of the same class—wholesaler, retailer, or manufacturer—and the result would be that the agreement would not be capable of being registered. I do not think that that can have been intended, but I should be very much obliged if the right hon. Gentleman would clear up that point.
    The second point is, I think, equally important. I am anxious to ensure that Clause 5 shall cover agreements between one member of one class and one or more members of another class. This is not an academic point at all. It will materially affect many firms, the independence of some of which is being threatened today.
    I am aware of the provisions of Clause 6 (2). I am aware that an agreement between a supplier and a distributor, or between a manufacturer and a retailer, and relating solely to the manufacturer's or supplier's goods, and only to his goods, would be excluded, but I am thinking particularly of agreements between manufacturers and distributors which contain clauses restricting the right of the distributor to stock other goods supplied by other suppliers—because that is of a different nature. I use the word "distributor" because I think that it is used in the Bill, but by it I intend to include, of course, retailers as well as distributors such as garage proprietors. That seems to me to raise a matter of very considerable importance, and I will give two illustrations.
    The first illustration is that of the agreements drawn up by petrol companies. There are various agreements, dependent upon whether the petrol companies have acquired the freehold of the garage and upon other circumstances, but I think it is clear that many of these agreements introducing exclusive dealing do not now, or may not in the future, always relate only to the petrol itself. One has only to look around to see what has been happening during the last two years—to see the growth of the tied garage—and, having regard to what has happened in other countries and to the recent trend here, I think it is fair to say that there is a very real danger of the independent garage proprietor being wiped out of existence.
    I shall not press that aspect of the matter at any length, because we are not

    2001
    today concerned with the rightness or wrongness of those particular agreements or their effect upon the public interest. We are considering whether or not they should be registrable under the provisions of Clause 5. I will, if I may, just quote from one letter from a garage proprietor who mentions the effect of the exclusive dealing policy of the petrol companies upon many independent garage proprietors. He wrote:
    "I can see that a business that has been in existence for more than forty years is going to completely disappear, and I am afraid the same will apply to a garage in the village which has been in existence even longer than my own garage."
    5.0 p.m.
    We have to consider the terms of these agreements in considering whether they should be registered. I could quote clauses from agreements which have been drawn up by petrol companies, from which it is clear that the garage proprietor has been compelled to enter into conditions affecting the supply of lubricating oil, tyres, batteries and other accessories supplied by other suppliers, goods in which the petrol companies themselves did not deal.
    It would be fairer that I should take a hypothetical case. It is not my task today to condemn particular agreements. I will take a hypothetical case in order that the Committee may decide whether or not it would be registrable under the Clause. It is the case of oil supplier A entering into an agreement with garage proprietor B. In that agreement there is a condition whereby B may obtain his accessories only from suppliers nominated by A. Let me call the accessory suppliers C. There may or may not be an agreement between A and C. The question is whether the agreement between A and B is registrable.
    The combined effect of the agreement between the oil companies, the garage and the nominated suppliers of accessories, may be very restrictive indeed. I am wondering whether agreements of that nature will be registrable. If they are not, I would ask the Minister under what conditions they will be subjected to any form of inquiry. It may be possible for the whole question to be brought before the Monopolies Commission, but I am not sure whether, under the Bill in its present form, that will be possible.
    2002
    If the Minister gave some kind of assurance that he intended to refer certain cases to the Commission, that might relieve the minds of independent garage companies who feel that their future is threatened. In any case, however, agreements of this restrictive nature should be subject to registration. I have instanced petrol companies and garages only as an illustration. Let me give one other example.
    A good example is to be found in the case of agricultural machinery. The shortest way I can put this matter before the Committee is to quote from a letter. My correspondent said:
    "The position of the agricultural machinery business is rapidly deteriorating, as the 'long line' manufacturers, chiefly American-controlled companies, are seeking to tie up their distributors on exclusive agreements which prevent them from dealing with 'short' line manufacturing companies, i.e., smaller companies who make one or two machines."
    He then goes on to point out:
    "The expression 'long line' means that the company makes or wholesales a complete range of agricultural machinery whilst the 'short line' manufacturers concentrate on one or two specialised machines."
    Finally, he says:
    "If this position is taken to its logical conclusion we shall soon reach a state of affairs in this industry where the best distributors will be tied to the 'long line' American manufacturers whilst the British firms will lose their home market and will consequently be unable to compete in the export markets."
    Mr. Godfrey Lagden: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his correspondent is incorrect in stating that. If the American companies to which he referred were actually doing as he says, they would be breaking their own antitrust laws, which would be a very serious state of affairs.
    Mr. Wade: From my own investigation it appears that this has happened. I will make further inquiries, because I feel very uneasy about it, but it does appear to be happening.
    I believe that some of these agreements introduce an even more serious form of restrictionism than some of those drawn up by trade associations which will be registrable under the Clause. I believe that these agreements affect a considerable area of industrial activity, and that the consequences may be very serious. It would be very unfortunate if they did not come under the provisions of the Bill. I

    2003
    hope that I am pushing against an open door, but at the moment I am a little doubtful.
    The third objective, about which the hon. and learned Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Philip Bell) asked, I will deal with very briefly, and then conclude. This matter may be more controversial. It is where two or more businesses enter into an agreement with each other and with firms in other countries. So far as the two firms in this country are concerned their agreement would be liable to be registered. When I say "in this country" I mean carrying on business within the United Kingdom. To that extent it means that international cartels may be the subject of examination by the courts in so far as they affect the two or more firms in the United Kingdom.
    Suppose, however, one firm in this country were so powerful, having many subsidiaries, that it was not necessary for it to enter into any agreement with any other firm in this country, or perhaps because there were no serious competitors. Nevertheless, it enters into agreements with firms carrying on business overseas outside the United Kingdom; then the agreements will not be subject to registration. For this reason there will be a temptation for firms to become "interconnected bodies"—to use the expression in the Bill—in order to avoid registration. I submit that no harm would be done in amending the Bill so that where one firm enters into an international agreement which is restrictive within the terms of the Bill, it should be required to register it.
    The Court could not make any order affecting the firms outside the United Kingdom, but there is no harm in investigating the agreement, and, if it is found that it is clearly contrary to the public interest, making an order providing that the firm carrying on business in the United Kingdom should cease to be a party to the agreement. That is the third objective of my Amendment. A good example of the type of case is that provided by the British Match Corporation, which was investigated by the Monopolies Commission. It may be that the type of case that I have been speaking about will in future still be investigated by the Monopolies Commission, but I am a little uneasy about the way in which the
    2004
    functions of the Commission are being whittled down.
    Be that as it may, I cannot see any harm in so amending the Clause as to ensure that international agreements to which a British firm is a party should, subject to all the other conditions of the Bill, be registrable by virtue of the Clause. Those are the three objectives. Perhaps it is rather too much to expect the Minister to give an assurance that he will accept all three. If even two of them were accepted, I should feel that the discussion on this subject had proved worth while. I ask the Minister most seriously to consider the points which I have made. If these Amendments—I call them Amendments because this Amendment is really three in one—are not accepted, I fear that the Bill will be gravely weakened.
    Dr. Bennett: I have my own little Amendment on the Paper, in line 20, after "between", to insert:
    "any members of any of the following classes of persons that is to say".
    I commend it to the attention of the Committee, but I think that the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) and myself are, in our various ways of expressing ourselves, at one in our objectives. I am attempting to explore, on similar lines to the hon. Member, and I am asking, by the wording that I suggest, what is the extent to which the provisions of Clause 5 go beyond merely horizontal agreements, so to speak, and include, as it were, agreements vertically in the tree of distribution of products.
    I am preoccupied principally with the question of the petrol distributing industry, which seems to me to be expanding so very fast and, perhaps, so recklessly that it might almost seem to be running amuck. Therefore, I feel that we want to see whether what is going on in that industry is indeed to the benefit of anybody but the petrol companies themselves. We should perhaps look back to see what has happened before.
    I think there would be no doubt that the President of the Board of Trade would say that any attempt to carve up the field of distribution, as under the Achnacarry agreements of 1928, would certainly come under the Clause. However, I am assured by interested parties

    2005
    in the petrol companies that these agreements have lapsed, and indeed that the carve-up is no longer anything like a stable one, and that the petrol distributing industry cannot be considered at present on those grounds, although there has been a fairly recent parallel in Sweden, where a very efficient carve-up was discovered.
    If the petrol distributing industry does not come under the Bill on that account, then I should like to be satisfied to what extent we can find that the well-known Solus system of garage distribution can be brought within the terms of the Bill. I understand that petrol, as used for vehicles on the road nowadays, is pretty well a drug on the market and very hard to sell. It is a by-product, the main product being bunker fuel for ships and such heavier fractions. I appreciate that it is hard to sell, and I sympathise with the petrol companies about the very energetic measures that they have to take to get rid of the stuff; but I regret to say that it seems that in consequence American methods of high-pressure salesmanship have been brought in. They were introduced into this country by the Esso Company not many years ago. Those methods have been copied by others, and the other companies have apparently cornered an even greater percentage of the market in their implementation of the Solus system.
    5.15 p.m.
    Mr. Philip Bell: I do not know whether my hon. Friend has had a communication from the Motor Accessories Manufacturers' Association, but if he has perhaps he will have observed, curiously enough, that the one company of which it speaks in praise is Esso. It says that that company does not indulge in restrictive practices.
    Dr. Bennett: I think that my hon. and learned Friend and I are slightly at variance there. The Esso Company first introduced the Solus system of tying a garage for the exclusive sale of its petrol, but owing to the existence of the American anti-trust laws it was possible for that company to be prosecuted in America for monopolistic activities in this country. Therefore, it is much more chary of some of the other restrictive activities to which I hope to refer later, and about which Shell Mex and other companies are being, I think, somewhat careless.
    2006
    I do not say that the Solus system is necessarily objectionable in itself, but there are two things that we must expect from it. One is that, instead of having in any locality one filling station with six pumps all selling different petrol, we must now have six elaborate petrol stations in the same locality. That does not seem to be economically exactly in keeping with the position of the country at the moment. The other point about which I have most serious misgivings is that once a petrol company has tied a garage to sell its petrol exclusively, it is now proceeding to try to tie up the sales of all other things.
    If anybody wishes to mention the parallel with tied houses, so far as public houses are concerned, I would say that the parallel would exist only if the public house, as well as selling beer, sold all the food that was necessary for housekeeping in the village, all the medical attention, the drugs that were needed and all the surgical and hospital treatment.
    Mr. W. J. Taylor: Or if the beer were good.
    Dr. Bennett: The beer would not have to be good if the house were tied as thoroughly as that.
    This system with petrol seems to go much further than any of the other systems which anybody has tried with tied houses. It is attempting to tie up the sale of other products, and I ask the President of the Board of Trade to say whether he considers that the restrictions in the Solus system are regarded as mutual restrictions. There is no doubt at all that the dealer is tied good and proper. The restrictions on him are not hard to find, but it is a little difficult to see whether the restrictions on the petrol company are in any measure substantial.
    So far as I can see, the only restriction that the petrol company lets itself in for is that of paying to the Solus site dealer 3d. a gallon—or up to that—more in profit than would be paid to another dealer with a mixed site. It costs the company up to 3d. a gallon more to sell petrol from a Solus site. Of course, we pay that and, although the petrol companies say that distribution in this way is cheaper, I suggest that it is only cheaper for them. As 90 per cent. of the sites are now Solus sites, surely we have a

    2007
    problem her which needs very close attention.
    I should like to know from my right hon. Friend whether that restriction amounts to enough to be dealt with under Clause 5. If it does not, I would point out that, although Esso started the Solus system, there is no doubt that there is now a very large linked group which is now by far the most successful and powerful of the Solus site proprietors—the Royal Dutch Shell and their associates, such as B.P., running with National Benzole. As these two large enterprises are undoubtedly collaborating with each other, although of course it would be very difficult to say that any of the arrangements are necessarily written arrangements, I feel that there we have a horizontal agreement which may very well come within the terms of the Clause. These two great corporations control between them an estimated 62 per cent. of the whole output of petrol, so I feel that we have something very serious about which to take action.
    I ask my right hon. Friend whether he considers that to be a way in which the petrol distribution industry deserves to be brought under this Bill. I would not ask him necessarily to go as far as New Zealand has gone in the matter of legislation, New Zealand having passed a law which prevents petrol companies from having any share in any of the distributive outlets through which they sell their petrol. I should, however, like my right hon. Friend's assurance that we have the petrol companies in mind under this Bill. Although I am not moving my minor Amendment, I certainly support the principle behind the Amendment with which mine is being considered.
    Mr. Jay: I think we have reached a point in the Bill when, whatever we think of the major issues which we have debated or have still to debate, we are all trying to help the President of the Board of Trade to make his Bill work in the way in which he intends it to work.
    What we wish to know, in particular—and I think I am in agreement with the whole of the Liberal Party present—is what the word "mutual" means and what would be the effect of omitting that word from the Clause. Those of us who are laymen in this matter approach this
    2008
    discussion between lawyers with rather a long spoon, if I may say so. I am, therefore, trying to ascertain clearly what is the meaning of this tricky word "mutual."
    We know that in the phrase "our mutual friend" the word "mutual" is incorrectly used and that the correct adjective would be "common." It is a little harder to say what "mutual" does mean. I have looked it up in the Concise Oxford Dictionary, which says that it would properly be used
    "of feelings, actions, &c. felt, done, by each towards the other."
    I take "by each" to mean "by all". In the case of the phrase, "mutual admiration society", it says that it means a
    "set of persons who overestimate each other's merits."
    That, clearly, would not apply to the present Cabinet. It means that each member of the group has to overestimate the merits of each other.
    If we turn to the Bill and ask in that sense what the word "mutual" means in this Clause—and although this is rather tricky verbally, I agree with the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) that it is a matter of great importance in relation to the total effect of the Bill—we are confronted with the phrase:
    "… an agreement under which mutual restrictions … are accepted."
    The President of the Board of Trade will remember that the Monopolies Commission, in its joint report which gave rise to this Bill, made a distinction at the beginning between agreements on the one hand between sellers where there was no reciprocal obligation accepted by buyers, and, on the other hand, agreements where, in return for certain obligations by buyers, what is called reciprocal obligations were accepted by the sellers. I take it that the agreements which did not imply in that sense a reciprocal obligation are not excluded from this Bill. I hope I am right about that, but we would like to have it quite clear, since the Commission described certain important types of agreement as reciprocal agreements.
    Assuming for the moment that the President of the Board of Trade can satisfy us on that, I should like to ask

    2009
    him a question which is, no doubt, in the minds of some other hon. Members who have put down Amendments. If mutual restrictions have to be accepted and if a mutual restriction, according to the dictionary definition, is one accepted by each of the group in question, then does it mean that in order that an agreement should be registerable under this Bill, the restrictions, whatever they are, have to be accepted by every party to the agreement?
    If that were so, so far as I can see as a layman, it would only be necessary for ten people to get together and make an agreement, and if five of those ten accepted certain restrictions which the other five did not accept, since the restrictions provided for under the agreement would not be mutual, the whole of such an agreement would be outside the scope of this Bill. If that were so—and I hope the right hon. Gentleman can assure us that it is not, and can explain why—it would be easy, by getting a few sleeping partners, or men of straw, or whatever the phrase is, to get round the whole Bill from the start.
    I think the right hon. Gentleman will say that this point, which was already in the mind of the hon. Member for Gosport and Fareham (Dr. Bennett), is covered by the words in line 24, page 4, of the Bill:
    "under which mutual restrictions … are accepted by the parties carrying on business as aforesaid or any of them …"
    I take it—and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will assure us—that the words "or any of them" make sure that if the agreement is such that only some and not all of the parties to the agreement accept the restrictions, then it is covered by the Bill in virtue of those words.
    But if that is so, what puzzles us is this. If that difficulty is covered by those words, why is it necessary to have the word "mutual" in the Clause at all? We seem to have reached the point when a restriction, in order to make an agreement registrable, has to be a mutual restriction entered into by some of the parties to the agreement. If that is correct, exactly what does "mutual" mean? We know it does not mean "identical." What would be the effect if the rest of the Clause remained the same and that word were omitted?
    2010
    To give an example of the last part of the problem, I should like to ask a question about the petrol companies. Suppose the position were that one of the large petrol companies entered into an agreement with a single garage. Of course, it might enter into other agreements with other garages, but this agreement would be just between the petrol company and a garage by which that garage undertook to sell only petrol supplied by that large petrol company. If that were the agreement, as far as I can see there could be no mutual obligation entered into by the supplier.
    Dr. Bennett: Except possibly the extra price.
    Mr. Jay: Yes, except possibly the extra 2d. on the price of petrol. In that case, if the petrol combine chose to leave that out of the agreement, it could make itself exempt from the Bill. I doubt whether this Committee would wish to leave agreements of that kind out of the scope even of registration. I think we ought to be clear on that point.
    I should have thought, without entering into the whole of this controversy over the petrol companies, that a situation in which every separate retail outlet for petrol is tied up with one of the producers would, after a time, make it almost impossible for any independent competing producer of petrol, if one were to arise—and there are usually some all over the world—to get his petrol sold or distributed in this country at all. Therefore, I do not think that it is by any means an unimportant matter. I am sorry to ask the President of the Board of Trade a number of tricky questions, on not all of which my interpretation may be correct, but we want to be quite clear about the effect of this word "mutual."
    5.30 p.m.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: It might be convenient to the Committee, while I have some of these questions fresh in my mind, that I should answer them now. I make no reproach to the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) for putting to me some questions. I agree that at this stage they are proper questions, ones which are not arguing the principle but are trying to make the Bill a workmanlike Measure.
    As the Bill is drafted, Clause 5 says what is in and Clause 6 says what is

    2011
    out. I think that at this stage this is a convenient way of dealing with this question. I am not saying that after listening to all the arguments at a later stage one might not do some redrafting, but I think that at this stage it is rather helpful to deal with the problems in that order, first, the groups of Amendments on the question of what is in and caught by the mischief to Clause 5 and, later, going on to Clause 6, and saying what is specifically left out.
    Clause 5, which is the target of this particular group of Amendments, says what is in. Paraphrasing the Clause, it says that mutual agreements or arrangements dealing with the matters referred to in paragraphs (a) to (e) are in, and that they have got to be mutual agreements or arrangements. Most of the argument has been directed to the use of the word "mutual". By "mutual" we mean the acceptance by one party of a restriction because another party accepts a restriction. That is a simple and direct definition of what we mean. If it is said that the word does not mean that, I am quite prepared to listen to the argument, but that is what we intend—the acceptance by one party of a restriction because another party accepts a restriction.
    I would point out, in answer to the point made very pertinently by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade), that restrictions need not be of the same kind. That is the purpose of the words "whether identical or not". I hope very much that the Committee will retain the words "whether identical or not" within the Clause, because I fear that a great number of the arrangements with which the Court will be dealing will, in fact, be those in which some people are retailers, some are producers, and there are quite different types of restriction accepted by various classes of person.
    Mr. Wade: I hope the right hon. Gentleman appreciates the fact that I am only asking that "whether identical or not" should be deleted if it is used in place of the word "any".
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I am not being in the least critical of the Amendments. If I may say so, they are extremely helpful Amendments—not that I shall accept them—because, unless such Amendments are put on the Notice Paper, it is really
    2012
    impossible to explain the details of what is our purpose here.
    Mr. Hector Hughes rose—
    Mr. Thorneycroft: May I be allowed to finish this point?
    We are dealing with what are mutual arrangements in the sense that I have described. If we dropped the word "mutual" we would throw the field open very wide indeed. There is hardly any arrangement in commerce which does not involve a restriction of some sort or other. All industrialists and commercial men in the country are accepting restrictions upon their freedom of action all the time. It is the normal part of a contract, or arrangement, or any sort of commercial activity that one accepts some kind of restriction. Unless we import into this Clause the idea of mutuality—which sometimes may amount to a ring in the strict sense of the term, that is to say, with everyone on one side of the fence—and an obvious example is of producers in a common price ring accepting mutual restrictions; but it may, of course, go wider than that and include people who are not only producers but distributors as well—unless we import that idea we shall be bringing within the mischief of Clause 5 virtually every commercial arrangement in the country.
    Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas rose—
    Mr. Thorneycroft: Will the hon. and learned Member please allow me to finish this point?
    It is particularly important not to throw Clause 5 too wide because it must be remembered that, in principle, all the arrangements under Clause 5, according to our intention, should not immediately or altogether, but in time be registered and called up for examination. It is for that reason that we have set this particular limit on the matter.
    Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I know it is very difficult to put this matter clearly before the Committee, because it is so complicated. The right hon. Gentleman says that this may involve all kinds of industrial arrangements because they all involve restrictions of one kind or another, but surely that is not the case. I suggest that the danger he has mentioned is not a sound point, because the restrictions are

    2013
    identified by paragraphs (a) to (e) and, therefore, we do not wander outside the restrictions in paragraphs (a) to (e) and do not include all kinds of restrictions into which commercial firms enter. Therefore, the point made by the right hon. Gentleman is not an answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay).
    My right hon. Friend addressed himself to mutuality or, as the President put it so clearly, an acceptance of restriction by A because B accepts a restriction. The point involved—a very narrow one—is why should the quid pro quo for the restriction accepted by A be a restriction accepted by B when the perniciousness of the restriction can be equally objectionable whether it is mutual or not?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: The hon. and learned Member has put the point very clearly to me. What he has said is absolutely accurate. If we did not have the word "mutual," it would be restricted to what is set out in paragraphs (a) to (e), but I would invite the attention of the Committee to what is set out in those paragraphs. They cover almost everything in commerce: prices to be charged, terms and conditions to be applied, quantities and descriptions, processes of manufacture, and persons or classes of persons. That is the very stuff of commerce, and if we permitted any of those restrictions to be made registrable we would make chaos of the Bill. We have to apply a limit to this matter.
    I may say that in this matter we benefited from the experience of the Monopolies Commission and the majority Report and the minority Report with reference to reciprocal arrangements, which are a good example of mutuality. It is subject to exceptions, of course. That is all in Clause 6, to which we shall be coming later. We have sought to direct our attention, and the attention of the Committee, to the things that really matter, the things which have been dealt with in Report after Report by the Monopolies Commission—common price rings, exclusive dealing and all those arrangements which are the agreements for collective discrimination. Those are the matters which are appropriate for discussion by the Court.
    May I now deal specifically with the particular point that was put to me, because it is a rather good example, of
    2014
    the petrol companies? Let us imagine that petrol company A has, or seeks to have, a tied house—in effect, rather like a brewer. I am not expressing any judgment as to whether this is right or wrong, nor, I think, does anybody else in the Committee do so. We are just taking this as what happens in the world. A petrol company, like a brewing company, might say, "We will have a tied house and we will have a sole agency for our particular petrol"—I am leaving aside accessories for the moment—"at a certain garage". Sole agency arrangements are, of course, widespread in this country. It is a perfectly normal commercial arrangement.
    If I am asked whether sole agency arrangements are intended to be dealt with in the Bill, the answer is, "No". The answer is absolutely clear—no. We do not want that, for a number of reasons. First, sole agency arrangements serve a perfectly good commercial purpose, and, secondly, the Registrar would never get started if he were dealing with the sole agency arrangements.
    Some companies might go even further and say not only that they will have a tied house with regard to their petrol, but will impose other conditions on the garage: namely, that the garage will be able to sell only certain accessories. If I am asked whether there is a mutual arrangement in that case, the answer is, "No". We can debate whether there ought to be a mutual arrangement or not, but in a normal case the answer is, "No".
    I can imagine circumstances in which there would be a mutual arrangement. It is conceivable that the petrol companies had agreed amongst themselves to do this, or that they had agreed with the suppliers of the accessories to do this, in which case there would be a registrable arrangement. But I am taking the normal case, the one that was put to me, in which there was no arrangement of that kind and there was simply the judgment of petrol company A that it wished to do this particular thing and it came to these arrangements, first with one garage and then with another, in perhaps 40 or 50 separate contract arrangements. If I am asked whether on my definition there is mutuality, the answer must be that there is not.
    In those circumstances, assuming that there is no arrangement of any kind,

    2015
    assuming that that particular situation is outside the mischief of Clause 5, is there anything else that could be done about it? I think the answer is probably, "Yes". If it is done on any scale at all, it is probably within the mischief of the 1948 Act. Indeed, I believe that that is, in fact, the case with these petrol company arrangements.
    This is what that Act states in Section 3:
    "Conditions to which this Act applies shall be deemed … to prevail as respects the supply of goods of any description if …
    (a) at least one-third of all the goods of that description which are supplied in the United Kingdom … are supplied by or to any … such two or more persons as are described in subsection (2) …"
    Subsection (2) states that
    "The two or more persons referred to in subsection (1) … are any two or more persons who"—
    these are the important words—
    "whether voluntarily or not, and whether by agreement or arrangement or not, so conduct their respective affairs as in any way to prevent or restrict competition in connection with the production or supply of goods of the description in question …"
    Under that Section, not in a normal sole agency arrangement, but in the case of a situation such as is alleged to exist on a large scale in the petrol companies, in which accessories were being tied over a very big field, it would seem to fall within the mischief of the Monopolies Commission. That is why we have retained the Monopolies Commission so as to deal with that type of case. I am not prejudging what is happening in the petrol world, but am dealing with it only as a class of case.
    5.45 p.m.
    If I might summarise the argument, the Amendments which are put forward are put, as always, with the best intentions in the world. They are put in a desire to catch within the net an ever wider degree of questionable devices which might conceivably be going on. I beg those who move the Amendments to proceed with a little caution. If we throw the field open as wide as all that, we shall never be able to concentrate upon the job which we really intend to do.
    What we intend to do is to proceed as expeditiously and as clearly and fairly as possible in respect of arrangements
    2016
    which, we have found from experience, are biting on industry—the price ring, collective discrimination and the like. In all those arrangements, the idea of mutuality as I have described it is really inherent. If we drop that, or drop at least the idea of mutuality, we shall be losing the essence of the Clause.
    I urge the Committee, therefore, to keep that sense of the Clause. If there are other cases in which one person or body corporate, however it may be described, or group of people within the terms of Section 3 (2) of the 1948 Act is engaged in methods which are restricting competition, I suggest that the right course is to use the existing machinery, which we preserve in the Bill, for dealing with them on an ordinary monopoly basis.
    Mr. Eric Fletcher: I have listened with great care to what the President of the Board of Trade has said. Without pretending to have arrived at any final view on the matter, I concede that what the right hon. Gentleman said about mutuality has a great deal to recommend it. I want him, however, to address himself to another aspect of this series of Amendments, and, in particular, to the first of the Amendments, which has been moved by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade).
    I approach the subject in precisely the same spirit as the way in which the President of the Board of Trade has just spoken. He said that he is trying to bring within the scope of the Clause agreements and vicious practices which have come to light as the result of the activities of the Monopolies Commission during recent years.
    It seems to me that unless the first of these Amendments—which is designed to substitute
    "to which one or more of the parties is a person carrying on business within the United Kingdom"
    for the existing requirement in the Clause that both the parties to an agreement must carry on business within the United Kingdom—is accepted, the door will be opened to a very wide field of undesirable agreements, to say the least, being entirely without the scope of the Clause; and they will escape registration.
    These matters can often best be explained by an illustration, and for this purpose the best illustration I can give

    2017
    is that of the match industry. I put it earnestly to the President of the Board of Trade that he will very seriously fail in achieving the object, which I credit him with wanting to achieve, of bringing within the scope of his net these vicious restrictive practices which he wants to cease, unless he makes the registering of agreements apply to trade between one person trading in the United Kingdom and another person outside the United Kingdom. It seems an unnecessary limitation of Clause 5 to stipulate that an agreement must be registered only if both parties to the agreement carry on business in the United Kingdom.
    I think that the matter can best be explained by reference to the match industry. As the President of the Board of Trade well knows, the match industry was referred to the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Commission two or three years ago. Its report has been published. The conclusion, I think unanimous, of the Commission, according to paragraph 214 of its Report was that
    "… the system as a whole operates, and is likely to operate, against the public interest as respects the supply both of matches and of match-making machinery."
    One finds in the Report, and particularly in the appendices to it, that the whole of the match industry in this country is controlled by a trading agreement.
    The agreement, which is published as Appendix 4 is between the British Match Corporation Limited, an English company carrying on business in this country, and Svenska Tändsticks Aktiebolaget of Jönköping, Sweden. It is that agreement which prescribes the whole of the restrictions under which the supply and manufacture and distribution and everything else of matches in this country is worked.
    The agreement stipulates, for example, that the home trade shall be carved up between the British company and the Swedish company. The agreement provides this kind of clause—
    "Each party shall use its best endeavours to reduce and prevent the sale in the British Isles of competitive matches."
    It is that agreement which stipulates that one company shall have a monopoly of a certain percentage of the match industry in this country, reserving the residue to the other with provisions for compensation payable by the British company if
    2018
    it exceeds the sale of matches which it is allowed by the agreement.
    There are restrictive practices of all kinds in this agreement, designed to stop the importation into this country of competitive matches whether from Russia or Belgium or wherever it may be. The agreement is also designed to stop expansion of British manufacture by the British company. In other words, here is a typical agreement which has been condemned by the Monopolies Commission, full of the restrictive practices of the very type which the President of the Board of Trade states that, as a result of his experience, he is anxious to stop.
    I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman can deny that as Clause 5 stands, that agreement would not be registrable. Nor are the other agreements to which the Monopolies Commission's Report refers. There are a great number of other commodities in the country where this kind of control, with all its evils, is basically carried out by agreements between British and foreign companies similar to that between the British Match Company and the Swedish company.
    Mr. Philip Bell: I have read the Reports to which the hon. Member refers, though not in detail, but is not the position that the British company is submitting? Is it not the case that it does not want the restrictive practices, but they are forced upon it? How are we to stop foreign companies dictating their own terms?
    Mr. Fletcher: There are all kinds of ways of dealing with that problem. The Government have a whole armoury of weapons at their disposal to regulate both the export and import trade, and they could be given further power, if necessary, to prevent the British public suffering because prejudicial terms are imposed, if that is the case, by a foreign company on a British company requiring it to assist in preventing competition.
    On reflection, that is a very helpful intervention on the part of the hon. and learned Member, because the whole object of the Bill is to enable us to free British industry from some of the restrictions which hamper it at present. As will be seen from further Amendments, we are not merely concerned with goods

    2019
    manufactured and then distributed wholesale and retail in this country, but we are concerned also with goods imported into the country and which, because of the terms on which they are imported, are subject to onerous restrictions.
    Clause 5 deals with restrictions and I am pressing the Amendment because, whether or not we can deal with the evils revealed, we can at least ensure that the evils themselves are brought to light. They can be brought to light only if they are registrable under Clause 5. I urge the President not to exclude from registration under the Clause agreements such as that in the match industry which are the cause of the whole trouble reported by the Monopolies Commission.
    There is a very good parallel to this in the United States, under the Sherman Act and its successors, as the President of the Board of Trade knows very well. Although we are not adopting the machinery of the Sherman Act, I think that the President will agree that we are attempting by a different method to secure the same objective—to liberalise trade—and, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, there is no limitation of this kind in the United States. The anti-trust laws aim at and have succeeded in catching agreements made between United States companies and companies carried on outside the United States. If the United States Legislature had not secured the ability to do that by its legislation, a great many of the monopoly and anti-trust practices which have been exposed in the United States might not have been so exposed.
    We are anxious that the Clause should not be subject to any unnecessary limitations. I realise what the President of the Board of Trade said about mutuality and we do not desire to register every commercial agreement, but there is no need to limit the Clause to agreements between United Kingdom companies and I earnestly hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept the Amendment.
    6.0 p.m.
    Sir James Hutchison: Whatever may be the merits of the case which the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) has been delineating in connection with the match industry, I hope that my right hon.
    2020
    Friend will stand firm on what he said earlier, namely, that if we reduce this to one company trading with another company, or other companies, abroad we are striking at the basis of international trade.
    To my knowledge, I have never been in any restrictive agreement and I have sold British tyres in France for many years. I have bought French products and sold them over here. In every agreement there was a restriction which would fall within the terms of this Bill—either as to the prices to be charged or the prices to be paid or the amount of processing that was to be done to those or other items either in this country or in the country abroad. All were part of the agreement, and without such agreements we would not be able to get people to take up agencies or buy goods and process them.
    In every agreement between one concern and another there must be conditions of these kinds if trade is to be carried on at all. There is nothing restrictive in that. As the President of the Board of Trade has said, it is the ordinary meat of straightforward trading. Nor are any rings set up by this practice. Whatever may be the method of dealing with a consortium or cartel of the type of the match industry, in my submission it would do the greatest damage to the trade of this country if these Amendments were accepted.
    Mr. Irvine: The President of the Board of Trade in his speech on this Amendment has made much clearer than it was before the intention of the Government in this Clause, but it is open to doubt whether that intention, so clearly explained by the right hon. Gentleman, is clearly expressed in this Clause, and as the right hon. Gentleman has indicated that it may prove necessary for certain drafting alterations to be made.
    It is clear from what he said that an agreement between a person carrying on business as a producer for one part, and a person carrying on business in wholesale for the other part, is an agreement registrable under the Bill if it is one dealing with matters referred to in paragraphs (a) to (e). I regard that as an important revelation. On my reading of the Clause I thought that the wording of the Amendment put down by the hon. Member for Gosport and Fareham (Dr. Bennett) was merely declaratory of what

    2021
    was intended to be the provision in the Bill. My reading of the Clause was that the agreements which were registrable were agreements dealing with matters referred to in paragraphs (a) to (e) but agreements arrived at between persons belonging to a class that is, for example, between producers or agreements between retailers.
    It is important and welcome to us on this side of the Committee to hear that this is not so, because the effect is that this Clause is wider than we had feared and wider than we had interpreted it. I do not think that in its present form the matter is made sufficiently plain, with great respect both to the Government and to the draftsman. It is undesirable that a matter of this importance should depend upon whether the word "or" is to be read as having a disjunctive or conjunctive sense. I hope, therefore, that the matter may be made crystal clear so that the intention of the Government, as explained by the President of the Board of Trade, may be clearly expressed in the Bill.
    There are one or two matters arising out of this Clause to which I want to refer. On my reading of the Clause, it is not at all clear whether, if an agreement is reached between the members of an association upon matters arising under paragraphs (a) to (e), that agreement will be registrable under the Bill. It is true that elsewhere in the Clause, in subsection (3), provision is clearly made that there may be mutuality in the sense of the Clause between members of an association. Members of an association, as members, may by virtue of their membership, or otherwise, agree upon mutual restrictions which will be effective also as applying to the association as a whole.
    It is interesting, and, in my view, important, to observe that the express provision about the membership of an association is confined in the Clause to applying to the case where an association enters into an agreement with another association or with another person. The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate the point. However, I venture to think that it is not clear in the Bill.
    I will recapitulate briefly. Is it quite clear that where members of a trade association get together and among themselves reach an agreement on matters referred to in paragraphs (a) to (e), such
    2022
    an agreement by the members of the association is registrable? Again, there is this further matter which needs clarifying. I believe that it is open to doubt, under the Bill, whether an agreement which is not in writing can be registrable. It is true that there is provision in Clause 8 (3, b)—
    The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): The hon. Member is going beyond the scope of this Amendment.
    Mr. Irvine: I would be greatly obliged, Sir Rhys, if I may point out what I submit is the relevance of the provision. It is this, that whether or not agreements not in writing are registrable under the Bill very greatly affects the merits of the issue as to whether agreements reached between members of an association are to be registrable under the Bill. The reason is that it is a great deal more difficult to establish the existence of an agreement dealing with restrictive practices, which is not in writing, where that agreement is reached between members of an association as distinct from one between an association and another person.
    That, I venture to submit with great respect, is the relevance of that point, and I would be grateful to hear in that connection—and relevantly, as I submit it is, to this Clause—whether agreements not in writing can be registrable.
    Mr. Philip Bell: The hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) said frankly that his first Amendment was an endeavour to catch an agreement between a company carrying on business in England and one abroad. The difficulty is to remember that we are not talking about transactions between vendor and purchaser of goods. Perhaps that was why my intervention seemed to be misleading.
    If there is a deal between two companies concerning a product and sale—say, hair oil from France to England—stipulating that it must only be sold in expensive hotels, that is a term attaching to the sale of goods which could not be caught by this Clause. It is restrictive and comes under Clause 6 (2).
    Suppose a French company and an English company got together and the English company wanted to sell razors and the French company shaving soap

    2023
    and they said, "Together, in the English market, we will never sell one without the other." That is an agreement not about the terms of the sale of particular articles but about how the market shall be divided up. I should have thought that that was the sort of thing the hon. Member had in mind when he said he wanted the words enlarged. It would be the case of one person carrying on trade in the United Kingdom and buying, say, shaving soap from France and making an agreement that he would only sell it with his own razors.
    I am trying to discover an example of what the hon. Gentleman had in mind. I wonder whether the example that I have given is a suitable one. How do two such companies fall to be treated? We can only enforce provisions so far as a British company is concerned by saying that it must not sell the goods, must not sell the goods on such terms or must not enter into that sort of agreement. We can only, in a sense "iron curtain" the other company out. If we cannot take any steps against the other country, we can only tell the English firm that it cannot enter into that sort of agreement. At first sight, that seems rather attractive.
    However, it is difficult to believe that if the alleged agreement were onerous and unprofitable a British company would enter into it. It is also difficult to believe that others would not enter into competing agreements. I find difficulty in believing that a British company, dealing with a foreign company, would voluntarily enter into an arrangement which damaged the market. If it did so, I am sure some other body would soon break into the market.
    Mr. E. Fletcher: I gave the specific case of the British Match Corporation. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman say whether he would be in favour of that agreement being excluded from registration?
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: That is only one example.
    Mr. Bell: It is difficult to say whether or not I should be in favour of it. It was a monopoly operating in England and within the seizin of our courts, but I do not know how far it would involve taking action in some other court. The
    2024
    position was that a number of suppliers of matches in England set up a monopoly of their own having in their own pocket the wholesaler in Sweden, but a number of firms got together and carved up the market. If one person had been dealing with the Swedish firm, and had to submit to certain terms imposed by the Swedish firm, it would seem difficult to stop it if we did not like it.
    I should have thought that the competition of trade would have stopped it rather than any step taken under the Commission. I am not in theory against this, but I am worried about the practice of it. Is it possible for us to stop restrictive practices in England when there are two parties concerned and one is English and one is foreign? Perhaps the President of the Board of Trade can explain in more detail what sort of agreements have not been covered and why they are not covered. As I understand, the Bill does not cover the one referred to by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West.
    Mr. Wade: The British Match Corporation was considered by the Monopolies Commission. I take it the hon. and learned Member would not object to that investigation. The effect of my Amendment would be, I think, that the case of the British Match Corporation would constitute the creation of an agreement which would be registrable, because the Corporation was a party to an agreement to which one or other of paragraphs (a) to (e) apply.
    There is another point. Suppose there was not one body but two bodies—the British Match Corporation and another match corporation carrying on business within the United Kingdom—which were parties to the international agreement. I understand that just because there were two organisations concerned and not merely one—there being no other differences—the agreement would be registrable.
    6.15 p.m.
    Sir Leslie Plummer: I am encouraged to enter the debate because the President of the Board of Trade was so forthright and helpful in the reply given to the hon. Member for Gosport and Fareham (Dr. Bennett) when he put the specific points about the behaviour of the petrol companies, and also because

    2025
    the President said that the inquiries which were being made and the questions which were being asked were useful at this stage.
    I wonder whether the President would be good enough to advise me on the position in which a company like the Imperial Tobacco Company would find itself in respect of its arrangements with wholesale and retail, particularly retail, tobacconists in this country, and whether it would be registrable under paragraph (b).
    There is a difference between this arrangement and what was described in relation to the petrol companies by the hon. Member for Gosport and Fareham. The petrol companies were setting up exclusive Solus agencies. There is a difference, but it does not disguise the fact that a restrictive practice is being carried on. In the interests of the tobacconists in my constituency, I should like to know whether the net of Clause 5 will catch them.
    I will describe the agreement. Only if I am specific can the President give me any advice. The Imperial Tobacco Company is an amalgamation of scores of companies. Not being a lawyer, I do not know whether it is a company within the meaning of the Clause. Nevertheless, it is a well-established trading company, operating a great number of individual companies and selling a great number of varieties of cigarettes and tobaccos, and so on. It is its practice, after it has accepted through the Tobacco Trade Association an application from a tobacconist that he should be given supplies, to offer a bonus agreement whereby the tobacconist is paid a bonus of 5s. for every £100 worth of purchases he makes on the understanding that he shall devote an unspecified part of his window display to the products of the Imperial Tobacco Company. This means that there is no exclusiveness about it; nevertheless, the tobacconist is in the situation that he has agreed, in return for the small margin of bonus, to give displays in his window to the products of the Imperial Tobacco Company.
    What happens? The Imperial Tobacco Company uses a force of field officers who go round and decide, in the interests of the company, whether they are satisfied with the window display and whether the amount of space devoted to the products of other independent companies
    2026
    is right or wrong according to the judgment of the company. Behind this inspection is, of course, the sanction of the stop order. It has not been used to any great extent for some time, but, nevertheless, it is there.
    That means—and this is why this subject is so important in respect of Clause 5—that the small manufacturer who decides that he wants to come into this market is virtually denied the opportunity of displaying his product. The tobacconist is not a free agent, nor is the manufacturer of a new cigarette who is unable to get the displays, to which at least in the interests of fair competition, if no more, he is entitled; for today no man can sell a new brand, or any brand, of goods unless he can get the sort of advertising in the place where the goods themselves are sold.
    It works very harshly indeed against a new man and works, not excessively—that is an exaggeration—but harshly against the shopkeeper who is trying, naturally enough, to extend his business and who finds, by virtue of the agreement, which he may not have too clearly understood when he signed it, that he is himself restricted to the sales of the product of one particular company. Does the President of the Board of Trade regard an agreement such as this as good or bad? Is it registrable?
    It is different from the actual cases which have been put before him, because there is no problem of exclusivity about it. Nevertheless, it is a restrictive practice which restricts the operation of new entrants into the trade and it restricts the activities and individual enterprise of the particular shop keeper. If these agreements, which seem to me to have little mutuality about them, are not to be registrable, I fear that the Bill will lose a great deal of the force which we hope will be put into it.
    Mr. Reader Harris: I want to refer for a moment to the Amendments designed to obtain the registration of agreements which might exist between the petrol companies and petrol stations, whether owned by the companies or by dealers. I understand that the President of the Board of Trade said that such agreements should not be registered and would not fall to be registered. I think that, on balance, he is right about that, because, clearly, if they

    2027
    were to be registrable, the Registrar would be flooded out with tens of thousands of agreements and would need to have the Restrictive Trade Practices Court sitting not in three parts, but in about a hundred and three parts, to get through all the agreements.
    However, I cannot let this occasion pass, without saying that there is very grave concern in the motor world at the possible extension of the policy whereby petrol stations can extend their influence until they have every retail outlet, or are in the position where they can dictate to the retail outlets where they will obtain typres, batteries, and other accessories. I think that the hon. Member for Gosport and Fareham (Dr. Bennett) was speaking chiefly from the point of view of oil, but I should like to mention other things.
    I am in favour of anything which helps the small man, the small trader and dealer, to retain his independence; but so many are losing their independence. At present, they are not getting much help from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who persists in maintaing the credit squeeze, which means that if a small dealer wants money to extend or improve his premises he cannot go to the bank, because he is not allowed to borrow money from the bank, and he is, therefore, at the mercy of the large petrol companies, which will say that he can have so many thousands of pounds "on condition"—and I emphrasise "on condition."
    I have read with interest the denials which have been issued by the Shell Mex Company and the B.P. Company, in which they say that they have not entered, and do not propose to enter, the market as suppliers of accessories. They say that on dealer-owned stations dealers are free to purchase these things where they like. That may well be true, but it is also the fact that they have stated that all the operator is asked to do—and they say this possibly with their tongues in their cheeks and possibly a little naively—is to co-operate with the Shell Company in promoting sales of tyres, batteries and accessories.
    That has a sinister ring about it. It can mean anything or nothing. The prisoners in the prison in Moscow—
    The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member is widening the debate. The Amendment deals with registration.
    Mr. Harris: This matter was raised when you were out of the Chair, Sir Rhys, by the hon. Member for Gosport and Fareham. I was leading up to say that I hope that somewhere in the Bill this whole problem could be dealt with, even if it cannot be dealt with now.
    The Deputy-Chairman: We are dealing only with what can be dealt with under the Amendment.
    Mr. Harris: If these Amendments are carried, this point will be dealt with, but I understand that the President of the Board of Trade has said that he will not accept them, so the point will not, therefore, be dealt with. I want to inform him of the great concern which will be felt if these agreements are not dealt with. I hope that later they can be dealt with under that part of the Bill which deals with the Monopolies Commission. I should like to have an assurance on those lines.
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: If the Committee is to have a useful and practical result from the discussion, it should stick to the question of the language of the Clause, which, after all, is vital. The President of the Board of Trade will agree that the Clause refers to agreements to which Part I of the Bill is to apply. The subject matter of Part I deals with the registration and judicial investigation—and, I repeat, judicial investigation—of restrictive trading agreements. That becomes very important in relation to the issue raised by the hon. Member for Scotstoun (Sir J. Hutchison) about agreements between traders in this country and wholesalers abroad.
    I am quite certain that the President will agree that the language of Section 5 (1), because of its importance and of the primary nature of its principle and situation in the Bill, ought to be scrutinised very closely. Of course. I quite agree that we should not, as it were, use a magnifying glass to it, but all the time we are considering these words we must remember that it is not what we in the Committee might think they mean. This Clause will be subject to judicial interpretation and we have to be clear that the words are tight enough, that they are not so

    2029
    loose that when they come under the scrutiny of judicial examination and legal interpretation, they will allow agreements, which should be caught, to escape, and the public interest, which the Bill is primarily designed to serve, damaged in consequence.
    It must be obvious to the President of the Board of Trade, when he brings to the phraseology of the Clause not only his political experience, but his legal training, that the Clause is not as tightly drawn as it should be, and that there is a looseness about it which might well enable the escape of agreements which should properly be caught and which he would wish, in his desire to carry out the purpose of this legislation, to be caught.
    6.30 p.m.
    It is quite clear that the Amendment moved by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) is a proper Amendment. I cannot believe that the President will seek to exclude it. My hon. Friend gave a most apposite example of an agreement in which the objection to which I am referring would apply; but I am not seeking to confine my argument to any specific type of agreement at all because, in my submission, the field is so wide that this matter ought to be broadly considered. To descend to specific agreements would narrow discussion rather than leave it open, as it ought to be, in order that the real implications of the words of the Clause can be appreciated and the possible consequences injurious to the public interest be avoided.
    On the threshold of this matter, merely giving the language of the Clause a cursory glance, it is quite clear that it would exclude agreements which ought to be caught. The fact that the Clause deals with restrictive matters does not mean, I hope, that it has to have a restrictive connotation. I think the President will agree—as, I am sure, would the Attorney-General also, if he were paying attention—that there will be agreements, essential agreements, agreements affecting the public interest, agreements which any reasonable man would at once say ought to be caught, which will not be caught if the language of this Clause is allowed to remain as loose as it is now.
    Let us, as I say, consider the matter without mentioning any specific agreements.
    2030
    It is perfectly clear that any agreement the structure of which provides for one party in England and one party abroad—or two or three; it does not matter—will not be caught by this Clause. Of course, if the President could demonstrate that it ought not to be caught, and that no deleterious consequences would ensue as a result, then the matter would be at an end.
    We have heard it stated from the benches opposite that there is a multiplicity of agreements, as, indeed, common sense would tell us, which are made between persons in this country and persons abroad, and that all, or, at all events, the great majority of those agreements, contain either covenants or clauses which have a restrictive effect in all manner of directions, and, in particular, as regards price or restriction in supply, which very closely and profoundly affect the public, very often to its cost. In my submission, on the most ordinary interpretation of the language of this Clause, giving it its natural meaning, those agreements would be excluded.
    Such exclusion must be wrong, and, now that the matter has been brought to the attention of the President, to allow it to go by default would mean that it is being deliberately done. I cannot see the logic of saying that an agreement between parties here having certain clauses injurious to the public should be registered, examined and dealt with, while an agreement entered into with a party abroad which is equally injurious to the public interest in this country ought not to be dealt with or should be allowed to escape. I cannot see the logic or sense in that, and I do not think that the public will, if that is permitted, at all appreciate it.
    Certainly, every time people put their hands in their pockets to buy commodities covered or supplied by these agreements, they will wonder why agreements between people in this country should be dealt with and restrained, whereas agreements which embrace and give profit to people abroad to the detriment of the public here are left unrestrained. I therefore urge the President that he should say that where any cartel or agreement of any kind exists which is made with people or firms abroad and which, by its terms, means that someone here is a party to it, it not being an agreement solely

    2031
    between people in this country, that agreement shall be included in this Measure for registration.
    It has been asked what impact the word "mutual" has in the context in which we find it. The word "mutual" becomes very significant following upon the considerations which I have mentioned as applying to agreements which are not caught, as I suggest, owing to the narrowness of the language of this Clause. That word "mutual" implies a state of affairs between two people in this country; it also has in this Clause a geographical connotation. As between one person in this country and another person abroad, its meaning and effect would produce an entirely different result. In other words, the concept of mutuality would have its proper effect only when applied to an agreement between two people in this country, because there would be mutual restrictions there which would be subject to registration, to examination by the Court, and to an order of the Court.
    Any mutual relationship between a person here and another person abroad would be in an entirely different position because then the word "mutual" would not catch that type of case at all. I therefore agree with the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West when he says that for the word "mutual" the simpler, wider and more efficacious word "any" should be substituted.
    On this part of the matter, I ask the President to give his best attention to this question to see whether those criticisms and comments are justified and whether they provide material for correction in the operation of the Clause. The President of the Board of Trade, whose ability, of course, we in this Committee all admire, is a most skilful advocate; even when he is not convincing others, I am quite certain that he is invariably convincing himself. He tried to show that notwithstanding the reasons I have given of this particular Clause, it would, nevertheless, be effective to catch the mischief at which it is intended to aim. To prove this he set out ingeniously to demonstrate the manner of catchment through another Act altogether. That was the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices (Inquiry and Control) Act of 1948.
    2032
    There, I consider that the President made a point which was shrewd, although it was fallacious and cannot be sustained. That Act, as has been said, in future will deal only with restrictive agreements of an individual character and also restrictive agreements with regard to exports. I rate the President's intelligence and discernment much too high to believe that he is unaware that the point we are discussing has nothing to do, or may have nothing whatever to do, with overseas trade at all. Notwithstanding that it is between parties, one of which is located in this country and the other abroad, it may be that the agreement deals entirely with business and trade in this country and not with trade overseas at all. In those circumstances, the provisions of the 1948 Act would have no application whatsoever.
    I ask the President—he has been very fair so far about this matter—to consider that aspect. I agree that, could the right hon. Gentleman be satisfied that certain agreements could be dealt with adequately by the 1948 Act, and if the objections which we are raising and the defects to which we have drawn attention could be omitted or remedied because they would be caught under the 1948 Act, that would be another matter. But inevitably there are restrictive agreements such as I have mentioned which have nothing to do with overseas trade at all, and those agreements would not be caught.
    I wish to say a word about another point which was referred to by the hon. Member for Scotstoun (Sir J. Hutchison) and the hon. and learned Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Philip Bell). They asked the question: how can we stop foreign restrictions in an agreement? The simple answer is by preventing the trader here from entering into them. That may be a perfectly simple thing to say but a very difficult thing to do, and indeed, if we could, it may even prove harmful to the country. Although there may be some restrictions in an agreement of this kind which are burdensome to the public it may nevertheless be desirable to enter into it because it concerns a particular commodity which is required by the public, and which would not be available unless the agreement were entered into.
    The answer to that, as I am sure the President will agree, is that it is not a

    2033
    question of what can be done to stop such a restriction, if the restriction be one which it is impossible to avoid without harming the country. The position would be that if the agreement had to be registered under this Bill it would come before the Court. It is expressly provided by the Bill that it does not necessarily follow that, because there is a restriction in an agreement which is registered that the Court will condemn it. The mere fact that there is a restriction does not, under this Bill, mean the end of the agreement. It is for the Court to examine the matter and to make an order; to determine whether the restriction has a disadvantageous effect or is inimical to the public interest. If, after considering all the facts and implications, the Court decides that the agreement is one which, though it is burdensome and may mean excessive prices, but involves a commodity essential to the country, then the Court can and probably would refuse to interfere with that agreement or order that it should be invalidated.
    Those are the points which I have felt it essential to make and which I ask the President to consider with care in order to see whether this Clause may be so redrafted as to make its language closer and safer, so as effectively to satisfy the criticisms which have been made of it.
    6.45 p.m.
    Mr. Robert Edwards: I am encouraged to make a modest contribution to this discussion by the statement of the President that he would welcome any suggestions for strengthening the Clause. I am also encouraged by the comments of two hon. Gentlemen opposite on the question of international cartels in which a British firm may be linked with a firm in another country.
    I wish to ask how in this Clause we may deal with agreements not to produce; agreements between a group of firms whereby one firm will cease to produce in order that another firm may have a monopoly. That practice has been operated in many sections of the chemical industry. There was an agreement whereby whole sections of the chemical industry producing caustic soda and sulphuric acid were closed down by agreement. How can we deal with a dangerous conspiracy of that kind which creates an artificial monopoly and forces up prices based on shortage?
    2034
    I do not know how we can deal with restrictive practices which are not in the form of a written agreement. How do we deal with restrictive practices arising from a resolution at a conference and where there is no signed agreement? How do we deal with the many restrictive practices which are common knowledge but are not reduced to writing? How do we deal with a restrictive practice which it is known exists but which is arranged at a champagne dinner at the Savoy Hotel? There are many practices of that nature which harm our economy, and I could give many examples without mentioning firms by name.
    For example, firm A in the chemical industry is producing important chemicals and has four customers. A new director is appointed to the board, and he decides to expand production and get more customers. He is told by his co-directors that firm B would not like the idea of their increasing production and expanding trade. But the new and enthusiastic director contacts firm B. Firm A is all set to increase production, but after a lunch at the Savoy, the new and enthusiastic director goes back to his firm and nothing more is heard about expanding production or of obtaining new customers for firm A.
    There was an agreement relating to the fuel for jet engines. Two firms produced all the fuel for about two years. There was an unwritten agreement that one firm should fulfil the small orders and the other firm the large orders, and that there should be a fixed price. That practice was commonly known, and, I believe, was known to the Board of Trade. The Government, which used this product of the two firms, paid a high price for it. It was only when three other firms began to manufacture the fuel that the price was brought down very considerably.
    How do we deal in this Clause with deliberate, calculated conspiracies against the economy of the nation and against the interest of the consumers, conspiracies which are not written into agreements but which are understood in industry and among the consumers? A little earlier today we were discussing the problem of petrol stations. There is an agreement relating to the supply of petrol to the Co-operative societies.

    2035
    It is not a written agreement, but no petrol company will supply, in the normal way, the Co-operative societies of this country which, after all, represent 11½ million consumers.
    None of the petrol companies is allowed to supply the Co-operative societies with petrol for sale to their customers unless they agree to pay no dividends on the petrol which they sell. There is no written agreement. All that happens is that supplies of petrol to the Co-operative garages are withheld unless they agree to that no-dividend policy.
    How do we deal in this Clause with conspiracies of that nature? How do we deal with the position of the federation which deals with the retailing of newspapers and which acts on resolutions taken at a conference? There is no agreement. The federation has what is known as a distance-limit policy, under which newspapers and periodicals are not allowed to go to shops or to Co-operative societies. It maintains a distance between each retailer.
    The Committee will recollect that the Greene Committee on the Restraint on Trade reported in 1931 that the refusal to allow Co-operative societies to sell newspapers and periodicals to their members was in no way related to this distance-limit policy. It was due to pressure by the big wholesalers against the Co-operative societies, even though the societies had given an undertaking that no dividend would be paid on newspapers or periodicals. There is nothing in writing, but only a conference resolution.
    Such policies affect millions of consumers all over the country. It is a characteristic British example of voluntary organisations representing 11½ million people being denied the right to sell petrol and newspapers, even though they have agreed to pay no dividend on the sales.
    They are denied the right to sell certain gramophone records, even though there is no written agreement on the subject, unless they agree not to pay a dividend. They are denied the right to sell certain workmen's tools although, in the main, the Co-operative movement caters for workmen, unless they sign an agreement not to pay dividends on those sales. They
    2036
    are denied the right to sell to their members a whole range of electrical appliances. In every case there is no written agreement. These restrictive practices are based on conference resolutions and on understandings made in secret by the firms concerned.
    Two hon. Members opposite dealt with the question of cartelisation and one of them, the hon. and learned Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Philip Bell) justified the example quoted by the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) of the match agreement between the British match monopoly and the Swedish monopoly.
    Mr. Philip Bell: The hon. Gentleman must not misrepresent me.
    Mr. Edwards: The point which the hon. and learned Member made was that the British match interest was the unconscious victim of pressure from the Swedish manufacturers.
    Mr. Philip Bell: I explained that I had not gone into the details of the agreement. I said that I could not recollect the terms of the match agreement, and that I did not complain that it was condemned. I said that if there were only two parties to an agreement, one British and one foreign, I could not see how we could prohibit the agreement except by excluding what was to be imported and that that might be costly.
    Mr. Edwards: I would only say that what the hon. and learned Gentleman said is not the opinion of the British match industry, which states that it has no complaints to make against the Swedish firm. Indeed, it says, quite rightly I think, that it was greatly helped technically. But the fact remains that two monopolies, one in Britain and one in Sweden, were able to control the match trade of this country to such an extent that the British match industry was not allowed to produce more than 75 per cent. of the matches required by British consumers, and that for every box of matches which it produced above that 75 per cent., it had to pay a fine to a monopoly in a foreign country.
    I understand that the fines which the British match industry paid, even during the war, amounted to £50,000 a year. This money of ours went to Sweden because our match industry was not free

    2037
    during the war to produce the matches required by British consumers. Yet in this Clause conspiracies of that kind, which damage the whole world economy and keep it poor, are not, and cannot be, dealt with. Damaging agreements of that nature cannot be dealt with in Clause 5. I think that the Committee is entitled to hear from the President his considered replies to the points raised by myself and by my hon. Friends.
    Between the wars, the British Iron and Steel Federation had an agreement with the steel barons of the Ruhr. Are agreements of this nature, which almost lost us the last war, not to be reportable and registered under this Clause? In 1938 our steel industry was restricted to the production of 10½ million tons of steel, whereas Germany's allocation was 25½ million tons of steel. At one period we were importing steel, because we were denied the right to produce more than the tonnage which I mentioned.
    7.0 p.m.
    On every ton of steel we produced over the quota allocated to us by the international steel cartel, the British steel industry had to pay a fine. These deliberate calculated attempts to restrict production, forcing prices higher than they otherwise should be, and based on organised scarcity, are a danger to the economy of the country, and the Bill will be valueless now and for the future unless it is able to deal with matters of that nature.
    I am sorry to have spoken for so long, but I was carried away by emotion and the flow of my thoughts, and I hope that the President, ignoring the enthusiasm of some of my remarks, will deal with the practical points which I have raised. I think that if he will have regard to the criticism which has been raised on the Clause, he will agree to strengthen this particular clause at a later stage.
    Mr. Jay: The President of the Board of Trade spoke to us in a most plausible and persuasive manner, but I was not entirely satisfied that he answered the substance of the questions put to him.
    In the first place he spoke of the word "mutual" as if it applied in the Bill to the agreement but, in point of fact, it is the restrictions which are mutual and not the agreement, according to the President's own Bill, and at this stage that is not entirely an unimportant point
    2038
    The first question which the President did not actually answer was this. I pointed out to him that in paragraph 30 of the Commission's Report on Collective Discrimination last summer, it spoke of certain agreements among suppliers which required them to discriminate in favour of certain buyers but where the buyers did not undertake any reciprocal obligation to discriminate in favour of the suppliers. That was category I in the Commission's scheme of things, where there was no reciprocal obligation involved. I assume that the right hon. Gentleman wanted to have it made clear that that quite large class of agreements and other agreements which are not in that sense reciprocal are not excluded from registration by the presence of this word "mutual" in the Bill.
    The second question which we asked the President was whether, if there was an agreement between, say, ten people under which not all the ten but only three, four or five accepted certain restrictions which are in his sense mutual, that agreement would escape the Bill because the restrictions were accepted only by some and not by all the parties to it. I think that the answer is that it would not be excluded, but we want to get that point enirely clear.
    The third question which has been raised by several hon. Members is whether this Clause and the definitions in it includes agreements not just between one producer and another producer, or one wholesaler and another wholesaler, but between the producer or producers on the one hand and certain wholesalers or retailers on the other. I understood from the drafting of the Bill that it did not exclude agreements between the different types of traders, if I may put it that way.
    We have now also established usefully by this discussion that what the President called the "sole agency agreement" is excluded from the bill altogether. We therefore seem to have established the fact, and I doubt whether the whole Committee was clear about it at the start of the discussion, that if one or another of the large petrol companies which operate in this country was to make an agreement with every single garage selling petrol throughout the United Kingdom by which each single garage could

    2039
    sell only one type of petrol supplied by one or another of these companies, and if there were no mutual restrictions undertaken by the petrol companies, and if the companies had no agreement between one another, as I imagine they may not have, then that situation would be entirely outside the scope of the Bill.
    Not merely would it be outside the possibility of determination under the Bill. It would even be outside the scope of registration. That is a rather remarkable comment on the Bill, if that should be what it really means. The President says, "It is all right in that particular because a situation of that kind would be covered by Section 3 of the Labour Government's 1948 Act." If that were so, it may perhaps be a tribute to the 1948 Act that it embraces a so much wider field than this Bill, but nevertheless my hon. Friends who considered this point before we put down this Amendment were in some doubt whether the 1948 Act would include a situation of that kind.
    I find myself in this difficulty. The President says that in relation to this important field—and it would not only be the petrol companies that would be concerned—"It is not covered by this Bill but it can be dealt with under the 1948 Act". The trouble is, however, that he is not operating the 1948 Act at the present time.
    When we ask him what he is doing about the Report on tyres which was the result of action under the 1948 Act, he tells us, "No action is being taken on all that while the Bill is going through". He may say that no action is to be taken in cases which are covered by the scope of this Bill, and that when we are concerned with an agreement which does not come under the Bill but comes under the 1948 Act, he does not feel himself inhibited from acting. If that is the argument we should like an assurance that in those cases he intends to take action under the 1948 Act during the passage of the Bill and during the initial stages of putting it into operation if it passes into law.
    Can the right hon. Gentleman not give us an assurance that he will take some action under the 1948 Act in the matter of the petrol stations and garages which he tells us does come under the scope of that Act? Otherwise we are placed
    2040
    in the situation that when, by way of Questions or in other ways, we raise issues as to monopoly practices and ask the President what action he is to take, his answer will be "I am not going to do anything because this Bill is going through the House". Then when we come to discuss the Bill and ask the President whether this or that practice comes within its scope he will say, "Oh, no. It is not in the scope of the Bill at all, and we will deal with it in some other way". That does not seem satisfactory, and I hope that the President will answer some of these questions.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I shall try to answer briefly and frankly the very proper questions addressed to me. First, where only one class is concerned in the mutual restrictions, it is registrable. If a group of producers came to an arrangement -and there was no reciprocal agreement between them and the suppliers that would not mean that the producers' ring would not be registrable.
    Secondly, the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) was quite right; it is "some" and not "all". That is to say, there may be an arrangement in which not every person accepted the restriction, but if some did that would be a registrable arrangement.
    Thirdly, it is vertical as well as horizontal, that is to say it could be on one side of the fence but it could also straddle the fence if necessary, and apply to producers, wholesalers and retailers.
    I think that most of the questions have been directed in one form or another to the single firm which comes to an agreement with someone outside this country. I will say a word or two about that. I do not want that sort of agreement to be covered in the Bill. I think the important consideration about this Clause is that we should be clear as to what we mean. I did not mean such an agreement to be within the Bill. If two firms have come to a mutual arrangement in this country and strike a bargain overseas, they are within the scope of the Bill. Under the Amendment which we are moving later, if an association in this country comes to an agreement with parties overseas—which is the normal cartel system—that also will be registrable under the Bill. There was that flaw in the Bill at the moment, but it will be put right by a later Amendment.

    2041
    The Bill will not deal with single firms, for reasons which I thought were very pertinently argued by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Philip Bell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Scotstoun (Sir J. Hutchison), namely, that it is part of a very normal trading practice for individual traders in one country to enter into arrangements with firms abroad which are to some extent restrictive but which bring very valuable returns to this country in the form of "know-how" and many other arrangements.
    The American practice was cited, but it is pertinent to observe that at this moment evidence is being given before a Senate committee in the United States showing the damage which she is suffering because these agreements have to be registered, or are subject to inquiry in America. We do not want to fall into the same error.
    The other fact which interested me was that all the examples which were given seemed to refer to very large, single firms or groups. One was the British Match Corporation. If ever there was a case properly subject to treatment by the Monopolies Commission, it was surely that. I am not saying how adequate are the steps which can be taken when dealing with a monopoly—we have often argued that matter—but the Match Corporation was clearly a monopoly, and to the extent that its arrangements restricted supplies in the home market it was inquired into by the Monopolies Commission, and certain actions pertinent to the agreement which it had signed were taken, and it had to agree to alter the arrangements which it had made with the Swedish Match Corporation.
    Another example—in this case not connected with external trade—was the
    Imperial Tobacco Company. It is not for me to say whether the arrangements of individual companies are right or wrong, but vast, single firms—and all the illustrations were of that sort of firm—seem to me quite clearly to fall within the general provisions of the Monopolies Act, 1948, and therefore properly liable to be dealt with by that Act.
    If we try so to draw the Clause that it includes these cases, in the process of doing so we shall bring in every ordinary, humble, sensible, day-to-day, commercial arrangement between a single firm and someone else which involves no mutual restriction whatever. I would advise the Committee, and in particular the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) to have confidence in the 1948 Act. It was a good one, and it has been extended by us. It may be that some cases will slip through the net both of this and the 1948 Measure, but my belief is that if the Bill deals with cases of mutual restrictions and we leave other big cases to be dealt with under the 1948 Act, we shall cover the vast majority of cases.
    Mr. Wade: I appreciate the way in which the right hon. Gentleman has answered the questions which have been put to him, but my colleagues and I feel very uneasy about the wording of the Clause. In particular, we are uneasy about the way in which it may be interpreted by the courts. In those circumstances, whilst I appreciate the sincerity of the Minister, I do not feel justified in asking leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Question put, That "between persons" stand part of the Clause:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 208, Noes 174.

    Division No. 152.]

    AYES

    [7.14 p.m.

    Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

    Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

    Cooper-Key, E. M.

    Altken, W. T.

    Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

    Alport, C. J. M.

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald

    Corfield, Capt. F. V.

    Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

    Bidgood, J. C.

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Arbuthnot, John

    Bishop, F. P.

    Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

    Armstrong, C. W.

    Bossom, Sir A. C.

    Cunningham, Knox

    Astor, Hon. J. J.

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Curie, G. B. H.

    Atkins, H. E.

    Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Dance, J. C. G.

    Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

    Brooman-White, R. C.

    Deedes, W. F.

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)

    Doughty, C. J. A.

    Balniel, Lord

    Bryan, P.

    du Cann, E. D. L.

    Barber, Anthony

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

    Duthie, W. S.

    Barlow, Sir John

    Burden, F. F. A.

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Baxter, Sir Beverley

    Campbell, Sir David

    Fell, A.

    Beamish, Maj. Tufton

    Channon, H.

    Finlay, Graeme

    Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

    Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert

    Fisher, Nigel

    Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

    Kimball, M.

    Raikes, Sir Victor

    Fletcher-Cooke, C.

    Kirk, P. M.

    Redmayne, M.

    Fort, R.

    Lagden, G. W.

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Foster, John

    Lambert, Hon. G.

    Ridsdale, J. E.

    Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Rippon, A. G. F.

    Freeth, D. K.

    Langford-Holt, J. A.

    Roberts, Sir Peter (Healey)

    Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

    Leavey, J. A.

    Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

    Leburn, W. G.

    Roper, Sir Harold

    George, J. C. (Pollok)

    Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Glover, D.

    Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)

    Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.

    Godber, J. B.

    Linstead, Sir H. N.

    Sharples, R. C.

    Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan

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

    Shepherd, William

    Gower, H. R.

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

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

    Graham, Sir Fergus

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

    Grant, W. (Woodside)

    McAdden, S. J.

    Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

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

    Macdonald, Sir Peter

    Spearman, A. C. M.

    Green, A.

    Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

    Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

    Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

    McKibbin, A. J.

    Stevens, Geoffrey

    Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

    Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

    Gurden, Harold

    McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

    Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    McLean, Neil (Inverness)

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

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

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Studholme, H. C.

    Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

    Maddan, Martin

    Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

    Harvie-Watt, Sir George

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

    Teeling, W.

    Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.

    Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

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

    Marlowe, A. A. H.

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

    Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

    Marples, A. E.

    Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.

    Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

    Marshall, Douglas

    Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Mathew, R.

    Tilney, John (Wavertree)

    Holland-Martin, C. J.

    Maude, Angus

    Touche, Sir Gordon

    Horobin, Sir Ian

    Mawby, R. L.

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

    Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

    Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

    Howard, John (Test)

    Moore, Sir Thomas

    Vickers, Miss J. H.

    Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

    Morrison, John (Salisbury)

    Vosper, D. F.

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

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

    Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

    Hughes, Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

    Nairn, D. L. S.

    Walker-Smith, D. C.

    Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

    Nichols, Harmar

    Wall, Major Patrick

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

    Nield, Basil (Chester)

    Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

    Hyde, Montgomery

    Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

    Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

    Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.

    Nugent, G. R. H.

    Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

    Iremonger, T. L.

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

    Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

    Webbe, Sir H.

    Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

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

    Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

    Osborne, C.

    Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Page, R. G.

    Wills, G. (Bridgwater)

    Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)

    Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)

    Partridge, E.

    Wood, Hon. R.

    Joseph, Sir Keith

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Woollam, John Victor

    Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot

    Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

    Yates, William (The Wrekin)

    Kaberry, D.

    Pitt, Miss E. M.

    Keegan, D.

    Pott, H. P.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Kerby, Capt. H. B.

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Mr. E. Wakefield and

    Kerr, H. W.

    Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

    Colonel J. H. Harrison.

    Kershaw, J. A.

    Profumo, J. D.

    NOES

    Ainsley, J. W.

    Clunie, J.

    Forman, J. C.

    Albu, A. H.

    Coldrick, W.

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

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

    Gibson, C. W.

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch & Finsbury)

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    Anderson, Frank

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

    Awbery, S. S.

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Grey, C. F.

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Cronin, J. D.

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Baird, J.

    Cullen, Mrs. A.

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Benson, G.

    Darling, George (Hillsborough)

    Griffiths, William (Exchange)

    Beswick, F.

    Davies, Rt. Hon. Clement (Montgomery)

    Hale, Leslie

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

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Boardman, H.

    Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

    Hamilton, W. W.

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

    Deer, G.

    Hannan, W.

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

    de Freitas, Geoffrey

    Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

    Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)

    Delargy, H. J.

    Hastings, S.

    Boyd, T. C.

    Dodds, N. N.

    Hayman, F. H.

    Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

    Donnelly, D. L.

    Healey, Denis

    Brockway, A. F.

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

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

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Dye, S.

    Holmes, Horace

    Burke, W. A.

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Houghton, Douglas

    Burton, Miss F. E.

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)

    Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

    Hubbard, T. F.

    Callaghan, L. J.

    Fernyhough, E.

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Carmichael, J.

    Fienburgh, W.

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Chapman, W. D.

    Finch, H. J.

    Hunter, A. E.

    Chetwynd, G. R.

    Fletcher, Eric

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    2044

    2045

    Irving, S. (Dartford)

    Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

    Sparks, J. A.

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

    Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

    Steele, T.

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

    Oliver, G. H.

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

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

    Oram, A. E.

    Stones, W. (Consett)

    Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

    Orbach, M.

    Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Oswald, T.

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

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Owen, W. J.

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

    Kenyon, C.

    Paget, R. T.

    Sylvester, G. O.

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

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

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Palmer, A. M. F.

    Thomas, George (Cardiff)

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Parker, J.

    Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Parkin, B. T.

    Turner-Samuels, M.

    Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

    Paton, J.

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

    Peart, T. F.

    Warbey, W. N.

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Weitzman, D.

    Logan, D. G.

    Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Proctor, W. T.

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    McGhee, H. G.

    Pryde, D. J.

    West, D. G.

    McInnes, J.

    Randall, H. E.

    Wheeldon, W. E.

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Rankin, John

    White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

    McLeavy, Frank

    Redhead, E. C.

    White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)

    MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

    Reeves, J.

    Wigg, George

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Mahon, Simon

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Williams, David (Heath)

    Mann, Mrs. Jean

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)

    Mason, Roy

    Ross, William

    Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

    Mayhew, C. P.

    Royle, C.

    Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

    Mellish, R. J.

    Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

    Woof, R. E.

    Messer, Sir F.

    Short, E. W.

    Yates, V. (Ladywood)

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

    Moody, A. S.

    Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

    Mort, D. L.

    Skeffington, A. M.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Mulley, F. W.

    Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

    Mr. Holt and Mr. Wade.

    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Derek Walker-Smith): I beg to move, in page 4, line 22, to leave out "wholesale or retail".
    This Amendment covers a drafting point. The intention of the Clause is to cover all classes of supply in the course of the distributive trades. The words "wholesale or retail" were included in the hope of showing that all forms of wholesale supply were to be included. Unfortunately, it appears, on further consideration, that "wholesale" may have a restricted meaning, and it might be argued that the intention was to exclude supply by a merchant, importer, factor or broker. Our intention will be better fulfilled by omitting the words.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Jay: I beg to move, in page 4. line 34, after "be", to insert "or not to be".
    The Amendment introduces a literary note into our otherwise rather forensic discussion. The Parliamentary Secretary will have noticed that these words are taken from a speech which includes "the law's delay" among the worst of human ills as well as "The pangs of despriz'd love …" and "The insolence of office." It also speaks of:
    "… enterprises of great pith and moment …"
    2046
    losing the name of action. That is appropriate to this discussion.
    The purpose of the Amendment is to make sure that the Government are not inadvertently leaving out of the scope of registration under the Clause agreements not to produce any goods in addition to agreements to produce certain quantities. I do not think there is any doubt that such agreements exist. The Commission's Reports have described some of them. I believe there was one in the case of rainwater goods. One of my hon. Friends from Birmingham, with great skill and ingenuity, managed to describe a number on the last Amendment, which I thought dealt with quite separate points. The Amendment seems to us to be no more than common sense, and I trust that it will help the President to carry out the purpose of his Bill.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the literary nature of the Amendment. I have not looked up the speech in "Hamlet," but I think it is the same speech which refers to "the law's delay"—
    Mr. Jay: I mentioned that.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: That also seems apposite to our proceedings. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for clarifying the Amendment, and I am happy to accept it.
    Mr. William Hannan: There is an Amendment in my name, in page 4, line 42, after "acquired," to insert:
    "or not to be supplied or acquired."
    I shall be grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary can say whether he is accepting it. Its purpose is the same as the Amendment moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay). The Clause refers to:
    "the persons or classes of persons to, for or from whom or the areas or places in or from which, goods are to be supplied or acquired. …"
    I have a concrete example of how a firm, by restricting the class of people with whom it will deal, is creating great hardship and a great deal of resentment in the west of Scotland. I had better describe the circumstances so that the Committee may be in possession of the facts.
    Sir L. Joynson-Hicks: On a point of order, Sir Charles. Have we passed the Amendment moved by the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay)?
    The Chairman: No, we have not. I should have mentioned that the Committee may discuss at the same time the Amendment in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), in page 4, line 36, and the two Amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Maryhill (Mr. Hannan), in line 42.
    Mr. Hannan: I am sorry if the Committee was unaware of that. I presumed that it knew the position.
    In the West of Scotland the British Carpet Federation, which has 90 per cent. of Britain's carpet makers within its organisation, brought pressure to bear on a Glasgow wholesaler to break his contract to supply rugs to the Western Regional Hospital Board. Earlier in the year the firm signed a contract to supply the Board with 1,000 rugs. Later it wrote to the Board saying:
    "We must relinquish the contract. We did not know that it contravened our agreement with the British Carpet Federation."
    The managing director of the wholesaler was reported in the Press as saying:
    "This is a delicate situation. Under our agreement with the Carpet Federation the Hospital Board is classed as a non-trader and cannot be supplied. The contract was accepted by an employee in error."
    2048
    This Federation decides to whom the carpets can be sold, and the wholesalers who purchase from members must sign up. The Secretary of the Federation, speaking about this case, is reported in the same Press report as saying:
    "I know about this case, which is very simple. The hospital board are regarded as non-traders."
    7.30 p.m.
    The aim of my Amendments therefore is to make it quite clear that supplies are not only to be given to those who are indicated in the Clause, but that the freedom of others will not be restricted, so that they will not supply certain individuals or organisations simply because they are public bodies. In the public interest, it is really fundamental that we should make it quite clear that a public authority, such as a regional hospital board or any local authority, is entitled to the same conditions of wholesale buying as are private concerns.
    I think that strong exception should be taken to the British Carpet Federation arrogating to itself the right to decide with whom it will trade and will not trade, to decide what in fact a trading department is or on its own to decide that a regional hospital board is not a trading organisation, thereby forcing it to go to retailers to purchase such a quantity of carpets. In other fields, the same conditions apply—in food, blankets and bedding—and a hospital board is entitled to go to wholesalers, get the best conditions possible and buy goods at the cheapest rates possible, in order to satisfy the taxpayers that it is looking after the finances allocated to the Health Service.
    The Western Regional Hospital Board in Scotland controls a large number of hospitals there, and spends millions of pounds each year on wholesale purchases. I think it is difficult to conceive of anything more against the public interest than this action of the British Carpet Federation, and it is for these reasons that I am asking the Committee to accept these Amendments. They will prevent such action being taken against public boards, and will prevent discrimination against such bodies as against private buyers.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: The Committee will not expect me to go into the details of individual cases. It is the intention of this Clause to include restrictive agreements not to supply as well as agreements

    2049
    to supply, and, therefore, here again, I accept the principle of the hon. Gentleman's Amendments. I think perhaps it would be more appropriate, both on these Amendments and the Amendments in the name of the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), if I confined my acceptance to acceptance of the principle which is enshrined in their Amendments, so that we may have a look at the wording and work out the best possible words between now and the Report stage.
    Mr. Jay: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman make it quite clear that, as I understand, he is accepting in principle both the Amendments in my name to lines 34 and 36?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: Yes.
    The Chairman: And the Amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) as well?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: Yes; in principle.
    Mr. Jay: Secondly, may I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman, in pursuance of the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) whether the phrase—
    "the persons or classes of persons to, for or from whom, or the areas or places in or from which, goods are to be supplied or acquired,"
    includes public authorities, such as local authorities, hospital boards, and so forth?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: Yes, I understand that the phrase would so include them. Though all questions of construction, of course, are for the courts, it is the intention that they should be covered.
    Mr. Jay: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: I beg to move, in page 4, line 35, to leave out from "acquired" to the end of line 36.
    Perhaps I may, at the same time, deal with the point covered in the Amendment to line 38, to insert "quantities or descriptions of".
    These are drafting Amendments really designed to clarify paragraphs (c) and (d) of subsection (1) of Clause 5. In the present drafting, paragraph (c) refers to goods to be produced and also to processes to be applied. It will perhaps be clearer in the drafting of this Clause to
    2050
    confine paragraph (c) to quantities or descriptions of goods to be produced, supplied or acquired, and to leave any questions of processing to be dealt with in paragraph (d), where in any event it already occurs in the present drafting. The second Amendment fills a consequential gap which is created by the first Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In line 38, after "the", insert "quantities or descriptions of".—[Mr. Walker-Smith.]
    Mr. E. Fletcher: I beg to move, in page 4, line 42, after "supplied", to insert "imported".
    I am sure that my hon. and right hon. Friends are very pleased to find the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade in such an accommodating mood and willing to accept some of the Amendments which we have drafted with a view to improving the Bill and closing some of the loopholes in it. This Amendment is designed to further the same good cause. We are anxious to insert the word "imported" so as to make it quite plain that, among the agreements which call for registration, are any agreements among importers whereby they either impose or accept mutual restrictions in the matter of dividing up among themselves, either in areas or quantities, the goods imported for distribution in this country.
    The object of the Amendment, as the Parliamentary Secretary will see, is to make sure that imported goods are covered, because we do not think they are sufficiently covered at present by the words in the Bill "supplied or acquired". We think that the addition of the word "imported" is particularly required, in view of the discussion which we had earlier on the point that, as the Bill now stands, it is limited to agreements between persons carrying on business in the United Kingdom. The President of the Board of Trade declined to accept an Amendment which would have brought in for registration agreements between a company carrying on business in the United Kingdom and a company carrying on business outside.
    In view of the fact that that Amendment was resisted, it seems to me to be more necessary than ever to make it abundantly clear that registrable agreements under this Bill are not merely those

    2051
    limited to goods manufactured here and distributed here, but, also, that the Clause is wide enough to bring in agreements about imported goods, and, therefore, agreements between importers among themselves which contain objectionable restrictive Clauses. For these reasons, I hope that this Amendment also will be accepted.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: I do not think that the fact that there may be an agreement between a single company carrying on business in the United Kingdom and a single company carrying on business outside the United Kingdom really affects the narrow point which is raised by this Amendment. I am advised that the word "imported"—the importation of goods—is, in fact, beyond a doubt included in the word "acquired"—as, indeed, one would think in the ordinary connotation of language. If that is so, the addition of this word could not serve any useful purpose, because the point which the hon. Gentleman has in mind is already fully met by the wording of the Clause.
    I hope that, with that assurance, the hon. Member will not wish to press this Amendment, which in any event, as I apprehend, was intended only to seek clarification of what is already the effect of the Clause.
    Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: We do not really feel at all happy about this. I appreciate that the hon. and learned Gentleman has been advised to the effect which he has just mentioned, but, apart from the difficulty which my hon. Friend has mentioned, we have had on the discussion which arose before the last Division—and all through this Bill—references to supply and to acquisition; there are provisions about exporting and importing, and so on. There is, for instance, the Amendment in the name of the President of the Board of Trade in page 6, line 6, at the end to insert:
    (4) This Part of this Act does not apply to an agreement in the case of which all such restrictions as are described in subsection (1) of section five of this Act relate exclusively—

    (a) to the supply of goods by export from the United Kingdom;

    (b) to the production of goods, or the application of any process of manufacture to goods, outside the United Kingdom;

    2052

    (c) to the acquisition of goods to be delivered outside the United Kingdom and not imported into the United Kingdom for entry for home use; or

    (d) to the supply of goods to be delivered outside the United Kingdom otherwise than by export from the United Kingdom.

    It seems to me that all kinds of questions might arise on construction as to the precise meaning, the precise intention, in construing the words "supplied", "acquired", "imported", etc. Questions might arise as to whether or tot the words "supplied", and "acquired" covered the word "imported" or not. I should have been content with what the hon. and learned Gentleman said, but it is immaterial whether the supply or acquisition comes from abroad or at home—it is still acquired or supplied. When one comes to consider the terms of the Bill, I must say that it seems to me arguable that the two words could be construed in such a way as to exclude the word "import". It is for that reason that my hon. Friend put down the Amendment, and I hope that it will be accepted because, as I understand, there is nothing between us here as to the intention.
    All that concerns us is to have the meaning completely clear, and I cannot see what the difficulty is in accepting the Amendment. One could say "supplied or acquired" and put in the words "or imported" in brackets—or do it in some such way. We have had difficulty and considerable doubt about this; so much so that we did not know whether we were coming here on a point of policy or a point of construction. We are relieved to hear that it is a point of construction and not of policy, but I do ask the Minister to give further consideration to this matter with a view to avoiding ambiguity.
    7.45 p.m.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: As the hon. and learned Gentleman has said, we are dealing here only with a point of construction, and he agrees with me that, prima facie, the construction which I suggest is right. I do not think that we want to take up time on a point of construction. I will go this far with the hon. and learned Gentleman. I will certainly consider this point again between now and Report if the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) will withdraw his Amendment. If the

    2053
    point can be clarified without prejudicing the rest of the Bill it may be possible to include it. The hon. and learned Gentleman appreciates, of course, that the incorporation of unnecessary words in an Act of Parliament is sometimes fraught with danger.
    Mr. E. Fletcher: I appreciate what the Parliamentary Secretary says, from which I gather that there is nothing here of policy; but when I heard the first part of his answer it seemed to me that there could not be any objection to this Amendment, even though the hon. and learned Gentleman might think it unnecessary. It seemed to us that the Amendment would clarify the position. I gather that he has undertaken to consider it and will accept it unless he finds an insuperable objection on drafting. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Captain L. P. S. Orr: I beg to move, in page 5, line 13, after "payments," to insert:
    "(other than payments by way of subscription to any fund to be used exclusively for purposes of scientific or industrial research or towards the administrative expenses of a trade association)".
    The Temporary Chairman (Major W. J. Anstruther-Gray): I understand that it would be for the convenience of the Committee if, with this Amendment, we take the next one, which is in line 16.
    Captain Orr: Yes, that is my understanding.
    There is nothing in the least sinister behind the purpose of the two Amendments. Even my hon. and learned Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, with his zeal for seeking out Amendments designed to make holes in the Bill could find anything sinister here. The Amendment is not designed to defeat the purpose of the Clause or, indeed, the purpose of this particular paragraph.
    As I understand, the purpose of paragraph (b) is designed to exclude from the operation of Part I of the Bill those devices which, under the guise or in the form of subscriptions are in essence part of restrictive quota agreements. I think the Committee will agree that the paragraph is exceedingly wide, and I notice that in the debate on an earlier Amendment my right hon. Friend the
    2054
    President of the Board of Trade said that it was important not to throw Clause 5 too wide open.
    At the moment it would appear as if a whole variety of associations—and the rules of a whole variety of perfectly innocent, harmless and non-restrictive associations—would come under this paragraph. There are a great many associations whose funds for administrative expenses are normally based upon something other than a flat payment per individual member. In many trade associations it is the practice to say that the big fellow will pay more than the little fellow as his normal annual subscription. It would appear that where an association uses as the criterion for its scheme of annual subscription the output or turnover of goods that each member may have, that arrangement would constitute an agreement or arrangement under which the members accepted an obligation within the terms of the subsection to make payments calculated by reference to the quantity of goods produced or supplied. I cannot believe that it is really the intention of the Government, or indeed of the Committee, that rules of such an association should be caught up in this way.
    It applies, also, in a case where a perfectly innocent association, not designed to attract resale price maintenance or anything of that sort, sets aside funds for certain purposes. It is a very important thing, and an admirable development in British industry, that more and more groups of individuals or companies should get together and put money aside to provide machinery for common industrial and scientific research and for the dissemination of that knowledge among their members.
    It appears now that if an association whose rules were constituted in the way I have described set aside a portion of its funds for that purpose, those rules would be caught up and incur the penalties of Part I of the Bill. If an association—as many do—had a special levy on members for research funds and that levy were based on the quantity of goods produced or supplied, it would appear that such an arrangement under the rules of the association would constitute
    "an agreement to make payments calculated by reference to the quantity of goods produced or supplied by him, or to which any process of manufacture is applied by him, shall be

    2055
    treated as a restriction in respect of the quantities of those goods to be produced or supplied."
    I cannot believe that it is the intention of the Government, or the desire of the Committee, that such rules should be treated and such associations caught up in that way. I hope, therefore, that my hon. and learned Friend will agree, first, that such bona fide associations should be excluded from the operation of this paragraph, and secondly, that this Amendment is drawn in such a way that it would exclude only those which we have in mind. If the Committee looks at the wording of the Amendment it will agree that it is very tightly drawn. I draw attention to the word "exclusively" in the wording. That is to exempt from the provisions of the paragraph only such associations as I have described, and not open the door to the exclusion from the operations of Part I of the sort of practice with which I think it is the intention of the paragraph to deal. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend may see his way to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: The purpose of paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of Clause 5 is to provide for the case where a manufacturer is not restricted as to the quantity of goods he may manufacture, but is allocated a quota which he may only exceed on payment of a calculated sum into a pool which is divisible periodically among the parties to the agreement who fall short of their quota of production. It is right that that, which in essence is a restrictive practice, should be caught by the Bill, but, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) pointed out in his persuasive speech, the phraseology of this paragraph as drafted would catch in its net a great many arrangements which, in effect, are not restrictive practices. Of course, it is not our intention in this paragraph to catch the sort of provisions which are related to research and suchlike purposes which my hon. and gallant Friend specified.
    As my hon. and gallant Friend indicated, the Amendment contains the word "exclusively." I am satisfied that the words used in the Amendment—the first of the two we are discussing—are apt for the purpose he has in mind and we are happy to accept that Amendment. I hope that on that basis the second
    2056
    Amendment will, therefore, be withdrawn.
    Mr. Remnant: May I suggest to my hon. and learned Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, on the second Amendment, that one of our objectives is not to clutter up the Registrar or the Restrictive Practices Court with any arrangements which are not producing a restriction within the meaning of this Measure. It is quite a common custom among trade associations to base their subscriptions on output, whether they are based on bulk, or—as in the case of the brewers—per barrel, or by some similar form. That does not in any way create a restriction within the meaning of the Bill. Will my hon. and learned Friend be good enough to explain why he cannot accept the second Amendment as well as the first Amendment, as it would seem to be a means of saving quite unnecessary work to be done by the Court?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: In reply to the query of my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Remnant) the sort of subscription he has in mind is a subscription towards the administrative expenses of a trade association. That comes within the wording of the Amendment which has been moved by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr). What is not so clear is that the other matters spelt out in the Amendment in the name of my hon. and gallant Friend would necessarily come within the second Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Scotstoun (Sir J. Hutchison), and also in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham.
    I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham can be assured that the purpose and principle underlying those Amendments is the same, but it is, in fact, better and more comprehensively albeit more definitively—provided for by the Amendment moved by my hon. and gallant Friend. I hope that in those circumstances the second Amendment will be withdrawn.
    Mr. Jay: In spite of what the Parliamentary Secretary has said, we on this side of the Committee are not happy about either of these Amendments. It seems to us that the Bill contains quite enough loopholes and excuses for delay already. It is our business at this stage

    2057
    of the Bill, among other tasks, to protect the President of the Board of Trade from the blandishments of some of his hon. Friends who are seeking to weaken the effect of the Bill.
    I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) that no doubt there are many innocent arrangements made for research and other practices which, as the Bill stands, would be caught by this provision. On the other hand, there may be other arrangements which, in that sense, are not innocent and which might have restrictive effects. I agree with the hon. and gallant Member, of course, that some of the innocent arrangements would be caught and have to be terminated or altered if the Bill goes through as it is; but I should have thought that, rather than leave a possible loophole for restrictive agreements to get through, we should be prepared to cause a little inconvenience to existing arrangements which, originally, had no restrictive purpose.
    I should have thought it would be possible for an arrangement originally designed for the purpose of research based on the production of a firm to be altered and in future calculated on some other basis. If the difficulty were that it was desired to make a distinction between big and small firms I should think it would be possible for it to be based on profits or nominal capital rather than on production, which might have another consequence.
    The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that all this would be safeguarded by the use of the word "exclusively", which I realise he put in for that purpose. I do not feel wholly convinced about that. The words are:
    "… to be used exclusively for purposes of …"
    It may be that some arrangement which has one purpose might have other effects. Therefore, I do not think that that wholly meets the point. In addition, he asks us to let through not merely arrangements for purposes of scientific or industrial research, but also for subscriptions towards the administrative expenses of trade associations.
    If the Parliamentary Secretary accepts the Amendment he might inadvertently open a loophole, whereas if we retain the paragraph as drafted, though it might
    2058
    cause some temporary inconvenience to some people, it would be a stronger and more effective Measure.
    8.0 p.m.
    Sir Harold Webbe: I hope that the Committee will accept the Amendment. I cannot understand what the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) has in mind. Clearly, he knows very little about trade associations. His suggestions of alternative methods of assessing subscriptions to the associations seem to indicate that he is not very clear about company structure either. To suggest that the issued capital of a company is necessarily an indication of its size and importance shows a lamentable ignorance which leads to so much nonsense being talked about bonus shares and things of that kind.
    If the right hon. Gentleman knows of any conceivable case in which the operation of the Amendment could introduce any kind of objectionable restriction of trade, he should give the Committee the benefit of his experience. Personally, though I have had a fairly long and varied experience of trade associations in many respects, I cannot conceive it possible.
    Mr. E. Fletcher: I doubt whether the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) is really alive to the possible consequences of the Amendment if it is carried, and I hope that it will not be. It is a little alarming to find that the President of the Board of Trade seems a little readier to accept Amendments designed to liberate people from obligations under the Bill than to close the net more tightly and to bring them in. I do not want to throw any doubt upon the intentions of the hon. and gallant Member, but I must say that I am becoming a little nervous about the way in which the Government are encouraging industry to adopt responsibility for matters of scientific research which ought to be the responsibility of the Government.
    Sir H. Webbe: That statement is incorrect, but that is another story.
    Mr. E. Fletcher: The hon. Member is tempting me. The hon. Member, who has had a long experience on the London County Council, is perfectly familiar with the intentions of the Government about technological education. He knows that

    2059
    there is to be a great debate between both sides of the House about whether the universities should be in charge or whether it should be left to a great many private firms and local government organisations to sponsor development in technological education.
    This raises an important question of principle. We do not want to find that, under cover of promoting scientific research, trade associations are entering into agreements which otherwise would be registrable. We feel that the whole principle of the Bill is that if there is any doubt at all whether or not an agreement should be registered, it is better that it should be registered so that the public may see what it contains, so that it may be brought into the daylight. If it is then found that the agreement is completely innocuous, there are plenty of provisions which ensure that no further steps will be taken.
    One of the primary objects of the Bill—and the President of the Board of Trade has acknowledged this—is to secure for the public the widest possible conditions of publicity about any agreements—whether they are desirable, undesirable or doubtful. We feel that if there is any doubt at all it is much better to let the agreement be registered and not to give a sort of blanket exemption to agreements merely because somebody puts down an Amendment which, however laudable in intention, may exclude from registration something which the public ought to see. Therefore, I support my right hon. Friend, and I hope that the Amendment will not be accepted.
    Mr. Cronin: In company with my hon. Friends, I feel very disturbed about the nature of the two Amendments which we are discussing, and particularly about the first one. I have the greatest sympathy with the desire of the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) to do his utmost to encourage scientific and industrial research. Obviously that is a most laudable intention which must have first priority, but it is more important that the Bill should be devoid of all the loopholes through which an escape can be made. All of us know that firms concerned can, by paying suitable fees, get legal advice of the most superior and minute nature to enable them to
    2060
    take advantage of even the smallest loophole; but the loophole here is a very large one. It is wide open.
    Captain Orr: There is no loophole at all.
    Mr. Cronin: The Amendment refers to "scientific or industrial research". What is scientific research? There are multitudinous activities which could be included under that heading, and the same applies to industrial research and the administrative expenses of a trade association. The latter is a wide and all-embracing phrase. The Amendment would make a very wide breach in the Bill which an army of restrictionists could pass through with the greatest ease.
    The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that the Amendment was drawn very tightly, but the word "scientific" covers almost every form of exact knowledge.
    Mr. E. Fletcher: And inexact knowledge.
    Mr. Cronin: And inexact knowledge, also.
    By the very nature of those words, the Amendment must leave a very large breach in the Bill. Another unfortunate aspect of the Amendment is that there is no restriction of amount on the payments. All of us who belong to associations of any kind know that we do not welcome paying subscriptions. Nobody likes paying money if he can avoid it, but if there is no restriction on the amount paid this can be a completely penal restriction—
    Mr. Remnant: One can always resign.
    Mr. Cronin: It might be impossible to do so. To resign might prejudice a firm's activities. It might be essential to the continuance of the work which the firm was doing. This is a very dubious proposition, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will reconsider his intention to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. Philip Bell: I can hardly believe that hon. Members opposite are being serious. Are they really so mean, so jealous, so envious and so bitter as to think that if anything is put in a Statute to enable a business firm to make a subscription it must be cheating? Are they saying, "We are the only honourable people"? Are they saying that trade

    2061
    unions always pay subscriptions honestly, but that if an unhappy manufacturer pays his subscription to an industrial and scientific organisation which can have nothing whatever to do with restrictive practices, they not merely want to discourage him but, in fact, do not believe him? Let us have no more of this childishness.
    Mr. Cronin: There is no objection to paying a subscription, but the objection is to paying subscriptions based on quantities produced and supplied. It is a very simple matter to vary the basis on which the subscriptions are paid.
    Sir J. Barlow: We have wandered quite a long way from the purpose of the Bill, which is to deal with restrictive trade practices. It seems that we are straying into restricting scientific and industrial research, which is the last thing the country wants to happen at present. Some hon. Members seem to read into subscriptions for industrial research something which can be very bad for industry. Surely they are trying to look for something which does not exist at all.
    We wish to encourage scientific and industrial research in every way, and in many cases it can be done far better by associations of private enterprise than by other authorities. I hope that the Minister will accept the Amendment, because it is a very genuine request on the part of industry and it is most important that this valuable work should continue.
    Mr. Arthur Holt: Would the hon. Member tell me the names of some of these associations whose subscriptions are based on quantities? I have been trying to think of some. Subscriptions to organisations like the Shirley Institute are based not on quantity production, but on the number of spindles and the like. If there are organisations which base subscription on production the hon. Member might let us know of them.
    Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: I might answer that question. When the Labour Government came to power they approached a great many industries and encouraged them to set up research and trade associations, because they wanted to negotiate with industry and knew that they could not do so if there was no trade association. Many such trade associations and research associations were set
    2062
    up, in food manufacture and other industries. I was intimately connected with the formation or extension of a research association in the motor industry at that time.
    One is faced with the problem that one has small firms with a turnover of perhaps £10,000 or £20,000 a year and enormous firms with a turnover of £20 million or £30 million a year. They cannot be asked to pay the same subscription of £5 each, because, obviously, the bigger firm will make greater calls on a research or trade association than the smaller one. The normal practice, therefore, has been adopted in a great many industries that the subscription is based on output, with perhaps a minimum subscription of £5 which might run into many hundreds or even many thousands of pounds for the bigger firms. The Amendment, therefore, seems very innocuous and fully in accord with normal practice.
    Mr. Holt: We know that they pay these subscriptions, but most firms are extremely jealous of revealing the fact. It is news to me that the majority of these associations receive subscriptions based on quantities of production.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: They are not jealous of revealing it at all. It is quite normal practice in the motor industry and many other industries. Where there may be some jealousy, the difficulty is overcome by supplying the figures of turnover in confidence to a firm of chartered accountants, which sends a note to the trade association to say, "We assess Messrs. X.Y.Z. at a certain subscription." In fact, however, in these modern days there is no difficulty about assessing the turnover of a firm, because in most balance sheets and annual accounts and reports the figures are fully disclosed.
    Hon. Members: They are not.
    8.15 p.m.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: I have listened with attention to the criticism put forward by hon. Members and right hon. Members opposite, but I say with respect that they are indulging in some wild imaginings and are seeing a possible sinister import in the Amendment which, in the terms in which it is couched, it is incapable of bearing. Surely no hon. Member would take exception to this as a method of making payment for subscriptions so long as it is not united to a restrictive practice.

    2063
    It is certainly not an unusual method of making a subscription and it is similar in another sphere to what is done in professional bodies. In the Bar Council there is a rate of subscription for Queen's Counsel, another rate for junior counsel of over ten years and yet another for junior counsel of under ten years. That is the professional equivalent of what is done in this case and, for all I know, it may be the same with the British Medical Association, to which the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) presumably pays subscriptions. There is no possibility of there being a restrictive practice united with these payments of subscriptions.
    The right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) will appreciate that in reading the Amendment I was careful to scrutinise the words to see whether or not that danger existed. I am satisfied that the Amendment, in the terms proposed, is sufficiently clearly defined in character to exclude the sinister possibilities which the right hon. Gentleman, without giving any particular instance, put forward to the Committee.
    I suggest to the hon. and right hon. Members opposite that it would be wrong merely on the very broadest grounds of suspicion to include on the register many agreements which have nothing to do with restrictive practices and to expose these perfectly respectable bodies and arrangements to these difficulties and inhibitions unnecessarily in that way.
    If the Registrar has any reason at all to suppose that there is anything cloaked behind these arrangements so as to make them, in effect, restrictive arrangements, Clause 11 (1) gives the procedure in that case. Afterwards, if the question is in doubt, under Clause 10 (2) it can be adjudicated on by the High Court. I ask the Committee, therefore, to believe that there is no substance in these gloomy prognostications. I hope that the Committee will accept the Amendment, which I am satisfied is in proper terms and makes a useful, constructive contribution to the Bill.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: I think that to some extent there has been a misunderstanding of the exact point of view which occasions our doubts on this issue. If we were seriously saying that all trade association funds,
    2064
    particularly those for scientific and industrial research, were undesirable, there might be some basis for the very severe strictures which some hon. Members opposite have found it necessary to address to this side of the Committee. But we are not saying anything of the kind.
    Mr. Philip Bell: The hon. Gentleman does not believe that they would put the money to such uses?
    Mr. Jenkins: What we are saying is not necessarily that we believe that to be so in all cases, but that we may be suspicious that in some cases such a device could be used as a possible means of enforcing a restrictive practice by the back door. This is a Bill which, by its very nature, is suspect. The President must recognise that. We all have to recognise it.
    Mr. Reader Harris: Shame.
    Mr. Jenkins: It is no use the hon. Gentleman saying "Shame". This is a Bill which starts from the assumption that there are many things wrong in British industry which we want to put right. It is no use trying to take the view that everything is right in British industry, because if that were the case we would not have this long and complicated Bill, which is taking up so much of the time of the House. Therefore we are suspicious of the approach of this Bill.
    I do not think that anyone is arguing that it is unreasonable that there should be different subscriptions to a trade association for a firm with a small production of say £10,000 and £20,000 a year and for a giant firm in the industry. I thought, therefore, that the point of the Parliamentary Secretary about the method of subscription which was the practice of the Bar was beside the point. What I am worried about, in so far as I have a corner of suspicion in my mind about the position, is not about a system by which, as the result of agreement, firm A, which is a small firm, shall pay five guineas a year and firm B, which is a large one, shall pay 100 guineas. What I am worried about is a system by which there is a sliding scale of subscriptions for different firms, so that firm A, if it puts up its production, automatically goes up in the scale and firm B automatically

    2065
    goes down—in other words, where there is a sliding scale directly related to the amount of production in a given period.
    We are suspicious of this not because we are against scientific or industrial research or a trade subscription, but because it could come near to a system of fines for excess production if certain people desired so to operate it. That, after all, is a well-known restrictive practice with which we have all been familiar.
    Visualise, for instance, a set-up which had a high ratio of subscription to increase in output. It might be called a fund for industrial or scientific research. It might be called a fund for administrative expenses—certainly all sorts of things could be done under the head of administrative expenses. It could be made very unpleasant for a firm which, in a certain period, exceeded its quota of output. That seems to me to be the danger—I admit of a contingent nature, not a certain one—against which we have to be on our guard in accepting this Amendment.
    I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman, if he wishes to accept the Amendment, would agree to look at the wording to see if we are guarded against this danger of an automatic system of fines by which subscriptions float up or down on a quota basis according to production—
    Sir H. Webbe: Tut, tut.
    Mr. Jenkins: It is no use the hon. Gentleman making clucking noises—
    Sir H. Webbe: Any association with a system so severe as to affect the results
    suggested by the hon. Gentleman would have no members, and would cease to exist.
    Mr. Jenkins: I do not think that the hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Sir H. Webbe) is correct. There are many restrictive associations which apply effectively a very severe system. The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) told us earlier about the position in the match industry.
    Clearly it is not impossible, in the light of the history of restrictive practices in this and other countries, to hold people together in an association of some kind or another under a system of extremely heavy fines. To take the view that if we set up a system by which somebody by exceeding his quota output rendered himself liable to paying sums of money—whether in the form of fines or in some other form—it would be such a serious inconvenience to that association that it would automatically fall apart, is merely to ignore a great part of the history of restrictive practices in this and other countries.
    There might therefore be a point of danger here. What we do not like about it is the automatic sliding scale. I do not think that anyone is trying to object to a system by which there are funds of this kind, subscribed to in differing amounts, but the automatic sliding scale gets very near to the position in which there is a system of fines for output.
    Question put, That those words be there inserted:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 218, Noes 167.

    Division No. 153.]

    AYES

    [8.26 p.m.

    Agnew, Cmdr. P. C.

    Bossom, Sir A. C.

    Deedes, W. F.

    Aitken, W. T.

    Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)

    Doughty, C. J. A.

    Alport, C. J. M.

    Braine, B. R.

    du Cann, E. D. L.

    Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

    Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Duthie, W. S.

    Arbuthnot, John

    Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Armstrong, C. W.

    Bryan, P.

    Farey-Jones, F. W.

    Ashton, H.

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

    Fell, A.

    Astor, Hon. J. J.

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

    Finlay, Graeme

    Atkins, H. E.

    Campbell, Sir David

    Fisher, Nigel

    Baldook, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

    Channon, H.

    Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

    Fletcher-Cooke, C.

    Balniel, Lord

    Cooper-Key, E. M.

    Fort, R.

    Barber, Anthony

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

    Foster, John

    Barlow, Sir John

    Corfield, Capt. F. V.

    Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

    Barter, John

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Freeth, D. K.

    Baxter, Sir Beverley

    Crouch, R. F.

    Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

    Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

    Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

    Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

    Cunningham, Knox

    George, J. C. (Pollok)

    Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Glover, D.

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald

    Dance, J. C. G.

    Godber, J. B.

    Bidgood, J. C.

    Davies, Rt. Hon. Clement (Montgomery)

    Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan

    Bishop, F. P.

    D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Gower, H. R.

    Graham, Sir Fergus

    Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

    Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

    Grant, W. (Woodside)

    Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.

    Roper, Sir Harold

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

    Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Green, A.

    Linstead, Sir H. N.

    Russell, R. S.

    Gresham Cooke, R.

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

    Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.

    Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

    Longden, Gilbert

    Sharples, R. C.

    Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

    Shepherd, William

    Gurden, Harold

    Macdonald, Sir Peter

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

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

    Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    McKibbin, A. J.

    Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

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

    Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Spearman, A. C. M.

    Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

    McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

    Speir, R. M.

    Harvie-Watt, Sir George

    McLean, Neil (Inverness)

    Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Stevens, Geoffrey

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

    Maddan, Martin

    Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

    Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

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

    Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)

    Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

    Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    Studholme, H. G.

    Holland-Martin, C. J.

    Marlowe, A. A. H.

    Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

    Holt, A. F.

    Marples, A. E.

    Teeling, W.

    Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

    Marshall, Douglas

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Horobin, Sir Ian

    Mathew, R.

    Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

    Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

    Maude, Angus

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Howard, John (Test)

    Mawby, R. L.

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

    Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

    Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

    Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.

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

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

    Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

    Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

    Nairn, D. L. S.

    Tilney, John (Wavertree)

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

    Neave, Airey

    Touche, Sir Gordon

    Hyde, Montgomery

    Nicholls, Harmar

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.

    Nield, Basil (Chester)

    Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

    Vickers, Miss J. H.

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Nugent, G. R. H.

    Vosper, D. F.

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

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

    Wade, D. W.

    Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Osborne, C.

    Walker-Smith, D. C.

    Johnson, Howard (Kernptown)

    Page, R. G.

    Wall, Major Patrick

    Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)

    Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

    Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

    Joseph, Sir Keith

    Partridge, E.

    Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

    Johnson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

    Kaberry, D.

    Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

    Webbe, Sir H.

    Keegan, D.

    Pitt, Miss E. M.

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

    Kerby, Capt. H. B.

    Pott, H. P.

    Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

    Kerr, H. W.

    Raikes, Sir Victor

    Wills, G. (Bridgwater)

    Kershaw, J. A.

    Redmayne, M.

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Kimball, M.

    Remnant, Hon. P.

    Wood, Hon. R.

    Kirk, P. M.

    Ridsdale, J. E.

    Woollam, John Victor

    Lagden, G. W.

    Rippon, A. G. F.

    Yates, William (The Wrekin)

    Lambert, Hon. G.

    Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Robertson, Sir David

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Leavey, J. A.

    Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

    Colonel J. H. Harrison and

    Leburn, W. G.

    Robson-Brown, W.

    Mr. Hughes-Young.

    NOES

    Ainsley, J. W.

    Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch & Finsbury)

    Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Albu, A. H.

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Hamilton, W. W.

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Hannan, W.

    Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

    Cronin, J. D.

    Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

    Anderson, Frank

    Cullen, Mrs. A.

    Hastings, S.

    Awbery, S. S.

    Darling, George (Hillsborough)

    Hayman, F. H.

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Healey, Denis

    Benson, G.

    Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

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

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

    Deer, G.

    Houghton, Douglas

    Blackburn, F.

    Delargy, H. J.

    Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

    Blyton, W. R.

    Dodds, N. N.

    Hubbard, T. F.

    Boardman, H.

    Donnelly, D. L.

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

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

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

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Boyd, T. C.

    Dye, S.

    Hunter A. E.

    Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Brockway, A. F.

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)

    Irving, S. (Dartford)

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

    Burke, W. A.

    Fernyhough, E.

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

    Burton, Miss F. E.

    Fienburgh, W.

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

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Finch, H. J.

    Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Fletcher, Eric

    Johnson, James (Rugby)

    Callaghan, L. J.

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

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

    Carmichael, J.

    Gibson, C. W.

    Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

    Champion, A. J.

    Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Chapman, W. D.

    Grey, C. F.

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Chetwynd, G. R.

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Kenyon, C.

    Clunie, J.

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Coldrick, W.

    Griffiths, William (Exchange)

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

    Hale, Leslie

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    2068

    2069

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

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

    Stones, W. (Consett)

    Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

    Palmer, A. M. F.

    Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Parker, J.

    Sylvester, G. O.

    Logan, D. G.

    Parkin, B. T.

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Mahon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Paton, J.

    Thomas, George (Cardiff)

    McGhee, H. G.

    Peart, T. F.

    Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

    McInnes, J.

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Turner-Samuels, M.

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    McLeavy, Frank

    Proctor, W. T.

    Warbey, W. N.

    MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

    Pryde, D. J.

    Weitzman, D.

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Randall, H. E.

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Mahon, Simon

    Rankin, John

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    Mason, Roy

    Redhead, E. C.

    West, D. G.

    Mayhew, C. P.

    Reeves, J.

    Wheeldon, W. E.

    Mellish, R. J.

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

    Messer, Sir F.

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Ross, William

    Wigg, George

    Moody, A. S.

    Royle, C.

    Williams, David (heath)

    Mort, D. L.

    Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

    Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'lillery)

    Mulley, F. W.

    Short, E. W.

    Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

    Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

    Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

    Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

    Woof, R. E.

    Oliver, G. H.

    Skeffington, A. M.

    Yates, V. (Ladywood)

    Oram, A. E.

    Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

    Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

    Orbach, M.

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Oswald, T.

    Sparks, J. A.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Owen, W. J.

    Steele, T.

    Mr. Wilkins and Mr. Holmes.

    Paget, R. T.

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I beg to move, in page 5, line 20, to leave out from "made" to "as" in line 22 and to insert:
    "by a trade association the members of which consist of or include persons carrying on business as mentioned in subsection (1) of this section or representatives of such persons".
    It might be convenient if, with this Amendment, we took those in page 5, line 26, line 28, and line 33, as they really go together.
    The Deputy-Chairman: The Amendment in line 36, at the end to add:
    (5) In this section "trade association" means a body of persons (whether incorporated or not) which is formed for the purpose of furthering the trade interests of its members, or of persons represented by its members.
    might be taken with them as well.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: No. I do not think that that one should be considered now, Sir Charles.
    Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I think we should deal with the Amendment in page 5, line 36, at the same time, because what is proposed in the Amendment in page 5, line 28, is to insert "a trade association" and we can only see what the right hon. Gentleman is up to—and I am using that expression in no offensive sense—if we know what the definition of "trade association" is. That involves an alteration of meaning and is not purely a drafting Amendment and it might, therefore, be convenient to take the Amendment in page 5, line 36, at the same time.
    The Deputy-Chairman: That would appear to be the most convenient course.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: The object of the Amendment which I have moved can be shortly and simply stated. It is to ensure that persons who are carrying on business and entering into restrictive arrangements cannot evade the provisions of Clause 5 by operating through a trade association. That is the simple object of the whole operation.
    However, as drafted, the Clause does not do that wholly effectively and it is defective in two ways which the Amendment will cure. The first thing which it would not do is to include an agreement by a trade association in the United Kingdom with traders or associations not carrying on business in the United Kingdom. That was the point I mentioned in an earlier discussion. We are now agreed that a single trader entering into such an arrangement would not be caught, but where a trade association is doing it that is the common form of a cartel and we must catch it.
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: The single trader would come within the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices (Inquiry and Control) Act, 1948?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: If it is not a trade association, it would come within that Act.
    The second defect is that agreements entered into by associations the members of which were not in the firms carrying on business in the production, supply or

    2071
    processing of goods, but were merely representatives nominated by such persons, would escape. That is an obvious loophole which should be closed and the first four Amendments would close that loophole.
    There is then the question of definition which, as the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) quite properly said, is caught up with this topic. The definition in the Amendment is:
    "In this section 'trade association' means a body of persons (whether incorporated or not) which is formed for the purpose of furthering the trade interests of its members, or of persons represented by its members."
    The reason for this is that if we are not careful we shall have "trade association" interpreted in a manner so wide as to cover almost everything.
    Suppose there were a shareholder of a public company who was a person carrying on business within the meaning of Clause 5, and the public company of which he was a shareholder was carrying on that business. There is then, so to speak, an association between them, and it is felt that unless we make a limit to the idea of association, we shall catch every sort of company holding shares in another company, or even private individuals doing so.
    We believe that this definition should be inserted in the Clause. It conveys to everybody's mind what these associations really are, namely, bodies of persons—whether incorporated or not—formed for the purposes of furthering the trade interests of their members; and those are the ones with which we are really concerned in a Clause of this nature. I believe that these Amendments will, therefore, have a useful effect in tightening these arrangements and ensuring that we really do catch the type of trade association envisaged in the operation of the Clause.
    Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: The only point which really concerns me here is the definition. I am a little troubled about that, and I should be glad if the President could help me. It is not easy to follow. We have here in subsection (4) of Clause 5, at line 28, a reference to
    "recommendations (whether expressed or implied) made by or on behalf of any such association as aforesaid".
    2072
    Those recommendations are to be caught under the provisions of subsection (4). "Any such association as aforesaid" is what we are really concerned about, and "any such association as aforesaid" is the association referred to in line 20 in the same page:
    "This Part of this Act shall apply in relation to any agreement made between an association"—
    these are the words which matter—
    "composed of such persons as are mentioned in the said subsection (1)".
    When we go back to consider the persons mentioned in subsection (1), we find, at the beginning of Clause 5, that
    "Subject to the provisions of the next following section this Part of this Act applies to any agreement"—
    here are the relevant words—
    "between persons carrying on business within the United Kingdom in the production or wholesale or retail supply of goods. …"
    This is my difficulty. I can quite understand the recommendations of an association composed of those persons falling within the objection which Clause 5 has to those persons acting independently of an association, so that in Clause 5, as drawn, we have a completely logical scheme on this aspect of it. We will say that an association composed of the persons included in subsection (1) shall be treated as an agreement, in effect, between the persons in subsection (1), so that the association is composed of the persons within the objection in subsection (1).
    8.45 p.m.
    Then we come to this definition that is changed, which I find rather puzzling. When we come to the last of the Amendments which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, we see that "trade association" does not mean that necessarily. It states:
    "… 'trade association' means a body of persons (whether incorporated or not) …"
    Of course, whether it is incorporated or not will be immaterial, as subsection (4) now stands. Whether the association be incorporated or not, it will still be an association and, therefore, that makes no difference to subsection (4). Then it goes on:
    "which is formed for the purpose of furthering the trade interests of its members, or of persons represented by its members."
    I agree that the words,
    "or of persons represented by its members"

    2073
    is an obvious improvement. But why include the requirement in the definition
    "which is formed for the purpose of furthering the trade interests of its members"?
    All that is done by including that requirement in the definition is, in effect, to say that it is not enough that the trade association should consist of the persons in Clause 5 and that the trade association should make a recommendation to those persons which has the effect of an agreement between those persons for the purposes of bringing it within the iniquity of Clause 5. The further requirement is imposed that the trade association must be formed for the purpose of furthering the trade interests of its members. So that additional test is imported.
    That seems to me illogical. I cannot see why it is brought in for the purposes of Clause 5. The objection to the trade association making the recommendation when it is composed of these men applies whatever the purpose may be for which the association was formed, because the "iniquity", if I may use the word, in subsection (1), the restriction mentioned in subsection (1), applies whatever the purpose of the formation of the association may be. It seems to me, therefore, first, to be illogical and, secondly, to take the trade association outside the object which the right hon. Gentleman has in mind.
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: As I read these Amendments, I consider that what the President is attempting to do would seem to be a very laudable thing. In the ordinary way an individual who got himself associated with some other people might not be caught because in the operation of that agreement it would be said that he was an individual, was acting on it and getting the benefit of it and did not come within the terms of the Bill. He might come within the terms of the 1948 Act, but that is beside the question.
    The President is saying that that will not do, that it may be a screen behind which the man might hide with other people and do exactly the same thing as other firms and undertakings were being caught for doing. With regard to the restrictive agreement, that, I understand, is taking the matter further, ex abundanti cautela as we say, so that he cannot possibly frustrate the objective of this Bill. Therefore, the President says where the association
    2074
    "is formed for the purpose of furthering the trade interests of its members or of persons represented by its members."
    I understand that to be the very gravamen of this protective measure which is being taken.
    It is perfectly clear that if the associated arrangement is for the benefit of the public and is not restrictive, it does not matter, and in any case, even were it registered, the Court would laud the agreement and not condemn it. I understand the President to be saying that where an agreement clearly shows that it is for the furtherance not only of the association but of each individual member, the individual member shall not get away with it, but take the same consequences individually as the association takes collectively.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: The Amendment starts to tighten up the Clause in the two ways which both hon. and learned Gentlemen have mentioned. It covers the case of the trade association agreeing with firms abroad and it covers the trade association which is formed for the interest not only of its own members, but of persons represented by those members. It is necessary, however, also to deal with what is really a technical difficulty. It is not a great policy issue.
    It could be said that a trading corporation the shares of which were held either by a person or by a company of the sort mentioned in Clause 5 (1) was itself a trade association. We do not want to say that because, otherwise, every trade association whose shares are held by somebody carrying on the business of processing, or whatever it is, as mentioned in subsection (1), will be included and have to be registered. We really must exclude that.
    What I am trying to do is to tighten up and close the two loopholes, which are really rather bad ones, in the Bill as drafted, but, at the same time, to do so in a way which restricts us to the type of trade association which we had in mind and does not bring in a trading corporation which is admittedly in the technical sense a trade association the shares of which are held either by a private person or by a company carrying on some sort of business mentioned in subsection (1).
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Basil Nield: I beg to move, in page 5, line 25, after "shall", to insert:
    "unless the contrary is shown".
    My purpose in moving the Amendment is to seek information. My right hon. Friend has given me some. I should be very grateful for a little more. The effect of this part of the Clause as at present drafted, as I see it, is that a restrictive practice accepted by a trade association is to be deemed to be accepted by all the members of that trade association whether, in fact, they are parties to it or not. This is not an academic point; it is a practical point which is familiar to those of us who have presented cases before the Monopolies Commission.
    Let me take an example of the structure of an industry. There is, maybe, a federation which has affiliated to it some ten trade associations covering various aspects of the industry. Each trade association has a great number, maybe, of members who are manufacturers. Assume that the federation proposes two restrictive practices—for example, common prices, on the one hand, and exclusive buying on the other. Assume that all the manufacturing members of the trade association accept, agree to and sign their names to the agreement about common prices, but that half of them decline to sign or agree to the agreement dealing with exclusive buying. Indeed, they may well say, "We are in no sense in agreement with this. We do not propose to sign it or to be bound by it."
    It seems to me that under the Clause as it stands at present those who declined to be parties to the agreement about exclusive buying would be deemed so to have agreed when, in truth and in fact, they had not. If my proposal were thought to be right it would mean that those who had declined to be parties could show that they had so declined and would therefore not be deemed to be parties to the agreement.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: The answer to this point is that whatever the position of the persons who were not parties to the arrangement, the fact is that this is a registrable agreement. That is important. The subsection says:
    "This Part of this Act shall apply in relation to any agreement made between an association composed of such persons … and any other
    2076
    such person … as it applies to an agreement between such persons; and for the purposes of this Part of this Act any restrictions accepted by any such association under such an agreement shall be treated as accepted mutually by the members for the time being of the Association."
    It may often happen that an arrangement is made between persons only some of whom accept restrictions made under that arrangement, and if the people concerned are members of an association and some do not accept restrictions laid down under that agreement, it remains registrable.
    Later in the Bill we shall come to the Clause which provides what shall happen then, and the defences which can be put forward. It would then be appropriate to argue that those who were not parties would certainly not be open to any opprobrium or, if they were, they would have a complete defence to it. We are here dealing with the simple question whether such an arrangement is registrable. The fact that some members of the association have not participated in the arrangement—or have even expressed dissent from it—should not, under any circumstances, enable the arrangement to contract out of the Bill.
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: There is an even stronger point than that. I quite agree that this matter resolves itself into the question of registration. I should like to ask the President who will try the issue implicit in the words "unless the contrary is shown". Is it suggested that the Registrar should do so? First, there will be the question whether a certain agreement is the subject of registration. When the matter is taken before the Registrar it will not be for him to hold a judicial inquiry as to whether the contrary is shown. What should properly happen is that the question should be considered when the matter comes before the Court of judicial and lay members.
    If what the hon. and learned Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Nield) says is correct—if certain parties to the agreement who ought not to be prejudiced may be prejudiced—
    Mr. Nield: The hon. and learned Gentleman is incorrect. It is the members who are not parties to the agreement with whom I am dealing.
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: I quite agree.
    We have decided that if those parties are members of a trade association they become parties to the agreement for the purposes of the Bill. It is in that sense that I want to deal with the matter. The Court will examine the point and make such qualifications as it thinks proper. It can make any order which it thinks proper in the circumstances. If it is right that anyone should be excluded because "the contrary is shown", the Court will exclude him. I agree with what the President has said, but I would add that this could not be a matter for the Registrar to resolve in any case, and to that extent the Amendment is otiose.
    9.0 p.m.
    Mr. Nield: There is nothing between my right hon. Friend and myself in substance or in principle. I entirely agree with him that an agreement coming under this Clause must be registered, but I was objecting to these words that
    "an agreement shall be treated as accepted mutually by the members for the time being of the Association."
    when we know of cases where some of the members of the Association are definitely excluded from the agreement. If they can make their position clear at a later stage, I am satisfied. In these circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment made: In page 5, line 26, at end insert:
    "and any persons represented thereon by such members."—[Mr. P. Thorneycroft.]
    Mr. Philip Bell: I beg to move, in page 5, line 27, after "where" to insert "specific".
    The Chairman: I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if we considered, at the same time, the Amendments in line 27 and line 30.
    Mr. Bell: They all deal specifically with the same point, Sir Charles.
    It may help the Committee if we remember that subsection (3), with which we have just been dealing, for the first time brings trade associations into the general review of the Clause, which deals with agreements on prices and conditions
    2078
    between bodies and manufacturers. Subsection (3) goes further and states that, in effect, "We do not stop there; we bring in agreements between one association and another or an association and a member."
    Subsection (4) takes the matter a little further. No one complains of that. It says, in effect, "You may not have an agreement, but you have a powerful trade association and it is not really necessary to have an agreement." If it just recommends an act by parties, it may be that that is as effective as an agreement. I make no complaint that that is what subsection (4) is directed to.
    Before I mention these specific words, my complaint generally about subsection (4)—which may not be met by my suggested Amendment—is that, like several others, it goes too wide. It appears to me that it would prevent an association recommending to its members that it should adopt the standards of the British Standards Institution. That would be the recommendation about the description of goods to be supplied, and that would be for a recommendation by a trade association.
    Again, supposing that the trade association recommended, say, restraint in prices, that would come under Clause 5 (1 a)—prices to be charged. I should hope that it is inconceivable that subsection (4) was really meant to catch this up. The subsection should make clear the specific recommendation to which there is objection so that the persons who have to take the responsibility of deciding whether they register or not will have something upon which to make up their minds.
    Bearing that in mind, let us look for a moment at subsection (4). It states:
    "Where recommendations (whether expressed or implied) or made by or on behalf of any such association as aforesaid to its members or to any class of its members, as to the action to be taken or not taken by them in respect of any such matters as are described in paragraphs (a) to (e) of the said subsection (1)"
    that is, are familiar (a) to (e)—
    "this Part of this Act shall apply in relation to the agreement for the constitution of the association as if each such members were thereby required to comply with the recommendations, notwithstanding that the agreement does not so provide or expressly provides to the contrary."

    2079
    The first point to which I want to draw attention is rather amusing. The Clause reads:
    "Where recommendations (whether express or implied)"
    are made by an association. There is a good deal of difficulty in deciding what people mean when they write or talk, but to suggest that advisers should find out what they imply when they put something in writing makes it very hard for the advisers in deciding whether the agreement should be registered or not and whether it comes within Clause 5. It would also be very difficult for the court to decide what was implied.
    But the position is even worse than that, because when the implied recommendations are made, they still have to be registered
    "notwithstanding that the agreement does not so provide or expressly provides to the contrary".
    For anyone to imagine that an implied recommendation can be found from an agreement which expressly provides to the contrary seems to me to be stretching draftsmanship very far.
    I do not want to cut the claws of this subsection, for I appreciate that strong recommendations might be as effective as an agreement, but I think that business interests are entitled to have it made plain to them what recommendations are the cause of objection. My first Amendment, therefore, asks that the subsection should deal with specific recommendations about these matters; for instance, when an association says, "We want you to do something about prices or about these conditions of supply or about quantities or about the process of manufacture". A happy counsel will be asked to advise, "Are we an association within this subsection, because we have been sending out circulars about what they should charge?" Under the subsection as drafted, the adviser would say, "There is nothing about prices in your circular, but at the end there is a paragraph saying 'I hope that you have a good Christmas'. That might be implied to mean that they should charge more for their turkeys, or less."
    To expect anybody to understand whether an obligation to register is placed upon them, on the basis not of what they have written specifically but of what
    2080
    might be implied from what they have written, and might be implied even if it is contrary to what they have written, is imposing too big a burden upon them.
    I propose that the subsection should read:
    "Where specific recommendations are made by or on behalf of any such association."
    This leaves out "express or implied." We should then say that where specific recommendations are made
    "this Part of this Act shall apply … notwithstanding that the agreement does not so provide or expressly provides to the contrary."
    For instance, if the association says, "You are not bound to carry this out, but we advise you to do it," that would be treated as a recommendation.
    Dealing with the other Amendment, I suggest to my right hon. Friend that for the sake of clarity it might be advisable for us to make clear that the recommendations are
    "in relation to any particular class of goods or process of manufacture."
    If those words were included, then a recommendation dealing generally and not specifically with paragraphs (a) to (e) of Clause 5 need not be registered. I entirely agree that recommendations ought to be caught, but I respectfully suggest that we ought not to use the words "express or implied" and that the specific recommendations which are objectionable ought to be the test whether the association ought to register on the ground that it gives specific recommendations on matters dealt with in Clause 5. We would understand that, but I think it would be very difficult for anybody to know whether it was an association that should be registered, because, after all, it is anybody's guess—and it really is a guess—as to what people imply when they say something. It is hard enough to know what they really mean by what they say, but it is extremely difficult to know what they imply.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: There are really two quite separate points involved in this discussion. The first is whether we should exclude recommendations of a rather general character, like, for instance, the Federation of British Industries saying that it would be a very good thing if everybody kept their prices stable. I think the Committee would agree that that sort of recommendation ought to be

    2081
    excluded. I think that two of these Amendments do that, and they are, therefore, acceptable.
    Those to which I refer are, first, that to page 5, line 27, after "Where," to insert "specific," and I do not think that a vague general recommendation is really meant to be caught and, secondly, the Amendment to line 30, after "them," to insert:
    "in relation to any particular class of goods or process of manufacture."
    That is to say, a general recommendation that it is a good thing to have stability of prices or to increase output is something that we do not want to have cluttering up the register.
    But I take an entirely different view about the suggestion in the Amendment to line 27, to leave out "(whether express or implied)." I have had some experience in this field in recent years, and I know very well the methods which are used to imply recommendations of this sort, and so do most of us in the Committee. One sends round a price list, but does not say anything about it, but everybody sticks to the prices. In my submission, a specific recommendation is implied there, and very clearly implied, and it is followed.
    We might have, say, a statement made in a trade journal, or lists of people circulated without very much comment, and statements at annual meetings to the effect that people should deal only with their friends. I am not saying that these things are common in industry, because I think that, in the vast majority of cases, people either have a price ring or they do not, and that in all the bigger and more reputable industries, which comprise 98 per cent. of them all, no problem of this sort arises whatsoever.
    I would hope that the Committee will not leave a loophole for the small number who could quite easily get round the provisions of this Bill by simply circulating a price list or telling a third party rather than a member of the association. There are many such ways in which he could get round them, not in a general recommendation, but in a very specific one, as to what ought to be done.
    Therefore, my advice to the Committee is that it should accept the insertion of the word "specific" and should accept the words
    2082
    "in relation to any particular class of goods or process of manufacture."
    I think that these are very proper things to do. They exclude what would be a very wide field of general exhortation which we do not want to be involved, and we should stick to the words "(whether express or implied)."
    9.15 p.m.
    Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: The President will appreciate that with his attitude towards the words "express or implied" we are in agreement. I was a little surprised at some of the observations of the hon. and learned Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Philip Bell). He knows as well as I do that one can have an implied contract, and a recommendation may be implied as strongly as a contract may be implied, and to say that we cannot have a recommendation implied was just not quite worthy of the hon. and learned Gentleman.
    There is rather more difficulty about these two other Amendments. I agree at once with the purpose of the President in his approach to these Amendments, and that a general recommendation dealing with price stability or something of that sort and in those sort of terms would of course be unobjectionable and not within the purpose of the Bill. On that, I think the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bolton, East was persuasive.
    However, we are envisaging a trade association which by definition is an association for furthering the trade interests of its members. We are not here dealing with the British Standards Institution or anything of that sort, to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred. There are Amendments later to deal with that matter, which have nothing at all to do with the one which we are discussing. We are asked to consider a specific recommendation instead of a general recommendation, and I am doubtful about the advisability of the use of this word "specific," doubtful not of the intention of the President but of the drafting.
    I cannot see what a specific recommendation means precisely. Suppose there is a recommendation given in general terms, a recommendation, for instance, from a trade association which says quite bluntly that trade shall be

    2083
    confined to particular classes of business, That would come within the subsection, but would that be specific?
    Squadron Leader A. E. Cooper: Certainly.
    Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: How specific would it have to be? What is general? If anything is specific, what is general? I am not arguing against the intention of the President. I accept that the example given about price stability, a recommendation in such terms as those, which one may call general terms, could be excluded from the Bill. It is obviously outside the purpose of the Bill altogether. When, however, does a specific recommendation become general?
    Suppose there is a recommendation dealing with all the categories of goods in which members of a trade association deal. It is a recommendation which is entirely directed to restrictions, and in terms which apply to every single member and to all the categories of goods with which the members of the association deal. It is our intention that that recommendation shall be brought within the scope of Clause 1, and I am sure that it is the President's intention, too. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bolton, East may argue that that is specific. I beg to question whether that is specific, if it is in wide enough terms to cover the whole object of the trade association in furthering the interests of its members and dealing with all the goods concerned.
    What I would ask the President to do is not to say now that he will accept the Amendment as it stands, but to say that he will look at it rather more closely with a view, I hope, to finding words, instead of the word "specific", to carry out the intention which the President has in mind, and with which I am in agreement, and for which purpose the hon. and learned Gentleman moved the Amendment. It is a drafting point, and I would ask the President to deal with it as a drafting point, and to say he will consider it to carry out the intention of all of us who so far have spoken upon the Amendment.
    Mr. Philip Bell: I chose the word "specific," and we must distinguish between "specific" and "detailed". It is not suggested that to come within the terms of this Amendment one must give a
    2084
    detailed recommendation. There could, for instance, be a recommendation that everyone must lower prices 10 per cent. or put them up 10 per cent., or that nobody must sell any goods to a certain firm, or that everybody is advised not to deal with persons on a certain list. Specific is a thing which one can—[HON. MEMBERS: "Specify."] By "specific" I do not mean "detailed" but some course of action that one can clearly define.
    Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: This illustrates the awful difficulty of using the word "specific". The recommendation to put up the price by 10 per cent. is a specific recommendation, according to the hon. and learned Member for Bolton, East. We are also asked to deal with this matter on the assumption that a recommendation not to put prices up at all—which is in favour of stability of prices—is a general recommendation, but the two things are, of course, logically identical in the sense that they both deal with prices as they are and that they are both addressed to the question whether or not there should be any alteration and, if any, what alteration in prices.
    It is rather absurd to say that a recommendation to put up prices by 10 per cent. is specific but a recommendation not to put up prices at all is general. I should have thought that that was an argument which underlined the difficulty which I am pointing out. I am not saying that the one recommendation is general and the other is specific or vice versa. I am merely addressing myself to a point of drafting, and it is perfectly clear, from the very intervention of the hon. and learned Member for Bolton, East, that there is a difficulty. I am merely asking the President of the Board of Trade to have a look at the matter purely from the drafting point of view.
    As to the other Amendment, I must ask why it is limited to,
    "in relation to any particular class …"
    Suppose that there is a recommendation for a 10 per cent. increase in prices in all the goods dealt with by members of a particular association, dealing, for example in motor cars. Is that in relation to a particular class of goods or is it not? [HON. MEMBERS: "It is."] I am not so sure, because it is not expressed in relation to a particular class of goods. There is a difficulty there. It

    2085
    is quite wrong to say that this provision should be limited in relation to any particular class of goods. It would be within the objectionable feature which the Bill hits at even if the recommendation were made not in relation to a particular class of goods.
    If it were a recommendation by a trade association to raise the prices of whatever goods were included in it by 10 per cent., that obviously would be within the objective aimed at by the Bill. Whilst agreeing with the President of the Board of Trade on the purpose which I assume he had in mind in saying that he would accept these two Amendments, I ask him to reconsider the first Amendment from the point of view of drafting, but the second Amendment really seems objectionable, not just from the point of view of drafting, but in substance.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: There is no difference between us in our objectives. What everyone wants to exclude is such a case as when the Federation of British Industries says that, on the whole, it would be a good thing for British industry to hold its prices stable. It would be quite intolerable to include such a case within the provisions of the Clause. We are agreed on the objective, but the question is how to achieve it. I have thought this over and taken a great deal of advice and I am satisfied that these words probably achieve that object as well as anything that we could devise.
    We must have the words "particular classes of goods" in order to exclude the F.B.I. recommendation. It is the general exhortation to hold prices steady that we do not want to be registered and examined by the court. What we want to catch is—whether "express or implied"—a recommendation that the price of, say, motor cars, or whatever it may be, should be moved by 10 per cent. It is awkward to give an example and it may be better if I do not choose any.
    I propose that we should accept these words, because I believe they carry out the objective. At the same time, I will give further consideration to what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said. If I find, on further examination, that these words do not carry out what is the agreed objective of the Committee, then we will certainly do something about it on the Report stage but, in the meantime.
    2086
    I urge the Committee to accept the two Amendments.
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: Before the Minister finally decides this point, what I want to know, both in grammar and practice, is how we can have, in the words of subsection (4), if amended—"specific recommendations (whether express or implied) …"How can we have an implied specific recommendations?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: Quite simply, if I may say so. If, for instance, a price list is circulated showing at exactly what price everything ought to be sold by a trade, without any further recommendation, that is an implied specific recommendation that everybody should sell at that price.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: I hope that these words will not be inserted, because they go far to spoiling this Clause. They would put too great a burden upon those who have to administer it. These words are either redundant or else they limit the scope of the Clause undesirably. If we look at the Clause—can my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) bear with me for a moment?
    The Chairman: Order, order.
    Mr. Hughes: I am trying to get a little order in this corner, Sir Charles, so that the rest of the Committee can hear the few observations that I shall venture to offer.
    I was saying that the words sought to be reserved are either redundant, or, alternatively, that they unduly, improperly and unfairly limit the scope of the Clause. In the Clause itself we find these words:
    "Where recommendations (whether express or implied), are made. …"
    The recommendations express or implied must be specific. If they are not specific, what are they?
    To be more specific would involve that which appears from the third of these Amendments, namely, a schedule of particular recommendations. That would put too great a burden upon those who have to administer the Bill. The words in the Clause are simple and straightforward, namely, "recommendations (whether express or implied)". As my hon. and learned Friend asked a moment ago, how

    2087
    can there be an express recommendation unless it is a specific recommendation? I oppose all three Amendments.
    Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: On the first point, I accept what the right hon. Gentleman has said. I should like to accept what he said on the second point, but here there is a difference of substance and intention between us. I am not really satisfied on the second point, and we ought clearly to show our view upon it. Consequently, I would advise my hon. Friends to divide against the relevant Amendment.
    9.30 p.m.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I do not want to debate the matter. I do not think there is really a difference between us. We do not want to include the F.B.I. recommendation. Therefore, we must have some such words as:
    "… in relation to any particular class of goods.…"
    in order to exclude the general recommendation. If the hon. and learned Gentleman prefers to divide against the Amendment rather than accept my assurance—
    Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: No; I certainly accept the right hon. Gentleman's assurance. The point of difference is in relation to the F.B.I. being covered by "specific" or "general". With words such as
    "… in relation to any particular class of goods.…
    the President is imposing a limitation to a particular class of goods. The point
    about which I am concerned is a recommendation being given to goods generally. What the right hon. Gentleman says is not quite enough. Thus, on that point there is a difference of substance between us.
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman not to accept any of the Amendments, but to consider the position and on Report tell the House what decision he has arrived at. It makes nonsense grammatically to talk about a "specific" recommendation "express or implied." In the interests of grammar alone, I beg the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the matter.
    The Chairman: I called the Amendment. I do not think it makes nonsense, or I should not have called it.
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: In deference to you, Sir Charles, perhaps I ought not to have said that. I am trying to tell the President that this will not work in practice. I merely ask him, for the sake of greater caution, to reconsider the matter and deal with it on Report.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 5, line 28, leave out "any such association as aforesaid" and insert "a trade association".—[Mr. P. Thorneycroft.]
    Amendment proposed: In page 5, line 30, after "them", insert:
    "in relation to any particular class of goods or process of manufacture"—[Mr. Philip Bell.]
    Question put, That those words be there inserted:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 206, Noes 158.

    Division No. 154.]

    AYES

    [9.34 p.m.

    Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Duthie, W. S.

    Aitken, W. T.

    Braine, B. R.

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Alport, C. J. M.

    Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Farey-Jones, F. W.

    Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

    Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)

    Fell, A.

    Arbuthnot, John

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

    Finlay, Graeme

    Armstrong, C. W.

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

    Fisher, Nigel

    Ashton, H.

    Campbell, Sir David

    Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

    Atkins, H. E.

    Channon, H.

    Fletcher-Cooke, C.

    Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

    Fort, R.

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert

    Foster, John

    Balniel, Lord

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

    Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

    Barber, Anthony

    Corfield, Capt. F. V.

    Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

    Barlow, Sir John

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

    Barter, John

    Crouch, R. F.

    George, J. C. (Pollok)

    Baxter, Sir Beverley

    Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

    Glover, D.

    Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

    Cunningham, Knox

    Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan

    Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Gower, H. R.

    Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

    Dance, J. C. G.

    Graham, Sir Fergus

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald

    D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Grant, W. (Woodside)

    Bidgood, J. C.

    Deedes, W. F.

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

    Bishop, F. P.

    Doughty, C. J. A.

    Green, A.

    Bossom, Sir A. C.

    du Cann, E. D. L.

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

    Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.

    Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

    Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

    Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)

    Robson-Brown, W.

    Gurden, Harold

    Linstead, Sir H. N.

    Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

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

    Roper, Sir Harold

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Longden, Gilbert

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

    Russell, R. S.

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

    Macdonald, Sir Peter

    Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.

    Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

    Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

    Shepherd, William

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

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

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

    McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

    Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

    Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

    McLean, Neil (Inverness)

    Spearman, A. C. M.

    Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Speir, R. M.

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Maddan, Martin

    Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

    Holland-Martin, C. J.

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

    Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

    Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

    Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

    Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)

    Horobin, Sir Ian

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

    Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

    Marpies, A. E.

    Studholme, H. G.

    Howard, John (Test)

    Marshall, Douglas

    Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

    Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

    Mathew, R.

    Teeling, W.

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

    Maude, Angus

    Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

    Mawby, R. L.

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

    Monokton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

    Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

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

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Hyde, Montgomery

    Nairn, D. L. S.

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

    Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.

    Neave, Airey

    Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Nicholls, Harmar

    Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Nield, Basil (Chester)

    Tilney, John (Wavertree)

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

    Touche, Sir Gordon

    Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

    Nugent, G. R. H.

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

    Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

    Johnson, Erie (Blackley)

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

    Vickers, Miss J. H.

    Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

    Vosper, D. F.

    Jones Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Joseph, Sir Keith

    Osborne, C.

    Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

    Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot

    Page, R. G.

    Walker-Smith, D. C.

    Kaberry, D.

    Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

    Wall, Major Patrick

    Keegan, D.

    Partridge, E.

    Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

    Kerby, Capt. H. B.

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Waterhouse, Cap. Rt. Hon. C.

    Kerr, H. W.

    Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

    Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

    Kershaw, J. A.

    Pitt, Miss E. M.

    Webbe, Sir H.

    Kimball, M.

    Pott, H. P.

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

    Kirk, P. M.

    Raikes, Sir Victor

    Wills, G. (Bridgwater)

    Lagden, G. W.

    Redmayne, M.

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Lambert, Hon. G.

    Remnant, Hon. P.

    Wood, Hon. R.

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Ridsdale, J. E.

    Woollam, John Victor

    Leavey, J. A.

    Rippon, A. G. F.

    Yates, William (The Wrekin)

    Leburn, W. G.

    Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

    Legit, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

    Robertson, Sir David

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Mr. Godber and Mr. Bryan.

    NOES

    Ainsley, J. W.

    Deer, G.

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Delargy, H. J.

    Hunter, A. E.

    Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

    Dodds, N. N.

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Awbery, S. S.

    Donnelly, D. L.

    Irving, S. (Dartford)

    Bacon, Miss Alice

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

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

    Benson, G.

    Dye, S.

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

    Blackburn, F.

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

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

    Blyton, W. R.

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)

    Johnson, James (Rugby)

    Boardman, H.

    Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

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

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

    Fernyhough, E.

    Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

    Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)

    Fienburgh, W.

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Boyd, T. C.

    Finch, H. J.

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

    Fletcher, Eric

    Kenyon, C.

    Brockway, A. F.

    Forman, J. C.

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Burke, W. A.

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

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Burton, Miss F. E.

    Gibson, C. W.

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Grey, C. F.

    Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Carmichael, J.

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Logan, D. G.

    Champion, A. J.

    Griffiths, William (Exchange)

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Chapman, W. D.

    Hale, Leslie

    McInnes, J.

    Clunie, J.

    Hamilton, W. W.

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Coldrick, W.

    Hannan, W.

    McLeavy, Frank

    Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

    Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

    MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

    Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch & Finsbury)

    Hastings, S.

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Hayman, F. H.

    Mahon, Simon

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Healey, Denis

    Mason, Roy

    Cronin, J. D.

    Holmes, Horace

    Mayhew, C. P.

    Cullen, Mrs. A.

    Holt, A. F.

    Mellish, R. J.

    Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)

    Houghton, Douglas

    Messer, Sir F.

    Davies, Rt. Hon. Clement (Montgomery)

    Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

    Mitchison, C. R.

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Hubbard, T. F.

    Moody, A, S.

    Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Mort, D. L.

    2090

    2091

    Mulley, F. W.

    Reeves, J.

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Wade, D. W.

    Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarven)

    Warbey, W. N.

    Oliver, G. H.

    Ross, William

    Weitzman, D.

    Oram, A. E.

    Royle, C.

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    Orbach, M.

    Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

    West, D. G.

    Oswald, T.

    Short, E. W.

    Wheeldon, W. E.

    Owen, W. J.

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    White, Mrs. Irene (E. Flint)

    Paget, R. T.

    Skeffington, A. M.

    White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)

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

    Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Palmer, A. M. F.

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Williams, David (Neath)

    Parker, J.

    Sparks, J. A.

    Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)

    Parkin, B. T.

    Steele, T.

    Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

    Paton, J.

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

    Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

    Peart, T. F.

    Stones, W. (Consett)

    Woof, R. E.

    Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

    Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

    Yates, V. (Ladywood)

    Proctor, W. T.

    Sylvester, G. O.

    Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

    Pryde, D. J.

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Randall, H. E.

    Thomas, George (Cardiff)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Rankin, John

    Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

    Mr. Simmons and Mr. J. T. Price.

    Redhead, E. C.

    Turner-Samuels, M.

    Question put and agreed to.

    Further Amendments made: In page 5, line 33, after "member", insert:
    "and any person represented on the association by any such member".
    In line 36, at end add:
    (5) In this section "trade association" means a body of persons (whether incorporated or not) which is formed for the purpose of furthering the trade interests of its members, or of persons represented by its members.—[Mr. P. Thorneycroft.]
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
    Mr. Jay: May I ask the President a question which relates to the scope of Clause 5? The right hon. Gentleman may remember that in the Second Reading debate we expressed doubts as to whether collective resale price maintenance really was, as I think he intends, banned by the provisions of the Bill. The Parliamentary Secretary assured us that it was. We want to be quite sure, before we part with Clause 5, that he is correct on one particular point.
    There is no disagreement, I think, about Clause 19 banning collective resale price maintenance if it is enforced by the method of a collective boycott. It is perfectly clear that if the resale price maintenance is enforced by withholding supplies collectively, then it is prohibited by Clause 19.
    The point which we put in the Second Reading debate, necessarily rather briefly, was this. Suppose there were an attempt to enforce collective resale price maintenance, not by a collective boycott and not by any arrangement or agreement to withhold supplies, but simply by making it one of the rules of a trade association that the individual members of the association should all enforce individual resale
    2092
    price maintenance under the provisions of Clause 20. Would such rules of the trade association be an agreement which would be registrable under Clause 5?
    9.45 p.m.
    I understood the Parliamentary Secretary, in his necessarily brief reference to the matter on Second Reading, to say that that would be so. We wish to ask just how, under which words and which part of this Clause, would rules of the trade association making it obligatory to employ this Bill for individual resale price maintenance, be found? I take it that it is in virtue of subsection (1, a), that is to say that such rules would be agreements under which mutual restrictions are accepted in respect of
    "the prices to be charged, quoted or paid for goods …"
    But it did not seem to us to be at all clear that a general rule to the effect that individual resale price maintenance was to be used would be, in fact, an agreement as to
    "the prices to be charged, quoted or paid …"
    It would not of course refer in any way to any particular prices. It would merely be an agreement about the way in which some prices unspecified were to be enforced. Are the President and the Parliamentary Secretary clear that an agreement of that kind would be covered by those words?
    Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: I wish to raise a short but important point regarding subsection (2) and the meaning of the word "arrangement". Bearing in mind that the persons who are parties to the "arrangement" have to register, have to take the initiative, it is important that they should know what is the meaning of the word. It is

    2093
    not the same, evidently, or it need not be, as either a legally enforceable agreement or an agreement which is not legally enforceable because that is already covered by the definition. It is, or may be, something more than that. But since, as I say, traders and other people have to take the initiative in registering such an arrangement, I think that they ought to know what is meant by this vague word.
    I know that it is a word which comes from the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices (Inquiry and Control) Act, 1948, because there, in Section 10 (2) the competent authority, when making an order after the report of the Monopolies Commission, may declare a practice
    "to be unlawful, except to such extent and in such circumstances as may be provided by or under the order to make or to carry out any such agreements or arrangements as may be specified or described in the order."
    Of course, it is one thing to be told what one has not to do because that instruction may be obeyed. The arrangements which one is not to make will have been specified by the competent authority. But I suggest that it is a very different thing when one has to take the initiative oneself and has had no guidance from the competent authority or anyone else as to what is the "arrangement".
    I suspect that what is meant is a common course of behaviour without any agreement being approved or even alleged. If, in fact, traders move their prices up and down with suspicious harmony, that has in itself to be registered—although quite what one registers, I do not know. If that be right—that is the doctrine which the American courts have developed under the name of "conscious parallelism"—I think that the traders of the country ought to know whether this provision seeks to import into our law the doctrine of "conscious parallelism" as elaborated in the American courts.
    Mr. A. J. Irvine: The right hon. Gentleman has given unmistakably the impression throughout our considerations of this Clause of desiring to stop any of the loopholes that there might be and to make the Clause entirely effective. Before the Committee passes the Clause, I feel bound to point out how, in the aggregate, there is still a considerable number of potential ways of escape about
    2094
    which I have throughout had the impression that it is the President's desire to stop, but which the Clause, by the wording adopted, leaves available.
    There is, first, the all-important point that it is doubtful, on the construction of the Clause, whether an agreement made between the person and a retailer is caught by the wording of the Clause. There is the ambiguity about the members of an association still to be removed. I listened very carefully to what both the President and my hon. and learned Friend said about that, but I still think that, on the construction of the Clause, the matter is in doubt. The fact remains, and it is a very important point to recognise, that explicit provision is made in the Clause for mutuality as affecting members of an association, but only in the context of an agreement made with the association and some other person. In my view, it really leaves the important question of construction open as to whether members of an association agreeing among themselves are caught by the Bill at all.
    After all, it is not ordinary practice, I should have thought, to take the view that members agree with each other by virtue of belonging to the same club or the same association. There may be an agreement between each member and the governing body of the club, but it does not follow that there is necessarily agreement between the members. As I see it, that matter is left in doubt.
    During the latter part of the discussion on the Clause, the matter of recommendations was considered and there was discussion about the meaning of "implied" and of "specific" in relation to recommendations. But there appears to be a rather important point in the Clause as it stands that whereas recommendations are dealt with in this fashion, the rules of the association are not. It may often be that restrictive provisions under paragraphs (a) to (e) in subsection (1) of the Clause will be conveyed to members of an association not by recommendations, but by rules. Rules, at least, are specific, and it is very doubtful, I should have thought, whether as the Clause is at present drafted, explicit rules in respect of these matters, as distinct from recommendations, are caught by the Clause. Therefore, I ask the Government to bear that consideration in mind.

    2095
    Finally—and this arises purely out of the observations made by the hon. Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke), when he raised the question of what was meant by an arrangement—the question is left open whether an agreement not in writing is caught by this Clause. There are other parts of the Bill which suggest that it is envisaged that an agreement not in writing shall be caught by the Clause, but one would like it to be specifically provided for in the Clause, and it is not. This matter has really practical importance.
    The Monopolies Commission, particularly in its Report on tyres, shows how practicable it is for parties who want to enter into a price and maintenance agreement to do so without resorting to a written agreement. It was found that there is an identity of prices for similar articles, but there is no agreement in writing under which that is effective. It is argued that it results from the free trade of the market and the operations of the parties. We would welcome a plain provision in the Bill by which such an agreement under subsection (1), although not in writing, would be caught by the Bill.
    Sir J. Barlow: A number of points have been put to my right hon. Friend this evening as to whether different items would or would not be caught in the net under Clause 5. If he will clarify this matter, I shall be greatly obliged.
    It will be remembered that last year, on 25th July, the then Chancellor of Exchequer urged that the banks should have what is colloquially known as a squeeze and reduce credit—reduce the facilities for the people who normally borrow money from the banks. Indeed, the Chancellor, under the Bank of England Act, 1946, could give instructions to the Bank of England that joint stock companies should do this among many other things. Section 4 (3) of the Bank of England Act says quite clearly that the Treasury, presumably meaning the Chancellor of Exchequer, could give such instructions, but the Committee will remember that in this particular case the Chancellor apparently did not give official instructions but gave advice, which he confirmed in a letter, to the Governor of the Bank of England.
    2096
    In that letter he wrote:
    "I have no doubt that the Banks will agree that it is their duty to reduce the amount of Bank credit."
    That, in the words of the hon. Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke), seems to indicate a common course of behaviour among the banks. Whether it is an instruction by the Government through the Act, which would eliminate it from the net, or whether it is not and is only advice, and whether it would come into the net, I should be greatly obliged if the President would explain.
    Dr. Horace King: I want to welcome this Clause and put a question to the Minister. I welcome the Clause because, as hon. Members know, it demands that agreements shall be registered which, among other kinds of agreements, confer profits or benefits upon certain parties. I want to be assured that the loophole does not exist whereby practices which those who examine the agreement which comes for registration would condemn are not allowed to be carried on merely because an agreement has not been registered.
    I do so because I have been asked by a Hampshire farmer to take the opportunity of raising an example of the kind of agreement which, if presented for registration, would certainly be condemned, I believe, by both sides of the Committee. This farmer was supplied by the Southern Counties Agricultural Trading Association with fertilisers year by year and suddenly his supply of fertiliser was stopped. He received a letter from the Association which said:
    "With reference to your inquiry of yesterday concerning the non-delivery of I.C.I. fertiliser this year, I have gone into the matter, and I find that the allocation has been diverted to other customers of the Society who are giving us the benefit of their fertiliser, seed and feeding-stuffs trade. I have some sympathy with the department over this matter but I think you should have been notified beforehand so that you could have made alternative arrangements if necessary."
    Then they offered him a substitute, saying:
    "I am sorry for any inconvenience caused over the I.C.I. fertiliser, but in any case I think you ought to take it that we shall not be able to make an allocation of this fertiliser, which is in very short supply, in the future, unless, of course, we have the benefit of some of your other seed and fertiliser trade."
    This farmer has been rich and resourceful enough to go elsewhere, but this could

    2097
    have been a very serious blow to him, merely because the society was seeking to impose the sort of conditions with which the Clause seeks to deal.
    10.0 p.m.
    Mr. R. Harris: The hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) referred to the report on tyres, which, he said, had disclosed agreements which were not reduced to writing. It would be more true to say that the report showed that price leadership existed in the tyre trade. If the hon. Member hopes that price leadership will be covered by the Clause, he is asking for the moon. I leave it to the President to deal with that.
    Subsection (1, b) refers to
    "the terms or conditions (other than terms as to prices) …"
    Was it intended that within the bracket there should be the words
    "other than terms and conditions as to prices"?
    It seems a little odd that it should merely be
    "other than terms as to prices."
    I do not know whether that was deliberate or was a drafting mistake, but it has a very important effect. If a number of manufacturers get together and agree among themselves that they will enforce their individual prices—as they are permitted to do under Clause 20—unless the words "and conditions" are inserted, any such agreement will be registrable. It may be the Minister's intention that it should be so registrable, but I should have thought it unnecessary to register it because the enforcement of individual prices is permissible under Clause 20.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: The discussion began and ended on the same question, namely, the registration of agreements for resale price maintenance. They are and should be registrable. It is true that later provisions provide that a manufacturer can individually enforce his prices, but an agreement between all manufacturers that all should individually enforce their prices, is clearly something which should be registrable, and which we believe is registrable under the Clause.
    There is a clear distinction between an agreement and an arrangement. An agreement imports the idea of some form of enforceability, whereas many of the matters which we are considering are not
    2098
    legally enforceable; they are arrangements. I am not particularly attracted by the term "conscious parallelism," but if people really arrange together to move all their prices they should say so, and under the Bill they are required to say so.
    The hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) asked again whether the Clause included agreements between different classes—between some who were retailers and some who were producers. The answer is "Yes". The agreement can straddle the whole range of wholesaling, retailing and the rest.
    If members of an association come to an agreement themselves they are certainly caught a fortiori. They are even more clearly caught than if we had to rely on the provision of their being a member of an association which makes a recommendation. If the rules of an association bind the members, there is an agreement anyway; and if the rules do not bind the members, there is a recommendation, and the association is again caught under the Clause.
    As the hon. Member for Edge Hill knows better than I do, an agreement need not necessarily be in writing. Clause 8 (3, b) makes it demonstrably clear that an unwritten agreement is caught within the Clause.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Sir J. Barlow) referred to a letter of advice sent by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the banks. The answer to his question is that the letter did not deal with goods and therefore is outside the Bill altogether.
    The hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) raised a point concerning some Hampshire farmers. I hesitate to advise on these matters "off the cuff", but on the account given to me it does not appear that there was any mutual restriction within the sense of the Clause, and it seems to me that whatever remedy that the farmers whom the hon. Member mentioned had, it would not be under the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Heston and Isleworth (Mr. R. Harris) repeated his question about resale price maintenance. As I have said, an agreement that everybody should maintain their prices is registrable under the Bill.
    Mr. Jay: I do not want to increase the right hon. Gentleman's difficulties on

    2099
    this point, but can he answer the question asked by the hon. Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke)—how one registers an arrangement which is neither written nor oral but only implied?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: One reduces it to writing under Clause 8 (3, b), and sends it to the Registrar, and it is recorded in the register.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 6.—(EXCEPTED AGREEMENTS.)
    Mr. Frederick Mulley: I beg to move, in page 5, to leave out lines 40 to 42.
    The effect of the Amendment would be to exclude the exception conferred by subsection (1) of the Clause
    "to any agreement to which the only parties are inter-connected bodies corporate or persons carrying on business in partnership with each other."
    My prime objective in moving the Amendment is to seek some guidance from the President or the Parliamentary Secretary about what they estimate the necessity for this exception to be and whether or not they are satisfied that no possible loophole is likely to arise as a result of this exception being granted.
    Reference to Clause 30 gives us the interpretation of "inter-connected bodies corporate". There is no similar definition to be inferred for the word "partnership".
    Reference to Section 154 of the Companies Act 1948 reveals that the definition of inter-connected bodies corporate is fairly tight. The House should know that in order to qualify for this definition of inter-connected body corporate a company is deemed to be a subsidiary of another
    "if, but only if,—(a) that other either—

    (i) is a member of it and controls the composition of its board of directors; or

    (ii) holds more than half in nominal value of its equity share capital; or

    (b) the first-mentioned company is a subsidiary of any company which is that other's subsidiary."
    It therefore seems to me that where the holding or major company has complete control of the board of directors of a subsidiary company, it is unlikely to
    2100
    make any agreement with it which would fall to be registered under the Bill. On that ground the exception seems to be unnecessary. Similarly in the matter of partnerships, it would surely be unnecessary for two partners in partnership to make agreements of a restrictive character which would fall to be registered under the Bill. The only partnership agreement which I can imagine where this would be necessary is one which might have in it the usual restrictive clauses, on a geographical basis, about practising after the end of partnership. If the only purpose is to exempt that kind of partnership agreement, it could be done much more simply than it is done here.
    We must approach the Bill with some suspicion. That is only natural, because industry has practised these restrictive measures for so long that it will naturally seek to preserve as many of them as it can. One prominent member of a trade association said to me, when the matter was first being discussed, that he had the choice of either accepting the Bill or of going to the Temple and trying to find a way round it. I think that, as a matter of fact, he went to Lincoln's Inn.
    It is no secret that a number of very prominent company lawyers have already been retained, and quite properly, by trade associations to advise them of possible ways in which they might get round the Bill. I do not make any complaint about that. Obviously, if Parliament passes a law, it is open to anyone to get round it if they can do so, but we have a responsibility to see that there are no such loopholes.
    Before we pass this subsection, I think we ought to know very clearly that there is no possibility of a loophole being used through the various complications of company formation and so on. We all know that it is possible, by having a series of subsidiary and holding companies, and starting with a 51 per cent. holding and £1,000, with ten such companies to be controlling a concern worth perhaps £.100,000, and, with non-equity shares, perhaps a much bigger capital holding still.
    It seems to me that in any industry or trade it might be possible to get some very phoney holding companies which would give them a way of avoiding registering their practices under this Bill. I am quite sure that it would be the wish

    2101
    of both sides of the Committee that we would not want, perhaps through an oversight, to let that kind of practice emerge, and I should welcome from the President an assurance on what the purpose of these two lines is intended to be. If we are to have a strict interpretation of the Companies Act, they seem to be unnecessary, and, if we are not to have a very strict interpretation, it is a fact that it is likely to lead to many new holding companies. This Amendment may be the wrong way of dealing with the point, as I think there is on the Notice Paper an Amendment dealing with amalgamations being approved in the case of inter-connected companies, and having to get the sanction of the Board of Trade. We should like an assurance that this matter is under consideration.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: We have now reached the stage in the Bill which deals with excluded matters. So far, we have been dealing with what has been in the Bill, but now we are coming to what is left out. May I say that I agree entirely with what the hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) has just said. We need to watch this Clause very carefully in order to see that we do not let something out which the whole Committee feels ought to be left in.
    There is another thing which we ought to watch. We do not want to make registrable every ordinary commercial arrangement in this country. We do not want to do that, because it is not policy to do so, because we might ruin the chances of getting any effective implementation of the policy of the Bill if we attempted to do that.
    Clause 6 (1) excludes the nationalised industries, and quite rightly. Parliament has decided that they are nationalised, and if Parliament ever wants to denationalise them, Parliament can do so, but we cannot refer them to the Court to decide that.
    It also excludes, secondly, matters which are expressly authorised by Statute. Again, quite rightly, because Parliament has passed some Act, whether it be the White Fish Authority Act or whatever it may be, and has expressly authorised some acts to be done by Statute—and no one would suggest that that ought to be within the compass of the Bill—
    Mr. Mulley: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but I was not
    2102
    suggesting that the first two categories should be excluded.
    10.15 p.m.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I appreciate that. I was, perhaps, rather straining the case, but I want the Committee to be clear what we are doing. We are excluding all things which obviously ought to be excluded.
    I come to the third category which, in my submission, equally obviously ought to be excluded—partnerships or interconnected bodies corporate. If we included them there would be a flood of registrations. Every partnership in the country would be registered. Of course, those partnerships amount to agreements, and most of the agreements would be caught by Clause 5, but the last thing that we want to do is to submit the maze of ordinary commercial arrangements to the examination of the Court or any tribunal. The same applies to inter-connected bodies corporate, which, as the hon. Member very fairly said, have to come within the compass of Section 154—I think it is—of the Companies Act to qualify. If they are entities for that purpose we want them—and it is our purpose to see that they are—outside the Bill. If they are big and very dangerous in that way they will be caught by the Act of 1948, which is still preserved.
    This is a new and difficult piece of machinery that we are constructing, and I would ask the Committee to be careful with it. While we must be careful not to let out any range of agreements we must legitimately catch, we must, at the same time, be scrupulously careful not to overload the Registrar and the Court with the maze of ordinary commercial arrangements which could not be submitted to it or to the House.
    Mr. Mulley: Would the right hon. Gentleman give some instances of restrictive agreements which he thinks ought to be included and instances of others he thinks ought not to be included? It is possible to have a group of companies under the control of a board of directors of only one of the companies. Will he gives examples of restrictive agreements between partners? It is all very well to say that we may overload the Registrar, but the Amendment does not necessarily involve doing that, and I think we want a more lucid answer to it before we can let the matter go.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: It may be that partnerships would not require to be covered, and if they did not, it would not matter very much if they were excluded. We should not be doing any great damage by excluding them, but I can imagine a case of inter-connected bodies corporate, such as a holding company with subsidiary companies, which would have agreements about some of the matters mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (e) of Clause 5 (1) about what the prices of their goods should be, etc.
    If such a group were a monopoly and controlled more than one-third of the trade in which it was engaged, there might be a case for having it examined by the Monopolies Commission, but we cannot have a situation in which all the internal affairs of companies or partnerships are to be examined by the Court. It will have a busy enough time without delving into all of those.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: I can give the hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) a very simple example. It could arise in his own city. Suppose a large steel company had acquired two subsidiary companies, both of which made springs. For economy's sake there could be an agreement by which one of the subsidiaries specialised in large springs, springs for the railways, for instance, and the other company specialised in smaller springs, springs for watches, let us say. The holding company would bring the two subsidiaries together and they would draw up a schedule laying down which company would supply springs for one industry and which subsidiary would supply springs for another, the watch industry, let us say. That would be a carefully drawn and sealed agreement between the subsidiary companies.
    That is of the sort of ordinary commercial arrangements from which there are many benefits in securing increased production of specialised products, ordinary commercial arrangements which no one would want to see registered under the Bill.
    Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: There has been a useful discussion on this matter. I agree with what the President said about the inter-connected bodies corporate. Of course, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Park (Mr. Mulley) realised that between inter-connected
    2104
    bodies corporate there might be an arrangement of this kind. But what we are all concerned about is that this exception should be used as a let-out for avoiding registering in cases where registering really should take place. That is the whole purpose of bringing the Amendment forward for discussion.
    I am in some difficulty still about finding a case where persons carrying on a business partnership would, as partners between themselves in the course of carrying on that business, make agreements or arrangements which would bring them within Clause 5. It is a little puzzling, whereas it is quite easy to see that some kind of arrangement might be made by members of an association or between various people whereby they made a partnership and, therefore, excluded themselves from the operation of Clause 5.
    I agree that there is a balance of difficulty here, because one does not want to hit at inter-connected bodies corporate or partnerships where a perfectly legitimate purpose is involved. If the President of the Board of Trade would clear the partnership point particularly, we would be obliged, because that is the aspect of the case which, so far, has not been covered by the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: There is some force in what the hon. and learned Member says. It is difficult to conceive of a case of partnership having restrictions of this kind. If there were such restrictions we are all agreed they should be excluded, because one cannot have a partnership being examined in this way for the purpose of the Bill. If there are no such restrictions, it really does not matter. Their exclusion here will do no harm. I will certainly think over the point which the hon. and learned Member makes, but for the time being I suggest that we make it clear for caution's sake that neither the interconnected body corporate nor the partnership should be caught within the mischief of Clause 5.
    Mr. Mulley: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Wade: I beg to move, in page 5, line 41, after "corporate", to insert:

    2105
    "(provided such parties are inter-connected bodies corporate at the date on which this Act comes into force or have obtained a licence to amalgamate as is provided in this Act)".
    The Chairman: I think that it would be convenient to discuss with the Amendment the proposed new Clause entitled "Licences to amalgamate".
    Mr. Wade: I agree, with respect, Sir Charles, that the Amendment should be considered in conjunction with that proposed new Clause, which is on the Order Paper in my name and the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt).
    This is a rather formidable subject to raise at this hour. It would perhaps be easier to talk on it for an hour rather than for about ten minutes, but I shall endeavour to exercise restraint. I am moving the Amendment primarily to draw attention to an aspect of restrictive trade practices and monopolistic trends which in my view does not receive adequate attention.
    I appreciate the difficulty which the President of the Board of Trade has to face in considering how to deal with industrial empires. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it would not be practicable to apply the procedure of registration and examination by the Court to an agreement between different parts of an inter-connected body corporate. The arrangements of such a body are matters of internal organisation into which the Court set up by the Bill could not very well be expected to inquire, but it does not follow that nothing can be done by the large combines, and I do not think it follows that no consideration should be given to one of the serious consequences which may follow the passage of the Bill, namely, the encouragement to firms to merge.
    It has been recognised for a long time by those who have studied this problem that procedure of the kind envisaged in the Bill will not alone suffice. In order that it should be effective some attention must be paid to the problem of amalgamation. It may seem a revolutionary proposal in this country to suggest that there should be some form of licensing before mergers are permitted, but the problem must be faced.
    Only recently I returned from Luxembourg, where I had some interesting conversations with members of the High
    2106
    Authority of the Coal and Steel Community and with members of its staff. It seems clear that those who were responsible for drawing up the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community recognised the fact that some provisions must be made. It was recognised that, in addition to drawing up provisions for dealing with restrictive trades practices, something must also be done about mergers, and that the provisions for dealing with restrictive trade practices would not be effective if mergers could take place without regard to the effect which they would have on the policy of the High Authority, namely, that of creating a common market and encouraging competitive enterprise.
    I shall not quote from the Treaty, although I had intended to do so. This point is dealt with in Articles 65 and 66. The relationship between a policy dealing with restrictive trade practices and the problem of mergers is shown, and the conclusion is reached that there must be some control over mergers if the provisions dealing with restrictive trade practices are to be effective.
    The proposal that I am putting forward is a modest one. I am raising this matter primarily to draw attention to a weakness in the Bill, namely, that the unintended effect may be to encourage firms to merge in order to avoid the obligation to register. The conditions which would have to be satisfied under the proposed new Clause are reasonable ones. If the principle were accepted, other provisions might have to be added. For instance, I should welcome the insertion of a provision that there should be an appeal to the Court from a decision of the Board of Trade.
    In this country we prefer to find a precedent if we can. There is something which has some bearing on this subject and which might be regarded as a precedent. As the Minister knows, when applications are made by a company for a change of name, permission has to be obtained. I understand that the applications are considered more carefully than they used to be because of the practice of buying up companies in order to get taxation benefit resulting from losses. That is on all fours with this point, and I can see the day when it may be necessary to introduce a system whereby an application has to be made for permission

    2107
    to merge before a merger is permitted.
    Something along those lines may have to be adopted if we are to overcome the inherent weakness in the Bill, namely, that it may have the effect of encouraging firms to amalgamate in order to avoid the necessity for registration.
    10.30 p.m.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: The Committee may have thought, from the way in which the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) moved his Amendment, that he was not very optimistic of is commending itself to the judgment of the Committee. It certainly is, as the hon. Member himself confessed, a very revolutionary proposal to subject every process of amalgamation of companies so as to become an inter-connected body corporate within the meaning of Section 154 of the Companies Act, 1948, to the procedure of investigation and licensing by the Board of Trade. As the hon. Member and the Committee will know, there is no existing power for such licensing, and it follows from that that there is no machinery or procedure within the Board of Trade with which to apply the sweeping proposal which the hon. Member suggests.
    As the Committee will appreciate, the provisions of subsection (2, a) of the new Clause would impose on the Board of Trade a very difficult judicial function indeed. That being the case, I think that the Committee should be concerned to consider how far such a very difficult and novel departure would be justified in the event.
    The hon. Member seems to expect a possible crop of amalgamations to avoid the necessity of registration of restrictive agreements within Part I of the Bill, but the Committee will appreciate that so far as restrictive trade agreements are concerned, they are effective in the ordinary way in proportion as there is a multiplicity of parties in them so as to create a really effective restriction.
    It follows from that that the mere amalgamation, for example, of two companies which happen to be parties to a restrictive trade agreement would not of itself have any great effect in that way, because two companies with an agreement between themselves, if they are relatively small companies, would not
    2108
    have any appreciable effect in restraint of competition. If, on the other hand, they are large companies, and they amalgamate to produce a still larger unit, they enter into the other sphere which is covered by Section 3 (1, a) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices (Inquiry and Control) Act, 1948, and as such they then become liable to investigation by the Commission; because what is then at issue is not the effect of agreements, but the conduct of a single entity.
    Therefore I hope that the hon. Member, having raised this matter, properly and in a lucid manner, will be reassured that the danger is less than he anticipates, that there is this other power to deal with monopoly power proper under the 1948 Act, and that that being so, this very novel and difficult machinery should not be incorporated into our company law.
    Mr. Mulley: I was rather surprised that the Parliamentary Secretary seemed to base most of his objection to the Amendment on the ground that it was novel and, perhaps, revolutionary. I rather suspect that in private meetings in rooms upstairs similar words have been applied by his hon. Friends behind him to the whole body of the Bill. Surely, the test as to whether it is good should not be whether it is novel or revolutionary if we are really to do something about making British industry efficient. I agree that there may well be more powerful arguments of a practical character, but they were not deployed by the Parliamentary Secretary with his usual force and lucidity.
    There may well be an increase in amalgamations if the parts of the Bill aimed at eliminating restrictive practices succeed. That has been the recent experience of the European Coal and Steel Community, which has been pursuing a policy of eliminating selling cartels on lines similar to those we have in mind, and it has been found that there is a considerable tendency for firms to amalgamate as a consequence. If one breaks up a cartel, it is a natural result to find the firms going towards monopoly.
    What is suggested in the Amendment may not be the right way of going about the matter, but there is substance in the point, and the matter should be watched. I am sometimes worried when things are brushed aside by Ministers who have

    2109
    to see that Measures work. We cannot dismiss everything because it is revolutionary or because it is thought that it will not happen. If we had twenty Clauses in the Bill which did not work but which meant that we had covered every loophole, the additional provisions would have been well worth while.
    Like the Parliamentary Secretary, the organisations concerned have very good legal advice, and if the Bill succeeds there will be a tendency towards amalgamation, and we should, therefore, ensure that all loopholes are stopped. The matter deserves the attention of the Committee. Although we cannot be sure about certain events taking place, this is a new field, and we should be prepared for all kinds of eventualities. If, when the Bill became an Act, we found that a single loophole remained uncovered, we should have spent all this time on the Bill without achieving our objective.
    Mr. E. Fletcher: I was sorry that the Parliamentary Secretary appeared to belittle the fears which have given rise to the Amendment. The President will appreciate that this is not an easy subject to deal with, and it may well be that the Amendment does not provide the best method of dealing with the problem. I hope that the President will give thought to the matter at a later stage of the Bill. He must realise, as has been pointed out in many sections of the Press, that one of the likely results of the Bill will be a tendency for large companies to amalgamate.
    I will give only one example. I shall not deal with it at any great length because we shall have to say more about it when we come to the provisions relating to resale price maintenance. The President must be aware of the dilemma in which he finds himself as a result of later Clauses dealing with that subject. That has a bearing on the Amendment.
    Whereas he is, quite properly, banning collective resale price maintenance, he is leaving individual resale price maintenance and making such contracts enforceable, even against persons who were not parties to the original contract. It is highly likely that one result of the later Clauses will be that in the case of an industry in a relatively small number of hands—the tyre industry is a good example, although there are three or four large companies engaged in that industry
    2110
    —if the present practice of collective resale price maintenance is stopped by the Bill there will inevitably be a tendency for the firms to amalgamate in some way in order to obtain the benefit of individual resale price maintenance.
    The President knows that that is the sort of thing with which we are concerned tonight. Whereas, as I say, I have some doubts whether this Amendment is the best way of dealing with the problem, there is no doubt that it is a very real problem. I should have felt happier if the Parliamentary Secretary had said something which indicated that he was aware of the difficulty and that he was sympathetic to our efforts to find a solution to it. It is no use deceiving ourselves about this matter. Unless some solution is found to the very real problem before we finish the Committee stage of the Bill, the Bill will be wide open to abuse.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: I think that the Parliamentary Secretary was a little complacent in his attitude towards this Amendment which, I think, raises a very important point. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher), I am not sure that I would go all the way with the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt) and, in particular, accept the detailed provisions of his new Clause or say that they would work in the form in which they are put forward. But I think that there is a real point of substance here, namely, that while the Bill proposes to make it harder for there to be a cartel, it will encourage people to have a trust in place of a cartel.
    What my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East said about Clauses 19 and 20 was very relevant to this point. There is the great danger that amalgamation will be encouraged for purposes of defeating this Bill. I thought, in particular, that the most unconvincing part of the Parliamentary Secretary's reply was his view—this was the impression which he left with the Committee—that it does not matter too much if there are amalgamations as a result of this or any other matter because if it is amalgamation leading to fairly small results there will not be increased restrictive practices to any great extent. On the other hand, if it should be on a large scale it could perfectly well be dealt with under the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices (Inquiry and Control) Act, 1948.

    2111
    I am bound to say that this seems a most extraordinary argument. It is perfectly true that the Monopolies Act exists as a method for dealing with monopolies which have more than 33 per cent. of the market, but surely our previous experience would not suggest that we should be satisfied with that position. What about the tyre industry, about which we all hear a good deal? That industry is in a position in which it can be dealt with under the 1948 Act. It has not been pushed there by this Bill. It has been there a long time. But the fact that we have a report does not mean that automatically we have dealt with all the problems of the tyre industry.
    We are still less likely to deal with the problems of those industries which may in future be pushed into that position. Therefore, I hope that the President will say a word on this point to meet some of the genuine fears which we hold, and will assure us that the Bill will make it a little less possible to have cartels. I am sure the Government do not view with complacency amalgmations which result in the creation of monopolies within the terms of the 1948 Act, merely because that Acts exists. If that is so, while we may remove certain things from the purview of the Bill and make a little less congestion in that way, we shall greatly increase the amount of congestion under the 1948 Act.
    10.45 p.m.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: We are indebted to the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) for moving the Amendment, because it raises a point of real importance, and one which everybody who has studied the matter is conscious of, namely, the fact that the more effective legislation is in dealing with the ring, the more danger arises that firms may amalgamate and move into the monopoly field. Everybody knows that that problem exists, and I do not think that anybody has a really perfect or watertight solution. The hon. Member for Huddersfield, West very fairly said that the Amendment was intended merely as a basis upon which the argument could proceed.
    We have had a useful discussion upon the matter, and I think we all admit that the problem exists. There are various
    2112
    methods by which it may be dealt with—there is, indeed, the 1948 Act—but none of these methods is completely satisfactory. I hope that in view of our discussion, and with the assurance I can give that we are conscious of the problem, the hon. Member will agree to withdraw the Amendment.
    Mr. Wade: I raised this subject in order that it might be aired. We have done well to discuss the matter in just over half an hour. I was not entirely happy about the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary, who seemed to be rather overconfident about the safeguards provided by the procedure under the 1948 Act. I do not share his confidence upon that subject. The subject has been considered by the Committee, however, and I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I beg to move, in page 5, line 42, at the end to insert:
    (2) This Part of this Act does not apply to any agreement which constitutes or forms part of a scheme certified by the Board of Trade under Part XXIII of the Income Tax Act, 1952 (which relates to contributions and payments under schemes for rationalising industry).
    This does not concern a very important point, but it is one which we should get out of the way when dealing with exceptions to what is registrable. The Amendment deals with redundancy schemes, and where the Government approve of a redundancy scheme I think that it would be better to exclude it from the Bill; otherwise we are bound to have a conflict between the Government's decision, which is debatable in the House, and the decision of the Court. I believe that there is an absolute safeguard here, and I do not believe that it would be anybody's wish to have a conflict of the kind to which I have referred.
    Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: This refers to the case where the Board of Trade makes a decision upon the ground of national interest and the Minister thinks that a rationalisation scheme should be approved. As hon. Members on this side of the Committee have been pressing all along that the right body to make these decisions upon grounds of national interest is the Government and not the Court, we welcome the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Mulley: I beg to move, in page 5, line 43, to leave out subsection (2).
    The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): It may be for the convenience of the Committee to take together with this Amendment the further Amendments, in lines 43, 44 and 45: in page 5, line 43, leave out "contract for the sale" and insert "agreement for the supply"; in line 44, leave out "of" and insert:
    "supply or purchase of goods, or for an option to sell supply or purchase";
    in line 45, leave out from "manufacture" to end of line 47 and insert:
    "to goods, not being an agreement under which restrictions in respect of transactions of the same description are accepted by two or more parties".
    Mr. Mulley: Since time is precious, I do not want to elaborate the point of the Amendment. It was put down in order to try to discover from the President what subsection (2) means, because its meaning is by no means clear. We thought it would be valuable if he could tell us exactly what it means in less legal language.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I welcome the opportunity to say a few words on this subsection. Clause 6 (2), as drafted, is intended to exclude the ordinary contract of sale. Before we deal with the drafting, I hope that on the merits at any rate the Committee will agree that we certainly ought to exclude the ordinary contract of sale. It may well be that in a contract of sale there are mutual restrictions, but everybody would agree that if we so drafted the Bill that contracts of sale were registrable we should not see the start, let alone the finish, of the operations on which we are engaged for dealing with restrictive practices.
    I have put down Amendments on behalf of the Government, and these are being discussed with the Amendment of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley). I fully realise that he put his Amendment down simply for the purpose of promoting a discussion. The reason we cannot accept it is that it would mean that all contracts of sale would be registrable.
    Mr. Mulley: The right hon. Gentleman must not forget the clarification which I requested.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I put down some Government Amendments, and I should like to explain their purpose. It is to extend the exception to a rather wider type of transaction. We think that it is not enough to exclude contracts of sale. We should exclude sole agency arrangements and forward selling agreements. They are not contracts of sale, but they are very common and very ordinary arrangements in business circles. We certainly do not want them all put on the register; it would be chaotic if we had them all there.
    A manufacturer may say to a retailer, "You agree to sell only my goods and I agree to sell only to you". It is the commonest form of arrangement between manufacturers and traders throughout the country. It is a normal and reasonable trading practice. I can imagine circumstances in which there was a monopoly exercising monopoly powers in this way. This would be suitable to be dealt with under the ordinary monopolies arrangements, but it would be hopeless to try to register all these arrangements.
    The agreement is two-sided. The seller says that he will supply only to that particular retailer and the retailer agrees that he will stock only goods of that particular seller. The transactions subject to restriction are different. The supplier agrees not to supply other retailers and the retailer agrees not to buy from other manufacturers. They are different types of transaction in respect of which the restriction is accepted.
    The second type of agreement is where there is no contract of sale but there may be a long-term contract to buy. The users may agree to buy 80 per cent. of their requirements from a particular manufacturer, and the manufacturer, in return for a long-term arrangement of that kind, agrees to sell at a fixed price. It is not strictly a contract of sale, I have been informed—I think rightly—but a long-term arrangement for dealing with trade of that character.
    I hope that the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) will follow this point, because it is rather complicated. The restrictions here affect different types of transaction. One restricts the purchase of the goods from other manufacturers by agreeing, "I will take 80 per cent. from you." The second affects the price

    2115
    charged to the retailer or user. They are restrictions affecting different types of transaction. If it is agreed that we should exclude these agreements—a large mass of agreements—the simplest way to do it is by means of the Amendments which I have put on the Order Paper. This is done first of all, by extending "sale" to "supply." That is a fairly obvious way. Instead of having "contract for the sale" we should have "agreement for the supply," which will cover sole agency arrangements and long-term agreements. Next, by ensuring that at least two of the parties accept the same kind of restriction; that is to say, we would exclude the case where one person says, "I accept the kind of restriction which merely limits me not to buy from other manufacturers," while the other accepts a different type of restriction about the price at which he sells. In order to come within the mischief of Clause 5, one must have two people who accept the same kind of restriction in respect of the same kind of transaction.
    I think that the Amendments do what we seek to do. First, I hope that the Committee will agree that we should exclude the contract of sale. Secondly, I hope that the Committee will agree that we do not want to have on the register the sole agency arrangements and the long-term agreements. I believe that these Amendments achieve that aim. As the subsection stands, it excludes the contract of sale, but it is necessary to have these Amendments to exclude the sole agency and long-term selling arrangements.
    Mr. E. Fletcher: This is the most difficult Amendment with which we have had to deal today. Clause 6 (2) in its original form is completely unintelligible, and I am not surprised that the President of the Board of Trade wants to change it. I have had several letters protesting about the language of the subsection. The Secretary of the Urban District Councils Association wrote to say:
    "My Law and Parliamentary Committee, the Association's Parliamentary agents and myself have read and re-read sub-clause 2 of Clause 6 of the Bill and fail to comprehend what it is intended to provide. It is observed that an Amendment has been put down in the names of several Members to delete sub-clause 2, and the Law and Parliamentary Committee asked me to approach you with a view to the debate
    2116
    on that sub-clause being utilised to make the Government say what they think the clause does."
    I have had several similar letters.
    In all fairness to the President of the Board of Trade, I think that he has done his best, but in my view the Clause as he now proposes to re-write it is far more unintelligible than it was originally. I doubt whether a single hon. Member opposite understands what it means or could give a clear analysis of it. I would prefer to wait until the Committee stage is resumed in order to read what the President says he thinks the Clause is intended to do, because it is very difficult to follow what he said. My first impression is that it does not do anything like what the right hon. Gentleman things it does, but makes matters far worse and more unintelligible than they are at present.
    I should like to illustrate what I mean. The first Amendment leaves out "contract for the sale" and inserts "agreement for the supply" and the President thought that necessary to achieve his end to extend the scope of the words, "contract for the sale." It was implicit from what the President of the Board of Trade said that "contract for the sale" of goods will be covered by his new phraseology "agreement for the supply" of goods. But that is a complete fallacy. One can have an agreement for the supply of goods, or one can have a contract for the supply of goods. The two are totally different. If one buys a piano, one buys it and does not enter into an agreement for the sale of it.
    11.0 p.m.
    Mr. Philip Bell: The difficulty of "contract for the sale" is that one cannot sell something that does not exist; but if one makes an agreement to supply, one can, for example, supply a motor car one has got or one builds; but one cannot contract to sell a motor car one has not yet built.
    Mr. Fletcher: There is a diversity of commercial transactions one can enter into if one wishes. The problem here is to define what is meant, and the problem of the right hon. Gentleman is to put the matter into intelligible language.
    Sir Lionel Heald: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that an agreement for supply does not include a contract for sale?
    Mr. Fletcher: In a Clause of this importance it is desirable that it should be made clear that it does. What I am suggesting is that what the President wants to do here should be done in intelligible language. His first shot was wide of the mark, and I do not think his second shot is any better. I do not think the President will ask the Committee to accept his assurance that his new phraseology gives effect to his objective. I think it will need a great deal of further consideration not only by this Committee but by the various organisations and bodies up and down the country. I would like to hear what they say about it before the Committee is asked to accept this.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: There is no question that an agreement for supply does cover a contract for sale. The purpose of this Amendment is quite simple: namely, to extend the ordinary contract of sale to the sole agency and the long-term agreement.
    I think there is some force in the point made about the clarity of the drafting. I am satisfied that these Amendments do achieve the end I have in mind. I agree that it may prove possible to do this in a better way. I think there is some confusion, judging from the letters I have received, as well as those received by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher). I would suggest to the Committee that it should accept these Amendments, but I will certainly bear in mind the very powerful and pertinent points which have been made. Not only do we want a Clause in this Bill which carries this matter out, but it must carry it out with reasonable clarity.
    Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I am not quarrelling with the objective which the President has in mind. I think I would be happier if the sale agency in the long-term contracts were defined as such instead of being covered by the omnibus term "agreement for the supply". Once we give such an omnibus term, goodness knows what can be hitched up with it. I would approach the term "agreement for the supply" with some hesitation.
    2118
    What we are particularly concerned about here is how far the object of the Bill can be defeated by bringing an arrangement within this subsection. That is our primary purpose in moving the deletion of the Clause after being satisfied as to its exact meaning.
    May I put this specific case to the right hon. Gentleman? Imagine an agreement between A, B and C for the supply of something, subject to terms which are within subsection (5)—agreement as to price, agreement as to the area, or anything of that kind—but an agreement in this form: that A, B and C agree to self to D—which may, indeed, be a company put up by A, B and C. There one has an agreement for sale, conditions: attached to goods which are the subject of the agreement to sell but nevertheless obviously within the objection aimed at by subsection (5). Because if the arrangement had been made between A, B and C for a contract to sell the goods to D, but merely an arrangement that on any sale of goods by A, B and C then the conditions would apply, it would obviously be within the iniquity of Clause 5. It does not, therefore, escape Clause 5 by canalising the goods through a contract of sale to which A, B and C are parties and D who is the purchaser, and attaching thereto, of course, conditions within Clause 5.
    I have thought a good deal about the subsection as it stood originally in the Bill, but on the whole I think that the case I have put would come within the subsection and would therefore escape the provisions of Clause 5 when it should not do so. Does the same thing apply under the Amendment? Because what we are concerned about is giving a loophole to subsection (5) by arrangements which could come within subsection (2) of Clause 6, although we recognise that there may be perfectly legitimate transactions which ought to be excluded. But if those legitimate transactions are to be excluded, this should be in terms which are intelligible to anybody reading them, and which are limited to those legitimate transactions and do not allow the subsection to be used for the purpose of driving a coach-and-four through Clause 5.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I sympathise with the sentiments expressed by the hon. and learned Gentleman. We do not want to draft this Clause in a way which would

    2119
    allow something which ought to be within the mischief of the Clause to get out. In the case of the three suppliers, A, B and C, instanced by the hon. and learned Gentleman, there is no doubt that if that were mutually restrictive—if there were an arrangement for a common price—I am taking this by stages—as to anything from paragraphs (a) to (e) of subsection (1), that in itself would be registrable. That is the important thing to register—to try to get at the root agreement between the three men. They will not evade the need to register that arrangement simply by entering into a contract of sale, because it will be a mere application of the root agreement which they have reached.
    I must confess to the hon. and learned Gentleman that I am a little anxious. I think that the contract of sale itself in that case is also registrable, which I think may please him. I think it is for consideration whether it really ought to be. I am not sure, when we come to look at this even more closely, that it would not be better to concentrate on the root agreement itself, and not to try to catch up any of the individual contracts of sale done under it.
    However, we need not concern ourselves with it at the moment. The answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman is a satisfactory one, that the Amendments put down here are not such as to evade for these people the mischief of subsection (1) of Clause 5.
    Lieut.-Colonel Wentworth Schofield: I support my right hon. Friend's Amendment simply because it covers almost completely the next Amendment, which I have put down, and to some extent—I am not quite sure to what extent—another Amendment of mine, in page 6, line 6, where I propose a new subsection. I would ask my right hon. Friend, however, what the precise effect will be of the Clause when it is amended.
    This subsection (2), when amended, will read as follows:
    "This Part of this Act does not apply to any agreement for the supply of goods, or for the application of any process of manufacture to goods, not being an agreement under which restrictions in respect of transactions of the same description are accepted by two or more parties."
    2120
    It would seem that the subsection in its amended form will have the effect of removing from this part of the Bill any contract for the supply of machinery or equipment on lease or hire; but I cannot quite see whether it will take out of the Bill certain hire-purchase arrangements or lease arrangements which involve certain conditions. For instance, there are some agreements under which the rates of hire payments for machines vary according to the quantity of articles which are manufactured by those machines. It is commonly provided in such a lease arrangement that during the period of the lease any spare parts or new parts which are required to keep the machine in full working order must be obtained from the supplier of the machine or the equipment. I hope that I am right in assuming that, despite the conditions of leases such as those, they will be taken out of Part I of the Bill. I should be glad if my right hon. Friend could give me a definite assurance to that effect.
    There is nothing new in the practice of leasing machinery or equipment. It is a practice which is widely adopted in many industries throughout the country. Many examples could be found—for instance, in the boot and shoe industry; packaging machinery; textile machinery; business accounting machinery; sound recording machinery; machinery for earth moving; scaffolding; and a host of other sorts of machinery. I cannot believe that the Registrar would wish to have his register cluttered with agreements dealing with such matters as these, and I hope my right hon. Friend will be able to assure me that the Clause, when amended, will exempt agreements of that kind.
    Mr. Jay: I understood the right hon. Gentleman to tell us when we were debating Clause 5 that the sole agency agreement would be excluded from the scope of the Bill, but he appeared to say in this discussion that it was necessary to have these Amendments of his to this Clause to exclude sole agency agreements. If they are excluded by the word "mutual" in Clause 5, why do they have to be excluded again?
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: The answer to that is the way this has been drafted. As I said at the beginning of our discussion today, we are drafting the Bill so as to

    2121
    provide in Clause 5 for what is to be included and to provide in this Clause for what is to be left out. It could be argued that it was clearly excluded under Clause 5. It is thought that for clarity in this matter—and that is what is being sought—we should make it clear beyond peradventure in this Clause that the sole agency is out.
    11.15 p.m.
    If I might answer my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Rochdale (Lieut.-Colonel Schofield), who raised the other points, I think the purpose of his Amendment is really covered by this in its entirety. I am not talking about where people accept mutual restrictions to make arrangements of this kind—and a number of manufacturers are doing that—whether for sale, hire, or anything else, but to expedite a contract of sale. That is not included. We want to intend to exclude both the sole agency agreement and contract for hire, which is also an agreement to supply. There is no reason why they should not be treated in exactly the same way, and that is why we have somewhat widened these phrases, so that these normally cover arrangements which really should be kept out of the register, and I think it is important that they should.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: It seems to me that one of the essential differences between an agreement for "the supply of" and a contract for "the sale of" goods is that one is for valuable consideration and the other need not necessarily be so. I am sure that the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Rochdale (Lieut.-Colonel Schofield) will agree that a contract for sale of goods must be a contract for the sale for valuable consideration, while an agreement for the supply of goods need not necessarily be that.
    An agreement for the supply of goods may be an agreement for the sale of goods, and I am not at all satisfied with the Minister's explanation, which did not persuade me. It seems to me that he has rather slavishly taken this phrase—"agreement for the supply"—from Clause 5. He has told us many times this evening that one is the in-Clause and the other the out-Clause. Five is the in-Clause and contains the expression "agreement for the supply." Six is the out-Clause and contains, to his astonishment apparently, the phrase "contract
    2122
    for sale." Having made that astonishing discovery in Clause 6, he lifts the phrase "agreement for the supply "from the in-Clause 5 and puts it into the out-Clause 6, so that they will be in accord with each other.
    But the right hon. Gentleman did not give us any explanation. He did not give the explanation, which is the true one, either (a) that one copies from one Clause into the other, or (b) that he realises a contract for sale must be for valuable consideration. He offered to the Committee some astonishingly complicated argument about the supply or arrangement for the long-term supply of goods. It is obvious that the long-term or the short-term supply of goods has nothing to do with it. One may have a contract for the sale of goods which is a long-term one for valuable consideration, or a contract for the sale of goods for a short-term duration, both for valuable consideration.
    The Minister seemed to think that because one has an arrangement for the supply of goods at some distant point of time, therefore it is not a contract for sale. That is not true at all, and it would be far more persuasive of him to admit that he has just realised the discord between the in-Clause and the out-Clause. The in-Clause has this phrase, which he now seeks to import into the out-Clause, and in doing that he is perfectly logical and would be almost persuasive.
    Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: It has been useful to consider these Amendments. It is an extremely difficult matter to follow, and I feel, like my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher), that it is almost impossible to come to any clear-minded conclusion at this stage. We should certainly want to consider carefully what the President of the Board of Trade has said.
    In the illustration which I gave, if the line could be drawn in what the President called the "root" arrangement and the contract of sale, even though the root arrangement did not appear anywhere except in the contract for sale, there would be a good deal to be said for his argument; but I am not at all satisfied that that can be done.
    Time is getting on, and I think the convenient course would be to accept the Amendments for the time being. The

    2123
    President has said that he will look at the drafting aspect before Report, at which stage, having had the opportunity of considering what has been said in this debate, we can then see how far these various Amendments carry out what is really our purpose.
    Mr. Mulley: I find myself in a little difficulty. Before this discussion began I thought I understood the first three lines of the subsection, but after the discussion I am not at all sure that I understand anything of it. I stress upon the President of the Board of Trade that people have got to follow the Bill when it leaves the House, and firms and associations must be advised on how they stand for the registration of goods. It is important, therefore, to look at this matter carefully so that we can send out a form of words that is more intelligible than the present wording. If we all want the Court to get on with its proper job, it must not be held up in having to go to another court to discover what the new Act means.
    In view of the President's conciliatory mood today, it would be more than I can do to press the Amendment, and in view of his assurances in addition, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendments made: In page 5, line 43, leave out "contract for the sale" and insert "agreement for the supply".
    In line 45, leave out from "manufacture" to end of line 47 and insert:
    "to goods, not being an agreement under which restrictions in respect of transactions of the same description are accepted by two or more parties".—[Mr. P. Thorneycroft.]
    The Chairman: The next Amendment to be called will be the second Amendment on page 2798 of the Order paper, in the name of the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) in page 6, line 1, to leave out subsection (3).
    Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I beg to move, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
    We have had a long and rather stiff discussion about all this, and I think we are on the brink of the "silly season". It would be as well if we came with fresh minds to the further work that has to be done. I hope, therefore, that the Government agree that at this stage the best course is to report Progress.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I agree with the Motion. We have made some progress with two of the most complicated Clauses in the Bill. We have got through a considerable portion of both of them. I would like to have concluded them both, but I think we will probably make better progress next time if Progress is reported now.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  FURNITURE INDUSTRY (HIRE-PURCHASE RESTRICTIONS)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wills.]
  11.24 p.m.
  Mr. Victor Collins: After a long day of complicated argument, I now have to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to listen a little longer to an important subject, because it affects the employment of a considerable body of workers throughout the country. I refer to the effect of hire-purchase restrictions on the furniture industry. As I am a furniture manufacturer myself, I should like to declare my interest.
  The House will be aware that when the D Scheme was abandoned, items of furniture which, under that scheme, had been tax-free became liable to 5 per cent. Purchase Tax. This meant that almost all furniture in the lower and middle price ranges became subject to an increase in price of 1s. in the £, which was a handicap to the industry.
  Another handicap suffered by the trade was the Order, introduced in February last year, insisting on a 15 per cent. initial deposit on hire-purchase transactions. This has recently been increased to 20 per cent. This is now proving a serious deterrent to business, particularly in the case of young people setting up home for the first time.
  The third, and very serious, burden was the Order, also made in February last year, forbidding the consolidation of hire-purchase agreements. This means that hirers cannot make additional purchases and add them to the first agreements without making a fresh deposit.
  Last year, these regulations caused unemployment and short-time working from March to June in what is normally a busy time of the year. There was some recovery later, but output on the whole last year was well below that of 1954. This year the combined effects of the credit squeeze, the increased deposit charge and the Purchase Tax have been catastrophic. Unemployment and short-time working have reached levels greater
  2126
  than in any other industry, indeed greater than any experienced in this country since the tragic days of 1932.
  The Minister of Labour and the President of the Board of Trade have tried to minimise the position or explain it away. Therefore, it is necessary to establish the facts. Normally, there are about 100,000 workers in the furniture industry. During the recent employment debate the Minister of Labour stated that only some 7,000 of them were on short-time. I immediately challenged that and pointed out that, according to a survey conducted by the National Union of Furniture Trade Operatives on 16th March, there were, out of 45,563 of its members—that is a very good and reliable sample out of 100,000–2,059, or 5 per cent., wholly unemployed, and 12,146, or 26½ per cent., on short-time. That is a total of 31½ per cent. wholly or partly unemployed, a very considerable percentage. I sent these figures to the Minister, who promised to sort out the discrepancy between his figures and those produced by the union.
  The Minister wrote to me on 10th April and explained that the difference between the two sets of figures arose, first, because the Ministry figures were for February and not March, and, secondly, because he had excluded all firms with fewer than 11 employees. There is, of course, a considerable number of such firms in the industry, and that alone invalidates the Minister's figures. Thirdly, his officers had noted only whole days worked short, and had taken no account whatever of cases where fewer hours had been worked per day, or of production workers who had been compelled to reduce their output and earnings. It is much more convenient, particularly for small firms, when it is desired to work short-time, to have fewer hours per day. By that means they have their workers there every day and they are on hand if orders should come in. Fourthly, the Minister had excluded workers engaged in the manufacture of radio cabinets. This section of the industry has been very badly affected.
  In other words, the Minister's letter was an admission that his official figures were completely and utterly false because they were based on inadequate premises, and his final guess that there were some 10,000 furniture workers on short-time

  2127
  has very little relationship to the unfortunate truth. I find it disturbing that a responsible Minister should boldly quote figures in this way when the data on which they were based were inadequate and, therefore, misleading.
  On the 16th of this month, one month after the first survey, the unions completed a second survey on approximately the same sample of 45,292 members. This showed not 2,000 unemployed, but 3,025, or 7 per cent., wholly unemployed and 13,125, or 29 per cent., on short time. That is a total of 36 per cent. wholly or partly unemployed, a big increase on the previous month, thus proving that the situation is steadily getting worse.
  I must emphasise to the Minister that the figures of 3,025 wholly unemployed and 13,125 on short time are not the total figures for the trade. That is the mistake which the Ministry made. These are the men wholly unemployed or on short time out of a total of only 45,000 furniture workers, and it is known that the situation is at least as bad throughout the industry. The total unemployment or short time is therefore around 36,000 out of a total of 100,000.
  The Minister will appreciate that since most of the men on short time are working three days a week, and some only two days a week, it means that on 16th April there was the equivalent of 20 per cent. wholly unemployed in the industry. I am sure he will agree that this is justification for the statement I made a few minutes ago that the present situation is as bad as that in 1932. It must surely go beyond anything which the Government expected their policy to accomplish. Of course, if they desired to put one-fifth of the industry out of employment they will say so tonight, but I do not believe they did.
  I want to emphasise that the position is not uniform throughout the industry. Some sections are harder hit than others. The largest firm in the trade is, nominally at least, still working a full week by storing a large part of its output in such storage space as it can get, including a a cotton mill. It is conducting an advertising campaign in the hope of sales materialising, but if they do not the results will be disastrous.
  2128
  The soft furnishing section of the industry is almost at a standstill. In Newcastle, they say that there is not a single firm which is working full time. In Liverpool, there is only one. Other towns say that the trade has disintegrated. Forty firms have closed altogether and others threaten to do so.
  In my own constituency there are many furniture workers. One branch with 3,000 workers has 2,004 on short time and 173 discharged. That means that in that branch seven out of every ten men are wholly or partly unemployed. One shop sacked 240 out of 260 men and put the remainder on a three-day week. My hon. Friends and I have interviewed the union officials and the men, and I can assure the Minister that I am not overstating the case. These are the facts.
  I should like to dispose very briefly of one or two suggestions which have been made by the Minister in respect to the industry. First, the President of the Board of Trade said that there is a seasonal decline in the furniture industry in March. That is nonsense. January is the quiet month. In February there is the furniture exhibition and that is followed normally by a period of full demand which goes on up to August. The only year when demand in March was less than in February was in 1953 when the Utility Scheme was abandoned in favour of the D Scheme and Purchase Tax, and in July last year when the 15 per cent. deposit was introduced. In short, the trade should be busy now and not slack.
  Secondly, there is the allegation that the furniture industry has been overproducing. There is absolutely no basis for this assertion, because there are no figures for pre-war production by which a comparison can be made. The index of furniture deliveries which has been produced since the war, however, shows that, taking 1948 as 100, by 1953 there was a 48 per cent. increase. The Minister should ask, "An increase in what?" In 1948, the industry was on the points system, and subject to almost every imaginable restriction upon production. It was, admittedly, far below its normal output. Indeed, there was a restriction upon plywood until April, 1952, and up to the end of 1953 production was artificially curtailed.

  2129
  The year 1954 was the first fully free year, and in that year the index went up to 172. Last year, however, it fell back nine points, to 163. If anything, I would say that this is less than the expected level of demand under conditions of full employment. It is certainly not an expanding production.
  What I have said proves that there is very serious unemployment, which is not due to a seasonal slackening in demand, and that furniture output has not expanded beyond the demand which can normally be expected. I therefore urge the Government to take swift action to lessen the over-stringent effects of their policy, which go far beyond what they could have intended for this industry. It is no answer to say that many of these men can find other work. Perhaps they can, but what work? Some of these men have become car washers and others park-keepers. They are very necessary jobs, but not of a kind which in the national interest, one would expect or compel craftsmen with, perhaps, 20 years' experience to take up. If they have to do those jobs it is a waste of the nation's manpower.
  I want to make one or two suggestions. First, so far as I am aware, neither the trade unions nor the producers propose "no deposit" trading, but they submit that the initial deposit should be cut to 10 per cent. I most strongly urge that immediate steps be taken to end the prohibition of consolidation and hire agreements. Although these apply to all commodities on hire purchase, they really affect only the furniture industry.
  People do not buy a second motor car, refrigerator or television set on hire purchase before they have finished paying for the first, but it is usual for people with small means, when furnishing a home, not to buy all their requirements at once but to make additional purchases after paying off part of the original debt. In this way they run into less trouble than they might do if they were persuaded to buy all their requirements at once, which is liable to happen under present conditions. As it is now, they must wait until the first transaction is finished, or pay another deposit for any new purchase. Many cannot afford to do this. In effect, this ban applies a
  2130
  quite unfair discrimination solely against the furniture industry.
  I know that there are technical difficulties in removing the ban, but the industry will gladly assist the Board of Trade to find a way out of those difficulties. It could be provided that a further purchase must not increase the total sum owed beyond the amount of the original debt, or that there could be no additional purchase before a reasonable period had elapsed after the first transaction had been commenced. I hope the Minister will not say—as his right hon. Friend said in answer to a Question of mine—that this will mean a return to "no deposit" trading. That is a contradiction in terms, because they cannot add to the original agreement without having first paid a deposit on it. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary can accept the principle of my argument and arrange for the resumption of consolidated agreements.
  I also ask him to say that he will look into the question of retail profit margins. Under the Utility Scheme they were 33 per cent. Now they are 45 per cent., rising to 50 per cent., on top of factory prices. With Purchase Tax and now the 20 per cent. hire-purchase deposit, that makes a tremendous difference to people of small means who want to furnish their homes, particularly people getting new flats or houses and wanting to furnish for the first time.
  I would remind the hon. and learned Member that the Board of Trade Inquiry into hire-purchase trade, which began last October—the Report is a most valuable document—revealed that only 3 per cent. of all the hire-purchase credit is attributable to furniture, compared with 72 per cent. for sales of cars, commercial vehicles, motor cycles, caravans, and so on, and 8 per cent. for radio. In other words, only 3 per cent. of all the hire-purchase credit is for furniture. That is a drop in the ocean. The slight easement which I have suggested cannot affect the Government's credit policy, but I submit that it can—and I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will take steps to ensure that it will—restore to employment thousands of good craftsmen who are now standing idle through no fault of their own.
  11.41 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Derek Walker-Smith): The hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Collins) has presented the case showing the impact of the hire-purchase restrictions on the furniture industry and has made certain recommendations. As he will appreciate, the House decided on 12th March in favour of those hire-purchase restrictions, and we cannot debate that whole issue again; but, equally, we are in this difficulty—that we cannot consider industries in isolation in this matter. The hire-purchase operation is necessarily a general operation, part of a wider financial policy deriving from a broad national need, and it follows that if the immediate effects on any particular industry are unwelcome that is a matter for regret, but it cannot prevail against the national good.
  I think it is important to see precisely what is the present position of the furniture industry in relation to the post-war years and, also, how far that is due to the causes to which the hon. Member ascribed it. He gave certain figures for unemployment—and his figures are based on a sample taken by the union concerned, N.U.F.T.O. The N.U.F.T.O. sample which he quoted shows that, dealing with the wholly unemployed, as distinct from those on short-time working, about 3,000 were unemployed. I am able to give the total figures in respect of unemployment. The number wholly unemployed is 2,324; temporarily stopped, 2,923; making a total of unemployed in the industry of 5,247. My figure is larger than his, because mine is the whole figure whereas his represents a union sample.
  Mr. Collins: Does that include radio?
  Mr. Walker-Smith: Furniture and upholstery.
  The unemployment figures are, in fact, lower than they were in April and May of last year, although it is true that, apart from those two months, they are higher than they were in any month since January, 1953. But in the early part—the corresponding months—of 1953 and 1954, they were still well over 4,000, at a time when there were no hire-purchase restrictions in respect of the furniture industry; and the gap is, therefore,
  2132
  not very wide. Within the total of 5,247, the wholly unemployed, as distinct from those temporarily stopped, are now more than they were a year ago, in March, 1955, but they are slightly fewer than in March, 1954, when, again, there were no hire-purchase restrictions on furniture.
  The hon. Member will appreciate that when we are dealing with short-time working we are not able to be on the same firm statistical ground as we are with unemployment figures. He has quoted a figure of about 13,000 from the N.U.F.T.O. sample, upon which he then estimated an increase to get the national position. As the hon. Member knows, and has been told in the House, the Ministry of Labour figure in this respect is now 11,000. He says that it does not take sufficient into account, but as we cannot be on a firm statistical basis in this, I must prefer on the whole, without for a moment underestimating the importance of short-time working, to base inferences more on the figures of unemployment which we actually know.
  Mr. Collins: The Ministry of Labour expressly admits that its figure excludes the three very important sections to which I referred in my speech. It cannot be accurate.
  Mr. Walker-Smith: The hon. Member may be right in saying that N.U.F.T.O. has been able to find people on short-time who do not figure in the Ministry of Labour's 11,000. It may be so. I cannot say that it is not so, because we are not on a firm statistical base in this respect.
  Let us look at the regions concerned, namely, London and the South-East, which includes the hon. Member's constituency, the North-West, and the Southern Region, which includes High Wycombe. We have these figures, comparing the unemployed at 12th March with vacancies at 4th April in the furniture and upholstery trades—London and South-East, unemployed 2,298, vacancies 785; North-West, unemployed 726; vacancies 201; Southern, unemployed 162, vacancies 148. As one would expect, it is clear that the vacancies in the furniture industry cannot absorb all the unemployed, but the general position remains favourable in these regions.

  2133
  The figures for all industries were as follows: London and South-East, unemployed 49,578, vacancies 106,315; North-West, 39,650 and 46,500; Southern, 10,950 and 22,712.
  Mr. Collins: All industries?
  Mr. Walker-Smith: Yes, having given the position of the furniture industry I then gave the general position.
  The hon. Member referred to the round figure of 100,000 employed in the industry. At the end of February, no fewer than 133,900 people were employed in the furniture industry. That is more than at any time between January and September, 1953 and substantially the same as in the period January to September, 1954. During both these periods there were no hire-purchase restrictions on furniture.
  I do not use the phrase "over-production" which the hon. Member mentioned, but I think it is right that we should consider this situation against the considerable buoyancy in the industry between the years 1953 and 1955. The hon. Member has given the indices of production, which show the figures of 172 in 1954 and of 163 in 1955 compared with 100 in 1948. That works out at a quarterly average of deliveries in 1953 of £25 million, in 1954 of £28½ million and in 1955 of £27½ million.
  Taking the fourth quarter of 1955, there were deliveries of £33½ million as against £35 million in the fourth quarter of 1954 and over £30 million in the fourth quarter of 1953. So the last quarter of 1955, although lower than the peak period, the last quarter of 1954, was substantially above the corresponding period in 1953.
  On the question of the impact of these hire-purchase restrictions. I would like to pray in aid what was said at the conference at the annual meeting of the North-West Furniture Trades Federation in Manchester, as reported in the Cabinet Maker and Complete House Furnisher for 31st March, in which one representative said that hire-purchase restrictions were not wholly to blame for sluggish trade
  2134
  conditions; another said that the furniture trade's difficulties could be traced to an accumulation of circumstances; and a third said that there was a very slow but steady improvement in trade. So the latter did not take so pessimistic a view as the hon. Gentleman, who referred to it as "catastrophic."
  The hon. Gentleman asked for a cut in the deposits to 10 per cent. and an end of the prohibition on consolidated agreements. On the question of the cut to 10 per cent., he will appreciate that the Order which this House passed on 12th March increased the deposit to 20 per cent., while for many other goods the figure is 50 per cent. It was already at 15 per cent., and neither the hon. Gentleman nor any hon. Member in the party opposite voted against the Order which imposed the 15 per cent. net minimum deposit. So it was a little quixotic and paradoxical for the hon. Gentleman now to ask for a cut to 10 per cent.
  It is true that consolidated agreements are a form of no-deposit trading—not in the literal sense which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, because there is an initial deposit—but the added agreement, the second, is carried forward on the initial deposit, and to that extent it is a no-deposit agreement. It is clear that the end of the prohibition on consolidated agreements now would mean an extention of credit trading, at a time when the national interest has, unfortunately, demanded an abatement of credit trading in the interests of our general balance of payments position. I do not think that the figures as we have them tell such a melancholy story as the hon. Gentleman suggests, particularly when viewed against the buoyancy in the industry in the last year or two. In so far as there is a decline, it should not be—
  The Question having been proposed after 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 seven minutes to Twelve o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT
  Metropolitan Police Stations (Emergency Accommodation)
  Metropolitan Police Stations (Emergency Accommodation)
  Detained Delinquents (Home Background)
  Detained Delinquents (Home Background)
EDUCATION
  Teachers (Recruitment)
  Teachers (Recruitment)
  Secondary Schools (Admissions)
  Secondary Schools (Admissions)
  Grammar and Secondary Technical School Places
  Grammar and Secondary Technical School Places
  School Dinner Money (Ministry's Letter)
  School Dinner Money (Ministry's Letter)
  Burrage Road School, S.E.18
  Burrage Road School, S.E.18
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Carbonate of Potash (Sale)
  Carbonate of Potash (Sale)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  U.S.S.R. and United Kingdom
  U.S.S.R. and United Kingdom
  Full Employment (Booklet)
  Full Employment (Booklet)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Mid-Wales Investigation (Report)
  Mid-Wales Investigation (Report)
  Potatoes, Bristol
  Potatoes, Bristol
  Slaughterhouses
  Slaughterhouses
  Agricultural Production Costs
  Agricultural Production Costs
  Agriculture (Manpower and Policy)
  Agriculture (Manpower and Policy)
  Fat Cattle (Norwich Auction Sales)
  Fat Cattle (Norwich Auction Sales)
  Meat Inspection (Veterinary Supervision)
  Meat Inspection (Veterinary Supervision)
EMPLOYMENT
  British Railways, South Western Region
  British Railways, South Western Region
  Iron Foundries, Falkirk-Bonnybridge
  Iron Foundries, Falkirk-Bonnybridge
NATIONAL SERVICE
  Conscientious Objectors (Applications)
  Conscientious Objectors (Applications)
ROADS
  Parking Meters, London
  Parking Meters, London
  LEASEHOLD TENANTS (PROTECTION)
  LEASEHOLD TENANTS (PROTECTION)
  NORTHERN RHODESIA (OFFICIAL BODIES)
  NORTHERN RHODESIA (OFFICIAL BODIES)
KENYA
  Kikuyu (Rift Valley Farms)
  Kikuyu (Rift Valley Farms)
  Tsavo National Park (Poachers)
  Tsavo National Park (Poachers)
  SOMALILAND (BERBERA PORT DEVELOPMENT)
  SOMALILAND (BERBERA PORT DEVELOPMENT)
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Poliomyelitis Vaccine (Inoculation)
  Poliomyelitis Vaccine (Inoculation)
POST OFFICE
  Graduate Scientists and Engineers
  Graduate Scientists and Engineers
Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
  WALSALL CORPORATION BILL
  Read 2a.
  WEST BROMWICH CORPORATION BELL
  Read 2a.

  TEACHERS (SUPERANNUATION) BILL
  3.7 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF How): My Lords, a Bill of the kind for which I am asking your Lordships' approval this afternoon is necessary for two reasons: first, to place the pensions schemes for England and Wales and Scotland on a sound financial footing; and secondly, to introduce a number of improvements which will greatly benefit the teachers. The immediate cause of the Bill is the Government Actuary's Report of 1948, which revealed an actuarial deficiency which was then very substantial and which has increased greatly between then and now.
  There has been much dispute as to how these deficiencies should be met, but I believe there is none at all as to the accuracy of the estimates. I have the greatest respect for teachers. They taught me a lot—and I have forgotten a great deal of what they taught me—but I do not ever remember any teacher trying to teach me what an actuarial deficit is, and the irreverent thought passes through my mind that perhaps they did not know. Even so, I must try to tell your Lordships how it is that this formidable gap between the monies which are credited to the superannuation accounts and the drawings which are debited to them arises.
  1270
  As I understand it, if this had been from the start an insurance fund, premiums would naturally have been related to ultimate benefits, and if the benefits had increased from time to time, so, too, would the premiums have increased. But the superannuation accounts have not worked in that way. The teachers have had the automatic right to higher pensions whenever there has been a salary rise, without being required to pay any additional premiums. The contributions which are being paid in at the present rate will not build up a sufficient credit balance, even with the interest at 3½ per cent., as it runs on the accounts, to meet the pensions for those now in service and the benefits for new recruits., Therefore, the accounts for England and Wales and for Scotland have been in the red, and are running further into the red each year.
  The contributions at present paid in amount to 10 per cent. of each teacher's salary, made up as to 5 per cent. from the teacher and 5 per cent. from the employer, who is the local authority. At the time the Teachers' Superannuation Act was passed in 1925, this rate was thought to be sufficient, especially with the 3½ per cent. interest rate on the credit balance in the accounts, to meet any future liabilities. But since then several things have happened. Teachers are living longer and retiring earlier, and, most important of all, salaries have gone up many times. So the position has arisen that there is a substantial actuarial deficit. As early as 1.935 a small deficit was detected, but nothing was done by way of increased contributions; and now the deficiency figure stands at £302 million for England and Wales and £36 million for Scotland.
  This Bill makes three major contributions towards dealing with this particular problem. The whole of the deficit as it existed on March 31 of this year—that is, £338 million for England and Wales and Scotland—is to be taken over as a sole charge on the Exchequer. The teachers are not to be asked to pay for the fact that for over twenty years contributions have not been enough to pay for pensions. Under Clause 1 and Clause 30 of the Bill the Exchequer will at once credit £340 million, attracting, 3½ per cent. interest, so that the taxpayer is, in effect, making a present of £12 million a year to the superannuation accounts. I think

  1271
  your Lordships will agree that this is a generous concession and that it clears the decks, so far as the accounts are concerned, for putting them on a sound basis for the future. Secondly, the Bill tries to find a realistic contribution which will preserve solvency for the future. At present, the joint contribution is 10 per cent. The Bill proposes to raise it to 12 per cent. of a teacher's salary. There have been attempts to argue that the Treasury—I prefer to use the words "the taxpayer"—should find all the additional monies for any future bill which has to be paid. There have also been attempts to argue that even if 12 per cent. is necessary, it is wrong to raise the teacher's contribution from 5 per cent. to 6 per cent.
  Like some of your Lordships, and many in another place, I have delved back into the past to the 1925 Act. Arguments about what was meant by Lord Eustace Percy in 1925 seem to me to be endless. While it is true that by the Local Government Pension Act, 1937, contributions were increased for new officials only, there cannot really be any absolute comparison between one pension scheme and another. The Government have taken the view that we have to arrive at a solution which would be fair—or as fair as we could make it—to all the parties concerned; to the teachers, to the local authorities, to the ratepayers and to the taxpayers. Having taken the view that the principle of increased contributions from the teachers was fair, the Government had to decide what addition was right. A figure of 1½ per cent. has been mentioned as sufficient. But soon after that figure was suggested it became clear that it would have to be not less than 1¾ per cent. to take into account the improved benefits written in in the earlier stages of the Bill. But taking into account the salary increases which were bound to come soon, the Government thought that 12 per cent.—6 per cent. from the teacher and 6 per cent. from the local authority —was the fair figure. The teacher, then, as we see it, is being asked to start to pay now the rate of contribution appropriate to the benefits that a new entrant will receive and to a new and a solvent scheme.
  Let me give one example—and I have not picked it out as a particularly favour-
  1272
  able one. Under this Bill, a teacher retiring in 1965 will have paid contributions amounting to less than one-third of the benefit he will receive. I think it is true to say that for this extra 1 per cent. which the teachers are being asked to pay, they will get solid and substantial returns. I have given the figure of the actuarial deficiency as it has been calculated. Perhaps I might express what is needed in terms of income. The teachers' accounts need an income of £49 million a year to support the benefits. At present, contributions and interest together are producing only £33 million. The extra £16 million will be found, under this Bill, in these proportions; £12 million from the Exchequer, by way of interest on the £340 million which will be found by the taxpayer; £2 million from the local authorities and £2 million from the teachers.
  The decision that the rate of contribution should be equal as between the local authorities, the employer, and the teacher, the employee, should be read in conjunction with Clause 4 in the Bill, which affects England and Wales, and Clauses 29 and 30, which affect Scotland. If subsequent inquiries reveal a deficiency—and inquiries are now to be held every five years—then the higher percentage contribution required to make up the deficiency will be paid entirely by the employer, that is, the local authority, helped by Exchequer grants. So the future levels of teachers' pensions, in so far as they cause a deficit, will be met entirely by the national and local taxpayer. I have tried to understand and to find substance in the opposition which the teachers have expressed to this Bill. I have tried to do so genuinely, because I have no doubt—and the same, I am sure, is true of your Lordships—about the value of teachers to the community; nor any doubt that the taxpayers wish to do them well. Nor have I anything but sympathy for them in the plight in which they find themselves, along with many other skilled persons—and they are extremely skilled—when they think that their skill is not sufficiently rewarded. But there are very real benefits which will accrue to them from this Bill, and I hope your Lordships will agree that those who have to pay the bill for these pensions are giving the teachers not only a good, but a generous deal.

  1273
  In conclusion, I should like to mention, shortly, one or two improvements, because my right honourable friends the Minister of Education and the Secretary of State for Scotland have used this Bill to make some improvements which we believe will help the teachers a great deal. Clauses 5, 6 and 7 govern the benefits, a teacher can receive on his retirement, and there are practical improvements made there. Pension and lump sum are, for instance, to be calculated on his total period of service, and not, as at present, on only the completed years. Three years is substituted for five years as the period for calculating the average salary on which the pension will be based.
  Teachers generally (I know this is particularly true of Scotland, from what I remember when I was there) have been keen to find some way to help their widows and dependants. At present, a teacher can provide for his widow or other dependants only by surrendering part of his own pension on retirement. The Minister of Education has been sympathetic to the desire of the teachers for a scheme financed by additional contributions, but neither the employers, the local authority, nor the Government feel able to consider a scheme on that basis at present. Under Clause 8, however, the Minister is empowered to start a scheme whereby the teacher will be able to make provision for his widow and dependants out of the lump sum which he would have received if he had remained single. It is the Minister's firm intention to have discussions with the teachers, to consult with them and to make regulations under his powers.
  I know that your Lordships have always been keen to find a way by which teachers who wish to serve overseas may be able to return to this country without forfeiting their benefits. There is much to be done by teachers overseas—we have only to think of the need of the teaching of English, for instance, in Asia and the Middle East to realise that. Clauses 17 and 18 make practical proposals, so that teachers can go overseas and teach and return to their profession in this country without surrendering their benefits.
  I know that my noble friend Lord Strathclyde would have wished to be here to-day, but lie had engagements in Scotland which he could not cancel. Part II of this Bill makes provisions for Scotland
  1274
  in the same way that Part I provides for England and Wales, but the form has had to be different because our systems of legislation have in the past followed rather different patterns. Technically, this is a Superannuation Bill but with these additions, only some of which I have listed, it has a greater scope and significance. I hope that your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading to-day and accept that it makes a valuable contribution towards establishing social security for the members of this great profession, so helping to recruit to it men and women of brains and character who can give no finer service to their fellows.
  3.23 p.m.
  LORD SILKIN: My Lords, the noble Earl, in introducing this measure, introduced it as if the question had arisen for the first time subsequent to 1948, when the actuarial report showing a deficit on the Pensions Fund was first publishes, but I think I can satisfy your Lordships that this matter has a much longer, a much more chequered and quite a discreditable history. For instance, a Bill was introduced last Session for the same purpose of increasing the contribution of teachers to the Superannuation Fund. In that Bill there was none, or there were very few, of the compensating factors which the noble Earl now prays in aid to induce the teachers to swallow this bitter pill.
  The Bill of last Session brought about severe criticism from all Parties in another place and from the country. It was not proceeded with. It resulted in the downfall of the then Minister of Education, Dame Florence Horsbrugh, and the appointment of Sir David Eccles, who now reigns in her stead The teachers believed that this Bill, having been dropped before the Election, would not be revived; but in fact after the Election it was once more revived and a similar Bill, with one or two sweeteners, was once more introduced. I want freely to admit that there have been certain improvements made as a result of pressure from all Parties in another place, and particularly from the Opposition side of the House, as is quite natural, and the Bill to-day is a substantially better Bill as regards the advantages, apart from the question of superannuation, than it was when it was first introduced. Certainly

  1275
  it is a far better Bill than it was as introduced in 1954.
  But the story begins long before even 1954. In the First World War it was decided for the first time that teachers should be superannuated, and a superannuation fund was established in order to attract teachers and to create a more efficient educational service at the end of the war. As an inducement to people to become teachers, this fund was created without any contributions at all being required from the teachers. Large numbers of teachers were recruited on that basis. Then came the Geddes Axe, and in 1922 teachers were asked to make a contribution. Perhaps that is putting it rather mildly, because the contribution was imposed upon them, but they then believed that this was quite a temporary matter and that they would be relieved of the payments when the financial position of the country improved. But in 1925 a Bill was introduced for the purpose of making this levy, as it then was, a permanent contribution by them of 5 per cent. The teachers believed, and sincerely believed, that a bargain was then struck under which no further additional contribution would be required of them.
  Like the noble Earl, I have delved into the past, but I do not propose to weary your Lordships with the history of what was said and not said something like thirty years ago. The point I want to make—and I make it with all the emphasis I can—is that the teachers have believed ever since 1925, and sincerely believe to-day, that there was a pledge given that the rate of superannuation would not be increased above the 5 per cent. I freely believe that any other noble Lord may well take a different view, and I admit that Lord Eustace Percy, who was the then Minister, has stated that his recollection of the matter is that he had no intention of giving such a pledge; but the fact remains that the teachers genuinely believed that such a pledge was given, and they regard the imposition of an additional contribution as a breach of faith OD the part of the Government. I do not think that anything the noble Earl has said or could say will shake them on that.
  It is therefore not surprising that this apparently innocuous increase of 1 per cent. in the superannuation rate should
  1276
  have created such passion and turmoil among the teaching profession. It is not even as if they are complaining of one act of breach of faith; they regard the 1925 Act as a breach of faith. They were induced to enter the teaching profession at that time on the representation that superannuation would be non-contributory. Then they found that there was this levy of 5 per cent. which was incorporated in legislation, and they find today that there is a further increase.
  But if one is looking for the reason why this Bill has aroused such feeling in the teaching profession, one has to look at the whole picture and not merely at this particular increase. The noble Earl has explained that there are certain improvements in the Bill which will enure to the benefit of teachers. I do not know whether he meant to imply that those improvements in themselves justify the increase in the levy. In fact, they do not. Taken by themselves, the value of the improvements represents one-third of 1 per cent. as an advantage to the teachers, and the remaining two-thirds of 1 per cent. represent their contribution towards the deficiency in accordance with the valuation. The deficiency was not first discovered in 1948, as the noble Earl appears to believe. This deficiency has existed for a long time; I think it was even referred to in 1935 or 1936, although it was then smaller.
  THE EARL OF HOME: As a matter of fact I did say so. The noble Lord must have missed it.
  LORD SILK IN: Then I misunderstood the noble Earl. At any rate, the deficiency has been in existence for a very long time, and its existence has been known. That fact, I think, is worth mentioning, because it gives colour to the feeling of the teachers that there was to-day no particular reason why this deficiency should be dealt with any more than there was some years ago, even before the war.
  Let us just examine this deficiency for a moment. I do not want to weary your Lordships by going into figures or valuations, butone thing is quite clear; and that is, that for a great many years to come the amount of the contributions which will be paid into the fund will exceed the payments out of the fund. For how long that situation will last, nobody can forecast. It may well be twenty years; it

  1277
  may be even longer. The noble Earl spoke of a greater drain on the fund because of increased salaries and because of teachers' retiring early. So far as increased salaries are concerned, that is coupled with increased contributions, and the higher the salary the greater the contribution. Therefore, one would assume that increased salaries would not by themselvs cause a greater drain on the fund; nor necessarily would earlier retirement, because the assumption is that teachers who retire earlier will draw less out of the fund, both by reason of their drawing a lower salary and because the number of years upon which the superannuation is calculated will he less. Therefore, neither of these is a factor which will cast a greater burden on the fund itself.
  We are dealing with a fund which for a great many years will be in balance and will not call for any other contributions from anybody other than those actually settled. In, possibly, twenty or thirty years' time, if things go as they are and if nothing unforeseen happens, there will be a deficiency to be made up each year. The noble Earl said that it will be £16 million a year; the Minister of Education said on the Third Reading of the Bill in another place that it will he £14 million. It may be that between the time when the Minister made his Third Reading speech and to-day the deficiency has increased, or it may be that the figures are so inexact that a matter of £2 million makes little difference. The contribution which the teachers are asked to make towards this £14 million or £16 million is, however, only £2 million a year; and if, in fact, we are talking in such round figures that £14 million or £16 million are interchangeable, and that the deficiency is either one or the other, is it really worth while stirring up this hornet's nest in order to extract an additional £2 million a year from the teachers?
  I have referred to the background to explain why the teachers feel so passionately about this matter. But, quite understandably, behind this background that I have referred to there is a still stronger ground for discontent—namely, as the noble Earl himself said, perhaps not as strongly as I propose to say it, that the profession is hopelessly underpaid. The normal maximum salary for men to-day, that is, after a great many
  1278
  years' service, is £13 18s. 10d. a week —call it f14 a week if you like—before deduction of superannuation contributions. The normal maximum salary for women is less, but it will be equalised by 1961. If superannuation is deducted at the 6 per cent. rate proposed after October 1, if this Bill comes into operation, the maximum salary, after deduction, will be, for men, £13 15s. 0d. a week and, for women, £10 9s. 0d. a week. I admit that in certain special cases there are additions. 'There are additions for people with good Honours Degrees and for people with very special duties; but at present the ordinary run of teacher—95 per cent. of teachers—cannot look forward to anything more than a maximum net salary, after deduction of superannuation, of £13 15s. 0d. a week.
  I do not want to draw invidious comparisons between the profession of teaching and that of any other profession or occupation. Comparisons will madly come to your Lordships' minds, and I am far from saying that, for instance, a person engaged in the building trade or in any other industry, such as the motor car industry, is a less worthy citizen than a teacher. But we have in our minds certain standards, and it is always recognised that professional people have certain standards to maintain and certain expenditure to incur. I believe we should all agree, if we think about it, that a maximum remuneration of £14 a week for the professional man in these times is plainly inadequate. Since the war, the cost of living has gone up two and a half times, but teachers' salaries have not kept pace: their salaries have about doubled, so that they are even worse off than before the war. Furthermore, generally speaking the ordinary worker is better off than he was before the war, even allowing for the increase in the cost of living. Wages have gone up more than the percentage increase in living costs. The teacher has not only not made up for the increase in the cost of living but has not shared at all in the general improvement, so that he is not only absolutely worse off than he was before the war, he is relatively worse off, too. I believe it is important that we should realise these things and appreciate why there is such strong feeling about what might be regarded as a relatively minor increase in the superannuation contribution.

  1279
  Moreover, the teacher's work has increased. He has constantly had imposed upon him additional duties which he has taken on with great cheerfulness and willingness but which have encroached upon his leisure. A teacher normally has a certain period for his lunch, but he has been asked largely to sacrifice that by concerning himself with children's meals and with collecting meal money. I have known a great number of teachers who have devoted their Saturday mornings and other leisure days to taking their children, quite voluntarily, to places of educational value. They have done so without any complaint. Now they feel, I think with some justification, that this imposition upon them is really the last straw.
  As the noble Earl has said, teachers are an important section of our community, and traditionally we pay them great tribute. Apart altogether from this question of the standard of living, I feel that if teachers are to do their duty to the children in the community, they ought to have the opportunity of engaging in cultural activities, in travel, in seeing places abroad, in reading the latest cultural works, in hearing the latest music and in similar things. We want our teachers to be cultured and to instil some of that culture into the children they teach; but on a maximum salary, after deduction of superannuation, of £13-odd a week, at a time when the teacher may have a family of his own to maintain and educate, is it really possible for him to indulge in anything except the struggle for ordinary bread-and-butter for himself and his family? Any thought of engaging in cultural activities is entirely out of the question.
  This Bill strikes a further blow at the standard of living of the teacher. Every Member of this House has at some time paid lip service to the value of the work which teachers are doing. This Bill is a very poor practical recognition of that work, and it is for that reason that I feel it ought not to be supported. Naturally, the Bill has made progress in another place and I suppose it is too much to hope that this House will not approve of the Second Reading. It has become a tradition that we, in this House, do not vote against Second Reading; but if the tradition were otherwise there is no measure which has been brought before this House in recent times that I myself would more cheerfully vote against.

  TALKS WITH SOVIET LEADERS
  3.46 p.m.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALIS-BURY): My Lords, before we proceed further, perhaps your Lordships will allow me to intervene for a few moments to repeat a brief statement which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. It is as follows:
  "The discussions which have been taking place between Her Majesty's Government and Soviet leaders have been concluded. The results of the talks will be embodied in a statement which will be published early to-morrow."
  For the convenience of the House, the statement will be laid as a White Paper which will be available in the Printed Paper Office when your Lordships next meet.

  TEACHERS (SUPERANNUATION) BILL
  3.47 p.m.
  Debate on Second Reading resumed.
  LORD GREENHILL: My Lords, I agree with all that my noble friend, Lord Silkin, has said on this Superannuation Bill and if I do not pursue the references to the salaries at present being paid to teachers it is because I feel that the question of their adequacy or otherwise is a matter quite apart and distinct from the question of superannuation. It is better to keep the two questions quite separate so that we can apply ourselves to the question of salaries when the time comes, and deal to-day with what is contained in this Bill. To me, the significance of this Bill lies not in the fact that it purports to deal with what is called "an actuarial deficiency", but rather in the fact that it has given rise to a spontaneous outburst of feeling on the part of the whole of the teaching profession and has driven this responsible and well-informed body of citizens to say and do things which I feel in normal circumstances they would have preferred not to say or do. It seems significant, also, as my noble friend has indicated, that this is the second time that a Bill of this kind has been submitted; and although there have been made in the present Bill what the noble Earl has

  1281
  called "improvements" and what I prefer to call "adjustments", those by no means cover the whole of the grievances felt by the teaching profession.
  Nor is it without significance that not very long ago the provision of monies for further education was being attacked. The outburst then was so great that not only did the then Minister of Education feel it necessary to resign but Her Majesty's Government felt it necessary to set up a Committee to inquire into the whole of the facts concerning further education. The question, therefore, arises: why are teachers singled out for this irritating attention? Why is it that in these days, when the supply of teachers is admittedly so chronically short, when industry is crying out for more highly educated young men and women and when it is generally recognised that the teachers have such an important part to play, the Government are adopting this attitude towards them?
  The noble Earl, understandably, said that while he had heard of such things as actuarial deficiencies he had never been able to understand exactly what the term meant. I think the probability is that we are all in a similar position. My own feeling about it is that, in cases such as this, an actuarial deficiency amounts to nothing more than the falsification of a prophecy which certain actuaries made; and the method by which they are attempting to remedy that false prophecy is not to drop the prophecy but to try to twist the facts in order to suit the prophecy which they made some time ago. I will go further and say that my feeling is that this so-called deficiency is not a deficiency at all: it is a phantom entity, the outcome of the difference between certain receipts and certain payments. Whatever results from that is called a deficiency. If we went on paying, in times of deficiency, pensions that we had undertaken to pay, no one would be any the worse for it. But we pretend that here is an account which is what is nowadays called "in the red" and which must somehow be brought into balance. That seems to me to be a very unnecessary kind of calculation and quite unreal in relation to present-day conditions. When I try to think of an explanation why there should be this persistence with this phantom item, I can only assume that it is a continuation of a private enterprise concept in a public enterprise situation.
  1282
  I wonder whether I can explain what that means by an example, because it seems to me that this is how it works In the year 1938 or 1939, a man I know decided that he would retire from business. He calculated that if he sold his rather flourishing but small business he would he able, with the proceeds, to buy himself an annuity of an amount sufficient to keep himself and his wife in modest comfort for the rest of their days. And in fact he did that. For a year or two things seemed to work according to plan. But to-day that man is in the humiliating position of having to depend on friends to assist him to live. Similar cases must be known to your Lordships. But what is the significance of that case? We should all agree that the man was honest in paying a premium adequate for him in return for a certain annual payment. The insurance company, we may say, was in a sense equally honest in that it has fulfilled its part of the bargain by paying the particular figure it undertook to pay year by year. But, in fact, the man is going short, and it would almost appear as though he, having paid good 1938 or 1939 pounds, is being repaid with a kind of clipped coinage in 1955 or 1956 pounds. The effect is that though the paper bargain is being kept and the man is being paid the sums contracted for, in actual fact he is now suffering a standard of living that he never thought he would have to suffer. And yet he has carried out his part of the bargain. The same sort of thing appears to me to apply to this case.
  There are numbers of different kinds of superannuation schemes. As noble Lords will know, a Working Party drew up the details of a number of schemes now in operation, running through the Civil Service as a whole, the nationalised services, the local authorities and the like; and while the headings are similar in each case—"Contributions", "Money Benefit" "Methods of Finance" and so on—there are considerable variations in the derails. In the case of the Civil Service, as many of your Lordships know, there are no contributions by the employees. There is no fund, or, shall we say, there is no funded account. Any so-called actuarial deficiency is made up by the State. In other cases there are funded accounts, but there, where there is a deficiency, the employer, whether it be a local authority, the Scottish National Health Service or some

  1283
  other such organisation, makes up the deficiency. Why should we insist on treating this particular superannuation fund as though it were a permanent fund, as though sums were definitely fixed for all time, when this very day in your Lordships' House we are to deal later with a Bill which is called, I think, a Pensions (Increase) Bill—a method by which on six previous occasions we have had to alter what presumably were actuarially arrived at figures which have turned out to be false in course of time? I repeat that we are to-day to consider the seventh Bill dealing with increased pensions, though those pensions were the outcome of actuarial calculations made in the past.
  I would therefore suggest that if the Government did the right thing they would take back this Bill, bring in a third one, ignore this business of actuarial deficiencies, and adopt what I think is the modern method of regarding remuneration of an employee. They would say that every worker is entitled not only to be paid for the work he does but also, after his years of work are over, to a pension for the rest of his life. And they would simplify the calculations by assuming that he would receive so much during his working life, but that there could be variation of the figure during his pensioned life. They would say to him: "If you want further benefits in the way of widow's pension, dependants' pensions and so forth, we can arrive at some kind of calculation whereby perhaps sums over and above what you receive as a right can be arranged for." In that way, I think we could simplify this matter and do more than anything else to restore that social prestige which I very much fear the Government is doing a good deal to destroy in the case of these valuable servants of ours.
  3.59 p.m.
  VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I venture to intervene in this debate to say only a very few words. I listened with both attention and respect to the two speeches which have been made from the other side of the House, but it occurred to me that both the noble Lords were in some danger of confusing two rather separate issues, and none more so than the noble Lord who has just resumed his seat in the last remarks he made. I think we should all recognise
  1284
  that deep feeling has been aroused among teachers in the last two years, most of which has centred round this Bill. But, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has conceded, that relates not so much to the question of the additional 1 per cent. payable as a contribution to the pension as to the feeling which they have that they are generally underpaid and under-respected in the community. That general feeling is one with which I must confess a very real sympathy. I do not believe, as apparently the noble Lord allowed himself to say in his last sentence, that any respect or prestige in which the teaching profession is held in this country will he affected one way or another by the additional 1 per cent. I cannot believe that a matter of that kind can be dealt with on so small a scale or can be affected by such a trifling matter.
  The noble Lord is certainly preaching to the converted so far as I am concerned when he claims that the prestige of the teaching profession ought to be respected and that it has probably not been sufficiently respected in this country in the past. Happily, that suggestion is outside the range of Party politics. I know that there is the Burnham Committee and that from time to time there is legislation, and I hope that that matter will be taken care of in the proper way by the proper authorities at the proper time. I was glad when my right honourable friend the Minister announced in another place that these provisions would not take effect until after the next review. I should conceive that it was a matter which the Burnham Committee would be very much entitled to take into account in the review which they will then make.
  I have accepted that, and accepted that the prestige of the teaching profession ought to be maintained, that one standard of its maintenance ought to be its remuneration, and that the teachers, like a great many other professions, have suffered relatively a great deal more than some other occupations in the community. I recognise that statistically the case of the teachers is undeniably a strong one. I know that my own profession is not generally supposed to be underpaid, though in fact most of us are. I can speak from my own knowledge that the remuneration in my profession has not increased at all since before the war. We are relatively much worse off in relation

  1285
  to other occupations. Therefore I speak with sympathy of the teachers' claims. But I question the wisdom of tying these perfectly legitimate complaints by teachers, and by some other professions, to bitter attacks on an attempt to make a pensions fund actuarially sound.
  It may very well be, as the noble Lord suggested, that an actuarially sound pensions fund is a financial or economic chimera. These are abstruse matters upon which I would speak very much subject to correction, because I am well aware of the pitfalls which beset noble Lords and Members of another place who speak on economic matters without knowing them clearly. It may very well be that many occupations, notably the Civil Service, are better remunerated by a noncontributory scheme. If that were so and such a change were to be effected, it would inevitably be the case that a noncontributory pension, being purely a form of deferred salary, would be taken into account in every review and no doubt the total remuneration would be scaled down by the Burnham Committee in proportion. I do not think that that is a question we ought to go into to-day. I have not heard from the other side of the House any suggestion that that step ought to be taken or whether it would be particularly attractive to the teachers. The step which has been taken is that a scheme, which has been contributory, in principle at any rate, since 1922, and on a permanent basis since 1925, is now being put on an actuarially sound basis. I cannot see that there is anything wrong with that in principle, especially as the additional payment of 1 per cent. is based on a salary which is under review before the 1 per cent. comes into effect.
  Two of the noble Lords who have spoken have put forward an argument on the basis of breach of faith. That is something we hear from time to time in this House in relation to a number of matters, and I confess that whenever that cry is raised I feel a twinge of conscience about whatever it is that is proposed to be done. We hear it on a number of occasions and I think it is worth while reflecting a little on the nature of what is said on those occasions. I know that my noble and gallant friend behind me, Lord Jeffreys, has a particular horse which he rides with great eloquence and, so far as I am concerned, with great persuasive-
  1286
  ness, which is based on the construction of ministerial pledges given some time ago. On foreign affairs we find the bitterest antagonism aroused over the construction of pledges given in the 'twenties to different groups of people in the Middle East.
  My abiding conclusion is that, although Ministers have every right to bind their successors, and while their successors ought to respect the pledges which Ministers give, there comes a time when a pledge ceases to be easily intelligible, and different people form, quite legitimately, different views about what it means. Then the time has come for Parliament to lay down a new policy. I cannot get out of that. It may be a hard doctrine, but I have been a Member of one House and another for more than half my adult life, and the conclusion I have formed about ministerial pledges is that the time has come for Parliament to step in and make up their minds what to do, in the light of the pledge and h the light of the present circumstances. Otherwise, Parliament will find itself saddled with innumerable pledges on which divergent interpretations are inevitably given which hamper and restrict the progress of policy.
  It is now suggested that the teachers' pensions should remain contributory and that the actual deficiency, which I understand amounts to no less than £300 million, should be written off. I think the House will agree that that is the only possible thing to do with it, and that an actuarially sound contributory scheme should be instituted that will involve the additional 1 per cent. I did not follow the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin—and again I speak with great diffidence on the matter—when he suggested that the mere chance that the increased contribution bore the mathematical proportion of 6 per cent. (or 12 per cent., if we take both contributions), to the teacher's salary meant that the fur d could not be overdrawn if for some external reason the teachers' salaries increased. I should have thought that the contrary was the case. I understand that the pension is payable on the basis of the salary earned by teachers during their last years. It must follow, therefore, that if, as the result of a review, their salaries are increased, the pension fund would tend to run more heavily into debt until the increased contribution which would

  1287
  follow the increase of salary came to mathematical equality with the increased pension calculated on the basis of the last year's salary immediately after the increase has been given. That may be a mathematical fallacy, but I should think it would be the case.
  I cannot help feeling that this Bill has aroused a great deal too much bitterness and antagonism. I cannot speak of its very complicated past. I feel myself that there must be fairly solid reasons for making the scheme contributory, like so many other schemes, both in the public and the private service, all over the country, If it is to be made contributory, I feel certain that a contributory scheme must be actuarially sound. I have heard no demands that the contributions should be abolished, with the inevitable result on the salary. Therefore I come to the conclusion that the Bill is a good one, notwithstanding the antagonism it has aroused. I should like to think that, when the increased contributions come into effect and when the review has taken place, for quite different reasons than can be expressed properly in a debate on this Bill, the teachers will find that their salaries will rise; that the prestige with which they are held in the community will be restored—if, indeed, it has in any way been impaired; that they can cherish the feeling that they are playing the useful part which we all know they play, and that that usefulness will be universally recognised.
  4.12 p.m.
  LORD HADEN-GUEST: My Lords, the noble Viscount who has just spoken with such significance, as he always does, has, I think, left out one thing, and that is the feeling of the teachers themselves that they are not having a square deal. I do not think he laid any emphasis on that, but that is really the fact. While my own profession is that of a doctor, I have a particular interest in the teaching profession, because I was for many years one of the inspectors of schools for the London County Council, when the Inspectorate of Schools was set up, and I got to know teachers well. I know a great many of them personally, and I have lived a large part of my life in their company inspecting children. Therefore, I do know their point of view.
  1288
  People who go in for teaching do not do so in order to make a large amount of money. They are often no better at accounts than doctors are—I do not know about lawyers, but I should think that sometimes they also are not too good at accounts. What I am getting at is that teaching is a profession which has a very high standard of devotion to its duty and its ideas. As I say, with few exceptions, people do not go in for teaching with the idea of making a large amount of money, but because of their devotion to teaching and their love for children. I do not think the details that have been so largely discussed this afternoon, the amount they pay in and the amount in the account, is the thing which concerns them. If they could get an assurance from this House—and I hope the noble Earl, Lord Home, when he replies, will be able to give it—that the Government mean to do the best they can for teachers, so as to put them in a reasonable condition in their declining years, I am sure it would give great satisfaction. To my mind, it is intolerable that people who have devoted their lives to one of the most important functions in the community, the teaching of children, should in their later years, owing to a change in economic circumstances which nobody could predict and which is affecting every country in the world, be faced with the likelihood of being reduced to a condition of real and serious physical poverty. In my view, that is the thing that we must get into our minds. There must be some definite movement on the part of the Government to show the teachers that they do not intend to leave them in that condition, but will do their best to bring pensions up to a higher level, so that the teachers, in their old age, can live in reasonable comfort.
  4.15 p.m.
  THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, we have had an interesting debate. All the speakers from the opposite side of the House have really based their objections as my noble friend Lord Hailsham said, not so much on the additional 1 per cent. which the teachers are being asked to contribute as on the fact that there has been, as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said, an outburst of feeling from usually very reasonable people; that the teachers feel that there has been a breach of faith,

  1289
  and, as the noble Lord, Lord Haden-Guest, has said, that they have not had a fair deal. That charge hinges, I think, largely on the Act of 1925 and what was said in that year. I do not wish, any more than the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, does, to go in detail back to that Act. All I would say is that since I have come new into this field of education (it is not a field in which I have been active before) I have done my best to study the Act of 1925, and I cannot find in that Act anything which implies that the Treasury should bear all the cast of any increased pensions that might lead to this actuarial deficit.
  On what Lord Eustace Percy said in 1925 there are differing opinions. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has truly said that Lord Eustace Percy himself has said that all he meant was that contributions would not be increased so long as the accounts showed a balance, which, had the scheme been funded, would have been sufficient to meet its future liabilities. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said that he did not think that anything I could say would remove from the teachers the impression that they had not had a square deal. I doubt whether anything I can say will remove that feeling. However, what I can say is that if the Government felt that there was a breach of faith involved in this, naturally we should not have made, ourselves responsible for this Bill. I think on each side of the House we realise that we take a different view as to that, and we are willing to leave it there. We have tried to find a fair solution between the three parties; that is to say, the State, the local authority, who is the employer, and the employee.
  The noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, did not like the Bill; he felt that it should be withdrawn, and that a non-contributory scheme, should be substituted for the present scheme. And the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said that there was a long and discreditable history to the Bill.
  1290
  When I. went back only to 1948 I thought I was being kind to the Opposition, because during this long discreditable history there have been, after all, one or two periods of Labour Government. No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, was making the same sort of impassioned speeches as he made to-day, and no doubt the noble Lord, Lard Greenhill, was advocating a non-contributory scheme; but neither of them seems to have made much impression on his fellows. To ask for a non-contributory scheme would be to ask for the rejection of this Bill and its withdrawal, and the noble Lord will not expect me to go into any detail on that.
  I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, used this opportunity as a peg on which to hang his Views on salaries and remuneration for teachers. I believe that the more the country understands the present financial plight of those people who are skilled, the better. Teachers, as my noble friend Lord Hailsham said, are absolutely worse off in some cases than they were before the war, and certainly relatively worse off. The noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, concluded that they were not receiving the value that they expected when they entered into the contributory scheme. Nor is any of us, unfortunately, in this time of inflation I think the answer to that must be the general measures that we hope to take to increase productivity in this country, and the general financial measures which we hope will be successful in stemming inflation. I hope that your Lordships will now give this Bill a Second Reading. It may not be perfect, but it is some effort to help the teachers; and so long as there is to be a contributory scheme, then I think there is an obligation on the Government to make it actuarially solvent.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  SMALL LOTTERIES AND GAMING BILL
  4.20 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I am asking your Lordships for a Second Reading of this small Bill—small, but not, I think, without importance. I feel that in a way it is rather appropriate that we should be discussing this matter at the present time, because, possibly emboldened by the success of this Small Lotteries Bill in another place, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken upon himself to conduct part of the country's finances on the basis of what might in a general way be described as the lottery principle.
  I do not wish to take up too much of your Lordships' time, especially as, rather to my surprise, I find that there are quite a number of your Lordships who wish to take part in the debate, and that there is apparently opposition to the Bill's very modest provisions. The Bill, of course, is a Private Member's Bill, and its existence proves, if any further proof is needed at this stage, that the institution of the Private Member's Bill (about which, quite recently, a useful study by a university teacher has appeared) still serves a useful purpose. Although it is a Private Member's Bill, it has been received with what I think I may quite properly describe as rather more than benevolent neutrality from Her Majesty's Government. The Home Office have given a great deal of assistance to the promoters, for which we are grateful; and, of course, the Bill has been favourably received in another place, where its provisions were extended, rather than diminished, during its passage through the House.
  I make bold to say that the Bill has received the overwhelming support of the great mass of the community. Almost all the Members of another place have received a considerable mass of correspondence from their constituents supporting it, and I understand that there has been remarkably little opposition. I appreciate, of course, that there are a number of people who take the view that gambling in any form is altogether immoral and is to be condemned out of hand. In regard to gambling on a large scale, and particularly in regard to what one might call commercial gambling—
  1292
  gambling for the purpose of making a profit out of it, which involves encouraging people to go beyond moderate "flutters"—I am entirely in agreement with that point of view. But I cannot agree that this Bill falls into that sort of category: obviously it does not; it has been especially designed on the very reverse principle.
  All of us, I think, or nearly all, have a natural tendency to gamble up to a point, and if we keep that tendency in control and do not indulge it beyond moderation, it seems to me that it is a propensity of which none of us need be ashamed. All our natural propensities may be used for good or evil ends. A gambling propensity may be used to make life rather fuller and more colourful than it is to many of us, and provided that we exercise the propensity with self-discipline, and in a moderate way, I am quite sure that it does not do any harm. Of course, on the sort of scale which we often see it indulged, gambling is one of the most evil things—a breaker of families and a destroyer of family life, just as drink is if it is over-indulged. The two propensities are similar. They may give great pleasure and enjoyment, provided they are indulged in moderation; but if overindulged, they may lead to great evil, squalor and even crime.
  I hope that this does not sound like the beginning of a sermon, especially as I have the honour to be followed, I believe, by the most reverend Primate the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury. I must admit, quite frankly, that the half-crown that I put on Oxford at the Boat Race (and which, I regret to say, during the last few years I have almost invariably lost, but which I live in hopes of getting back in the succession of victories during years which I hope are not too far away) does give an additional pleasure to that most delightful of our annual sporting events. If I may say so, I sometimes think that the fanatical contenders for a particular moral line often do as much harm, if not more, to the very cause which they wish to support—the cause of general morality—as those who ignore moral constraint. We saw perhaps the best example there ever was of that in the attempt to enforce prohibition in the United States, which was carried on over a number of years and undoubtedly led to a distinct degeneration in the general moral climate of that great country.

  1293
  I do not wish to go into the history of lotteries. It has been inquired into, and the whole matter has been investigated by two Royal Commissions within quite a short time. The present state of the law is undoubtedly complicated, and even more uncertain than complicated. That was shown by both Royal Commissions, that of 1932–33 and that of 1949–51. It is a pity, I think, that the Government have not been able to find time themselves to take up the recommendations of the 1949–51 Royal Commission, in particular, which made a number of valuable contributions to this problem.
  The anomalies and uncertainties lead to a great deal of heartburning among many well-intentioned and admirable citizens, because the policy of enforcement varies a great deal from one part of the country to another—from one police authority to another—so that while the organisers of a whist drive in one area may be left quite alone to get on with this harmless activity, in some other neighbouring area they may find themselves brought up before the magistrates. Similarly (and this has been a particular matter of heartburning over the last years), the societies which have come into existence, particularly since the end of the war, when the organisation of football clubs has become such an expensive business, to provide finance for some of the weaker football and other games clubs have continually found themselves in difficulties with the police, while other clubs in the district, where perhaps the chief constable does not think it wise to bring prosecutions, have been left alone. This situation cannot but give rise to a great deal of feeling among the people who are prosecuted when they see others are not, and it undoubtedly brings the administration of the law into contempt; and that, I am sure all your Lordships will agree, is a had thing in the general interests of the community.
  The Statutes enacting this complicated and somewhat unintelligible system of law—if system it can be called—go hack a very long way. I think they go back to the time of Henry VIII who was, believe, not so much worried by the moral aspects of lotteries—after all, he was an adept at what has been called the greatest of all lotteries, that of choosing one's wife. I think he was more concerned to prevent young men
  1294
  from frittering away their time in indulging in lotteries, time which, in his view, could be more profitably spent in the practice of arms. The Statute of 1541 which appears to be the earliest of these Statutes was reinforced from time to time, and particularly in the Victorian period I do not think it can be seriously contended that the law had not become absurdly puritanical. It made criminal a number of quite harmless forms of gaming which I am sure very few of your Lordships would regard with such dis-favour as to think that they merited the sanction of a criminal prosecution. That people who have indulged in these really quite harmless activities should be brought before criminal courts and, in effect, branded as criminals, is quite absurd.
  This feeling became more widespread during the present century, during the years after the First World War. It became the general view in the community that the law in relation to lotteries had been tightened up beyond all reason. I think it is fair to say that that view received the support of the Royal Commission of 1932–33 and also of the more recent Royal Commission to which I have referred. The earlier of the Royal Commissions made certain recommendations for the alleviation of the situation, some of which, as your Lordships will recollect, were enacted in the Betting and Lotteries Act, 1934, the main object, or one of the main objects, of which was to enable societies to raise funds for charitable or other purposes connected with the work for which they had been formed. I do not wish to go into the provisions of that Act. On the whole, it has worked well and has enabled a great deal of mild and quite harmless gambling to be carried on, which has given a great deal of pleasure and, so far as I know, has led to no harmful effects.
  The particular matter on which I wish to concentrate is the fact that advantage was taken of this Statute by numerous societies and, particularly in more recent years, as I have said, by the societies of supporters of football clubs, to raise money for the financing of those clubs. But a number of prosecutions, and at least one decision of the High Court in a fairly recent case (I think it was the year before last) have shown that the law

  1295
  is still, in my contention, unreasonably rigid.
  The decision I have particularly in mind is one relating to the Torquay United Football Supporters' Club. The case may have attracted the attention of some of your Lordships: it caused a great deal of comment at the time when it was decided in the Queen's Bench Division. The case had been regarded as a test case and the decision showed that the holding of these small lotteries in support of football clubs of this kind—a practice which had become widespread all over the country—amounted, after all, to a criminal offence. That, I think, was a great shock to many of the promoters of these schemes. The result has been, partly, a return to the use of football pools for raising the money required. It is significant that, if one damns this sort of natural propensity in one way, it immediately finds a way round in another way; and the way round is often worse. The football pool is, I submit, equally a gamble. It is one which is much more consuming of time and money and in many ways less satisfactory than the small type of lottery which it has tended to replace.
  In my submission to your Lordships, the result has also been to make it clear that it is necessary that the law should be amended further so that provision may be made for this quite harmless form of gambling. That is the reason why this Bill has been introduced into Parliament. Its object is quite simple and not at all ambitious. It is simply to return to what I think most of us believed was covered by the provisions of the 1934 Act, and to enable societies such as those I have mentioned to hold these small lotteries for the purpose of obtaining quite modest sums of money for the support of their clubs and societies, but to do so only subject to quite a number of stringent safeguards which. I hope noble Lords will agree with me, are entirely adequate to keep the whole business under effective control. At the same time, advantage has been taken by the promoters of this Bill to make it clear that small card parties, and other small gaming parties which are held purely for the purposes of entertainment, and in no sort of way for private gain, are also to be deemed legal, a matter which has often been so
  1296
  much in doubt that, as I have said, even the holding of the village whist drive has from time to time been held to be an offence. I think that is all I need say by way of general introduction to the provisions of the Bill.
  I will now ask your Lordships to look shortly at the Bill and some of the main clauses which it contains. The matter is well summarised in the Explanatory Memorandum, which shows that the Bill authorises small lotteries and small gaming parties subject to the stringent conditions to which I will refer in a moment and which are, in fact, based on the recommendations of the Royal Commission of 1949–51. If the Bill becomes law, these lotteries will be lawful only for
  "societies which register with the local authority and the purpose of which is either to promote or assist charitable, cultural or athletic or other purposes not connected with private gain"—
  I think the last few words are perhaps the most essential point of all: it is the lottery or gaming which becomes a commercial adventure which, in my submission to your Lordships, does so much harm. If your Lordships will then look further on, you will see how modest are the provisions of the Bill. No prize is to exceed £100 and no ticket is to be sold at more than 1s. The value of all the tickets to be sold is not to exceed £750, so that, by the time the expenses have been taken off—and your Lordships will see that they are not to exceed 10 per cent. of the proceeds—the amount which will be available for the charity or football club as the case may be, will be quite a small sum, not more than £600 or so.
  There are a number of other provisions of rather less importance. For instance, Clause 1 (2) (f) says that the price of all tickets shall be the same. A wise addition which was made at the final stages in another place is that tickets are not to be sold by children under sixteen years of age. Clause 1 is undoubtedly the kernel of the Bill. The latter part of it is taken up with what I may properly describe, I think, as pretty stringent regulations for keeping the whole thing within the bounds of decency. Clause 2 makes the administrative arrangements for the registration with the local authorities of the societies coming under the Bill.

  1297
  Naturally, the provisions there are somewhat detailed in character. Clause 3 requires returns to be made by the promoters so that the whole thing will be above board and everybody will be able to see what is going on. Your Lordships will 11 see that Clauses 1, 2 and 3 are principally concerned with the lotteries in question.
  Then in Clause 4 we find the other aspect of this Bill to which I have referred—namely, the exemption of some card parties and gaming parties when carried on purely for purposes of entertainment and in no sense for private gain. To some extent I think that clause was amended towards the end of the passage of the Bill through another place, in order to permit of a game called "Housey-Housey," with which I personally am not altogether familiar, to be played within the provisions of this clause. Your Lordships will see that in some of the later subsections there are consequential provisions designed to prevent places where this sort of game is being carried on from becoming common gaming houses. Finally, in Clause 5, there are some supplementary provisions of a rather technical character with which I thin I need not take up your Lordships' time.
  My Lords, those, shortly, are the pros visions of this Bill. I suggest that it is a modest measure which in the end will make for decency in the conduct of this type of activity rather than give rise to anything which could possibly be called a public scandal. On the whole:, it will serve a useful purpose in putting into law the recommendations of a Royal Commission of men of considerable eminence who gave a great deal of thought and time to the survey of the whole of this problem, and it will be to the advantage of the whole country that this Bill should become law. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (Lord Chorley.)
  4.42 p.m.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTER-BURY: My Lords, this Bill concerns a subject upon which probably our personal experiences are quite different, and most of us have prejudices of one kind or another which make an objective judgment difficult. It is also one in regard to which moral theologians find many
  1298
  perplexities. However, I shall not concern myself with their questions. I shall not discuss whether gambling is wrong in itself; indeed, I find it difficult to know what that means, since you can never find gambling by itself. It always requires the participation in it of at least two people; in other words, it is a social activity, and the Bill is meant in a small way to affect our social life. It is tine effect which it may have which we, as reasonable people, have to try to estimate and evaluate.
  There is almost universal agreement that while some manifestations of the gambling instinct are widely regarded as allowable or even desirable, yet, as the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, has said, this instinct is, or is easily liable to become, a disturbing factor in social life; and that almost all its organised operations involve elements or possibilities of real social evil. Often, there is disagreement among the churches as to the quality or extent of the social evil involved. Generally speaking, the Church of England and the Free Churches, and the Lambeth Conferences which represent the whole Anglican Communion throughout the world, consider the degree of social evil involved to be so high that they resist any legislative encouragement of gambling and seek to extrude, it altogether from church activities.
  The Roman Catholic Church, on the other hand, employs the gambling instinct for its own church purposes very freely, and I think approves of large-scale national lotteries and sweepstakes, such as the Irish Sweepstake. But the Roman Catholic Church is, of course, just as aware as we are that a degree of social evil is involved and that it may become serious. Thus a Roman Catholic Archbishop, not long ago, in a pastoral letter called for an end to all games of chance for the raising of funds for church purposes, urging that they should be free from the taint—note the words "from the taint"—of gaming for chance. Everyone would agree that there is little positively right about gambling, and, if not wrong in itself, it presents undesirable and sometimes disastrous social features.
  It is, my Lords, against that background that this Bill must be considered; and we must be as clear as we can what kind of contribution this Bill will make to the health and happiness of our social

  1299
  order. We shall not forget that, as the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, has said, gambling does in fact often bring real family degradation and spiritual ruin to many individuals and to their families; no social worker could ever be forgetful of that fact. But no doubt your Lordships will be thinking, rather as I think the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, was, of the ordinary citizen well able to look after himself, who is very well content to buy a bit of amusement in this way with the chance of a little unearned increment thrown in to make it more amusing. The usual question is: "What is the harm in it?" Indeed, the noble Lord said that it does no harm. But the prime question is: "What is there to be harmed?" Let me in a few sentences say what it is that is liable to be harmed. A nation depends for its health upon the constructive spirit of its people. A constructive spirit is occupied positively with the good to be achieved, and the spirit of a people is to be found in the nature of their ordinary activities and their constant ways of thinking; it is to be found also in the incentives to which they most readily respond. Anything which to a serious degree debases what I will call this spiritual coinage of a people is dangerous and debilitating.
  This Bill about small lotteries certainly does not add anything very significant to the value of the nation's spiritual coinage, nor does it attempt to do anything to check its spiritual devaluation—it does not pretend to. These small lotteries are designed to win support for purposes which people otherwise will not take the trouble to support in sufficient numbers —charitable purposes, athletic sports, cultural activities presumed to be good (but how is anybody to tell that?) and apparently any other purposes of any kind whatsoever, good or bad, which do not involve private gain or commercial undertakings. May I say in passing that there seems something a little odd about carefully excluding purposes of private gain from this Bill, when a lottery by its nature exists only by offering to its supporters chances of private gain. It is strange that there seems nothing in this Bill to exclude purposes of dubious social value or purposes socially undesirable. I do not discover any means of checking the value of these "other purposes". But, of course, the intention of the Bill is to encourage people to support
  1300
  desirable causes which they would not be so easily induced to support otherwise.
  A speaker in another place said, very movingly—and the noble Lord no doubt had this in mind:
  "In my own constituency, many small village clubs, sporting clubs, garden clubs, horticultural clubs and all those causes which are so important in village life and which are a good moral influence have found their finances knocked endwise"
  when such lotteries as these were found to be illegal. No doubt this Bill is one answer. But it does in fact make use of and put into circulation what is in some degree a debased coinage, as will be obvious when it is contrasted with what I would call the gold standard by which those who care for admirable causes such as these take trouble to interest others to care for and support them too; or, if not to care for them, at least to give a subscription as an exercise of social duty discharged without thought of reward or gain.
  As I read this Bill I wonder whether it has not been chiefly inspired by the managerial class, if I may so call it; by organisers of clubs and enterprises who find the task of money-raising very difficult and who are trying to take a short cut to solvency by the risky methods of inflation. I wonder whether it is not a Bill devised chiefly by the middle-aged, too young to dream dreams and too old any longer to see visions. There has been no demand or support for this Bill from youth organisations or those who speak for young people. Young people can, and still do, respond to the simple idea that if things are worth doing, they are worth doing for their own sakes. All education tries to teach them that simple truth. It seems a pity to encourage them—as this Bill does—always to look for a prize, and one awarded not on merit but by pure chance, for well-doing.
  The Bill seems, rather appropriately, to trust to luck that no one will attempt to exploit its provisions in any undesirable way. The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, spoke if its "stringent conditions." I cannot find them. It imposes singularly few restraints. Any purpose which is not for private gain or of a commercial nature is allowed. Any "society" not thus excluded can apply for registration. The local authority does not appear to have any discretion about registering a society, and if the application is in due form and

  1301
  £1 is paid, then, so far as I can see, the local authority must register the society. The society fixes the opening and closing date of each lottery which it runs, and, I suppose, can start a new one as soon as the old one closes and thus run a perpetual lottery. For the purpose of the Bill a society includes:
  "an association of persons, by whatever name called."
  How many make "an association"? I find in the Bill that there must be a promoter and also two members to certify the required return. Will two other members suffice, making five in all? Can fifty like-minded enthusiasts register themselves as ten different societies, each promoting its own lottery? The Bill provides that no tickets may be sold by a person under sixteen years of age; but, so far as I can see, tickets may be sold to any member of the public. Does that mean that children of school age may, along with the rest of us, be invited at any time, by any enthusiast over the age of sixteen, to buy a ticket? No wonder the Youth Department of the British Council of Churches and the Council itself has asked that no children or young persons under the age of eighteen shall be in any way concerned in the organisation, sale, purchase or possession of tickets under this Bill!
  It is to be noted that local authorities, apparently, will have no knowledge of what lotteries are actually in operation at any given time. They will not know that until they receive a return from each lottery promoter, and that need not be until three months after the lottery has ended; so that at any given moment the local authority will not know how many lotteries are actually in progress in its area, each trying, or being able to try, to sell up to 15,000 tickets—the maximum fixed by the Bill. There may be quite a lot, all competing to secure shillings from as many people as possible. There is an arrangement by which local authorities control flag days for charitable purposes so that they do not clash with one another or become a nuisance to the public. If promoters of these small lotteries are to be encouraged to do what is now illegal and will become legal—to seek to sell their tickets to the general public—ought not the local authority to have power to control them as it controls flag days, to protect the general public
  1302
  from being unduly exploited by endless small lotteries, or even to protect ordinary citizens from ardent aldermen wishing to organise lotteries in relief of rates?
  My Lords, this title of "Small Lotteries" is very misleading. The noble Lord has said that they are small and therefore quite harmless. Each may be small, although already they are not so small as they were when the Bill first appeared; but if one is to judge their total social effect one must aggregate them, and I believe the Bill should requite local authorities to make an annual return of the number and proceeds of all lotteries in their area. Thus aggregated they are certainly not small. A chief constable stated in The Times two years ago that:
  "Taken in the aggregate small lotteries probably amount to the equivalent of running one Irish Sweepstake each week"
  in this country. If the true standard is to do things for their own sakes because they are worth doing, and without bribery, if the general spiritual currency of the community is to some extent debased by taking this line of least resistance, it is no answer to say that each person has only a few of these debased coins in his pocket at any one time. The whole coinage has been debased.
  On such grounds I should maintain that, in the general interest, this Bill should be rejected. But there is a wider reason which makes it in my view mote important that the Bill should not proceed. This Bill might, perhaps, have crept through as a small, even if a rather small-minded, Bill; but, as we have been reminded, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has now raised the same general principle on a far larger scale. I know that the Chancellor says that his premium bonds are not a gamble, but there will be all the paraphernalia of a national lottery —the sale of what are the equivalent of tickets, quarterly drawings (which already some would make monthly drawings), publication of winning numbers, the recurrent excitement to see whether one has a winning ticket and all the rest of it. How long will the general public (or, shall I say, future Chancellors of the Exchequer) be aware of some tenuous argument about when is a gamble not a gamble, or remember that because they are only gambling with the interest, they are not really gambling at all?

  1303
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury is reported as saying this—and with the first half of it I entirely agree:
  "… it is utterly in the national interest that the sort of people who are spending money without a thought of saving should get the idea that they are doing a service to the nation and to themselves and have a flutter at the same time."
  And Mr. Davies, who first promoted this Bill, said of it in another place:
  "if a person can combine a flutter with charity, he gives more generously and regularly."
  So whether it is the duty of supporting good causes or the duty of saving for one's own benefit and for the nation's good, there must be a "flutter" attached to make duty palatable.
  The Chancellor has compelled us to consider the matter on a national scale. We all agree that we are engaged in a great struggle to preserve, to restore, to re-create, the economic stability and the spiritual capital of this people. The Government know, as well as all the rest of us, that we can regain stability and strength only by unremitting exercise all through the nation of the old-fashioned but essential virtues: integrity of character, strict honesty, the duty of honest work honestly rewarded, thrift, saving and the like. We all know that, at present, calls to such virtues fall on barren soil—not enough people listen when they are told that it is their duty to work or their duty to save. So what? The Government's duty, surely, is by every means in their power to restore the true coinage without which we cannot endure as a great people. They have chosen instead not a dazzling but a rather second-rate expedient, which may attract savings but which adds nothing to the spiritual capital of the nation, and which insinuates on a large scale this, as I should say, undignified and unedifying adulteration of public duty by motives of private gain.
  And it comes, my Lords—if I may keep you for a few moments longer—at a peculiarly inappropriate time. We live in a Welfare State. The whole basis of it is responsible citizenship, and particularly responsibility in the use of money. To make this Welfare State viable spiritually and economically every citizen must develop a sense of responsibility superior, as I would say, to that
  1304
  required under any other order of society that has ever existed. Chance, in the sense of the unforeseeable or the uncontrollable, does, of course, enter into every occupation and often decides whether a State, a society, or a company pays its way and whether individuals are in prosperity or adversity. But the whole endeavour of our society is that each in his own place shall earn and contribute and control his share by the exercise of his own reasoned responsibility. Private gain divorced from responsibility, whether in management or workers or anywhere else, is anti-social. The Government's great concern must be that money gained shall be truly earned and that money earned shall be used reasonably, thoughtfully and for the general good.
  The Chancellor's action and this Bill both contradict that social principle, and do so now of all times, when our existence and influence as a nation depend upon it. The Bill might be regarded as a small and, therefore, unimportant thing; but it is now caught up into this far wider context of concern. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, too, talks of his premium bonds as being "too small to corrupt." Once more there is this misleading emphasis on smallness. It is as though an athlete in training said that a chocolate was too small a thing to injure his training, and then proceeded to eat chocolates the whole day long. When everybody is making seductive offers all round, fresh offers of the same kind, from the Government of premium bonds, or from this Parliament in this Bill, become of serious concern for the training and disciplined spirit of the nation. Bad currency always drives out good. A long succession of small gambles, always tending to grow larger or more numerous, added on to the commercial gambles as a whole, cannot make a nation great. They can only make it flabby or, shall I say, fluttering in spirit.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer will no doubt go his own way. But the Government have now undertaken to deal by legislation with the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Betting and Gambling, and your Lordships know that the Royal Commission did not recommend any change in the Lottery Laws. Surely, on every ground, this Bill must now await the general review which the Government have promised, in which the

  1305
  undoubted anomalies to which the noble Lord referred will be dealt with, and any necessary relaxation from an over-Puritanical spirit will no doubt be deliberately made.
  If the Chancellor of the Exchequer can claim to prejudge the issue for his own purposes, this Bill cannot claim the same right. It is no longer a small one. It must now be considered along with all other similar matters. The Bill utters this coinage—what I have called this slightly debased coinage—in maximum denominations of £100, the Chancellor of £1,000 and the football pools of £75,000, But it is all the same spiritual currency, and its value for the public health should be considered by the Government and by Parliament as a single problem. No doubt, the general public will require that a place, a substantial place, be left in the national life for the gambling instinct to express itself, and I should accept the fact. But when the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the promoter of this Bill suggest that their measures are too small to corrupt, they bear witness that large indulgence of the gambling instinct may easily corrupt the life of the nation. But small and large are matters of proportion, and can only be wisely considered when all the elements of the problem are brought together in the general review now promised by the Government. For this reason, also, I suggest that it would be improvident to proceed with this Bill until that general review can take place.
  5.0 p.m.
  LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Ammon, for speaking before him, but let me assure him that I am only following what I understood was to be the order of speakers. I will not stand between him and the House for long, but I rise as an unrepentant supporter of this Bill, in spite of the most impressive and widely-phrased declamation of the most reverend Primate. My reason for supporting this Bill is that I believe that no great moral issue is raised by this Bill. It is doing nothing new. It is making no extension of gambling. It is simply putting right what all of us, with one: or two exceptions, have in this House and outside indulged in for years——the mild "flutter" in aid of the horticultural society, in aid of the hospital, or in aid
  1306
  of the local church, welcomed by those who received the benefits of such a "flutter". We are putting right the result of the Maynard Williams judgment of 1954.
  I do not feel that it is appropriate today, and I am not competent to go into the wider issues raised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget, as did the most reverend Primate. We shall have chances later on of going into that question—I use the word "chances" with some hesitation after the speech we have just heard. Perhaps then there will be noble Lords who will take issue with the most reverend Primate on his analysis of the motives and results of the proposals which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has put forward and which I think will command a certain measure of support throughout the country. The most reverend Primate started his speech by saying that an objective judgment on gambling was difficult because it was difficult to define gambling. I cannot disagree with that, because we all live to some extent by the hazard, the chance, the gamble of life. What a dreary and dull thing life would be if it were lived according to the law of certainty! I do not know whether the most reverend Primate carries life insurance for the benefit of his dependants when he dies. Some of us do. That is a form of gambling. It is the acceptance by a life insurance house of a hazard on the life of the individual they insure. They assess all the chances of someone living to a particular time. They medically examine him and try to get the chance a little more on their side than on his.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, the noble Lord asked me whether I was insured: yes, I am. In my speech I said that there were chances and that the great endeavour of man was to control his chances reasonably. One fact of which I am certain is that I shall die. Therefore, I try to meet that certainty as reasonably as I can.
  LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, let me say only that the company that accepts an insurance of the most reverend Primate is having a gamble on how long he is going to live. They hope to win. I sincerely hope that they will lose, but it is their hope that they will win. The most reverend Primate went

  1307
  on to say that the authoritative bodies of the churches generally reject gambling. The authoritative bodies of the churches may generally reject gambling, but lower down in the ranks they do not. They enjoy the church raffle. There are great benefits—the new nave is built, the church is repaired. I really think it is hypocritical for the authorities at the top to say that they reject these things while farther clown the ranks they are only too glad to take advantage of them.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, "hypocritical" is a very hard word. I always thought it was the duty of leaders to lead and not to depend on what people were saying down below. I have yet to learn that vox populi has to be accepted as vox dei.
  LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I was not saying that the most reverend Primate was hypocritical. I said that the authoritative church attitude is hypocritical if the authorities go to their councils and condemn gambling and yet do not issue a letter or directive, or whatever the church hierarchy issues, to the authorities lower down to say that no more church raffles should be encouraged and that there should be no more summer fetes where the cake is raffled.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt again, but the noble Lord has asked for it. The church authorities do issue directions, but, thank heaven! the Church of England is a fairly tough and responsible body and knows that not all its orders will be obeyed.
  LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, if orders are made and not obeyed, it is not for me to comment on the discipline which exists in the Church of England. The most reverend Primate then said that the national spirit, the coinage of our national life, is all important and must not be debased. I entirely agree. He said that the "gold standard" is tarnished by this Bill. With great respect, I think that that is an exaggeration. The Bill legalises something which has been common practice for many years, and to say that our spiritual life is being debased thereby is something which ordinary men cannot really understand. The most reverend Primate asked whether this is a "middle-aged" Bill. He made an
  1308
  assumption, unsupported by any facts or argument, that it was the managerial class which was behind this Bill and that there was no demand for it by youth. I do not know the figures, but I think we should find that as many people under thirty-five enjoy of mild "flutter" as those over thirty-five. There has been no sort of Gallup Poll of the ages of the populace who enjoy their mild "flutter." I could not quite understand that statement, because it was completely unsupported by any factual evidence.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, that is partly true. I gave it as my opinion, and it has whatever merit there is in that, but I did support it with one small bit of evidence. So far as I know, no youth organisations or persons who speak for youth had ever asked for this Bill.
  LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, and so far as I know no youth organisation has protested against this Bill, except the Church youth organisation which the most reverend Primate mentioned; and, so far as I know, there have not been any supporting resolutions from old age pensioners or any particular opposition by old age pensioners. I do not think that we can really say that sections of the population support or oppose the Bill. I think we must keep a sense of proportion. I regret that the wider issues of gambling in relation to the spiritual life of the nation, and of the introduction by the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the new premium bonds, should have been introduced in the debate on this small measure, which does nothing new and which only legalises what all of us enjoy. I think the objection to this Bill is impractical. Sometimes, quite rightly, the Church tells us of our many and manifold sins of omission and commission. Nevertheless, today nine-tenths of the people, if it is a debasing of the spiritual life of the country, enjoy a slight degree of debasement. I suggest that those in authority in the churches should give some credit for self-control of the ordinary member of the family and of the population. People can exceed in gambling; people can exceed in drink; people can exceed in many different directions to the detriment of themselves, their spirit and the nation in general. Sometimes we hear of empty churches and of the

  1309
  decline of the church. I sometimes think it is because those in authority are out of touch with nine-tenths of the people of this country.
  5.21 p.m.
  LORD AMMON: My Lords, it is more than fifteen months since I took any share in your Lordships' deliberations, and I have come down to-day in disobedience of doctor's orders because of what I feel is the moral danger of this Bill. Neither I nor, I think, the most reverend Primate, would be prepared to say that one is guilty of a wicked deed if one takes part in a small lottery. But what I am concerned about, in particular, is the danger to our young people. The future belongs to the young people, and it will be determined very much by their character. It is for that reason that I am going to ask your Lordships to reject this Bill.
  I should like to digress for a moment to answer the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, who said that no instructions had been issued from headquarters with regard to this matter. Fortunately, If have here a publication, which I had not expected to use, issued on behalf of both the Anglican and the Free Churches. It says:
  "As a way of raising money they (lotteries) are wasteful and pernicious … pernicious because of the unholy alliance between altruism and self-seeking. For this attempt to bribe people to subscribe to charities by an appeal to self interest there is nothing to be said. It is an insult to charity and a source of offence because it tends to blunt men's consciences."
  That is an official statement issued on behalf of both the Anglican and the Free Churches. By happy coincidence I, as a member of the Free Church, am to-day following the most reverend Primate, who spoke earlier on this matter.
  Having said that, I want us to give a little more thought to this matter than we appear to have done. In a letter to The Times some time ago the Bishop of Willesden said this:
  "The effect of such reversal to extend existing facilities for gambling will tend to the degradation of charity and the debasement of sport. It encourages cupidity rather than charity … and will multiply the number of people who have no interest in sport for sport's sake."
  That, so far as I am concerned, is the basis of the opposition to this Bill. It will have a deleterious effect on our young people, and we shall reap the reward
  1310
  later on. I think the noble Lord who introduced the Bill described it as a "little Bill." But that is how these things start. Then, when they have started like that and made some impression, we find them difficult to stop. It will be most difficult to make young people believe that there is quite a difference between this sort of gambling and that in the wider field. After all, the whole case was given away by the mover of the Bill when he agreed that certain wrongs had resulted from this to the social life of the country. It began in this degree, first of all, and it is because of that, I think, that we have responsibility placed upon us.
  I speak with some little knowledge on this matter, because I have for many years been concerned with work among young people; and I was for several years on the management committee of one of the probationers' homes. Again and again we found that the beginning of trouble was the gambling instinct among these young people. They get that, and then they get to bigger things; and then they see the huge prizes offered by the pools. Now that gambling is being given this air of respectability it will make things much more difficult. Two or three Bills similar to this have been introduced in the past few years. Two of them were talked out in another place, and this one got through on a narrow majority of only twenty-four in a small House. It is worth noting that in the debate on a former Bill of this sort the then Home Secretary said:
  "Are we to legislate at the level of he present day 'decline in the standard of morals and integrity in our community life'?"
  That Home Secretary has now undertaken higher office.
  I want to remind noble Lords that again and again we have discussed in this House moral issues concerning the health and well-being of young people—in the language of to-day, juvenile delinquency. Anybody who is in touch with these young people will know that the gambling instinct is one of the starting points—putting a "bob" on a horse. First, they do it, and it seems all right; and then they read of the enormous prizes offered by the pools. All these things are lowering. When they get the idea that they can do better in this way than by honest hard work, then we are going a long way to making things more difficult in the future. That is all I can say at the

  1311
  moment. As I say, I have come to this House to make my protest. I feel that I should offer some apology because, having been away for so long, it is unfortunate that I should find myself in opposition to my noble friend Lord Chorley. However, I am bound to say that I shall ask the House to vote against the Second Reading of the Bill as and when the time comes.
  5.29 p.m.
  EARL WINTERTON: My Lords, it affords me, and I am sure all your Lordships, great pleasure to see the noble Lord, Lord Ammon, back among us. I should like to say, as a political foe of his of the old days and as an old and personal friend, how glad we are to see him here to-day. And although I am a supporter of the Bill, I thought that he put the case against the Bill with a moderation which was singularly lacking from the speech of the most reverend Primate. I want to tell the most reverend Primate that I, as a supporter of the Government and a friend of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, resent his bringing into the debate on this Bill a discussion on premium bonds, which in any other assembly in the world would have been out of order.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: The noble Lord who moved the Second Reading himself referred to premium bonds.
  EARL WINTERTON: It is true that h referred to premium bonds, but he did not take the opportunity to make the attack upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer which the most reverend Primate made. I think it was unfortunate.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I am sorry to interrupt again, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself indicated that a number of people would be severely injured and hurt by his actions. He was prepared for that. Would he really complain if I make reference to a topic which is common to his action and the action of this Bill?
  EARL WINTERTON: That, if I may say so, is a matter of opinion. The most reverend Primate occupies a position of great eminence in this country, but he must not suppose that when he takes part in debates in your Lordships' House he is not open to criticism.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: Oh, no.
  EARL WINTERTON: I think that his whole contention, that there is a close connection, a moral connection, a Christian connection, between this small Bill and premium bonds, is, frankly, ridiculous. That is my description of it.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: Does the noble Earl deny that premium bonds are a lottery?
  EARL WINTERTON: I should prefer to make my speech my own way. I am not prepared to discuss premium bonds on this occasion, because I think it is an inappropriate time to do so. Really, I must be permitted occasionally to make a sentence without interruption from the most reverend Primate. Sometimes when the most reverend Primate interrupts, I rather regret we are not back in another place with a Speaker. All I said was that I think it is a ridiculous argument to connect this mild little Bill with premium bonds. All that it does really is to clear up the law. That is the principal object of the Bill, because in many parts of the country what this Bill authorises already takes place without any interference from anybody. It is only under some police administrations that the lotteries with which this Bill deals are prevented. I should have thought that it was a perfectly' harmless Bill from that point of view.
  On the general question of gambling, of course the most reverend Primate is entitled to his opinion, as are the rest of us. If I might have his attention for a moment, I was rather interested in one piece of unconscious humour on his part. He was tackled by my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye to explain why church raffles were encouraged in so many churches, and why the Church authorities did nothing about it. He informed us that the Church of England was a very tough body and was incapable of imposing discipline on any of its members. That is quite true, otherwise the Dean of Canterbury would not still be the Dean of Canterbury.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: If the noble Earl will trail his coat like this, I must intervene again to point out that I stated in this

  1313
  House, at great length, some years ago the fact, which Sir Winston Churchill supported in another place, that there is no law in this country under which the Dean can be excluded from his office.
  EARL WINTERTON: If I may pay a compliment to the most reverend Primate, I remember his delightful and extremely eloquent speech—which is what we expect from him—on the occasion of that debate. But he did mention, in the course of that debate, that the Dean of Canterbury had abased and compromised his position. All I say is that it could not be said of any other Church that I have heard of, that a person who so behaved could not be subject to any penalty. That disposes of that matter.
  I would say that the most reverend Primate was like a man who uses a bulldozer to remove a small twig. To listen to his speech—to which the House always listens with the closest attention, because, if he will allow me to say so with the greatest respect and without impertinence, he is one of the most eloquent speakers I have heard in fifty years of public life—one would have thought that this was a gigantic question, the very summit of moral questions: that the whole social life of the country depended on our not passing a Bill of this kind. I really do not think that is so. I should have thought there were many other questions much more worthy of the head of the Church of England. I should have thought, especially this week, that the Church might have drawn attention to the appalling persecution of fellow-Christians behind the Iron Curtain. I noticed that in the recent Church conferences most of the attention was drawn to questions such as gambling and not to other evils which are far greater in the world to-day than the form of gambling with which this Bill deals. For those reasons, I hope this Bill will be passed.
  I think it is a sensible little Bill. I agree that there is a great deal of hypocrisy in this country about gambling and a great deal of inequality as between different aspects of it. "Inequality" is not a very happy term, but while some forms of gambling are bad, other forms, I think, do not do much harm. I would say, in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Ammon, that I really cannot think that anyone would be led on the downward path and become a confirmed gambler
  1314
  through the provisions of this harmless little Bill. I should have thought it much more likely in the case of a man who gambled on the turf or on the football pools. The truth is that we have had in this country for a long time a state of affairs which is ridiculous, and I am glad that Her Majesty's Government, with commendable courage—because the Bill is going to meet with a good deal of opposition from different quarters—are going to take in hand and consider the recommendations of the Royal Commission. It may well be—and we have yet to hear the answer of the Government—that the Government feel that it is inadvisable to pass this Bill because of the general principle involved; the principle of dealing with the recommendations of the Royal Commission. If that is not so, I hope the Government will give this Bill its blessing.
  5.36 p.m.
  LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, it is not necessary for me to attempt to come to the aid of the most reverend Primate, whose speech, when it is read carefully, I think will be seen to have been a carefully thought out and balanced statement. What is the object of this Bill? Either it is to increase the facilities for gambling, or else it is to aid charitable objects. I think few of us would wholeheartedly subscribe to the proposition that it is desirable to increase the facilities for gambling, which are already quite abundant in this country, many of them well organised—and another, with all respect to the noble Earl who has just spoken, is apparently on its way. That is not at all an irrelevant consideration to the discussion this afternoon. If, on the other hand, the object of this Bill is to assist charitable purposes, I would say, in the first place, that that is far from being the whole of its content, because, as it stands at the present moment, it enables lotteries to be conducted for the benefit of any society, no matter what its objects are. Its objects might, in fact, be quite uncharitable and quite detrimental to the community. But if this Bill is passed into law, it will have ample legal facilities to conduct as many lotteries as it pleases. So that this is not a pure case of assisting charitable objects.
  After all, it seems rather strange that if people want to undertake some purpose which is beneficial to the public, or even one which is beneficial to some private

  1315
  society and not beneficial to the public at all, they should not have sufficient public spirit to be able to subscribe the money which is necessary for that purpose but have to depend upon cajoling other people into supporting it by taking part in a lottery on the chance that they will win a prize. With all respect to the noble Earl who has just spoken, that seems to me to raise an issue of fundamental moral importance. I admired very much the speech which he made in this House comparatively recently when we were discussing a matter relating to foreign policy, in which he made a spirited protest about the neglect of the moral issues which were involved in certain questions; and I think moral issues ought not to be neglected in this case either. It is a matter which deserves consideration: whether the result of this Bill is not simply to increase to a large extent the facilities for gambling, without serving any other useful purpose at all. On that account, I am going to support my noble friend, Lord Ammon.
  5.40 p.m.
  LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I find myself in some difficulty, because all my sympathies are with those who oppose the Bill and against those who have spoken in favour. Nevertheless, I propose to support the Bill. The most reverend Primate based the case against the Bill on the effect on our social life and on his objection to gambling generally. I should like to say at once that I—and, I imagine, a great many in this House—am utterly opposed to gambling and am completely out of accord with the speeches which have been made by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, and by the noble Earl, Lord Winterton. I do not think that a "flutter" is a good thing. I agree with all the sentiments that the most reverend Primate and the noble Lords, Lord Ammon and Lord Douglas of Barloch, have expressed, but I fail to co-relate those sentiments with this Bill. I do not believe for a moment that a single person will be induced to play bridge or whist over and above those who already play those games. This Bill will give no encouragement to anybody to play whist who does not already do so. Nor, in my view, will it increase in any way the number of lotteries that take place.
  EARL WINTERTON: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord but he said I was in favour of gambling. I have not said a word in favour of gambling. I myself do not gamble. I said there were differences between different forms of gambling. Probably I did not make that point clearly.
  LORD SILKIN: Of course, I accept that. The point I wish to make is that this Bill will not in any way increase the amount of whist-playing or the number of lotteries that take place. For instance, I would refer to Paragraph 147 of the Report of the Royal Commission, which deals with whist drives. Among other things, it says:
  "Although whist drives are illegal, proceedings are not normally taken against their promoters."
  It goes on to say that, in actual fact, the police have been given instructions not to prosecute. Therefore people can play whist in an organised way with impunity. The same applies to these small lotteries. There have been odd prosecutions but, in fact, we know that these lotteries are taking place under the very noses of the police and people in authority. So long as one complies broadly with the kind of conditions that are laid down in the Bill, no prosecution will take place. If anybody wants to run a lottery for the purposes of a church or of any other charity, he will do so and take the risk of the police interfering. Probably the chances of the police interfering will be very slight indeed.
  The effect of this Bill is that, whereas people who take part in organised games of whist or in these small lotteries are, as the law stands at present, criminals and liable to prosecution, they will, if this Bill is carried into law, not be so. It is desirable that if a thing is permitted with impunity and carried on with impunity, the people who do it should not be regarded as criminals and run even the very slight risk of prosecution. Nobody can suggest for a moment that if we do not pass this Bill the amount of gambling that will take place which this Bill covers will in any way be reduced. I submit that neither will it be increased if the Bill is passed. It will leave matters exactly as they are, except that people will no longer be regarded as criminals and possibly liable to prosecution.

  1317
  There is one small point which the most reverend Primate made about the Bill. No doubt it could be remedied in Committee. I agree with him that it would be wrong if we accepted, under the guise of a charitable organisation, any undertaking, any society, so long as it was not run for gain. But I myself do not understand Clause 1 in that sense. I imagine the most reverend Primate is referring to Clause 1 (1) (c). I take paragraph (c) to mean that it must be a purpose which is broadly covered by paragraphs (a) and (b) and which is covered by what the lawyers describe as the doctrine of eiusdem generis. If I am wrong in that —and I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, will be able to tell me whether or not that is so—then it is a matter which quite properly can be dealt with and amended in the Committee stage. But, subject to that, with every sympathy for and in full agreement with what all the noble Lords and the most reverend. Primate have said about the ethics of gambling, I fail to understand how this Bill can affect the matter in any way. Incidentally, I cannot resist one final word to the noble Earl, Lord Winterton. He rebuked the most reverend Primate for being irrelevant; but. I wonder what the Dean of Canterbury has to do with this Bill.
  LORD REA: My Lords, may I suggest that he was regarded either as a gamble or as a small lottery?
  5.47 p.m.
  LORD KINNAIRD: My Lords, I did not intend to take any part in this debate but I was moved by an omission from the speech of the most reverend Primate, in that while he referred to the Church of England and to the Free Churches, he did not mention the Church of Scotland. Since the most reverend Primate has brought up the question of the premium bonds, I should like to say that the late Convener of the Church and Nations Committee of the Church of Scotland has written to the papers to say that he views with very great regret the fact that the Government are making themselves responsible for the lottery bond—I thought that was interesting as a man speaking with authority—and that the Church of Scotland have sent an injunction to all their congregations saying that they disapprove of all lotteries that are raising funds for the benefit of the Church. So
  1318
  the Church of Scotland has spoken definitely with regard to lotteries that are arranged in any form for the benefit of the Church. That has been made clear. Otherwise, it is a matter of private opinion. I am not saying whether I approve or not; we, all have our private opinions; but I think that when we find a Government sanction being given we have to consider the matter very carefully.
  5.49 p.m.
  THE EARL OF HALIFAX: My Lords, before my noble friend replies, may I add one word. I have not had the opportunity of hearing all your Lordships' discussion, and in particular I regret that I had to miss the contributions made by my two noble friends who sit immediately below me. I confess to finding myself in some difficulty in this matter. I am not, I hope—indeed, I know that I am not—any more virtuous than any other noble Lord. I enjoy a "flutter," when it conies my way, as much as anybody else does, and I certainly have no scruples whatever about taking part in a village whist drive raffle, or in any other raffle on an even larger scale.
  Although I do not discuss the ethics of gambling, I have always supposed that the two essential features of reprehensible gambling, which I have no doubt the noble Lord opposite who moved the Second Reading was right in not finding in this Bill, are, first, the feature that leads people to commit themselves to a larger financial extent than they can afford; and secondly, the feature that tends to lead them to attach an undue value to money for its own sake. I do not find those two elements in this proposal; therefore I am not greatly shocked by it. On the other hand, I do not think that anybody—certainly not I—listened to the speech of the most reverend Primate, speaking with the responsibility that is bound to attach to anything that he says both in his personal and representative capacity, without being a good deal affected and moved by it.
  Apart from the argument that lie developed on merits, I was impressed with the argument that he advanced towards the end of his speech, in which he said that he thought that there was a strong case for asking the Government to allow this matter to stand over and be brought up as part of a general review, in the light of the consideration that they intend

  1319
  to give to the whole question later. To me, too, that would seem to be a not unreasonable conclusion of this immediate discussion. We could then look at the matter in the light of what might be the general considerations so given. That is all I want to say, beyond adding my appeal to that of the most reverend Primate, that if it were thought possible that course might be followed.
  5.52 p.m.
  THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (LORD MANCROFT): My Lords, this Bill is a Private Member's Bill, and naturally your Lordships will look to the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, for guidance upon some of the technical points that have been raised and for help in the Committee stage on any doubts which may be in your Lordships' minds. But I think it would be right for the Government to express some opinion on this Bill, and I should now like to put their views to your Lordships as briefly as I possibly can. As will be within your Lordships' memory. Parliament has discussed the whole question of gambling on two or three occasions in recent months. In February last we had a most interesting debate on the Report of the Royal Commission, initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. In a way, I am sorry that although we had excellent speeches from the Bishops of Carlisle and of Sheffield, we were prevented, through circumstances of which we are all aware, from hearing the Archbishop's advice on that occasion. The most reverend Primate has to-day given us a speech of great importance and one to which the country will obviously lend a keen and interested ear. I should rather have wished that the first half of the most reverend Primate's speech had been available to the House at the time of the major debate on gambling two months ago.
  With much of the first half of the most reverend Primate's speech I found myself in agreement. That is purely a personal opinion, because I do not happen to like gambling. On the second half of his speech—a most remarkable second half, in which he succeeded, if I may say so with great respect, in making a Second Reading speech on a Bill which is not to be published until to-morrow—I would
  1320
  only say that on the question of premium bonds there are, I think, many noble Lords here who will, when the time comes, be happy to take a few twigs to his bulldozer and do battle with him on that matter. It seems to me that that matter is not germane to the much smaller issue which is before the House to-day and upon which I think the most reverend Primate has, with some justification, been taxed as attaching a little more importance than it really merits.
  During the course of the debate on the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, I ventured to suggest what the Government felt might be a practical basis for legislation on this whole subject when a suitable opportunity occurred. Of course, my suggestions were based almost entirely on the suggestions of the Royal Commission. It was generally agreed in the course of that debate that there is bound to be gambling in this country and that we may as well face it. Therefore, if there is bound to be gambling, the law about it had better be clear, it had better be sensible, it had better be understood and, most of all, it had better be obeyed. We came to the conclusion that at the moment the law concerning gambling generally in this country is none of those things. I was impressed afterwards at the widespread approval, both in the Press and in the country, of the arguments used in your Lordships' debate, even by those who were fundamentally opposed to gambling and whose conscientious objections were naturally aroused. The general fears of your Lordships' House were towards uncontrolled gambling rather than towards gambling as such, and that view has, I think, been widely reflected in the country and has evoked remarkably little protest—at least, nothing like the protest that we thought at the time might arise.
  This question raises the very small matter of lotteries. It occupied a separate chapter in the Report of the Royal Commission. It is indeed true that the Royal Commission made no suggestions for reforming this very small branch of the law. The reason for that has been made clear since. There have been two cases which have cast considerable doubt on the law, upon which the Royal Commission made no recommendation. It is fairly obvious that if those two cases had occurred before the Report of the Royal

  1321
  Commission, they might well have advised in a different way. All that remains is for me to say that this Bill seeks to put these doubts out of the law and to put the matter in order.
  I can advise the. House, I hope fairly, that the Bill is generally a workmanlike and practical Bill and will succeed in doing what its sponsors set out to do. It sets out to bring the law back into repute. Let us face the fact, as several noble Lords have said in the course of the debate, that the law on this particular subject has been broken time and time again, in all innocence by many people. There can he little doubt that Members of your Lordships' House have on numerous occasions broken this law. This goes back to the fundamental principle of the debate on the Motion of Lord Silkin: that if we are going to have a law, let us have one that we can understand and one that we can obey. That is the principle behind this small Bill, and it is one which I think your Lordships can well accede to this afternoon.
  I deliberately say nothing about the ethics of gambling. I think that is not my duty. Your Lordships have received much conflicting advice in the course, of the debate. I content myself with saying that I think this is a necessary amendment of the law, which need not wait for the major reforms which we contemplate, because it is separate and disconnected from those reforms. It will succeed in bringing the law into repute. If we are going to have a law for gambling, we want it to be a law that we can all understand and obey. Upon that basis alone—I go no further—I, for one, would, I am afraid, vote against the noble Lord, Lord Ammon, in the Lobby should he see fit to take this matter to a Division.
  5.59 p.m.
  LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I should like to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, particularly those who have supported my Motion. I should like also to thank the most reverend Primate for the admirable—I do not quite know whether to call it a sermon, which he delivered to us, and also my noble friend Lord Ammon, whom I am sure everybody, particularly myself, is glad to see back here taking part in our discussions, even at the cost of his opposition to the Motion which I have put before your Lordships. If I may just take
  1322
  up one matter with him, I understand that he proposes to divide the House on this Motion. If I understood him correctly, he said that the Bill was passed through another place by a small majority. Of course, that is not true; it was unopposed on both the Second and the Third Readings. I would appeal to him, as an old House of Commons man and as one who appreciates the constitutional position, not to attempt to override a decision reached in another place by what was, in effect, an uncontested vote; because so far from there being a small majority, on both Second and Third Readings, as I say, the passage of the Bill was uncontested.
  The most reverend Primate has contributed a speech with much of which I found myself in agreement. But I thought it was rather unrealistic. After all, we are confronted by a situation in this country in which this type of "flutter" goes on and has always gone on. It was going on in the great days of Queen Elizabeth I and in the eighteenth century. The object of this Bill is to regulate the situation and to ensure that, in these particular matters, it does not get out of hand. I believe that the most reverend Primate is setting his sights too high. If we try to get 100 per cent. we may get nothing; if we are content with 75 per cent. we may get it all. That, very largely, is the difficulty with alcohol. It is a poison. Taken in reasonable quantities, it is very pleasant; but if one takes too much, it may kill. It is the same with gambling.
  I believe that it is unstatesmanlike, as well as a quite impracticable policy, to take the view that all gambling, even its mildest manifestations, is so wrong that one must oppose it:. It is easy to pour scorn upon the idea of money being brought in for charities and other desirable objects in this way. Years ago, when the great brewer, Carlberg of Copenhagen, left his brewery and his fortune to the University of Copenhagen, some people shook their heads. Yet the university has done most valuable work through money obtained from that brewery, which is engaged in manufacturing what is undoubtedly a poison but one which, taken in small quantities, is a very pleasant beverage. Taken in large doses, alcohol leads to squalor and the break-up of families and other evils of which we all know. One cannot put it beyond that.

  1323
  The most reverend Primate took the point that all kinds of societies might be established for most undesirable objects. I do not think that could be so. I agree with the interpretation of my noble friend Lord Silkin. The purpose here is within the general ambit:
  "charitable purposes … participation in or support of athletic sports or games or cultural activities:"
  If the object were to make any kind of society eligible for inclusion within the ambit of the clause, there would have been no point in mentioning charitable purposes, sports, or cultural activities. Obviously there are other activities
  Resolved in the affirmative, and Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
  which, in a general way, fall within classes of that kind, which it is desirable should be indicated in a later clause of the Bill. That is my understanding of the matter, and I adopt the view suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. I feel that that is all I can usefully add. I thank noble Lords who have taken part in the debate, and I hope that if the noble Lord, Lord Amnion, insists on dividing the House, your Lordships will give the Bill its Second Reading.
  On Question, Whether the Bill shall be now read 2a.
  Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 47; Not-Contents, 5.

  CONTENTS

  Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor).

  Cilcennin, V.

  Digby, L.

  Furness, V.

  Fairfax of Cameron, L.

  Salisbury, M. (L. President.)

  Goschen, V.

  Fraser of North Cape, L.

  Hailsham, V. [Teller.]

  Haden-Guest, L.

  Cholmondeley, M.

  Soulbury, V.

  Jeffreys, L.

  Kenswood, L.

  Albemarle, E.

  Aberdare, L.

  Lloyd, L.

  Buckinghamshire, E.

  Amulree, L.

  Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

  Listowel, E.

  Balfour of Inchrye, L.

  Lucan, E.

  Boyd-Orr, L.

  Mancroft, L.

  Morley, E.

  Brassey of Apethorpe, L.

  Rea, L.

  Munster, E.

  Burden, L.

  Remnant, L.

  Onslow, E.

  Carrington, L.

  Rennell, L.

  St. Aldwyn, E.

  Chesham, L.

  Silkin, L.

  Shaftesbury, E.

  Chorley, L. [Teller.]

  Waleran, L.

  Winterton, E.

  Clitheroe, L.

  Winster, L.

  Congleton, L.

  Wolverton, L.

  Bridgeman, V.

  Craigmyle, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Canterbury, L. Abp.

  Halifax, E.

  Ammon, L. [Teller.]

  Douglas of Barloch, L. [Teller.]

  Kinnaird, L.

  PENSIONS (INCREASE) BILL
  6.10 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly.
  [The EARL OF BUCKINGHAMSHIRE in the Chair]
  Clause 1 [Increase of pensions specified in the First Schedule]:
  LORD BURDEN: Since the first Amendment in my name appeared on the Marshalled List, the noble Earl who is in charge of the Bill, with his customary courtesy, has agreed that some discussions should take place. In view of that, while reserving my rights so far as the Report stage is concerned, I do not propose to move the Amendment to-day.
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clauses 2 to 7 agreed to.
  Clause 8 [Powers to increase other pensions]:
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (THE EARL OF SELKIRK)THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (THE EARL OF SELKIRK) moved, in subsection (2), after "areas" to insert: "in respect of certain service". The noble Earl said: This Amendment is really introductory to the two following Amendments which stand in my name. They relate to a matter to which I referred during the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill and are put down in response to a request made by the noble Lord, Lord Wiley, with regard to Indian pensions. The short point—if may deal with the matter on this Amendment, although it is only an introductory one—is that while there is provision for Indian pensioners to receive pension increases if they terminated their service before August 15, 1947, or if they terminated their service in consequence of the transfer of power in India, if they terminated their service in the ordinary way they would not be getting the increases of pension. These three Amendments will ensure that these other people who terminated their service in the ordinary way will get the increased pensions as laid down in the Bill. I think that that is exactly the point which the
  1326
  noble Lord, Lord Halley, had in mind, and I hope the Amendment meets with his approval. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 8, line 39, after ("areas") insert ("in respect of certain service").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  LORD HAILEY: I am glad to say—and I will say it as shortly as possible because this is so satisfactory—that the Amendment fully meets the point I raised on behalf of my friends. We are very grateful to the Government for putting it forward.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This is the substance of the Amendments to which I have referred. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 8, line 46, at end insert ("after the figures '1947' there shall be inserted the words or which was rendered by a person who, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, was at the date when the service began, being a date before the said fifteenth day of August, domiciled outside Asia'; and").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to,
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This also is a substantive Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 9, line 3, at end insert ("and after the figures '1947' there shall be added the words 'or which was rendered by a person who, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, was at the date when the service began, being a date before the said fourth day of January, domiciled outside Asia'.")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
  Remaining clause agreed to.
  First Schedule [Pensions which tray be increased under section one of this Act]
  6.20 p.m.
  LORD BURDEN LORD BURDEN moved, after paragraph 1 to insert:
  "2. A pension payable by any local authority partly in respect of local government service as defined for the purposes of paragraph 1 of Part II of the First Schedule to the Act of 1944 and partly in respect of service with the London Passenger Transport Board and the British Transport Commission."
  The noble Lord said: In view of the importance of the matter, I hope your Lordships will bear with me, even at this

  1327
  late hour, if I, as briefly as I can, outline the purpose of this Amendment. As your Lordships will be aware, in 1933 the tramway staffs employed by the metropolitan borough councils and the London County Council were transferred under the provisions of the Act of 1933, to the London Passenger Transport Board—now, of course, London Transport. Those who so decided, continued to pay contributions into the superannuation fund of the local authority by whom they were formerly employed, and the employer's contributions were paid into that fund by London Transport (I am using the shorter name). Section 80 (12) of the Act of 1933 required the Board to make those payments. The former local authority tramways staff transferred to London Transport were not covered by the Pensions (Increase) Acts of 1944, 1947 and 1952, but the former local authorities were given power by regulations to pay pensions increase to their former employees who ultimately retired from the employment of London Transport.
  The local authorities concerned have decided—and I see no justifiable reason against it—to pay pensions increase only in respect of that proportion of pension relating to service rendered to the local authority. London Transport, however, have refused to pay pensions increase in respect of that proportion of the pension based on service rendered to London Transport. I submit to your Lordships that this is a particular injustice suffered by these former tramways staff. It is an injustice for two reasons: first, they would have obtained pensions increase as a right on the whole of their pensions if they had not been transferred out of local government employment; secondly, if, instead of being transferred to London Transport, they had been transferred to the Central Electricity Authority or to the Gas Council, they would have received the increases as a whole.
  When this question was raised in another place, it was broadened to include the superannuated staffs of all nationalised undertakings by the Minister, who said:
  "If the honourable Member would think it over carefully, I think he would also accept and sympathise with the argument which I am putting, that the Bill deals with people whose pensions are paid from public funds."
  1328
  He went on to say:
  "It would not apply where pensions are paid by commercial undertakings."
  Surely these pensions are paid out of public funds. The whole of the monies contributed by the staff are in public funds, in the funds of local authorities. Is it suggested that the funds of London Transport are the funds of a commercial undertaking and not public funds?
  It will be within the recollection of noble Lords that the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, replying on behalf of the Government, made somewhat the same point. May I direct the noble Earl's attention to this point. Section 80 (7) of the Act of 1933 placed upon the London Transport an obligation to pay the employer's contributions to provide pensions for those transferred tramways staffs. If that legal obligation to provide for pensions was placed on London Transport, I cannot see how it is logical for the Minister to say that the Government cannot insist on outside bodies paying pensions increase. What is the difference between placing a statutory obligation on London Transport to provide for the main pensions and asking them to provide for these increases? I submit to your Lordships that once Parliament has required a board to provide pensions on a local government basis in respect of the period of service rendered to the board by those transferred staffs, the Government ought also to require London Transport to pay pensions increase in respect of the proportion of pension based on that service. If the Government can properly require the London County Council to make provision for pensions increase, why should not Parliament similarly require the London Transport Executive to make such provision?
  I understand that there are some 200 employees previously in local government service who are now superannuated. London Transport Executive have refused point blank to do anything to supplement the pensions for the period during which these men were in their employ. May I quote a sentence written by a Member of another place who is interested in this problem, because there are a number of ex-local government employees who were transferred to London Transport now living in his constituency? This is what he says:
  "The Treasury have informed me that they would be quite willing to take all the neces-

  1329
  sary action to put this admitted anomaly right, but they must have the approach made to them by the London Transport Executive."
  Frankly, I cannot understand the attitude of the London Transport Executive. They have been pressed by the Transport and General Workers' Union to do this. They have been pressed by the National Association of Local Government Officers. The Treasury apparently are quite willing to make the way easy and provide the necessary sanctions. Yet London Transport are unwilling to act in the matter.
  And I cannot follow the attitude of Her Majesty's Government on this matter. I cannot see why they cannot insist on this elementary piece of justice to these staffs. I could give instances where, under private enterprise, the Government of the day interfered in matters of this kind. Her Majesty's Government can instruct the London Transport Executive not to apply increases in rates and fares which have been recommended by a responsible tribunal; they cart restrain capital development; they can let the Transport Executive either proceed or not, as they see fit. To bring a recent instance to the attention of your Lordships, when the locomotive men were on strike, did the Government sit idly by with folded arms and say: "All we have to do is to hold the ring and let these people fight it out"? No, they appointed a Committee of Inquiry. And if British Railways had refused to put the result of that inquiry into operation, would the Government have said: "This is no concern of ours"? In all these major matters the Government have power, under the Act, to say that the transport authority shall do this or do that. Why then should they be so delicately-minded in regard to this matter and say that they cannot do anything? I submit that the Government ought to say to London Transport: "You jolly well ought to pay these increases. We are willing that you should. Therefore, do the right and proper thing." I could say more, but at this late hour I do not wish to detain your Lordships further. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 14, line 23, at end insert the said paragraph.(Lord Burden.)
  6.32 p.m.
  THE EARL OF LESTOWEL: I should like to start by saying that I think my noble friend Lord Burden has raised an important point, and I hope that the
  1330
  Government may be able to meet it, if not in this Bill then in some other way. My noble friend has put his finger on what I feel is a real hardship that is being experienced by former employees of London Transport who have also served in local government, and I am sure that that hardship ought to be removed. I hope that the noble Earl will be able to suggest some way of removing it. I am bound to say that I shall put to your Lordships the view local authorities take about this Amendment, because my noble friend has put the view of the employees and I feel that the Committee should have both views. Having said that, I feel +that the effect of the Amendment would be contrary to the intention that my noble friend has in mind, and would, to sonic degree, defeat the purpose of the Amendment.
  The effect of The Amendment, as I see it, is to include among the pensions that may be increased under the present Bill those payable by local authorities for services rendered not only to them but also in part to the London Passenger Transport Board and the Transport Commission. It would make the local authorities alone responsible for payment of the full increase in pensions, which will cover, of course, the time spent by these persons in the employment of the local authorities, as well as the time they have spent in the employment of London Transport. The London County Council would be directly affected by this Amendment if it were embodied in the Bill, for it would increase their payments of pensions in relation to personnel transferred from their employment to the employment of the London Passenger Transport Board in 1933, when the tramways were taken over.
  As my noble friend has pointed out, the London Transport Executive have no power to repay the London County Council for the part of the increased pension which would be due to service to London Transport as employees of the London Transport authority. But it does seem unreasonable—as I am sure your Lordships will agree—that, if the London County Council cannot recover this part of the pension payment, they should be obliged to pay the whole of the increase. That, I understand, is what would happen under the terms of the Amendment as it stands. The London County Council are perfectly willing, like

  1331
  other local authorities, to pay the part of the increase arising from service under the Council. This seems a perfectly reasonable attitude to adopt. Whether or not the London Transport authorities could be encouraged to repay the Council their contribution towards the pensions payment, or could be put under a statutory obligation to pay, I do not know; but I hope that some way may be found of righting what I think my noble friend has rightly suggested is a genuine grievance.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The noble Lord, Lord Burden, has raised the question of tramwaymen who were retired or who were transferred from the tramway undertakings of West Ham, East Ham, Croydon, Erith, Ilford and the London County Council in 1933, first of all, to the L.P.T.B. and subsequently to the L.T.E. I must agree with what the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, has said: that the effect of the Amendment is contrary to that which the noble Lord, Lord Burden, has in mind that is to say, it would put an obligation directly on the London County Council, and not on the L.T.E., which is what I believe the noble Lord, Lord Burden, has in mind, to increase pensions subsequent to that date. I think I should make it clear that the regulations affecting the increased pensions, so far as they affect employment under the London County Council right up to the year 1933, have been made right up to date.
  The noble Lord, Lord Burden, has raised rather a big point here, and possibly bigger than he quite appreciates—at least that is how it appears from the way he spoke. It is true that when various undertakings have been brought under public control of one form or another, Parliament has made that new national organisation take over the existing pensions scheme. But in no case has Parliament insisted that that nationalised organisation should create a pension scheme where it did not exist before, or supplement or increase a pensions scheme that already existed. With great respect, I think that Parliament is quite right to take that line.
  The relationship of a nationalised industry with Parliament is always a delicate one. There are certain subjects on which the Minister can give instructions,
  1332
  and it is a standing measure of control that Parliament can say how much capital is to be invested in the particular industry. But I think it is an entirely different thing to interfere with what is essentially the relations between the management and their employees in these particular industries. The matter of pensions increase may be some long way from what is generally called labour management, but I submit that it is the thin end of the wedge; and I think it would be most unwise for Parliament in any way to lay down the conditions in which men should be employed or should be retired. Parliament has never done that, and I feel that it would be most unwise for Parliament to undertake that particular task. It is for that reason that I hope the noble Lord, Lord Burden, will not press this point. I really cannot advise the Committee to accept an obligation on Parliament of that character.
  On the justice of the claim, I would rather not express a view. Clearly, we have made similar increases to various similar pensions, and anyone must judge the particular case as to how far it is due. If there is anything the Government can do to make a pension increase which may seem necessary, we will, of course, do our share. But I think it would be most unwise for Parliament to lay down by Act of Parliament—and it is by Act of Parliament—what should be the particular relationship between one of these organisations and their staff. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Burden, will not press his Amendment.
  LORD BURDEN: With the greatest respect, I must say I do not feel that the reply of the noble Earl is adequate. Let us assume that, following this debate, and if the Treasury are willing that this increase should be paid to the retired members from the local government service, London Transport asks for permission to pay it. Surely, it may be necessary to make regulations to enable them to do so. Is not Parliament then acting and determining what should be done? It is a narrow point, and I give it to the noble Earl that it is a debating point. The fact is that they cannot do it without the authority of Parliament, either in an Act or by Regulation.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I think there is a slight difference between authorising something to be done and instructing

  1333
  something to be done. Nevertheless, I can assure the noble Lord that if anything is wanted, it will be done.
  LORD BURDEN: I quite appreciate the point, and I agree that it must be a little difficult to instruct them to do so. But surely the resources of civilisation are not exhausted. It need not be in the Act or in the Schedule, so far as the phrasing of this Amendment is concerned. But if the Government, as I believe they do, feel that this is a right thing to do, although they are not prepared to instruct British Transport to do it, if they have that goodwill, then I think we are getting on a long way. I quite agree with my noble friend Lord Listowel that on the face of it the Amendment looks as if we were imposing this on the local authorities. As I made perfectly clear in my speech, there was no such intention; but the Amendment had to be put in that form because up to now the only means whereby superannuation can be paid s by and through the local authority fund, and they have dispensed those superannuation benefits previously. To their credit, be it said, they have always honoured the increases up to now, so far as the period during which those employees were in their services is concerned. I feel that this is so important a matter that while, of course, I would not press it to a Division, if the Committee in its good sense negatives it, we shall know where we are.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: May I ask the noble Earl whether he can say that it is a fact that the London Transport Executive have asked the Government
  1334
  for power to refund local authorities for these pension payments?
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I have no information of that character.
  On Question, Amendment negatived.
  First Schedule agreed to.
  Second Schedule [Rate of increase of pension under section one of this Act]:
  LORD BURDEN: I do not think it would be fair to your Lordships to raise the last Amendment in my name this evening. Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the Minister and the Committee if I did not move it now, but left it over for discussion as suggested.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Yes.
  Remaining Schedules agreed to.
  House resumed.

  BEDFORD CORPORATION BILL CROYDON CORPORATION BILL SCOTTISH UNION AND NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY BILL
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.

  LIVERPOOL OVERHEAD RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
  Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
  House adjourned at a quarter before seven o'clock.