Sitting of 12 March 1957

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

    Land Development (Planning Permission)
    Mr. H. Wilsonasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he is aware of the decision to build a garage in the vicinity of Trent Avenue, Huyton, within Liverpool but adjacent to Huyton-with-Roby, to the detriment of local amenities; and if he will use his powers under Section 14 (3) of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, or otherwise, to provide that local planning authorities, before granting permission to develop land shall consult in appropriate cases with neighbouring local authorities and/or with persons whose amenities are likely to be prejudiced.
    The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Mr. Henry Brooke): Planning permission for the erection of the garage has been granted by the Liverpool City Council. In reply to the second part of the Question, Article 9 of the General Development Order requires a local planning authority to consult a neighbouring local planning authority before granting permission for development if it appears to them likely to affect land in the area of the neighbouring authority.
    Mr. Wilson: As that procedure has not been followed in this case, will the right hon. Gentleman once again draw the attention of local authorities to the need to consult neighbouring local authorities in these boundary cases? Secondly, would he consider, as a more long-term proposition, whether it is not desirable, when building of this kind affects local amenities, that those whose amenities will
    950
    be affected might have the right to be heard before a decision is reached?
    Mr. Brooke: With regard to the first part of that question, I am quite sure that the Liverpool City Council was not unaware of the provisions of Article 9, but it decided not to act in that sense. I have no reason to think that the local planning authorities are not perfectly well aware of their duties under the Article, though the interpretation might not be absolutely uniform. The second part of the right hon. Gentleman's question raises further considerations.
    Mr. Mitchison: Was the Huyton-with-Roby Council consulted by the Liverpool Corporation in this case? If not, why not?
    Mr. Brooke: No, Sir. The Liverpool City Council, which, after all, is an autonomous authority in these matters, decided that it was not incumbent upon it to do so.

    Public Conveniences, Newcastle-under- Lyme (Loan Sanction)
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will now grant loan sanction for the scheme to provide public conveniences in Hassell Street, Newcastle-under-Lyme, for which the Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council re-applied in the Town Clerk's letter to his Department of 7th February.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. J. R. Bevins): My right hon. Friend's Department has suggested certain modifications to the borough council. If these are acceptable, he will be able to give loan sanction as soon as planning permission has been obtained.
    Mr. Swingler: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that these apparently second thoughts may give some satisfaction to my constituents, especially unemployed building workers, as well as some general relief to my constituents?
    Mr. Bevins: It is not a matter of second thoughts. Conversations have been going on between the Ministry and the local authority, and agreement has now been provisionally reached.
    Mr. Swingler: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, as the scheme was first turned

    951
    down, I am expressing pleasure that the Department is now having second thoughts and has approved a modified scheme?

    Private Street Works
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he is aware of the financial hardship suffered by citizens who have no responsibility for the private and unmade character of the streets in which they live but who, under existing law, are forced to pay large bills for their frontage share of the cost of repairing such streets; and if he will initiate inquiries with a view to considering the desirability of amending the law so as to provide alternative methods of relieving such citizens of a part or the whole of this burden.
    Mr. H. Brooke: I am not satisfied, on the information before me, that the present law regarding liability for private street works is unreasonable. I am, however, making inquiries to see what use is made of the provisions for the avoidance of hardship which already exist, and I will consider the matter further in the light of this information.
    Mr. Swingler: Would the Minister consider setting up a committee of inquiry on this subject? Is he aware that the law on this subject is more than sixty years old and that many local authority experts regard it as obsolete and an obstacle to getting these roads made up? Will he, therefore, have investigations made into the whole position?
    Mr. Brooke: Perhaps the hon. Member will agree that in the first place I should make further inquiries into the extent to which local authorities are using their existing power.

    Unadopted Streets and Roads
    Mr. Haymanasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government (1) if he will call for a return from all local authorities showing how many miles of unadopted streets there are in England and how many have been in existence 10, 20, 30, 40, or 50 years or more, respectively; and if he will publish the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT;
    (2) if he will call for a return from all highway authorities showing how many miles of unadopted roads there are in the
    952
    rural districts of England; and if he will publish the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Bevins: My right hon. Friend does not feel justified in asking local authorities to undertake the work which would be involved in supplying this information.
    Mr. Hayman: Will not the Minister reconsider this matter? There are literally hundreds of miles of unadopted streets and thousands of miles of unadopted roads. Parish councils throughout my constituency are very concerned about these roads in the countryside. Will the hon. Gentleman look into the question again?
    Mr. Bevins: It is perfectly true that there is a very considerable amount of work remaining to be done in this respect, but at the moment we can see no good purpose being served by asking for this information. I think we know the size of the problem, and we shall certainly bear the suggestion of the hon. Member in mind.

    Town Development Schemes
    Mrs. Butlerasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many schemes of town development have been approved since 28th March, 1956.
    Mr. Bevins: Approval has been given under Section 4 of the Town Development Act, 1952, to fifteen schemes which involve the payment of contributions by an exporting authority to a receiving district.
    Mrs. Butler: Does the Minister realise that the Housing Subsidies Act has had the effect of forcing over-crowded local authorities to depend on these town development schemes for relief, and in view of the very small number of schemes which have been approved—with the great delays there are in approving schemes which have been under consideration for a long time—will he not look again into the whole question of town development grants, and particularly into increasing the Exchequer contribution to these schemes?
    Mr. Bevins: I can assure the hon. Lady that my right hon. Friend has this general question of overspill constantly under review, but I would repeat, if I may, that these fifteen schemes have been approved in the period since March, 1956, and, in

    953
    fact, quite a considerable number of houses are being built in various parts of the country under those schemes.
    Mr. W. R. Williams: To deal, once again, more with the particular than the general for a moment, may I ask whether the Minister will agree that Manchester's overspill problem is one which is awaiting the decision of the Cabinet; and as that decision has been awaited now for many years, will he take steps to bring to the notice of the Prime Minister the extreme dissatisfaction felt by all sections of the community in Manchester at this very unreasonable delay?
    Mr. Bevins: Much as I should like to add to what my right hon. Friend has said, I am afraid that that does not arise out of this Question.

    No. 1, Devonshire Terrace, W/
    Mr. K. Robinsonasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he is aware that the owners of No. 1, Devonshire Terrace, W. 1, have now given two months' notice of their intention to demolish the property; and if he will now take urgent steps to preserve this house, in which Charles Dickens wrote "David Copperfield".
    Mr. Bevins: The answer to the first part of the Question is "Yes". My right hon. Friend is in touch with the London County Council, as the local planning authority, but it is too early to say what steps, if any, will be taken to preserve this house.
    Mr. Robinson: Would not the Parliamentary Secretary agree that, quite apart from its outstanding historic interest, this is the type of pleasant London house of which we have lost far too many in the last twenty or thirty years? Will he and his right hon. Friend bear this consideration in mind before approving a plan to pull down this house and put up a block of offices in its place?
    Mr. Bevins: Yes, my right hon. Friend will certainly have regard to that consideration, but as the hon. Gentleman knows, this is a matter, in the first instance, for the London County Council, which can, if it so wishes, make a preservation order. In the meantime, we are discussing the matter with the Committee on buildings of special historic interest.

    Water Supplies and Sewerage Schemes (Rural Areas)
    Mr. Deedesasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he is aware that rural district authorities are dissatisfied by the interpretation he has given to Circular 30/55 of 14th April, 1955, whereby payment of periodic grants under the Rural Water Supplies and Sewerage Act, 1955, are started only when final settlement with the contractors is concluded, not at completion of contract or scheme; and whether, in view of the financial difficulty this is causing to a number of such authorities, he will agree that, in future, such payments shall begin on the physical completion of the scheme.
    Mr. Bevins: My right hon. Friend is not aware of any general complaint about this. He is always willing to make a payment on account at a date earlier than that of final settlement with the contractor, and indeed earlier than the completion of the work, if an authority can show that an undue burden would otherwise fall on their rates.
    Mr. Deedes: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that in every case eighteen months and sometimes more elapse between the completion of the scheme and the conclusion of a contract, and that that has already caused a certain amount of hardship to small local authorities? Will he, even at the cost of some administrative inconvenience to his Department, have another look at the matter to see whether it cannot be made a general rule to pay on completion of the scheme?
    Mr. Bevins: As I have said, we are perfectly willing to make payments on account earlier than the final settlement with the contractors on their completion of the work. We are perfectly ready to look as this question.
    Sir P. Agnewasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if, in exercise of his powers under Section 5 of the Water Act, 1945, he will require the Gloucester Corporation to formulate proposals for a supply of piped water to the south-western area of the Upton rural district.
    Mr. Bevins: Proposals for supplying the area concerned have been formulated by the Upton on Severn Rural District

    955
    Council, which is the responsible water-undertaker. These proposals are, however, dependent on a bulk supply from Gloucester City Corporation and on arrangements for supplying part of Newent Rural District. I understand that financial negotiations between the three authorities are likely to be completed shortly.

    Clean Air Council
    Mr. Moyleasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what steps he has taken to appoint the Clean Air Council in accordance with the provisions of the Clean Air Act, 1956.
    Mr. H. Brooke: Arrangements for the appointment of the Clean Air Council are in train, and I hope to be able to announce its composition before long.

    Open Country, West Riding (Access)
    Mr. Blenkinsopasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government when he proposes to give a decision on access to open country in the West Riding of Yorkshire following the local inquiry on 26th October, 1955.
    Mr. Bevins: My right hon. Friend hopes to do so shortly. He regrets the delay, which has been due partly to the ill-health of the inspector since the inquiry, and partly to the very complicated nature of the case.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Does the Minister realise that we have been waiting for as long as eighteen months for this decision and in fact what is being asked for is general access to this stretch of very fine moorland rather than a limited number of rights of way?
    Mr. Bevins: I appreciate that. A decision will be issued very soon.

  HOUSING

    Building Programmes
    Dr. Strossasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he is aware that in Stoke-on-Trent the building programme of the local authority has been adversely affected; and whether he will take action which will offset the harmful effects of high interest rates.
    Mr. H. Brooke: I am aware that the council has fewer houses under construction at the present time than it had a year ago. This is its decision. I have no reason to suppose that financially it is debarred from building whatever houses it needs to build.
    Dr. Stross: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that is a very unsatisfactory Answer—[An HON. MEMBER: "It is not true."]—that, in fact, the number of houses at present under construction is only half what it was a year ago, while next season's programme will be half of that again, that there are 8 million bricks lying in stock and that unemployment is rising in every aspect of this industry? Is not the Minister ashamed of himself?
    Mr. Brooke: I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's statement that the number of houses under construction is only half what it was a year ago. If the local authority feels that it is financially pressed, surely its first course should be to review its existing rents, which are far below the average of other comparable places.
    Mr. Lindgren: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that not only in Stoke but in the vast majority of local authority areas practically no building for general needs is now proceeding, and that the reasons for that are the unduly high interest rates and the withdrawal of subsidies, which make rents impossible for people to pay?
    Mr. Brooke: No, Sir. I do not accept for a moment that there is no building for general needs going on.
    Mr. Gibson: Where is it?
    Mrs. Slater: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he is under-estimating the whole position? Are not many local authorities in the position that the only house building will be for slum clearance, which is a burden on them, and are they not facing the position that they cannot build houses for general needs? We have to say to people on the housing lists, "No houses for you until the situation changes." What are we to do about it?
    Mr. Brooke: What the hon. Lady is pressing for is restoration of the general needs subsidy. I am not prepared to

    957
    impose obligations on the taxpayers in order to enable local authorities who are charging low rents to continue to do so.
    Dr. Stross: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.
    Mrs. Mannasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will state the total cost of the housing programme for the past five years, and the interest cost thereof over sixty years; and if he will give an estimate of the cost if interest were limited to a thirty-year period.
    Mr. H. Brooke: It is not possible to calculate this.
    Mrs. Mann: I expected that reply. It is of such momentous interest to the country that we shall never know about it. Is the Minister aware that this is the first time in the history of the Housing Acts that an interest rate of 5½ cent. has been passed on to local authorities, and that the only other occasion on which the interest rate was 5½ per cent. was under the Addison Act, when local authorities were themselves allowed to levy a penny rate and in Scotland a five-sixths of a penny rate only? Will he do something to stop this concealed subsidy which is going to interest all the time?
    Mr. Brooke: I tried to answer the hon. Lady's Question, and I must assure her that I was not able to frame an answer, because loans are raised in different conditions over different periods. It was impossible to give her any firm estimate. If she is asking for a restoration of the general needs subsidy, then in respect of England and Wales—and I can speak only for England and Wales—I certainly could not agree to that.

    Subsidies and Interest Rates (Representations)
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what representations he has received from local authorities since the beginning of this year about the effects of high interest rates and the withdrawal of subsidies on local authority housing programmes; and what reply he has made to these representations.
    Mr. H. Brooke: Since the beginning of this year, representations have been received from 97 out of 1,468 local authorities. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the reply sent to Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council.
    Mr. Swingler: Is the Minister aware that those 97 authorities will very soon be followed by a great many more? Does he know that progressive local authorities are now prevented from building homes at reasonable rents, with the result that there is rising unemployment in the building trade? Will he consult progressive local authorities and reverse his policy?
    Mr. Brooke: No, Sir, I cannot help noticing that the rents charged by Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council are below the average of those charged by non-county boroughs generally.
    Mr. Lindgren: In his reply, is not the right hon. Gentleman evading the point inasmuch as a resolution was passed by the National Conference of the Urban District Councils Association condemning his predecessor, asking for the withdrawal of the Housing Subsidies Bill, and asking the Ministry to receive a deputation? That Association represents 600 local authorities.
    Mr. Brooke: I think that my predecessor and the House of Commons were entirely right in reaching this decision about housing subsidies.
    Mr. Swingler: Is the right hon. Gentleman telling my constituents that their rents are unreasonably low? Has he studied wage levels in north Staffordshire and having studied them, is he still saying that rents are unreasonably low?
    Mr. Brooke: What I am saying is that any local authority in financial difficulties over its housing account should first consider whether it can reasonably increase rents—to some of its tenants who can afford to pay, if not to all—before making a further claim on the national taxpayer.
    Mr. S. Silverman: How does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile the answers which he has given to these questions and those asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) with the declared policy of the Government of assisting housing? Is it not quite clear from his answers that the

    959
    withdrawal of the general needs subsidies was intended to bring pressure upon local authorities to raise their rents on the basis that they were not entitled to any assistance unless they did so?
    Mr. Brooke: Housing by local authorities is still going on at a high level. I very much hope that the action taken last year will lead local authorities to concentrate more and more on the slum clearance problem.
    Mr. Mitchison: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the relation between rising rents and wage claims?
    Mr. Speaker: That is a large question.

    Valuation Courts (Rating Appeals)
    Mr. Gresham Cookeasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether, in view of the great number of rating cases coming before the local valuation courts, preventing full consideration being given to all these cases, he will take powers to increase the number, or limit the area, of local valuation courts.
    Mr. Bevins: Those are matters within the discretion of chairman of local valuation panels, and my right hon. Friend sees no reason to seek power to interfere. There is nothing to prevent full consideration of each appeal.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: Is my hon. Friend aware that in south-west Middlesex valuation courts are overloaded and some 20 cases are heard at a time in a rather slipshod fashion? Is it not possible to increase the number of courts in that area or alternatively to appoint some qualified people who will know what they are doing in adjudicating on these valuation cases?
    Mr. Bevins: It is at the discretion of the chairman of the panel to decide how often courts are called. As to the qualification of the members of the courts, I think it has always been the view of this House that those courts should not consist entirely of legal gentlemen, but also of people who have a knowledge of the district. My right hon. Friend is aware of the difficulties in the area of Middlesex to which my hon. Friend has referred, but I believe that there there are appeals to the Lands Tribunal.
    Mr. W. R. Williams: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is estimated that in Manchester it will take between five and seven years to clear arrears of work on this valuation and in the meantime about £500,000 a year is being lost on local rateable value?
    Mr. Bevins: It is quite true, as the hon. Member for Openshaw (Mr. W. R. Williams) has said, that there are a considerable number of appeals outstanding in Manchester. Anything we can do to expedite matters we shall do.

    Empty Houses (Letting)
    Mr. Fernyhoughasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government his estimate of the number of houses now standing empty which will become available for letting when the Rent Bill now going through the House becomes law.
    Mr. H. Brooke: I cannot possibly make such an estimate; the Bill will, plainly, increase the willingness of landlords to let.
    Mr. Fernyhough: The right hon. Gentleman says that he cannot make such an estimate, but during the debate on the Rent Bill (Allocation of Time) Motion he said that there were thousands of such houses. I will quote his words; the right hon. Gentleman said:
    "at this moment there are thousands of houses which are likely to stand empty longer than they really need. …"
    He went on to say:
    "when the Bill becomes law these empty houses will be let and more accommodation will be released."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th February, 1957; Vol. 564, c. 165.]
    Is it not shocking that he should say that there are thousands of houses and yet have no idea how many thousands?
    Mr. Brooke: Of course there are thousands, many thousands,—[An HON. MEMBER: "How does the Minister know?"]—but I am not prepared to make any accurate estimate. What we do know is that under the existing law there will be houses falling vacant. We know that at present landlords generally seek to sell those houses, and the Bill will make this drastic and salutary change, that in future they will be available for letting.

    Local Authority Lists
    Mr. Fernyhoughasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what was the number of applicants on the housing lists of local authorities in England and Wales on 31st December, 1956.
    Mr. H. Brooke: These figures are not available. Even if they were, they would not be reliable as an index of housing need.
    Mr. Fernyhough: When the right hon. Gentleman says that these figures are not available, does he not realise that what he means is that he has not taken the trouble to obtain them? All he need have done was to have consulted the local authorities. Does he not realise that the figure runs into hundreds of thousands? Does he appreciate what that means in human anxiety and worry? Will he do something to give those people some hope by restoring the subsidy and reducing interest rates, thus making it possible for local authorities again to build for general needs?
    Mr. Brooke: Having been a member of two local authorities for many years, I am well aware that those on the housing lists vary from those in urgent need of homes to those who are reasonably housed, but simply feel that they would like a new council house or flat.
    Mr. G. Wilson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the country districts in particular it is quite normal for people to put down their names on more than one housing list?
    Mr. Mitchison: Has the right hon. Gentleman, in his capacity of Minister of Housing, made any estimate of the extent of housing need in the country? If so, what does he make it and what is it?
    Mr. Brooke: What I am doing at the moment is replying to the Question on the Order Paper. I am reminded of the Answer which the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) gave to a similar Question when he was Minister of Health. On that occasion he said that any such figure would be valueless.

    Gipsies
    Mr. Doddsasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what consideration was given to the problem
    962
    of living space for gipsies during his discussions with the local authority associations in November, 1956; and what action is to be taken to protect their interests, in view of the increasing difficulty of finding lawful camping sites.
    Mr. H. Brooke: At these discussions no information emerged to suggest that there is a problem here requiring a general investigation, though local difficulties may arise from time to time. If the hon. Member has a particular case in mind, I hope he will let me have details.
    Mr. Dodds: When will the Government obtain their own information to show that the hounding of gipsies must stop—and stop soon? Is he not aware that it cannot be solved by local authorities, who are subject to local pressure? Will he not study what has happened in other European countries, where the Governments have solved this minority problem with great credit? Is he aware that last week I saw gipsies who have paid more in fines than they would have to pay for proper camping grounds, if they were available?
    Mr. Brooke: When the hon. Member speaks of gipsies, I do not know whether he has in mind Romanies or didikais and the rest.
    Mr. Dodds: I said gipsies, not didikais.
    Mr. Brooke: As the hon. Member knows, there are different categories. If he is aware of particular local difficulties, I shall be most grateful if he will bring them to my attention. I know that some time ago he brought to my attention a report of the manner in which Slovak gipsies were being integrated into normal Czechoslovak life, but I do not think that that sort of inquiry has great value in this country.
    Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware that these people have been harassed, prosecuted and persecuted by a large number of local authorities throughout the country? By the Answer which he has given he has proved that there is a problem for these people. Will not he examine the position again with a view to finding a solution to it?
    Mr. Brooke: I will most willingly look into any local case of difficulty which is sent to me.
    Mr. Dodds: On a point of order. Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the Answer, I give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment and give notice to the next Labour Government that this problem must be solved.

    Rented Houses (Furniture, Fittings and Fixtures)
    Mrs. Mannasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he is aware that advertisements in provincial newspapers reveal offers being made for furniture and fittings, in order to obtain tenancies of rented houses; and as it is an offence to accept such offers, but not an offence to make them, if he will amend the Housing Acts to make the giver as well as receiver equally guilty of an offence.
    Mr. H. Brooke: It is not an offence to accept a reasonable price for furniture, fittings or fixtures; it becomes an offence only if the price asked is unreasonable and therefore amounts to a premium—and, of course, if the tenancy is controlled. Advertisements of the kind referred to could not therefore be declared illegal.
    Mrs. Mann: Is the Minister aware that advertisements such as these show that the advertiser is asking for a house to rent and offering a premium for furniture and fittings which he or she has never seen? How can the premium be related to the value of the furniture? Is it not about time that this racket was stopped? Does it not indicate that in legislation which is going through the House at the moment the position should be tightened up, far he who offers is just as offensive as he who accepts—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady has other Questions on the Order Paper.
    Mr. Brooke: The hon. Lady knows, as the House knows, that I am extremely anxious that legislation against premiums and unreasonable charges for fixtures and fittings should be watertight, but if she will think about it I am sure she will recognise that legislation against advertisements of this kind would not be sensible or practicable.

    Council Houses (Cost)
    Mrs. Mannasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government the average cost of a council house today;
    964
    what would be the cost of interest spread over sixty years; and what would be the cost of interest over a thirty-year period.
    Mr. H. Brooke: In the second quarter of 1956, the latest period for which figures are readily available, the average tender cost of a council house was £1,464. To service a loan for this amount bearing interest at 5½ per cent. the annual repayments would be £83 15s. 0d. a year if the cost were spread over sixty years, or £100 3s. 11d. if it were spread over thirty years. The total interest payment over sixty years would be £3,561 and over thirty years £1,542.
    Mrs. Mann: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that building societies give their applicants a choice between thirty and sixty years? Does he not think that this amount is an unconscionable one for ratepayers and taxpayers to pay in a burden of interest spread over sixty years?
    Mr. Brooke: A local authority has certain discretion as to the period over which it raises a loan. If it chooses to raise a loan and amortise it over a shorter period, then the rents which it will have to charge will be proportionately higher.
    Mr. D. Howell: Is it not a fact that if the Chancellor and some authorities in the country want to make an economy in public expenditure, then cutting down interest rates and the period of interest repayment is one of the best ways to achieve that? Will the Minister see the Chancellor with a view to discussing the possibility of this for the forthcoming Budget?
    Mr. Brooke: Questions relating to the general rate of interest should be addressed to the Chancellor. I am not prepared to create a concealed subsidy by enabling local authorities to obtain money at artificially low rates of interest.
    Mr. Gibsonasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what was the all-in cost of a local authority two-bedroomed house built in 1951, and what is the similar figure for 1955; how much of this cost was represented by charges for interest on capital in 1951 and 1955; and what proportion of the rent charged was accountable to interest charges in each case in those years
    Mr. H. Brooke: Since the Answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Gibson: Surely the Minister could give us in abbreviated form the information asked for in the Question. Can he tell me, for instance, what is the increase in the amount of interest charge between 1951 and 1955?
    Mr. Brooke: I have answered the Question as fully as I can, with a number of figures. If the hon. Gentleman will read HANSARD tomorrow, he may then perhaps wish to put down a further Question.
    Following are the figures:

    LOCAL AUTHORITY TWO-BEDROOMED HOUSES

    Last quarter in each year

    Average cost of tender approved

    All-in cost of capital repayment and interest over sixty years

    £

    £

    1951

    …

    …

    1,262

    3,182

    1955

    …

    …

    1,286

    4,068

    The proportion of interest in the all-in cost diminishes annually during the period for repayment of the loan.

    Government Grants (Education)
    Dr. Kingasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will exempt education from the proposed new system of block grants to local authorities.
    Mr. H. Brooke: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) on 19th February.
    Dr. King: Is the Minister aware that the Minister of Education is wisely and eloquently urging the need for greater expenditure on education, and that educationists of all political parties in local government are very alarmed at the fact that the proposed block grant will either mean new heavy financial burdens on local education committees—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]—or else cause some local education committees to neglect the duties which the Minister of Education imposes upon them? Will the Minister consult the Minister of Education before he puts the clock back in education?
    Mr. Brooke: At the moment I am doing what I should have thought the hon. Member would wish: I am consulting the local authorities themselves.

    Rent Tribunal Cases
    Mr. Jannerasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many cases were submitted to rent tribunals for decision in respect of the rents charged for furnished lettings and for dwelling-houses first let after 1939, respectively, in respect of which the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions Act, 1939, applied; and in how many cases in each of these classes was the rent reduced by the tribunal.
    Mr. Bevins: As the Answer contains a number of figures I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Janner: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that there are large numbers of such cases, and that the rents which are allowed must, according to the Act, be reasonable rents in all the circumstances? If there are these large numbers of cases submitted at present, why is he introducing legislation in order entirely to do away with control of furnished dwellings?
    Mr. Bevins: I think that that is a matter which the hon. Member might raise on the Third Reading of the Rent Bill.
    Mr. Janner: I do not know about that—it is urgent.
    Following is the answer:

    ——

    Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, 1946

    Section 1 Landlord and Tenant (Rent Control) Act, 1949

    Decisions

    …

    …

    80,259

    16,744

    Rent reduced

    …

    …

    49,024

    9,604

    The figures in each case run from the coming into operation of the Act to 31st December, 1956.

    Manchester (Overspill)
    Mr. W. Griffithsasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will make a statement on the meeting held on 22nd February between himself and the representatives of the Manchester Corporation to discuss the problem of overspill.
    Mr. H. Brooke: I have nothing at present to add to the reply which I gave to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Withington (Sir R. Cary) on 5th March.
    Mr. Griffiths: Is the Minister aware that for five years his predecessors have been coming to this House promising an early decision, and using such words as "shortly" and "soon"? Is it not the fact that in a recent Adjournment debate the right hon. Gentleman sought to convey to hon. Members, including myself, that the reason for his not giving the House of Commons a reply to the debate was that he was to meet a deputation from the Manchester Corporation, and was to announce his views to that deputation? Now we are told that he is still considering the matter. Therefore, has he not deceived both the Manchester City Corporation and the House of Commons?
    Mr. Brooke: I was extremely anxious to have the opportunity of meeting the deputation from the Manchester City Council, so that its members could put their case to me at first hand. If it were true that my predecessors had been promising a decision for the past five years—which is really an exaggeration—think that I, as a new Minister, ought to be allowed a fortnight.
    Mrs. Hill: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Manchester's building programme is really cut in half because we have inadequate sites, and the city itself is so surrounded that we must get a decision soon?
    Mr. Brooke: I can assure my hon. Friend that the all-party deputation from the city council put the case for the Manchester Corporation's claim very cogently, and I am now considering this extremely difficult problem.
    Mr. Mitchison: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that not only has Manchester not enough room to build but neither has London, nor, I venture to say, has practically every large industrial town in the country? What does he intend to do about it by way of fostering new towns and overspill?
    Mr. Speaker: The Question relates to Manchester.

    Overspill Housing Schemes
    Mrs. Butlerasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many local authority housing schemes for the relief of overspill, outside the Town Development Act, have been approved since 28th March, 1956; and how many such schemes have been abandoned or postponed since that date.
    Mr. Bevins: Local authorities do not need my right hon. Friend's approval to carry out such schemes. I regret that the information asked for is not available.
    Mrs. Butler: Is the Minister aware that Wood Green Council has had to abandon a scheme for building a hundred houses at Letchworth because the withdrawal of the subsidy would have made the rents nearly £4 a week? In view of the difficulties of town development and schemes of that kind, and of the fact that the new towns are scarcely taking people from the waiting lists of local authorities, is it not quite wrong for the Minister to say, as he does in his Report, that he is using housing subsidies for the relief of overspill?
    Mr. Bevins: I think that my right hon. Friend has already dealt with the general question of subsidies and interest rates. He is aware, of course, that the Wood Green Council has abandoned the scheme which it had in contemplation at, I think, Letchworth, but I do repeat that this whole matter of overspill is constantly under review.

    Rent Books (Information)
    Mrs. Butlerasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will make a regulation in accordance with Section 14B of the Rent Restrictions Amendment Act, 1933, whereby, amongst the particulars included in the rent book, the landlord shall insert the rateable value of the hereditament, or, if the dwelling is part of a hereditament, then an apportionment of the rateable value.
    Mr. H. Brooke: I intend to consider this, together with other information, for prescription in rent books when the Rent Bill becomes law.

    War Damage Repairs (Rents)
    Mr. Hoyasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will introduce legislation to ensure that moneys

    969
    received by a landlord from the War Damage Commission and spent by him on repairs to property shall not entitle him to increase tenants' rents under the Housing Repairs and Rents Act, 1954.
    Mr. Bevins: This is already prevented by paragraph 8 (b) of the Second Schedule to the Act of 1954.

    Sites, Liverpool
    Mr. Loganasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government, in view of the fact that sites in the Athol Street, Barncourt Street and Boundary Street areas in Liverpool have been lying idle for over ten years, if he will as soon as possible authorise the Liverpool housing authority to build houses there.
    Mr. Bevins: Liverpool Corporation has submitted to my right hon. Friend a proposal for using part of this area for housing, although its Development Plan proposed that it should be used for industry. He was awaiting further details, which have just been received, and he will announce his decision as quickly as possible.
    Mr. Logan: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that this place is lying desolate, and has been for the last ten years? We are just about fed up with the whole situation. We have lost 12,000 to 14,000 people from that area, and the shopkeepers do not know what to do about their businesses. Newsham Hospital, and the adjoining premises which were the workhouse, are now occupied by 86 families. When I went in there three months ago I found a woman with six children, who had been displaced from her home twelve months earlier, living in a workhouse. Are those conditions that we ought to have in the City of Liverpool——
    Mr. Speaker: I think that that is about enough for one question.
    Mr. Logan: Our people are living under damnable conditions, and I must express my feelings——
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Logan rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This is not the time to make a speech——
    Mr. Logan: May I finish my supplementary question?
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must take just as big a ration as others, not more. Mr. Bevins.
    Mr. Logan: Can I not express opinions here——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Bevins.
    Mr. Logan: I want to get the Minister to listen——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Bevins.
    Mr. Bevins: I know the district to which the hon. Gentleman refers, although I do not know the details as well as he does——
    Mr. Logan: The hon. Gentleman should come to live where I do.
    Mr. Bevins:—but I think that in fairness to my right hon. Friend I ought to reiterate that this particular area was zoned in the Liverpool Development Plan for industry and not for housing. In the second place, it was as recently as 11th March that my right hon. Friend received these details——
    Mr. Logan: What I want to know is——
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Logan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I want to know whether the Minister will say——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order.

    Local Authority Schemes (Interest Charges)
    Mr. Gibsonasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what steps he proposes to take to ease the burden of interest charges on capital for local authority housing schemes in order to encourage them to build larger numbers of houses to accommodate applicants on their waiting lists.
    Mr. H. Brooke: Given proper use of local resources, the provision made by the Housing Subsidies Act, 1956, is adequate to enable local authorities to build the houses they need to build.
    Mr. Gibson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that Answer is all nonsense, and that in fact all the housing authorities are building fewer houses now for cases on their general lists than they

    971
    were building four or five years ago? Is he aware that the main difficulty is shown by all their reports to be the tremendous increase in the cost of interest, details of which he has avoided giving us here today by putting the Answer in HANSARD for tomorrow? Further, is it not a fact that such an authority as the London County Council, which is still building a fair number of houses but less than half of what it was building eight or nine years ago, is finding it impossible to house from the housing list—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."]—I am sorry, but hon. Members are going to have it—that the London County Council is finding it impossible to house from its general housing list more than 2,000 families in the next three years? Is not that a scandal and disgrace?
    Mr. Brooke: According to the returns received by my Department, local authorities are continuing to build and to plan to build at a high rate. What we have done is to reorganise the subsidy system so as to give local authorities an incentive to concentrate on slum clearance, which is the most urgent need of all.
    Mr. Mitchison: Does the right hon. Gentleman not know that housing authorities cannot, without housing subsidies, carry out their duty of providing houses at the present rates of interest, or is he quite blind to what is happening?
    Mr. Brooke: I know that a number of housing authorities which are complaining about the abolition of the general need subsidy are in fact fixing rents which subsidise large numbers of tenants at rates higher than are really needed.
    Mr. Stokes: In view of the Answers which he has given earlier today, may I ask the Minister whether it really is beyond the wit of the Government to devise a means whereby posterity will not have to continue to pay these ridiculously high rates of interest based on a 5½ per cent. Bank Rate? Is it not really preposterous to have total interest charges amounting to the kind of figures which he has already given at the Box this afternoon?
    Mr. Brooke: The right hon. Gentleman may not be aware that local authorities have, within the last couple of years, been given freedom to borrow for a period shorter than 60 years for housing purposes, if they think fit.

    Caravan Dwellers
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if his Department will make inquiries on a national basis in order to ascertain approximately the number of persons other than gipsies or similar itinerants who are living permanently in caravans or similar accommodation.
    Mr. Bevins: No. Sir.
    Mr. Sorensen: In view of the fact that large numbers of people living in caravans not from choice but of necessity desire to get into more adequate accommodation, does the hon. Gentleman not consider that it would be advantageous, in order to secure a fair overall picture, to make some inquiry as to the estimated number of people living in those dwellings?
    Mr. Bevins: My right hon. Friend knows the broad picture fairly well, but I would add that we are in consultation with both the local authorities and the caravan interests on this subject, and we know that there is a good deal of feeling about it on both sides of the House.
    Mr. Gower: Would my hon. Friend bear in mind that there are some people in the country who actually like living in caravans, and that unfortunately some local authorities seem to regard such people as people to be crushed out of existence?

    Peterlee (Rents)
    Mr. Shinwellasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government on how many occasions the rents of houses in Peterlee have been raised; and what has been the amount of the increases since the new town was started.
    Mr. H. Brooke: Until early in 1955, the rents of these houses were subject to the control of the Rent Acts, and could not be raised above the level at which the houses were first let. Since then, rents have been raised once—in March, 1956. The increases ranged from 6d. to 4s. 6d. weekly.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the rents in this new town of Peterlee are far in excess of rents paid by tenants of adjoining council houses, and that the majority of people

    973
    who live in Peterlee are working-class people who find this burden far too heavy for them to bear? Will he do something about it?
    Mr. Brooke: The corporation needs to balance its housing account, and so long as it carries out that policy, the actual fixing of rents is surely a matter for the corporation rather than for me.
    Mr. Shinwell: Would the Minister say why working-class tenants in a new town should be called upon to pay what is called an economic rent, without any subsidy whatever, as compared with tenants in houses which are constructed by local councils?
    Mr. Brooke: If the right hon. Gentleman is urging me to agree to increased subsidies for new towns. I must reply that I cannot do so.

    Local Authorities' Scheme, South-West Essex
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what information he has to show the number of instances where adjacent local authorities now have joint housing lists, as in Essex, to meet certain categories of applicants; and to what extent this is being effective.
    Mr. H. Brooke: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply of 22nd January. I may add, however, that local authorities are under no obligation to inform me when they enter into any such arrangements.
    Mr. Sorensen: Of course, one is aware of that fact, but cannot the Minister please try to get as much information on this interesting development as possible, particularly in view of the fact that he did commend the scheme, initiated, I believe, by the East Ham authority? Ought he not to try and follow it up and recommend it?
    Mr. Brooke: There was a recommendation in the valuable Report of the Central Housing Advisory Committee not so very long ago. I am not anxious to be constantly asking local authorities to give me further information, but I imagine that the hon. Gentleman's Question will once again draw this scheme to the attention of local authorities which might make further use of it.

    Temporary Accommodation, Essex
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what estimate has been made of the number of persons in Essex who are now living in temporary accommodation or half-way houses provided by local authorities owing to eviction or other causes; and what consultations his Department has had with those local authorities in respect of co-ordinating that aspect of the housing problem.
    Mr. Brooke: This is a Question affecting my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health as well as myself. I have consulted him, and the latest figures show 274 persons temporarily in accommodation in county premises, and 383 persons in half-way houses set up by housing authorities in Essex. Consultations with the local authorities have not taken place.
    Mr. Sorensen: Could not the Minister initiate conversations or consultations, in view of the fact that these 270-odd families are living in deplorable conditions, and could not something be done to provide better accommodation than anything which they have now?
    Mr. Brooke: So far as the 274 persons are concerned, perhaps the hon. Gentleman would put questions to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, who is the Minister responsible. The number of people in half-way houses shows a very considerable reduction compared with a year ago.

    Key Money and Disguised Premiums (Prosecutions)
    Mrs. L. Jegerasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many prosecutions have been brought to the last convenient date for contravention of the law relating to key money and disguised premiums.
    Mr. H. Brooke: Prosecutions are undertaken by individual local or police authorities, who do not inform me of the number undertaken.
    Mrs. Jeger: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the continuing frustration that there is to desperate members of the public over this question of disguised key money? Is he also aware that every newspaper every day carries advertisements to this effect and that I have one

    975
    in front of me asking £1,000 or near offer for furniture and fittings? Surely this is a matter of public interest about which he should take more definite action.
    Mr. Brooke: I have already told the House this afternoon that I am extremely anxious that the law on this subject should be watertight but it really cannot be made illegal for someone to offer in an advertisement furniture and fittings because if the amount asked is not higher than the value of the furniture and fittings no offence is created.
    Mrs. Jeger: Is this not a quite unrealistic and nonsensical answer? Does not the Minister know that people are so desperate for housing accommodation that if they can scrape this money together they are not going to question the propriety or the legality of what is done? Surely this is nothing but exploitation of a desperate need about which he should do something.
    Mr. Brooke: The hon. Lady is not giving evidence of exploitation. If the law is broken then it is possible to prosecute.

    ROYAL COMMISSION ON DOCTORS' AND DENTISTS' REMUNERATION (MEMBERSHIP AND TERMS OF REFERENCE)
    Mr. Woodburnasked the Prime Minister whether he will arrange for the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to assist the Ministers concerned in co-ordinating the information to be presented to the British Medical Association for the purpose of clarifying Her Majesty's Government's policy on salaries in the Health Services.
    Mr. Wadeasked the Prime Minister whether he will now make a statement on an interim adjustment of the remuneration of general medical practitioners.
    Mrs. Hillasked the Prime Minister if he is now able to announce the names of the members of the Royal Commission on doctors' and dentists' pay.
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Prime Minister if he will now state the names of the Royal Commission on doctors' remuneration.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): I will, with permission, answer these Questions at the end of Question Time.

    ARTS (GOVERNMENT PATRONAGE)
    Sir R. Boothbyasked the Prime Minister whether he will recommend the appointment of a Royal Commission to review and inquire into the question of Government patronage of the arts, including the present grants to the Arts Council, museums, galleries, musical institutions, academies, libraries, films and broadcasting, and make recommendations regarding the principles which should guide the policy of the Government in the whole field of artistic activity, and their practical application.
    The Prime Minister: I have seen the arguments in support of my hon. Friend's suggestion, but I am not persuaded that a Royal Commission would be suitable machinery for a review covering so wide and disparate a field.
    Sir R. Boothby: Does not the Prime Minister think that the present chaos in which all these organisations are competing desperately against each other for public funds, without any system or principle behind the allocation of public funds, is really unworthy of a civilised country?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. There is one fact in common linking all these bodies and services—that they are self-governing. Considerations which apply to the various methods of financing them are very different—for instance, as between museums and broadcasting—and I should hardly have thought that a single inquiry was the right way to deal with so tremendously wide a subject.
    Dr. Stross: Will not the right hon. Gentleman give some heed to the desperate plight of provincial museums and galleries and consider the request for a Royal Commission, if necessary for them alone? Is he aware that private bequests are not very valuable now after the many years which have gone by since they were first offered, and that some of our institutions—very valuable ones—are threatened with closure and many with decay?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, but that is a matter that the Government have to consider and for which they must be responsible. I am only answering whether a Royal Commission over this whole wide field as has been suggested would serve a useful purpose. If I thought that it would, I should certainly try to get it appointed, but I do not feel that that is really the right way.
    Dame Irene Ward: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that over a very wide field people think that there ought to be some investigation, and if a Royal Commission is not the appropriate method of making that investigation, can my right hon. Friend suggest how we are going to get at the problem of a proper division of money for all these very important cultural activities?
    The Prime Minister: These activities are considered year by year by the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day and sometimes the money is distributed through organisations like the Arts Council, which I think is a good system, but others are dealt with in different ways. They all vary. I think that the reason they vary is the very wide type of activity with which we have to deal.
    Mr. Gaitskell: I appreciate the point made by the Prime Minister that a single Royal Commission might not be appropriate for this purpose, but did not his reply suggest that he himself perhaps would consider some other form of inquiry, not necessarily for every one of these matters, but at any rate covering the major part of the field?
    The Prime Minister: I would consider that but that would be perhaps the extension of the function of one of these distributing bodies.

    HOUSE OF COMMONS (ELECTION)
    Mr. Hamiltonasked the Prime Minister whether he will introduce legislation to provide for the election of one-third of the Members of the House of Commons every two years, thus ensuring that Parliament more nearly reflects public opinion.
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that reply was not entirely unexpected? But has he any suggestion for remedying the blatantly unrepresentative character of the House at the moment? Does he not acknowledge that he has been told recently in the bluntest possible terms to get out, and no one cares very much whether he gets out on tiptoe or on his flat feet?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is wrong in assuming that the Answer must necessarily be in the negative. I have thought a good deal about this matter. At first sight the hon. Gentleman's proposal seemed to be not without attraction as a protection against the danger, however remote, of another Socialist Government; but when I reflected that of four such Governments no fewer than three foundered within twelve to eighteen months, I thought perhaps that the hon. Gentleman's apprehensions were too alarming.
    Mr. N. Nicolson: Does the Prime Minister not agree that if the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Fife, West (Mr. Hamilton) were to be accepted, hon. Members would be eating out of the hands of their local associations and as a result the representation of public opinion in this House would be less and not more effective?
    The Prime Minister: I think that this is a very interesting topic. Perhaps we might discuss it on one of our Private Members' Motions. There were times when annual Parliaments were asked for and then triennial Parliaments. When I was a boy we had them for seven years and now we have settled down to five years. There is a great deal to be said—I quite see the hon. Gentleman's fear.

    NUCLEAR EXPLOSIONS (RADIATION HAZARDS)
    Mr. Allaunasked the Prime Minister if he will publish in a White Paper the information on the hazards to man resulting from nuclear explosions which has been gained since the Medical Research Council made its investigations between nine months and two years ago; and whether he will ask the Medical Research Council to renew its inquiry.
    The Prime Minister: There is no question of asking the Medical Research Council to renew its inquiry, for the Council is keeping the hazards to man from all sources of radiation under continuous review. I understand that, since the publication of its Report on this subject last June, no reliable evidence has come to light which does other than confirm the conclusions contained in it. If such evidence should come to hand, the Government will ensure that it is published.
    Mr. Allaun: How quickly will the further evidence be published, as several eminent signatories to the M.R.C. Report themselves consider that evidence subsequently produced in America shows that without further atomic tests the strontium in growing children's bones is rapidly rising to a dangerous level?
    The Prime Minister: As I said, the Medical Research Council is continuously reviewing this matter. It has, to guide it, the very expert sub-committees that it has appointed under very distinguished authorities. I do not think that I can do more than say that the reports will be published from time to time, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that all this subject is being looked after by the most expert people that we have in this country and is all the time being reported to the Government.

ROYAL COMMISSION ON DOCTORS' AND DENTISTS' REMUNERATION (MEMBERSHIP AND TERMS OF REFERENCE)
The Prime Minister: With permission, Sir, I will now answer Questions Nos. 45, 47, 55 and 57, which I was asked earlier this afternoon.
The Queen has been pleased to approve the appointment as Chairman of the Commission of Sir Harry Pilkington. With permission, I will circulate the names of the other members of the Commission in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
I will, if I may, recapitulate the main events that have led up to the appointment of the Commission. Last June, a claim was submitted for an increase of not less than 24 per cent. in the remuneration of doctors in the National Health
980
Service. Apart from the very large sum involved, the Government felt that the claim raised important questions of principle which required further investigation. They therefore concluded that the general interest, including that of the professions concerned, would be best served by calling in the advice of an independent body.
It would, perhaps, be convenient to restate the terms of reference:
To consider: —

(a) How the levels of professional remuneration from all sources now received by doctors and dentists taking any part in the National Health Service compare with the remuneration received by members of other professions, by other members of the medical and dental professions, and by people engaged in connected occupations;

(b) What, in the light of the foregoing, should be the proper current levels of remuneration of such doctors and dentists by the National Health Service;

(c) Whether, and, if so what, arrangements should be made to keep that remuneration under review:

And to make recommendations.
I have asked the Chairman to regard the work of the Commission as a matter of urgency.
I have already explained that the appointment of the Commission does not preclude an interim adjustment in advance of and without prejudice to its recommendations. The Government have already decided to make such an adjustment without delay in the remuneration of junior hospital staff, both medical and dental, up to and including the grade of Senior Registrar, all of whose remuneration will be increased by 10 per cent. from 1st April next. We are also considering what should be done by way of an interim adjustment for the other doctors and dentists covered by the Commission's terms of reference. I shall make a further statement on this matter in due course.
The Government are convinced that this procedure is a fair and proper one. They are also confident that with good will on all sides it should result in the position of the medical and dental professions in the National Health Service being placed upon a mutually satisfactory and lasting basis.
Dr. Summerskill: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this means that the Spens recommendations are to be entirely repudiated? Secondly, would the Government consider setting up some kind

981
of arbitration machinery pending the final recommendations of the Royal Commission?
The Prime Minister: Neither of those conclusions is correct. The Spens decision will, of course, be within the terms of the Royal Commission to consider. With regard to any interim arrangement, I have already announced what we have decided to do in the case of the junior staff and I am saying that I am considering what might be done by way of interim adjustment for the other members covered by the Commission's terms of reference.
Mr. Bevan: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the terms of reference are wide enough to cover everything that really matters? For example, there appears to be no reference whatever to the easement now given to the medical profession by way of training, scholarships at universities, and things of that sort, which are a considerable advantage over the pre-war position. Is the Prime Minister quite satisfied that there is a sufficiently precise reference to assistants so as to enable their claims also to be considered?
The Prime Minister: I think the terms are sufficiently wide. They are, of course, a matter primarily for the Commission to interpret, but I do not feel that there will be any difficulty, although I have thought about that and discussed it. If there is any difficulty, of course we shall have to deal with it, but I feel that the terms, which are fairly wide, are wide enough to deal with all the relevant matters.
Mrs. Hill: When my right hon. Friend considers any interim adjustment to the salaries of general practitioners, will he take into consideration any rise that there may have been in practice expenses?
The Prime Minister: Perhaps there is some misunderstanding. My information is that there is a regular procedure by which an adjustment for practice expenses is made annually. I am, of course, speaking of general practitioners. That is a quite separate problem from their remuneration.
Mr. Wade: Does the Prime Minister agree that there is a strong case for something more immediate than the appointment of a Royal Commission? Does he agree that there has been considerable misunderstanding over the distinction
982
between general medical practitioners and those on hospital staffs? What is in the Prime Minister's mind when he uses the words "in due course", which he applied to the general medical practitioners? Does he mean that there may be some adjustment at an early date?
The Prime Minister: I used the words "in due course" because all the other expressions seemed to be either unduly optimistic or unduly pessimistic.
Mr. H. Morrison: Can the Prime Minister say who the members of the Royal Commission will be? Surely they are not so many that he cannot name them now. It is rather important that we should know the balance of the membership.
The Prime Minister: I will read the list and, if necessary, give a very short description. The names are as follow:
Mrs. Baxter: Secretary to the Cambridge University Women's Appointments Board.
Mr. A. D. Bonham-Carter: A Director of Unilevers. Formerly Personnel Manager.
Mr. J. H. Gunlake: Vice-Chairman. Institute of Actuaries.
Professor John Jewkes: Professor of Economic Organisation. University of Oxford.
Mr. I. D. McIntosh: Headmaster, George Watson's College, Edinburgh. Was a member of the Committee on Recruitment of Dentists.
Sir David Hughes Parry: Professor of English Law, London University. President, University College, Aberystwyth.
Sir Hugh Watson: Deputy Keeper of Her Majesty's Signet.
Mr. Samuel Watson: Secretary, Durham Miners' Association.
Dame Irene Ward: Is it my right hon. Friend's intention to amend the Industrial Disputes Order, or will that also be included in the terms of reference?
The Prime Minister: I cannot answer that question without notice.
Mr. H. Hynd: Has the Prime Minister not omitted the Keeper of the Zoological Gardens from the list?
The Prime Minister: I can think of various doctors whom I could add.
Mr. Woodburn: Do the terms of reference include the doctors who are employed by doctors? There is a great problem there of assistant doctors and the various terms under which they are employed.
The Prime Minister: That will be for the Commission to interpret, but I have no doubt that it would be within its power.
Mr. Hastings: Does the Prime Minister realise the strong feeling that exists among all members of the medical profession, particularly the general practitioners, a feeling such as has not existed since the passage of the National Health Service Act? Will the right hon. Gentleman give instructions to the Royal Commission to issue an interim report with recommendations within a given time—say, three months?
The Prime Minister: I understand the hon. Member's feelings. I had considered that, but I thought it better to deal immediately with the case which everybody seemed to think was well made out—that of those of whom I have spoken who are to get the 10 per cent, as from 1st April—and to try to the best of my ability, in a matter to which I am devoting a good deal of attention, to reach an interim payment for the remainder and then to let the Commission produce a proper report as soon as it can. It would only complicate matters if we were to have in addition an interim report from the Commission.
Mr. Lipton: Will the Prime Minister bear in mind that there will be quite a strong case for back-dating the interim adjustment of pay for general practitioners to 1st April, as in the case of the hospital doctors where that concession is to be made?
The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Member had better wait and see from what date it starts.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: In view of his long experience of this matter, why was not the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster appointed to the Commission? Does the Prime Minister not realise that we would all be quite pleased to give the
984
right hon. Gentleman extended leave of absence?
The Prime Minister: I think that my right hon. Friend is in a very good position to take an unbiased view of all these matters.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES (MIDDLE EAST DEBATE)
Mr. Gaitskell(by Private Notice) asked Mr. Speaker whether he has had the opportunity of considering a proposal put to him on Thursday, 7th March, by the Leader of the Opposition that on this occasion it might be to the convenience of the House if he permitted a general debate on the Middle East to take place on the Foreign Office Grants and Services Vote which is tabled for Thursday, 14th March.
Mr. Speaker: Yes. I have now considered the point put to me by the right hon. Gentleman. As the House knows, the increasing complexity of administration led to the adoption in 1942 of a special procedure whereby discussion on the main Estimates in Committee and on Report was extended to cover matters not entirely financed by a single Vote but relating to several Services, each financed out of a separate Vote. This procedure is not, however, suitable for application to Supplementary Estimates, since debate on these is much more confined than on the main Estimate.
Strictly speaking, therefore, on the Report of Supplementary Estimates, debate on the Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," should be confined to the details of each Estimate in turn. But when I look at the details of Class II, Vote 2, I find that in it funds are provided inter alia for Jordan and for the Suez Canal Users' Association, while those for our share in the United Nations occupying force are provided under Class II, Vote 4, and under Class II, Vote 9, there is a grant for Cyprus.
Each of these matters is quite properly debatable under its appropriate Vote, but each, in my view, is closely, if not inextricably, entangled with the other matters I have mentioned. In applying the rules of the House, I must have some regard to what is possible, and in this

985
case I take the view that I should be quite unable to apply the strict rule of relevancy.
It is in these circumstances, therefore, that with the consent of the House I would on Thursday allow a general debate on the Middle East on the First Resolution. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) for giving me an opportunity to consider the matter. By setting out the exact circumstances of this case, I hope to confine the precedent within the limits of these particular circumstances.
Mr. Gaitskell: We are all very much obliged, Sir, for the care that you have taken in considering this matter and for the answer that you have given.

SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY (DISPUTE)
The Minister of Labour and National Service (Mr. Iain Macleod): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a statement on the dispute in the shipbuilding industry.
On 17th September last year the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions presented a claim to the Shipbuilding Employers' Federation for a substantial increase in wages for all male manual workers. On 30th October the unions told the employers that they had in mind an increase of 10 per cent. The employers rejected the claim on 11th December. At a special conference on 10th January the unions resolved to press the claim and they met the employers again on 13th February. On 5th March the claim was again rejected by the employers and on 7th March the unions decided to call a national strike in the shipyards to start at midday on Saturday, 16th March.
As I told the House yesterday, I have not received any direct notification of the unions' decision.
After full and careful consideration I have reached the conclusion that in the circumstances of this dispute something other than the normal conciliation action by my Department is required. Equally, in my view, the issue is not appropriate for examination by a court of inquiry or
986
other body as the causes of the dispute are clear.
Nevertheless, a settlement must be reached and, obviously, everything should be done to bring this about without plunging the shipbuilding industry into a disastrous strike. It is my considered view that the peaceful settlement of this dispute is to be found by resort to arbitration by a completely impartial person.
Recognising the importance of the issue and in the hope that this proposal will be accepted by both the employers and the unions I have already secured the agreement of the Rt. Hon. the Lord Evershed, Master of the Rolls, to act as the arbitrator, and I am most grateful to him for this.
A copy of my statement is by now in the hands of both parties and I trust that, in the interests of the country and their great industry, they will see fit to accept my proposal.
I and my officers are, of course, ready and willing to meet representatives of the employers and the unions in order to give them any further information they may require about my proposal or to discuss with them any other aspects of the situation.
Mr. Robens: The right hon. Gentleman has told the House that he is ready to appoint an impartial arbitrator to determine the issue between the unions and the employers. It seems to me that it is for both parties concerned to determine whether they should accept this or not, and not for this House. Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention, however, been drawn to a statement made by Sir William Grant, Chairman of the Engineering and Allied Employers' (West of England) Association, in which he suggested that the Government interfered with these matters three years ago and went on to say:
"This time we do not want Government interference. That is quite positive."
He added:
"We want to fight it out ourselves. We have got to stand firm and prove to these fellows that things are not done so easily."
Has the Minister taken note of those remarks by Sir William Grant? If so, has he taken any action on them?
Finally, as Minister of Labour, the right hon. Gentleman has the functions of peace-maker in industry to perform

987
but, as a Cabinet Minister and a member of the Government, he has other functions to perform. Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that the constant applications for wage advances are due entirely to the constant increase in the cost of living? As a Cabinet Minister with direct responsibility for peace in industry, there is something that he should be doing within the Government to stabilise the cost of living and to prevent many of these happenings from occurring at all.
Mr. Macleod: If I may take the right hon. Gentleman's points in turn, first, it is, of course, for the parties and not for the House to say whether they will accept my proposal or not, but I should make it clear to the House, and I hope that my statement does make it clear, that in my view, and the view of my advisers, there is no other choice here between a strike, which would be bitter and probably protracted and the outcome of which no one can foresee, and something like the arbitration that I have indicated.
As to the right hon. Gentleman's reference to the speech which I saw reported in the Press this morning, I at once dissociate myself straight away from it. But it is equally fair to say that it would not be difficult to produce statements made by people on both sides in this dispute which we might say are not wholly helpful towards a settlement. As the right hon. Gentleman knows from his experience as Minister of Labour, one of the difficulties in achieving a settlement is that people are apt to take up rigid attitudes which narrows the field within which the Minister of Labour can work.
In the atmosphere of this matter, I will not go into the last part of the right hon. Gentleman's statement. It is only fair to say, however, that I do not accept what he has said. I am very conscious, as I know the Government are conscious, of our duties in the whole field of the economy of the country.
Mr. Lee: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that within the last few hours the negotiations of the engineering section of the Federation with the employers have also broken down, a matter which could precipitate trouble in the whole of the engineering industry as well as in shipping?—Has the right hon. Gentleman
988
anything to say about the kind of approach that he makes to that point?
As to the timing which he gave of advances by the unions in October and November, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the original resolution was passed by the engineers as early as the beginning of May of last year and that the demand by the engineers was turned down by the engineering employers even before they had time to look at the nature of the application? Is it not most difficult for trade unions to negotiate with people of that sort of mentality in the second half of the twentieth century?
Mr. Macleod: I have no statement to make about this strike, or threatened strike, except that I have acknowledged in the past that engineering and e ship-building settlements have been very closely linked.
In reply to the hon. Gentleman's other question, it is partly because these negotiations have gone on for such a long time that I believe now that only this method of settlement can be effective.
Mr. Gresham Cooke: Is my right hon. Friend aware that constant increases in wages lead to constant increases in the cost of living? Is he also aware that the majority of the people rather resent these increases in wages and prices?
Mr. Macleod: If I may say so with respect to my hon. Friend. I have no intention of being provoked either by the other side of the House or by this side into any comment on the merits of the case of either the employers or the unions.
Mr. Robens: Assuming that either party refuses to accept arbitration, can the right hon. Gentleman say what he proposes to do thereafter?
Mr. Macleod: I shall take that fence when it comes, but I have made it quite clear to the House that in my view there is little choice for the parties and for the country other than the alternative that I have indicated.
Mr. Lee: Would the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that the reason for the protracted nature of these negotiations has been that, despite the refusal of the employers to discuss this in a proper manner, the unions themselves, instead of breaking, have again submitted their

989
claim to the employers and have asked for proper negotiations on it? That was the reason for the protracted nature of the negotiations.
Mr. Macleod: With respect, I think that other parties to the dispute would put forward other arguments. I do not want to be drawn into a discussion of their merits.
Mr. Page: is my right hon. Friend aware that his offer of arbitration is very satisfactory to all reasonable people in the House, and that further questions of the type already asked, which make it more difficult for the parties to come together over arbitration, would not be welcomed?
Mr. Monslow: Would the Minister not agree that, having regard to the high rate of profits now prevailing in the shipbuilding industry, the claim of the workers is justified? Would he not further agree that the attitude of the employers is most unpatriotic, in that they have given no valid reason for rejection?
Mr. Wade: If arbitration is agreed to, and I am sure that we all hope that it will be, will the terms of reference include the consideration of a recommendation of
990
profit-sharing schemes, or will they be limited only to a settlement on wages?
Mr. Macleod: I cannot imagine the terms of reference going so wide, but if one achieves, as one hopes, voluntary arbitration, it would, of course, be for the parties—I would hope in agreement —to present their terms of reference to the arbitrator.
Mr. P. Williams: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the north of England we like to get on with the job? The job here is arbitration, and the less said before that occurs the better.
Mr. Awbery: Can the Minister tell us what are the terms of reference?
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order, order. The Prime Minister.

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.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  WHITE FISH AND HERRING INDUSTRIES (No. 2) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.55 p.m.
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Derick Heathcoat Amory): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  I am sure that the whole House welcomes, as I do, the opportunity provided by this Bill to discuss the economic problems of white fish and herring catching. I want to make it clear that the Bill does not deal with the distant water section of the fleet. That section accounts for about half the value of white fish landed by British vessels without a subsidy. This Bill concerns the near and middle water sections, the inshore vessels and the herring catchers. Those sections between them land fish to the value of about £20 million or £25 million a year. That is extremely valuable and a really essential contribution to our food supplies.
  The men engaged in those industries—or I like to think of them as one single industry—face great hazards, as, indeed, has been vividly shown during this past winter. I know that we in this House are always glad of an opportunity to acknowledge our debt to their skill and their courage. The owners, too, have a vigorous and independent spirit and. I know, do not just look complacently to the Government for assistance. Their problems at the present time are considerable and serious, and it is right that we should give our close attention to them.
  As I have indicated, the object of the Bill is to give a further measure of assistance which the Government have concluded will be necessary if the industry is to be enabled to stand squarely on its own feet in the future. The Bill replaces one that was introduced last November and was subsequently withdrawn. The earlier Bill fulfilled the promise, which we made last summer, that we would introduce legislation to extend the period during which the white fish subsidy can be paid, and that we would also provide grants towards the cost of converting coal-burning vessels to oil fuel.
  992
  Before that Bill came up for a Second Reading, however, we decided, for reasons into which I will go in a moment, to introduce a new herring subsidy. The new Bill repeats the main provisions of that Bill for white fish subsidy and for conversion grants, and also provides for this new herring subsidy.
  The near and middle water trawling fleet is now faced with two major problems. First, the problem of decreasing fish stocks in the traditional fishing grounds. Secondly, the problem of increasing obsolescence of many of the vessels. In efforts to overcome the first of those problems we have consistently taken the lead in international measures to conserve stocks of fish, and though a policy of that kind is bound to take rather a long time to mature, as hon. Members will understand, we believe that those efforts are now beginning to show some effect.
  To meet the second problem, obsolescence, we have been doing everything we can to stimulate modernisation of the fleet by offering loans and grants, and that scheme has already achieved considerable success.
  When the 1953 Measure came before the House, there were 78 vessels in the near and middle water trawling fleet—that is, about one-tenth of the then total—which had been built since 1940. More than three-quarters of the vessels had been built before 1921 and were very old indeed. Today, the number of vessels in the near and middle water trawling fleet built since 1940 is 142, over 25 per cent. of the fleet, and there are a further 72 which have been approved for grant by the White Fish Authority and will be joining the fleet as soon as they have been completed. The building yards in the industry, I understand, can build, in addition to the average number of distant water vessels that come their way, only about thirty near and middle water vessels a year. So we have been seeking for new means of speeding up the process of modernisation.
  I understand that it costs up to £150,000 to build a new trawler for near and middle water fishing today, and, even with a grant and a loan, that is an investment which means a fairly heavy responsibility on the owners. The White Fish Authority, therefore, suggested that grants should be made available for the

  993
  conversation of suitable coal-burning vessels to oil fuel, an operation which can be carried out in a fraction of the time that it would take to build a new vessel. We are not, of course, expecting that all those vessels even where the hulls are suited to conversion, will necessarily be converted, but we hope that it will mean that 20 or 30 will be, and that in itself would be a very useful contribution.
  Shortly after the Bill was introduced in November we found that it would be impossible to proceed straight away with these conversions because of the restrictions on our oil supplies. We took steps straight away to warn owners who were thinking of converting not to place contracts for conversion in the expectation of a grant then, but we are confident that the policy is sound in the long-term, and we are anxious that these grants should be available at the earliest moment that we can safely give permission.
  I am, therefore, asking the House today to approve the provisions for these conversion grants on the understanding that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I will make an Order for the appointed day as soon as we possibly can, as soon as the oil situation enables us to go forward.
  Mr. James H. Hoy: Would the right hon. Gentleman care to say something about the back-dating of the Order? Some owners, not wealthy ones, have already taken steps to put work in hand.
  Mr. Amory: I do not think that there are many cases in which that has happened since November. If there is a case, I am sure the Authority will look into it and adopt as helpful an attitude as it can. We simply cannot approve a new conversion grant for a contract which has already been placed or would be placed today.
  Mr. Hoy: It would depend on the Government and upon the date which they fixed by Order. It is no use just shelving responsibility by putting it on the Authority. The Authority will be bound by what the Government decide.
  Mr. Amory: I want to make this absolutely clear. We could not approve a grant for a contract which has been placed before the appointed day, but I can give the House an assurance that we
  994
  will fix the appointed day as early as we possibly can in the light of the oil supply position.
  If, as I hope, the House is satisfied as to the general policy of the conversion grants—they are dealt with in Clause 1—it will probably be helpful if I briefly explain one or two of the detailed provisions, because they are rather complicated.
  Grants are already available under the White Fish and Herring Industries Act, 1953, for the building of new near and middle water vessels and also to working owners for installing new engines. What Clause 1 does is to extend these grants to the conversion to oil firing of engine-boilers which are at present suited for coal firing, and it enables the grants for new engines to be extended to non-working owners where the new engine is not coal-burning and is to replace an installation which did consume coal.
  Sir Robert Boothby: Did my right hon. Friend say "where the new engine is not coal-burning"?
  Mr. Amory: It is where the new engine is oil-burning and will replace an engine which was not oil-burning. These grants will not cover the mere replacement of one oil-consuming engine by another.
  Mr. Hector Hughes: Does the observation which the right hon. Gentleman has just made apply to all ships, no matter when they were built and how old they are?
  Mr. Amory: Does the hon. and learned Member refer to conversion grants?
  Mr. Hughes: Yes.
  Mr. Amory: The hulls would have to be good enough to justify the installation of a new engine. The Authority would not approve an installation for grant purpose of a new engine in a hull which was not good enough to support it.
  Mr. Hughes: Perhaps I have not made my point clear. Is the criterion under the rule to which the Minister has just referred to be the condition of the ship or the date at which it was built?
  Mr. Amory: There would have to be an expert decision as to whether the expected life of the ship would justify the installation of a new engine. There

  995
  would be an inspection. It would be a waste to spend public money on a new engine and then put it into an old hull. That is why I say that the number of cases to which the conversion grants will apply will be strictly limited. We estimate that 20 or 30 boats might be found eligible.
  The general conditions for the conversion grants will be very much the same as the conditions for the existing grants for building vessels and installing new engines. The conditions will be governed by statutory schemes which will be administered by the White Fish Authority and the Herring Industry Board as the present schemes are.
  The new grants will be at a maximum rate of 25 per cent. of the cost of conversion. It is estimated that the total cost of these conversion grants might amount to between £250,000 and £500,000. So the £9 million provided under the 1953 Act for grants for white fish vessels and the £750,000 provided under the same Act for herring vessels will, it is expected, be enough to cover this as well as grants for new buildings.
  I believe that these conversion grants will speed up the process of modernisation, but I think that we have to admit that we have still some way to go before we have a fleet capable of paying its way without subsidy. Meanwhile, we cannot dispense entirely with the old coal-burners, though we want to see them replaced with the least possible delay.
  The coal-burning fleet has declined by 40 per cent. since 1953. During the past year or so it has been losing vessels at the rate of about 100 a year. That represents vessels scrapped. The 1953 Act set a five-year limit to the subsidy. It is now clear that we cannot do without subsidy as early as next March when the subsidy authorised under that Act will terminate. The second purpose of this Bill is to extend the subsidy for a few more years and also to provide for conversions, and so to allow the modernisation of the fleet to go on and the new building to proceed.
  That is dealt with in Clause 2, where it is provided that the subsidy may be payable until 1st May, 1961, but, just in case our best hopes are not realised, the Bill provides that the life of the subsidy may be extended for another two years
  996
  up to the 1st May, 1963, by Statutory Instrument, subject to an affirmative Resolution of both Houses. I hope that no subsidy will, in fact, be required after 1961, and I should like to repeat that we have no intention that this subsidy should be a permanent one.
  The subsidy runs, of course, with the new building and conversion grants programme while a modern fleet is, as it were, in the making, and until it is able to pay its way. I hope that when making their plans owners will bear that fact in mind. Clause 2 also provides for possible changes in the form of the subsidy, so that we can keep things as flexible as they ought to be.
  The third purpose of the Bill is to authorise a direct subsidy for the benefit of the herring fisheries. In the debate on 14th December last, hon. Members on both sides of the House were seriously and rightly concerned about the problems concerning the herring industry. As was promised then, we have considered these problems in conjunction with proposals which had then been put to us by the Herring Industry Board and those that have been more recently submitted to us by the herring fishermen's associations. Clause 3 of the Bill is the result of that consideration.
  Hitherto, the herring fishermen have had no direct subsidy, though they have been assisted by the Government and the Board in a great many ways, by grants for boats and engines, to which I have referred, in marketing arrangements, in research, and through a scheme under which the Herring Industry Board buys surplus herring and converts them into oil and meal. Under the oil and meal scheme, the Government have reimbursed the Herring Industry Board its net cost so as to enable the Board to pay the fishermen higher prices for their herring than they would otherwise have been able to do.
  These grants to the Herring Industry Board, since 1948, have amounted to a total of £2.230,000. In addition, the Government have met the cost of building new oil and meal factories, at a cost so far of about £370,000, and these have been built in the main herring ports. It was always hoped that once these factories had been built the Board would be able to make the oil and meal scheme pay, and would be able, at the

  997
  same time, to offer the fishermen a price for their surplus herring which, together with their other earnings, would maintain the fleet at a reasonable level.
  With this hope, Parliament, in the White Fish and Herring Industries Acts, 1948 and 1953, and the Fisheries Act, 1955, made £34 million available to the Board for the oil and meal scheme, and for the promotion of market developments, research and other purposes. Of that sum, about £2,830,000, including £2,600,000 for oil and meal, has already been spent.
  It is unfortunately clear that, within the limit of the present powers, we cannot yet solve the herring industry's problems. During the last two years, hon. Members may be interested to know, the number of vessels in the herring fleet has fallen from 521 to 359, and the catch has fallen from 1,115,000 to 772,000 crans. The results of that are these. First, more herring could have been sold on the home market if they had been available—not always, but on many days during the year. Secondly, export contracts, which amount to about a quarter of the total catch and earn about £2 million of foreign currency, have not been able to be completely fulfilled. Thirdly, the supplies of herring for the oil and meal factories have fallen, with the result that herring meal for animal feeding has fallen by over half, and that, of course, has meant that we have had to increase our expenditure on other imported feedingstuffs.
  Further, a substantial part of the industry's difficulties are due, notably in East Anglia, to insufficient supplies of herring to be caught in these neighbouring seas, and that aspect was fully discussed in the debate on 14th December last, when my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Henderson Stewart) stated that the causes of that insufficiency of fish are not yet, unfortunately, fully known. We have been collaborating as actively as we possibly can in the scientific investigations of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, and we have asked the other Southern North Sea countries to a conference this week to consider the position in the light of the latest catches of herring.
  In the case of the main Scottish fisheries the problem is really not so much that there are not enough herring to be
  998
  caught as that there are not enough boats with which to catch them. I think that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) will agree with me on that point. To quite a large extent, the vessels that used to catch herring are now catching white fish, and they find that the white fish subsidy, which gives more Exchequer assistance than the oil and meal scheme, is more helpful to them. I do not want to imply from that that the white fish subsidy at the current rate is excessively high, but the disparity in the level of Exchequer assistance there is certainly quite a big factor at present in promoting a lack of balance between the two sections of the industry.
  The Government therefore decided that the right thing to do was to pay the herring fishermen a subsidy which would be broadly similar, as regards both the method, the amount and the duration, to that which was paid to the white fish fishermen, and Clause 3 of the Bill enables us to do that. This subsidy will last, like the white fish subsidy, until May, 1961, or two years after that, if circumstances seem to make that necessary and Parliament approves.
  Mr. Edward Evans: The right hon. Gentleman has said "broadly similar." Can he say what is the amount to be allocated, particularly the amount to be allocated to the conversion scheme to make the operation of herring fishing much more profitable? There are rumours in my port, at any rate, that the sum is inconsiderable when compared with the amount paid to the White Fish Authority.
  Mr. Amory: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman that information. We have not yet worked out the rates. I said that they would be broadly comparable and I meant that literally. We shall take each case on its merits and work it out as fairly as we can on the same kind of basis. But I could not make much of a shot today at what the total sums will amount to for each category, each section of the fleet, when that is done.
  Mr. Hector Hughes: Is it not likely that that will work out to the disadvantage of the white fish industry?
  Mr. Amory: No, not necessarily, because, as I have said, each section will be judged on its merits, and each scheme will be worked out afresh in the light of

  999
  the course of earnings in that section. I think that that covers the point raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman.
  The rates will be worked out after consultation with the Board and with the fishermen's associations in the same way as we do ordinarily and will be given effect to by a statutory scheme subject to the approval of both Houses. The conditions and circumstances of the herring vessels will be taken into account, subject to the maintaining of a sort of broad equivalence between the herring vessels and other comparable white fish boats. The aim will be to have the two sections of the industry, as it were, competing on as fair terms as we can work out.
  The indirect assistance, to which I have referred, which is given to the herring fishermen through the oil and meal scheme, will cease as soon as the new subsidy starts. The full cost of buying herring and the processing of them will have to be met by the Board from that time onwards. It will then have to adjust the price that it is able to pay to the fishermen accordingly. But, of course, on balance the fishermen will gain very substantially by the substitution of the direct subsidy for the present indirect assistance.
  I should make clear that the powers under which the Board at present receives grants for capital expenditure on the oil and meal plants and for research and other projects will remain unchanged. Clause 4 provides up to a total of £17 million which can be paid out for herring and white fish subsidies under the 1953 Act and under this Bill together. Clause 4, too, provides that if necessary this sum can be increased to £19 million with the approval of Parliament. This total includes the £lO million which has already been provided under the earlier Act. That £10 million will be almost exhausted by the autumn of this year.
  Hon. Members may think that the fact that we have now to cover the herring subsidy as well as other subsidies within a total of £17 million or £19 million must mean that we are robbing "White fish Peter", as it were, to pay "Herring fisherman Paul." Were these overall sums of £17 million and £19 million precisely calculated, there would be some substance in that criticism. In fact, we cannot plan as precisely as that.
  1000
  The actual cost of these subsidies depends on many factors; the costs and earnings of the industry, the rate of decline of the old fleet and the rate of building of the new fleet. But because of the smaller number of herring boats, and also their smaller size, the amount that will go on the herring section of the fleet is likely to be quite small in relation to the white fish subsidy.
  Some of these herring boats fish some of the time for herring and some of the time for white fish; and also, as we have seen recently, some of the boats change over completely from the herring section to the white fish section. Therefore, we have a certain amount of movement going on the whole time which makes exact calculation and computation quite impossible. Looking at the industry as a whole, we believe the total sum provided should be sufficient to meet the needs of both sections until they can stand on their own.
  Mr. Edward Evans: In the white fish subsidy there is a differentiating scale between steam vessels and diesel driven vessels, is it the intention of the Government to moderate the scale as it will be applied against steam and diesel in the new subsidies for herring drifters?
  Mr. Amory: I do not wish to go into those details today. I do not think that I can safely go further than to say that our aim is to make the scheme for the herring boats broadly comparable with the scheme for the white fish boats.
  I can assure the House that when we fix the precise rates of subsidy under the annual scheme we shall continue to do what we have done up to date, which is to examine and decide on each case, that is to say, each section of the industry, on its merits in the light of all the information available about costs and earnings.
  I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will welcome this Bill. Our fisheries policy has shown organic growth and the capacity to adjust itself to meet changing circumstances. But it has not undergone any fundamental change and I am glad to say that it has long enjoyed the support of all parties.
  I believe that this Bill is in line with the tradition of its predecessors, the Acts of 1951 and 1953. I hope that it will receive general support as a Measure which will further develop both the white fish and the herring industries and also

  1001
  further the hopes of both these sections of our fishing fleet to achieve their economic independence in the years that lie immediately ahead.
  Mr. J. Grimond: As I understand, this scheme is to come into force this season. In my constituency the season begins in two months' time, or less. It does not seem to me—subject to being able to read later in HANSARD what the Minister has said—that fishermen will be well enough informed about the rates of the subsidy or the form in which the subsidy is to be given. If they are East Coast boats, or Shetland boats, they have to decide whether to give up seining. I think that there will be considerable uncertainty as to what is to happen. Are we to have further enlightenment? Are Orders to be introduced within the next few weeks?
  Mr. Amory: I know when the Scottish season opens. Our aim is to have everything in order by that time. If the House gives a Second Reading to the Bill, we shall not lose a moment in working out precise schemes. If hon. Gentlemen will make their speeches short and snappy and the Committee stage discussions as few as possible so much the quicker shall we get the Bill on to the Statute Book.
  Mr. Hector Hughes: I am sorry if I trespass on the patience of the right hon. Gentleman. What is to become of the money that has hitherto been allocated to the fishing industry? Is that to fall into a general fund?
  Mr. Amory: I hope it will fall into the Treasury, as an offset to the higher payment out that will result from the new subsidy scheme.
  Mr. Hughes: If some of the money which has hitherto gone to the white fish industry is now going to the herring industry, the white fish industry might be at a loss by that amount. Will it he possible to recoup the white fish industry or compensate it?
  Mr. Amory: The hon. and learned Gentleman will be able to form his opinion when the schemes come along. There are no positive or limited allocations, because each case is considered each year on its merits. The only limitation at present is the total limitation to
  1002
  which I have referred and which, if the Bill becomes law, will be £17 million. There is power, with Parliamentary approval, to increase it to £l9 million. Apart from that, there is no specific allocation.
  4.33 p.m.
  Mr. A. Woodburn: It was very interesting to hear the Minister say that he hoped in due course that the fishing industry would become self-sustaining. I have no doubt that somebody in the time of Queen Anne, when subsidies were granted to fishing, made a remark of a similar kind. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is right, but there is no evidence that we are reaching that point. The hope of Parliament in granting this subsidy is that the industry may become self-sustaining.
  The Bill continues and expands certain subsidies. The main departure in principle is in extending the subsidy to the herring industry. I wish the Government would make up their minds on the principle of subsidies. The other day a Tory ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer described people who receive subsidies as, by inference, a community of parasites. That kind of language makes it very difficult for us to discuss these matters in a businesslike fashion. Some people have taken very strong exception to these names being applied to them and have become very indignant. People who carry on industries which have to receive subsidies from the State find things difficult when they have that kind of name bandied about, even by inference.
  The Government should make up their minds whether subsidies are justifiable in principle. If they are, they should not continually make out that the people who receive subsidies are paupers, cadging on the State, and use all sorts of names of that kind.
  Mr. Amory: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman understands that if we had any doubt whether the subsidies were justified we should not introduce the Bill.
  Mr. Woodburn: I am quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman understands that, but that does not apply to some of his hon. Friends, who should not make that kind of remark.
  Mr. Anthony Fell: Surely there is a difference between subsidies for one industry and subsidies for another. The fishing industry was badly hit during the war and we want to maintain it, if for no other reason than that it provides something which is essential to our defence at sea.
  Sir R. Boothby: What about farmers?
  Mr. Fell: We have to keep agriculture going if for no other reason than that we have to eat off the land.
  Mr. Woodburn: Hon. Members should make up their minds whether subsidies are justified in principle. If they do so decide, they ought not to denounce them generally, and say that the people who receive them are paupers who receive charity from the State.
  We require houses as much as we require fishing boats, so I believe that it is as much a matter of public policy to provide housing subsidies as to provide fishing subsidies. I believe in the subsidy as an instrument of public policy. It is the best way of getting Government control where there is not direct ownership or control of an industry. If the local authorities did not receive subsidies the State would have very little control over what they did. The subsidy is a means of exercising control by this House of the citizens.
  Is it wrong to assist Development Areas, turning these pre-war distressed areas into prosperous areas? Would the Ministry of Agriculture say that it is wrong to subsidise agriculture? Is education not one of the vital things for the future? If so, should we not subsidise it by school meals, school milk, etc.? Is not the health of the people vital to the welfare of the country?
  Mr. Fell: Education is not an industry.
  Mr. Woodburn: It is a very good export industry in my constituency. We bring people to Scotland from abroad and earn money by educating them. We earn quite a lot of dollars. It is a very good industry in any case. Industry as a whole will never succeed without education. We spend money maintaining hospitals for people when they are sick. It is much better to do that than to keep them in bed as sick people, unable to afford medical attention. If we want to
  1004
  maintain an efficient fishing industry, or a fishing industry at all, and it is necessary to subsidise it, we ought to do so.
  Moreover, a subsidy enables us to guide the fishing industry in what it should do. In the White Fish Industry Board we were able to get agreement on a great many policies for the fishing industry. We could go much further. It would be much more effective if fish were brought into market in an organised way and not in haphazard fashion. We tried to do that, but I am sorry to say that we were not entirely successful. I am sure that the kind of control which has been developing in the marketing of fish has been of great benefit to the industry.
  An open-and-above-board subsidy is much better than a secret subsidy, because it can be reviewed by Parliament. We can do our job in keeping our eye on those things and seeing whether the payments are justified. A lot of subsidies are given by way of tax rebates, and that can be abused. They are in the Budget and nobody takes much trouble to find out whether they are justified or not.
  There is no division of opinion in this House about the necessity of ensuring a prosperous fishing industry. The reason that the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) gave about the importance of the industry in time of war is perhaps lessening in importance, but, nevertheless, it is one important aspect of the matter. There is the human necessity to maintain the fishing population in the Outer Islands. That is vital for our social life. We have to ask ourselves whether the proposals in the Bill are necessary and whether there is a policy behind them.
  There is a certain amount of economy in the proposals put forward by the right hon. Gentleman. It is the same with these proposals as in housing. It costs a great deal of money to build a new house, but if an existing house is capable of modernisation it is an economy to modernise it even if we give a grant to a private owner or to a local authority to do so. When we introduced a Bill in 1948 it had exactly the same proposals as the Bill introduced by the right hon. Gentleman. We transformed vessels and converted them to burning oil. We offer no objection to the Bill; in fact, it carries out principles upon which we have ourselves agreed.

  1005
  There is a danger which arises from the conversion of old vessels. We agree that, as in the case of houses, when they have reached a point of decay and dilapidation they ought to be scrapped, but there may be good hulls which could be converted so far as the mechanism of the vessel is concerned, yet there would be a great danger in the conditions of the crew. We do not want to convert ships from steam to oil burning vessels if the conditions of the crew are quite out-of-date, insanitary and not conducive to recruiting for the fishing industry.
  Not only will wages determine whether people will fish or not, but also the conditions under which they fish. We ought to have an assurance from the noble Lord who is to reply to the debate that some attention will be paid to the conditions under which deck hands are to live. There should be a condition that the living accommodation of the deck hands and other facilities on board shall be brought a little nearer to modern standards before the expenditure of State money. An important thing about a subsidy is that one can extend public policy and get it carried out in regard to ships. We agree that it is necessary to extend the time, because the work which was proposed to be done has not been able to be done under existing conditions.
  Another point about which I am concerned is that in certain parts of the country the fishing industry was not doing all it could itself to become modern. It would never do to provide subsidy for an industry which lay back on its oars and simply accepted a subsidy without bringing itself up to scratch. I found it necessary at one time to impose conditions on one part of the industry that it should make its own part of the industry efficient and so justify the granting of State money to it. That is very necessary, because in some parts of the country this industry allowed all the money accumulated in the past to be consumed outside the industry.
  Sometimes the industry has not done all it could to recapitalise itself. We have to be very careful that no persons in the industry use the State as a milch cow while not doing their share towards making a contribution. If the State is to do its duty they should do their duty. As in the case of agriculture, if it is to
  1006
  be a partnership of the State, the fishing industry and the people who fish, all sections have a recognised part to play and we require that of the fishing industry.
  Under present circumstances the fishing industry could not survive without some assistance from the State. Reverting to the point about the industry capitalising new development, even those sections which did their duty by putting aside reserves might find that because of the watering and devaluation of the currency those reserves, which might have been sufficient had money maintained its value, become quite insufficient when the cost of a ship becomes three or four times what it was originally when the money was put aside. Therefore, the State has some responsibility to compensate the fishing industry for the watering and devaluing of its reserves.
  The most important change has been in the herring industry. I am glad that the Minister showed that even a subsidy does not necessarily bring the herring to the North Sea.
  Mr. Hoy: Nor to the Firth of Forth.
  Mr. Woodburn: Nor to the Firth of Forth. When Charles Reade wrote "Christie Johnstone" I remember he described the life of the fishers. But the herring has disappeared from the Firth of Forth and no one knows why. I understand that the temperature of the North Sea has been rising and that that might have an effect on the scarcity of herring. I also read that a number of seals are living on an island in the North Sea. They may be partly responsible for the diminution in the number of herring. The herring has always been a mysterious fish. In the Middle Ages it had an effect on history by moving from the Baltic to the North Sea. Scientists have never been able to discover what game herring are playing.
  The hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Duthie), who has great knowledge of this fish, may be able to enlighten us about it. The Herring Board has found it impossible to account for the herring going from these seas round some of the English ports. That has deprived us of that great dollar-earner the marinaded herring and we are also not able to supply the Russians with the herring which they want. In case anyone believes that there will be a great loss through the present

  1007
  herring subsidy, may I say that my information is that it is only payable so far as meal and oil are concerned and is mainly consumed in the cost of transport to the factories. If no meal and oil is being made from herring no subsidy is payable and does not, therefore, exist.
  If these conditions persist herring fishermen will get a clear gain through the new subsidy. There is another great advantage. In agriculture everywhere there is a disinclination for people to live in the country away from towns. There is also a disinclination for fishermen to live away from their homes for longer than they can help and, with the white fish subsidy, fishermen can get home at night. They can get immediate cash instead of having it deferred as in the case of the herring fisher. Whether the new subsidy will counteract that tendency or not is still to be guessed. Just as the Government weigh up each case on its merits, I rather fancy that the fishermen will weigh up each case on its merits. If it is best to fish herring he will fish herring, but if it is best to fish white fish he will do so and stay at home.
  The detailed proposals are to come before the House by Order in Council and can be dealt with in detail. Many of my hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite w ill have points of view from the fishermen to express when we reach the Committee stage of the Bill. In the meantime, we approve the policy of the Bill and agree that as public policy we ought to ensure that the industry survives. If we are more successful and able to bring the industry on to an economic basis by which it is self-sustaining, we shall welcome that. That may be an advantage in the long run.
  I wish to emphasise that we are not approving of this as a hand-out of charity to fishermen. We believe this is part of the partnership of the nation with the industries of the country. The fishing industry is one of the most valuable industries from a social and food point of view and, certainly, a great industry from the point of view of developing men of character and stamina. Such men have played a great part in the defence of their country.
  1 conclude by paying tribute to the part these men and their wives have played. Many of us know of women
  1008
  whose husbands have not come back from a fishing expedition. In that respect this industry is like coal mining. Of it we say, in the words of the old song, "The price of herring is the lives of men." When we think of that we realise that there is no question of charity towards these men. We are doing this as partners of these men and we welcome their co-operation in helping to feed the nation. We therefore give our approval to the general principles of the Bill and hope that it will have a speedy passage.
  4.51 p.m.
  Sir James Henderson Stewart: It seems such a long time ago since I had the freedom of sitting here and speaking from the back benches that I almost feel that I am making another maiden speech. The best way to overcome the problem of a maiden speech is to make it very short, and that I propose to do.
  I have not very much to say, except to congratulate my right hon. Friends upon having brought the Bill before the House and, in particular, upon having incorporated in it the Clause dealing with the subsidy for herring fishing. I am relieved that they have done so, because on the last occasion that I spoke from the Treasury Bench I virtually committed the Government to some action of this kind. If I may be allowed to quote what I said with authority on that occasion, it was:
  "… we have here an industry that we must support at all costs. We cannot let it decline further. There is a great deal to be said for rebuilding the industry to a higher level than that at which it stands today … I assure the House that the Government will do their best." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th December, 1956; Vol. 562, c. 896.]
  I did what I could in the few weeks which were left to me in office to fulfil that undertaking, and I consider that the Bill does fulfil it. Like the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn), I am therefore in a happy position of being able to offer it full support. I think we all give it full support.
  Nevertheless, reverting to the point made by the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire, there must be some people in the country and perhaps even some hon. Members who raise a querulous eyebrow when they see the Government proposing to introduce a new subsidy at

  1009
  the very moment at which the Government make it clear that it is their general policy wherever possible to get rid of subsidies and to make our economy self-supporting.
  I think that general policy is absolutely right. Whenever we can we ought to work resolutely to its fulfilment. The truth is, however, as we are all beginning to learn, that once we have started paying subsidies either to industries or to national services—and all Governments have had a hand in the subsidy for fishing—it is virtually impossible to abandon those subsidies except by easy stages. What is even more difficult is that when a subsidy has been made available to one section of an industry, as here, its effects are bound sooner or later to compel us to extend the subsidy to the other sections. In my view, that is perhaps the worst and most corroding feature of artificial aids from the State.
  In the case of the fishing industry, clearly we cannot suddenly withdraw financial support from the white fish section, which has enjoyed some measure of support for the last six, seven or eight years. If we were to do that we should bring ruin to the industry. Therefore it cannot be done. On the other hand, as my right hon. Friend said in opening the debate, to contemplate a subsidy for this industry for all time ahead would surely be to despair of all the work we have done and all the money we have spent on modernising our fleet; it would be to despair of all our efforts to bring efficiency into the industry and, through the White Fish Authority, to raise the general business direction of the industry; and it would be to despair, too, of the ardour, the vigour and the independence of the fishermen themselves.
  In the circumstances, therefore, the only practical course is to maintain for the white fish side of the industry that support meanwhile but to give clear notice, as we do here, that, subject to the avoidance of extreme conditions, the subsidy will be on a diminishing scale—that is what I clearly understand by the Bill—and that it is the Government's intention that it should terminate at a fixed time some years ahead.
  Sir R. Boothby: I have sat in the House for over thirty years, and my hon. Friend has sat in the House for over twenty years. We have heard one
  1010
  Government after another say that expenditure on the fishing industry and on agriculture is to decrease and that the subsidy will be steadily decreased. On the contrary, both have risen absolutely steadily for the last thirty years, and I hazard the suggestion that they will go on rising for the next thirty years.
  Sir J. Henderson Stewart: My right hon. Friend may well be right. I am only saying that I like to hope that he is wrong.
  I feel that no Government can do other than say to the industry now: "You must try to make the industry efficient. We are giving you money to build new boats. We will taper off the subsidy gradually and you must face the possibility that at a certain time you must stand on your own feet." I do not think any Government could adopt any other policy than that—and that is what the Bill tries to do.
  Just because the white fish side of the industry has enjoyed financial support for so long, there has been an inevitable and in recent years an increasing movement of boats from the catching of herring to the catching of white fish, because the latter is more attractive. My right hon. Friend gave the figures for both branches. I understand that in Scotland the boats mainly engaged in herring fishing have fallen in number from 446 two years ago to 314 last year, a drop of 132 in two years, which is staggering. In consequence, the catch of herring in the United Kingdom, as my right hon. Friend said, has fallen by a very large amount.
  Alongside that fall in the amount of herring we have had the very opposite in the case of inshore white fishing. If we consider the boats in Scotland which are engaged on inshore white fishing, which for practical purposes we might call the seine net fleet, the numbers have risen from 594 boats in 1954 to 708 last year, an increase of 114. The position is almost completely explained by those staggering figures. The white fish inshore catch in Scotland has grown since 1954 from 1,200,000 cwt. to 1,650,000 cwt.
  Clearly it is in the interests of fishermen, merchants, processers, kipperers, curers, transporters and everybody concerned, and in the national interest, to see that this steady movement from one section to the other is controlled. The

  1011
  herring industry is one of the oldest in our land. Quite apart from the romance attaching to it—and we have all in our day paid tribute in the House to its romantic associations—this industry, though relatively small in numbers of men by comparison with other trades, plays a vital part in the social and economic life of Scotland. At all costs it must be maintained at a reasonable level.
  It is true that for a number of years the herring industry has been assisted by the operation of the oil and meal scheme, to the present tune, I believe, of about £100,000 a year, but that scheme has not proved sufficient to check the movement from herring to white fishing. It seems to me, therefore, that we have now no alternative but to extend to the landing of herrings the landing subsidy now enjoyed by the white fish industry, so that a reasonable balance may be brought about between the two sections.
  Naturally, we are all very curious to know how this new herring subsidy is to be operated, how much is involved, how it will affect the operations of the oil and meal scheme, and the like. I will not press my noble Friend—who, I think, is to reply later—for an answer to these questions now, because I know that his colleagues, and the Herring Board and the trade are considering these matters. Nevertheless, I am sure that he realises that we should all like to know as early as possible what the scheme is.
  Personally, I hope that this Bill will be used by the fishermen of Scotland, and particularly by the herring fishermen of Scotland as the occasion and the incentive to do what so many of the industry's friends have been urging for so long; that is, to raise the quality of the herring. They can do that largely by boxing a greater amount of the catch on board while the vessels are still at sea. If they would do that—and I took my part in other days to press this upon them—they would reduce the surplus of oil and meal somewhat; they would increase their income from the kipperers, the curers the canners and the rest. They would, in turn, improve the standard of the herring offered to the housewife. I am a little ashamed when friends of mine buy herrings that are not of the proper
  1012
  standard. The fishermen must play their part in raising that standard.
  This Measure gives the fishermen a new chance. The money involved is not great. In the Press I have seen reports that it will be about £300,000 a year. That is not a great sum, but if this new step is properly regarded and properly used by the fishermen it may well prove the turning point in their long, arduous and chancy voyage towards stable prosperity.
  5.4 p.m.
  Mr. J. Grimond: I am sure that the whole House will welcome the leap which the hon. Baronet the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Henderson Stewart) has taken from the Government aquarium into the rough but wider waters of the back benches. I rejoice that he is back there to harry the Government on fishing matters. It may be, however, that the Government have lost in the process.
  What most people are anxious to have is more details of the new herring scheme, but we have been told that we are not to get them for a short time. Before coming to that part of the Bill, however, I should like to make one or two remarks on the white fish industry. In Shetland, we have been trying to improve the marketing of our fish by the creation of Shetland Fish Limited and to broaden our fishing. We have been making experiments in the catching of dog fish—a fish which is so lucrative to the Norwegians. But one essential ingredient of any big improvement is a breakwater at Whalsay and better harbour facilities at Scalloway and other places. Until we have those, we are under great difficulties.
  As the Minister is aware, we rely on the quality of our white fish. Our chief problems are our distance from markets, the difficulty of handling and of transport —the high rate of freight, for instance, and the unsatisfactory handling of the fish in ordinary wooden fish boxes, which are very dirty things. Although the Government know it already, there is one vital point to which I should like to draw to their attention, and that is the new rule at the new Aberdeen fish market by which the fish has to be clocked in by 8 a.m. If it is to be sold that day. The boat from Shetland does not arrive sometimes until seven o'clock in the morning or after. We have, of course, no control

  1013
  over sailings or over the dockers. It means that our high-quality fish does not reach the market in good condition if it is delayed 24 hours. As Aberdeen is our main outlet, this is a vital matter, as I know the Minister realises, and we will be grateful to have it given attention.
  I turn now to that part of the Bill dealing with the herring industry. In Shetland we also have suffered from the number of boats leaving the herring industry, a matter about which both the Minister and the hon. Baronet have spoken. We had 54 in 1939 and 32 in 1956. This year the number will be down to about 20. The reason lies almost entirely in the uncertainty of catching herring at all, and to the poor price. In other places there is this factor that the white fisherman gets home and so on, thus making the white fishing life more satisfactory, but, for local reasons, that is not so important in Shetland. The real thing is the price of herring and the lack of shoals in some years.
  As the Minister knows, our season will begin very soon indeed, and I hope that it is appreciated that the herring is important not only to the fishermen themselves but to the ancillary trades. Those ancillary trades will be very interested in the form that the subsidy takes. For instance, what are the curers to be told? The curers have operated under great difficulties and restrictions and are getting very few in number. We shall not know how many are to come to Shetland, or how many boats from the East Coast will be prepared to come this season unless they very soon know how the scheme is to work out.
  I am not at all clear what the Minister of Agriculture meant when he said that he would weigh each case. Does that mean that he will weigh the needs of each port and that the subsidy will take a different form in different ports? or does it mean that he will change the subsidy from year to year? All these are matters of worry to the fishermen, and I should like an assurance that we are soon to get an answer. I know that a threat, or a bribe, has been made today that if we make good, and short, speeches the Minister will be able to get on with the job, but, in return, he faces the possible threat that if we are not satisfied we may make longer and worse speeches in the next debate.
  1014
  The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the difficulty caused by the small number of vessels and seemed to imply that this was a difficulty of catching. Off Shetland, however, the difficulty has been one of searching. We suspect that there have been very considerable shoals of herring off Shetland which have not been located or have been too deep. In the old days, there were an immense number of small boats searching, but now there are a much smaller number of big boats, with much larger catching capacity, it is true, but not able to search so widely. I do not know whether the Board could make more experiments, such as were at one time thought of, with aircraft to search the sea for herring—and also note new catching methods.
  Another question is how the herring subsidy will affect the different ports and, of course, the oil and meal scheme. One point of contention in Shetland for a number of years has been the position of Scalloway. A lot of fishermen believe, and there is much evidence to support them, that as in the early season the herring shoals are up to the North, off what we call the Ramna Stacks, and to the West of the coast of Shetland, they should be encouraged to fish longer from Scalloway. They would like to try to get curers, and so on to come there—the kipperer does come—and to improve the facilities of the port. Last year, for instance, herring which went for oil and meal to Scalloway fetched 28s. as against 42s. at Lerwick. I do not know how the herring subsidy scheme will affect the situation as between the different ports, and if anything can be said about that it will be very useful, because it is usually the first port to open in the whole of Great Britain.
  There was some indication this year that the Board was going to pay slightly higher prices for oil and meal from herring landed more or less directly at the oil and meal factory. This subsidy would seem to run across that. Again, if there is any information on that, it would be helpful because it is a matter of some importance to us.
  I quite appreciate the position of the Government. They want to bring in their Order, and they may well say that we must wait until then. But we are now in the middle of March, and there is much to be done. There is gear to be

  1015
  bought; which is very expensive, and there are those who will wonder whether it is worthwhile buying herring fishing gear at present prices. There are the others concerned, kipperers, curers, and so on; barrels have to be got. It is a big industry, with many ancillary trades, and we must know as soon as possible.
  Having asked those questions and made those few remarks, I, like other hon. Members, say that if the Bill means a better deal for the herring industry, then I am all for it. That is how it will be judged, and I suppose we must wait until we see the Order in order to be assured about that. I am glad that one fear many of us had has been removed. It seemed at one time that we should be robbing Peter to pay Paul and that all the money which was to go to the herring industry was to be taken out of the white fish industry—virtually the same boats—because so many of them are dual-purpose boats. I now understand that that is not the case. It will be a great relief to the industry to know that.
  5.12 p.m.
  Mr. W. S. Duthie: I welcome the Bill most heartily. It will not escape without criticism, but, on the whole, it represents a very good move indeed for the fishing industry, and particularly for the herring industry.
  As regards conversion from coal burning to oil burning, it will not affect our inshore fishing fleets in Scotland to any great extent, if at all. All our vessels which are prosecuting seine netting or herring fishing are relatively new. But, of course, there may be a few trawlers at Granton and Aberdeen which it will be worth while to convert, but I doubt if there are very many.
  Since our opportunities for discussing the fishing industry come at very rare intervals and are usually of short duration, I have one or two comments connected with the industry as a whole which I should like to make on matters which I regard as anomalous and requiring redress. First of all, I wish to mention the depreciation allowed by the Treasury on second-hand vessels, particularly those obtained under grant and loan schemes. For the first year, a depreciation of 20 per cent, is allowed, and thereafter it is
  1016
  5 per cent. a year. There is no grant for anyone acquiring a second-hand vessel, and this paradox exists, that it is cheaper for a fisherman to buy a new vessel under the grants and loans schemes than it is for him to buy a first-class second-hand vessel which may be offered after use during just a year or two. That is not a frequent occurrence, but it happens from time to time.
  The only market available for such vessels when they come up for sale is outside the country, in Eire for instance. This means that the money which has been put up by the taxpayer cannot be recouped through sales to fishermen at home. I would strongly urge that point upon my right hon. Friend, and ask him to take it up with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Also I would ask him to give close attention to the idea of giving grants and loans to fishermen for the acquisition of second-hand vessels in good condition.
  Naturally, the main considerations affecting us who represent inshore fishing constituencies in Scotland arise in respect of the herring industry and how it is to come out of the plans implicit in the Bill. The Government's response to the debate on the Motion moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Younger) on 14th December, followed by the announcement of the Secretary of State for Scotland on 26th February, and now this Bill, indicate to us that the Government are feeling some alarm over the state of affairs in the herring industry. I think it is only right that we on this side, at least, should pay a tribute here to the Minister for bringing in the Bill, and also to my right hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. J. Stuart), and to my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Henderson Stewart), who had a great deal to do with this Measure coming before the House at this time. Our thanks and gratitude, and the gratitude of the industry, are due to them on that account.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister mentioned the decrease in the number of vessels. Many vessels have given up the herring industry and gone over to seining. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that many of those will return to herring fishing again, but we must look at the

  1017
  deterrents which stand in the way. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) spoke of subsidies and asked what is the need for a subsidy for the herring industry. The need is this. The price obtained at the quayside for herring today is twice that which was obtained before the war, but the catching cost is six times what it was before the war.
  Again, there is the terrible problem of gear. The cost of nets, buoys, ropes and all the rest of the equipment used by fishermen has gone up enormously. This is a matter which I hope the Minister will take up with his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer; it is something which requires redress. The problem was brought forcibly home to me during a visit I made to the Banffshire coast a short time ago. Herring nets today cost £19 each, and in twelve month's time, after a year's use, their value has dropped to £12. The maintenance and repair cost of a net averages about £2 per net per year. In Scotland, the nets are owned by the individual fishermen, yet there is no income tax allowance for depreciation on that gear or for maintenance. This should be brought to the attention of the Chancellor in the strongest possible terms.
  Another matter, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. John MacLeod) a short time ago, is the great problem caused by treating the herring fisherman as a seasonal worker. Why must herring fishermen be treated as seasonal workers, and why should they have to prove that they are not seasonal workers before they can get unemployment benefit? The seine net fishermen rightly can draw unemployment benefit for even a couple of days of unemployment, but herring fishermen during the rest periods—and these rests between seasons are very necessary for rehabilitating vessels and looking after gear—have to prove that they are not seasonal workers before they can get unemployment benefit.
  I am glad in certain ways that the Bill is vague on the manner and measure of assistance which is to go to the herring industry, and I trust that there will be speedy but none the less exhaustive discussions with the fishermen's associations to ensure that all points are taken into account and weighed before any decision
  1018
  is taken. On 7th February, there was a joint petition by all the herring fishermen's associations in the country presented to the Minister. No doubt my right hon. Friend has that closely in mind. It demands the most serious consideration. I should like to ask him whether the substance of that petition is accepted as the basis for the subsidy schemes to be introduced. It is a matter of great importance. Views expressed in it by the fishermen's associations are totally at variance with the suggestion that the subsidy should be removed from oil and meal herring.
  It seems to me also that the powers of the Herring Industry Board should be extended if we are really to make anything of that body, so that it can pull its full weight in the rehabilitation of the industry. It seems to me that the ideal—and this is something on which all the fishermen's associations agree—would be for the Herring Industry Board to become the first-hand purchaser at a flat rate at the quayside of all caught herring which is landed; there would, of course, be two qualities, first and second quality. This is something which I mentioned on 14th December. Let the Herring Board distribute the herring to the various freshers, processers and other users, and do it more or less on a co-operative basis. That, to my mind, is the ideal. But apparently the Herring Industry Board lacks the necessary powers to become purchasers at first hand of herrings and the Minister should consider whether it is possible for these extra powers to be given now to the Herring Industry Board.
  The Herring Industry Board on 18th January published certain draft rules giving zones and minimum prices of herring at the quayside during the coming season. There is the exception, of course, for oil and meal. All other avenues of use are discussed in detail. I should like to ask my right hon. Friend whether the prices issued by the Herring Industry Board form the basis of quayside prices in devising any help that is to be given to the industry. The hon. Member for Fife, East mentioned boxing herrings at sea. That is a splendid thing. At Lowestoft, I was tremendously impressed a short time ago by the herring landed in boxes at the quayside. It seems to me that the amount allowed in the suggested differential of 2s. per box for boxing

  1019
  herring at sea is not enough. The selection which must go on there is a very protracted job. The herring must be specially taken care of, not that that is not a good thing, but a great deal of extra work is involved. It seems to me that something like 10s. to 12s. a box would be more commensurate with the trouble taken.
  As to the oil and meal subsidy, the Herring Industry Board guarantees in its draft rules to take up all balances of herring unsold, and presumably herring for oil and meal will be in those balances of herring not taken up for kippering, freshing, curing and so on. Again there is no mention of the price that is going to be paid for oil and meal herring.
  The Scottish Herring Producers' Association in their comments on these draft rules suggested an equitable price for oil and meal herring, even with a voyage subsidy being paid, was 50s. per cran. I was somewhat dismayed when the Secretary of State for Scotland on 26th February and the Minister again today stated that the oil and meal subsidy was going to be withdrawn. I would ask those Ministers to think again. This move is fraught with a very great amount of danger. It was instanced by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond). What is going to happen in glut conditions when very heavy fishing comes along?
  At the present time, the subsidy per cran on oil and meal herring is something like 10s. The boats with the lighter catches naturally get in earlier in the morning and their herring probably goes for canning, curing and freshing. There may be a glut of fish in the afternoon when big shots come in. What is to happen? It is true that each vessel will probably get its £10 voyage payment, but look at the position of the man who instead of getting the normal price for his oil and meal herring has dropped 10s. a cran on 100 cran shot. He is £38 out of pocket. That is the sort of thing which will drive more nails into the coffin of the herring industry than this Bill will remove.
  I would plead with my right hon. Friend to look at this matter again. We are hoping that these difficulties will be overcome and that the Bill will be a turning point in the herring industry. It
  1020
  might well prove to be. There are, however, other things to be done in addition to those mentioned in the Bill. One question concerns the marketing of herring in this country and that is where the Herring Industry Board should be given power to go ahead and get something done. Who in this country knows that cured herring is obtainable in 5 lb. and 10 lb. tins at about ls. 3d. a lb. That is not generally known, but wherever the tins have appeared they have been most successful, and it seems to me that that type of pack alone warrants a most intensive sales drive from one end of the country to the other and in the export field, because there is no finer food than the cured herring. I should like to see coincident with the launching of the Bill a force of commercial travellers selling cured herring from one end of the country to the other which, I think, would achieve a tremendous advance in the herring industry.
  On 14th December, I mentioned other methods of fishing, particularly the Larsen net. I will not go into the details now except to say that the average cost of drift nets required by two herring vessels today is something like £5,000 if they are to be adequately equipped with nets, including spare ropes, nets and buoys. There is a net gear cost of £200 when the Larsen net is operated by two vessels working together.
  Since I spoke on 14th December I have had surprising confirmation from both Ireland and Scandinavia that these nets are proving an unqualified success. A net of the Larsen type is today being operated by British Columbia fishermen most successfully. Moreover, the Larsen net is recommended by the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, under whose auspices a booklet has been issued concerning it written by Alan Glanville, who is himself a practical fisherman and is today operating the Larsen gear most successfully off the West of Ireland.
  In making any experiments that will impress the fishermen it is of little use to have the tests carried out by the Department's own vessels. If we are really to make an impression upon the fishermen concerning this new type of gear, bearing in mind how conservative are the methods of Scottish fishermen, the Scottish Office must commission two pairs of vessels with

  1021
  skippers and crews of proven worth to work this gear on a guaranteed remunerative basis, so that they will not lose by changing over from the drift net to this type of fishing for that period. They should use the Larsen net, and the wing trawl which is a bottom net alternatively at Fraserburgh and Peterhead for a period during the coming herring season. If that were done we should see a marked improvement in catching methods generally in the herring industry.
  Another point I should like to mention concerns the value (that the public put upon the herring. In past years we have been far too dependent upon Russian prices. Russian prices have unduly depressed the value of herring and it is essential that we should secure other outlets where a better return is obtainable. This is one of the responsibilities which should devolve upon the Herring Industry Board. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir R. Boothby) has made quite clear during his 30 years in this House. the herring is the best fish in the world for food value.
  Like other hon. Members, I welcome the Bill. I anxiously await publication of the scheme by which the herring industry is to be aided. I should, however, like to make this point that it is essential that the greater part of the subsidy should go directly to the wages of the crews. That is a vital consideration.
  The hon. Member for East Stirling-shire talked about herring stocks. The stocks of herring are in the sea. Since the right hon. Gentleman's memory seems to be quite short, I should like to remind him that since I came to this House in 1945 I have talked of virtually nothing else on the occasions when I have spoken to the House on fishing matters. All along I have appealed for research, and we certainly require it now.
  By and large, this is the first great step I have seen taken in this House towards the saving of the herring industry. I sincerely trust that now we have started, we shall press on until this magnificent industry is fully rehabilitated.
  5.31 p.m.
  Mr. Hector Hughes: When entering the Chamber today, an hon. Member who is not a Scot and who is a landlubber representing an inland constituency asked me why we so often
  1022
  have fishing Bills before the House. I answered that it was because the fishing industry is so seldom dealt with in a comprehensive way. This little Bill is a good example of the lack of comprehensiveness which characterises Bills relating to the fishing industry which come before the House.
  There are, of course, other reasons. It is because the problems relating to the fishing industry are so multitudinous and so complicated. It is because the fishing industry is so many-sided, because it is a bulwark in time of war as well as in time of peace, and it is, perhaps above all, because there is no Minister in the Government whose duty it is to look after the fishing industry solely. It is a great pity, and this Bill is an example of the fact, that the industry is not dealt with in a comprehensive manner.
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, like the Secretary of State for Scotland, is mixed up not only with fish, but also with meat and vegetables, and in the race between the bull and the fish, the bull nearly always wins. That is why, while agriculture has extensive subsidies and is dealt with in a very comprehensive fashion, the fishing industry has to come mendicant like, cap in hand before the House, as it does today, with a little Bill of this sort, to seek assistance.
  It seems to me that no Minister, however able and conscientious, could deal adequately with the great variety of topics which the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State for Scotland are called upon to deal with. Both of these Ministers are, I concede, able and conscientious and they do their best but they are struggling against a conflict of interests. There is for each of these two Ministers a conflict of interests between agriculture and fisheries. There is a conflict of interests between the bull and the fish and, as I have said, the bull nearly always wins.
  Notwithstanding what the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) said, it seems to me that the Bill is a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul. In that sense, this little Bill is a disappointment, an illusion and a snare. It is undoubtedly a step in the right direction, but it has several defects. I am quite sure that hon. Members who represent fishery constituencies will agree that

  1023
  the Bill is not half generous enough. There is, apparently, a fund out of which both branches of the industry, herring and white fish—fortunately, not the bull—derive some advantage, but that fund is not sufficiently extensive to deal with all the problems.
  It is remarkable that on 26th February, when the Secretary of State for Scotland answered a Question in the House—obviously inspired by himself, asking him to make a statement about the fishing industry—he said, with a great air of generosity and novelty, that new proposals would come before the House. This Bill comprises those new proposals and there is no generosity or novelty about it.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland said:
  "The Government have considered proposals by the Herring Industry Board and the fishermen's associations for additional financial assistance for the herring industry."
  He did not state what those proposals were or what the fishermen's associations had asked for or what were, or are, the needs of the industry. I venture to suggest that they are not included in the Bill, which is far removed from the needs of the industry and is not half generous enough.
  The Secretary of State went on to say:
  "The Government propose that, pending the further development by the Board of measures to make the industry self-supporting, herring fishermen should receive a direct subsidy broadly similiar in method, amount and duration to the white fish subsidy for comparable boats.…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th February, 1957; Vol. 565, c. 1045.]
  That statement was quite a good one. I am all for the utmost financial assistance being given to the herring industry and also to the white fish industry—they are both national assets and they should be assisted to be self-supporting with help from the Treasury funds; but here, apparently, the fund remains the same. There is no new fund. There is no act of generosity such as that suggested by the Secretary of State in his statement.
  The Bill looks very well on its face until we look into its details, when we find that the money for the herring industry is apparently to come out of the statutory provisions already made for the white fish industry. The white fish industry and the herring industry are both of the utmost
  1024
  value to the nation. They are national assets. Each employs many men, supports many families and helps to feed the nation.
  I join with what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirling-shire (Mr. Woodburn) about subsidies. If ever there was an industry, whether housing or anything else, which deserves subsidies on a high scale, it is the fishing industry. I make no apology for pleading the cause of both branches of the fishing industry and I say that this little Bill is not sufficient for the purpose with which it purports to deal.
  Sir R. Boothby: The hon. and learned Member says that it is a little Bill, but the fund is, in fact, £17 million and can rise to £19 million. If he does not consider that sufficient, perhaps he can tell us what large purposes be has in mind which require so many more millions.
  Mr. Hughes: The Bill is a little Bill. It is one of the worst examples I have ever seen of legislation by reference. It refers to a whole lot of other Bill. The fact that it is necessary to do that proves my point when I say that the fishing industry is not being dealt with in a comprehensive manner and that this is a mere trivial Bill which tinkers at it.
  The Bill refers to the White Fish and Herring Industries Act, 1953. That Act was designed to provide money by way of grants for the acquisition of new vessels and engines for use in both the white fish and the herring industries. It provided a subsidy in respect of white fish, though not a direct subsidy for herrings. There was, however, indirect assistance for herring fishermen through the fish meal and oil schemes, but this Bill abandons that. It discontinues help to the fish meal and oil scheme.
  It seems to me that while the earlier Bill dealt with two branches of the industry separately and logically and clearly, this Bill seems to lump them together. Clauses 1 to 5 of the earlier Bill dealt separately with the white fish industry. Clauses 6 to 10 dealt separately with the herring industry, and Clauses 11 to the end of the Bill dealt with miscellaneous matters of machinery. They are not dealt with separately in this Bill. They are lumped together in a way which will make it very difficult to implement the Bill in practice.

  1025
  I should like to ask the Minister to deal with a few questions when he replies to the debate. Why does this composite Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food always treat agriculture as the favourite son and the fishing industry as the Cinderella, as he is doing in this case? Is it not a fact that no new money is to be provided for the herring industry under the Bill? Will not the money now to be provided by the herring industry come out of that provided for the white fish industry? Why is not new money to be provided for the herring industry? Did it not ask for £750,000 and is getting very much less? How much is the industry to get out of the Bill?
  Would it not have been a very much more workmanlike procedure to have continued the good practice, which was adumbrated in earlier Bills that are now on the Statute Book? Would it not have been better to have dealt with the herring and white fish industries separately, or to have provided separate funds for both and make those sums sufficiently large to deal with the needs of the two industries? I will not oppose the Bill because I think that it is a step in the right direction, but it is a very short step and not the kind of step that the bull would take if it were racing the fish.
  5.44 p.m.
  Sir Robert Boothby: I shall not attempt to answer the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) in any great detail. I leave that to my noble Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland when he winds up the debate; but I should like to comment on the hon. and learned Gentleman's reiterated assertion that this was a very small Bill, that there was no particular amount of money involved and that what there was was not nearly enough.
  Not enough for what? The hon. and learned Member did not say. What does he want the money for? There is a fund of £17 million—quite a lot of money—provided under the Bill, with the option of adding another £2 million. And if that proves not enough, we can always ask for more by 1961.
  Mr. Woodburn: There is no fund.
  Sir R. Boothby: No. I meant that there is authorised expenditure for that
  1026
  amount. I think that that was what the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North meant when he talked about a fund.
  There is a very substantial amount of money made available in this Bill. What does the hon. and learned Member want the extra millions for, and how many extra millions? I suggest that he has no clue. He does not know in the least what he wants it for. He simply got up to say that there was too little money because he thought that it was a good political thing to say. He also said that it was a pity to muddle up the white fish and herring industries, and that there should be two separate funds, and on a far more lavish scale, though I do not know for what purpose.
  Mr. Hector Hughes: The hon. Member should allow me to get up and answer him.
  Sir R. Boothby: I will, but I was going to tell the hon. and learned Member that in my constituency the inshore white fishing fleet and the herring fishing fleet are, for all practical purposes, interchangeable. Therefore, it is absolutely inevitable and right that a Bill which makes financial provision for the inshore white fishing and the herring fishing industries should be one comprehensive Measure, and that they should be dealt with together. There is constant traffic between the two. They are really inextricably intertwined. Therefore, the second point made by the hon. and learned Member was quite unjustified.
  Mr. Hughes: I will deal only with the first point at the moment. I will answer the second, if I am allowed to, when it arises. The hon. Member will remember that at the beginning of my speech I referred to the observations of the Secretary of State for Scotland, when he said that the Government had considered proposals by the Herring Industry Board and the fishermen's associations and I said that he did not indicate what they were. These proposals should be laid before the House to enable us to know what would be a sufficient sum for the two branches of the industry.
  Sir R. Boothby: I do not think that that quite answers my question, because the hon. and learned Member has still not indicated what he has in mind on which

  1027
  to spend this money. However, I will not go further into that matter now.
  I could not help being sympathetic with some of the observations of the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) on the subject of subsidies. We are very apt to be hypocritical when we talk about subsidies. I think that even my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Henderson Stewart) was suffering from what I might describe as a Liberal hangover when he referred to the horror with which he regarded subsidies in principle, although he has regularly voted for them, as indeed I have done for many years, and as I hope, and I think my hon. Friend hopes, we shall both do for many years to come.
  The truth is that subsidies are now built into the agricultural and fishing industries, and I do not think that we shall ever get rid if them. I would say that we ought to limit them, and always make quite sure that they are designed only to increase efficient production; and that if they do not fulfil that purpose they should be changed or modified. But it is no good saying that we cannot have subsidies any more, because once we have subsidies in an industry over a period of years, perhaps a decade, they are built in. The industry then rests upon them; and we cannot suddenly withdraw them without the risk of collapse.
  We would be wise, therefore, to accept the fact that we have these subsidies for the rest of our lifetime; and to concentrate not so much on deploring their existence as upon improving their efficiency, and cutting them down to the minimum required to increase the productive efficiency of the industry. What my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East said was profoundly true about the necessity for extending a subsidy from one branch of a particular industry to another, if we give a subsidy to one. That, of course, is what has happened in the case of the herring industry.
  The original Bill was withdrawn and it has now been reintroduced because the Government came to the conclusion, rightly, that if we gave a subsidy to the white fish industry it was essential to give a comparable subsidy to the herring industry. Otherwise, what has been going on for the last two years would
  1028
  have been intensified; and the boats would have been drawn away in increasing numbers from the herring fishing to the white fishing. That has been happening all round the coast, in East Anglia, all round Scotland; and it would have gone on happening but for this Bill, which, I believe, will make a considerable difference.
  The fact remains that, if boats are to be attracted back to the herring fishing, it must be made more remunerative than it is today. Hitherto, the subsidy, in so far as we have had one for the herring fishing industry, has not been comparable to that paid to the white fish industry. It has been paid only on surplus herring converted to meal and oil.
  A rather important point was made by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) when he said that, owing to the recent decline in the overall fishing, there had been very little surplus on which to pay a subsidy; and that, as regards the meal and oil subsidy, the fishermen this last year have had very little subsidy of any kind, because there has not been a sufficient surplus to keep the meal and oil factories busy. Therefore, the herring fishermen have been getting practically no subsidy over the past 12 months.
  I do not altogether share the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. Duthie) about the meal and oil subsidy. I have never liked the idea of subsidising one end product of an industry as against another. I have never liked the idea of a subsidy for meal and oil as against, for instance, the canning or curing sides of the industry, which are more important to our export trade. I do not much like the State selecting a particular product for a subsidy. I prefer the State to say that it will subsidise the fishermen, the producers as such, rather than a certain processed article; and that it will subsidise the fishermen for catching fish. That is what this Bill does. It alters the nature of the subsidy paid to the herring fishing industry, and does so in the right direction.
  We have not yet been told what the scheme is but, clearly, the subsidy cannot be paid on the basis of landings. That is far too chancy in the case of the herring fish industry. In this respect it is quite different from the white fishing industry. There can be two drifters lying alongside

  1029
  each other all night, and one will bring in 80 crans the next morning, and the other 10 crans. It would be ludicrous to subsidise the boat in respect of the 80 crans, whose owner will make the money, and to leave the poor chap with only 10 crans out in the cold.
  No, we are all satisfied here that the subsidy must be a graduated payment per boat for the number of days at sea, irrespective of the catch. In that way the desire of my hon. Friend the Member for Banff will be realised, that the subsidy should go straight to the crew. That is the right system. The right method is to have a subsidy for the number of days at sea, graduated according to the size of the boat, and divided appropriately amongst the crew.
  Mr. Hector Hughes: Regardless of the catch.
  Sir R. Boothby: Yes, and I am talking about herring. I am sure that a satisfactory system can be worked out quickly between Her Majesty's Government and the producers' associations.
  I welcome this Bill like everybody else who has spoken. Even the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North gave it a lukewarm welcome at the end of his observations. I believe that it will have the effect of pulling back a number of boats to the herring industry, if it is explained quickly enough, and if the method of paying the subsidy is satisfactory, as I see no reason why it should not be. Also, I agree with the hon. Member for Fife, East that it will encourage the fishermen to go after quality herring, which is so important.
  I am not pessimistic about the future of the meal and oil factories, without a direct subsidy. The price of the end products has gone up, and it is still rising. They make this industry pay its way in Norway and Denmark, where there are very interesting reduction factories. I believe that we can give a good price to the fishermen, and also make our own meal and oil factories pay. After all, the Government have already paid for the capital construction of these factories, so we should be able to make them run on an ordinary commercial basis, provided we do not try to do too much.
  I know that I shall be accused of selfishness but, frankly, I believe that this
  1030
  meal and oil industry will never pay its way except in the case of factories at the main ports of landing. The Herring Industry Board make a mistake, under pressure from hon. Members on both sides of the House, in dotting reduction factories all round the coast of Scotland and in out of the way places in Argyllshire and up in Ross-shire, where there are enormous transport difficulties. I believe that, in the long run, the factories will be confined to Lerwick, Peterhead, Fraserburgh, Yarmouth and, possibly, Stornoway.
  I believe that those factories, all of which are at the main ports of landing, are those which can pay. I cannot help the fact that two of them are in my constituency. Those are the factories which can, and will, make a profit; and so far as they are concerned there is nothing to worry about.
  Now a word or two on the general outlook, because when we ask ourselves if this subsidy to the herring fishing industry is justified we have to ask ourselves a few questions about the long-term prospects of the industry. In my opinion, by far the most serious aspect of the herring fishing industry at the moment is the lack of herring themselves. That has been the great headache. The catching power of the herring fleet has admittedly been greatly reduced, but the reduction in landings is greater still, and out of proportion to the reduction in the fleet.
  As the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said, the herring have disappeared, and we have not been able to find them. I do not believe that this is due only to the fact that we have had so few small craft looking for them in comparison with the old days. There may be some causes at work which we have not yet discovered connected with currents, with the temperature of the water, or with the absence or presence of plankton, which is the feedingstuff for herring, in different parts of the North Sea at any given moment. On the other hand, it may only be that the fish are swimming in different parts of the North Sea at different times and depths than formerly.
  I was grateful for an answer given by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to a Question which I asked a year ago, in which my right hon. Friend said that he regarded this matter as one of

  1031
  national urgency, and had referred it to the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, which was to set up a special sub-committee of experts to deal with this question. I am delighted to hear that it will be meeting in London next week, because this is a matter of the greatest importance.
  I know that the Danes, the Germans and the Dutch are worried about the failure of successive herring fishings. There is still great disagreement amongst the experts as to the causes. Whatever is said, I cannot help feeling that the intensive trawling for immature fish off the Danish coast must have something to do with it, combined, as it is, with the winter trawling of the Channel on a scale that has never gone on before. Those are two possible explanations. I do not think that they are the sole explanations, but they could account for the curious absence of three-year old or four-year old fish in any given year. They could explain why, in the different fishings, we suddenly get the fish of one year almost totally absent. This could be due to the particularly intensive trawling of immature fish perhaps two or three years before.
  Anyway, I am thankful that the most careful international scientific inquiries are being made. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister for what he did in pressing on with this, and for what he is still doing in this connection. We can all only hope that the subcommittee will soon arrive at some conclusions upon which we can get to work.
  I want to say a word, following what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Banff about methods of fishing. I am not one of those who believe that the day of the drift net is over. All the same, we must neglect no means of improving our methods in this industry, and the Herring Industry Board is rightly encouraging the boxing of herring at sea. On the other hand, I think it is giving less encouragement for experiments in new methods of catching.
  My hon. Friend referred to the Larsen net. I have been pressing for some experiments with a new type of lugger which has been built in Poland, and which, I have reason to believe, might hold out great hopes for the industry on another line. All I say is, let us experi-
  1032
  ment with them all; and I do not think the Herring Industry Board is giving enough encouragement to the fishermen or the industry to carry out these experiments. I do not say that it is actively discouraging them, but it is raising a considerable number of obstacles and difficulties.
  Mr. Duthie: Will my hon. Friend elaborate the point about the lugger? Is it the mother ship idea?
  Sir R. Boothby: It is not the mother ship idea. I will talk to my hon. Friend later, and explain it in some detail.
  All I will say now is that it is a new type of lugger, which can use both drift and trawl nets. It is necessary to have two to carry out the experiment. They will both be purchased, and one firm which my hon. Friend knows very well hopes to carry out experiments with these two boats. It is purchasing one itself, and the Government are giving financial assistance to buy the other. It is hoped to carry out the experiments in the summer and autumn fishing this year. That is a very good thing both for Poland and for us, especially as it brings us into closer touch with Poland. I hope it may lead to a considerable expansion of trade, in one form or another, between this country and Poland. In any case, it is a new method which we should do well to study.
  I should now like to say a word about curing. As the Minister said, the markets are there. My hon. Friends the Members for Fife, East and Banff remember very well when the markets were not there, but they are there now. Alas, the fish are not there. And the capital is no longer there among the curers. I remember that when I first went to Aberdeenshire thirty years ago, there were a number of curers to whom, quite frankly, the loss of £60,000, £70,000 or £80,000 in a week or two made very little difference. They could afford it. They were accustomed to taking great risks. Indeed, the herring fishing industry is a very risky industry. I confess that this gambling element has always made a special appeal to me.
  There is, however, no longer the capital in the curing side of the industry which used to exist; and, on top of that, there is too much control and rigidity on the part of the Herring Industry Board. For

  1033
  example, recently somebody wanted to cure herring in Eire. There was a point at which it paid to do it, and to export direct from Eire to Holland. He could not get the curing facilities over there and eventually it was suggested that a curing company in my constituency might go to Eire, do this job, and then come back again, taking their people over with them. The Herring Industry Board refused them permission to go.
  All the curers are more or less tied up in red tape by the Herring Industry Board. The only one who manages to forge ahead for himself is Mr. Sutton, and that is largely because he has almost a monopoly of the red cure, and if he were not there they could not do it at all. They have to let him do almost as he wishes, but the silver cure people are tied up in endless rules and regulations; and I hope that my noble Friend will say to the Herring Industry Board, "Let us have less control and less rigidity for the curers, and a little more encouragement and imagination."
  I should also like to say a few words about the canners. I listened with great interest to what my hon. Friend the Member for Banff had to say about making the Herring Board what amounted to the sole wholesaler of the industry. He suggested that it should purchase all the herring from the fisherman at a flat rate, and resell them itself to the various processors. I have considered this idea. Superficially, it sounds attractive, but I am not quite sure whether it would work out in practice. Many fishermen would like it. I am, however, quite sure that something must be done now, before this season begins, about the canners.
  Early in 1946, I was able to arrange for a meeting between the herring producers' associations and the canners. At that meeting, and a series of meetings which took place afterwards in a very cordial atmosphere—this was eleven years ago—an agreement was reached under which the canners entered into an annual contract with the fishermen to purchase a minimum quantity of herring at a fixed price. In return, the canners were granted priority allocations of herring at the agreed fixed price.
  In 1949, the Herring Industry Board became a party to this agreement, which has since worked extremely well. This arrangement has, however, now been
  1034
  upset. The excuse given by the Herring Industry Board for upsetting it is the Restrictive Trade Practices Act. It may be that the Board is right; but the fact remains that under the new draft rules of the Herring Industry Board, published on 16th January, statutory minimum prices are established for the various sections of the processing industry. Under these rules the canners will lose supplies on allocation. They can no longer get priority. This must mean that unless they are prepared to bid high prices at auction, particularly in East Anglia, they may get very little herring at certain periods of the year. That will make it extremely difficult for them to operate on an economic basis, or to compete with other canners in other countries for the overseas markets which are just beginning to open up.
  The canners are now asking to be put in Group 3 instead of Group 2—to be put in with the curers and redders rather than with the kipperers and quick freezers. I think that they are right. They are also asking that the rules should be redrafted so as to enable them to pay home prices at their home ports, and "away" prices at other ports. This request is reasonable, because the only practical alternative for them is a return to the fixed price and allocation arrangements; and this would need to be authorised by an appropriate Clause in the Bill.
  I therefore raise this matter as one of some urgency, because I am certain that if the canning industry is to survive either the canners will have to be given what they ask, to be put in Group 3 and to be allowed to pay home prices at the home ports and "away" prices at other ports, or we must go back to the old arrangement which has stood up to the test. I beg my noble Friend to go into the matter very carefully with the Herring Industry Board, because the canning industry is of considerable importance. It has a growing export market in Australasia and in the dollar area, despite fierce competition.
  I admit that, at present, the percentage of herring which the canners buy of those landed is not very great; but at certain places and certain periods of the year, the fishermen rely primarily on the canners' purchases—for example, at Peterhead at the beginning of the summer fishing, particularly if it is warm and the herring are oily, at Inverness where the

  1035
  canners are, in fact, the main buyers, and also at North Shields.
  In conclusion, I want to touch on a wider aspect which is not mentioned in the Bill, and that is the projected Free Trade Area in Europe. I have always supported the idea of the Common Market, the Free Trade Area, and the tie-up between the two; but I have also thought that the exclusion of all foodstuffs from the projected Free Trade Area was far too sweeping. We shall have to think again about this. Commonwealth interests must of course be safeguarded; but if herrings are excluded, as a foodstuff, from the projected Free Trade Area it will be of no benefit to the Commonwealth, which exports no herring, and the United Kingdom export trade in herring to Europe will, in my opinion, inevitably be killed stone dead.
  At this moment, the export trade in smoked, frozen and cured herrings shows every sign of vigorous revival. Confronted by a 10 per cent. import duty for European markets, from which our chief competitors the Dutch were exempt, I do not see how we could stand up to it; and I think that our European markets for herring would soon be lost for ever. I cannot think that the Government have given serious thought to this problem, and I repeat what I said when I opened up this topic, that I believe that a compromise on this matter will be absolutely essential, if we are really going into this projected Free Trade Area.
  I believe, also, that we shall have to compromise on some other foodstuffs, in addition to herring. I do not see how we can exclude the Dutch or the Danes from a market which they have built up their agricultural industries to supply—particularly so far as bacon and butter are concerned. We cannot keep them out; and we shall have to come to some kind of arrangement with them, and take certain foodstuffs from them, while they will have to take our herring, on terms which will enable us to compete with the Dutch.
  These things are, of course, long-term, and have to be carefully considered; but I do see a possible danger if all foodstuffs have to be excluded, and I thought it right to give a warning that, if we entered the Free Trade Area under these conditions,
  1036
  our export trade in herring to the countries of Europe would be in grave jeopardy.
  Apart from that, and the other points which I have raised, and which I believe are of some importance, I think the Bill is a very good one. I believe it can save the herring fishing industry, about which many of us have been greatly concerned during the last two rather desperate years.
  In conclusion, I should like to associate myself with what my hon. Friend the Member for Banff said about my right hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. J. Stuart) and my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East, who did so much to get this through, and to make sure that the Bill was introduced in the form in which we now have it.
  6.12 p.m.
  Mr. Edward Evans: I should like to disabuse the minds of any hon. Members who do not understand the fishing industry very much of the idea that fishing is confined to the coast of Scotland. If a mere Englishman may intervene in the debate for a few moments, perhaps I may be able to say what I have to say very shortly indeed, since the Minister asked us to be very short and snappy in our speeches today.
  Sir R. Boothby: Only in Committee.
  Mr. Evans: I do not propose to follow up the remarks of the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir R. Boothby), because almost all the points that I wanted to make have been taken up much more adequately in the excellent speeches which we have heard already.
  May I say that I agree with the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Duthie) in his plea for an extensive examination of and experiment with the Larsen net. From what I have heard and read about it, it has shown that there are great possibilities in that kind of adventure, and I hope that the Herring Industry Board will not confine its activities to merely administrative, purchasing or distributing, functions, but will go in for a great deal of experiment, particularly in the methods of catching herring and in finding the habitat of the fish.
  The hon. Gentleman talked about travelling salesmen in herring. I wonder whether he knows that a very enterprising firm in Southend runs a herring bar. We

  1037
  have heard a great deal about Espresso bars, and that kind of thing, but there is a very vigorous enterprise in Southend. I once offered the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire some of their products one day when he was engaged in other activities. Perhaps I will have another opportunity of offering him some of these excellent products.
  Sir R. Boothby: I shall be delighted. I shall look forward to it.
  Mr. Evans: The reason for this Bill is, no doubt, the pressure that has been brought to bear in this House from all sides. For many years past we have called attention to the dire straits of the herring industry. We had a debate, in which there were about ten speeches in about three-quarters of an hour, which provided an admirable example for all of us.
  I believe that the real reason for the withdrawal of the first Bill, which was introduced in November, was not that given by the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire—because the Government wanted to introduce the subsidy for herrings—but was because that Bill would have made utter nonsense at the time of the Suez crisis. That Bill proposed assistance for converting vessels into oil burning vessels when there was no oil. By withdrawing that Bill, the Government have introduced another containing, in addition to what was in the first Bill, and I am not criticising it, a herring subsidy, which is a very vital matter indeed.
  I earnestly ask the Government to decide how soon they can announce the operative dates. I know that many people are anxious to convert, and that some have started the preliminary work and have laid up their vessels in preparation. Perhaps they were a bit premature, hoping that the date would be announced very soon. There is a great deal of capital which is absolutely idle, and it is very important that at the earliest opportunity the Government should fix the dates, irrespective of the supplies of oil, in view of the fact that conversion would take a good deal of time. We must be very pessimistic indeed about oil supplies if we cannot envisage that the oil would be more freely available by the time that these conversions take place. I therefore
  1038
  plead that the dates should be brought forward as early as possible.
  There is a great deal of disquiet in the herring industry which, I hope, will be very much modified by the provisions of the Bill. It has been touched upon by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and particularly ably by the hon. Member for Banff. The large increases in the grants will allow this subsidy to be paid, and I would stress again, as I did in asking a question when the Minister was speaking, the hope that none of the subsidies or grants paid to the herring industry will be at the expense of the white fish subsidy. I think we have that assurance, and, therefore, can go away happy on that point.
  I know that my friends in Lowestoft are very concerned about this, because we depend very largely on the near and middle waters fishing which attracts the subsidy, and if we can get an assurance on that point we shall be quite happy. There is no doubt that in my own Port of Lowestoft and in the neighbouring Port of Great Yarmouth the decline in herring fishing in the last few years has been simply catastrophic.
  The Minister gave us some figures to illustrate the overall decline in the industry, but I should like to give the figures about my own port. At Lowestoft, in 1949, the number of boats operating was 122; in 1953, it was 116; and, last year, it came down to 68, which shows a much greater decline than the average for the whole country. During the same period, the landings of herring have fallen from 154,000 crans in 1950 to 57,500 crans in 1955, a drop of 60 per cent. If this decline is allowed to go on, it will close down the industry in East Anglia. There is no question about that.
  One of the main reasons is the difficulty of crewing. Time after time we have stated that the attractions of the subsidy for the white fish industry, which we on this side of the House are proud to have introduced, has had a close relationship to the higher rewards obtainable in that industry. The sporadic nature of the herring industry also has a great deal to do with it.
  One of the greatest difficulties experienced by people on the East Coast, in common with other shipbuilding yards, is the shortage of steel. I hope that the Minister will emphasise to his right hon.

  1039
  Friends the plight of the people at these small shipyards who have to buy foreign steel, and who are living literally on their own stocks. We should be glad if something can be done about that.
  The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East and the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Henderson Stewart), as well as others, stressed the question of the conservation of our natural resources. I remember I made that the subject of my first speech in this House—if what I said may be dignified by that term—just after the international convention, in 1946, on the conservation of white fish in the North Sea and near waters. Since then we have reiterated constantly the need to look after these stocks. Unless we do, we are lost.
  Many times I have asked Questions about the flagrant contravention of the existing agreement about the size of mesh. The blatant way in which some vessels are brought into our own ports, and dry nets which all the local men know are well over size, is extraordinary. I am sure that one of these days not only the nets, but the skippers and the crews of these vessels will be put over the side.
  In our last debate on the herring industry, in December, anxiety was expressed about the catastrophic failure of two seasons of herring fishing in East Anglia. We know that much research has been done, but the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire is right when he attaches a great deal of the blame to the intensive trawling of the southern parts of the North Sea and the Channel, which is the breeding ground for most of the East Anglian herring. When we get what I term "dreadnought" trawlers going there and taking immature fish, how can we hope to conserve our stocks of herring?
  There are many other reasons, including different types of food, different currents and temperatures, but I am convinced that we must have an international agreement to stop the taking of these immature fish. There have been astronomical figures of catches, amounting, in some cases, to 2,000 fish to the crap, which are not used for food but for fish meal. That, to me, is the most deplorable aspect. The fish are sold and put on the land.
  Mention has been made of the price of fish meal, and the removal of the subsidy on meal. I should have thought
  1040
  that, economically, the users of fish meal should account for that—after all, it is used for agriculture—when they make representations to the Minister about their subsidy, or their support prices, or whatever euphemism they like to use when referring to what is money that comes out of the pockets of the taxpayers.
  Another problem which the industry has to face is the decline in manpower. We hope that the subsidy will attract back to the herring industry those men who deserted it for the white fish industry; but if they all come back the white fish industry will be depleted. So there would appear to be a need for propaganda to encourage recruitment into the fishing industry. Not long ago there were two films dealing with the industry. One was called "Trawler Boy" and the other——
  Sir R. Boothby: "All Square Aft."
  Mr. Evans: Yes, "All Square Aft", in which the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. G. R. Howard) took a part, and a very fine film it was. I thought that "Trawler Boy" was a little like a summer cruise. I did not see one "white horse" all through the picture. But the boy was a fine little boy and I am sure that we all hope that he will grow up to be a skipper.
  There is no doubt that we must have constantly in mind the need to attract young men to this industry and that can be done only by making the awards commensurate with those which they can obtain in shore occupations. It has been stressed by the Minister, and by other hon. Members, that not only should we make the financial rewards commensurate but that the amenities aboard the ships have to be comparable with what is demanded by people in industry and by a nation with a high social sense.
  I remember that many years ago, when I first saw a drifter—it was at Great Yarmouth, where I was then working—I was horrified at the sight of the quarters given to the crew. It was a frightening thing to think that men should have to live in such insanitary and dirty conditions.
  There have been tremendous changes which owners have undertaken very willingly, as have those who provide the capital, and today there are some lovely

  1041
  modern trawlers being built in Lowestoft. They are really first-class vessels, with all the amenities.
  On a previous occasion when we discussed subsidies the Government were strongly criticised—I was one who helped to criticise them—for creating what I thought was a disincentive to trawler owners to convert their vessels by giving the highest rate of subsidy to the most backward vessel, the coal-burner. I said at the time that were I an owner, and I had £20 a day to keep my vessel at sea, I should think twice before spending a great deal of capital on conversion.
  I now wish to say a word about the canners, who are experiencing a very anxious period. They are not so much worried about the price as, I understand, by the zoning regulations which the Minister proposes to introduce. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will take note of the representations from the canners and bear them in mind before he completes the scheme. I hope that the Minister will soon announce the contract date for conversion. There are people who are waiting to do this job and had I time I would go into more detail. In wishing the Bill well I am sure that its provisions will do a great deal of good.
  6.30 p.m.
  Mr. G. R. Howard: I am glad that the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans) mentioned the two fishing films. I am sure that he will be interested to know that I had a small advisory part —I did not act in it—in connection with one of them which is now showing on general release in the West End of London, in the Warner theatre. I do not think that I need to declare an interest over that. It is very good that a film about the fishing industry should get that kind of distribution. It helps to show people who do not know much about the subject the less glamorous side of the industry. When people complain about the high prices of fish they can see in this film the kind of thing that fishermen have to go through to get the fish which they put on their tables.
  I am glad that the Minister is here. I join with other hon. Members in welcoming the Bill and particularly the fact that we are really tackling the problem of the conversion of these old, coal-burning vessels. Many of us have for some time been
  1042
  stressing the importance of getting on with that job. It is silly to go on spending large sums of money keeping obsolete vessels at sea. We are glad that this change is coming about.
  The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond)—I am sorry that he is not in his place—spoke of consultation and said that there was a certain amount of urgency about it. If the organisations to which he referred are to be consulted I hope this will be done as soon as possible after this short and snappy debate is over. It will be most important. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the question of dealing with breakwaters in small harbours. That is also an important point. Speaking last week on the Navy Estimates, I dealt with the question of small harbours. In a future war they might become vital overnight. It is, therefore, doubly important.
  On the question of looking for shoals, let me say that in our part of the country, West Cornwall, some of the canners have led the way by equipping a boat with modern echo sounders. The boat goes to sea and locates the shoals of fish, and then passes on that information to the other people. Perhaps that might be the answer to some of the problems mentioned by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland.
  I agree with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir R. Boothby) about the necessity for action by international agreement. Here is a tremendous field for research. On 14th December, my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Henderson Stewart) said:
  "We are, therefore, proposing to all the Governments concerned that our administrators and technical experts should get together as soon as possible to look jointly at the experience of this year and to consider whether any new facts have emerged."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th December, 1956; Vol. 562, c 895.]
  I wonder whether, when my hon. Friend mentioned the meeting next week, he was referring to that subject? This research is extremely important. Many of us said on 14th December that if we were to give subsidies that was all very well, but the fish must be there. People should not be allowed to catch immature fish. Also, if we have the greatest possible degree of co-operation among the nations to discover the habit of the

  1043
  herring then the scientific side would be properly covered.
  Be it herring or other forms of fish, we might well look into marketing schemes such as that which is now being put forward in Cornwall by certain sections of our fishermen. If fishermen are encouraged to get the larger catches they must have some form of guaranteed market from the canners and others. The fishermen's response in Cornwall has been extremely good. They have understood what the canners are trying to do in sending a specially equipped ship to sea with echo sounders, and they have voluntarily accepted a slightly lower price for their fish on a contract basis, in view of the security they will get during the contract period. Mention was made of boxing fish at sea. The interesting thing is that our canners are proposing to pay 3d. per stone more for fish that is boxed at sea. That should help to make the scheme more popular.
  I hardly dare mention shellfish, although I hope, Mr. Speaker, that it will be quite in order, and to ask once more whether crab can be included in this scheme. Those of us who have crab fishers in our constituencies are constantly being asked why luxury fish like sole and turbot are included, but not crab. We can find crab in many districts where we will not find sole and turbot. I shall go on asking in this House for the inclusion of crab in the scheme.
  Will the Minister tell us what the conference that is to meet in, I think, a year's time will be able to do for us? There was a very good leading article in the Fishing News on 22nd February, which said:
  "On the vexed question of the breadth of the territorial sea, the Committee has felt compelled to recognise the existence of several established limits but has definitely said that there is no international basis for claiming any limit greater than 12 miles."
  That rules out the claims of those South American countries which say up to 200 miles. It also said:
  "In considering base lines across coastal waters to define the territorial area, the recommendation is that in the case of wide bays or estuaries, the line should be drawn within the mouth at a point where the coasts are no more than 15 miles apart."
  Many of us have been asking for this for a long time. If we could have a base line 3 miles from Lizard connected to a
  1044
  similar one from, say, the Wolf Rock, 3 miles out, a line joining these two would deny the whole of Mount's Bay to the French fishermen. It would be a splendid thing for us. It might be extremely good from the conservation point of view. Any international action we take—I do not mean unilateral action—and the more we can do to get international bodies together to go into the whole question of zonal fishing, the better it will be. I hope that at the conference in March we shall be represented by really high-power people. I would like to see the Minister go there. It is vitally important that this should be considered.
  One last point is the question of the fishery protection vessel. On the Navy Estimates, I said that whatever we might try to forecast about the future, and whether we got missiles, rockets and all the rest of it, the tides and the rocks would remain in the same place. Therefore, we needed in the Navy more men who could go to sea. Otherwise, they would not get adequate sea-going experience.
  One of the excellent ways to get it is in the fishery protection service, because that requires very strict navigational efficiency. I remember that last summer I was in a fishery protection vessel. We saw a line of pots belonging to a Frenchman. As soon as he saw us he made off in the opposition direction as fast as he could. We took fixes, but it was touch and go whether we could do anything. The very fact that the vessel was there, and that the Frenchman knew it was there, probably stopped him from going into territorial waters.
  Recently, we have had complaints about foreigners coming into the Thames Estuary. It is almost like the Dutch coming into the Medway. Have we enough fishery protection vessels in that area? I shall not refer to the Moray Firth, because we have had enough hon. Members talking about Scotland in this debate already. Could the Minister give us an assurance that he will make representations to the Admiralty to strengthen the fishery protection services? I should like to see more of those vessels around the coasts. They do a tremendous amount of good. They give encouragement to fishermen, they are good from a security point of view and it is an

  1045
  excellent thing for the Navy to see how fishermen work.
  Like other hon. Members, I welcome this Measure and anything else which will help the fishing industry.
  6.42 p.m.
  Mr. James H. Hoy: The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. G. R. Howard) said that perhaps the House had had enough of Scotsmen taking part in this debate. I am sorry if I have to disappoint him. I can quite understand why he had so much to say about the crab.
  I think that the hon. Member was a little optimistic about what this Bill will do for conversions. It is true that it makes provision for conversions, but last July we passed an Order which made exactly the same provision. It was introduced by the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Henderson Stewart), who was then Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. We were told that what we were doing then would turn coal burners into oil burners, would modernise the fishing fleet so that it could compete on terms much nearer equality with foreign competitors, and improve the whole business.
  Having done so, or having tried to do so, we met with the greatest objections from the Government themselves. The Minister made it quite clear this afternoon, when he moved the Second Reading of this Bill, that although there is provision in it for providing subsidies for conversion of a fishing ship from coal to oil burning there were not likely to be any sanctions given for a considerable time.
  When we were discussing this question last July my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans) complained about the advantage that coal burners would get against the initiative of people who went in for conversion. I drew the attention of the House to a case in my constituency where that had happened. Since then, I have had another case in which an owner in my constituency who shares a boat with the skipper carried out a conversion of a trawler. They did not seek a grant for it. It was not completed until 10th November last year, but the Order was dated as from 7th November and because of that they did not get any subsidy.
  1046
  They took the matter up with the Secretary of State for Scotland. In fairness to him, I am bound to say that he thought they had a first-class case. So did the White Fish Authority, but apparently the Treasury was the stumbling block. That is why, this afternoon, I said to the Minister that it was no use making these statements in the House unless he is prepared to lay down specific gains. Whatever he lays down in an Order does not allow far laxity on the part of the White Fish Authority. It is important that people who have shown initiative should not be penalised because of a date in an Order introduced by the Minister. After all, these people are responding to the appeal of the Minister to modernise the fishing fleet.
  Will the Minister not take a risk about this matter? Surely we shall not be short of petrol for the rest of the year that lies ahead, or next year? It is no use waiting until the supply becomes available and then laying an Order before the House. It will take a considerable time before conversions can take place. Surely the Minister wants the fleet to be ready to take advantage of the scheme. If he is to do that he has to get his Orders in quickly, because if people are to plan ahead they have to know what provision the Government are to make.
  I am sorry that the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir R. Boothby) is not in his place now. He is a little of a romancer about the fishing industry. He said this afternoon that he was attracted to herring because it was such a gamble and that all those interested in herring were taking part in a gamble. This Bill has nothing to do with gambling. Where there are ordinary business ventures, and there are likely to be losses, the Government provides assistance. That is far from being a gamble. If people are to go into the fishing business, before the season starts they have to know what provision the Government intend to make for them.
  One of the great on-costs in the white fish side of the industry is the price of vessels today. I raised this question with the Minister last year. He will agree that the cost of the provision of a new trawler really surprised him. I wish to restate the claim of trawler owners. In my constituency another owner showed great initiative and last week, in the yards of

  1047
  Aberdeen, he launched a second trawler. The two trawlers cost about £¼ million, which is a lot of money for one owner. It is true that he gets loans and assistance, but he has to make the initial payments and gets no return until the trawler comes into use. On top of that, one of the appalling burdens is the extortionate interest rates which have been determined by the Government. Payment of those interest charges makes a great inroad on earnings.
  From the noble Lord—who will be replying,. I think for the first time on behalf of the Scottish Office tonight—we shall expect a word on what the Government are to do about conversions. I wish to remind him that a little retrospective legislation in regard to an Order, particularly in cases like that of the owner I have mentioned, might save a lot of trouble in future.
  I wish to say a word or two about the herring industry. During the afternoon not one hon. Member has spoken about nearly the best herring buyer in the country—the kipperer. He buys considerable quantities. In fact, he takes second place only to fishmeal and oil manufacturers in Scotland in the last two returns. Last year, according to information issued by the Scottish Office, there was a greater demand for freshing and kippering than for the provision of oil and meal. Kipperers feel they have not had the best return for their money.
  I went to Aberdeen a fortnight ago to see the launching of the second new trawler to which I have referred. I was amazed to see some of the herring being kippered there. They came from Scandinavian countries, about which the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire has been talking. They were very poor specimens—an insult to the fishing industry and the kippering trade. They ought to have been left in the sea. I agree with those who have said that pulling the fish out at such an early stage may be one of the reasons why, when the herring season comes round, the fish are not there.
  Those who consume in such large quantities, as does the kippering industry, are entitled to some consideration from the Ministry. For the last year or two they have not been getting it, with the
  1048
  obvious result that not only has the herring industry been declining in stature and in the numbers engaged but businesses have been going out of existence. In my own constituency, a few years ago, there were half a dozen; today, there are only three. That reflects what is happening in the industry generally.
  There is a case not only for the kippering industry, but for the sale of fresh herring. It is a little sad to read in the report of the Scottish Office that purchases of fresh herring for the home market fell last year by about 13 per cent. compared with 1954, and that that was the third year running in which there had been a fall to below the 1938 figure. One can see just where the industry is drifting.
  The industry, therefore, is getting into such a serious position that we have to stimulate sales. The kipperers, the merchants want to know what the Herring Industry Board is doing with the money they give it, because it must be remembered that on every cran that is landed they have to pay 2s. 4d. I agree with the suggestion of the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Duthie) that the Board might have a publicity campaign to push sales, but I wondered at the time how it was to be done.
  One finds in the Report of the Board that last year it spent in advertising and in the promotion of sales of this valuable food only £3,840. It is sheer nonsense to talk of that as publicity and advertising. Such a miserable sum would not buy even a single page insertion in one issue of the Radio Times. What is the use of describing that as sales promotion and publicity? If the money is not to be wasted, the Board must go in for publicity in a big way.
  It would be entitled to do so, because the herring is such a valuable food. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross), who is regarded by many people in this country as a nutritional expert, has told me frequently that two herring per week would provide anybody with all the vitamins A and D that are required. That is the tribute which he pays to the herring. I want the herring, however, when they are in season. Some of the things that are sold out of season only harm the industry.

  1049
  These are my suggestions. From the producers' side we want to know about the orders, what the Government propose to do about payments for conversions and to stimulate the sales as well as the supply of herring; and certainly, what the kippering industry, which is the industry's largest single buyer, can expect by way of assistance from the Government and from the Herring Industry Board.
  6.54 p.m.
  Mr. Anthony Fell: There are, perhaps, advantages to be derived from being called late in the debate. One is that one can tear up one's original speech, and the other is that one comes near enough to the Minister who is to wind up to have some hope of impressing one or two points upon him.
  Last winter, in answer to a Question of mine about unemployment in Great Yarmouth, the Minister of Labour said that he was considerably worried, and that it was his worst unemployment spot at that time. It has improved a bit this year, for various reasons, one being that the Government have managed to get us some good weather—but it has not improved all that much. It is for that reason, if for no other, that I so greatly welcome this Measure.
  One often hears that an industry is dying, or that there is no future for it, and one does not always believe it, but in the ease of the East Anglian herring industry it really was true. The hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans) has given figures for that port, and there are comparable figures for Yarmouth which show that the industry have gone right down throughout the years. There was a time, I am told, just after the First World War—I have seen photographs, but have not seen it myself—when a man could walk across the river at Yarmouth, a fairly wide river, on the herring boats. They were there, solid for about a mile or so up the river; about 1,200 boats. They have dwindled now to just over 200. If this present step had not been taken I believe that those who seemed gloomy would have been proved right when they said that the East Anglian herring industry was dying.
  I do not think that this Bill alone will provide the entire solution, although it will help a tremendous amount. I hope that the earlier speeches which have been made will be taken notice of, particularly
  1050
  those calling for some vitality and adventure in the field of experiment.
  One point only very lightly touched on, by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), concerned the finding of herring by aircraft. He said that that had been thought about some time ago, and asked whether the Government would see what could be done. It may interest the Minister to know, if he does not already know, that in the last few months experiments have been carried out with an aircraft carrying a fish finder. Here I must declare an interest. The firm making this particular fish finder is one in which I am interested, although it is of no interest to me to publicise this because, if fish were found by this means, it would mean that far fewer fish finders, as such, would be sold. They would be in the air and not on the boats.
  The idea is that aircraft with a fish finder on board will draw, drag or tug the transducer through the water, and thereby be able to search a huge area in a very few hours. Once the aircraft have found the herring they will, of course, stay with them until the drifters, which are already at sea, can make the haul. The use of the fish finder having now been accepted by fishermen, after a rather long development period, we ought at least to go into the possibility of using it from the air. Although I do not ask my noble Friend to say anything about this when he replies to the debate, I hope that he will look into it.
  I was interested to hear what my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir R. Boothby) had to say about the Common Market—what is called the industrial Free Trade Area—and its relation to the export trade in herring brought from our seas. It is, of course, absolutely true that this case is made out by the largest firm in my constituency, which exports to the Mediterranean. It has lost the Egyptian market and it is having a tremendous struggle in the Italian and Greek markets. Its fear is that if we enter an industrial Free Trade Area, then unless processed herring, which are a food, can be included in the agreement, the small amount of tariff which it will have to face will kill its trade completely.
  I must say at once that I shall myself come out against the industrial Free Trade Area in any case. I will not say

  1051
  why, because I do not think it would be in order, but I hope to state my reasons later. Nevertheless, I must reinforce the arguments of my constituents, which are perfectly clear—that if this Free Trade Area should come about, and this food is excluded, it will kill their market.
  I was a little surprised to hear my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeenshire suggest that all sorts of foods will have to be excluded from the industrial Free Trade Area arrangement. I do not know what the British farmer and horticulturist and the British Commonwealth will say about the industrial Free Trade Area if, before we are seriously in negotiation, we begin to talk about exclusions in food and agriculture from Chapters 1 to 24 of the Brussels Nomenclature. I have very strong feelings on this point, but I have explained the point of view of my constituents and there is no doubt that the Free Trade Area will very much affect their market.
  I would also appeal to my noble Friend to have a "bit of a do" with the Board of Trade. This concerns a matter which I raised on the Floor of the House a year or a year and a half ago—the import of boxboard sets from abroad and the duty on them. At that time, we had almost reached agreement. It may well have been owing to the action of my hon. Friend at that time in pressing the Board of Trade that we finally reached what I thought was agreement. That was nearly nine months ago, if not longer. Ever since then we have been unable to get the final arrangements through. They have been held up for some reason or another. I know that these matters are difficult, but I should be grateful if my noble Friend would look at the question 'of removing duty from the import of boxboard sets. I will write to him and give him the particulars.
  I should like to re-emphasise what many hon. Members have said: we must put the greatest possible hopes for the future on the meeting which we are all pleased to hear is to take place almost immediately. I do not know the latest figure, but the last figure given to me was that about 125,000 tons of immature herring are taken out of the waters on the other side of the North Sea in the course of a year.
  1052
  Whatever one thinks, one cannot but come to the conclusion that the removal of 125,000 tons of immature herring, which have never had a chance to breed, must have some effect in later years on the herring available. I hope that we shall bring enough influence to bear on the conference to convince people that it is not sensible to cut each other's throats and our own at the same time. It seems to me that that is what we shall do unless we reach a sensible arrangement about over-fishing.
  I welcome the Bill, particularly as I believe it will bring relief to fishing towns and ports throughout the British Isles. These are down-to-earth towns which have always had to struggle. I believe that is the reason for the tone of all the fishing debates which I have attended in the House. There has never been any partisanship in them and there has been no real row. I believe the reason is that when we discuss these matters we know that we are discussing something of great importance to people who have fought very hard for many years for their very existence.
  7.6 p.m.
  Mr. Douglas Marshall: As my hon. Friend the Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) has said, when we come to the closing of a debate and nearly everything about the Bill has been said that can be said, we must tear up what we intended to say and simply try to make one or two points which we wish to stress in the House.
  Apart from welcoming the Bill and thanking the Minister for introducing it, may I, first, thank my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Henderson Stewart) who, from very early days, I remember, from 1945, has fought so well for the fishing industry and has from time to time done so much for it. Indeed, by virtue of what he said at the Box some time ago he was responsible for the creation of the Bill.
  I should like to dissociate myself quickly from the remarks on the Common Market made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir R. Boothby), because it has been the policy of Her Majesty's Government that in the different agreements and discussions taking place on the Free Trade Area and

  1053
  the Common Market, agriculture, horticulture, food and drink should be excluded. If we now consider any form other than that exclusioni, it will cause great anxiety and, I believe, will be detrimental to this country.
  Many hon. Members on both sides of the House have mentioned to the Minister the necessity for deciding the operative date for conversion as quickly as possible. I think that that is of vital importance. Apart from the question of seasons, which the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) mentioned, it is important to get on with this date, and I trust that the Minister will not think in terms of psychological reasons in connection with turning coal-firing apparatus into oil-firing apparatus when considering the date. In a great many cases we are talking about diesel, which is a distillate, or petrol engines, and not talking about heavy fuel. It would be absurd to hold up the implementation of a principle which, I think, will be accepted by the House tonight simply on the psychological question whether this is the correct moment to put it into operation. I consider that the sooner the date is made known the better.
  In introducing the Bill the Minister said that the economic problems of the white fish and herring industries would undoubtedly be discussed He spoke with some truth. Whenever there has been an opportunity to discuss the fishing industry those who are interested in it have discussed it. He also said that from about £20 million to £25 million per year is involved in the section of the industry which we are discussing. In my view, it is even more important than that, because two things arise from this £20 million to £25 million. One which has been mentioned concerns the men serving in the little ships. The other, which is very important too, is that the prime fish caught by the inshore fishing industry does a great deal to make the general public accept and eat the other fish caught by the major part of the fishing industry in the deep seas.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) likened the Bill—I understand the tone of his argument and agree with it—to the different Measures which have been introduced during the last ten or more years
  1054
  to recondition a house and bring it up to date. But if one takes that analogy a stage further, having considered the reconditioning of the hull, survey, and conversion of engine to a more economic type, it would be equally right, in the case of a vessel, to ensure that the whole vessel is economic and efficient. If one accepts that as a principle, why is not the echo sounder included in the Bill? I agree with what one of my hon. Friends said about the fish finder, but, at the same time, it is quite certain that the echo sounder today is absolutely vital and necessary to a great part of our white fish industry.
  It seems to me that the arguments which the Minister has from time to time deployed in trying to show why, in the case of a vessel which is not new, the echo sounder cannot be included, are not valid arguments. I really cannot see the basis for them. The echo sounder is included in the new vessel and, therefore, the principle is accepted for the new vessel. If the argument for the principle of this Bill is that we should bring old vessels up to date and equivalent to new ones, why should not the echo sounder be included?
  Mr. Woodburn: I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman. Just as one does not give a grant to a house unless the landlord puts in the necessary facilities to make it modern, why should that not cover a great many things outside the conditions for seamen to which I referred? I see no reason why it should not apply to the efficiency of the vessel from the fishing point of view.
  Mr. Marshall: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman agrees with that. Certainly, the fishermen agree and feel very deeply about it.
  The second point I make to the Minister relates to the date put in the Bill. I hope that he will give it consideration during the Committee stage. The date is put as 1961 and thereafter, by affirmative Resolution of the House, 1961 may become 1963. I do not like the date 1961 very much. Those of us who have fought many Elections know perfectly well that there is a kind of transitional stage in the life of Governments, of whichever party, and that at the beginning they are not perhaps quite as worried as they are towards the end.

  1055
  I would prefer that the date 1963 appeared now in the Bill, and I cannot really see the objection to that.
  When all is said and done, the Minister has stated that an affirmative Resolution will be brought should it be necessary. It has been said quite correctly that, more or less from the time of Queen Anne, there has been some form of subsidy for inshore fishing and it is unlikely that it will not be needed. In my view, the date 1963 would give a greater protection for the inshore fishing industry than 1961, which has another ring about it if one thinks in terms of General Elections and newly elected Governments.
  Most things have been said about the Bill, and I want to conclude on a general note. What has been hitting and hurting the herring industry, as all of us who have studied the matter know quite well, is the lack of herring. What is quite likely to hurt a great portion of the fishing industry generally is the lack of fish which people can hunt. We are all delighted at the various international agreements which are, or can be, come to for the conservation or protection of fish; yet, at the same time, I dare to suggest to the Minister that even now there is not sufficient money available, either internationally or nationally, for the science of the fishing industry.
  Man hunted before he ploughed the ground, and we are really still in that stage; that is what we are doing with fish at the moment. We seek them; we hunt them; we catch them. But other things must be studied, and very little study has been done so far. Work has been done, for instance, in the fish ponds of Israel, which, incidentally, I saw last year, but we must study whether it may well be necessary to feed fish. There should be a study made of plankton and of what ought to be done round our own shores not only to conserve fish but to turn certain types of fish into larger fish.
  I therefore propose that, when the Minister considers these matters, he should take that into consideration and see whether or not a great deal more could be done. Through countless years, because the sea has always been a dangerous place during war, money and science has been directed on to the land, and none upon the sea. It is necessary
  1056
  at this stage to inject more money into the study of the sea than would at first sight seem necessary, because the sea itself has so often been out of bounds as a result of the pattern of the wars which have taken place over the last 500 or 1,000 years, and so little has been done, in comparison with applying service to the land.
  7.16 p.m.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord John Hope): I shall be as brief as I can this evening, not that one ought not always to be so, but because, if I may say so, I have seldom had the pleasure of listening to a debate where winding up in order to explain what has gone before was so little needed.
  The Bill has had a very warm welcome generally from hon. Members. I am mast grateful, and I know the Government as a whole will be most grateful to the House for that. There was, I think, only one discordant note as regards the quality of the Bill as a whole, and that was struck by the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes). On both sides of the House all hon. Members recognised in this Bill a turning point, I might say a major turning point, in the history of the industry and a Measure of really important encouragement. On the other hand, the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North rather went out of his way to refer to it as—these were his words—"a little Bill". He complained also that it lacked comprehensiveness. I must say, and I believe that the House will agree with me, that, whatever other defects it may have, those defects, in my judgment, are not among them. I regard it as a most important Bill and a very comprehensive Measure.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen, North went into some detail about the conflict between what he called the bull and the fish, and he assured us, somewhat gloomily, that the bull always wins. That is not necessarily so. In any case, he and I can compare notes after we have read our speeches tomorrow and make up our minds whether it is so or not.
  The Bill is really part of a great fourfold attack on the problems of the fishing industry in accordance with the policy which successive Governments have followed since the war. The four

  1057
  prongs of the attack are these: first, a desire on the part of all of us that there shall be enough fish in the sea to catch; second, an intention that our industry should be equipped with the most up-to-date and efficient vessels and equipment possible; third, an intention that the industry should be given a chance to advance towards a state when it will be self-supporting; and fourth, which really leads to the third, of course, a provision of subsidies.
  There were some different opinions expressed during the debate on the virtue or otherwise of subsidies as such. I think that the only speaker among hon. Members on both sides of the House who came down flat on their side was my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir R. Boothby). He said that he felt certain that in our lifetime subsidies would continue, and he is probably right, but he would also, I think, no doubt agree that it would be a very happy state of affairs if we could reach a point where subsidies were no longer necessary.
  Sir R. Boothby: I have given up hoping for happy states of affairs.
  Lord John Hope: My hon. Friend must make his own mind up in what directions his hopes lie, but I think that the rest of us look forward at least to a diminution of subsidies: let us leave it at that.
  I will go as quickly as I can through one or two specific points made by hon. Members and deal with the questions asked straight away. I was obliged to my right hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) for a piece of information of which I had no previous knowledge, and that was that Queen Anne started fishing subsidies. I was already seized of three items of knowledge connected with Queen Anne. One was that she started Ascot; the second was that she was good, and the third was that she is dead. Now the right hon. Gentleman has added the fourth point, that she invented fishing subsidies, and they have certainly lasted a long time and will last very much longer by that token.
  I was grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for a very important point which he made, and I think that he was the only one who made it. He said that there was a
  1058
  certain economy in the Government's proposal, and, if looked at over a long-term—and perhaps not so long a term—I am sure that he is right. That is one of the props on which this Bill should definitely stand in its appeal. The right hon. Gentleman raised another very important point in connection with the conditions of crews' quarters. I fully agree with him about that. We shall want to be sure that proper conditions obtain, and we shall certainly consider that aspect when we come to work out the scheme.
  Mr. Woodburn: It is possible that we may spend all this money on a ship and if the crew object to the quarters we may not get them to go on the ship, in which case the money spent on the engine would be completely useless.
  Lord John Hope: There is no doubt at all that the owners are very conscious of that fact. I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for emphasising it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Henderson Stewart), with his great knowledge and experience, made a most helpful speech, and I should like, if he would allow me to do so, to add my sincere tribute to those which were paid to him by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I count myself extremely fortunate to have, so to speak, taken over a part of the front—I am talking about the fishing industry—where he had already done so much to make such strong and effective preparations.
  The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) also welcomed the presence of my hon. Friend, and he did so in terms of the presence of somebody who would harry the Government. I can only say that if my hon. Friend helps us in the way of speeches such as the one he has just made, the hon. Gentleman's definition and hopeful description will be falsified. The hon. Gentleman, as so many others did, begged us to let the House know the details of the scheme as soon as we possibly could. I cannot over-emphasise how important we regard that to be. We certainly shall not lose a day in getting on with it.
  My hon. Friend made an appeal to the fishermen for progress over the vexed question of boxing, and he hinged that on an appeal to remember the vital importance of quality. There again, I should like to reinforce 100 per cent. what he

  1059
  said, and I am sure that the rest of the House will be with me on that. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland raised a point concerning the difficulty that some of his constituents had in landing fish in good condition. It is a point to which I should like to devote some attention, and I will certainly undertake to see whether something more than is being done can be done on that point. He said that there would be one test and one test alone for this Bill so far as it affects the herring industry, and that is, Will it give the industry a better deal? I can only say that the Government ask for no better test than that to be applied. That is the intention and, I believe, that will be the effect of the Measure.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. Duthie) asked one or two questions. He asked a question about there being no grant for anyone acquiring a second-hand vessel, however good its condition. May I ask him to let me look into that particular point and I will let him know what I am able to find out. He also raised the question of there being no Income Tax allowance for gear and its depreciation. That, of course, as he knows, is a question for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman's point will reach the required destination. I will certainly help to see that it does; but it is not a matter for me to make any pronouncement upon.
  Mr. Woodburn: The hon. Gentleman does not intend to be a leaky net.
  Lord John Hope: On the question of new gear, here both the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeenshire asked questions about experiments in new forms of trawling. I think that they both asked about the Larsen, the Danish two-boat trawl. As both hon. Members probably know, the Board and the Departmental Fishery Laboratories have carried out experiments with the Larsen and also with another trawl of the same name only spelt differently—Larsson, as opposed to Larsen. I am told that the experiments so far do not establish that these nets are suitable for use in waters normally fished by British trawlers.
  Mr. Fell: Can my hon. Friend say whether these experiments were carried out in conjunction with electronic attachments?
  Lord John Hope: The answer to that is that I do not know, but I will find out and let the hon. Gentleman know.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Banff queried the necessity for workers in the industry to prove that they were not seasonal workers before they could obtain unemployment benefit. That is a matter not for my Department, but for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance. I will certainly see that the specific point is passed on to my right hon. Friend.
  My hon. Friend asked a rather leading question about the extension of the powers of the Herring Industry Board in the direction of being the sole purchaser of every herring that is landed. I do not want to be drawn now into an examination of the detailed powers of the Board. In any event, it is not strictly relevant to the Bill.
  My hon. Friend expressed dismay at the withdrawal of the oil and meal subsidy and he asked that the Government should reconsider the matter. I must tell him, however, that in the Government's view, once the herring industry has its subsidy on an even footing with the white fish industry it would not be reasonable or right that there should be an extra subsidy in terms of oil and meal as well.
  My hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeenshire asked not only about the Larsen trawl but also about herring lugger fishing. The position is that some time ago a Mr. Sutton asked for a loan from the Board to buy a Polish lugger. A suitable vessel could not be obtained in the United Kingdom in less than about three years, so we agreed that Mr. Sutton should have a Polish vessel. Exchequer loans, however, are restricted to the purchase of British vessels and the Board has no power to lend money to buy a Polish vessel. We have, however, agreed to give the Board a grant to enable it to buy the vessel and to charter it to Mr. Sutton on the basis that the charter fees and any proceeds from the eventual sale of the vessel are repaid to the Exchequer. That is the position concerning Mr. Sutton and his lugger.
  Sir R. Boothby: If it is to be a commercial proposition, Mr. Sutton should have the chance of buying the lugger on fair terms at the end of the fifteen years' charter, otherwise it is not a commercial proposition from his point of view.
  Lord John Hope: I certainly take note of my hon. Friend's suggestion.
  On the question of the general presentation of its case by the Board, my hon. Friend asked that it should be less rigid and more encouraging. In that connection, he particularly appealed for energetic action to help the canner. I am certain that his observations and other remarks concerning the Board itself will be noted by the Board. I want to be careful not to try to interfere in the Board's own business of running its day to day operation in the way that it thinks best.
  My hon. Friend raised the knotty problem of herrings in connection with the Free Trade Area. I cannot, of course, pronounce upon that, but it is relevant to remind my hon. Friend that the value of herring exported to the E.P.U. area is only a small proportion of the total exports. It is not as though there would be anything like a disaster if herring were excluded from the Free Trade Area arrangements. Beyond that I would rather not go.
  Sir R. Boothby: It would be an awful pity to lose the Greek, German and French markets, all of which are now building up in our favour, if it could be avoided.
  Lord John Hope: I do not disagree at all.
  The hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. E. Evans) reinforced the plea that the operative date for conversion should be given as soon as possible. I agree absolutely. Here, too, we shall be as quick as we can. The same point was very much in the mind of the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy).
  The hon. Member for Lowestoft also made an observation concerning the shortage of steel in ship repair yards. That, again, is not a matter for me, but I am sure that the hon. Member's remarks will be noted in the proper quarter.
  Mr. Edward Evans: May we have an assurance that the Minister's Department will add force to the contention that it is a great disability to the fishing industry?
  Lord John Hope: I will certainly myself look into the point raised by the hon. Member and see whether, if a shove will help, I can give it.
  The hon. Member and my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeenshire said that the canners were in an anxious mood, especially about the zoning plans which the Board has put in hand. The position is that in the ordinary course of procedure, certain objections have been registered with the Government and we arre now in course of considering them. Obviously, I cannot go further at this stage.
  My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. G. R. Howard) asked what, I think, he referred to in terms as his hardy annual about lobsters and crabs being included in the scheme. My answer, I am afraid, is also the hardy annual that there is nothing doing as far as that is concerned. I am sorry, but there it is.
  Mr. G. R. Howard: Far more important than that is the question of the conference next year. Can my hon. Friend give an assurance that he will look into what I said about the conference and that we should have high-powered representation?
  Lord John Hope: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for reminding me. Certainly, that will be looked into.
  I have referred to the anxiety of the hon. Member for Leith about the date of the conversion order. The hon. Member then referred to the difficulties of the kippering industry and stressed the importance, in his view, of full publicity and full advertising He gave figures purporting to show that there could have been neither full publicity nor full advertising by the Board over the past year. Again, that is primarily a matter for the Board, and I have no doubt that the remarks of my hon. Friend, which certainly were backed up by other hon. Members, will be brought to the notice of the Board. All I want to say about it is that I cannot conceive of any agency responsible for an industry of this kind neglecting any single opportunity for producing what advertisement or publicity it could or not using any imagination that it could conjure up in furthering the objectives of the industry.
  I have covered as best I could the points raised and the questions asked by

  1063
  hon. Members on both sides of the House in this extremely interesting debate. If I have left out anything that I ought to have said in answer to anybody, I should be most grateful if they let me know and I will do my best to put things right afterwards.
  In conclusion, I should like to say that we welcome the thoughtful contributions that the House has made to the debate. We are very confident that the very important measures of practical assistance provided by the Bill will receive the approval that they deserve. They make for economy in the long run and they bring into line the great herring industry with its sister industry and thereby do justice where justice needs to be done.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Colonel J. H. Harrison.]
  Committee Tomorrow.

  WHITE FISH AND HERRING INDUSTRIES (No. 2) [MONEY]
  Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).—[Queen' Recommendation signified.]
  [Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair.]
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the provisions of the White Fish and Herring Industries Act, 1953, relating to grants by the White Fish Authority and the Herring Industry Board (hereinafter referred to as "the Authority" and "the Board" respectively) towards new vessels and engines and to the white fish subsidy, and to provide a subsidy in respect of herring, it is expedient to authorize—

  (a) any increase in the sums which, in accordance with subsection (4) of section one or subsection (5) of section six of the said Act of 1953, may be required to be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament, being an increase attributabe to provisions of the said Act of the present Session,—

  (i) authorising the making of a grant in pursuance of a scheme under either of those sections in respect of expenditure incurred in the conversion, from coal-firing to oil-firing, of the engine-boilers of any fishing vessel not exceeding one hundred and forty feet in length, in a case where the contract for the execution of the work of conversion is shown to the satisfaction of the Authority or the Board, as the case
  1064
  may be, to have been made after such day, whether before or after the passing of the said Act of the present Session but not earlier than the twenty-eighth day of February, nineteen hundred and fifty-seven, as may be appointed by an order made by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State (hereinafter referred to as "the appointed day"), and an application for the grant is approved by the Authority or the Board, as the case may be, in accordance with the scheme before the end of March, nineteen hundred and sixty-one;

  (ii) authorising the making, in respect of expenditure incurred in the acquisition of an engine for a vessel, of a grant in pursuance of such a scheme otherwise than to an individual who satisfies the Authority or the Board, as the case may be, that he is, or is to be, a working owner of the vessel, in a case where an application for the grant is approved by the Authority or the Board, as the case may be, in accordance with the scheme before the end of March, nineteen hundred and sixty-one, the operation of the engine does not involve the consumption of coal, the engine is Installed in place of one whose operation did involve the consumption of coal and the Authority or the Board, as the case may be, are satisfied that the contract for the supply of the engine was made after the appointed day;

  (iii) authorising the treating, as part of the expenditure incurred in the acquisition for a vessel of a new engine which is installed in place of one which furnished motive power to other machinery of the vessel but is itself not designed to furnish motive power to that other machinery, of expenditure incurred in carrying out such work for the provision of motive power to that other machinery as is necessitated by the change of engine, in a case where the Authority or the Board, as the case may be, are satisfied that the contract for the supply of the new engine was made after the appointed day;

  (b) the payment, out of money provided by Parliament (in addition to the sum of ten million pounds which, by virtue of subsection (4) of section five of the said Act of 1953 and the White Fish Subsidy (Aggregate Amount of Grants) Order, 1956, is authorised to be applied in the making, under that section, of payments by way of subsidy in respect of white fish), of sums not exceeding in the aggregate seven million pounds or such greater amount (not exceeding nine million pounds) as may be prescribed by an order made, with the approval of the Treasury, by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State, to be applied in the making, under that section as amended by the said Act of the present Session, of such payments as aforesaid and in the making of payments by way of the subsidy in respect of herring provided for by the last-mentioned Act.—[Mr. Amory.]

  Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS DISQUALIFICATION BILL
  As amended, considered.
  HOUSE OF COMMONS DISQUALIFICATION BILL

    Clause 5.—(PROVISION FOR AMENDMENT OF FIRST SCHEDULE.)
    7.43 p.m.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for die Home Department (Mr. J. E. S. Simon): I beg to move, in page 4, line 11, to leave out from the beginning to "shall" in line 14 and to insert:
    "A copy of the First Schedule to this Act as from time to time amended by Order in Council under this section or by or under any other enactment."
    Clause 5 (2) has already been amended in Committee to permit reprints of the Bill, when it becomes an Act, to incorporate amendments to the First Schedule made by Statute as well as those made by Order in Council under Clause 5; but the subsection is still open to objection because the Clerk of the Parliaments can only prepare and certify a corrected copy of the First Schedule upon the coming into operation of an Order in Council. That means that however, many amendments may be made by other legislation and Order in Council, the Act could not be reprinted to incorporate them unless or until an Order in Council had been made. The purpose of the Amendment is to enable the certification procedure to be operated by the Clerk of the Parliaments at any suitable time.
    I may at this juncture comment upon two points raised in Committee. First, the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) drew attention to the timing of the procedure for certification of the amended copies of the First Schedule. He suggested that this might operate from the date of making an Order in Council under Clause 5 as distinct from the date of coming into force of the Order. Secondly, a point arose on what is now Clause 11 but is bound up with this Clause.
    It was made by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). The right hon. Gentleman inquired about the machinery for making lists of disqualifying offices available in constituencies to actual and prospective candidates. That arises on a different provision in the Bill. But these two matters are closely related,
    1066
    and I hope that what I have to say on the second matter will provide an answer to the first also. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General told the Committee on 26th February that it would be difficult to go further in the statute itself than the provision requiring candidates to acknowledge on nomination their awareness of the effects of the Bill.
    My right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland have it in mind that as soon as the Bill receives the Royal Assent they will supply copies of the First Schedule to the acting returning officer for each constituency, which he can make available for inspection at any time by prospective candidates. They go further and propose to notify the acting returning officers by circular from time to time of any amendments that may be made to the Schedule, so that they can keep their copies up to date.
    7.45 p.m.
    I hope that the right hon. Member for South Shields feels that that procedure will meet the lacunae which he pointed out as existing in the letter of the Bill. I hope also that it meets the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering. We feel that it would be in any case wrong to reprint the Act so as to incorporate a prospective amendment not actually in force, but by means of that administrative machinery we do not feel that there should be any difficulty in prospective candidates and candidates seeing how they stand as to disqualification.
    Mr. G. R. Mitchison: I have to thank the Government for meeting my views.
    Mr. Ede: I want to thank the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the care which he has taken over this matter. I am quite certain that the steps which he proposes to take, if they are continuously undertaken from year to year or from time to time by the Home Office and the Scottish Office, will enable people to know whether they are disqualified from membership of the House or not. One can only hope that they will not reject with contumely the list offered to them, without first making quite certain that some minor office which they hold is not included in the list.

    1067
    I hope that this will ensure persons who have been acting quite sincerely in the past being prevented from incurring the kind of discomfort and inconvenience that has been caused to them and that it will relieve the House of the difficulty which it has had from time to time. I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman and the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General for the steps that they have undertaken on the administrative side in this matter.
    Amendment agreed to.

    First Schedule.—(OFFICES DISQUALIFYING FOR MEMBERSHIP.)
    Mr. John Parker: I beg to move, in page 17, line 7, to leave out "Sub-Postmaster".
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): I think that the Amendment can be taken with the further Amendment in the hon. Member's name, in page 26, line 16, leave out "Sub-Postmaster".
    Mr. Parker: Starting from the argument that we want to disqualify as few people as possible, it seems to me that a sub-postmastership should not be a disqualification. There was a keen discussion in the Select Committee on this point and this office was only left in the list by the casting vote of the Chairman. In most cases sub-postmasters carry on other forms of business, often in a village shop selling all sorts of things, and the sub-postmastership is often a minor part of their work. It is true that there are exceptions, but the number of large sub-post offices is very small, and I suggest that there is no strong case for keeping sub-postmasterships in the list of disqualifications.
    Mr. Somerville Hastings: I beg to second the Amendment.
    The Attorney-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller): As the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) has said, the members of the Select Committee were evenly divided on whether sub-postmasters should be included in the list or not, and they are only in the list by reason of the Chairman's casting vote. My right hon. and learned Friend no doubt felt that he ought to cast his vote that way so as to keep them in the list as a subject of further discussion,
    1068
    although he had himself expressed the view that they should not be in the list. He therefore fulfilled his duty as Chairman with the impartiality and skill one would expect.
    I agree that it is rather an anomaly to find sub-postmasters in this list. They are in charge of offices of all kinds and categories—large, small and middle size—and none are civil servants, although they fulfil functions which are in many respects similar to those of civil servants working under the Postmaster-General. I understand that in the case of sub-postmasters, particularly in the villages, a great deal of the work is done by members of their families, and that on occasion they may do not so much themselves.
    There are considerable numbers of them, but I would find it difficult to contend that the tenure of a sub-postmastership makes a man unfit for membership of this House, and the Government are prepared to accept the Amendment. At the same time, I feel sure that the House would consider it undesirable for Members of this House to be sub-postmasters, with the access that sub-postmasters have to all kind of post office information and, in particular, the power to see the savings accounts of those who come to the post office, the contents of telegrams, and so on.
    My right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General desires me to say that he thinks it desirable that administrative steps should be taken to ensure that this does not happen, and I hope the House will agree that this is a proper course to take. Of course that is a very different thing from disqualifying by Act of Parliament anyone who holds the office of sub-postmaster from being a Member of this House, and the Government therefore agree to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. Mitchison: I find, by reference to the Special Report, that in the Select Committee I voted in favour of what is now the intention of the Government. It is no doubt a nicely balanced question. I see little risk of the House of Commons being flooded with sub-postmasters, even if the administrative steps proposed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his right hon. Friend were not taken. Indeed, I would feel that the major difficulty might be that if there were any conflict between the offices, people in some part of the country might be left

    1069
    with an inability to purchase postal orders or the like, which we should all of us deplore.
    Mr. Ede: This is a wonderful place. After we have had the strongest legal arguments addressed to us against what we call the reverse process of disqualification, now, in the final stages of the Bill in this House, we have decided to make it certain that by administrative action there shall be at least one post where the reverse process of disqualification shall occur; that is to say, a person being at one and the same time a Member of Parliament and a sub-postmaster must resign the sub-postmastership.
    My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) and myself, who stood for the process throughout, welcome this tardy conversion by the Government to the commonsense way of dealing with the matter. I am certain that I can speak for my right hon. and learned Friend in saying this. Yet I can hardly think of a worse case in which to apply it. My experience is that it is difficult on occasion to get people to take sub-postmasterships in many villages and in the suburban parts of some towns.
    I do not know what will happen when a sub-postmaster, having been elected a Member of Parliament, returns to a remote village after his triumphal ride round the constituency and is faced, when he gets back to his own office, with a telegram from the Postmaster-General telling him that he is no longer sub-postmaster of the village. What will happen about the supply of stamps and postal orders until his successor is appointed, I do not know. It shows us that when in the end those who have erred try to do well, how they, even in their doing well, slip into paths of great difficulty.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Second Schedule.—(MINISTERIAL OFFICES.)
    Mr. Simon: I beg to move, in page 18, to leave out line 16.
    Perhaps it will be convenient to discuss the next five Amendments with this one, Sir Gordon, as they are all of the same drafting nature. These are six drafting Amendments to tidy up the Second Schedule and to correct the order in which Ministerial offices are listed there as to precedence and alphabetical order.
    1070
    When we removed in the title of the Minister of Fuel and Power, the words "Fuel and", we omitted, during the Committee stage, to notice that he thereby lost five places in the list. That deals with this Amendment and the next Amendment to line 21, and also with the Parliamentary Secretaries in the same case. The other two Amendments relate to the place of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, and, although Chief Whips are properly objects of general abhorrence, there is no reason really why the Chief Whip should be denied his proper precedence in this list.
    Mr. Mitchison: To the alphabetical re-arrangement made by one of the Government changes in nomenclature I can have no objection. I think that the references to the Chief Whip were probably a little unfortunate. It is true that in the nature of the case channels, even usual channels, come at the bottom rather than at the top. Although in this case the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury has been moved up in the list, I regard that as a tribute to the important office he fills and, on the opposite side of the House, to the increasing activity which the right hon. Gentleman has to show in keeping right hon. and hon. Gentlemen in order. We do not need any such tribute on this side of the House. We remain in perfect order, without the need of anything of that kind, but, on the whole, I support this Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In page 18, line 21, at end insert:
    "Minister of Power."
    In line 32, at end insert:
    "Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury"
    In page 19, leave out line 3.
    In line 10, at end insert:
    "Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power."
    In page 19, leave out line 18.—[Mr. Simon.]

    Third Schedule.—(MODIFICATIONS OF THIS ACT IN RELATION TO SENATE AND HOUSE OF COMMONS OF NORTHERN IRELAND.)
    Mr. Parker: I beg to move, in page 26, line 16, to leave out "Sub-Postmaster".
    Mr. Hastings: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Fourth Schedule.—(NACTMENTS REPEALED.)
    Amendment made: In page 32, line 22, at end insert:

    12, 13 & 14 Geo. 6. c. 68.

    The Representation of the people Act, 1949.

    In section one hundred and fifteen, in subsection (2), the words "or is a member of the Commons House of Parliament".

    12, 13 & 14 Geo. 6. c. 90.

    The Election Commissioners Act, 1949.

    In section one, in subsection (4), the words "be members of Parliament or".

    —[The Attorney-General.]
    8.0 p.m.
    The Attorney-General: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
    I commend the Bill to the House as a good Bill. Although it is apparent that some hon. Members would have liked it to have covered a wider field, in the field which it does cover it clears up the position, in my view satisfactorily. There is a long history behind the Bill and I should like for a moment to remind the House of it.
    It was sixteen years ago almost to this day when the then Lord Privy Seal, now Earl Attlee, moved for the appointment of a Select Committee with these terms of reference:
    "To inquire into the law and practice governing the disqualifications for Membership of the House of Commons by reason of the holding, or the acceptance of, Offices or Places of Profit under the Crown, and to make recommendations."
    That Committee is commonly known by the name of the Herbert Committee and we still have with us two hon. Members who sat upon it—my hon. Friend the Member for Carlton (Mr. Pickthorn) and the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. P. Noel-Baker). I am sure that the House will agree that that was a valuable Report.
    It was as long ago as 1943 that the first draft of a Bill to achieve this purpose was prepared. At least, that is the first draft which I have seen—one prepared in 1943. I gather that the view was then expressed that a final draft in a complete and perfect form would be ready within a
    1072
    month, but that degree of optimism was not justified in the event.
    After the war the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) did a great deal of very valuable work on this problem. Indeed, the problem then had an added urgency, for the House had to pass a number of Acts to validate the election of various Members and to indemnify others, in all, I think, eight Members.
    We then produced a Bill based very largely on the right hon. and learned Gentleman's work, which was kindly made available to us, but when the House discussed that Bill it made clear its preference for a list of disqualifying offices instead of having a definition, as we had had since 1707. A Select Committee was then appointed under the chairmanship of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens), and I am sure that the House would like me now to pay a tribute to him and also to all his colleagues on that Committee.
    I know from the amount of work which I have had to give to these problems how difficult they are, and I can pay with a greater degree of knowledge a very sincere tribute to them all for their work, done at great speed. They had very difficult problems to tackle, and although there was a division of opinion about reverse disqualification, and matters of that sort, I believe that they reached the right solution of nearly all these problems. I am sure of one thing—that the whole House is indebted to them for the work they have done.
    The result of their labours is shown in the Bill. If I may, I should also like to express our gratitude to the Parliamentary draftsman of this Bill who, curiously enough, was, I believe, the Parliamentary draftsman of the first draft produced in 1943. Last but not least, I should like to pay my tribute and express my thanks to my hon. and learned Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State to the Home Department, who joined us rather late in helping to get this Bill through, but whose assistance has been valuable for all that. I should like to thank all those who have assisted us in the passage of the Bill.
    The Bill makes two revolutionary reforms in the law. It sweeps away a disqualification which had existed since

    1073
    the eighteenth century with respect to recipients of certain Crown pensions and contracts. What is much more important, it gets rid of the troublesome phrase, "office or place of profit under the Crown," a phrase which has given rise to a great deal of trouble for a considerable number of hon. Members. The Bill substitutes a list of offices the tenure of which is incompatible with membership of the House. Of course, it does not follow that Members of the House are always suitable as holders of other offices; membership of the House may be incompatible with the tenure of those other offices. But this Bill makes it quite clear what offices the House of Commons regards as incompatible with membership of the House.
    The phrase of which we are disposing led to many troubles and difficulties. I think that no fewer than fourteen Members of Parliament have been entrapped by it since the Socialist Government came into power. We had five Acts validating the elections of nine Members and we had three Acts indemnifying five other Members. We have also had one Act in relation to six Members of the Northern Ireland Parliament. I hope that the Bill will achieve its object and lead to the House not being troubled by such Measures in future, and I hope that it will also achieve what I think is its major object—making it possible for those who wish to stand for Parliament to know before they stand whether they should free themselves of any offices which at that moment they possess.
    As both the right hon. and learned Member for Newport and my hon. and learned Friend have said, the administrative arrangements will be extremely important, but if it works as I believe it will work, then I think the Bill will reduce the uncertainty and fear of the law, which in the past has been very tricky and uncertain in its operation.
    8.8 p.m.
    Sir Frank Soskice: I should like, if I may, to associate myself very cordially with the tributes which the Attorney-General paid, except the tribute which he paid to me, for which, if I may, I should like to thank him very cordially.
    I would add one other tribute—to the Attorney-General and his hon. and learned Friend the Joint Under-Secretary
    1074
    of State for the Home Department, who helped him in the preparation and presentation of the Bill?
    The Bill makes a revolutionary change in a most important aspect of our constitutional law. I think that all lawyers and all hon. Members have over and over again been perplexed by words, apparently simple in their context, contained in the previous Statute law on the subject but which, on examination, are shown to be full of startling ambiguities. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said, those words have led to repeated situations of perplexity centering upon pure mistakes on the part of hon. Members who, either owing to quite excusable inadvertance or to a misunderstanding of wording as difficult to construe as these words were, have found themselves apparently in peril of disqualification.
    From now on it should be perfectly easy for candidates and hon. Members to know exactly how they stand. They have to look at a list, and they do not have to apply a difficult definition section. That is a very great improvement, and the whole House, and, if I may say so, the country, should be grateful for this far-reaching change in the law, which preserves what is valuable, and, I think, removes what was dangerous, in the preexisting Statute law on the subject.
    I am very glad that the right hon. and learned Gentleman paid tribute to those who collaborated in producing this difficult Bill, which has a new and important concept embodied in it. We have made a big step forward tonight in reaching the Third Reading stage and I shall be very glad to see the Bill on the Statute Book.
    8.12 p.m.
    Mr. Clement Davies: Contrary to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General, who began by saying that in his opinion this was a good Bill, I am of opinion that it is a bad Bill, but before I give my reasons for saying that it is a bad Bill I should like to refer to two other matters.
    One of them is a matter which has distressed me and, I am sure, a number of my colleagues here. It is that so little interest is taken by hon. Members in this very important Bill. Here is a Bill which

    1075
    deals with qualifications for membership of this House, with who may become Members and who may not, and which is settling that matter not merely for this Parliament or probably the next Parliament, but possibly for a whole series of Parliaments.
    It was very noticeable that when the Bill came forward for Second Reading, after it had received long consideration by the Select Committee, the only Members present besides the Attorney-General were those hon. Members who had actually sat on the Select Committee, Nobody else seemed to take the slightest interest. We had a few more to take an interest in certain aspects of the Committee stage, but here we are again, with an almost empty House, for the Third Reading of this very vital Bill.
    Mr. H. Hynd: The most important Members are present.
    Mr. Davies: Perhaps the hon. Member will speak for himself. I am sure that the rest of his colleagues will judge accordingly.
    The other matter I want to mention is the tribute which has very rightly been paid by the right hon. and learned Gentleman to the Chairman of the Select Committee, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens). He was tireless in his energy and devotion to the work, and all of us who had the honour of sitting with him would desire to express here, in public, our gratitude for the way in which he steered the whole matter.
    Why do I object to the Bill? I object to it in principle. So far as it clears up any anomalies that used to arise on the question of what was an office of profit under the Crown it certainly is an improvement upon that aspect of the subject, but I object to the Bill in principle because what it does is to crib and confine membership of this House so as to exclude people who really ought to be entitled to come here and assist us in our deliberations.
    I regard this House as not only the most important institution in this country, but the most important institution in the whole world, because it is not only regarded as the Mother of Parliaments, but it should be the pattern of all Parliaments.
    1076
    At present, as one has had occasion previously to point out, democracy today is in a very different position from what we thought it was fifty years ago. It is actually fighting for its very existence, and its success will depend upon the effect that this House will have upon opinion throughout the world.
    The effect that it will have will not be influenced at all by the sanctity of its ancientness, or the fact that it has had certain constitutions laid down for it and has followed certain traditions throughout the centuries. Not a bit; it will depend upon the quality of its Members from Parliament to Parliament.
    The strength of Parliament will depend upon the people whom it can attract from every walk of life. No one ought to be forbidden to come into this House, and the wider the scope the better for the House and the better for the country, but nowadays, when we are in this great difficulty with regard to the future of democracy, we are confining membership of the House to a smaller number than ever before in its long history.
    Year by year, I can almost say month by month, new posts are being created for the administration in this country, and presumably the best people are chosen to fill those posts. If they fall within this very long Schedule to the Bill they are then told, "You may take this post, but, from now on and for ever afterwards, so long as you hold that or a similar post, you will be excluded from membership of the House of Commons. If you think that the time has come for you to offer your services to a constituency, before you do so, and before the actual election, you will have to resign your post and chance whether you will be elected or not."
    This so impressed me as a wrong approach that when I put forward this view in the Select Committee, it so appealed to my colleagues that an instruction was then given, and it will be found in the Report, for a Bill to be drawn up in what we call the reverse form, because under the terms of this Bill membership of the House is subordinate to the post which a man holds. The post is more important than membership of this House, because when the two clash and are incompatible, it is not that the man loses his post, because that remains.

    1077
    What he does lose is membership of this House, whereas I should have thought that by far the better principle would have been that, once having been elected by a constituency and having had that honour and great privilege conferred upon him, in duty bound he ought to respect the wishes of that constituency, treasure the fact that he was a Member of this House and do his duty as such a Member, and the post would go.
    Surely that is the right approach to this matter, instead of the one in this Bill, for what we are doing is to repeat, with certain slight amendments, what this House regarded as necessary as long ago as the reign of Queen Anne. The Attorney-General referred to what was done in 1943. All that really happened then under the then Mr. Deputy-Speaker, Sir Dennis Herbert, was that a Select Committee collected what the law was and reported accordingly, without suggesting any change of any kind whatever. That merely meant looking into the history of the membership of this House from the time of Queen Anne.
    What was then the position? At that time there were two parties in the House; there was the King's party or the Queen's party, and those who did not belong. Those who acted on behalf of the Throne assembled round Mr. Speaker's Chair and the question of whether they would succeed in their proposal to bring forward a Bill and get it accepted as an Act of Parliament depended on their control over the other Members. Thereupon, they had the idea that the best thing to do was to create posts for these Members, "jobs for the Members"—not much of a job but very good pay—until they had a large party of that kind. Then the House, realising the danger that it might become a rubber stamp for any proposal made on behalf of the Throne, decided to bring in a Bill, which became an Act of Parliament, excluding those who held an office of profit under the Crown. It even excluded Ministers of the day, but the error of that was realised and an amending Bill was brought in a year or so later.
    That was what was best for the protection of the House at that time. But surely that is not the protection which the House needs today. There is not a Government that would dare to try to keep themselves in office by sheer bribery. Nor would any hon. Member today lend
    1078
    himself to such a thing. It would bring unbearable disgrace upon him and those who bribed him, and would mean the end of the Member and probably the Government, or his party. Those days are gone, and now we are faced with an entirely new situation in which, all the time, we are taking more and more steps to interfere with the ordinary affairs of individuals in this country.
    The men who are asking to take charge of those sort of offices are the best we can find, but after all the experience which they acquire we now tell them, by the terms of this Bill, that they can never take part in the deliberations of Parliament; that their experience will count for nothing, except, perhaps, that they may be able to tender advice from outside the Chamber. With the whole of democracy fighting for its existence, I should have thought that this House should be open to men from every walk of life who possess the highest possible qualifications, and that the only reason for exclusion would be that a man might find that the office he held, owing to the difficulty of fitting in times, or whatever it might be, was incompatible with proper service in this House. Were that so, I would say that membership of this House should go and that the office should be retained. In that way, I think we should not only preserve the great traditions of this House, but enhance its reputation and quality before the whole world.
    8.24 p.m.
    Sir Patrick Spens: It would be ungracious of me not to acknowledge the tributes paid to myself and the members of the Committee. I wish to associate myself with the tributes to my fellow members and, above all, to those who served us so well. If I may pick out anybody in particular, I would refer to the Parliamentary draftsmen whose work was invaluable, not only on this Bill but on the reverse disqualification Bill. The Parliamentary draftsmen were given a great deal more work by this Committee than Parliamentary draftsmen usually are.
    We started out as a Committee with the intention of endeavouring to disqualify as few people as possible. Yet when we had finished our labours we had pages in the Schedule containing every sort and kind of office. One must remember that none of the people mentioned is a civil

    1079
    servant, because civil servants, under the provisions of Clause 2, are excluded en bloc. The people mentioned in the Schedule are not civil servants but those who hold offices which we think should disqualify them from membership of this House.
    I differ from the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies), who said that they are disqualified for ever. At any time they can offer themselves for election to this House, provided they give up the post which they hold. While it is true that many of these posts are great posts, which few men would be willing to sacrifice to come into this House—I hope that the occasions for so doing will be very few—the great bulk of them are trifling posts; although in our opinion men holding such posts would find their duties incompatible with membership of this House. But, if they are prepared to give up their posts, the holders may stand at any time for election as Members of this House.
    I hope that in the days to come the tendency will be to reduce the number of such offices and not to add to them by Orders in Council. During the weekend I spent some time wondering whether there was any avenue which would lead to a reduction in the number of these posts. I came to the conclusion—in this I think I have the understanding and sympathy of the Joint Under-Secretary of State—that there were a great number of appellate bodies of one sort or another which have arisen under different Acts during the last half-century and which deal with appeals against the refusal of this or that benefit.
    I believe that it might be possible to establish one administrative appellate body to which all appeals of that sort might go, instead of having a vast number of tribunals of various sorts, the members of which we have disqualified from membership of this House. I throw that out merely as a suggestion, because I think that in future attempts should be made to reduce the number of the offices contained in the Schedule and not to increase them.
    8.27 p.m.
    Mr. Ede: The right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) described this as a bad Bill, but I do not share that view. I take the modern
    1080
    view that it is the best Bill we have got. It is a great improvement on the law which it replaces. While I should have preferred the reverse disqualification, I do not think that there are many people disqualified under this Bill who were not disqualified under the previous law.
    Some of them might have been in the category of people who entered the House in all honesty and then, through an indiscreet conversation in the Dining Room, as happened in one case—or some other accidental disclosure, as occurred in the case of the auditors, found themselves disqualified, although they quite genuinely thought that they were perfectly safe in entering the House. I join with the right hon. and learned Member in hoping that the number of disqualifications may be reduced, possibly in the way he suggested in certain cases, and in others by the administrative machine becoming rather less clogged up with personnel than it is at the moment.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), whose absence this evening detracts from the gaiety of the proceedings, at one time in the Committee hailed the Attorney-General as a radical. I noticed at the time that the right hon. and learned Gentleman bore the imputation with some sadness. I can assure him that I have never regarded him as a radical. But he comes here this evening and boasts that he has submitted to the House a revolutionary Measure. It may be revolutionary to a lawyer, but to me it is evolutionary. It is bringing the procedure of the House in this respect into line with modern requirements, in ways which are easily understood by people who take the trouble to look into these matters. I should not regard this as a revolution. It does not immediately exclude hon. and right hon. Members opposite from membership of the House. We await the next General Election with every confidence that it will do that.
    I would like to join in the tribute paid by the right hon. and learned Member to the work previously done by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice). I think that I am the only person now present who was associated with him in the preliminary work that was then done. The Bill has imposed upon a few people an amount of detailed research and adaptation of knowledge thus acquired that

    1081
    Members of Parliament can rarely have been called upon to undertake in the past.
    The labours of the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens) in that respect are not even known, although they can be fairly surmised by his colleagues in the Committee, for he would meet us when the Committee sat in the afternoon with the results of labours that must have taken him, privately, many hours—and in conjunction with the draftsman he was able to guide us through most of the intricacies of this Measure without any really serious difference of opinion. Those of us who served on the Committee probably realise better than anybody else the great amount of very hard and painstaking work that he did.
    I also want to join my tributes to those which have been paid to the draftsman for the ability with which he produced, at comparatively short notice, forms of words to deal with the most complicated provisions, which look very simple now that we see them in the Bill but which enshrine in the law the result of many hours of work and prolonged discussions in Committee.
    The one thing I regret is that the Bill wipes out the old law dealing with contracts held by Members. I admit that the old contracts had very little relationship to modern life, and that the development of industries and joint stock companies have made the old law as dead as Queen Anne—although I believe that this was the law that came into operation during the reign of George III. I moved an Amendment in Committee asking that the House of Commons should be recommended to give its attention to the position created by the alteration in the law of contracts as applied to Members of this House. I sincerely hope that that will be done.
    One heard on occasion in the Committee that if a Member did anything despicable in this respect the House of Commons should deal with it. I dislike personal debates involving the expulsion
    1082
    of Members for conduct unworthy of the House and which has not been the subject of decision in the courts. There was an occasion in pre-war days when two Members were expelled from this House. We were assured by the Attorney-General of the day that the evidence against them was not such as would have stood up to trial in the courts. I abstained from attending the House on that day because it seemed terrible for people to have to pronounce on colleagues on a matter that would not stand up to investigation in the courts. Let us realise that in personal matters of that kind this House is hardly the body to constitute itself a court of honour or a tribunal of any kind.
    I hope that one result of the passing of the Bill will be that the Government will give attention to the question of contracts between Members of the House of Commons and the Government, and that in considering the matter and in making recommendations the Government will have regard to the requirements of modern practice in industry, in the professions and in the law dealing with joint stock companies. The Bill ought to make the task of candidates and agents easier. I hope it will relieve the House of the detailed considerations which, on so many occasions since the end of the war, we have had to give to the private concerns of people who were in the House.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

    NURSES BILL [Lords]
    Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time and passed, without Amendment.
    NURSES AGENCIES BILL [Lords]
    Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time and passed, without Amendment.

  ALIEN (ENTRY)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Brooman-White.]
  8.40 p.m.
  Mr. Frederick Gough: Until a short time ago the House was discussing the type of people who should or should not sit in this Chamber. I wish this evening to bring to the notice of the House something about the type of people who should or should not come into this country.
  This is actually a personal case, but I think it has several aspects which will be of interest to the House, and certainly one aspect which, I believe, affects the rights, indeed almost the privileges, of private Members. It is essential for me to declare some sort of personal interest in this matter. Mr. Sakellis, about whom I speak, is employed by a firm of shipping agents in the City of London with whom I do quite a considerable amount of business. It is for that reason that they brought this matter to my attention.
  I should like to give the House a short background history of Mr. Sakellis and how the present situation came about. Mr. Sakellis is a Greek. When he left school, he joined the Royal Greek Navy and served during the war in the Mediterranean alongside the Royal Navy. It is not difficult to realise what a great honour and privilege it is to serve alongside the Royal Navy. Mr. Sakellis ended his service with the rank of lieutenant and, on demobilisation, came to the United Kingdom in October. 1947, when he was apprenticed to the yard of William Gray and Company of West Hartlepool. That was pending his entry into the technical college in Sunderland in September, 1948. He remained at the technical college until 1953 and, during that period, took his Bachelor of Science degree as a marine engineer and naval architect.
  At the end of that period he joined the repair section of Messrs. Swan Hunter & Wigham Richardson Ltd. and went to sea in the new motor vessel "Neptune" they had completed for his present employers in January, 1954, in order to gain sea experience. He remained at sea until November, 1954, and, when his training had been completed a few months later.
  1084
  he left this country. The managers of the motor vessel "Neptune" realised the capabilities of this young man and asked for permission from the Ministry of Labour and National Service in February, 1955, to employ him in this country as a superintendent engineer, and that permission was granted.
  His present employers are ship brokers and have five directors, three of whom are British subjects, two are Greek, and they are all of Greek extraction. Their business is to manage five ships which are under the British flag and two ships under the foreign flag. It is important to remember that in every ship but one all their engineers are Greek. There is obviously, therefore, a language problem of the first degree. Of their staff Mr. Sakellis was the only qualified man, qualified technician, qualified marine surveyor and naval architect, capable of speaking to the men in their language.
  In February, 1956, the employers applied for an extension from the Home Office, and although at first, I gather, this was favourably considered, it was refused and he was told that he must leave the country in June, 1956. He went abroad and obtained employment and residence on the Continent, and there he was employed by various shipowners as a consulting engineer. Then came Suez. In August, 1956, Her Majesty's Government requisitioned two of the ships which were managed by his recent employers in this country.
  The Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation—this is the interesting thing—immediately approached the Home Office and obtained permission for Mr. Sakellis to return to this country in order to look after those ships. Mr. Sakellis returned last August and remained here until the end of October. At the end of October his employers again applied to the Home Office for an extension, but although they wrote at the end of October, they received no reply from the Home Office until 31st December, when the reply was "No". This was despite a promise which these people received from the Ministry of Transport in a letter dated 21st December that the Ministry would approach the Home Office and point out to it the value of the services of Mr. Sakellis. So once more Mr. Sakellis left the United Kingdom as a resident at the end of October.

  1085
  On 1st January, when they received the reply from the Home Office to say that Mr. Sakellis was not to come back, his employers wrote to the Ministry of Labour and National Service asking for a replacement for Mr. Sakellis and pointing out that, besides technical qualifications such as those to which I have already drawn the attention of the House, it was essential that whoever it was should have a thorough knowledge of French, Greek and English. Up to the present date there has been no reply from the Ministry of Labour, and I am not surprised.
  On that same date, 1st January, the employers wrote a long and reasoned letter to the Home Office Aliens Department with the reference 5.73477 ENH/CA. I quote the reference so that my hon. Friend may make a note of it or take it from HANSARD tomorrow, because it was a very reasoned letter and no reply has been received to it.
  Eventually, in desperation, on 11th February, these people approached me. On the same day I wrote to the Home Secretary. I have had the courtesy of an acknowledgement, but I have not yet received a reply. I apologise to the House for all these dates; they are rather confusing. Eleven days later, on 22nd February, the employers wrote to Mr. Sakellis because one of their ships was expected in Hull about 5th March, and it was essential that he should come over here, not come back to residence, but go straight to see the ship in order to deal with some very serious defects in the boiler furnaces. There was no question whatever of their suggesting that he should come back and try to get residence here.
  Mr. Sakellis came to this country from America in the s.s. "United States." He arrived at Southampton on 6th March. The immigration authorities refused him permission to land, although I understand that his passport was in order. I also understand that before this refusal the immigration authorities telephoned the Home Office. I would emphasise that this was after I myself had written to the Home Secretary about the case. In the intervening period, Mr. Sakellis had already gone from the Continent to the United States via this country and had received authority from the immigration
  1086
  authorities at London Airport to land here on 23rd February to join a ship at Southampton and go to the United States.
  As a result of his being refused admission to this country last Wednesday, Mr. Sakellis was bundled off to Bremerhaven—at least, he had to return to the ship and went on to Bremerhaven. When he got there he had no trouble at all; he was allowed to land. The following day I took up the matter with my hon. Friend, and I must say that Mr. Sakellis received instructions to the effect that he was allowed to come here. He arrived the following day by air, and is now attending to his duties as marine superintendent, trying to put this ship right.
  I wish to bring to the attention of the House one or two points with which I should like my hon. Friend to deal. First. I am puzzled about our policy in relation to alien immigration. It seems quite easy for aliens to come here as domestic servants, and we have been bringing in political and other émigrés, but from my experience in this matter it seems that it is very difficult indeed for technical experts to come here to undertake jobs which cannot be done by British subjects.
  My second point is that in the whole of the story which I have tried to unfold to the House there seems to have been a complete lack of co-ordination between the Home Office and the Ministry of Transport—and, indeed, the Ministry of Labour as well. It is a small point, but I wish to make it.
  The third point relates to the policy of allowing technicians to come here merely to attend to duties. I cannot see why a technician coming to look after a ship in this country should be held up by immigration authorities. I know for a fact that similar technicians, both ours and those of other countries, can go to Antwerp, to ports in Germany and to other ports without any trouble.
  The last two points, are, I think, the most important of all. I have always understood that when a Member of Parliament writes to the Home Secretary about the refusal of a continuation of facilities for residence here, the person concerned is allowed to continue that residence—even if it is after the date on which the Home Office has told him to go—until the Home Secretary has considered the case.

  1087
  Had Mr. Sakellis been in the United Kingdom at the date of my letter, 11th February, I think that there is no question that he would have been allowed to remain until the matter was reviewed. However, his very job makes that impossible. If he is looking after ships, he has to go to where they are, which may be in Hamburg, New York or elsewhere. In view of the fact that I had brought this case to the attention of the Home Office, and that the immigration authorities at Southampton telephoned the Home Office, it is inexcusable that Mr. Sakellis should that night have been sent on to Bremerhaven. I put it as strongly as that.
  I can well understand my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary's difficulties. The field might be opened by new applicants writing to a Member, the Member writing to the Home Office, and the new applicant coming here and remaining until he was kicked out. That, surely, is utterly different. This is a case of a young man who fought alongside us during the war, came here to a technical college, got a really first-class degree, is a man very highly thought of, has been here for some time, was brought back here by the Ministry of Transport at the time of Suez, and is now not allowed to come back while his case is considered.
  Finally, I ask this. Do Her Majesty's Government really think that if this sort of thing continues it will help our shipping and shipbuilding industries? I do not think that it will. We really want to try to get over this general sort of bureaucratic machinery and to see that in cases like this, where men are doing a valuable job to shipping, difficulties will not be put in their way, but that the opposite will be the case.
  8.54 p.m.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Miss Patricia Hornsby-Smith): My hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Gough) has put very forcibly the individual case which he has raised on the entry of Mr. Sakellis into this country and has outlined the history of this gentleman's association with this country. As my hon. Friend said, when Mr. Sakellis originally came here he came as a student, in 1947, and graduated at
  1088
  Durham University as a marine engineer in 1953.
  My hon. Friend has made quite a point of the fact that, because he had been a student here, he should normally be acceptable thereafter as a resident. But it is part of the generosity of Her Majesty's Government's policy that, apart from those who pass as immigrants, we arrange also to give facilities to young people or, as in this case, people after wartime service, to come here and study as students; but because a foreign student has studied here and has been here perhaps for two or three years, that does not mean that he is given automatic right of entry for residence.
  That has always been quite clearly laid down, as I know that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) will agree. It is to the advantage of foreign students to be able to come here, but it does not give them any prior claim thereafter either to permanent residence or to immigration.
  After Mr. Sakellis had qualified, the Ministry of Labour then agreed to his working again as a student employee with Swan, Hunter & Wigham Richardson for three months, so that he could obtain some practical experience. In fact, he left after only six weeks with the firm.
  Mr. Gough: Would my hon. Friend allow me to say that my dates are that he went to Swan Hunter in January, 1954, and left them in November. 1954? I can confirm that.
  Miss Hornsby-Smith: In August, 1954, he returned again with a permit from the Ministry of Labour. He left the country after six weeks, and came back with a new permission from the Ministry again for student employment with Swan, Hunter & Wigham Richardson, the permit being for three months; and when this was up he signed on a ship for discharge abroad. In February the following year, he returned to the United Kingdom with a labour permit for 12 months with Messrs. Hadjilias & Company as a superintendent engineer. An extension was applied for at the end of the 12 months and refused.
  Inquiry was made at the time which showed that the bulk of this man's work was, in fact, being done abroad, superintending ships under repair in foreign ports. The Ministry of Labour agreed at

  1089
  that time that no case existed for Sakellis holding a permit for employment and residence here. The broad ground for the decision was that the amount of work requiring his attention in this country did not justify accepting him as a resident.
  Mr. Gough: I do apologise for interrupting my hon. Friend again, but does she think that these ships are always in United Kingdom ports?
  Miss Hornsby-Smith: If my hon. Friend would allow me to develop and finish my case, he will, I think, find that I can justify the statements I have made.
  My hon. Friend is trying to establish a case that any ship of foreign ownership or in which foreign owners are concerned—one realises that there are hundreds of thousands of ships using our ports all the time—shall, by virtue of its use of our ports justify the presence of resident engineers of foreign origin in this country. I do not think that that can be accepted as a premise.
  Messrs. Hadjilias & Company wrote asking for the decision which was then made by the Home Office, in consultation with the Ministry of Labour, to be reconsidered on the ground that it was necessary for them to have a representative to travel to any United Kingdom or continental port to superintend work on ships' machinery. We must get this matter in perspective. The company owns one ship, manages four ships for a Canadian company, and two for a British company. The managed ships call at British ports only very rarely, and the ship owned by the company very infrequently.
  At this stage, the Ministry of Transport, which had been referred to by the company—this is last August—was consulted and confirmed that it then had an interest inasmuch as the Ministry had requisitioned two ships under the firm's management. This had taken place in August, when the Ministry required shipping to meet our obligations in the Middle East.
  A temporary extension was accordingly given, as my hon. Friend quite rightly said, after representations from the Ministry of Transport, until the end of October. Thereafter, further representations were received from the firm for an extension beyond the end of October. We again took the matter up with the
  1090
  Ministry of Transport, which was not prepared to give any further support to the application. On those grounds, the application was refused.
  Despite the claim that Mr. Sakellis' presence was necessary in this country during the period of the extension of his permit from August to October, it is significant that, having pressed for this extension from August to October, he was, in fact, out of the country from 8th August to 22nd October. There is no doubt at all that the bulk of the work which he carries out is done outside the United Kingdom and there is no reason on any employment ground for his having permanent permission to reside here.
  Mr. Ede: Does the hon. Lady know where he was during the period between 8th August and 22nd October? Was he dealing with ships that were under requisition by the Ministry of Transport in some foreign port?
  Miss Hornsby-Smith: I cannot tell the right hon. Gentleman that. Certainly, on the general permits that he has had from time to time, he has spent a very Considerable amount of time for which he had permission to be here in foreign ports.
  On 31st October he left the United Kingdom and was allowed to fly back to join a ship at Southampton as a member of the crew in January, 1957. On 11th February, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Horsham wrote to the Home Office suggesting that the Ministry of Labour should provide a suitable successor before Mr. Sakellis, who was then out of the country serving as a member of a crew, was asked to leave the country.
  I cannot accept my hon. Friend's suggestion that a company should be allowed to employ in this country what foreign staff it likes until and unless the Ministry of Labour seeks and finds for it alternative British staff, which is what my hon. Friend is suggesting in his request that the Ministry of Labour must find an alternative Greek-speaking engineer before this company is denied permission to employ resident foreign staff in this country.
  My hon. Friend also complains that in view of his letter to the Home Secretary, Mr. Sakellis should have been allowed entry pending a decision. I really cannot accept that an inquiry by an hon. Member

  1091
  should automatically bring executive action to a standstill. There are 61 points of entry into this country. If every inquiry by a Member of Parliament about a foreigner coming in or going out of this country has to be notified to the immigration officers throughout the country so that, because there is a letter from an hon. Member, executive action must be held up, we shall make a farce of the immigration regulations, and give an alien, in the case of entry, the initial advantage of entry whether he is a desirable person or not.
  It is true, as my hon. Friend quite fairly says that in the case of a deportation order or expulsion if an hon. Member has written in the case of someone in this country pending expulsion or deportation we do our best to give full consideration to it. It is a very different matter where someone has been refused permission for an extension, has left the country and, on his readmission, we are expected to notify 61 ports of entry and to allow in someone who has been refused permission solely because an hon. Member has written about that particular case.
  The immigration officer, when Mr. Sakellis arrived on 4th March at Southampton, acted quite properly. It was known and recorded that Mr. Sakellis was trying to establish a permanent residence here. It was known that his application had been refused. In this instance, he brought with him a letter from the firm asking him to arrange an interview with a Lloyd's Insurance surveyor in relation to the repair of the boilers of the s.s."Nereus". At that time the ship was still at sea and it was not apparent that Mr. Saskellis' presence was essential for any repairs which might be necessary to the boilers. He was refused leave to land and put back on board the "United States", which then left for Bremerhaven.
  After my hon. Friend's intervention and following further inquiries by the Home Office to the company, it was decided that Mr. Sakellis might be allowed to report to the company for the specific purpose of advising on and supervising any repairs which might be necessary to the ship while it was in the United Kingdom and only for the duration of the repairs. He arrived back on 7th March, landed and was given permission to stay for three weeks. The s.s. "Nereus" arrived at Hull
  1092
  on 8th March and is expected to sail on the 14th, so the repairs do not seem to have been of a desperately major and serious nature.
  There are two aspects in this case. The first is the admission of Mr. Sakellis to the United Kingdom on visits for consultation with Messrs. Hadjilias and Company. The second is the grant of permission for him to settle permanently in the United Kingdom and take employment here. It is not usual to require a Ministry of Labour permit when a foreigner is coming here for a limited period as an adviser or consultant and is already an employee of the company. In this case, permission was at first refused because the s.s. "Nereus" was not in a United Kingdom port and it was not certain that any repairs were required, or that Mr. Sakellis was the only person who could undertake those repairs. The refusal was later withdrawn and Mr. Sakellis was allowed to return for the temporary purpose of consultation and supervision in these repairs. There is not likely to be any difficulty about allowing him to come here from time to time for short periods in connection with his work as adviser or superintendent to Messrs. Hadjilias.
  I should like to emphasise that ships of the whole world use our ports. The ships of many foreign countries, and many shipping countries with registrations outside the United Kingdom, with foreign seamen aboard use our ports and we are under continual pressure from the shipping companies to allow the residence of people, who would not otherwise be normally accepted as immigrant residents in this country, simply and solely by virtue of the fact that they may occasionally have to deal with ships of a foreign country calling at our ports.
  The second point—the application by the firm that Mr. Sakellis should be allowed to reside here permanently as an employee—is a very different matter. After we had had consultation with the Ministry of Labour permission for this was refused. The ships owned by this company are rarely in British ports. Our information is that during 1955–56 only one of the Canadian ships called in the United Kingdom at all and that in the 13 months from March, 1955, to April. 1956, the s.s. "Nereus" called at Liverpool and Belfast only once. It is not a

  1093
  case of constant transit of shipping by this company's ships round our ports.
  The amount of repair or overhaul done for the company in this country is, therefore, small indeed and does not justify Mr. Sakellis being allowed residence here. Even when he had a Ministry of Labour permit from 1st March, 1955, to 31st October, 1956, he spent most of that time abroad and in foreign ports.
  I should like also to say a word about the somewhat exaggerated claims concerning Mr. Sakellis. As my hon. Friend rightly said, he qualified as a marine engineer as recently as 1953. So far as is known, his experience at sea is limited to about a year. To suggest that in this country, above all other maritime countries, there are no comparable qualified British marine surveyors available to do that work is, in my opinion, quite unacceptable.
  Mr. Gough: Why, then, has the Ministry of Labour been totally incapable of finding somebody to do this particular specialised work? This person has been to sea for many years.
  Miss Hornsby-Smith: It is not the task of the Ministry of Labour necessarily to find the people for this company. I refuse to believe that in this country, with its enormous record of shipbuilding and its knowledge of marine engineering, we do not have here surveyors and engineers capable of dealing with any ship, whether British, Greek, Canadian or any other, in our ports and engineering yards. To suggest that there are no comparable qualified British engineers available is not, in my opinion, a true statement of affairs.
  Obviously, it is not necessary to have a permanent resident here by virtue of the very rare occasions on which these ships appear in our ports. There must be many repair yards which have the permanent staff who are quite capable of dealing with an issue of this kind. To suggest that the services of Mr. Sakellis are indispensable or that the volume of work which arises in the United Kingdom makes it essential for a firm to bring in a Greek engineer cannot, in my opinion, be substantiated.
  I appreciate that my hon. Friend has put his case fairly and, I know, sincerely. I assure him, however, that this is not an isolated case. There are many applications for all types and kinds of Greek
  1094
  and other foreign shipping staff to be brought in, sometimes on even more slender grounds than in this case. If we allowed, on these very slender grounds, permanent residence, which would ultimately amount to immigration into this country, it would be an injustice to those who, through the normal and legitimate channels, try to seek entry and immigration into the country. I have gone into the case since my hon. Friend made his representations but, quite honestly, in view of all the evidence and the fact that there is not the volume of work concerning these ships, I cannot find any ground for changing the decision that has now been arrived at.
  9.11 p.m.
  Mr. Ede: I find some difficulty in reconciling the two statements—that made by the hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Gough) and that made by-the hon. Lady the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department. I am inclined to take the view that the Joint Under-Secretary probably has greater access to accurate information than has the hon. Member for Horsham, but some of the discrepancies were so wide that I think we must question whether the hon. Member for Horsham, is really in possession of all the facts.
  I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Horsham accepted in good faith from somebody else the statements that have been made to him, but the number of ships owned by the company and their distribution under flags were considerably different in his statement and in that of the Joint Under-Secretary. I know that this matter will have been examined with great care in the hon. Lady's office, and I am always reluctant to believe that that office makes a mistake. It is a doctrine that I had to hold very firmly at one time, just as the hon. Lady has to hold it now, but I gather that there were more ships under the British flag owned by this company than there were under the Greek flag.
  Mr. Gough: I would be only too glad to tell the House where I had the information. In the first place, I must make it clear that these people are ship brokers and managers and that they manage the ships. All the information came from their tile copies of letters to and from the Ministry and the Home

  1095
  Office and so on. The number of ships were five under the British flag and two under a foreign flag. I got that information from Mr. Hadjilias himself.
  Miss Hornsby-Smith: I said "British" and four under the Canadian flag. Is my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham counting the Canadian ships as being British? That might well explain the discrepancy.
  Mr. Ede: I regard the Canadians as British.
  Miss Hornsby-Smith: I am sorry, but we were making the differential in shipping and saying that we were not claiming them as United Kingdom ships. Perhaps it would have been better if I had said one United Kingdom ship and four under the Canadian flag.
  Mr. Ede: I have been recently in Canada. To suggest there that Canadians were not British would be very disastrous personally. In fact, Canadians are somewhat doubtful whether people coming from the United Kingdom are as British as they are. But I think that it is quite a fair point to say that for this particular job these are Canadian ships, sailing under the Canadian national merchant flag, which occasionally but very rarely visit this country. That is a point that I think needs to be established.
  This man has now had ten years' connection with this country. He came to Sunderland in 1947 and started work within a few months in a Sunderland technical college. He remained there until 1953 when he took his degree in the University of Durham. When the hon. Lady said "Let us look at his qualifications", and then said he was a Bachelor of Science of Durham, I did not regard that as any disparagement. In fact, the University of Durham having conferred on me the honourary degree of Doctor of Civil Law, it always makes me feel a little more self-confident than I ought to be when hon. and learned Gentlemen start talking in the House.
  What I want to know is if this man has ever applied for naturalisation? During that period at Sunderland he had completed the number of years which qualified him. Accepting the statement made by the hon. Gentleman, which has not been questioned, that he served in
  1096
  the Greek Navy side by side with ours, when there was no free Greek nation, and when he was undoubtedly acting under the administration of a British admiral, if he is so important to this country I would have thought that it would have been appropriate for him to apply for naturalisation, where the question of the Ministry of Labour would not have arisen. Most distinguished Greek sailors were naturalised, and some most undistinguished ones as well.
  If he really was to act as if he were a British subject and to go about the seas on behalf of a firm with offices in this country and which is. I understand a British firm, though all the directors are people of Greek descent, and some of those are not naturalised British subjects although others are, I would have thought that the appropriate thing was for him to have applied for naturalisation.
  I say frankly to the hon. Gentleman that I do not think the fact that some of the people on these ships speak Greek means that they must have a Greek superintendent to come and examine the ships.
  Mr. Gough: May I deal with that important point, which, perhaps, I did not put clearly enough? I understand that the engineers on all these ships, bar one, are Greek and do not talk English.
  Mr. Ede: No, but English can be spoken so that it is understood by many tongues. When I was a sergeant-major I had labour companies which consisted of people from nearly all the nations of the earth, including the Chinese, and one only had to point and to speak in a sufficiently determined tone of voice for people who did not understand a word of English to know what an Englishman wanted and what would happen if he did not get it.
  Mr. Hugh Delargy: Sergeant-majors are not engineers.
  Mr. Gough: The right hon. Gentleman was a leader, not a technician.
  Mr. Ede: I was a Royal Engineer. Whilst I understand the difficulties and the annoyance of this firm, which was heightened by the fact that as soon as the Suez trouble arose they could get anything they wanted—an indication that we may refer to on another occasion—on the facts as disclosed to us this evening I

  1097
  think that the Home Secretary could not reach any conclusion other than the one he did.
  That is not to say that I do not sympathise with the wish of a man who has been trained in this country to make this country his base, but if he wishes to make this country his base and to go about more or less permanently to the four corners of the earth on the business of this shipping company, we ought to know whether he wishes to be a British subject or not. It may well be that during some of this period, if he had applied for naturalisation he would have been granted it, and there would then have been no difficulty at all.
  I hope that in any further consideration given to the case the hon. Lady will realise that a man of this type may very well want to make this country his base of operations without of necessity residing here all the time. If his firm has a ship in Buenos Aires or Hong Kong of anywhere else in the world the firm may want him to go there, and if this is his base, then I think his absence from it and the period up to his return to it should not be regarded as an occasion when he is not using this country and not being of advantage to a company registered here. I think that on the facts as so far disclosed the hon. Lady had no alternative than to give the answer which she has given to her hon. Friend.
  9.22 p.m.
  Mr. Frederick Willey: I rise in order briefly to support my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). I do not know whether what he said about his exceptional qualities as a sergeant-major are relevant, because I do not think he can expect these from the gentleman whom we are discussing.
  I want to raise three points. First of all, I should like to speak up for Sunderland Technical College. I was shocked that the hon. Lady should have spoken in a way which could be interpreted as being disparaging of that institution, which is one of the finest technical colleges in the country.
  Miss Hornsby-Smith: I appreciate the hon. Member's desire to emphasise the credit of his local institution but, with great respect, I think nothing I said was disparaging of that college. Nevertheless,
  1098
  when one talks of this gentleman in the terms used by my hon. Friend, who spoke of his exclusive experience in this field, I think I am entitled to criticise. I was in no way casting a reflection on Sunderland Technical College.
  Mr. Ede: He would have done better to have gone to South Shields Marine School.
  Mr. Willey: I thank the Minister for her intervention, but not for provoking my right hon. Friend's reply. It has destroyed the testimony which she has given to the Sunderland Technical College, which would have served the college in other ways. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for what she said, but I still say that this gentleman had an exceptional opportunity in being able to attend the Sunderland Technical College, which is a very high qualification to have in the world of shipping and shipbuilding.
  The second point I should like to make—and I can say no more than this, because I have only just had the opportunity of hearing this matter—is that this gentleman has been somewhat uncharitably dealt with. I do not know whether he has made any application for naturalisation. I agree with my right hon. Friend that one would expect such application to be made in this case, and I think the House should be told whether it has been made and whether it has been considered. It might not have been made because indication may have been given that, if made, it would not be favourably considered.
  After all, what this engineer requires is a home from which to work. The nature of his work carries him about the world. In the light of the services which he has rendered, it appears from what was said by the hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Gough) that his services are enough for him to be offered a home in this country. It hardly lies with us to say that because his duties take him abroad a good deal we should not allow him to express a wish to regard Britain as home.
  The third point is rather different and has caused me some anxiety. Ship repair work is intensely competitive, and we have just lost a job at Sunderland to Rotterdam. It is becoming more competitive as the weeks go by. I do not know, but I do not think we are taking

  1099
  a realistic view about this at all. It may well be that because of this attitude of the Home Office, we might lose repair work, and that because of the attitude we are taking in this case we may find some of these ships going to other ports for repair. I think that that would be quite disastrous, because we have to fight very hard indeed to retain our ship repair work. This affects my constituency particularly, because we have a lot of ship repair work, and we depend upon a good deal of ship repair work in Sunderland.
  I would ask the hon. Lady to see that there are proper consultations with the other Departments, and with the Admiralty particularly. I think that this shows something of a disregard for the importance of the ship repairing industry, and I hope that proper attention will be paid to this part of the case, so that action like this should not prejudice our repairing yards in getting work in ship repairing which might otherwise go abroad. I hope that the hon. Lady will at any rate see that there is consultation with the Admiralty particularly.
  9.27 p.m.
  Mr. George Thomas: I intervene in this Adjournment debate only because I represent a constituency where we are often faced with a similar problem to that advanced by the hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Gough).
  In the City of Cardiff, we have ships coming from all parts of the world, and from time to time it has been my privilege, on behalf of various interests in the city, to seek the admission of foreign people. During the period when my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) was at the Home Office, a very great number of foreigners was coming into this country. I want to say that, while I am always keen to see that business interests are not held up by the lack of this technical knowledge, I believe that we must also emphasise that foreigners owe something to this country. If they want all the protection of the law and the advantages of our shipbuilding industry, it is hardly fair that people should want to make a home here without accepting the responsibilities of citizenship. Why should they not have to face the responsibilities that go with citizenship of this island country?
  1100
  I do not know this Greek gentleman, and I have never heard of him before, but I sympathise with him on many grounds, and not least the fact that he has been dragged into the light of publicity tonight, though that may well have been weighed up before the case was raised. I should like to say, in regard to hon. Members contacting the Home Office and holding up operations, that I hope that the Under-Secretary was not pronouncing a sort of policy with regard to this matter tonight, and that when hon. Members approach the Home Office, normally they do stop action until they have been able to investigate the claim of the hon. Member, because no hon. Member. I hope, would lightly take up a case of this sort without making some inquiries.
  I am surprised that this gentleman has not in ten years desired to become a British citizen, and yet he pursues his claim to come here for long periods at a time. I think the hon. Lady owes it to the House to explain whether he has applied for naturalisation and also further to explain her attitude on the question of cases brought by hon. Members.
  9.30 p.m.
  Miss Hornsby-Smith: With the permission of the House, Mr. Speaker, I should like to reply to some of the points which have been raised.
  The right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) conveyed the impression that, having spent some years in this country, it would have been comparatively easy for this gentleman to apply for naturalisation. With his great experience at the Home Office, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate the position of people coming into this country as students. During that period this young man never established himself as a resident. He was in this country as a student.
  The right hon. Gentleman will agree with me that it limits the freedom we can give to foreign students if the very fact that they are here for five years or so as students gives them automatic priority for naturalisation. During his period here this young man was never a resident as such. He was here as a student training. He has never applied for—
  Mr. Ede: No one has an automatic right to naturalisation, but it is news to me that the period a person spends here as a student, if he is otherwise suitable, will not count in the five years out of eight which he has to establish that, he has been here.
  Miss Hornsby-Smith: I accept that from the right hon. Gentleman. It is the fact. But it was suggested that that term of years had been residence. One has to consider the period if subsequently a student applies, and certainly his period as a student might be considered and is not necessarily ignored. In fact, this man has not applied for naturalisation, but has been documented since 1939 as a resident of Egypt.
  With respect, I do not think that hon. Members appreciate how many shipping companies with foreign connections apply to get all sorts of members of their staff a residence certificate in Great Britain. It is not a small problem nor is it a
  1102
  question of isolated cases. We must assure ourselves that there is a stronger case for residence in this country than that which is made in this case. I can assure hon. Members that there are many applications made on similar terms, if not on even more slender grounds, simply because a shipping or connected company has transit traffic with this country; and all kinds of foreign staff who in many cases would compete with our own people endeavour to get in.
  We are not making a difficult or arbitrary decision in this matter. We have had consultations with the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation and with the Ministry of Labour and National Service and it was after receiving advice from those Ministries that the certificate was not permitted and the application for an extension last October was refused.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes to Ten o'clock.

HOUSING
  Rent Bill
  Rent Bill
  Ventnor Gardens Scheme, Gateshead
  Ventnor Gardens Scheme, Gateshead
  Local Authority Programmes
  Local Authority Programmes
  New Towns
  New Towns
  Refugees and Evacuees
  Refugees and Evacuees
  London Area
  London Area
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Water and Sewerage (Rural Areas)
  Water and Sewerage (Rural Areas)
  Rate Increases
  Rate Increases
  St. Paul's Area (Redevelopment)
  St. Paul's Area (Redevelopment)
  Tower Hill Improvement Plan
  Tower Hill Improvement Plan
  Prefabricated Bungalows (Sale)
  Prefabricated Bungalows (Sale)
  Synthetic Detergents (Report)
  Synthetic Detergents (Report)
  Television Mast, Glamorgan
  Television Mast, Glamorgan
  Historic Homes
  Historic Homes
  Planning Restriction Compensation Payments
  Planning Restriction Compensation Payments
  DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC RELATIONS, WAR OFFICE (BROADCAST)
  DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC RELATIONS, WAR OFFICE (BROADCAST)
  PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (SPEECH)
  PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (SPEECH)
  DEFENCE PRODUCTION WORKERS
  DEFENCE PRODUCTION WORKERS
  ANGLO-FRENCH DISCUSSIONS
  ANGLO-FRENCH DISCUSSIONS
  COMMUNIQUE
  COMMUNIQUE
EMPLOYMENT
  Brick Industry, North Staffordshire
  Brick Industry, North Staffordshire
  Festival of Women
  Festival of Women
  Radioactive Substances (Protection of Workers)
  Radioactive Substances (Protection of Workers)
  Western European Union (Interchanges of Employment)
  Western European Union (Interchanges of Employment)
  North Midland Region
  North Midland Region
  Hungarian Refugees
  Hungarian Refugees
  Crofter Counties
  Crofter Counties
  Sunderland
  Sunderland
  Wages and Salaries
  Wages and Salaries
  Harlow
  Harlow
  Devon
  Devon
NATIONAL SERVICE
  Conscientious Objectors (Appeals)
  Conscientious Objectors (Appeals)
SCOTLAND
  Woodlands Survey (Gale Damage)
  Woodlands Survey (Gale Damage)
  School Camps
  School Camps
  Local Authority Loans (Interest Rates)
  Local Authority Loans (Interest Rates)
  Ordnance Factory, Dalmuir
  Ordnance Factory, Dalmuir
  Rents
  Rents
  Bovine Tuberculosis
  Bovine Tuberculosis
  ERADICATION OF BOVINE TUBERCULOSIS IN SCOTLAND
  ERADICATION OF BOVINE TUBERCULOSIS IN SCOTLAND
  Hydro-Electric Board (Charges)
  Hydro-Electric Board (Charges)
  Technical Education
  Technical Education
  Allanton Miners' Welfare Scheme (Hall Extension)
  Allanton Miners' Welfare Scheme (Hall Extension)
  Ordnance Factory, Dalmuir
  Ordnance Factory, Dalmuir
BRITISH ARMY
  Active List (Senior Officers)
  Active List (Senior Officers)
  Discharge by Purchase
  Discharge by Purchase
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  New Factories, Scotland
  New Factories, Scotland
  British Productivity Council (Deputy-Director)
  British Productivity Council (Deputy-Director)
  Industrial Buildings (Thermal Insulation)
  Industrial Buildings (Thermal Insulation)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Motor Cars (Purchase Tax)
  Motor Cars (Purchase Tax)
  University Teachers (Salaries)
  University Teachers (Salaries)
  Port Wine
  Port Wine
  Interest Rates
  Interest Rates
  Radio and Television Sets (Tax Receipts)
  Radio and Television Sets (Tax Receipts)
  Non-Industrial Civil Servants (London Airport)
  Non-Industrial Civil Servants (London Airport)
  Members' Salaries
  Members' Salaries
  Baltic States (Claims)
  Baltic States (Claims)
  Supplementary Civil Estimates (Salaries and Wages)
  Supplementary Civil Estimates (Salaries and Wages)
  Tobacco Token Scheme
  Tobacco Token Scheme
  National Institute for Research in Nuclear Science (Governing Board)
  National Institute for Research in Nuclear Science (Governing Board)
  NUCLEAR TESTS (JAPANESE NOTE)
  NUCLEAR TESTS (JAPANESE NOTE)
SHIPPING
  Owners' Liability (Draft Convention)
  Owners' Liability (Draft Convention)
SHIPBUILDING
  Scottish Yards (Capacity)
  Scottish Yards (Capacity)
MINISTRY OF POWER
  Electricity Supply Industry (Pensions)
  Electricity Supply Industry (Pensions)
COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS
  Kashmir Dispute
  Kashmir Dispute
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Subsidies
  Subsidies
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Reciprocal Agreements
  Reciprocal Agreements
  Foreign Visitors
  Foreign Visitors
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Schools (Fire Precautions)
  Schools (Fire Precautions)
PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Retirement Pensioners and National Assistance
  Retirement Pensioners and National Assistance
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Welsh Rural Areas (Kiosks)
  Welsh Rural Areas (Kiosks)
  Kiosks, Carluke and East Kilbride
  Kiosks, Carluke and East Kilbride
POST OFFICE
  Letter Boxes and Stamp Machines, East Kilbride
  Letter Boxes and Stamp Machines, East Kilbride

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

WAKEFIELD CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
LIVERPOOL HYDRAULIC POWER BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

DEER CLOSE SEASON AND POACHING BILL
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND: 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 view of the reported agreement between the Scottish Landowners Federation, the Nature Conservancy and the National Farmers' Union, the Close Season and Poaching Bill for deer will now go forward; and, if so, when it is expected that this action will be taken.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD STRATHCLYDE): My Lords, since December 12, when I replied to my noble friend's previous question on this subject, the Nature Conservancy have provided sonic additional information to assist Her Majesty's Government in their consideration of the joint report. But I am not yet in a position to make a statement.
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND: My Lords, does that mean that the noble Lord will make a statement within the next three months?
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, I should not like to put a date on it. This is a somewhat complex matter, as my noble friend probably realises, and Her Majesty's Government will need to give full consideration to the whole subject.
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND: May I take it that the matter will be considered within the next six months?
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, it will be considered without any unavoidable delay.
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, has not this matter dragged on for a very long time, and is it not time something was done to end what is really a public scandal?
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, it may well be that a considerable period has elapsed since the matter was first introduced, but, as I have said, it is one of considerable complexity, and Her Majesty's Government, therefore, have to go very fully into it.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, is it not rather astonishing that this information, of which the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, tells us to-day, should be brought forward at such a late date? And can the noble Lord give the House an assurance thaw if and when Her Majesty's Government are prepared to introduce legislation they will introduce legislation in this House, so that opinion outside can be tested?
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, that is a matter which will be considered in clue course.
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND: My Lords. I should like to remind the noble Lord who answered for Her Majesty's Government that on July 7, 1952, the Secretary of State for Scotland appointed a Committee of nine gentlemen to consider the desirability of introducing a close season for deer in Scotland. Prior to this date the Poaching of Deer (Scotland) Bill had been given its First Reading in this House. On the recommendation of the above Committee, certain progress with the Bill was delayed until it reported on the close season proposals. This Bill actually followed the Report of the Scott-Henderson Committee on Wild Animals, and it was in October, 1954, that the Committee reported its findings. Previously the Committee had agreed in principle to a close season, but three members voted for a reduction in the number of deer and for them to be brought under control before receiving statutory protection. There was much

435
conjecture as to the number of deer in Scotland, no one appearing to have reliable evidence even of the number in my own forest—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, Order!
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): Is the noble Duke asking a Question?
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND: My Lords, I should have asked: is the noble Lord aware of that?

SCOPE OF OXFORD ROADS INQUIRY
LORD BEVERIDGE: 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, under the procedure for public inquiry at Oxford by an independent person, as announced on 13th February by the Lord President. It will be open in the course of an inquiry on any proposal from the City Council for a new road, to persons interested in the rapid development of adequate shopping and social centres in Cowley, and other neighbouring districts, to submit proposals for this purpose, as an alternative to, or accompaniment of, a new road; and whether it will be open to the person holding, the inquiry to include in his report recommendations as to these accompanying or alternative proposals.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (THE EARL OF MUNSTER): My Lords, the answer to both parts of my noble Lord's Question is in the affirmative.
LORD BEVERIDGE: My Lords, may I express my great gratification, and I am sure the gratification of many Members of this House, at that answer? May I add just one thing: that I hope that the City will act with such speed in submitting proposals for a public inquiry that it does not become necessary for me to put down the further Question which was most kindly suggested to me by the noble Marquess the Leader of this House at the end of the recent debate, when he said that if
436
I felt that there was undue delay in submitting proposals for an inquiry I might consult him as to putting down a further Question. I hope that that will be quite unnecessary and that the City will listen to what I say upon that point to-day.

ST. JAMES'S PARK BRIDGE
LORD DERWENT: 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) What will be the cost of the new bridge over the lake in St. James's Park;
(2) When will the work be finished;
(3) What was the amount of the lowest tender;
(4) What was the shortest period for the completion of the work given by any tenderer.]
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, the cost of the new bridge is to be met entirely from an anonymous bequest of some £23,500. The cost, including ancillary works, is estimated on the basis of the lowest tender for the demolition of the old bridge and the erection of a new one to come within this figure. It was a condition laid down by the trustees of the fund that the work must be finished by the end of this year. The firms invited to tender were not asked whether they could complete the work in a shorter time, but the contractor would be liable under the terms of the contract to pay a penalty if he took longer.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reply. I want to get one point clear. Am I right in thinking that the cost of the work will come within the figure named?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I certainly hope so.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl the purpose of demolishing the old bridge and building the new one?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I am not sure of the purpose, except that I suppose the new bridge which is to

437
be built will be more artistic: and more use than the old one which is now being pulled down.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether he is sure of that? What authority has authorised the new bridge without being certain that it is going to be an improvement on the old one, both for the amenity of foot passengers and as being pleasing to toe public eye?
LORD AILWYN: My Lords, I should like to reinforce the point made by the noble Lord opposite. What is the actual reason for destroying a very lovely-looking old bridge and replacing it with a modern structure of dreary cement?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I would refer both noble Lords to the statement which my right honourable friend made in another place in April, 1956, when he invited the views of Members of another place about the demolition of this bridge and the erection of a new one. In fact, a model of the new bridge was displayed in the Members' tea room in another place, and after the model had, no doubt, been carefully examined, the response to my right honourable friend's statement clearly favoured the erection of the new bridge.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, may I, with respect, ask whether it is not the fact that the old bridge which is now being demolished was erected by the great Duke of Wellington and, therefore, is of great historic importance? Would it not have been appropriate that something should have been placed in one of the tea rooms of your Lordships' House, as well as merely in a tea room in another place? I should also like to reinforce the query which has been raised as to what is the authority for the demolition of the old bridge.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, may I just add this comment to what has been said about the bridge? I walk across this bridge sometimes. I have never found any difficulty in walking across it. It gives one great pleasure to watch the ducks, and occasionally to feed them. I feel that we shall lose a great amenity in walking through the Park if we lose this bridge.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, let me assure my noble friend Lord Teviot that he will be able to look at
438
the clucks and to feed the ducks just as well from the new bridge as from the old one.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether he is aware that, before the First War, some of us in the House of Commons defeated a proposal which was brought forward in connection with a memorial to King Edward VII to straighten out the winding paths on each side of the bridge? That proposal would have had the effect of virtually separating this lovely little Park into two parts. And can the noble Earl give us an assurance that no such vandalistic scheme as that is in contemplation?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords. I seem to have got myself into enough trouble by merely answering the noble Lord who first asked the Question about the new bridge in St. James's Park. I can assure the noble Viscount that, so far as my knowledge goes, there is no intention whatever of altering in any way the footpaths leading to the bridge.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, may I point out that the noble Earl has still not answered the question which has been put to him from more than one quarter of the House. In view of the fact that this work is being done, apparently, without any consultation or discussion in this House, formal or informal, what is the authority under which this historic monument is being destroyed?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I would not for one moment regard this bridge as an historic monument. In any event, my right honourable Friend, as I have said, explained the position in the statement which he made in another place in April, 1956, and he had the concurrence of the Members of that House in the project for the erection of a new bridge.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, with great respect to the noble Earl and with great respect to another place, what the noble Earl has just said does not answer the questions that noble Lords have raised in this House. Surely we have the right to know under whose authority the old bridge is being demolished and what the new bridge is going to be? Is it going to be constructed

439
of reinforced concrete? Has any design been submitted to noble Lords in this House? After all, this House is still a part of Parliament.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, the answer is clearly what I think every noble Lord knows. My right honourable friend the Minister of Works is responsible for the upkeep of the Royal Parks.
LORD KILLEARN: May I intervene at this point to remind the noble Earl that we have not yet been told why the old bridge is being destroyed.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I suppose I ought to make my apologies to the House because that statement was not made in this House, but I am afraid that I was not aware at the time that it was being made in another place. But I do not think that that really apportions blame entirely to the Government. This matter was public property. A statement was made in another place, and it was open to any noble Lord at that time to ask a Question in this House. No noble Lord did ask a Question, so I do not think that the Government are entirely to blame.
LORD WINSTER: My Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess whether this is not part of the settled procedure nowadays for the destruction of things which are old and beautiful and of historic interest?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Of course any noble Lord can have his own opinion about the old bridge. I think it was an interesting bridge. It is true. I think—at least so far as my memory serves me—that it was put up by the great Duke of Wellington. But it was put up, I understand, in order that troops, and even cannon, might be moved across it in case of civil disturbance, and not because it was a beautiful bridge.
LORD REA: My Lords, in view of what has been said in this House to-day, would the noble Earl consider asking his right honourable friend to abandon the proposal for building the new bridge and to retain the old one?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, the new bridge is now actually in course of erection, and the old bridge is in course of rapid demolition.
LORD GLYN: My Lords, may I ask whether the new bridge has been approved by the Royal Fine Art Commission?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I am afraid that I should require to have notice of that question. If my recollection serves me correctly, I think the position was that while the Royal Fine Art Commission would have liked to retain the old bridge, they did, in point of fact, approve the new one.

PUBLIC HEALTH OFFICERS (DEPUTIES) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

MAGISTRATES' COURTS BILL [H.L.]
2.50 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD AILWYN in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Plea of guilty in absence of accused
1.—(1) This section shall apply where a summons has been issued requiring a person to appear before a magistrates' court, other than a juvenile court, to answer to an information for a summary offence, not being—

(a) an offence which is also triable on indictment; or

(b) an offence for which the accused is liable to be sentenced to be imprisoned for a term exceeding three months,

and the clerk of the court is notified by or on behalf of the prosecutor that the accused has been served, together with the summons, with—

(i) a notice containing such statement of the effect of this section as may be prescribed; and

(ii) a concise statement in the prescribed form of such facts relating to the charge as will be placed before The court by or on behalf of the prosecutor if the accused pleads guilty without appearing before the court.

(2)
(iii) if the court convicts the accused in his absence under this subsection, the court

441
shall not without adjourning ender the said subsection (3) sentence him to any term of imprisonment or to any other form of detention, or order him to be subject to any disqualification.
LORD MERTHYR LORD MERTHYR moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "other than a juvenile court,". The noble Lord said: This is a Bill which I welcomed very much when it was introduced, and I still think that, though small, it is an excellent Bill. There is, however, one feature of it, which was mentioned on Second Reading, which I regret: it does riot carry out the recommendation of the Departmental Committee that the Bill should apply, not to children but to young persons. It is true that on Second Reading the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, said the reason was that the Government wish the matter to be left to the Ingleby Committee, who are at present considering the whole position of the law and juvenile courts. I do not find that statement a very convincing one, because the fact is that this Departmental Committee, the Sharpe Committee, affirmatively recommended that this Bill should apply to young persons.
If your Lordships will permit me, I will read a sentence from, first of all, paragraph 48 of the Report:
"We see difficulty in denying to a young person, who may be earning and contributing to the support of a family, the privilege of being allowed to plead guilty without appearing before the court, a privilege which would be enjoyed by somebody over seventeen."
Then again, in paragraph 49, the Committee say:
"We think that there are few cases in which the prosecution would wish the new procedure to be applicable to young persons, or in which a juvenile court would be willing to deaf with a case in the defendant's absence."
Here, may I say that I entirely agree with the Committee. I think that the number of cases in which the new procedure would be applied to young persons is few. It would not be applied to cases in which young persons are charged with offences involving dishonesty. The sort of case I have in mind, which I gave on Second Reading, is that of a lad of sixteen summoned for riding a bicycle without a light, particularly if he was accompanied at the time by a man over seventeen committing a similar offence. It seems to me that it would be a bit hard that the procedure should he different as between the two, one perhaps just under seventeen and the other just over seventeen.
When it is borne in mind, as it must be, that the whole of this procedure is entirely voluntary; that it cannot be brought into force at all unless the prosecution elect that it shall be; and, further, that even if the prosecution so elect, it cannot be used unless the court decides that it should be, it seems to me that this Bill might well be applied to young persons. I should make it plain that if this Amendment is accepted, there would have to be a consequential Amendment to make clear that it would not apply to children. I feel that it is right that this matter should be raised again on Committee stage because I am sure that your Lordships will agree that if the Government mould a Bill on the Report of a Committee and then deliberately ignore one of the recommendations of the Committee—though I admit that they are entitled to do so—I think it needs an explanation, and I was not quite satisfied with the explanation made on Second Reading. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 7, leave out (" other than a juvenile court,").—(Lord Merthyr.)
LORD WINSTER: I should like to support the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr. As he said, if the Amendment were passed, it would allow the new procedure to be used in juvenile courts for such offences as riding a bicycle without lights or with inefficient brakes. At the present time, in many juvenile courts defendants in minor cases do not attend but send a letter, and after the case has been proved, they are dealt with in their absence. This is more especially the case where these junior defendants have left school and are at work, in which case attendance would mean the loss of a day's work. Another advantage I find in the Amendment is that the use of the new procedure in such cases would relieve police officers of the necessity of attending court. I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, whether it is not the case that if the words in Clause 1 were deleted, as he proposes, it would also be necessary to delete similar words in Clause 3, so as to bring the whole procedure within the ambit of the juvenile courts
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILKUIR): My noble friend Lord Merthyr has stated with complete frankness that, while the Bill does not go so

443
far as the Sharpe Committee's Report, his Amendment as it stands at the moment goes further than the Report. Of course, I came here to face the Amendment as it stands on the Order Paper, and I think that, as the Amendment is in this form, we ought to consider the question fully and get the sense of your Lordships upon it. My noble friend limits this to the elder class of juveniles and cuts out children. I think he will appreciate that there would be considerable difficulty in applying this procedure to children. I am sure that your Lordships will think that there is something incongruous about allowing a child to be dealt with in his absence by a criminal court, even for one of the type of offences which my noble friend mentioned.
But the major difficulty, which I should like my noble friend Lord Merthyr to consider, and my noble friend Lord Winster also to bear in mind, is to reconcile the application of the new procedure to juveniles with certain provisions of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933. These provisions were not mentioned by the Departmental Committee in their Report. As my noble friend will remember, because I am sure he has had to deal with this point often, Section 34 of the 1933 Act provides that:
." Where a child or young person is charged with any offence or is for any other reason brought before a court, his parent or guardian may in any case, and shall if he can he found and resides within a reasonable distance, be required to attend at the court…unless the court is satisfied that it would be unreasonable to require his attendance."
I think that my noble friend would agree that this section clearly envisages that a juvenile charged with any offence shall be present at the hearing and that the parent shall normally be present as well; and I think that my noble friend will also agree that any change in that policy should be brought about only by a measure dealing with juvenile courts and not by a side wind.
If I may now take my noble friend twenty-one sections further on, Section 55 of the Act of 1933 provides that, instead of imposing a fine, damages or costs on a juvenile,
"…the court may…and shall if the offender is a child, order that the fine, damages, or costs awarded he paid by the parent or guardian…unless the court is satisfied that
444
the parent or guardian cannot be found or that he has not conduced to the commission of the offence by neglecting to exercise due care of the child or young person."
It is further provided that an order to this effect may be made against a parent or guardian who, having been required to attend, has failed to do so, but that in all other circumstances
"no such order shall be made without giving the parent or guardian an opportunity of being heard."
If the procedure of this Bill were to be applicable to juveniles, it would be necessary to require that notice of the various documents which are to be sent to the defendant be served also on the parent or guardian; and unless the parent had been required to attend, and had failed to do so—and such a requirement itself would be incongruous where a juvenile had been told that he, the juvenile, need not attend—the court would have to adjourn after conviction to give the parent an opportunity to attend and make out a case against being ordered to pay a fine, and so on. Alternatively, the parent might be allowed, on receipt of the documents, to submit in writing his reasons for not being required to pay the fine. But whichever method was adopted, a more extensive modification of the Bill would be required than is provided for by this Amendment. That is a serious point, and, in the case of juveniles, I think it creates a difficulty which has to be faced.
As I have said, the Departmental Committee, in the paragraphs to which my noble friend Lord Merthyr referred, recommend that this procedure should apply to young persons, but they make no recommendation with regard to children. I agree with my noble friend that there are unlikely to be many cases in which it would apply, and I think that in a great many of these cases it would be a good thing if the juvenile was brought before the court in order to realise the importance of the offence. There is the other point, to which my noble friend referred: that the Ingleby Committee has been set up to inquire into and make recommendations on the working of the law in England and Wales relating to proceedings and the powers of the courts in respect of juveniles brought before the courts as delinquent, or in need of care, and so on; and a number of other sections of its terms of reference are, I am sure, well known to my noble friend. The three years that I spent at the Home

445
Office made me most interested in the workings of juvenile courts. I think they have done a great job, and without in any way wishing to prejudice the position of the Committee, I do not think anyone who has had much to do with the work of juvenile courts would take a contrary view. But I do think there is something to be said—I do not say this in any delaying way; I merely ask your Lordships to consider it—for not pre-judging any alteration in juvenile court procedure and for awaiting the Report of the Ingleby Committee.
As my noble friend said, I do not think this will affect a great many offences. I do riot like standing by calculations on a point as difficult as this, but I should be surprised if it affected more than something between 1 and 2 per cent. of the offences otherwise within the Bill. We must remember that the main purpose of the Bill is to save the time of witnesses. The third point that I to my noble friend is the point that I have raised about the technical difficulties concerned with the provisions of the Act of 1933. I think we are all agreed that the Amendment as it stands would not be enough in itself. What I suggest is that my noble friend Lord Merthyr should withdraw his Amendment at this stage, and that he should, if he will be so good, apply his mind to the difficulties I have raised with regard to the Act of 1933. I, in turn, will apply my mind to the real purpose of his Amendment, which is to exclude children and to try to do something for young persons between the ages of fourteen and seventeen. It is a difficult point, and I hope that my noble friend may think that this is a reasonable way of considering the difficulties with which we are faced.
LORD MERTHYR: I have no hesitation in concurring with the suggestion that has fallen from the noble and learned Viscount, and I shall certainly withdraw this Amendment. As I think I indicated, I never had any intention of applying it to children. However, I must confess that I had not realised all the difficulties that would arise because of the terms of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933. I am grateful to the Lord Chancellor, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MERTHYR LORD MERTHYR moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "the clerk of the court is notified by or on behalf of the prosecutor that." The noble Lord said: Thy words which I propose should be left out of this Bill seem to me on the face of it unnecessary. It appears that this is simply a piece of unnecessary machinery. I want this Bill, which, as I have said before, I think is a good one, to be a simple one and one that is easily worked, because it has to be worked by the clerks and magistrates in nearly a thousand courts up and down the country. The words which I want to leave out are,
"the clerk of the court is notified by or on behalf of the prosecutor."
It is simply a compulsory notification which must happen in every single case in which this Bill is operated It seems to me—and I may say that this has been pointed out to me from at least two entirely independent sources—that that little piece of machinery is really redundant or unnecessary.
It may be asked: "If this Amendment is made, how will the clerk of the court get to know that there has been a service?" The answer surely is that he will hear from the defendant himself or from his solicitor. Could we not so arrange it that it should be presumed that if the clerk hears from the defendant or his solicitor, he should be entitled to assume that the service has been duly effected? That is all there is in the point. I am not moving the Amendment because I think the words are objectionable, but simply because, as I said, I think they are unnecessary, and, being unnecessary, they will take up a little time that may be spared. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 12, leave out from (" and ") to the first (" the ") in line 13.—(Lord Merthyr.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is purely a utilitarian Amendment, as I understand my noble friend, and did it meet the situation entirely I should accept it without any difficulty at all. But I am not sure that it does. The Amendment would have the effect that the prosecutor would not be required to notify the clerk of the court that the accused had been served, together with a summons, with the notice containing the prescribed statement of the effect of Clause 1 of the Bill, and the concise statement of the facts relating

447
to the charge which will be put before the court if the accused pleads guilty without appearing. In the normal case, where the accused uses the form which will accompany the notice sent to him, the clerk of the court will know, from receiving this form, that the prosecution are content that the Bill procedure shall apply and have sent the necessary documents to the accused, which, of course, is a very important matter. But the defendant, human nature being what it is, may easily spoil the form—one knows how easily this may happen—and send in his plea by ordinary letter. Or he may, in any event, prefer to send a letter instead of the form, since he is not obliged to use the form, and no doubt letters purporting to be pleas of guilty and advancing mitigating circumstances will continue to be sent, as they are at present, in some cases in which the defendant has not been given the option of pleading guilty in absence under the new procedure.
This is the difficulty as I see it. When the clerk received such a letter, he would not know, if the Amendment were accepted, whether the case was one to which Clause 1 (1) applied, because he would have no means of knowing whether the defendant had been served with the documents required to be served on him before the new procedure can operate. I think my noble friend will see what that would entail. If the clerk did not have this information, he would not know whether to put the case in the non-witness list. I think my noble friend will agree that it is likely that all cases within the Bill will be heard in a batch, either before or after the witness cases, or by a separate Bench, and it would be difficult to arrange the court business in the most efficient manner.
That is the difficulty that I see, and my noble friend will appreciate that the position we are dealing with here is the notification that the documents have been served on the accused. It is important that the court should know that, and I do not think that without this procedure the court can be certain and can arrange to take full advantage of the provisions of the Bill. If my noble friend sees an answer to that objection, I shall be pleased to consider it. That seems to me to be the practical difficulty, and if my noble friend agrees there is something in it, perhaps he would like to consider the
448
matter again. We have both the same objective, which is to get the Bill to work as speedily and as equitably as possible.
LORD MERTHYR: I am bound to confess that I am still not quite happy about this matter. Perhaps I should have said this before, but may I point out to your Lordships how the Bill would read if this Amendment were passed? Going back to line 5, it would read:
"This section shall apply where…"
then, in line 13—
"the accused has been served…"
Now that is a question of fact, and the court would have to be satisfied that the accused had been served. In the same way as now, if the defendant does not appear, the court have to be satisfied as a matter of fact that the summons has been served. I should have thought that that was sufficient, and that it was not necessary to go on to say not merely that the court must be satisfied that the accused has been served, but that a formal notification has been sent to the clerk to that effect.
I will certainly pay great attention to what the noble and learned Viscount has said, but although I do not wish to press this point, I still think there could be a useful simplification if this Amendment, or something like it, were passed. If I withdraw this Amendment, as I certainly will, perhaps the noble and learned Viscount will consider just a little further whether it would not be sufficient if the court had to be satisfied that, in fact, the accused had been served. I leave it at that for the moment, and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.16 p.m.
LORD MERTHYR LORD MERTHYR moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "together" and insert "simultaneously". The noble Lord said: The noble and learned Viscount may say at once that my word means the same as the word in the Bill, but I would say that quite a number of people have independently made the point that they are not satisfied that the words, "together with" mean, "simultaneously with" or, "at the same time as". This is another case where everybody wants the same thing there is no dispute about what is required. I suppose the draftsman might not agree, but other people might, that the words, "together with"

449
are capable of ambiguity. It may be that they have crept into the language in such a form that people use the words, "together with" without meaning them absolutely strictly—without meaning "simultaneously". In fact, they may mean simply, "with". The point is as simple as that. If the noble and learned Viscount can give me an assurance that the words, "together with" mean the same as "simultaneously"—in other words, that the notice must be served at the same time as the summons—that will go a long way to meet my point. But I justify this intervention by saying that several minds besides my own have raised this doubt. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 13, leave out (" together ") and insert (" simultaneously ").—(Lord Merthyr.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is a logical philosophical and psychological refinement which presents me with the very greatest difficulty. May I refer the noble Lord to another paraphrase? The Departmental Committee recommended that the statements of facts should be served on the amused "along with" the summons. I think my noble friend will find that in paragraph 41 of the Report. As he will remember, they did not consider that separate proof of the service of the statements of fact and the summons would be necessary. That is the position. I have honestly tried to see whether I could find any difference between, "together with" and, "simultaneously", but I have not been able to find any—except this. I suppose that, in a land of high fantasy, if someone had read one document first you might have a sort of argument as to whether there was true simultaneity, but I do not think my noble friend is really thinking of points of that kind. So far as the actual receipt of the documents by the accused is concerned, I cannot find any difference. Whether, in these circumstances, it was my proper course to accept the Amendment or to stand by the Bill I was in grave doubt; but I thought that, after all, if someone proposes a change, there is some onus on him to show that the change makes a difference. Therefore I should prefer the original draft. I cannot myself see any difference at all.
LORD MERTHYR: I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for saying that he cannot see any difference.
450
That will comfort a number of people who have raised this point, but I was wondering, if only because people are doubtful, whether there would be any harm in making this change. If it be a fact, as appears to be the case, that people do understand "simultaneously" and do not understand "together with", would there really be any harm in putting in the word? I will leave it at that for the moment. Perhaps the noble and learned Viscount will be good enough to think it over before the Report stage.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Certainly.
LORD MERTHYR: In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.22 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CIBLWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CIBLWORTH moved, in subsection (2), to acid to proviso (iii):
"or order him to pay a fine in excess of five pounds."
The noble Lord said: May I preface my remarks on this Amendment by saying how delighted I personally am to see the noble and learned Viscount in charge of the Bill at this particular moment, when the series of Amendments down in my name will appear before your Lordships for discussion. I say that because I am very conscious still, if he will permit me to say so with respect, of the most distinguished part he played in the discussions we had in this House in 1956 on the Road Traffic Bill which did so much to strengthen the law upon traffic offences. The noble Viscount may think it rather incongruous that I should have this Amendment upon the Order. Paper, but may I assure him that it is put down purely for the purpose of interrogation, and I do not intend to press it.
The reason I put it down is a simple one. Your Lordships will remember that under the Road Traffic Act, 1956, by and large the penalties for road offences were stepped up to practically double. With that I have no quarrel whatsoever, but when one comes to think what the maximum penalties can be in the future, and what the average penalties have been up to now, I think perhaps it may be advisable for the Home Office to give some direction to the magistrates as to how to lighten the initial load. I have no fixed

451
ideas upon this matter. I should like to have the opinion of the Committee and of the noble and learned Viscount.
This Bill seeks to do something which we all agree is advisable. It seeks to ease the burden of police power. It seeks to bring into the law of this country the novelty of being able to get over the overcrowding of magistrates' courts for road offences. As I said on Second Reading, it is a compromise by the Government, and I think perhaps a very wise compromise, between having specific traffic courts, on the one hand, and fining on the spot, on the other. And so the prosecuted can plead guilty and be dealt with, up to a point, by the magistrates' court if a plea of guilty is put in without either the defendant or the prosecutor appearing before the magistrates. I say "up to a point", because if your Lordships will look at proviso (iii) of subsection (2) of Clause 1, you will see that
"if the court convicts the accused in his absence under this subsection, the court shall not without adjourning under the said subsection (3) sentence him to any term of imprisonment or to any other form of detention, or order him to be subject to any disqualification."
So, broadly speaking, the magistrates cannot inflict a penalty which involves disqualification upon a motorist unless the court is adojurned for the purpose of the motorist or the alleged offender being present. But, under the Act of 1956, the court may impose a penalty up to, I think I am right in saying (the noble and learned Viscount will correct me if I am wrong) a monetary fine of £40, whereas, before, the average fine for a similar offence was something in the region of £5, without disqualification in his absence.
I am wondering whether the magistrates' court should not be given some indication by the Home Office that some discretion should be used in this matter, and that, if they feel that anywhere near the maximum fine should be inflicted, they should exercise their right to adjourn the court so that the prosecuted individual has the opportunity of attending if he so desires. In many cases up to now the poor individual has written a letter to the magistrates' court pleading guilty, more often than not thinking that it is far cheaper to plead guilty than to pay the railway fare to the
452
court—a process which has been profitable in the past, though it may be far from profitable in the future. Until it is generally recognised throughout this country that the infliction of these penalties by the magistrates is real, and that in future a defendant will not be able to get away with writing a very polite letter to the court pleading guilty, so escaping with a fine of a few shillings; until that sinks into the minds of the vast number of motoring public in this country. I think it would be advisable for the Home Office to give some directions to the magistrates' courts as to how they are to deal with these cases. I have no strong feelings upon this Amendment. Perhaps the weighty words of the noble and learned Viscount in reply to me may do as much good as this Amendment could ever do. As the noble and learned Viscount has made some very weighty pronouncements in the past, during the passage of the Road Traffic Act, on this question of penalties for road offences, I thought I would seize the opportunity of elaborating the reason why I put down this Amendment, now that the House has the great advantage of having the noble and learned Viscount here to answer. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 47, at end insert (" or order him to pay a fine in excess of five pounds.").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
LORD WINSTER: I fear that I am not quite clear about the reason behind this Amendment. It is of course, quite open to my noble friend to say that he can only give me his reasons, and that he cannot give me the wits to appreciate them. The noble Lord has quite correctly quoted the words of proviso (iii) of subsection (2) of Clause The words which the noble Lord now seeks to add to this proviso are:
"or order him to pay a fine in excess of five pounds."
It seems to me that to do this would mean that, although the court had convicted the accused, its powers of penalty would be limited to £5 unless the magistrates adjourned the case. That would surely be detrimental to the working of this Bill. In many cases, at the present time, a penalty exceeding £5 is inflicted in the defendant's absence. If this clause were amended in the way proposed, this might possibly influence magistrates to

453
keep the penalty down to £5, in order to avoid adjourning the case and the particular magistrates coming to court again on the adjourned hearing.
I fully appreciate that under the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952, the magistrates who inflict the penalty need not be the same as those who convicted. I feel sure that the noble and learned Viscount will agree that in practice it is most desirable that the magistrates who have convicted should, if possible, also deal with the question of penalty. If the Amendment were accepted, for example in a case of first or second conviction for exceeding the speed limit, where the justices thought that owing to the circumstances of the case the penalty should be in excess of £5, they would have to adjourn the matter. Alternatively, they would have to keep the fine down to one of £5 or less. Thuse are the reasons why, to my personal regret, feel unable to support the Amendment proposed by my noble friend.
LORD MERTHYR: I, too, should like to say that I hope that this Amendment not be accepted.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I did not intend it to be.
LORD MERTHYR: I think that the noble Lord, Lord Winster, has put his finger on the right place. There is, of course, real danger that benches of magistrates might be tempted to keep the fine down to £5 in order to avoid an adjournment. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, may say that the same thing applies the case of disqualification or imprisonment. I think he raised that particular point on Second Reading—and it is a very real point. It cannot be denied that, if this Bill goes through, there must be a temptation to reduce the penalty in order to avoid adjournments. I, for one, hope and think that that temptation will be resisted; but to deny that it exists is quite unrealistic. Therefore, I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Winster, who made that point. But when it comes to a fine, or the amount of the fine, which is purely a question of degree, it seems to me that the danger will be increased, and there will surely be some cases in which a fine of £5 would be imposed in order to avoid an adjournment; whereas if the Amendment had not been passed, as I hope it will not be, the fine might have been £10.
454
It the noble Lord, Lore Lucas of Chilworth, will allow me to say so, it comes a little strangely to hear him moving this Amendment, which will undoubtedly be for the benefit of defendants, and in particular of motorists. Yet, if I remember aright, it was not many months ago that he was proposing a minimum fine of £50 for dangerous driving, a proposal which nobody could accept and which had never been heard before. Be that as it may, may I just say that I think the wording of this proviso is just right as it stands. I think it is reasonable that, before a court disqualifies or sends a man to prison, it should insist on his being present at an adjourned hearing. But when it comes to a fine, the position is different. After all, a man who is charged, let us say with a motoring offence, and who pleads guilty, expects to be fined. All too often, what he does not expect is to go to prison or to be disqualified. Sometimes he is greatly surprised when either of those two things happens; but he is not a bit surprised if he is fined. Therefore, I see no harm at all in rendering him liable to a fine of more than £5 without insisting on his presence.
There is just one further point. I am the last person to say that we should not adjourn cases. On the contrary, time and tame again I have said that magistrates should adjourn more cases than they do. But we should all remember that circumstances are a great deal different in small country courts from those in London. In rural districts there are a great number of courts which sit only once a month, and where to adjourn means at least one month's delay. That is very different from a metropolitan court, where a case can be adjourned until two days hence, and the defendant has only to pay a bus fare in order to attend court. It may he absolutely different in the country, where a man may have to come twenty miles and may have to wait a month before he does so. For those reasons, I venture to hope that this Amendment will not be passed.
LORD SILKIN: Before the learned and noble Viscount replies, I feel that my noble friend has raised a question which requires some consideration. It may be that £5 is too low a figure, but both my noble friend Lord Winster and the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, have

455
addressed themselves much more to the fact that a maximum fine of £5 without attendance might induce the magistrates to impose that fine in order to avoid the need for adjourning the case. But they have not addressed themselves to the dilemma which my noble friend put forward, the case where a person writes and pleads guilty in the belief that, as it is his first offence, and possibly not a serious one, it is much cheaper to plead guilty by sending a letter, and risk the sort of fine that one expects, rather than to attend court.
If, however, the fine is anything of the order of £40 it becomes rather a different matter, and those involved are leaving themselves entirely in the hands of the court, who may not have the opportunity of hearing any extenuating circumstances. Of course, the person concerned has pleaded guilty, and that is the end of it. But there may be extenuating circumstances. After all, this is not the case of dangerous driving; it is the case of a first offender and careless driving. I hope that the noble and learned Viscount will find some way by which, if the fine is intended to be much heavier than a person might reasonably anticipate, or can afford, such a person should be afforded the opportunity of stating his case by way of extenuation.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I hope that, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, suggested, the words that I speak in reply to this Amendment may meet his purpose, which I fully appreciate. I think it would be useful for that reason if I quoted the words in the Report from which we began consideration of this matter—I quote from paragraph 45:
"We have already recommended above (paragraphs 33 and 34) that, before a court decides to impose imprisonment or order disqualification for holding a driving licence, it should first be required to adjourn the case and summon the defendant to attend. We think that the courts will also adjourn, and summon the defendant, where they have it in mind to impose a large fine, or where they regard it as desirable to have information about his means. That being so, we consider that there is no need to require that the defendant should be informed of the maximum penalty to which he will be liable if convicted."
I think it will be useful if I say to-day that I entirely approve of what is suggested in paragraph 45. And I believe
456
that I am not being immodest in thinking that magistrates will pay attention to that as a suggestion from me—which, of course, is all that I can make.
We all agree on the difficulties that have been put forward in regard to this matter. The Committee suggested two considerations; one, where a large fine was to be imposed; and the second, where it was regarded as desirable to have information about the means of a defendant. I should like first to say a word on the second consideration, because it is important that your Lordships should have that in mind. Section 31 (1) of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952, requires a magistrates' court, in fixing the amount of the fine, to:
"take into consideration among other things the means of the person on whom the fine is imposed so far as they appear or are known to the court ".
One knows from experience in these courts that in many cases knowledge of a defendant's means may be derived from a letter which he has sent to the court or from the facts of the case, or from the police after conviction. That happens constantly, and in a great number of cases it works all right.
There may well be a case, however, where the court is doubtful about the means of a defendant. I want to make it quite clear that I am giving my view that in proper circumstances that, also, may prove a reason for an adjournment. I wish to make that clear. I am sure noble Lords will appreciate that the courts will be in exactly the same position under this procedure. There is no alteration here with which we have to deal. I wish to make clear first that I entirely endorse the suggestion of the Committee and to express the strong hope that magistrates will abide by it. I am rather doubtful about the imposition of a limit. Two points have to be borne in mind. We all agree that this Bill meets a great need, for there has been a great waste of police time and defendants' time in consequence of defendants' being kept about the court while police give evidence in other cases, although the facts are not really in dispute at all. This Bill is a good one and it would be a pity to endanger it by encouraging too many adjournments; for if there are too many the purpose of the Bill is ipso facto defeated.

457
A second point has been made by two noble Lords and indeed was made perfectly clear by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, in introducing his Amendment. He said he was not wedded to the figure of £5 and had put that amount as an exploratory basis for the remarks that he had to make. I think he would agree that £5 would be too low and might have the effect which I know very well he is the last person to desire—that Benches would not impose a proper penalty for a road traffic offence because of the difficulties which an adjournment might cause. I should prefer, therefore, to leave the matter fluid and to make it mandatory that there should be an adjournment in the case of imprisonment or disqualification; but that in regard to the line we should leave the position as I have suggested, with these remarks of mine on record as to the course which I desire magistrates to pursue. If your Lordships would leave it like that, I believe it would meet the situation. If, on consideration, your Lordships have any doubt and would like to get in touch with me, I shall be very pleased to discuss the matter.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: With his very clear perception, the noble and learned Viscount seizes my point immediately, and had I written every word of what he has said I could have said nothing better to suit my own purpose. That was the only reason at all why I raised the question. I thought of putting not £5 but 1s. and I prefaced my remarks by saying that I did not propose to press the Amendment but had put it down only for the purpose of trying to tempt the noble and learned Viscount to say precisely what he has said—that magistrates, before they invoke the increased penalties under the 1956 Act, must "temper the wind to the shorn lamb", the shorn lamb being the defendant of very moderate means who may be fined £40 "out of the blue" when his past experience is perhaps that all his friends have got off with a fine of £5.
458
May I say to the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, who is Chairman of the Magistrates' Association, that I am surprised that he should fall into the trap of quoting against me what I said in the case of dangerous driving. This has nothing to do with dangerous driving. In all questions of dangerous driving where there is suspension of licence involved, there must be an adjournment. I am quoting the fact that a fine can be imposed without any of the penalties set out in the clause to which I am addressing myself, so that there need be no adjournment at all. My power of exposition must be getting very weak, because neither the noble Lord, Lord Winster, nor the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, seized upon my argument, which I am very glad the noble and learned Viscount seized upon immediately.
To take this matter one stage further before I withdraw the Amendment, may I suggest that the words which the noble and learned Viscount has just uttered be conveyed by the appropriate authorities to the benches of magistrates? That was my purpose. Because unfortunately the Press do not seem to be much interested in this Bill that widely affects the welfare of three million people in this country; and the only means by which to bring it to the notice of magistrates is via the machinery of the Home Office. Perhaps a copy of what the noble and learned Viscount has said could be addressed to all Benches. I feel sure that not only the administration of the Bill would benefit. I agree that the acceptance of any Amendment like mine would nullify the whole purpose of the Bill, its purpose being to enable summary and petty offences to be dealt with summarily and without full expense on both sides. I put the Amendment down to get that point established and to make it clear beyond any doubt. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
House resumed.

REMUNERATION OF DOCTORS AND DENTISTS
4.0 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the business of the House, but I thought it would be the wish of your Lordships that I should intervene to make a statement on the Royal Commission on Remuneration of Doctors and Dentists which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in answer to questions there. It is as follows:
" The Queen has been pleased to approve the appointment as Chairman of the Commission of Sir Harry Pilkington. With permission, I will circulate the names of the other members of the Commission in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I will, if I may, recapitulate the main events that have led up to the appointment of the Commission. Last June a claim was submitted for an increase of not less than 24 per cent. in the remuneration of doctors in the National Health Service. Apart from the very large sum involved the Government felt that the claim raised important questions of principle which required further investigation. They therefore concluded that the general interest, including that of the professions concerned, would be best served by calling in the advice of an independent body. It would perhaps be convenient to restate the terms of reference:—
'To consider—

(a) How the levels of professional remuneration from all sources now received by doctors and dentists taking any part in the National Health Service compare with the remuneration received by members of other professions, by other members of the medical and dental professions, and by people engaged in connected occupations;

(b) What, in the light of the foregoing, should be the proper current levels of remuneration of such doctors and dentists by the National Health Service;

(c) Whether, and if so what, arrangements should be made to keep that remuneration under review:

And to make recommendations.'
I have asked the Chairman to regard the work of the Commission as a matter of urgency.
"I have already explained that the appointment of the Commission does not preclude an interim adjustment in advance of and without prejudice to its recommendations. The Government have already decided to make such an adjustment without delay in the remuneration of junior hospital staff, both medical and dental, up to and including the grade of senior registrar, all of whose remuneration will be increased by 10 per cent. from April 1 next. We are also considering what should be done by way of an interim adjustment for the other doctors and dentists covered by the Commission's term of reference. I shall make a further statement on this matter in due course.
"The Government are convinced that this procedure is a fair and proper one. They are also confident that with good will on all sides it should result in the position of the medical and dental professions in the National Health Service being placed upon a mutually satisfactory and lasting basis."
Following are the names referred to:

Mrs. Kathleen Mary Carver Baxter.

Arthur Desmond Bonham-Carter, Esq.

John Henry Gunlake, Esq., C.B.E., F.I.A., F.S.S., F.I.S.

Professor John Jewkes, C.B.E.

Ian Donald McIntosh, Esq.

Sir David Hughes Parry, Q.C.

Sir Hugh Watson.

Samuel Watson, Esq., C.B.E.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, we are, of course, much obliged to the noble Marquess the Leader of the House for his courtesy in giving us a repeat of the statement made in another place. Do I understand that this statement was made by the Prime Minister or by the Minister in charge?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: By the Prime Minister.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS BOROUGH: That is interesting, because we understood that a deputation from the doctors was received in the course of the last few days by the Prime Minister. I was wondering whether this statement was couched in the light of that interview. I hope very much that the inquiry will be successful in bringing understanding and

461
peace to these professional men who have served the State and the nation at large so well. I still do not understand, looking at the terms of reference, what is the reason for this delay in dealing with the matter and why the Commission is necessary. There is nothing here really which was not covered by the details of the Report of the Spens Committee, I suppose it is no use saying anything further, however, for now that the Government have made up their minds they will not move in the matter. But I should have thought that the Spens Committee, with a legal chairman with great legal experience, could have dealt with these persons, as they did in their Report, at least as ably as a Commission of this sort.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: As the noble Viscount is probably aware, the Government have decided that they cannot accept the interpretation which the profession puts upon the Spens Committee's Report. It was thought, therefore, very important to have a completely impartial inquiry, so as to get a Report which would be satisfactory to all concerned.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: May I read this statement as meaning that instead of taking up the position of a few weeks ago—that no interim adjustment was possible except in respect of junior officers of hospital staffs—the Government have withdrawn from that position, and it is now possible to have an interim adjustment for anyone concerned in the profession?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: If the noble Viscount will refer to the statement he will see what the position is. I would refer him to the sentence:
"We are also considering what should be done by way of an interim adjustment for the other doctors and dentists covered by the Commission's terms of reference."
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: "Considering what should be done "—that means something or nothing.

MAGISTRATES' COURTS BILL [H.L.]
House again in Committee.
4.5 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved to add to subsection (3):
"Service of a notice of adjournment shall be effected in accordance with the requirements of Rule 76 of the Magistrates' Courts Rules, 1952, applicable to the service of a summons."
The noble Lord said: As I mentioned when speaking on the last Amendment, this Bill brings in a somewhat new procedure, and in my view, there is one serious omission from it. A magistrates' court cannot, without giving notice to the defendant and requesting his presence before the court, send hint to prison or any other form of detention or order him to be subject to any disqualification. He cannot have any disqualification of his driving licence unless he has been notified by the magistrates' court that he has been found guilty and that he must go to the court for the purpose of receiving sentence. But in the Bill there is no machinery and no procedure for notifying the defendant of the adjournment—notice of the adjournment in this case being equally as important to the defendant as service of the original summons.
I have another Amendment following this one to revise the rules for the service of summons, but that does not alter the point that I tin now arguing, that in this Bill no procedure is laid down for the proper serving of a notice of adjournment. Perhaps the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor intends to tell me that it is taken for granted that in regard to notice of adjournment in these cases, the procedure shall be precisely the same as obtains in the serving of a summons. If he says that, I am quite satisfied. But if he does say that, might I suggest that it should be written into the Bill and then there can be no mistake about it? That is the simple case for the Amendment which I am moving. It is a procedural one and it is intended to safeguard the defendant. I am certain that the noble and learned Viscount is with me in desiring that the interests of the defendant shall be safeguarded at all points. I will not now mention the reason why I have put down this next Amendment. I will do that later. I now beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 13, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
LORD WINSTER: As I understand the Amendment, notice of the adjournment would have to be served in the same way as a summons—that is to say, by hand, personally, or by registered post. I understand that to be the purpose of the Amendment, and if that is so I think it would be a great improvement to the Bill and I strongly support it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Winster, as to the effect of the Amendment. The Amendment would have the effect that where a court adjourns, either because they decide not to accept the accused's written plea of guilty in his absence or because they have it in mind to impose imprisonment, detention or disqualification, or where they intend to impose a large fine or are in doubt about means, then notice of adjournment should be served, first, personally; secondly, by being left for the accused with some person at the last known address; or thirdly, by registered post. With regard to one of these cases the noble Lord's other Amendment "bites" later on.
Let me remind your Lordships that the general power of adjournment of magistrates' courts is contained in Section 14 of the 1952 Act, subsection (2) of which provides that the trial shall not be resumed
"unless the court is satisfied that the parties have had adequate notice thereof."
That is an important provision which should be borne in mind. But no method of service is prescribed in that section or in the Magistrates' Courts Rules. All that subsection (3) of Clause 1 of the Bill does is to require that the notice required by Section 14 (2) of the Magistrates' Courts Act shall, where a court adjourns by virtue of the provisions of the Bill, include notice of the reason for the adjournment, but makes no special provision for service.
The noble Lord has urged, and I see the force of it, that where a person has been encouraged, so to speak, by this Bill to keep away from the court and has to be brought to the court on another occasion, we ought to be careful about it. I have given thought to that point. Under Rule 76, if service is effected by registered post and the defendant fails to
464
appear, service may not be treated as proved unless it is proved that the summons came to the defendant's notice. If the service of a notice of adjournment had to be proved in the same manner, a defendant could prevent the court from proceeding in a case merely by refraining, either wilfully or negligently, from acknowledging the notice, and the court would be prevented by proviso (a) of Section 15 (2) of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952, from issuing a warrant of arrest in these circumstances. In other words, while admitting the difficulty which the noble Lord sees for the defendant, in that he is encouraged to keep away from the court and is now brought back, if we do this we are making it possible for a malevolent defendant to upset entirely the working of the court. That has been my difficulty in the matter.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: If I understand the noble and learned Viscount's argument, to prevent the abuse of the court by a malevolent offender, we are going to inflict injustice on those who do not fall into that category.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not think I am inflicting injustice, because I am maintaining the position as it exists already. May I remind the noble Lord of what I was relying on to prevent injustice—that is, the provision in Section 14 (2) of the Act, that the trial shall not be resumed
"unless the court is satisfied that the parties have had adequate notice thereof."
That is matter of fact, and a trial cannot be resumed unless the court is satisfied on that point. I am not submitting the defendant to any injustice, but, to put it frankly, I am not being as generous to the defendant as the noble Lord would have me be.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: What would "adequate notice" be? When a summons is issued, adequate notice is laid down under Rule 76. Here we have a case where the court must adjourn in the circumstances that are laid down in the Bill. If it is intended to send a man to prison or impose any restriction on his licence or, as the noble and learned Viscount said, a substantial fine, the court cannot do that without adjourning for him to be present. What does the noble and learned Viscount

465
consider to be adequate notice of adjournment, when nothing is laid down about it in the Bill?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord will appreciate that this is a situation which arises frequently at the moment. I will give examples of what I should accept as adequate notice if I were sitting in a magistrates' court. One would be that the offender was represented by a solicitor at the time the case was adjourned and it would be for the solicitor to inform him. Secondly, and I think this is the usual method, though the noble Lord, Lord Winster, will correct me if his experience is different, where an officer was sent round to say that the case had been adjourned to such-and-such a date and the officer saw the defendant. Thirdly, where the clerk of the court has sent a letter to the defendant to say that his case was adjourned to such-and-such a date. If ally one of these three things were proved, I should say that that was adequate notice.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am not worrying about the man who goes to court originally or about the man who is represented by a solicitor. I am worrying about the man who has written to court pleading guilty and has been persuaded not to attend by this Bill. In this case, what would be adequate notice that the court has adjourned and desires his attendance? If the noble and learned Viscount requires notice to be given, why not put it in the Bill? At present, there is no period of notice in the Bill. The noble and learned Viscount is relying on the words of another Act—namely that the court must be
"…satisfied that the parties have had adequate notice thereof."
But there is nothing in this Bill to say what constitutes adequate notice.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That is the point between us. I should prefer that to be left for the magistrates to say, as a question of fact, whether it was adequate notice in the circumstances. That might easily tell both ways. On one occasion they may say: "Clearly, the letter has been sent, and we have no reason to believe that he was not at the house, and that is adequate notice." On another occasion they may say that there was reason to suppose that he was not at the house, or that the evidence that he was at the house was shaky and they
466
wanted something more than that evidence; that he had been seen personally, or that someone had been to the house and found out whether he was still staying there. It is difficult across the Floor of the House to imagine all cases. Therefore I think there is something to be said for flexibility.
As I indicated, these Acts must be read together. We tried in the 1952 Act, when we consolidated, to get a code to work to, and that is why I referred to that Act. Of course, this Bill when it is an Act will be read together with these other Acts. Therefore I would ask the noble Lord to rest content with that at the moment, because there are a number of important reasons for which adjournments are given, apart from this one. It is a matter which courts have to take into account. It should be loth to disturb a flexible procedure which, on the whole, I think, has worked well, in favour of another, unless I had very good reason. I would ask the noble Lord, Lord. Lucas of Chilworth—he is always so ready in these matters—to consider what I have said to-day, and if he still feels doubt, if he will have a word with me I will, if necessary, get the people from the Home Office and we might consider it together. However, I think he will see that flexibility is quite a reasonable end in itself.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: am ever ready to meet the noble and learned Viscount, who is always so helpful. I am not going lo discuss this point further now, but will withdraw the Amendment. We shall then proceed to the next Amendment, which I think may have a bearing on the whole problem. So may I ask the noble and learned Viscount whether he, on his side, would also give close consideration, not only to the arguments I have now advanced, but to those I am about to advance on the next Amendment, because I think they are all tied up together.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I only want to tell the noble Lord, as we are discussing it in this friendly way, that on his next Amendment I shall put forward a procedural suggestion for his consideration to meet his point.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount, and ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.17 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, after subsection (3) to insert:
"(4) As from the date when this Act comes into operation the provisions of subparagraph 1 (b) of Rule 76 of the Magistrates' Courts Rules, 1952, shall cease to have effect."
The noble Lord said: This is a thorny problem. We now arrive at the stage where the magistrates have decided that they are going to inflict a penalty; either they have found a defendant guilty, or he has pleaded guilty, and it now becomes necessary for the previous convictions to be presented to the court. This is where I quarrel with the procedure laid down in Rule 76 of the Magistrates' Court Rules, 1952, which I have just mentioned. That Rule says:
"(1) Service of a summons issued by a justice of the peace on a person other than a corporation may be effected,
(a) by delivering it to the person to whom it is directed;"—
that is, physical delivery—

"(b) by leaving it for him with some person at his last known or usual place of abode; or

(c) by sending it by post in a registered letter addressed to him at his last known or usual place of abode."

To paragraphs (a) and (c) I have no objection but to paragraph (b) I have.
This matter relates to his previous convictions. They may be left with somebody who might open them—possibly his wife, who may be entirely ignorant of them; and they may date back to the time when he was a juvenile. Or his last known address may be that of his employer, who may open them. The Sharpe Committee did not like this procedure at all. I will not read out the whole of paragraph 55, at page 23 of their Report, because it goes into detail, but it starts:
"We think that special precaution should be taken to see that a defendant's previous convictions do not come to the notice of anyone other than the accused. This is one of the objections commonly raised to a system of the kind which we recommend."
Then they go on to say
"…we do not consider that the second of the three methods "—
that is, the one I mentioned to your Lordships as the one to which I object—
"of effecting the service of a summons which are prescribed by Rule 76 of the Magistrates' Courts Rules, 1952, namely, leaving it for the defendant with some person at his last known
468
or usual place of abode, should be a permissible way of effecting service of a notice of previous convictions. The proof of service would appear to be already covered by Rule 55 (2) of the Magistrates' Courts Rules, 1952."
What I say to cover that point is that the notice of the previous convictions should be sent to the defendant at the same time as the original summons. I think it would be helpful to him.
Suppose that a man receives a summons to appear at a certain court to answer a charge of careless driving, I think that at the same time he should receive a notice stating that, if he is convicted by the court, or if he pleads guilty and the plea is accepted, "these are the previous convictions which will be placed before the justices". I think that would help him to decide whether he should plead guilty or not guilty, because that would help him to assess, at the first stage of the proceedings, whether he is likely to receive a heavy or a light sentence. I think that is common justice, because nobody would know of his previous convictions other than the police, who issued the summons. The court would not know of the previous convictions, unless the police told them; and they would be very much out of order in so doing; but it would ensure that the defendant knew all the facts of the case that was going to be made against him, and that, I think, is an essential element of English justice. If, as the Bill reads at the present time, they are sent within seven days after the adjournment, they may be lost. If they are sent with the summons, then from the word "go" the man knows all the facts that are going to be put against him, because the statement of case has been sent to him and he knows that if the magistrates decide to convict on that statement, what are the offences that will be read out to the court before it passes sentence. I hope the noble and learned Viscount will consider that point.
There is one other point. As the noble and learned Viscount has already indicated, he may have some procedural suggestion to make. Although this is not strictly with my Amendment, it has a bearing on it. I suppose that the defendant will have to acknowledge receipt of the list of previous convictions, whether it comes with the summons or at any other time. I am rather apprehensive as to what form that receipt will take. I envisage that the list might not be an

469
accurate list. If he signs a receipt that it is a correct and proper list of his previous convictions, is there any obligation upon him to point out that it is not and that he has some more? That is rather a difficult position in which to put the defendant. If he does have to acknowledge receipt, I should like to ask for an assurance that he is not going to be trapped into committing perjury. If the list he has been sent by the police contains only two previous convictions, when he knows that he has half a dozen others of which the police do not know, or have forgotten, is he to admit them, and to say, "You must treat me more harshly than this"? That is another point that is niggling in my mind. I suggest to the noble and learned Viscount that it would be advisable that, at the time of the serving of the summons under this new procedure, the defendant should be told also all the facts that are to be stated against him, and, if he is found guilty, what are the previous convictions that will be taken into consideration. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 13, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
LORD WINSTER: I do not feel quite certain about this Amendment. The subparagraph which it proposes to repeal altogether gives the power to serve a summons by leaving it for the defendant with some person at his last known or usual place of abode. I feel it is important that this provision should be retained for summonses, otherwise it would mean either personal service in each case or service by registered post. The latter service is, of course, ineffective unless the bench have evidence that the registered letter has come to the attention of the defendant. If this sub-paragraph were repealed altogether, would it not mean that the police would have to serve a summons mainly at night, and sometimes, late at night, when a defendant has returned from work? Surely, that is not an altogether desirable procedure. In some cases, the police would be quite unable to serve the summons at all except by registered post, and the defendant might ignore such service so that it became ineffective. If this Amendment were limited to notices under the Bill, I do not think I should see any objection to it, but as it stands I see the objections which I have mentioned.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: As I said earlier, I think I can go a long way to meet the difficulties of the noble Lord and, incidentally, to take the noble Lord, Lord Winster, with me, by three suggestions which I should like to put forward to deal with this problem. I think one ought to realise the valuable side of the proposal which the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, would admit. It is much better, with an important document in this field, that it should be given into the possession of somebody who will, one hopes, bring it to the attention of the accused, rather than that it should be put through the letter box. I am taking it only at that stage. One knows the awful risk of anything that is put through the letter box, at times other than the regular post, going under the mat, or being swept up, and that sort of thing. It goes beyond that, and means that it is left with someone, and that someone knows that an important communication, to which the addressee's attention should be drawn, has arrived. Equally, it means that if the man is not living there, the odds are that the person who intends to use this method will be told he is not living there, which may be useful. But, of course, I admit that no method other than personal service gives a complete guarantee—we all must admit that. But again, I think we shall all admit that to insist on personal service in every case would be too laborious and expensive for the general use.
I had in mind a point which I mentioned on the last Amendment—that if service is effected by registered post, it may not be treated as proof unless it is proved that the summons came to the defendant's knowledge. Your Lordships will remember that I mentioned that point. It is usually proved, of course, because it draws forth a letter from the defendant from which that can be found. My first suggestion is that we should apply that rule to the kind of service with which the Amendment deals, because at the moment there is no provision in relation to service by delivery to some person at the defandant's last known or usual place of abode, such as there is with regard to registered post. There are historical rea tons for the difference, with which I need not trouble your Lordships today. But on this point I should like to undertake to consider

471
amending Rule 76 to require proof that the summons came to the defendant's notice, if either form of service, other than personal service, is employed. I cannot go further than saying that it will be considered, because it is a matter for the Rules Committee. They must exercise their discretion on it. I think that goes a long way on the first point.
The next point I want to deal with concerns previous convictions. I noted that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, dealt with that point in his speech on the Second Reading of the Bill. He made the point that notice of such convictions ought not to be sent by post, since, in the absence of the addressee, it might be opened and read by anyone. He referred, as I think he did to-day, with approval to the recommendation in paragraph 55 of the Committee's Report, that leaving the notice with some person in the defendant's last known address should not be a permissible method of service. With regard to that, I should like to assure the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, that this recommendation has been accepted and it is proposed, again subject to the advice of the Rules Committee, to restrict service of this notice to personal service or service by registered post.
The third main point which the noble Lord made was with regard to receipt. The noble Lord asked whether the defendant can be expected to acknowledge a receipt of the notice, and whether such a receipt would be an admission that the list of convictions was correct. The noble Lord will remember (if he cares to verify it, he will find it in paragraph 57) that the Committee pointed out that it would not be practicable to require the defendant to return a receipt, since he can effectively block the procedure by not doing so. If the noble Lord will look at paragraph 58, he will see that the Committee recognised that previous convictions might very occasionally be wrongly attributed, but considered that this possibility should not stand in the way of a system which would in most cases work satisfactorily.
Having reminded the noble Lord of the Committee's views, I should like to tell him that the form which it is proposed, subject again to consideration by the Rules Committee, should be prescribed
472
will advise the accused to write to the police at once if he maintains that any of the alleged previous convictions is wrongly attributed to him. They will not say anything about the obverse of the medal which was put before your Lordships by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, so the man will not be drawn into any trap. It will simply be: "If you say that any of these is not attributable to you, then write and say so." I think that is the fairest way of dealing with it. I hope that, although it is not put in statutory form, I have shown the noble Lord that we have tried to meet what he has in mind, and that these procedural methods will go a long way to deal with it.
May I refer to another point, if it is not trespassing on Amendment No. 9, about the service? It is very difficult to serve notice of previous convictions with the summons. There is a great deal to be said for issuing summonses in good time, but there are many nervous people in the world, who worry terribly about whether they are to be summoned. The noble Lord will appreciate that, with regard to previous convictions, the chief constable who is applying for the summons may not be the chief constable of the district where the defendant lives. I think the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, made that point in regard to many matters in the Road Traffic Bill. Therefore, he has to write to him; inquiries have to be made and checks have to be instituted—because, of course, previous convictions are a matter on which one wants to use the greatest care. Therefore, that is why I do not think it is possible to issue notice of them at the time of the service of the summons. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, will forgive me for anticipating the point. As he raised it, I thought it only right and courteous that I should mention it.
4.36 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount. I think he has adequately met my point. I am glad he recognises it. With regard to previous convictions, I think we must leave out sub-paragraph 1 (b) of those Rules. I am glad he has met me on that point. Of course, it is far better for this to be done by rules than by being put into the Statute—I agree with the noble and learned Viscount

473
there. I put the Amendment down because I could not think of any other way of wording it. It is always a difficulty. When one wants to raise a point, perhaps one does something which is completely wrong, because it is the only wavy of drawing attention to it.
If I may have your Lordships' consent, and to save your Lordships' time, I will formally move Amendment No. 9 subject to any of your Lordships wanting to speak upon it. I am not quite so happy about that Amendment. I wish the noble and learned Viscount would look at that again. I do not think that seven days' notice is adequate. When a motorist—I am thinking of the motorist, I must confess—is stopped and given notice by the police that he will be reported, sometimes a long time elapses before he receives the summons, because notice at the time that he may receive a summons lets the police out of the old 14-day rule. I have known it to be three weeks or more. If it takes three weeks to get out a summons, seven days' notice of previous convictions does not seem to me to be very long.
I would ask the noble and learned Viscount to be kind enough to look into the other point that I raised. It is far better for this new procedure to start off with the defendant not thinking he is to be victimised. Let him see the whole of the case at the start. He must have a statement of the case against him in far fuller language than that on the summons to day. That is implicit in this Bill. Surely it would be common justice to let hint have it at the same time, even if it means a little delay—because, after all, there is an unconscionable delay now. Sometimes it is three weeks, and it has been known to be much longer than that, from the time the police give notice that he will be reported and may receive a summons. It has been a month. Surely in that month the police have time to consider when they are issuing this summons and to collect the previous convictions. It is only justice to the individual that the whole of the case should be sent him at the same time. Then he knows whether to plead guilty or not. I think it is wrong that a man should be tempted by this new procedure and that, to save the time of the court, he should plead guilty. As the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Hailsham, informed your
474
Lordships' House when I raised this point on the Second Reading, once a man has pleaded guilty there is no withdrawal from it.
The defendant may have forgotten. I do not know how many previous convictions I have—it may be two or three, but memory is short when one reaches the age of sixty and when one has been driving a motor car for forty years or more. I should think I have had two or three convictions, but I may be hopelessly wrong in making that estimate. Having pleaded guilty, I am told suddenly, when I have no chance of putting forward another plea, "These are the convictions that will now be laid against you." Included in those convictions may be indiscretions of boyhood that one has forgotten. This list is not confined to motoring convictions. They are all there—some of which may have passed from the memory. I do not think that that is right. If we want this new procedure to work and to carry the confidence of the public—we all want that and we all want this Bill—then I suggest that it would be only justice if the noble and learned Viscount would reconsider this point. I feel sure that he as much as anybody wants this Bill to work.
I will withdraw the Amendment now. I do not know whether the noble and learned Viscount has anything further to say in answer to my plea in regard to Amendment No. 9, but I move that Amendment formally when it is called. I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for meeting me on this Amendment, and I ask permission of the Committee to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
4.42 p.m.
LORD MERTHYR: I should like to raise one small point on this clause. I do not want to alter any of the words, but I am not entirely happy about the arrangement of the provisos in subsection (2) of the clause. I apologise to the noble and learned Viscount for not giving him notice of this point, and I certainly should riot dream of pressing it, but I should like to ask this question. Would it not be an improvement if the second proviso to subsection (2), beginning at line 31 and extending to line 42, were made into a separate subsection? If that were

475
done, I would further suggest that the third proviso as it stands now should be transformed into a proviso to the new subsection. I am suggesting this because it seems to me—though I am well aware that I may be wrong, because I do not think this is an easy matter—that whereas the first proviso is a genuine exception to what has gone before, the second proviso is apparently not an exception to what has gone before; it appears to be leading on to the next step in the procedure. The third proviso, about which I have a little doubt, I would have said was really a proviso to the second proviso. I may be quite wrong about this matter, but I hope that it may be looked at before the next stage of the Bill. I think it will be agreed that this subsection is not entirely an easy one because it extends over more than a page, and it might do no harm if it were subdivided into an additional subsection.
To sum up, my suggestion is that the second proviso in line 31 should be made into a separate subsection, and consequently proviso (iii) dealt with, possibly, as a proviso to the new subsection. I wonder whether the noble and learned Viscount would have a look at that suggestion before the next stage of the Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will do so with great pleasure. I appreciate the care which my noble friend has given to the Bill, and I will see that the draftsman and those in the Home Office fully consider his points. It goes without saying that I, too, will give them the same consideration.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Proof of identity of driver of vehicle]:
4.45 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved to delete the proviso. The noble Lord said: I raised this matter upon Second Reading, but I must say, with respect, that I was not satisfied with the answer I received from the Government, so I have put down this Amendment. The whole object of this Bill is to simplify the procedure, to make it cheaper, and not to waste the time of the police. The Committee's Report goes into the pounds, shillings and pence, and the police hours that are wasted through magistrates'
476
courts being packed with policemen when these trivial offences are being tried. In this Bill there is a simple procedure outlined by which the identity of the driver of the vehicle can be taken as proved if the individual who was driving the vehicle admits in writing that he was the driver. But in the proviso to Clause 2, these words appear:
"Provided that this section shall not apply in relation to any offence mentioned in the Fourth Schedule to the Road Traffic Act, 1956 (which relates to offences in respect of which disqualification for holding, or endorsement of, a driving licence may be ordered)."
Quite frankly, I cannot see the sense in this proviso. If I am summoned for leaving my motor car for an undue length of time by the kerbside, thereby causing an obstruction, I can write to the police and say that I am guilty because I was the driver of that vehicle. But if on the same day I am stopped for driving at 35 m.p.h. in a 30 m.p.h. limit area, and I receive a summons from the police, I cannot by writing them a letter prove to them or satisfy them that I was the driver of the vehicle. It may be that the offence took place in Edinburgh—perhaps I had better not speak in terms of Scotland, as the noble and learned Viscount may tell me that there the law is different. Let me say that perhaps the offence occurred in Newcastle, and I may be living in London. I have to go all the way to Newcastle—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I let the noble Lord into a secret? We ought really to have here one of those Shakespearean directions—" Enter Kilmuir with drum and colours ". I am going to accept his Amendment.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: What can I say to that, except "Thank you very much".
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [Proof of previous convictions]:
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I do not want to waste the time of the Committee by arguing this point all over again. I hope that the noble and learned Viscount will at least say that he will reconsider the matter. I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 18, leave out (" not less than seven days previously ") and insert (" at the time of service of the summons ").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Having explained the difficulties in regard to this matter, I am sorry that the experience of the noble Lord has been that there has been delay in issuing summonses. I have put my views on that, and I should like to look into the whole matter. For the reason that I have given, I cannot hold out any great hopes, but I will look into it. I am glad to think that the noble Lord will be content with that assurance.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORIH: I ant grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for saying that. I, too, will consider very carefully what he has said, and if I feel obliged to put down the same Amendment on the Report stage I know that he will consider it. I will put it down only after very careful consideration. Now, with your Lordships' permission, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
4.50 p.m.
LORD MERTHYR LORD MERTHYR moved, after Clause 3 to insert the following new clause:
Mitigation of penalties
".Section twenty-seven of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952 (which confers upon a magistrates' court certain powers with respect to tit:, mitigation of penalties in the case of offences under any enactment passed before the commencement of that Act) shall have effect, and be deemed always to have had effect, as if in subsection (1) of that section for the words passed before' there were substituted the words whether passed before or after '."
The noble Lord said: In order to make this little picture complete, may I first say that Section 13 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1948, gave the power to any court (I think for the first time in history) to impose a fine for felony. Following upon that, Section 27, subsections (1) and (3), of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952, gave to magistrates' courts the power to fine for misdemeanours in the case of offences:
"under any enactment passed before the commencement of this Act "—
that is, before 1952. This latter power had originated in the Act of 1879. So from 1879 to 1952 magistrates had power to impose a fine for misdemeanours or, as the case might be, to reduce the maximum
478
fine for misdemeanour in any case brought before them. But because these words were inserted is follows that if a punishment is imposed under a Statute passed since 1952, unless there is an expressed power to fine, the magistrates cannel now impose a fine whether they want to or not.
lf, for example, a penalty of imprisonment is laid down in an Act passed since 1952, then there is no power to reduce the penalty to a fine. Prior to 1952, it was possible for a draftsman of a new Bill to omit any reference to a fine in laying down the penalty to be imposed because he had in mind the fact that there was a general power to mitigate the penalty to a fine. Since 1952, the draftsman has had to be extremely careful to remember that, unless he expressly gives the power to fine, the court will be unable to do so. I do not find it easy to understand why these words were ever put into the 1952 Act. They seem to me merely to have created the possibility of difficulties and of breaches of the law being committed, quite inadvertently, by the courts; because I am sure that many magistrates are tempted in such cases to impose a fine and might be very surprised if they were told that they had no power to do so. That being so, I seek to leave out these words, thereby restoring the position to what it was before 1952 aid had been, as I understand it, since 1879. The effect of the Amendment, if passed, would be that if a new Statute were passed in the future creating a criminal offence and not specifically authorising the court to impose a fine, nevertheless the justices could do so by virtue of Section 27, subsections (1) and (3) of the Act of 1952. I have been unable to find any real objection to this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 3, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Merthyr.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Merthyr for correcting the slip that has been made in the Consolidation Act; and, as I explained to your Lordships, this Bill, by Clause 4, is to be construed as one with the Magistrates' Courts Act. 1952. This is, therefore, an appropriate time to make the correction, and I gladly do so.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4 [Citation, construction, extent and commencement]:
LORD MERTHYR: This Amendment is almost consequential. The Bill as drafted comes into force two months after the passing of the Bill into an Act, but I take the view that it is desirable that the new clause which your Lordships have just agreed to should come into force at once, in case it is desired to reduce the penalty to a fine. I am therefore proposing that, whilst the rest of the Bill should not come into force at once, this new clause should do so. While I agree that the Amendment is almost, if not quite, consequential, I thought I ought to explain why I want this clause of the Bill to come into force before the remainder. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 33, at beginning insert (" Sections one, two and three of ").—(Lord Merthyr.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: In accepting this Amendment, may I say that, clearly, if we are to make a correction in the law that correction should be made as soon as possible, and I entirely agree with this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MERTHYR LORD MERTHYR moved in subsection (4) to leave out (" two ") and insert (" three "). The noble Lord said: Clause 4 (4) provides that this Act shall come into force at the expiration of a period of two months beginning with the date of its passing. It has teen represented to me from more than one quarter that two months is rather too short a time. After all, this Bill has to percolate down from Parliament to all the justices' courts in the country. Every justices' clerk has to get a copy of the Bill, digest it and act upon it and pass it on to his justices; and thousands of magistrates have to get to know this Bill so that they may act on it properly. I am inclined to agree with the representations that have been made to me that two months is rather too short a time. Sometimes people have difficulty in getting hold of copies of Acts of Parliament immediately they have been passed, and I would suggest to the Committee that little harm would be done if this period was somewhat extended. I do not want to extend it too much, although one person has suggested six months instead of two. I should have thought that three months instead of two would be fair. I move accordingly.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 34, leave out (" two ") and insert (" three ").—(Lord Merthyr.)
LORD WINSTER: From a working point of view, I should certainly like to support this Amendment. In fact, I would go further and suggest an extension to four or six months instead of three, because after this Bill becomes an Act a great deal of work will have to be done. Rules of Procedure will have to be made and Magistrates' Courts Act forms will have to be printed; and when the Act and Rules are received, as my noble friend has said, they will have to be studied carefully and digested, and the police will have the quite lengthy job of preparing the necessary forms under the Act. I feel that for all these reasons three months at least is desirable. Three months might be sufficient for all this work to be done, but I believe that perhaps four or even six months would be preferable. So I would ask the noble and learned Viscount, if he is disposed to accept the Amendment, to consider whether three months would give sufficent time for all this practical work to be done.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Merthyr and Lord Winster, for putting these practical aspects of the matter. In coming to a conclusion on this Amendment, I have taken into account all the points that have been raised. From the Home Office point of view, they are anxious that the Bill shall come into operation as quickly as possible, and they think that they can deal with the points adequately in the time suggested in the Amendment. Therefore I propose to accept the Amendment. I will draw the attention of the Home Office to what Lord Winster has said. I think the extra month is a good thing, and therefore I suggest that we agree to settle for three months.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
In the Title.
LORD MERTHYR: This Amendment is consequential upon the passing of Amendment No. 10. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Line 4, after (" matters ") insert (" and the mitigation of penalties by magistrates' courts; ").—(Lord Merthyr.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Title of the Bill, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed.

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND (PROPERTY AND ENDOWMENTS) BILL [H.L.]
5.3 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, I rise to move that this Bill be now read a second time. As your Lordships will see, it is a short Bill and of very limited purpose. Its object is to remedy a minor defect in the Church of Scotland (Property and Endowments) Act, 1925. The difficulty with which the Bill deals arises out of Section 36 of that Act. That section provides that the property and endowments relating to any particular parish shall be used in the first place to meet the proper requirements of the parish or its neighbourhood, as these may be determined by the General Assembly of the Church or by any body to which the General Assembly delegates the power and that any remainder shall form part of a general fund at the disposal of the General Assembly. This has proved to be a very valuable provision. It has enabled the Maintenance of the Ministry Committee, under authority delegated by the General Assembly, to reorganise the endowments of many parishes, so that more appropriate stipends may be provided for the various churches now se-wing these parishes or their neighbourhood.
The proviso to the section, however, placed an initial limitation on the exercise of this power. It specified that
"except where a benefice is actually vacant at the passing of this Act or has become actually vacant thereafter ",
the power under the section should not be used in such a way as to decrease the minister's stipend. It was, your Lordships will see, a safeguard for ministers who held charges when the 1925 Act came into force. Unfortunately, that proviso has had one unintended effect. In some parishes there are collegiate charges with two ministers. This presents
482
no difficulty in the normal case, where the charges comprise two separate benefices—that is, a first and a second charge. As each of these benefices falls vacant the stipend attaching to it may be adjusted.
But in one particular parish—that is, St. Cuthbert's in Edinburgh—the proviso has operated to prevent any adjustment at all. It has been established that St. Cuthbert's constitutes a single benefice, although it has two incumbencies—that is to say, places for two ministers. In the nature of things these two places are unlikely to be vacant simultaneously, and in fact they have never both been vacant during the past thirty years. The result has been that, because of the proviso to Section 36 of the 1925 Act, it has never been possible for the Maintenance of the Ministry Committee to reorganise the endowments of St. Cuthbert's. The Committee, with the authority of the General Assembly, recently represented to us that that was an anomalous situation, and that the anomaly should be removed. We have received assurances from the Presbytery of Edinburgh and from the Kirk Session of St. Cuthbert's that they unanimously agree with the Committee. So the principle of this Bill has the support of all the Church bodies which are directly concerned.
The Bill proceeds by providing that the benefice will be deemed to become actually vacant, for the purposes of the proviso, on the termination of the last interest of any minister who is an incumbent of it when the Bill passes into law. In that way, your Lordships will see that the stipend of the existing minister or ministers is fully protected and further that the Maintenance of the Ministry Committee will have precisely the same power to reorganise the endowments of St. Cuthbert's as they have to reorganise the endowments of all other benefices in Scotland. In short, St. Cuthbert's will be brought into line in this respect with every other charge in the Church of Scotland. I suggest to your Lordships that that is an entirely reasonable arrangement. In commending this small measure to your Lordships' House I would only repeat that it is supported in principle by all the bodies in the Church of Scotland which have a direct interest in the matter. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
5.9 p.m.
LORD GREENHILL: My Lords, I have not been briefed with regard to this Bill, and I have no special qualifications for speaking upon it. If the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, had not been sitting there, I was going to suggest that my noble friend, Lord Mathers, would have been perhaps the most appropriate Member of your Lordships' House to deal with the matter. I gather that the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, is going to give his blessing to the Bill, and I should like simply to add my blessing to the one which he is about to give.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS BOROUGH: My Lords, when I read this Bill, I was at first a little anxious about the wording, which I found very difficult to follow; but, after listening to the explanatory speech which has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, I think I understand the Bill perfectly. This is an illustration of the fact that sometimes a few words in legal jargon might mean a great deal to many people. I think that that is going to be the case with this Bill. I have had a letter from my noble friend, Lord Mathers, in which he says how very sorry he is that he cannot be present to-day to go even a little further than my noble friend who has just spoken, because he says that he will miss very much the opportunity of uttering a few words of commendation of the Church of Scotland for their work and for the measures which they now propose. I should like it to be known that this is the view of my noble friend, who has such a devoted interest in the Church.
I would add only that, as a mere Sassenach, I have always had a feeling of the greatest respect for the Church of Scotland. They seem to know how to manage their affairs very well without too much interference from Parliament, to exercise on the whole a much better discipline over ministers selected to preach the Word, and to maintain a Protestantism which is of universal admiration in this country, whereas there seems to be an enormous amount of indiscipline in maintaining the Protestant demonstration in our Established Church. I welcome the Bill and hope that it will mean a great improvement to ministers whose stipends will eventually—I think
484
that word should be introduced—be improved. May they continue in their steadfast Protestant faith!
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Viscount and the noble Lord for supporting this Bill. I would thank the noble Viscount particularly for the commendation which he has given to the Church of Scotland. I am sure that we all regret the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Mathers, who speaks with such great authority on all matters in connection with the Church of Scotland.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

SOLICITORS BILL [H.L.]
House in Committee on re-commitment of the Bill (according to Order): the Amendments made by the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills agreed to.
NORTHERN IRELAND (COMPEN SATION FOR COMPULSORY PURCHASE) BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

RATING AND VALUATION BILL
5.15 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Monster.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD AILWYN in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Rateable value of shops, offices, etc., for purposes of existing valuation lists
1.—(1) Where the net annual value of a hereditament which is neither a dwelling-house nor a private garage or private storage premises is an amount ascertained by reference to its gross value as defined in section sixty-eight of the Rating and Valuation Act. 1925, and the rateable value of the hereditament would but for this section be equal to its net annual value, the rateable value of the hereditament shall be ascertained, for any rate period beginning after the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and fifty-seven for which the valuation lists in

485
force at the commencement of this Act remain in force, by making from its net annual value the deduction mentioned in the next following subsection.
LORD LATHAM LORD LATHAM moved, in subsection (1), to omit all words from the first "is" down to and including "premises" and to substitute "consists of or includes a shop". The noble Lord said: The Government seem resolved to proceed with this Bill, Clause 1 of which contains a proposal which, in the view of those on this side of the Committee, is both inequitable and unjust. Before proceeding to deal with the Amendment, I should like to make one or two general comments. I confess that I was a little intrigued and somewhat mystified by the words which the noble Earl, Lord Munster, used in his speech of reply on the Second Reading of this Bill on March 5. The noble Lord said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 202 (No. 41), Col. 207]:
"The shops and offices had been singled out, as we see it, for specially severe treatment."
By whom were they singled out? These properties were valued by independent valuers, by valuation officers of the Inland Revenue, so they were not "singled out," and they were not subjected, in my submission, to "specially severe treatment." When reading these words again, I formed the opinion that perhaps the noble Earl, speaking as he was on that occasion "off the cuff" and being, I judged, desperately in need of some argument in justification of Clause 1, used words which he did not intend, or the meaning of which did not represent his mind on this point. I think that it would he of interest to your Lordships if the noble Earl would indicate how it came about that, as he alleges, these properties had been "singled out…for specially severe treatment."
The purpose of this Amendment is to mitigate the mischief which will be done by the proposal in Clause 1. It is proposed to limit this rebate to shops, and to shops only. The total estimated rebate which will be given in the rateable value of properties as the Bill how stands is some £44 million. Of that, it is estimated that three-eighths is in respect of shops and five-eighths in respect of commercial and other buildings. So, if the Amendment were accepted by your Lordships, some £27½ million of rateable value will be prevented from being cast upon
486
the household ratepayer, and relief to the shopkeeper will be limited to £16½ million.
The small shopkeeper has been pleaded in aid by the supporters of this Bill. His alleged distresses in a time of booming consumer activity have been used as a kind of protective shield for a proposal to grant to commerce and business this relief of 20 per cent. in rateable value. The small shopkeeper is in gave danger of finding a place beside the widow and orphan in the idiom of the Conservative Party. Unhappily, it not possible or practicable to distinguish between the small shopkeeper—that, is to say, those who have shops in what I may call the narrow back streets—from the great chain, multiple and departmental stores, whose claim to this rebate is quite shadowy, if indeed it exists at all. But that being the case, the Amendment which I ant moving would, if passed, operate to grant a 20 per cent. derating to shops, but would leave unaltered the assessments on business and commercial premises.
It is our submission that no case can be made for any relief to offices and business and commercial premises. It is fanciful to suggest that the new assessments are in any way unjust or unfair. As I sought to indicate in ray speech on Second Reading, these assessments do no more than correct the under-assessments which have been enjoyed for over fifteen years. I do not think that any fair-minded business ratepayer would take any other view. He realises that this revaluation has been carried out on a perfectly fair and legal basis, and the assessments do no more than reflect the change in values, the change in costs and the change in the value of money. I think perhaps he congratulates himself that he has enjoyed this quite important and valuable benefit and advantage for the last fifteen years, and does not think it unreasonable that it should now come to an end. Apart from that, he will, as a household ratepayer, have to pay in one place or another, wherever he may reside, a proportion of the additional rate poundage which will result from this derating of business and commercial properties. All he will pay extra in rates, he will pay out of taxed income—he will get no income lax abatement from it; whereas up to 50 per cent.—more in certain cases—of what he will save as a business ratepayer

487
will inure to the benefit of the Inland Revenue and of the Exchequer. It is our view that this Bill is a bad Bill. This Amendment, as I have said, has for its purpose the mitigation of the mischief the Bill will do. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 6, leave out from beginning to (" is ") in line 7, and insert the said new words.—(Lord Latham.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The noble Lord who moved this Amendment took me to task for some words that I used in replying to the debate on Second Reading. Perhaps I might remind the noble Lord and your Lordships of the statement made by my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government in December of last year, in which he used these words:
"Nevertheless, sufficient information is now available to show beyond a doubt that the recent valuation has placed an unduly heavy share of the burden upon the occupiers of shops and other commercial property."
I do not think the words I used on the last occasion were very dissimilar to those which my right honourable friend used in his statement of December 20 last.
The noble Lord, as he has told your Lordships, seeks to limit the scope of Clause 1 of the Bill to hereditaments which consist entirely of, or include, a shop. The noble Lord believes that everything else should be excluded from, the relief which is given under Clause 1 of the Bill. I should like to take your Lordships back to July 11, 1955, when your Lordships were discussing the Second Reading of the Rating and Valuation Bill of that year. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, and no doubt speaking as the representative of the Opposition, on that occasion used these words [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 193, col. 563]:
"Therefore, we may expect as one of the outcomes of this Bill a considerable reduction in the amount which the householder will pay and a heavy increase in the amount which will be assessable on business premises. I suppose all of us welcome any relief which we get from rates, but we have to consider what are going to be the effects on business premises, and they may well be very grave indeed."
Then, later the noble Lord said (col. 564):
"It would have been of help if the noble Earl "—
488
that is myself—
"could have given us some forecast of what he expects to be the outcome of these violent changes in assessment over the next few years. It would have been even better if he could have suggested some way of cushioning these violent changes, because they are most undesirable."
It is clear that at that time the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, was not only in support of the proposal in Clause 1 of this Bill, but was one of the few who foretold that the increase of the burden on offices and other commercial properties would be unduly heavy. The former Minister of Housing and Local Government, in 1954, in a statement in another place, said that after the assessments had been fully drawn up he would consider whether an undue burden had been placed on any particular class of hereditament. Therefore, let me say to the noble Lord, Lord Latham, in passing, that I am surprised he should now move an Amendment which I feel certain would not have the support or the sympathy of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin.
The rateable value of these hereditaments which this Amendment seeks to exclude rose on an average about 120 per cent. upon revaluation, as compared with 126 per cent. for shops, and my right honourable friend and, indeed, the Government feel that there can be no justification whatever for excluding them from relief or for differentiating between them. Back in December, 1954, the Government stated that it was their intention to review the valuation of shops, offices and other commercial properties assessed on present-day values; and that, in effect, is what we have done. We are now implementing the pledge by Clause 1 of this Bill. Although the noble Lord did not say it in his remarks, to say that there are a large number of rich ratepayers who obtain relief is, therefore, quite contrary to the undertaking which was given by my right honourable friend.
The noble Lord, Lord Latham, knows as well as I do that rating has always distinguished between different types of property, and, so far as I am aware, it has never been the practice to differentiate between a poor and a rich ratepayer in assessment of similar properties. One and all must be treated the same, and that is what we have endeavoured to do under this clause of

489
the Bill. If we give relief to one shop, we must give it to the other. If we give relief to one premises, office buildings, or whatever it may be, we must also give it to the other. Therefore, I think it is wrong to try now to exclude front the purposes of the first clause of this Bill a number of premises of all sorts and kinds. The occupiers of such premises will undoubtedly achieve a great satisfaction from the clause, which will assist their finances—and in many ways their finances require assisting. At the same time, these occupiers will be satisfied that the pledge my right honourable friend gave in 1954, and again at a later date, has in fact been carried into effect and operation. I hope that on second thoughts the noble Lord will not divide the House on this Amendment, because it is one which I could not possibly accept.
5.32 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: The noble Earl has, as always, addressed the Committee in very felicitious terms and put his case exceedingly well. I must say that these are the sort of Amendments about which it is always advisable for us to recall the Prayers we utter at the opening of each day's Parliament and to remember that we must put away all partial affections and the like. If I were to try to pursue what I consider my best interests, and the interests of those in business with whom I was brought up, I should be inclined to have a good word to say for the owners of offices. But if I put away partial affections and examine the case in more detail—say from the point of view of the local authorities, and from the point of view of the effect of the new assessments upon householders—then I take a different view.
The noble Earl has quoted my noble friend Lord Silkin, who, I am sure, will remember the passage in his speech which was quoted. He was not here to hear the citing of it. At that time, when the consideration of this matter was still in the formative stage, and as it was certainly likely to produce such wide—I think "violent" was the word used—fluctuations from the then standards of valuation, it was well to look at the matter with caution to see whether or not (and I quote the words of my noble friend) it might be necessary later to have
490
some cushioning effect upon these violent fluctuations. I would say that my noble friend was speaking as much for his Party on that point of view as for anyone else. That was a wise precaution he was taking, and consideration has been given to it.
Now we have the proposals of the Bill. This is a rethinking after the other Bill had passed through all its stages and had been applied all over the country. All the rating authorities had made their budgets. They dealt not only with general industry, but with shops, offices and houses. I have met householders who in some cases had their assessments under the original arrangement doubled, although there had been no change in their property whatsoever. They had to suffer heavy impositions. And now we have this Amending Bill which confines relief to the two classes, shops and offices. I am bound to say that I have a stronger feeling of sympathy with shopkeepers than with the owners of offices. That is not because I do not think that, in some cases, the increase in the valuation of shops was unjustified One reads of companies who are in ownership of a large number of shops and who have on more than one occasion written up the value of their premises in the balance sheet as the basis for a further manipulation of their capital and the distribution of profit. I should have thought that that particular class of shop would have some difficulty in objecting to revised assessment by the Sate and the local authorities of the valuation of these properties.
In regard to the ultimate effect of the re-rating of properties, I think the Government, in their second thoughts, in view of the general situation of the economy of the country, have done something right making some adjustment in the case of shops, because the rating of shops at a high figure would be likely to result in a general increase in prices of consumer goods. It is an expense which would have to be met, and, therefore, arguing from that point of view, the steep increase in the amount to be paid on shops upon the new graduations would probably increase the general cost of living.
As regards offices, I think there is far less of a case for the Government's new proposals in this Bill. I should like to

491
take this opportunity of saying a word of thanks to my noble friend, Lord Latham, for his extraordinarily clear speech on the Second Reading of this Bill. It was a great service, not only to his Party, but to the House, in helping us to understand what the effect upon the local authorities is likely to be. I must say that he is perfectly justified in what he said then. One sees from the newspapers, day after day, that these poor rating authorities have been charged with the duty of resettling their budgets after they had all been cast and planned. The general comment in the morning and evening newspapers, which cite a particular local authority, is "Rates up and up." The tendency is for the Press to direct attention to what looks like more new and extravagant expenditure by the local authorities, whereas what is happening is that the sums which are being saved by the office-owners, as well as by the shopkeepers, is being added to the general rate level in the area. I am sure the noble Earl will not challenge my general assessment when I say that, although there may be one or two cases where the increase is not much over 1s., in the great majority of cases the effect of the alteration of local authorities' budgets has been that the general rate upon householders, businesses and everybody concerned has gone up by from 1s. 6d. to more than 3s. in the £—a very steep rise. The general impression created in ratepayers' minds by the news as it appears in a good many of the national papers is that rates are going up and up because of some particular fault on the part of the local authority. That is quite unreasonable.
I come next to the point explained by my noble friend, Lord Latham, this afternoon, about the actual division of the two great sections dealt with in this Bill, the shops and the offices, in the amount received in revenue. We find that a very much larger proportion—I think the noble Lord said something like £27½ million out of £44 million of rating valuation—is attributable to offices and only about £16½ million is attributed to shops. I think the Opposition have, in fact, proposed a meritorious Amendment in the circumstances. Some owners of offices are pretty wealthy. Many office buildings are in the hands of the big investment trusts who are not unable to meet the kind of bill that the original
492
Act would have imposed upon them. A very great service can be done to the householders and to the general level of the rate levied upon other businesses and industries.
I hope, therefore, that the noble Earl will think again; or, if he is not prepared to think again this evening, that he will make further representations to the Minister responsible for recommending to the Government any final reconstruction of their views upon the matter. Speaking as an ordinary ratepayer I know that I shall have to pay considerably more as a result of this Bill than would otherwise have been the case, although, in the case of my local authority, I think that the increase in the rate this year will be something under 2s. in the £ rather than more; but that increase could easily be reduced to below 1s. in the £. I put that point before your Lordships because, in arguing the other case as between partial affections and no partial affections, it is just as well that we should all understand that, when we talk upon these matters, we probably have an interest in some way or another. But that, to me, is the smallest aspect of the case. I see that people in some of the suburban areas in the Greater London district have been reassessed on their houses up to double, and more, of their original valuations, although that, of course, does not apply to every single district. They could be greatly relieved in their current burdens if the Amendment moved by my noble friend were accepted.
5.44 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: May I say a word on this Amendment? Knowing his connection with the London County Council for many years, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Latham, perhaps quite naturally, is dealing rather with the big towns where the stores are big and the offices, in particular, are big, belonging to large firms. In the majority of towns in this country, most of the shops are comparatively small. There is the odd Woolworth's and so on, but the shops are comparatively small; and the offices are largely, though not entirely, occupied by small businesses and small professional men. In those towns, both professional men and small businesses are having the greatest difficulty in making ends meet. It is not a question of making an enormous profit. There is no doubt about it

493
that the new scale of rates for those people is desperately hard. In many cases—one cannot generalise in this case—the ordinary wage-earner who works for somebody else, particularly in towns where there is a shortage of labour, is far better off in these days than the people who own offices, and in many cases can afford to pay a higher rate in proportion to, say, the professional man. It varies throughout the country, but one is apt to talk of offices as if they were offices in the City of London and therefore able to afford to pay, or of shops as if they were like Selfridge's. That may be so in London, but in the small country towns big shops are very much in the minority. From what I know of my own locality, some of these occupiers with increased rates have had a desperately hard time to make any living at all.
5.45 p.m.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: Before the noble Lord, Lord Latham, replies, perhaps I may say one brief word in reply to the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough. As I understood him, the noble Viscount said he thought that shops had been assessed at a fairly high figure, and that, because that might have the effect of increasing the cost of living, he supported the proposal in Clause 1 that shops should have the benefit of the reduction of one-fifth.
I want to remind the noble Viscount—I am sure he will remember this—that all these shop properties were assessed at current rental values, whilst houses were assessed at 1939 rental values. It was not the present Government which did this: it was the Government of the noble Viscount's Party, acting under the Local Government Act, 1,948. The mistake that was made then was obvious to the noble Viscount to-day, in that he supported the action that Her Majesty's Government had taken in giving some relief and remedy to shops all over the country. As regards the offices, the noble Viscount mentioned the fact that these wealthy offices could probably quite easily afford to pay the increase on rates that has fallen upon them due to large increases in their assessments. I am certain that the noble Viscount is correct there, but to suggest now that we should have a system of rating for wealthy offices separate from that used for not-so-wealthy offices is a new conception of rating which has never
494
been tried in this country, and never will be. As I said in the course of ray remarks in replying to the noble Lord, Lord Latham, the system of rating we follow here has been the same for different classes of property. To single out one class—in this case, offices—and to say that, because the noble Viscount has a rich office and I have a poor office, we should start to assess them on completely different bases from that or which they have been assessed hitherto is a proposition which I could not commend to the House on this occasion.
LORD LATHAM: I have a kindly feeling for the noble Earl because I feel that with his years of experience and service on the London County Council, his heart is not really in this proposal. He rested his earlier speech upon what had been said by my noble friend Lord Silkin, and what had been written by the former Minister of Housing and Local Government. The latter, the noble Earl stated, issued a letter in 1954 Lull another in 1955, in the latter of which I gather he referred to what he described as an undue burden arising from the revaluation. It is of the essence of our case chat those revaluations are fair, legal and properly based, representing current values, and that they did not, as an element in the general economy of the nation, and they do not now, cast an undue burden upon the occupiers of those premises. They cast an appropriate, corrected burden which ought to have beer, borne many years ago.
The noble Earl referred once again to the valuation of houses. It is the case that it was a Labour Government which in 1948, by Act of Parliament, not as a single ad hoc action, but al a part of the general consideration of rating and valuation at the time in relation to the severe persistent housing shortage, determined that the assessment of houses should be on the 1939 basis, because, generally speaking, owing to controls, the rents receivable from those houses were 1939 rents. In my submission, therefore, both categories of property halve been valued on current values, and it is unfair and inequitable to grant to ore category of property, namely, shops, and especially now in relation to the Amendment, offices and commercial premises, a rebate of 20 per cent.

495
My noble friend Lord Silkin is here and will speak for himself, but I am sure he will permit me to make these comments upon the statement made by him which was read out by the noble Earl. It may well be that my noble friend Lord Silkin pointed out that certain adjustments would have to be considered as a result of the revaluations which were to take place. But, so far as I know, my noble friend Lord Silkin did not advocate as one of those adjustments the derating of another category of property, which it is proposed to do by this Bill. When he spoke of a "cushion", it may well be that he had in mind not a "cushion" to be provided at the expense of the local authorities, not a "cushion" to be provided by the household ratepayer, but one to be provided by grant, which in fact was done with industrial derating. When industrial derating first came in, there was a specific element of grant in respect of the estimated loss of rates as a result of the derating of industrial premises, and if the Government take the view that there is a case for mitigating the burdens of rates as a result of the new valuations, then the Government should make the local authorities a grant appropriate to such loss of rates by local authorities, as was done in 1929. There is an additional reason why the Government should do that, because, as regards business premises, they stand to get half, and in some cases more than half, the benefit of the reduction of rates flowing from the reduction by this 20 per cent. of the assessments on those properties. In those circumstances, I invite the Committee to support this Amendment which, in any event, if carried would largely mitigate the mischief that will otherwise be done by Clause 1 of this Bill.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
5.55 p.m.
LORD BENNETT OF EDGBASTON LORD BENNETT OF EDGBASTON moved, in subsection (1) after "Act, 1925," to insert:
"or where the hereditament consists of sewage disposal works occupied by a joint sewerage authority,".
The noble Lord said: This is quite a different type of Amendment. The Bill gives relief to certain properties which it is felt are being unduly penalised by revaluation, and it has been submitted to us that sewage disposal works occupied
496
by joint sewerage authorities should be included among the hereditaments to which the provisions of Clause 1 are intended to apply. The local authorities who are interested in these joint sewerage authorities have approached us and have asked us to put down Amendments; so I am proposing in Clause 1, after the words "Act, 1925," to insert the words on the Marshalled List.
The noble Earl, Lord Munster, referred to the remarks made by the Minister in another place in introducing this Bill, the text of which was that some unduly heavy burden was being borne in certain directions. May I indicate to the Committee some of the unequal and unduly heavy burdens which are being borne by these joint sewerage authorities? I know most about the Birmingham area, of course. On April 1 the Birmingham Tame and Rea Joint Authority had their rateable value raised from £31,216 to £115,250—a rise of 269 per cent. I think that they come under the umbrella of the Minister's reference to an "unduly heavy burden". Their annual expenses in constructing, maintaining and operating their disposal works have increased from 8·5 to 20·2 per cent. That is just one example that has come to our knowledge. The Colne Valley Authority, though not such a large Authority, are, in proportion, even worse hit. Their rateable value has been put up from £9,500 to £42,000—an increase of 342 per cent.
The point I wish to emphasise is that if this Bill becomes law in its present form the disposal works of the sewerage authority will be one of the few classes of properties which are assessed on 1955 values and rated without any reduction whatever. We all know that agriculture is entirely derated, and that industry pays at the moment only 25 per cent.—although how long that situation will remain we do not know. Private houses are assessed at 1939 values and, as a result of this Bill, shops and offices, which are at present assessed at their 1955 value, will have their rateable values reduced by one-fifth. Therefore, one of the few classes which will pay the full rates on current values are these sewerage authorities.
On the Second Reading of the Bill in another place, the Parliamentary Secretary explained why properties assessed directly by reference to net annual values were excluded from Clause 1. These

497
properties include sewage disposal works, but they also include such things as water undertakings, piers, racecourses, holiday camps and crematoria. Some of these undertakings are assessed on the basis of their accounts, and accordingly the rate charged is calculated by reference to their net income. In such cases, the Amendment which I am proposing would not be applicable. Sewerage boards, however, are not in this category. I understand that they are assessed on their capital value. Moreover, they differ from piers, racecourses and holiday camps by reason of the fact that the sewerage authorities are non-profit-making bodies.
In the Committee stage of the Bill in another place on February 14, the Minister gave his reason for refusing to extend the scope of Clause 1 to holiday camps, piers and market halls, and though it was put forward that sewage disposal works were quite different, the Minister replied to the effect that Her Majesty's Government were not willing to extend the concession to "the whole gamut of properties assessed at net values." I have tried to show that the sewage works could be included without "going the whole hog" and including the whole gamut of which the Minister speaks, because they are quite a different class. Yet one is put off, as the Minister put off ray friend who raised this question in another place, with the story that one of these days there is to be a major local government Bill, and that then will be the time to include matters like this. I wonder how often I have heard that story told, and been put off with the suggestion that some day there is to be a massive Bill dealing with local government and that minor matters like this which are brought forward can always wait till then. I doubt whether I shall live to see that major Bill come forward, but when it dies, it will be a massive Bill and many other matters will be crowded out. I therefore think Her Majesty's Government might deal with milers which are brought forward and not put them into the "never-never" class of provisions which some day, if we live long enough, we shall see brought in.
I believe the proposal which I have made has certain merits, because the sewerage boards can be distinguished from other organisations which are directly assessed on net values. For one thing, these boards are not assessed by
498
reference to annual accounts, and they are non-profit making bodies. I understand that there are some thirty joint sewerage authorities in England and Wales, though not all of then are affected by this Amendment. Not all of them own sewage works, and some of them are not joint bodies. Where a body owns its own sewage works, its rating authority makes the rates and they pay for themselves. This Amendment is therefore put forward to help those who feel that they have a case. There is nothing partisan or Party about it, and I hope that it may have the support of all who look at local government in the broad sense and will help local authorities in any way they can. I have much pleasure in moving this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 9, after (" Act, 1925,") insert (" or where the hereditament consists of sewage disposal works occupied by a joint sewerage authority,").—(Lord Bennett of Edgbaston.)
LORD BURDEN: One can follow the noble Lord who has just spoken on the general case on behalf of joint sewerage authorities, but I suggest that the Amendment as it stands is too limited in scope. Secondly, I query in my own mind whether this is the Bill in which the remedy for the injustice should be sought. The Amendment applies to:
"sewage disposal works occupied by a joint sewerage authority ".
As the noble Lord was speaking, it occurred to my mind that, for example, the northern outfall of the London County Council (I speak subject to correction by my noble friends Lord Listowel and Lord Silkin) is owned entirely by the London County Council, and I have, no knowledge of what the increased assessment of those works may be; but any increased assessment, as I understand the position, will be a windfall to the local authority of Barking. I believe the outfall is within the area of the Municipal Borough of Barking and the amount ultimately will be payable by the people living within the area of the London County Council. But again, if my memory is correct within the Borough of Barking there is a joint sewage works, that of Barking and Ilford, and again I expect they will have the benefits of the increased assessment—another windfall for that local authority.

499
I wonder whether, in the long run, it will bring them any benefit. I understand that, with this increased rateable value, the grants from the central Government will be correspondingly decreased; so, if one works it out, the subtle fact emerges that the ratepayers of London and Ilford and Barking will be shouldering responsibilities in relieving the Exchequer of payment of grants to their respective authorities. It seems to me that while, taking it broadly, the Party to which I have the honour to belong have always objected to derating, it was always understood, from the time it was introduced in 1929 by a distinguished honourable Member from the Birmingham area, whom noble Lords will remember, that it was to help the distressed industries. Its scope since then has been much wider. But while derating remains, any help to the sewerage authorities should be through derating rather than through a Bill of this kind. Even then, with due respect, I suggest the Amendment is a little too limited in scope.
LORD CROFT: I should like to say a few words on this Amendment. As your Lordships are aware, a number of non-industrial buildings are excluded from relief under Clause 1 of this Bill, owing to the fact that there is other land included with the buildings. Such are racecourses, commercial sports grounds, holiday camps and sewage disposal works. There is another group of hereditaments, such as advertisement hoardings, sporting rights and wireless relay stations, which in any event are not buildings, and there are public utility undertakings which are valued on their profits. All these hereditaments fail to qualify among those for which a gross value has to be ascertained, as specified by Section 22 of the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, as amended by the Act of 1955. Your Lordships may ask why joint sewerage authorities should be singled out for attention by this Amendment. The answer is, I think, that they appear to be the most deserving of relief of all hereditaments which do not qualify for relief under Clause 1. Nearly all the other hereditaments which I have mentioned are, in effect, run as commercial propositions, whether or not they are run by local authorities. Seaside piers, for instance, are almost invariably owned by local authorities, though they may be
500
leased to commercial enterprises. These commercial concerns can set off their rates against profits assessable to tax. Nor is it easy to see why hospitals, for instance, or welfare homes or public baths should enjoy the relief afforded by Clause 1 and not sewage disposal authorities.
I would submit to your Lordships that this is another reason for supporting this Amendment. I would remind your Lordships that joint sewerage authorities are non-profit-making bodies and, unlike commercial undertakings, are unable to set off their rates against profits assessable to tax. I regard that as rather an important point in favour of this Amendment. As the Bill has remedied a very serious inequality in the case of shops, I hope that Her Majesty's Government will go one step further and accept this Amendment.
6.12 p.m.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: As my noble friend behind me said when introducing this Amendment, it is very different from the previous one which was introduced by Lord Latham. That, indeed, is true. It has this great difference: that it is a far more difficult Amendment to dispose of. As I think my noble friend Lord Bennett of Edgbaston pointed out clearly, the effect of his Amendment is to extend the class of hereditaments which are entitled to relief under Clause 1 to include the sewage disposal works of joint sewerage authorities. As the noble Lord and other noble Lords who have spoken on this Amendment well know, as the clause is drafted it excludes from relief all hereditaments the net annual values of which are ascertained direct instead of by deduction from gross values. These include sewage disposal works of all kinds. The argument was raised by my noble friend behind me in support of his Amendment that these particular sewage properties have suffered an even larger increase in rateable values than, on the average, have shops—or even office premises as a whole.
As I understand it, the Colne Valley Sewerage Board, to which my noble friend referred, suggested to the other boards in the country—I understand there are thirty in England and Wales—that representations should be made to my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing to indicate to him the increases

501
which have occurred in the assessments for joint sewerage authorities. Out of those thirty, only ten boards (including the Colne Valley Board) have done this. Out of the ten, only seven have quoted figures. It is true to say that in six of these cases there have certainly been very large increases in assessments.
My right honourable friend feels, however, that even if these six cases could be taken as typical of the thirty, it would be quite wrong to single out from the general class of all hereditaments which are assessed direct to net annual value small groups of properties for special treatment. There may be—indeed I have no doubt that, there are—other properties with just as strong cases as, or possibly even stronger cases than, the joint sewerage boards, and the information about increases in rateable values in these cases is not available at the moment in sufficient detail to make it possible to test claims group by group, even if that were desirable. I feel certain that even Lord Latham and Lord Silkin would deprecate testing these various groups individually to see whether it was desirable or not that they should have their assessments reduced. My right honourable friend feels that, in any event, it would be quite anomalous to rate a sewage disposal works which has been occupied by one kind of local authority—that is to say, a joint board—differently from a works occupied by another kind of local authority—say by a county borough council, in a place which may be, and will be, outside its own boundary.
Apart from the objection in principle which I have tried to explain to my noble friend, this Bill, as I think I stated on a previous occasion, has the very limited object of giving a measure of justice to a broad, general class of property which, I think all sides of the House recognise, has had too large a share of the burden thrust upon it by the revaluation. My right honourable friend thinks that it would not be desirable to extend the relief further by picking and choosing among farther claimants to it—in this case joint sewerage authorities. Let me add that is is certainly the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce a major Bill—I think I might even call it a massive Bill—on local government quite soon that will cover both reorganisation of local government and the finances of local government as well.
THE EARL OF LISTOWLL: May I interrupt the noble Earl for one moment? The statement which he has just made is extremely important because we are all waiting anxiously for this further legislation. Did the noble Earl mean, when he said "quite soon," that there would be legislation in the next Session of Parliament?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: That is what my right honourable friend has said. He made a statement to that effect in another place.
LORD GREENHILL: Presumably that would be a United Kingdom Bill and not an English Bill only.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: Perhaps we had better wait and see. I cannot anticipate the Bill, though no doubt Scotland might have to wait a period of time to be covered as well. It is not for me to judge, it may be for my noble friend behind to judge, whether it will be appropriate on that occasion to bring forward the matter on which he has addressed your Lordships to-day—that is, whether there should be some alteration in the system of assessing the joint sewerage authorities. As I am advised at the moment by my right honourable friend, he would not be willing to accept this Amendment.
LORD BENNETT OF EDGBASTON: I am naturally disappointed, because I feel that Her Majesty's Government could have met this point and included the sewerage boards without sacrificing anything in the way of principle. It is cheering to, hear that this major Bill, as I have heard it called over the last ten years—and no doubt some of my noble friends on the other side have heard of it for a larger time—which some day is going to reform local government is at last being seriously considered and that some of the things which we have had to put up with will be included. In the circumstances, I am afraid that I cannot press the matter any further. Naturally, I will reserve the right to being the matter forward again at a later stage, if I can find any justifiable reason for doing so; but as the thing stands a: the moment, I ask your Lordships' permission to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD BURDEN LORD BURDEN moved to add to the clause:
"(7) As from the first day of April, nineteen hundred and fifty-seven, the provisions of subsection (7) of section one of the Act of 1955 shall cease to apply to a hereditament of which in accordance with subsection (1) of this section the rateable value is to be ascertained by making from its net annual value the deduction mentioned in subsection (2) of this section."
The noble Lord said: I need hardly say that as Clause 1 of the Bill reduces the rateable value of shops, offices, and other business premises, it will reduce the amount of rates that will be collected. It is common knowledge that a considerable number of appeals have been lodged against the assessments made under the 1955 Rating and Valuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, which this Bill seeks to amend. Section 1 (7) of the 1955 Act provides that when an appeal has been lodged against an assessment made under the Act, the local authority can recover only the amount levied on the hereditament for the year previous to the new valuation list. The balance perforce remains outstanding until the appeal has been decided one way or the other. At the present moment many local authorities have large sums outstanding and it is understood that a considerable period is bound to elapse before all these appeals are finally settled.
Taking into account the concessions contained in Clause 1, concessions not shared by the ordinary householder—I am not arguing whether that is right or wrong at the moment—I submit that it is only fair that the new assessments (that will be, the previous assessments reduced either by one-fifth or one-seventh) should be paid in full when this Bill comes into operation. If an assessment after reduction is still considered by the occupier to be too heavy, then there is the ordinary machinery for appeal, which should be used. I submit that there is no justification for the withholding of the new assessment when it comes into force. I assure your Lordships that local authorities are greatly concerned at the effect which this withholding of payment is having on their financial position. Seeing that the Minister claims that the concessions in this clause would right what the Minister himself calls an injustice, it would be only just and right that the occupants of premises, having had an
504
injustice put right, should pay up, or, if they think that the assessment is still too high, should have recourse to the normal machinery which other ratepayers have to use. I beg to move the Amendment in the hope that the Minister will accept it.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 39, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Burden.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I really marvel how well the noble Lord can explain this highly complicated matter with such completely effortless lucidity, and I only hope that my reply will be as lucid in explaining why I am unable to accept the Amendment. As the noble Lord said, Section 1 (7) of the 1955 Act enables ratepayers, after they have made their appeals for the reduction of their assessments, to avoid paying rates in excess of the amount which they paid in the year 1955–56 until their appeals are settled. The noble Lord's Amendment provides that the right which a ratepayer has under Section 1 (7) of the 1955 Act should not apply to properties which have had a reduction under Clause 1 of the Bill. I have been advised that since 1925, as every quinquennial valuation period comes round, all ratepayers have a right similar to that afforded under this section of the 1955 Act to withhold payment of their full rates pending the settlement of their appeals. I feel sure that the noble Lord will appreciate that I should be very reluctant to abolish this long-standing right for one particular class of property.
The noble Lord, Lord Burden, asked what the position was in regard to appeals. Up to January 31 of this year, there were 757,000 proposals for alteration of the valuation lists and up to that time 374,000 of these, just under 50 per cent., had been settled. To further strengthen my argument why we cannot accept this Amendment, I think my best course would be, if the noble Lord would be good enough to listen, to quote a letter which my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government caused to be sent to the Manchester City Council, who brought this matter to his attention some time ago. The letter read as follows:
"I am directed by the Minister of Housing and Local Government to refer to your letter of 11th February and to say that he does not consider that the fact that a hereditament is

505
within the provisions of Clause 1 of the Bill constitutes sufficient justification for excluding it from the provisions of Section 1 (7) of the Rating and Valuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1955. Even after the reductions made by the Bill are taken into account, the properties relieved will still bear on average a substantially larger share of the rate burden than before the revaluation, and the Minister would not think it equitable to deprive them of a right to which others bearing no larger a share than in 1955–56 would still be entitled.
"When an appeal relates to the assessment of a hereditament of the kind to which Clause 1 applies, the local valuation court are primarily concerned with determining the gross value. Furthermore, when the proposal giving rise to the appeal was served in the year 1956–57 (as it trust be if Section 1 (7) is to be invoked) the count will be concerned with the circumstances of 1956–57, and any reduction under the Bill for 1957–58 and subsequent years would clearly be additional to and entirely separate from any reductions made by the court for 1956–57. It therefore appears to the Minister that the Bill and the average reduction secured upon appeal is irrelevant to this issue. By reducing the total amount of rates chargeable in 1957–58 and subsequent years in respect of hereditaments within Clause 1, the Bill as drafted will of course automatically reduce the difference between the amount chargeable and the amount recoverable under Clause 1 (7)."
I have quoted that letter in full to the noble Lord because it seems to me to set out clearly the reasons why my right honourable friend cannot, in the circumstances, accept the Amendment which the noble Lord has moved.
LORD BURDEN: I readily admit that the statement the noble Earl has made on behalf of the Minister has some substance in it. But undoubtedly the fact is that large sums of money will continue to be outstanding, although I agree that some of the amount may be reduced as a result of consideration of the position. I take it that approximately one-half of the appeals have been dealt with and we have only up to March 31 of this year before a new assessment will come into operation. It is going to be cumulative, too, I take it. I warn the Minister that local authorities will be forced to raise mere money by getting what money they can from banks, or drawing upon reserves, which they will not like doing. It seems to me that the effect of the proposals in this Bill, as they stand, will add to the load on the long-suffering ratepayers, who somehow or other will have to raise the money to meet the deficiencies. However, in the circumstances, I agree that no useful purpose would be
506
served in pressing the Amendment, and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 4 agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved, after Clause 4, to insert the following new clause:
Repeal of inoperative enactments
"5. Whereas in consequence of the passing of subsection (6) of section five of the Rating and Valuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1955, the enactments mentioned in the Schedule to this Act have ceased to have effect to the extent specified in the third column of that Schedule; the said enactments are hereby repealed to the extent so specified."
The noble Earl said: This Amendment looks somewhat formidable, but I am advised that we want to include this new clause in the Bill merely for the purpose of tidying up the Statute Book. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 4, insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
6.36 p.m.
LORD BURDEN LORD BURDEN moved, after Clause 4 to insert the following new clause:
Extension of s. 144 (2) (c) of Local Government Act, 1948
". In paragraph (c) of the proviso to subsection (2) of section one hundred and forty-four of the Local Government Act, 1948, after the words `made within' there shall be inserted the words a period of two year; from '."
The noble Lord said: Although this Amendment may appear a little technical, its purpose is quite simple. In accordance with the Seventh Schedule to the Rating and Valuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1955, alteration in rateable value following appeals is taken into account by the Minister for the purpose of grant payments to local authorities under Sections 2 and 130 of the main Act of 1948; and those grants will be made for the year 1956–57.
I am informed—and what the noble Earl said in connection with the previous Amendment supports this—that there is little hope that the majority of appeals in connection with the larger properties—and I emphasise "larger properties" will be disposed of during the present financial year. It follows, therefore, that if this Bill is not amended the intention of the 1955 Act will be defeated: that

507
is, so far as taking the loss of rateable values into consideration when making the grants is concerned. A further important consequence will follow if this Bill is not amended. If the appeals are not settled before March 31, not only will there be that outstanding rateable value, but there will be a potential loss of revenue which will follow if there is any consideration given to the appeal. But the further loss will arise owing to the non-adjustment in the grants payable under Sections 2 and 100 of the 1948 Act.
My Amendment seeks to ensure that the intentions of the 1955 Act, seeing that, through no one's fault, those intentions have not been carried out during the present financial year, shall be carried into effect by extending the provisions of that Act, so far as this particular point is concerned, for one further year. I feel sure that it is not the desire or the intention of the Minister to evade the promise (or call it what you will) given to local authorities in the 1955 Act because of the inability of those concerned to get the appeals settled before March 31, 1957. I am attributing, no blame to anybody in that connection; it is due to circumstances over which no one had any control. But without these adjustments the grants will be paid on an artificially enhanced rateable value, for which the local authorities have no responsibility, because the valuations were carried out by the Inland Revenue Department in accordance with previous legislation. I would respectfully submit that this Amendment is fair and just to local authorities. I trust that I shall have better fortune with this than with the previous Amendment, and that the noble Earl will be able to accept it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 4, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Burden.)
6.40 p.m.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: As the noble Lord has rightly said, this is an extremely technical subject. I have been informed that Section 144 of the Local Government Act, 1948, provides that, subject to certain provisos, a reference to the rateable value of an area for a year is to be construed for the purposes of that Act as the total of rateable values shown in the valuation list on the first
508
date of the year. This figure is required to be ascertained for the purposes of the Exchequer equalisation grant, the London equalisation scheme and the distribution by the Department of payments under Part V of the Act by the British Transport Commission and the Central Electricity Authority. Proviso (c) of the subsection, which was inserted, as the noble Lord rightly said, by the Valuation Act, 1955, provides for certain alterations made in the new list in its first year, as the result of the settlement of appeals, to be taken into account in computing the total as though the alteration had actually been made when the list came into force.
The Amendment which the noble Lord has moved would provide for such alterations made within the first two years of a new list to be taken into account. The noble Lord has contended that this is quite reasonable, because it is now clear that a substantial proportion of the proposals which were made in the first year—that is, in 1956–57—of the new list will not have been disposed of by the end of that year. I told the noble Lord just now that up to the end of January, 757,000 proposals had been made, of which 374,000 have now been settled.
LORD BURDEN: I said nearly 50 per cent. outstanding.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: There are just over 50 per cent. outstanding—that is true. It was never expected that all, or even the great bulk of, the proposals which had been submitted would be settled in the first year of the new lists. Section 144 (2) of the 1948 Act in its original form—that is to say, not amended by the 1955 Act—was so drafted in order that the final settlement of grants should not be unduly delayed. Proviso (c), which was added by the Act of 1955, was a limited departure from the original provision to meet the special circumstances of a revaluation, and my right honourable friend does not think that it should be extended now in the way in which the noble Lord proposes in his Amendment. There is one further difficulty which I am loth to invoke, because it is not the custom to do so in this House; but, as I understand it, if the noble Lord's Amendment were accepted, there is the chance that it might be out of order as being outside the0 scope of the

509
Financial Resolution. I mention that only in passing, because I think that the noble Lord has an important point. But for the reasons which I have mentioned, I hope he will not press this Amendment.
LORD BURDEN: I am conscious of that last point, and I am sure that no one would allow a relatively new Member of your Lordships' House to transgress in that direction. But this is a complicated matter, and the local authorities feel That, with the provision in the 1955 Act coming to an end, and these outstanding proposals not being put into operation—or, as I would put it, round the other way if the noble Lord will agree—there will be some substantial reduction in the net amount arising from the consideration of these proposals by the appeals committees. As the Amendment contained in the 1955 Act stands, those redactions would be taken into account in grants made to local authorities, but that will not be done unless this clause is extended. Bearing in mind the complicated character of the Amendment, and also the financial arrangements, and bearing in mind the other complication which the noble Earl mentioned, would it be possible for these to be considered by the noble Earl and his right honourable friend with the offices concerned and with representatives of the local authorities? I am asking that because, owing to the exigencies of time, if you like, in another place, a similar Amendment was put down but was not called. Taking all those circumstances into account, I am quite willing to withdraw my Amendment to-clay, if those discussions can take place. In fact, I plead with the Minister to agree to those discussions taking place in order, if possible, to get an agreed solution and arrangement between the Minister and the representatives of the local authorities.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I am quite willing and happy to convey to my right honourable friend the views which the noble Lord has expressed, but I could not, of course, say definitely, here and now, that he will be prepared to meet the local authorities on this particular question before the time that this Bill must become an Act of Parliament which, if it is going to have any value, must be the last day of this month. But I will certainly convey the noble Lord's views to, my right honourable friend.
LORD BURDEN: In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: This Amendment consequential on Amendment. No. 3 which stood in my name. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Claus 6, insert the following Schedule—
("SCHEDULE
ENACTMENTS REPEALED

Session and Chapter

Short Title

Extent of Repeal

32 & 33 Vict. c. 67.

The Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869.

In section four the definition of "gross value".

1 & 2 Eliz. 2. c. 42.

The Valuation for Rating Act, 1953.

In section two, in subsection (1) the words from "or in section four "to" 'the Act of 1869 ')".

In section four, in subjection (2) the words "or the Act of 1869, as the case may be".

In section five, in subsection (2) the words "or the Act of 1869, as the case may be".

In section six, in subsection (3) the words "or in section four of the Act of 1869". ")

—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
House resumed.

  SUEZ CANAL CONFERENCE REPORT
  SUEZ CANAL CONFERENCE REPORT