Sitting of 6 March 1957

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION BILL (By Order)
  Second Reading deferred till Wednesday next at Seven o'clock.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

  HYDROGEN BOMB TESTS
  Mr. Swinglerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what information is in the possession of his Department concerning the number of hydrogen bomb tests carried out in the world in the last two years and the dangers arising there-from; and what official information from foreign Governments he has concerning hydrogen bomb tests to be carried out during this year, in addition to the proposed British tests.
  The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): Official statements by the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics have acknowledged one such test series for each country. The number of weapons tested in each series has not been disclosed.
  As regards the second part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the replies given by the Prime Minister to the hon. Members for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) on 28th February, and Ashfield (Mr. Warbey) and Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) on 5th March.
  The Answer to the third part of the Question is, None, Sir.
  Mr. Swingler: Is it not known that an accumulation of these explosions will constitute a grave danger to mankind? Is it not also clear from the Foreign Secretary's Answer that we do not know how
  322
  much poison has been distributed in the atmosphere as a result of what has taken place in the last two years? Is it not crazy, therefore, that Her Majesty's Government should add to the potential danger? Ought we not to devote the whole of our energies to trying to stop such tests?
  Mr. Lloyd: I certainly think that we should devote a great part of our energies to seeking nuclear disarmament in the proper context. As I have previously said, the tests proposed to be undertaken on behalf of Her Majesty's Government will add a negligible proportion to the danger. In any event, our information is that the existing danger as a result of the tests which have taken place to date and the danger resulting from a continuance of those tests at the same scale as previously are in themselves negligible also.
  Mr. G. Wilson: Has the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend been drawn to a demonstration given to Members of both Houses of Parliament at Harwell last year, which seemed, through the medium of evaporated rain water, to indicate that the amount of radio-activity in the atmosphere is at present less than that of a luminous wrist watch?
  Mr. Swinglerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what scientific advice he took before giving an assurance to the Japanese Government that British hydrogen bomb tests in the area of Christmas Island would in no way contaminate fish.
  Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Responsibility for these tests rests with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply, who was consulted on the terms of the Note addressed to the Japanese Ambassador and who is advised on these matters by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority.
  Mr. Swingler: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether the experts who gave the advice had examined the Japanese evidence on the subject? Does he not know that there is considerable Japanese evidence that previous tests have caused widespread contamination to fish, with danger to the population in Japan? Can he say to what extent the information which is available in Japan has been studied by his scientific advisers?
  Mr. Lloyd: Questions on the technical aspect of the matter should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply. The hon. Gentleman should study the circumstances under which the tests are to take place. They should be a good deal safer than previous tests.
  Mr. Younger: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us whether the scientific information which he has gives an assurance that fish which may be in the area which has been proclaimed dangerous and may subsequently be caught, either in the area after the ban has been lifted or elsewhere after the fish have moved, will be free from contamination? Is he able to give an assurance on that point?
  Mr. Lloyd: I am told that in the circumstances envisaged for the tests there should be no contamination at all of fish.
  Mr. Harold Daviesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make available in the Library English translations of documents circulated by Her Majesty's Government to the Japanese about our tests of the hydrogen bomb in the Pacific, and also any information that has been sent officially to British possessions in the Pacific on this problem.
  Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The Note of 7th January addressed to all foreign diplomatic missions in London was circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT of 11th February. I am arranging for copies of my Note to the Japanese Ambassador of 12th February to be placed in the Library. I am informed that apart from copies of Sir Anthony Eden's statement in the House of 7th June, 1956, and of the notices to mariners and airmen about the boundaries of the danger area, the information sent to Governments of the British Pacific Territories has concerned details of the operation which for reasons of security cannot be disclosed. The information given in the notices to mariners and airmen is covered in the Note of 7th January already available.
  Mr. Davies: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise that, because of reasons of security, subjects of Britain in Pacific Islands are not aware of the exact spot where these tests are to take place—Sir William Penney is the only person who knows the exact spot—and
  324
  that that in itself is a danger to the support of those Pacific peoples for the British Government?
  Mr. Lloyd: The most meticulous precautions will be taken to see that the safety of no British subject, or any other person, is in danger.
  Mr. Harold Daviesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what instructions he has given to our Embassy in Japan to explain why we are using the Pacific Ocean for hydrogen bomb tests; and what compensation will be paid to Pacific fishermen for loss of fishing grounds.
  Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: As regards the first part of the Question, no special instructions have been given. The Japanese Government and people are aware of the care we have taken to choose a test site well away from inhabited areas.
  As regards the second part of the Question, I have nothing to add to what I told the House on 11th February.
  Mr. Davies: Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise that it is rather cynical for the so-called free and Christian world to be using an island called Christmas Island to explode these bombs, and that people living in the Pacific Ocean have already protested to the United Nations and to our Foreign Office about contamination caused in the past? Is the Minister still maintaining, against all evidence, that there will be no contamination? If so, why not explode the bomb in the Atlantic Ocean?
  Mr. Lloyd: There are no permanent inhabitants on Christmas Island, and the site chosen for the test is some 4,000 miles from Japan.
  Mr. Harold Daviesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of the fact that 40 per cent. of the people of Japan, or 70 per cent. of the electorate, have protested against the British hydrogen bomb tests, why the official bulletin "British Opinion", published by the British Embassy at Tokio on 6th February, contained a statement that the protests made by the Japanese against these tests were helping the Communist cause.
  Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I assume that the figures to which the hon. Member refers

  325
  are based on the number of signatures which the Japan Council for the Prohibition of Atomic and Hydrogen Bombs claims to have collected in 1955 to a resolution calling for a ban on atomic and hydrogen bombs in general and not to any protest specifically directed against British tests. The hon. Member has greatly oversimplified a passage in the bulletin which I consider to be fair comment. It does not suggest that the official Japanese protests are Communist inspired.
  Mr. Davies: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise that some hon. Members are getting letters from well-informed and friendly Japanese who are trying to bring British opinion to realise that in the struggle between Communism and the free world the continuation of these tests by the free world is losing the friendship of Asia? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman assure the House that there is no risk at all, because I am of the opinion that he cannot do that?
  Mr. Lloyd: I only wish there had been comparable agitation against the Soviet tests——
  Mr. Davies: There has been.
  Mr. Lloyd: —which, according to my information, there has not been. I wish that that agitation had been given the same publicity in this House.

  MIDDLE EAST

    United Kingdom Policy
    Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, following the recent official statement on Middle East policy made by President Eisenhower, he will state the extent to which it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to resist Communist aggression in the Middle East.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: As the House is aware, Her Majesty's Government have welcomed President Eisenhower's proposals. They are fully determined to cooperate with their allies in resisting Communist aggression in the Middle East.
    Mr. Henderson: Does not the Foreign Secretary's reply mean that in the view of Her Majesty's Government the commitment under the Tripartite Declaration of 1950 has been extended by the content of the Eisenhower declaration?
    Mr. Lloyd: The Tripartite Declaration of 1950 did not deal expressly with the question of Communist aggression. It dealt with the question of the violation of frontiers and armistice lines. Of course, we have an important obligation in this matter under the Bagdad Pact.
    Mr. Bevan: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman appreciate that the statement which he has made is an exceedingly serious one? Does he mean that, in the event of President Eisenhower, in the terms of his own policy as suggested, and Congress deciding that a nation has been threatened or has been the victim of an act of aggression by a nation under the control of international Communism, that decision automatically involves us?
    Mr. Lloyd: No, I do not think so. I think that it is a matter for us to decide in each case the extent to which we consider ourselves bound. What I have said is that we are determined to co-operate with our allies in resisting Communist aggression, but we, of course, shall decide, as also will our allies, no doubt, and retain the right to decide in what circumstances we are involved.
    Mr. Bevan: Did not the right hon. and learned Gentleman say in the first part of his statement that we supported the Eisenhower doctrine on the Middle East? Is it not part of that doctrine also that the United States will decide whether the victim is a victim of aggression or the threat of aggression by a nation under the control of international Communism—which is a most precise judicial statement, of course?
    Mr. Lloyd: I do not think that there is anything inconsistent in what I have said. I have said that we welcome President Eisenhower's proposals as giving an indication of the intention of the United States to resist Communist aggression in that part of the world, and that nothing that I have said deprives Her Majesty's Government at the time of the right to decide upon the action to be taken by us.
    Mr. Shinwell: May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman, in view of the refusal of President Eisenhower and the United States Administration to involve themselves in our quarrels in the Middle East, whether we can have an assurance that we shall not be dragged into theirs?
    Mr. Lloyd: I should have thought that resistance to Communist aggression in the Middle East is also a British interest.
    Mr. Bevan: Is it not the obligation of the Government, so far as we understand it, to act in co-operation with the United Nations to resist aggression? Have not we now got a definition of aggression which makes it extremely difficult, when we introduce these qualitative terms, to say which kind of aggression it is?
    Mr. Lloyd: I think that nothing that I have said has been inconsistent with our obligations under the Charter of the United Nations. If the right hon. Gentleman will put down a specific question about the definition of aggression, that is a matter with which I will try to deal.

    Tripartite Declaration
    Mr. P. Noel-Bakerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will publish the statements made by the Governments of the United States of America and France at the meeting of the representatives of these countries and the United Kingdom on 29th October, 1956, by which these Governments agreed that the Tripartite Declaration was no longer applicable to an attack by Israel on Egypt.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: No, Sir.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Does the Foreign Secretary recall that the Government have told us on four occasions recently, including last week, that the United States has agreed that the Tripartite Declaration was not applicable to Egypt? Does he also recall that only a few months before the meetings on 28th and 29th October, the then Prime Minister went to Washington to decide how the Tripartite Declaration could be implemented in respect of all the countries of the Middle East, and that the President called these meetings to implement the pledges then given? Does he not understand that no one can believe what the Government say unless the statement of the United States is published?
    Mr. Lloyd: The right hon. Gentleman is very ready to think evil, but the facts are as they have been stated—that, at that time and in those circumstances, in view of the statements repeatedly made by the Government of Egypt about not accepting
    328
    the implications of the Tripartite Declaration, it was not considered applicable in the event of an attack by Israel on Egypt.
    Mr. A. Henderson: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman clarify that statement? Is he now saying that in future, so far as the United States Government are concerned, they consider that the provisions of the 1950 Declaration are applicable to all the countries of the Middle East, including Egypt?
    Mr. Lloyd: There is a Question on the Tripartite Declaration on the Order Paper for answer later.
    Mr. Bevan: Are we to understand that an attack by Israel on Egypt does not invoke the Tripartite Declaration, because Egypt does not consider that she is affected by it, and do we understand that if Egypt attacks Israel a similar interpretation will be placed on it? If so, what on earth is the Declaration about?
    Mr. Lloyd: I have never said anything of the sort. As I have said, we still regard the Tripartite Declaration as applicable to an attack upon Israel. We also think that the Declaration is applicable to an attack by Israel upon certain other countries, but Egypt has deliberately said that she does not wish to receive any benefits from the Declaration, as she cannot accept the interference with her sovereignty which that would involve. There is another aspect of the Declaration, dealing with arms control, which we consider is applicable to the deliveries of arms to all the countries.

    Arab Legion (Cost)
    Mr. Fernyhoughasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what has been the cost to public funds over the four years ended 31st December, 1956, of the gifts in cash and kind given to the Arab Legion.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: In the period from April, 1953, to 31st December, 1956, the cash subsidy to the Arab Legion, paid in accordance with our obligations under the Anglo-Jordan Treaty 1948, amounted to nearly £34 million. In the same period maintenance issues of equipment worth some £480,000 were made to certain units of the Arab Legion without payment. I am circulating detailed figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Fernyhough: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain exactly what the British nation got out of this expenditure?
    Mr. Lloyd: We were carrying out a treaty obligation entered into in 1948.
    Following are the figures:
    Payments to the Arab Legion from the United Kingdom subsidy:

    £

    1953–54

    8,889,485

    1954–55

    9,117,610

    1955–56

    9,115,338

    1st April, 1956-31st December, 1956

    6,816,166

    Total

    £33,938,599

    Issues in kind:
    During 1953–54 maintenance issues of equipment were made to the value of £479,557.

    Saudi Arabia (British Firms)
    Sir L. Plummerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the Pakistani High Commissioner, acting on behalf of Saudi Arabia, has issued a notice to British firms requiring a declaration from them that they are not trading with Israel before these firms can receive import licences from the Saudi Arabian Government; and what action he therefore proposes to take in protection of the British interests involved.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I am not aware that the Pakistan High Commissioner has issued any notice to British firms in the terms referred to by the hon. Member, but a notice has been issued requiring firms to make a declaration that they have no investments or other similar interests in Israel. My noble Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations has been assured by the Pakistan High Commissioner that this requirement is not intended to impose any additional restrictions on British firms trading with Saudi Arabia. As the House will be aware, the Pakistan High Commissioner is acting in this matter on behalf of the Saudi Arabian Government, for whose interests in the United Kingdom he is responsible.
    Sir L. Plummer: Does the Foreign Secretary not appreciate that the Pakistan Government are scarcely neutral in this matter, in so far as they have taken an active part in proposing sanctions against
    330
    Israel? Is he further aware that I have in my hand a photostat copy of the statement issued by the Pakinstan Government on 15th January this year, laying down five conditions which bar British firms who are having dealings with Israel from dealing with Saudi Arabia? Further, is it not now clear that the Government's policy of constantly saying, before the Suez troubles took place, that they neither condoned nor approved the Arab boycott, was an incitement to the Arab countries to go on with this boycott? Will not the Government now become true friends of Israel and take the necessary steps to stop this attack on British trade and on Israel itself?
    Mr. Lloyd: I do not think that anyone can suggest that we have given any encouragement to this boycott. We have disapproved of it from the beginning. The Pakistan High Commissioner is acting in this matter as a representative of Saudi Arabia. I cannot accept what the hon. Gentleman says about Pakistan Government policy.

    Soviet Proposals
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what decisions have been reached and action taken regarding the Soviet proposals for the Middle East made in the Soviet Notes of 12th February, 1957.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I have nothing yet to add to the reply given to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Sorensen) on 19th February.
    Mr. Brockway: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman particularly consider the proposal that further supplies of arms from either the Western or the Eastern side should be ended, and that there should be some co-ordination of economic aid to the nations of the Middle East?
    Mr. Lloyd: Certainly, these matters will be considered.

  UNITED NATIONS

    Trust Territories (United Kingdom Vote)
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how the United Kingdom delegate to the United Nations Trusteeship Council voted on the Soviet resolution proposing a time limit of three

    331
    to five years for the achievement of independence by most Trust Territories; and what reasons were given for his vote.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Ian Harvey): The United Kingdom Representative on the Fourth Committee of the General Assembly opposed a Soviet resolution which recommended a time limit for the attainment of independence or self-government of Trust Territories. The words "within three to five years" which appeared in the preamble and operative paragraph 1 of the Soviet draft resolution, were changed, on a proposal by Syria, to "in the near future" and "at an early date" respectively, before the Soviet resolution came to a vote. The wording of the resolution as it was adopted by the Fourth Committee is given on pages 11 and 12 of United Nations document A/3554.
    With regard to the second part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to page 3 of United Nations document A/C.4/SR.639, where there is a summary of what was said by the United Kingdom Representative. Briefly, the United Kingdom Representative said that it was impossible for an administering authority conscientiously to declare an estimate of the period of time required for the attainment of self-government.
    Both the documents I have referred to are in the Library of the House.
    Mr. Swingler: Did the United Kingdom Representative make clear what was the Government's policy on the achievement of independence? Is it not the Government's policy that the Trust Territories should achieve independence, and in those circumstances why was not their view put forward by the Government on the period of time in which that could be attained?
    Mr. Harvey: I think that is a different question. This was a matter of accepting a firm time-table, and, as the United Kingdom Representative made quite clear, we could not conscientiously do that.
    Mr. Russell: Would not my hon. Friend agree that the Colonial Office and the colonial administrations in the Trust Territories concerned are far better judges of when the time is likely to be ripe for independence than the whole of
    332
    the United Nations, who do not know anything about it?
    Mr. Harvey: Yes, Sir; I do.

    Anti-Slavery Convention
    Sir L. Plummerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps he is taking for the establishment of a United Nations Anti-Slavery Commission.
    Mr. Ian Harvey: I would refer the hon. Member to the remarks of my hon. Friend the then Joint Under-Secretary when replying to the Adjournment debate on Anti-Slavery Conventions on 21st December last. I have nothing to add.
    Sir L. Plummer: Is the Minister aware that the Arab slave trade is booming at the moment, supported nobly by Ibn Saud of Saudi Arabia? Is he further aware that the patrols which the British Government organised along the Arabia-African slave routes in the 1930s put slavery down? Will not he now give support—and ask his right hon. and learned Friend to give support—to the resuscitation of an international organisation to put an end to this disgraceful and barbaric trade?
    Mr. Harvey: Yes, Sir, but the point is that we are awaiting a United Nations initiative in this matter at the present time. The initiative does not rest with us.
    Mr. Nicholson: Will my hon. Friend stimulate that initiative? Does not he realise that there is uneasiness in all sections of the country, and not only about the Middle East? There are parts of South America where slavery is carried on to a serious degree, and all the evidence shows that it is on the increase in various parts of the world.
    Mr. Harvey: I note what my hon. Friend says.
    Mr. Younger: Can the hon. Gentleman say what he means by "awaiting United Nations initiative"? Does that mean that we are awaiting some move by the Secretary-General? Is he aware that most initiatives in the United Nations have to be taken by leading members of the United Nations?
    Mr. Harvey: If the right hon. Gentleman will study the Answer which I gave

    333
    one of his hon. Friends on 28th January he will see that we are unable to ratify the Convention until certified copies in all five official languages of the United Nations have been received from the United Nations Secretariat—and they have not yet been received.

    United Kingdom Votes (Parliamentary Questions)
    Mr. Bennasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why he is not prepared to answer Questions put to him asking which way the British delegate has been instructed to vote on major issues at the United Nations; and if he will now alter that practice.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The instructions which I send to the United Kingdom Permanent Representative at the United Nations and to all Her Majesty's representatives abroad are, by their nature, confidential. The Answer to the second part of the Question is therefore, No, Sir.
    Mr. Benn: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman help the House in this matter, in that before these votes the matter is hypothetical; just before they are cast it is held to be secret; while they are being cast it is held to be too critical to intervene; and afterwards it is too late? Is he aware that the consequence of this is that the United Nations machinery is becoming something of a mockery in this House which, while it may please some of his hon. Friends, is extremely undesirable?
    Mr. Lloyd: I cannot understand the hon. Member's point. The responsibility for giving instructions must rest with the Government of the day.

    Algeria
    Mr. Bennasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why he gave instructions to the British delegate at the United Nations to vote against the inclusion of the Algerian question on the agenda of the General Assembly.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The hon. Member seems to have been misinformed. No such instructions were sent. The Resolution to inscribe the Algerian question on the agenda of the General Assembly was passed without dissension and without a vote.
    Mr. Benn: Does not that illustrate the difficulty in which hon. Members find themselves in this matter? May I, at any rate, congratulate the right hon. and learned Gentleman on this occasion, and hope that it leads in the future to further opposition to the French colonial war in Algeria?
    Mr. Lloyd: The only comment I wish to make on that is that the hon. Gentleman, before putting down Questions, should inform himself on the facts.

    Disarmament Sub-Committee
    Mr. Warbeyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs by which Minister the Government will be represented at the forthcoming meetings of the Disarmament Sub-Committee.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: My right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs will lead the United Kingdom Delegation at the forthcoming meetings of the Disarmament Sub-Committee. I hope to be present myself at the opening meeting on 18th March.
    Mr. Warbey: I welcome the decision of the right hon. and learned Gentleman to be present. May I ask him whether, if rapid progress is made—as we all hope it will be—he will himself be prepared to intervene again at a later stage in order to bring the discussions to the point of agreement?
    Mr. Lloyd: Certainly I should be prepared to intervene at a later stage, but I am not certain that my intervention would have the result which the hon. Member envisages.
    Mr. Warbeyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will submit to the Disarmament Sub-Committee a draft disarmament convention embracing such measures of disarmament, inspection and control as represent common ground between the major Powers.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Certainly not at the outset, Sir. There is not yet sufficient common ground between the major Powers to enable Her Majesty's Government to draw up a draft disarmament convention on this basis. They sincerely hope, however, that the forthcoming meeting of the United Nations Disarmament Sub-Committee will achieve sufficient progress to make this possible.
    Mr. Warbey: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that his reply is rather surprising to those who have studied the proposals put forward by the various Powers at various times? Will he not at least say that the British Government are prepared to go in for as much disarmament as can be agreed on and controlled, and which will not alter substantially the balance between the major Powers?
    Mr. Lloyd: Yes, it is absolutely true that Her Majesty's Government are prepared to enter into either a comprehensive agreement or a partial agreement. The only reason why I said "Certainly not at the outset" is that I am not satisfied that to try to prepare a draft disarmament convention at the beginning of the conference would be a wise way for the conference to begin its work.
    Mr. Paget: Since the Government's economic failure has imposed upon us the unilateral disarmament which we are seeing on all sides, is there not something to be said for trying to persuade someone else to join in?
    Mr. Lloyd: I thought that one of the opinions held by hon. Members opposite was that, for example, the Russian reduction in armaments was something to be followed by us. Is the hon. and learned Gentleman saying that that is a failure of Russian economic policy?
    Mr. Bevan: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has suggested that this suggestion is not the wisest way to begin. Would it not be a good thing if the disarmament convention began with a clear statement of what agreement has already been reached in order that we might consider what additional agreement could be reached? Does it follow that it is wise to start off with the maximum confusion and disagreement first, rather than to find out what common ground exists at the beginning and try to add to it later on?
    Mr. Lloyd: I think that the right hon. Gentleman is perfectly right. Obviously one would attempt to begin this conference by stating the measure of agreement already attained. That is one reason why I propose to attend the first meeting myself. We want to see whether from that we can develop discussions so as to widen agreement.

    Permanent Force
    Mr. Finlayasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what has been the result of the discussions initiated by Her Majesty's Government concerning effective standing forces for the United Nations; and whether he will make a statement.
    Sir F. Medlicottasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps have been taken by Her Majesty's Government to press for effective military forces to be permanently placed at the disposal of the United Nations; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I have nothing to add to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary to the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) on 4th February.
    Mr. Finlay: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that if the Israelis are to be forced to withdraw from the Gaza Strip, the formation of some kind of permanent force by the United Nations becomes an imperative duty and responsibility on its part?
    Mr. Lloyd: We have always hoped that from the United Nations Emergency Force would come something of a permanent nature.
    Sir F. Medlicott: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that events have shown that the establishment of such a force is logically the next step in the evolution of the United Nations as an effective international force, and that it would receive a wide measure of support from all parties?
    Mr. Lloyd: I do not disagree with my hon. Friend. However, there are certain technical difficulties from the point of view of the United Nations.
    Mr. Bevan: As Her Majestys Govment's policy has not been successful, because, as we understand from the answers to several Questions, we wished the withdrawal of the Israeli forces from Aqaba and the Gaza Strip to be accompanied by the intervention of the United Nations Force, to prevent a repetition of what happened before, what pause is now to take place between the two events? Has there been agreement or discussion about that?
    Mr. Lloyd: That is going a good deal wider than the terms of the Question on the Order Paper. I do not accept for a moment that the policy of Her Majesty's Government in this matter has been unsuccessful. I understand that as the Israeli forces withdraw they will be relieved by the United Nations Force.
    Mr. Bevan: I understood the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say, in reply to several Questions a few weeks ago—and the Prime Minister backed him up the following week—that in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government it would be desirable that, while Israel could not attach conditions to her withdrawal, nevertheless provisions for her safety should take place simultaneously with her withdrawal?
    Mr. Lloyd: That is exactly what I understand is to happen; that the United Nations Emergency Force is to take over the positions in the Gaza Strip and at Aqaba.
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: In circumstances where, seemingly, we have no control over the policy of the Assembly of the United Nations, is it appropriate that the Government should so readily agree to the establishment of a permanent standing force by the United Nations?
    Mr. Lloyd: What I said was that I hoped there would emerge from the United Nations Emergency Force a permanent force to be used for police purposes. That would require certain statutes as to how that force was to be used.
    Mr. Usborne: In the interests of getting something permanent, are not there two factors which are absolutely cardinal? First, that the members of this so-called permanent force should be individually and directly recruited by the United Nations, and not be contingents seconded by sovereign States which could Withdraw their contingents; and, secondly, that there should be some territory which would be a permanent base from which this United Nations constabulary could operate, or to which it could fall back if it had to be withdrawn from some other part of the world?
    Mr. Lloyd: It is precisely because of the complications introduced by both points which the hon. Member has raised
    338
    that I do not think that at the moment we should give more than general support to the idea.

    Trusteeship Council (Non-Administering Members)
    Mr. Russellasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the method of nomination for the election of non-administering members of the Trusteeship Council of the United Nations.
    Mr. Ian Harvey: Under Rule 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Assembly, non-administering members of the Trusteeship Council are elected by secret ballot, and there are no nominations.
    Mr. Russell: Is it not rather extraordinary that among the non-administering Powers there is no European nation except Russia? How does that position arise?
    Mr. Harvey: That is another question.

    Secretary-General (Visit to Hungary)
    Mr. Bellengerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a visit is to be paid to Hungary by the Secretary-General of the United Nations organisation in the near future, in accordance with the United Nations resolution.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: No specific recommendation has been made by the General Assembly of the United Nations that the Secretary-General should visit Hungary. He himself offered to go there. The Hungarian Government rejected as "inappropriate" one date, 16th December, proposed by the Secretary-General and said that they would propose another one later. They have not yet done so.
    Mr. Bellenger: Are we to assume from that reply that in the case of a nation which flouts the authority of the United Nations because she is supported by Russian tanks and guns the United Nations is to do nothing? If that proceeds further, would it not create cynicism in the minds of many people who have watched the United Nations' action in the case of Israel and of other countries?
    Mr. Lloyd: I certainly think that this is an example of the "double standard" which has caused cynicism in a good many minds already.
    Mr. H. Morrison: Would it not be possible to refer to the Trusteeship Council of the United Nations the question of how soon self-government and democratic Parliamentary Government are to be restored to Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Rumania, Bulgaria, Latvia, and Estonia?
    Mr. Lloyd: It is certainly an interesting suggestion.

    Egypt and Israel
    Mr. Zilliacusasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will propose to the United States Administration that our two countries should jointly move a resolution at the General Assembly calling upon Egypt to comply with previous resolutions of the Security Council asking her to terminate the state of war with Israel, end the blockade of the Gulf of Aqaba, and open the Suez Canal to Israeli shipping, as a condition precedent to Israel complying with the General Assembly Resolution on the withdrawal of Israeli forces.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: It would appear that Israel is now complying with General Assembly resolutions calling for the withdrawal of her forces. In the circumstances, the question of conditions precedent does not seem to arise.
    Mr. Zilliacus: While admitting, of course, that events have outstripped this Question, may I ask whether the Foreign Secretary does not think that we should press for Egypt to put herself in accord with the Charter before United Nations forces are withdrawn?
    Mr. Lloyd: We certainly hope that United Nations forces will not be withdrawn until the conditions for a real settlement exist.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Will my right hon. and learned Friend tell the United States Administration and the United Nations organisation that bullying of Israel is no substitute for a firm and united policy towards Colonel Nasser and his Soviet backers?
    Mr. Lloyd: I think that all Governments should have a firm and united policy towards the problems of that area.

    Enforcement Action
    Mr. Zilliacusasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will propose that the General Assembly
    340
    of the United Nations should request the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion on the question of whether the General Assembly is legally competent to call upon member States to take enforcement action, in view of the fact that, according to Article 11 of the Charter, the General Assembly must refer any such question to the Security Council, and that it is the latter, alone, which the Charter designates in Article 24 and Chapter VII as the body competent to take decisions on enforcement action.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: No, Sir. I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by a reference of this matter to the International Court of Justice since it is common knowledge that resolutions of the General Assembly in whatever terms they may be framed have no mandatory or obligatory force.
    I agree that the Security Council is the body competent under the Charter to take decisions on enforcement action.
    Mr. Zilliacus: In view of that Answer, will not the Foreign Secretary make it clear at the General Assembly that that body has not the right under the Charter in any circumstances to recommend enforcement action? This is a very important issue which may upset the whole balance of the Charter.
    Mr. Lloyd: I find myself, somewhat unusually, in agreement with the hon. Member. I think that the Assembly has gone wrong in this matter. To he quite fair, I think that part of the reason it went wrong was because of some of the "Uniting for Peace" procedure—invented, I think, in 1950.
    Mr. Younger: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman clarify his Answer a little? Does he not agree that although primary responsibility for these matters, of course, rests with the Security Council, there are certain circumstances in which the Assembly has obligations in respect of calling on its members, not necessarily in a mandatory way, to do something about an act of aggression? Is he now seeking to go back on that principle, which has been adopted by all our friends and allies and ourselves, at least since 1950?
    Mr. Lloyd: I think that the Assembly can make recommendations, but I

    341
    certainly do not think many people would have been prepared to sign the original Charter had they thought that the General Assembly was to be a body charged with carrying out mandatory or obligatory functions.
    Dame Florence Horsbrugh: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that in discussions about the Charter at San Francisco the very reason advanced for setting up the Security Council was that it was felt that the decisions of the Assembly should not be mandatory? Will he make that clear?
    Mr. Lloyd: I hope that the question put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Moss Side (Dame Florence Horsbrugh) will have done that. I certainly agree with her.

  HUNGARY

    Relief of Refugees (United Kingdom Contributions)
    Mr. G. Jegerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what financial contributions Her Majesty's Government have made to date to the various funds for the relief of Hungarian refugees.
    Mr. Ian Harvey: As the Answer is somewhat long, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Jeger: Will the hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. and learned Friend to bear in mind that, although the more spectacular aspects of the Hungarian refugee problem have now passed away, the problem still remains, and will he consider very carefully any application for help that may come from the Austrian Government, as a large number of Hungarian refugees are still living in very bad conditions in Austria?
    Mr. Harvey: I will ask my right hon. and learned Friend to bear that in mind.
    Mr. Dugdale: Can the hon. Gentleman assure us that British refugees from Egypt are getting as much help, both from voluntary sources and from the Government, as are Hungarian refugees in this country?
    Mr. Harvey: That is another question, and if the right hon. Gentleman will put it down, I will endeavour to answer it.
    Following is the Answer:
    Her Majesty's Government have contributed £20,000 to the Austrian Government's Fund for Hungarian refugees; £15,000 to the United Nations Secretary-General's Fund for Hungarian refugees (which sum has since been paid over to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees by the Secretary-General); and £40,000 to the Inter-Governmental Committee for European Migration, who have been mainly responsible for the movement of Hungarian refugees from Austria. The contribution of 100 million French francs made by the Council of Europe to the Austrian Government's fund included approximately £18,000 from United Kingdom public funds.
    The total payment to foreign funds is thus about £93,000. In addition, as the House was informed by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on 31st January, Her Majesty's Government are spending some £230,000 on the resettlement of refugees in this country. Her Majesty's Government are also paying for the transport from Austria to the United Kingdom of some 4,500 Hungarian refugees at an estimated cost of £32,000.
    The total of all the above sums is approximately £355,000.

    Refugees (Transport to United Kingdom)
    Mr. P. Noel-Bakerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what was the cost of transporting Hungarian refugees from Austria to Great Britain; how much of this cost was paid by the Inter-Governmental Committee for European Migration; and when and why the movements ceased.
    Mr. Ian Harvey: Of the 19,000 Hungarian refugees who have so far entered the United Kingdom, 12,615 were transported by the Inter-Governmental Committee for European Migration at, I understand, a cost of £135,000. In addition, the Committee has moved some 3,600 miners at the request and expense of the National Coal Board, the cost being about £40,000. Smaller parties of refugees have been brought to this country by various private organisations, and I am not in a position to inform the right hon. Member of the costs incurred by these organisations.
    The large-scale movement of Hungarian refugees to this country was suspended towards the middle of December because of accommodation difficulties. In January Her Majesty's Government announced their willingness to receive another 5,000;

    343
    but on 25th January the Inter-Governmental Committee informed us that it was unable to finance the movement of more of these refugees—of whom 550 had been moved—until agreement had been reached on financial responsibility. The remaining 4,450 are therefore being brought to this country by Her Majesty's Government at a cost of about £32,000.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Am I right in understanding that Her Majesty's Government paid about £40,000, or one-third of the cost of the £135,000 in respect of the refugees brought here from Hungary?
    Mr. Harvey: That is correct.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Does the Joint Under-Secretary understand that the Government would have a great deal of support from hon. Members on both sides of the House if they would join this most useful organ of Commonwealth and European co-operation? Could not they be a little more generous about the transport of these Hungarians to this country?
    Mr. Harvey: I note what the right hon. Gentleman says about joining this organisation. It is not the policy of the Government to change their decision on that issue. Frankly, I do not think that the Government can be regarded as having been ungenerous in the treatment of these refugees.

    British Legation, Budapest (Police Action)
    Sir J. Hutchisonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on the action of the Hungarian authorities on 25th February at the British Legation in Budapest; and whether any British subjects were arrested.
    Mr. Ian Harvey: On 25th February, uniformed and plain clothes police, operating in pairs in the vicinity of Her Majesty's Legation, Budapest, took away for questioning about one hundred and fifty persons, the majority of whom had visited the Legation. No advance notice of this action was given. The Legation was not cordoned off nor, as far as is known, were any British subjects involved.
    Sir J. Hutchison: According to the reply which my hon. Friend has
    344
    given, so far as is known no British subject was involved. Surely that needs some further investigation. Does not the action taken by the Hungarian authorities represent an infringement of diplomatic immunities and practice?
    Mr. Harvey: The Hungarian Minister in London was requested to call at the Foreign Office on 28th February and was asked to obtain an explanation of the action of the Hungarian Government. That he undertook to do. He was also informed that Her Majesty's Government hoped that the action would not be continued or repeated. No reply has yet been received to these representations. I shall be happy to inform my hon. Friend when it is.

  COUNCIL OF EUROPE (RESETTLEMENT FUND FOR REFUGEES)
  Mr. G. Jegerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to which European resettlement funds for refugees Her Majesty's Government has contributed in accordance with Recommendation 75 of 1955 of the Council of Europe.
  Mr. Ian Harvey: The Recommendation to which the hon. Member refers deals with the Council of Europe Resettlement Fund for National Refugees and Overpopulation in Europe. Her Majesty's Government have not contributed to this Fund.
  Mr. Jeger: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that the representatives of Britain, from both sides of this House, on the Council of Europe voted for this Recommendation, and is it not a rather sad reflection on the sincerity and the good intentions of the Government that they have ignored that Recommendation, which was accepted unanimously at Strasbourg?
  Mr. Harvey: No, Sir. I think, on reflection, that the decision was the right one.
  Major Beamish: While recognising the very generous help which successive British Governments have given to European refugees, may I ask my hon. Friend whether he does not think that the failure of the Government to adhere to I.C.E.M. is wholly illogical, in view

  345
  of the fact that the great majority of Europeans moved under that international scheme have gone to the Dominions?
  Mr. Harvey: I appreciate the point which my hon. and gallant Friend has made, but we have to consider our resources very carefully, and I think that in the circumstances we could not afford to make a further contribution in that direction.

  FOREIGN OFFICE

    Staff and Expenditure
    Mr. Lewisasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent he has been able to implement the Government's policy of reducing expenditure in his Department; and whether he will give for January, 1951, and the latest convenient stated date the total number of staff employed in his Department and the total expenditure, respectively.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: On 1st January, 1951, the total staff employed by the Foreign Office, excluding those locally-engaged abroad, numbered 11,549; and net Foreign Service and allied expenditure during the financial year 1950–51 was about £17,023,000. Corresponding figures for 1st April, 1956, and the financial year 1955–56 were 7,194 and £15,030,000.
    The rate of reduction of staff and expenditure has decreased, because we are reaching the limit of economies and because salaries and other costs are rising. Nevertheless, economies are still being effected in accordance with the Government's policy; and the Estimates for the Foreign Service Vote for 1957–58, though slightly higher than the out-turn in the year 1955–56, show a reduction on the Estimates for 1956–57.
    Mr. Lewis: I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on that excellent news. Will he have discussions with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War and with the other Service Departments, and give them advice as to how they too could achieve the admirable progress which he himself has made?
    Mr. Lloyd: I am not sure that my right hon. Friends need advice from me, any more than I need congratulations from the hon. Member.

    Staff (Salaries)
    Mr. Lewisasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will give the number of his staff who, on Tuesday, 5th March, 1957, have not received an increase in their salaries, since the date upon which Members of Parliament last received an increase in their salaries.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: So far as the United Kingdom based staff are concerned, none, Sir.
    Mr. Lewis: I welcome that reply, but may I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether he is aware that today Members of Parliament are only half as well paid, relatively, as were Members of Parliament in 1911? May we have an assurance that, with the exception of the Minister, no one in his Department is in that deplorable position?
    Mr. Lloyd: My Answer covers that point.
    Mr. H. Fraser: Will my right hon. and learned Friend inform the House when the salary of the Foreign Secretary was last raised?
    Mr. Lloyd: Certainly the date of 1911 which the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Lewis) mentioned is perfectly safe. I do not think that the Minister has had an increase in his pay packet for forty-five years.

  EGYPT

    Suez Canal
    Mr. Lewisasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what approaches he has made either to the United Nations or the Egyptian Government, with a view to normalising relations between Her Majesty's Government and the Egyptian Government and resolving the Suez Canal dispute; and to what extent he has been successful in his endeavours.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: As regards the resumption of normal relations, I have nothing to add to the reply given to the hon. Member on 7th February, except that the Egyptian Government have as yet made no reply. As for action in the United Nations to resolve the Suez Canal dispute, there is nothing to add to the reply given to my noble friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) on 20th February.
    Mr. Lewis: May I take it from the Foreign Secretary's Answer that the British Government would be willing to normalise relations if we could get a settlement of all the outstanding difficulties now confronting us. Will he try to achieve a solution of these problems in an endeavour to get peace and understanding in the world, and particularly in the Middle East?
    Mr. Lloyd: We certainly want a settlement of the problems in the area, and that settlement must include what the hon. Member calls a normalising of relations.
    Captain Pilkington: Since Egypt originated the dispute, is not it about time that she took some action?
    Mr. Lloyd: We cerainly hope that an initiative towards the settlement of the dispute will be taken by Egypt.
    Mr. H. Morrison: Can the Foreign Secretary say when the United Nations will resume discussions with a view to the permanent settlement of the Suez Canal trouble, and what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to that end?
    Mr. Lloyd: I cannot tell the right hon. Gentleman that. It is not quite certain at the moment what the next steps to be taken will be. I think it is appropriate that there will be a resumed debate on the Middle East, either tomorrow or on the following day, after which it may be that the Secretary-General will make certain moves. I cannot add publicly to the information already given.
    Captain Pilkingtonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can yet say when the Suez Canal is to be reopened.
    Mr. Fellasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a further statement on the clearance of the Suez Canal.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The latest information I have received from the United Nations is that apart from the vessels "Edgar Bonnet" and "Aboukir", on which the United Nations salvage team has not yet started work, the Canal has been cleared of all other wrecks which could impede the passage of normal traffic. This means that as soon as these two wrecks are removed, ships of at least 30 ft. draught could pass through the
    348
    Canal. I cannot give a precise date when the Canal will be open again. When it is opened the lighting, telecommunications and workshop facilities will have been restored.
    Captain Pilkington: Why has it taken two months longer for the United Nations to get the Canal open than it would have taken us? Is it because the United Nations cannot do the work any more quickly or because Colonel Nasser has ordered it not to do the work any more quickly?
    Mr. Lloyd: I certainly would not like it to be thought that there is any reflection upon the technical skill of the United Nations team. I think it has done its very best, but certain limitations and delays have been imposed upon it.
    Mr. Fell: Would not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is a ridiculous position that the Egyptian Government are deliberately holding up the clearance of the Canal? Will he please ask Mr. Dulles to explain why America seems quite prepared to adopt direct economic action against Israel but that when the question is one of stopping Egypt from dragging its feet over the clearance of the Canal, Mr. Dulles adopts the unctuous rôle of Pontius Pilate and palms the whole thing off on the United Nations.
    Mr. Lloyd: It is not appropriate to comment in those terms upon the representative of a friendly State. I must say that. I would ask my hon. Friend, and all hon. and right hon. Gentlemen at this moment to exercise some restraint in this matter. It looks as if there is a certain easement in the situation. We very much want some agreement which will be in the interests of all the parties.
    Mr. Shinwell: In view of the pressure that has been brought to bear upon the State of Israel to comply with the resolutions of the United Nations and in view of its agreement to do so, what is going to be done about the attitude of the Egyptian Government? Is no pressure to be brought to bear upon that Government to comply with the resolutions of the United Nations? Are we to have one United Nations law for the State of Israel and quite another for Egypt?
    Mr. Lloyd: I certainly do not accept that position. It would be wrong for the

    349
    United Nations or for any country to accept the position that there should be different standards. We have sought in this matter to get an international set-up for the Gaza Strip, and to get the right of innocent passage through the Straits of Tiran recognised, and also that there should be no discrimination against ships going through the Suez Canal. We shall do everything possible to see that those objectives are attained.
    Captain Waterhouse: is it not a fact that for three, four or five years we have constantly been asked to restrain ourselves in respect of adverse comments upon Egypt? Is it not high time that this House, the United States and the United Nations made it clear to the world that the Egyptian attitude in the Middle East is utterly disastrous to progress and to peace?
    Mr. Lloyd: There is a time for adverse comment, and I have not abstained from adverse comment upon one Government or another from time to time. At this particular time I do not think that it is appropriate for us to go too far into this matter.
    Mr. Bevan: Would it not be the wisest and most dignified posture for this House to adopt to assume that the Egyptian Government will now accept the authority of the United Nations and allow clearance of the Suez Canal without further hindrance, and not to make any assumption that Egypt will hold out any more against what she should do?
    Mr. Lloyd: I believe that the Egyptian Government have already stated—I do not see why they should not keep their word on this matter—that there will be no discrimination against British or French shipping. That is the position at the moment. So far as Israeli shipping is concerned, the Egyptian Government have said that they would accept the six principles unanimously passed by the Security Council in October. That means that the Canal should be kept open to the shipping of the whole world. That is the present position, and that is how we should leave it.

    British Nationals and Property
    Mr. Dugdaleasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what negotiations are taking place with reference
    350
    to the property of British nationals impounded by the Egyptian Government.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: There are no negotiations at the moment on this matter with the Egyptian Government. On 27th January, at Her Majesty's Government's request, the Swiss Legation in Cairo delivered a Note to the Egyptian Government calling on them to terminate the measures they had taken against British nationals and property during the period of armed conflict. The Egyptian Government have not yet replied.
    Mr. Dugdale: Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman think it would be a good thing if such negotiations were opened at an early date?
    Mr. Lloyd: Certainly I think it is right that the negotiations should be opened at the appropriate time.

  GREECE (BRITISH AWARDS FOR GALLANTRY)
  Mr. F. Noel-Bakerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what British decorations were awarded to clerics of the Greek orthodox church for deeds of gallantry in co-operation with British military liaison officers during the Second World War; and if he will list the decorations awarded; and how many of these have been returned in the last two years.
  Mr. Ian Harvey: As the then Under-Secretary informed the hon. Member on 22nd September, 1948, it is not in accordance with public policy to reveal details of awards made to foreign nationals in war time. A very considerable number of Greek subjects received decorations for gallantry during the war. In reply to the second part of the Question, only one award of this kind is known to have been returned during the past two years by a cleric of the Greek Orthodox Church.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: If the hon. Gentleman cannot make that information public, can he not draw it quietly and privately to the attention of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and ask him to draw the appropriate conclusions?
  Mr. Paget: Is not the position here that this Church is a political and military organisation and very likely to earn

  351
  decorations in war? It was on our side then. The trouble is that it is on the other side now.
  Mr. Harvey: I am obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman for his intervention. To reply to the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. F. Noel-Baker), I see no point in drawing the attention of my right hon. Friend to this matter.

  WESTERN EUROPEAN UNION (ARMS CONTROL AGENCY)
  Mr. J. Hyndasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent the Arms Control Agency established under the nine-Power Agreement of October, 1954, to which Her Majesty's Government is a party, is now functioning; how many test checks and visits of inspection is has conducted; and in which countries.
  Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The Western European Union Arms Control Agency completed its first control year on 31st December, 1956. This was an experimental period during which much useful practical experience was gained. Nineteen depots and seven factories of member countries in Germany, France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Italy were visited by Agency officials during the year.
  Mr. Hynd: Is the Minister aware that many people in this and other countries regard this Agency as a very remarkable experiment with great possibilities, but that there is a great deal of doubt as to its efficiency up to date in Europe? Can he clear the air about this matter, because we consider it to be most important that confidence in this Agency should be restored?
  Mr. Lloyd: I am grateful to the hon. Member, and I entirely agree with him. I think far too little public attention and importance has been paid to this most valuable experiment. The Government certainly will welcome anything that hon. Members can do to arouse interest in its activities.
  Sir J. Hutchison: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the Arms Control Agency has run into certain legal difficulties in connection with the inspection of private plants in some countries,
  352
  and that the removal of those legal difficulties, the need for which is urgent, will require legislation? Will he do what he can to press on with such legislation in order completely to free the hands of the Agency?
  Mr. Lloyd: I will certainly consider what my hon. Friend has said. In fact, the Agency ran into legal difficulties almost from the very beginning. Some of these matters have been resolved, but I will again look into what my hon. Friend has said.
  Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Is the Agency to conduct any inspections in this country?
  Mr. Lloyd: No, Sir. The Agency inspects only depots or factories on the mainland of Europe, but included in the installations which it has inspected is one British one.

AIRCRAFT CRASH, ABINGDON
Mr. de Freitas(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will make a statement about the crash of the Beverley aircraft near Abingdon on 5th March.
The Secretary of State for Air (Mr. George Ward): Shortly after 11 o'clock yesterday morning a Beverley from the Royal Air Force Station, Abingdon, crashed near Drayton, about two miles from the airfield. The aircraft, which was bound for Malta and Cyprus, had taken off a few minutes before, but had reported engine trouble, and was returning to the airfield. The dead include three members of the crew, 12 officers and airmen flying as passengers and two civilians in the house which was demolished. The two remaining members of the crew, one other passenger in the aircraft, and two civilians were injured.
A Board of Inquiry has been convened and assembled this mornnig.
I know that the House will join with me in expressing our deep sympathy with the bereaved and the injured.
Mr. de Freitas: May I say, first, that my right hon. and hon. Friends join with the Secretary of State in his expressions of sympathy? May I ask him two questions? First, in view of the public disquiet about the secrecy of Royal Air

353
Force inquiries when civilians are involved, as they are here, will the right hon. Gentleman allow the relatives of the dead civilians to be legally represented at the inquiry if they so desire?
Secondly, can the right hon. Gentleman say what restrictions have been placed on the operation of Beverleys, with whatever kind of engine they may have, pending the result of the inquiry?
Mr. Ward: Although, as I say, the Board of Inquiry has already started, and is being held in private, which is customary in these cases, I will certainly consider whether we can open it to the relatives of the deceased.
There is, I think, no evidence to suggest that the aircraft ought to be grounded or that any restrictions ought to be put on it, because the Beverley has already done thousands of hours' flying on Transport Command routes without any major accident of any kind. I think that enough is known already about the accident not to justify the grounding of the aircraft.
Air Commodore Harvey: As the accident, unfortunately, involves civilians, both killed and wounded, could not the inquiry be of a public nature? Also, will my right hon. Friend take notice of the extreme bravery and courage shown by the civilian and Service rescuers on the spot?
Mr. Ward: There are a number of factors, as I think my hon. and gallant Friend knows, which lead us to hold these inquiries in private. I would mention here only the need for speed. A formal public inquiry takes several weeks to convene. Having said that, I certainly do not underestimate the extent of public concern about an accident of this kind, and I shall hope to give the House a very full statement about the accident as soon as the Board has reported and we have had an opportunity to consider its findings.
I should like to pay a very high tribute indeed to the courage shown by all concerned after the accident.
Mrs. White: While no restriction is being placed on the aircraft, is any restriction being placed on the use of the airfield concerned in view of the representations which have been made on frequent occasions, particularly by a noble Lord in another place, about the undesirability of using the airfield because it is in close proximity to so many houses?
Mr. Ward: There is not the slightest evidence to show that the use of the airfield had any bearing at all on the accident. The aircraft had already been airborne for 18 minutes before the crash occurred. I would draw the attention of the hon. Lady to what the Mayor of Abingdon is reported to have said yesterday:
"There has never at any time been any complaint of danger to people in the district, and I believe this is the first occasion on which there has been any damage or injury outside the airfield itself. Its safety record since it was established in 1930 has been very good."
Mr. Dudley Williams: As there is a rumour going around that the aeroplane crashed because one of its engines began to fail, will my right hon. Friend take an early opportunity to say whether or not the Beverley can maintain its height fully loaded on three engines?
Mr. Ward: Yes, Sir. I do not want to say anything very much before the Court of Inquiry has made its findings, but all the trials that we have carried out so far show that in temperate conditions the Beverley ought to be able to climb at the rate of 300 feet a minute on three engines with its all-up maximum weight of 135,000 lb.
Mr. de Freitas: Will the right hon. Gentleman, as soon as he can, make a statement in the House covering the many points which have been raised from all sides of the House?
Mr. Ward: Yes Sir; as soon as I can.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS
  Atomic Energy (Scientists and Technologists)
  Mr. B. T. Parkin: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 22nd March, I shall call attention, in view of the programme of increased investment in atomic energy, to the need still further to increase the number of scientists and technologists, and move a Resolution.
  Old-age Pensions
  Mr. Frank Allaun: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 22nd March, I shall call attention to the need to raise old-age pensions immediately, and move a Resolution.
  Roads (Expanded Programme)
  Mr. A. S. Moody: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 22nd March, I shall call attention to the need for an expanded road programme, and move, That this House, whilst welcoming the expansion that has recently taken place in the road programme, believes that further and rapid extension is necessary if Great Britain is to cope with the demands for a modern, efficient, and less dangerous road transport system.
  BILL PRESENTED
    AGRICULTURE
    Bill to make further provision for guaranteed prices and assured markets for producers of agricultural produce in the United Kingdom; to authorise the payment of grants in respect of long-term improvements of agricultural land within the United Kingdom and in respect of the costs of certain transactions concerning such land; to make fresh provision for the development of the pig industry in Great Britain (including the production, processing, manufacture and distribution of pig products); to authorise payments into the Exchequer of Northern Ireland on account of expenses incurred for the benefit of producers of agricultural produce in Northern Ireland; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, presented by Mr. Amory; supported by Mr. R. A. Butler, Mr. Maclay, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lord John Hope, and Mr. Godber; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 61.]
  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]

  HOUSE OF COMMONS DISQUALIFICATION BILL
  Considered in Committee [Progress, 26th February].
  [Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]
  3.38 p.m.
  The Chairman: The proposed new Clause, "Members of the House of Lords"—
  A Member of the House of Lords shall be free to stand for election to the House of Commons. If elected he shall cease to be summoned to attend the House of Lords so long as he is a Member of the House of Commons.
  —in the name of the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker), is outside the scope of the Bill, and is, therefore, out of order.
  Mr. John Parker: Surely, Sir Charles, if a Member of the House of Lords were allowed to sit in the House of Commons, that would be the removal of his disqualification?
  The Chairman: I do not consider the proposed Clause to be in order.
  Mr. Parker: Might I draw to your attention, Sir Charles, the fact that if the Clause were carried it would remove a disqualification which at present prohibits a Member of the House of Lords from sitting in this House.
  The Chairman: The proposed Clause is outside the scope of the Bill and cannot be moved.
  Mr. George Wigg: As a Member of another place is not debarred by legislative action from sitting in this House, it must surely be in order, Sir Charles, on a Bill concerned with disqualification for hon. Members, to move a Clause to make it absolutely clear that, irrespective of any action that may be taken by another place, this House has control over its own membership. Therefore, I submit for your further consideration that the Clause ought to be considered by the Committee.
  The Chairman: No. It cannot be. In my view, it is outside the scope of the Bill.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS DISQUALIFICATION BILL

    New Clause.—(BARRISTERS FOR CROWN, &c.)
    A member of the House of Commons shall cease to be a member if being a barrister he receives in any year as a barrister acting for or behalf of the Crown or any department or office of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom remuneration in excess of one hundred pounds.—[Mr. Wigg.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. Wigg: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
    I touched on the scope of this Clause during the debate on the Second Reading of the original Bill, and I should like to make it quite clear that I do not place myself, I hope, in the illogical position that, having sought on a previous occasion, to allow members of the clergy to sit here, I should, on this occasion, seek to disqualify members of the legal profession from being Members of this House.
    As I said when I spoke at that time, I do not mind very much whether every member of the legal profession in this House receives preferment of an astronomical amount. In fact, I wish that every lawyer were earning £20,000 a year; it might encourage some of them to go to another place. I want to place no bar on any man, a member of any profesison, sitting in this House. Indeed, had I been an absolutely free agent I should have moved my new Clause in rather different terms.
    Its history is this. I tabled the Clause before the Select Committee was set up. It was considered by the Select Committee, and it then became clear that I had a greater volume of support in the House than I had thought. I therefore did not think it right to alter its wording, as a number of hon. Gentlemen, I understand on both sides, have given the matter very careful consideration.
    When I started to look into the matter I used the Order Paper, as I always do, as the proper means of obtaining information. I asked the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General a number of Questions. I thought that he went out of his way to make it perfectly clear that, while it might be proper to question other Departments of State about the activities or emoluments of hon. Members, he resented—I thought that he savagely resented—the fact that I
    358
    should seek to inquire—I believe that he thought that I was prying—into the secrets of the legal profession.
    All that I then sought to do was to ascertain the names of hon. Gentlemen who had received Government briefs, and when it appeared that I could not have the names, I subsequently sought to find out the numbers and the amounts. So that my Questions should not show a party view, I asked that the information should go back to 1945. In other words, my approach to the problem is, and was then, that while I have no objection whatever to the Attorney-General or any other Minister giving what briefs they wish, of what amount they like, I think that the House and the public ought to know how much these gentlemen are getting, for the patronage that is exercised by the Government—and, indeed, at one time by the Crown—assumes a different aspect at different times.
    It is, of course, asking of human nature far too much that a man should be required, perhaps, in defence of his opinions to forgo his livelihood. That issue might well arise, and I am quite confident that it has arisen in the past. I am not saying that about hon. Gentlemen on this side or on that, nor am I saying that it applies to any hon. Gentlemen in this present Parliament, but I do not believe that at no time in, say, the present century no member of the legal profession has tempered what he was to say or perhaps even modified his votes because he was in hope of patronage from one State Department or another.
    3.45 p.m.
    I do not think that members of the legal profession are any worse, and I also do not think they are any better, than any other members of the community. Therefore, if we seek to preserve the dignity of the House, and to lay down rules, and very strict rules, about ordinary hon. Members and ordinary Departments of State, I ask that the same rules and the same standard shall apply to the legal profession.
    This, of course, is a matter of history. There was a time, and I think that there are still survivors of it, when the House of Commons was organised, and the times of its meetings arranged to meet the convenience of hon. Members who were lawyers. [An HON. MEMBER: "It still is."] Perhaps it still is, and perhaps there are some who would not like to change

    359
    that. However, I do not think that, in asking the Committee to treat this as a very serious problem indeed, and one which should be brought into the light of day, I am asking too much.
    In talking to hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House I have met with one argument. It is put to me that if this new Clause were accepted, a number of ex-Attorneys-General and ex-Solicitors-General would thereby be debarred from giving their legal services to the Crown. It is said that as they are men of great eminence their earnings are high, and that to put a bar of £100 on what they earn would be not only an injustice to them, but would be depriving the State of their great and eminent legal services in cases which the Government might wish those services to be at the country's disposal.
    Surely that is putting their sense of public spirit at a very low level indeed. Day by day, dozens of hon. Gentlemen on both sides sit on Select Committees, do the humdrum business outside this Chamber and do not get a penny for their services. If, therefore—I shall not mention names, but a constituency did come to my lips—a right hon. and learned Gentleman who is an ex-Attorney-General were to learn that his services were urgently needed by the State, I am quite sure that the present Attorney-General would only have to ask him and his services would be given free in exactly the same way as the services of any hon. Member are at the disposal of the House and of the Government. Therefore, although this argument is put forward seriously, it seems to me that it is two-edged. I do not think that, in accepting this new Clause, the Government would be depriving themselves of the services of such lawyers.
    I do not want to say any more. I wearied the House on a previous occasion by arguing my case on the basis of the refusal of the Attorney-General to reply during the original Second Reading debate, and I do not think that I need repeat those arguments today. I conclude with the words with which I started. I have a great respect for the legal profession—a great respect. They are men of tidy minds, who are always considering whether every argument is "buttoned up." But what the House of Commons needs is not only tidy minds, not only
    360
    arguments which are all "buttoned up," but common sense. The House needs men of conviction. It needs men who believe in something, not men who all the time are speaking from a brief.
    Moreover, the abler the lawyer the less likely he is to make a good Member of the House of Commons, because the very qualities that make him a good and successful lawyer keep him from regular attendance on this House. The first thing that an hon. Gentleman has to learn on coming here is that if he wants to love and serve the place he has to spend lots of time here, because the opportunities come and the opportunities go. As I say, the successful lawyer is busy with his briefs, busy in court, busy in chambers. He has to miss the humdrum but essential business of sitting on Select and other Committees. He cannot be here for Questions.
    Therefore, while the House of Commons needs the services of able lawyers—the very nature of our business on occasions necessitates the advice of legal gentlemen—it would be a very bad day for Parliament and for the country if the legal influences were to become over-strong. Whether the Committee accepts that argument or not, at least we ought to know who is getting what. That seems to me to be the very least of our arguments, and, to elicit the information on who gets what, I am moving this Clause, which seeks to make quite sure that no barrister who earns more than £100 shall be a Member of the House of Commons.
    The Attorney-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller): I must confess that I was expecting this debate to be carried on for a little while longer before it fell to me to reply to it. Of course, I am only too glad to reply to the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) straight away, because we have got a good deal of business to do and I should like to deploy my answer to this proposed new Clause.
    First, I will deal with the Questions which the hon. Gentleman asked—and I do not think I need go into it in any detail—about my personal income, among other things. I do not think that there is any need for me to disclose those details at this Box. What the hon. Gentleman was seeking to do was to find out more about how the system of nomination works and how it has been operated.

    361
    I appreciate that this may be a somewhat difficult problem for those who are not engaged in the law.
    The hon. Gentleman seemed to think that I had some influence with regard to the appointment of Recorders and the payment of fees on Crown briefs. Of course, I have not. An Attorney-General has no say or control whatsoever over the fees that are paid to counsel whom he nominates. When an Attorney-General nominates, counsel are briefed by the Treasury Solicitor or the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Solicitor for whatever Government Department may be concerned, and then the fee paid is a matter for arrangement between the Government Department and the set of chambers.
    I ask the hon. Gentleman to accept that it is not possible for me—because we have no records—to say what fees are, in fact, received by barristers who are also Member of the House of Commons. We have not got the details in our office. We do not keep them; we never know them, because we are not informed of them.
    I would ask the Committee to bear in mind that at present we are considering two main heads of disqualification—one relates to holders of offices of profit under the Crown, and the other relates to contracts or arrangements
    "for the furnishing or providing of money to be remitted abroad or wares and merchandise to be used or employed in the service of the public."
    Those are the two main heads of disqualification at present.
    Those barristers who are appointed standing counsel for the Crown have been for many years prohibited by the terms of their appointment from holding that appointment on becoming Members of Parliament. That has been an effective and satisfactory method, which is now being embodied in the provision in this Bill which disqualifies standing counsel. But under this Clause we are not at all concerned with any barrister who holds anything in the nature of an office. We are concerned only with those barristers who from time to time earn fees for conducting cases for and advising the Crown.
    Of course, a barrister is not in contractual relationship with the Crown. It may be said to be a relationship which is in some respects analogous to a contract.
    362
    This Clause seems to run contrary to the main spirit of this Bill in that it seeks to bring back a disqualification based on what is really a quasi-contractual relationship. When the hon. Gentleman said that we ought to apply the same rules and the same standards to the legal profession—a proposition generally with which no one would disagree—I would say to him that this proposed new Clause departs from the standards and the rules which this Bill lays down with regard to all other professions and all other people, because it is seeking to bring back as a basis of disqualification the amount of fees that are earned. That is quite contrary to the spirit of this Bill. The matter may be one of disclosing one's personal interest, whether it be a contract or a fee or in any other way. It is not a matter of disqualification.
    I would point out, also, that barristers are not the only members of the professional classes who earn fees from the Crown. Why should they be singled out for disqualification? There are also solicitors, architects, doctors, dentists and surveyors. There is a long list. They all draw fees from the Crown. There is no reason for saying that barristers should be singled out for disqualification in the way that this proposed new Clause suggests.
    There is no reason for saying that the barrister who earns 96 guineas in a year is disqualified and that one who earns 95 guineas is not. No ground can be suggested for saying that the earning of 96 guineas is incompatible with membership. It cannot be argued that the fees paid in the past to barristers who are Members of this House have been given either to reward the faithful on this side of the House or as bribes to the "infidels" on the other side of the House. There is no substance in that suggestion. Past history shows that there is no ground for imputing anything of that kind. That suggestion, therefore, falls to the ground. One cannot justify this new Clause on the ground that it is incompatible with membership of this House for a Member of this House who is a barrister to earn 96 guineas in the course of a year.
    It may be thought that I and my predecessors have had a great deal of patronage in this matter. I should like to say a little about that, because it may not be generally realised within what a

    363
    small compass the matter which we are discussing on this new Clause lies. I gave a good deal of information to the Select Committee. It will be found in the Select Committee's Report, and I need not reiterate it now, but I should like to bring the matter up to date. Since I have been Attorney-General I have been responsible for a total of 2,598 nominations. It sounds a large number.
    Mr. Frank Bowles: Are those briefs?
    The Attorney-General: They are nominations for conducting cases. That includes all nominations which are made from my office of counsel on circuits and everywhere else. Of those nominations, no more than 45 have gone to Members of this House. Those 45 have been distributed among 15 Members of Parliament.
    As I said before the Select Committee, and also, I believe, in our last debate on this subject, I think it would be invidious of me to give the names and the numbers. If pressed, I would, naturally, like to consider the request, but I am reluctant to say who has been nominated and how often. Even if I were to give that information, I could not indicate what fees they had, in fact, earned because I have not the least knowledge.
    4.0 p.m.
    Of those 15 Members of Parliament, eight were Conservative, six Labour and one Liberal. I would assure the Committee that I have acted throughout on the same principle as I am sure my predecessors have followed, namely, to try to secure the right man for the case—that is the first main object—and to ensure as fair a distribution of the work as possible among those who are available and fit to take it. One cannot, of course, have hard and fast rules about that. The vast mass of nominations is, in fact, for cases of the Director of Public Prosecutions. I took a sample check of about 500, and I found that no less than 380 out of the 500 in one period were Director of Public Prosecutions cases, many of them on circuit.
    It is sometimes said, and I think it was suggested in the last debate, that it might perhaps be a good thing if the selection were done by the Government Departments direct. I, personally, do not
    364
    think that it would be. I think that we should probably get certain people becoming, as it were, favourites of particular Departments, and we should not get that fair distribution which I seek to ensure and we should not get a number of people competent to do the various types of work. In fact, of course, if such a transfer were made, it would make very little practical difference because, under the regulations under which the Director of Public Prosecutions acts, I am responsible for nominations in that class of case.
    Mr. Bowles: The right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned that work was given to 15 Members of Parliament, eight Conservative, six Labour and one Liberal. Did they get one brief each, or did they get a number of briefs? Could he tell us how many there were?
    The Attorney-General: I said 45 briefs among the 15 Members of Parliament.
    Mr. Bowles: Altogether, making three each?
    The Attorney-General: I do not say that it is equally divided. It depends on the type of case, where it is, which circuit, and so forth. But I do my best to see that there is a fair distribution.
    I should say that in addition to the 2,589 cases in which nominations have been made, there have been 77 nominations in Revenue cases, and, of those 77, 15 have been given to five Members of Parliament, three of whom are Conservatives, I think, and two from the party opposite. I do not know whether the Committee would require me to go into more detail about the allocation, but I can assure the Committee that I seek to give the fairest possible distribution.
    The hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), in his humorous speech in moving this Clause, suggested that it would not matter very much if the Clause were brought in, because any ex-Law Officer would be prepared to do work in excess of £100 a year free for the Crown. I was a little astonished at that proposition coming from him, because I thought that he was a great believer in the rate for the job.
    Mr. Henry Usborne: I wonder whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman would

    365
    explain to me a remark which he made a little earlier, which I find a little puzzling. He took the point that it might be advisable for the various different Ministries to brief their own counsel, and then he went on to say that that might lead to favouritism. He concluded, evidently, that when his office did it there was not any favouritism. I should like him to explain that. He is perhaps quite right about it; but why is his office so completely impartial, whereas other offices are evidently not so impartial?
    Mr. G. Lindgren rose—
    The Attorney-General: Perhaps I might answer the question put by the hon. Member for Yardley (Mr. Usborne) first.
    I was dealing with a suggestion which had been put forward for a possible change. It is not a suggestion made in this Clause. I was saying that I was rather against it, for this reason, that if a particular Government Department does the work on its own it will tend to confine itself possibly to one, two, three or four people, depending on the volume of the work, and we should not get that general distribution among Members of the Bar which I myself regard as useful and desirable.
    If one has two or three what one might call favourites, and they take other work or fade out, there is no one trained to take their place. One particular instance is criminal work. I try to see that there is a fair distribution between the different people, smaller, simpler cases going to the young men who have just been called, more difficult cases to those more experienced, and cases which are really difficult going to those with great experience. I doubt that one would get that same classification and distribution in any other way.
    Mr. Lindgren: The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the rate for the job. Does he not realise that there are many Members of the House of Commons who give their whole time to the House who do not get the rate for the job? Why is it more necessary for a lawyer to get the rate for a job away from the House than it is for a Member of Parliament, attending a Standing Committee two or three times a week, to have the rate for the job?
    The Attorney-General: I am not going into the question of the rate for the job for Members of Parliament.
    Mr. Lindgren: It was raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
    The Attorney-General: With respect, I did not raise it. It is the hon. Member for Dudley who raised it. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, he did, by what he said. Let me explain it for a moment or two.
    The hon. Member suggested that only barristers or, I think he said, ex-Law Officers, should be expected to, and would, if asked, do their professional work, that is to say, handle briefs in the courts, for nothing once they had earned £100. I was suggesting that that struck me as rather a novel suggestion —[An HON. MEMBER: "A joke."]—it may have been a joke—and I said that it was really contrary to the view that one should get the rate for the job. But that is quite a different subject from any question of sitting in Standing Committees and things of that kind.
    Mr. Wigg: I am much obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way. He answered a point put by my hon. Friend the Member for Yardley (Mr. Usborne), who asked what special quality the holder of the office of Attorney-General had which holders of office in other Government Departments do not have. I put this same point to him on 9th November, 1955, when I said:
    "What special qualifications has the right hon. and learned Gentleman or any holder of his office, which requires that we should trust him, when we do not trust any of his right hon. or hon. Friends?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th November, 1955; Vol. 545, c. 1902–3.]
    Would he be kind enough to answer?
    The Attorney-General: I thought that I had answered, but I will explain it a little more if the hon. Gentleman wishes.
    Government Departments, or their representatives, are not likely to be in anything like as close touch with the Bar as a whole as the Attorney-General and Solicitor-General. They are not likely to know all the young men—all the good young men and all the others. They may pick on one and think that he is very good, but this may mean that they ignore the claims of the others. In my view, the Law Officers, who do keep themselves in

    367
    touch with the profession, have a wider knowledge of those who are competent to deal with particular types of case. I really cannot say more upon it. I think that that is so, in fact.
    Mr. Wigg: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has given a wholly satisfactory answer from his point of view, but does he not realise that he is now admitting that he has applied a standard to those to whom he gives briefs which would not be permitted for one moment in any other Department? He says that he looks at the young men—quite right—and he wants to help young men in his profession. What would he say if the Minister of Health nominated surgeons or dentists, not for their professional ability, but because he wanted to give one of the lads a start?
    The Attorney-General: Either I have not made myself clear or the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood me. I would repeat what I said and try to explain it to the hon. Gentleman. He must realise that cases must vary tremendously in magnitude, complexity and difficulty.
    Mr. Lindgren: And in what a man gets for them.
    The Attorney-General: And in what a man gets for them.
    I said, and I say again, that the governing principle in the nomination of counsel is the selection of the right man for the job. One does not consider whether a man is a Member of Parliament or not; that has nothing to do with it. One considers whether he is the right man. At one end of the scale, when one gets a simple case one does not require the most experienced man to conduct it. One can get the right man although he is less experienced. That is what I mean by saying that there is a fair distribution of work, and sometimes more briefing of younger barristers than might otherwise occur. In that way one gets, I believe, a fair allocation of the work and it is to the advantage of the Crown's service generally.
    It was the recommendation of the House of Commons that the hon. Member's Amendments should be considered by the Select Committee. They were considered—I have no doubt carefully. I gave evidence on them, as the hon. Member knows, and the Select Committee
    368
    rejected them by eleven votes to one. Having considered the matter once again I must advise the Committee that in our view there is no need for the Clause, that there is no justification for it, and that there really is no ground whatever for singling out members of the Bar who are Members of this House for different treatment, in relation to what is a quasi-contractual relationship, than any other Member of the House of Commons who belongs to any other profession.
    Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas: I realise that one is exposing oneself rather awkwardly on an occasion of this kind. I must at once confess to a certain interest and equally confess to disagreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg). He introduced the Clause with great fairness and, indeed, kindness. I expected very much greater trouble from him than, in fact, was forthcoming. I agree with my hon. Friend that this is a matter of tremendous importance. I think that in this case he has started from a wrong analysis of the premises and has, therefore, come to a wrong conclusion. I want to put before the Committee, as briefly as I can, how the matter strikes me.
    First, the principle upon which this proposal is based is not simply to eliminate the Executive patronage of Members of Parliament. If that were a fundamental principle of general application, my hon. Friend would have proved his case, except with regard to the £100 provision which seems to me to be quite ridiculous. If my hon. Friend is going for the case, he should have gone for it straight out without any exception of £100 at all.
    Consider, for example, a young man who is starting at the Bar. He may get briefs up to £25, £50 or £100, perhaps more than he would make in a whole year. If he gets that much patronage to start him off, it is much more valuable to him than considerably bigger sums later. I am not, however, taking a frivolous technicality of that kind against my hon. Friend. What he is concerned with is the principle, whether the £100 is there or not. It is on that principle that I shall deal with his new Clause.
    The true principle is not, of course, to eliminate Executive patronage of Members of Parliament. The principle always was to eliminate Crown patronage where

    369
    there was danger arising from it of influencing votes in the House of Commons. The Attorney-General referred to the enormous field of patronage that is now open to the Executive. We have all kinds of contracts and all kinds of other professions than the Bar. In this case, the Bar is being chosen as the one kind of profession which has to be penalised by the amendment that the new Clause would make to the Bill. There is no corresponding amendment dealing with any other profession, or, indeed, with any other contracts.
    What my hon. Friend has to establish —and he may have a good deal of sympathy in the Committee in trying to establish it—is that there is a vicious peculiarity about the Bar which makes its members extremely susceptible, in an improper way, to patronage by the Executive. There is no evidence of that.
    Mr. Wigg: My hon. and learned Friend has introduced the word "vicious". I did not do so, but he knows the Bar much better than I do. I would never call its members vicious. Apparently, my hon. and learned Friend could not have listened to the first part of my argument. I am not concerned about the £100. What the public want to know, and what I want to know, is: who gets what?
    4.15 p.m.
    Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: My hon. Friend wishes me to speak to something other than the new Clause?
    Mr. Wigg: Yes.
    Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: We cannot have that. I am prepared to accept my hon. Friend's new Clause as a matter of principle without the £100. I am treating it on the footing that he is sufficiently wise not to include any reference to the £100 at all.
    I was not suggesting that my hon. Friend was saying that I and my hon. and learned Friends in the House of Commons were vicious, nor, indeed, was I suggesting it. What I was suggesting was that what has to be established by any Amendment which is made to the Bill is that the Bar is somehow, by some peculiarity, distinguished by some viciousness, from other professions and distinguished from businessmen with whom contracts can be made.
    370
    To prove his case, my hon. Friend has to establish a peculiar viciousness on their part which distinguishes them from other people, which, of course, he himself completely disclaims. I accept what my hon. Friend says, that members of the Bar are no better and no worse than the general run of the community, but once he makes that admission—I hope he recognises this—the ease for his treating the Bar in this peculiar manner completely collapses.
    Mr. Wigg: That is a non sequitur.
    Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I have not finished. If my hon. Friend had followed my reasoning, he would see that it is a complete sequitur. First, there is no evidence of that, and secondly, it is ridiculous to suggest it, not only because —although I do not expect my hon. Friend to accept this—of the traditions, and so on, of the Bar itself, but also because of the strength of the party machine.
    Now, I come to the constructive part of my observations. I accept what my hon. Friend said, that the nature of the danger from patronage changes from age to age, according to the different relationships; of course, that is so. The danger in the present set-up is not really from the Crown influencing Members of Parliament in their votes in the House of Commons. The danger nowadays is from the too great power of the Executive, not only in the House of Commons but throughout the country. Therefore, the vice at which my hon. Friend ought to be hitting is not by making members of the Bar in the House of Commons less susceptible to, if I may use the term, bribery in their votes—the word was used in an intervention and I accept it; it is not a nice word, but it describes what is in my mind; perhaps "pressure" might be better—the danger is not in the bribery system in the House of Commons, but is the growing strength of the Executive generally by the spoils system, whether in the House of Commons or outside.
    I would welcome the Attorney-General ceasing to have the patronage over briefs. I think that my hon. Friend's Clause should be framed in that way instead of in its present form. It is not an answer for the Attorney-General to say that it is perfectly all right for him to allocate briefs, just as it is for other Departments

    371
    to allocate them. That does not quite meet the argument.
    In the case of the Attorney-General allocating briefs, I accept at once that it has been properly done at all times; I am not suggesting otherwise. But we have in this case a Minister of the Crown, a member of the Executive, himself directly, personally doing so. That seems to me an invidious position. I should have thought that any Attorney-General would have been glad to be rid of that. The more that the patronage is removed from the member of the Executive, the better it is.
    I would have welcomed an amendment of the Bill on those lines. Indeed, the Attorney-General did not indicate that he was completely set against it but said, quite fairly, that in his view the existing arrangement was desirable. I did not gather from him that he was so hard and fast in his view about that as to consider it should be debarred from consideration altogether.
    Sir Lionel Heald: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman tell the Committee who would do this better and more impartially than the Attorney-General?
    Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: If I did not make myself clear, I am obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his intervention, which will allow me to make myself clear.
    I am not suggesting that anybody would do it more efficiently or more impartially. That is no part of my case. I hoped that I made that clear. The point I am making is that there is patronage in the hands of a member of the Executive and that it is direct patronage, and that it is undesirable, in my view, that that should be seen to exist, and I think that the further it is removed the better and that it is desirable that it should be removed from the direct control of the Executive.
    Mr. Eric Fletcher: Would my hon. and learned Friend not agree, following the query of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald), that the obvious person to suggest would he the Treasury Solicitor?
    Sir L. Heald: A servant of the Executive?
    Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will follow the argument. We are at cross-purposes at the moment. I am not saying, and my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) is not saying, that it is better in the sense that thus it would be more impartially or more efficiently done. We are not suggesting that at all. What I am suggesting is that it is, on principle, preferable that patronage should be removed as far as possible from the Executive and the direct head of the Executive.
    Sir L. Heald: The difference is that the Treasury Solicitor is a servant of the Government and that the Attorney-General is not a servant of the Government. I should think, therefore, that the Attorney-General is more likely to be free of influence than the Treasury Solicitor.
    Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I know the anomalous position, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows the anomalous position, which the Attorney-General occupies. However, I shall not pursue that further. I hope that I have made the position perfectly clear to hon. Members.
    From the point of view of the Bar, the position in the House of Commons is really becoming somewhat serious. Because it is very pertinent to the matter we are now considering, I would put before the Committee what the position is. Before the war, members of the Bar, of all parties, and the best members of the Bar, almost automatically became Members of the House. That is no longer the position, and it is a serious matter. Until the recent by-election at Lewisham, North not a single member of the Bar has become a Member of the House on our side. Members of the House who are also members of the Bar have left the House to go back to the Bar.
    I understand from businessmen that the House of Commons is not getting from among businessmen people it would be desirable to have in the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes. There have been a certain number of people coming from the Bar into the House upon the other side, but, nevertheless, it is true to say that we are not getting into the House, on either side, the representative members of the Bar we used to get before the war.

    373
    I think that that is a thoroughly bad thing. It is a bad thing for the House and it is a bad thing for the Bar, and, indeed, for the Bench.
    What we need is an inquiry into the whole position of Members of the House of Commons. There are complaints, with which I have complete sympathy, among Members of the House who give their full time to the work of the House. The work of the House could not be done unless they gave their whole time to it. They receive for it a salary which is utterly inadequate. The same can be said about junior Ministers of the Crown. We find difficulty in filling some of the junior offices because junior Ministers are not being paid enough for the purpose. They are not being paid salaries comparable to those which persons of that quality would be paid for work outside.
    There is a tendency, and it is inherent in this new Clause, although the new Clause increases the tendency to an insignificant degree only, yet still to some degree, to cut down still further the handicaps which are already excluding people from membership of the House of Commons. It requires not only full-time Members, but, I personally think, part-time Members, too, of experience of different occupations, and it requires them upon terms which neither starve those who give their full time to the House nor kill those who give part of their time to it, contrary to what the position is at the moment. The way in which the Government have dealt with this problem is cowardly and despicable.
    There is a school of thought which believes in some sort of spoils system, to which I, personally, am most strongly opposed. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley has referred to the history of this matter, and it is no secret that in days gone by, long, long ago, judicial offices were considered fair rewards for political work. We know that during the Chancellorship of Lord Jowitt and Lord Simonds—I shall not go back further—that matter was dealt with in a way which commanded the complete respect of the whole of the profession. It is extremely important that it should be maintained.
    We want the House of Commons made a place where persons can serve and be provided with independence in doing that service. The danger now is not pressure from the other side of the House of
    374
    Commons. The requirement is independence of pressure of the party machine itself. That is the big problem which entails the payment of Members of the House of Commons, the security of Members of the House, and the quality and general position of Members of the House, including their occupations inside and outside.
    It is this enormous problem to which the new Clause of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley leads. I should like to see an impartial and a very high-powered inquiry into the whole position of membership of the House of Commons, including, although merely as one aspect of the matter, albeit an important aspect, the proper payment of Members of the House of Commons, so as to ensure completely independent membership of this Assembly.
    Mr. Ronald Bell: Like the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas), I am opposed to the new Clause, and, like him, I have an obvious interest to declare in it. The guiding principle which the Select Committee on the House of Commons Disqualification Bill had in mind in approaching the whole subject of disqualification from membership of the House is set out in the first paragraph of its Report, in which it says that the first principle is
    "…that qualification for membership of the House of Commons should be on as wide a basis as possible."
    That was the consideration which certainly influenced most hon. Members who served on that Select Committee in reaching the recommendation which it presented to the House. In pursuance of that, the Select Committee swept away the general disqualification of Members on account of holding offices of profit, and replaced it by a schedule in which particular offices of profit are listed. No other office disqualifies a person from membership of the House of Commons.
    4.30 p.m.
    The Select Committee, secondly, recommended an equally great change, namely, that all disqualifications on the ground of contracting with the Government should be abolished. It would be a strange innovation, indeed, if in the Bill we were to introduce a new disqualification, which

    375
    never existed before, on the acceptance of a Crown brief. It has never disqualified before.
    Mr. Kenneth Pickthorn: Being a lawyer has disqualified.
    Mr. Bell: We all know my hon. Friend's historical ability, but I am not talking about being a lawyer. We are discussing the new Clause, which deals with the receipt of Crown briefs. Crown briefs were not contracts of service, nor did the acceptance of them constitute the holding of office of any kind. Therefore, they have never disqualified.
    The hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) is suggesting that at a time when we have decided, or will shortly decide, that all commercial contracts will not disqualify, we shall decide that one particular kind of service, and not a regular service but an occasional one, should disqualify. Even if this Committee were suddenly to think that professional service should disqualify when commercial contracts do not, it would be rather strange just to pick on barristers.
    My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has referred to solicitors and doctors. The figure in the proposed new Clause is £100. I do not know, but I should be very surprised if there were not right hon. and hon. Members of the House of Commons in receipt of something more like £2,000 in respect of medical services payable from public funds under the National Health Service.
    Mr. E. G. Willis: But surely that is not directly under the patronage of the Minister of Health.
    Mr. Bell: The hon. Member will appreciate that the Health Service is quite different from the other nationalised organisations. It is directly under the Crown and the Minister has direct control, unlike the National Coal Board or British Railways. Therefore, the analogy is correct.
    I am sure that hon. Members would not think it reasonable that a practitioner who was a Member of the House of Commons should be debarred from serving in the National Health Service, or that a solicitor or surveyor should be in this absurd danger that he might find that in some way he had acted for the
    376
    Crown and had received a fee exceeding £100, which he might easily do.
    Mr. Lindgren: Doctors have come into the House of Commons and, because they could not carry on their practices and be Members, have given up their practices. I can think of three such cases.
    Mr. Bell: The hon. Member seems to have left the realm of principle and to be arguing particular cases. I should have thought it unreasonable to hon. Members that Members should be debarred by law from participating in the National Health Service because they have come into the House of Commons. I believe that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee are participating in the Health Service at the present time, some possibly on a consultant basis.
    It would be quite illogical to pick out the Bar and to leave out the others, but it is surely totally illogical to put in a profession at all when we have decided in principle and are about to decide in detail in Committee on Clause 9 that commercial contracts should go out.
    The Attorney-General: We have passed Clause 9.
    Mr. Bell: That strengthens my argument immensely, because the Committee apparently has already decided to order Clause 9 to stand part of the Bill and, therefore, it would be rather absurd to add the new Clause to the Bill. When this matter was discussed in the Select Committee we had a Division on it and only one right hon. Member voted in favour of the change. It was the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). All the other members of the Committee, from both sides of the House of Commons, voted against it.
    Mr. Ede: What does that prove?
    Mr. Wigg: In an effort to be fair, I left out of the argument what the Select Committee decided or did not decide to do, but if the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. R. Bell) persists in bringing against me the fact that the Select Committee took a certain decision, surely, in all fairness, he must tell us how many lawyers were members of the Select Committee.
    Mr. Bell: I think that the hon. Member for Dudley would not have left out reference to what happened in the Select Committee if it had been in his favour.
    Mr. Wigg: On the contrary.
    Mr. Bell: I could not say off-hand how many members of the Select Committee were lawyers, but at least one right hon. Member opposite, who is not a lawyer, voted against the hon. Member for Dudley on this point.
    The Select Committee sets out very clearly in paragraph 6 the argument against the proposal. It says:
    "As the law stands, and as the Bill committed to Your Committee was drafted, it would be possible for a member with large contracting interests to erect a huge block of Government offices without thereby incurring disqualification, while another member, perhaps supplying for the same offices furniture worth little more than a hundred pounds, would disqualify himself."
    That is, under the law at present. To supply goods in excess of £100 disqualifies, and the hon. Member for Dudley, by means of the new Clause, is trying to put the Bar in exactly the same position as the tradesmen whom we are now, by means of the Bill, trying to leave out.
    The Select Committee added:
    "It seemed clear to Your Committee that the law should not be left in its present state, and they were faced with deciding either for bare repeal or a new clause, or new clauses, covering all sorts of contractual relations between Government and government departments on the one hand and on the other commercial, trade and professional organisations in which a member might, directly or indirectly as director, shareholder or otherwise, happen to participate or, in the further alternative, to provide for suitable publicity to be given to any Government contracts or arrangements, including Crown briefs, which might otherwise become, or be thought to be, the means of secret patronage or of undue influence by the Government of the day on members of the House of Commons. Faced with the extreme difficulty of drafting satisfactory new clauses to cover all such possibilities, and having regard particularly to the evidence of the Clerk of the House that he had neither evidence nor knowledge of any corruption affecting members in connection with Government contracts for the past hundred years, Your Committee considered it unnecessary to go beyond the repeal of the existing law."
    If that is not merely the recommendation of the Select Committee, but the effect of the Bill which the House passed on Second Reading and consideration of
    378
    which, except for proposed new Clauses, we have completed in Committee, then, apart from any other argument such as that put forward by the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East, which I thought very powerful on the desirability of allowing members of the Bar to be Members of the House, the new Clause is already inconsistent with what the House of Commons has decided to do.
    The House has decided to throw membership of the House open to anyone who has not an office incompatible with such membership, either for physical reasons or because he would be manifestly susceptible to pressure from the Executive. If that is the course that the Committee has decided upon, it would be absurd to accept the proposed new Clause.
    Mr. E. Fletcher: Unlike the hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. R. Bell) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas), I have no personal interest in this matter. As the Committee knows, I am not a barrister. I am a humble solicitor, a member of the junior branch of the legal profession, and therefore at no time am I in danger of being offered a Crown brief.
    The Committee is indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) for having raised this matter. We have had a most interesting speech from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, North-East, who has made a suggestion for an inquiry, which I cordially endorse. It is true that this particular suggestion was fully ventilated in the Select Committee and I, having been a member of it, like the hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire, South, had the occasion and the duty to consider the matter carefully. Having done so, I was, as was pointed out, one of the majority of eleven who decided on the merits against the Clause, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) being in a minority of one.
    However, I do not think the matter can be left there. As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, although I had not been convinced in the discussions

    379
    which took place in the Select Committee, I was prepared to come here this afternoon with an open mind, and be convinced by what arguments he wanted to address to this Committee. My hon. Friend will forgive me for saying that I feel that, contrary to his usual performances, he did not do himself full justice on this occasion. I do not think he made the most of the case that could be made out. The Select Committee had to consider the whole of the grounds on which disqualification should rest.
    As was pointed out in the memoranda—which are now printed in the Appendix—that the Committee received from the Attorney-General and from the Clerk of the House, the real test of disqualification is incompatibility. Incompatibility may arise in one of two ways. It may arise because the mere nature of the office is incompatible with membership of the House of Commons. The classic instance of that is provided by civil servants or judges, since obviously their functions disqualify them. Another ground of incompatibility, which the hon. Member merely touched upon, was that there might be a physical cause of incompatibility; for example, ambassadors and other people whose very occupation requires them to live abroad or to spend a great deal of time abroad, or away from London, would therefore find themselves in a position which was incompatible with their presence in the House.
    One way in which the hon. Member for Dudley might present his case, if I may respectfully suggest it to him, is as follows. There is a real sense of grievance in the House of Commons that a large number of hon. Members, with no other source of income, have to man Standing Committees two or three times a week. At the same time there are not only members of the Bar, but members of other professions, including my own, who are able to supplement their Parliamentary salaries by earning money outside; and as long as Crown briefs continue, it will be part of the duty of barristers to attend court during the daytime, thereby rendering themselves unable to attend Standing Committees.
    That is a real grievance, and I have every sympathy with it, but the remedy for that state of affairs is not to disqualify barristers who receive Crown briefs, but
    380
    for the Government to pay all Members of Parliament adequate Parliamentary salaries. That is what we on these benches have been pressing for a long time past, and if this debate has no other result, I hope it will give a sense of urgency to that demand which has been repeatedly pressed.
    4.45 p.m.
    Now I turn to another matter. I am not sure how far the hon. Member for Dudley did so, but it could be urged that the mere existence of this patronage in the hands of the Attorney-General is in itself incompatible with membership of the House because it could be said that it exposes Members of Parliament to pressure, to influence; that it provides them with financial rewards which must tend to affect their attitude in this House. I do not think that argument was pressed; nor do I think the Attorney-General answered it. He gave some figures and the information was useful because the public are entitled to know the extent of this patronage. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that since his appointment to the office he had been responsible for 2,598 nominations, of which forty-five had gone to fifteen different Members of Parliament.
    I ask myself, why only fifteen? Why not many more? If there is the possibility of influence, if there is the possibility of patronage, it applies not only to those who have received Crown briefs but to those who have not. It applies also to those who live in hopes of them, because every hon. Member who is a member of the Bar and is eligible for a Crown brief is equally affected by the possibility of patronage, whether he receives one or not. Therefore, the problem is not dismissed by saying that only forty-five Members of Parliament have received Crown briefs.
    Mr. Bell: Fifteen.
    Mr. Fletcher: I am much obliged for the correction; only fifteen Members of Parliament have received Crown briefs. What about all the others? Are they not deserving of consideration? Have any of them refused Crown briefs?
    Mr. Peter Rawlinson: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that many hon. Members of this House are lawyers

    381
    only by qualification, and that there are not nearly as many as is supposed who are practising barristers?
    Mr. Fletcher: I am aware of that. I do not want to give any secrets away. It does not affect my decision on how I shall vote on this Clause. It must be remembered, however, that as long as this patronage exists, the Attorney-General is answerable in the House of Commons for how he exercises it. There may or may not have been complaints in recent years about how it is exercised. I have heard criticisms from time to time, not made by Members of Parliament but by people outside the House, because the exercise of any patronage is naturally a legitimate subject for criticism.
    I would remind the Committee that if it is said that the power of the Attorney-General to give Crown briefs to a selected number of Members of Parliament is a kind of patronage which may influence their votes, and it might, then that is something we should examine. We must examine it, however, in the context of the whole of the patronage to which Members of Parliament may be exposed.
    I will consider first those on the opposite benches and then those on this side of the Committee. It seems to me that Members on the Government Benches, whether barristers or not, are continually exposed to the possibility of patronage, because they always stand, at the risk of being offered or not offered some Ministerial appointment. After all, there are sixty or seventy Ministers of the Crown. There are a large number of ex-Ministers, some of whom are adorning the benches opposite at present, and nearly all the remainder are potential Ministers, all hoping one day or another to receive Government patronage.
    Placed against that background, it seems to me that the patronage to which a member of the Bar who is a Government supporter is exposed is minimal. In fact, experience shows that a barrister who is a Government supporter is far more likely to receive Ministerial office than judicial preferment. There are, for example, the Foreign Secretary, the Minister of Education, the First Lord of the Admiralty, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department and the
    382
    Minister of Pensions. Other names will occur to other hon. Members. No one has ever suggested that the possibility of Minsteral preferment and advancement is a reason for excluding them from this House. Therefore, why should the possibility of giving them a Crown brief be a reason?
    I now turn to hon. Members on this side. I should like to know what the Attorney-General thinks. I am not sure whether it is deliberate or whether it is accidental that the distribution of these Crown briefs among members of the Bar on both sides of the House appears to have some relation to the proportion of Members on the two sides. I should have thought that was accidental because —and here the Attorney-General will correct me if I am wrong——
    The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman heard me say that the question of membership of a political party had nothing to do with it or, indeed, with membership of the House of Commons, and I should have thought he would have accepted that.
    Mr. Fletcher: That was what I expected the Attorney-General to say.
    The Attorney-General: I have said it.
    Mr. Fletcher: I am very glad to have given the Attorney-General an opportunity of repeating it and putting it beyond dispute. This leads me to my further point. Surely it cannot be suggested—and here I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley will help me—that in so far as the Attorney-General of the day distributes Crown briefs to Members of the Opposition they are influenced in any way whatever by the Crown briefs they receive or do not receive. I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley has suggested that any Member on these benches during the tenure of office of the Attorney-General has, by reason of receiving Crown briefs, been any less likely to vote against the Government than he would otherwise have been.
    May I take one glaring example which, I think, is a classical illustration of this? In the days when my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Helens (Sir H. Shawcross) was Attorney-General, he had the opportunity of disposing of

    383
    what was, I suppose, the most remunerative Crown briefs that had been distributed for a very long time. I refer to the Nuremberg trials of war criminals. The fees on those briefs have been published. I do not know why the Attorney-General need be reticent about giving the figures of other Crown briefs if he is pressed for them. They were given by his predecessor and they are all in HANSARD. The total fees paid——
    The Attorney-General: I am afraid the hon. Gentleman cannot have been listening. I have no information about what fees are paid. It is a very different thing to secure information about what fees are paid in a particular case, such as in the Nuremberg case, and those paid generally. I am never informed, nor is my Department, what fees are paid to counsel. I said that before.
    Mr. Fletcher: I heard that, but with great respect I could not accept it. I believe that if the Attorney-General wanted to inform himself of the fees that are paid, and of the fees marked on any brief for which he is responsible for nomination, he would not have the slightest difficulty in obtaining that information. He has only to ask for it and he can compel its production. Therefore, if my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley or anyone else wants this information he is entitled to have it.
    As I have said, I do not think that the Attorney-General need be reticent about it. In the case of his predecessor there was no reticence. The figures are in HANSARD. The total fees paid to members of the Bar attending Nuremberg were £52,396. The largest or second largest fee was paid to Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, as he then was, the present Lord Chancellor, who was one of the most distinguished opponents of the Labour Government of the day. His fees, I believe, were either £14,000 or £24,000. [An HON. MEMBER: "£24,000."] The Attorney-General of the day delivered briefs to the value of £24,000 to the present Lord Chancellor, who was then Sir David Maxwell Fyfe and sitting on the Opposition Front Bench. Could it possibly be argued that the exercise of patronage by the Attorney-General of the day to his foremost political opponent diminished in any degree the vehemence with which Sir David Maxwell Fyfe con-
    384
    tinuously opposed the policy of the Labour Government?
    Mr. Wigg: I tried to be fair in my argument. I was aware of these facts, but I did not use them. I did not use them because there is an obvious reply to the question. There is an argument which can be used but which I refrained from using and which is now forced out of me. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Helens (Sir H. Shawcross) gave those briefs to Sir David Maxwell Fyfe not for favours at present but for favours to come so that——
    The Temporary Chairman (Mr. F. Blackburn): I do not think that the hon. Member should cast a reflection upon another hon. Member of this House.
    Mr. Wigg: It would perhaps be as well. Mr. Blackburn, before I earn the rebuke of the Chair, that I should be guilty of the charge made against me. I did not make a reflection and I was very careful to say that I refrained from using that argument. But if it is put to me directly, and it has been put to me directly, what is my answer? Then surely, in all fairness, I have to put the consideration which influenced me, not in putting the argument, but in refraining from doing so. If it can be argued and I am asked directly whether the granting of these briefs exempts the charge of patronage, I can fairly say that the opposite conclusion can in fact be drawn.
    Mr. Fletcher: I do not follow my hon. Friend's argument. I was trying to argue that from facts, which ought to be in the minds of the Committee, the distribution of this patronage could not possibly, and did not, affect the political opinions or activities of political opponents.
    Mr. Wigg: I am not making, nor have I made, any aspersion on an hon. Member of this House who is now a Member or has been a Member. What I am answering is whether in fact the argument can be used, and clearly it can.
    Mr. Fletcher: My hon. Friend has made his point. In my view, it is quite proper that these facts should be known and that the Committee should know that all these considerations were in the minds of the Select Committee in coming to the practically unanimous decision—not entirely unanimous, but by an overwhelming majority—to reject the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley.
    Mr. Wigg: I want to make it absolutely clear that in the course of the questions which I put to the Attorney-General, and in the course of my arguments today and on previous occasions, I have gone out of my way to be careful not to get involved in just the considerations which my hon. Friend has forced upon the Committee.
    Mr. Fletcher: My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley says that I have forced these considerations on the Committee. I think that it is much better, in order that the Committee may come to a decision about these matters, that it should have the facts, because without all the facts no one can come to the best conclusion. I have mentioned them as being relevant to the decision to which the Committee ought to come. In my view, these facts show that the existence of this patronage for which the Attorney-General is answerable in this House cannot be said at any time within living memory to have influenced the political view or the political criticism or expression of opinion of any Member on either side of the House.
    There is a further matter which I think ought to be urged in opposition to the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, and it is this. As long as there are members of the Bar in this House—and I hope there always will be—then it seems to me that, apart from the interests of Parliament, it is in the interests of the administration of justice, which is just as important as the efficient conduct of our Parliamentary life, that if the Attorney-General of the day thinks that for the better conduct of some criminal case or civil case in the courts a nomination should be made to a member of the Bar who is also a Member of this House, he should make that nomination. It would be contrary to the interests of justice to fetter the hands of the Attorney-General in this way by imposing this disqualification.
    I thought it necessary, in view of the attitude of a number of my hon. Friends, to give the reasons for which I came to this conclusion in the Select Committee and for which I remain of the same opinion today.
    5.0 p.m.
    Mr. Ede: As the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. R. Bell) pointed out, when this matter was before
    386
    the Select Committee I was the one Member to vote in favour of the Clause of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg). I am never afraid of being in a minority of one, because it is the safest position to be in. You are responsible for nobody else but yourself. As soon as a single person joins you, you have to have regard to how far you may be responsible for having exerted undue influence on him. I say quite frankly that if the matter were before the Select Committee again this afternoon, I should move my hon. Friend's Clause and should vote for it.
    We discovered in the course of the Committee's deliberations that a man who accepted some office for which no fees were paid at all and which even involved him in considerable expense became disqualified from being a Member of this House, although it could not be said that holding the office in the slightest degree influenced his conduct in Parliament. Everybody knows that since 1945 we have had a succession of the most trivial cases in which it has been held that Members on both sides of the House were disqualified. Consider the case of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Sir R. Jennings) who, out of a good heart, audited the accounts of the local British Legion Club. To do that he had to have his name inserted on a list. He received no fee and, in fact, he did not do the work. A salaried servant of his firm did the work. Nevertheless, he was disqualified.
    It has been held against my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley in dealing with anomalies which have existed that the House has already struck the Clause out of the Bill which raised some doubt about the position of contract.
    Mr. R. Bell: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman did not mean to say "struck the Clause out of the Bill". It should be "struck the provision out of the law".
    Mr. Ede: There was some argument between the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South, and when two lawyers disagree——
    The Attorney-General: I think that in this connection the right hon, Gentleman was right. The original Bill which came before the Committee contained the Clause relating to contract. The Select Committee, on considering the matter,

    387
    struck it out. If I may arbitrate in this dispute, I would give the verdict to the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Ede: The right hon. and learned Gentleman also gives it in favour of himself. Meticulous lawyers might think the judgment was suspect, but I am prepared to leave it at that.
    Next, there was the position of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. A. Evans) who supplied some stationery to the Home Office when I was Home Secretary. This was just before he was a Member, but this small series of transactions continued afterwards. Nobody suggested that there was any bad faith on his part, but he was disqualified. But let us consider the position of a man who is a Member of the House and an architect and who is asked to act as architect on the erection of some large Government building. He would have professional fees paid in respect of it, but he would not be disqualified. That is the position with regard to the professions generally.
    I have been quite consistent on this matter. As will be seen from page 1xx of the Report of the Select Committee, I moved an Amendment to add to the Clause then under discussion certain words—after alluding to
    "the high reputation at home and abroad of the House of Commons for disinterestedness and incorruptibility…"
    the words continued:
    "…your Committee recommend that the immediate attention of the House should be given to the framing of legislation to deal, (in the light of modern commercial, trade and professional conditions and practices), with the situation thus created."
    I myself do not think it right that we should now be in the position in which a person having a contract with the Government should be entitled to sit in the House. He could not sit on any local authority in the country if he were in that position. Of course, the creation of the joint stock companies has created a position which makes it very difficult indeed to arrive at any logical conclusion, unless the House is prepared to examine this question a great deal further, and I hope it will decide to do so.
    Everyone who has spoken so far in this debate, except my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, is a lawyer of one branch
    388
    or other of the profession, and the way in which the lawyers' minds are capable of producing the argument for the moment in spite of all that has been said before is a constant source of wonder to me. The right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) and myself were very keen on a very different position being taken up. We said, "Do not have a list of offices which disqualify a man from being a Member of the House of Commons, but disqualify from holding the offices any man who becomes a Member of Parliament holding them."
    What was the lawyers' argument on that in Committee? They said, "You might have a judge of the High Court who inadvertently was elected a Member of Parliament. He went through all the processes of election; he was nominated, he addressed meetings and he was elected. He served in the House for some time. Then it was suddenly discovered that he was a judge. We therefore cannot have this revolutionary proposal of the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery and the right hon. and unlearned Member for South Shields. This man might even have sentenced somebody to be hanged, and a couple of years afterwards it might be discovered that he was simultaneously a judge and a Member of Parliament. What could you do about the poor fellow who had been hanged on his sentence?"
    The Committee must examine very carefully the way in which, in future, what the Attorney-General called the quasi-contractual nature of certain relationships between individual Members of Parliament and Government Departments is dealt with. In reply to such people as my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) I would say that I would carry this arrangement further and include all professions. In this matter we are adopting a lower standard for the House of Commons than we do for any local authority. A man cannot draw a fee in respect of work he does for a local authority as long as he is a member of it; in fact, in the Local Government Act of 1933 the House went so far as to say that a man must cease to be a member of a local authority for a year before he could draw a fee or wage in respect of any work he did for it.
    This House should be at least as careful of its own Members as it is of the members of local authorities. I hope that

    389
    the Committee will realise that what, in the past, was regarded as a safeguard in the matter of contracts has now completely disappeared, and that it will be the duty of the House in the not too distant future to have regard to that fact on the general issue, and not merely upon the particular issue with which we are dealing here.
    If I were to adopt the argument of the lawyers I should be quite entitled to say that it is not what may happen today but what may happen in the future with which we must be concerned. The Attorney-General was quite frank with the Select Committee. He gave figures in April last year with regard to the position, and as far as I can follow from the figures which he then gave there have been two nominations in the months that have intervened. He said that there were thirteen, and now there are fifteen. There is no dispute between the right hon. and learned Gentleman and myself about this matter.
    While he was in office one would expect that briefs should be shared in the way mentioned. I gather that not very many of these briefs represent any very large sums. There may be one or two in tax cases, where the hearing was protracted and the subject difficult——
    The Attorney-General: And the case perhaps went through several courts.
    Mr. Ede: Yes—that is one way of protracting a case. When I was presiding on the appeal committee of a quarter sessions only a week or two ago my colleagues and I declared as a nullity a certain decision reached by a bench below. The member of the Bar who had argued against it being a nullity thanked me after lunch for the decision that we had come to because, he said, "It means that I shall get another brief out of the same case."
    With regard to the case that my hon. Friend adduced, I think it was a pity that any individual names should have been adduced, so injecting an amount of heat into the debate which might well have been avoided. The figures that occurred in that case have rarely been equalled in this sort of case in recent years. We are not going back to days of Lord Halsbury; we are dealing with the modern practice.
    390
    5.15 p.m.
    There is no doubt that occasionally in the past this opportunity has been abused. It may have been in the distant past, but it has happened. Adopting the argument about the judge who might have been inadvertently elected a Member of Parliament without anybody finding it out, I should have thought that it would be better to preclude the possibility of it happening. I regard as one of the chief dangers of democracy the suggestion which is rampant in America and is occasionally heard here, that nobody is in public life for the good of his health; he is in it for the takings that can be made. One occasionally hears it from people who have no weight at all in this country, who just cannot believe that anybody ever does anything unless there is a considerable profit attached to it.
    I argued the same way with regard to another Amendment. Members of Parliament are entitled to be protected from that sort of insinuation. Therefore, speaking in rather more numerous company than I did in Committee, I want to say that I shall vote for the new Clause. I am authorised by those who settle policy to say that they recommend my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote for it.
    Mr. Usborne: The matter we have been discussing is of intense importance and raises many issues. I would have wished to speak at great length upon it, but I will try to cut my remarks to the minimum. I regret that I have been called so late in the day, because there was one small question upon which I wanted to concentrate and which it would have been easier to have deployed had I had the luck to speak almost immediately after the Attorney-General.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) has done the Committee a great service in raising this issue, although I believe that the case against the new Clause is rather strong. He worried the Attorney-General while he was speaking, and at one point the Attorney-General rose and said he was sorry that he had not made himself clear. The fact is that he should have been sorry because he did make himself clear. He made it abundantly clear to me, at any rate, that he was exerting a form of patronage because, in his office, as a lawyer himself he was claiming the right to appoint all the other lawyers to work

    391
    for all the other Ministries, and he seemed to think that that was perfectly sound.
    My objection to patronage arises when it is concentrated. I admit that it happens in all walks of life and in all ways, but the more it is spread out the less dangerous and harmful it is. I therefore ask the Committee to consider carefully the possibility that it might be better if the various Departments and Government Ministries were allowed to choose their own counsel, even if they chose their favourites—because in that context the word "favourites" would mean those who would do the best jobs for them. On the other hand, the Attorney-General, as a senior member of his union, is more concerned in seeing that all the lawyers get a fair crack of the whip. I want to see that Government Departments get good service for the fees they pay.
    If it could be logically argued that the Attorney-General, being head of a profession, should have a monopoly in the appointment of members of that profession, why should it not be equally valid to say that if the Minister of Supply were the head of the engineering section he should always appoint the consulting engineers for any Government Department which wanted an advisory opinion from a qualified engineer? The very suggestion is too absurd to contemplate, but it is exactly analogous.
    I think there would be a lot to be said for an arrangement whereby more than one person had the responsibility for handing out the briefs for the ten or twenty Departments—I do not know how many different Ministries and Departments there are—which have to obtain the services of qualified lawyers. I think it would be an improvement, and if this could be secured and nothing else, I still think that this would have been a very
    valuable debate. I think it would be far better if the learned Attorney-General stopped hogging this particular patronage and allowed it to be more widely spread.
    Mr. Jack Jones: I speak for the first time on this Bill, and probably the lawyers in the Committee will ask what my qualifications are for speaking now.
    I was one of the very few laymen who came to this House in 1945 to be disqualified. It was found by the late Mr. Ernest Bevin, that very respected person, when he was Minister of Labour, that lawyers could not do the job of maintaining industrial peace, and it was decided that I should take the place of an eminent lawyer on an appeals tribunal in Manchester. The eminent lawyer knew quite a lot, but he did not understand human beings or workshop practice. When I came to this House, having lost money by going to the tribunal from a highly paid job, I was disqualified, but if the provisions of this Clause had been in operation and Mr. Bevin had said to me, "If you earn £100 on this job, you do not come to Parliament," he could have had his job.
    It is because I believe in preventing any good man who may be selected by future Labour Party Ministers—and it will not be so long before they arrive—from being disqualified from sitting in the House and other people, with political convictions—and who are called upon in the middle of a war to keep the peace in industry because they know something about industry—from running the risk of disqualification, that I shall support the new Clause.
    Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 159, Noes 218.

    Division No. 77.]

    AYES

    [5.22 p.m.

    Ainsley, J. W.

    Brockway, A. F.

    Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

    Albu, A. H.

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch & Finsbury)

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Burke, W. A.

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Balfour, A.

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Cullen, Mrs. A.

    Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)

    Callaghan, L. J.

    Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

    Benson, G.

    Carmichael, J.

    Darling, George (Hillsborough)

    Blyton, W. R.

    Champion, A. J.

    Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

    Chapman, W. D.

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

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

    Chetwynd, G. R.

    Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

    Bowles, F. G.

    Clunie, J.

    Dodds, N. N.

    Boyd, T. C.

    Coldrick, W.

    Donnelly, D. L.

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

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Reid, William

    Dye, S.

    Lawson, G. M.

    Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

    Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

    Lewis, Arthur

    Ross, William

    Forman, J. C.

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

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

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Short, E. W.

    George, Lady Megan Lloyd

    MacColl, J. E.

    Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

    Gibson, C. W.

    McGovern, J.

    Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)

    Greenwood, Anthony

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

    Mann, Mrs. Jean

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Grey, C. F.

    Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

    Sparks, J. A.

    Hamilton, W. W.

    Mason, Roy

    Steele, T.

    Hannan, W.

    Mellish, R. J.

    Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

    Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

    Mitchison, G. R.

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

    Hastings, S.

    Monslow, W.

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

    Hayman, F. H.

    Moody, A. S.

    Sylvester, G. O.

    Healey, Denis

    Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

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

    Morrison, Rt.Hn. Herbert (Lewis'm, S.)

    Thornton, E.

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Mort, D. L.

    Timmons, J.

    Hobson, C. R.

    Moss, R.

    Viant, S. P.

    Holman, P.

    Moyle, A.

    Warbey, W. N.

    Holmes, Horace

    Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

    Watkins, T. E.

    Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

    Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Hoy, J. H.

    Oliver, G. H.

    West, D. G.

    Hubbard, T. F.

    Oram, A. E.

    Wheeldon, W. E.

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Orbach, M.

    White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Oswald, T.

    White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Owen, W.J.

    Wigg, George

    Hunter, A. E.

    Padley, W. E.

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

    Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)

    Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

    Pargiter, G. A.

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

    Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

    Parkin, B. T.

    Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

    Paton, John

    Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

    Jeger, George (Goole)

    Pearson, A.

    Winterbottom, Richard

    Johnson, Howard (Rugby)

    Pentland, N.

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

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

    Popplewell, E.

    Yates, V. (Ladywood)

    Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

    Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

    Prootor, W. T.

    Zilliacus, K.

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Rankin, John

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Redhead, E. C.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Reeves, J.

    Mr. Rogers and Mr. John Taylor.

    NOES

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Grimond, J.

    Aitken, W. T.

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

    Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

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

    Cole, Norman

    Grosvenor, L.-Col. R. G.

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Cooper-Key, E. M.

    Gurden, Harold

    Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

    Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

    Corfield, Capt. F. V.

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Anstruther-Gray, Major sir William

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

    Arbuthnot, John

    Crouch, R. F.

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    Armstrong, C. W.

    Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

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

    Ashton, H.

    Cunningham, Knox

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

    Atkins, H. E.

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Hay, John

    Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

    Dance, J. C. G.

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Davidson, Viscountess

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

    Balniel, Lord

    Davies, Rt-Hon. Clement (Montgomery)

    Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

    Barber, Anthony

    D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

    Barlow, Sir John

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

    Barter, John

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Baxter, Sir Beverley

    Doughty, C. J. A.

    Holland-Martin, C. J.

    Beamish, Maj. Tufton

    du Cann, E. D. L.

    Holt, A. F.

    Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

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

    Hope, Lord John

    Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

    Duncan, Capt J. A. L.

    Hornby, R. P.

    Bidgood, J. C.

    Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

    Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

    Biggs-Davison, J. A.

    Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

    Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

    Howard, John (Test)

    Bishop, F. P.

    Farey-Jones, F. W.

    Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

    Body, R. F.

    Finlay, Graeme

    Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

    Bossom, Sir Alfred

    Fletcher, Eric

    Hurd, A. R.

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Fletcher-Cooke, C.

    Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)

    Braine, B. R.

    Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale)

    Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry

    Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

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

    Godber, J. B.

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Gomme-Dunoan, Col. Sir Alan

    Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)

    Brooman-White, R. C.

    Cough, C. F. H.

    Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

    Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)

    Gower, H. R.

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

    Graham, Sir Fergus

    Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot

    Burden, F. F. A.

    Grant, W. (Woodside)

    Keegan, D.

    Campbell, Sir David

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

    Kerby, Capt. H. B.

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Green, A.

    Kerr, H. W.

    Channon, Sir Henry

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    Kimball, M.

    394

    395

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Ormsby-Core, Rt. Hon. W. D.

    Stevens, Geoffrey

    Langford-Holt, J. A.

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

    Leavey, J. A.

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

    Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)

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

    Osborne, C.

    Stewart, Sir James Henderson (Fife, E.)

    Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

    Page, R. G.

    Storey, S.

    Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

    Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)

    Parker, J.

    Summers, Sir Spencer

    Linstead, Sir H. N.

    Partridge, E.

    Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)

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

    Peyton, J. W. W.

    Temple, John M.

    Longden, Gilbert

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

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

    Pike, Miss Mervyn

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

    Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

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

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Pitman, I. J.

    Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

    Macdonald, Sir Peter

    Pott, H. P.

    Tilney, John (Wavertree)

    Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

    Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

    MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Tweedsmuir, Lady

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    Maddan, Martin

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

    vane, W. M. F.

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

    Ramsden, J. E.

    Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

    Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

    Rawlinson, Peter

    Vickers, Miss Joan

    Marlowe, A. A. H.

    Redmayne, M.

    Wade, D. W.

    Maude, Angus

    Renton, D. L. M.

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.

    Rippon, A. G. F.

    Wall, Major Patrick

    Mawby, R. L.

    Robertson, Sir David

    Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouh)

    Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

    Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

    Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

    Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Roper, Sir Harold

    Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

    Morrison, John (Salisbury)

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

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

    Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

    Scott-Miller, Cmdr. H.

    Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

    Nairn, D. L. S.

    Sharples, R. C.

    Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

    Neave, Airey

    Shepherd, William

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Nicholls, Harmar

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

    Wood, Hon. R.

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

    Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

    Woollam, John Victor

    Nugent, C. R. H.

    Spearman, Sir Alexander

    Oakshott, H. D.

    Speir, R. M.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

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

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

    Mr. Wills and Mr. Bryan.

    First Schedule.—(OFFICES DISQUALIFYING FOR MEMBERSHIP.)
    The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 10, line 10, to leave out "of Assize" and to insert:
    "exercising jurisdiction under section seventy of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925, or section one of the Criminal Justice Administration Act, 1956".
    This is rather an important Amendment, and I hope that there will be no last minute decision to resist it. Unless this Amendment is accepted, the effect of the Bill in its present form will be to disqualify the Lord Privy Seal, my hon. and learned Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department and the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice).
    I should have thought it obvious that when the Select Committee was referring to "Commissioner of Assize," the reference was to those who sit on assizes sometimes in addition to the High Court judge and sometimes when the High Court judge cannot be present. Unfortunately, the expression, "Commissioner of Assize" has a wider meaning than that. The actual commission, which is read at the beginning of any assize, is a formidable document. In the commission, as commissioners of assize, are named, among others, the Lord Privy Seal and all the "silks" on the circuit; and, there-
    396
    fore, the right hon. and learned Member for Newport, who is such an ornament of the Midland Circuit, would be disqualified from being a Member of this House unless this Amendment is agreed to.
    Of course, the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) would be in a like position. So I hope that we shall gain support from both sides of the Committee for this Amendment, the effect of which is to limit the disqualification of commissioners of assize to those who, in fact, act as commissioners.
    Sir Frank Soskice: After the right hon. and learned Gentleman's exposition of this most important Amendment, I feel that I should declare an interest which I did not know about before, and accordingly I declare it. In view of the arguments which he has adduced, I hope that my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee will support the Amendment.
    Mr. Clement Davies: My position has already been explained by the Attorney-General, but may I assure the Committee that I did my best to persuade my colleagues to omit the commissioners of assize for the very reason advanced by the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
    Amendment agreed to.
    The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 10, line 21, to leave out from "Wales" to the end of line 25, and to insert:
    ",Temporary Judge of such a Court or Deputy Judge of such a Court appointed by the Lord Chancellor or the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster or acting with the approval of the Lord Chancellor under paragraph (b) of the proviso to subsection (1) of section eleven of the County Courts Act, 1934".
    This Amendment carries out more accurately the intention behind the pro- vision put into the Bill by the Select Committee. The Committee will see that there is a reference to a judge of a county court in England or Wales or his deputy being disqualified, subject to certain conditions—namely, if they were appointed under certain subsections, or if they acted for more than fourteen days at any time. What I feel sure that the Select Committee had in mind was not to disqualify a member of the Bar who occasionally acts, owing to the sickness of a county court judge, or for some reason of that kind, but—and I agree with the Select Committee—to disqualify anyone who sits regularly as a deputy county court judge or indeed, as a county court judge.
    The effect of the Amendment is to secure the disqualification of anyone appointed by the Lord Chancellor or acting, although appointed by the county court judge, with the approval of the Lord Chancellor. We leave it open for a county court judge himself to secure someone to sit in his stead, if that person be qualified to do so, on a particular day, because of illness or some other reason. But we remove any possibility of patronage by the Lord Chancellor in this connection, because if a person is appointed by the Lord Chancellor, or with his approval, that would effect the disqualification.
    I hope that I have made the matter clear. It is complicated, but I do not think the Committee would wish me to spend more time on it. I think that the Amendment carries out the intention of the Select Committee.
    Mr. C. Davies: May I ask whether it is clear that if a Member of this House has a case in a county court, and is asked to deputise for the judge, he runs no risk of disqualification? It may be that, unfortunately, the judge is taken suddenly ill. He may request that the hon. Member take his place and finish the case
    398
    which is being heard. If the hon. Member consents to do so, is it clear that he runs no risk of being disqualified?
    The Attorney-General: I had hoped that I made clear that the Amendment disqualifies temporary judges and all the deputy county court judges appointed by the Lord Chancellor or by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, It also disqualifies deputies appointed by a county court judge, but only insofar as they act with the approval of the Lord Chancellor, which approval they would get only if they had acted for more than fourteen days. So in the case referred to by the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) there would be no disqualification.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 10, line 28, leave out from "Judge" to end of line 29 and insert:
    "or Temporary County Court Judge in Northern Ireland within the meaning of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, or the deputy of such a Judge."—[Mr. Simon.]
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. J. E. S. Simon): I beg to move, in page 10, line 32, at the end to insert:
    Chairman or paid Deputy Chairman of a court of quarter sessions for the county in Lancashire.
    The Bill already imposes a general disqualification on the Recorder of London, on the Common Serjeant, on the Recorders of Liverpool and Manchester, and on the Chairman or paid Deputy-Chairman of London Quarter Sessions. On the other hand, there are local disqualifications for the recorders of boroughs and the chairmen or deputy-chairmen of quarter sessions.
    The Chairman and paid Deputy-Chairman of Lancashire Quarter Sessions do not fall precisely within either of those groups. The Chairman is a paid judge, and therefore, on the principle which animates the Bill, should, plainly, be subject to a general disqualification. He holds a whole-time judicial office, and he is not permitted to practise. There is not at present a paid deputy-chairman; the local county court judge acts as deputy-chairman, but it is possible that in the future one will be appointed. It seems right that he, too, should be subject to disqualification.
    Mr. Ede: Can the hon. and learned Gentleman help me on this point? Let us assume that we can get back to the days when lawyers of distinction, sometimes retired from practice, were willing to act as chairmen of quarter sessions without payment. Being justices for the county they were willing to accept the position and to receive no money. It is only in recent years, in Middlesex, that the difficulty of finding ordinary justices sufficiently qualified in the law to act as chairmen has driven the county to have a paid chairman. The Amendment does not say "paid chairman". As I read it, it would disqualify a lawyer of distinction who was acting voluntarily as chairman of quarter sessions. In view of the fact that the word "paid" is in front of the word "deputy-chairman", ought not that word to be also in front of "chairman" rather than as it stands?
    Mr. Simon: The reason for the chairman being disqualified is not that he is paid. He has a whole-time appointment and is not permitted to practise. Therefore, he is rightly subject to a general disqualification, on the ground not that he is paid, but that he holds a whole-time judicial office. He is in a position analogous with that of the Recorder of London and the other recorders I have mentioned.
    Sir Ian Fraser: I have sympathy with the view presented by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). I recall when the late Lord Roche, who died only a few weeks ago, felt that he was too old to continue, and——
    The Attorney-General: The Amendment has nothing to do with any quarter sessions outside Lancashire.
    Sir I. Fraser: May I go on, Sir Gordon, until you, rather than the Attorney-General, should find me out?
    The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Gordon Touche): I am afraid that the hon. Member is out of order.
    Sir I. Fraser: Might I be allowed to present at least one argument before you assume that, Sir Gordon? It was in the County of Oxford, it is true, but there is a parallel.
    The Deputy-Chairman: This Amendment is confined to Lancashire.
    Sir I. Fraser: If there were such a distinguished lawyer as we have in mind who was willing to do this job unpaid, why should not he do it, as Lord Roche did a similar job in the County of Oxford? We are deliberately debarring ourselves of a very useful service.
    Amendment agreed to.
    5.45 p.m.
    The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 11, line 6, at the end to insert:
    Umpire or Deputy Umpire appointed for the purposes of section forty-three of the National Service Act, 1948.
    The Amendment raises a point which is common to a series of subsequent Amendments and, Sir Gordon, with your permission, I will indicate what it is when moving this Amendment. I will deal first with the details of this Amendment.
    Umpires or deputy umpires were appointed for the purposes of the National Service Act, 1948, to hear appeals from the military hardship committees and from reinstatement committees. Upon examination, the Bill appeared to be a little defective, because as it now stands all the members of the military service hardship committees are disqualified while all the members of the reinstatement committees are exempt.
    The Committee may think it anomalous that this appellate tribunal should not be disqualified in view of the fact that it hears appeals from a committee which is disqualified. We feel that we should try to get a greater measure of uniformity throughout the Bill on this point than was apparent when it came back from the Select Committee.
    We reached the conclusion, which we now commend to the Committee, that the right principle to follow with regard to these tribunals and various kinds of committees appointed under the National Assistance, National Insurance and National Service Acts is to disqualify the chairman, who is usually a whole-time official and usually paid, to disqualify the deputy-chairman—or the "reserve-chairman", as he is sometimes called—but not to disqualify the members. The members

    401
    probably sit intermittently and are probably drawn from a panel. They fall into a very different category from the chairman and deputy-chairman.
    The Bill is also a little misleading as it stands, in the way it deals with the chairmen of the National Insurance and Industrial Injuries local tribunals. These chairmen are subject under the Bill to a local disqualification. In fact, though they normally preside over particular local tribunals, they are appointed for all tribunals in the country, so the local disqualification imposed in Part IV of the Schedule would, in practice, amount to total disqualification. There would have to be an Amendment to deal with that.
    The Bill rings the changes on almost every method of dealing with the various committees and tribunals. Let me give examples. Under the Bill, the chairmen and the members of the military service hardship committees are subject to total disqualification. The chairmen of the National Assistance appeal tribunals are disqualified, but their members are exempt. The chairmen, members and assessors of the National Insurance tribunals are subject only to local disqualification, and so on.
    We have considered these matters to try to get a measure of uniformity which ought to facilitate the operation of the Bill. It seems to us that the right way is for the Bill to deal with these bodies by providing for the general disqualification of the chairman and, where they exist, of the deputy or reserve chairman, but to exempt the members, assessors and local referees. Generally speaking, the chairman has a professional qualification and is paid for his work.
    The members, on the other hand, sit intermittently and usually exercise only a local jurisdiction. They derive from the carrying on of their duties little or no profit, even if we interpret that word in the somewhat artificial sense to which those who have had to deal with this subject have become accustomed.
    This is the first of a whole series of Amendments which accord with that policy. If the Committee would accept the conclusion that this is the right way to deal with this problem it might save time when moving Amendments which are consistent with this one if I merely
    402
    indicate that they are consistent with the principle I now put before the Committee.
    Sir F. Soskice: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has indicated that in his approach to a number of Amendments on the Notice Paper he has sought to achieve some uniformity whereas, I entirely agree with him, before there was considerable confusion. I should have thought that, broadly, he has drawn the line in about the right place. It does not seem reasonable that members of a number of these bodies, who, through public motives, contribute merely part-time service in return for very little if any remuneration and often at considerable expense to themselves, should be disqualified. On the other hand, the chairmen of the various tribunals and other bodies to which the Amendments relate do fall within the scope of those regularly employed in Government service who ought to be disqualified.
    The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked where we on this side of the Committee would seek to draw the line. I can only speak for myself, but I think it would be reasonable to differentiate between the part-time member who occasionally sits and does so out of a motive to help in a public service with very little remuneration to himself on the one hand, and the person who is fully and wholly employed as a chairman or president of a tribunal on the other. I should think that the Bill with this Amendment would be rightly framed and that the principle on which the Amendment is based, broadly speaking, would be applicable to other similar cases which are to be dealt with by later Amendments.
    Sir Patrick Spens: I was very glad to hear what the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) said, but I thought the speech of the Attorney-General—I shall not say reflected on the work of the Select Committee—indicated that we had been thoroughly illogical in a great number of recommendations we made. We were all intent, so far as possible, on reducing the disqualifications to the lowest possible number. That is what we wanted. Although, tonight, I shall be moving one or two Amendments to provide for additional disqualifications, I shall do so only because they were not brought to our attention.

    403
    On the question of whether members of these tribunals as well as the chairmen and deputy or reserve chairmen should be disqualified, we did not recommend that members of such tribunals should be disqualified except on the basis of the evidence of the duties they have to perform. I am delighted to accept as a general principle that chairmen and reserve chairmen only should be disqualified, and I felt at the time that very few of the duties justify total exclusion of members of a number of these tribunals. If the Committee thinks that we ought to limit disqualification to chairmen and deputy chairmen I would very much rejoice in such a decision on principle.
    Turning to the actual Amendment on which this discussion is going forward, it adds the disqualification of the
    "Umpire or Deputy Umpire appointed for the purposes of section forty three of the National Service Act, 1948."
    Of course, if the existence of such an office had been brought to our attention, having disqualified the whole or part of the tribunals from whom appeals lie, I have not the slightest doubt that we would have thought that the umpires ought also to be disqualified, so I support the Amendment.
    Sir F. Soskice: I used the expression about considerable confusion, but I hope the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens) did not misunderstand me as referring to the work of the Select Committee. What I meant was confusion in the law which has existed for decades and which law it is now sought to change.
    Mr. C. Davies: I quite agree with the Attorney-General that it is desirable to get uniformity. Here we have the matter left in a rather chaotic position in which part-time members are excluded and the full-time umpire is not excluded. I can understand the desire of the right hon. and learned Gentleman to make the Bill more logical by adding that the umpire and his deputy shall be excluded, but I wish to get uniformity in a much better way.
    Why is it that all the time the object which seems to be in the minds of the Government and, unfortunately, of so many hon. Members on this side of the Committee, is to narrow the qualification of membership of this House? That is
    404
    what all the time we are being asked to do. Now we are asked to make an umpire and his deputy incapable of sitting in this House. I should have thought that it was now becoming obvious to everyone here that what is desired is to make the House of Commons open to anyone in the country in any walk of life. The wider the qualification, the better it would be, not only for the country, but certainly for debates in this House.
    That has been my attitude throughout. Instead of extending the Schedules, we should make them as short as we can and, if possible, do away with them altogether. Here, in speech after speech, we make someone or other incapable of sitting in this House because he is doing excellent work in some other capacity. That work may be quite compatible with membership of this House, and if he were to be a Member he would be enabled, because of experience gained in these matters, to assist us in our debates.
    I could have intervened when we were discussing the proposed new Clauses. The same principle runs in regard to them all—to make something or other which some hon. Member does a reason for disqualifying him from sitting in this House. I would much have preferred membership of this House to remain dominant and, if anything had to go, that should be the job or the position held by the hon. Member concerned. At this time, when democracy is making the fight of its life, that is more essential than ever.
    At a time when we are taking much more interest in individual life in this country, and when all kinds of positions have to be undertaken in regard to administration—when we are seeking men to do those jobs and try to choose the best men for them—we are asked to say. "You shall not sit in the House of Commons because you are occupying that post". I object to the way in which this matter has been approached. I would very much prefer that, instead of adding disqualifications, we excluded from disqualification not only members of tribunals but also the umpire and deputy and got uniformity in that way.
    The Attorney-General: It is true that this Amendment consists of an addition, but it is an addition of persons fulfilling judicial functions of an appellate character. I feel confident that the Committee, if it

    405
    had to consider the case, would come to the conclusion that the tenure of these offices because of its character is incompatible with membership of this House.
    I think I am right in saying that the other Amendments fall into much the same category as this Amendment. They are all restricting the area of disqualification and I should hope for the support of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) for them. In the Bill as it stands members of those Committees are disqualified, and by adopting this procedure we shall remove the disqualification from them. To that extent, at least, I hope that the Amendment will receive the support of the right hon. and learned Member.
    Mr. C. Davies: The Attorney-General should realise that the principle for which I contend very nearly succeeded. We asked for and obtained a Bill in what is called the reverse order. It was a very much better work. For that principle I still contend, and I ask that these Schedules should be cut down instead of additions being made to them.
    6.0 p.m.
    Mr. Ede: I would point out that the position was even better than that outlined by the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies). This afternoon there have been some sarcastic references to the size of minorities. The right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery and myself, who supported the views which he has put forward, were defeated by only one vote in the Select Committee when this matter was under consideration. The odds were very good. They were three to two, which, I understand, is regarded as far better than eleven to one against.
    Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: I ask the right hon. Gentleman to remember that the vote was taken just after half-past three, when a very interesting scene was proceeding on the Floor of the House.
    Mr. Ede: It all depends whether hon. Members want to take part in the frivolities of the House and in exciting scenes, or in the hard work of Committees. That was what happened. It is true that some people regarded the Committee as of so little importance that they stayed away. Those who attended are entitled to such
    406
    small credit as they earned for running the official gang to one vote on the Committee.
    I agree with what was said on this matter by the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens). We had a number of these very highly complicated matters brought in front of us and we tried to proceed according to a general principle. We knew at the time that there might well be similar offices which had not been brought to our attention and we asked that those who were responsible for helping the Government in framing the Bill should bring to their notice any similar cases which had not been brought in front of us. That is why I support the Amendment, in the way in which it has been moved.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Wigg: I beg to move, in page 11, line 6, at the end to insert:
    Chairman or deputy chairman, appointed under the Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1938, of a court of quarter sessions.
    The Deputy-Chairman: I think that the Committee will find it convenient to discuss with this Amendment the following Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), in page 11, line 6, at the end to insert:
    Recorder of a municipal borough having a separate court of quarter sessions.
    It might also be convenient to discuss the two Amendments in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies), in page 17, to leave out lines 41 to 44; and in page 18, to leave out lines 1 to 7; and the Amendment in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Dudley, in page 17, line 41. to leave out from the beginning to the end of line 7, in page 18.
    Mr. Wigg: May I, first, tell the Attorney-General that I do not believe that he appoints recorders and have never believed that he has any special responsibility for their appointment. I put a Question to him on 20th July and he very kindly answered it, and from that time onwards he has time and time again said that he believes that I think he appoints recorders. I think nothing of the kind. There are several black marks which I have against his name, but that is not one of them.

    407
    On this Amendment, as on previous Amendments, I have already made my case to the Committee, and I will not weary it by speaking at great length. On the other hand, I do not retract a single word from what I have said previously.
    I can sum up my arguments in this way. When I look at those who hold the office of recorder—past and present recorders—I can only apply the standards which have served me during my Army career. I know nothing of the law, but when I look at some of the hon. and learned Members—past and present, let me stress—who have held that office and, in holding it, have had the power to remove men's liberties, I can only ask myself what kind of rank would I see them holding if they were wearing uniform.
    Mr. Ede: Field marshals.
    Mr. Wigg: They may be very good lawyers and they may have enormous capacities for sitting in judgment upon their fellow men, but as far as I am concerned they have managed to disguise it. I have told the House previously—and I have perhaps caused a little offence by so doing—that there are those who hold the office of recorder at present and have held the officer of recorder in the past—because I do not want to place it all on one individual—whom I would not appoint as unpaid lance corporals in an unarmed company of the Pioneer Corps. That is the only assessment which I can make.
    It therefore seems to me that they have become eligible for such an appointment not because of their judicial or their professional qualities, but because they are Members of the House of Commons, and I think that that is completely wrong. I have heard no justification at all for giving men judicial preferment because of their political position, nor can I read any justification. This is a piece of jobbery which hangs over from the past. I believe that to a certain extent, although there are doubtless honourable and learned exceptions, it is a piece of jobbery which ought to be got rid of—and this is a good time to get rid of it.
    The Attorney-General has told us that he has no responsibility for it and I can, therefore, reasonably ask him on this occasion, as I have asked him on previous
    408
    occasions, for a free vote of the Committee. This is a House of Commons matter. It may be that the right hon. and learned Gentleman, or the representative of the Home Office, who will probably reply, has some considerable argument to justify the retention of this anachronistic nonsense. If so, I for one will be delighted to hear it, for I am open to conviction——
    Mr. Ede: If my hon. Friend got in front of one of these recorders he would be convicted.
    Mr. Wigg: I have not the least doubt about that. That is what worries me. What worries me is the thought that one day I may appear with my hat off in front of these gentlemen and that the consequences would be truly appalling to me; and because I should not like it myself, I do not want it for other people.
    I do not believe that any hon. Member can possibly justify the appointment of recorders on the basis of purely political qualifications. It is quite wrong. Even if the sentences they passed were only a matter of days, that would be bad enough, but the sentences which a recorder can impose run into years. This is a truly monstrous situation, and I very much hope that, although he is not responsible for it, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will join with me in sweeping it away for good and all.
    Mr. C. Davies: May I say at once that there is only one phrase which was used by the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) with which I agree—"This is a House of Commons matter." What I have been trying to urge upon the Committee throughout is that we are dealing not only with the membership of the present House of Commons but with the membership for many years to come and the question who shall be allowed to come here and who shall be disqualified from coming here.
    I may tell the hon. Gentleman that I do not know of any recorder who has been appointed for political reasons. If I may remind the Committee, in the old days—as far back, I think, to some time during the First World War—a man appointed as recorder was disqualified from membership of the House if he was at that time a Member, but he was at once allowed to present himself for reelection. That usually gave rise to a

    409
    by-election, so that it was a very expensive post for a Member to get, and very rarely was it sought by any Member because he knew of the great expense involved in getting what was, after all, largely a post of honour—because the fees for sitting are really trumpery.
    I do not know of anyone seeking this office merely for political reasons Usually what happens is that the leaders of the circuit are chosen for the office, and there is competition among them for it.
    Mr. Wigg: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is speaking with authority, and can assure me that all the recorders at present in the House of Commons were appointed on a seniority basis as leaders of their circuit——
    Mr. Davies indicated dissent.
    Mr. Wigg: —or that the overwhelming majority of them were leaders of their circuit, I should be considerably assured in one direction. Will he be good enough to tell me whether he is sure of his facts?
    Mr. Davies: All I can say is that the recordership of any particular town goes to a member of the circuit in which that town is situated. Usually, it is a leader of that circuit who is chosen, and usually he is chosen, not because of his seniority but because, in the estimation of the appointer, he is the most suitable person.
    As I understand, we are taking with this Amendment that dealing with chairmen of quarter sessions. I have already told the Committee that I have had the honour of being chairman of the quarter sessions for the County of Montgomery for twenty-two years. I was not a member of that circuit, but I was Montgomeryshire born and bred. I was appointed, as one was in those days, by my fellow magistrates on the bench. It was not until the Act of 1938 that the appointment had to be confirmed by the Lord Chancellor.
    I was a member of the Royal Commission which sat under Earl Peel, in 1934, inquiring into the administration of justice. We strongly recommended that the chairman of quarter sessions should always be a qualified member of the bar. That, undoubtedly, was in the minds of my fellow magistrates when, on the death of my predecessor, they chose me. I may
    410
    say that, like so many of my fellow chairmen of quarter sessions, I have no salary. The expenses, such as they are, I have to meet out of my own pocket; and I think that that goes for most chairmen of quarter sessions. That is my position.
    6.15 p.m.
    I can understand the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Dudley. It is more logical than the Bill is as it is now. He says, "If you are a recorder, or if you are a chairman of quarter sessions, whether paid or not—it does not matter—you should be excluded from sitting in this House." Although, of course, I fundamentally disagree with that, I can understand its logic because, as I have said about other matters, there should be no exclusion.
    The only exclusion should be when the office is one which is incompatible in itself with service here. If it is impossible to do the job properly and, at the same time, carry out one's duties here, it is the job that should go and not membership of this House. We are elected, and surely the right thing to do is to accept the honour which the electors have done us, remain Members of the House and reject the posts which are incompatible with that membership.
    Let us look at what now happens under the Bill as at present drawn. The suggestion is that I can serve as the Member for Montgomery, and as a chairman of quarter sessions so long as I am not chairman of the quarter sessions for my own County of Montgomery. I may be chairman of quarter sessions in Merioneth, which is adjacent to Montgomeryshire, or in Radnor, or in Shropshire, but I do not want to be chairmen of quarter sessions in any of those places. It is a great honour to be chairman of the quarter sessions of my own county where my own people live, yet it is suggested that I am unqualified for membership of this House and to represent the very place where I have been elected, merely because my colleagues on the magisterial bench think that I am the suitable person to be their chairman—and, as I say, I have had their confidence for all these years now.
    If the Bill passes, whether or not the Amendment is accepted, I shall at once have to notify my colleagues on the bench that I have to resign that position, as,

    411
    otherwise, I come under the penalties of the Bill. Let me give this example. If my predecessor had continued, and I had been asked by the magistrates of Merioneth—and assuming that my home was there—to be chairman of the Merioneth Quarter Sessions, I could continue to be the chairman in Merioneth and still be the Member for Montgomery; but it is suggested that, in some way or other, because the two posts synchronise, they are incompatible. It is a form of logic that I do not understand. Why should I be disqualified from being a Member of this House?
    Let me take another example. It has been suggested that anyone occupying this office of profit under the Crown is, in some way, influenced in his position by what he does, or may use his position as a Member of this House in order that he may, in some way or other, make a stronger appeal for the suffrages of the electors. Would it be suggested for a moment that if I, sitting in quarter sessions, sentenced a man found guilty by the jury, I would thereby be more likely to attract the votes of his family afterwards? I think that the effect would be the reverse.
    I am in the proud position of being able to say that never in all the time that I have been a Member of this House and chairman of quarter sessions has anyone ever suggested that I was ever influenced in my chairman's duties by my political opinions; and I do not think that anyone else is. I have such a regard for the honour of this House, and for the honesty and integrity of my colleagues, as to be sure that politics would never enter into anything which I or they had to decide in an occupation outside of the House.
    That being so, I hope that the Committee will reject the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Dudley, and that it will also strike out from Part IV of the First Schedule the absurd suggestion that there is a partial disqualification; that one may not be a chairman or a recorder for the very place for which one sits.
    Mr. Ede: On this matter I speak for myself alone, but I want to oppose all of these Amendments. I regret that the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery
    412
    (Mr. C. Davies), with whom I have worked very happily on this Committee except for this one issue, should have raised the personal point that happens to be involved in his case. We are not here legislating for persons. We are making the law of the land which will have to be applied to a very large number of people, and, in spite of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, I believe that that well-worn aphorism, that justice must not only be done but must be manifestly seen to be done, is the thing that should guide us in these matters.
    It is not merely after the jury have returned their verdict that the chairman of quarter sessions is capable, if he is a skilled man, of influencing the course of proceedings. I have known some chairmen of quarter sessions who, I am quite certain, have always produced in the minds of the jury the exact opposite to what they expected to achieve. I have known other chairmen of quarter sessions who, after the bar has done its worst, have been able to influence the minds of the jury very considerably.
    It must be a very difficult position for a chairman of quarter sessions to sum up in a case in which a prominent supporter or opponent of his is one of the parties, without people outside drawing conclusions and making insinuations, quite unjustifiably, that the position of the chairman and the relationship between the chairman and the party in the case have been influencing the course that has been taken.
    I regret that if the Bill passes as it is now drawn it will mean that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will have to make his choice between the House and the chairmanship of quarter sessions. I would have preferred the Bill to be the other way round, but even then he would have been faced with the fact that, being a Member of the House, he would automatically be disqualified from being chairman of quarter sessions.
    I think that the holding of judicial office in the area for which a man sits should be a disqualification, and, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General will recollect, I questioned him on whether this ought not to apply even to a justice of the peace sitting in a court of summary jurisdiction. I hold that view myself.
    Mr. Lindgren: It certainly does apply where a Member is a member of a lord lieutenant's committee. A member of a lord lieutenant's committee cannot sit as a Member of Parliament for a constituency in which that committee operates.
    Mr. Ede: I have been a member of a lord lieutenant's committee, but I took good care to have a seat a long way away from the lord lieutenant.
    I would have hoped that the House has now had over many years the kind of feeling that would support the Bill. But I am bound to say that I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) that a chairman of quarter sessions or a recorder should not be eligible to sit in this House. I do not agree with what he says about recorders. After all, I was for a time responsible for appointing recorders. It may be that it was the way in which I did the job which persuaded another place to insert in one Bill an Amendment that took the appointment away from me and handed it over to the Lord Chancellor but, having served as a member of a lord lieutenant's committee, and having had to recommend the appointment of recorders, Metropolitan magistrates and other stipendiary magistrates, I want to say that I profoundly disagree with what my hon. Friend has said.
    I believe that every one of these appointments is very much of a gamble One recommends for appointment to a justiceship of the peace, a stipendiary magistrateship or a recordership a man in whom one has the utmost confidence in his judicial temperament and his ability to preserve an open mind until he has heard the whole of the case, and then, when the fellow gets on the bench he does the most amazing things.
    My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) will recollect a stipendiary magistrate about whom he came to see me. We do not want to particularise the man's name, but I had interviewed him. I had had recommendations from other members of the legal profession, and I appointed him with the fullest confidence. I do not believe that from the first day he went on to the bench he ever ran according to form—at any rate, as has been revealed to me—and he
    414
    was the worst loser that I have ever backed. I had to give him the opportunity of resigning before taking more drastic steps.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley was sarcastic about these people and said that he would not have made some of them unpaid lance corporals; but, after all, I have known even unpaid lance corporals who have had to be reduced to the ranks because they could not carry the weight of that exalted office.
    Mr. Wigg: That is the point. One can reduce on unpaid lance corporal to the ranks. My right hon. Friend apparently had no difficulty with the stipendiary magistrate——
    Mr. Ede: I had a lot of trouble.
    Mr. Wigg: —but what about the combination of a recorder who, in the words of my right hon. Friend, is a bad bet and is also a Member of the House? It becomes a much more difficult proposition.
    Mr. Ede: No, I do not think so. I remember one recorder who was a Member of the House, with whom I differed on a certain point. I differed with him only once. He conformed to my rules afterwards.
    I think that on this matter the Committee, being in the very painful position of having to deal with the case of one of its own Members, has dealt with the matter very carefully and frankly. As I have said before, I regret that it should put the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery in the position in which the Bill places him, but I believe that the Bill is right in its general application. I recall once sitting next to the late David Lloyd George on this Bench when there was some discussion going on, and I remarked to him that hard cases make bad law. He said, "They may do, but they make very good politics."
    Although the case of the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery is a very hard one—and I hope he will excuse me for having been as frank as I have been in stating this matter; it would be unfair to my colleagues on the Committee if I did not state my views—I hope that the Committee will preserve the Bill as it stands, in each of the cases covered by the Amendments under discussion.
    6.30 p.m.
    Mr. Simon: My task in replying has been made very much easier by the weighty intervention of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). He has stated much better than I could ever hope to do what are the real arguments against each of these Amendments.
    The real question, and the real test in the Bill, is not suitability for office; it is the incompatibility of an office with membership of the House of Commons. I do not accept what was said by the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) about recorders who hold seats in the House. I should like to add that, if it were a question of suitability for office, no one would think of disqualifying the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies). He is held in as high respect in legal circles as he is in the House of Commons and in political circles generally. But that is not the test. The test is whether the task of chairmanship of quarter sessions, recordership, and so on, is compatible with service in the House.
    That test falls into two parts. Is the office generally incompatible, or is it incompatible in the locality where the recorder is himself a Member? So far as general incompatibility is concerned, it would be very difficult to say that to be a recorder in the South of England would in any way be incompatible with service in the House as a Member representing a constituency in the North of England, for instance; but when it comes to local representation, as I am sure hon. Members will agree, one can imagine all kinds of embarrassments when constituents appear before the court either as witnesses or, more difficult still, as accused. There is bound to be a very real difficulty.
    It is unnecessary for me to expatiate upon it because the position has been put so well by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields. For the reasons that he has given, and for those that I have endeavoured to explain, I would advise the Committee to reject the Amendment.
    Mr. Wigg: Against my better judgment, I am convinced. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 11, to leave out line 13.
    I think it would be convenient to take this Amendment with those in page 13, to leave out line 31, and in line 38, at the end to insert:
    Chairman or acting Chairman of an Agricultural Land Tribunal.
    The Temporary Chairman (Mr. F. Blackburn): Yes.
    The Attorney-General: The Committee will see that, under the Bill, the Agricultural Land Tribunal is a body, all members of which are disqualified, and assessors to the Agricultural Land Tribunal are disqualified. In conformity with the argument I advanced in relation to umpires and deputy umpires, we feel that the provision here requires altering. The Amendments take out the Agricultural Land Tribunal and the assessors, and in line 38, in page 13, we insert:
    "Chairman or acting Chairman of an Agricultural Land Tribunal."
    I must make it clear that this is not introducing a new disqualification. It is limiting a disqualification which was originally in the Bill, but it is preserving a disqualification which now exists under the Agriculture Act, 1947, for paid chairmen or acting chairmen.
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Could my right hon. and learned Friend say whether the members are part-time in this case?
    The Attorney-General: I cannot say whether they are part-time; I had not got it in mind. I rather think that they are appointed from a panel.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Sir P. Spens: I beg to move, in page 11, line 24, at the end to insert:
    "The Civil Service Arbitration Tribunal."
    This Tribunal was not brought to the attention of the Select Committee, and it is a matter to which my attention has since been drawn. The Tribunal is appointed by agreement between the Treasury and the Staff Side of the Civil Service National Whitley Council. It deals with questions affecting certain conditions of service in the Civil Service. It consists of an independent chairman and two members. One of the members is drawn from a panel of persons appointed by the Minister of Labour and National Service, and the other is similarly

    417
    appointed as representing the Staff Side. The authority for the appointment and remuneration comes from the Industrial Courts Act, 1919. The Chairman and members receive travelling and subsistance allowances on Civil Service rates. The agreement provides that the Chairman of the Tribunal is also President of the Industrial Court or, failing him, a person appointed by the Minister of Labour and National Service after consulting with the parties to the Agreement.
    It is obvious that this Tribunal has functions to perform which really make membership of the Tribunal incompatible with membership of the House of Commons. It deals with what are very nearly political matters and, following that principle, wherever we found tribunals had to deal with matters which hinge upon political questions or what may be political questions, we recommended disqualification. It seems to me, therefore, that the members of this Tribunal ought also to be disqualified.
    Mr. Simon: I need only say that I should advise the Committee to accept the Amendment for the reasons put forward by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens).
    Amendment agreed to.
    Sir P. Spens: I beg to move, in page 12, line 5, at the end to insert:
    "or under the Fifth Schedule to the Education (Scotland) Act, 1946".
    This is to bring the offices in Scotland referred to in the Fifth Schedule to the Education (Scotland) Act, 1946, in line with what we have done as regards the English offices. Again, the point in relation to Scotland was not drawn to the attention of the Select Committee. By the First Schedule of the Bill we have recommended the disqualification of members of the Independent Schools Tribunal in England and Wales. We recommended that because of the duties which such members have, which are very extensive, involving the hearing of appeals from proprietors or teachers in independent schools against complaints which may lead to schools being struck off the Independent Schools Register. We thought that those duties were incompatible with membership of the House of Commons and we recommended their disqualification. It seems right that similar
    418
    tribunals in Scotland should be treated in the same way.
    Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray: I am not one of those who is always in favour of Scotland following England in legislation, but in this case it seems to me that the arguments stated by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens) apply so exactly to Scotland in every way that I am happy to support the Amendment.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Mall Macpherson): I agree with what has been said by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens) in the argument he has advanced. I would advise the Committee to accept the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Sir P. Spens: I beg to move, in page 12, to leave out line 15.
    The Amendment is designed to strike out the proposed disqualification of membership of the Livestock Commission. The reason is that, since the Select Committee was sitting, we were told that the Commission has gone practically into a state of semi-decease, that it has no duties to perform and that some other body is to be constituted instead. In those circumstances, it is quite useless to include the Commission in the Schedule.
    Mr. Simon: I should advise the Committee to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. G. R. Mitchison: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman assure us that this will not let in, or let out, the inspectors of boars?
    Sir P. Spens: We have already put them out.
    Amendment agreed to.
    The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 12, line 15, at the end to insert:
    A Medical Appeal Tribunal constituted for the purposes of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, 1946, or the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act (Northern Ireland), 1946, including any panel constituted far the purposes of any such Tribunal.
    I suggest that it would be convenient, Mr. Blackburn, to deal at the same time with the following Amendment, also in line 15.
    The Temporary Chairman indicated assent.
    The Attorney-General: These two Amendments are to bring into line the Medical Appeal Tribunal and the Medical Board or Pneumoconiosis Medical Board with the Pensions Appeal Tribunal. The Pensions Appeal Tribunal is disqualified. In their respective spheres, the Medical Appeal Tribunal and the Medical Board or Pneumoconiosis Medical Board fulfil precisely analogous functions. It therefore seams right that as all three are appellate tribunals they should all be disqualified.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 12, line 15, at end insert:
    A Medical Board or Pneumoconiosis Medical Board constituted for the purposes of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, 1946, or the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act (Northern Ireland), 1946, including any panel constituted for the purposes of any such Board.—[The Attorney-General.]
    Mr. Simon: I beg to move, in page 12, to leave out lines 19 and 20.
    Would it be convenient, Mr. Blackburn, to take at the same time the Amendment in page 14, line 2, at the end, to insert:
    Chairman or Reserve Chairman of a Military Service (Hardship) Committee constituted under the Third Schedule to the National Service Act, 1948.
    The Temporary Chairman: Yes. I think that will be for the convenience of the Committee.
    Mr. Simon: There is a group of tribunals and committees under the National Assistance and National Insurance Acts and the National Service Acts which have comparable or related functions and in practice a substantial overlap in membership. These are two of a series of Amendments designed to secure uniformity and consistency of treatment under the Bill for these various adjudicating bodies. The way that they are dealt with in this series of Amendments is the way indicated by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General: in other words, to have a general disqualification of the chairman and, where they exist, the deputy or reserve chairmen, and to exempt the members, the assessors and the local referees from disqualification.
    6.45 p.m.
    Mr. Mitchison: If I remember rightly, this is one of the cases in which we were assured by the Ministry in question that it would not appoint a Member of Parliament to serve on a hardship committee in his own constituency. There are obvious objections to that. If that is the case, it seems to me wise to support the Amendment and not to list too many of these somewhat minor appointments.
    May I be assured that I am right in my recollection and that the Minister of Labour and National Service would not appoint a Member of this House or a candidate to serve in his own constituency? One can see objection in that.
    Mr. Simon: I think I can assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that that is so. If for any reason I find that this assurance is not correct, I will let him know immediately.
    Amendment agreed to.
    The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 12, to leave out line 21.
    I suggest that this Amendment can be taken with the Amendment to leave out line 42. They are both drafting Amendments. The purpose is to remove from Part II of the First Schedule the entries disqualifying membership of the Milk and Pigs Marketing Boards for Northern Ireland. Members of these Boards are already covered by the entry in Part III at the top of page 16 as members of Northern Irish Agricultural Marketing Boards.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Simon: I beg to move, in page 12, line 34, at the end to insert:
    A Panel of Chairmen of Re-instatement Committees constituted under section forty-one of the National Service Act, 1948.
    This Amendment is in accordance with the principle enunciated by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General—in other words, a general disqualification of chairmen and deputy-chairmen of certain adjudicating bodies. These include the Re-instatement Committees under the National Service Acts. The reason why this particular wording has been chosen is that there is a panel from which the chairmen and reserve chairmen are taken.
    Amendment agreed to.
    The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 12, line 41, at the end to insert, "The Performing Right Tribunal."
    The Amendment is linked with the Amendment to the Third Schedule, in page 23, line 35, at the end to insert, The Performing Right Tribunal, and also with the Amendment to the Fourth Schedule, in page 34, line 36, at the end to insert:

    4 & 5 Eliz. 2. c. 74.

    The Copyright Act,1956.

    In section twenty-three, subsection (3).

    I can explain all three together.
    Members of the Performing Right Tribunal set up by the Copyright Act, 1956, are at present subject to a "reverse" disqualification under Section 23 (3) of that Act, which applies both to the House of Commons of Westminster and to the two Houses of Parliament of Northern Ireland.
    The purpose of the first Amendment is to add the Tribunal to the list of disqualifying offices in Part II of the First Schedule to the Bill. The second Amendment makes a corresponding addition to the Northern Ireland version of that Schedule set out in the Third Schedule to the Bill. The last Amendment provides for the addition to the Fourth Schedule of an entry covering the repeal of Section 23 (3) of the Copyright Act, 1956.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 12, leave out line 42.—[The Attorney-General.]
    Sir P. Spens: I beg to move, in page 13, line 25, at the end to insert:
    Accountant appointed by the Secretary of State under section seventy-three of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1946.
    This is another office which was not brought to the attention of the Select Committee and it is an important one. Under Section 74 of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1946, any payment of an Exchequer grant to schools not maintained by an education authority are conditional upon the examination of their income and expenditure accounts. For this purpose, the Secretary of State for Scotland appoints an accountant under Section 73 of the Act.
    At present, the accountant is a civil servant, but there is no reason why a
    422
    non-civil servant should not be appointed. The remuneration rises to £1,795. The accountant has to make an investigation and report before the payment of the Exchequer grant is made. It would seem to me to be obviously an office which ought not to be held by a Member of Parliament as it is an office from which grants from public funds are made.
    Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: Once again, as a Scottish Member who was also a member of the Select Committee on the House of Commons Disqualification Bill, I wish to support an Amendment moved by my right hon. and learned Friend. I think that this Amendment is quite correct.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: I would advise the Committee to accept the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Willis: I beg to move, in page 13, line 25, at the end to insert "Advocates-Depute in Scotland."
    I am afraid that we shall not deal with this Amendment quite as rapidly as we have been dealing with Amendments recently.
    Mr. Pickthorn: Why?
    Mr. Willis: Because we consider this to be a matter of some considerable importance in Scotland. The arguments for this Amendment are very much the same as those which were made against Members of the House having Crown briefs, and on an Amendment affecting those the Committee divided. Advocates-Depute in Scotland handle practically all the Crown briefs. In return an Advocate-Depute receives a salary of £850 per annum. The office of Advocates-Depute is quite definitely an office of profit under the Crown and, therefore, only by some special consideration could it not be an office disqualifying the holder from membership of the House of Commons.
    That is not, however, the most important consideration. The Select Committee on the House of Commons Disqualification Bill pointed out:
    "In compiling this list Your Committee have recognised that certain offices are incompatible with membership of the House of Commons, some as involving physical impossibilities of simultaneous attendance in two places.…"

    423
    All the evidence before the Select Committee showed that it is impossible for an Advocate-Depute to perform his duties in Scotland and at the same time to attend to his duties in the House of Commons. That has long been so.
    I was interested in one of the replies given in evidence to the Select Committee by the Lord Advocate, who ventured to suggest that we might exclude the Advocates-Depute from this Schedule and, therefore, from disqualification, in view of the fact that we might possibly at some time have another Election result such as we had in 1931. I really did not think that that was a very good reason for excluding the Advocates-Depute.
    I would draw the Committee's attention to evidence given to the Select Committee by Sir Marshall Millar Craig. He was asked—it is question and answer 1163—whether it would be regarded as objectionable if a Member of Parliament were appointed an Advocate-Depute, and he replied:
    "Yes, it would. The present Lord Advocate and Solicitor-General are very much against an Advocate-Depute being in Parliament."
    At the following sitting of the Select Committee the Lord Advocate gave quite contrary evidence. I do not know what made the right hon. and learned Gentleman change his mind. I assume that Sir Marshall Millar Craig, having given that answer, was asked:
    "On principle?"
    His answer was categoric:
    "On principle. They cannot do justice to both offices."
    There is no dubiety about that. The next question was:
    "For what sort of reason, that they have not the time or that the duties are incompatible in nature?"
    His answer was:
    "No, more a question of time. The duties of a Member of Parliament involve attendance all the time. His duties as an Advocate-Depute could possibly be discharged by sending papers from Edinburgh to London, but it is much better that the duties should be discharged in Edinburgh."
    If Advocates-Depute were attending the House of Commons we should have to appoint Advocates-Depute depute to do their work for them in Scotland. That is the situation at which we should
    424
    arrive. They could not do their own work. That is the important factor in the situation, and it was borne out by the evidence given by the Lord Advocate himself, who answering a question—it is in question and answer 1235 in the Minutes of Evidence—said:
    "The real difficulty, as I see it, is perhaps not so much incompatibility but practical difficulty, and I am afraid that is a very serious difficulty. I have had the opportunity over the weekend of speaking only informally to two previous Lords Advocate and the Crown Agent who has got such a lot to do with criminal prosecutions, and we all do feel that there are practical difficulties."
    There was a general consensus of opinion that a man could not do these two jobs at once, the two jobs of an Advocate-Depute and a Member of Parliament. The Lord Advocate went on:
    "Speaking for myself, in so far as I was to invite my colleagues to be Advocates-Depute, I think I would feel bound at this stage of Parliamentary procedure and business, and the business of the Crown Office in Edinburgh, to say that he would not be an Advocate-Depute if he was also in the House."
    That seems clear. Later the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that he could see no possibility of the work of Parliament House diminishing, but that it would be maintained.
    I submit that the practical difficulties are such that they make it impossible for Advocates-Depute to be Members of the House of Commons, and that was one of the important considerations which the Select Committee was supposed to take into account.
    The late Sir Alexander Erskine-Hill, whom I defeated at the polls in 1945, was Advocate-Depute until November, 1935, when he resigned that office. That was, I assume, when he became a Member of Parliament. Since then, during twenty years, the practice has grown up in Parliament House for Advocates-Depute to resign on nomination day. I think that is correct. On nomination day an Advocate-Depute standing as a Parliamentary candidate resigns from office.
    Since that is the practice in Parliament House, since it has become the recognised practice without anybody's suggesting that it should be, since Advocates-Depute resign when they become Members of Parliament, because they think it advisable in their wisdom that they should not be Members of Parliament at the

    425
    same time, and since less and less frequently even before 1935 and the days of Sir Alexander Erskine-Hill have Advocates-Depute become Members of the House of Commons, I think we also in this Committee ought to accept the practice, which has grown up gradually, and which, I think, is rather desirable.
    I agree with the view, brought out in evidence before the Select Committee in answer to questions by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison)—questions and answers 1175 to 1180—that the office of an Advocate-Depute is in many respects similar to that of standing counsel to a Government Department. That was the purport of the evidence. I thought that that was the purport of the questions. If it was not, the questions certainly brought out the fact that there was a similarity in these offices, and if it is wrong for a standing counsel to sit in the House it is equally wrong for an Advocate-Depute to sit here.
    7.0 p.m.
    I think that for all these perfectly good reasons we ought to consider this matter seriously. I do not want to go over again the arguments put forward in connection with Crown briefs, although some of them are applicable in this case. One of the arguments for allowing Advocates-Depute to sit in the House of Commons is that lawyers in the House are allowed to accept Crown briefs. I do not think that that argument is altogther good, because of the additional factors which I have mentioned.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) made an excellent suggestion when he spoke about the need for a proper inquiry into the whole of this business. One aspect that ought to be considered is this question of the Law Officers, with particular reference to Advocates-Depute in Scotland. I hope, therefore, for all these reasons, that we shall have a favourable reply from the Government.
    Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) has made a strong case for his point of view. It is a fact that the four Advocates-Depute are paid £850 a year and are appointed by the Lord Advocate of the day. It may well be that personal friendship or political persuasion have
    426
    something to do with the appointment, but I am concerned with what is best for the conduct of business in Parliament, that is to say, for the national interest as a whole.
    I approach this question from the point of view of whether we have in Scotland a sufficient number of hon. Members of legal experience. Earlier today discussion took place on whether there might not be too many English Members with legal experience, but I do not think that that can be said of Scottish Members. On the Government Front Bench, there are the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General for Scotland, but we have only to throw our minds back a very few years to recall the time when the Solicitor-General for Scotland had no seat in the House.
    Mr. Willis: I am very interested in this point about the necessity for Scottish lawyers to be in the House. The curious thing is that while we have so few lawyers from Scotland in the House we have better legislation for Scotland than the English have for England. Surely that must be borne in mind.
    Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: I readily agree that when there is a Conservative Government in office we have better legislation for Scotland, but I must not deviate to discussing later Amendments relating to Lords-Advocate and Solicitors-General themselves.
    I am concentrating my argument on the supply of hon. Members who are capable of filling those offices. While we have only two Scottish lawyers on the Government side just now, and both of them are sitting on the Front Bench, we have on the Opposition Front Bench only one Scottish lawyer. If the tables are turned and the Opposition happens to take charge of our affairs, there will be that same situation which we have found inconvenient in the past of having only one Law Officer of the Crown with a seat in the House. Therefore, it is of general interest, regardless of party, if we are to make membership of the House impossible for barristers in Scotland.
    Mr. Willis: Why cannot they come into the House as other people do?
    Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: Well, barristers are barristers, and the fact is that it is quite possible for English barristers

    427
    to carry out their legal duties and their House of Commons duties without impairing either, but in Scotland it is financially more difficult.
    Mr. Willis: Hon. Members come from Scotland to the House of Commons, frequently at very great financial sacrifice, for that same reason that they cannot carry out their work in Scotland and perform their duties in the House at the same time. They accept that, because they are proud and privileged to sit in the House and perform what they consider to be work of great benefit to the people of Scotland whom they represent. Why cannot barristers do the same?
    Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: I am not here to speak for barristers, but my anxiety is that a sufficient number of them should come to the House to carry out work required on the Front Bench representing Scotland. We have only three such legal gentlemen in the House, and if the Lord Advocate or the Solicitor-General for Scotland were to fall ill, which I hope will not happen, there would be nobody to appoint in the place of either. Were an election to take place and the Opposition became the Government, and the only right hon. and learned Member for Scotland on the Front Bench opposite were defeated, there would be no one in the House who could be appointed to the office of Lord Advocate. I hope that we shall hesitate before we make an alteration which will debar potential Lords Advocate from standing for membership of the House and being elected. As a Conservative, I base my argument on what has been found satisfactory in the past.
    Mr. Willis: They have resigned in the past.
    Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: The hon. Member is aware of the case of Sir Alexander Erskine-Hill, because he himself defeated him in 1945. Not only was he an Advocate-Depute and a Member of Parliament but, previously to that, I think that Mr. Guy was also both, and so was Mr. Wellwood Johnson. If we go back further than that, and I agree that it is a long time back to 1910, a very distinguished gentleman, Lord Alness was a Lord Advocate and a Member of Parliament, and so also was a Mr. Alexander.
    428
    I have never heard it suggested that the conduct of the Scottish business of the House was anything but improved by having those Members here, combining the two jobs. It is for that reason that I hope that the Government will not accept this Amendment too readily. We should consider very carefully whether it is really in the public interest to have the Bill amended in this way.
    Mr. Mitchison: I hesitate to intervene on what is a Scottish matter, but the Select Committee had to consider this. I will not try to cope with the difficulties of the hon. and gallant Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Sir W. Anstruther-Gray) in not having sufficient lawyers in the House. The question is whether any deficiencies in that respect ought to be filled by sending certain people who hold this office of Advocate-Depute to London. The Attorney-General, speaking about English law and practice, put in a memorandum, in page 82 of the Select Committee's Report. He stated the position in relation to standing counsel in England. He mentioned the senior counsel for the Treasury at the Central Criminal Court as one of them. I think another was the prosecuting counsel to the Post Office, in North Wales. He made it clear that it was the English practice, in the past, not to have gentlemen holding both that office and a position as a Member of Parliament, and, of course, standing counsel are expressly precluded by this same Bill.
    The question is whether there is any real difference between the position of these advocates in Scotland and that of the type of appointment to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General referred. I can summarise the evidence given before the Select Committee in this way. The very distinguished civil servant speaking on behalf of the Scottish Office told us that Advocates-Depute were paid by a fixed salary; in that respect being less individual, if I may so put it, than standing counsel in England; and that they only received fees in some appeal cases.
    That did not appear in his evidence, but it was added in a subsequent note at the foot of the second column of the evidence in page 146. If I remember rightly, they were wholly engaged in this business, they were the only people so engaged, and on one point, an important

    429
    one, both he and the Lord Advocate completely agreed. That seems to me to dispose of the matter.
    At Question 1165, in page 145, the Civil Service witness was asked why these Advocates-Depute had not the time, or whether the duties were incompatible in nature. The answer was:
    "No, more a question of time. The duties of a Member of Parliament involve attendance all the time. His duties as an Advocate-Depute could possibly be discharged by sending papers from Edinburgh to London, but it is much better that the duties should he discharged in Edinburgh."
    He went on to say that the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General would not appoint an Advocate-Depute as a Member of Parliament now. When the Lord Advocate came to give evidence, he was equally emphatic on the ground of physical incompatibility and in a rather long answer to Question 1235, in page 150, he said:
    "Speaking for myself, in so far as I was to invite my colleagues to be Advocates-Depute. I think I would feel hound at this stage of Parliamentary procedure and business, and the business of the Crown Office in Edinburgh, to say that he could not be an Advocate-Depute if he was also in the House. But that is not on incompatibility; that is purely on the physical difficulty of carrying out both occupations."
    I am content to leave philosophical questions of incompatibility in Scotland to be decided by Scots. On such thorny ground I would be the last person to intervene, but it is clear that in practice, on physical grounds, if these gentlemen were elected to Parliament, they would be required to be in two places at once if they were to discharge the duties of their post in Edinburgh and their membership here efficiently.
    How it can be said that it is in the public interest to have people in Parliament who are bound to discharge one set of duties inefficiently because they are in Parliament and because they are Advocates-Depute, I fail to understand. I should have thought that the only possible argument about these gentlemen might have been, "It is so obviously an incompatible office that they would never be appointed if they were Members of Parliament. They would be compelled to resign, and, therefore, we need not put it in the Bill." After all, they are very close to standing counsel and standing counsel have been put in the Bill. Why should not these people be put in?
    430
    When we look at the history of the matter we find that up to 1935—true, twenty-two years ago when, no doubt, Parliamentary business was a little less pressing than it is nowadays—there actually was someone who managed to fulfil, or purported to fulfil, both offices. Perhaps we have advanced a little since then. I hope that the hon. and gallant Member for Berwick and East Lothian will not take it amiss—I have a great personal esteem for him—when I say that I regarded his speech as an argument for putting these people in the Bill. If it can be argued that this is the way to meet any lack of Scottish lawyers in the House, then it ought to be made clear that it is not the way to do it.
    7.15 p.m.
    With respect, it is nonsense for the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate to appear before the Select Committee and say that it is not possible to do both these jobs, and then to refuse to accept that incompatibility when it is embodied in an Amendment. I hope that the case of my hon. Friend will be met, and the Amendment accepted. It would be a great pity if we had an unnecessary difference with Scotland by including standing counsel in England and leaving out Advocates-Depute.
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: If an Englishman may follow an Englishman in this debate, may I say that I hope the Committee will not accept the Amendment, at all events for the reason just given by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison). He said that Advocates-Depute are very close to standing counsel, but the reason standing counsel are excluded is that they are advising on matters which are themselves incompatible with Membership of this House. The objection put forward to membership of Advocates-Depute is simply the physical one that they cannot both be here and in Edinburgh at the same time, and no one has seriously argued that their functions are in any way incompatible with membership of this House except on that purely physical ground.
    I do not think that my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate has been fully quoted in this connection. Earlier, in Question 1235, to which the hon. Member referred, there are these words:
    "In the first place, speaking for myself—and I hope I have some support in the Committee

    431
    on this point—I should like to see as few obstructions put in the way of my colleagues coming to this House as possible. We are very anxious to come here; we are a very small Bar; and the fewer people who could be discouraged the better."
    It is true that at present it would probably be impossible and undesirable that any of these functionaries, to use a general word, should become Members of Parliament or, conversely, that any Member of Parliament should be appointed an Advocate-Depute. Yet circumstances may change, and it may be that in the not distant future the physical difficulty would no longer subsist. In any event, I hope that the Committee will not put into the Schedule any cases which rest solely on physical difficulty. We are here dealing with incompatibility in a more general sense of the word; incompatibility of function for a number of reasons, many of which have been referred to on the other Amendments which we have been discussing this afternoon.
    There are, of course, many people who cannot he Members of Parliament on physical grounds. They are by no means necessarily offices under the Crown or offices of profit, but we do not disqualify them, because the right way to deal with those people, is either that their constituents should not elect them or, alternatively, that they should not continue to be employed by those who employ them. That is dealt with outside this Bill. I am sure that I shall have the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) with me when I say that this Bill is not concerned with dealing with that class of case. I believe that this is within that class.
    Mr. Mitchison: I gather that the hon. Gentleman is saying this, "We are agreed that they cannot do both jobs now, but they may be able at some time in the future to do them." Is not that what Clause 5 (1, c) is for? That if their functions change and it so happens that there is no more crime in Scotland and they are never occupied in Edinburgh and can perfectly well come here, they can be dealt with under that Clause.
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I am not saying for a moment that they cannot be dealt with under that Clause. Clause 5 (1, c) is not just to be brought in casually.
    432
    Obviously it will deal with cases on a more or less permanent basis. We are not going to change this Schedule every year. The argument I am putting forward is that we ought not to put into the Schedule at all cases that depend merely on physical difficulties. They ought to be dealt with outside the Bill, in accordance with the principles which have been very clearly stated by the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery and the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede).
    We want as little disqualification as we need put into the Bill. This is unnecessary in principle. It will be taken care of quite well by the ordinary processes outside the Bill. For these reasons. I hope that the Committee will reject the Amendment.
    Mr. James H. Hoy: I should like to say a word in support of the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) because, despite what the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) has just said, this is a matter of considerable importance and a lot of humbug is talked about it. If an Advocate-Depute is nominated for a Parliamentary seat and a by-election should take place, the Advocate-Depute tenders his resignation from that position. I think that I am right—the Lord Advocate will correct me if I am wrong—in saying that the present Solicitor-General for Scotland was in that position. Having been rejected at the polls, he was immediately reappointed Advocate-Depute. Surely that is a little piece of humbug we ought to get rid of. That is one of the reasons why people at court look a little bit impolitely on those who hold legal offices under a political Government.
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: The hon. Gentleman says that this is a piece of humbug that we want to get rid of. If we put this Amendment in the Bill it is exactly that which will continue.
    Mr. Hoy: The hon. Member does not seem to understand. If we put it in the Bill, it would prevent that from happening. Another thing is that this particular appointment, as has been said, not only carries certain fees but a salary of £850.
    In addition to the questions which the Lord Advocate answered and which have

    433
    been quoted in the Committee this afternoon, there was a further suggestion that he had to make, which was, I think, the worst suggestion of all. If hon. Members will look at page 150, Question 1236, they will see that the Question was:
    "In the days—not that we may ever see a large majority again on either side—of 1931, when there was an extremely large majority, it was perfectly practicable for a person to do the two jobs, was it not, and it might be so again?"
    The Lord Advocate, in reply, said:
    "That is why I was going to venture to suggest to this Committee that it might feel disposed to exempt Advocates-Depute from disqualification, leaving it to the Lord Advocate, in selecting his Deputes to decide whether at that particular stage it was practicable to have a Depute who was a Member of the House."
    I believe that that is a suggestion which the Committee would not care to tolerate for one moment. It would be saying that after these Advocates-Depute were appointed the Lord Advocate himself would claim the sole right to decide which one, if any of them, should come to the House of Commons.
    I think that was very wrong indeed. The case which my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East made out this afternoon, and as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hendon, South, who opposed it from the benches opposite, said, was both a strong and logical one. I shall certainly await with interest the reply of the Lord Advocate, to hear how he will defend these particular appointments and their exclusion from a Bill of this kind.
    The Lord Advocate (Mr. W. R. Milligan): Before I come entirely to the merits of the Amendment that has been moved, may I correct at least one misapprehension in the mind of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis). He said that the Advocates-Depute had all the Crown briefs.
    Mr. Willis: I said almost all.
    The Lord Advocate: They do not have the civil Crown briefs at all, or practically none. I just want to clear that matter up.
    I should also like to clear up the question about the practice as regards resigning. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East was perfectly correct when he said that was and had been recently the practice, and the reason why that practice
    434
    grew up was because there was thought to be some doubt. It was a precautionary measure in case anybody should be caught out as having infringed the rules in regard to standing for Parliament, and as all hon. Members of the Committee know, these rules were extremely complicated and very difficult to understand. That is one of the reasons why we are here today, to try to make what was practically unintelligible intelligible. I can advise the Committee as a question of law that in point of fact the Advocates-Depute were not disqualified from the House in view of their terms of office, and examples of that have already been referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Sir W. Anstruther-Gray).
    We have naturally given this Amendment the most anxious consideration, because the points that were raised by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East in moving the Amendment were certainly logical and forceful; but I must invite the Committee to reject the Amendment on the ground that no good reason has been shown why a practice which has existed for hundreds of years should be departed from.
    So far as anything that has been said today, no abuse, no difficulty has arisen at the time when Advocates-Depute have been in the House. I agree full well that in recent years they have not been in the House, except my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General for Scotland, who is technically an Advocate-Depute himself. I feel certain that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East would not have put down this Amendment if he had realised that he was at the same time excluding my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General.
    Mr. Willis: I have another Amendment about that.
    The Lord Advocate: I do not want to anticipate the polite courtesies which are, no doubt, going to be levelled at us later. I point out that the Committee would be excluding the Solicitor-General as well as the other Advocates-Depute. The Committee will realise that for many years there has been no criticism either of the non-attendance in this House or of any incompatibility with these particular offices being in the House. Secondly, the Committee will appreciate that two Select

    435
    Committees have recommended that these particular people should not be disqualified.
    The Herbert Committee in 1941, and again the Committee presided over by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens), after full consideration, which has been referred to in the Committee today, decided that Advocates-Depute should not be disqualified. I have great sympathy with the remarks which were made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian on a question which was also touched upon by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) at an earlier stage, when he said how necessary it was and how desirable it was that members of the legal profession, particularly barristers and advocates, should be in this House.
    7.30 p.m.
    I have most uncomfortable recollections of the three years when I was a member of the Government but not a Member of this House. Speaking personally, I can say that it made a tremendous difference to me, and made the carrying out of my duties infinitely more easy—and I hope more helpful to hon. Members—when I became a Member of this House and was no longer on the "touch-line".
    Mr. A. Woodburn: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain whether, if an Advocate-Depute became a Member of this House, it would entail the appointment of another Advocate-Depute to do the necessary work in Edinburgh; or if another Advocate-Depute were not appointed, would it not mean that the position of Advocate-Depute would become a sinecure?
    The Lord Advocate: I was coming to the question of practicability in a moment.
    Mr. Mitchison: Before dealing with that, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman enlighten me on a matter of Scots law? In the Second Schedule I notice that the Ministerial office of Solicitor-General for Scotland is listed. Am I to understand that it is Scots law that though the Solicitor-General for Scotland appears in that Schedule, he
    436
    would be disqualified from sitting here because he is also an Advocate-Depute?
    The Lord Advocate: The Solicitor-General for Scotland has to this extent a double existence in that in order to be entitled to prosecute he has to be an Advocate-Depute. It is a special commission given to him by the Lord Advocate in Scotland in the same way as a commission is given to the other Advocates-Depute.
    I come now to the rather special Scottish position which has been referred to. Members of the Scottish Bar, naturally, find it extremely difficult, almost impossible, to be hon. Members of the House and at the same time carry on any professional practice whatever in Edinburgh. Their position is far more difficult than that of English banisters who are at least able to carry on some part of their professional work. An Advocate-Depute, like a doctor, is an individual. In other words, his personal presence is required when any business is being conducted. It is an entirely different matter in the case of a person who is able to have a business interest, and may carry on his business although he is not present.
    As it was put by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian, the question is does this House want to have Members who are Advocates-Depute. With all modesty, I suggest that it is a good thing that a reasonable number of the members of our profession should be Members of this House, and the type of person who might well become a Member of Parliament is an Advocate-Depute. I still believe and will repeat what I said to the Select Committee, that at the present time it is not practical politics for any of the Advocates-Depute to carry on their duties and also be Members of this House. But that does not mean that it will always be impossible for them to become Members of this House.
    Today we are legislating for the future, although, admittedly, with a saving Clause in the Bill regarding alterations. I invite the Committee not, here and now, to exclude Advocates-Depute. They have never been excluded before. Two Select Committees, after giving anxious consideration to the matter, have suggested that they should be allowed to sit as Members of this House, and no

    437
    case, except the difficulty of travel, has been advanced to show why they should be excluded.
    Mr. William Ross: The Lord Advocate admits that today there are debarring circumstances, but he added that that will not always be so. What are the present circumstances which are likely to change?
    The Lord Advocate: It might be perfectly possible so to adjust the duties of the Advocate-Depute in the Crown Office that one of them was relieved to a certain extent of, perhaps, his routine work. That type of thing might be possible.
    Mr. Mitchison: Surely, we should not legislate even for a semi-sinecure.
    The Lord Advocate: I am not suggesting for a moment that if such an alteration was made, the Advocate-Depute concerned would continue to draw his full salary. It might be that his duties in the Crown Office would be reduced, and if that happened, his salary would also be reduced. I am asking the Committee not, here and now, to say that Advocates-Depute, who have not been debarred at any time in the past, should now be debarred from becoming Members of this House. I do so on the ground that no good case has been made out to show that should be done, and I invite the Committee to reject this Amendment.
    Mr. Willis: I am disappointed with the reply of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. When I moved this Amendment I tried to be polite to the legal profession. I am not usually so polite, but I tried to be on this occasion, because I did not want to engender a great deal of heat. I wanted the matter considered on its merits, and I still want that. But let me make again the point which I made when I intervened during the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Sir W. Anstruther-Gray).
    Is our work in this House of Commons so very badly done because we have not a great number of Scottish lawyers as Members of the House? Is it not true that we have had better legislation on a number of subjects for Scotland than for England? And why is that? It is because, although we may not have the advantage of the legal ability of certain
    438
    people, at least hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies have a certain amount of human experience, which is of equal value with the professional experience of lawyers when we come to do Committee work.
    I have always looked upon lawyers as a powerful pressure group. The English lawyers in this House are certainly a powerful pressure group but, fortunately, the pressure group is not so powerful so far as Scotland is concerned. Therefore, I discount much of this argument because my experience in this House—it is comparatively short, only eight years—does not lead me to believe that there is a great necessity for a number of lawyers to be hon. Members. I admit that it would be pleasant and helpful to have them. They might advise us on the wording of Amendments and on legal points. But we still obtain that sort of assistance, although we have not such people as Members of Parliament.
    The Lord Advocate said that there had not previously been any disqualification. But the right hon. and learned Gentleman, as he admitted in his evidence before the Select Committee, recognises that the position is changing very considerably from what it previously was. During his evidence to the Committee he was asked—it is Question 1238:
    "It there any increase in the duties and responsibilities of Advocates-Depute nowadays that makes you feel the-re is at least this practical difficulty?"
    The right hon. and learned Gentleman answered:
    "No. I think I would be rather inclined to suggest, although I have not had experience of it at that time, that the pressure on one's time here is probably greater than it was at that time."
    That is in the House. He continued:
    "There may be a slight increase in the work in the Crown Office, but not such a marked increase as I think probably there is in the necessity of being in this House."
    In other words, the right hon. and learned Gentleman, in that answer, replied to his own argument. The position is changing, and now the right hon. and learned Gentleman tells us that we can get over this difficulty if we shuffle the work round in Parliament House so that someone would not have anything to do and could attend this House of Commons.

    439
    What a preposterous suggestion, that a lawyer has to be bribed with £850 to come to this House. That is what the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggested. I do not think he meant it, but that is the implication of what he said. The members of his profession are so public-spirited that they will not sacrifice to come here, but want a bribe of £850.
    That is quite wrong. Either they are doing this job or they are not doing it. If they are doing it, they cannot attend the House of Commons. The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that. All his evidence indicated that, and so did the advice which he appeared to receive
    from previous Lord Advocates before he gave that evidence. Why does he not admit it now and say that it is impossible to do these two things?
    The right hon. and learned Gentleman made a point about the position of the Solicitor-General for Scotland. If he accepted the Amendment, or the spirit of it, he could easily put that right. I am very disappointed about this matter, in which a very important principle is at stake and I trust that my hon. Friends will support me in the Lobby.
    Question put, That those words be there inserted:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 119, Noes 178.

    Division No. 78.]

    AYES

    [7.40 p.m.

    Ainsley, J. W.

    Hobson, C. R.

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Albu, A. H.

    Holman, P.

    Rankin, John

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

    Redhead, E. C.

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Hoy, J. H.

    Reeves, J.

    Benson, G.

    Hubbard, T. F.

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Beswick, Frank

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

    Blyton, W. R.

    Hunter, A. E.

    Ross, William

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

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Royle, C.

    Boyd, T. C.

    Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

    Short, E. W.

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

    Burke, W. A.

    Jeger, George (Goole)

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Champion, A J.

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Sparks, J. A.

    Chapman, W. D.

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Steele, T.

    Clunie, J.

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

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

    Coldrick, W.

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

    Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

    Lawson, C. M.

    Sylvester, G. O.

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Lewis, Arthur

    Thomas, George (Cardiff)

    Cullen, Mrs. A.

    MacColl, J. E.

    Thornton, E.

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    McGovern, J.

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

    MacDermot, Niall

    Viant, S. P.

    Delargy, H. J.

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Watkins, T. E.

    Donnelly, D. L.

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Weitzman, D.

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

    Mann, Mrs. Jean

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Dye, S.

    Mason, Roy

    Wheeldon, W. E.

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    Mitchison, G. R.

    White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

    Moody, A. S.

    Wigg, George

    Fernyhough, E.

    Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Fletcher, Eric

    Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert (Lewis'm, S.)

    Willey, Frederick

    Forman, J. C.

    Mort, D. L.

    Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)

    George, Lady Megan Lloyd

    Moss, R.

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

    Greenwood, Anthony

    Moyle, A.

    Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)

    Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

    Oswald, T.

    Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

    Grey, C. F.

    Owen, W. J.

    Winterbottom, Richard

    Hamilton, W. W.

    Padley, W. E.

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Hannan, W.

    Parker, J.

    Yates, V. (Ladywood)

    Hastings, S.

    Parkin, B. T.

    Hayman, F. H.

    Pearson, A.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

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

    Pentland, N.

    Mr. John Taylor and Mr. Holmes.

    Harbison, Miss M.

    Popplewell, E.

    NOES

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    Barber, Anthony

    Body, R. F.

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

    Barlow, Sir John

    Bossom, Sir Alfred

    Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

    Barter, John

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

    Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

    Braine, B. R.

    Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William

    Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

    Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

    Armstrong, C. W.

    Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

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

    Ashton, H.

    Bidgood, J. C.

    Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Biggs-Davison, J. A.

    Brooman-White, R. c.

    Balniel, Lord

    Bishop, F. P.

    Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)

    Bryan, P.

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Peyton, J. W. W.

    Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

    Holland-Martin, C. J.

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Channon, Sir Henry

    Hornby, R. P.

    Pike, Miss Mervyn

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Horobin, Sir Ian

    Pilkington, Capt, R. A.

    Clarke, Brig, Terence (Portsmth, W.)

    Howard, John (Test)

    Pitman, I. J.

    Cole, Norman

    Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

    Pott, H. P.

    Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

    Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Cooper-Key, E. M.

    Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

    Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry

    Prior-Palmer, Brig, O. L.

    Corfield, Capt. F. V.

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Ramsden, J. E.

    Craddook, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Rawlinson, Peter

    Crouch, R. F.

    Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)

    Redmayne, M.

    Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Cunningham, Knox

    Joseph, Sir Keith

    Renton, D. L. M.

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot

    Rippon, A. G. F.

    Dance, J. C. G.

    Keegan, D.

    Robertson, Sir David

    Davidson, Viscountess

    Kerby, Capt. H. B.

    Roper, Sir Harold

    Davies, Rt.Hon. Clement (Montgomery)

    Kerr, H. W.

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    D'Avigdor-Coldsmid, Sir Henry

    Kimball, M.

    Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

    Deedes, w. F.

    Kirk, P. M,

    Sharples, R. C.

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Shepherd, William

    Doughty, C. J. A.

    Leavey, J. A.

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

    du Cann, E. D. L.

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

    Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

    Duncan, Capt. J. A, L.

    Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

    Spearman, Sir Alexander

    Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

    Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)

    Speir, R. M.

    Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

    Linstead, Sir H. N.

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

    Errington, Sir Eric

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

    Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

    Fell, A.

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

    Stewart, Sir James Henderson (Fife, E.)

    Finlay, Graeme

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Storey, S.

    Fisher, Nigel

    McAdden, S. J.

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Fletcher-Cooke, C.

    Mackie, J. H. (Calloway)

    Summers, Sir Spencer

    Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale)

    Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)

    Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Temple, John M.

    Godber, J. B.

    Maddan, Martin

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan

    Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

    Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

    Graham, Sir Fergus

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

    Grant, W. (Woodside)

    Marlowe, A, A. H.

    Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

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

    Mathew, R.

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Green, A.

    Maude, Angus

    Vickers, Miss Joan

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    Mawby, R. L.

    Wade, D. W.

    Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

    Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Gurden, Harold

    Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Wall, Major Patriok

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

    Morrison, John (Salisbury)

    Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Nairn, D. L. S.

    Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

    Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

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

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

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

    Nugent, G. R. H.

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

    Oakshott, H. D.

    Woollam, John Victor

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

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

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

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

    TELLERS FOB THE NOES o

    Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

    Osborne, C.

    Mr. Legh and

    Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

    Page, R. G.

    Colonel J. H. Harrison

    Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

    Partridge, E.

    Mr. Simon: I beg to move, in page 13, to leave out lines 27 and 28.
    This Amendment seeks to leave out the words:
    "Agent in the United Kingdom of the government of any country or territory ouside the United Kingdom."
    It is clear from the report of the Select Committee that it was seeking to deal with offices analogous to that of the Ulster agent, but in point of fact this has gone beyond that and the words used in the Bill would lead to the disqualification of such people as a solicitor or a commercial agent of a foreign Government or a Commonwealth Government. In those circumstances, it is thought right to make this Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 13, leave out line 31.—[The Attorney-General.]
    The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in line 38, at the end to insert:
    Chairman or Deputy Chairman of an Administrative Board constituted for the purposes of any scheme made under the Workmen's Compensation (Supplementation) Act, 1951 or the Industrial Diseases (Benefit) Acts, 1951 and 1954.
    The Amendment follows on the principle we discussed earlier in relation to chairmen and deputy chairmen of certain tribunals.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In line 38, at end insert:
    Chairman or acting Chairman of an Agricultural Land Tribunal.—[The Attorney-General.]
    Mr. Simon: I beg to move, in line 39, after "Chairman", to insert "or Reserve Chairman".
    Perhaps, Sir Charles, we could discuss, at the same time, the proposed Amendment to the Third Schedule, in page 24, line 29, after "Chairman", to insert "or Reserve Chairman".
    The Chairman: If you please.
    Mr. Simon: This Amendment is in accordance with the principle suggested by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General earlier, which found general acceptance in the Committee.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In line 41, leave out from beginning to "the" and insert "or".—[The Attorney-General.]
    The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 14, line 2, at the end to insert:
    Chairman or Reserve Chairman of a Local Tribunal or Local Appeal Tribunal constituted for the purposes of the National Insurance Act, 1946, the National Insurance Act (Northern Ireland) 1946, the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, 1946 or the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act (Northern Ireland), 1946.
    We discussed this Amendment when we discussed the question of chairmen of tribunals.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In line 2, at end insert:
    Chairman or Deputy Chairman of a Local Tribunal constituted under the provisions of the National Service Act, 1948, relating to conscientious objectors.
    In line 2, at end insert:
    Chairman or Reserve Chairman of a Military Service (Hardship) Committee constituted under the Third Schedule to the National Service Act, 1948.—[The Attorney-General.]
    Sir P. Spens: I beg to move, in page 14, line 7, at the end to insert:
    Chairman of the Technical Personnel Committee appointed by the Minister of Labour.
    The purpose of this Amendment is to disqualify the Chairman of the Ministry of Labour Technical Personnel Committee, another post which was not considered by the Select Committee. This is a standing advisory committee, composed partly of Departmental representatives and partly of persons outside Government service. Its function is to make recommendations on short-term
    444
    questions relating to the demand for and supply of scientific manpower. The Committee is not responsible for the actual recruitment of technical manpower. Under these circumstances, in accordance with the suggestions of the Attorney-General, the Chairman ought to be disqualified.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Hoy: I beg to move, in page 14, to leave out lines 28 and 29.
    The Amendment concerns the position held by counsel to the Secretary of State under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936. It is not my intention, or that of my hon. Friends, to go into the troubles we have had in this House on previous occasions. I think that the Committee knows that we have considered an appointment a rather despicable one and the treatment of junior counsel as shocking. That is not included in this Amendment, but what is included is the piece of political patronage which has taken place under the guidance of the Lord Advocate.
    We have to consider whether the person who has received that appointment is fit to be included in this Bill. I suggest that he is not, because a letter I received from the predecessor of the present Secretary of State said that it was desirable that the senior counsel, whose position the Bill covers, should be someone of standing and experience, who if possible should not be engaged in private practice.
    I am sure that in England it would be regarded as an oddity of the most curious kind if we had a person of legal standing without a private practice. How he becomes of any standing at all I do not know. To suggest that this person should fill this important post is, I think, belittling the whole situation. The present incumbent is the one for whom Scotland has had some respect. To appoint his designated appointee, as he is called, in his place is something which Scotland dislikes intensely. If he is of such a weak character we believe that we should not clutter up this Bill unnecessarily. We think it is wrong to put this in merely because it was in some previous Bill.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: The effect of this Amendment would be that the two counsel to the Secretary of State on Private Legislation Procedure would no longer be

    445
    disqualified from membership of the House of Commons. The hon. Member has argued the Amendment on a point of particular personalities and particular individuals, but I would remind the Committee of what was said by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). He said that we are not legislating for persons here; we are legislating for the law of the land, which has to be applied to a very large number of persons. I noted what the right hon. Member had to say at an earlier stage and that remains true. What the House has to consider is whether this job is compatible with membership of the House.
    Counsel are not expected to take an active part in political work. In view of the nature of their duties, it is clearly desirable that they should not do so. Surely it is essential that they should not be Members of the House of Commons, because if they were, and they were advising Parliamentary commissioners in the course of private legislation procedure, there might well arise just the sort of conflict of duties which makes it essential to diqualify this kind of office from membership of the House of Commons.
    Mr. Hoy: I will not comment at length on what the Under-Secretary has said, but content myself with saying that we shall probably have a change of Government soon and that the security of tenure of this particular individual will be even less than that which the Government are prepared to give to tenants under the new Rent Bill. Under those circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    8.0 p.m.
    Sir P. Spens: I beg to move, in page 14, line 32, at the end, to insert:
    Director of the British Sugar Corporation Limited appointed by the Ministers as defined by section seventeen of the Sugar Act, 1956.
    This Amendment shows why the machinery to deal with this matter must be flexible. While the Select Committee was sitting the House was passing the Sugar Act, 1956, which provides that three directors of the British Sugar Corporation Limited—the Chairman and two ordinary directors—should be appointed by the Government and that those directors should have absolute control over all question of policy. In those circum-
    446
    stances, it is obvious that Government directors of this Corporation ought to be disqualified.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Willis: I beg to move, in page 15, line 42, at the end, to insert:
    Lord Advocate for Scotland.
    The Chairman: The Committee might discuss at the same time the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) in page 17, line 15, at the end, to insert:
    Solicitor-General for Scotland.
    There are also two consequential Amendments on page 793: in Schedule 2, page 19, to leave out line 30; and in Schedule 2, page 19, to leave out line 32.
    Mr. Willis: When this Amendment appeared on the Order Paper hon Members thought it was another Scottish night out. They thought that Scottish Members were having a little fun again. Hon. Members may treat this in a rather ironical or humorous vein, but it affects a problem about which a great many people in Scotland are seriously concerned. We have seen these two offices of Lord Advocate and Solicitor-General for Scotland degenerate into little more than stepping stones to the Bench. The Lord Advocate's office was once almost the greatest office in Scotland. Let us see what it has become today. I say this without any personal reference at all because, as I pointed out in the debate on the first Bill, this applies to all parties. It is not a party matter, nor is it a personal matter. As I say, we have seen these great offices degenerate into mere stepping stones to the Bench.
    What happens in Scotland at present for the ambitious boy called to the Bar? At a very early age, he commences to weigh up political prospects and to ask himself which party is likely to be in power. Having done that, he backs a certain horse. He then becomes engaged violently in politics and tries to get the necessary publicity to attract the attention to himself which will secure a seat for him. Having obtained that seat, because few Scottish lawyers come to the House—only those who can expect preferment—he usually becomes Solicitor-General for Scotland or Lord Advocate. The first vacancy which occurs on the Bench, he disappears to the Bench.

    447
    Earlier today we were told about the desirability of having lawyers in the House, but the fact is that they do not want to stay here. When they get here they soon move on to the Bench.
    The present situation is bad politically and judicially. It means that a man becomes prominently associated with a political party and takes part in vigorous conflicts. I have had vigorous conflicts with some of the occupants of these positions. Then, when he becomes a judge, everybody still thinks of him in terms of his political affiliations.
    Sir P. Spens: No.
    Mr. Willis: I do not want to mention names in the debate, but I could mention members of the Bench who, even today, are thought of in terms of their political affiliations when they were Members of the House. Surely it cannot be a good thing judicially for people to look upon a judge as being the great Tory or the Labour Member. That is the position today.
    Mr. Cyril Osborne: Would the hon. Member altogether debar Scottish lawyers who come into the House from ever becoming members of the Bench?
    Mr. Willis: We do not want to do that, but we want to attract attention to this problem. It is bad for the legal profession and for the judiciary. Equally, it is bad politically, because people say, "Politics are a game. He is only waiting to go to the Bench." It brings politics into contempt and, goodness knows, we do not want to do that. It also brings the Bench and the legal profession into contempt and creates a situation which is bad from the point of view of the judges.
    I would say that Parliament House in Edinburgh is the keenest and most active political club in the city. I understand that the Lord Advocate says that is nonsense. I would submit to him that politics are discussed more vigorously and party chances weighed up more acutely in Parliament House, Edinburgh, than in any other place in the city. Surely it is not a good thing for the judiciary and Parliament House to be in that position.
    I do not know the answer to this problem. It is a serious problem which creates undesirable conditions and it arises because we have such a small Bar.
    448
    There is not the same problem in England. How can we avoid it? I do not know the answer. We ought to consider whether our legal officers could not operate from the civil servants' box equally well as from the Front Bench. One of my hon. Friends says they could not do any worse. In any event, that is what is done in local authorities.
    Mr. Ross: We should miss a lot of fun.
    Mr. Willis: We should miss some fun at times, but looking at the practice of the House, the Scottish Grand Committee and other Committees where the Solicitor-General for Scotland and the Lord Advocate function, I am not sure that the information they give us could not equally be provided through the Secretary of State or one of the Joint Under-Secretaries who had obtained it from an adviser in the box. We might avoid some confusion. An interesting point is that if advice is tendered to us legally from the Solicitor-General for Scotland we usually find ourselves in confusion. We do not find that the legal points have been cleared up at all. As far as I can remember, the only concession we have obtained on the Rent Bill was a promise to look into the question of "shall" and "may" because different Departments had not decided what was the correct interpretation of "shall" and "may." We could have got into that confusion and obtained that promise without the Solicitor-General for Scotland sitting on the Front Bench in the Committee.
    I think anybody who lives in Edinburgh or any people interested in these matters will agree that this is a problem which ought to be seriously considered. I say that in all sincerity. Once again we come back to the suggestion made by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) that a special committee should seriously go into all the problems concerning Members of the House. This is a problem which requires such attention. If we could solve it, we should do something beneficial both from the point of view of our judiciary and from the point of view of our political system, to both of which, in my view, it is important that the problem should be solved.
    Sir P. Spens: This Amendment was not considered by the Select Committee.

    449
    It was never suggested to us, and it has now come before this Committee for the first time.
    Mr. Willis: It did not come before the Select Committee, but I did make a speech on it on the Second Reading of the previous Bill, and also put down an Amendment to the previous Bill in the same terms.
    Sir P. Spens: All I say is that the Select Committee did not have it to consider.
    I think that I am the only lawyer in the House who can talk without having any interest, direct or indirect, in the fate of the Amendment. All the rest of my hon. and learned Friends may conceivably in time become members of the Bench. My time on the Bench is over, but I do want to say this to the Committee. I believe very sincerely that the Bench is very much enriched by members who have had experience in this House. No Bench composed entirely of lawyers, however good, who have never had any experience in this House or in public political life is as good as one which has a modicum of those with that experience.
    I am speaking now from quite a lot of experience. I am quite certain that those who have been through the whole gamut of public life, who have had to stand on public platforms, and have had to study all the personal complaints and so forth that come to the attention of hon. Members, make very much better judges—or as good judges, and certainly very valuable judges—than do those who have spent all their time merely practising in the law.
    Although I am a Scotsman, I am an English lawyer, and I am quite certain that it is desirable that a modicum of Members here should find their way to the Bench in Edinburgh. The only way such men can find their way to that Bench is by coming to this House. Therefore, the very last thing I would support would be any Amendment whatsoever which would disqualify any Scottish lawyer from finding his way here.
    The Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General for Scotland are the successors to a very long line of very distinguished men who have greatly enriched the law of our native land, and I would be the very last to suggest that the line should not be continued indefinitely. I hope
    450
    that the House will have nothing to do with this Amendment.
    Mr. Malcolm MacPherson: I begin by agreeing with the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens) in his very general point, and by disagreeing with him in its particular application. What he seemed to be saying was that a member of the Bench is improved and enriched through experience of this House——
    Sir P. Spens: I do not put it quite like that. I say that a Bench is enriched by having members who have been in this House.
    Mr. MacPherson: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is quite correct; he did say that, and I quoted his words wrongly. My complaint is that, although that is true, it is equally true that a Bench would be enriched by having some members who had spent some time in the Services, or had spent some time in active business, or some time even in the Civil Service or in other spheres of administration. A Bench would always be enriched by having some members who had not spent all of their time in legal practice but had undertaken, preferably in responsible positions other kinds of activities. Therefore, I do not think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman can thereby claim that this House should, in any degree at all, go out of its way to make special provision for future, or possible future, members of the Bench having experience in this House.
    8.15 p.m.
    The question to which the Amendments relate seems to me one which is quite entirely by itself in our public life. This is the situation in Scotland. We appoint to the Bench by political experience rather than by legal merit. That is not seriously denied by lawyers, by people who have had experience of that sort of appointment, or by people who have watched it in action. It is commonly accepted. It is known, and is taken as part of the life of Scotland. It is a sort of circumstance which used to exist in this country in many spheres a century or two ago.
    One of the difficulties under which my hon. Friend and others who are interested in this matter suffer, is the great

    451
    difficulty of getting serious public attention focussed on this as a question of a special nature, and not simply as some odd complaint that Scottish Members now and again try to drag on to the Floor of the House of Commons. In England, so far as I know, there is only one appointment to the Bench which is made politically, and that is the appointment of the Lord Chief Justice. I remember my right hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens (Sir H. Shawcross) a few years ago, when he was Attorney-General, making the claim, which no one disputed, or would, I think, dispute, that appointments to judicial office in England were now entirely non-political——
    Sir P. Spens: May I remind the hon. Member that the present Lord Chief Justice has never been a Member of this House, and was appointed by a Labour Lord Chancellor?
    Mr. MacPherson: I will not disagree with that. What I was about to point out was that—as I think it will be generally agreed—there is no other appointment to the English judicial offices which is made on political grounds. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has got in before me, because I was about to add that, as far as I understand, there has been some consideration as to what the position of the Lord Chief Justice should be in regard to this kind of appointment. That appointment has not always been made on political grounds, and has not always been regarded as a sort of prescriptive right of the Attorney-General.
    In Scotland, we have a completely different situation. There, the whole set of appointments is made politically, and members of their own profession regard the holders of the two Law Officerships of the Crown for Scotland as on their way to judicial office. The public also so regards it.
    For myself, I am not very strongly concerned with the suggestion that the Lord Advocate should not be a Member of this House. I think that there ought to be one Scottish Law Officer—given, that is to say, the rest of our political circumstances. I do not dissent from my hon. Friend's point that the Scottish Law Officers might well be outside rather than inside the House but, accepting the
    452
    present circumstances, it seems to me that one Scottish Law Officer in the House is justified.
    The existence of two of them appears to have a great number of disadvantages. For one thing, it means a dual carriageway to the Bench, and that might well be cut down to a single carriageway. If that avenue to the Bench is to exist, let us reduce it to one path. Apart from that, the thing is completely disproportionate. There are 5 million people in Scotland and 45 million in England and Wales. The 45 million get along with two Law Officers; the 5 million, apparently, also need two. There are 71 hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies; apparently they must be served by as many Law Officers as are all the rest of the Members of the House.
    That stems to be essentially a matter for serious consideration by the House itself. One cannot quote authorities here, because one would be referring to people to whom one has talked in confidence, but there is not Scottish work enough for two Scottish Law Officers in the House in normal circumstances, although I have no doubt that it is convenient to have two people sharing what work there is.
    I should like to add one further point in connection with this general subject of representation here—and particularly privileged and Front Bench representation —of the legal profession. One hon. Member opposite complained a little while ago about the shortage of the representation of the legal profession in this House, and he urged that as a reason for strengthening the number of advocates here. In fact, there are no Scottish solicitors here. The solicitors' profession in Scotland is much larger than the Bar. It also contains a far greater range of ability.
    One of the things that the Bar in Scotland does is, by putting up a very large financial bar, to exclude much potential competition, whereas that does not apply to solicitors. That sort of argument is perhaps part of the background of these Amendments, and it seems to me that when we consider the background we should remember that not all lawyers are barristers or advocates. A great many—indeed, the majority, including many of the very best—belong to the so-called junior branch of the profession.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: The curious thing about this Amendment is that it has been moved and supported on the basis, not of whether we need the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General in the House, but of what happens to them after they leave the House.
    Mr. Willis: No, why they are here.
    Mr. Macpherson: It has been alleged that they come here and use this place as a stepping stone. Of the 15 Scottish judges at the present time, five are former Law Officers and one of those was appointed to the bench by the party opposite.
    I suggest that the questions we have to ask ourselves are simply these: are the Law Officers needed in the House of Commons, or are they not; and is there any reason why the Law Officers of England should be needed and should sit, and the Law Officers of Scotland should not? It has been said that we could get along quite well by getting advice from the official Box. We have our official advisers. Every Government have their official advisers, and we are very well served by them, but surely nobody seriously thinks that it would be better to have the case presented at second hand rather than at first hand. We have the Law Officers of the Crown here to present the case at first hand. We have had them here ever since Scotland was represented in this Parliament, and I suggest that we should continue to have them.
    Mr. Ross: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us for how many years, since the end of the war we have been without a Solicitor-General, or for how long a Solicitor-General has been appointed and has not had a seat in this House?
    Mr. Macpherson: That situation arises from time to time. Circumstances have arisen when there has not been a qualified person who is also a Member of the House. I would point out that when that situation has arisen, hon. Members opposite have constantly asked when the Solicitor-General would find a place in the House.
    Mr. Willis: The hon. Gentleman's reply is most disappointing, and it proves what I have already said, that the seriousness of the position does not seem to be appreciated by the Government.
    454
    I ask the Government seriously to consider what has been said, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Malcolm MacPherson) This matter causes serious concern in the profession, and certainly in Edinburgh, as I know from my own experience. The Government should address their minds to the problem which my hon. Friend and I have posed, instead of administering this little "brush-off".
    Mr. Cyril Osborne: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the important point which was made by the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Malcolm MacPherson) when he pointed out that two Law Officers are required by England with a population of 45 million and that two Law Officers are apparently required also by Scotland, with a population of only 5 million?
    Mr. Willis: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Simon: I beg to move, in page 15, to leave out line 45.
    May we discuss with this the Amendments in page 16, line 40, and page 17, leave out line 8? They appear to go together, Sir Charles.
    The Chairman: Yes.
    Mr. Simon: These are drafting Amendments, designed to secure a more comprehensive disqualification of Supreme Court officers.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Sir P. Spens: I beg to move, in page 16, line 35, at the end to insert:
    Officer or servant of the Crown Estate Commissioners.
    It has been brought to my attention that while we disqualify the Crown Estates Commissioners, and the bulk of their officers and servants are disqualified as being civil servants, there are, in fact, a few who are civilians and who are not disqualified. Therefore, it seems wrong that these few officers and servants of the Crown Estates Commissioners should remain qualified while all the rest of the establishment is disqualified.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 16, line 40, at end insert:
    Officer of the Supreme Court within the meaning of sections one hundred and fifteen to one hundred and twenty of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925. —[Mr. Simon.]
    The Lord Advocate: I beg to move in page 16, line 48, at the end to insert:
    "appointed under the Sheriff Courts and Legal Officers (Scotland) Act, 1927".
    The purpose of this Amendment is to make it clear that we only wish to disqualify fiscals, procurator fiscals and their deputies in the sheriff courts, and not the burgh fiscals and the J.P. fiscals. The burgh fiscals and the J.P. fiscals are not disqualified at present, and there seems no reason to disqualify them.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Sir P. Spens: I beg to move, in page 17, line 4, at the end to insert:
    Registrar of any district of the Court of Chancery of the County Palatine of Lancaster.
    This Amendment seeks to rectify another omission. Under the Bill, we have disqualified the masters and the assistant masters of the Court of Chancery in London, but we forgot about the Count of Chancery in the County Palatine of Lancaster. The corresponding officers are the district registrars of those courts, and there are three of those whose functions are exactly the same as that of the assistant masters and masters in chancery in London. They ought to be disqualified.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Sir P. Spens: I beg to move, in page 17, line 5, to leave out:
    "appointed for a district under" and insert" or Assistant Registrar appointed under section sixteen or section twenty-five of".
    This is an omission, but not an unimportant one. As the Bill is drawn, it disqualifies the registrars in county courts. They are appointed by the Lord Chancellor. The assistant registrars are also appointed by the Lord Chancellor under the Administration of Justice Act, 1956, which, of course, was being passed at the time that the Select Committee was sitting. That confers power on the Lord Chancellor to direct them that they shall be whole-time officers. In those circumstances, they ought to be disqualified.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In page 17, leave out line 8.
    In page 17, line 9, leave out "Judicial Committee of the".—[Mr. Simon.]
    Sir P. Spens: I beg to move, In page 17, line 9, at the end to insert:
    Registrar of Restrictive Trading Agreements.
    This Amendment really speaks for itself. The Restrictive Trade Practices Act was passed while the Select Committee was sitting, and under that Act the very important post of Registrar of Restrictive Trading Agreements was created. In my submission, the holder of that office ought certainly to be disqualified.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Sir P. Spens: I beg to move, in page 17, line 26, at the end to insert:
    Temporary Commissioner appointed under paragraph 2 of the Second Schedule to the Tithe Act, 1936.
    Under the Bill as framed, the members of the Tithe Redemption Commission are disqualified, but they are disqualified under paragraph 4 of the Second Schedule to the Tithe Act, 1936. That paragraph also disqualified temporary Commissioners who are appointed by the Treasury to deputise for the permanent Commissioners for any period up to six months. It is thought that they also ought to be disqualified.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Sir P. Spens: I beg to move, in page 17, line 37, at the end to insert:
    Governor of the Isle of Wight…The Isle of Wight.
    This is a Prerogative appointment which has recently been revived. The present holder is His Grace the Duke of Wellington. In times gone by the Governor of the Isle of Wight was entitled to reside in Carisbrooke Castle, but this benefit does not enure to the present holder of the Office. It seems that the Governor of the Isle of Wight ought to be subject to local disqualification in the same manner as lords lieutenants of counties.
    Amendment agreed to.
    The Chairman: I offer the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) a Division on either his Amendment in page 17, to leave out lines 41 to 44, or in his next Amendment in page 18, to leave out lines 1 to 7.
    Mr. C. Davies: We have already really discussed the principle of these Amendments and, as it is quite obvious that I do not carry the Committee with me, I shall not move them.
    I should like to refer to one remark made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). He seemed to think that I was emphasising the point I was making as a personal one. This was certainly not in my mind. I was putting this as a purely general matter, but speaking, of course, from my own personal experience. As it is quite obvious that I do not carry the Committee with me upon these Amendments any more than I carried the previous Committee, I propose not to move them.
    Mr. Simon: I beg to move, in page 18, line 18, to leave out from the beginning to the end of the Schedule.
    This is consequential upon the other Amendments which are designed to effect the general disqualification of chairmen and deputy-chairmen of the various tribunals we have discussed.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

    Second Schedule.—(MINISTERIAL OFFICES.)
    Amendments made: In page 19, line 16, leave out "Fuel and".
    In page 20, line 3, leave out "Fuel and".—[The Attorney-General.]
    Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

    Third Schedule.—(MODIFICATIONS OF THIS ACT IN RELATION TO SENATE AND HOUSE OF COMMONS OF NORTHERN IRELAND.)
    The Attorney-General: I do not know whether it would be convenient to the Committee, Sir Charles, to take all the Amendments to the Third Schedule together. They are all drafting Amendments or consequential on the Amendments made in relation to England and Scotland to bring the law into line for Northern Ireland. There has to be a separate list for Northern Ireland. Many of them are merely drafting and others are just consequential to bring matters into conformity. I do not think there is any radical alteration to which I ought to draw the Committee's attention. Might they all be taken together?
    The Chairman: If that is the wish of the Committee, certainly.
    Mr. Ede: There is one Amendment standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker). to leave out "sub-Postmaster" in line 15, page 27.
    The Chairman: An Amendment stood in his name to amend the First Schedule, in page 17, line 21, and he did not move it.
    Mr. Ede: If we took them all en bloc, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggests, we should be including that one.
    The Chairman: Very well; only Government Amendments, if that is the wish of the Committee.
    Amendments made: In page 20, line 27, leave out from beginning to end of line 29 and insert:
    "Subsection (2) shall not apply".
    In line 31, leave out "any" and insert "the".
    In line 33, leave out from "Ireland" to end of line 44.
    In page 21, leave out lines 1 to 6.
    In line 21, leave out from "Ireland" to "is" in line 23.
    In line 23, leave out from "House" to "his" in line 24.
    In line 28, leave out from "House" to "his" in line 29.
    In page 22, line 31, at beginning insert:
    "Part IV shall not apply and".
    In line 31, leave out "to IV" and insert "and III".
    In page 23, leave out line 15.
    In line 15, at end insert:
    A Medical Appeal Tribunal constituted for the purposes of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act (Northern Ireland), 1946, including any panel constituted for the purposes of any such Tribunal.
    In line 15, at end insert:
    A Medical Board constituted for the purposes of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act (Northern Ireland), 1946, including any panel constituted for the purposes of any such Board.
    In page 23, leave out line 16.
    In line 28, at end insert:
    A panel of Chairmen of Re-instatement Committees constituted under section forty-one of the National Service Act, 1948.
    In line 35, at end insert: The Performing Right Tribunal.
    In page 23, leave out line 36.
    In page 24, leave out lines 16 and 17.
    In line 29, after "Chairman", insert "or Reserve Chairman".
    In line 35, at end insert:
    Chairman or Reserve Chairman of a Local Tribunal or Local Appeal Tribunal constituted for the purposes of the National Insurance Act (Northern Ireland) 1946, or the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act (Northern Ireland) 1946.
    In page 25, line 5, at end insert:
    Director of the British Sugar Corporation Limited appointed by the Ministers as defined by section seventeen of the Sugar Act, 1956.
    In page 26, leave out line 10.
    In line 48, at end insert:
    Officer or servant of the Crown Estate Commissioners.
    In line 48, at end insert:
    Officer of the Supreme Court within the meaning of sections one hundred and fifteen to one hundred and twenty of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925.
    In page 27, line 2, at end insert:
    Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District.
    In line, 6, leave out
    "appointed for a district under"
    and insert:
    "or Assistant Registrar appointed under section sixteen or section twenty-five of."
    In page 27, leave out line 9.
    In line 10, leave out "Judicial Committee of the."
    In line 10, at end insert:
    Registrar of Restrictive Trading Agreements.
    In page 27, leave out lines 21 to 24.
    In line 28, leave out from beginning to end of Schedule.—[The Attorney-General.]
    Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

    Fourth Schedule.—(ENACTMENTS REPEALED.)
    Amendments made: In page 28, line 17, column 3, leave out from "twenty-four" to end of line 20 and insert:
    ", twenty-five, twenty-seven and twenty-eight and section twenty-nine so far as it relates to disqualification under any enactment repealed by this Act."
    In line 33, column 3, leave out "except."
    In line 36, column 3, leave out "not."
    In page 34, line 14, at end insert:

    4&5 Eliz.2. c.29.

    The Dentists Act, 1956.

    In the First Schedule, paragraph 7.

    In page 27, line 2, at end insert:

    4&5 Eliz.2. c.74.

    The Copyright Act, 1956.

    In section twenty-three subsection (3)

    —[The Attorney-General.]
    Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
    Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 62.]

  OCCUPIERS' LIABILITY BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  8.36 p.m.
  The Solicitor-General (Sir Harry Hylton-Foster): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  I regret the need to detain the House for a few moments to explain what the Bill is about. It is a Bill for the reform of the law, and I suppose that means that there is matter for contention among lawyers in it, but I hope and believe that there is no party controversy about its content.
  The object of the Bill is, broadly, to give effect to the recommendations in the Law Reform Committee's Third Report. There will be no controversy about the wish and need for me to express the gratitude of this House to the Members of that Committee, distinguished and busy people, who generously gave their skill and wisdom in the public service and produced a Report so clear and agreeable to read that I am reliably informed by a professor that his students have found out all about it and now use it as a textbook. Clearly, the House would think it right to congratulate the draftsman, who has performed his duty in a magnificent fashion in reducing so much matter into so brief and lucid a form.
  The Bill is concerned with a limited but important branch of the common law. It deals first with the liability of the occupier of premises to visitors to those premises in respect of injury to them, and their goods due to the state of the premises; and secondly, with the liability of a landlord to his tenants' visitors in respect of injury due to the state of the premises in cases where the landlord has undertaken an obligation to maintain and repair the premises.
  To explain the Bill I have, unfortunately, to recall in the broadest possible terms how the law now stands. The standard of care required of an occupier towards a visitor in these circumstances depends upon the category into which the visitor falls at law. He may be a trespasser and have no right to be there. In that case, the Bill leaves the law unchanged. The visitor may be there on the basis of a contract made between him and the occupier. It is convenient to call
  462
  that kind of visitor a contractual visitor and to talk about him in connection with Clause 5. The position of the rest of the lawful visitors is that they are either invitees or licensees, according to whether or no the occupier has a material interest in their being on the premises. The invitee is entitled to a higher standard of care and the licensee to a lower standard of care, and the difference between them is that in the case of the first the occupier has a material interest in his presence and in the case of the latter he has no material interest in his presence.
  The duty of the occupier to the invitee is usually stated as the duty to use reasonable care to prevent injury to the visitor from unusual dangers of which the occupier knows or ought to know. On the other hand, his duty to the licensee is usually said to be to take reasonable care to prevent injury from concealed dangers or traps actually known to the occupier and not known to the licensee. If one states them just like that they sound distinct enough, but decided cases have produced refinements and distinctions until the edges are blurred.
  To contrast the unusual danger with the concealed danger or trap has become difficult. All concealed dangers or traps are unusual dangers though some unusual dangers are not concealed dangers or traps. The dangers of which the occupier actually knows contrasted as against those which he ought to know sounds a distinction firm enough, but it has been whittled down by cases, which have imputed to the occupier actual knowledge of the danger if he had knowledge of the state of the premises which constituted the potential danger and that was all. One Lord Justice may, perhaps, be excused for having said that the distinction has now been reduced to vanishing point.
  It is not only the distinctions between duties which are tiresome nowadays but the phraseology of the categories of visitors is not satisfactory to the ordinary layman.
  He does not begin to understand that if one invites somebody to dinner in the ordinary social sense he is not one's invitee in law. The Committee came to the conclusion—we agree with it—that the test of the material interest of the occupier could produce odd and absurd results. There are plenty of examples in

  463
  the Report. I do not propose to weary the House with them.
  An easy example is the shop. If one goes to a shop to buy the goods one is an invitee. If one goes to the shop to ask the way one is a licensee. If one goes to the shop and sees something which tempts one to buy and one buys, one is an invitee. If one asked to buy something which is not in stock one becomes an invitee. One can go into a shop as an entrant of one category to whom the occupier owes a duty of care and one can come out being in another and owed another duty of care. It is a little artificial. The same Lord Justice has described this as the morass into which the law has floundered in trying to distinguish between licensees and invitees. One of the best textbook writers describe them as profitless distinctions—an epithet which is quite good if the House will not apply it to the legal profession or examiners in law.
  The Committee concluded that this distinction between invitees and licensees based on the occupier's material interest was untenable as a rational means of fixing upon the occupier a higher duty of care in one case and a lower in the other, and the Committee recommended, a recommendation we have adopted, that there should be substituted one uniform standard of care—the common duty of care owed to all persons who come upon premises at the occupier's invitation or permission expressed or implied. That duty the House will find in Clause 2 (2).
  It is followed in that Clause by some examples which are designed to prevent the courts from being fettered by old cases relating to the duty to invitees. I have to draw the attention of the House to two of them because they involve changes in the law. Hon. Members occupied with the law will recall the controversy which has raged for many years about whether the occupier's duty to the invitee is discharged by giving an adequate warning, or whether he has to make the premises safe.
  That was brought into some prominence by a case which the House will remember was lately decided by the House of Lords, where a workman was injured because he was working on an inadequate scaffolding provided by the defendant. He actually complained about it and it was
  464
  held that he could not recover because he had knowledge of the danger and appreciated its full significance although he had acted perfectly reasonably in going on with the job and had most certainly not accepted the risk willingly.
  It seemed a very hard result, and the Bill disposes of it by Clause 2 (4, a) by indicating that
  "…warning is not to be treated without more as absolving the occupier from liability, unless in all the circumstances it was enough to enable the visitor to be reasonably safe…".
  The next change is in Clause 2 (4, b). It has been held that the occupier cannot escape from his liability to a visitor for injury resulting from faulty work done by an independent contractor. If the proper test is the exercise of reasonable care by the occupier, as most people think it is, that is quite absurd. We can take the example of a hydraulic lift about the maintenance and repair of which the occupier knows nothing. It is entirely reasonable for the occupier to entrust that work to an independent contractor with technical skill and knowledge.
  If he does, the Bill enacts that
  "…the occupier is not to be treated without more as answerable for the danger if in all the circumstances he had acted reasonably in entrusting the work to an independent contractor and had taken such steps (if any) as he reasonably ought in order to satisfy himself that the contractor was competent and that the work had been properly done."
  Clause 3 deals with a case where an occupier of premises has a duty to people whom he is bound to admit to the premises as a result of a contract made with a person other than the visitor. Examples which one might choose are people who ride in a chartered aircraft where one did the chartering, or the case of the friend whom one takes to the theatre, or those many cases where the landlord remains in occupation of the means of access to some place let to a tenant, perhaps the forecourt to a shop Or the common staircase to a block of flats. It has been held with regard to people who are strangers to the contract of the occupier, for instance, visitors going up a common staircase in a block of flats, that the occupier owes the same duty to them as he does to the other party of the contract.
  That might have the unfair result of limiting people's rights under the general

  465
  law, by the terms of a contract of which they have no sort of knowledge at any time. That seemed to the Committee unsatisfactory and unjust, and the Government agree. Accordingly, we invite the House to enact by Clause 3 (1) that the occupier is to owe to such persons, entering in right of a contract to which they are strangers, the same common duty of care that he owes to all lawful visitors. He cannot, by contract, restrict or exclude the common duty of care, but if by contract he has taken on towards the other party to the contract obligations more onerous than the common duty of care, he can, by contract, prevent those applying to persons other than those who are parties to the contract.
  Clause 4 deals with a case of a landlord who has undertaken by the terms of the tenancy the obligation to maintain and repair the premises. The House will remember the difficulty here. He does not owe the duty to repair, which he has undertaken by the tenancy, to the tenant's visitors or to members of the tenant's family. All lawyers will recall an old case of 1906 where the wife of the tenant was injured because the floor was defective, at a time when the landlord was obliged by his contract of tenancy to maintain the floor. She was left wholely without remedy. She could not sue her husband, who was the tenant, and she had no right against the landlord. Everyone since has thought that to be an unfortunate result, although the decision may have been right. Certainly it was criticised by the Law Reform Committee. It was also criticised by the Leasehold Committee which reported in 1950, and, in effect, the Bill enacts that the landlord who has undertaken the obligation of maintaining or repairing under a tenancy shall owe a duty to such persons, as if he himself was the occupier of the premises. I am glad to say that this seems to concur with substantial justice and it avoids circuity of action.
  There remains to be mentioned Clause 5. This goes back to the contractual visitor, who enters on the premises because of a contract with the occupier which entitles him to do so. In such a case the nature and extent of the occupier's standard of care may be dictated by the express terms of the contract. If it is, then this Bill leaves it dictated by those express terms. However, there are many cases where the
  466
  contract is silent; the matter is left to an implied term and, as the law now stands, there are two separate standards to be distinguished.
  Broadly, in the case where a contract is one for the use of the premises, the occupier must have them as safe as reasonable care and skill on the part of anyone can make them. On the other hand, where the contract is one where the use of the premises is merely incidental to the main purpose of the contract, his duty is to take reasonable care that the premises are reasonably safe for the purposes for which they are to be used.
  Since there is an immense variety of such contracts, it is obviously difficult to say sometimes into which category the contract falls, and that is productive of uncertainty. The Bill has adopted a line of thought developed by the Committee by enacting that in such circumstances the implied term should, in effect, once more be the common duty of care. I think that is the right way to deal with the problem.
  I regret having to detain the House for so long at this hour but there was a great deal of matter to be explained, even in outline. I commend the Bill respectfully to the House as a useful step in the reform of the law, and I hope that the House will think it worthy of an unopposed Second Reading.
  8.52 p.m.
  Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas: After full and lucid explanation of the Solicitor-General, I need only detain the House a short time. We are in complete agreement with the right hon. and learned Gentleman, particularly with his observations about the substance of the Report of the Law Reform Committee and, indeed, about the way in which it has been presented. I am sure that the House is extremely grateful for such an amazingly lucid exposition of some very complicated law, and also for the strong and common-sense conclusion reached in the Report.
  As the right hon. and learned Gentleman indicated, this Bill deals with liability of landlords and tenants of premises for damage caused by the state of the property. The different kinds of persons with whom it deals are those who are lawfully on the premises, including, in particular, what the law calls invitees and

  467
  licensees. It does not deal with the case of trespassers, to which I will return before I sit down.
  In the case of the two main categories of people lawfully on the premises to whom damage may result, there are two criticisms with which we are in complete agreement. The first is the criticism of the distinction in definition between these two categories. The sceond is the criticism of the standard of care required from these two separate categories of persons.
  The first point, the distinction in definition between them, is that in the case of the invitee the test is not, as one would expect, and as the Solicitor-General pointed out, whether the person was invited to the premises or not. Far from any such commonsense definition, the test is whether or not the occupier of the premises has, of all things, a material interest in the purpose of the visit.
  The result is that if a person is invited to dinner and a crash occurs, in the case of the person invited to discuss a business matter or other, a higher standard of care is required than in the case of a person who is invited merely as a guest. That is contrary to all common sense, and we agree with the criticism made of this distinction between invitees and licensees.
  Then we have the different standards of care. I am not going into the definition of the different standards of care which has already been mentioned and can he referred to, if need be, in the Solicitor-General's speech. The ludicrous position of the development of the law is this. The law having spent years in making these distinctions between the invitee and licensee dependent upon the material interest upon the purpose of his visit, has then spent further years in whittling away the difference which it itself has made. At last we have got to a commonsense conclusion as the result of the Committee which was set up to consider the law about it.
  Complications which have been piled on complications are not merely limited to this ludicrous distinction between invitee and licensee. We have all sorts of nice questions, as: who is an invitee and who is a licensee? Take, for instance, a person legally entitled to use premises provided for the use of the public. Take
  468
  the classical case of a public convenience. One would have thought that in the case of a public convenience the local authority which provides it had a material interest in the public using the convenience for which it has provided and, therefore, that the person who gets there would be perhaps regarded as an invitee. But not a bit of it, he is regarded as a licensee.
  On the other hand, if a person is legally entitled to enter premises, such as a gas man, he is probably an invitee. If we have a person entering, under a contract, without any express reference in the contract to it, there seems to be a difference of view as to whether he is an invitee or a licensee. Certainly, if he is working in one part of the premises under contract and goes to another part of the premises not under contract, there may be a different standard applicable to him in the one case from the other.
  This is really a piece of cheeseparing in the law which makes the whole position ridiculous. The measure of reform, and the approach of the Committee to the reform proposed to this ridiculous position in which the law finds itself is, we think on this side of the House, altogether admirable. What the Report says, in page 22, and lays down as the principle, is that
  "…any measure of reform should aim at preserving real differences while removing useless complications. …"
  That must be a principle which would commend itself to everybody.
  It then goes on to consider the reality in these cases. It says:
  "…One and the same standard of care…should apply in respect to all persons lawfully upon his premises, for the duty flows from the circumstances common to all cases (i) that the occupier is in control of the premises and (ii) that the visitor is lawfully upon them."
  We certainly accept that principle on this side of the House, and we are happy at the way in which this has, in general, been carried out in the provisions of the Bill itself.
  There was a criticism by as great an authority as Mr. Justice Diplock, who made a dissenting report which certainly commands respect, disagreeing with the proposal put forward by the majority which now is the principle adopted in the Bill. He pointed out—and I think that lawyers particularly will have a great deal

  469
  of sympathy with his criticism—the danger of having a new series of rules defining compliance with a widely defined statutory duty. Here we have a widely defined statutory duty and we must all recognise that there is this danger of a new series of rules defining the general term and leading to what he refers to as refinements of the law.
  It is by that process of refinements that we have completed the circle in the present condition of the law and led from a ludicrous start to a ludicrous end. There is a similar danger in the Bill and it ought frankly to be recognised. We should all be obliged to Mr. Justice Diplock for calling attention to that danger, because it is conceivable that under the Bill as drawn there might be refinement upon refinement which would mean that we should simply be starting another ludicrous circle such as has been completed, before the Bill came into operation and with which the Bill is designed to deal. I am sure that, in view of the history of this part of the law, that danger will not, in fact, materialise.
  There are one or two criticisms, but I will limit myself to the main points that we wish to make. My hon. Friends with whom I have had an opportunity to discuss the Measure may wish to raise other points of detail and they may develop rather more fully than those which I merely propose to mention. It is as well to mention the main ones now.
  The first is that we are doubtful whether all persons lawfully on the premises are covered by the Bill. We certainly consider that it would be better to have that clearly established instead of having piecemeal references. For instance, to "invitees" and "licensees", as we have in Clause 1. As far as I can see, all persons lawfully on the premises are in fact, in one way or another, covered by the Bill, but it certainly would be helpful if we could have that rather more clearly established in the Bill itself.
  My second point is this. I mentioned earlier that I should refer to the question of trespassers. I wish to refer to trespassers in connection with children in particular. We are rather worried about the position of children trespassing on premises. When children trespass on premises we all know that they may become licensees in certain circumstances,
  470
  and when they become licensees then the duty with regard to them is higher than is the duty with regard to adults. A defect in the present system is that in deciding whether or not a trespasser becomes a licensee, the test which is applied is precisely the same for children as it is for adults.
  The matter has been set out very clearly in page 16 of the Report, in paragraph 30. We recognise the difficulties involved. We have considered this question in some detail. It is a matter to which we shall want to refer in more detail in Committee to see whether a method may be devised of dealing with what I think is generally recognised to be a difficulty and to try to provide a solution which I hope will be rather more satisfactory than the present state of the law.
  I will not mention other points of detail which we shall discuss in Committee and to which doubtless my hon. Friends will refer. We have often heard in the past judicial condemnation of Parliamentary legislation and, for Members of Parliament at any rate, it will be refreshing on this occasion to see, I will not say Parliamentary, but judicial condemnation of judge-made law. We all rejoice that on this occasion, as a result of what is largely a judges' Report, we have a solution put forward to put right this fantasy of judge-made law. It is put forward by the judges. It is accepted by Parliament and put forward by Parliament in legislation which, I hope, will not lead to any repetition of the difficulties.
  9.5 p.m.
  Mr. Charles Doughty: Although this Bill has been so properly well-received by the House, it makes fundamental changes in the law which I practised and learned in the same places as my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General and the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) and at the same time. I cannot part with the old law without one or two words of welcome for the new.
  Some criticism has been made of the judge-made law. That has evolved over many years and one judge has had to take up where the previous one left off. When a Committee, comprising a large number of judges, produces such an excellent Report as has been produced by

  471
  the Law Reform Committee, one sees how their minds would have moved had they started with the question de novo.
  We have that wonderful, theoretical individual, the invitee, with his first cousin, the licensee, who will be now wedded into one. In fact, they are exactly the same person upon different days and even at different minutes, and after the wedding has taken place they will be placed under the protection or definition of Clause 2. Here I wish to say how much I welcome Clause 2, but it raises a question of fact. We have to decide whether people who have been lawfully on the premises, and are occupiers, have carried out their duties as laid down by law. It would be interesting to know who is to decide that question. Is it a pure question of fact and not of law, and could we not have back the jury of twelve people to decide this question of fact?
  In the course of the last few years that jury for all practical purposes has disappeared in civil cases. I believe that this is a good occasion on which it could be reintroduced, so that this question, which is one of common sense, could be decided by twelve of our fellow citizens on every occasion.
  I am pleased to see that Clause 2 will reverse the decision in that very hard case to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General referred, the case of the workman who slipped off a plank, better known as Horton v. London Graving Dock. I was concerned in that case from the beginning right to the unsuccessful conclusion in the House of Lords, and I have always considered that it was a hard case, though no doubt correct in law. I am glad to think that if anything happens to a person in a similar position to Mr. Horton he will be almost certain to obtain the damages to which he is properly entitled.
  Clause 3 is a very wise Clause which makes technical changes in the law. Clause 4 places a much increased liability upon landlords. I would only say—and I am here straying from the legal form of the Bill—that I hope that somehow that point will be made from this House so that those who are landlords in the strict sense of the word or in the form that they have sub-tenants, may realise their liabilities and insure against them. Otherwise, a great many citizens of this
  472
  country will find themselves faced with liabilities which they will have difficulty in meeting, if they do not find it impossible to meet them at all.
  It is perhaps more of a Committee point than a point to be raised on Second Reading, but Clause 4 (6) makes somewhat of an exception and deals with the relations between the landlord and tenant. How is a person who suffers injury to know what is his position, unless there can be inserted some words whereby, when an injury takes place, he is entitled to have pre-trial discovery—I am here using loose words, and I am not suggesting the words of an Amendment—because otherwise it will be impossible for him or his advisers to know whether there is a liability on the landlord or not?
  I add my wish to those of the learned Solicitor-General and the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East that this Bill will obtain a speedy Second Reading.
  9.10 p.m.
  Mr. David Weitzman: I, too, welcome the Bill. I read with very great interest the report of the Law Reform Committee on which the Bill is based. I hope I can say without impertinence that it was undoubtedly an excellent piece of work by a very distinguished Committee.
  There is no doubt that the distinction between "invitee" and "licensee" was very artificial. That is well illustrated by the examples given in the Report. As the Solicitor-General has said, the law has now reached the stage where, from the practical point of view, the difference between invitee and licensee has largely disappeared, and it is only right that actual practice should be enacted in an Act of Parliament so that there may be no doubt in law upon the point.
  The Bill recognises that there may be a contract between the parties. Of course, in these cases, the rights are governed by that contract. The Bill recognises the right of an occupier when he admits anyone to his premises to restrict or exclude liability. The rights are governed by such an arrangement. It is in the main to cover the absence of such a contract or restriction that we have the provisions of the Bill. Surely it is right, when a person lawfully goes on premises and is not a trespasser, that the occupier should owe

  473
  a duty to him in regard to the state of the premises. It is reasonable to define that duty in the way in which it is defined in the Bill. It is:
  "to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises for 1he purposes for which he is invited or permitted by the occupier to be there."
  I understand that is the "common duty of care" as set out in the Bill.
  The Solicitor-General pointed out two important changes made in the Bill. One I welcome and the other I would dare to criticise. In regard to the first, as the law stands, if a visitor goes on premises and if there is notification of danger and a recognition of risk, the occupier is not liable for damages sustained. Reference was made to Horton's case, in which a man was engaged on repair work on board a ship and complained about the sufficiency of the staging. Despite promises to repair, the repairs were not effected and the workman was injured. The workman knowing the position went on working and it was held he could not recover. This was an obvious hardship. I am glad to see that that position is remedied by Clause 2 (4, a) under which a warning of that kind is not conclusive but has to be taken into account.
  I criticise Clause 2 (4, b), where an alteration is made with regard to the law affecting an injured person. The alteration affects his claim adversely. The Solicitor-General pointed out that as the law stands it is no answer to a claim for the occupier to say that injury was due to the faulty work of an independent contractor. The paragraph alters the law M regard to that. It is hard upon an injured person to say that the occupier shall not be liable because the fault is due to the work of an independent contractor. The injured person may be able to sue the independent contractor, but surely the better way is to leave the position as it is. After all, an occupier who is liable may well have his remedy against the independent contractor for the faulty work. I hope that this point will he looked at again to see whether the alteration is really one which should be effected.
  I am glad to see that Clause 4 does away with our old friend Cavalier v. Pope. Clearly, where a person lawfully enters premises and is injured because of a state of affairs due to the failure of the
  474
  landlord to carry out repairs, it is wrong that the right to the recovery of damages for injury should be restricted to that tenant. Even the wife or a member of the family cannot at present recover damages. The landlord must know that there is a wife or that there are members of the family who are on the premises and that other persons can come upon the premises. I am glad to see that the landlord is now made liable for injuries to such other persons for his default with regard to the state of the premises.
  I am a little doubtful about the effect of Clause 4 (3). As I read that subsection, it would mean that where a tenant lets premises to a sub-tenant and it transpires that it was unlawful for him to effect such a letting—possibly discovered many years afterwards—then if the sub-tenant is injured because of the failure of the landlord to carry out repairs the subtenant cannot recover. I should have thought that it is wrong to allow a landlord to escape liability for what after all is his fault. I hope that that will be looked into.
  I too am concerned a great deal about the position of children, particularly children of tender years. Where they are lawfully on premises, as in the long series of cases by tacit permission which made them licensees or otherwise, difficulty might arise in defining what is meant in Clause 2 by the duty to see that the child
  "will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the purposes for which he is invited or permitted by the occupier"
  to be on the premises.
  Suppose a child is lawfully on the premises and there is a machine or some chattel on the premises which constitutes an allurement and the child plays with it and is injured. Obviously, he is not "invited or permitted" to be on the premises for the purpose of playing with the machine. As a learned judge said in one case, the child is not invited, for example, to slide down the banisters. May this not lend countenance to the argument that those decided cases, where it has been held that there is liability for injury to children, particularly where there was an allurement, may, after the passing of this Measure, be held not to be good law?
  I appreciate that in Clause 2 (3) the draftsman has endeavoured to deal with the difficulty with regard to children. It

  475
  will be seen that in that subsection the words have been inserted:
  "an occupier must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults;"
  I venture to suggest that all the words inserted by the draftsman mean is that the duty there is to see that the child will be reasonably safe and to expect the child to be less careful, but does the subsection adequately cover liability for injury to a child in what may be called the allurement case? I personally have grave doubts whether the wording may not mean that many cases where the liability for injury to children has been recognised may not after the passing of this Bill be good in law.
  I confess to an unhappy feeling about the position of children in law as trespassers. Admittedly this is a difficult problem. The Committee considered this matter and recommended no change. I appreciate that that is a very strong view, but I cannot help thinking that the decision, for example, in the case of Edwards v. the Railway Executive was a very harsh one. That was a case of a boy of nine who got on to a railway line and lost his right arm.
  The evidence was that children from a neighbouring recreation ground were accustomed to break through the fence which enclosed the line. It was true that in that case the fence was repaired by the railway authorities when the break was observed, but it was held that the child could not recover because he was a trespasser. I recognise that it may be putting a heavy burden on a railway authority or other occupiers to hold them liable in cases of this kind.
  I feel that one ought to recognise, however, a very great difference between cases of accidents where adults are involved and cases of accidents affecting children. An adult may well know that he is a trespasser, whereas a child of tender years does not appreciate the position. Where there is the knowledge that children are in the vicinity and are likely to trespass, surely there is a case made out for greater care to be exercised in respect of those children by the occupiers than in respect of adults.
  There is the further possibility that there may be an allurement on the forbidden territory on which the child is a trespasser, and that may be a factor in
  476
  considering whether or not tacit permission to go on the land may be implied. There are cases with which I am sure the Solicitor-General is familiar, like Lynch v. Nurden and Donovan v. The Union Cartage Company, where a child climbed on a cart and was a trespasser; and in one case the claim for damages succeeded and in the other the child failed to establish liability.
  I appreciate how difficult the point is and I should not be venturesome enough to say that the Committee is wrong. Obviously it ought to be recognised that too hard a burden should not be placed on occupiers, but I am sure that a great many people have the feeling that as the law stands at present consideration of children as trespassers is a matter which needs investigation. I venture to suggest that the discussion of the Bill constitutes a good opportunity to look into that matter a little more closely to see whether something can be done to deal with the position of children.
  I have made certain criticisms and I hope that those points will be considered, but I join in saying what an excellent Bill this is. I, too, share the hope that it will have a very speedy passage on to the Statute Book.
  9.22 p.m.
  Mr. A. J. Irvine: I do not want to detain the House for long at this late hour. Most of the points have already been covered. I think that this is a very important Bill and on that I agree with the observations of the hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty). The task of the Bill, as I understand, is to strike a balance between the need for clarity and for getting rid of artificial distinctions on the one hand and, on the other, the need to take account of the innumerable varieties of liability which can arise in this branch of the law.
  The Bill thus sets about the very arduous task of trying to place upon the Statute Book a clear, comparatively simple and codified system of law which is to be applicable to great varieties of circumstances. I would respectfully express the view that, by and large, that is achieved by he Bill, but I would venture to make one or two reservations about the manner in which it attempts to achieve this object.
  The first reservation which I venture to make is this. Licensees and invitees

  477
  become visitors under the Bill to whom a common duty of care is owed. Less regard will have to be paid in future, therefore, to the category to which the visitor belongs. But as it diminishes the importance of the category to which the visitor belongs, the Bill, as I understand, enhances the importance of the purpose for which this visitor is invited or permitted by the occupier to be on the premises.
  I think that it is rather interesting that the purposes for which a visitor is on the premises is not treated in the Bill as a circumstance
  "… relevant for the present purpose …"
  under Clause 2 (3). It is contrariwise set out as a primary element in the duty of care referred to in the previous subsection. What does that mean? As I see it, it means that out of this Bill, when it becomes law, there will develop a body of case law determining "purposes" under Clause 2 (2) which will give rise to just as many refinements, and narrow—it may be artificial—distinctions as formerly characterised the treatment of the categories of licensee and invitee.
  The effect of this, of course, is important, because until this change in the law, once a visitor was placed in his appropriate category as an invitee or licensee there were clearly defined duties of care owing to these respective classes; but now, as I see it, there will be substituted for these two clearly defined duties of care to the old categories a veritable plethora of graduated duties, all within the scope of the common duty of care, but determinable by reference to the multitudinous purposes for which visitors are on premises. That general, and it may be thought somewhat venturesome, comment I would put forward as a reservation in the welcome that I give to the Bill.
  A second reservation is this. In paragraph 31 of the Report of the Law Reform Committee there is posed the question whether the conventional categories are exhaustive. My hon. and learned Friend mentioned this point, but I venture to refer to it again. In that paragraph the Committee appears to doubt whether the conventional categories were exhaustive. In view of this doubt which this very distinguished Committee has placed on the record, one asks why, under the Bill, "visitors" is a term
  478
  confined to persons who would be treated at common law as licensees or invitees. Why, in other words, is not the duty expressed to be owing to any person lawfully upon premises?
  As has been pointed out, a licensee on premises may become an invitee if his attention is attracted by something which the occupier has a material interest in his being attracted by. If he goes on to premises for purposes which it is explained to him are not regarded by the occupier as legitimate or proper, may he not then become equivalently something less than a licensee? I venture to think that, in view of the doubt expressed by the Committee, the Bill may err in confining the common duty of care to the two categories.
  My third reservation concerns the power of the occupier to restrict or modify his duty to a visitor under Clause 2 (1). He can do this "by agreement or otherwise". These words seem far too wide. One asks what is covered by the words "or otherwise". Can a warning notice modify or exclude the common duty? It is quite likely, I should have thought, that it can. The effect of "warning" is set out in Clause 2 (4) but, on the present wording of the Clause, it seems to me likely that the court will in many cases not feel free to get as far as a consideration of the effect of subsection (4). The court may well say that the notice modifies the occupier's duty initially by the effect of Clause 2 (1)?
  Another reservation that I would make is this. There was a recommendation in page 41 of the Report which dealt with the case of landlords remaining in occupation of the access to premises which were let. It covers the forecourt cases to which reference has already been made. The recommendation is that the landlord should owe the common duty of care to any third party lawfully using the access, unless a more onerous duty is imposed on the lessor by the tenancy agreement. I ask myself whether that recommendation is fully implemented by the Bill, and I very much doubt it. It will be said, I think, that it is fully implemented by the combined effect of Clause 3 (1) and (4). But in the vast majority of what we call the forecourt cases the visitors are licensees of the landlord. That, in general terms, is

  479
  borne out by the decision in the case of Jacobs v. L.C.C.
  On that view of the matter, one asks why the visitors to forecourts are not regarded as sufficiently covered by the general provisions of Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill. One is put on guard by the fact that this class of licensee is referred to differentially, as it were, and the wording applied to them appears to be limiting in its effect. The duty is declared in Clause 3 to be owing to persons whom the landlord is "bound to permit to enter". One asks why this is so.
  I have only two very short points further to put. There appears from paragraph 80 of the Report to have been some division in the Committee on the question to which my hon. and learned Friend has referred, whether the Bill should alter the law affecting child trespassers. It is rather interesting that this very important matter appears to have been the subject of divided opinion in the Committee. By a majority it was decided that the law should be left unchanged.
  The present position, as I understand, is that an occupier must refrain from any act calculated to do bodily harm to a trespasser, and this requires, as the Committee observes, no more than ordinary civilised behaviour. I ask the question which my hon. and learned Friend has just asked: is this a high enough duty in the case of a trespassing child in all circumstances? The presence of an allurement to children in a place accessible to them may aid the inference of an implied licence. There is case law supporting that proposition. One asks whether it would not have been well for this Bill to deal with the point. I think it would have been well if it had.
  The final reservation which I would express is this. In Clause 2 (5) reference is made to "risks willingly accepted." I doubt whether that will be found to be a sufficiently comprehensive treatment of
  480
  the class of case which, I think, the draftsman had in mind. It merely invokes the principle of volenti. I doubt very much whether the wording of it is apt to cover the cases of visitors who, having full knowledge of a danger, are in the position that they are not entirely free to avoid it. I have in mind the line of cases represented by Clayards v. Dethick and the recent case of Riden v. Billings & Son. It is, I think, very much an open question whether that short subsection covers sufficiently and aptly all that is required in that connection.
  Subject to these points of doubt, I join in welcoming the Bill.
  The Solicitor-General: I feel sure that the House will acquit me of discourtesy if I make no attempt to reply now to what are courteously called reservations to the welcome given to this Bill, for which I am very grateful to all hon. Members. I may, without discourtesy, call them Committee points. For my part, I look forward to discussing these matters in Committee, with a view to making the Bill, by our mutual efforts, as good a Measure as possible.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 38 (Committal of Bills).

  NURSES BILL [Lords]
  Read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. E. Wakefield.]
  Committee Tomorrow.

  NURSES AGENCIES BILL [Lords]
  Read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. E. Wakefield.]
  Committee Tomorrow.

  FATSTOCK (GUARANTEE PAYMENTS)
  9.37 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. J. B. Godber): I beg to move,
  That the Fatstock (Guarantee Payments) Order, 1957, dated 12th February, 1957, a copy of which was laid before this House on 14th February, be approved.
  The purpose of the Order is to give effect to tie new arrangements for calculating the guarantees for fat cattle, sheep and pigs when the next fatstock year begins on 25th March, about which my right hon. Friend gave some details to the House in November last year. Like the Fatstock (Guarantee Payments) Order, 1955, which it replaces, this is purely procedural. It does not state the price guarantees, nor does it define the classes of fatstock which they cover. These are matters to be determined in accordance with the 1947 Act and announced in the White Paper presented to the House following the Annual Review which is now taking place. The Order merely sets out the basis for calculating the guarantees and the general provisions as to certification and payment.
  Before I set out the main details of the new proposals, I think it would he helpful if I were to remind the House of the considerations which led to the change in the system. At present, the rates of payment are worked out for each four-week period, and they are the difference between the standard price for the fatstock year and the average prices realised in the market over the preceding 52 weeks—the "rolling" average. This method of calculation has been used since decontrol of meat and livestock in 1954, and, by and large, it has worked fairly well; but last year it did prove unable to respond sufficiently quickly to the abnormally sharp and sustained decline in cattle prices, with the result that many producers were losing money and the whole prosperity of this most important side of the agricultural industry was at risk.
  In order to set matters right and to avoid a substantial under-payment of the guaranteed price in the current fatstock year, it was decided to make a supplementary payment graduated in such a way as to give producers who marketed
  482
  at different seasons of the year an equitable return. The House will recall that we debated this matter last October when authority to make these payments was secured.
  At that time, my right hon. Friend made it quite clear that to prevent recurrences of that kind, the new scheme would have to respond more quickly to fluctuations in market prices. This means that the rate of guarantee will fluctuate from week to week to a greater extent than hitherto, but producers' returns as a whole will approximate much more closely to the standard price. That is important. We should understand that these fluctuations can take place far more readily than previously. On the other hand, it will work to the advantage of producers in that they will get a more realistic system and will know fairly accurately in advance how payments are likely to go.
  I am glad to say that the new system which is embodied in the present Order was the outcome of helpful discussions with the producers' organisations and that it has their full support.
  Briefly, the changes which are to be made are, first, that the standard prices for cattle and sheep are to be varied on a seasonal scale. I am sure that that will please my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin). Thus they will reflect variations in costs and marketing. The standard price for pigs, however, will not vary seasonally but will continue to be subject to adjustment for changes in feed cost, which account for over three-quarters of the total of pig production costs.
  Secondly, the weekly rate of payment for each class of fatstock will be announced in advance for each week and not for a period of four weeks, as at present; but in order that the guarantee payments shall be related as closely as practicable to current marketing experience, they will be calculated each week by reference to forward market trends as well as to recent actual market prices. The guarantee will be related to an eight-week period and the rate for any week will be the difference between the market prices—that is, four weeks' actual market prices and four weeks' estimated market prices—and, on the other hand, the standard price averaged over the eight-week period. The standard prices will be

  483
  announced after the Price review for the whole year.
  To guard against sudden and unexpected price movements, in any week, we shall adjust the rate of payment, if necessary, to keep the average return for the week within prescribed limits of the weekly standard price. These stabilising limits, which will take the place of the existing stabilising limits, will be much closer to the standard prices than at present. They will be determined after the Annual Review and will be announced, together with the seasonal standard prices, as soon as the Review has been concluded.
  I feel confident that the new guarantee system will be as well received by the industry as a whole as it has been by its leaders. It is designed to ensure not only that the average returns for the year will be close to the standard prices, but also that the returns in any week will not be far away from the standard price for that particular week.
  I commend the Order to the House. I do not wish to dwell on it at length, but if hon. Members wish to raise any points I shall be glad, with the consent of the House, to try to answer them. I commend the Order as a fair system, as a definite improvement on the previous one and as a system which has already been welcomed by the leaders of the farming industry.
  9.43 p.m.
  Mr. A. J. Champion: The Joint Parliamentary Secretary has, with commendable brevity, introduced the Order with some lucidity. It is a difficult matter to explain to the House, but he has done it in a short time in words which most of those who know something about the previous Orders will understand.
  I would say that this 1957 Order is better than the scheme that was introduced in 1954. It is better than the 1955 Order and it is better than the two Amendments of 1956, but that is not saying very much, because I still regard this fatstock marketing as a fairly considerable mess.
  Mr. Godber: It is getting better all the time.
  Mr. Champion: It might be getting better all the time. The trouble is that under the Tories, fatstock marketing has been set free—at least, I understand that that is what they are doing. We have got back to complete simplicity and in the doing of it we have done these things.
  We have set the standard prices for the collective guarantees. We have averaged our realisation prices and ascertained the producer's average return. We have introduced and abolished the individual price guarantee. We have introduced a lower and an upper guarantee limit. We have made stabilisation adjustments. We have made supplementary payments. We have fixed our guaranteed classes. We have our certifying officers and certifying centres. Now we are to estimate the price likely to be received in the four weeks commencing with the week in which the calculation is made. We have rolled our averages. We have rocked our farmers. And we have "socked" our taxpayers.
  That seems to me to be a fair description of what has gone on since 1954. I find all this just about as confusing as a meeting of the General Purposes Committee of the National Farmers' Union was to a farmer who attended it and afterwards, reporting his impressions to his local branch, said of it, "It was all minimum, maximum and optimum, so I said 'Sugar 'em' and left 'em." I feel very much the same about this procession of fatstock Orders with which this House has had to deal within the past three years.
  In the debate which the Joint Parliamentary Secretary mentioned, on the Order of 1955, the Minister seemed anxious to impress us that he was about to give birth to a really satisfactory scheme at last. This is it. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary seemed to take some pleasure in the fact that the Ministry had removed some of the difficulties. I remember pretty vividly—I was sitting on the opposite side of the House at the time—a crack by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) during the time of the Labour Government. He said it was the Labour Government who, for the first time in the history of this country, rationed bread, and that then they had the colossal cheek to take credit for abolishing the rationing of it.

  485
  I feel very much the same about this business of the Tories. The Tories created chaos in the marketing of fatstock, and now they seek to take credit for getting over some of the difficulties which there have been in all their schemes to date. It seems to me probable that they will soon be taking credit for clearing the Suez Canal they succeeded so well in blocking, de Tocqueville, the great French writer on American democracy, said:
  "The legislator has no more tedious task than to cure the evils which he himself has caused."
  The Minister must have had a pretty tedious time just recently, and so must the Government on that principle.
  The Minister never foresaw the wide movements of prices which took place and which, of course, made nonsense of the twelve months' average realisation price. Having failed to do that, he has had to bring in his amending Order in 1956, and now he has this scheme, the 1957 scheme.
  There are a few questions I must ask the Minister, having made those few opening remarks. The first is this. What is the cost of this scheme to be to the taxpayer? If the Joint Parliamentary Secretary attempts to reply to that he will be in no danger of anticipating the Chancellor's Budget, for the simple reason that he does not know what it is going to cost. Nor does anybody else; nobody has a clue to what the cost of this thing will be in the next financial year. It has been suggested that the National Farmers' Union is satisfied. Even if the National Farmers' Union is satisfied after these six years of trial and error, I very much doubt whether the taxpayer can be.
  The amount of the subsidy which will have to be paid out depends on all sorts of factors which are not within the control of the Government or of the taxpayer. They are, to some extent, within the control of the dealer, depending on whether his grip on the market has tightened or has slackened or on whether the rings have strengthened—and I again say that there are rings in this connection. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary's predecessor was rather inclined to pooh-pooh the idea of rings in auction marts and in fatstock marketing. He did not convince me, and I am sure that he did not convince the farmers who know that these rings exist.
  486
  Therefore, all depends on the dealers and how they get together and rig the market. It will depend also on the French buyer of cattle and fatstock, and on the Italian and Dutch buyer. To some extent, it will depend on the policy of the French Government and on whether they reimpose their 30 per cent. ad valorem duty. If they do, it will affect the amount which the taxpayer will have to pay out, because it will have repercussions on the price of cattle in this country.
  Has the Minister really satisfied himself that the system which is set out in the Order will ensure that this difference between the standard price, the stabilising guarantee and the average price, will not go to the dealer or in some form of subsidy to the French buyer? He ought to satisfy himself and the House on the point. I am positive that the taxpayer is prepared to ensure a prosperous farming industry, but in doing that he does not want to be paying out subsidies to all sorts of narrow groups and interests which, to some extent, are the hangers-on of this great industry.
  Does the scheme make provision for adjustments if the Minister's calculations, based as they will be in part on a guess as to the movement of prices over the next four weeks, prove a long way out? What will the Minister do about adjustments in that case? If he does not find some way of making them, the producer obviously will be done out of something which the Minister had hoped to provide for him. A Bill was introduced in the House today,
  "to make further provision for guaranteed prices and assured markets for producers of agricultural produce in the United Kingdom …"
  Will that Bill again mess about with fatstock marketing, or will this Order last for some little time?
  We on this side of the House are not opposing the scheme, but we shall watch with great interest this further attempt to clear up the muddle in fatstock marketing which the Government have created in the past few years.
  9.54 p.m.
  Mr. Sidney Dye: My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion) has indicated certain weaknesses in the Order, and those which preceded it, in relation

  487
  to the marketing of fatstock. There are, obviously, weaknesses in the Government's policy. It seems to be a policy of trial and error and then error and more trial in which, as my hon. Friend so ably said, the taxpayer has to pay for the errors and the farming community often has to suffer from them.
  This is essentially a weak scheme, judged against its purpose, which is claimed to be to ensure to producers of fatstock a fair price and a secure business. After all, here a long-term policy and scheme is most essential. If we are to produce cattle, it cannot be done on a year to year basis. When a scheme is altered half-way through the year, as was the present one, and when we do not know what will be the essential figures that will eventually be written into this scheme for the return to the farmers, it is not easy to say whether the scheme is a sound one. For fat cattle a long-term policy is essential, both for the price guaranteed and the facilities for handling the cattle through the markets and the slaughtering.
  Paragraph 9 refers to quality premiums, but nothing has been said about them. Is it intended that they should apply to fat cattle or will we continue, year after year, paying the same subsidy per cwt. for fat cattle irrespective of the grading? There is a system of grading A, B and C. The A's are supposed to be the best, but the C's get the same subsidy per live cwt. as the A's. Nobody going to the market knows which is A, B, or C, because all the graded cattle have a C put on them.
  At one time, there was one C or two or three, but under the economy system, each animal is given one C, so neither the buyer nor the seller knows at the time the grade of the animal. The Government say that the purpose of the scheme is to enable the producer to be rewarded according to the quality of his products. But when it comes to giving the subsidy, all those which are graded receive the same subsidy per cwt. up to a maximum figure.
  The outstanding weakness of the Government's system of fat stock marketing is that fewer and fewer farmers are sending their cattle to be graded at the markets. I noticed in the current issue of the Farmers' Weekly that at King's Lynn
  488
  market, on 26th February, there were 550 cattle, of which 59 were uncertified. Why were 59 uncertified and sold by auction as such? Were they rejected, or had the farmers no confidence in the scheme and preferred the price which the cattle fetched by auction without the subsidy being added, thus perhaps enabling somebody else to take the subsidy afterwards?
  This is important, because I have stood at our cattle auctions and have seen the animals sold. I have seen the rejected cattle come through the market and fetch a higher price than did the top graded ones. Why is that?
  Mr. Archer Baldwin: Because they do not carry a subsidy.
  Mr. Dye: That seems to be ridiculous. The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin), who is supporting the Government in introducing this Order, which provides for a subsidy, says that the cattle which are sold without a subsidy, because they are not good enough, should fetch a higher price because they will not get a subsidy. I have never heard anything more crazy in my life, nor have I seen anything so crazy.
  The poorest quality animals rejected by the graders are sold in the auctions at the highest price per live cwt. Why? The hon. Member for Leominster knows why, as does every other auctioneer, because it has been emphasised over and over again that these animals will not have their ears punched. In other words, the cattle which have been rejected in one market can be bought by a butcher or dealer, and either taken to another market where they will be accepted and where that person will then get the subsidy, or they can be taken to a slaughterhouse and the butcher or dealer concerned can then get the deadweight subsidy.
  Why is it that we have a scheme and graders, whose job it is to certify those suitable for certification and to reject others, yet the rejected ones are not so marked that they cannot be taken to another grader and be marked for certification? If, in the case of King's Lynn, out of 550, 59—rather more than 10 per cent.—are uncertified, there must be something wrong with the system.
  Here again, according to the Farmers' Weekly, I notice that at Norwich market, on 23rd February, there were no fewer

  489
  than 547 fat cattle graded but the uncertified ones, sold as fat cattle, were 174—a bigger proportion not being certified before being sold by auction. Of those that were graded, the prices are quoted as from 134s. for grade A to 150s. per cwt., but the uncertified ones are from 115s. to 163s. The same applied at King's Lynn market where certified grade A lightweights, that is, the best ones, ranged from 135s. to 150s. per cwt., and the uncertified ones from 128s. to 161s. per cwt.
  I suggest to the hon. Member that there is something wrong in a system where people will give a higher price for an inferior animal and be able to sell it at a profit, and who must be drawing the subsidy at a subsequent stage. I submit that if it is possible to do that to the extent indicated, there is a flaw in the whole scheme.
  I notice that the same thing happened at Chippenham and again at Exeter, as reported in the current issue of the Farmers' Weekly. We can see it in every market report in the local newspapers of the country. This has been going on for two and a half years and the Government have turned a blind eye to it. Why have they done that for so long? Why did not they safeguard the amount of money the public has to pay in subsidies? If it is based on a true system of certification, the Government ought to have stopped this other business long ago. I ask the Government whether they will stop it, and what is the intention of quality premiums referred to in Article 9. Do they intend, in the coming year, to give a higher subsidy per cwt. for better quality cattle, or are we to continue with the scheme as at present?
  I would also ask whether it is the intention of the Government to go on subsidising fat cattle for export. Cattle are going to our markets, being certified and purchased by foreign buyers for export to the Continent. Is that to continue? Is that part of the planned system, or is it something which just happens according to the whims or the wants of the purchasers from the Continent?
  We ought to know that, because I do not think that it was ever originally intended that the system of subsidy should be to enable people on the Continent to buy British subsidised beef. It is not a big proportion of our home produce and neither does it affect very much the
  490
  general average price of our home products. What, of course, affects the market price of our fat cattle more than anything else is the quantity of Argentine beef which is imported from week to week and month to month. That determines the price and the amount of subsidy which the taxpayer has to find.
  If only the Government would control imports of Argentine and other beef we could soon reduce the amount of subsidy which has to be paid under the fatstock scheme. With all the arrangements for prices and subsidies, we are hampered because we have not the proper facilities to deal with fatstock after it leaves the farm. We have not the proper facilities at the certifying centres, in the markets or the slaughterhouses.
  While we continue to build bigger and faster ships to bring Argentine beef to this country, the Government absolutely prohibit the expenditure of any money for the improvement of our markets or slaughterhouses so that a greater quantity of home-produced cattle can be properly handled and prepared for the housewife.
  The Government are preventing the proper handling of our home produce and not letting the consumer have the better quality article at a reasonable price. We have not got the proper facilities, but we are enabling the shipping companies and the importers to modernise all their equipment and thus import more meat with greater efficiency than the home producer can apply in sending his meat to the consumer.
  10.7 p.m.
  Mr. Archer Baldwin: Before I deal with the Order itself, I should like to say a few words about the remarks of the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye). Although he is a farmer, he obviously does not know much about market conditions. Let me deal first with the question of uncertified cattle which make more per hundredweight than those which are certified. It is obvious that it should be so. The taxpayer has not paid any subsidy on those cattle which are not subsidised. They are not earmarked, and the result is that the cattle which are not accepted for slaughter can be bought by farmers who will feed them up to the stage when they will be entitled to bring them back to the market and get the subsidy and be earmarked.

  491
  If the hon. Gentleman likes to compare prices when uncertified cattle are in the market on the same day as store cattle, he will find that the store cattle and uncertified cattle make £2 to 50s. a hundredweight more than fat cattle. If cattle are not punched they can still get the subsidy if they are made sufficiently good. The taxpayer does not pay twice but only once—when the cattle are certified and punched. The hon. Member tried to raise a mare's-nest.
  Mr. Dye: Surely the hon. Gentleman does not say that the selling of rejected cattle marked with a cross at a higher price than graded cattle can be a mare's-nest? He knows that this has been going on for quite a long time and that the people who purchase are the people who draw the subsidy.
  Mr. Baldwin: The hon. Gentleman does not understand. A beast marked with a cross in the market is not certified. Therefore, it can be bought by a farmer, taken away and fed until it reaches a condition in which it will be certified, when it will get the subsidy and be punched. That is the point.
  The hon. Member spoke of the sale of subsidised cattle to the Continent. A very small number is concerned, but this export has this effect. Although some of the cattle are subsidised when they are sold to the Continent, this export helps to raise the price of cattle in this country, and, therefore, the taxpayer is not called upon to pay quite such a big deficiency payment as he would have had to pay if the cattle had remained on the market here and thus lowered the price further.
  There is also the question of imported cattle, and I was interested to note that the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West would take steps to regulate the imports. I suppose he would achieve that by a quota. But the obvious result of limiting the importation of Argentine beef into this country would be to raise the price of beef to the consumer. Is that what the hon. Member is advocating?
  Mr. Dye: We could not get it any higher than it has been during the last twelve months.
  Mr. Baldwin: Argentine beef has been coming in at a low figure and the hon.
  492
  Member desires to limit the importation of Argentine beef, so that, obviously, the consumer would have to pay more.
  I have a better solution; certainly it is better from the point of view of the taxpayer. I would put a tariff on imported beef so as to get some money into the "kitty" to enable the Treasury to pay out more to the farmer by way of a guaranteed price. If it is worth while to send the beef to our market, let the Argentine producers pay a toll for the privilege.
  I wish now to say a word about the Bill. I am glad to hear that the rolling average has been abolished. Some of us can claim that we attacked that system from the start. It has been said that the producers' representatives are satisfied with the present arrangement, but that does not necessarily mean that the present arrangement is right. The producers' representatives agreed with the 52-week rolling average which resulted in an absolute muddle, and it was not possible for the Government to pay the guaranteed price to the farmer on a single occasion.
  Although we have done away with the 52-week rolling average, we still have the rolling average on the month that has gone by, plus what somebody guesses will be the figure for the month ahead. The job of the producer is enough of a gamble today without having that added to it. It is not much use taking up the time of the House talking about this tonight, because this Order will be passed and we shall have to see how it works. But, for the life of me, I cannot understand why the fatstock deficiency payment is not dealt with in the same way as the wheat deficiency payment.
  When he fetches his wheat out of the harvest fields in the autumn and stores it, the farmer knows approximately what price he will get for it in the months that lie ahead. If he holds it until the spring, he can get £4 to £5 per ton more than was the price when he put it in the silo in the autumn. He knows approximately what he will get when he sells. If he sells in the period of two months, the average price of sales during those two months will be decided, and the deficiency payment will be paid to the man who sold his corn in that period. It is not based on what someone guessed

  493
  would be the price for the next month, or on what the price has been for the month which has passed. It will be based on actual receipts, and I do not think we want anything better than that.
  I know that it has been said that producers representatives have agreed to this proposed system, but I have some contact with farmers, with people who may be termed the "rank and file" farmers. I guarantee that if one spoke to half-a-dozen of them at market and explained to them what this Order really means, they would agree that the wheat scheme is a much better way to deal with it than going by guesswork. I shall be interested to see what will be the effect of this Order.
  May I remind my hon. Friend of the prices for the month after Christmas compared with the month before Christmas. Had this scheme been working at that period, it would be interesting to note what the people who have to make guesses about prices for the months ahead estimated would be the price for January. Anyone in the trade knows that the price for January went sky-high compared with that for December. I am sure that if any of us had been making a guess at the price for January we should not have put it at anything like the figure which it proved to be. Some consumers will not be paid what they are entitled to.
  I would ask my hon. Friend how he will deal with this guaranteed price? Is it to be a seasonal figure for each week? Is the farmer to be told weeks ahead what the guaranteed price for his produce is to be? He will want to know for his meat, as he knows for his wheat, what figure he will get if he produces his beef at a certain period of the year. It would be much better if the guaranteed price, agreed at the Annual Price Review, were split up, perhaps into monthly or two-monthly seasonal prices, ranging from £6 in the autumn, which is the low cost period, to £8 or £8 10s. at the end of the winter, when it costs very much more money to feed the cattle.
  If the farmer knows that, he can put the cattle into the yards to feed them, and he knows what price to give for his store cattle before he starts to feed them. He will have a little knowledge of what he is going to get. If the price is not dealt with on a yearly basis the farmer will not
  494
  know from week to week what he is to get. It would be much better, when the guaranteed price is arranged, for the seasonal average to be spread throughout the year so that farmers would have some idea of what they will receive.
  I want to take up a point made by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion), who raised the old bogey about rings in the market and so on and so on. He knows perfectly well that farmers need not bring one single beast into the market and face any ring. All they need to do is to send the beasts to the Fatstock Corporation and get paid for them on a dead-weight basis. The hon. Member can take that bogey clean out of his mind and not let us hear about it again. If there is all this ringing going on in the market, it is strange that the markets have got any cattle at all.
  The hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West made another statement which is completely wrong in saying that nothing had been done in the improvement of markets and slaughterhouses. Hundreds of thousands of pounds have been spent on markets and slaughterhouses in the last twelve months. In my county town, Hereford, we have a market which is something of which we can justly be proud. It has cost about £70,000. To say that markets and slaughterhouses have not been improved is absolutely wrong. The improvement is going on all over Britain.
  Mr. Dye: There is a complete embargo on any new scheme to build a market. I have been to the Ministry of Agriculture only today with a deputation from East Dereham, which wants to improve its market. The scheme to which the hon. Member refers was approved long before the credit squeeze.
  Mr. Baldwin: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. The Hereford Markets Committee spent this money, and the market has only been opened about two or three months. It has just been completed. If gentlemen in the part of the world represented by the hon. Member are not up to getting their markets improved it is about time they woke up.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): I have been very generous. Hon. Members are going very wide of the Order now. The present discussion has nothing to do with the Order.
  Mr. Baldwin: I thought that if a point was raised in debate the speaker following was entitled to reply to it. That remark was made in the debate, and I have just replied to it.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The point has been fully replied to now.
  Mr. Baldwin: I hope it has been effectively replied to. I will not take up the time of the House any longer. I shall watch this scheme very carefully. My hon. Friend must not mind if I criticise him at some future date if I find the scheme is all wrong.
  10.20 p.m.
  Mr. Godber: I am sure that we are all grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin), who has very much lightened my task by the very adequate replies that he has made, in many respects, to the questions that have been put to me.
  However, I shall try to fill one or two of the small gaps which are left. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion), after his opening gambit, which I shall not bother to go into—it was good, clean knock-about stuff, and I do not complain about it—asked when he got down to the real question, the cost of the scheme to the taxpayer. He immediately followed that by saying that, of course, I could not answer it, so he will not expect me to do so; but in fact the estimated cost of the fatstock scheme over the year just ended was £74 million in the form of subsidy. There is no reason to believe that under this system it would be any higher than under the previous system.
  Mr. Dye: We had a Supplementary Estimate.
  Mr. Godber: We had a Supplementary Estimate, but I think it is not very much greater for fatstock than the original Estimate.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Leominster dealt with some vigour with the question of rings. I would remind hon. Members opposite that when we first allowed fatstock through the markets again my right hon. Friend made it quite clear that the markets would be watched throughout the country and that if in any the price was artificially low—below the average over the country—there would be risk of their losing their licences and
  496
  being unable to operate. That is a fairly strong safeguard to ensure that in any particular market there is no system of rings which would artificially control the price. We keep a watch on these things and, in addition, animals could go for dead weight through the F.M.C. I think that there are two useful safeguards there.
  As to the subsidy going, as I think the hon. Member said, to the French buyer, we should be clear that the very large bulk of animals which have been exported to the Continent have, in fact, been old fat cows, which, of course, carry no subsidy whatever. Admittedly there have been a few cattle, but a very small proportion, which have carried a subsidy. In the main, they have been overweight cattle for which there is small demand in this country. The Exchequer has been helped by the fact that they have been taken off the market. Otherwise, they would have depressed the market more and made the total subsidy payment greater. Therefore, I do not think that there is anything wrong from the economic point of view, although, from the humanitarian point of view, we are looking into that question very carefully and a committee is considering it.
  The hon. Member mentioned the new Bill which is coming along. He asked whether it would "mess about with fatstock marketing". I think those were his words. The new Bill will be available to hon. Members tomorrow morning. I cannot comment on it very much, but I do not think that the hon. Member need have any fears about it. Briefly, it will implement the White Paper of last November and there is nothing to harm the position. He should be well satisfied with it.
  The hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye) asked a number of questions, most of which have been answered by my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster. He said that a long-term policy is required for cattle and I could not agree more. It is a very long-term project if one is to fatten cattle. I should say that the new long-term guarantees that we have given will be of great assurance to cattle breeders. I hope very much that they will encourage breeders to go ahead with their plans.
  The hon. Member also mentioned paragraph 9, dealing with quality premiums. That is there in case we should wish to

  497
  introduce anything of this kind; it makes it possible for us to do so. I cannot say much more on it at the moment, but, clearly, it is done so that at some stage we could follow the point he raised about improving quality.
  The hon. Member gave the House a number of details about King's Lynn and Norwich markets. I shall gladly look into those, but these cattle are, in many cases taken away and fattened on by other breeders.
  Mr. Dye: I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not think that, because it is not so.
  Mr. Godber: I should have thought that it was true in some cases, but, as I have said, I will see whether there is any substance in it. We have been keeping a fairly careful check and my advice is that there is very little abuse.
  Mr. Dye: Surely those which are rejected as being unsuitable should be marked as such. Will the Minister consider that?
  Mr. Godber: Surely the farmer has the right to take them away again and improve them by fattening on in such a way that they can be offered again. No subsidy has been paid. That method will produce a better article for the consumer in the long run and I should have thought it was reasonable.
  The hon. Member wishes to control Argentine imports, but I think we must get the question of Argentine imports in proper perspective. The imports from the Argentine are still substantially below what they were before the war. The consumption per head of beef in this country is only slightly above what it was before the war and it would be wrong to deny to the consumer an adequate supply of beef. We want to safeguard our home producers, but we must also think of the consumers, and in that respect it is important to keep these imports in proper perspective. While Argentine imports are only two-thirds of the pre-war figure, it is not reasonable to do what the hon. Member suggests.
  The hon. Member also asked about expenditure on slaughterhouses. We hope in due course to introduce a Bill on slaughterhouses and we are anxious to go ahead with a scheme for the whole country. When the Bill is introduced, I
  498
  think that the hon. Member should be satisfied on that point. We are very conscious of the need for improvement in slaughterhouse facilities all over the country and we will certainly do what we can in this respect.
  In addition to answering points from the other side of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster raised one or two points of his own. He was anxious to see a tariff on imported beef. I think the same argument applies as that which I have used to the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West, but it is a matter which we shall keep constantly under review, and, if need be, we can certainly look at the position again.
  My hon. Friend wanted to introduce the same system as that used for the wheat deficiency payment. I think we must get this straight. In fact, that system would not be advantageous for fatstock. There are several reasons why it is not so good, and I will mention one or two of them very briefly. First, producers would have to wait until the end of the guarantee period for payment to be made, and for some of the smaller producers that would be a real burden. The actual rate of the guarantee payment would remain unknown until the end of the guarantee period, and uncertainty about the size of the payment might have a seriously disturbing effect upon the market, especially the market in store cattle.
  Further, uncertainty about the rate of the guarantee payment would put at a disadvantage those organisations which trade on a grade and deadweight basis; it would be unfair for us to differentiate in any way in our payments against one particular method of sale. For these reasons and for others, too, I do not think that we can introduce the system for which he asked.
  My hon. Friend also asked me about the weekly standard prices and wanted to know whether they would be available for the year ahead. The answer is that as soon as the new figures are published after the present price review is over, weekly figures will be published for the whole year ahead, but it must be remembered that we shall take the average of eight weeks for the purpose of arriving at the rate of guarantee payments. I

  499
  think it will be fairly easy for producers to understand, and I do not envisage any real difficulty. I have tried to deal with the questions that have been asked and to which I hope I have been able to give adequate answers. I therefore ask the House to pass this Order.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Fatstock (Guarantee Payments) Order, 1957, dated 12th February, 1957, a copy of which was laid before this House on 14th February, be approved.

  TREASURE TROVE, CONGLETON (EXHIBITION)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. R. Thompson.]
  10.31 p.m.
  Air Commodore A. V. Harvey: I am indebted to Mr. Speaker for allowing me to raise on the Adjournment this matter concerning the finding of eighteen gold coins at Congleton. It was on 12th September last year that a Mr. Machin, while carrying out alterations to his house, found these eighteen gold coins in a wall at 12, Moody Street, Congleton. The find caused great excitement locally, and the following day the coins were handed over to Mr. Lionel Head, Editor of the Congleton Chronicle, who obtained confirmation of their value—something like £300.
  On 24th September, twelve days later, Mr. Head received a letter from a Mr. Thompson, Curator of the Grosvenor Museum, Chester. I will not bore the House by reading the whole letter; I will just read two extracts from it. In the letter Mr. Thompson said:
  "Although I cannot commit my museum, I feel sure that we ought to make efforts to secure at least two of the coins here."
  He went on to say that if the coins should be declared treasure trove, Mr. Machin would have a note of their feelings and would perhaps bear them in mind when a decision was taken about the disposal of the coins. He concluded:
  "I have not the slightest wish to usurp your own claims to any that you may like to acquire for display in Congleton itself, and no doubt we can come to some amicable agreement."
  500
  A very friendly letter, and if it had been lived up to all would have been well in Cheshire. But it did not work out like that. It seems to me that, in the first place, Mr. Thompson had no objection to splitting the find for his own benefit. Secondly, he recognised that Congleton had a valid claim to some of the coins, and, thirdly, he mentioned his intention to secure the help of Mr. Dolley of the Department of Coins of the British Museum.
  Then the story goes on to 10th October, when an inquest was held by Mr. Daniel, Her Majesty's Coroner, at Congleton. The coins consisted of seven James I "Laurels" and eleven Charles I "Unites". They were declared to be treasure trove and taken and seized into Her Majesty's hands.
  After the inquest, the Mayor and Mr. Head talked with Mr. Thompson, who said nothing at all about acquiring all the coins for the Grosvenor Museum. On the contrary, he offered to help secure some of the coins for Congleton. They were then in the hands of the British Museum which would help as to their disposal.
  On the same day, 10th October, the Mayor wrote to the Treasury—before my hon. Friend took over—and to the British Museum about the disposal of the coins. On 15th October, Mr. Walker, Keeper of the Department of Coins at the British Museum, replied that if the coins were not kept by the British Museum they would be sold to a local museum. He said:
  "No doubt I can arrange for this to be done in your case."
  There is a little ambiguity about this. Unfortunately, I have not got the letter in question, but on 23rd November, having heard nothing further, the Mayor again wrote to the Treasury. My hon. Friend deals with the letter in a more expeditious manner than happened in the autumn. On 8th December, Mr. Head, the Editor of the newspaper, and Mr. Hibbert visited the British Museum and were actually shown the coins. They were told by two officials—I have not got their names—that there was nothing whatsoever to prevent Congleton acquiring some of the coins. I am sure that Mr. Head would not have put this into writing to me if it had not happened. It

  501
  was said that it would be a shame if the borough did not have any.
  Again, on 12th December, the Treasury wrote that the coins to be sold were to be sold to the Chester Museum in order to keep the find intact:
  "When the transaction is completed and the coins handed over, then we suggest that you should approach Chester who, we feel sure, will give sympathetic consideration to your request."
  The Mayor of Congleton followed up by writing to the Mayor of Chester to ask for two or more of the coins to be sold to him for display in Congleton. On 30th December, having received no reply from Chester, he wrote also to the British Museum, offering to buy them all for Congleton, and saying that the money was available by public subscription to enable this to be carried out.
  Mr. Thompson telephoned the Mayor and said that all the coins were to be bought by the Grosvenor Museum for £180, and that the money was to be raised by public subscription, including a donation from the Victoria and Albert Museum. He further said that none would be sold to Congleton because, in the first place, to sell two would spoil the find, and in the second place, if dispersed, the coins would not be available for examination by numismatists.
  Incidentally, there are many such coins in the British Museum, so there is no shortage of these valuable coins. He also said that Chester wanted them all for a Civil War Museum which it was forming in the King Charles Tower there. I should have thought that if they wanted them there they could have borrowed them for a special display, or at least some of them, but they wanted the lot. He said that they had changed their minds about letting Congleton have any of the coins.
  The Mayor of Congleton then wrote to the Mayor of Chester asking for his fraternal co-operation, and the Mayor of Chester replied saying that he would put the matter to the Museum Subcommittee. On 6th January, the Mayor of Congleton wrote a letter to Mr. Walker at the British Museum voicing a strong protest at his action, and received from Mr. Walker a letter on 10th January rejecting the protest because Congleton had no rights in the matter.
  502
  Congleton is not big—it has an electorate of some 15,000 or 16,000—but it is old. It received its charter in 1272, and the people there have a great pride in their civic affairs. It seems to me that they have had a very raw deal and very rough treatment, at least at the hands of Mr. Thompson of Chester, who gave it in writing that he saw no objection to Congleton having some of the coins.
  In his letter, Mr. Walker said:
  "There is nothing in the Treasure Trove Regulations stating that a find must be sold in its entirety, and, in fact, in most cases of Treasure Trove the coins are sold in lots to various museums that are interested, though in many cases it is advisable to keep a hoard intact."
  I understand that. In fact, one of the reasons put forward for the refusal is that there are no facilities at Congleton where the coins could be safely displayed. If that is so, why did Chester offer to loan the coins, or some of them, to Congleton for three or six months? It would be a risk. It is said that Congleton has not a museum. It is true that Congleton is not a rich borough, but it has a public library with adequtae facilities, and there is a small museum attached. Or the coins could be put in the town hall and secured in the safe over night. The money is available to purchase at least four coins, as I have already stated.
  I may say that an ancestor of Her Majesty lived in Moody Hall, opposite the small house where the coins were found, and there is good reason why some of these coins should be on show in the borough. I see my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) is present. I do not know whether he would like to give me the benefit of his support. It would be a great help if the two boroughs were to get together to bring this matter to a happy conclusion.
  We do not want to quarrel with Chester about this, but there is great indignation among my constituents. Petitions are being prepared—I do not know if the people know what happens to petitions when they get here—and I would not be bringing this matter to the House unless my constituents felt very strongly indeed. I hope that my hon. Friend will go some way to see if this matter cannot be adjusted.
  10.40 p.m.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. J. Enoch Powell): My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey) has set out the salient dates and facts in this rather remarkable history of the Congleton hoard of gold coins of the early Stuart period, and there is no need for me to go over that ground again. He has told the House quite correctly that this hoard was found by Her Majesty's coroner to be treasure trove and, therefore, its ownership to vest in the Crown. It was, therefore, clear from that moment onwards that the finder, the borough in which the coins were found and the county in which they were found, had no claim of right upon them but that the ownership vested in the Crown.
  There is a settled mode of procedure in these cases of treasure trove of hoards of coins, and that is that they should in the first place be offered to the National Collection, the British Museum. I think probably no hon. Member would doubt that that is the correct and reasonable course. If, however, the National Collection does not find that it needs to add the treasure trove to its own collection, then its advice is followed by the Crown in disposing of the treasure.
  In this instance it was the advice of the British Museum that the collection should be offered as a whole to the Grosvenor Museum in Chester, and the grounds given for that advice were that in this case—clearly it does not happen in all cases—it was desirable that the hoard should be kept together for purposes of research, that the fact of which coins had been found together in these circumstances could be of historical and numismatic importance. They therefore advised that in this instance the collection should not be broken up but that it should be sold entire to a local museum, the Grosvenor Museum in Chester, which already has an important coin collection.
  I feel that my hon. and gallant Friend would agree with me in saying that in a
  504
  matter like this the Crown must obviously be guided by expert advice. I am no numismatist, and my hon. and gallant Friend is no numismatist, and we cannot say whether the advice in this case was sound and that the hoard should be kept as a whole. But clearly in these matters the best expert advice must be followed, and it was the best expert advice that it was desirable that the collection as a whole should be kept together and, preferably, in the County of Chester in which the hoard had been found.
  It is in those circumstances that these coins which were found in Congleton in September last have passed into the ownership of the Grosvenor Museum, Chester. I am sorry if at any stage misunderstanding has arisen between the British Museum and the civic authorities of Congleton, either as to the advice which the Museum would tender, or as to the position in regard to treasure trove. But we have to take the position now as we find it, and that is that the hoard is the property of the Grosvenor Museum.
  My hon. and gallant Friend urged me to do what I could to bring this matter to a happy conclusion. Clearly there is nothing which I can do directly, since the coins are no longer the property of the Crown but have been sold to the Museum in Chester. But I would make this suggestion, that it surely should not be impossible for the museum in the county town to find some way of reasonably satisfying the very natural wish of the inhabitants of Congleton that they should be able to see either some or all of the coins which in such curious and remarkable circumstances were found in their own borough. So, although Congleton has no claim of right in this matter, I would hope that a happy conclusion would be arrived at by an amicable agreement between Congleton and the Grosvenor Museum.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at a quarter to Eleven o'clock.

  ISRAEL (BORDER INCIDENTS)
  ISRAEL (BORDER INCIDENTS)
  BRITISH PRISONS (FOREIGN PRISONERS)
  BRITISH PRISONS (FOREIGN PRISONERS)
YEMEN
  U.S.S.R. Policy
  U.S.S.R. Policy
  Talks
  Talks
UNITED NATIONS
  Cameroon Petitioners (Travel Documents)
  Cameroon Petitioners (Travel Documents)
  Cyprus
  Cyprus
  EGYPT (SUEZ CANAL)
  EGYPT (SUEZ CANAL)
  NUCLEAR TESTS
  NUCLEAR TESTS
  CHINA SEAS (BRITISH SHIPPING)
  CHINA SEAS (BRITISH SHIPPING)
ATOMIC ENERGY
  Explosions (Radioactivity)
  Explosions (Radioactivity)
  Calder Hall (Security System)
  Calder Hall (Security System)
MALAYA AND SINGAPORE
  Loan
  Loan
  Incident, Negri Sembilan
  Incident, Negri Sembilan
  Reid Report
  Reid Report
  Synthetic Rubber
  Synthetic Rubber
  Manpower Requirements
  Manpower Requirements
  Constitutional Developments
  Constitutional Developments
KENYA
  Detective Inspector Brian Haylett
  Detective Inspector Brian Haylett
  African Industrial Estates Development Committee
  African Industrial Estates Development Committee
  Register of African Electors
  Register of African Electors
NIGERIA
  Soviet Publications (Import)
  Soviet Publications (Import)
HONG KONG
  Society of Technical Civil Servants (Registration)
  Society of Technical Civil Servants (Registration)
SIERRA LEONE
  Mining Areas (Development)
  Mining Areas (Development)
  Public Servants (Salaries)
  Public Servants (Salaries)
ADEN PROTECTORATE
  Yemen Border
  Yemen Border
TANGANYIKA
  Mombasa-Kilindini (Port Developments)
  Mombasa-Kilindini (Port Developments)
  United Nations General Assembly (Resolutions)
  United Nations General Assembly (Resolutions)
NORTHERN RHODESIA
  Secondary School Places
  Secondary School Places
BRITISH GUIANA
  Disturbances (Commission of Inquiry)
  Disturbances (Commission of Inquiry)
  Air Services
  Air Services
  Statutory Minimum Wages
  Statutory Minimum Wages
  Demarara Bauxite Company (Housing Areas)
  Demarara Bauxite Company (Housing Areas)
WEST INDIES
  British Caribbean Federation
  British Caribbean Federation
  Bauxite Industry
  Bauxite Industry
GIBRALTAR
  Visit of Duke of Edinburgh
  Visit of Duke of Edinburgh
CYPRUS
  Constitution
  Constitution
COLONIAL TERRITORIES
  Students (United Kingdom)
  Students (United Kingdom)
  United Nations Manpower Survey
  United Nations Manpower Survey
MAURITIUS
  Constitution
  Constitution
MALTA
  Talks
  Talks
SHIPBUILDING
  Clyde Graving Dock
  Clyde Graving Dock
  Steel Supplies
  Steel Supplies
  Shipyards, North-East Coast
  Shipyards, North-East Coast
  Londonderry
  Londonderry
ROYAL NAVY
  H.M. Dockyard, Portsmouth
  H.M. Dockyard, Portsmouth
  Admiralty Property Holdings
  Admiralty Property Holdings
  Pay and Allowances
  Pay and Allowances
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Kiosks, Birmingham (Northfield)
  Kiosks, Birmingham (Northfield)
POST OFFICE
  United States Mail (Delays)
  United States Mail (Delays)
  King's Cross Station (Facilities)
  King's Cross Station (Facilities)
TELEVISION
  Licences, Harlow
  Licences, Harlow
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Requisitioned Land, Lindsey
  Requisitioned Land, Lindsey
  United States Air Force (Greenham Common Base)
  United States Air Force (Greenham Common Base)
  Airmen's Families, Germany (Hospital Treatment)
  Airmen's Families, Germany (Hospital Treatment)
ROADS
  Severn Bridge
  Severn Bridge
  Penrith-Carlisle Road (Accidents)
  Penrith-Carlisle Road (Accidents)
SHIPPING
  Limitation of Liability (Draft Convention)
  Limitation of Liability (Draft Convention)
CIVIL AVIATION
  Rhoose Airport (Wenvoe Television Mast)
  Rhoose Airport (Wenvoe Television Mast)
MINISTRY OF POWER
  Motor Fuel Rationing
  Motor Fuel Rationing
  GHANA (MEMBERSHIP OF COMMONWEALTH)
  GHANA (MEMBERSHIP OF COMMONWEALTH)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Livestock Auctions
  Livestock Auctions
  Strawberry Runners (Quality)
  Strawberry Runners (Quality)
EDUCATION
  Local Authorities (Grants)
  Local Authorities (Grants)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Greyhound Racing
  Greyhound Racing
  Members' Salaries
  Members' Salaries
  Private Brewers' Licences
  Private Brewers' Licences
  United States and Canadian Line of Credit Agreements
  United States and Canadian Line of Credit Agreements
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Diphtheria (Immunisation)
  Diphtheria (Immunisation)
MINISTRY OF SUPPLY
  Civil Defence (Expenditure)
  Civil Defence (Expenditure)
MINISTRY OF WORKS
  Building and Civil Engineering Works
  Building and Civil Engineering Works

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

FUEL RATIONING AND RAILWAY TRAFFIC
2.35 p.m.
LORD FORBES: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government (1) if an estimate can be given of the increase in the amount of freight carried by British Railways since fuel oil rationing commenced; and (2) what steps the British Transport Commission have taken, or propose to take, in an effort to try to keep a high percentage of the increased freight from reverting to, and once more overcrowding, the roads with heavy lorries when fuel oil rationing ends.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (LORD MANCROFT): My Lords, British Transport Commission estimate that the freight receipts of British Railways have recently been about 11 per cent. greater than if the downward trend prior to fuel rationing had persisted. British Railways have continued to negotiate as much new business as possible on a basis designed to offer permanent attractions. With this object they have entered into long and medium term agreements in respect of a considerable quantity of traffic on terms giving significant commercial advantage to their customers. Apart from negotiation of rates, British Railways have in a variety of ways given assistance to traders who have had transport difficulties as a result of fuel rationing. For example, they have introduced new train services and arranged other additional facilities. Throughout, the aim has been not only to carry more traffic but to carry it to the customer's satisfaction and thus to show traders who
256
have not previously relied on rail transport what the railways can do for them.
LORD FORBES: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. I am glad to hear that the railways are carrying more freight. With regard to the second part of my Question, would the noble Lord state whether the British Transport Commission are going to adopt the D.A.F. container, which would mean that more freight could be carried by rail, as this would cut out double handling and provide a door-to-door service?
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, before the noble Lord answers that question, will he also, if he can, be a little more specific on something to which he referred in general terms? Could he say what steps have been taken to eliminate the delays in transport which have been very much complained of in the past?
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, in answer to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, I understand that some units of the D.A.F. container have been brought over from the Continent for trial on British Railways, but no final decision has been reached because of the number of alternatives into which the Commission are still making inquiries. In answer to my noble friend Lord Saltoun, I think I can say that in the main the railways have coped with the increased traffic well and expeditiously. Where dissatisfaction has been expressed, this may, I think, be because the traffic is not really suitable for rail. I am sure that British Railways themselves would be the first to admit that there is still much room for improvement.
THE MARQUESS OF WILLINGDON: Is the Minister aware that deliveries from station to place of residence have been reduced to once a week in the area served by Ascot station, and that deliveries to the Windsor Forest area have ceased altogether from Windsor station?
LORD MANCROFT: I am not aware of that particular case, but now that the noble Lord has informed me of the facts, I will look into it.
LORD FORBES: I thank the noble Lord for his reply, which indicates that some progress is being made in the right direction.

SECURITY COUNCIL DECISIONS
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in their opinion, the Security Council can make a valid decision on a substantive matter notwithstanding the absence or abstention of a permanent member; and whether any ruling on the point has been given by the United Nations or the Permanent Court of International Justice.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF GOSFORD): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government accept the established practice according to which the absence from the Security Council of a Permanent Member is not equivalent to a negative vote on a substantive matter by that Permanent Member under Article 27 (3) of the Charter. The Government also accept the practice which considers the absence of a Permanent Member in the same light as an abstention by a Permanent Member. There have been rulings to this effect by Presidents of the Security Council. The matter has not been considered by the International Court of Justice. I would remind Your Lordships that in 1950, when the Soviet delegate absented himself from discussions on the complaint of aggression on Korea, the decisions taken by the Council in June were upheld as valid by the other Members of the Council.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I beg to thank my noble friend for that clear Answer.

THE JAGUAR WORKS FIRE
2.40 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will take steps to prevent the use of patent metal roofing material of the kind which recently assisted the rapid and uncontrollable spread of fire
258
at the Jaguar works, Coventry, and led to the destruction of property valued at three million pounds and an unexpected heavy loss to our export trade.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (THE EARL OF MUNSTER): My Lords, the investigations into the fire at the Jaguar works are not yet complete. It would therefore be premature to draw any conclusions about the relative importance of the various factors which may have caused the fire to spread. Without minimising the importance of the problems which have been raised by this fire, I cannot say more at present than that when the investigations are concluded my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing will be prepared to consider, in consultation with other Ministers, whether any sufficient grounds are disclosed for considering some amendment of the model building by-law which mentions the use of metal roofing material of the kind in question.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his Answer, I must say that I find it rather unsatisfactory. The noble Lord does not seem to appreciate either the importance or the urgency of this matter. Is he aware that lire losses in this country are running at the rate of £50 million per annum, and that a substantial percentage of these have been aided by roofing material of this kind? Is he aware that the very big fire during the war at the Temple sorting office, over ten years ago, was attributed to the use of material of this kind; and that the largest industrial fire which has ever occurred in the world, at the General Motors Works in America, which caused damage to the extent of no less than £8 million, was largely aided by the use of this metal roofing covered with tarred bitumen material? Is he aware, further, that the Fire Protection Association, which represents the fire offices, the great insurance companies, in their latest bulletin attribute the great extent of the fire at the Jaguar works to the use of a bituminous-covered roofing of exactly the same kind? Does he not think that, in the light of all these considerations, a case has been made out for a very urgent consideration of this problem in order to save these really enormous sums of money, £50 million a

259
year? I am not saying that the whole of this loss is due to causes of this kind, but it is quite obvious that a substantial amount is. This particular bulletin refers to several other fires which have occurred in the same sort of way as that at the Jaguar works.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I am aware or not aware, as the case may be, of all the points which the noble Lord has adumbrated, but I still think that it would be advisable in this case, without going to our friends in the United States of America, to complete our inquiries into the fire at the Jaguar works; then I shall be able to report, I hope with some success, and some comfort to the noble Lord.

AIR CRASH IN BERKSHIRE
2.44 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, may I ask Her Majesty's Government the Question of which I have given them Private Notice: Whether they have any statement to make about the crash of the Beverley transport aircraft when attempting to land at Abingdon R.A.F. station, which resulted in such tragic loss of life?
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, shortly after 11 o'clock yesterday morning a Beverley from the Royal Air Force Station, Abingdon, crashed near Drayton, about two miles from the airfield. The aircraft, which was bound for Malta and Cyprus, had taken off a few minutes before, but had reported engine trouble, and was returning to the airfield. The dead included three members of the crew, with twelve officers and airmen flying as passengers, and two civilians in the house which was demolished. The two remaining members of the crew, one other passenger in the aircraft, and two civilians were injured. A Board of Inquiry has been convened and assembled this morning. I know that your Lordships will join with me in expressing sympathy with the bereaved and the injured.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, may I first of all associate myself personally with the noble Lord's expression of sympathy? I feel sure that noble Lords will appreciate the tragic circumstances, which are personal in this matter. May I associate my noble friends on this
260
side of the House with the expression that the noble Lord has made? And may I ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the fact that the airfield at Abingdon is situated in a built-up area with over 30,000 inhabitants, which is rapidly growing, and is therefore quite unsuited to the purpose for which it is used at the (present time, they will end all flying from this airfield forthwith?
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, although I fully sympathise with the noble Lord's personal interest in this matter, I cannot go so far as to agree with him. He will bear in mind that the crash occurred after the aircraft had been airborne for about eighteen minutes, and there are no airfields in this country which are so isolated that, given a similar set of circumstances, a crash on houses would not have been possible.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, in view of the consternation and the terror-striken atmosphere which has been created among these 30,000 people to whom I have referred, who are waiting to see whether it is to be their turn next, may I ask the noble Lord whether, until some inquiry has been made and some fresh consideration has been made of this problem, he will not suspend flying?
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, arising out of the question that the noble Lord has just asked, I would ask whether, before we consider any question of closing the aerodrome, the Minister could say what is the safety record at Abingdon, and whether it is not a fact that there has been no accident for a considerable number of years? Furthermore, in view of the fact that this aircraft had been in the air for eighteen minutes, is it not possible that a similar accident in landing could have occurred with this aircraft at one of dozens of aerodromes, had the pilot selected an aerodrome other than Abingdon?
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I agree with the remarks just made by my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye. I do not, of course, want in any way to prejudge the results of the inquiry which is now taking place, but on the evidence available it is not intended that the aircraft should be grounded. Air Ministry accident reports do not show the full details of accidents at Abingdon before 1951. Since 1951, however, there have

261
been no accidents at Abingdon involving civilian casualties, but there has been one accident, before the introduction of the Beverley, which caused certain damage to civilian property.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I do not want to pursue this tragic subject. I did not ask that the aircraft should be grounded, as the noble Lord has said: I asked whether the airfield could be closed. The noble Lord is as well aware as I am that: the aircraft crashed on returning to the aerodrome, and was only about 1,000 or more yards away when it crashed in a thickly populated area. Is not the reply to the question that it only needs an accident like this to happen once in a thickly built-up area for the results to be so tragic? Is not once enough?
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I hope that, because I am not giving the Answer the noble Lord wants, he will not accuse me of any lack of sympathy or of appreciation of the feelings which he and his neighbours must entertain as the result of this disaster; but I do not honestly think that what he wants would really be of any help to anybody.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, how long is this inquiry going to take? If, as I gather, it is to be treated as urgent, it cannot take very long. Cannot some assurance be given to the local population by suspending flying from that aerodrome for that comparatively short time? Then we could consider the report of the special inquiry.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, the Board is sitting now, and I hope that it will carry out its work as expeditiously as possible. I do not think the noble Viscount would like me to prejudge the matter in any way. No doubt the Board will come to a conclusion. In the meantime, what I have already stated must stand.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, in view of the fact that a large number of Amendments have been put down to the Homicide Bill, it has been arranged through the usual channels that the House will meet tomorrow at two
262
o'clock, and also that the Committee stage of the Magistrates' Courts Bill will be taken on Tuesday, March 12, instead of to-morrow.

TAXATION AND PUBLIC EXPENDITURE
2.50 p.m.
LORD COLERAINE LORD COLERAINE rose to call attention to the level of taxation and public expenditure, and its effect upon the condition of the people; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am glad to think that there is no real conflict between the Motion I am moving and that which stands on the Order Paper in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, "to call attention to the present economic and financial situation." The experience of the noble Lord in these matters, and his understanding of them, is so much wider and so much deeper than my own that I should not like to enter into a condition of competitive co-existence with him about them. I feel that I might fare badly in the competition, and even my existence might be in some jeopardy. That, I think, applies to competitive co-existence in every sphere There is an inevitable relationship between the burden of taxation, the level of public expenditure and the general economic situation. It is really impossible to discuss the economic situation without reference to taxation and public expenditure, and it is certainly impossible to discuss taxation without reference to our general situation. The noble Lord perhaps might attach less importance to taxation as a factor than I do—I regard it as probably the dominant factor at the present time—but still I am sure that he would not altogether ignore it.
May I say at once that it is not my purpose this afternoon to elicit from Her Majesty's Government any statement of policy. I realise that at the present time, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be opening his Budget within a very few weeks in another place, it would be quite impossible for the Government to make any such statement. May I say, too, that it is not my purpose to criticise Government policy. In so far as any criticism is implied in what I have to say it is more in the nature of self

263
criticism. I mean that we are all involved, Government and Opposition, Minister of the Crown and private citizen. The plain fact of the matter is that for ten years past we have been swept along in a kind of orgy of inflation, which at one and the same time has increased the burden of taxation and made it easier to bear. How often have we heard Ministers, not only Ministers of this Government but Ministers of previous Governments, when they got into difficulties, saying, "Things are not so bad, and, after all, we are having these difficulties only because we have been so prosperous." My Lords, that is not the judgment of statesmen; that is the judgment of drunkards. It is precisely like saying, "The only reason that I feel badly this morning is that I had such a wonderfully good time last night." Indeed, there is a very close analogy between inflation, as we have had it over the past decade, and acute alcoholism. In both cases the condition of the body deteriorates and in both cases the patient himself feels much better than he really is.
As I say, it is not my purpose to seek a statement of Government policy. It is not my purpose to criticise Government policy. It is simply to consider, as objectively as may be and as impartially as may be, the effect of taxation at its present rates and at its present rates of progression, and the effect of public expenditure, which is the concomitant of that, upon the present condition and the future prospects of the British people.
My Lords, it seems to me that we stand in this country now at a very critical moment of time. It is rather like when the American settlers came to the continental divide. They had left the Atlantic watershed behind them and they were faced with an unknown country ahead, with unknown difficulties, unknown dangers, and, as it turned out, unknown opportunities, too. What we have been accustomed to think of as the post-war period has, I believe, come to an end. It came to an end with the events of last autumn. I think we all recognise that, in greater or lesser degree. And what we are looking forward to now is a future that is quite new. I would say that the main characteristics of the
264
post-war period, which, as I say, has ended, have been a great and welcome increase in the production of British industry and a remarkable and equally welcome rise in the general average standard of the life of the British people.
Now there is more than one factor, I think, which accounts for these favourable developments. There has been a radical redistribution of wealth through taxation. There has been full employment, which has meant that there have been many more hands available for production. There has been the necessity to repair all over the world the ravages of the war. And there has been, too, through a great part of the period, an absence of normal competition in overseas markets. All this has been accompanied by a chronic inflation, which has created great hardship and savage injustice among some of the most valuable sections of the community, and which has exacerbated and made more intractable a recurrent balance of payments problem.
When we look at the new landscape that is opening up, what can we discern? The inflation may be under control now, but I think he would be a rash man who would say that it was permanently under control. We have averted the last balance of payments crisis, but he would be a very rash man who would say that in twelve months' time, eighteen months' time, there will not be another. At the same time, the favourable factors which operated in the post-war period are not operating to-day with the same effect. It is not possible really to conceive that anything further can be done for the standard of life of the British people by a further redistribution of wealth. It is not possible to think that there can be any extension, in present circumstances, of full employment. Every man's hand, every woman's hand, is fully employed at the present time. There is virtually an end of post-war reconstruction, and day by day we are conscious of an increase in competition in international markets. In other words, the unfavourable factors seem to be persisting while the favourable factors are losing much of their effect.
There are evidently great difficulties ahead of us, but there are great opportunities too. Yesterday in this House the noble Lord, Lord Mills, developed the Government's new programme for atomic

265
energy applied to industrial uses. That alone might transform the outlook for our people in a few years' time. Then there is the European market and the free, trade area associated with it. That, too, might make an almost unbelievable transformation in the prospects, not only of the British people, but of the Western world as a whole.
Now I do not believe that we can develop atomic energy, as the noble Lord, Lord Mills, outlined the policy yesterday, without a reduction of the burden of taxation. If we try to develop it with the same burden of taxation, I do not see how we can escape another violent inflationary impulse. Nor do I see how we can possibly compete in a free trade area in Europe under the present rates of taxation. The proposition I am submitting to your Lordships this afternoon is simply this: that we can neither overcome the difficulties which face us nor seize the opportunities which are open to us unless the burden of taxation is reduced; and that means, of course, unless the level of public expenditure is reduced, too.
It seems to me that an industrial economy like our own depends mainly on two factors—human energy and the tools which are at the disposal of that energy for its use. In other words, it depends on incentives and investment. The economy of any industrial country—for example, the United States of America—depends on precisely the same factors. If we compare our position with that of the U.S.A. we see that they have there a higher standard of living, much higher real wages and much greater political influence. Of course, they have resources that we have not got. They have population that we have not got, and that makes a vast difference. But there are other countries with equal population and equal resources which do not enjoy the same standard of living or the same real wages as are enjoyed by the people of the United States of America—Russia, for instance. There is more involved here than just resources and population.
First of all, I believe that there is a deep psychological difference in the attitude of the average American and that of the average Englishman towards wealth as such. The American bases himself upon Ambition. If he can get ahead, it does not concern him that others get
266
ahead too—perhaps even further ahead than he. The Englishman of these days seems to base his outlook not upon Ambition but upon Envy. He is far too inclined to ask, not, "What am I going to do myself?", but rather, "What is that other fellow doing and how can I stop him from being better off than I am?" The Leader of the Parliamentary Labour Party has more than once asked: how can one expect people to work harder when they see others so much better off than they are themselves? That is not the American attitude.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? Can he give the reference for the statement from the Leader of the Parliamentary Labour Party from which he has just quoted?
LORD COLERAINE: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot give the noble Lord the reference now, but I could find it very easily and I will try to find it in the course of the debate; but I am quite sure that on more than one occasion the Leader of the Parliamentary Labour Party has evinced sentiments of that kind. I believe there is this deep psychological difference between the United States of America and ourselves, but there are two very great practical differences: there is far more investment in the United States and there are far many more and greater, personal incentives. More use is made of energy and of the tools which are at its disposal.
I should like to recite three brief facts which I have recently culled from the newspapers. One is that the horse-power at the disposal of the American worker is 2½ times that at the disposal of the British worker. The second fact is that the International Longshoremen's Association recently settled for a basic rate of 2·80 dollars an hour; of course, their earnings would be at a much higher rate than that. The third fact is that a Mr. Harlow Curtice, who, I believe, makes motor cars, had in the year 1954 a net tax-free income of more than £40,000. I believe these three facts, which seem to have no relation to each other, to be very closely connected. If it were not for the personal income of men like Mr. Curtice, and hundreds of others like him, there would not be at the disposal of the American worker 2½ times the amount

267
of horse-power that there is at the disposal of the British worker; and if there were not that amount of horse-power at the disposal of the American worker, then it would be quite impossible for the International Longshoremen's Association to secure a basic rate of 2·80 dollars an hour. I believe that is something on which we might ponder.
There are these two factors in our economy—incentive and investment. I believe that in practice it is only through the savings of individuals or of companies that we can accumulate the reserves which are necessary for investment. After all, investment is not just a matter of a number of gentlemen sitting round a board table and deciding what they shall do. Investment ultimately is, and must be, the withdrawal of present consumption from present production in order to invest for the future. And I maintain that taxation to-day makes it really impossible for either individuals or companies to put aside for investment sufficient of their present production. So far as companies are concerned, income tax and profits tax are both very high. There is, additionally, the tax on undistributed profits which I believe is self-defeating. There are, in most cases, inadequate, sometimes grossly inadequate, depreciation allowances.
I said a moment ago that I believed ultimately savings could come only from individuals or companies, and I know that many people (I dare say some noble Lords opposite) believe that savings for investment can come through Government action by the accumulation of a Budget surplus. I admit that, as a theory, it is perfectly watertight: if the Government take away from other consumers, whether individuals or companies, purchasing power, and if the Government do not themselves expend that purchasing power, there will be a margin for investment. But though the theory is absolutely watertight, though the theory is mathematically perfect, it breaks down in practice, and it does so because these islands are inhabited not by digits but by human beings. If the Government, for whatever noble purpose—whether for defence or for social services or for investment—take more than a certain proportion of the national product, the consumer reacts. Especially does he react in a time of full employment. He demands higher wages,
268
and he gets higher wages. All you have done by seeking to create a Budget surplus is to give another boost to the inflationary spiral.
I have spoken about investment, about the tools which we use, upon which so much of our prosperity depends—what about incentives? And there, again, is it not worth while looking at the United States of America to see what happens there? I instanced the case of Mr. Harlow Curtice with his £40,000 a year net income. But it is not only he and people like him who are more comfortable in the United States; the working man with his £40 or £50 a week is more comfortable too. And in quite a number of industries, in quite a number of parts of the United States, earnings of that order are not uncommon. The young professional man and the young manager as well have wonderful opportunities.
I should like just to give the House a few figures bearing on comparative rates of taxation in the United States and in this country. It is a little difficult to be precise, because the comparison depends very much on what rate of exchange you select. My comparison is based on a rate of 2·80 dollars to the pound—the official rate of exchange. I think that that is probably an unfair comparison, because it takes too much account of the difference in the standards of life between America and this country. On the other hand, if you take a rate of 5 dollars to the pound the result would not be very different, but the equation, I think, would still be at fault the other way. On a basis of 2·80 dollars to the pound, then, the man with £3,000 a year in this country has £950 taken from him; in the United States he has £444 taken from him. A man with £4,000 a year in this country has £1,550 taken from him; in the United States he has £670 taken from him. A man with £8,000 a year here has £4,400 deducted; in America, he has £1,880 deducted. I am speaking of a married man with two children and earned income in both cases.
The superiority of the United States, as I judge it, in this respect, is emphasised and underlined by the range of income which I have selected, because that is the range of income of younger management, the young man who is just coming up into management, who is going to assume new responsibilities, who is going to get

269
ahead and carry his business with him. I believe that these figures are immensely important, not only for what they state but for what they imply. And what they imply is not just that real salaries are higher in the United States but that real wages are higher as well. It is a truism that there are no such things as bad troops; there are only bad officers. I think it is probably equally true that there is no such thing as a bad workman; there is only bad management. The level of real wages, I believe, depends at least as much, and probably more, upon management than upon collective bargaining. Collective bargaining can affect, and does affect, wages in monetary terms. But very often it leaves real wages no better. All management, whether it is good or whether it is bad, can and does affect real wages.
But it is not only the burden of taxation which acts as so great a disincentive in this country; it is injustice, too. What justice can there be in surtax beginning to-day at a level of £2,000 a year? The theory of surtax is perfectly well known; it is the theory of progressive taxation, which probably we all accept in greater or less degree. The theory is that at a certain level a man becomes a rich man and, therefore, he can contribute considerably more than his less fortunate fellow-citizen. But consider that figure of £2,000 in terms of to-day's values and in terms of pre-war values, even in 1938. What we are seeing to-day, in effect, is that the surtax level begins not at £2,000 a year but at something like £600 a year, because that is the value of £2,000 a year to-day in terms of pre-war when surtax was invented.
Then there is the question of the earned income allowance. The basis of earned income allowance is that earned income is worthy to be admired and has a social purpose; unearned income, on the other hand, is not so admirable and of doubtful social value. I do not take that view. But that is the general basis of earned income allowance, as I understand it. If that is so, why in the world should earned income be socially valuable up to £2,200 a year (or whatever the figure is) and then suddenly become something despicable and objectionable?
Another injustice is the way husband and wife's income is treated here. It is treated quite differently in the United States. A wife nowadays has property
270
distinct from her husband because that is thought to be her right. Why in the world does she not have income distinct from her husband? Then there is the question of education. Why should a man who is beneath the surtax line have an able son educated at the university at the expense of the State, whereas a man with £2,100 a year, however able his son may be, is required to educate him at his own expense at the university?—and in present circumstances cannot do so because he cannot afford to do so. Surely there is no kind of reason or justice in that.
I believe that these two factors, the burden of taxation and the plain and obvious injustice of much of our present taxation system, have a profoundly debilitating effect, which is becoming progressively more marked. I am not expressing an opinion: I am stating a fact, and it is a fact that is reflected in certain trends in the present emigration figures. I am not against emigration. I think it is of value to the world and to this country that a proportion of the best British people should go abroad to other parts of the world, but if that is carried too far, it can be a disturbing symptom; and it is a very disturbing symptom to-day.
Perhaps your Lordships saw in the Observer, a month or so ago, an inquiry into the attitude to emigration of undergraduates at Cambridge University. The inquirers took a sample of undergraduates in their second year and in their final year. They found that more than 11 per cent. had definitely decided to emigrate and that a further 27 per cent. were actively considering emigration. An important element was that of that total, 44 per cent. were science students—in other words, just the kind of men we can least afford to lose. In the great majority of cases, the cause of this decision was given as lack of incentives and high taxation.
That is confirmed by some statistics that have been furnished to me by the professional institutions. Last year, of the new entrants to the Institution of Mechanical Engineers—that is, of young qualified men—more than 10 per cent. left for the United States and Canada; of entrants to the Institution of Electrical Engineers, 5½ per cent.; of those to the Institution of Production Engineers more

271
than 11½ per cent., and of those to the Royal Aeronautical Society, 121 per cent. More than one-tenth of those upon whom we are going to rely for the development of atomic energy, for the development of aircraft and for the development of defence by guided missiles and so on, are leaving this country because they find conditions here unjust and intolerable. A day or two ago, my noble friend Lord Home said in your Lordships' House that he considered these alarmist reports exaggerated. I do not believe that these reports are alarmist: I do believe that they are extremely alarming.
I said at the beginning of my speech that I did not expect a statement of policy from Her Majesty's Government. I must add to that comment that I cannot advise them on their policy. Sometimes my mind goes back to 1940. I knew in the early summer of 1940 that this country had to be defended, but I did not know how it was going to be defended. I know to-day that public expenditure has got to be controlled and that the burden of taxation has got to be reduced, though I cannot say how it will happen. All I can say, with a feeling at any rate of assurance, is what will happen if this is not done. Much more is at stake than any question of prosperity or living standards. I believe that free society itself is at stake. I believe that our Parliamentary institutions are at stake. For far too long in this country economic policy has been a matter of bargaining between politicians of all Parties and voters of all classes, whereby the voters sell their votes to politicians; and the price they are paying, though they do not know it, is their future. I am certain that, unless we pull ourselves together, democracy as we know it, Parliamentary government, must come to an end. It has happened before. It has happened elsewhere. It could happen here, and it could happen soon. I beg to move for Papers.
3.27 p.m.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My Lords, we have had a very interesting speech from the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, and we are greatly indebted to him for inaugurating this debate to-day. He will not expect me straight away to attempt to deal with many of the suggestions which he brought forward in the
272
course of his speech. Perhaps I may be permitted to say this. A great many of the things he said, of course, are non-controversial: that taxation is very high; that it is important that people should save, and that it is only people who have got any money who can save. All that is perfectly true. But he also said a great many very controversial things which, were the debate to confine itself to the points he raised, would have to be debated quite hotly between one side and the other. For instance, he purported to quote from my right honourable friend the Leader of the Labour Party. He did not quote his words—no doubt he could not have done so on the spur of the moment; but it is not fair to make a statement alleged to be the statement of a prominent man without producing the actual words, because, at best, what the noble Lord said was an inference which he drew from some statement made by my right honourable friend. I venture to think, speaking from knowledge of my right honourable friend, that he never would have made the statement attributed to him, and in those circumstances I think that it would be rather better if accusations of that kind were not made.
LORD COLERAINE: My Lords, may I say to the noble Lord that I stand in error for not having brought the reference with me? I believe that what I said represents what the Leader of the Opposition did say, but I will check the point, and if I find out that I am wrong I will unhesitatingly withdraw it before the end of the debate.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord, but I do not think that that quite covers the position. I think that a statement of that kind ought not to be made without quoting the actual words, because it is certainly not the sentiment of my right honourable friend. I have never known him to suggest that one man ought not to save because some other person is getting too much money. I think that is quite foreign to the views of the sensible politically minded people in my Party and those of us who sit on this side of the House naturally resent a little that the imputation should have been made. I do not want to press it too far, but I thought I should point out the fact.
There was one other thing which the noble Lord said on which I should like

273
to comment. He said that companies, owing to the heavy taxation to which they were subject, could not be expected to save to cover capital expenditure. It is all a matter of degree. In the figure that I have here for 1955, so far as I can understand it (I have only just had this piece of paper handed to me), no less than £1,496 million, representing undistributed profits of companies, was being saved to provide capital for the future. I am not going to suggest that the amount could not be more, still, but that is a considerable sum.
I would remind the noble Lord also that a large sum of savings is contributed every year by people in the lower ranges of income tax. I have said in this House—I think I said it on the last occasion that I spoke on finance—that it is most important that the people in the lower ranges of income should be encouraged to save more; and, to that extent, I am fully in agreement with the noble Lord. But even as it is, they do save a great deal—last year I believe that these smaller savings amounted to over £100 million. The noble Lord must remember, too, that a great deal of the savings of what are called the "working classes" go into building societies when these people are buying their own houses. Although I should not disagree with some of the things the noble Lord said, perhaps he would think again about the generalisations he has attempted to draw from some particular facts which he ventured to lay before your Lordships. With those remarks, which are naturally rather inadequate, I want now to turn to some wider aspects of the financial question.
Your Lordships will have noticed that I have a Motion on the Order Paper which goes a little further than the Motion of the noble Lord:
"To call attention to the present economic and financial situation; and to move for Papers."
I put it down because I thought that in this debate we might as well cover the wider aspects of finance, and I thought that your Lordships would allow me to develop some other aspects in addition to that which the noble Lord has so interestingly put before your Lordships. With a view to taking part in this debate, I have read through the latest Government publication in January last called Economic Trend, and I have also read a number
274
of other statistical and economical papers, as no doubt many of your Lordships have done.
My conclusion—and I think in all probability it is the conclusion of a number of other noble Loads who have travelled the same road—is that not a very clear picture emerges from a study of all these papers. Whether we look at production, the state of trade, the rates of exchange, the gold reserves, the level of prices, the standard of living, or whether we direct our attention to the peril of inflation, the feeling is neither one of complete satisfaction nor of utter dissatisfaction. I should describe the degree of prosperity in this country at the present time as middling. If, as I believe to be true, we have in a sense stagnated during the last year, we have not appreciably gone back. If we have not entirely solved and scotched the germ of inflation, we have at least checked the more violent forms of the disease. Now that we have leached, and perhaps passed, the nadir of our fortune, it seems to me that the time has come to consider which of all the nasty medicines the Government have compelled us to swallow in the last year were really necessary, and how far they have contributed to our prospect of recovery.
Before I come to that, however, I feel it incumbent on me to say a word or two—and I promise your Lordships I shall be brief—on how far the doings of the Government or, perhaps I should say, of the late Government have aggravated cur difficulties. There is no doubt that the Suez action, whether it was right or wrong, wrought immense damage to our economy. It upset the carefully estimated calculations made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the Budget; it ran down perilously the gold and dollar reserves; it bumped tie exchange value of sterling along the bottom of the gold points; it compelled the Chancellor of the Exchequer to go hat in hand to the United States Congress, who sent him empty away. It is necessary to mention these things, because no account of our present difficulties would be complete without them. Further, it is not possible to disentangle the effects of Suez from the general effects of the financial policy of the Government. But, Laving said what I have on this matter, I do not propose to develop the argument any further.

275
I return, then, to a consideration of the financial policy of the Government and of Chancellors of the Exchequer from 1951 onwards. It is part of the propaganda case of the Conservative Party that, whereas the wicked Socialist Government delighted in binding private enterprise with restrictions and controls, the Tory Party exists to "Set the people free". But the unfortunate thing is that that statement does not coincide with the facts, and it is, in reality, largely a myth. The two Labour Governments after the war found themselves confronted from the start with a large mass of controls and restrictions which had been imposed not by the Socialist Party, as such, but by the Coalition Government, and were quite necessary—and I think most Members of your Lordships' House, to whatever Party they belong, will agree—during the war. During the course of the Socialist Administrations a great many of those restrictions and controls were taken off; and when the Conservative Government came into power in 1951 they took off a further number, and they went on taking off these physical controls.
But—and this is what many members of the Party opposite do not realise—their Government not only retained financial controls but laid great stress on them, to such a successful degree that the Bank Rate had gone up from 2 per cent., at which it had stood ever since 1932 (with the exception of three months in 1939) to 5½ per cent. No responsible Chancellor of the Exchequer belonging to the Party opposite, and no responsible Minister, would be so foolish as to suggest that, in this modern age, the Government can dispense altogether with planning. That may be suggested outside this House and outside Parliament, but every responsible man in the Conservative Party must realise that planning of some kind or other is necessary. If that were not so, then I should be inclined to say of the Tory Party what my noble leader said a few days ago in this House of Members sitting on the Liberal Benches: that he was watching the decline and fall of their Party. But we are not witnessing that, because no Tory Government is foolish enough to do away with planning altogether.
The real issue is not whether we are to have controls or no controls; it is not
276
whether we are to have planning or no planning; it is not even whether we are to have exclusively physical controls or exclusively monetary controls: it is the degree of reliance placed on the physical or monetary controls that are going to be adopted. The two principal Conservative Chancellors of the Exchequer, Mr. Butler first and the present Prime Minister afterwards, have gone "hot" for the monetary controls and, as I say, they put the bank rate up to 54 per cent. They have argued that inflation could be stopped only by this great rise in the bank rate. Your Lordships will remember that I have throughout taken an entirely different point of view. I have urged them not necessarily not to use monetary means but to recognise that that was a subordinate method of controlling inflation, and not the main method to be adopted. I have urged them to eke out the effects of monetary controls by more selective methods of control, instead of what I called before, and I call again, the blunt bludgeon of a high bank rate.
What I am going to claim to-day in this House is that a considerable body of orthodox financial opinion has now veered round to my point of view. This has happened not because of any victory of theoretical argument, but because of the much more compelling argument of the logic of events. Now what have events shown? They have shown, in the first place, that in these modern days When we have a large floating debt—great numbers of Treasury Bills and all the rest of it—and in these days of modern banking and modern company methods, the naked imposition of dear money by an increase in the bank rate is by no means the sure and rapid means of scotching inflation that it was believed to be, and probably was, in the Halycon days of the gold standard at the end of the 19th century and at the beginning of the present century. I do not think that would be denied by anybody who knows anything about finance. It has been shown, in the second place, that dear money is very expensive to the Government itself, and very unfair in its application to various sections of the public; that it is liable to cause an increase in prices and costs not easily distinguishable from the inflation which it is supposed to be designed to cure. It has been shown, in the third place, that other ancillary methods, such as advice to the joint stock banks, and

277
making rules and regulations for hire purchase, may be at least as efficacious as, and perhaps even more efficacious than, the raising of the bank rate and dear money itself.
I believe that I shall not be contradicted when I say that a large number of people (I do not say everyone; I would not say that for a moment) who thought that dear money was the one panacea by which inflation would be checked, have come round, in the course of the years, to my point of view. Your Lordships will find proof of that, if you have not admitted it already, in a good many newspaper statements by financial experts in the financial columns of the Press. Curiously, I have some kind of support for it even from the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, because when he announced in the House of Commons some four weeks ago that the bank rate was going down from 5½ per cent. to 5 per cent. he said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons. Vol. 564 (No. 47), col. 606]:
"This is not a signal for bankers or others controlling sources of finance to relax credit or to ease restrictions on lending."
Surely, by saying that he abandoned the claim that the height of the bank rate was in itself a measure of the squeeze imposed. I feel that there is much greater support for my thesis to-day than there has been on previous occasions when I have laid my views before your Lordships. It may well be that the Government themselves are prepared to go to a certain extent in my direction, and to admit that the bank rate, certainly alone, perhaps not even mainly, is not the right means for combating inflation. I do not feel sure that that is so; and still less do I feel sure that there does not linger in the affection of a number of people, whose business it is to advise the Government, a hankering after dealing with the whole question of inflation and other monetary and economic evils of the country by the sole hard knock of the bank rate.
That being so, I have a suggestion to make to the noble Viscount who is to reply, and I hope that he will give it careful consideration. As there is a large body of opinion which has come some way, at any rate, to meet my point of view, I suggest that the time has come when it would be a great advantage to appoint a Royal Commission, or some
278
other appropriate body, to investigate this problem and to discover whether, if ever inflation rears its ugly head again, we have to burn down the whole house to get roast pig on this occasion; and by careful investigation, whether in these days, when we have this large floating debt, and other gadgets and methods of finance which were quite unknown at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century, the time has not come to produce some new weapon to deal with inflation that will not involve the ugly consequences which have necessarily followed the over-emphasis on this one method of meeting it.
I remember—and I expect a great many noble Lords do—what was called the Macmillan Committee and the Report that it issued some quarter of a century ago. In case there are some younger Members of this House who do not go back as far as that, I should say that it was nothing to do with the present Prime Minister. It was called the Macmillan Report because of Lord Macmillan, who was the Chairman of the Committee. One of the useful services that that Committee performed was to discover what afterwards came to be known as the "Macmillan gap". The Macmillan gap meant that, while it was easy to raise money in the City for large enterprises in this country, and very easy for foreign enterprises to raise money, a large number of worthy firms could not get the required capital because they were not big enough and because they were British and not foreign. The Macmillan gap was something which this Committee discovered.
I venture to hope that the Government will take quite seriously the suggestion I am making—it has been made elsewhere—that the time is now ripe for the setting up of some form of Committee or Commission which will thresh out this question thoroughly. This is not really a Party question; it is a question of finance, which ought to be threshed out by people of knowledge and intelligence giving evidence. I understand that the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, is going to reply to this debate, and although I cannot expect him to get up and say that he agrees on behalf of the Government and that they will do it at once, I hope that he will say that the Government will, at his initiation, give this matter very

279
careful thought and, if they find it desirable, will adopt the proposal. At any rate, I hope he will be able to assure me that the matter will not be lost sight of but will be considered carefully, thoroughly and seriously by the Government.
3.53 p.m.
LORD GRANTCHESTER: My Lords, in initiating this debate, the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, has done a service in focusing attention upon the level of public expenditure and, as a consequence, the high level of taxation and other evils not so apparent but none the less very real which inevitably follow in the wake of high expenditure. The noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, has widened the scope of the debate and contributed to it in one of those surveys at which he is so adept. I propose to confine myself to a much narrower field. In this matter of taxation there is so much confused thinking. Our society has become so complicated that it is necessary to go back, I think, to a few basic principles for a foundation.
In the days of absolute rulers, the people of this country made clear that the right to tax was not a privilege conferred upon those rulers, but they have not been so successful in modern times. Perhaps they have been deceived by the delusion that, under a system of universal suffrage, taxation is levied and paid by the same people, but that is very far from the truth. In a simple society it may still be true, but it is not true in the society in which we live in this country. In view of that, I suggest that the maxim that there should be "no taxation without representation" needs restating, so as to bring us back to the principle that taxation should be with the consent of the taxed. Taxation which is not justified in the eyes of the taxed is an affront to a free man. It has to be justified both as to its purpose and as to its extent.
It has become the fashion to-day in many circles to speak as if the State had the right to all the earnings of its citizens; that it was justified in retaining so much as it believed it required, returning only as much as was necessary to keep the citizen still working. Even Conservative Chancellors of the Exchequer have talked of having "nothing to give away," and some economists have aided and abetted them by advising them to "mop
280
up" purchasing power in order to prevent the citizen from exercising the rights of ownership over his earnings. We shall have done a service if, as a result of this debate, this fundamental thesis that taxation must be justified is more widely accepted. I think we shall all agree that it is justified for the purchase of common essential services which are equitably distributed. I think we should all agree that it is justified to meet the welfare of the needy. I need not go into the first category. We have learnt that security is a relative term and that we may as well limit our expenditure to what we can afford. I think Her Majesty's Government are now alive to this necessity and that they are planning accordingly.
So far as contributions for welfare are concerned, we may perhaps remind ourselves that the Jewish law settled for 10 per cent. of income, with a bonus, I think, in every seventh year; but there was no suggestion of progressive income tax. There was no suggestion of a highly-graduated system of taxation which has been called "the supreme danger of democracy." It was a flat rate on income. There was no question of discriminatory taxation. May I suggest, or repeat, that the sooner purchase tax is replaced by a sales tax the better, not only because purchase tax is discriminatory but for other reasons which I need not go into now, one of them being the arrangements that we hope to make in the European common market.
The point is, surely, that if taxation becomes an instrument of coercion against a minority or a group, it is not only an instrument of coercion but it becomes an instrument of tyranny. In the complicated mechanism of our modern State we are quite willing to have the collective administration of funds which provide for the welfare services so far as they are not paid for by contributions. One does not want to see anyone in need, and to ensure this efficiently in a modern State central administration is essential; but we must be sure that it is need which is being met.
My Lords, I have referred to taxation as becoming an instrument of tyranny. I should like to ask your Lordships to think for a moment what safeguards there are in this country against that kind of tyranny if it is found intolerable

281
and if a person is one of a minority, or belongs to a group which is ill-organised or is not sufficiently vocal. We have in this country no written Constitution to which he can appeal; we have no Supreme Court which can protect him. Relief against this kind of tyranny, which means the effective confiscation of a man's earnings, is not yet included in any convention of human rights. What can a citizen in this country do? In former days he could pack up and emigrate. He has a much smaller opportunity to do this to-day. It is more difficult to find a country to go to, and he can take much less with him than formerly. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, has said, the number of people seeking to emigrate should make us think, and ask whether it is because they are being deprived of the rewards for which they work, or think that they will be deprived of the rewards; if they stay here and work.
It is noteworthy that citizens in this country have much less opportunity than those in any other Western European country at the present time to protect their savings, because they still have no right to buy foreign currencies and they still have no right to buy gold—a right which has been restored in every other Western European country. I should like to ask Her Majesty's Government when the right to buy gold will be restored to British citizens. In some countries this right is regarded by the Government as one of the weapons in the fight against inflation. If every citizen who buys a little gold for a twenty-first birthday present or a wedding present watches the price of gold rising, that is a signal that inflation is creeping on again, and a warning; and it helps to have such a signal which is being watched by the citizens of a country.
In painting the picture in this way, I may be asked how the economy has been kept going at all. The noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, referred to the fact that it could not be described as bad—it was middling, but at least it has been kept going. The Royal Commission on Taxation, looking back, reported that the disincentive effect of high taxation was perhaps not so great as might have been expected. It is true that, looking forward, they could not prophesy what
282
its effect might eventually be upon a coming generation. But I think the Royal Commission might have looked a little further, The economy has been kept going, in my view, because the life of those in employment has been increasingly cushioned since the war. Life has been made more comfortable in working hours. For example, I think that nearly half as much more office space per employee is taken up than before the war. Homes in the cities and in the country have been converted into offices—and some of them make very nice offices. In addition, there have been many what I would call undesirable innovations by no means all affecting the better off in business. But more comfort in the office is not a substitute for less money to spend in the home. The economy may be kept going at the expense of the cultured life. It is the cultural values in the home which are destroyed by over-taxation, which is particularly unfortunate at the beginning of a new scientific and technical age.
The noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, has already quoted some of the figures of comparison between the amount left in the hands of the managerial and professional workers in this country compared with the amount left to those who perform the same function in other countries. A table was given in the Financial Times of, I think, February 23. It is not necessary for me to quote the figures; anyone who is interested can look them up. It is clear from the figures that those in this country have much less to spend after taxation than in any other country. But these figures do not give the whole picture. The disparity in reality is much greater than those figures suggest or show, at any rate so far as European countries are concerned. The figures which were given in the Financial Times and which the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, quoted, are worked out on the basis of the rate of tax applicable in the countries mentioned. But the position cannot fairly be judged on the rate of tax without taking into account the method of fixing the assessments upon which the rate is charged.
Most European countries have not at their disposal a highly qualified body of accountants such as we have in this country, who are of inestimable assistance to the Inland Revenue. The taxation

283
officials abroad, so I am given to understand by those who have to deal with them, are much more lenient in fixing the assessments, both personal and company, than the officers of the Inland Revenue in this country. The noble Lord referred to the surtax level. Surely we can all agree that it is ridiculous, with the £ worth only 7s. 10d. of its 1939 value, that the surtax level remains unaltered. If this group of taxpayers had any shop stewards I am sure they would be ringing bells all day long.
I think there is general agreement that taxation must be cut to give our citizens a chance to live the life for which they work, and to enable business to survive in competition with other countries. Taxation can be cut only if expenditure is reduced, because such expenditure as can be afforded—surely the test for expenditure is what can be afforded—must be paid for either by taxation or by the raising of money on the market, if inflation is to be avoided. In discussing the economic position, the financial position, taxation or any other related matter we cannot get away from this question of inflation.
I think we must speak plainly on this matter. It is nothing but sheer dishonesty for a Government to incur liabilities, either on its own behalf or on behalf of the nationalised industries, and then to pay the bill by increasing the note issue or by the issue of Treasury Bills. Unfortunately, Parliament has proved no check against this sort of dishonesty. In spite of various funding operations, Treasury Bills are five times as many as they were in 1939 and the note issue is over four times what it was in 1939, while production is up only by 35 to 40 per cent. It is no wonder and no mystery that the price level is, on an average, up by three times. That is the inevitable result, and it is the direct responsibility of successive Governments which have been unable to refrain from overspending and have created this credit to pay for their overspending.
To that extent I agree, therefore, with the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, that it is not bank rate, it is not the credit squeeze and interference between the banks and their customers, that should be the instruments to deal with inflation. It is the Government's responsibility to cut expenditure and the creation of credit
284
which goes with over-expenditure. Noble Lords will not be surprised to hear me say that I do not believe that cheap or dear money should be determined by the Chancellor of the Exchequer or that he should even announce changes in the bank rate. I think the price of money should be determined by the ordinary laws of supply and demand, and that, intervention apart, the price of it is a result of the demand for it.
In discussing this problem of checking inflation, it is interesting to note that the Party of noble Lords on my left when the Labour Government was in office refused to trust the German Parliament in the matter of the creation of credit, and insisted on a central bank to act as policeman. They were so right that the strength of the German mark to-day is a tribute to the great favour that the Labour Government helped to confer upon the German people. To-day every German is grateful to them. But, unfortunately, that same Government trusted Parliament in this country, in which they then had a majority, and destroyed the independence of the Bank of England and so any check that the Bank of England could have had upon this matter of the creation of credit, making the Bank of England just a tool of the Treasury. I should like to ask Her Majesty's Government how long they are going to wait before they give us in this country the same safeguard that the Labour Government, when they were in office, helped to provide for the German people.
Now I am coming to the matter that the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, raised. I was not going to ask for a Royal Commission; I was going to ask for a Select Committee. I think Her Majesty's Government may well say that they would like a matter such as this studied further by experts. If the Government feel, as I do, that the general question of monetary policy also needs review, I hope they will agree to the plea which the noble Lord made and which I should like to reinforce, at any rate, for a Select Committee to be appointed to look into some of these difficult matters and to report on them. There are a number of Members of your Lordships' House who are well qualified to serve on such a Committee. The British banks and other institutions have

285
great experience in the provision of credit at home and abroad, and there is not a city so able to consider matters like these as the City of London. I should like this Committee to consider not only the matter which the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, has suggested, but other matters which I think are part of the same general problem; the place, for instance, of the central bank; the function and use of the conventional instruments of monetary policy; the relative value of private savings through Governmental channels, such as the National Savings Movement and Premium Bonds, compared with private savings invested either directly in industry or indirectly in industry through the institutions.
In the international field. I think this Committee must consider, for instance, the effect of American aid on the price structure of commodities, which is a very important matter for the trade of this country. It must consider the effect of American aid on the national currencies of the countries which accept American aid. I suggest that that may be found to be an inflationary factor. It must consider the results of the concentration of economic development in the hands of Governments, which is again largely due to American policy, instead of the promotion of diversification through the operation of the market and individual enterprise. All these are matters which need urgent study on the highest level. It is possible that the answer may be the old answer of the classical economists, a free market economy built on a foundation of sound money. Add to this, the administration of subsidies for the needy, the building of a welfare society as it should be and not necessarily as it is. But, my Lords, I do not want to speculate on what the results of this inquiry might be. We should certainly come out of such an inquiry with a better understanding and a clearer picture of some of the economic difficulties with which we are faced and of the economic position of the world generally. Perhaps we might get a few new good ideas which would help us all. I cannot urge too strongly the desirability of this inquiry.
4.18 p.m.
VISCOUNT WAVERLEY: My Lords, I hope I shall not have to claim the attention of your Lordships for very long, but the debate in which we are now engaged
286
touches so many matters to which I have had to give attention at one time or another that I feel I perhaps have a duty to make what contribution I can to the elucidation of what many of us, I am sure, feel is a very perplexing situation. I venture to say that I have no doubt that there are two main preoccupations which must be occupying the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer at this moment. There are, on the one hand, those considerations which affect the total burden of taxation upon this community, and on the other hand those affecting the balance of payments, the state of our reserves. They are, of course, not unconnected, but I should like at the outset to deal with those two sets of considerations separately.
It has been asserted, and I think with perfect justification, that the total burden of taxation in this country at the present time is greater than in any other civilised country, by whatever standard the measurement may be made. In that connection my noble friend, Lord Coleraine, drew a striking comparison with the United States. I should like to return to that point a little later. Meanwhile, I would merely say that the fact that the total weight of taxation to which we are subjected is greater than in any other country must tend to check enterprise, and must tend to discourage private saving and to stimulate capital consumption. As my noble friend Lord Coleraine pointed out, it must be an inducement to young men of promise to emigrate and it must tend to hamper the establishment in this country of branches of businesses overseas. These are matters that have quite recently been most effectively dealt with by Professor Paish and by the noble Lord, Lord Heyworth, in his Stamp Memorial Lecture.
I have referred so far to general tendencies. I now wish briefly to emphasise certain special features of our system of direct taxation. The first point I wish to make is one to which I believe great importance should be attached, though singularly enough it seems almost to have escaped attention so far: that a progressive tax (and I am speaking now of income tax and surtax) in an inflationary period takes an increasing proportion of the income of the taxpayer, even while rates remain unchanged, because the taxpayers are pushed up and up into higher levels of taxation; and

287
the effect is all the greater if real national income is rising, because there again, more and more come into the higher levels of taxation, not of real income but of money income.
The effect of rising prices in increasing the proportion of real income (not merely money income) taken in tax is only one factor affecting the proportion yielded by constant rates of tax. There is a second factor, which is the tendency for the proportion of income received by higher income groups to fall. That tendency is already in evidence. I will not stop to go into the reasons for it, but the statistics are quite clear. The fact seems to justify the conclusion that lower marginal rates might, in the recent past, have yielded more in tax revenue than the rates that were actually in operation. I should like to return a little later to the conclusions to which this argument seems to lead.
For the moment, I want to say a word on the second set of considerations which I said at the outset must be claiming the attention of any Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am sure there is no need to stress the importance of stepping up investment and increasing productivity; but we must always be alive—and a Chancellor of the Exchequer must always be alive—to the danger that this might be done at the expense of an increase in external debt or at the expense of a loss of external assets, which is what has happened from time to time in the past. There is a tendency to rely on a large Budget surplus; but such a surplus, compensating for a deficiency in other forms of saving—and primarily of course, a Budget surplus must be regarded as a form of saving—may defeat itself by choking the springs of enterprise, if that surplus is obtained only by increased taxation. In this connection the weak financial position of our national industries is a disturbing factor, and in this particular instance, at any rate, pegging prices or charges, which is sometimes suggested, is bound to be a dangerous expedient, because it reduces the surpluses of the public corporations; and there will be the same effect in regard to undistributed company profits. I emphasise, therefore, that a rise in income with stable prices must be inflationary in tendency unless the increases are fully offset by voluntary saving.
288
Let us look back for a moment at what has happened quite recently. In the two years up to the end of 1955—and that Was before Suez—our reserves fell by no less than 400 million dollars. In the same period the price index went up by 10 points. Compare now the position in France and Germany. There the reserves went up, not down, by 1,000 million dollars. The price index in France went up 2 points and in Germany 4 points. During that period in the United States of America the price index was steady. During that period of two years, the increase in the volume of spending was greater than the increased flow of goods; in other words, there was an increase in the supply of money, and this is very material to what the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, had to say about the monetary weapon. The increase in the supply of money, and not a deficiency of production, was our trouble. I suggest that, an such circumstances, monetary control and appropriate fiscal measures should go hand in hand. In my opinion, with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, it would be utter folly to discard the instrument of monetary control; but certainly reliance should not, in my opinion, be placed on that alone.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I do not want to interrupt the noble Lord, but that, in effect, is what I said. I do not propose to discard the monetary weapon. I say that it should take its place with others and not be the main or sole support.
VISCOUNT WAVERLEY: My Lords, perhaps I was wrong, but I thought the noble Lord wanted monetary control to have a subordinate and unimportant place. It may in certain circumstances be of the greatest importance. And as I am speaking of fiscal measures, may I just refer, in passing, to one such measure which was suggested in the White Paper on Employment Policy which some noble Lords may recall was issued during the lifetime of Mr. Churchill's Government? I believe the Labour Government later showed some inclination to act on what was there suggested, which was that power ought to be taken to step up or to reduce insurance contributions according to whether the tendency of the moment was inflationary or deflationary.

289
That brings me to the point that there is in all these matters not only an economic factor but also a psychological factor; and it seems to me to be rather an odd circumstance that after the last war the emphasis was always on the danger of deflation, with hardly any reference at all to the danger of inflation. That was no doubt a consequence of what happened in the recollection of many after the First World War, when there was disastrous deflation. But my point is that in such an atmosphere, direct physical controls assisted by Budget surpluses may tend to be ineffectual, as indeed they proved to be. Monetary measures at that time were neglected, perhaps because they had been tried earlier and had failed. They were not even resorted to when the drastic step of deflation was taken. It was only later that the monetary weapon was brought into use. Then, when it was brought into use, after being effective for a time, it began to lose its effect, perhaps (though I do not know) because of the investment allowances and a reduction in taxation.
Now, as the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, emphasised in this connection, account must always be taken of the disturbing effect of a great volume of short-term debt which is equivalent to money, and which must be dealt with at a time when the monetary weapon is being resorted to. In these circumstances, it is surely necessary that attention should be concentrated mainly on economies—economies falling into the sphere of policy. What scope is there there? Of course there is defence. It attracts everyone's attention, but I would venture to utter a warning against expecting too much too soon from economies in the sphere of defence. There is the question of subsidies. There I shall no doubt be striking a controversial note, but it appears to me that there is, and will be for some time, great scope for economy in regard to subsidies. I am quite unashamed in expressing my antagonism to the whole principle of subsidies. In time of crisis they may be necessary, but in my view we want to build up a community of people who can stand on their own feet and earn their own keep, not a community of parasites dependent on contributions from elsewhere towards their essentials of life.
290
When I say that, I am not uttering any threat at all gainst conditions of the Welfare State. That we must accept; that is all to the good. I would not for one moment say a single word in deprecation of what has been established in this country, and is universally accepted, under the general heading of the Welfare State. But even in regard to the incidence of the Welfare State the action taken by a Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer in imposing a small charge on prescriptions does, I think, show that there is, even there, scope for some adjustments which should be salutary, apart altogether from their actual effect in saving public expense. What we need, above everything, is a steady increase in production, without any corresponding increase in our commitments.
But while economies must, in my opinion, as I have said, claim our most immediate attention, our tax structure certainly ought not to be neglected. The surtax limit, now at £2,000, should unquestionably in my view, be raised, and raised very soon, as Lord Coleraine suggested. I do not know whether the Trades Union Congress, when they recently suggested that any alleviation in surtax should be limited to the lower ranges, had in mind the unquestionable fact, to which I called attention a few moments ago, of the effect of a progressive tax system under inflationary conditions. I think, also, that one must take account, in considering the structure of our tax system, of social, apart from purely economic, effects. It is true—and I think it is a sad fact—that, as a result of the course which taxation in this country has taken, the possibility of large private benefactions has been enormously diminished. Art, culture, universities, have all become increasingly dependent on the State, and we have at this very moment the deplorable spectacle, as I think, of the State being compelled to resist admittedly worthy appeals, on the ground that the cost involved could not be faced. And the position in that respect has been gravely aggravated by a decision taken a good many years ago in regard to seven-year covenants.
Your Lordships may remember that it was decided by a Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer that such covenants should no longer avail to relieve the taxpayer of a charge of surtax. I did not at the time

291
challenge the decision that was taken, though I had the opportunity of doing so, because I recognised that there probably had been abuse in connection with those covenants. But we ought all to have in our minds exactly what that decision implied. It is simply this: that when income had been effectively diverted so that it ceased to be the income of the original recipient, it was, and is to-day, nevertheless subject to surtax as if it continued to be the income of the original recipient. In my view, looked at fairly, that was a perfectly monstrous decision though there may have been grounds for it at the time; to say, as was said in another place on that occasion, that the Government could not afford to continue to treat such covenants as they had been treated in the past was really to trifle with the considerations of justice which were involved in that decision.
I come now to another point which I think may be controversial, but it seems to me that, consciously or unconsciously, we in this country have been maintaining for a considerable time a tax system tending to universal collectivism. In these circumstances, to talk of "a property-owning democracy" becomes rather a mockery. The virtues of equality have been much talked about. I have said previously what I personally think about the folly of carrying the pursuit of equality too far. One wants to have the grosser inequalities eliminated. One wants to have equality of opportunity. One wants to be sure that the poorest people are able to maintain themselves at a reasonable standard. Beyond that, I see no virtue; in fact I see great vice, in pursuing as a principle—in the minds of some, I am afraid, it is a sacred principle—the principle of equality.
Here in this country, as has already been pointed out in this debate, inequalities are less than they are elsewhere. Comparison was made by the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, with the United States of America, where the income of a married couple is split for purposes of taxation. The same is true, I think, in New Zealand. There are other countries where family income is divided over a larger number of units. The effect of that is to reduce very substantially the total burden on the taxpayer. It is quite true that such a measure as that to which I have been referring has the effect of
292
giving a definite and a selective advantage to the higher income groups. That is a fact which must be faced. I am aware that the recent Royal Commission gave some thought to this matter, and their general conclusion was against the introduction in this country of the system which obtains in the United States. I personally think that the paragraph in the wholly admirable Report which dealt with that particular matter was rather less persuasive than most of the other passages in the Report. But there it is; that was their conclusion.
I recognise that, if one starts talking about what happens in America, one may be reminded, and very justifiably reminded, that in America they have a capital gains tax. I have always been against a capital gains tax, for a variety of reasons. If we bring capital gains within the range of taxation, then we must give ample scope to the taxpayer to produce evidence of capital losses; and we may be perfectly sure, human nature being what it is, that while we should get the fullest evidence of capital losses, some capital gains would escape the notice of even the most vigilant tax collector. But I would leave the question of a capital gains tax alone, and rely on death duties to make up in due course all, and more than all, that would be collected, as compared with the existing system, by introducing a capital gains tax.
I do not think that our consideration of the whole problem of the tax structure need end with what has already been said in the course of this debate and with what I have said just now about income tax and surtax. There is the question of death duties. Some time ago, the structure of the system of death duties was radically changed and the separate assessment of legacy duty was abandoned. I am inclined to think that that may have been unfortunate. It may well have contributed, and contributed materially, to the confiscatory aspect of our tax system, to which I have just referred. The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, referred to a matter which I think is worthy of consideration. He said he thought that purchase tax should be abandoned, and that we should have something in the nature of a retail sales tax. I have always felt that purchase tax is open to objection, that it is apt to be rather capricious in its application; and I have said publicly

293
in the past that I thought that it should be either wholly abandoned or reduced to the condition of a luxury tax, frankly so described.
As regards a retail sales tax, if we find insufficient scope in the measures that the economic situation may force upon us in adjustments in the weight and structure of our direct taxation, I think there may be something to be said for a general tax on expenditure in the form of a retail sales tax. A scheme for such a tax was framed years ago by the Revenue authorities, as I happen to remember, and if we are to take a comprehensive sweep and go into all these matters, I suggest that it might be well worth while to go into that again.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, does the noble Viscount suggest that that should be a flat rate of tax on retail sales or is it to be applied cumulatively from production sales through wholesale sales and the like?
VISCOUNT WAVERLEY: My Lords, I do not want to go into too much detail on this point, but I happened to be at the head of one of the Revenue departments at the time this proposal was investigated. One difficulty about getting the question properly investigated is that, while the main taxation about which we are concerned is in the sphere of the Board of Inland Revenue, anything in the nature of a sales tax would be in the sphere of the Department of Customs and Excise; and noble Lords will know what that dichotomy may probably involve. But two different plans were considered. There was a plan for a tax confined to retail sales and there was also a plan for a turnover tax, which would have included not only retail but also wholesale sales, and all along the line. That is what I think the noble Viscount has in mind. In what I had to say, I was thinking about the plan for a retail sales tax only as one which might be worth considering if adjustments in the existing structure of direct taxation were found not to afford sufficient scope. Of course, a retail sales tax is a kind of subsidy in reverse, so to speak, and strong objection may be raised; but in the situation in which we find ourselves we have to look at everything.
294
Let me, in conclusion, say this. There is no need to be unduly pessimistic about our situation. If we make proper use of the monetary weapon and the fiscal weapon, the two going together, as I have said, and not pulling in opposite directions as they have done at times in the past; if there is a proper understanding of the situation in all quarters and the necessary restraints are exercised, we may find ourselves, from the fact that our productivity is likely to increase steadily from year to year, and from that fact alone, before very many years have passed, if we do not undertake new commitments out of proportion to the normal increase in the population, in a much more comfortable situation than we are in to-day.
4.46 p.m.
VISCOUNT CROOKSHANK: My Lords, I hope that I may claim the indulgence of your Lordships in addressing the House for the first time. I feel in a curious situation, as doing something novel and yet something very familiar, because I am certain that in debates on this subject I have made more speeches in this Chamber, generally either preceding or following the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, than anywhere else in the world. But to-day, of course, it is in a different capacity.
We have had a most interesting review of the financial and economic situation in which we find ourselves, and interesting taxation proposals have been canvassed; but at the back of our economic difficulties all through recent years has been the perennial problem of the balance of payments and our gold and dollar reserves. Whilst I do not wish, to-day, to make any general review or any great speech on these matters, I think that there are one or two points on which I might help by bringing them to your Lordships' notice. I start from two premises which are universally accepted—there is nothing controversial here. The first is the fact that most of the time we have been short of dollars. Therefore, we have had to put work into the export dollar drive, to sell more exports in dollar countries and the other side of the coin, to refrain, so far as we can, from expenditure in dollars and to try to find alternate sources of supply. Secondly, partly as a corollary to that, there has been the wish and ambition to develop so far as we can the

295
British connection everywhere, particularly in our Colonial Empire and in the Commonwealth countries.
In a recent visit I made to Australia (I hope your Lordships will not think that I am here in the guise of Kipling's" Paget, M.P."—or, perhaps I should say "that peripatetic Peer, Lord Paget") I had brought to my notice a startling example, which may not be known to some of your Lordships, of the magnitude of the new enterprises which are being projected there. One of the greatest engineering projects in the world to-day is taking place in Australia—a project called the Snowy Mountain Plan, which diverts two rivers and makes them flow in a completely different direction. In the course of doing that, the project not only brings water for a vast irrigation scheme in the northern part of the State of Victoria, but also develops enormous electrical power. The scale of this undertaking is something which is so immense that greater publicity should have been given to it long ago.
The scheme, to be spread over twenty to twenty-five years, involves the construction of seven major dams, seventeen power stations of the largest capacity, eighty-three miles of tunnelling and 330 miles of aqueducts. Already, 150 miles of first-class road have been constructed in connection with the scheme. One dam will be almost the highest in the world, and the water it contains will be eight times that of Sydney Harbour. So we are talking about something which, in point of fact, is larger in conception and expense than either the great Tennessee Valley Authority or the St. Lawrence Waterway. Naturally, there have been a great many contracts in connection with this scheme, and there will be a great many more—and here is the point to which I want to direct your Lordships' attention and possibly that of others outside this Chamber.
It is true that in connection with the power stations that have already been erected we have succeeded in getting a certain number of contracts, and British electrical machinery has been installed. On the civil engineering side, however, there have so far been five contracts (one is completed and four others are in the course of completion), to the value of £37½ million sterling. That is a great deal of money. Of those contracts we,
296
the British, have not obtained a single one. And it is not because we were beaten in price, but because we never tendered for any of them. This for an enormous Commonwealth development in Australia, where they wanted us to come in if we possible could! The information which I have, and it is completely authentic, is that for those five contracts there were, altogether, thirty different tenders. But there was no single British tender. There was one which was part British and part Austrian; but it was irregular in its nature, and never even started the course. Those which were secured were three American, one Norwegian and one French. And this, in spite of the fact that the authorities went out of their way to extend the time for tendering, in order to make it as easy as possible and to encourage anybody from this country to come in.
This state of affairs has led to great disappointment out there, and I was constantly asked how came it about that there were no British tenders. I am not in a position to speak for British industry, so I have not the slightest idea of the real answer; but one has to try to think out what may be the cause. I wondered, if this sort of thing happened there, how often it happens elsewhere, because it is not only this great scheme that is going ahead. Australia and New Zealand, like Canada, are booming and developing; and tremendous bridge schemes, as well as civil engineering contracts, are going forward. I wondered what the reasons for the absence of British tenders might be. The first might well be that there was insufficient information in this country about what could happen and what was "in the wind." That can be rectified; indeed, in so far as it has anything to do with the Australian end of the story, it is—I will not say being rectified, because they would not agree that there was anything wrong, but more publicity is being given. During the coming year three major contracts are coming forward for tender—and by "major", I mean the sort of contract covering a power house, a dam and a three-mile tunnel, running into many millions of pounds.
The second explanation I ventured to give when I was asked was that there might be on the part of British firms some fear of the quality and reliability of Australian labour engaged on these projects. There ought to be no fear on that

297
score, because, of the work that has been taken in hand, in case alter case the contract has been finished ahead of contractual time; and the number of disputes has been practically nil. Therefore, that ought not to be a deterrent.
The third, and probably the real explanation, is lack of resources, because we are so pressed ourselves. It may be that the capital development on which we are engaged here in regard to the atomic programme, the development of airfields and nationalised industries, has almost exhausted the resources available to these great contracting civil engineering firms. If that is so, then I think, considering how much it would help our general economic situation to be able to go into projects of this sort—if for no other reason than that of saving the dollar expenditure involved when American contractors succeed in getting allocation of the work—there should perhaps be a greater review here of how we expect over the next two, three, four or five years to use such capital as becomes available for this sort of work. I do not say an overall plan; I do not say planning in any detail; but at any rate, a general review, to see that we do not exhaust all the possibilities in the very urgent requirements at home, and lose the opportunities overseas, in our Commonwealth countries and in the Colonies—opportunities which over the years may well, for all I know, pay us much better.
So, without putting anything forward very definitely, I leave with my noble friends on the Front Bench that thought: that there are these schemes going forward overseas, and we are not taking any part in them, to the intense disappointment of those who are most concerned. If, as is the case, they are so anxious that we should participate, we ought to do everything we can to make that easier. At the present moment, largely owing to the price of wool, the countries on the other side of the world are booming. In Australia, for example, they have been able to make some relaxation in the import restrictions which, purely for balance of payment reasons, they had placed on their imports. If we can ourselves do something to contribute, we shall improve our own economic situation; and, after all, at the end of the day, that is our primary concern. In recent months obviously we have gone through financial and
298
economic difficulties of considerable magnitude. But it seems to-day (I have been back only a short time), from such conversations and contacts that I have had, that: there is a feeling of a slight lightening of the burden. Perhaps it is merely because we are approaching spring; but perhaps it is that we have realised how hard the road is, and that it is only by hard and harsh measures that we shall be able to get to the end of it.
4.58 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I am sure I shall have the support of noble Lords in all quarters of the House in offering congratulations to the noble Viscount, Lord Crookshank, on his maiden speech, delivered with such authority and such knowledge. I am sure, also, your Lordships will agree with me in saying that your Lordships' House is fortunate to have the accession of debating strength that has come with the presence of the noble Viscount, Lord Crookshank.
The noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, in his most interesting speech, said that the economic characteristics of the post-war period, as he saw them, were two: the first, the expansion of production; and the second, the higher standard of life brought about by the redistribution of income. I submit to your Lordships that there is a third characteristic of this post-war period. It is that under successive Governments we have had a series of balance of payment crises, and each of those has been declared to be the last, until the next has arrived. The noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, spoke about the prosperity in our country, and I think he described it as "middling prosperity." I believe it is an illusion to talk about prosperity in this country unless it is qualified by thought of our economic position in relation to the rest of the world. We may be comfortable here, within our own boundaries, but we are on a knife-edge so far as the rest of the world is concerned, as we have seen time and time again, and one set-back in the United States, one unexpected setback such as Suez, can upset our economy. Therefore, our prosperity must be thought of in relation also to the incipient dangers which beset us.
We have had different Parties and different remedies, but we have had the same troubles during the past ten years.

299
Now we have a Government who are pledged to free enterprise as the basis of British industrial life. They are pledged to restore incentives for the individual, to a policy of industrial and overseas investment, and also to a policy of economy in Government expenditure. That is what Her Majesty's Government are pledged to—in fact, the very things my noble friend Lord Coleraine stressed. But it is no good the best friend of the Government to-day not admitting that the Government's stock is very low—it is. But the supporters of the Government say—and I hope rightly—that the Government are having to do unpopular things for the good of the nation, and that all will come right before the next Election. I only hope that that is so. But may it not be—I put this forward with all humility—that the Government are in some disfavour all round because they do not seem to be courageously grappling with those industrial and individual problems they were elected to tackle, and which must be tackled if we are to avoid the dangers spoken about by my noble friend Lord Coleraine in his peroration?
The Government can expect the opposition of the Socialist Party, many of whose members' aim and delight is to try to achieve the egalitarian State. The noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, challenged my noble friend Lord Coleraine on a quotation that he gave, and said that he had not given chapter and verse. Mr. Bevan has made so many statements, so widely publicised, that there is no need to give particular quotations, but no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, will remember Mr. Bevan's, "Redistribution is retribution". That was his famous phrase in the 1945 Election. I only quote that in support of my submission that the egalitarian State is the ideal of many noble Lords who belong to the Party opposite.
The Government may expect that opposition, but the Government also faces discontent amongst its most loyal supporters in the country, as the figures of the recent by-elections have shown. Also, it faces discontent among those 2 million of what I would term "floating voters," in whose hands is largely the decision at an Election as to what form of Government we are to have. The resentment of the professional classes,
300
management and technicians, at their slow extinction by the present tax system in relation to their positions, is something of which we have evidence throughout the country at the present time. The Conservative Party declares its belief—and I thoroughly support it—in the individual and the opportunity for the individual. If that is so, there is no justification for continuing the present taxation system, which is tragically lengthening the emigration queues, about which we have heard from previous speakers, of young technicians and management class who feel frustrated as regards prospects in this country and who are desiring to emigrate to where they feel greater opportunities exist.
We have no right to expect that the Government will countenance the continuation of this system of taxation with what the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, has so aptly called its grave injustices. I do not believe a little help here and there in the adjustment of burdens is going to be enough to restore the position. I believe we have to do some radical rethinking on personal taxation, and be ready to have big changes away from the present system. We need that reduction in Goverment expenditure about which the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, and other noble Lords have spoken. Successive Governments have said that they were going to reduce Government expenditure. They have shaved it here and there, but always the whiskers of expenditure and waste grow almost as soon as the whisker has been shaved.
The present Prime Minister announced that he hoped to make savings of approximately £100 million—broadly speaking, 2 per cent. of our total expenditure. But already those savings have been offset by new expenditure. To-day, we read about £40 million—and I am not saying that it was not essential expenditure—being spent on the Swift, and £16 million being spent on developing an Army vehicle which is of no use. If Governments shave expenditure, it is really effective in the light of the various unexpected items of Government expenditure that any Administration has to face. I believe that to achieve any big saving in domestic expenditure, as opposed to arms expenditure, we must do some basic re-thinking. The Welfare State must continue to safeguard need.

301
hazards out of the control of the individual, sickness and old age. But I believe we must throw over the idea which has crept up on us that a Government can do better for the citizen and can spend better for the citizen than a citizen could do for himself if he were given the release of the necessary resources from the present rapacious tax gatherers under our present tax system.
The practical application of this revolt against the Government assumption of the Government as the spending agent for the citizen would be widespread. It would mean such things as no subsidised rents for four-figure incomes; no food subsidies—and the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley spoke about subsidies in general—which are equivalent to 6s. 6d. per week for a family of four, and cost £213 million in 1955–56. It would mean no free Health Service benefits for those who could afford to pay for their own doctors. It would mean no need to try to lead a life of what I call "on the expense account", which so many industrial men are forced to do at the present time. Against this, it would mean a level of personal taxation which would allow a man to order his affairs as he wished, to order his own housing, to feed his own family, to doctor as he wished, and to educate his children as lie wished.
I have submitted to your Lordships that I do not believe that we are ever going to get this essential reduction of Government expenditure which noble Lords on all sides of the House admit is necessary, unless we do some fundamental re-thinking such as I have submitted to your Lordships this afternoon. My noble friend Lord Coleraine concluded his speech by comparing his memories of 1940 with to-day, and he said that in 1940 he could not see how the country was going to be defended, but that he knew it had to be defended. There are many differences between 1940 and now, but one of the big differences is that in 1940 we had bold leadership and a united people. I believe that to-day we can have, and have got, bold leadership. I do not know how far we have a united people. But I believe leadership can carry this country through, if that leadership is determined and bold in its conception of what is required in the
302
proposals the Government have put forward.
5.10 p.m.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just spoken is often provocative, and never less than stimulating, but he will forgive me if I do not follow his agreeable speech in any detail. I wish to confine myself, with the permission of the House, to one rather large aspect of the topics we are discussing, and I know that my noble Leader, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, will reply strongly to any points that seem to need a strong reply We are not dissenting by any means from everything the noble Lord said: we are agreeing here and disagreeing there.
I want, if I may, to deal with the particular proposal put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, for a new inquiry, comparable to the Macmillan Inquiry of 1931, and to give it my very strong support. It flows naturally from the speeches that have been made by the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, over the last few years. I certainly do not approach this matter in any partisan spirit any more than the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence does. I was grateful, as I am sure we all were, for Lord Coleraine's generous remarks about the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, which were fully justified. All I would say about the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, and also that of the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, is that his modesty about his own credentials was far less justified than his modesty about the credentials of the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence.
All my noble friends on this side of the House will wish me to join with the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, in congratulating the noble Viscount, Lord Crookshank, on his maiden speech. It is, perhaps, rather impertinent for someone of my standing to congratulate a past Leader of the House of Commons. To-day, I would only say that the House of Lords is sometimes said to be the best debating Chamber in the world. I am not sure that it is a topic on which we are very well qualified to pronounce an opinion, but, whether we are good or whether we are bad at debating here, we shall be all the better for the addition of the noble Viscount, Lord Crookshank.

303
I know that we shall want to hear him again often. I do not know that it has fallen to any of us in this House to receive the kind of welcome that came to the famous economist known, of course, to the noble Viscount so well: I refer to Mr. Ricardo. When he was elected to another place in 1819, there was a unanimous cry of "Ricardo, Ricardo!" during an economic debate. I do not know that it has fallen to any of us, but I do not see why there should not be a cry of "Crookshank, Crookshank!" the next time we bring economic matters under review. I certainly should contribute adequately to the call.
To come to the question of an inquiry similar to that of the Macmillan Committee, the proposal, of course, flows naturally from what the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, has been saying for a number of years. I emphasise that it was, I think, the Daily Telegraph that gave a lead in this matter last year, but the Statist, a non-Party economic journal, was early on the spot; and in February this year the Midland Bank Review brought the whole subject to general notice. That doyen of financial journalists, Sir Oscar Hobson, who has done so much to make an honoured profession still more honoured, and who last year thought the subject premature, is now advocating it with unsurpassed authority and skill in the News Chronicle and the Banker. So I think we may regard it as floating very strongly.
The broad question which Sir Oscar considers requires investigation—and I think most of us see it rather this way—is that of monetary control. It is not, of course, the only question requiring investigation, but it is, in his view, one that could be isolated. The issues there are highly technical—and I shall have a few words of a quasi-technical character to submit to your Lordships later on—but I am sure that all who advocate this proposal are ultimately concerned with the human result, with the effect on employment, productivity and the standard of life. I am sure that that is in the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence. That is not to say that this inquiry should range over the whole field of economic policy, let alone social policy; except indirectly, it should not, in my view, be concerned with trade
304
policy or with the topic specifically mentioned in the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine—taxation; or with the question of how much we can afford by way of public expenditure, though, of course, Government borrowing and the interest which we pay on the National Debt are one example of a problem which is outside the strictly financial field yet which nowadays is inseparable from financial topics in discussion.
May I say that questions of Government expenditure and taxation, as I think one is bound to observe (I do not say this in any critical spirit; we are a House of Parliament, not a statistical society), while they contain a large technical element—and they involve also a good many issues of a non-Party type which relate to equality between man and man—are inextricably bound up with the great Party division between Right and Left in this country. Those of us who take our place on the Left will almost always be in favour of a solution which contains a larger dose of equality than would appeal to our Right Wing friends. I am not talking of absolute equality; I am not arguing the ultimate goal; but in any ultimate discussion we tend towards more equality than noble Lords opposite would favour. Again, we are less reluctant than they usually are, in practice, to welcome an active intervention by the central authorities.
I do not think that the Party division, which is quite legitimate—indeed, it would be a strange society if we did not get some central Party division—need interfere to anything like the same extent with the search for agreement in the monetary field. Of course, psychologically, there is on what might be called the Right side of politics (I am talking not in a moral sense but in a political sense) a greater disposition to believe in the traditional wisdom of the City. I do not believe that the "Old Lady of Thread-needle Street" and the "Gentleman of Whitehall" could between them produce a hybrid child. There would be more scepticism on that point on the Left. Again, the thoughtful Conservative is probably ready to allow a fuller scope for the use of the monetary weapon than the Labour man. The noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, might want to place more emphasis on it than the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, or myself. That is a

305
question of degree, rather than, if I may say so, of principle.
Again, there may be—but this is, in my opinion, less certain—a division about the use of the monetary weapon. The man of Labour politics would be more favourable to the idea of some selective use of a monetary policy on behalf of projects which possessed some public authorisation in the national interest. Some principle of selectivity in the use of the monetary weapon might be more favoured on the Left than on the Right. But these are differences which would be discovered and which might even be ironed out in the course of any inquiry. I see no reason why in such an inquiry some kind of fundamental agreement could not be arrived at. After all, I think we all agree nowadays—at least almost all of us in this House agree—that whoever is in power will require a monetary policy of some kind. The problem will not solve itself, and I know no one to-day—perhaps I am unlucky—who believes that we have discovered what we ought to know about how the monetary instrument should be used.
The central dilemma of our country is plain. It was brought out in the remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley. We all agree on certain objectives—full employment, maximum production, high capital investment—mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley. They are on the positive side. On the negative side, or on the side of security, we want to protect sterling, to build up our reserves and to avoid inflation; and, of course, a greater flow of savings and greater exports are a condition of any success at all. To put it concretely, the question surely, from the national point of view, is how we can go ahead, working and building up our national capital and at the same time avoiding the flood of imports that sweeps away our reserves. That is the central dilemma.
May I say, without any sort of Party reference, that so far we have failed to find a monetary policy that enables us to reconcile what I might call our positive and our negative objectives. It seems to me absolutely true, as Lord Pethick-Lawrence has said, that in the last two years we have achieved a measure of security that we have paid for in terms of stagnation—I repeat his words. I do not
306
think anybody can dispute that as a statement of fact, and I do not think that anybody who reads the financial papers will feel that Lord Pethick-Lawrence was putting it too strongly. I repeat, that monetary policy can, at best, supply only part of the answer. While some people to-day will feel that our monetary policy is the "best monetary policy we've got" (to quote a rather oft-used expression of a leader in another place), I think nearly everyone feels that there is much room for improvement.
When we discussed these matters in this House last year there was at least general agreement about the direction in which the monetary influence should be exercised. A policy of restraint or restriction, was accepted more or less all round. But I thought even then—and I ventured to say so—and I think so even more strongly now, that even when we are clear about the direction in which we want to work we still have a great deal to learn about the best technique For example, there has been much argument in the past year about the various ways by which the central authorities can restrict the total of bank credit, and in particular induce the commercial banks to curtail their lending. I beg the noble Viscount to avoid the technical issue as to whether bank deposits or bank advances give the more potent sort of inflation and to deal with the matter in a broad way.
Putting it broadly, it seems to me that there are four ways by which the central authorities can achieve the end of restraining credit, assuming that they want to restrain it. There is, first, the method of an increase in bank rate. I think that Lord Pethick-Lawrence has shown to-day and on previous occasions the great disadvantages attaching to that. I need not remind your Lordships of what he has said about the burden on the Exchequer and the foreign exchange through the collection of interests due to overseas people.
Then, there are various steps of a highly technical character which I think the noble Lord, Lord Aldenham, understands much better than I do, by which the central authority can reduce the liquid resource's of the commercial banks, assuming—a point that is sometimes overlooked—the continuance of the existing conventions. This diminishes the capacity of the commercial banks to lend.

307
I will not go further into those recesses. Apart from the fact that these processes are shrouded in so much mystery that the public have little idea of what is going on, these methods tend to be expensive for the Government when the bank rate is high, and therefore this second method of restraining credit may not always fit in very well with the first method—namely, the increase of the bank rate. It may well be for this reason, amongst others, that the bank rate has recently been lowered, although in the words of the Chancellor "This is not the time to let up"—a combination of development that has puzzled a good many people.
Thirdly, still assuming that we want to restrain credit, there may be an official request, amounting to an instruction or directive, that landing is to be restrained. As I am sure Lord Aldenham would tell us, this is most unwelcome to many bankers of great experience. It seems to them so contrary to tradition and orthodoxy as to represent a denial of the law of nature. All these three methods have been in use for the last two years, and my only comment now—I speak certainly not on behalf of a bank, but just as a student—is to repeat what I said a year ago: that they have involved in their totality a self-denying ordinance among the banks which has, in effect, ruled out competition in the lending business. I submit that it would really be impossible to justify a continuance of private enterprise in banking if the present state of affairs were allowed to continue indefinitely. Everyone assumes that it is not going to be allowed to continue indefinitely, just for the reason that I have given. Everyone assumes that the present combination of techniques is temporary. But what is going to be put in its place? We all agree that it cannot, and must not, be allowed to go on indefinitely, but I have not met anybody who has been able to give me the smallest idea of what system of techniques is to follow this existing combination.
I suggested last year—of course, it was no novel suggestion of mine—the method of credit control through varying liquidity ratios. The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, was polite enough to say that I might know more about that than he did. I am sure the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, would never admit that I know more about anything than he does. I do
308
not expect a particular answer this afternoon, but I know that a particularly technical and efficient reply will be given to me. Under that particular method, an instruction emanates from the Government or central bank which formally imposes on the commercial banks a minimum ratio of liquid assets to deposits and raises it in times of restraint. A rise in this ratio means that the banks can lend less than before with a given distribution of assets.
I still believe that the addition of that technique to our other devices would be invaluable. I repeat to the noble Viscount that I am not pressing that suggestion to-day. I am not expecting a reply on that particular point to-day, if only because it is not my purpose this afternoon to suggest a dogmatic solution. In purpose, I am concerned only with the submission that we ought to know much more than we do about the working of monetary policy, and we can find out only by an organised and efficient search. Last year we were at least agreed on the need for some deflation, though I am not sure that it was called deflation—that is one of the disreputable words which would be used in attack; in defence the word used is "disinflation." But we were agreed about some kind of disinflation, although the right method of deflating eluded us. This year, speaking nationally, and surveying the national side of the controversy, I would say that we cannot even agree on whether we ought to inflate or deflate.
I repeat that I do not come before you as a fortunate prophet to whom all wisdom has been delivered. In the current number of the Banker there is an article called "Squeezing by Easing". It points out that there is still much uncertainty in the business world about the purposes that the reduction in bank rate was designed to serve. It adds that the notion of disinflation by bank rate reduction is a difficult one to swallow. It has stuck, it says, in the throats of people "more or less expert, even at word eating, than the Leader of the Opposition." I cannot attach any meaning to those last words; they seem to mean nothing at all. They seem to lower the high standard which the Banker almost invariably attains.
But, leaving aside those words, let us come to the views that journal expresses.

309
The Banker has no doubt that the Government regards inflation as a much greater danger than deflation. I think that that is clearly the view of the Government at present, no doubt acting on expert advice. We here listen to the Government with interest; but we listen with hardly less interest to the Financial Times. In a prominent article on March 1 in the Financial Times, Mr. Roy Harrod contradicts flatly the Government's view. We recall that Mr. Roy Harrod in these latter days is an outstanding intellectual on the Conservative side. He was always an outstanding intellectual; now he is, I think I am right in saying, a Conservative intellectual. I will not quote him at length because I have referred noble Lords to the article on March 1; but he says there quite plainly:
"the problem giving rise to all this confused thinking is itself a mare's nest. For the economy no longer requires tight money at all. It has already been slack for an unhealthily long period; orders on investment account are too low; labour is being released, but not absorbed by the investment goods industries; much short-time is being worked and development is discouraged…. British industry has been in part refurnished, and the opportunities lie before us this year for a big move forward in production. It will be a thousand pities if this is frustrated by deflationist policy."
There you get an absolute and total contradiction between experts' views at a very high level regarding the question of whether to inflate or deflate at the present time.
My Lords, I am not saying that because at any particular moment you get a disagreement between experts you must have a major inquiry, and still less am I saying that the report of the inquiry would tell us what to do at some particular moment in the near future. But I myself consider that the present disagreement is only a symptom of the fact that we do not to-day, as a nation, know anything like as much as we should about how the monetary instrument could reasonably be expected to work. That applies to the highly gifted and expert men who give their lives to this subject. It applies a fortiori to the ordinary business man or trade union official or legislator, or indeed the average citizen, whose decisions in the last resort depend on some understanding of our economic system and how it is supposed to be working if those decisions are going to help, rather than hamper, our national effort.
310
I disagree respectfully, in conclusion, with Sir Oscar Hobson, on one point. He would like the new Committee, unlike the Macmillan (Committee, to be composed entirely of bankers and economists. I urge strongly that industrialists and trade unionists should be included, as they were in the Macmillan Committee. We may not find another Mr. Ernest Bevin—we only get someone like that once in a lifetime—but I am sure it is essential that the voices of both sides of industry should be heard on this Committee. There are at least two reasons for that. In the first place, whatever solutions are arrived at should be widely disseminated and understood and respected by all. Further, although these problems, as I said at the beginning, are immensely technical, they are in the last resort wrapped up with the whole life of our people. They cannot adequately be tackled except by a Committee, which certainly must be technically equipped to the nth degree but must also represent the life's knowledge of the British people as a whole.
5.33 p.m.
LORD SALTER: My Lords, I was tempted, while the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, was speaking, to follow him into the various controversial questions he raised, and in particular to discuss with him the one raised in Mr. Roy Harrod's article. On the whole, however, I am going to resist that temptation. I came here intending to make two points only and not to allow myself to be diverted into a long speech.
I want to make two specific suggestions in regard to our tax system. They are definitely related to the two purposes which the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, stressed when he opened this debate to-day—namely, the need to encourage investments and the need to increase incentive. The major fact about our economic position now, as it has been for many years, is the fact of inflation. This does not mean that our real national income has been reduced. On the contrary, it has tended rather to go up. But if measured in terms of pounds it would, of course, seem to have gone up immensely more than it has. It has gone up moderately, but it is not moderately that the pound has gone down in purchasing value. There is no particular reason why the fact of inflation, and the depreciation of the value of the pound

311
should entail a difference in our standard rate of income tax. By and large, our incomes, whether they are salaries or wages, also go up correspondingly; so also, then—quite rightly—does the amount which we pay in taxation on the standard rate of income tax. There are indeed special hard cases, such as pensioners and so on, which need to be dealt with specially, but there is no reason in the fact that the pound is losing its purchasing value why the standard rate of income tax should be changed.
But, my Lords, the situation is completely different when we come to the other purpose for which the pound is used in our tax system—namely, as a measuring rod to determine what people are so much worse off than the average person that they should have special reliefs; and, at the other end of the scale, what people are so much better off than the normal person that they should pay additional taxation in the way of surtax. As a measuring rod, the pound, during a period of inflation, is deceptive in the highest possible degree. It is fantastic that a man who was, quite rightly, held to be so well off at £2,000 a year when surtax was introduced that he should submit to extra taxation, should be treated as being a man exceptionally well off, and therefore as properly subject to a higher rate of tax, if he now has the same nominal income of £2,000, when that is worth only somewhere between a half and one-third of what it was worth when that limit was first established.
It is exactly the same as if a grocer, finding that he could not pay his way, decided that he must make the customer pay more; and then did it, not in the proper way by putting up the price of what he was selling, but by tampering with his weights and measures. That is exactly what the Government, successive Governments, have done, in keeping this same measuring rod to measure who are below the normal and who are above the normal in income for the purpose of special relief or additional taxation. It is sheer cheating. It would be very much better if they corrected their measuring rod and then, quite frankly and openly, said, "Now we must increase the rate of taxation beyond a certain point." We should, in my view, correct,
312
and correct exactly and scientifically, the measuring rod for the purpose of determining who is the man above the normal standard rate level; and having done that we should, if necessary—that at least would be frank—increase the surtax rate on certain incomes above that level. But do not let us do it any longer by simply tampering with the measuring rod.
At the other end of the scale, of course, a good deal has been done by way of what successive Chancellors of the Exchequer, of both kinds of Government, have termed, quite wrongly, concessions. They have partially and unequally returned to the people at the lower levels of income some of the money that they were previously filching from their pockets by what is, in effect, tampering with their weights and measures. I suggest that there is no justification whatsoever for changing the measuring rod, or for putting the limits either below or above at something different from what that correction would give you, unless indeed the total national income has been reduced. In that case, it would be just to reduce the relief by a similar percentage, but otherwise I think there is no justification whatever. That is the first point I wanted to make.
The other is this. I think that the special relief given for earned income, as distinct from unearned income, is quite inadequate. I would ask your Lordships to look at the limits now set in our present tax scheme and then consider—I will not say whether the person who earns money should be given a special reward as having contributed more to the national wealth, though I might argue that. I will not even pursue the argument which I was pursuing in another connection just now by saying that the measuring rod has gone wrong. I would ask your Lordships to consider it solely on the basis of the oldest strictest and most orthodox Gladstonian principle of capacity to pay. Take the difference between the man with a gross income of, say, £4,000—who is by no means a rich man now. I mention that figure because those with that income are a very crucial class, from the point of view of the enterprise and efficient management, on which our general prosperity depends. Consider how little is the difference between the amount he pays in taxation, because he earns his money, and that paid by a

313
man who has an equal gross income from investments. I think the difference is as little as somewhere about £200 or £300. But in order to be in a similar position to the man with investments, the first man has to prepare against the accident that he will lose his skill or his health or the market for his skill, and the other risk of dying and leaving his wife dependent on what he is able to leave. The man who has an equal income from dividends has none of these current expanses to incur, and the difference between those two, quite apart from any superior claim of the earner, as such, is immensely more than the limited relief now given to earned incomes under our present taxation system. Those are the only two points which I wish now to contribute to this general debate, which has, of course, covered a much wider field.
5.43 p.m.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, once upon a time nobility and wealth were considered to be synonymous. Nowadays, thanks to the operation of the system which we have been discussing this afternoon, that is no longer so, and perhaps, after all, that is not a bad thing, because it enables us here to discuss objectively a subject which is generally reserved for the other place but which I believe we have unrivalled experience and knowledge to discuss. I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, on giving us the opportunity to do so. I do not propose to follow into the wider paths trod by the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence. Perhaps it would not be out of order for me to offer him a personal congratulation on his qualification under Section 210 (1) (a) of the Income Tax Act, 1952. For those of your Lordships who have not the Act at your fingertips, I refer to the section which covers the increased rate of personal allowance payable to those described as maintaining a wife.
My Lords, I cannot say I am too sanguine that we shall receive a detailed reply to the suggestions about taxation which we are making to-day. After all, this is the close season for Chancellors of the Exchequer, as it is for most other game; but I can only hope that he will keep his ear open to all that is said this afternoon. My only grounds for speaking are that I belong to that
314
profession which was recently described by a very distinguished and noble personage as one without which a great many people would be bankrupt from paying too much tax and a great many more would be in jail for paying too little. We in that profession have a peculiarly good view of the impact of the British system of taxation, both on corporate bodies and on a wide variety of individuals.
I think it is sometimes forgotten that the object of taxation is not to oppress either the rich or the poor but simply to raise the wherewithal to pay for the goods and services which we, as a nation, have decided we will stand ourselves. In some fields, with some of these goods and services, clearly there is scope for economy; for instance, in the field of defence we are very hopeful At the same time, we should not be too sanguine here, because while we are saving a large number of men and conventional arms there is no doubt that the devices with which they are being replaced can be extremely expensive toys.
Clearly, there is room for economy in some of the matters brought out in the Reports of the Public Accounts Committee and of the Auditor-General, one of which came out only yesterday. Perhaps the classic example which will come to your Lordships' mind is that of the 347,000 surplus chairs discovered in Army depôts throughout the country. When I told an unkind friend that I was thinking of quoting this example, he said that he did not think it was quite fair to do so, for, after all, the strength of the peacetime War Office had already doubled since 1939 and, at that rate, the chairs might soon all be required. I understand also that a spokesman has said on this subject that soon we shall all know "where we stand".
We must face the fact that in a large field of Government expenditure any major cuts would be quite unacceptable to the public of this country. For instance, there is the sphere of education, where, quite clearly, we are going to have to spend more, not less; and, not only that, we are going to have to obtain better value for what we are spending. There is the whole apparatus of the Welfare State, so aptly described by someone lately as "that marketing board for the

315
milk of human kindness." I am not belittling the scope that exists for economy. That scope exists, of course, but we must face the fact that there can be no significant reduction in the total load of taxation; therefore our main efforts must be directed to seeing that the load is fairly spread.
When any lowering of taxation in any particular direction is suggested, every Government immediately conjures up the bogy of inflation. Of course, if we go on asking to be paid more without doing or making more, we shall have inflation. At the same time, we are constantly being told, and rightly so, that if we wish to increase our standard of living we must have greater efficiency and greater production. Stripped of jargon, we have to make more, better. What hope is there that we can make more better unless we have real incentives?—by that, I mean incentives to the worker, to the manager and to the shareholder. I am going to try to point out only one or two ways in which, I believe, we can increase those incentives. Many of them have already been put forward by other noble Lords this afternoon and many of them have been urged by the Royal Commission on Taxation in their Report.
First, in the field of company taxation, one of the essentials, if we are to hold our own in this increasingly competitive world, is that our factories should be equipped with the latest and most modern plant and machinery. In the course of the last two years I have visited a number of plants of firms in North America and of their highly efficient subsidiary companies in this country, and I have been struck by the different philosophy which exists in those companies with regard to plant and equipment. There, as soon as a piece of machinery has been superseded by something else, it is scrapped, thrown out, and new machinery is put in. Here, with exceptions, of course, the tendency is to keep the plant until it is worn out, which, with our British standards of construction, may be for a very long time.
I believe the reason for this difference lies in our system of depreciation allowances of which other noble Lords have spoken. I believe that these allowances, based as they are on the original cost of plant and taking no account of modern rates of progress and technique, are out of date. What is needed is the right of
316
the manufacturer to choose very greatly accelerated rates of depreciation, and recognition of this problem of the increased cost of replacement. That, indeed, was recognised by the introduction, some two years ago, of the investment allowance which was a most enlightened action on the part of the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, only spoiled by its subsequent withdrawal so soon afterwards. As a first step, I urge that investment allowance should be restored. I urge the Government, in the interests of industry's planning and stability, that they should not tinker about with these rates of wear and tear for industrial plant and machinery but allow them to continue, so that industry will know where it stands.
Another reform which would be of great assistance to industry concerns profits tax. This, again, has been dealt with by other noble Lords who have spoken and I will not go into it in detail. The Royal Commission have covered the subject very fully and have come to the conclusion that there is really no validity in any of the claims made on behalf of the tax. In fact, they concluded that its incidence is complex and capricious and suggested that it should be replaced by a flat rate corporation tax. I think that that is a matter of some urgency.
Incentives to corporate bodies are all very well, but how much more important that there should be incentives to the individuals who make up those corporate bodies! Since the war there have been substantial reliefs to those in the lower income levels. I do not for one moment grudge them. But more and more our industrial progress depends on the executives, managers, scientists and men of skill, men to whom £2,000 a year is by no means an excessive salary to which to aspire. I will not go into the arguments about the level of surtax, though I believe that the incidence of surtax at £2,000 is now entirely out of date. One thing stands out and the Royal Commission commented strongly upon it. At the rate of £2,000, owing to the starting of the surtax and the cessation of earned income relief, there is a very sharp rise in the combined rate of taxation of an individual. I believe that, as a first step, there is a very strong case, as other noble Lords have said, for raising the limit of earned income relief, and, if

317
necessary, reducing the rate of it in the higher levels. On the subject of surtax, I believe that half the trouble arises from its name. After all, you have to make a social return of income and send it to a special Department, and the name itself is a very useful political weapon. Surtax is, as the Act says, merely an additional income tax, designed to carry the rate of progression up from the lower levels to the higher. I believe that if we got rid of the name, half our troubles would disappear.
So much for direct taxation. I should now like to say a word about indirect taxation and, in particular, one form of indirect taxation, namely, purchase tax. Here again, like other noble Lords, I feel that it is high time that this tax was abandoned in favour of a flat rate sales tax. I am not going into the details of where and how that would be collected. It would mean more work for someone, of course, and the work would obviously be more widespread in some cases, but I do not believe that the sum total of it would be any greater than it is with purchase tax at present. Purchase tax, like profits tax, is a relic of a war-time tax, and of course there was the obvious temptation to continue it after the war to keep up revenue. It had the added attraction that it could be used as an economic weapon. It was always possible to alter the rate of this tax from time to time so as to encourage or discourage the demand for particular products. It has been fashionable to do this regularly at Budget time, and I wonder whether Chancellors of the Exchequer and their back-room boys have really appreciated the effect of this chopping and changing.
I think it is instructive to look at the position in the United States. By comparison, the necessities of life there are on the whole dear—dearer than they are here. They are dear in that they cost what they cost to produce. Luxuries, on the other hand, are cheaper, on the whole, by comparison with prices in this country. Here purchase tax at its lower levels is applied to many necessities and near necessities, and that is simply taken account of by the purchaser in his wage demands. So it simply adds to costs, pushes up wages and leads to inflation. When you get into the higher levels, applied to what are in fact luxuries, this tax takes the goods right out of the reach
318
of the worker. There is therefore no inducement to him to work hard and try to get the money to buy these goods. I think it is high time that this tax was abandoned. It is a bad tax, and I do not think many people would be sorry to see it go.
There is just one other partner in industry for whom I would make one small plea—the shareholder. We are constantly being encouraged to save, and I think that at times those who exhort us to save tend to forget that there are other forms of savings besides those self-righteously described as "national savings". After all, industry in the long run, relies for its expansion on the shareholder who is prepared to put his capital at risk. What is the position at present? If he purchases shares he has to pay a duty of 2 per cent. on the purchase. I am connected with a number of investment trust companies and unit trusts, whose job it is to provide a channel for the small saver to put his capital at risk with industry, under the shelter of skilled management, and it is our experience that the greatest single deterrent to the small investor's doing so is this rate of stamp duty. If it cannot be abolished, or even if it cannot be reduced to its original level of 1 per cent., what logic is there in imposing this duty on the purchaser, who is the saver? Why should it not be imposed on the seller—or the person who is disposing of his savings?
My Lords, these are just one or two specific ideas; from my own specialised viewpoint; ideas as to how our tax burden could be, if not lightened, at least more fairly distributed, so as to give better incentives. I wonder whether your Lordships have ever reflected on the vast amount of brains and effort which is deployed in the task of seeing that the subject pays neither too much tax nor too little—neither more nor less than is his due. That task in material terms is totally unproductive, and at: times for those of us who are engaged in it, it can be most exasperatingly frustrating. I believe that if as great an effort were devoted to a sincere scrutiny of Government expenditure and an unprejudiced review of the whole distribution of taxation, then we should find this burden of taxation assuming a size and proportion which we could shoulder cheerfully and carry to good purpose.
5.57 p.m.
THE EARL OF CROMER: My Lords, if you take it that in 1945 £1 would buy 20s. worth of goods, in 1951, after some five years of Socialism, £1 would buy only 15s. 6d. worth of goods. In 1956 after five years of Conservative Government, that same £1 of 1945 would buy only 12s. 7d. worth of goods—a depreciation of the national currency of 37½ per cent. in about eleven years. What a deplorable failure of financial policies! Think of the hardships caused to those living on fixed incomes. Think of the fraud perpetrated on the thrifty who had been implored to save and not to spend. It is a terrible indictment of those responsible for our financial policies during these years, on whichever side of the House they may sit.
There was a time when the pound sterling was recognised the world over as a symbol of stability. It was the standard by which all other currencies were judged and, for that reason and that reason alone, it became the medium for the transaction of the bulk of world trade. Because it was freely and immediately convertible into any other of the lesser currencies should occasion arise, the pound was the one currency that was universally recognised and accepted on sight, and, indeed, it was greatly sought after. Within my lifetime, political control of the currency has undermined the world-wide confidence in the pound by subordinating integrity to political expediency. Instead of being the most coveted currency in the world, the foreigner to-day all too often holds sterling only when he has to, and then for as short a time as possible.
I believe that if the pound could be shown to have a firm basis of stability and was freely convertible in every respect, without reference to any control, however mild, which is no doubt very important psychologically to the foreigner, we should have a good chance of remaining the greatest trading nation in the world. Unless this happens, I think that it is only a matter of time before the sterling area as we know it will disintegrate. The overseas members are not going to be tied indefinitely to a currency which is constantly threatened and undermined by sociological experiments. I believe that it is essential to us in this
320
country to have a currency that is recognised throughout the world as a safe medium for long-term investment as well as for current trade. If we precipitated the dissolution of the sterling area, it would be a disaster of the first order in which the main sufferer would be the United Kingdom.
It is interesting and at the same time tragic that the basic policy of the Treasury under both Socialist and Conservative Governments appears to have been to attempt to contain inflation by exceptionally burdensome purchase taxes and taxes on personal income to a degree of oppression, but with the money so raised not only to put still more purchasing power into the hands of many who do not need it because they are already earning good wages or salaries, but at the same time also to relieve these same people of responsibilities which to-day they are happily quite capable of meeting themselves. It is quite clear now that this policy has failed, and it has been clear for a number of years; but, for all the action that has been taken, it would appear that the Treasury is bankrupt of ideas. Be that as it may, what is really lacking surely is political leadership and integrity in these matters. A lack of these has been at the root of our economic troubles.
I recall that in a previous debate on these matters, when it was suggested that purchase tax was inflationary, the noble Lord replying for the Government said, with a certain amount of apparent satisfaction, that it had been proved that the consumption of specific articles decreased when purchase tax was raised. But what he did not say, because it cannot be shown statistically, is whether the money thus retained was actually saved or spent elsewhere. Unless it was saved, there was certainly no diminution in the pressure of inflation. That is the difficulty of purchase tax. I have little doubt that the greatest single causes of inflation are not only the high rate of Government spending but also the spending power which the Government heedlessly puts into the hands of others, which in turn calls for high rates of taxation, about which we have heard so much this afternoon. Such palliatives as the ingenuity of successive Chancellors of the Exchequer have evolved during the years to avoid facing up to the real issue seem to me to have been as successful as

321
the commands of King Canute. He, at least, realised the futility of his commands.
Every time this issue has been raised, we have gathered that taxation could not be reduced because Government expenditure could not be reduced, apparently because every sector of expense is someone's sacred cow and cannot be touched. The noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, takes the rather gloomy view that it cannot be reduced in any event. I do not entirely agree with him in that respect. But at last we seem to have a Chancellor of the Exchequer who thinks in the same way as I do. I will return to this point in a moment.
When income tax first became firmly established in the last century, it was perfectly natural that it should be a progressive taxation based upon individual income. At the beginning of this century it was also natural that the social reformers should look to that source as the only source available for financing the embrionic welfare developments. At the same time, the rate of taxation never became so high that adequate capital formation was prevented There can be no possible justification for progressive taxation which penalises success. But since those far-off days, although within the lifetime of many people, there has been a major social revolution. Wages and cash incomes of millions of people have increased manifold and over the last fifty years, the living standards of millions of people have happily undergone a transformation. I am all in favour of high wages, provided they are properly earned.
But as well as this social revolution, brought about by higher wages, we have introduced the Welfare State, a Welfare State that was designed against the background of the past but which has to be paid for at the cost of the present. The majority of wage-earners to-day happily are not badly off, but too much of the cost of the Welfare State is devoted to relieving them of what unhappily they could not afford twenty-five years ago, but to-day in general can afford. We are not living in 1907 or 1927: this is 1957. It is absurd and unrealistic to expend too much of our energies on trying to mitigate the hardships of the past. We need all our energies to overcome the problems of the present, of which undoubtedly the paramount one is our economic survival.
322
The Labour Party doctrine of "fair shares for all" has led many people into the false belief that the Welfare State can be paid for substantially by the wealthier sections of the community. Of course, this is a myth. The Welfare State, in all its manifestations, costs £2,000 millions. If we take an individual income of £2,000 a year, even in our debased currency, as being the borderline at which anyone can be described as rich, the total income tax and surtax paid by all the people with an income over the £2,000 level has produced only £583 million, or roughly a quarter of the cost of the Welfare State. So that, when we get down to the facts, the people who have to pay for the Welfare State are, in the main, those with incomes below £2,000 a year. As this is an incontrovertible fact, surely it is neither desirable nor necessary for the man in Whitehall to dictate to all and sundry how to spend their own incomes. Even confiscatory taxation on the so-called rich cannot provide enough to run the Welfare Stale. This is not a question of Party politics. It is not a question between Right and Left but between right and wrong.
One or two letters that appeared in the correspondence columns of The Times a few weeks ago made out that people who think as I do wish to revert to the conditions of 1939 or earlier. This is the very opposite of what I wish to see. In point of fact, although there are many lessons to be learnt from the past, I think that many of our present troubles arise from thinking in terms of 1939 and earlier. I should like to congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer on his conception of the "Opportunity State". The creation of this is the only hope for this country and the only way in which the skilled young people will be persuaded to stay in this country. After all, it is only right and proper that a man or woman with skill, knowledge and capacity should seek opportunity rather than a dubious security.
I return to the question of Government expenditure. The most important fact to bear in mind, in my opinion, is that of the total expenditure of £6,000 million, a third (£2,000 million) is spent on the Welfare State. It is easy enough to pick on points that one considers wrong, and noble Lords who sit on the Front Bench have often complained that it is no good

323
criticising unless one can put forward constructive suggestions. When I learnt that this debate was to take place I started to turn over in my mind such constructive suggestions as might be worth your Lordships' consideration. Since then the Government have introduced plans for the reform of local government finance and some adjustments in welfare arrangements. Both of these proposals I welcome, and I hope that they are the forerunner of other steps along the same road, as we need to go considerably further if we are to come within sight of the sort of economy we need to survive in this severely competitive world.
There is one particular point that I should like to suggest to your Lordships, which arises from my original premise; that is, the absolute necessity to stabilise the currency. The first principle, I would suggest, should be that in no circumstances should any spending agency, be it local government or any other authority, have automatic recourse to the Exchequer for reimbursement of their spending, either in whole or in part. To permit spending on the basis that a certain percentage will automatically be repaid from the Exchequer is not only bound to generate inflation, but breeds spendthrift ideas, and must make virtually impossible Treasury control of the spending of public money. In general, those who have the spending of money at their disposal should be responsible either for raising it, where appropriate, as in the case of local authorities and other similar authorities, or justifying their expenditure before it is made. Those who have to look to the raising of money are more careful with the spending of it than those who are, in effect, given a blank cheque.
On welfare expenditure, I would suggest that one must start on the basis that if a man is working his wages must be at a level to provide him with a decent standard of living, according to the times in which we live. I believe that such funds as the nation can make available for welfare should be devoted primarily to the care of those who, for some reason or another, cannot care for themselves, and to protect those whom, for some reason, society cannot look after in the normal sense. I can see no justification, in this day and age, for large-scale largesse to the population as a whole—
324
such as, for example, family allowances. I suggest that it might be worth considering whether the Welfare State costs might not be divided into two categories: the first covering those items which the normal Christian morality demands of the State, such as National Assistance and the like, which should be left as a charge against the Budget as at present.
The second category, covering other items of the Welfare State, might, I suggest, be extracted completely from the normal Budget as we know it. It should be possible to have an entirely separate Social Security Budget (call it what you will) which would not have recourse to the general Exchequer. This Budget, I suggest, might be financed, first, by National Insurance contributions; and secondly, either by part of the proceeds from purchase tax, or, if purchase tax is to be abolished, by a special sales tax. Capital moneys, of course, could be raised in the normal manner. The merit of this idea, to my mind, is that it would disillusion those who believe that they are getting something free, and would produce an awareness of the truth of the situation, which is that the Welfare State has to be paid for, not by someone else but by every working member of the community.
I realise that I have raised one or two controversial issues. We have a new Administration, headed by a Prime Minister who clearly realises that if we fail to put the economics of our house in order, the future of this country is indeed black. As the old and tried policies have failed to achieve what is necessary, I feel that now is the time when new ideas should be aired and examined. I therefore welcome warmly the suggestion made by several noble Lords, that a Royal Commission or Select Committee should be set up to examine further the basis of Government expenditure. I fully realise that a month away from the Budget the noble and learned Viscount who is to reply to the debate will not be able to answer all the points that have been raised this afternoon, but I would ask him to tell his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that, if he is true to his intention to proceed with the creation of what really is an Opportunity State, he will find he has the support of all in this country who have its future at heart.
6.16 p.m.
LORD MOYNIHAN: My Lords, at this stage of the debate there is little new that can be said, but there are certain points that might be further emphasised and others that might be further underlined. On behalf of Members on these Benches—I can say "Members"—I should like to congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Crookshank, on his maiden speech. I am sorry that the attendance is rather sparse this afternoon. He may be a little surprised, although I hope not disappointed, if I say that the numbers on these Benches are greater, and their voice stronger, than he has been used to for some time in the past. I would say, also, in all humility, how much we enjoyed his wisdom and how impatient we are to hear him on future occasions.
Although we still have in this House a strong voice on these Benches, apparently the B.B.C. in their television series "Panorama", when they were discussing the future of your Lordships the other day, did not think that was the case. When I was a boy there was no television, and I had to learn the story of Robin Hood the hard way; that is to say, by reading it. At that early age I was not particularly intrigued with his association with Maid Marion, but equality of opportunity always interested me, although probably at that age I should not have put it in quite that way. As we all know, whether we have read it or seen it on television, Robin Hood stole from the rich and fed the poor. Successive Governments have taken money from the rich for so long now that there are very few honest rich left; and though the Government have not recently given to the poor the money that they have so taken, it is gratifying to see that there are far fewer poor now than there were previously, though under the present system of taxation the middle classes are rapidly taking their place.
Rather have Governments boosted up and enlarged beyond all measure the organisations which run their various Departments. The growth of the Civil Service is one of the most frightening things of the present day, and the waste of money there seems to be greater than almost anywhere else. I do not know how many of your Lordships read an article some fifteen months ago in the Economist called "Parkinson's Law." It
326
I was an extremely witty article, containing some good home truths. It gave, among other things, statistical information regarding the Admiralty and the Colonial Office—figures that have not since been denied officially. I should like to quote some of those figures to show the point at issue. In the Admiralty in 1914 there were 146,000 active personnel and 2,000 officials. In 1928, there were only 100,000 active personnel but 3,569 officials. We know that since those days the numbers of active personnel in the Admiralty have gone down considerably, yet in 1935 the officials numbered 8,000 and, in 1954, over 33,000.
In the Colonial Office, one would have thought that over recent years their work would have been lessened through the diminishment of colonial territories. Yet the number of officials has risen from 372 in 1935 to 1,661 in 1954. One wonders what the figure will have reached when there are no Colonies left to administer. It is extremely difficult to see the end of this form of inflation. Let me be quite clear. I am not suggesting that we should abolish the Civil Service, but what I do suggest is that there might be a cessation of enlistment into the Civil Service until the figures are brought down to a reasonable level.
The method of financing Government Departments also, I think, gives cause for grave criticism. There is a tremendous amount of wasted expenditure. The Army have been in trouble recently because of the waste that has been shown there; yet they are not the only culprits. Surely it is the system which is wrong. Your Lordships know what the system is: all these Departments are given a certain sum of money every year. If, at the end of the financial year, at the end of March, there is a surplus, that surplus must go back to the Treasury. So in January and February they are all rushing round trying to find how to spend any surplus they might think they have, to avoid its having to go back. That is only human, but I should have thought that, in the case of the Army, there would be a better way than buying a ten years' supply of blanco. All this extra expenditure adds to the taxes that you and I have to pay.
Then we come to the question of the Government interest in the Savings

327
Movement. In the Stock Exchange many years ago, they named Government securities, "gilt-edged" because they were the safest and the wisest form of investment. Since inflation came, that is no longer true; and many of us, to our cost, have found that it is not safe to invest money in gilt-edged securities, and that capital may well depreciate considerably. While inflation lasts, and while the value of the pound decreases, exactly the same can be said of savings. It is not right for a Government to advise its small investors to go into savings when their capital can so depreciate. If a company did not mention an important point on their prospectus, they could be accused of fraud. The Government are not mentioning a vital point, the point of inflation and the possible loss of capital, when they ask people to save. The noble Earl, Lord Cromer, mentioned the word "fraud". I think it should be underlined and not just passed over. The Government are telling people to save by way of National Savings Certificates (I am not referring to Premium Bonds, which are a different story), when in ten years' time, although their capital and interest is saved, the money they get may well be worth much less than the money they are saving now.
Finally, there are certain classes who are being penalised by the Government because they are attempting either to better themselves or their families or to live a moral life. So far as the latter point is concerned, it is still true to say that it is cheaper for a couple to live together unmarried than it is for them to live together as a married couple, because in no way can a married couple living together avoid being assessed jointly for surtax. Now, however indirectly it may be, the Government are penalising morality by letting that go on. That is, I think, a point that could be dealt with almost immediately.
Then there are the cases in which a family, through saving, are trying to better themselves in the field of education or medical treatment. Surely it is time that there was some relief from taxation for those who are prepared to save to send their children to the best schools—and I am afraid that, anyhow up to the present, one cannot say that the State school is yet the best school. Then a person is penalised for having
328
his own private doctor. The old "family doctor" has gone on for generations. Why should not a person spend a little of the money he may have in having just a little more than the State will give him? But in doing that, why should he be forced to pay for his medicines, whereas other people who do not take the trouble get it all free? That is another problem that I think could be settled immediately. Those two, surely, are blatant attempts at bringing the standard of the people down to a level, rather than trying to raise it. Surely, Her Majesty's Government, with all the traditions behind them, should realise that and attempt to put it right.
We are all grateful to the noble Lord who initiated this debate, and we were most interested in everything he said. I was a little sorry that he had to refer on so many occasions to America. We all know that at this particular time the Americans are living better than we are. This is not completely new: we found it so in the early days of the war—I mean when America came into the war—when the American soldiers came over here and had far more money to spend than our own troops. But we found exactly the same in 1939 and 1940, when we went to France, when we were a little baffled that our troops had so much more money than the French. I do not think we should look at this and compare our own country with other countries, however high the taxation may be—and I am the first to demand that it should be lowered. It is still better to live in this country than in many other parts of the world. This country was in existence and a great place before America was, if I may use the word, "invented", and maybe we shall be here for a very long time to come. All I would ask is for a "new look" in the field of taxation and in the field of public expenditure. And what better time to tackle the problem than the present?
6.29 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, we have had an extraordinarily interesting debate to-day, and however much I may have disagreed with him, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, for introducing his Motion. I listened to him with great attention, and my mind went back over the decades during which I have been interested in politics. Noble

329
Lords on the Liberal Benches may be surprised to know that I was interested in politics when I was county secretary for the League of Young Liberals, nearly fifty years ago. Listening to the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, which he had obviously studied very well, and looking at the general economic, financial and social problems we are facing to-day, I found myself living again my studies of the speeches on Mr. Lloyd George's Budget of 1910 made by members of the Conservative Party and in the House of Lords. We heard them almost word for word, except, that on that occasion we had not the great outstanding pieces of properly justified expenditure on war for liberty and freedom in 1914–18, which very largely increased the liabilities falling generally upon the community. I recalled that when the noble Lord said, if he will forgive me for reminding him, that free society and Parliamentary institutions were at stake. We heard arguments like that from the Conservative Party when it was proposed to introduce the old age pension of 5s. a week. It was almost the exact language, and so I did not feel quite so alarmed about it, coming from that quarter of the House, as perhaps some might have felt.
Nevertheless, there is no doubt that, by the way in which he deployed his general arguments, the noble Lord has done a useful service in letting it be known from that quarter of the House that there is certainly no room for complacency in the present situation. One or two statements have been made on behalf of the Government in the past few weeks since the Suez adventure (I will not say that they came from all Ministers alike) from which one would imagine that everything was going to be for the best in the best of all worlds, in spite of all that we have gone through in the last twelve months. Therefore, I welcome the fact, that from that side of the House come warnings of this kind.
We have to look carefully—I am quite sure the noble Viscount who is going to reply will recognise this—at how the kind of arguments which are put forward to the Government in the present situation affect our own particular views of what needs to be done. In effect, the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, said that two things were required. One was that we
330
needed fundamentally to reduce expenditure, and the other was the need to reduce taxation. The other things, whether the incidence of taxes should be rearranged, and certain things of that kind, all fitted in, but that was the objective of his address to the House to-day. My noble friend Lord Pethick-Lawrence, I think, has rarely put a more succinct survey before your Lordships' House than he has done this afternoon. He did not want to take too long; otherwise, I am certain he would have driven home still further his points with plenty of figures, but he was wise enough not to trouble us with too many figures.
But when we come to look at the problem put to the House by the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, we wonder where noble Lords opposite want to begin. I have listened carefully to the noble Earl. Lord Cromer, to the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, and to others. It seems to me that what is really desired is to make an attack—although the noble Earl, Lord Cromer, dissociated himself from this idea—on the way in which the present resources of the country are distributed as between the different sections of the population. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, shakes his head, but I will read the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow to make sure that I am not being unfair, speaking, as I am, on the spur of the moment, in reply to the debate; but certainly that was my impression.
I am bound to say that, when we consider what we have been talking about, and the fact that almost no one has mentioned that our expenditure in defence of liberty in the last three or four decades has been so colossal, we can perhaps fail to understand why we should have to meet part, at any rate, of the problem we face to-day. We have a debt of £29,000 million at the present time. It is not on the decrease, it is on the increase. The debt which existed at the end of the First World War was £8,000 million, but the actual expenditure of the substance of the country in these two Great Wars is not to be measured by the amount of the social debt they left behind. Far and away greater was the expenditure upon those undertakings. I dare say that experts more informed on these matters than I am would probably assess what we have had to spend at much nearer £130,000 million to £140,000 million in

331
the last forty to fifty years—not what we have remaining, but what we have spent, and what damage we have suffered in our economy in consequence.
I am quite prepared to look at the general financial position, recognising that this great people of ours, composed of all classes of the community, has come through these two great struggles in our history, and that it has so brought them together that there was a decision, wisely made, by the Coalition Government in office during war time that there should be such a reconstruction of society as to bring justice to the people who that mixed Government recognised had made such vast contributions to the victory for liberty. I say advisedly (I am quite sure the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, will not disagree with me, because he had so much to do with the keeping of our finances on as sound a basis as possible in circumstances of great difficulty, yet trying to keep a fair and just outlook upon the question of future social justice in the country) that many a time—not once but far more than once—I have seen our former Prime Minister, Sir Winston Churchill, in a state of great emotion when studying the post-war plans, and heard him say, I feel sure completely sincerely: "I know it is going to cost a lot of money, but look at what these people have done for us. They deserve every bit of it and they ought to have it." That was the atmosphere in which the Welfare State, about which we now hear so many sarcastic remarks, came into being. I am quite sure that there are many noble Lords on the opposite side of the House who would not wish to let the country forget the share that all Parties in the State had in building the Welfare State.
Now let us look at the present situation in a rather more critical and political way than I have done so far. The immediate and urgent situation to-day has not come about without some contribution to our difficulties from the present Government; we cannot shut our eyes to that fact. What the noble Viscount, Lord Crookshank, whose maiden speech we all welcomed so much, and whom we hope to hear speak often in the future, said is perfectly true. We are beset regularly with crises on the balance of payments, but there are some fluctuations in the call upon our reserves which could be avoided.
332
That is one of the main problems that we are facing to-day. I am speaking now without reference to any records, but consider this. At the end of January of this year our gold and dollar reserves were down to approximately 2,100 million dollars. It may be that that does not look too bad a figure in relation to the state of our gold and dollar reserves in 1949, in which year, I think, we devalued. But in arriving at that figure of 2,100 million dollars at the end of January, as was pointed out in another place the other day, the Government had received the whole of the proceeds of the sale of the Trinidad Oil Company, and they had got the receipts from the borrowing from the International Monetary Fund and the International Bank. If they had been without any of those receipts, then the actual gold and dollar reserves at the end of January would have been lower than the figure at which it was deemed essential to devalue the currency.
Nor can there be any dispute whatsoever, in my judgment, that the decline of our gold and dollar reserves was greatly accelerated by the unfortunate adventure into Suez. I do not want to go into the details of that; I simply state what I believe to be the fact—that our expenditure and what it has cost us in our general credit overseas, combined together, were a large factor in that respect. It is in the light of that that we have to consider the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, and particularly the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth. His was a most fascinating speech. I listened to it, and I liked the humour of it and the competence of the presentation of some parts of the case. But when I had finished listening to him, I wondered what on earth is going to happen, because he admitted frankly that a lot of the cuts in Government expenditure that are asked for are never likely to be made because they would not be accepted by the public at large. Then, when he went on to deal with the various forms of taxation which he would like to see reduced or transferred to somebody else, I wondered how on earth he would shape at the Treasury in producing a balanced Budget and giving the people, for whom no doubt he was speaking in his mind to-day, all that they wanted. I just could not make it up.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, if I may reply to the noble Viscount, I said

333
specifically that any reductions and changes in taxation which I recommended were with the object of increasing productivity and therefore the national product, and of providing the means to carry these burdens.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I am mindful of what the noble Lord said in that respect. What I am puzzled about is that when I went through the various things he mentioned and the process that could be adopted in present circumstances, I thought to myself: how is he going to get the money, and from whom? Perhaps he will look at his speech again. Perhaps he will be so kind as to tell me whether I am unfair about it, and exactly where the money was coming from. If he tells me I am, I shall be glad to send him a little note of regret, indicating that perhaps I have not represented him fairly. But that is the impression left upon me as I listened to him to-day.
We have had the meat of the matter put by my noble friend Lord Pethick-Lawrence, in pointing out that the attempt at control by the Government, in addition to their policy in Suez, has been fundamental in bringing us to the present position. I would go a little further than my noble friend Lord Pethick-Lawrence, who has a kind heart and is perhaps not so controversial as myself. I would say that not only is that so, but that the general policy of the Government since 1951, when they were first returned post-war as an elected Government, has been wrong economically. They went all out in order to see that their motto of "Set the people free" should be carried into the economic and financial sphere. In fact, there has been a free-for-all, and instead of its leading us into the position that we wanted, where we should have the most economic production in the world and should be able, therefore, to keep a hold upon the expanding markets overseas that we had already obtained from 1945 to 1950, we had such a movement in the direction of wages to catch up with all the increases in prices brought about by the Government's action, including their removal of food subsidies, that there was a serious check in the rate of our development, and especially so in our production.
There can be no argument about the figures. The figures show clearly that in the five years to 1950–51 our general
334
increase of production was, on the average, something over 6 per cent. per annum. If you look at the last five years, you will find that our increase of production has not been much more than 3 per cent., and in the last eighteen months it has given cause for great anxiety to those in industry and finance who are specially interested in this matter. In 1953 we actually received 120 million dollars of defence aid from the United States. Instead of conserving that in order to get on with the production of our armaments programme without too much difficulty, we relieved direct taxation, gave away money—just as was done again by Mr. Butler in what we have been accustomed to call the Election Budget of 1955. In the Election campaign in 1955 it was being argued on Tory platforms, following the announcement by Mr. Butler, that, from the progress we were making and the prosperity we were enjoying, there was no reason at all why we should not easily double our standard of living in 25 years. Believe me, the exercise in a community of that kind of stimulation—the "free for all"—has meant that there has been more consumption and more demand. In order to bring that about, expenditure has gone up, prices have risen, and that has been reflected in a far higher rate of increases in salaries and wages than would otherwise have been the case.
That is the position we have to meet at the present time. I am puzzled to know from the speeches of the noble Lord who introduced the first Motion, and from the speeches of Lord Cromer, Lord Balfour of Inchrye and others, what they propose to do about it. Are the Government anxious not merely to have disinflation to hold the balance of payments right and to maintain a steady and stable currency, or do they want deflation? The people who were so often associated with myself in political matters and in industrial organisations believe, whether the Government like it or not, that what they are seeking is general deflation. The people had quite enough experience from 1918 up to 1932 not to want a repetition of that kind of thing.
In dealing with these matters, I think we had better understand quite clearly where we are. Nobody has more repeatedly or fairly stated this case than has my noble friend, Lord Pethick

335
Lawrence. We are not, and never have been, against a proper measure of monetary control where required to meet a situation. But in the face of a national debt of £29,000 million and the need for keeping up our production to meet that situation, we cannot hope so to organise our economy without major planning. We cannot meet the needs of the particular year, or two or three years together, our needs abroad and at home, without proper planning, without having physical controls. The Party opposite are professedly dead against them, but as a consequence we suffer very serious results.
I do not want to take more time of your Lordships' House to-night, but I do beg all of us who are present to-night to remember that we regard each other from our different points of view as being sincere in trying to retain the best we can for our country. It hurts us over here as much as it hurts you over there if we see some of the youngest and best and most qualified of our population emigrating, for one reason or another, in numbers above the average. We want our population to be faithful and affectionate, loving and loyal to their own country; and we want conditions here such as would help and stimulate them. But we will never agree to return—and I gather from one or two interjections that even the Party opposite do not desire it—to the kind of pure, undiluted, competitive processes of the between-the-wars period which brought our people, the people we love and for whom we have worked all our lives, who gave themselves as loyally and as lovingly for their country as any other class in the community in that great struggle, to levels which ought never to have existed in modern times in this country. We will never permit that situation to return if we can help it.
So we now say to the Government that we regret much of their policy in the last twelve months which has come home to roost economically. A little rise in gold reserves here and there from month to month may still merit a little appreciation, but we are placed in a difficult situation, if we go up and down like that at the moment. What we need to do is to restore confidence in the people. They have lost a great deal of the confidence they had, and I hope therefore that, whatever may
336
be suggested to-night, the Government, in dealing with this matter will not overlook the fact that we need our people to be educated upon this particular problem. Let us have the Commission or something of that kind for which the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, pressed, and let us get the real facts of the situation home to the people. Let us get our ideas right, that we are going to be fair to all the people and not merely a section of the people. Then I think we can restore the kind of confidence that is needed to meet a very difficult situation.
6.54 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF EDUCATION (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, I will not conceal the fact that when the vagaries of politics informed me, somewhat to my surprise, that at any rate for the time being I was to be the Minister to respond on behalf of the Treasury to debates in your Lordships' House, I viewed my new responsibilities with unmitigated pleasure, and that for two reasons. The first was that I felt quite certain that I should be able to enlarge my knowledge and enjoyment of economic subjects by the wealth and riches of the speeches which are made in the course of your Lordships' debates on these subjects. The second was that I greatly looked forward to having briefs from the Treasury of such unsurpassing power that everybody would take me for a serious authority on economics. In the first respect this afternoon I have not been disappointed. We have had a most enlightening and improving debate, and noble Lords who have spoken will forgive me if I mention only the two impressive speeches with which the debate began and the welcome maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Crookshank, whose intervention in our debate was such a pleasure to us all. If I mention individually no other speeches at this stage it is because there were so many so excellent contributions.
In the second respect, I am bound to say that I have been disappointed. As regards consulting those who are to advise me how to reply to a debate of this character, noble Lords will remember that in this month of the year the Treasury is in labour and the officials can talk of nothing but my right honourable friend's approaching confinement. I am allowed to say nothing except to wish him a safe

337
delivery, a sentiment with which I am perfectly sure all your Lordships will generously agree. I fear that also applies in particular to the demand for a new Macmillan Committee or Royal Commission, whichever alternative were proposed. I am advised that such an announcement could be made only as part of my right honourable friend's Budget statement, and every Minister of the present Government must now live in terror of anticipating that in any way, for fear of causing repercussions in another place.
Indeed, my Lords, if I were really confined to the advice and instructions I have received I should make a speech which would be at least gratifying in its brevity. I feel, however, that some of your Lordships would feel that it was too brief; and therefore, with a suitable disclaimer of any internal knowledge of what is likely to emerge from the labours in Treasury Chambers, I thought I might be allowed to make a few comments, strictly of my own, on the observations which have fallen during the course of this debate, making it quite clear that I neither know what my right honourable friend intends nor, if I did, would I be free to disclose or anticipate it in any way. If any unwise speculator in the City is to attempt to draw deductions from anything I may say or keep silent about in any investment he may make in securities, I can only say that he will get what he deserves.
As I heard this debate develop, like the noble Viscount Who concluded for the Opposition, I cast my mind back on the experience of a rather shorter lifetime. When I first awoke to the realities of economics my father used to go to chambers at about 9 o'clock in the morning carrying in his right trouser pocket a remarkable gadget in which were contained golden sovereigns. There were quite a number of them retained by a spring in a device which was then the familiar accompaniment of every gentleman of the middle class. With that gadget he could go across Europe unarmed, without a passport, to every country except Imperial Russia, and there he could go with his sovereign case although he would require a passport too. He could enter a shop in Paris, take out one of his sovereigns and there receive change in the currency of the country, which he could in due course exchange again in Basle for Swiss
338
francs at a perfectly well known rate of exchange. Indeed, as one looks upon that economic scene one is reminded inevitably of the words of the ageing Theiron. When he was asked by a young Frenchman what it had been like to live under the old régime, he replied "Qui n'a pas vècu avant la révolution, n'a jamais connu le bonheur de la vie."
In a sense, I agree with that judgment which was evidently that of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, on this subject. In substance, it is true, of course, that the avalanche which was let loose after 1914 destroyed the exchanges of Europe and undermined and finally took away the golden pound and all the various things which could have been comprehended in what the late Mr. Ernest Bevin called his "foreign policy" which I heard him utter in a place which was constitutionally different from the present. but in location not very differently situated from where we are now. He said "My idea of a foreign policy is to be able to get a ticket at Victoria Station and go where the hell I like." All that has been swept away, and we have lost much in the course of the disaster.
We who have been privileged to live in this age have indeed been born to an age of revolutionary change, not all of which has been for the best; but I must say that I am to some extent in agreement with the noble Viscount who has just resumed his seat that some, at any rate, of the spaciousness and charm of those memories is illusory. We remember the freedom, the stability, the ordered progress and, above all, the security from war which had persisted over the greater part of Europe for nigh on a century when it came to pieces in our hands; but we forget the bitter political struggles of those days, the severe industrial disputes, the constant endemic poverty, the as yet dimly apprehended social realities, all of which half a century of experience has taught us, and taught us much to our advantage, to consider.
Between the two wars, I look back to a different period. The golden sovereigns had disappeared from the trousers pockets of the middle class, but the pound could, as the saying then was, "still look the dollar in the face"—whatever that might mean. Contrary to what the noble Viscount has said, the economic historians will say that, despite the adverse

339
elements to which I will presently attach what importance I feel right, the era was one none the less of economic progress and social progress on a great scale, which can be demonstrated by figures to any who are curious enough to inquire.
Very largely, the foundations of our present social security were laid during those years. None the less, we suffered from a continuing and increasing balance of payments problem, even then. It is well to remember, when we talk of our balance of payments problem to-day, that such a problem is by no means always associated with inflation. I can well remember the year 1931 when we had a balance of payments problem in an acute form associated with acute deflation. Side by side with the social and economic progress and with the persistent and growing problem of the balance of payments, that period of time was darkened by the spectre of the endemic depression which cast the shadow of unemployment over the whole of our national life, laying the foundations of bitterness and frustration from which we have only recently begun to recover. That was the second period through which we lived."
Since 1945, we have been living in a different atmosphere. Another world war has supervened. Once again our material resources were drained; once again we lost at any rate a part of the flower of our manhood, although not, happily, on the same scale as that first terrible blood bath of 1914 to 1918. Once again we looked forward with sincerity and conviction to the prospect of a new and better world which we should build on the ruins of the old. And I must say our hopes have not altogether been mistaken. I believe it is wrong to paint the picture in too gloomy tones. When I go about the streets of this city and see the children vigorous, straight-limbed, well clad, with bright faces and obviously never under-nourished, I cannot regret the changes which have taken place in those recent years. There is no unemployment. We talk about social security, but social security, in a sense, is full employment. In full employment there can be adequate wages. In full employment there can even be the means to provide the social security payments for those who have them not.
340
I cannot regard the tremendous economic progress to which I will draw attention in a moment as something which can fairly be described as the result of alcoholism. In that impressive speech with which my noble friend inaugurated this debate and with which, for the most part, I not only sympathised but agreed, I thought he did his best passages less than justice by that analogy. Since the war, there has been a tremendous recrudescence of social progress and economic strength in this country. During that time we have been subjected to many undeserved setbacks. Who could have foreseen, for instance, that less than five years after the end of hostilities we should be subjected to the Korean war, as a result of which we are now spending the best part of £1,500 million on defence? That is not our fault. It is not the fault of any Government. It is not due to what my noble friend, Lord Cromer, referred to as any want of integrity or political leadership. It is a burden to which we have been unjustifiably subjected but which we could not decently have avoided.
Now we are bearing more than our share of that burden. We are bearing, in proportion, a burden heavier than any other of the free States except the United States of America; and we have justifiably told our Allies that part of that burden must, in future, be more equally shared. But we need not be ashamed of our leadership in this respect. We need not blame our Governments for it. We need not, above all, allow it to depress us unduly if we cannot effect all the economies we desire; because side by side with that gigantic burden of defence we have shouldered a social programme the like of which the world has scarcely ever seen and the greater part of which is accepted by all bodies of opinion in this country.
Side by side with the social programme, to which I will revert in a moment, we have, at the same time, embarked on a great policy of economic investment. We have increased our assets overseas, I am told, by no less than £1,400 million, £700 million of which was achieved in the last five years. Recently the rate of internal investment has been running at somewhere about £3,000 million. Yesterday we had the announcement of a programme of a further £1,000 million, or

341
thereabouts, if my recollection serves me rightly, for atomic development. We have embarked upon a reorganisation of our railways, and upon projects in school building and industrial construction which will occupy most of our resources for years to come. Barring accidents, we can therefore look forward to a period of increased prosperity and increased wealth. I am not here to apologise for my right honourable friend who said that in twenty-five years from 1955 we should have doubled our standard of living. I believe that that implies progress covering 7 per cent. of our gross national product in that time. I do not think that that was an extravagant forecast and I see no reason at all, therefore, why we should view the present situation as one for despondency or gloom, or for mutual recrimination on this occasion.
It is, of course, true that, side by side with this heavy burden of intense activity to which the nation has been subjected, there has also been a tremendous outburst of apolaustic enjoyment which has almost reached the proportions of a shopping spree at times. I do not think we need be ashamed of that at all. The inevitable consequence has undoubtedly been a period of what is called inflation, which has caused a great deal of inconvenience, though I must say, for my part, that it seems to have caused very much less inconvenience than the depression through which I lived in the earlier part of my manhood, and a great deal less suffering.
I do not regard as adequate even Lord Pethick-Lawrence's description of our state as "middling prosperity." I think that the right description for what we are going through is abounding prosperity and extreme economic precariousness. This great prosperity, balanced on a razor's edge, goes side by side with this intensive economic activity which has resulted in a gross national product of something like £16,000 million. We are faced with the perennial trouble of our balance of payments and the constant spectre of the decreasing value of money, both of which, quite legitimately, are pointed to by noble Lords who say that they threaten our economic security. They do; and they must be faced. As I ventured to say in another place, out of doors, only ten days ago, if the people of this country do not deal with what is
342
facing them realistically, and with intellectual honesty, I very much doubt whether they will get another chance very much later. Let us not, on the whole, look upon these things as marks of any want of prosperity. Our trouble is that our prosperity is great, but it is not in the least secure.
That leads me to a short (I hope) discussion of the subjects upon which we base our expenditure. I have already dealt to some extent with defence, and your Lordships will know that considerable cuts in our expenditure are contemplated. But do not let us forget that, having made cuts, our expenditure will still be enormous by any pre-war standards—more than the whole of the pre-war Budget, on any view. As I understand, my right honourable friend is trying to limit his Estimates to last year's total—a somewhat modest ambition, if the desire is to cut Government expenditure. We are spending about £1,600 million a year on various social services. So far as education is con-corned, I do not come here in a white sheet, as one of the national dailies the other day said that I ought to do, because I preside, so it is said, over one of the most extravagant of Government Departments.
I do not regard education as an extravagance. I do not think that, in spending the money on education which we in fact spend, we are spending it extravagantly. A small inquiry would, I think, show that we were spending less than 3 per cent. of our national product upon education. That is rather less than half what the Americans are spending, and about one-third of what the Russians are spending. In fact, we get very much better value for our money than any other comparable system of education. I do not think any complaint can be levelled against us for spending £514 million a year, taking central and local expenditure together. I believe that it is an investment which will yield great dividends in every field. I know of no other way by which a country can remain great than by spending money on the education of its children. I believe that the world as a whole is only beginning dimly to apprehend the vast improvement in its standard of life which can be achieved by the education of its people. Because this is not a debate on the educational

343
services I will say no more under that head.
It is true that many of the evils against which we planned, in 1944, 1945 and 1946, by way of our social services have not come about. The Beveridge Report and the White Papers which succeeded it were all based on the belief that we were going to have about 10 per cent. of unemployment. Many of the evils insured against were evils accentuated by that supposed possibility. I believe it is true that the social services then designed could have been designed more economically if it had been fully apprehended that we were going to have for fifteen years at least (and I hope it will last very much longer) a system of full employment. The Health Service plan was based on an expenditure of £175 million a year. Sir Stafford Cripps thought that he would limit it to £400 million a year. At the latest figures it is running at something like £690 million a year. These are very startling figures. As I see it, the National Heath Service, if not properly controlled, will run away with a very great deal of our national resources. Pension funds will be in the red, as far as I know, somewhere about the middle of next year, to the tune of £40 million. By about 1970, I am told, the annual deficit—not what it is spending, but the deficit—will be about £380 million if nothing is done about it.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Does the noble Viscount mean per year, or the cumulative deficit?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I think it is per year. But I am speaking without the book. However, I think I am speaking in fairly accurate terms.
These are facts which the country must face. It is no good using recriminatory terms when we point to the events which are occurring. We may not like them, but we have got to face them. I think that, unless fairly stern measures are taken to control them, our budgetary situation for our social services will face a serious financial crisis much sooner than we think. What then are we to do? Abandon the social services for which many people have spent part of their lives? Breaking off here, may I say that I did mislead the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence just now. I should have said "cumulative deficit". I apologise.
344
Are we going to abandon these social services? I think that that would not be the right course. I think we are entitled to say, as my right honourable friend said on, I think, February 19 in another place, that some greater charge for them must be made if they are to be maintained, and if honest finance is to be retained. After all, as one of your Lordships said, in a system of full employment a country is entitled to look to wages and salaries as primary sources out of which the ordinary necessities of life ought to be met. It is true that needs to be qualified by the insurance principle. We have learned to pay while we are well for what we may suffer when we are sick or indisposed. At the same time, we have all to be on guard against the belief, which I think has been growing in recent years, that we, as a nation or as individuals, have a right to a gradually expanding standard of life always at the expense of other people. As I see it, inflation is nothing more or less than just a large number of individuals making upon the cumulative resources of the country a large number of demands, amounting, in fact, to a bigger total than the cumulative resources are able to meet. It is against that that we must fight. That is the true nature of inflation.
I see absolutely no reason to believe that my right honourable friend and the Government, of which I am almost the junior Member, will fail to fight it. I may be wrong. I heard my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye say that we were in low water in some respects. I am not altogether afraid of that. We have to face serious and hard decisions, but I believe that the country is simply waiting for the ring of new leadership and real moral authority coming from the Government. I believe (though here I may be wrong because I speak as one who should not perhaps say it) that in the few weeks that have elapsed since the change of Government, the loss of our Leader, which was a grievous blow to us all both personally and politically, has been responded to as a challenge. There is a new spirit moving over the face of the waters. There is a feeling that we can expect some kind of new look in the administration of affairs. I am aware that the new look may be also a stern one for the people to face, but I have never known a period in the history of

345
this country when it did not respond to realities when those realities were conscientiously and courageously pointed out We must remember that in times like this it is not only Governments but countries and systems of government which are under trial. If we will not face the necessity for spending enough on investment and education, but continue to spend more on enjoyment than we spend on the true necessities of life, we shall find that the dictatorships will lead us, and will ultimately beat us in the race for the control of the world. What that would mean to the civilised community I should not like to think.
My Lords, I am deeply grateful, both to my noble friend Lord Coleraine, who moved the Motion, and to the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, for the way in which this debate has been conducted. I can assure them both that everything they have said will be faithfully reported to my right honourable friend, and if I have said nothing more positive about what his intentions may be, they will understand that that is out of deference to tradition and out of the depths of my own ignorance.
7.22 p.m.
LORD COLERAINE: My Lords, I cannot complain of my noble friend's reply to the debate on the Motion which I submitted to your Lordships' House. If I did not agree with every jot and tittle of his argument at the beginning of his speech, I certainly agreed wholly with the spirit at the end of it, and I am grateful to him for the consideration he has given to the matters which have been raised in the debate. I am also grateful for the fairness with which the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, dealt with my Motion in his winding-up speech. Therefore, there is no purpose in my proceeding with the Motion. However, before I withdraw it, there is one thing that I must say and one or two things that I should like to say.
346
When I was speaking earlier, I attributed to the Parliamentary Leader of the Labour Party certain comments. The noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, asked if I could give a reference. I said that I had not got it then, but hoped that I should be able to provide it by the end of the debate. I have been unable to find the reference. Therefore, I must withdraw the imputation that I made against the Parliamentary Leader of the Labour Party, and I hope that the House will forgive me for the rashness with which I made a quotation which I had not verified. What I should like to say before I withdraw my Motion is how grateful I am to noble Lords who have spoken. I feel that it has added much to the importance of the debate that my noble friend Lord Waverley should have made his weighty speech. There have been other notable speeches from many of my noble friends. I regard it as a great and happy chance for me that this debate which I initiated should have been the occasion of the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Crookshank. As I listened to his speech and to the Parliamentary manner I know so well, to his full information, the grace with which he spoke, and his conciseness, I was reminded of the schoolboy who wrote an essay about Queen Elizabeth I and began by saying: "Queen Elizabeth was known as the Virgin Queen. As a Queen she was a great success." My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

PORT OF LONDON BILL [H.L.]
Reported, with an Amendment.
BLYTH HARBOUR BILL [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.
  NON-FULFILMENT OF UNITED NATIONS RECOMMENDATIONS
  NON-FULFILMENT OF UNITED NATIONS RECOMMENDATIONS
  GENERAL ASSEMBLY
  GENERAL ASSEMBLY