Sitting of 7 May 1957

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
DEATH OF A MEMBER
Mr. Speaker: I regret to have to inform the House of the death of Robert Fisher Crouch, Esq., Member for North Dorset, and I desire on behalf of the House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the honourable Member.
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  DARTFORD TUNNEL BILL
  Read the Third time and passed.
PETITION

  Rent Bill
  Captain Hewitson: I have been requested by the citizens of Hull to seek your permission, Mr. Speaker, to present a Petition against the Rent Bill. They claim that, with 86,715 houses damaged and only 6,000 untouched during the bombing in the war, they are suffering from a very severe shortage of housing accommodation in their area. If the Bill becomes operative, many of them, having lost security of tenure, will have to pay very high uncontrolled rents because no alternative accommodation will be available, but the vast majority of them, whilst retaining security of tenure, will have to pay severe increases in rents with no guarantee that their places will be maintained in an adequate and proper state of repair.
  They ask, therefore, that, if the Bill cannot be amended to deal with these injustices, it should be abandoned altogether. They conclude by saying, as they are entitled:
  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
  To lie upon the Table.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT

    New Towns (Green Belts)
    Mr. Remnantasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government under what circumstances building is permitted in green belts round new towns.
    The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Mr. Henry Brooke): New building in areas which it is agreed should be defined as green belts is being confined to building for agricultural purposes or other uses appropriate to a rural area, apart from a strictly limited amount of "infilling" or "rounding off". There is no difference for this purpose between a green belt round a new town and one round an old town. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of a circular on this subject which was sent to local planning authorities by my predecessor.
    Mr. Remnant: As a result of that Answer, can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that there will be no difference in treatment between a local authority and a development corporation?
    Mr. Brooke: The local authority is the planning authority, but if there is an appeal made to me I take everything into account and try to give proper weight to all the evidence that is before me and all the knowledge that is available. There is certainly no discrimination in favour of development corporations of new towns.

    Clean Air Council (Membership)
    Mr. Moyleasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he is now in a position to announce the names of those members he has appointed to the Clean Air Council as provided for by the Clean Air Act, 1956.
    Mr. H. Brooke: The constitution of the Clean Air Council is set out in an Order which I have laid before Parliament today. The Order provides that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power are to be the Vice-Chairmen of the Council. I am circulating

    771
    in the OFFICIAL REPORT the names of those who have accepted invitations to serve as members of the Council, and whom I now propose to appoint.
    Mr. Moyle: Is the Minister aware that the reply he has just given will give general satisfaction throughout the country?
    Mr. Brooke: I am very grateful to the hon. Member.
    Following are the names:
    R. C. E. Austin, Esq., LL.M., Town Clerk, St. Pancras.
    Mrs. A. L. Barker, J.P., Alderman, City of Stoke-on-Trent.
    Sir Hugh Beaver, K.B.E., M.Inst.C.E., M.Inst.Chem.E., Chairman, Arthur Guinness and Co. Ltd.
    C. A. Bence, Esq., M.R.C.S.. L.R.C.P., O.St.J., Alderman, City of Cardiff.
    W. T. Bowen, Esq., J.P., Alderman, City of Birmingham.
    J. A. Brown, Esq., J.P., Councillor, County Borough of Middlesbrough.
    Commander C. Buist, M.V.O., R.N.(Retd.). Chairman, Low Temperature Coal Distillers Association of Great Britain, Ltd. Vice-President, National Union of Manufacturers.
    Mrs. D. M. Charlton, B.Sc., Chairman. The Women's Advisory Council on Solid Fuel.
    Sir John Charrington, Chairman. National Federation of Coke Distributors Associations, and of the Chamber of Coal Traders.
    J. A. Connel, Esq., Director and Head of Technical Division, Unilever Ltd.
    P. B. Dingle, Esq., C.B.E., LL.M., Town Clerk, Manchester.
    Sir Josiah Eccles, C.B.E., M.M., B.Sc., M.Inst.C.E., M.I.E.E., M.I.Mech.E., Deputy Chairman, Central Electricity Authority.
    C. S. Garland, Esq., A.R.C.S., B.Sc, F.R.I.C., M.I.Chem.E., President, National Union of Manufacturers.
    Lieut.-Col. The Lord Dudley Gordon, D.S.O., M.I.Mech.E., Member of Council and Executive Committee, British Iron and Steel Federation.
    R. W. Husband. Esq., A.M.I.H.V.E., Controller of Engineering Department, Beecham Group, Ltd.
    H. W. H. Icough. Esq., Alderman, Metropolitan Borough of Greenwich, Chairman of the General Purposes Sub-Committee, Metropolitan Boroughs Standing Joint Committee.
    Sir Henry Jones. M.B.E., M.Inst.Gas E., M.I.C.E., M.I.Chem.E., Deputy Chairman, Gas Council.
    J. Latham, Esq., C.B.E., Deputy Chairman, National Coal Board.
    Dr. W. A. Macfarlane, Ph.D., B.A.. B.Sc, F.Inst.F., Chief Executive of the National Industrial Fuel Efficiency Service.
    R. S. MacTier, Esq., Chairman of Technical Committee, Liverpool Steam Ship Owners' Association.
    F. V. Magness, Esq., J.P., Vice-Chairman, Willenhall Urban District Council.
    Dr. LI. Roberts, M.D., M.R.C.P., D.P.H., Medical Officer of Health. City of Sheffield.
    Dr. S. W. Saunders, Ph.D., B.Sc, F.R.I.C, Managing Director. Billingham Division of I.C.I. Ltd.
    Professor A. B. Semple, V.R.D., M.D., D.P.H., Medical Officer of Health, City of Liverpool.
    Jack Tanner, Esq.. C.B.E., Past President of T.U.C. General Council.
    Professor M. W. Thring, M.A., F.Inst.P., F.Inst.F., M.I.Chem.E., Professor of Fuel Technology and Chemical Engineering, University of Sheffield.
    C. M. Vignoles. Esq., O.B.E.. General Manager. Shell-Mex and B.P. Ltd.
    J. W. Watkins, Esq., C.V.O., D.S.O., M.C., Member of the British Transport Commission, and
    A. H. Wilson, Esq., F.R.S., Managing Director in charge of Research and Development, Courtaulds, Ltd., Member of the Fuel Research Board of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research.

    Planning Appeals
    Mr. John Hallasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government to what extent his decisions in planning appeals are based on the evidence given at the inquiries; and what other considerations are taken into account.
    Mr. H. Brooke: In determining a planning appeal, I am under an obligation to have regard to the provisions of the development plan for the area and to any other material considerations. The evidence given at the inquiry will normally constitute the most important of these considerations; and the extent to which other considerations may have to be taken into account will vary according to the circumstances of the particular case. It is the practice to set out in the letter announcing my decision not only a summary of the evidence given at the inquiry but also the reasons for the decision.
    Mr. Hall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are times when it would appear that the Minister's decision has gone against the weight of the evidence given at the inquiry? Is it possible for him to make it quite clear to an appellant that there may be other circumstances, which may not have been referred to in the inquiry, which guide the decision on these matters?
    Mr. Brooke: I hope that the Answer I have given, which is a carefully considered Answer, will set out as clearly as it is possible to set it out the manner in which the Minister has to reach his decisions on appeal cases.
    Mr. Lindgren: As the other considerations referred to by the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) are often representations made by other Government Departments, would it not be better that the Government Departments gave evidence before the inquiry in the same way as anyone else gives evidence?
    Mr. Brooke: That is one of the matters on which the Franks Committee has received evidence, and we shall give careful consideration to that Committee's Report when it is available.
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: What is the objection to the proposal put forward by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren)? Why is it that my right hon. Friend's expert witnesses, giving evidence before the Franks Committee, have resisted this suggestion so strongly?
    Mr. Brooke: It is not customary for representatives of Government Departments to give evidence in contradiction to one another. The evidence given on behalf of my Department to the Franks Committee was. I think, very cogent.

  HOUSING

    Requisitioned Properties, London
    Mr. Liptonasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many dwelling-houses are still requisitioned by Metropolitan borough councils; and when he now expects them to be de-requisitioned.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. J. R. Bevins): 16,735 houses were held under requisition by Metropolitan borough councils on 31st March, 1957, which is the latest date for which figures are available. My right hon. Friend cannot forecast the rate at which the councils will be able to release these houses between now and 31st March, 1960, when their right to possession is due to come to an end.
    Mr. Lipton: Is the hon. Member aware that, with the virtual stopping of new housing in London other than for slum clearance, and with more people pouring into London from everywhere, it will be quite impossible by 1960 to provide other accommodation for people occupying all these requisitioned dwellings, of which there are 2,200 in the Metropolitan Borough of Lambeth? Where are these people to go? Is the Minister not aware that the housing problem in London is getting worse?
    Mr. Bevins: My right hon. Friend is aware of all the difficulties, but there has been a distinct improvement in the situation in London in the last two years. A circular has recently been issued inviting local authorities again to ask owners to accept as statutory tenants those who are at present licensees. We are perfectly satisfied with the way in which this is moving.
    Mr. Gibson: In view of the fact that there is still a terrific housing problem in London, and in view of the difficulty which local authorities in the area are experiencing in providing housing for any of the people on their waiting lists, will the Government consider postponing the date in 1960 when requisitioning as such is to cease? If there are anything like the number of houses then requisitioned as there are now, the financial and other problems of all the local authorities will be almost back-breaking.
    Mr. Bevins: My right hon. Friend recognises those difficulties, but during the last two years there has been a drop of about 40 per cent, in the houses held on requisition in London. Those local authorities which foresee difficulties in solving this problem by 1960 have been invited to put to my right hon. Friend a phased programme either for the purchase or for the leasing of the residue of these houses.
    Mr. Mitchison: Is the Minister satisfied with the response by landlords to the invitation which is being sent to them to accept these temporary tenants as statutory tenants? Has he available, and will he give it if asked, particulars of what has happened in reply to that invitation in different Metropolitan boroughs?
    Mr. Bevins: That is a slightly different question. I assure the hon. and learned

    775
    Gentleman that, on the whole, the response in the Metropolitan boroughs to the first invitations has been very good.
    Mr. Lipton: No.
    Mr. Bevins: There was a drop of about 40 per cent, following the first invitations to owners, and my right hon. Friend is hopeful that there will be an even greater response having regard to the provisions of the Rent Bill.

    Small Dwellings (Acquisition)
    Mr. Parkinasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table showing the number of houses purchased under the provisions of the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act in each of the London boroughs during each year since 1949.
    Mr. H. Brooke: Separate figures for each London borough are not readily

    ADVANCES BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES UNDER THE SMALL DWELLINGS ACQUISITION ACTS AND THE HOUSING ACTS

    April, 1945 to March, 1951

    April, 1951 to March, 1952

    April, 1952 to March, 1953

    April, 1953 to March, 1954

    April, 1954 to March. 1955

    April, 1955 to March, 1956

    Number of dwellings

    Number of dwellings

    Number of dwellings

    Number of dwellings

    Number of dwellings

    Number of dwellings

    Advances under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Acts:

    (i) for acquisition

    …

    450

    117

    103

    117

    128

    109

    (ii) for construction

    …

    2

    11

    1

    3

    —

    4

    Advances under Housing Act, 1949 (Section 4):

    (i) for acquisition

    …

    214

    588

    697

    787

    1,048

    1,305

    (ii) for construction

    …

    11

    14

    22

    56

    45

    69

    Mr. Parkinasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he is satisfied with the use being made of the provisions of the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act; and whether he will give the total numbers of houses acquired under this Act in each of the last five years.
    Mr. H. Brooke: I am never satisfied, but increasing use has been made of these
    776
    available. I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT the figures which I have for all the Metropolitan boroughs together.
    Mr. Parkin: Would the Minister think it worth while for his own information to try to get these figures? I suspect that there will be some startling variations between one borough and another. Would he not agree that it would be worth while to give encouragement for the fullest use of this device by which, if it is used with energy and discretion, a good deal of the unfortunate speculation in the fag-ends of leases may be avoided?
    Mr. Brooke: I am very anxious indeed for these powers to be used. I am sorry that I was unable to give the full information today, but it needs a considerable amount of collection and the hon. Member did not give me very long notice of the Question.
    provisions in each year since the end of the war. The information desired is published for the four years 1951–1955 in Appendix I to the Ministry's Annual Report for 1955; and the figures for 1955–56 will be published in the Report for 1956. I am circulating the information for all five years in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

    ADVANCES BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES UNDER THE SMALL DWELLINGS ACQUISITION ACTS AND THE HOUSING ACTS

    April, 1951 to March, 1952

    April, 1952 to March, 1953

    April, 1953 to March, 1954

    April, 1954 to March. 1955

    April, 1955 to March, 1956

    Number of dwellings

    Number of dwellings

    Number of dwellings

    Number of dwellings

    Number of dwellings

    Advances made under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Acts:

    (i) for acquisition

    …

    12,335

    8,670

    10,337

    15,431

    17,587

    (ii) for construction

    …

    4,025

    4,758

    6,352

    8,017

    7,559

    Advances, under Housing Act, 1949 (Section 4):

    (i) for acquisition

    …

    3,614

    3,337

    4,685

    10,854

    20,187

    (ii) for construction

    …

    1,235

    1,562

    2,531

    4,257

    7,849

    Mr. Parkinasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will sponsor and organise a tap issue of housing bonds which could be sold and serviced by local housing authorities who would retain the capital for housing development additional to that permitted by their present resources, including an arrangement by which these bonds could be redeemed at par to provide the deposit for the purchase of a house through the local authority under the provisions of the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act.
    Mr. H. Brooke: Local authorities already have wide powers for borrowing; and I do not think that the special features proposed here are necessary.
    Mr. Parkin: Will the Minister perhaps reflect on this, because the idea behind it is that this would make a form of extra saving and, if well advertised, could be at least as attractive as Premium Bonds to people who want to give wedding presents or who are saving up for a deposit? A general loan is not very attractive compared with the extra attraction of one specific objective— namely, the improvement in housing in one's own borough.
    Mr. Brooke: I understand that argument, but I am not sure whether it would be right to give borrowing for housing purposes a superiority in publicity over raising capital for, say, school building. Moreover, the hon. Member suggests a kind of national loan, whereas the general policy nowadays is to throw the responsibility for borrowing on the particular local authority, and I think that is sound.

    Rents
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government the aver age rent now being charged on five-room housing and flats, respectively, in respect of municipal houses whose construction was completed this year in outer London areas; and how this compares with the rentals charged for similar dwellings completed in 1950 and 1955.
    Mr. H. Brooke: I regret that I have not got this particular information.
    Mr. Sorensen: Will the Minister try to get this information, which would be extremely illuminating? Will he not try to find out exactly the answer to my Question, which surely is a legitimate Question?
    Mr. Brooke: I have a certain amount of information, but I think perhaps the best thing would be for me to write to the hon. Member and send him the information which I have. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I regret to say that the particular information which he requests here is not at this moment available, and I therefore could not publish it.

  EMPLOYMENT

    Labour Attaches
    Mr. Leeasked the Minister of Labour whether he will state the number of labour attaches in post; how this figure compares with the largest number at any period; and what plans he has for ex tending the service.
    The Minister of Labour and National Service (Mr. Iain Macleod): There are at present nineteen labour attaché posts, but one is shortly to be withdrawn as an economy measure. This compares with a maximum in 1952 of twenty-three labour attaché posts and, in addition, a post of Labour Adviser to the United Kingdom High Commissioner in Germany. The possibility of further appointments will be kept in mind for consideration when financial conditions permit.
    Mr. Lee: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that this development has been one of enormous importance in two-way information between this country and others to which we have assigned these people and that their work is of outstanding importance? Is it not regrettable that he should now announce that, instead of an extension of such an important service, we are even thinking of reducing it? Would he reconsider that?
    Mr. Macleod: I attach the greatest importance to the service. The one post which is being withdrawn is from a place where at the moment it is impossible for it to function effectively. I said in the latter part of my Answer that I will keep in mind the possibility of further appointments when financial conditions permit.
    Mr. Woodburn: Is the Minister aware that labour attaches perform a function not easily performed by any other member of the embassy, that they have acquired, in most countries, a prestige which is of great benefit to the country, and that it is really no economy to withdraw them where they can be usefully employed?
    Mr. Macleod: Yes, Sir. As I said, the one being withdrawn—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"]—in Athens—is being withdrawn because he cannot be effectually employed there at the present time.

    Fire-Fighting Equipment
    Mr. Leeasked the Minister of Labour whether he will make a statement as to the progress made by appropriate firms in the installation of fire-fighting equipment.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and National Service (Mr. Robert Carr): Certain Regulations made under the Factories Acts dealing with processes involving high risk of fire require the provision of fire extinguishing
    780
    equipment. I have no reason to think that firms subject to these Regulations fail to comply with these requirements. The question of extending the requirement to provide fire-fighting equipment to other cases is under consideration.
    Mr. Lee: The hon. Gentleman will remember that at the time of the Keighley fire quite a number of quite shocking revelations were made about the way in which the Factory Acts were being evaded in this respect. It was rather to that point that I was addressing my Question. Can he say whether any progress has been made since then in the review which the Ministry promised to undertake and which the factory inspectors, I understood, were carrying out?
    Mr. Carr: A good deal of progress has been made, as I have said in reply to Questions on a number of previous occasions. I do not think that the failures to which the hon. Gentleman refers come into this particular category. As far as we are aware, there is no reason to believe that the obligation to have fire-fighting appliances is being neglected.

    Recruitment of Mine Workers (Borough Exchange)
    Mr. Isaacsasked the Minister of Labour what result has been obtained by the Borough Employment Exchange in its efforts to recruit workers for the coal mines.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: Since the beginning of the year, the Borough Employment Exchange have submitted forty-six men for work in coalmining, of whom thirteen have been accepted.
    Mr. Isaacs: In view of the locality in which the Borough Employment Exchange is situated, and in view of the results obtained, would not the Minister consider that the staff there are entitled to better accommodation? Secondly, is he able to say how many of these workers have been recruited in the Borough of Westminster?
    Mr. Macleod: I cannot answer the second part of the right hon. Gentleman's Question without notice, but I should be very glad to go into the figures. It is true that this is a very good result, and I believe that the National Coal Board has written especially to the manager of the local exchange to congratulate him.

    Stoke-on-Trent
    Dr. Stressasked the Minister of Labour how many vacancies for men and women have been recently notified to the employment exchanges in Stoke-on-Trent; and how the figures compare with those of twelve months ago.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: The numbers of vacancies notified to employment exchanges in Stoke-on-Trent and remaining unfilled on 10th April, 1957, were 581 for males and 974 for females. Corresponding figures for 4th April, 1956, were 1,679 and 1,814, respectively.
    Dr. Stross: Does not that Answer make it apparent that there has been some worsening in the general labour situation in this city in this last year, and, apart from the obvious treatment, namely, the complete abolition of Purchase Tax, has the right hon. Gentleman any advice to give?
    Mr. Macleod: Of course, there is a difference here, as in most parts of the country, between last year's very high level and the slackening which has taken place this year, but there has been in the last month or so in Stoke-on-Trent and other places a considerable upswing —and a very welcome one—in the number of vacancies. Obviously, I cannot comment on the Purchase Tax question, but some relief must surely have been given in the Budget in relation to Purchase Tax on household goods.
    Dr. Strossasked the Minister of Labour to state the figures for part-time and full-time unemployment in Stoke-on- Trent at the last convenient date as compared with the same date in 1956.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: On 15th April, there were 2,172 registered as wholly unemployed and 580 as temporarily stopped. The corresponding figures for 16th April, 1956, were 1,186 and 1,074.
    Dr. Stross: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that these figures do not take into account the shrinking that has occurred in the labour force in the pottery industry as a whole, where some 10,000 workers—men and women—have been lost; and is he further aware that we fear that they may be entirely lost unless something is done as quickly as possible to assist them? I accept that it is not for his Department to do this.

    Milk Marketing Board, Glenrothes
    Mr. Hamiltonasked the Minister of Labour the estimated maximum labour requirements of the Milk Marketing Board's establishment to be set up in the new town of Glenrothes, Fife.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: The labour requirements of individual employers are regarded as confidential, but I may state that the number is not large.

    Building Industry Accidents (Advisory Committee)
    Mr. J. Rodgersasked the Minister of Labour what action he is taking to deal with the high rate of accidents in the building industry as reported in chapter 10 of the Chief Inspector of Factories' Report for 1955.
    Mr. Carr: In addition to increasing the staff of the Factory Inspectorate, as recently announced, my right hon. Friend has decided to set up an advisory committee, under my chairmanship, representative of the organisations in the building and civil engineering industries primarily concerned. It is hoped that this committee will stimulate interest in these industries in problems of safety and health with a view to reducing the incidence of accidents and dangers to health.
    Mr. Rodgers: Is my hon. Friend aware that the information which he has given will give great satisfaction to all sections in the House? Would he agree, since most of the firms in this industry employ twenty men or less, that the interest of these small firms should be kept clearly in mind?
    Mr. Carr: Yes, Sir. I thank my hon. Friend for his first remarks and can assure him on the latter point. If we are to make progress here, we have to arouse the active interest of both sides of the industry, and we hope that this Committee will help to do that.

    Workers (Temporary Transfer Scheme)
    Miss Burtonasked the Minister of Labour whether he has any statement to make about arrangements to assist the temporary transfer of workers from areas where there is a redundancy of labour which is not expected to be permanent.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: Yes, Sir. The new scheme applies to workers who have been unemployed for at least eight weeks, for whom there is no early prospect of obtaining suitable employment locally, and who continue to maintain dependants at home. Such workers who, on or after 11th June, with the prior knowledge of the local office of the Ministry of Labour, take up employment beyond daily travelling distance for which no suitable local unemployed worker is available, will be eligible to receive a free fare, a lodging allowance for a period of up to twelve months, and facilities to enable him to return to the home area to obtain employment there. The scheme will be available generally outside the areas covered by the present Resettlement Scheme, but will not be applied to workers who usually follow seasonal employment, nor in cases where similar assistance is normally provided by the prospective employer.
    The rate of lodging allowance payable under this Temporary Transfer Scheme will be 35s. a week, and I have arranged that as from 11th June the lodging allowance under the existing Resettlement Scheme will be increased to the same amount.
    Miss Burton: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that statement, I know he will appreciate that I shall certainly want to study it before commenting in detail on it. He has referred to seasonal work; will he give an assurance that he will not include the motor car industry in that category?
    Mr. Macleod: Yes, of course.
    Mr. Lee: The Minister spoke of seasonal workers. Supposing that they are going into work into which non-seasonal workers are going, how will he define them? Supposing a man has been engaged in seasonal work for a year or two and then transfers to a job of the type which the right hon. Gentleman has in mind here, how will the Minister differentiate between them?
    Mr. Macleod: One would have to look at individual cases, but it seems to me to be a contradiction of terms to say that the man has been following seasonal employment steadily for a year or two. I think that this is irrelevant. Seasonal employment is not a new problem and, normally, a man engaged in that work is
    784
    expected to make his own arrangements. What we are trying to do, which, we believe, will be of considerable assistance in relation to mobility of labour, is that if people are at work in an area which, perhaps, for a short time runs into difficulties, they may be helped to take employment somewhere else, even though they intend to come back to the home area, and even though they leave their dependants in that home area while working elsewhere.
    Mr. Robens: As this matter is surely tied to the recent statement about the disposition of our Forces in this country, would the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the request that we made for a White Paper dealing with the subject, and, perhaps, with the methods by which the Ministry of Labour are to get these people into employment in other parts of the country—lodging allowances and the rest?
    Mr. Macleod: This matter goes wider than any of those that arise immediately out of the defence debate. On the defence debate matter, I am, within a few days, laying before the House a detailed explanation of the Government's plans. particularly for National Service.
    Mr. Osborne: Can my right hon. Friend state how much the scheme is likely to cost?
    Mr. Macleod: No, I am afraid it is not possible to give an exact estimate. The figure obviously depends on how many people use the scheme. We are sending out detailed instructions now and they will be available in most areas from 11th June.
    Mr. Lee: Is it the Minister's intention to inform people at the employment exchanges about this; that, unless they get the instructions to go to these jobs from the employment exchanges, facilities regarding payment and the like will not be available to them?
    Mr. Macleod: Some of these matters are not yet finally worked out. As I said in my statement, it is obviously important that they should go to their new jobs with the prior knowledge of the local office of the Ministry of Labour; otherwise, it is impossible to check that they have fulfilled the requirements which I have laid down.

    Colour Prejudice
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Minister of Labour what recent action he has taken in respect of cases where men needed for employment have not been employed be cause of colour prejudice on the part of their prospective fellow employees; and what consultations have taken place on this matter between the officers of his Department and the trade unions.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: I am aware of a recent case of this kind which has received some publicity. My officers have not been asked to intervene, but I understand that the employers are in touch with the trade union concerned, which is investigating the matter.
    Mr. Sorensen: While appreciating the very good and useful work done by both the officers of the right hon. Gentleman's Department and the trade unions, may I ask him if it is not customary in cases like that for efforts to be made and the initiative to be taken by a local officer to try and clear up the matter?
    Mr. Macleod: My officers at local employment exchanges do not exercise discrimination in any way, and when they see employers exercising it they do everything they can to persuade them not to pursue that particular line. In this case, we have not been asked to intervene. Although I will watch the position, it is probably best to leave it at the moment between the employers and the trade unions, who, I believe, are having a local meeting about it.

    Shipbuilding and Engineering Industries (Reports)
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Minister of Labour if he has given consideration to the Reports of the Court of Inquiry into the disputes between the Shipbuilding Employers Federation, the Engineering and Allied Employers and the trade unions who have members affiliated to the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions; and what action he proposes to take.
    Mr. Leeasked the Minister of Labour whether he will make a statement on his intentions with regard to the suggestion of the Court of Inquiry into the dispute in the shipbuilding and engineering industries to set up an authoritative and impartial body to consider the wider
    786
    implications of the movement of wages, costs and prices.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: I welcome the suggestion to which the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) refers. Such a proposal involves discussions with both sides of industry, and in the meantime the Government are giving urgent consideration to the form which such a body might take and the scope of its terms of reference. The other recommendations in the Reports are, of course, for the parties to the disputes to consider.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: While accepting the Reports as a basis for reopening negotiations, which we hope will be successful in bringing about an interim settlement, does the Minister consider that the time has arrived when, if they are successful, a long-term agreement should be reached? If so, does he intend using his influence with a view to bringing that about?
    Mr. Macleod: Of the three recommendations of the Court of Inquiry, the first is on wages, the second on the National Joint Council, and the third on this impartial body. The first two are essentially at the moment for the parties to the dispute, and I will not go into them, unless these negotiations break down; in other words, I hope not to go into them at all. The third does require Government action, and that is why these talks, which at the moment are informal, though they will probably lead to more formal meetings, are going on, and I hope we shall be able to follow this suggestion up.
    Mr. Lee: On this point of the impartial body, is the Minister aware that a great deal must now depend upon the interpretation which the Government put upon the meaning of it? For instance, if it were to be merely an inquisition into wages, he could hardly expect full cooperation from the trade unions. If, on the other hand, it is a genuine effort to look at profits and the economic situation as well as wages, many of us would hope to see a really fruitful culmination of these suggestions.
    Mr. Macleod: Yes; I understand that. It is exactly to those sorts of points that the present conversations are directed.
    Mr. Grimond: While appreciating that the Minister is engaged in conversations now. would he say a little more of what

    787
    he really has in mind as to the field which this inquiry might cover? Is it to be a "once and for all" inquiry, for instance, or is it to sit for a certain time and take evidence over a long period? Secondly, unless it is to be the basis of a national wages policy, what exactly will it be able to consider? Are not the causes of strikes usually well-known, or, if they are not, there is machinery for finding them out, and the results of strikes, which are surely equally well-known?
    Mr. Macleod: I should not like to be too precise at this moment, because these are the matters which are forming the basis of discussion, and I should not like to put a unilateral view about them. On one matter in the hon. Gentleman's question I think I would give a specific answer. It is that I would contemplate that this would be a standing body and not a "once and for all" inquiry.

  SCOTLAND

    Loch Ness (Survey)
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will avail himself of the great advances recently made in the use of underwater photography and television techniques for the purpose of seabed surveys and of marine biological and oceanographical research, in order to have Loch Ness surveyed.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay): No, Sir. The expensive equipment required for these techniques is supplied to my Department for research, primarily at sea, in connection with the commercial fisheries.
    Mr. Hughes: Does not the Secretary of State realise that he owes an obligation to science in this matter, and that recent learned works have indicated that such a survey might reveal the existence in Loch Ness of a prehistoric or unique monster, fish or reptile, of some kind, the discovery of which might add considerably to science?
    Mr. Maclay: I am by no means satisfied that this somewhat "monstrous" suggestion would necessarily be in the best interests of the cause which, I think, the hon. and learned Member has in his mind.
    Mr. Woodburn: Is it not the case that the monster comes to the surface to save us this expense?
    Mr. John MacLeod: As the aquatic abilities of the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) are well-known, could not the Minister persuade him to go and have a look for the monster himself?

    Export of Live Cattle (Report)
    Sir W. Anstruther-Grayasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has now studied the report of the committee of inquiry into the export of live cattle to the continent for slaughter; and whether he proposes to carry out their recommendations.
    Mr. Maclay: It is hoped to make a statement very shortly.
    Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him if he will take steps to see that "very shortly" is not too long delayed, because the recommendations are designed to reduce suffering, and we want to reduce that suffering at once?
    Mr. Maclay indicated assent.

    Rents, Dumfriesshire
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has considered a letter from the Dumfries shire Tenants Committee on the question of the recent increase in rents in the county; whether he proposes to receive a deputation; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Maclay: I have told the committee that the rent to be charged for houses belonging to a local authority is a matter for the local authority itself. I have, however, indicated that my Department will receive the deputation which the committee proposes to send on 11th May and will report their representations to me and to the county council.
    Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister also aware that these enormous increases of rent are not merely a problem for the local authority, but that this is an area in which there are incoming miners, and that the future of the coal mining industry and the output of coal depends on reasonable rents of council houses?

    789
    Will he keep in mind the fact that Mr. Moffat, President of the Scottish Miners' Union, recently warned the Government that if this position is not changed there will be serious industrial trouble and probably strikes?
    Mr. Maclay: I have really nothing to add to what I have said. The Son. Member is going rather beyond the terms of his immediate question.
    Mr. Woodburn: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that this particular increase at Dumfries has sent a shock through the whole of the tenancies in Scotland, and that people are really very alarmed? Are we to understand that it is to be the outcome of Government legislation that local authorities are to behave in what seems to be a quite irresponsible fashion?

    Canals
    Mr. Hannanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has yet been invited to submit his observations on the future of Scottish canals to the Bowes Committee of Inquiry on Inland Waterways; what is the nature of his proposals; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Maclay: My Departments were invited by the Committee to submit written observations on certain questions relating to Scottish canals and did so in October last; but no proposals were made as to their future. That is a matter which will fall to be considered by the Government when the Committee's Report is received.
    Mr. Hannan: Is the Secretary of State aware of the various danger-spots to children in the City of Glasgow where young people have access to the banks of the Forth and Clyde Canal? Will he use his influence with his colleague the Minister of Transport to urge the early production of this Report?
    Mr. Maclay: I am aware of some of these danger-points, but I think we will have to await the Report, the subject of which is a complicated matter.

    Education (Building Projects)
    Mr. Hannanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that delays occur in obtaining the approval of his Department for new schools and
    790
    buildings for technical education; and what action he proposes to take to remedy this state of affairs.
    Mr. Maclay: Every effort is made to approve projects as soon as possible; but if the hon. Member will give me details of any case where he thinks there has been avoidable delay, I will have it investigated.
    Mr. Hannan: Is the Secretary of State aware that it is the cost limit which he has imposed on local authorities and with which their estimates have to agree that is causing the delay, and if I send him particulars, as I will, will be look into this matter?
    Mr. Hannanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now increase the present cost limit of £3 6s. per square foot which governs educational building projects.
    Mr. Maclay: The cost limit of 66s. per square foot, which governs school building only, is kept under review, but I am not satisfied that, with adequate planning and cost control, education authorities are unable to provide satisfactory schools within the limit.
    Mr. Hannan: Is the Secretary of State aware that this cost limit was imposed in December, 1954, since when costs have risen? Since it is this cost limit which is delaying the planning of schools and technical buildings in order to carry out the Government's policy, will the right hon. Gentleman look at this matter again?
    Mr. Maclay: As I have said, the cost limit is kept under review, but we must try to get the best value for money that we can in the interests of everybody.

  MINISTRY OF WORKS

    Building Construction (Steel and Reinforced Concrete)
    Mr. Osborneasked the Minister of Works how much steel is licensed annually in building construction; in view of the shortage of steel, what experiments he is making with reinforced concrete; and how far he estimates this could replace steel structures and so save great quantities of valuable steel.
    The Minister of Works (Mr. Hugh Molson): Steel for building is no longer licensed, but a very rough estimate of the

    791
    amount of steel used in building last year is 1¼ million tons. Reinforced concrete, which is a well established method of construction, is now generally adopted for Government buildings unless there is some good reason to the contrary. During the year ended June, 1956, some 160 framed buildings of all types were designed by my Department, and of these no less than 110 were in reinforced concrete framing.
    I have no means of estimating the extent to which structural steel could be replaced in building generally by reinforced concrete.
    Mr. Osborne: Can my right hon. Friend use his influence to see that reinforced concrete is used and a great deal of this 1¼ million tons of steel is saved for export? Many responsible architects feel that it is being wastefully buried in new buildings.
    Mr. Molson: The figures I have given, showing to what extent the Ministry of Works uses reinforced concrete will, I hope, have the effect that my hon. Friend has in mind. In the case of the second half of the Whitehall Gardens building, we have chosen to use reinforced concrete instead of structural steel, and as a result we are saving £130,000.

  BRITISH ARMY

    Trawsfynydd and Tonfannau Camps, Merionethshire
    Mr. T. W. Jonesasked the Secretary of State for War if he will make a statement about the future of the Royal Artillery Camps at Trawsfynydd and Tonfannau, in Merionethshire, respectively.
    The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Julian Amery): Trawsfynydd Camp and Training Area will be sold as soon as field firing training can be transferred elsewhere and the land cleared of un-exploded bombs, and alternative accommodation found for the Army Outward Bound School.
    No decision has been taken about Tonfannau.
    Mr. Jones: Is the Minister aware that these camps are situated in an area where there is no hope of alternative employment? Will he consult the President of the Board of Trade and the Minister for
    792
    Welsh Affairs with a view to using these buildings for the introduction of some alternative industry, especially as the area contains the highest percentage of unemployment in the whole country?
    Mr. Amery: I will certainly look into the point raised by the hon. Member. He will appreciate that if we have no further need for the area, it is difficult for the War Department to keep it on.
    Mr. Mollish: But not for the Government as a whole.

    Sporting Events (Compulsory Attendance)
    Mr. D. Jonesasked the Secretary of State for War (1) whether he will make a statement concerning the compulsory attendance at a football match ordered by the commanding officer of B Squadron. 7th Royal Tank Regiment, on Saturday, 27th April, 1957;
    (2) under what Army regulations weekend passes to soldiers of the 7th Royal Tank Regiment were cancelled and the men marched to a football match and ordered to cheer a particular team.
    The Secretary of State for War (Mr. John Hare): The 7th Royal Tank Regiment took part in the final of the Northern Command football championship on 27th April at Catterick. The match was well supported by soldiers in the regiment, but in one squadron where the response was poor the squadron commander ordered about half his troops to attend. Sixty-five men were involved out of a regimental strength of approximately 1,000. They were free to leave camp at 4.30 p.m. after the game. No week-end passes were cancelled and nobody was ordered to cheer.
    Mr. Jones: Is the Secretary of State aware that these men were ordered to parade and were marched to the football ground because they refused to attend voluntarily? Is it not the case that they were threatened with the withdrawal of their week-end passes unless they went? Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that this kind of treatment by responsible military officers is likely to help his recruiting campaign to get a voluntary army?
    Mr. Hare: I am not aware of the first two allegations made by the hon. Member, but I will certainly look into them.

    793
    This was an isolated incident, and I do not think there is any question about the general liberty enjoyed by our troops at the week-end.
    Mr. Strachey: Will not the right hon. Gentleman express his opinion that there surely was a mistake which should not be repeated?
    Mr. Hare: I hesitate to do this. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, we must allow discretion to commanding officers. [Interruption.] If discretion is given to people, it is rather pointless to censure them for using it.
    Mr. Swingler: Is the Secretary of State really saying that he is in favour of compulsory attendance at sporting events?
    Mr. Hare: I did not say anything of the sort.
    Mr. Jones: Is the right hon. Gentleman now saying that there was no authority for the withdrawal of these week-end passes? Is he saying that the commanding officer exceeded his duty by withdrawing these passes? If so, will he take the necessary disciplinary action?
    Mr. Hare: I said I would look into that. I have not had that information and from the evidence which I have had I do not believe that it is correct.
    Mr. Chetwyndasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will abolish the compulsory attendance of troops at service sporting events.
    Mr. John Hare: Attendance at sporting events outside duty hours is not normally compulsory. Commanding officers have discretion in matters of this kind, but it is the policy of the Army Council that the freedom of troops after working hours should not be unduly re-tricted.
    Mr. Cherwynd: In the instance quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones), when a commanding officer behaves with stupidity in a matter like this, is it not the duty of the Secretary of State to make sure that these things do not happen? Is not the only way to ensure that they do not happen to abolish compulsory attendance, which is quite ludicrous?
    Mr. Hare: I have answered this question earlier. I still think that commanding officers should be allowed discretion; and if they are given discretion, we cannot censure them for using it.
    Mr. Strachey: Will not the Secretary of State express his view for the guidance of commanding officers in future? It is a very small matter, but these things affect recruiting and are important in that respect. If the right hon. Gentleman expresses a view, it would be no censure and he would be doing something useful.
    Mr. Hare: I have already covered the point.

    Regular Recruitment and Compulsory Service
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Secretary of State for War if he will state, on the basis of the rates of long-service voluntary recruitment and re-engagements in the last three years, what increases in the rates of long-service recruitment and re-engagement he requires in the next two years to be able to dispense with compulsory service in 1960.
    Mr. John Hare: I propose to deal with this subject in my speech on the Army Estimates.
    Mr. Swingler: In that speech, will the right hon. Gentleman be able to give the estimates for which I have asked? Can he give figures of the increase in recruitment that is required?
    Mr. Hare: I shall not be able to do that, because that would be a matter of speculation.
    Mr. Swingler: On the basis of the recruiting experience of the last two or three years, cannot the Secretary of State calculate what increase in recruitment of long-service volunteers is necessary to give him the size of volunteer army that the Government say they require by 1960?
    Mr. Hare: I shall be able to do something on those lines, but the whole of this question will depend on the various factors affecting recruitment, which we are at present examining.
    Mr. Strachey: Would not the Secretary of State agree that what it would really depend on is the production of suitable terms of service and other inducements to

    795
    an all-professional volunteer army? May we expect an early announcement from the right hon. Gentleman on those lines?
    Mr. Hare: As I have said, I hope to be dealing with this subject, but I cannot anticipate what I shall be saying next Tuesday.

    Military Personnel, Ghana (Pay and Allowances)
    Mr. John Hallasked the Secretary of State for War if the gross amount in pay and allowances paid to British officers and other ranks serving with the Ghana military forces is recovered in full from the Ghana Government.
    Mr. John HareYes, Sir.
    Mr. Hall: If this amount is recovered in full from the Ghana Government, does it not mean that that sum is wholly earned in Ghana and that, therefore, British officers and other ranks should be entitled to pay the Income Tax in Ghana and not at the much higher United Kingdom rates?
    Mr. Hare: As I think my hon. Friend realises, when civilians are employed by the Ghana Government they pay Ghana taxes, but when military personnel are seconded they remain directly in the employment of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom.

    Suez Contracting Companies (Employees)
    Mr. Philip Bellasked the Secretary of State for War (1) the total amount claimed by employees of the Suez contracting companies for loss of personal effects and compensation for illness attributable to internment, respectively;
    (2) the total amount settled by the assessors in respect of claims by employees of the Suez contracting companies for loss of personal effects and compensation for illness attributable to internment, respectively; and how much of such total amount has been paid.
    Mr. John Hare: I understand that the total amount claimed by the employees of the contracting companies for loss of personal effects in Egypt—excluding bank balances, which amount to about £100,000—is about £500,000. The independent assessors have not yet reported on all the claims. No payments
    796
    have yet been authorised. The companies are examining claims concerning illness attributed to internment. One ex gratia payment of £600 has been approved and four other cases are being sympathetically considered.
    Mr. Bell: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that Answer, may I ask whether he can give any idea when the bill will be paid? I am sure he appreciates that there is a good deal of anxiety on this matter.
    Mr. Hare: I cannot give any idea. All I can say is that I am urgently considering the representations which are being made, and I shall certainly do all that I can to arrive at an early settlement.
    Mr. Philip Bellasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that military exigencies prevented a fair opportunity being given to employees of the Suez contracting companies to leave Egypt so as to avoid internment, he will compensate such employees for such internment, which was the direct result of the actions of Her Majesty's Government.
    Mr. John Hare: I understand that employees whom the contracting companies engaged in the United Kingdom for service in Egypt have been given substantial payments on account of the premature termination of their employment. I do not think that further compensation on the grounds of their internment would be justified.
    Mr. Bell: Has my right hon. Friend given serious consideration to this matter, taking into account that these employees were, in a sense, doing Government work and that their position was no doubt very much prejudiced by his office in that a number of them were reserve officers and often letters were sent to them marked "War Office", which made them easy prey for internment as soon as hostilities started?
    Mr. Hare: I have considered all the various points and many others which my hon. and learned Friend has not mentioned. I think that these people have been treated fairly, although, naturally, I have great sympathy for them. They have been given a lump sum payment which, I think, has been fairly and generously worked out for them.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Cider (Tax)
    Mr. Deedesasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue was collected in the financial year 1956–57 as a result of the cider tax imposed by the Finance Act, 1957; how many paid it; and how many were employed to collect it.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Peter Thorneycroft): Under the Finance Act. 1956, cider of a strength comparable with that of British wine is charged with British wine duty, but no separate figures are kept and no special staff are engaged in its collection.
    Mr. Deedes: Whilst accepting the difficulty about keeping separate figures, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware that probably only a handful of cider makers are being called upon to pay his tax, with the result that the Customs and Excise officials are put to quite a disproportionate amount of work for a trivial amount of revenue in return? Could he have another look at the matter?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: Not to charge the tax would be to discriminate openly in favour of perry and cider with equivalent strength to British wine.
    Mr. John Hall: Is the Minister aware that most manufacturers of this kind of cider have already reduced the alcoholic content to escape this tax?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: If that is so, they have the remedy in their own hands.

    Garden Furniture (Tax)
    Mr. R. Bellasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the loss of revenue involved in extending the reduction of Purchase Tax from 30 per cent, to 15 per cent, in respect of other classes of furniture to garden furniture at present contained in Class 16 (b) of the Purchase Tax Schedule.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: About £120,000 a year.
    Mr. Bell: Is it quite clear that this applies only to garden furniture in Class 16 (b) and does not include elves and gnomes?

    Nationalised Industries
    Mr. Grimondasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his intention as to reducing the overdraft of the nationalised industries and as to their capital financing.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: The total of the overdrafts of the nationalised industries has been reduced from £123 million on 15th August, 1956, just prior to the first Exchequer advances, down to a figure of £55 million on 17th April last, representing their current short-term need. I cannot yet make a statement about the Government's intention as to the financing of the industries after the expiry of the Exchequer's lending power in March. 1958.
    Mr. Grimond: Whilst thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that answer, may I ask whether it is the case that their financing, whether long-term or short-term, will be done by overdraft until a decision is taken?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: Rather the contrary. It was being done long-term largely by overdraft and, under the new method of financing, the overdraft is limited to short-term needs as in the case of ordinary industry.

    Non-Industrial Civil Servants (London Airport)
    Mr. Hunterasked the Secretary to the Treasury what progress has been made in negotiations regarding the claim of non-industrial civil servants employed at London Airport to be paid at the London rate of salaries.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. J. Enoch Powell): The discussions to which I referred in my reply to the hon. Member on 12th March are still in progress; I hope that a settlement covering this claim amongst others will be reached shortly.
    Mr. Hunter: Whilst thanking the hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask whether he will use his best endeavours to speed up negotiations, since this point has been outstanding for a very long period and is a real grievance among non-industrial civil servants?
    Mr. Beswick: Will the hon. Gentleman also realise that, whilst complications on hours and arguments about provincial differentiation may drag on for

    799
    a very considerable time, the case of the London Airport employees is a quite insupportable anomaly? Will he make a decision on that without awaiting the outcome of negotiations as a whole?
    Mr. Powell: I am not so pessimistic about the prospect of a comprehensive agreement.

  NUCLEAR TESTS
  Dr. Strossasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the fact that no threshold dose for radiostrontium may exist and that tests of nuclear weapons may already be responsible for some 50,000 cases of bone tumour in the future; and if he will therefore postpone the proposed British tests in the Pacific.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): I have been asked to reply.
  I assume that the hon. Member has in mind certain statements in a report recently published by the Atomic Scientists' Association. I would draw his attention to the very careful reservations made by the authors of this report; they state
  " In giving these estimates it must be emphasised again that, apart from the considerable margin of error due to lack of adequate data, they are based on the as yet unproved hypothesis of a proportional relationship applying to very small doses."
  And they go on:
  " From this point of view they represent the most pessimistic approach."
  I am informed that the estimates made in this report from the Atomic Scientists' Association are interpretations of factual evidence which was available last year to the Medical Research Council's special committee, but that the latter did not consider it an adequate basis to justify their making such calculations.
  In these circumstances, Her Majesty's Government are not prepared to postpone the proposed tests.
  Dr. Stross: Whilst accepting the quotations made by the right hon. Gentleman, may I ask whether he does not agree that, although no one dare be dogmatic about this rather terrifying risk that we are discussing and there is some doubt, any benefit of the doubt must be given
  800
  to posterity, and that we have no right to be euphemistic or optimistic about this matter, and the only possible way of approach is by pessimism and not by optimism?
  Mr. Butler: I have in mind that the data available was before the Medical Research Council's special committee a year ago and we had it in mind at that time. Therefore, I am not prepared on behalf of Her Majesty's Government to make an answer, on behalf of the Prime Minister, saying that we would abandon the tests on the basis of the atomic scientists' report which comes a year later. I am prepared to take the matter most seriously and give the hon. Member the answer I have given, but I am not prepared to give any further conclusion.
  Mr. Gaitskell: In view of the length of time which has elapsed since the Medical Research Council's Report, the number of statements made by scientists in various countries and the amount of additional evidence made available, could the right hon. Gentleman ask the Medical Research Council for a further report to bring the matter up to date?
  Mr. Butler: I am certainly quite ready to do this, but I must honestly say that, since the Medical Research Council's Report was received and published, no relevant new fact has become available as far as we are aware. Some fresh estimates have been made of the rate of accumulation of radiostrontium in human bone, of which I have full particulars here that I have studied, but according to the information in my possession it would not be worth while doing what the right hon. Gentleman suggests. I will, however, certainly consider the suggestion and discuss it with my right hon. Friend.
  Mr. Hamiltonasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the conflicting views of world scientists on the harmful effects of nuclear bomb explosions, he will initiate the calling of an international conference of scientists in order to ascertain at least the minimum area of agreement.
  Mr. R. A. Butler: I have been asked to reply.
  The United Nations set up, in 1955, a Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation which is examining

  801
  these matters. My right hon. Friend does not consider it necessary to set up any other international body for this purpose.
  Mr. Hamilton: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the sooner we get a consensus of opinion among world scientists the better it will be for the allaying of public concern? Is he aware that, contrary to what the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have said, the alarm about these explosions and prospective explosions is not coming entirely from Communists but is coming from people who are very violently anti-Communist and is a view which none the less is sincerely felt? Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to look at the matter again to see whether we can get up-to-date information from all the world's scientists?
  Mr. Butler: The Committee, consisting of most respectable representatives of the most respectable nations, last met in Geneva from 8th April to 19th April. The whole question of radiation hazards and the effects of strontium 90 was considered by the Committee, which is still collecting information, on which it will take some time to reach conclusions. As this is an international body of scientists, I should prefer to give it an opportunity to reach conclusions before we do anything else.
  Mr. Gaitskell: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Committee is likely to produce a report?
  Mr. Butler: No, because it is an international body in charge of its own procedure, but I will investigate and try to inform the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. G. Thomas: In view of the disturbing statement made yesterday by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about the rate of strontium radiation found in the Welsh mountains and in that district—[Laughter.]—Hon. Members may laugh, but they are not laughing in Wales—is not the Minister prepared to recognise that this is a new factor? How long have the Government had information about this, and will they continue to increase the amount of radio-strontium on these hills, thereby risking the well-being of future generations.
  Mr. Butler: Those of us who have responsibility in these matters realise that
  802
  strontium on herbage, especially on elevations such as the Welsh mountains, is the most easy to calculate. But there is nothing I can add at present to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, that so far the present averages measured in the United Kingdom are 67 of a unit for children under five years of age and much less for the rest of the population. The International Commission on Radiological Protection accepted 1,000 units as a maximum allowable for workers in special occupations. Therefore, so far, although it is a matter of concern that on herbage on elevations, especially in the Welsh mountains, there should be this deposit, we do not think the matter has reached a stage about which we need be unduly alarmed.
  Mr. Bevan: Is it not extraordinary, when there is no doubt about the fact that these poisons are being spread throughout the atmosphere and that they are irreversible, that we should proceed to these tests before we get the report from the international body of scientists? If the extent of the poisoning is unknown but the fact that it is occurring is known, would it not be more civilised to stop all tests until we have the report?
  Mr. Butler: No, Sir. The right hon. Gentleman is ignoring the march of science. It may be that through the process of tests we may find that the radiation effect is less marked than it is thought to be at present. It is certainly not the intention of Her Majesty's Government, for reasons of scientific appraisal and for reasons of the defence of the country, to abandon the tests at the present time.
  Mr. Bevan: But has the right hon. Gentleman addressed himself to my question? As far as we understand, there is no doubt about the fact that poisoning is taking place. There is no doubt either that the poisoning is irreversible. What there is doubt about at the moment is its extent. Would it not, therefore, seem to be reasonable to everybody in all parties that until the facts are established by the international body of scientists, no more poisoning should be permitted?
  Mr. Butler: No, Sir. I have said that for two reasons, namely, the scientific

  803
  and the question of national defence, we think the tests should proceed in the interests of all.
  Mr. Philip Bell: Has my right hon. Friend had the advantage of any information supplied by the Soviet Republic on the poisonous effects of their tests?
  Mr. Butler: I am afraid that I cannot answer for the Soviet Government, nor have we any scientific data on that subject.
  Mr. Gaitskell: Can the Lord Privy Seal seriously argue that a postponement of these tests until the report is available would seriously endanger our national defence, or, indeed, interfere with the march of science?
  Mr. Butler: I am following, with I think absolute justice, the line which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has followed, and I think rightly followed, for the two reasons I have given— namely, in the forward march of science tests are necessary; they are also necessary in the interests of national defence.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. It is after time.

  FOOTBALL INDUSTRY
  Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieuasked the Prime Minister whether he will recommend the appointment of a Royal Commission to examine the affairs of the football industry.
  Mr. R. A. Butler: I have been asked to reply.
  No, Sir.
  Mr. Mallalieu: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that there is considerable evidence of corruption in this industry and that there is some evidence of tax evasion? Are these matters not proper subjects for investigation?
  Mr. Butler: From my experience of the authorities, I am sure that they are quite capable of dealing with tax evasion. I should prefer to leave the affairs of the football industry to the industry itself. If there is some industrial conciliation procedure, as was the case in 1951, and some dispute on industrial conciliation, it would be a matter for the Minister of Labour, but beyond all that we had better leave the industry to work out its own affairs.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  FINANCE BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.34 p.m.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. J. Enoch Powell): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  As Finance Bills go, this is not a long one. In fact, both in number of Clauses and in number of pages it is much below the average length of Finance Bills since the war. A great part of the Bill will also, I hope, be found to present no great complexities, and even those provisions which, at first sight, are somewhat daunting—in particular, possibly, those in Part IV of the Bill, on overseas trade corporations—will be found on examination to yield to a simple approach and a logical analysis.
  It will, I believe, meet the convenience of the House if, this afternoon, I deal briefly with those provisions of the Bill which reproduce detailed Resolutions of the Committee of Ways and Means, and have already been the subject, therefore, of protracted discussion during the Budget debates. In this way I can reserve most of my time for the proposals which could be scarcely more than adumbrated, either in the Ways and Means Resolutions or in that debate.
  The contents of the Bill can be classified roughly into four groups: those which deal with indirect taxation, those which deal with direct taxation, those which make various adjustments in taxation law and, finally, the proposals, to which I propose to devote the concluding part of my speech, concerned with assistance to British trade.
  Among the proposed changes in indirect taxation, which will be found in Parts I and II of the Bill, the most important are the linked proposals on Entertainments Duty and television duty and the reductions of Purchase Tax. As from last Sunday, Entertainments Duty has been payable only on cinema shows and public television shows—shows, that is, where a televised picture is cast upon the screen instead of a film picture. The existing machinery for levying the duty remains unchanged, but the opportunity has been taken in the First Schedule to the Bill to recodify the existing exemptions.
  806
  The First Schedule, however, will not come into force until the Bill is upon the Statute Book. Therefore, the extension of the relief for cinemas in rural and sparsely populated areas has been brought into effect simultaneously with the new rates of duty, that is, from last Sunday.
  The substitution of a flat rate for the existing highly complex tables of duty will, in practice, give the greatest reduction of duty on tickets in the popular ranges up to 2s. 6d., and will, incidentally, remove what I believe has been a considerable grievance on the part of cinema proprietors, that they could not make even a very small adjustment in the price of a ticket without attracting a disproportionately large increase in the duty payable.
  As to the finances of the industry, this will reduce the estimated gross liability of exhibitors by about £6½ million in a full year. After account is taken of the share which falls to distributors and producers, including the increase of up to £1¼ million in the levy provided for by the Cinematograph Films Act, the net relief to exhibitors will be about £3½ million in a full year. I mention this because it is, of course, quite fallacious to argue as if the whole of the levy, the £2½ million or more which is in payment at present, as well as the increase of up to £1½ million, should be offset against the remission provided in the Bill.
  The television duty, as my right hon. Friend explained in his Budget speech, will, in the current financial year, bring in approximately the amount of the remission in Entertainments Duty on the cinema. There is only one point which I should mention in this connection. It is whether the duty should be payable, rather like the Motor Vehicle Duty, for periods shorter than a year, at the option of the taxpayer. This, however, is a duty upon the television licence, which itself is issued only for a whole year at a time.
  The amount of the duty is, of course, extremely small, both in comparison with those other duties which are payable quarterly or for shorter periods, and also with the costs which the owner of a television set is already incurring. The annual cost of running a television set, I am advised, can scarcely be put at less than £7 a year, or £10 including the licence. This expense is of a kind which tends to fall in considerable sums at one

  807
  time. I do not think that it can be argued that the duty of £1, representing 10 per cent, at the utmost of the annual cost, will in any circumstances cause such hardship as to justify the extra administrative cost and difficulty of an option to pay quarterly or monthly.
  Mr. A. E. Hunter: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there is heavy Purchase Tax on television sets? It amounts to a very large sum.
  Mr. Powell: The larger the outlay which the owner of a television set is called upon to pay, the smaller will be the
  proportion of his annual outlay represented by this duty.
  The alterations in Purchase Tax in Clause 6 do not call for further comment or explanation at this stage. Before leaving the changes in indirect taxation, I want to add only the following on the minor provisions. The duty on imported hops and substances derived from hops, together with consequential duties and drawbacks on beer, was first imposed in 1925 for a four-year period.
  It was at that time given this temporary duration, because in those days, as the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) clearly indicated, it was necessary to tread exceedingly warily with even the smallest departure from Free Trade principles. In the event, it has been renewed whenever necessary from that time to this, seven times in all. As it fell for renewal again this year, and as no one in present circumstances would be prepared to contemplate its abandonment, the proposal is that the duty should now remain until Parliament otherwise determines.
  I believe that commerce will find the provisions of the Second Schedule, to which Clause 5 looks forward, for simplifying the calculation of Customs duties on composite goods, as much of a boon as it will be to the Commissioners of Customs and Excise. With no appreciable alteration one way or the other in the actual amount of duty paid, the change should bring a useful reduction in costs of collection. I am hoping for a saving of more than £25,000 a year. The provisions have been so drawn as to prevent advantage from being taken of this simplification to the detriment of either the Revenue or of trade competitors.
  808
  Turning now to Part III of the Bill, on the main changes in direct taxation covered by Clauses 8 to 12 I can be very brief. They enact the four main alterations proposed: the increase in the upper limit on earned income relief, the increase in the allowances for children aged 11-plus and 16-plus respectively, the higher starting point for Surtax in the case of persons with dependants and family responsibilities generally, and, finally, the improvements in age relief.
  The first of these improvements in age relief raises the limit of total income for the existing relief from £600 to £700. As the House knows, this relief at present gives the equivalent of two-ninths earned income relief on the unearned income of a taxpayer who is either himself aged 65 or over, or whose wife is, where the total income does not exceed £600. Clause 10 (2) now raises that limit to £700. The other form of age relief is new and consists in the exemption from tax of single persons aged 65 or over with a total income not exceeding £250 and of married couples, where at least one is 65 or over, and the total income does not exceed £400.
  I have emphasised "total income," for I note that there has been some misunderstanding of these proposals in the sense of taking this to be an exemption of the first £250, or £400, as the case may be. That, of course, is not the effect of the proposal at all. Apart from slight marginal relief, the concession does not apply to people where the total income exceeds the figures I have stated. This, of course, follows from what is the purpose of the concession which is not to give relief to all taxpayers aged over 65, but to exempt the elderly who are living on the very smallest taxable incomes.
  The rest of Part III of the Bill and Parts V and VI deal for the most part with a number of adjustments of the tax law and the House will wish to have some explanation of these. Clauses 15 and 16 deal with Schedule A. The former will correct an anomaly which was revealed by the Court of Appeal judgment on 22nd March in the case of Gatehouse v. Vise and it arises in the following way. In recent years the custom has sprung up of letting flats on a long lease at a low rent for a premium. The general rule for Schedule A in the case of a building let in parts was, and is, to

  809
  charge the landlord, and where the letting is at a full rent no difficulty arises.
  In the premium cases, however, where the letting is at an extremely low rent, there was an apparent conflict between two legal rules and in 1954, the Inland Revenue was advised that in these cases the occupier should be charged, a practice which was announced by my predecessor in July, 1954. The Court of Appeal, however, has now found that the landlord has all along been liable, though two of the members of the Court expressed the view that this result was anomalous and that legislation might be needed. Clause 15 accordingly removes the anomaly and, as from the current financial year, makes the occupier chargeable in those cases, as he would be in the normal case of a similar long lease of a separate house.
  The other Schedule A proposal in Clause 16 is of limited effect and merely serves to preserve the status quo in Scotland and Northern Ireland, in both of which countries, although in different ways, rating is in a condition of transition. In Scotland, the abolition of owner's rates and the consequential reduction in rents would have the effect of reducing the assessment for Schedule A and, consequently, of reducing the repairs allowance for Schedule A, with the somewhat unexpected effect that in a number of cases the liability under Schedule A, so far from being reduced, would actually be increased. This Clause will prevent that somewhat surprising result from arising.
  In Northern Ireland, there has recently been a revaluation of property for rating which, but for the Clause, would have to be followed for tax purposes, and so would increase the liabilities of the taxpayers of Northern Ireland under Schedule A. It is clearly wrong that this should happen in one part of the United Kingdom and not in the whole.
  Clause 17 makes a change which was announced by my right hon. Friend on 22nd February, in connection with the House of Commons Members' Fund Bill, which passed through this House last week. It is, in a sense, consequential upon the tax relief in respect of their contributions to this Fund which was given to hon. Members in last year's Finance Act. So, although the pensions and other periodical payments made out
  810
  of this Fund are subject to income limits, they will now be treated for tax purposes as are pensions generally, that is to say, the payments will be liable to tax as earned income and the contributions will rank for tax relief.
  Clause 18 cures an anomaly in the existing law, whereby the question whether a maintenance payment is to be paid with or without deduction of tax depends not only upon the amount of the payment, but upon the question whether the allowance happened to be awarded in a magistrate's court or in the High Court. Such a distinction is clearly indefensible, and the Clause removes the anomaly.
  Clause 19 is of particular importance to Colonial Territories which, on emerging into independence, will be setting up central banks of their own. It will make it possible for Her Majesty's Government to enable them, if they decide to keep their currency reserves in sterling in this country, to do so without incurring tax upon them.
  A further minor adjustment of the law is made in Clause 37, in Part VI. In 1954, a block of capital was transferred from the British Electricity Authority—as it then was—to the South of Scotland Electricity Board in the form of a loan. Clause 37 makes the consequential adjustment of enabling the Central Electricity Authority to transfer to the South of Scotland Electricity Board, along with the loan itself, the disallowance of part of the interest paid on it for Profits Tax purposes.
  I now come to the last of these minor adjustments, which have necessarily been somewhat dry and tedious. Clause 36 deals with a difficulty which has arisen over arrangements for widows' and dependants' annuities, made under the provisions of last year's Finance Act. Some arrangements for this purpose, made under trust schemes and contracts, empower the person who makes the scheme to revoke the annuity and replace it by a lump sum payable to his personal representatives, and although this option may never be exercised, and the annuity so become payable on his death, nevertheless, as the law stands at present, the value of the annuity must be fully aggregated for Estate Duty. The Clause corrects this obvious unfairness by providing that when the option has not been exercised, these annuities, like the rest,

  811
  will qualify for the favourable treatment for Estate Duty provided in last year's Finance Act.
  The question of Estate Duty brings me to the two provisions which the Bill contains against the avoidance of tax. The main one, which is enshrined—if that is the right word—in Clause 35, deals with the avoidance of the five-year requirement for exemption from Estate Duty of gifts inter vivos. At present, a gift escapes duty even though the death of the donor occurs within five years of the gift if, in the meantime, it has ceased to exist—as, for example, where it consisted of securities which have matured. Moreover, in circumstances where the gift has attracted or carried with itself any accretion, as by qualification for an issue of bonus shares or the like, that accretion escapes duty even though it might have been foreseen and deliberately produced.
  The Clause will end these forms of avoidance by rendering the recipient liable, on a death within five years of a gift, upon the value of the property substituted for the gift which has disappeared, or upon the value not only of the gift itself, but of any assets which it has attracted in the way that I have explained.
  I should perhaps point out that the application of this Clause to all deaths occurring after the Royal Assent is in no real sense retrospective taxation. All changes of Estate Duty, together with its original imposition, have run from a current date, and in the case of gifts made before Budget day, and made deliberately in such a way as to avoid Estate Duty by any of the methods now ruled out, it could scarcely be said that such expectations as will be defeated were legitimate ones.
  Mr. Geoffrey Hirst: Why not?
  Mr. Powell: In any case, if such arrangements are now thought disadvantageous, there will be time before the Royal Assent to the Bill to alter them.
  The other provision against avoidance is contained in Clause 14, which deals with a set of circumstances which can arise particularly in connection with shipbuilding. It can be the case that the firm which orders the building of a ship and provisionally pays part of the cost is not
  812
  the firm which, when the ship is completed, takes delivery for full cost and operates it. I illustrate the case by reference to ships, although it applies to all kinds of plant and machinery. As the law stands it would be possible for an initial allowance or an investment allowance, as the case may be, to be obtained by both firms, that is, twice in respect of the same asset. The Clause will secure that in such circumstances the benefit of the investment or initial allowance is not enjoyed twice over.
  I have now reached the threshold of the final part of my speech, which relates to assistance to British trade. Before I cross it, however, there is one miscellaneous provision to which I must refer, namely, that contained in Clause 38, which reduces the size of the National Land Fund. That provision finds its place in the Finance Bill not because it imposes or remits a tax; and still less because it has anything to do with expenditure. It is included simply because it represents an operation upon the National Debt. In 1946, the National Debt was increased by £50 million to create this Fund. Since then the interest upon the Fund has been credited to it, bringing it to a total maturity value today of nearly £60 million. The amounts spent to date upon the purposes to which it can be devoted have totalled less than £2 million.
  In its Third Report in the Session 1953–54 the Committee of Public Accounts submitted to the House the following recommendation:
  "Your Committee think it undesirable in principle that substantial amounts of public money for which there is no foreseeable need should be kept in special funds or accounts outside the direct control of Parliament. They therefore recommend that the Treasury should consider the desirability of legislation to return to the Exchequer some part of the large, and growing, balance of the National Land Fund."
  In accordance with that recommendation, Clause 38 will reduce the Fund to £10 million by writing off the debt to the amount of the difference between that figure and the present maturity value of the Fund. The budgetary effect will, of course, be extremely small. It amounts to merely the amount of the annual interest payable on the debt, which is now being written off, for there is no question here of raiding or appropriating a fund.

  813
  The reality behind all this is simply that each year the Exchequer forgoes a certain amount of revenue by way of Estate Duty in order to secure for the nation land, houses and works of art; and it makes good that deficiency from the Fund, which, in effect, means, since the Fund is already re-lent to the Exchequer, from current borrowing. There is, indeed, a good case, since the amount of Estate Duty thus forgone fluctuates so unpredictably from year to year and cannot easily be the subject of ordinary estimating, for meeting this kind of outlay in this way.
  I come, lastly, to the two proposals in the Bill designed to assist British overseas trade. That dealt with in Clause 13 relates to the shipping industry which has to compete directly with companies resident and taxed in countries having much lower rates and more favourable conditions of taxation than our own. In view of the character of shipping operations, which, for the most part, are carried on at sea, this places British shipping at a special disadvantage in the markets of the world.
  The proposed assistance takes the form of doubling the investment allowance which the shipping industry virtually alone now enjoys. The effect, of course, is that in the first year 40 per cent, of the cost of a ship is relieved of tax, while the full cost is still allowed for tax. over the years appropriate for its depreciation; that is to say, broadly speaking, sixteen years in the case of a tanker and twenty years in the case of a dry cargo ship. Thus, 140 per cent, instead of 100 per cent, of the cost of the asset is allowed for tax.
  Putting the matter another way, the investment allowance and the annual allowance—if it is calculated by the "reducing balance" method—together have the effect of writing off the cost of a ship in six years in the case of a tanker and seven years in the case of a dry cargo ship. Or, if the "straight line" method is adopted, the periods will be ten and twelve years respectively.
  I realise that such a concession will not meet those who argue for depreciation on some new basis altogether. But it does represent a notable further aid to an industry which, as I have explained, is at a special competitive disadvantage. The shipping industry has, in fact, recognised
  814
  this and I see that on 11th April the President of the Chamber of Shipping, referring to this proposal, said that it
  " is a substantial move towards putting British shipowners in a competitive position with lower taxed foreign owners and is very welcome by the industry."
  While Clause 13, with which I have just been dealing, is concerned with a single industry, Part IV of the Bill relates to a wide range of trading activities carried on abroad by British companies. The purpose of this part of the Bill is to free British companies engaged in industry and commerce abroad from the handicap of having to pay United Kingdom Profits Tax and Income Tax upon the profits of their business which they plough back or retain as reserves.
  From this single and simple aim flow all the conditions and limitations which are contained in Part IV of the Bill and five of the Schedules, for it is the Government's determination that no tax advantage shall be secured in respect of any profits which are not genuinely made overseas, that no profits which are in any sense distributed shall escape tax, and that there shall be nothing in these provisions that would have the effect of an export subsidy or of enabling British firms to escape from their proper tax liabilities either overseas or at home. In short, the object is not to confer a privilege, but to remove a handicap.
  From what I have just said it follows, in the first place, that it is only on undistributed trading profits that exemption will be allowed. Great care has been taken to include under the concept of distribution not merely dividends in the ordinary sense, but every channel through which the profits made by an overseas trade corporation could find their way out of the business and into other hands. Moreover, trading profits are most care-fuly distinguished from investment profits, and, as I have said, it is to the former only that the terms of the exemption apply.
  In the second place, an overseas trade corporation cannot carry on any trade or business in the United Kingdom and may not even take delivery of any goods at any point inside the United Kingdom. At the earliest it must take delivery free on board a ship or aircraft. These provisions are to secure that no profits arising from any trade, activity or process carried

  815
  on in the United Kingdom find their way by some means or other into trading profits qualifying for exemption. The House will notice, however, in the proviso to Clause 21 (1), that the mere employment of a broker in this country to sell goods produced overseas in one of our commodity markets would not disqualify a company from being an overseas trade corporation.
  However, even if it carried on no operations here itself, other than those inseparable from control and management, the company might still, by some form of collusion or other, contrive to buy from or sell to firms in this country at such prices that, in effect, profits were shunted into the exempted category as trading profits of an overseas trade corporation. Therefore, the powers which the Commissioners of Inland Revenue already possess to police the prices charged or obtained in such transactions between associated companies which are resident and nonresident respectively—that is, their present powers in Section 469 of the Income Tax Act, 1952—are expanded by Clause 28 of the Bill to cover all sales by or to overseas trading corporations, whether any definable association between the parties exists or not. The Commissioners will, in fact, find this power easier to exercise than their present power under Section 469, to which I have referred, because at present they may well not get the accounts of the non-resident companies concerned, whereas they will, of course, receive the accounts of the overseas trade corporation as well as of companies taxable in the United Kingdom with which it has these transactions.
  It is not the intention that overseas trade corporations should escape tax altogether. This is the main reason why shipping and air transport, which are normally taxed only in the country where the company is resident, are excluded from the scope of overseas trade corporations; and for greater security the special provision in Clause 21 (5) has been included, to the effect that the company cannot be an overseas trade corporation unless it would be liable to Income Tax on all its trade somewhere or other in the world, assuming that there were in other countries a tax analogous to Income Tax in this country.
  816
  The simple effect is to ensure that we would not have a case of a company which, in effect, escapes tax at both ends, both tax in the United Kingdom and whatever tax there may be in the country where it is operating. The activities of banking, finance, and insurance—
  Mr. Bernard Braine: I wonder whether my hon. Friend would explain that a little further? As the Bill is drafted, and as I understand it, it does not give exemption to overseas trade corporations in respect of funds received from subsidiaries operating and registered abroad. My hon. Friend will recollect that the Royal Commission on the Taxation of Income and Profits recommended that such subsidiaries should be included. Does he not think it equitably and politically unwise that branches of overseas trade corporations should have this concession, but not subsidiaries which may have local nationals on their boards?
  Mr. Powell: It is quite true, as my hon. Friend says, that a company resident abroad or in United Kingdom tax parlance a "non-resident company" cannot, under the terms of this Bill, be an overseas trade corporation. I am aware of the problems which that exclusion raises. Nevertheless, there are severe difficulties in bringing non-resident companies into the scope of overseas trade corporations. Perhaps my hon. Friend will agree that that is a matter which we can explore in detail during the Committee stage discussions.
  Mr. Peter Remnant: Do not the profits of subsidiaries to an overseas trade corporation which is registered in the United Kingdom come under the heading of invested income under Clause 32 rather than under trade income?
  Mr. Powell: Yes, but, of course, the investment income does not attract exemption. The investment profits do not attract exemption under the Bill, so that it does not really matter one way or the other.
  Mr. Remnant: But if all the capital is supplied from the United Kingdom to the overseas trade corporation it is, in effect, profits earned abroad. So why should it not benefit?
  Mr. Powell: Perhaps I shall meet my hon. Friend's point if I say that,

  817
  obviously, an overseas trade corporation will be able to invest abroad its trading profits on which, under this Bill, it has not incurred Profits Tax and Income Tax and will be able to enjoy an investment income from it. I hope that that meets the point raised by my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Braine: This is very important. As the Bill is drafted, it means that a subsidiary which is resident and managed abroad cannot have profits remitted to the parent company and then transferred to another subsidiary, thus aiding company development. Surely that is not what the Royal Commission intended, or what was promised us last year by the former Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Mr. Powell: I appreciate the point made by my hon. Friend. It flows from the fact that a non-resident company does not, under the Bill, qualify as an overseas trade corporation.
  I have mentioned that when we come to look at this, we shall find there are very great difficulties—I do not say that they are necessarily insurmountable—in bringing a non-resident company within the category of an overseas trade corporation.
  The activities of banking, finance and insurance are also excluded, because it would be difficult to say of any concern of that kind that its day-today operations can be separated from the activities of central control and management.
  Part IV of the Bill, taken as a whole, removes from British companies genuinely trading wholly overseas the handicap of United Kingdom rates of tax upon their trading profits without obliging them to remove their control and management from the United Kingdom; and it will also enable them to use the profits of one trade overseas for building up another trade overseas without incurring United Kingdom tax in the process. These provisions fulfil—my hon. Friend has drawn attention to this—in principle the recommendations of the Royal Commission in Chapter 24 of its final Report, and they meet the requests in the debate on last year's Finance Bill that those recommendations should be put into effect.
  Mr. Roy Jenkins (Birmingham, Stech-ford): I understood that the intention
  818
  of the Government, in accordance with the majority Report of the Royal Commission, had perhaps been moving recently away from the discrimination between distributed and undistributed profits. This provision, relating, of course, only to overseas traders in so far as it concerns them, introduces a new discrimination between distributed and undistributed profits. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman can tell us to what extent this marks a change in the view of the Government, whether it means that they are not moving in favour of removing discrimination generally.
  Mr. Powell: I think that the hon. Gentleman has brought into juxtaposition two matters which are not really connected. If the object of this change in the law is to enable British companies, controlled and managed in this country but trading abroad, to plough back the profits which they make abroad into their businesses abroad without being penalised by United Kingdom tax, it follows of necessity that the exemption must apply to the undistributed profits, namely, to the profits devoted to that purpose.
  Mr. J. T. Price: May I put to the Financial Secretary a question which I ventured to put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he was speaking on this in the Budget debates? Having listened with rapt attention to this very complicated and technical discourse, which has already sent several hon. Members in despair from the Chamber, but which I have endured until now, can he explain to the House, in simple terms, how the British economy, or the financial system of this country, will be strengthened by operations or manipulations which merely allow British capital to be used without employing British labour or refunding British revenue?
  Mr. Powell: It is rather curious—I have noticed it before—that the hon. Gentleman always intervenes just when I am passing to the point in my argument to which he is referring. I was going on to say that it is extremely difficult to estimate the immediate loss of revenue which will result from these concessions. The estimate of £25 million in the current financial year, rising to £35 million in a full year, which was given in my right hon. Friend's Budget statement,

  819
  is based on an assessment of the present revenue from the undistributed profit of British firms which it is believed will qualify or be able to reorganise themselves so as to result in overseas trade corporations being set up. They will mainly be, no doubt, in overseas mining, including oil extraction, overseas plantations—tea, coffee, rubber, and so on— and various kinds of manufacture and assembly overseas.
  In so far as these provisions achieve their aim, they will mean in the short run, as the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has pointed out, and as, indeed, my right hon. Friend, in his Budget speech, mentioned, that an element will be added to the debit side of our balance of payments. It is impossible to evaluate all the factors which will determine the size of this element. While £35 million will no longer have to be remitted in tax, a considerable amount of that sum may still find its way back by way of reserves and dividends. Additional investment from this country in overseas trade corporations and purchases here by them may be offset by an increased volume and improved terms of trade and by additional foreign investment in British companies.
  In the long run, however, the advantages cannot be doubted. The more rapid and greater expansion of United Kingdom controlled companies trading overseas will mean in after years a broadening flow of dividends to shareholders in this country and of invisible exports to the United Kingdom. The disadvantage temporarily expected on our revenue account and in our balance of payments is a thoroughly sound investment for future years.
  This, indeed, is the note upon which I would commend the Finance Bill as a whole to the House. Over 35 per cent, of the cost of its provisions in a full year goes directly to the strengthening of British trade and commerce. As to the remainder, no small part of the wealth which the State will leave in the hands of those who created it will find its way to expand our production and increase our well-being in years to come.
  4.20 p.m.
  Mr. Gordon Walker: The Financial Secretary said that this Finance Bill was somewhat shorter than the
  820
  normal one. It is certainly no less complicated than the normal one. I have a feeling that Finance Bills are becoming year by year more and more unintelligible and more and more difficult to follow in their details.
  The hon. Gentleman delivered himself of one extraordinary doctrine—the higher the tax the less does the additional tax matter—when he was talking about the duty on television sets, a doctrine which he is not inclined to apply to Surtax. Most of the points which the hon. Gentleman has made will be dealt with in the course of speeches on the Bill. We are very grateful to him for the very lucid way in which he went through the Bill and for the very careful analysis he made of it.
  The hon. Gentleman, of course, had to work on the basis that all parts of the Bill were equally good because that is his brief. I hope to give a rather more balanced review of the Finance Bill. It certainly contains some good things, but it contains some very bad things, and it contains a number of things on which we need to think further. The shortness of time between the First and Second Reading of the Bill is, I think, without precedent for a Finance Bill, and we feel that we have not been quite properly and fairly treated in this matter.
  Let me deal first with the better parts of the Bill. I begun with Clause 1, dealing with the Entertainments Duty. We do, of course, welcome the remission of duty on the theatre and on sport—for which we have long pressed ourselves and which figured in our last Election programme. We shall have something to say on the degree of relief to cinemas but in the main, the comments which I want to make on the Entertainments Duty are the two which follow.
  The first is that the remission of tax on sport coincides with a moment in the football world when it seems to be rent with divisions, recriminations and mass confessions. The root of all this, so far as I can see, lies in the question of labour relations in that sport, business or industry—labour relations which seem to be very archaic and reminiscent in some ways of the slave market. Moreover, people can be submitted to secret trials which can deprive them of their livelihood.
  Mr. Cyril Osborne: That is the trade union movement.
  Mr. Gordon Walker: It is very interesting that in the opportunity State in which the hon. Member believes footballers have to emigrate because they can get only £15 a week or so here and can get £60,000 in Italy.
  Mr. Osborne: We have still to learn of one being sent to Coventry or committing suicide because of the unkindness of his brothers.
  Mr. Gordon Walker: No doubt the hon. Member will be eager to apply his own principles where he can, including the football world. I think that despite what the Lord Privy Seal said today, there is a good case for an inquiry, and we shall want to discuss the remission of Entertainments Duty in the light of these considerations.
  The other comment that I want to make is on the failure of the Government, in regard to the television duty, to give any relief to old-age pensioners, hospitals and similar institutions. That is something which we deplore and will do our utmost to make good.
  We welcome, of course, as we must, the reduction of the Purchase Tax on pots and pans, so far as it goes. I do not think that the Government can claim much credit for it. It is only half reversing a tax which should never have been put on. It is rather like a husband claiming credit not for stopping beating his wife, but merely for beating her half as hard as before.
  The child allowance, graded by age, is obviously to be welcomed. It is my belief that everything possible should be done to help the children at school, but this relief applies naturally and necessarily only to those who pay Income Tax. It might be better to give this relief in the form of maintenance grants, graded in the same way by age at 12 and 16, because that would give relief not only to the Income Tax payers as at present, but to people who do not pay Income Tax, and who find it a heavy burden to keep their children at school. It is a matter which I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will think about. I do not know what the cost would be to extend this relief to those below the Income Tax paying level to help them to keep their children at school.
  822
  The anti-avoidance measures in regard to death duties are to be welcomed but they should have come sooner. My right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) has for several years now been telling the Government that the Estate Duty had become, in effect, a voluntary tax. The former Financial Secretary used to hold up his hands in horror, like a shocked maiden aunt, when we said these things about tax avoidance, and he twitted us for being irresponsible, but these proposals in the Bill show that what we said in regard to Estate Duty was correct. The Chancellor has admitted that, although belatedly. I agree with the Financial Secretary that it is right than when a deliberate attempt has been made to avoid or evade the spirit of the law that should be checked as early as possible, even if the steps taken to evade the law have been taken before the Bill actually passes into law.
  One of the consequences of these measures about tax avoidance is that the law on gifts inter vivos has become inextricably complex. It is one of the most difficult parts of the Bill to understand. Nor do we know if new ways have not already been found to get round some of these provisions. We know that ingenious gentlemen who make a profession out of giving advice on how, within the law, to get round taxes think very far ahead. This whole field of difficult law could be greatly simplified if we had a tax on gifts inter vivos, as is done in the United States. It would get rid of that ghoulish waiting for donors to live more than five years and of the great inequities that follow from whether a donor lives for five years or not. The United States has such a tax. It would obviously be perfectly workable and simplify immensely this whole question of Estate Duty legislation, and the attempts to stop its evasion by gifts inter vivos.
  I should like to say a word about the Surtax changes in the Bill. We are not against breaking through the £2,000 "sound" barrier, as has been done in Clause 12. There is very clearly a case for some concessions for people who earn above or below £2,000 a year income, although in this Bill all the concessions go to those with incomes above £2,000 a year. Any such concessions must, of course, be on condition that they are part of a generally equitable range of tax changes, which is certainly

  823
  not the case in this Bill, and on condition that the redistribution is mainly achieved within the general Surtax range. I feel that the Surtax changes—I am referring to those in Clause 12, the breaking through of this £2,000 a year limit, for which there is a good deal to be said —ought to be accompanied by measures for broadening the basis of tax, in particular by a tax on capital gains.
  Hon. Members opposite are always telling us about the "poor Surtax payer", but they never mention those who get capital gains scot free. There is a great deal of inequality here between one and the other in this high level of earning.
  Mr. Gerald Nabarro: What about football pools?
  Mr. Gordon Walker: Football pool winnings are drawn out of a pool that is heavily taxed already.
  Mr. Nabarro: If the right hon. Gentleman is proposing a capital gains tax— and no doubt he has in mind the American method—it would be policy eventually to apply that tax to winnings on football pools or on sweepstakes and things of that kind as well as gains on the Stock Exchange.
  Mr. Gordon Walker: The hon. Member is not entitled to assume that I would do it on the American basis if I had the doing of it. I would do it on a basis of capital transactions and a football pool is not a capital transaction.
  Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Gentleman says, in a general and specious fashion, "a tax on capital gains" or a "capital transaction," as he calls it. Supposing a donor bought a diamond and sold that diamond a year later, would the right hon. Gentleman attempt to apply a capital gains tax to that?
  Mr. Gordon Walker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reread the Report of the Royal Commission on the Taxation of Profits and Income, in which all these points are extremely well and completely answered. [Interruption.] In referring to the Report I am talking particularly about the tax on betting and on football pools. I go with the minority Report on the subject of Capital Gains.
  What I have said is that, on the whole, we are not against, or not wholly
  824
  against, the changes in Surtax in Clause 12, but we are completely against those changes in Clause 12 that give relief up to £10,000 a year of income. This is an intolerable social injustice, and the more we think about it the more we dislike it. According to an Answer which the Chancellor gave me the other day, the cost of this Clause 12 concession will be about £25 million. It has only been made possible because of the charges imposed upon people in the course of the year by way of an increase in the cost of bread, milk, school meals and so forth. But for those increases, there would not have been a surplus with which to do it.
  The Chancellor said that he could only just squeeze enough money out of his surplus to give this relief, but he would not have had the surplus out of which to squeeze it if he had not saved Government expenditure in the previous twelve months in the ways that I have described. [Interruption.] The Financial Secretary and his hon. Friends will refute these arguments if they can, but I do not think it can be done. We are particularly against extension of relief to Surtax payers on earnings between earnings of £4,000 and £10,000. No case has been made out for it, except the Chancellor's reference to the need to stop emigration. Perhaps the Chancellor has figures showing the number of people earning between £4,000 and £10,000 who have recently been emigrating.
  I turn to one of the policy foundations underlying the Finance Bill, namely, monetary policy. We welcome the Chancellor's rather critical tone in his Budget speech about the monetary policy of his predecessors. There has been a change here. For his two predecessors, monetary policy was a near-magical mechanism by which the economy could be flexibly moved about. The Chancellor now talks about many factors having changed since the original monetary policy was worked out. He said in his Budget speech that the moneary machine was working under great difficulties, but although he is critical of monetary policy he is sticking to it. We have the curious result that, in recent years we have had Finance Acts resting upon monetary policy in which the Chancellors concerned believed, whilst now we have a Finance Bill resting on a monetary policy in which the Chancellor no longer believes.

  825
  The effects of high interest rates and a high Bank rate are as harmful as ever they were. There is still a very heavy charge on revenue for internal debt. There is a large loss across the exchanges in interest paid to overseas holders of sterling balances. This must, in the last three or four years, have imposed a very considerable drain upon our balance of payments. If we had not had a very high Bank Rate during this time we should now be in a very different position in regard to the sterling balances and our gold and dollar reserves.
  I have seen no evidence that the high Bank Rate has had any very great effect on private investment. In so far as it has been affected, it has been by hire-purchase controls and to some extent by the credit squeeze. We are glad that the Radcliffe Committee has been set up; we hope that it will work with especial dispatch, and will hasten its report so as to have it ready for the next Labour Government.
  Mr. Osborne: It will have plenty of time.
  Mr. Gordon Walker: No. It will have to work very fast, indeed with unprecedented speed.
  I come to the most difficult and what may be the most controversial contents of the Bill, namely Part IV, concerning overseas trading corporations. It is a very radical departure from established British fiscal practice. This part of the Bill is exceedingly complicated, although the issues are relatively simple. When we come to the drafting of Amendments it will be very hard indeed to do so. It may therefore be easier if I start by saying what our attitude is in general on this matter, and then deal with criticisms of the Government's proposals. We are certainly in favour of tax concessions to pioneer companies. Double taxation arrangements frustrate the attempt by a Colony to give relief to a pioneer company. The lower the local tax goes the higher the United Kingdom tax goes. That is why we put down an Amendment last year to secure changes in that respect. We are in favour of these proposals, in so far as they give concessions to pioneer companies.
  We think that there is a case for helping United Kingdom-based companies that operate overseas. This practice has spread very far, and is widespread in
  826
  other countries with which our companies are competing. The other countries have similar tax concessions. We favour the general principle that it should be the trading and not the investment income of the overseas trading corporation that should be relieved, and that the benefit of the concession should go to the company and not to the shareholders. In the light of these views, we are inclined to think that the proposals of the Bill go too far and that there are major defects in them.
  One of the defects is that the overseas trading corporation is to be free of Profits Tax as well as of Income Tax. This is against the recommendation of the Royal Commission in paragraph 691. The Royal Commission only came down in favour of overseas trading corporations by a very narrow majority. It was against remitting Profits Tax to overseas trade corporations because it would benefit the shareholder in the overseas trading corporation against the shareholder in the normal British company.
  Mr. Remnant: Am I not right in assuming that the profits, if distributed ii this country, are subject to Profits Tax?
  Mr. Gordon Walker: No, I think not. I do not think that the profits, if distributed, are so subject; but those are matters that we have to work out. My reading of the Bill is that those profits are subject not to Profits Tax but to Income Tax Reading of this Part of the Bill is very difficult.
  Mr. J. T. Price: I have been trying to follow the argument of my right hon. Friend but it is becoming deeper and deeper. My right hon. Friend says, from this side of the House, that profits obtained by overseas trading operations shall remain with the company and not be given to the shareholders. I do not follow that argument. Surely the shareholders hold the equity in the company and whether the profits are distributed or not they will have the advantage of the increased capital value?
  Mr. Gordon Walker: I did not say any such thing. I said that tax exemption on these profits should benefit the company but that if the profits were distributed to the shareholders they should be subject to Profits Tax, as the Royal Commission says.

  827
  Another great doubt that we have is that the main benefit of the proposals will be to the Surtax-paying shareholders. That has been said by the Financial Times and the Economist, which have studied this part of the Bill with great care. The Surtax-paying shareholder is primarily interested in capital appreciation, and will benefit particularly on the winding up of an overseas trading corporation, as is shown in the Sixth Schedule. That is very disturbing. In effect it will do what the Government say they do not want to do, namely, allow the distribution of tax-exempted profits.
  The Surtax-paying shareholder will benefit on the winding up of a corporation. He will get his tax-free capital repayment, and a distribution of the further capital of the oversea trading corporation which has been built up because of tax exemption. He gets this further distribution of capital, Profits Tax-free and Surtax-free. The Chancellor has set up a great interest which will make for the winding up and re-formation of overseas corporations —
  Mr. A. E, Cooper: Companies are not usually formed for the express purpose of winding them up.
  Mr. Gordon Walker: There is now an incentive in favour of winding-up a company which has never existed before under our tax law, and which gives an enormous new benefit. I would ask the hon. Gentleman to study the Sixth Schedule. This is something which we must remedy.
  We are not sure about the good sense and the wisdom of the exemption of exports as distinct from mining, oil winning, plantations, etc. If profits on exports will be tax exempt, this exemption will erode the basis of taxation even more. We now know that the basis is much too narrow. If a large proportion of the profits earned by exports are exempt this will involve opening the way to massive tax avoidance. It will be extremely hard to enforce Clause 21, which deals with purchase free on board, or Clause 28, which tries to insist upon trading at arms' length between companies that are not at arms' length. It will be difficult to enforce these Clauses.
  The Chancellor has created a powerful incentive for people to find a way to
  828
  transfer some of the tax-free profits of the oversea subsidiaries to the parent company in the United Kingdom. There is an enormous incentive to do that, and ways are no doubt being worked out now to evade the safeguards, some of which have been published.
  The Sixth Schedule is one of the things upon which the Chancellor relies. This treats a loan from an oversea subsidiary to its parent company as a dividend. There are various forms of evasion, including indirect loans. As the Financial Times has already pointed out, there is nothing in the Bill to stop two parent companies here from making arrangements by which subsidiaries will make loans, not to their own parent company but to the other parent company, and vice versa. The Chancellor has invited our co-operation to make Part IV as clear and watertight as possible. He has been warned about this loophole. It must be stopped because otherwise the cost of these concessions may mount.
  I have grave doubts whether the cost will not be much more than the estimated £35 million a year. If these evasions are not stopped they will also cause the erosion of our foreign-exchange earnings, to which the Financial Secretary has referred.
  That brings me to my major doubt on this matter. It is certainly possible to overstimulate overseas investment. A balance must be kept. The arguments on this have been very well set out in the Report of the Royal Commission. We must not forget that the prime economic need is productive home investment. If we do not have that, everything else goes. If we have too much overseas investment it must be at the expense of home investment. There is a great deal of evidence that overseas investment is now, in spite of what everyone is saying, running at about as high a level as we can afford.
  So far as I can make out, in the years 1953 to 1956 overseas investment was, on an average, about £200 million a year, which was more than twice the balance of payment surplus on current account. That means that we were investing overseas a great deal more than we were earning. The difference was accounted for by sterling balances going down and by movements of the reserves, but the direct earnings of the country were not enough to cover overseas investment in those last

  829
  three years. The amount that we are earning on current balances in our balance of payments must set some limit to the amount of overseas investment that we can make in any particular period.
  If in those circumstances overseas investment is too far increased, it will give us a very grave balance of payments problem because an increase in overseas investment reduces the foreign exchange available to buy imports. It is true that overseas investment, in the long run, draws exports after it, but in the short run the strain can be very grave. I hope that the Chancellor will give us some arguments on this subject. We are worried about the short-run strain, especially with our very depleted resources. Even the long-term effects can be grave if home investment is falling, because home investment is the source of all our future output.
  In consequence of this we think that these reliefs are somewhat too large and too indiscriminate. We should like two main types of change made, which we shall try to secure. One is that the reliefs to overseas trading corporations should be scaled down and differentiated. We certainly want pioneer industries to get full relief, but f do not see why others should not get a percentage remission of their Income Tax—not 100 per cent.— exemption. There is a lot to be said for discrimination in favour of operations in the Commonwealth. The United States discriminates according to the area in which what are in effect its overseas corporations are trading. It gives different rates of relief to corporations trading in the Western hemisphere, those in the Far East and those in United States possessions. It is a workable thing—not something which has been thought up out of thin air.
  There is also a case for discrimination in favour of overseas trading corporations which produce goods we import, such as in mining, oil winning and plantations. That would have the least grave effect on our balance of payments if we were getting a cheaper flow of imports against the investments we are exporting.
  The second main change that we should like is that if this overseas trading corporation scheme is to be put through there should be more encouragement for home investment. The provisions in respect of overseas trading corporations
  830
  in Part IV of the Bill greatly strengthen the argument for investment allowances. We need some counter-pull of investment back to the home economy, particularly if we can make it a little discriminatory, as a balance against too much of a pull into overseas investment.
  Many of our doubts about this Part of the Bill are because we are not at all convinced that the Chancellor has fully thought out the effect and impact on our balance of payments, etc. We think that he may be running unpredictable risks with the national economy.
  In general, we have very grave doubts, therefore, about many features of the Bill. Some provisions we welcome. Even some which we welcome we shall want to alter and amend. We want to submit the Bill to a searching, arduous and largely critical scrutiny, and we hope that the Chancellor will provide adequate time for that. Otherwise, there can be no alternative to very prolonged sittings, which we for our part want to avoid. We are determined to do our utmost to improve and alter a Finance Bill which, in our view, has not been properly thought out and balanced, which has very grave omissions that we want to remedy, and which contains some proposals and provisions which are grossly unjust and reactionary.
  4.50 p.m.
  Sir Alexander Spearman: The right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) has given us, as he always does, a very thoughtful, interesting and, on the whole, a very fair speech, but if his criticism is the full measure of the criticism of this Finance Bill, I do not think that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has very much cause for anxiety. That may be less of a reflection on the debating powers of the right hon. Member than a tribute to the Chancellor.
  I think that the weight of the criticisms up to date in the Budget debates has been on the selection of the recipients whom the Chancellor has chosen for such remissions for taxation as he has found possible to give. I wonder whether that is really the right test of a Finance Bill, I believe the way in which my right hon. Friend's first Budget will be judged in future is in relation to its effect on the economy.

  831
  Much has been said about old-age pensioners. There is no section of the community with which most of us, on both sides of the House, feel more sympathy. It is true that they are now better off than they were at any time under a Socialist Government, but it is also true that we should all like to see them better off and that their improvement has not been anything like in proportion to the improvement in wages. If this Bill encouraged greater production to take place in the country it would be possible to pay increases in those pensions without those increases being almost immediately offset by rises in prices.
  This Government and its predecessor, the Socialist Government, were continually criticised and are criticised for rises in the cost of living. I am quite sure they would be criticised if there were any measure of unemployment. What does not always seem to be remembered is that never in this country, under any Government, nor, I think, in any free society, have we had both stable prices and full employment. I think that we got nearer to it in 1954 than ever before, and we might perhaps have achieved it in 1956 but for the consequences of Suez.
  It is quite easy to have full employment and stable prices if we have direction of labour and the State decreeing the rate of wages, but that is not what we call a free society. It is easy to have full employment and rising prices, as we know from experience of the last ten years. It is easy to have stable prices at the cost of heavy unemployment, as we know from experience of the pre-war years. The problem of the Government is to see how we can get both full employment and stable prices in a free society. Clearly, we can only get a check to the rise in the cost of living if increases in spending do not exceed increases in production. Otherwise the demand for goods will be so much in excess of supply that employers will readily give way to wage claims because they will know that they can put the extra cost on to the price of goods.
  On the other hand, if we are to maintain full employment there must be an increase in spending roughly equal to the increase in production. In other words, total money incomes must roughly balance national resources. Those are
  832
  two legs which have to be equal. If we are to have full employment, somehow or other we have to get those legs equal by extending the short leg of production rather than by contracting supplies, that is, shortening the long leg.
  That means that the economy has to run at a very high speed. The right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) referred to this Budget as an "assignment with inflation." Last year total consumption was about £14,000 million. How the right hon. Member or anyone who has not got access to official information can really judge so exactly as to know whether £50 million more or less out of the total of £14,000 million is going to be inflationary, I cannot understand.
  My right hon. Friend has the advantage of very able advisers, and I know he is more qualified than most to interpret that advice. I am very much prepared to accept the view that he can judge these things and make a correct assessment on all foreseeable circumstances, but he may have to deal with quite unforeseeable circumstances. All sorts of things might happen which are quite outside his control. Therefore, he must have proper brakes. When the economy was running, like a motor car, at 20 m.p.h. one did not need much in the way of brakes, but when it is running like a car at 100 m.p.h. very efficient brakes are required. My right hon. Friend has often been with me when I have been driving a motor car. I know he has such confidence in my driving that he does not in the least mind my driving fast, but I have seen a certain look of comfort on his face when he has known that I have good brakes on my car.
  Does this Bill provide those brakes? Largely speaking, I think that the brakes are monetary and fiscal. The right hon. Member for Smethwick did not think very much of the monetary weapon. I do not think he was justified in suggesting that the Government do not. If he had read or listened to the speech of the Economic Secretary, he would have noted that great stress was there laid on the monetary weapon.
  Mr. Gordon Walker: I listened to the speech of the Chancellor.
  Sir A. Spearman: I am glad that the right hon. Member will be listening to another speech from the Chancellor tonight and may have the lesson rubbed in once more.
  The monetary weapon takes a long time to work. I think that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary knew that to his cost in 1955, because it took much longer, under the world conditions of 1955, to work than it did under the quite different world conditions of three years earlier. For that reason, whatever he may do about the short term, I hope that my right hon. Friend will be very slow to do anything which will enable long-term borrowing to take place at materially lower rates. Indeed, I would commend to him the advice of the leading article in the Economist last week.
  In reply to the right hon. Member for Smethwick, I would say that the monetary weapon played a very big part in the improvement in balance of payments last year, the improvement in exports, in savings, and in the effect on stocks, but I think it is only effective in co-operation with the fiscal weapon. It seems to me that our fiscal weapons are getting a little rusted up.
  I understand that it is very difficult, without greatest unfairness, to alter Income Tax in mid-year owing to the P.A.Y.E. arrangements. I very much hope that in the course of the next two Budgets which my right hon. Friend will be introducing he will be able to make material reductions in Income Tax. It seems to me that he could make those reductions much more safely, and it would be much more easy to make them, if he knew that at short notice he could temporarily raise those taxes. As I said, brakes were not necessary when the economy was running very slowly, and they would not be necessary if we could predict the future quite clearly. I should like to think that the Chancellor had the power at any time, not waiting for the end of the financial year, to alter the rate of Income Tax either way.
  I turn next to Purchase Tax, which seems to me to be a very cumbrous weapon. It is very difficult to alter it in mid-year or even at the annual Budget, and great dislocation and hardship are caused to traders when alterations are made. I want to ask my right hon. Friend
  834
  very seriously to consider whether he could not substitute for the Purchase Tax a sales tax which would be ranged over such a variety of articles that quite a small alteration, say of 2½ per cent., would be enough to make a big difference in the release or contraction of purchasing power. That would provide him with a much more flexible weapon.
  Mr. Donald Chapman: Is not one of the great difficulties the fact that it would mean a lower tax on articles we wanted to export, thus sucking them into the home market? It would, for instance, mean a considerable reduction in the rate of Purchase Tax on motor cars, which would be a direct incentive to flooding them into the home market.
  Sir A. Spearman: I think there may be a case for having two ranges of tax, one for certain luxury articles, which would be limited to a small range. The point that I want to make, however, is, I think, much more important than that made by the hon. Member; it is that a sales tax would provide a flexible weapon which could easily be altered.
  I suggest to my hon. Friend that if he cannot provide himself with instruments which are effective, he may well find that through unforeseeable events he is forced to revert to a system of controls. Hon. Members opposite often tell us that controls are a panacea for all difficulties and that there is something magical about them, but they do not often tell us what controls they would suggest and what the consequences of those controls would be. If they mean controls of imports, I agree that as an emergency measure that might serve a purpose for a time, but unless it is accompanied by a drastic cutting down of consumption at home it can lead only to still more inflation, and I should have thought that it led, too, to a great risk of retaliation, thereby affecting our exports.
  If the controls are to be on what is produced, that, of course, assumes an infallibility by Whitehall about what the country wants to buy; and no Government have ever succeeded in being infallible in that direction. Such controls are all right in war time or possibly under a Socialist Government, where we should have rationing; because by rationing the Government can force the consumer to

  835
  buy not what he wants but what the Government choose that he should buy. It is not always remembered that with every Socialist Government which has had a clear majority there has been widespread rationing.
  The third form of control might be the allocation of raw materials to manufacturers. It has always been found that that benefits the sluggard who is not extending his business but who can pile up valuable stocks, and that it damages the enterprising firms who are going ahead. To my mind, therefore, any of these controls, except as an entirely temporary emergency measure, are not a healthy readjustment before a leap forward, but a disastrous distortion which would impoverish the country.
  My first point is that if the economy is to run at this high speed, which I think is necessary to maintain full employment, my right hon. Friend must see that he has the instruments with which to check it. My second argument, which is very much shorter, and which is the last point I shall make, concerns investment. I think we all agree, in all parties, that if factories are sufficiently re-equipped and improved with labour-saving devices, and if the workers accept those labour-saving devices, then there can be increases in wages without danger of inflation, and our prospects of selling abroad are much improved.
  That investment, however, depends not only on the enterprise of manufacturers and the acquiescence of workers. It also depends on the savings being available. A very large part of the savings today are provided by company profits. That is one very good reason why we on this side of the House welcome increases in profits, because it enables investment to take place which would not otherwise take place.
  Formerly it was largely the rich who did the saving which provided the investment. Owing to the redistribution of wealth, that is impossible today. If we take all the incomes of £2,000 a year after tax and add them together they amount to £370 million. If half of that were invested it would not make a very great deal of difference. All the incomes under £1,000 a year, on the other hand, amount to £8,000 million. Clearly, any
  836
  increase in savings must come from the people with small incomes.
  The well-to-do largely buy today not Government stocks but equities, which I think is a very logical thing to do. After all, it is only if the industry of this country expands that we as a nation will survive. It is almost impossible for the small investor to do that, however, because of the complications, because of the difficulties, because he does not know what to buy, and because he cannot afford to buy good advice. I feel that if the small investor were given an opportunity to buy the kind of equities which the rich man buys, it might be a great stimulus to saving, it would be very beneficial to the country, and it would bring a great element of stability. After all, where a man's treasure is, his heart may be attracted.
  I wonder whether my right hon. Friend can do something to promote this. Perhaps some of the large industrial companies, some of the banks, or other very responsible financial institutions, might set up machinery, perhaps a unit trust, to achieve this, but under present conditions they could not offer terms which would attract the small investor. In order to do that, my right hon. Friend would have to give some help.
  This is not the occasion to elaborate the suggestion in detail, but I ask my right hon. Friend whether he will consult his advisers to see whether something can be done in this direction, because it might have an important effect on savings and thereby enable greater investment to take place. By investment, I mean investment in factories and equipment.
  We all want a high standard of living and we all want high production. Most of us agree that to get these we have to have high investment, and I believe that high earnings and high profits are not incompatible with, but are essential to, those other factors. It is because I believe that this Finance Bill goes some way to promote all those five "highs" that I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend.
  5.10 p.m.
  Mr. H. Rhodes: I find the Finance Bill quite interesting, but before I say why I find it interesting I should congratulate the Chancellor on having relieved the amateur

  837
  dramatic and opera societies throughout the country of their obligation to pay tax if they pay a conductor or an orchestra. To that extent, at any rate, he has sweetened life a bit in our part of the country, and I thank him very much for it. I also liked the way in which the right hon. Gentleman shaped when he delivered his first Budget speech.
  After saying that, may L address a question to him? We have heard of the possibility of claiming the investment allowance twice on ships, a point to which the Financial Secretary referred. Will he tell me how that provision applies to the case which I shall now quote? There was a report in the Manchester Guardian on 24th April commenting on a deal which had been put through about a ship. The report read:
  " A deal concluded recently concerns an 18,000-ton turbine tanker which should be ready for sea next month. The party who originally ordered this ship will pay the German yard building it 4 million dollars in all, but instead of trading it himself he has sold the ship to United States buyers for the contract price plus a ' premium' of 950,000 dollars—a not uninteresting speculation!"
  Will the Chancellor ask the Treasury to inquire into transactions of this sort which may be taking place in this country at present?
  I look at the Bill from the position of a manufacturer in the wool industry who, over the years, has put the profit back into the business which has been made in the hope of making an economic unit which will stand on its own feet in all sorts of weather. Despite the remarks of the Financial Secretary that in some part there was assistance to British industry in the Bill, I want to ask the Chancellor where the assistance is to be found in the Bill. I can see the assistance to the shipping industry, and I do not disagree with it, but the position in our industry is different. Last year, our investment allowance was suddenly cut off. This year, we see another 20 per cent, put on to an industry like the shipping industry. This makes us wonder who is valuable to the community and who is not.
  There is a premium today on "know-how." The reason for this 40 per cent, being put on the investment allowances for shipowners at this time is the danger to the country of shipping "know-how" being transferred overseas. I understand the position to be that if a company in this country starts a new venture in
  838
  Bermuda it only needs to start a £100 company to attract backing to the hilt— to get as many millions as it wants from the New York bankers in order to buy ships. I quite understand that one cannot just sail ships out of British ports under another flag. On the other hand, it is possible, by the funds which become available to it, for a small company formed in Bermuda to be able to buy the assets of a company operating ships in this country, and transfer them in that way.
  What benefit will the nation get? I have been looking at this matter ever since the Budget speech to see how it affects the livelihood of my own industry or others looking forward with apprehension to the competitive atmosphere of the Free Trade Area. It is very interesting to see how the shipping industry measures up to this. I have been looking at the cost of freightages. We in this country are at a very grave disadvantage in this compared with European neighbours. I will just read one or two illustrations, and will begin with the commodity in which I am interested.
  The figures show that the total cost per ton for either wool or cotton landed in Liverpool is about 17s. In Manchester, it is 20s. per ton, and in London it is 26s. per ton. In Rotterdam, American cotton can be landed and stowed in sheds for 4s. 6d. per ton. In Rotterdam, Australian wool can be landed at 12s. 6d. per ton. Coal coming from the Hampton Roads to the Continent can be snipped and landed there at 82s. 6d. per ton, compared with a United Kingdom figure of 90s. to 91s. 6d. per ton. Wheat is 89s. on the Continent, and 105s. in the United Kingdom. The list is very long but, with the exception of, I believe, sugar, which is a very good cargo for unloading, in every case that list shows that we are at a disadvantage to quite a considerable amount per ton.
  That is probably due to a variety of causes and mainly, I understand, to out-of-date equipment on the docks. If that is the case, and if we in this House really are sincere about doing something to increase the efficiency of a particular industry, I think that we should also take into consideration what contribution that industry will make to the general good.
  The comments made about the arrangements for overseas trading need to be

  839
  elaborated a little more. For instance, I should like to know what would be the position of a company starting a branch in, say, the south of Italy as a British company, commencing partly processed manufactures to sell in other parts of the European Free Trade Area. Does the principle apply to the European Free Trade Area, or is the idea that it should be confined to British possessions or Colonial Territories, as I have seen suggested in some newspapers?
  I know that my next is a Committee point, but may I just put it to the Chancellor in the hope that I may persuade him to include wool fabrics sold over the counter in the exemptions from Purchase Tax? It is becoming an ingrained complaint with us in the wool industry that this burden should be put on us especially when we have such a good record in exporting to dollar areas. In 1956, our earnings exceeded 112 million dollars. There was no other manufacturing industry which could compare with ours. In the last three years our exports not only to America, but to other parts of the world, have gone up; and not just exports by value, but increased exports by yardage.
  I do not want to waste time going over old ground, nor do I want to waste the time of the Chancellor in advancing arguments which have already been far better put to him by representatives of the trade. I refer to the difficulty of administering sales to non-registered firms. Let us pass that, and go on to the arguments which have been adduced at various times by Board of Trade and Treasury spokesmen to the effect that the amount of trade in woollen goods sold over the counter is negligible; that it is so unimportant as not to be worth bothering about.
  During the last few months, the wool trade has made very exhaustive inquiries into the amount of woollen goods sold over the counter in large departmental stores. I can assure the Chancellor that 25 per cent, of the fabrics sold over the counter in such stores are of wool, and I would ask him to look at that matter again and to free us from this incubus. We feel that we are very unfairly treated. It is not often that the industry argues for anything at all with the Chancellor. We keep out of his
  840
  way—we are very quiet and industrious —but on this occasion, on behalf of the industry, I am asking him to get rid of this discriminating tax, and so help us to do even better during the next few years than we have done in the last three.
  5.25 p.m.
  Mr. Alan McKibbin: Many people will be glad that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has done something to encourage the entertainment of the people by abolishing taxes on the living theatre and on all sports, and by reducing taxes on the cinemas—all of which will doubtless involve the Treasury in a considerable loss. May I strike a musical note and make a suggestion, the cost of which would, I believe, be infinitesimal in comparison?
  I am asking for the abolition of the 60 per cent. Purchase Tax on musical instruments used by amateur bands. In support of this plea, I should like to quote from a letter sent to me by the honorary secretary of the North of Ireland Bands' Association, as he can state the case much better than I can. He says:
  " Musicians in Northern Ireland are steadily becoming more apprehensive about the adverse effects of Purchase Tax on musical instruments, musical education and performance.
  Although all classes are involved, I am particularly anxious about the future of bands, which, as you may know, constitute a most economical form of musical culture in this country. This tax is slowly but surely forcing many of our bands out of existence. Furthermore, it is preventing new bands being formed by many of our youth organisations, owing to the prohibitive cost of instruments. Second hand instruments, too. are now almost unobtainable.
  I would also like to stress the important social value of bands, especially in the small towns and villages throughout the country. The deprivation of this form of social education will have a serious effect on the future of our youth."
  This may probably apply in Great Britain, also, but I have no knowledge of that.
  On receipt of this information, I visited a leading shop which supplies instruments to bands. The prices quoted staggered me, as I am sure they will stagger other hon. Members who, like myself, may have very little knowledge of this subject. Good quality Boehm-system flutes, which

  841
  are used by the best bands, cost £100 to £170. That is for a single flute, which certainly makes a "toot" very expensive. Flute bands, in particular, are very popular with us, because of the sad fate which befell a flute that was burned at the stake in days gone by, and which is part of the mythology of my country.
  A few other items quoted were, side drums, from £15 to £25; base drums, from £20 to £36; cornets, from £31 to £46; horns, from £54 to £81; and bagpipes, from £20 up to any price. The prices of euphoniums ranged from £86 to £138, and I asked the man in the shop what a euphonium was. [An HON. MEMBER: "There is a very good answer."] The man is the shop said he had been told that it was the brass band's revenge on the bagpipes. All these prices, of course, include 60 per cent. Purchase Tax, but they show the heavy cost of fitting up a band.
  Most of these bands on whose behalf I am appealing make no charges whatever, except on very special occasions, and they do a lot to assist charities, because the money which they raise is given by the performers, though in some cases they are assisted by the public, and, no doubt, their Members of Parliament. On top of all this, a band also has to provide its own uniforms, on which there is Purchase Tax. Surely these people who just play for the love of it, and the pleasure that it gives to others, ought to be encouraged.
  I sincerely hope that my right hon. Friend will give favourable consideration to my plea, and that he will not have it on his conscience that these beautiful bands will, in the words of an old Irish ballad:
  " Be doomed to a fate that's pathetic."
  5.32 p.m.
  Mr. Victor Yates (Birmingham, Lady-wood): I find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McKibbin). He has made a very interesting case against Purchase Tax on musical instruments, which, I think, also raises the question of what is a luxury and what is a necessity.
  To follow up his argument a little further, I would say that the whole question of principle on the Purchase Tax is, in my judgment, wrong, and I should have thought that something could have been done before now to get rid of this very
  842
  pernicious tax. Certainly, in my judgment, music is a necessity, as is all culture, and for that reason I hope that the Chancellor will take due notice of the case which the hon. Gentleman has made.
  I rise only to mention one special aspect of expenditure. Earlier in the debate, an hon. Member was saying that this Budget would be judged by its effect on the economy, and I think that it is important that the effect of this Finance Bill upon the economy of the country should be realised. The hon. Member was saying that, of course, there were lots of things we should like to do for the old-age pensioners, but I gather that his intention was that if we were to do anything more for the old-age pensioners it would have an adverse effect on the economy.
  I object to the Bill, because, for example, it does not provide the justice for the old-age pensioners to which they are now entitled. My right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) made an excellent case against many aspects of the Bill, and mentioned the unwillingness of the Government even to give relief to the old-age pensioners in the matter of television licences. That is disappointing. On the other hand, I am asked to agree to a Bill which raises £5,000 million and to agree that a large and important proportion of that money should go for purposes with which I am completely in disagreement.
  Now I wish to refer to the effect of the cost of defence upon the economy of the country. Why should we have Income Tax at 8s. 6d. in the £? I am in favour, of course, of Income Tax and other rates and taxes if it can be shown to me that they are really necessary, but we are to have these taxes and to continue with these taxes and use the money, or a very large proportion of it, for purposes from which, to date, we can see no likelihood of real, economic results.
  The amount of money which we are asked to provide for defence from the money that is to be raised by taxation is £1,420 million. The House has congratulated itself on having got the cost of defence down to £1,420 million, and it does not look to me as if, even in the hydrogen bomb age, we are going to do very much to reduce the enormous burden of nearly £4 million per day for defence.

  843
  I have been inquiring into the amount of money which this country has spent in the last twelve years. The question has been asked from this side of the House what value we got for the £7,000 million spent in the last five or six years, but in the last twelve years the amount which we have allocated to defence has totalled £14,443 million.
  If hon. Members opposite want reductions in taxation, and they are prepared to ignore that kind of expenditure, it seems to me that there is no possible hope of the tax burden on the British public being reduced. If, by using this money, we were being asked to provide new and better hospitals, or better education services and universities, then I should be much more pleased to approve this expenditure, or if we were prepared to care for our old folks better than we do today, and I do not mean merely by cash payments to old-age pensioners.
  There are far too many old people today in mental hospitals. There are far too many lonely old people who need to be cared for in smaller institutions and in homes. I recently visited the accident hospital, in Birmingham, which has a world-wide repute, and I discovered that in the 200 beds there, the vast majority of the people occupying them were women over the ages of 70 or 80—[An HON. MEMBER: "Accidents in the home."] Yes, accidents in the home, as my hon. Friend says, and they are obliged to take these people there, because if they did not take them to hospital they would die. Even when they do take them into hospital, the authorities find it very difficult to provide a home for them.
  Yet we could have a new accident hospital for a small fraction of the amount of money we are asked to approve today. This hospital is a disgrace to our modern standards, in spite of the wonderful work that is done there. When one goes into that hospital, one sees all kinds of accident cases, perhaps three or four different kinds of accidents being dealt with in one cubicle, with a curtain drawn round one after the other, and with no adequate accommodation for dealing with the patients at all. If we go into the mental hospitals, we find similar stories of overcrowding, of staff difficulties, as well as a lack of finance for what we consider to be an important aspect of welfare.
  844
  I am opposed to a continuation of this warfare State, which, up to the moment, has produced only fear and tension. It is an attempt, to use the words which I think the Prime Minister used some time ago, to chain the passions of mankind by fear; and, certainly, we can see fear, with all its evil consequences. I am bound to say that there are hon. Members on both sides of this House who seem to be quite complacent about this enormous expenditure. We say that we will abolish conscription in four years. After many arguments by my hon. Friends on this side of the House during the past twelve years, it is now realised that National Service is wasteful, but, of course, it has been wasteful throughout all these years, and if it is wasteful, why should we continue it for another four years?
  The latest figure given by the right hon. Member for Carshalton (Mr. Head), when he was Minister of Defence, of the cost of maintaining, equipping and training a National Service man during his two years of Army service was £740. What could the citizens of this country do with £740 if they could be assured of that sum for the education of their children? If it is true, therefore, that this money has been wasted, why must I agree to a Finance Bill which is raising, by direct and indirect taxation, money for the purpose of continuing conscription for another four years?
  I understand, again from the latest information available, that it costs £45,000 to train a bomber or a fighter pilot. That is the information which we have had given to us in this House in answers to Questions to Ministers. If I could have a sum representing what we spend on defence in six hours, I could turn the City of Birmingham into a vastly different place; and if similar amounts were allocated to them, the other cities would do the same.
  I therefore object to this Bill not only because of some of the injustices which it contains, but because the money which it raises is not to be used for purposes which I believe would make for the welfare of the people and the peace of the world. Apart from the objection which the hon. Member for Belfast, East raised about Purchase Tax on musical instruments, I also object to the high rate of Purchase Tax on jewellery. This affects

  845
  the City of Birmingham, and the jewellery quarter of industrial Birmingham is in my constituency.
  This industry has lost considerable numbers of skilled men in the past few years because of the tax burden imposed on employers who are trying to carry on an industry which has been regarded as a luxury industry, whereas, in fact, it has contributed a great deal to the culture of the country, and has contributed a very great deal, and could do a great deal more, to exports and the improvement of international trade.
  Apparently, we are to have this money for the training of Service men and bomber crews and the stockpiling of atom and hydrogen bombs, but we cannot have reasonable consideration for the workers in these industries who are labouring under difficulties. We cannot have elementary justice for the old-age pensioner. It is a crying disgrace that the position of our old-age pensioners is today so difficult. There is not one hon. Member of the House who can deny that it is grossly unfair and unjust to continue with our financial arrangements, ignoring over and over again the claims of the old-age pensioner and, at the same time, saying nothing about the £1,420 million for defence this year and the £14,000 million in the past twelve years.
  What have we achieved by all this? It is time that the House began to take an entirely different view. Public opinion in this country and in the world will eventually compel us, as representatives of the people, to look at this matter from the point of view of the people and the peace of the world and make a real contribution by reducing the burden of this wasteful, destructive defence expenditure in favour of something more humane and better for civilisation.
  5.47 p.m.
  Mr. Donald Wade: I do not propose to make a lengthy intervention, partly out of consideration for other hon. Members who wish to take part and partly because it is the intention of my hon. Friends and myself to table about 20 Amendments to the Bill.
  Mr. George Thomas: That is fair warning.
  Mr. Wade: We shall do so in the hope that they will be accepted, but also with the object of indicating some of the reforms which, we think, the Chancellor might have introduced this year without any undue strain on the economy.
  The Bill, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) pointed out, has one characteristic in common with most Finance Bills in that it is difficult to follow some of the wording and difficult to extract the meaning from the words in the Bill. Over a period of years, these Finance Bills have built up a language of their own which is understood only by the few who are initiated into their mysteries, and I find some Clauses difficult to follow.
  I have read some of the Clauses a number of times. I have puzzled over Clause 12, particularly the first paragraph. I am not sure whether it expresses what is intended as clearly as it might do, but if, at the appropriate time, the Chancellor or the Financial or Economic Secretary will get up and say that the Clause is a model of clarity and that the gram mar is unimpeachable—
  Mr, G. Thomas: Impeccable.
  Mr. Wade: Impeccable, I think I should say—I will accept his assurance. I do not want to be finicky about the wording at this stage.
  Mr. Arthur Moyle: I have read Clause 12 carefully and find, with regret, that both the manual worker and the old-age pensioner are entirely outside the reliefs which it proposes.
  Mr. Wade: Perhaps we might consider that in Committee.
  Even if the wording is somewhat obscure, the effect of some of the Clauses on various classes of Income Tax and Surtax payers is quite clear. Some receive no benefit at all, others derive some benefit and yet others derive considerable benefit. If my calculations are correct, those in the higher Surtax levels will derive the most substantial benefits.
  We have to consider calmly and dispassionately whether that apportionment of reliefs will achieve the objects that are most needed today, including the

  847
  aim, mentioned by the Chancellor in his Budget speech, of providing
  " additional incentives to those whose efforts are of particular importance to the expansion of the economy."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 9th April. 1957; Vol. 568, c. 1000.]
  It may well be, and I do not deny, that there are some in these higher Surtax levels whose efforts are of particular importance to the expansion of the economy, but I should have thought that there were a great many in the lower levels— the technicians, the younger administrators and the kind of men and women who, during the last few years, have been tending to go overseas.
  I should have thought that, in the main, they came in the £ 1,000–£2,500 category. I do not object to a reform of Surtax provisions—I realise very well that reform has been long overdue and that the commencement of Surtax at the £2,000 level has been difficult to justify owing to the changes in the value of money; but I question the degree of benefit granted to those in the £4,000–£ 10,000 Surtax level.
  The numbers affected have some bearing on the point which I am putting forward. According to the National Blue Book for 1956, those in the £l,000–£2,000 bracket total 1,115,000, those in the £2,000–£5,000 bracket total 274,000, and those in the £5,000–£ 10,000 bracket—I do not have the figures from £4,000–£10,000—number 48,000. It is unlikely that very many of the technicians and experts whom we need in industry today will be found among that 48,000, which is a very small number out of the total population of 50 million.
  I am not arguing in favour of "soaking the rich"—I think we have done enough "soaking the rich"—but I am concerned with priorities. This is important, because we have to consider alternative reliefs that might have been possible had the Chancellor had a little more to spare and had he decided to make these reliefs, say, up to the £4,000 or £5,000 limit.
  I will take just one example, that of apprentices. Obviously, one could take the case of the old-age pensioners. There is a very strong case indeed for them, but they require a debate on their own. I prefer this afternoon to deal with changes in Income Tax and I put forward the case of the apprentices by way of illustration.
  848
  Under Clause 10 (3) of the Bill, the child relief is to be increased. That is a wise and proper course for the Chancellor to adopt, but I should like to pursue the point a little further. If a father sends his child to a university, the child may get a State scholarship or local authority grant which may be worth as much as £300 or £350 a year. I think I am right in saying that, in those circumstances, the father will still get the whole of the increased child relief under the Bill. If, on the other hand, that boy or girl became an apprentice and were given, say, £2 a week pocket money, the father would lose the whole of the child relief.
  Mr. Douglas Houghton: If it were a return of premium, it would not count; otherwise, it would.
  Mr. Wade: I appreciate the point about the return of premium, but I think that my general principle is correct, that if the child received a certain amount of pocket money, which is not unreasonable, the father would lose the whole of the child relief. That is not an encouragement to advising or allowing children to become apprentices. The time has arrived when something should be done to remedy that position and it might well have been done in this Bill.
  I suggest that in considering the Bill one should have four aims: first, the granting of greater incentives to key men in industry; secondly, the encouragement of personal saving as opposed to compulsory State saving; thirdly, a wider distribution of ownership; and, fourthly, the encouragement of new enterprises.
  I should like to say a word about saving. It may be contended that if greater reliefs are granted to those in the higher Surtax level, they will tend to save the additional income which they retain. It may be true of some, but not of all. Some will spend this additional money on bigger and better motor cars, whilst others will put it on one side and save it and increase the total savings, but it is clear from the numbers of persons involved that we cannot possibly get the additional saving that is required from those in the higher Surtax level. The hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Sir A. Spearman) made that point in his speech earlier this afternoon.
  There are many ways in which saving might be encouraged and I was interested

  849
  in the observations made by the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby.
  Notice taken that 40 Members were not present:
  House counted, and, 40 Members being present—
  Mr. Wade: There are many ways —
  Mrs. Jean Mann: On a point of order. I do not think there is a quorum in the House, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): There was two minutes ago, so we cannot have a count for a while yet.
  Mr. Wade: There are many ways in which one can encourage savings and I should like to turn the attention of the House to one method which has not received sufficient consideration. One of the reasons why my hon. Friends and myself have for many years advocated the sharing of ownership in industry is because it tends to encourage saving as opposed to spending.
  Unfortunately, one of the consequences of our system of taxation is that the payment of cash bonuses is encouraged, as opposed to the issuing of shares. That may not be the intention of the Treasury, but it is one of the indirect effects of our system of taxation at present. If a firm wishes to introduce a form of co-partnership scheme, which involves only the sharing of profit and some kind of cash bonus, that is found to be very much simpler and more advantageous than one which involves the issuing of shares. That is unfortunate.
  In the case of the cash bonus this is allowed as an expense by the firm for tax purposes and tax is deducted before the payment is made to the employee. Where shares are issued the tax position is much more complex from the point of view of the employing firm and of the employee, if the shares are issued at less than full market value. Most firms would prefer to do it that way and the employee is taxed on the benefit, that is, on the difference between the amount paid for the share and the full market price of the share. He has to pay that tax out of his own wages, unless it is found in some other way. My hon. Friends and I raised this point last year
  850
  and I hope that we shall have the opportunity of raising it again this year.
  In addition to encouraging saving, we must encourage new enterprises. One of the effects of the credit squeeze has been to make it more difficult to start new enterprises. It has made it more difficult for the small businessman either to start or to expand his existing business. Again, I come back to the question of Surtax, because I have found some small businessmen very puzzled when they hear that the Chancellor has granted these reliefs to those in the higher income groups while, at the same time, issuing directives to the small businessman's bank manager to squeeze on and squeeze harder.
  I should like to know the Government's policy on this subject. For example, is it the intention to maintain the credit squeeze as tightly as ever whilst the Bank Rate falls? This point was raised in an interesting way in a leading article in the Economist last week, to which reference has already been made. Perhaps I might be permitted to remind the Committee by reading a brief extract from that article. It said:
  " Money is now rationed partly by price and partly by physical controls (directives to bankers, references to the Capital Issues Committee, and so forth). Within the confines of this double control, the demand for short funds has once again fallen short of supply. The reaction last February was to lower the price of money, but to keep the physical controls intact; indeed, by last month's extension of the power of the Capital Issues Committee, the physical controls have been actually tightened. For any commodity but money, the natural impulse of a Conservative Government would have been to put the emphasis the other way round. Why not in money? "
  It would be interesting to hear the answer to that question.
  Assuming that we are moving towards a freer economy, there is a strong case for the reform of taxation. There are opportunities which should be taken now for the reform of taxation. The time has arrived when there might well be a flat-rate of Profits Tax, as recommended by the Royal Commission, although I should like to see that accompanied by a reduction of, say, 6d. in the Income Tax. Without waiting for that, the Government might well remove the burden of Profits Tax which falls on building societies, which, after all, perform a very valuable service in encouraging saving.

  851
  Many other reforms might have been introduced this year, but I do not wish to be critical only. I welcome some of the provisions in the Bill. I welcome the removal of the tax on the live theatre and sport, and I support the changes in the Entertainments Duty, so far as they go. I welcome the relief for those over 65 with small incomes, and the changes in the child allowance—subject to the point that I have made about the apprentice. But in considering the Bill one is bound to point out what has been omitted and the opportunities that have been missed.
  I remember a picture in Punch, some years ago, which illustrated a very strict and stern-looking nursery governess leaving church with a small boy holding one hand and a small girl the other. The small girl was saying, "Nannie, what have you done that you ought not to have done?" I do not want to press that analogy too far. There are things that the Chancellor has done which he ought not to have done. Some of his priorities are wrong. I am mainly concerned, however, with those things that he has left undone and the opportunities that he has missed. I hope that some of the defects will be remedied before the Bill reaches the Statute Book.
  6.7 p.m.
  Mr. Hugh Fraser: As the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade), on behalf of the Liberal Party, has said that his party will seek to move about 20 Amendments in Committee, I will not attempt to answer or correct any of his arguments this afternoon.
  I should like to turn the attention of the House to the question of harbours and shipbuilding. Last night, the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation said, of the Suez problem, that every effort must be made to build bigger tankers and deeper harbours. I am sure that, after the Suez experience and what happened to the various pipelines in the Middle East, the majority of the House will wholeheartedly agree with my right hon. Friend, but I do not think that in the Finance Bill sufficient emphasis is laid on this general intention.
  It is perfectly true that the investment allowance for shipping is doubled from 20 per cent, to 40 per cent., but as far as stimulus to the creation of new assets
  852
  goes, I think that hon. Members are aware of the various loopholes in taxation and that it is merely a matter of substituting the Treasury arch for the Bermuda loophole, though there are advantages in capital which will now accrue to the shipping companies. But even assuming, as one hopes, that the shipping companies will go ahead with a major construction, and assuming that general backing can be given by the Government to the encouragement necessary for the heavy tanker construction programme and for the new type of financial arrangements in this country and the United States and the general atmosphere conducive to the creation of such a programme, which I believe absolutely necessary for this country, we shall still find ourselves in difficulties.
  The first difficulty is that we shall find ourselves short of facilities for receiving these larger tankers and servicing them. I fear that, unless something is done, the shipping industry will not be able to cope with the problem. Taxation, of course, is only one of the points which bear on this. There are far wider issues of need which no Government can ever touch.
  A projection into the future of what world transport of oil is likely to become over the next twenty years and what the British share in that world transport should be, gives some measure of the need for us to be fully involved right from the keel being laid to the point of issue of the oil. It is fair to say that over the next twenty years the necessity for moving the free world's oil will rise from 300 million tons to 900 million tons a year. British ownership of that oil in transit should rise from about 25 per cent, today to 40 per cent. In our hands it will be of inestimable benefit not only to the shareholders of the companies concerned, but to the whole country's balance of payments.
  When we get this increase in oil movement it is almost inevitable that it will be moved in larger and larger tankers, of 65,000 tons and even more. I will not dwell on the strategic advantage to the country of possessing such a fleet, but I merely say that in all probability, for strategic and economic reasons, that is how the oil will be moved. How are we fixed for coping with it? First, I do not believe that there are more than three ports in this country that can take 65,000-ton tankers.

  853
  As for dry and graving docks, the beam of the tankers is so constructed as to be out of normal proportion to its length. Most of the graving docks in this country that can take 75,000-ton ships cannot take even 60,000-ton tankers. Only two graving docks can take them at present. What about the shipyards and the berths for the construction of these very large type of tankers? Here again, I think I am right in saying that there are only six or seven berths in the country from which a 65,000-ton tanker can be launched.
  It is probable, judging from the figures, that we shall see a decline in our proportion of world shipbuilding. Nearly half of the world tonnage of ships launched today is tanker tonnage, and of 5 million tons of dead-weight tanker tonnage launched this year about 750,000 tons were from British yards. As the size of the tanker goes up, that proportion is likely to fall. When we get into the 1960s, world annual launchings may be at the rate of more than 12 million tons a year, and it is very improbable that we shall be maintaining our same proportion.
  The decline in our proportion of world launchings is equalled only by the decline in our ownership of tankers. In 1939, this country owned 26 per cent, of the world's tankers. Today, it owns only 19 per cent., and only 16 per cent, of tankers building at present are due to sail under the British flag.
  There are many factors in this problem beyond taxation. There are arguments against the country going in for tanker construction. There is the argument of the labour per ton and that it is actually better to invest in smaller ships selling at £300 per ton rather than the big tanker which sells today at £90 per ton or even less. There are arguments to the effect that the steel is not available. There are various arguments about order books and about keeping the size of the industry small. I ask the Government and the industry, and those who put forward the labour content argument, to consider that unless we "think big" in this country, we shall go under.
  The argument of the labour content would finally reduce us to being a nation of watchmakers, involving a maximum effort to contain the greatest possible amount of labour inside the smallest possible weight of imported materials.
  854
  But as one looks forward to the possibilities of increases in the heavy sections and in steel plate, which will be rolling out of the British steel industry in the next two or three years, I believe that the shortage of steel will disappear, and I believe that now we must start getting equipped to produce the necessary tankers to import our oil supplies.
  What action on taxation could the Government take? First, as regards harbours and facilities, last year there was a small advantage given to slipways in the sense that excavations, which in previous Finance Bills had not been considered to be part of industrial building, were allowed to be written off at the normal rates for industrial buildings.
  Mr. Nabarro: At 2 per cent, per annum.
  Mr. Fraser: I will come later to the actual working out of that concession.
  There was also some help for the dredging of harbours in the Finance Bill last year, but it still takes forty-five years to write off a graving dock. Yet my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, who ought to know about these things, said yesterday that we want more tankers and deeper harbours. If the Government want more tankers and deeper harbours, they must do something about getting them, and the present provision is not adequate.
  The various shipping companies are today considering building new jetties, quite apart from slipways. There again, it takes forty-five years to write off one of these. Yet all hon. Members know it is possible that in forty-five years we shall have moved into the atomic age. How, then, can one expect people to make huge investments which cannot possibly be written off in that time?
  It is the same with certain major assets in British shipyards. I do not offer any expertise, but I know from reading, and from my friends in the industry, that many shipyards have not been reorganised for scores of years. There still hangs around the industry the great history of the depression. Naturally, both the workers' side and the management side still have the ghost of Jarrow permanently looking over their shoulders. What the Government must do is to give a new impetus, which taxation relief can do, to this essential industry.

  855
  There are two main arguments for action by the Government. First, there is the semi-strategic case. In a realm of high taxation, where the country is generally overtaxed, one simply must be unfair. One must pick out the asset to be developed. In the same way, in such an overtaxed economy one can make progress by using taxation as the incentive. I do not mean by giving an investment allowance for two years and then by withdrawing it. That is not a carrot, but a doped carrot. I mean a steady backing to get the industry right. Secondly, there is the necessity for forcing a revolution in the industry, and for creating over the next decade what I believe in the U.S.A. is called a crash programme in tanker construction.
  I have mentioned in other speeches the idea that since we have made cuts in defence there should be something in this country similar to the American Office of Defence Mobilisation. I believe that the Government should decide what are strategic, or semi-strategic, priorities and that action should be taken. It would not be impossible—though I do not advocate it this afternoon—to apply one day the same method as is applied in America, namely, of writing off two-thirds of an asset within five years, whatever it may be, if it is an essential national asset in defence. What has happened in Suez, what could happen in the Middle East, what could happen in British industry without oil makes some such action desirable.
  There is an ingenious American method of depreciation, which, I believe, is called "The sum of the digits", which is no doubt well-known to taxation experts on both sides of the House, by which years in the life of an asset are added in mechanical sum and made into annual fractions of descending value, so that if the life of the assets were six years, the write off would be six twenty-firsts. I believe that there is a simple alternative to that, and I propose to attempt to move a new Clause to that effect during the Committee stage of the Bill. It is to increase, not the investment allowance for port facilities and shipyards, but to make it possible for their owners to write off their assets far more quickly than they can do today.
  Mr. Nabarro: And ships?
  Mr. Fraser: Ships can be written off quickly under the new allowance. There should, I believe, be an increase in the initial allowance from 10 per cent, to 20 per cent., and an increase in the rate of annual allowance from 2 per cent, to 5 per cent. This would mean that one could write off the asset of a graving dock, which is essential to receive and service the big tanker, and also new slipways, in seventeen years instead of in forty-five years, and it would not be an enormous expense to the country.
  After our experience in the Middle East it is vital to safeguard our essential interests, and these can be safeguarded today by the provision of an adequate supply of large tankers and by a proper share for the shipbuilding industry of the steel industry to assist management and workers in this country in the development and movement of the huge assets in oil which we still own throughout the world.
  I believe, also, that to make what the Government need now, and must want now—which is a proper tanker construction programme of large tankers—there should be assistance by way of taxation relief in the facilities for their construction and reception.
  6.23 p.m.
  Mr. Donald Chapman (Birmingham. Northfield): I will not comment on the expert speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. H. Fraser) on a subject about which he knows a great deal, except to say two things. Anybody who looks at the figures of shipbuilding today in countries such as Japan, and the other countries which are newly coming into increased production, share a number of his fears. On the other hand, the hon. Gentleman will realise that once we begin to open the door for allowances to specific industries we will not know where we shall end. At this time, it would be difficult to justify a departure from the general rule beyond what has already been done in this Bill to give the shipping industry extra investment allowances. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman may be pleading more for future years than for this year.
  Mr. H. Fraser: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be justified in order to get moving on harbours and docks?
  Mr. Chapman: That is the point I am making. Once we widen the concession we shall get claims from all kinds of other industries for equal consideration on the grounds of national importance and it would, therefore, be difficult to go much further in the case of this industry than the Chancellor has gone in the Bill.
  Today, we had a speech from the Financial Secretary which was fully in accord with tradition, in that the hon. Gentleman opened the debate with a quiet and expert exposition of the contents of the Bill. Even though he did that in accordance with tradition, we on this side of the House must make it clear that his quiet speech, leading to a quiet debate, has by no means led us to drop any of our strong opposition to large parts of this Measure.
  The hon. Gentleman the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Sir A. Spearman) was right when he said that we were to judge the Bill by its effect on our economy. I should have thought that if we looked at economy at this moment we should find that the biggest problem facing us is that, having come through a period of demand inflation—having mastered it at long last by the slow-moving financial measures of the Government—we are now in danger of a wage-price inflation, and that this is the biggest inflation danger of all at present.
  Therefore, it is that aspect of the health of the economy which must be the main one against which we judge the effects of the Budget. If we do that, I am sure we shall find that this is a very unfortunate Budget, particularly because it is no use taking it in isolation. I was surprised that hon. Gentlemen opposite raised a furore when my right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) mentioned this in passing. We must take with the Budget all the other measures of the Government in financial matters over recent months.
  After all, this is how the average citizen feels. He does not feel the impact of the Budget separately from the rest of the policy of the Government. He merely wants to know how the costs or the charges or the subsidies are going up and down, and he does not care whether these come in the Finance Bill or not. So, if one makes that examination of the policy of the Government, one finds that this
  858
  Budget is a direct contribution to further wage-price inflation.
  First, we have had outside the Budget the things mentioned by my right hon. Friend—for example, economies in subsidies for school meals and the projected rise in national insurance contributions to save expenditure on the National Health Service. Then there is the Rent Bill, which is going through the parliamentary process. There is also the ending of the housing subsidies, with their effect on the rents of council houses.
  On top of that, we now have a Finance Bill which provokes even further by reserving virtually all these tax concessions for the Surtax payer. I can imagine nothing more calculated at present to excite further wage claims, and to make the danger of wage-price inflation even more pressing, than a Budget which does that.
  I understand that one of the Courts of Inquiry has proposed an advisory body on wages. Speaking for myself, I should think that there is very little that any such body can do effectively at the moment, because if it enters into the Government's policy, which is provoking wage claims, it will be "dabbling in politics", and if it does not do so, it will be dismissed as useless for its lack of consideration of the general background of wage demands.
  Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Member has just said that the Government have reserved the whole of their tax reliefs for the Surtax payers. Those were exactly the words he used. Out of the total of £98 million of tax reliefs given this year, £9¾ million in a full year will go to the Surtax payers, which is about 10 per cent., not the whole.
  Mr. Chapman: I am not really interested in the hon. Gentleman's argument. The answer to him is quite simple, namely, that in the first place I said virtually the whole and, secondly, that I was, of course, dealing with the concession to private taxpayers. We are talking here largely of the impact of direct taxes on the community. I am talking about who gets most out of the Budget. That is the right way to judge the Budget as a whole.
  I want to spend a few minutes putting to the Government a few more questions

  859
  on the lines of some which I put in a short speech at the end of the Budget debate. They are about the effect of all this on the balance of payments situation. There we have a situation where, in the next twelve months, the Government will be taking a deliberate gamble. I do not object to that. To get out of the stalemate of production, consumption and imports it may be worth taking a gamble.
  I want to know why and how the Government think that the gamble will work out in the coming twelve months and whether the risk they are taking is legitimate. The background of all this is Table 2 of the Economic Survey, which must haunt everybody who thinks about the balance of payments. In that table can be seen the farcical but crucial nature of tiny shifts in consumption exports and imports, investment and stock building. In spite of a national income of £20,000 million, we need only a 1 per cent, movement, a movement of £200 million, in the wrong direction in some of these, and we have an acute balance of payments crisis. That is farcical in view of the huge figures involved.
  The equivalent result in 1938 was a £50 million deficit in our balance of payments which passed unnoticed, simply because at that time we had enough reserves to ride the storm, the very small storm as it was then. Today, with two and a half months' reserves, the 1938 deficit in our balance of payments is something which could bring us very near even to devaluation of the £. As these very small movements in the next twelve months can, as they did in 1955, bring us very near to another terrible crisis, we ought to know more about the figures upon which the gamble is being taken.
  We do not know how the Chancellor expects these figures to go, yet a very small movement will give us a very big crisis. It is even more important in the sense that we have not only to maintain the 1956 position, but from 1959 onwards begin repaying some of the very reserves on which we are now depending and which we have borrowed. From 1959 onwards, £591 million reserves for a start have to be repaid. As was mentioned in the Budget debate, we need an even bigger balance of payments surplus
  860
  because of the likely demands of the sterling area on sterling balances in the next twelve months, and beyond.
  It is not good enough to start out with all the figures moving, as I will show, towards the same sort of pattern which we had in 1955 and which produced a crisis, and yet to say that we are just simply hoping that the gamble will succeed. I am not saying that there will be a crisis. I am saying that we need an explanation of the way it is expected to work.
  What happened in 1955 and in 1956? Let us take them in the reverse order. In 1956, we managed to hold and improve our balance of payments surplus by holding production, holding back consumption, holding back imports and pushing up exports. That was the only way in which we could get our balance of payments surplus. In the previous year, when we had a crisis, we had an increase in consumption, a big increase in investment, but an enormous increase in imports and a relatively modest increase in exports. That is beginning to happen in 1957, and it is not at all reassuring.
  Admittedly, exports are now increasing. Admittedly, we have them going up quite merrily, but what is also beginning to happen in the first quarter of the year is that imports are going up more than exports. Far from holding them steady, which was the key to our success in the situation in 1956, they are already rocketing ahead. Imports are up more than exports compared with last year. Again, retail consumption increased in January and February by 8 or 9 per cent.
  This situation will make itself felt most in the latter part of the year. Although some of us at one time thought that investment would be held this year, and to that extent—whether good or bad is a different matter—would help the balance of payments, the Treasury Bulletin shows that investment will increase this year. This is all the pattern of 1955 which produced a crisis because consumption rocketed, because imports rocketed and because the whole thing got out of hand.
  Mr. Nabarro: It still produced a Tory majority.
  Mr. Ede: Disaster on disaster.
  Mr. Chapman: We do not know what will happen to stocks, and in an Answer to a Parliamentary Question the other day the Chancellor said that he did not know. We can only leave them out of account. We are entitled to ask whether these things are beginning to go ahead in the order of magnitude which produced a crisis in earlier years. We ought to have some calculations from the Government about how they expect good to come out of the situation.
  There is a second thing which we ought to ask and that is that the Government are at least cautious. I have admitted that they have to take a gamble, but they ought to go ahead very cautiously. Last Friday, the Chancellor spoke to the National Production Advisory Council of Industry. I was very alarmed at the headlines in the national Press after his speech. The headline in the Manchester Guardian was:
  " Chancellor's hint of credit relaxation."
  That was the second headline, the top one being:
  " Economy takes a turn for the bitter",
  The first sentences which followed were:
  "The Chancellor of the Exchequer believes that the economy may be about to take a turn for the better and that the period when production had to be restricted (by the credit squeeze) may soon be over. At the Treasury yesterday he told a meeting of Ministers, industrial leaders, and senior civil servants that it would now be safe to allow the economy to expand provided exports continue to increase and provided production kept pace with rising wages."
  The key to all that is that the impression given by those headlines, and apparently by the Chancellor's speech which inspired them, is that we are now not only doing so well that we can take a gamble, but that we can go even further than the Chancellor has gone in the Budget and begin to dismantle the rest of the credit squeeze.
  Are we now on the verge of a big reduction in the Bank Rate? Are we on the verge of seeing the withdrawal of directives to bank managers about advances? Are we on the verge of seeing the rest of the restraints, the brakes, as the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby called them, thrown away because we seem gradually to be moving in the right direction? What we want to hear from the Chancellor is why he thinks that he will get away with the gamble
  862
  before it is too late and before he has thrown away too many of the brakes.
  The danger will come not now, not in the next three months, but in the autumn. That will be the testing time. I hope that the Chancellor will hold steady at least until the autumn with the relaxation already announced. It will be in the autumn that we will get the real increase of the pressure of consumption at home, preventing goods going for export. Once the expansion of home consumption has depleted stocks, we will get, as we did in 1955, the effect being felt in the latter part of the year and beginning to affect the amount of goods which should be going for export.
  It was rather significant that the day after the Budget itself we had a beautiful advertisement in the main newspapers about a beautiful and most expensive car "Planned for top management." Managements were invited to buy these cars, the sort of cars upon which we are so heavily dependent in the export trade. Half-page advertisements appeared throughout British national newspapers at the time. Of course, it was only a coincidence, but it is that kind of thing whose economic effects will be felt later in the year.
  What also makes me fear the autumn is that the increase in consumption is in household goods and motor cars. Those were the articles where there were economies last year, economies which led to the general steadiness of consumption at home. If they are beginning to run away, it is likely that much other consumption will also begin to run away.
  There is also the question of what will happen in the autumn to things like steel sheet once production begins to rise. Motor car manufacturers have already said that they face an autumn when they will not have enough sheet steel to fill home and export demand, and that is significant. If there is a big demand on the home market for motor cars which should go for exports which the economy needs, will we begin to start importing sheet steel for motor cars for the home market? That is the sort of thing which was a symptom of the dangers and difficulties in the latter part of 1955.
  Generally, what we are concerned to know is, with all these lessons about the adverse effects which the movement of

  863
  a mere £200 million can nave, now can we get a large enough export surplus to give us not only the sort of balance of payments surplus we had last year, but the sort which is needed to build our reserves and to repay the money which we borrowed last year and which now forms part of our reserves.
  That is important, because if the gamble fails and there is one more crisis, it will be the last for a long time. While I agree that the Chancellor must take a gamble to get production rising again, we must have the figures on which he has based his gamble after the frightening lessons of previous years.
  It is important to ask the Chancellor these questions because of some lessons we have learned about the Treasury in the last few years. These lessons have not been more clearly stated than in an interesting article in Lloyds Bank Review, by Dr. Ian Little, who was at one time the Deputy Director of the Economic Section of the Treasury. I see the Financial Secretary smiles; I believe that he has read the article. Anybody who reads this article must have cause to fear about the economic prognostications made by Treasury Ministers.
  The former Deputy Director's article tells us how they are made inside the Treasury and explains some of the disadvantages in the way in which the Treasury is staffed to cope with these problems. Referring to the Economic Section of the Treasury, which deals very largely with the problems which I have been discussing, he says that
  " it should be clear from its size that it is not in a position to enter fully and intimately into all aspects of economic policy, at least not with the profound knowledge which is required if its opinions are to be as soundly based as they might be. This is true especially since quite a lot of time of its members is taken up with routine matters.…The Section is too small and too busy for its members to have reasonable opportunities of trying to extend these frontiers [of economic knowledge] or for any profound study of longer-term policy issues."
  That would not be so bad, but when he speaks of his own experience inside the Treasury the article is quite disturbing. I presume that this is during the time the Lord Privy Seal was Chancellor. The article goes on:
  " It sometimes seemed to me that a new line of policy was invented and even accepted "—
  864
  that is, in the Treasury—
  " in response no doubt to a change of Minister or at least a shift in the Minister's attitude, with a startling rapidity which made impossible a full appreciation of what it might involve, and whether it would really meet the Government's aims."
  I will not bore the House with more quotations from the article, the rest of which is in the same vein, but it appears that the very bad diagnoses of what was to happen in the next twelve months, which we have had in the last few years, have not been due just to the bad luck of the Chancellor, but have also been due to some extent to faults of organisation and staffing of the Treasury itself.
  This made me think very much of some of the quotations we have had in the last few years. There was the wonderful "clanger" dropped by the Economic Secretary to the Treasury last year when he said that he expected that there would be an appreciable rise in production in 1956. Was that based on Treasury information? In the previous year the Lord Privy Seal told us,
  "… I estimate that the increase in home demand should be appreciably less than it has been in the last two years."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th April, 1955; Vol. 540, c. 54.]
  He said this at a time when he was letting go rip-roaring inflation which was already well on the way.
  Speaking of his own policy for keeping inflation in check and talking of what he called the "right road between inflation and deflation" he said, in April. 1955:
  " I believe that with the aid of those two weapons, incentive on the one hand and discipline on the other, with the Budget surplus and our monetary policy, we shall this year steer… that course."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 19th April, 1955; Vol. 540, c. 575.]
  Everybody knows that the course led to an autumn Budget and a crisis in our balance of payments. The fact that these had never been foreseen and were not expected by the Treasury at that time is shown by those words.
  Mr. Raymond Gower: It is fairly easy to show by reference to what has happened in the last ten years that Ministers of both Labour and Conservative Governments have found it extremely difficult accurately to forecast trends. Would not that indicate to the hon. Member the folly of the Government trying to manage the economy too closely?
  Mr. Chapman: I should be glad to enter into that argument with the hon. Member on another occasion, but I am not now talking about whether the economy should be managed too closely in terms of controls; what I am suggesting—and the Economist and other newspapers have said exactly the same sort of thing—is that if the Chancellor is making a fundamental departure compared with the policy which kept the balance of payments in surplus in 1956, then at least we should be given some estimate of how he thinks this departure will work out correctly. All I am doing is backing up this demand by saying that when the Government "chanced their arm" in previous years and proceeded, even on similar lines, none of their prognostications sounds very good in retrospect.
  When I made a few remarks about this in the Budget debate the Chancellor went out of his way, in his winding-up speech, to reply to me very briefly. He told me that the answer was that exports were rising. Frankly, that is not a sufficient answer. The fact is that they must rise by such a startling degree to cope with both the considerable increase in consumption at home which is drawing in further imports, which will need to be paid for, and with increased investment, that we must know whether he feels that the increase will be startling enough and to what degree he thinks it will be startling enough to prevent the same sort of pattern emerging in the autumn as emerged in 1955. In view of the very great departure which he is making from the pattern of last year in connection with the balance of payments, I do not think that is an unreasonable question.
  On the whole, our complaint about the Budget is, first, that it will increase the wage-price inflation very greatly indeed and, secondly, that we are concerned about the health of the economy in the next twelve months. I have tried to make a moderate approach to the Chancellor in the hope of getting some information from him. We ask very sincerely that we should at least be provided with more information than he has given us so far.
  6.48 p.m.
  Mr. E. H. C. Leather: It is customary in the House for us to say that we are pleased to follow
  866
  an hon. Member who has just spoken, but I must confess that I am not sure whether I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Northfield (Mr. Chapman) or not.
  Mr. Nabarro: I should not be.
  Mr. Leather: I have been trying very hard to follow his argument, and the harder I have tried the more bewildered I have become. I believe that the hon. Member is an economist. Is that correct? He is a student of economics. I am only a business man earning my living; but the more I listen to economists the more bewildered I become.
  At one moment I thought I heard the hon. Member say that the credit squeeze was a wonderful thing and that he hoped the Chancellor would not dismantle it. I suppose that conversion to economic sanity, if it comes at all, is always welcome, but that statement is certainly the opposite of comments which hon. Members opposite have been making for many months.
  I also thought that the hon. Member said that he was worried about the position in the motor car industry in the autumn because, as a consequence of my right hon. Friend allowing rip-roaring inflation to get started—those were the words he used—the motor car industry would be overstretched and there would be a shortage of steel. I can remember sitting in the House at Question Time day after day two or three months ago listening to the hon. Member, with his profound knowledge of economics, raising Cain with the Government because he thought that by the autumn the whole motor car industry would be unemployed. Only two or three months ago he was saying that day after day. Now he says precisely the opposite.
  Mr. Chapman: If the hon. Member will read my speech he will find that I said, quite deliberately, that I expected that in the autumn of this year the motor car industry would be back to full production and well on the way to the sort of situation that we have had in previous years. I am sorry if he misunderstood me.
  Mr. Leather: I am delighted at this deserved expression of confidence in Her Majesty's present Ministers.

  867
  I thought the whole game was given away when my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) tripped the hon. Member up after the hon. Member had quite specifically and carefully said that the whole of the benefits of the Budget were being paid to the Surtax payers. It was pointed out to him that far from being the whole, it was a comparatively small fraction. He then blandly said that it did not matter, for it was the kind of thing which provoked wage claims. It is not the facts and figures which provoke wage claims but the gross distortion deliberately put on the facts and figures by hon. Members opposite for their own party purposes. That is what does the damage, not the facts. As for provoking wage claims, the experience of the last seventeen years shows that whatever kind of Budget any Government introduce, we get an annual wage claim just the same. That argument is therefore no longer very impressive.
  Mr. Roy Jenkins: The hon. Member appears to be basing his case on the statement of his hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) that only 10 per cent, of the tax reliefs given in the Budget went to Surtax payers. Could we have his view on whether it is 10 per cent, or a little more or a little less?
  Mr. Leather: It is 25 per cent.
  Mr. Nabarro: I quoted the figure of £9¾ million, which is 10 per cent, of the total tax reliefs; and the £9¾ million released to personal allowances for Surtax was quoted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in col. 999 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of 9th April. It was on that point that I corrected the wild statement of the hon. Member for Northfield (Mr. Chapman).
  Mr. Leather: I will leave the hon. Member for Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) and my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster to differ in their interpretation, if they wish. The point is simple, and it is that the hon. Member for Stechford cannot make the sum a penny over 25 per cent, whereas his hon. Friend the Member for Northfield quite deliberately said "the whole." Let us not quibble about 1 per cent, or 2 per cent, one way or the other. I am pointing out that the interpretation which the hon.
  868
  Member was deliberately putting on the Budget to try to make a case and to show that it would provoke wage claims is based not on the truth but on a deliberate distortion.
  Mr. Chapman: The hon. Member must get this right. I said "virtually," for a start. He knows perfectly well that immediately afterwards I made it clear that I was referring to personal taxpayers, which is the important point. The question is, who is getting the reliefs in the community?
  Mr. Leather: That may be, but I think, with respect, that the statement which the hon. Member made was quite clear, and I hope to deal with it a little later.
  I should like to deal with a comment made by the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) when he said we may be investing too much abroad. That may be true, but it is a startling idea.
  Mr. Gordon Walker: It is not very startling.
  Mr. Leather: It is very startling when we consider the source, because the whole of the party opposite have been raising all the rumpus they can with the Government ever since we have been in office because they say we are not investing nearly enough in the Commonwealth and ought to invest a lot more.
  We have heard all kinds of proposals from hon. Members opposite, including some in a letter to The Times not long ago by a right hon. Gentleman opposite, in which it was stated that in the next Labour Party programme there would be a demand that at least 1 per cent, of the national income should be invested in the Commonwealth every year. Many of us thought that was a courageous scheme, but then, of course, hon. Members opposite began to study the arithmetic, and now we have the right hon. Member for Smethwick saying that we are probably investing too much abroad already. We do not mind. All we say is, "Get together boys, so that we know what kind of argument you are putting up at any given time, because otherwise it is rather confusing."
  Mr. Gordon Walker: I related what we can export in the way of investment to our balance of payments surplus.

  869
  Were that bigger—as it would be under a Labour Government—we could export more.
  Mr. Leather: As in 1947, 1949, and 1951? No doubt the right hon. Gentleman has forgotten the experiences of those three years.
  Mr. Cyril Bence: It was bigger then than it is now.
  Mr. Leather: With respect, I think that the argument is irrelevant to the main issue. But it is fascinating to hear this much more sober Conservative talk from the Front Bench opposite.
  I welcome this Bill; I think it is a good Measure. The only thing about it that raises my suspicions is the premise on which it is based, of an enormous Budget surplus. I wish to dwell on that aspect for a moment. I do not want to get into some deep economic argument because that is right out of my ken, but I wish to refer to the pure finances of the Budget surplus, and I would relate what I have to say in particular to what my right hon. Friend has so rightly done about reducing the Purchase Tax on household goods.
  The theory behind the iniquitous "pots and pans" Clause, which I admit with shame I voted for—I was utterly ashamed of myself for having done it, because it was economic lunacy—was that it would mop up surplus purchasing power. Ever since the end of the war we have been told—particularly by the late Sir Stafford Cripps—that the experts at the Treasury must have a huge surplus every year to mop up the surplus purchasing power that people like me have not got. They do it by the effective method of putting on a tax that we have to pay, and which always irks most of us. I am sure that it irks the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann), because I have heard her wax eloquent about it so many times.
  I wish to question my right hon. Friend and his advisers about whether that theory is still real. I do not believe it is. I believe that we have reached the stage where the economic conditions under which we live have changed so much that a good many of the Treasury experts and the chairmen of some of the big banks are just as much out of touch with the realities of industry today as they were in the 1930s. This argument that we
  870
  have to mop up the purchasing power in order to prevent inflation has long outlived its usefulness. The British animal, being infinitely subtle, has adjusted himself to it, and all that happens is that the next round of wage increases is speeded up. That is followed immediately by the next round of price increases, and everything balances out exactly as before, except that it is on a higher level. Every time it happens the problem of old-age pensioners and retired professional people living on fixed incomes is worsened.
  About this huge surplus on which my right hon. Friend has based his Budget for this year I would merely comment— I do not wish to pursue the argument further because I do not desire to take up too much time—that whatever may be said about it as an academic argument and whether it is good or bad, one thing can be said as a proven fact. It is that the theory that a huge Budget surplus stops inflation "ain't worked". We have had ten or twelve years of inflation under every kind of Government. If we study the economic surveys and prognostications of Sir Stafford Cripps, who was supposed to know what was going to happen, we find that he was just as ignorant as I and my right hon. and hon. Friends. When he budgeted for a surplus he had the biggest run of inflation thereafter, and so I am saying that the pure fact is that the argument is not proved, because it has not worked.
  I wish to address myself for a moment to Clauses 10 and 12, the Clauses over which the right hon. Member for Smethwick worked up such passionate indignation which I am sure could have been felt at least two or three inches away from him—it did not make any impression at this distance. May I ask hon. Gentlemen opposite to consider the problem of Surtax objectively—if they can bring themselves to do so? I believe that this Surtax problem and the question of incentives is one of the most important economic factors which we have to consider; and that simply to laugh it off and say that it affects only a few thousand Surtax payers is not realistic. It does not affect only the £2,000 to £3,000 a year men. It affects every young man in any profession or industry in the country, because if he is ambitious he is anxious to become a Surtax payer in the interests of his wife and family.
  Mr. Bence: His employers will not let him.
  Mr. Leather: With respect, I do not think that is true, and it is something not worth pursuing.
  This is not just a question of those lucky enough to have climbed into the higher tax brackets; and in industry today there are few people left who have got into that range of income in any other way than by working their way up. The reliefs that my right hon. Friend has given are purely on earned income. There cannot be any question about that. There should not be, although hon. Members opposite put about the idea that there are millionaires in yachts in the south of France who are increasing their wealth. If there are, they are not people who have got anything out of this Budget. These are earned income reliefs which go to those working in industry, and the argument about Surtax payers, though it is fascinating, is quite wrong.
  The idea that only a handful of company directors are affected is incorrect. Discouragement is seeping throughout industry. We find senior people who are disgruntled and discouraged, as, in my opinion, they have every justification to be, because they cannot reap the fruits of their own labours. Instead of encouraging young men to follow in their footsteps, they are saying, "I cannot think why you stay here. Why do you not go to Canada, or to the United States, where you can get more money?" That is happening throughout the country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It is a tendency of hon. Members opposite to try to laugh it off and think that it does not matter. But that is simply to ignore the basic problem which we are facing, and which, were they in office, hon. Gentlemen opposite would have to face.
  Mr. Chapman: I wish that the hon. Gentleman would reduce the temperature a little. If he reads the debate which took place last June, he will find that hon. Members on this side of the House were in favour of concessions to Surtax payers. We are asking for an adjustment of Surtax precisely to help the £2,000 to £3,000-a-year man and those with families. But what we said, and we still stick to it, is that the argument is only valid if the price of this comes out of the pockets of the richer Surtax payers
  872
  and the total yield of Surtax remains unchanged. Is that unreasonable?
  Mr. Leather: It is not only unreasonable, it is downright unrealistic. The hon. Gentleman is saying that in order to give a little more incentive to one person we should take something from another.
  Mr. Harold Wilson: The Royal Commission said it.
  Mr. Leather: The Royal Commission said many things, some of which both the right hon. Gentleman and I agreed with and others of which we disagreed with. I am not concerned about what the Royal Commission said on this subject. We shall not provide an incentive which will have a dynamic effect on industry by juggling money from one surtax payer to another. That is complete nonsense.
  Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite howl about the need to spend more money on education, to spend more on the young technicians and technologists in industry. Then they say to these young people, "We have spent this money to equip you to do a good job in industry. But you must be clear about the fact that whether you loaf through life or sweat your guts out doing a good job, the net result will always be the same—we shall take the reward away from you in the form of Surtax."
  Hon. Memhers: Nonsense.
  Mr. Leather: With respect, it is not nonsense. That expression is typical of the refusal of hon. Members opposite to face facts which they do not like.
  Mr. Bence: It is gross exaggeration.
  Mr. Leather: With respect, it is not exaggeration. If the hon. Member thinks it is, he need only go into the Library and read Whitaker's Almanack to see what happens to the man on the £3,000 to £4,000 level. There are many people who reach that salary bracket in industry in this country today, and surely we want that. Surely we want many more people to reach that salary bracket, we want to encourage and expand and to build up a dynamic industry. But once a man gets that far he can get precious little further, because from there on after he has paid Surtax he will be left with something like one-tenth or one-fifteenth of what he

  873
  worked for. Many people say that they do not think that it is worth while, and I agree with them.
  The members of the party opposite are always saying that we must have more and more investment. Then they promptly say, "If you do invest your money, we will not let you reap any reward. We are going to make certain that you will not get more and more from it," and they are surprised because investment does not increase.
  Hon. Members opposite are continually saying that in Germany or the United States or in Canada production per man-hour, investment, exports, etc., are increasing at a faster rate than is the case here. Then they violently oppose the very policies that those countries have used to get those results. There is no logic in their attitude at all. They abuse the Government and they abuse industry because they are not more dynamic and progressive. They are constantly pointing to foreign countries and saying how much better they do things, but they will not face up to the logical conclusion of why those countries get better results. It is because they follow more dynamic policies and allow people to keep a little more of the fruits of their own efforts. Everyone in those countries says so; but at that point hon. Gentlemen opposite drop the argument.
  Mr. Bence: They pay a lot more.
  Mr. Leather: No they do not.
  Mr. Bence: Oh.
  Mr. Leather: I happen to know a little about this subject.
  I now turn to the question of the overseas trade corporations. Unlike right hon. Gentlemen opposite, I am delighted with the object of that provision and with what I think my right hon. Friend had in mind. I must confess that the language in the Bill is highly technical and I do not pretend to be able to interpret it as an expert. There are, however, two points that appear to me not to meet the object which I believe that my right hon. Friend and all of us have in mind.
  The first is that Clause 20 (1) simply says:
  " a company resident in the United Kingdom shall be known … as an Overseas Trade Corporation …"
  874
  whether it wants to or not. I think that it is probably not the best way simply to say that this will be compulsory, as the Bill now says, because I think that we shall find—I do not pretend to have been able to get details—that there are some companies which, because of an unusual tax position or capital allowances, this provision will in fact harm rather than benefit. I should like the Chancellor of the Exchequer seriously to consider whether this benefit—and this must be a benefit because the Government are not making this provision for the sheer fun of it—could be made elective rather than compulsive.
  There is no breaking of precedent or anything unusual in company taxation in doing that. There are precedents for companies electing to be taxed on a certain basis, but once they have elected to do so, they must stick to that basis; they cannot chop and change each year. They are allowed to decide, in agreement with the Treasury, on the basis on which they shall be taxed. I think that it would save anomalies and difficulties if my right hon. Friend could reword the Clause in that way.
  The question of a company being resident in the United Kingdom was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) during the Financial Secretary's speech. I think that it is a very important point. As the Clause stands, a branch office of a United Kingdom company abroad can reap the full benefit. If it is set up as a local company with residence in an overseas territory it reaps no benefit. I am sure that that is a mistake.
  I fully realise that to include an overseas subsidiary is a little more difficult technically and legally, but I am certain that it is important that that should be done for a number of reasons. Many overseas companies, including those in Colonial Territories, quite rightly from their point of view, put considerable pressure on a company to see that it converts its branch into a local limited company. It is often absolutely essential, as well as good salesmanship, to set up a local board of directors and put local people on the board. There are a number of factors like that, where a company, for very good and sound reasons, in aiding the export drive and building up overseas investments, has converted its

  875
  branches into limited companies. There are some countries, India is a typical example, where one is not allowed to operate unless one does set up a limited company. The way in which this Clause is worded means that it would be completely impossible for such a company to benefit. I am sure that was not the intention.
  I think that the Financial Secretary referred to investment income not deriving any advantage from the Clause. If a limited company is concerned, and it pays big dividends, that immediately becomes an investment income and is excluded from the benefits under the Bill, as I understand it. It may be that there is a Clause which I have overlooked or some complication of which I am not aware, and if so I should like some explanation from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because many of us are concerned about this point. If I am right, I hope that he can give us an assurance that he will look at this point very carefully before the Committee stage. I think that it would be quite unfair to leave the matter as it stands at the moment. It would be completely arbitrary between one company and another and fail by giving only half the benefit that all of us want from the provision.
  I welcome this Bill, despite the derision of the party opposite, and I would still plead with them sometimes to try to think objectively about this problem instead of purely in terms of votes and making wisecracks. If they would just stop to work out the figures, I think that they would come to the conclusion that this is an incentive Budget which the economy of this country vastly needs, and that the great majority of people are grateful to my right hon. Friend for having given it to them.
  7.19 p.m.
  Mrs. Jean Mann: It is the custom in the House of Commons that one should try to follow the arguments of the hon. Member who has just sat down. I am quite unable to follow the arguments of the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Leather), about incentives. He described, as did the Chancellor himself, how necessary it was to provide incentives, and he told about the exodus to Canada. Are not the
  876
  incentives provided for those having an income of more than £2,000 a year? I believe that the £10,000 a year man without any family has a tax remission of £634.
  If a man has reached the heights of a Prime Minister, is he in need of a further push, further incentive? It is true that the quality of our Prime Ministers has not been very bright recently. I understand that it has often been said that they are the best Prime Ministers we can get at the moment. Is the remission an incentive to the £10,000 a year man to get higher? How much higher can one get than Ben Nevis or Mount Everest?
  Mr. Leather: Speak up.
  Mrs. Mann: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman should show signs of senility so early in his life. I thought my voice was loud; indeed, some think it is much too loud.
  When the hon. Gentleman talks about the exodus to Canada, may I remind him about the medical profession? This question of emigration affects registrars, senior registrars and hospital staff getting under £1,500 a year and mostly under £1,200. If the exodus were among the £5,000 men, nobody would be more delighted than those senior registrars and others who are waiting for the moment when the £5,000 a year man takes a running jump at himself.
  Mr. Leather: People are going abroad because of lack of incentive and opportunity under the taxation system of this country. No matter how hard they work they will never get any further here, and that is why they are going. They look around and see that in other countries they can earn up to double, after taxation has been paid, what they would get in this country in the same time.
  Mrs. Mann: I am grateful to the hon. Member for allowing me to interrupt him. There are practically no emigrants in the £5,000 to £10,000 a year class. The hon. Gentleman must be very much out of touch with public opinion and with the emigration figures to talk such nonsense, which simply would not be listened to outside this House.
  There are things in this Budget that might be praiseworthy, but I do not want

  877
  to pass on the compliments to the Chancellor. I prefer to pass on the criticism, because I am afraid that he might remember the compliments when he replies and forget the criticism. I start off with the T.V. fee of £1. It has been excused with the argument that those who can afford to pay from 60 guineas to 80 guineas for a T.V. set cannot object to the extra £1 on the licence. The other argument is that those who are already paying £3 per annum cannot very well object to the extra £1. Today, the Financial Secretary got another angle on it. Repair and maintenance he said, could not cost less than £7 per year. Why put another imposition on top of that?
  From where do these arguments come? From what school of economics? Who is the president of it? I suggest he is Mr. Bats of the Belfry and that the school is Bedlam. It is like someone saying to a woman, "You have twelve dresses, all from Hardy Amies. Now you want a thirteenth. As you have twelve expensive dresses you certainly ought to have the thirteenth. You already have six garden party hats that were very expensive. Therefore, you are entitled to a seventh." Or. one might argue with an alcoholic," You have already had eight alcoholic drinks. One over the eight will do you no harm." When we get down to reality, it means that the Treasury comes in at the outset of the purchase of the T.V. set and takes Purchase Tax from the sale. It then has a 200 per cent, increase on the B.B.C. £2 licence fee by making it £3. On every replacement of the cathode ray tube a minimum of £6 goes into the Treasury. Now it says, "Because we have had so much from you, we are sure that you will not object to giving us another £1."
  There is the false impression that the getting of a T.V. set is easy. On the contrary, a great many of the people I have met have struggled very hard to get a set. They do without things to get it. They work overtime and postpone a holiday, because a T.V. set means so much in the home. Many people buy these sets for their old people, to bring brightness, life and personality into the lives of the old folk and help to dispel loneliness. Very often it means a hard struggle. Let me give the House a personal case.
  When I got my T.V. set—I was among the first to get one—an old person came into my house, and a longing look came
  878
  into her face. It made me feel very sorry indeed that she could never attain to a television set. I had great difficulty in drawing her away from it. I went to someone and told all this, and my friend said, "She is a decent woman, but very lonely." I replied, "If I put up half the money for a T.V. set will you put up the other? "In that way the woman got her set. We had not calculated on the other £1 when we paid the first £3.
  Eighteen months afterwards, my cathode-ray tube broke down and my set went dead. I was determined it would lie dead rather than I should pay the Chancellor £6 and the monopolists the balance.
  Mr. Charles Pannell: It it not worth the money.
  Mrs. Mann: My hon. Friend suggests that it is not worth the money. Certainly, the raucous sounds that come out from the well-bosomed women that one sees cause one to have the greatest pleasure in switching off, and in being able to do so without being excessively rude to them without their knowing it.
  To return to my subject. My set went "dead." I visited the old lady and found that her set was "dead," also. The same thing had happened to her set, the cathode-ray tube had broken down. The Chancellor was taking this Purchase Tax and doing nothing for us, but for the monopolists who have control of these tubes. I thought there was a case for asking the Chancellor for a reduction in Purchase Tax on cathode-ray tubes. That is why I wholly disagreed with the rather carefree action he took in the imposition of this £1 increase.
  I pass to something which I regard as even more serious. For the first time in the history of Purchase Tax, the right hon. Gentleman has imposed a tax on safety in the home. I do not know whether he is aware that in subsection (2) of Clause 6, referring to Group 11, for the first time a tax is imposed on an invention making for safety in the home. We appealed successfully to Sir Stafford Cripps about fire-guards and even the Lord Privy Seal, when he was Chancellor, did not impose an extension of tax on fire-guards. In the "pots and pans "Budget he still exempted fire-guards.
  The Fire Appliances Act, 1953, makes it an offence not to have a protection

  879
  over the elements of a gas or electric fire. That Act left all vendors to dispose of their old stocks and, today, there are 12 million open fire appliances. In other words, there are electric radiators and gas fires which are unprotected—
  Mr. Gower: For the guidance of the House, may I ask the hon. Lady a question? I apologise for interrupting her, but she said that a new tax was being put on something connected with safety in the home. Surely this is a reduction of Purchase Tax from 30 per cent, to 15 per cent. I would be most grateful if the hon. Lady could enlighten me.
  Mrs. Mann: For the first time, this device came into the 30 per cent, range about six weeks ago, and now it is to be in the 15 per cent, range. It should not be taxed at all. Gas and electric radiators which do not have the safety device on them can be fitted with it. The gas and electricity authorities go to houses where the appliances are still unprotected and fit these safety devices for 10s., with no Purchase Tax.
  There is no Purchase Tax on gas or electric cookers, but a young man won the B.B.C. "Inventors' Club" competition for Britain and overseas by a device to be fitted to an electrical gas cooker which can avoid some of the worst accidents that happen in the home. Promptly, two months ago, that device had a 30 per cent. Purchase Tax imposed on it and the tax is now to be reduced to 15 per cent. I appeal to the Chancellor to have a look at that matter. This safety device has been approved by the Gas Council and perfected by the North Thames Gas Board. It is of great assistance to blind persons, because it limits the sphere of the top of the stove and a blind woman is apt to cant a pot over the side if it is not wedged. This device helps disabled and blind people, as there is a slot for the pan handle.
  The Ministry of Health issued a splendid leaflet by the hundred thousand showing the danger caused to children when handles of pans are allowed to jut out from the top of the stove. Yet this invention, which is now on the market, is subject to Purchase Tax. I ask the Chancellor to have a look at that matter. I do not think that he is aware of the past precedents set in regard to these things.
  880
  It seems foolish in the extreme to break a very good precedent and that, while cookers are free from Purchase Tax, the invention which can be fixed to a cooker to make it safe is subject to the tax.
  We are not getting the benefit of reduction of Purchase Tax. The reduction is from 30 per cent, to 15 per cent. Can the Chancellor tell us how many of these items listed in the Bill are subject to the reduction? We find the greatest difficulty in getting evidence of the 15 per cent, reduction. Previous Chancellors had a good Press showing the fall in the cost of living when they made reductions. Pressmen went round to the shops detailing the prices of articles which had been reduced.
  Do they do so today? On the contrary, we find them telling us about certain groups which have already intimated that they are on the way to increasing the prices of certain of these goods. What is the good of reducing an item by 15 per cent, to give the benefit to the housewife if the housewife does not get the benefit? Can the Chancellor deprive those who are not passing on the benefit of the concession?
  I wish to make a concluding point in respect of married women. This criticism includes both parties. I wonder how long Chancellors will ignore the status of the woman who goes out to work? At present, she has a personal allowance of £140. She has to pay far more for help in the home, because she cannot obtain a housekeeper for £140. Even a charwoman cannot be obtained for £140 a year. This figure does not meet the cost of replacing her own labour.
  Whatever a married woman earns is linked with her husband's income. If she is a professional woman—say, a doctor—her earnings will be probably at least £1,000. If her husband is earning £1,000 her going out and taking up her profession, even on a part-time basis, brings them both into the 8s. 6d. standard rate of tax almost immediately. She is deprived of the £60 at 2s. 3d., the £150 at 4s. 9d. and the other £150 at 6s. 9d. before reaching the standard level of 8s. 6d. If she were a single woman, she would have these concessionary allowances, but as she has made the fatal mistake of marrying she is penalised by the Chancellor by being deprived of these allowances.

  881
  I sometimes think that the Treasury is against marriage and encourages living in sin. In the Bill, the £250 allowance for a retired person is only £400 to a married couple. It would be £250 each if they were leading separate lives. Do the Government want them to separate in their old age?
  The same thing applies to the marriage allowances. If a woman chooses to separate from her husband, she then has the first £60 of her taxable income taxed at 2s. 3d., and so on, but if she chooses to be reconciled she loses these benefits. Another anomaly is that of the housekeeper's allowance for the man who has to have a housekeeper because his wife has died. If she lives in a house with him, he gets an allowance for her. If she does not, if she is a daily help, he gets no allowance for her whatever. That is a hardship to the man whose house is small and it is a bad example to the children of a man who has been left with children that the Chancellor should say that if a woman stays in his house every night their father will get an allowance, but that if she goes away at night their father will get no allowance for her. These are things which a woman Chancellor would have rectified long ago and I hope that some time a male Chancellor will rectify them.
  7.43 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Remnant: The hon. Lady the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann) has not come up to the usual high standard that I expect of her. Perhaps because the pressure of Parliamentary business she has not studied the problem quite as closely as she would wish to do.
  There are two points in the early part of the hon. Lady's speech which I should like to take up. When she was talking about the man who received £10,000 a year and comparing him with the Prime Minister, she said that there was no reason why the businessman earning £10,000 a year should want to go higher. If I could imagine for a moment that I was a £10,000 a year man, I should be quite happy to be on the same level as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and with the same allowances, and free of tax, which, if I remember aright, were introduced by a Socialist Prime Minister.
  Mrs. Mann: It is still £10.000 a year.
  Mr. Remnant: Yes, but the allowances matter in what we call the "take home" money. There is no getting away from that.
  The other point I wish to put to the hon. Lady is that we remember many occasions on which it has been suggested that overtime should be free of tax because a man cannot be expected to work overtime when he has to pay additional tax at probably a higher rate. In connection with the £10,000 a year man, I shall assume for the moment that the hon. Lady is capable, as I hope she is, of earning £10,000 a year. Would she be prepared to take on an additional job, which might well mean the employment of 1,000 people, if she would keep only 2s. in the £ of that additional amount?
  Mrs. Mann: If the hon. Member gets me the £10,000 a year job, I will tell him.
  Mr. Remnant: If the hon. Lady gets the £10,000 a year job, I will get her the extra £1,000 a year job if she will take the extra £1,000 a 2s. in the £.
  Mr. Denis Howell: There is no morality over there.
  Mr. Nabarro: On a point of order. An hon. Member opposite has just accused my hon. Friends and myself of being immoral. This words were, "There is no morality over there." Is that not a grossly un-Parliamentary comment, Mr. Deputy-Speaker?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): I do not think that it is within the terms of prohibited phrases. I think it is an accusation of a general nature.
  Mr. Remnant: I am not offended by it, because I am quite certain that if the hon. Lady could get an earned income of £10,000 a year she would be worth the extra £1,000 a year, of which she would keep 2s. in the £ for herself.
  I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Sir A. Spearman) has left the Chamber, because I wanted to comment on his very wise remarks about the extent of future savings coming from the man or woman who has not, until recent years, been in the habit of saving, or been able to save, and who, I hope, is now able to do so. I am thinking of the man who goes in for the "pools", or for tobacco, or for alcohol, or for one of the other luxuries.

  883
  There can be no doubt that if this money could be channelled into investment in industry, the benefit through employment —and I do not confine it to this country —would be very large.
  Such a man must, however, be encouraged. In my view, he must be encouraged in two ways. As my hon. Friend suggested, one method is by unit trusts, because he must be satisfied, and rightly so, that if he wants the money he can get it quickly. The other method which might be adopted, perhaps not in the present Bill but in a future Finance Bill, is that the £15 Post Office Savings Bank interest which is allowed free of tax could be increased, so that the first £15 of what I choose to call investment income rather than unearned income could also be free of tax. There could then become that habit to save, if and when it is possible to do so, with considerable benefit to the country and to the Colonies.
  I had a slight difference of opinion earlier today with my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary and the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker). I quite agree with the right hon. Member that the Clauses relating to O.T.C.s, which in my schooldays had another connotation, are extremely difficult to understand. The two points on which we had disagreement are so important that I hope my right hon. Friend will be able to give an absolutely clear answer when he replies to the debate.
  It will be remembered that the first point concerned Profits Tax. It may be that I was thinking of a different set-up. What I am thinking of—and here I declare an interest—is a sterling company, registered in the United Kingdom, which has trading operations in India—in, for example, tea—and which has a wholly-owned subsidiary with two estate companies under it in Kenya and in Tanganyika.
  Quite obviously, the parent company in the United Kingdom becomes an overseas trade corporation, and its profits from its activities in India get the benefit of these Clauses. But Africa is different, because although those companies are in the early stages of development and there are, therefore, unlikely to be any profits to be remitted to this country for perhaps seven or eight years, if those profits are to be remitted it can be done
  884
  only by way of dividend paid by the holding company registered in Kenya and wholly owned by the United Kingdom company.
  It is done in that way because, although the estate companies were in not a very good state financially, they were ripe for development, and the benefit to those Colonies of a company registered there is much appreciated, even when it is known that it is backed by, shall I say, a reputable United Kingdom company; but the dividend declared by the East African company to the parent company in the United Kingdom will, as I read Clause 32, be investment income and not trading income.
  The Financial Secretary may say, "Yes, but you have an alternative". I agree. I can either wind up the companies so that the assets are owned by the United Kingdom company, or I can transfer the registration from Kenya and Tanganyika to the United Kingdom, but if the trading results are the development of our Colonies, why should the companies be put to that expense? No doubt my hon. Friend has other cases in mind, and I would welcome the opportunity of having a talk with him about this before the Committee stage of the Bill is reached. In my particular instance, at least, I think that there is no difference between the operations in East Africa and in India.
  Perhaps I may now briefly mention two old friends of ours which I am sorry not to see in the Finance Bill. One is the post-war credits. After all, the war has been over for twelve years, and though the date of redemption was not defined at the time, I think that most of those who have these credits have expected them to be repaid before now. I am not suggesting that the whole of the amount could be paid off at the moment, but certain holders of these credits are undoubtedly suffering inconvenience and hardship because they cannot get at them. Therefore, while it is all to the good if the period in which they can be repaid is reduced, that does not answer the problem entirely.
  There are two or three ways in which they could be dealt with. For instance, they could be accepted in payment of tax due. Again, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Arbuthnot) has suggested on a number of occasions,

  885
  stock could be issued for the amount, and would be available for the holder to sell if he so wished, but I am not quite in agreement with my hon. Friend because I think that that means a liability for the life of the stock issued. I would prefer the issue of a certificate maturing at the present date, which, like certain life assurance policies, could be sold on the market if the money was needed, but, because of the difficulty of selling, such a scheme would stop many people from cashing in on it who did not need it.
  The other old friend is Easter offerings. Perhaps I am freer to talk, as the vicar of my parish emigrated to Tasmania just over a month ago and is now out of reach of the Inland Revenue. Tax on Easter offerings can so easily be avoided —and, I make bold to say, is avoided. After all, it comes down to this, that whether one puts in to the Easter Sunday offering a cheque, cash, silver, or copper, the vicar is bound to return it and to pay tax on it—if he is an honest man, as I assume vicars are.
  If, on the other hand, I choose to give him something at Whitsun or at Christmas then, unless he is over-conscientious, he is not bound, except in the eyes of the Inland Revenue I suspect, to return that amount as part of his income. He can take it as a gift. I suggest, therefore, that the amount lost to the Inland Revenue from such a concession to a body of long-suffering men, who are expected to live at a standard well above their income, would be very small, and would receive general approval.
  I believe that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is right, if I interpret his actions correctly, to be selective about investment allowances. There may be Amendments in Committee suggesting that the allowances should be spread further. If need be, I can add to them. I may be old-fashioned, but I feel that industry ought to be able to finance its own replacements and, perhaps, certain small extensions out of its own resources. It has been unable to do that of recent years because of the high rates of tax, the high rate of Profits Tax—and particularly the Profits Tax on undistributed profits.
  I would suggest that, while the Chancellor should keep investment allowances
  886
  in his hand to be applied to industries particularly in need of them, if he could see his way to grant, in another year, a reduction in undistributed Profits Tax he would be entitled to expect industry to look after most of its own replacements. That view will not receive general acceptance, but it is my view.
  Shipping is one industry where the increased allowance has met with general approval. I can name another in which I have an interest—the hotel industry. Often enough—in fact, too often—do we read criticisms of the standard of service of accommodation and of fare provided by our hotels. In many cases those criticisms are justified, but it must be remembered that when the hotel was first erected it was modern, and that, under the Income Tax rules correctly applied, anything that is not a specific replacement is treated as capital. In fact, modernisation expenditure lasts for an incredibly short time. I have one company which, because of its chase to keep pace, has not paid an ordinary dividend for a long time.
  It should also be remembered that much of that modernisation expenditure does not enable the hotel to make extra charges. They are expected by the visitors, and rightly so. To take one small item, a plug for an electric razor costs £3 and has just come down from £4 10s. If one has an hotel with 100 rooms, there is £300 out of the net taxed income for this purpose, and this is a trade which is bringing millions of dollars to this country. I know that a memorandum has been submitted to the Chancellor on this subject, and I suggest that this is quite a good example of the way in which the selective application of investment allowances could be applied.
  I have occupied more than my fait time, and I would like to end by congratulating my right hon. Friend on his intentions towards the overseas trade corporations. I say intentions, because I am not convinced that I fully understand the wording of his Clauses; but I am quite certain that they are right and that they will be for the benefit of this country. I think that any appeal by him or by those interested that the benefits should, if possible, be ploughed back to further exports within the Commonwealth, should receive the backing of all right minded people.
  8.1 p.m.
  Mr. Roy Jenkins (Birmingham, Stech-ford): I want to speak for only three minutes and to make one specific point, and I must therefore resist the temptation—not actually a very acute one—to follow up, in my remarks, what the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Remnant) has said.
  The background to our general discussion on the Finance Bill is always the general state of the economy, and one of the factors in this consideration this year is the Committee which the Chancellor has just appointed to look into our monetary and credit system. In principle, I should have given a mild welcome to the proposal for such a Committee, but I must say that my welcome is a good deal modified as a result of the Committee which the Chancellor has actually appointed. The Committee gives the appearance of being an impartial body such as might reasonably deliberate upon this matter, but I think that the question is much more one of appearance than of fact.
  Of the nine members of this Committee there are only three who might be regarded as at all likely in advance to take a point of view critical of the established order. They are confined to one economist and two trade unionists, but, in addition, this is a case in which one suspects that the majority of those on the other side are in fact a good deal more expert on the subject of this Committee's inquiries and have been applying their minds far more continuously to these matters than have the minority. The economist, who might be regarded as a Left-wing representative, is much more an economic historian than a general theorist and, certainly, more than he is a specialist in monetary and banking affairs.
  In addition to this lack of impartiality in the composition of the Committee, it is a generally rather disappointing and unadventurous Committee of not strikingly high calibre, and certainly not of the standard of the Macmillan Committee of 1930–31, with which one is automatically tempted to compare it. There is certainly no Keynes and certainly no Bevin on this present Committee. It might be said that there is no Keynes in the country today, and that is perfectly true, but I can think of at least four or
  888
  five economists who come a great deal nearer to being a modern substitute for Keynes than anybody appointed to this Committee. I think, therefore, that we are not likely to get a questing, adventurous approach from the Committee.
  Let me take one question which I put forward as possibly a test. One of the matters to which I think the Committee should apply itself extremely closely is whether in present circumstances there is any useful function for the London Discount Market. I would be extremely doubtful whether this Committee, as it is at present constituted, would in fact apply itself to this question in a detailed, questioning, and slightly aggressive manner, as I think it should. Therefore, with some regret, I must express for my own part my dissatisfaction with this Committee as it is constituted at present. I hope I may be wrong, but I will hazard the guess that what we will get from this Committee is the rather conventional and probably unanimous report generally favourable to exactly what the Chancellor of the Exchequer would like it to be favourable to.
  It might be thought that to get a unanimous report from a Committee must be a good thing. I do not think that it is always necessarily a good thing by any means, because I think that matters of high policy should not be settled by committees, even by committees a good deal more distinguished than this one. Nobody would think of setting up a committee to pronounce upon foreign policy.
  Also, when we are dealing with matters of finance such as this committee will necessarily be dealing with, there is a good deal to be said for not trying to have necessarily a unanimous report, and that it is much better to have two opposing points of view sharply argued, and, perhaps, to have the committee presenting both majority and minority reports, with new facts and arguments to put before the House, on which to reach a decision, in something like the way in which the Royal Commission on the Taxation of Profits and Income did.
  That, I think, we shall not have; and I am afraid that the Chancellor, with no desire to do that, but perhaps on the advice of the Bank of England or perhaps on the advice of the Treasury, has in fact produced a Committee which, while it gives a superficial air of impartiality,

  889
  could not be more nicely calculated to produce exactly the sort of answer that he would like to have. Therefore, I must say in advance that I shall be extremely sceptical of the report that comes from it, and I shall certainly not regard it as giving the final pronouncement, which we must accept, on these important matters.
  8.6 p.m.
  Mr. Raymond Gower: The very calm and quiescent atmosphere of this debate is itself perhaps a compliment to my right hon. Friend's "room at the top" Budget. I well recall that that particular description seemed to arouse some criticism from the benches opposite, based on the fears that, in attending to the broad needs of the economy, my right hon. Friend may have been tempted, or may have failed to do something for those at the bottom, and that is a reasonable anxiety.
  I am quite convinced, however, that my right hon. Friend will not fail in that respect, any more than his immediate predecessors at the Treasury have done. When we consider how in recent years so many people have been progressively taken out of the liability of having to pay Income Tax at all, how family allowances have been twice increased, and how National Insurance and other benefits have been progressively increased, we cannot for a moment agree that the Chancellor has not had in mind those people who are at the bottom.
  Mr. Joseph Slater: Do not forget the increased contributions.
  Mr. Gower: I realise that there has been an increase in the contributions, but the hon. Member will recognise that these increased contributions were the natural corollary and consequence of the kind of legislation passed by his own Government.
  It was implicit in and implied by that scheme that there should be some increase in contributions when the benefits went up. Indeed, with the increasing age of our population, it is hardly conceivable that we can have large-scale progressive increases in benefits without some increase in contributions, unless we are prepared to contemplate a very large-scale increase in direct and indirect taxation, and, possibly, the bringing back into the Income Tax range of many people who do not now pay tax.
  890
  The general tone of my right hon. Friend's Budget speech, in introducing the proposals embodied in this Bill, seemed to arouse a little amusement opposite, and I well recall the howl which we heard when he did a most healthy and salutary thing in reminding this House of something which we all tend to forget. It is that the State and the Treasury have no absolute right to make first claim on a person's income.
  In these days, we are tempted to feel that a taxpayer is privileged to enjoy the little which may be left after the Treasury have had their share, but my right hon. Friend did a healthy thing in reminding us that that is the reverse of the view which we should take and that it was the earnest desire of Chancellors long departed, about whom we are sometimes reminded, to allow money to fructify in the pockets of the people. Precious little has been left to fructify in anybody's pockets in recent years.
  I approve of the Chancellor's steps to end the somewhat abrupt transition from Income Tax to Surtax income, but, like the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade), I believe that persons just below the Surtax income are worthy of particular notice in future Budgets.
  Several hon. Members have referred to the old-age pensioners, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance has their position very much in mind. It may be that soon or in the foreseeable future he will bring to the House proposals for a general increase in their pensions.
  Mr. Marcus Lipton: Just before the next Election.
  Mr. Gower: I will not argue with the hon. Member about the date, but I expect that my right hon. Friend will bring such proposals to the House reasonably soon, and I suggest to the Economic Secretary, who is present, that he should convey to my right hon. Friend that it might be fruitful if the Government also considered the possibility in the future of meeting this tremendous problem of National Insurance benefits by giving an extra increase to the older of the pensioners in addition to the general increase which might take place. The needs of old people tend to increase with advancing age and their ability to earn anything above their pension similarly decreases with advancing age. It is my

  891
  personal view that as the years go by and the age of our population and the number of old people increases, we shall have to consider action along these lines. I hope that the Government will give attention to the possibility of an extra increase for some of the older pensioners, even if it means a slight departure from the strict insurance principle.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Remnant) referred to post-war credits. I should have thought that a definite date could now be fixed for their repayment, even if it is at a considerable time in the future, and that they should be made negotiable. By this method there would be no immediate increased expenditure to the Treasury, but there would be the possibility of some needy persons using these documents if they wanted to avail themselves of them immediately.
  Mr. Bence: Convert them to bearer bonds.
  Mr. Gower: They might even be converted to some form of industrial security.
  Side by side with that, I suggest to my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary that the Government might consider the institution of a new system of industrial bonds tied to our plans for the future for developing such industries as atomic energy and some of our other newer industries. This would surely appeal to the small investor and would have the added advantage that it would be dramatic and would be geared to the needs of the country.
  I plead with the Government once again to consider the anomaly which exists in respect of those people who, because they are employed, do not qualify for Income Tax allowances for books, periodicals, journals and professional magazines which they reasonably require. It is an anomaly which affects persons as dissimilar as school teachers, parsons and doctors employed in hospitals.
  Mr. Gordon Walker: And Members of Parliament.
  Mr. Gower: I submit to the House that it is absurd that whereas an accountant, a solicitor in private practice, and many other people can obtain allowances of this kind simply because they are taxed
  892
  under one schedule heading, other people, whose need of professional journals and books is just as great in order that they may keep themselves abreast of recent events, can get no relief at all because they are taxed under another schedule. This is a reform which hon. Members have sought for some time.
  Finally, I want to make a special plea in respect of firms which introduce forms of profit sharing and co-partnership. Some years ago I had the honour to introduce in the House a Motion, in very moderate terms, which merely called upon the previous Government to acquaint themselves with information about the amount of co-partnership and profit sharing schemes which exists in this country. At that time I did not deem it opportune or appropriate to introduce a Motion calling for special financial incentives, for I was by no means satisfied that I would carry a large body of opinion with me.
  I knew at that time that there were hon. Members opposite who, despite the excellent performance of the Co-operative movement in this respect, had some apprehension that these schemes might be used as means to weaken the free bargaining of trade unions—which I believe to be completely fallacious—and that on this side of the Committee there was some apprehension because some people had advocated forms of compulsion which are quite inappropriate in cases of profit sharing or co-partnership, which should come as a corollary to and not prior to the institution of good industrial relations.
  We have now had a few years' experience of these schemes and have seen them gradually extended to many different forms of industry. While the benefits should not be exaggerated. I am convinced that, generally, the effect has been excellent. In many cases, it has created a far different atmosphere. If we want to find a new dynamic—and we certainly do—here is one source which we might explore. Forms of co-partnership and profit sharing have been introduced in industries as dissimilar as the chocolate industry, some forms of engineering and the cement industry, and I do not think that the principle is limited by the kind of industry and business which is carried on.
  I feel that the time is now opportune to do more than merely remove obstacles

  893
  to the introduction of these schemes and to do more than merely acquaint ourselves more fully with information about them. I submit that there is now a reasonable case for a Government to give positive financial incentive to firms which proceed in this way. It may be said that this would be an unfair thing to do, but I submit that there are respectable precedents. Successive Governments have given positive incentives to firms and companies which have introduced pensions schemes—I think rightly. It is just as reasonable that such incentive should be given to firms which introduce schemes of profit sharing and co-partnership.
  I do not suggest that because a firm introduces a scheme of this kind it thereby achieves a revolution of good relationships in its shops. I do not think that for a moment. I do not think that the institution of these schemes means that production will increase immensely and suddenly, but these schemes are usually accompanied by other good things, such as the payment of the best wages negotiated freely with the trade unions, the full recognition of the appropriate trade unions, the observation of the best methods of safety in factories, efficiency of production, and the institution of sickness and injury benefits.
  Al these things are found, customarily in firms which institute these schemes. I submit, therefore, that there is a reasonable case for this suggestion and I respectfully give notice that I shall seek the opportunity to put forward appropriate Amendments for discussion in Committee. I sincerely hope that the House will consider the advantages of what I have advocated tonight.
  8.21 p.m.
  Mr. Charles Pannell: I shall not try to follow the remarks of the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower). When he addresses the House he usually reveals himself as a master of all the elementary virtues, but I think that he drew the wrong moral when he recalled that the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to this as the "room at the top" Budget. I wondered what the right hon. Gentleman meant at the time. I thought that he had in his mind the best-selling topical novel of that name, which I understand from my reading of it was the story of a young man who pushed his way through anything without regard for other people.
  894
  I really could not understand the Chancellor's praise for his own Budget when he was referring to that.
  Earlier in the debate the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Leather) referred to the emigration figures, but he did not say that they reached their peak at the time of this country's humiliation over Suez. It was the social climate of the country, the idea that we had lowered ourselves in certain standards, that led to that emigration. It was a form of escapism. When one has questioned a good many people who decided to emigrate, one finds that it is this mood that they wanted to go abroad.
  I should advise the hon. Member and others to remember what my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) said when he urged that we really must consider making this country great in other things. At that time it was not the taxation in the country that was driving people abroad. My hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann) made a relevant point when she said that it was the people on the £1,000 a year mark who went abroad and not the people with a £3,000 or £5,000 a year income. They did not feel any inclination to get out of the country.
  I want to express in the closing minutes of the debate some opposition to the whole basis of the Bill. I want to know what will be its impact on the suspended wage claim in the engineering industry. That is far more important than its effect on a few Surtax payers. People may talk about the relatively few Surtax payers, but there is no question that it is on the "know how" and good will of the craftsmen in the engineering industry that in the main the country depends—and I do not ignore the fact that the technicians and managers have their claim.
  The craftsmen in the engineering industry have made considerable sacrifices for fair shares all round. When I went into the engineering industry about 1916 the labourer's rate was about 55 per cent, of the craftsmen's 100 per cent. Now, in many cases, the labourer has achieved 87 per cent, of the craftesmen's rate, and throughout the country the differential between the skilled journeyman fitter and the labourer is only £1 to 25s. a week.
  In the main, the engineers have not moaned about that. It is one of the

  895
  things to be put to the credit of the craftsmen's unions that they have taken fixed increments over the years which have lowered that differential. They have seen that there must be a foundation, a minimum rate below which an unskilled labourer should not fall. I have never heard in my life the idea voiced by a boy entering his apprenticeship that his differential would not be good enough at the top, though he would have had a considerable case for saying so. We should be concerned about the craftsmen of the engineering industry today.
  The recent Report of the Inquiry into the strike in the engineering industry states:
  " The present minimum time-rate for skilled labour—168s. 4d. per week—was agreed between the parties in February, 1956."
  That is the basic rate, and it is all very well for the employers to say, "What are the earnings?" The executive never considers that. He considers what he receives as a fixed sum. The civil servant, the sedentary worker and the staff man consider their weekly, monthly or annual pay in relation to fixed hours. It is completely unfair to the craftsmen in the engineering trade, who are working long hours under considerable pressure, that they should have that figure of total earnings quoted against them. After all, that figure is a compensatory figure for loss of leisure, and it is reasonable for them to ask "What do we get for a 44-hour week."
  We have seen the harvest of that kind of talk, because the engineers at their national conference are asking for a 40-hour week. When I was in the United States last year I found the engineers asking for a 35-hour week. The demand for a shorter working week will be one of the issues which we shall have to face when automation comes. If there is such a demand it will be largely the harvest of the talk by employers and all sorts of people who have quoted average earnings against the engineer.
  It might also be said that the inquiry which was made has completely vindicated the leadership of their unions in the recent strike. It might be remembered that it was the failure to negotiate, the refusal of the employers to make an offer, that caused the strike to take place. The trade unions themselves have claimed
  896
  recently that they have been completely vindicated. It was this basic refusal to negotiate, to recognise the rights of the trade unions, that brought on the trouble.
  Let us face the concept of this Budget, which in the main has given something to the Surtax payers, the Income Tax payers, and the older people—even pensioners—who come within the Income Tax range, while all who fall below the general level of Income Tax have been left out. Consequently to the engineers, or to anyone else looking at this Budget, hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House are generally considered to be the natural allies of the employers in the eyes of the great trade union movement of this country. Not only that, but they are generally looked on as the traditional enemies of the trade union movement.
  Mr. Nabarro: Drivel.
  Mr. Pannell: It is no use the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) saying "drivel." We know that his head is full of that. All that the other side of the House can produce is the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) as a kind of apostate member of the Electrical Trades Union, somehow transferred from the Midlands down to Totnes, a stag-hunting constituency, where there is little industry. They produce him and say, "Look, we have produced somebody from the trade union movement."
  Mr. J. A. Sparks: There are no stags at Totnes, only foxes.
  Mr. Pannell: My hon. Friend says there are no stags at Totnes, only foxes.
  Mr. Bence: Tory foxes.
  Mr. Pannell: At any rate they have adopted one trade union member on the benches opposite. It is only necessary to read the headings of the Finance Bill to know that this is a Tory Budget, which is meant to be received with gratitude by the allies and friends of the Tory Party. It is not likely to deceive anyone in the country. Hon. Gentlemen opposite realise that they have reached the point of no return. The results at North Lewisham, Carmarthen, and all the rest are a set style of what will happen in the future. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite know that they are on their way out, and they will probably do as much as they can for their friends

  897
  before they go. The hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Lagden) came in by accident at the last Election—
  Mr. Godfrey Lagden: Since the hon. Gentleman has mentioned me, may I point out that it was no accident? It was the desire of the greatest number of people in that constituency who had a vote. I have no doubt that their desire will continue, especially after they have read the speech of the hon. Gentleman, which has been described by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro).
  Mr. Pannell: I have suffered from reading one or two of the hon. Gentleman's speeches, and if he will consult any of his friends privately they will confirm the impression on our side of the House that he is not even among the bright boys opposite.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): Order, order. I think we are getting away from the Finance Bill.
  Mr. Pannell: With great respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, when anyone makes a reflection on the type of speech I am making, I answer it. I only took up the hon. Gentleman because I heard an alcoholic laugh on the other side of the House.
  Mr. Nabarro: I do not want the hon. Gentleman to think that I suggested that all his speech was drivel. I interpolated the word "drivel" at the point when he said that members of the Tory party were the enemies of the trade unions.
  Mr. Pannell: To correct the hon. Gentleman, I would point out that what I said was that the great body of trade unionists in this country look upon hon. Gentlemen opposite as the natural allies of the employers and as the traditional enemies of the trade union movement.
  Mr. Nabarro: I agree that the hon. Gentleman said that later, but at the point where I interpolated the word "drivel" it was immediately followed by the statement that the Conservative parties were the enemies of the trade unions.
  Mr. Pannell: The hon. Gentleman interrupts me so many times on irrelevancies that he may not be able to make his own speech, and I should not like to stop it by any loquacity on my part.
  898
  I want to refer to an aspect of Purchase Tax on which I may be nearer to the view of hon. Gentlemen opposite. I have always argued, and sometimes against the opinion of my hon. Friends, that I know of no good reasons for the remission of Purchase Tax on motor cars, especially in the present state of the roads. Still I cannot understand why Purchase Tax remains on commercial vehicles, and why they should attract this tax at the rate of 33⅓ per cent. It seems to me to be almost the only type of capital equipment that is taxed. This seems to spring from a general muddle-headedness and misunderstanding about what a commercial vehicle is. It would be almost as sensible to tax a lathe, milling machine, universal grinder, capstan lathe or any of the other capital equipment of the engineering industry.
  It is one of the curious things about this country that we often upbraid shop stewards and suggest that they are not co-operative, but day by day they are doing time-and-motion study and agreeing with employers about improvements. We never hear about these things. We merely hear about upsets at Briggs's works from time to time. Yet shop stewards are working in the engineering industry to save seconds and minutes on the factory floor.
  However, in respect of the lorry on the road we are completely restrictionist in our outlook. We say that the production of goods shall be streamlined and that they shall be produced at the lowest possible cost, but when the goods leave the factory, sometimes to go to another factory or to go to a port, our whole outlook is restrictionist. I can understand the general view of people brought up on the railways, for their minds always have moved in a permanent way, but I really wonder why we approach what is, in effect, the conveyor belt of industry in the way that we do.
  When bottlenecks occur in production we do everything possible to remove them. Yet when we have hold-ups on the roads we do not say, as sensible people should say, "Improve the roads and let the vehicles go through". We merely say "Take the goods off the road. Send them by slower transport. Put them on the rail. Tax the road transport." Our attitude towards the commercial vehicle industry is ridiculous.
  Mr. Chapman: I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that it is not an easy problem. I think that what he says is right, but does he not agree that there is the difficulty that if we had no Purchase Tax at all on the very small light van it would become almost interchangeable with the small light car? If that were so, a great many small light vans would be bought for private purposes, and so they would not go abroad as exports. The great problem is that there is not a clear distinction between the commercial vehicle and the private vehicle.
  Mr. Pannell: If I may say so without offence to my hon. Friend, that is the difference between an economist talking about an engineering subject and an engineer talking on a subject about which he knows something. The history of Purchase Tax will give my hon. Friend the answer. Public service passenger vehicles have always been exempt from Purchase Tax. Vehicles of not less than 3 tons unladen weight were free of tax until 1st July, 1950, when the chassis tax became operative. Why was that? It was the silly nonsense about the 20 m.p.h. speed limit. The purpose was to give some compensation vis-à-vis vehicles of under 3 tons which were allowed to travel at 30 m.p.h., and it was done by means of a reduction in tax. The 20 m.p.h. speed limit is now being lifted and all vehicles can travel at 30 m.p.h. The tax is completely regressive and ought to be removed.
  On 31st August, 1956, there were 1,198,000 goods vehicles in this country as against 3,835,300 motor cars. Those are interesting figures. These are days when there is a great deal of death on the roads; and we also have a great need to export motor vehicles. We must think of the commercial vehicle industry as providing an element in production representing a capital asset to the company concerned. It is about time that we completely removed the tax from commercial vehicles and then, by also providing decent roads for the commercial vehicles to run on, we shall substantially lower the cost of the transport of goods throughout the country.
  What I said at the beginning of my speech, and would like to say to the Chancellor now that he is in his place, follows very much the line of the speech
  900
  made on the Budget of my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) who, I understand, is winding up for the Opposition tonight. My main indictment against the Budget is that whatever there may be in its individual economies, all of which can be justified individually, those economies are wrong in their context and their timing.
  I am still wondering what effect the Budget is going to have on the suspended wage claim and the deferred judgment of the engineers arising from that wage claim and from the proposals of the engineering inquiry. In the last few days, the National Committee of the A.E.U. has been meeting at Eastbourne. Only those who are part and parcel of that organisation, which is the leading one in the industry, will know the sort of struggle that is going on by highly responsible men within it for leadership. I say that when the very able president of that union, Mr. Carron, faces his task, he is not helped but considerably hindered by this sort of Budget.
  8.42 p.m.
  Mr. Gerald Nabarro (Kidderminster): I wish to congratulate my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary on the very lucid and expeditious fashion in which he moved the Second Reading of the Finance Bill this afternoon. It may be a Finance Bill of average length, but it seems to me to be of above average complexity. I thought that in his general explanations my hon. Friend left no possible doubt as to the meaning of the majority of the Clauses with, perhaps, a single exception regarding the lengthy Clauses dealing with the overseas trading tax reliefs for companies which can, no doubt, be examined in much greater detail during the Committee stage.
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has spread his £98 million of tax reliefs this year and his projected £130 million of tax reliefs in a full year over a very wide field. In a speech which I made during the Budget debate, I dealt with a number of aspects of my right hon. Friend's proposals, and this evening I intend to confine myself, firstly, very shortly to his proposals in regard to Surtax, secondly, to his proposals in regard to the investment allowance for ships, and, more fully, to his proposals in connection with Purchase Tax.

  901
  There were heated exchanges between the hon. Member for Northfield (Mr. Chapman) and my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Leather) and myself on the question of the amount of money which my right hon. Friend was allocating to Surtax relief in relation to the total sum of taxation relief given in the Budget. I think that the hon. Gentleman misunderstood me in the course of my intervention. My reference to 10 per cent, of the whole relief was specifically in respect of that allowance for Surtax. Of course, the fact is that in a full year there is a sum of £9¾ million for personal allowances for Surtax in the form of relief, to which must be added £24½ million for earned income relief, making a total of £34¼ million in a full year out of £130 million in all. That, I calculate, is a shade less than 25 per cent., and is a very different thing from the hon. Gentleman's statement, which all my hon. Friends and I noted so carefully at the time, when he referred to the whole of the relief available being given to the Surtax payer. In fact, it is slightly less than 25 per cent.
  Party politics on one side, these are facts; my right hon. Friend said on 9th April, in reference to this Surtax relief:
  " In few countries in the world is there less incentive to increase effort after the £2,000 has been passed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th April, 1957; Vol. 568, c. 999.]
  I want to talk about that for a moment, because it seems to me that it is a mistaken argument to say that the reason for the Surtax reliefs is the fact that we wish to stem the flow of emigrants to countries which offer greater incentive to the scientific or technical worker, or to those in the higher executive branches of industry. That is not the case. It is a matter of competitiveness.
  In exactly the same way as we are obliged in a highly competitive world to match our techniques and our professional skills with the older industrial countries of Western Europe and with the newer industrial countries of North America, so it is vital, if the industrial economy of this country is to expand, that the competitiveness of the salaries which we are able to pay to those men who have the brains to occupy high executive posts in industry should match the scales of salaries, after taxation, which are available to them in the countries which are
  902
  our principal industrial competitors. That is the fact of the matter, and I am sure that even a Socialist, who must surely subscribe to the view that this nation should steadily expand its industrial economy year by year, cannot controvert that simple fact.
  What was the position before my right hon. Friend introduced his Budget? I have not selected my countries at random, and I have not taken examples which suit my argument best. I have taken two industrial countries in Western Europe, namely, Western Germany and France, and two industrial countries in North America, namely, the United States and Canada. I have taken various income levels above £2,000 per annum and compared what a man has left after payment of tax in this country with what he has left in those four comparative circumstances. These are the figures: A married man with two children, earning £3,000 a year in this country has left £2,051; in Canada, £2,583; in the United States, £2,556; in Western Germany, £2,085; in France, £2,667. In the four competitive countries there is an average net income 25 per cent, higher than is available to the man in this country.
  Mr. Bence: That is only after Income Tax. The hon. Member should be fair about these figures. I have seen them for myself. These are incomes left after direct taxation, but in the United States of America sales tax is so heavy that that income, when used as purchasing power, is smaller than it appears.
  Mr. Nabarro: I do not accept that argument for a moment, but I am talking about direct taxation and the combined incidence of Income Tax and Surtax. The figures I quoted were for people who earned an income of £3,000.
  I now quote the figures for an earned income of £5,000. Before the Budget an earner in this country would have left £2,801; in Canada, £3,985; in the United States, £4,065; in West Germany, £3,155; in France, £4,125. In other words, at that income level of earned income the residual after payment of Surtax and Income Tax is much greater, at the £5,000 level of gross income in the four principal countries which compete with Great Britain industrially. The source of these figures is the Financial Times of 23rd February, 1957, well

  903
  before the Budget. I have confirmed them from other sources, and I do not believe that they are inaccurate in any regard.
  In reply specifically to the point made by the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence), I agree that it is true that in those four countries there are variations in indirect taxation, but it is absolutely indisputable that the level of indirect taxation in this country is also higher than it is in those other four.
  Mr. Chapman indicated assent.
  Mr. Nabarro: I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Northfield so readily agrees with me. This means that, in the aggregation of direct and indirect taxation, we are still the most highly taxed nation in the world.
  It is upon those grounds of competitiveness in the higher executive ranks of industry, and among technologists and scientists, that I congratulate my right hon. Friend upon the objective measures which he took to relieve Surtax payers in the face of what may be—if it is not already—gross misrepresentation from political parties which in their respective philosophies normally be opposed to that of the Tory Party. He has taken the right step. Although it may be misrepresented I feel sure that in the long run it will pay him the dividends that he so richly deserves.
  I now want to say a word about shipping. I was asking my right hon. Friend Parliamentary Questions referring to that matter long before the Budget statement, and in recent years we have been associated with each other in many debates which included the question of "flags of convenience" and the extraordinary tax advantages which are now enjoyed by countries such as Panama, Honduras and Liberia, where practically no tax at all is paid by shipping. It is true that in the case of Liberia and others there is a registration fee amounting to no more than 3 per cent, or 4 per cent., but little or no taxation is paid on the profits.
  In the face of more than 50 per cent, of the profits of our shipping companies being taken in direct United Kingdom taxation it would have been impossible for British shipping lines to continue to compete had not some unilateral action by way of relief been taken by my right
  904
  hon. Friend in this or some other form. I wrote down the Financial Secretary's words in connection with this matter, which I thought were well chosen.
  Mr. James Callaghan: Give him a prize.
  Mr. Nabarro: I always give prizes to those of my hon. Friends who present constructive arguments. On this occasion the Financial Secretary said:
  " such a concession "—
  that is, the double investment allowance concession—
  "will not meet those who argue for depreciation on some new basis altogether. But it does represent a notable further aid to an industry which, as I have explained, is at a special competitive disadvantage."
  He was using those words in connection with "flags of convenience."
  I would not quarrel with my hon. Friend in any way in his statement that this double investment allowance is an important advantage, given at a critical moment in the history of our shipping lines and the shipbuilding industry, but in my view it is only a palliative. It is admittedly a very acceptable one for the time being, but it cannot solve the long-term problem.
  As those versed in Income Tax matters will readily know, its advantage is that over the length of life of the asset, namely, the ship, and up to the point of scrapping it, the owner will receive £140 for each £100 invested. A point of view which has not been represented before—I have asked about this and checked it with half a dozen accountants, in order to make sure that I should not be misled, because it is a very complicated matter—is that it is also a hedge against inflation during the life of the asset, and in that respect it is important. But it is no long-term settlement.
  It still means that British ships will have to compete over the years with ships, operating under flags of convenience, which are paying practically no taxation on profits from their earnings on the high seas. I fully recognise that, with this new dispensation under the Finance Bill, ships can be written off on a reducing balance basis over as little as eight years. The period varies with dry cargo ships compared with tankers, etc. But I should like to say to my right hon. Friend— I am sure he does not regard this as a

  905
  permanent settlement—that what the shipping lines—I have consulted several of them—appear to be worried about is the possible lack of permanency of this 40 per cent, investment allowance.
  Does my right hon. Friend recall—I am sure he must do—the history of capital allowances since the war? They have been up and down—the initial allowance and latterly the investment allowance. The initial allowance has varied between nothing and 40 per cent Investment allowances were put on in one year and removed the next. Now there is a special allowance of 40 per cent, for ships, and the shipping lines are a little, I will not say afraid—a little apprehensive—about the fact that there may be no lengthy duration of this 40 per cent, investment allowance; but that in two years time, if the economic climate has changed, it may be reduced to half the present level or abolished altogether.
  That is why I have said to my right hon. Friend, both in corespondence and in an earlier Budget speech, that I should like him to have some regard to the alternative practised in the United States and referred to earlier today by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. H. Fraser) whereby, if an asset of the class of a steamship, tanker or dry cargo vessel, were regarded as a national asset of the first importance it would have a special depreciation allowance at standardised rate applied to it. In the case of ships I think the duration of the write-off should be five years at the rate of 20 per cent, per annum—
  Mr. A. J. Champion: Phew.
  Mr. Nabarro: Did the hon. Gentleman whistle? I am not sure why he should whistle at me but, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I think he was grossly out of order in doing so. I think he did so because he was surprised when I said five years—the hon. Gentleman nods his head, and so I suppose he was.
  But we can make a comparison. I make this comparison, which I put to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor as well as to hon. Members opposite. If a business firm buys a motor car—as so many firms do—for the purpose of running its visitors to and from the local railway station, it can get a 20 per cent, depreciation allowance annually and is
  906
  allowed to write it off over five years. Is it really reasonable that a ship, which is infinitely more important, should be placed on such disadvantageous terms compared with a motor car, which is relatively unimportant?
  Of course, the Income Tax Law says that the period for which an asset shall be depreciated shall be the length of life of the asset, but nobody can say that the length of life of a Rolls-Royce motor car or even of an Austin A35 motor car is only five years. In fact the period is an elastic one, and subject to negotiation between the owner of the asset and the Inland Revenue. I commend to my right hon. Friend—though not for immediate application, as he cannot bind future Governments as to the lentgh of period of the 40 per cent, investment allowance for ships—to consider this alternative basis which finds a precedent in American practice and which I believe to be a preferable alternative under present circumstances.
  I wish to say something about Clause 6; first, to thank my right hon. Friend for the unilateral Purchase Tax relief which he has given in respect of floor coverings, particularly carpets—
  Mrs. Mann: Which has not been passed on to the public.
  Mr. Nabarro: Did the hon. Lady wish to say something?
  Mrs. Mann: I wish to say that it has not been passed on to the public.
  Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Lady is so ill-versed in these matters. She never reads the advertisements of the co-operative societies. For example, the cooperative societies have been saying in their advertisements recently, "The Chancellor's reduction of 15 per cent, in Purchase Tax on carpets and rugs available at your co-operative society's store now." But the hon. Lady never read that.
  Mrs. Mann: They are the only decent trading people who have passed it on.
  Mr. Nabarro: On the contrary. I represent the principal carpet manufacturing constituency in this country, and one of the first inquiries I made was as to the rapidity with which this important relief would be passed on. In practically every case I checked it had already been passed on to the consuming public. I do

  907
  not believe that in a competitive society of this kind, with all the carpet retailers fully stocked with carpets and rugs, it would be possible for any single firm to keep the Purchase Tax at the higher level if it wished successfully to sell its goods in competition with a shop down the road.
  Mrs. Mann: Has the hon. Member not notice the intimation that it is intended to impose an increase very soon?
  Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Lady once again is many weeks or months out of date. In fact the announcement in regard to the increase in the price of carpets at the rate of 5 per cent, was made two months ago and is now ancient history.
  I want to pass from the message of thanks to the Chancellor of the Exchequer about carpets to two important aspects of Purchase Tax, both of which are omissions from the Budget. The first was referred to by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell). I commend to my right hon. Friend the occasion when he led the Tory opposition in this House on the 15th June, 1950, in the onslaught on Sir Stafford Cripps's Budget of that year. He was in company with Mr. Oliver Lyttelton, now Lord Chandos, the present Economic Secretary to the Treasury, the present Financial Secretary and myself and a large number of other Tory spokesmen. We all launched an onslaught on Sir Stafford Cripps and said that it was iniquitous that Purchase Tax should be applied to the chassis of commercial goods road vehicles.
  The simple reason that we all denounced that—and it is still as true today—was that this was the only item of industrial capital goods, production equipment, subject to Purchase Tax. If one wants to tax a lorry, which is what it means, why not tax a railway engine, a Bristol freighter aircraft, a railway wagon—it would be equally silly.
  When this tax was brought in, in 1950, it yielded in the first place £4·1 million. I commend to my right hon. Friend the growth of this yield. The following year it yielded £8·6 million, in 1952–53, £9·5 million, in 1953–54, £9·1 million—that was the year Purchase Tax came down to 25 per cent, from 33⅓ per cent.—in 1954–55, £12·8 million, 1955–56, £12·7 million, and in 1956–57 £12·3 million
  908
  My right hon. Friend condemned this tax in the roundest terms.
  The present Economic Secretary, on that occasion—and he was as right then as he would be today because circumstances are exactly the same—said:
  " We consider this proposal to be basically wrong."
  In the peroration of my speech on that occasion I said:
  " in principle this tax cannot do anything else but harm our industrial economy, and raise still further the increased costs we have been faced with in the last few years."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th June, 1950; Vol. 476. c. 587 and 607.]
  It has damaged the economy in more ways than one, and I entreat my right hon. Friend to examine this matter.
  Finally, under the Purchase Tax heading, the effect of cutting in half the Purchase Tax on many of the pots and pans and other domestic goods, as they are generally called, has been to put a premium on mechanical contrivances and modern equipment in the home. For example, Clause 6 (1, a) states:
  "paragraph (a) of Group 12 (which comprises appliances and apparatus of kinds used for domestic purposes, and not designed for operation by electricity or gas)."
  In other words, every appliance in the various groups concerned will now have a very low rate of Purchase Tax compared with the equivalent gas or electrically-driven article.
  For example, it creates a state of affairs in which an electric vacuum cleaner, normally known as a "Hoover" —I usually refrain from using a proprietary name—is carrying Purchase Tax of 60 per cent, whereas a dustpan and the little brush used with it, and what we used to call in my boyhood days a "Bissell", which is a hand carpet-sweeper, carry Purchase Tax of only 15 per cent. The electrically-operated washing machine has a Purchase Tax of 60 per cent, while the old-fashioned equivalent, a hand-operated machine or mangle, carries Purchase Tax of only 15 per cent. I could, though it would weary the House, go through the whole range of household appliances to demonstrate that the effect of the Clause is that modern electrical appliances, which we all want housewives to have in their homes, often carry four times the rate of Purchase Tax carried by the old-fashioned equivalent appliances.
  Mr. Bence: We want to export them.
  Mr. Nabarro: No. That is not the answer. The leading electrical manufacturing companies can furnish, without undue strain on the metal-supplying industries, greatly increased quantities both for export and for the home market, and they are anxious to do so. Their export prices are being affected today very largely by this artificial drag upon sales on the home market, created by an inordinately high rate—a premium rate—of Purchase Tax upon the development of mechanical contrivances for domestic purposes. I tell my right hon. Friend that this penal taxation on gas and electrical domestic appliances is merely putting a premium upon drudgery in the home.
  That leads me to the general point that I want to make about Purchase Tax. One can go on talking about anomalies and incongruities indefinitely; in my view the time has come to scrap the Purchase Tax in its entirety. When a Conservative hon. Member said that to Sir Stafford Cripps in 1950, the right hon. Gentleman answered, "Yes, but it is only a valid argument if the hon. Gentleman will tell me how I can replace £300 million of revenue." Today, it is a question of replacing £500 million of revenue. My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Sir A. Spearman) said this afternoon that he would replace the Purchase Tax by what he called a "sales" tax, and lots of hon. Members loosely talk about a "retail sales" tax.
  However they endeavour to express their intention, they want a qualitative and selective tax applied to sales on the home market. I do not want that at all. If I were Chancellor of the Exchequer I would replace that £500 million by legislating for a turnover tax at a very modest rate on the total consumption of the nation. It would include all selling transactions whether by manufacture, wholesale or retail, and it would be based on the universality of the auditors' certificate when the accounts of every enterprise in the country were assessed to Income Tax, as 99 per cent, of them are assessed today. It would really involve taking the invoiced sales of the companies for the year, on the manufacturing account, and applying a percentage rate to it.
  910
  My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby stated that the total consumption of the nation, leaving out services, was of the order of £14,000 million. To raise £500 million, the equivalent yield of the Purchase Tax, would mean a turnover tax of approximately 3½ per cent.
  I want to know from the Chancellor— not this evening—why we cannot end this Purchase Tax, which is condemned in every quarter of the House, which is injurious to our export trade, which is harmful to home production, which is artificially holding down what otherwise would be rising living standards in this country? My final appeal to him is that before his next Budget he should establish, either a Departmental or an alternative form of inquiry into all the iniquities of the Purchase Tax with a view to scrapping it in its entirety in 1958 and replacing it by a simply-operated turnover tax of the kind that I advocate, which would be more fruitful in terms of revenue, easier to collect, much more difficult to evade, and generally in the interests of the productivity of the nation and our export trade.
  I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his Finance Bill. I am sure he would have expected me not only to thank him for reduction of Purchase Tax on carpets, but also to criticise the general tenor of Clause 6. Other than that single Clause, I think that this Finance Bill is an important advance in fiscal and economic policy, and I wish my right hon. Friend good fortune in a speedy passage for it through all stages in the House of Commons.
  9.12 p.m.
  Mr. Douglas Houghton: I have sat through the Second Reading debate on every Finance Bill since I came into the House in the spring of 1949. I have spoken in most, if not all, of them, but never before have I had to endure the nervous anxiety of making my speech so late in the day.
  I envy all right hon. and hon. Members who have already made their speeches, including the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro). I think I had better warm myself up by addressing a few remarks to him. His exuberance and self-confidence—I hope he will not take this as personally offensive—always

  911
  remind me of the inscription over the headquarters of a gymnasium at Alder-shot, where I once took a course:
  " Be not wise in your own conceit; there is more hope of a fool."
  The hon. Member was surely trying to mislead the House when he took the literal comparison between the level of tax in different countries and the net income after tax at different levels of income. It is the most facile observation that can be made that we are the most heavily taxed country in the world, yet so much depends on what we get for our money. There are many social services in this country which come out of taxation and which are not enjoyed by those in other countries.
  One example, in making comparisons between the United States and Canada with this country, is the cost of medical attention for workers and their families and the cost of education—two very heavy items in domestic expenditure there. In fact, the cost of illness is one of the domestic fears overhanging the lives of all people there so much that millions are joining voluntary schemes and paying considerable sums of money towards them to offset the heavy cost of medical attention and hospital treatment if they have the misfortune to need it.
  This is the Bill of the Budget, but before dealing with some parts of it and comments which have been made in the debate I should like to refer to the new committee which is to consider the working of the monetary and credit system. I confess that I was somewhat dismayed at the unfavourable comment made on the composition of the Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins). I always respect his judgment and his knowledge of many people in the economic world which is closer than mine.
  I will not say whether there is a Bevin on the committee, but I will say that the two trade unionists on it are both wise and courageous men. In Mr. Ernest Jones, the President of the National Union of Mineworkers, we have one of the wisest and the most sagacious trade union leaders in the country today. Mr. Woodcock was a member of the Royal Commission on the Taxation of Profits and Income and he has served on many committees of inquiry. I feel sure that
  912
  both these members of the committee will give a very good account of themselves, and I only hope that my hon. Friend's fears about the outcome of this committee's work will not be realised.
  I joined with a small all-party committee in meeting the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Sir R. Boothby), the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) and some hon. Friends and myself went to see the present Prime Minister to say that in our opinion Macmillan was now out of date and that we badly needed a fresh stocktaking of our monetary and credit system.
  I am sure that many of us miss the annual exposure of the machinations of the financial underworld to which we listened from Mr. Norman Smith, formerly the hon. Member for Nottingham, South. He gave a most plausible explanation of the biggest racket that the world had ever known. It was so convincing that one wondered whether there was not a catch in the argument somewhere, for surely things could never have gone on so badly for so long.
  I hope that we shall have a speedy, useful and courageous report from the committee, that there will be no submissions to orthodoxy or to common practice and that there will be a searching inquiry into how the whole thing works, because many people outside the House are always asking the questions which nobody can answer: if too much money is chasing too few goods where does the money come from? Who makes it? Is it printed? Is it created out of the air, as Mr. Norman Smith used to say? How does this curious phenomenon come about? We wish the committee speed and success in its work.
  Turning to the Bill, the purpose of the Finance Bill is, I suppose, first, to make the revenue secure; and the Chancellor has certainly balanced the Budget and to spare. He has also taken the opportunity in the Finance Bill of closing some loopholes and of strengthening the collection of the revenue. We were pleased to see that the right hon. Gentleman is to end the disappearing trick. The racehorse which died started something.
  When I heard the Financial Secretary explaining this afternoon that if a gift is made with the expectation that

  913
  there may be a capital accretion then the value of the capital accretion will be reckoned as part of the value of the gift, it occurred to some of us on these benches, what would have happened if the racehorse, instead of dying had had a foal? Would that be a capital accretion? If the next time a racehorse is given away it is given away in foal, will that be a capital accretion? That will certainly be a point to consider when we deal with the Clause in detail.
  May I ask the right hon. Gentleman how and when he proposes to tackle the backlog of administrative reform which is left over from the Report of the Royal Commission on the Taxation of Profits and Income? If he will occasionally look at the summary of the Report he will see how much remains to be done. Could he not, with advantage, consider introducing a "Tax Management Bill" to contain many of these administrative changes, not involving the level of taxation or the Revenue? It is something which could conveniently be done at another parliamentary season of the year, and might bring about more speedy implementation of these reforms.
  I urge the Chancellor to consider the recommendation that small traders should be asked to keep accounts in a simple and specified form. I am sure that if the right hon. Gentleman consults his advisers from the Inland Revenue, they will tell him that there is more trouble than enough among the growing number of small traders who cannot, or do not, keep proper books; who cannot, or do not, render proper accounts—where there are many opportunities for lack of zeal in making records for taxation purposes. That is, in fact, where most of the back-duty cases are now coming from, and the provision should, I think, be strengthened without undue delay in the interests both of the taxpayer and of the Revenue.
  Is it not a reflection upon this House that, in 1957, there is still a substantial property qualification to be a Commissioner of Income Tax? There are class distinctions which go back in fiscal history, and which should be swept away. Why cannot the ordinary taxpayer, without property qualification, sit in judgment on some of the claims being made by some of his more propertied contemporaries in the community? His sense of justice, I am sure, is just as strong as, if
  914
  not stronger than, that of many local Income Tax commissioners today. I plead with him to do something to overtake this backlog of administrative reform.
  The next thing which the Bill will aim at doing is to ease the burden of taxation where it bears harshly or unfairly, or is damaging to particular activities or industries. The right hon. Gentleman's Budget certainly contains some of those easements, which are welcomed on both sides of the House. For example, we welcome the Purchase Tax reliefs which are in the Bill. The House will remember that one of the right hon. Gentleman's predecessors came to this House sounding a warning on a frying-pan, and then levied additional Purchase Tax on household goods and equipment, an imposition which I myself believe he must have regretted ever since. He never had a more unwilling band of followers than on that occasion. We are glad to see that that unnecessary imposition on domestic utensils is at least partially relieved in this Bill.
  Such things as the relief of Entertainments Duty on the live theatre and on cinema admission prices are welcome on both sides of the House. We will not give the right hon. Gentleman any particular credit for taking off the "Suez shilling," but we will not dissent from the compensating duty which the right hon. Gentleman is levying on the television licence. One quarter of the right hon. Gentleman's Budget reliefs go to indirect taxation. Another quarter, also in pursuance of the aim of easing the burden of taxation, goes to the relief of Income Tax on the elderly and those with older children at school.
  I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has not accepted the recommendations of the Royal Commission to base the amount of child relief on total income. That would have been most inconvenient, from an administration point of view, and would have been equally inconvenient to the taxpayer, because in so many cases the amount of the child allowance would have remained undetermined until the end of the Income Tax year, when the total income was known. Perhaps this new idea of basing the child relief on age is as suitable as the one proposed by the Royal Commission.
  It seems to me now that the right hon. Gentleman really ought to give renewed

  915
  attention to the problem of the absence of a tapering provision of the income of a child. I am not thinking so much of children with unearned income, because in many cases they receive this income from grandmothers or other generous relatives. Sometimes, I feel sure, this income derives from a compact between uncle and father, and mutual arrangements of that kind are possible. I am not really concerned about the unearned income of children, which I am sure will, in many cases, be found to be just about the right amount, which is £84 a year.
  The hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) referred to the problem of the payment of apprentices, which I think is a real one in this connection, and also of juvenile's earnings in the year in which they leave school and start work. It really is very hard on parents when young persons start work, probably towards the end of the Income Tax year, and, if they earn over £85 before the end of the Income Tax year, the parents are then completely disqualified from the child allowance for the whole of the year.
  I am sure that there is a substantial anomaly between educational grants, which are not reckoned for this purpose, and the modest payments given to apprentices, where, I think, equal consideration should be given. We do not want to drive young people away from apprenticeships for skill and craft into unskilled jobs, which may be better paid, but which will not add so greatly to the development of our skills and our work.
  Should the Chancellor have done any more? Could he not have looked at the Royal Commission's recommendations about the incapacitated child? Surely that could have been done. Could he not also have looked at the dependent relative allowance, on which the Royal Commission recommended that the deserted mother should qualify on the same basis as the widowed mother? Then, the Royal Commission made a proposal about total incapacity relief to 100 per cent, disabled persons. This would have cost little additional money, and would have relieved individual hardship of quite a distressing character.
  The age exemption which the Chancellor has given is, I think, welcome. The amount of relief in the case of a single person is not very large. It is more sub-
  916
  stantial in the case of a married couple. I am glad that the Financial Secretary made clear the position, because I have had a lot of correspondence expressing doubt about the restriction of the exemption to total incomes—entire incomes—of not more than £250 in the case of the single person and £400 in the case of the married couple when one of them is over 65 years of age.
  The extension of the age relief from £600 to £700 is carrying that relief, perhaps, into the sphere of fiscal generosity. I do not want to exaggerate, but it is possible now for a person with from £15,000 to £20,000 in capital to get the two-ninths earned income relief on the investment income. That is carrying this concession, which was intended to be an alternative to the earned income relief granted to those who receive pensions, perhaps a little high, although I am quite sure that this additional relief will be very welcome to those concerned.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann) criticised the taxation arrangements of married women. I was going to suggest to the Chancellor that we ought to consider whether anything can be done to stem the unseemly queue of people to get married at just about the end of the financial year. That is not the most profitable time of year to get married. Half-way through the financial year— about October—is the best time to get married.
  If the wife is working, she will get the single person's allowance on earnings up to the date of marriage and the special earned income relief for married women on earnings after marriage, and the husband will get the married man's allowance for the whole of the financial year. That is a fairly good start for the married couple. I leave it at this by appealing to the Chancellor to consider whether he can do something to encourage couples to marry for love instead of Income Tax money.
  I come now to part of the right hon. Gentleman's proposals which may be regarded as an essential part of the Government's general economic strategy. This is the part of the Bill that is to help us on our way fighting all the time for our security and standard of life with a very finely-balanced economy. I share the anxieties of my hon. Friend

  917
  the Member for Northfield (Mr. Chapman), who did well to remind the House once again that we have, perhaps, the most precarious economy of any industrialised country in the world. We have to remember that in everything we do.
  We have suffered disappointments in the past. We have had government by fits and starts. We have moved forward, we have been jerked back. We have overstrained ourselves and then we have had to tighten our belts and face all the other curious physical contortions and difficulties that we have had to endure.
  What does this amount to? First, one-quarter of the total reliefs is given to trading operations overseas. All I shall say about that is this. In Committee, there will be many close examinations of the safeguards and the checks that will be necessary to make these complicated Clauses watertight from a revenue point of view. When special and substantial tax concessions such as these are given to help particular interests, industries or forms of enterprise, I wonder whether those concerned should not accept an over-riding code of fiscal morality and be willing to accept a general prohibition against abuse.
  I know how reluctant the Chancellor and the House is to write into legislation omnibus provisions against malpractices and evasions against the intention of the Bill. It has been done in the past in connection with the Excess Profits Tax and the Excess Profits Levy. I believe it is the only way in which these concessions can be fully safeguarded against abuse. It is surely a reflection upon men of great power and responsibility if they are to take mean advantage of concessions which the country has freely given out of total revenue in order to further their pioneering endeavours and enterprises overseas. I hope that they will bear that in mind, even if the Chancellor does not feel able to write into the Bill some over-riding safeguards against abuse.
  I now come to the earned income relief. I can only assume that this must take its place also among those purposes of the Bill which seek to expand our economy and increase our wealth. These are reliefs to people whose efforts are judged to be of particular importance to the expansion of our economy. Let us
  918
  bear in mind, also, that the Surtax payers will have a share in the concessions given by way of higher reliefs for children, so that they have a hidden advantage in those concessions, too. Very substantial sums are apportioned to them in the reliefs in the Bill.
  I think that for the record I should mention that earned income relief is older than Surtax and that the coincidence of earned income relief and Surtax, the one finishing about where the other begins, was regarded as singularly unfortunate by the Royal Commission on the Taxation of Profits and Income which considered this matter. It said:
  " The coincidence of these two limits creates a big jump in liability and in consequence a marked ' kink' in what should be a smooth curve of progression."
  Therefore, we do not dissent from the right hon. Gentleman's proposal to carry earned income relief higher up, nor are we dissenting from his proposal to allow, within limits, personal reliefs to be set against Surtax liability. But we think that he has gone too far. The Royal Commission thought that the two-ninths should go up to £2,500 and the one-ninth should go from £2,500 to £3,000. The Chancellor has gone to £4,000 with the two-ninths and to £10,000 a year with the one-ninth relief, which is far beyond anything that the Royal Commission recommended at that time.
  It really is hard to justify granting one-quarter of the total tax reliefs to one group of taxpayers of approximately 250,000. It is too much at once. Such lavish tax concessions at that level were singularly ill-timed when the Chancellor announced them. They have given far too many people a natural but quite unprofitable argument that if the Chancellor can afford to give away £24 million to the Surtax payer he can afford to do this, that and the other. We know that that is an unprofitable argument, but many people are hanging their demands upon that peg. I can only conclude that the Chancellor had become resigned to the current round of wage increases and that he abandoned tax relief restraint at the time that he made his Budget speech.
  An article in The Banker said:
  " The deterioration in the prospect after the Transport Commission's unconditional award of 5 per cent, late in March undoubtedly stiffened the Chancellor's resolve to add only a modest stimulus of his own."

  919
  I do not share the implied criticism of the British Transport Commission. If the nationalised industries cannot give their workers wages which are fair comparisons with the general level of wages outside, then those working for the nationalised industries will have as big a grievance as those in the public service in the past.
  The suggestion appears to be that the Chancellor realised that his prospective surplus was too big to make it politically possible to give no tax reliefs at all, or very few, so he decided on a curious form of tax relief to the well-to-do, which he assumed would not increase consumption very much. Surtax payers, being both prudent and abstemious, will, the Chancellor believes, save the money which he is granting to them in tax relief. It may well be so, because so many of their extravagances are paid for by commerce and industry and do not come out of personal incomes at all.
  All the time, however, the right hon. Gentleman has to reckon with the workers and their trade unions. Here we come to the crux of our economy and the real danger point in Britain's future. In the same article in The Banker it is stated that
  " Once the primary task of restoring a sound foundation for sterling has been achieved, part of the increment in production can again safely be made available for increased consumption. But even then it will be possible to distribute a significant part of this by lightening the load on the taxpayer only if an undue share is not pre-empted by wage demands."
  We note the words—
  "… if an undue share is not pre-empted by wage demands."
  What is an undue share for the worker today? What is an undue share when speaking of an increment in production being available for consumption? The worker knows from his past experience that forces combine nearly always to prevent him from getting an undue share. He feels, therefore, that he is entitled to claim what a situation is likely to yield, because he knows from past experience that his sufferings then were in inverse ratio to his opportunities today.
  One of the difficulties which the Chancellor is bound to have is that he has already taken a hand in fixing shares. The moment he gives tax reliefs as incentives,
  920
  he becomes party to fixing rewards, and what he does for some is of close interest to others. I assume that the Conservative aim is to contain the stresses and strains of a changing society within its traditional framework. How, then, do the Government propose to harmonise the natural and persistent claims of organised labour upon the national product with the requirements of economic policy?
  I do not think that there is a Conservative answer to that, and recent attempts to do this have revealed some dangers. Just as the Chancellor delegated some of the more unpleasant parts of his monetary policy to the bank managers, so he delegated some of the tougher parts of his economic policy to the shipbuilding and engineering employers, and he has let them down. They stood firm. There was a strike. A court of inquiry was set up and the strike was called off provisionally. A few days afterwards the Chancellor rose in his place and calmly gave 250,000 Surtax payers a rise of £20 million, tax free.
  The right hon. Gentleman cannot escape the psychological reactions of that step upon the mentality of the great mass of the workers, and now apparently the Chancellor has been speaking to a meeting wherein he is offering fresh hope on the one hand but uttering stern warning on the other. He says:
  " The nation must not have another year in which people would be paid more for doing the same amount of work."
  which, of course, is just where the shipbuilding and engineering employers came in. This is what the Government have been saying all along. But it makes no difference. It happens just the same. The Chancellor must now acknowledge that there is a new general wage increase in process of going through our economy.
  A writer in a very wise Socialist periodical called Socialist Commentary says:
  "The competitive struggle of today is not one of individualism, but of organised and powerful bargaining units. The gatuitously handsome Income Tax and Surtax reliefs may prove yet another obstacle in the way of the wages policy which we so badly need."
  The fundamental dilemma of the Conservative Administration is how to get organised labour to accept the consequences of their economic and social policies without protest.

  921
  My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) was certainly right in saying that the Government have to contend with the traditional and historical attitude of suspicion and lack of confidence of workers in a Conservative Government. That is a supreme challenge that the right hon. Gentleman has to meet. Workers can no longer improve their standard of life through industrial action alone. They know that. Yet they feel that it is the only course open to them in a democratic society. Industrial action for political objects is rightly denounced and rejected in the trade union movement but, as has already been said, a Government may continue in office long after they have surrendered any moral claim to continue to govern. That is the position of Her Majesty's Government today.
  I ask the right hon. Gentleman: how can a Conservative Government follow their political principles and satisfy many who support them without creating tensions which may prove a dangerous threat to our very survival? This Bill leaves that fundamental question unanswered.
  9.48 p.m.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Peter Thorneycroft): I rise to make a few remarks in reply to the debate on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill. I always feel that the debate on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill is rather a half-way house between the broad issues which are discussed on the Budget and the details which are dealt with when we reach the Committee stage. One has some difficulty in answering both the economic arguments and the many detailed points, but I will do the best I can within the short compass that is open to one.
  The hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) speaks with very great experience on this subject. I think that there are few Members in the House who have had as much experience as he has, particularly on the administrative side of this matter. He made also a very notable speech in the Budget debate on wider matters.
  I thank the hon. Member very much for what he said about the monetary Committee. I am very glad to have his support on that, because I think that both sides of the House can claim some part of the parenthood of that Committee.
  922
  The hon. Member joined with my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Sir R. Boothby) and others in pressing the necessity for it upon my predecessor. I think that when the report of that Committee comes out it may well set the pattern of thinking on monetary policy for perhaps some time ahead. Therefore, it is important that it should be supported on both sides of the House.
  The hon. Gentleman also referred to —and I must say that I agree with him— how much remains to be done in taxation policy. I think that any Chancellor, on any Finance Bill, would always feel that. Inevitably, there must be a very wide range of administrative reforms which one does not include in the Finance Bill, if only because one has an instinct to keep it not too long and not too complex. I realise that there are many other administrative reforms—I am not now speaking about tax matters—which remain to be dealt with, and I will certainly ponder the hon. Member's suggestions as to how we might pursue that matter.
  The same, of course, applies in taxation. Try how he would, no Chancellor could hope to produce a Finance Bill which did not leave far more taxes unrelieved than the tax reliefs which he in fact granted. I appreciate that. I rather parted company with the hon. Gentleman when he spoke about Surtax. I cannot admit that tax relief in anything, whether above £2,000 or below £2,000 a year, is somehow giving something away. I cannot accept that approach to taxation. I recognise, as we all do, that the State has got to tax; but when we do tax, let us be honest with ourselves at the Treasury, whatever party we may belong to, and remember that we are taking money which belongs to other people and using it for purposes which Parliament approves. When we find that we are able—we must all make our best endeavours in this respect—to do with rather less money., let us not think that we are giving something away.
  Incidentally, the principal matter to which the hon. Gentleman referred was not even, in the main, Surtax relief, but earned income relief, and earned income relief is something which has been going on for a very long time. There is no particular inherent, moral reason why earned income relief should stop at £2,000 a year, and I believe that the hon. Member himself really recognises that.

  923
  As regards the Finance Bill generally, I will deal with one or two of the details in a moment. The hon. Member for Northfield (Mr. Chapman), together with a number of other hon. Members, referred to the economic climate in which these proposals are put forward. The hon. Member for Northfield, indeed, suggested that it would be a good thing if the Treasury had more economic advice, and he referred to a suggestion made the other day that if only we had more economists, matters would be all right. I wish that our affairs were capable of so easy a solution. I found myself very well served, as all Chancellors are, by the economic staff at the Treasury.
  Mr. John Cronin: Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that his predecessor, the present Prime Minister, said in his Budget speech that there was a real defect in the Treasury armoury so far as economic advice was concerned?
  Mr. Thorneycroft: Not wishing to be at all controversial or impolite to the economists, I would merely observe that the more economic advice one has the more conflicting does it become. I can but speak from such experience as I have. I believe that when he has listened to all the advice and studied all the figures put before him, any Chancellor of any party, in the last resort, acts upon what his own hunch about these matters is. He tries to judge the economic climate as best he can. He tries to judge whether the wind is blowing broadly in the direction of greater activity, or whether there is a danger of stagnation. Those are the judgments which he has to make, and he will get no unanimity of advice to guide him upon matters of that kind.
  The broad judgment which I made, rightly or wrongly, was that if one looked at the demand for capital, at the plans for investment, and at the trends of consumption, the indications were not that we were doing too little but the wonder was how on earth we could manage to do so much. That was the indication that came to my mind, and I rather think that the hon. Member for Northfield was speaking in a similar sense when he pointed to the dangers of going into further inflation.
  In the circumstances, I am confident that the broad judgment which we made
  924
  was the right one, namely, that we should not introduce too many tax reliefs, and that we should keep ourselves within the compass of about £100 million of tax reliefs. It is tempting to go further. It may be popular to go further, but it would be dangerous to buy an easy popularity at the expense of the balance of payments and at the expense of the strength of sterling. In any event, that is the judgment that we have formed, and
  I must tell hon. Members that both now and on the Committee stage I feel myself committed to stay within that general pattern.
  While the Financial Secretary was speaking, I heard a certain murmur round about me when he was dealing with the question of the gifts inter vivos and the "dead horse" scheme. The question appeared to be raised whether there was not some element of retrospection in this matter. These questions of retrospection deserve very careful consideration, because no one wants to do something which would break with the general traditions of the House in these matters, and I will certainly examine any point of that kind. But I have at least one rather respectable precedent. Section 11 of the Finance Act, 1900, was designed to stop avoidance of Estate Duty. The Section opened with the words:
  " In the case of every person dying after the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred …"
  the end of the financial year. The Act received the Royal Assent on 9th April. Lord Salisbury was Prime Minister and Sir Michael Hicks-Beach was Chancellor of the Exchequer. I do not wish to prejudge the position, and I may be wrong, but I cannot be said to be not respectable in the matter of this kind.
  The right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) welcomed the entertainment tax relief on sport and the living theatre. Indeed, I think that that has been generally welcomed on both sides of the House. He said that it was in his Election programme. He will not mind if I say that it could have been in any of the Budgets which his right hon. Friends introduced. Nevertheless, we have now done it, and it is nice to have unanimity.
  The right hon. Gentleman referred to the question of the television duty. I am glad to feel that the principle that

  925
  there should be a duty on television has been accepted on both sides of the House. He pressed the point about whether we should not make some exception in the case of old-age pensioners. We can discuss that in Committee, but there are real difficulties about saying that anybody over the age of 65 shall not have to pay the television duty, and I think that the right hon. Gentleman will find great difficulty in framing anything which can be sustained.
  He said that he was not against going beyond the £2,000 limit in regard to earned income relief, and that it would have been all right if there had been a capital gains tax. When he was pressed about what he meant by a capital gains tax, he found himself in some difficulty and quoted various parts of the Royal Commission's Report on this matter. The majority came down solidly against it. Sometimes he quoted the minority Report and sometimes that of the majority, but in that he may not be so very different from other hon. Members. I believe it to be right to carry earned income relief, as the right hon. Gentleman agrees, beyond the £2,000 limit and I believe that the general sense of the country is that we were right to do so.
  The right hon. Gentleman then turned to the subject of monetary policy, and he said that I had been critical of monetary policy. I am not sure what that meant, whether it meant that I thought that there should not be a monetary policy or that we had been pursuing the wrong sort of monetary policy. As I understood him, his idea was that we should return to the cheap money policy advocated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton). If I did that, there might be some justice in the taunt that I had an assignment with inflation, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will consider a little carefully before advocating cheap money at a moment—[Interruption.] If the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) has a different monetary policy, I hope that it will be explained to the House at some stage, because none of us is clear about the Opposition's view of this, but if that were the policy at the moment, with considerable pressure from investment, it would be unwise.
  I believe that in principle the right hon. Gentleman approved the idea that we should help the pioneering companies
  926
  —as I think the House in general approves it. The pioneer companies are really designed to help in the overseas territories. The reason why we are going further is in order to help this country. It is the need for the development of some of our great industries and the advantage that they can bring to us which has impelled me to go rather further than some of the suggestions made in last year's Finance Bill debate. The right hon. Gentleman agreed that there was a case for helping our companies overseas, and he also agreed that the relief should go to trading income and not investment income.
  He then made a number of criticisms which I will not deal with in great detail because we shall have many discussions upon them in Committee. He did not think that this relief should apply to Profits Tax. Profits Tax falls upon the reserves of a company, and it does not seem to me to be logical to tax the reserves of a company if one wants it to invest its profits in an overseas organisation. He suggested that difficulties might arise in the case of winding up or liquidation, and I agree. I believe it was one of my hon. Friends who said that one does not normally form a company—especially a trading company—in order to wind it up, although other kinds of companies have been formed for that purpose. We realise that the problem exists and, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, we have drafted provisions which are designed to deal with it.
  That is also the case with goods placed upon a ship in a British port, which have to be placed at the ordinary current price, f.o.b. The right hon. Gentleman said that there would be difficulties in policing that provision. We are satisfied that we can do it. Indeed, it is important that we should, because if we fail we may lay ourselves open to the criticism of putting over some form of concealed export subsidy or the like. There is no real difference between us, in principle, upon these issues. We are all concerned to see that these tax reliefs are given in the proper place for the purposes which we have defined in these debates, and in Committee we should all concentrate in seeing that loopholes are stopped up and that abuses shall not occur.
  The right hon. Gentleman also said that there must be some limit to overseas

  927
  investment, and in that I agree with him. It is important to realise that with the capital resources available to us there is some limit to the amount that we can plough into overseas countries, be they in the Commonwealth or elsewhere, much as we desire to do so. While the Bill gives some incentive to overseas investment it also ensures that when the investment has taken place the business concern is placed upon as sound a competitive basis as that of anyone else operating in its area. It is most important that if a person wants to make an investment in a certain overseas territory and finds that his resources are such that he can, no unnecessary tax discrimination is made against British people operating in that part of the world.
  The right hon. Member said that it might be possible to limit the effect of the provision to cases where we were making or mining something which we imported. That is an important feature of these operations, but we must think of exports as well as imports, and one of the provisions allows an overseas selling company to be hived off as an overseas trading corporation, thus playing a useful part in helping our exports in various parts of the world.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Sir A. Spearman) said that a Budget must be judged by its effect on the economy, and I think that broadly he supported the general picture and background of the Finance Bill and the Budget which I have described earlier. My hon. Friend paid particular attention to the fact that no country had ever succeeded in achieving stable prices and full employment at the same time. The point which he emphasised was that whatever may be said about wages and profits—with which I do not propose to deal in detail in the compass of this debate—one thing was clear; that if we could produce more and increase our productivity, that was the most satisfactory contribution and the least painful contribution to stable prices that any of us could think of. I think that my hon. Friend carried the House with him in that conclusion.
  The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) said that he thought that the Bill was an interesting one, and he said some pleasant things to me about,
  928
  at any rate, some features in it. The hon. Member spoke of the shipping industry and the discriminatory investment allowance of 40 per cent, allowed to it. He asked, what about wool. May I say this to some right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite: be under no illusions that if one carries discrimination in investment allowances very far, there will be many people who will say, "What about this?" and "What about that?".
  I am perfectly prepared to defend the degree of discrimination which already exists. It may be that we shall debate and discuss whether there should not be more. But I warn the House that if we carry discrimination very far in matters of investment, particularly in this country where the tradition of non-discrimination in tax matters is deeply written into our practice in the fiscal field, we may run into some difficulties.
  The hon. Gentleman quoted the problem of figures and the handicaps under which we, or some of us, work, and the cost of borrowing money. He asked how we shall measure up to the Free Trade Area. The answer is that if we are going to measure up to the Free Trade Area or any other trading areas, it must be on the basis of trying not to tax ourselves too much higher than everybody else. It must be on the basis of trying to invest money on the same scale as other people, on the basis of being prepared to work the machines we have with the same industry that other people do. He asked a question about a particular ship, to which he referred, which had been bought from the Germans and sold at a premium to the Americans. The answer to that is that if it had been under the general rule, if it had been sold on under three years, no investment allowance would be carried with it; that is under the general rule.
  The hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) said we had given too much relief in the higher income brackets. I have dealt with that point, and at this moment I do not wish to add anything to what I have said. He wanted the Capital Issues Committee to be less strict. We are all agreed that high investment is a good thing. But surely it is clear that unless we are to run into a dangerously inflationary situation there must be very high saving. There is a limit to the number of things that we

  929
  can try to do at the same time. I agree that if we have our economy in perfect balance it may be possible to say either that the Capital Issues Committee should be wound up or at any rate should not play any large part. Indeed there was a time a year or two ago when it virtually played no part in events, and the situation was in balance. But in our complex society, particularly at a moment when no one is completely happy about the full working of the monetary system, I think we should be wise to retain that body and that for the time being it must place some limit on the amount of investment taking place.
  The hon. Member for Ladywood (Mr. V. Yates) said that we must cut arms expenditure and put the money into the social services. We have cut arms expenditure and cut it very substantially this year, thanks to the work of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence. I agree that we should pursue that policy and scale down the amount of money that is spent in that direction within the limit of what is safe and proper. I agree that we have to sustain the spending on the social services, but we have to do more than that. We have to put some of this saving, quite a substantial part of it, to investment in productive industry, because it is on the foundation of an efficient productive industry that the social services must really rest.
  The hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. H. Fraser) referred to the need for big tankers and the facilities for them. I quite agree with that. I would only say this: when one is talking about the tankers that we need and the amount of engineering exports that we require and the capital goods that have to be put in here, let us remember that there is a limit to the amount of steel plate, the amount of money, and the number of skilled men who really can be devoted to these tasks. I agree on the need for all of them. But one of the reasons that we have kept the tax relief in this Budget and in this Finance Bill within the compass that I have described is simply to leave room for certain essential developments of that character.
  The hon. Member for Northfield said in his speech that our economy was balanced on a knife edge. It always will be. I think that it is an illusion to
  930
  imagine that we are suddenly going to find ourselves, in our sort of economy, in a moment when it will be quite easy without any danger of either stagnation or inflation. I think that that is quite inevitable in a small island trading overseas to the extent that we do.
  The hon. Member referred to the difficulty of forecasts. I said earlier that I thought that largely what was involved was judgment on the best forecasts one can have. He said that I had been rather over-optimistic in some of my remarks I am an optimistic person and I think that a Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to be an optimistic person. When I was talking the other day about reaching a moment in our economy where we were going into a new phase, I meant that because I believe that production is going to take an upward turn. I went on to couple that with a warning that we could not really afford an upward turn unless we could match it with more exports to pay for the imports coming into this country and more productivity here. When we match it with more exports and more productivity, we can afford more goods produced for consumption at home and for investment in the other things that we want. The hon. Member said that if we left out the Purchase Tax and Entertainments Duty changes, the old-age relief and allowances for children, quite a lot went to the Surtax payers. I agree with that, but I do not think that we can leave them all out.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Leather) welcomed the overseas trade corporation arrangements. He asked a question about the companies which are resident overseas. It has been argued by him and some other hon. Members that because a United Kingdom holding company with subsidiaries which are O.T.C.s can receive dividends and channel them off to another O.T.C. in some other country if necessary, this particular arrangement could be applied to a company which was not an O.T.C, which was not a British company, but which was really in effect in our tax law a foreign company registered overseas. That does not apply at the present time in the terms of the Bill, which is designed, rightly or wrongly, for the benefit of British companies, and not for foreign companies, resident overseas. We are prepared to

  931
  examine in detail any proposals which my hon. Friend has, but we can imagine fairly substantial difficulties in extending the Bill to the foreign countries to which my hon. Friend referred.
  Mr. Leather: The Clause refers to companies "resident in the United Kingdom". It is possible for a company to be resident in Jamaica, Australia and elsewhere, and still be a completely British-owned company which pays its return on investment to British investors?
  Mr. Thorneycroft: I am talking about a company which is resident overseas and which is not paying United Kingdom Income Tax. Such companies are outside the scope of the Bill. I am only seeking to make clear the position. I am prepared to look into the arguments for an alternative, but it would alter in quite a substantial manner the present conception of the Bill.
  I have tried to answer many of the points which have been put forward. We can be satisfied with the reception which the Finance Bill has had. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]. I do not detect that firm determination to throw it out which appeared in some Opposition speeches.
  Mr. Nabarro: Has my right hon. Friend observed, in reference to his phrase about the firm determination of the Opposition, that the Opposition Benches are at this moment populated by 23 Socialists and three Liberals?
  Mrs. Mann: After such a remark I must point out that during much of the debate today there were fewer than ten Members on the Government Benches and that I twice challenged a count.
  Mr. Speaker: There is no point of order in either of those remarks.
  Mr. Thorneycroft: We should pay attention to the quality and not to the quantity of hon. Members who are present on all sides of the House. Whatever their number, I am grateful for the constructive speeches that we have had from all sides on this Second Reading.
  Naturally I have not been able to reply to all the points raised, but with other Members of the Government I will study
  932
  the various points that have been made. I thank the House for its help. We look forward to a constructive Committee stage, in which we can still further improve the Measure.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.
  Committee Tomorrow.

  SHAWS WILL TRUST
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. R. Thompson]
  10.18 p.m.
  Mr. I. J. Pitman: In July, 1944, the late Mr. Bernard Shaw wrote to me to report how he had been getting on with, and what he was doing in respect of, his will, particularly in the matter of the design of a new English alphabet. This matter was very dear to his heart.
  It was a very modest proposition, which consisted of a statistical inquiry and the publication of a book of one of his plays, with one page printed in the new alphabet and a comparable page in the old alphabet. In that letter, having explained it all, he asked me to do everything I could to see that his wishes were carried out. That put me in a moral position of obligation—in fact, I would say a sacred duty—to do all I can to help Bernard Shaw in that respect.
  As the House will know, the Court of Chancery found against those sections of the will for which he asked my support. Judgment was given on 20th February and I immediately consulted a solicitor to find out what action I might take to carry out this sacred obligation which I had. Our conclusion was that I ought to try to make an appointment with Mr. Milner Holland, who had been conducting on behalf of the Attorney-General and the Public Trustee the arguments in support of Shaw's will.
  As I had been working in both close and friendly association with him during the five days of the case, I thought that that was excellent. He reported to me that he had made an appointment for 5th March and that appointment had

  933
  been made subject to a reservation, made by Mr. Milner Holland, of the Attorney-General giving his consent. That was very proper indeed, and I should say that throughout Mr. Milner Holland has conducted himself with a very proper regard for his duties to the instructing authority, which was the Attorney-General.
  From 25th February, when the appointment was made, to 5th March, the date appointed, no reply was obtainable as to whether the Attorney-General would consent to Mr. Milner Holland seeing me. The application was made quite properly by my solicitor through the Treasury Solicitor, which is the only appropriate channel. We did not get any answer. I wish to ask why we got no answer, and I hope the Attorney-General will say tonight why it was so long before we got, not indeed, an answer, but the absence of an answer, and why, having regard to the fact that a Queen's Counsel is a busy man and there are courtesies to Members of Parliament, no answer was, in fact, given.
  Thus, on 4th March this year, my solicitor was forced to report that no consent had been obtained. He also reported that there was a rather "sticky" atmosphere at the Treasury Solicitor's office and he doubted the possibility of receiving any answer in time for the meeting, which was due the following day. After discussing it with him we— I think very properly—agreed that I ought to see the Attorney-General that day to ask him to give an immediate reply so that the appointment could be carried out. There was a three-line Whip for that night and there was an opportunity, therefore, to ask him. I had no cause to expect a refusal. In fact, I was expecting an answer, and a favourable answer. I made a very serious approach to him on what I regarded as a serious matter.
  Here followed a mistake. It not having been an official approach, I had no right to publish anything. But I did. I have apologised to my right hon. and learned Friend personally and in writing. I have apologised thus privately to the Attorney-General and I want to do so now in front of the whole House and to apologise also to the House. The trouble which has since happened from my action emphasises only too well how wise is our
  934
  rule in this House. Urgent and apparently simply as it was, I ought to have written my question, or clearly indicated that the approach in person was, indeed, as official as a letter. These considerations are in no sense a reservation. My apology to him and to the House is unqualified.
  However, the question remains, why did he wish me not to see counsel? I would add a second question. Why, a year ago, did he similarly refuse to allow me to see counsel when I then asked to see counsel? He might say that he did not refuse. He will be wrong. I never met counsel until the eve of the case and then it was at his counsel's request, not mine.
  All my requests to the Treasury Solicitor that I should be allowed to see counsel were clearly ruled out because of the Attorney-General's letter to me. In his letter to me of 19th April, 1956, he wrote:
  " I think it is desirable that there should be no departure from the ordinary rules in this case. It would be unusual for someone who is not a party to the action to have direct access to counsel."
  He may think and he may say tonight that he gave me permission to see counsel, but only in the presence of the Treasury Solicitor. That is not so, and I would have welcomed the condition. I repeat, I saw counsel only after the court case was begun and I saw him then not at my request, but only at his.
  I would advance seven reasons why his view that to be agreeable would be "unusual" will not hold water, and I should like to ask him seven questions which I hope he will answer tonight corresponding with them.
  First, he is the only party putting the case for Shaw's side. No one else in the whole world except he can be a party to the case on the issue of educational charity and that of benefit to the public. Is not his refusal, then, tantamount to denying to anyone, however potentially well informed and however potentially helpful to the courts, access to the counsel, who alone can help the courts?
  Secondly, his view contrasts oddly with that of his predecessor, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald). When I asked him he readily gave his consent. I want to ask

  935
  the Attorney-General, was his predecessor wrong? Ought it not rather to be taken for granted that counsel would welcome any competent help offered? Ought not counsel to be trusted to exercise his own judgment to continue discussions and to seek co-operation whenever to do so would be helpful to him and the case
  Thirdly, when the case was launched Treasury counsel certainly appeared to have thought that it was not only usual, but most helpful. First, he ultimately, though through the fault of the Attorney-General over-late, asked me to help, and, secondly, he appears to have valued that help and my potential helpfulness. At any rate, he advised me that it would help him and the court were I to return especially from Switzerland to be available to help him during the case.
  And, incidentally, on that holiday I took part in a ski race with Swiss Members of Parliament and had the good fortunate to uphold the name of this House in what was a most enjoyable interparliamentary competition. I flew to London and back from Switzerland, breaking my holiday, because I was asked to do so. Was counsel wrong, knowing these facts, to have asked me to return specially? And, if not wrong, why is access and help during the case any different from access and help in the earlier stages while the case is in preparation?
  Fourthly, while I was sitting next to the Treasury Solicitor, immediately in front of counsel, in the court for five days at counsel's request, listening to the case, it became apparent that I could have been even more helpful if, at that earlier time, when I wanted it, Treasury counsel and I could have discussed what evidence was available and might be helpful. I did not meet counsel until after it had become impossible to submit any further evidence. Why did the Attorney-General make this difficulty about my finding out from counsel what help I might be able best to offer?
  Why did he wish to stop me short at a telephone conversation with counsel— conversations instituted really by his predecessor—and conversations with the Treasury Solicitor, and an affidavit which was clearly less complete and valuable
  936
  than it might have been, and should have been? Is not direct access to counsel— and this is what I want to ask the Attorney-General—the only way of giving the best help to the court? Does not the Bar wish for direct access? Does it not deplore all impediments placed between them and those able to help?
  Fifthly, I am advised that it is quite "usual" for counsel to discuss evidence with experts who are not parties to the case, and that the trustees who employ such counsel do usually allow uninhibited access. What is the Attorney-General's evidence that it is not usual? Can he, indeed, prove that it is unusual? Surely he must know of very many instances to the contrary. Is he saying that the permission given by his predecessor was "unusual"? Is it not rather that it disposes completely of his contention?
  Sixthly, the symbolisation of language and the considerations of the design of an alphabet are highly technical. The Professor in English Language at Edinburgh University—and who can be better authority on the English language than a Scottish professor—Professor Angus McIntosh, considers this case as "technical as one, say, about protons or non-filterable viruses"—to use his words, but with the added complication that whereas virtually nobody is an authority on non-filterable viruses, everybody thinks he is expert about linguistics through vision, and thinks he needs no expert help. Therefore, why does my right hon. and learned Friend wish to deny to counsel, and so to the court, the fullest and freest access to expert knowledge which, as the professor says, is so very rare?
  Seventhly, and finally, Shaw wrote asking me to do all I could. Nobody doubts that Shaw wanted his will to succeed. The Attorney-General was responsible for making it succeed, if it was legally possible. Why does not this carry any weight with the Attorney-General?
  These are seven questions that really all come down to one: what would have been the harm? Why gratuitously obstruct help being offered to the court?
  It is not only that my right hon. and learned Friend obstructed in April, 1956, and that he failed in March, 1957, to

  937
  permit it. He would not dissent, I am sure, from the view that he has not, since March, or at any time, changed his mind. I have not, despite all efforts, succeeded in meeting his counsel since my approach on 4th March. Will he not now withdraw his obstruction and allow me to confer with his distinguished counsel who will, I hope and suppose, be advising him about an appeal?
  The Attorney-General has been very busy with the very long Adams case and with other considerations. Perhaps he is less busy now and more able to see the wisdom of facilitating and not obstructing those offering help. If so, I will be delighted, if I may, to have access to counsel, if a still willing counsel; to see him with anyone that the Attorney-General cares to name; with or without my solicitor or anybody else. All along the only issue has been that I wish to help and to be given the opportunity of doing so to the best of my ability.
  He may say that to allow me to do so now would be "irregular" as well as unusual. He said so publicly on 5th March. Further, he may say that, because in the Court of Appeal the argument will be only on law and because no fresh evidence may be introduced at this stage there is no help that I might now give counsel. None of those arguments will hold water—for two reasons. One is that in the court of first instance the argument was only on law, with no fresh evidence to be introduced—they do that in Chancery, apparently, yet I was even then apparently helpful—and, indeed, the fact that I was brought so late into contact with counsel was the cause of my being less helpful than I might have been. I can, presumably, be no less helpful with technical knowledge in the Court of Appeal than I was considered to be in the lower court.
  Further, a learned Queen's Counsel whom I have consulted in default of permission to confer with Treasury counsel has, in his learned opinion to me, said that expert knowledge such as I may have would be an essential complement to the legal argument in the Court of Appeal.
  Why in 1956, why in March, 1957, and still continuing until now, is there this obduracy? Why does my right hon. and learned Friend court the suggestion that
  938
  justice has been impeded and fettered? Why will he not see that in his high office it is most desirable that justice should also be seen to have been done? Is he not aware of the dangers that he is creating for himself by excluding thus the one person, other than the trustee, whom Shaw had called upon? This is a case of world wide interest, and there are many in other nations who are anxious that British justice should be done and should be seen to have been done.
  Moreover, does not my right hon. and learned Friend see the further dangers into which, by his past record, he is leading his high office? Twice he came to the House to oppose alphabet reform, once when he was Solicitor-General— perfectly proper in itself: he is entitled to his private views, but he has labelled himself publicly as one of those holding privately strong views against what is the essence of the litigation about Shaw's will, a project which, moreover, arouses violent partisanship.
  My right hon and learned Friend ought, in any case, to be leaning over backwards in such a case of world interest and unusual character to show that he will take all the help which is offered. He would be doubly wise to do so seeing that in his private views he is so deeply implicated in opposition to what is at stake.
  Nothing will give me greater pleasure than to learn that my right hon. and learned Friend will tonight finally allay all anxieties on both the above scores, and that he will facilitate access to counsel for me and for anyone else who appears to have the possibility of helping counsel. If so, he will worthily have upheld his most honourable office.
  10.37 p.m.
  The Attorney-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller): This is a rather extraordinary subject to raise in a debate on the Adjournment. It does not arise out of anything which has happened in this House, but only through the very keen interest that my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Pitman) has taken in the litigation in relation to Mr. Shaw's will.
  My hon. Friend has sought to represent that I have endeavoured to obstruct his seeing counsel who were appearing on my

  939
  behalf before the case came on. He spoke to me about it as long ago as in April,
  1956, and to get the record straight I would just very quickly read to the House what I said in reply to him:
  "Thank you for your letter. I am grateful to you for having spoken to me about this. I think I should make it clear that in view of the large amount of money involved the case is being brought before the Court for the Court's decision as to the validity of certain of the bequests. Counsel appearing for me will put before the Court such evidence and authorities as may be relied on in support of the bequests, and I understand that you have sworn on affidavit in the matter. I am sorry to disappoint you, but I think that it is desirable that there should be no departure from the ordinary rules in this case. It would be unusual for someone who is not a party to the action to have direct access to counsel. If there is anything you wish to add to what you have already said, if, for instance, you think that the affidavit you have sworn should be varied or amplified, by all means inform Mr. Burke, of the Treasury Solicitor's Department. He will take all necessary steps."
  I had no reply to the letter. I had no complaint from my hon. Friend in regard to it. It was open to him to see counsel if counsel thought he could really give any help in the presence of the Treasury Solicitor. All I insisted upon was that a representative of the Treasury Solicitor should be present when he saw counsel appearing for me, if it was thought he could be of some assistance. All I insisted upon was the usual practice being followed. I cannot think that there is any substance at all in the complaint that my hon. Friend has made about its not being possible for him to give all the assistance he desired to give before the trial of the case before Mr. Justice Harman.
  I understand that my hon. Friend saw counsel appearing for me on a number of occasions in the usual way—that is, at conferences attended by representatives of the Treasury Solicitor's Department. He swore an affidavit, which was used in evidence at the trial, and I was certainly under the impression that counsel saw him whenever there was any occasion for him to do so. I am really not quite sure what is his complaint now, made in May, 1957, with regard to this. He was not a party to the case, but one who gave evidence by affidavit, and he was seen by counsel appearing for me as frequently as was required.
  940
  Judgment was given on 20th February, 1957, Mr. Justice Harman holding that what I may call the Alphabet Trusts were invalid. The next I heard about the part that my hon. Friend was seeking to play in this matter was on an occasion when he spoke to me in a Division Lobby as we were going through the Lobby and without giving me any indication that it was anything more than a casual conversation. He has apologised for making that conversation the subject of a Press release, and I must put it on record that I cannot accept as accurate his version of that conversation.
  I knew nothing at that time about the efforts that my hon. Friend had made to have a conference, with his own solicitor, with counsel who had been acting for me. Before this conversation took place in the Division Lobby, and without telling me, my hon. Friend had apparently sought to arrange a consultation with leading counsel who appeared for me before Mr. Justice Harman with a view to considering with that leading counsel whether I should appeal from Mr. Justice Harman's judgment. It is really a very astonishing proceeding.
  Mr. Pitman: No.
  The Attorney-General: It was indeed. I have information from Mr. Milner Holland about this.
  My hon. Friend takes, I know, a great interest in this case, but that the witness who gave evidence in the case should, behind the back of a party to the case, seek to arrange a conference with that party's counsel was, to say the least, remarkable.
  Mr. Pitman: I am reluctant to intervene—
  The Attorney-General: I did not know anything of the sort had happened until after my conversation with my hon. Friend in the Division Lobby. I had no idea of it. Leading counsel, quite naturally and very properly, when my hon. Friend's approach was made to him, said that he could not have such a consultation without my consent.
  My hon. Friend has complained that there was no reply obtainable from me between 25th February and 5th March. I had no knowledge of any such request

  941
  until after his conversation with me in the Division Lobby, which was after the arrangement apparently had been made, or was sought to be made, for this particular consultation. It is quite wrong to suggest that I at that time stopped any consultation taking place. I did not know anything about these arrangements. I had no knowledge of them at all or of these efforts to make them.
  I am quite certain of this. If my hon. Friend were a party to a case, he would think it quite remarkable if one of the witnesses in that case had, without a word to him, tried to secure a consultation with his counsel to discuss with that counsel whether he should bring an appeal.
  I cannot really say that my hon. Friend has performed a public service in raising this matter tonight, but perhaps some advantage may be reaped from this debate if I explain to him what I have endeavoured to explain before, but without any success—what really is my duty in relation to this case in my official capacity.
  The relevant facts for the purpose of this debate can be quickly summarised. George Bernard Shaw left his estate to the Public Trustee on trust to carry out certain work of research on what I shall call a Shavian alphabet, with the proviso that if that trust failed the money was to go at once to three residual legatees, all of whom—I must emphasise this, for it is important to the exercise of my functions—are charitable institutions.
  My concern in the case arises from the fact that I am at law the only representative of the Crown in its capacity as protector of charities. It is not my concern to support any particular charity. It is certainly not my concern, nor my duty, to support the provisions of any particular will. I fear that, despite my many efforts to explain the point to my hon. Friend, he has failed to grasp this, because he seeks to assert that it is my duty to support Mr. Bernard Shaw's will. My concern in this case was, therefore, to support the trust for the Shavian alphabet if, and only if, I was satisfied that it was a valid charitable trust. If I had been satisfied of its validity, but not that it was a charity, not only would I not have been concerned to support the will, I should not even have been a party
  942
  to the proceedings which were before the court.
  It is equally not my concern to support the will because of any view I may have formed of the intentions of Mr. Bernard Shaw in drawing his will in the particular language he selected. That is not my function in my official capacity in this matter. The question of my personal views to which my hon. Friend referred has no bearing whatsoever on my discharge of my official duties. The question whether I voted for or against Bills designed to introduce simplified spelling has nothing whatever to do with it.
  I will now return to the part played by my hon. Friend in the case. He gave evidence in an affidavit in support of the argument that the trust was a charitable trust, and I am grateful to him for the information and help that he gave with regard to that. But now, judgment having been given, he reiterates his demand to see the counsel who represented me. An appeal, however, in the circumstances of this case lies, as I have told my hon. Friend more than once, on points of law only.
  No useful purpose can be served by my hon. Friend at this stage seeing counsel appointed by me. There is no question of his giving any evidence in the Court of Appeal, and I see no reason whatsoever for acceding to my hon. Friend's request. He is, of course, at liberty to consult, as I understand he has done, any other counsel he wishes, but the only ground for my consulting other counsel would be lack of confidence in the experienced counsel who have appeared for me, and I certainly do not lack that confidence. The implied suggestion that they are incompetent to deal with the question is wholly unwarranted.
  I want to make it quite clear that my hon. Friend is quite wrong in regarding it as my function to put the case for Shaw's side. That is not my duty. The only reason I appear is as protector of charities and, as I have indicated, I should appeal—I may appeal—if I consider that there is ground for doing so in that capacity alone.
  There has been some reference to funds for an appeal. If I come to the conclusion that an appeal ought to be brought in this case—and I can assure

  943
  my hon. Friend that not even the worst of his efforts will discourage me from bringing an appeal if I decide that that is the right course of action—it will be brought without recourse to any funds that might be subscribed.
  The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order
  Adjourned at eleven minutes to Eleven o'clock.

HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Non-County Boroughs and Urban Districts (Population)
  Non-County Boroughs and Urban Districts (Population)
  House-building, Liverpool (Sites)
  House-building, Liverpool (Sites)
PALACE OF WESTMINSTER
  Westminster Hall Facade
  Westminster Hall Facade
MINISTRY OF WORKS
  Tax Office, Dagenham
  Tax Office, Dagenham
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Departmental Office, Nottingham (Closure)
  Departmental Office, Nottingham (Closure)
  NUCLEAR TESTS
  NUCLEAR TESTS
  FOREIGN SECRETARY'S BROADCAST
  FOREIGN SECRETARY'S BROADCAST
ROYAL NAVY
  Civilian Staff, Admiralty
  Civilian Staff, Admiralty
COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS
  Driverless Train Incident, Londonderry (Protest)
  Driverless Train Incident, Londonderry (Protest)
  N.A.T.O. (POSTER AND EXHIBITION)
  N.A.T.O. (POSTER AND EXHIBITION)
HOSPITALS
  Mental Patients (Day Hospital Treatment)
  Mental Patients (Day Hospital Treatment)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Association for Regional Planning and Development
  Association for Regional Planning and Development
  Metropolitan Police (Strike Pickets)
  Metropolitan Police (Strike Pickets)
NATIONAL SERVICE
  Agricultural Advisory Panel, West Sussex
  Agricultural Advisory Panel, West Sussex
FOOD
  Arsenic in Foods (Statutory Limits)
  Arsenic in Foods (Statutory Limits)
EMPLOYMENT
  British Subjects from Egypt
  British Subjects from Egypt
PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Parent's Pension (Personal Case)
  Parent's Pension (Personal Case)
SCOTLAND
  Housing, Lanarkshire
  Housing, Lanarkshire
  Drainage Scheme, Braidwood and Crossford
  Drainage Scheme, Braidwood and Crossford
  Sewage Purification Scheme, Leadhills
  Sewage Purification Scheme, Leadhills
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Income Tax (Earned Income Relief)
  Income Tax (Earned Income Relief)

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

R.A.F. TRAINING FLYING ON SUNDAYS
2.35 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: 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 all training flying can be discontinued from R.A.F. airfields on the Sabbath and holy days.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (LORD MANCROFT): My Lords, training flying in the Royal Air Force on Sundays is already kept to a minimum. Some Sunday flying is, however, necessary to exercise auxiliary fighter control units and other non-Regular units which can practise only at week-ends. In addition, certain major exercises, such as the Annual Defence Exercise, have to extend over weekend periods. For the rest, Sunday training flying is confined to those rare occasions when flying training programmes have fallen into arrear because of bad weather, or when unusual urgency attaches to the completion of the programme. There is normally no training flying on Good Friday or on Christmas Day.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for his reply, which I am sure will give a great amount of satisfaction to a large number of people. As I do not wish to weary your Lordships, if I could give the noble Lord specific cases where in my view his Answer does not fit, will he be kind enough to give me an undertaking that he will look into them?
LORD MANCROFT: Certainly.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, may I ask a supplementary question? I think I shall be in order in asking the noble Lord who gave such an adequate reply whether
294
anything can be done to stop political speeches on Sunday.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, that supplementary, I think, hardly arises out of this Question. So far as I know, it applies only to one political Party, for which I am not in a position to answer.

HYDROGEN BOMB EXPLOSIONS
VISCOUNT THURSO: 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 the number of hydrogen bombs exploded by the Governments of the U.S.S.R. and the U.S.A. during 1956, and the number exploded up to the present date in 1957; the sites of these explosions and the approximate number of people living within 750,000 square miles of the sites; whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been drawn to the estimate by the American scientist, Dr. Linus Pauling, that the explosion of the British hydrogen bomb, if it takes place this year, will result in the deaths of at least one thousand people; and whether they have any idea of the number of deaths caused by the Russian and American explosions which have taken place during 1956 and 1957.]
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS AND LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, from the beginning of 1956 to the present time fourteen nuclear tests by the U.S.S.R. have been reported and the United States authorities have announced that they have carried out one test series. I cannot say how many thermo-nuclear explosions were included in these tests. The Russian tests are believed to have occurred in South-West Siberia. The United States tests took place in the Marshall Islands. It is impossible to give even a rough estimate of the number of people living within the 750,000 square miles of the test sites in either case. The Medical Research Council, to whom the Government look for advice on radiation hazards, take the view that there is insufficient evidence to justify making the kind of estimate which has been attributed to Dr. Linus Pauling. We

295
have no information that any deaths have been caused by the Russian and American explosions during 1956–57.
VISCOUNT THURSO: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl for the full Answer which he has given to my rather unusually detailed Question. But could the noble Earl say whether there is any evidence to show that it has been the practice of the Government of the U.S.S.R. to make effective clearances of, let us say, roughly 750,000 square miles, like the one we are making, before these tests are carried out; or are the unfortunate people living within range of the fall-out of these tests left to their own chances of survival?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I have no information either way. Certainly I do not think we have any information that the areas have been cleared. In fact, we have no information to show how the Russians deal with the area and the people in it before the tests are made.
VISCOUNT THURSO: My Lords, would it not be possible to ascertain whether in fact there have been transferences of population on a substantial scale in order to save them from the effects of possible fall-out? Surely movements of population on this scale could hardly escape the investigation of Her Majesty's Government. Could the Government ascertain whether there is any trace at all of the making of movements to safeguard lives in the case of these Russian tests?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I will, of course, try to ascertain the facts for the noble Viscount. But great movements of population for various purposes go on within the Soviet Union, and I am not sure whether we shall be able to produce the information for which he asks. But I will try.

TROOPING AIRCRAFT ACCIDENTS
LORD OGMORE: 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 how many aircraft accidents involving
296
Service personnel or families have taken place in each of the years 1954, 1955, 1956 and 1957, distinguishing between accidents to (a) Service, and (b) charter or contract aircraft; and whether any action is being taken by Her Majesty's Government in the matter.]
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, in 1954 there were three accidents to Royal Air Force transport aircraft engaged on trooping in which passengers were killed or injured; in 1955 and 1956 there were none; in 1957 there have been two. The comparable figures for charter aircraft were one in 1954, none in 1955, three in 1956, and one in 1957. During this time over half a million passengers have been carried. While we shall continue to watch the position very closely, Her Majesty's Government do not consider that the accident record either of Transport Command or of the charter companies gives cause for anxiety.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, will Her Majesty's Government state how many people have lost their lives this year in such accidents, and will they now allow the Air Corporations to tender for trooping contracts?
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I cannot give an answer to the noble Lord's first supplementary question without notice, but if he will put a Question down I will certainly provide him with the information. As to the second supplementary question, I will consult my right honourable friend.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, will the noble Lord, in consulting his right honourable friend with regard to the second part of my noble friend's supplementary question, bear in mind that the Air Corporations will have to bear the brunt of the transporting in time of war? Why should they not be able to get a fair share in time of peace? As to the other Answer the noble Lord gave, I hope he will accept it from me that his—I will not say complacency; I would never accuse him of that; but his statement regarding the number of accidents this year and the loss of personnel in Service accidents is causing considerable disquiet.
LORD GIFFORD: May I ask the noble Lord whether there is any reason to

297
believe that the charter companies do not operate their aircraft with both safety and efficiency?
LORD MANCROFT: The charter companies do operate their aircraft with safety and efficiency. I am glad the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, acquitted me of complacency. I had no intention whatsoever of giving that impression, nor indeed did I. Without appearing to be complacent, I must remind your Lordships that the number of accidents for the period in question is so small as to be statistically insignificant. That, of course, entirely omits the question of human tragedy. The other question the noble Lord asked me concerning the whole question of air trooping is of a much wider nature. I am afraid I should like to see it on the Order Paper.
VISCOUNT THURSO: My Lords, when the noble Lord is giving his attention to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, would it not be a great advantage if the independent operators—if, indeed, they are, as he says and as I believe they are, as safe in their operations as the Corporations are in theirs—were encouraged to extend their field, so that, in the event of war, Transport Command would have for their reinforcements a healthy civil air service of independent operators as well as the statutory Corporations, just as the Royal Navy for so many generations have been able to call upon the Mercantile Marine to help them in their operations in wartime?
LORD MANCROFT: There is much in what the noble Viscount says, but the whole question of air trooping goes far beyond the Question which the noble Lord has on the Order Paper.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, do not the private traders themselves say that they cannot afford to buy very modern and up-to-date aircraft such as those used by the Corporations? In a great number of cases what they purchase are second-hand aeroplanes and at much lower than normal prices. Unless something is done about that, we shall probably go on having some accidents and loss of life. As loss of life in this way in Service trooping is much greater, apparently, than in other means of transit, it seems unreasonable that something further should not be done about it.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, the noble Viscount will forgive me for saying it, but I do not think that is a very helpful supplementary question.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I do not mind.
LORD MANCROFT: Nothing that the noble Viscount says will detract from the supplementary question put by the noble Lord, Lord Gifford. The operators who fly those aircraft have to undergo very stringent tests and the safety regulations are most stringently observed. That is the important point arising out of this Question.

EXPORT GUARANTEES BILL
Brought from the Commons endorsed with the certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911; read 1a, and to be printed.
HOUSE OF COMMONS MEMBERS' FUND BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

SHOPS BILL [H.L.]
2.48 p.m.
Order of the Day read for the House to be put into Committee on Recommitment of the Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: As this Bill has already been in Committee, I will, with your Lordships' permission, where there are two or more consecutive clauses to which no Amendment has been put down put the clauses en bloc and ask your Lordships to stop me if there are any points you wish to raise on those clauses.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I think that occasionally we might want to speak on the Question that the clause stand part. If the clauses are to be put en bloc, there may be a difficulty.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: Of course, I will stop and give time for any Member of the House to raise points on any clause.
Clause 1:
Weekday closing times
1.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section and to the following provisions of this Act, every shop shall be closed—

(a) on each of the weekdays (except one) on each week, not later than seven o'clock in the evening or such earlier time as may be fixed by order of the local authority within whose area the shop is situate; and

(b) on the remaining weekday of each week (which shall he ascertained in accordance with the following provisions of this Part of this Act and is therein referred to as the "late day"), not later than eight o'clock in the evening or such earlier time as may be fixed as aforesaid:

Provided that on any weekday which by this Part of this Act is required to be observed as respects a shop as an early closing day the shop shall be closed not later than one o'clock in the afternoon.
(2) An order under this section may be so framed as to extend to the whole of the area of the authority by whom it is made or to part only of that area, as to have effect as respects the generality of shops within the area to which it extends (either without exception or subject to an exception for shops where a particular trade or business is carried on) or as respects shops within that area where a particular trade or business is carried on, and as to have effect either at all times or at particular periods of the year, and different times may be fixed by order under this section—

(a) for the purposes of different trades or businesses;

(b) as respects different parts of the area of the authority;

(c) on different days in the same week or the same day in different weeks;

but the fixing, by an order under this section, of a time for the purposes of a particular trade or business shall not, in the case of a shop where that trade or business is carried on, operate so as to require it to be closed not later than that time for the purposes of any other trade or business carried on therein.
(3) The power conferred on a local authority by paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of this section shall not be so exercised as to fix a time earlier than six o'clock in the evening, and the power conferred on a local authority by paragraph (b) of that subsection shall not be so exercised as to result in a shop's being required to be closed on the late day in any week for the purposes of trade or business of any kind earlier than one hour after the latest of the times at which it must, by virtue of paragraph (a) of that subsection, be closed on other weekdays of that week for the purposes of trade or business of that kind.
THE MINISTER OF EDUCATION (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM)THE MINISTER OF EDUCATION (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM) moved, in subsection
300
(1), to leave out "to the provisions of this section and". The noble Viscount said: I hope it will be for the convenience of the Committee if Amendments 1, 2, 3 and 4 are considered simultaneously. They all relate to the same subject matter. I am anxious not to spend a great deal of time on matters which will be within your Lordships' recollection. Your Lordships will remember that on the previous Committee stage my noble friend Lord Coleraine, on an Amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, asked for the omission from the first clause of the Bill of the provisions providing for local option, and indeed he pressed that case rather strongly. He said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 201 (No. 31), col. 698]:
"In contiguous areas, that situation leads to anomalies; it gives advantage to one trader as against another, and does, to some extent, prejudice the customer. Further, from the point of view of large-scale retail organisation, which is very economical organisation, it becomes difficult if, in fairly narrowly defined geographical areas, there is a great variation of practice between one street and another, or between one side of a street and the other."
He went on, at some length, to press his point.
The Government are anxious to meet criticisms wherever they legitimately can. At the original Committee stage I gave an undertaking in the following terms. I said that I was attracted by the suggestion of my noble friend; I agreed with him that variation as between locality and locality can cause anomalies, and even injustice, and I promised to report what he had said to my right honourable friend for his sympathetic consideration. The outcome is the present series of four Amendments. The previous version of the Bill followed the existing practice and the recommendations of the Gowers Committee, but my right honourable friend, having considered the arguments of my noble friend, has decided to allow me, if the House agrees, to make a concession in this respect. I therefore commend these four Amendments to the House. Their effect will be to liberalise in effect the provisions of the Act, because it will remove from the local authority the power to render the provisions of the Act more stringent, which was the object of the Bill as drafted and passed in the first Committee stage. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 10, leave out (" to the provisions of this section and ".—(Viscount Hailsham.)
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I am exceedingly sorry that the right honourable friend of the noble Viscount has given way to clamour on this point. It is very discouraging for people who have been working for decades to try to get progress in matters of this kind to find in this House, both from one or two noble Lords opposite and from the Liberal Benches, a lack of progressive outlook. I think that one of the most disappointing leaders I have ever read in The Times was the one I read this morning with regard to this Shops Bill. The kind of concession which has just been uttered by the Minister will only harden the hearts and make much more determined the attitude of the organised trade unions in this matter. That is quite clear. I have taken proper steps to ascertain what is now the opinion
Resolved in the, affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: This Amendment involves the same point. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 13, leave out from (" evening ") to (" and ") in line 15.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I should like to make a comment before this second Amendment is put. I shall not speak on the other
302
of the very large union organising shop assistants in this matter upon this question. Here we have the sweeping arrangement under which the right and power of local authorities to officiate in this matter according to the wishes of the majority of the traders in their area is taken away from them by Statute. Is that progress in local government? Is that bringing anything like justice to the majority of people in this matter. Of course it is not. I am not going to make a long speech about it, but I protest, from all my experience of the distributive trade, that such an Amendment is not required; it is totally reactionary, and I hope that when it comes to another place it will be very severely operated against and checked.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 42; Not-Contents, 13.

CONTENTS

Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Aberdare, L.

Grantchester, L.

Amulree, L.

Gridley, L.

Home, E. (L. President.)

Barnby, L.

Hawke, L.

Birdwood, L.

Jessel, L.

Cholmondeley, M.

Blackford, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Lothian, M.

Chesham, L.

Leconfield, L.

Colwyn, L.

Mackintosh of Halifax, L.

Fortescue, E. [Teller.]

Conesford, L.

Rea, L.

Onslow, E. [Teller.]

Derwent, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Perth, E.

Dynevor, L.

Saltoun, L.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Sinha, L.

Devonport, V.

Gifford, L.

Strang, L.

Hailsham, V.

Gisborough, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Maugham, V.

Glentanar, L.

Swaythling, L.

Monck, V.

Glyn, L.

Teviot, L.

Thurso, V.

NOT-CONTENTS

Attlee, E.

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Haden-Guest, L.

Mathers, L.

Henderson, L.

Ogmore, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, V.

Kershaw, L.

Pakenham, L.

Lawson, L.

Wise, L.

two, because they only apply the same principle. There is something which I intended to say. There is now added a further inconsistency in the Government's policy in regard to shopping hours. At different stages in this Bill you will find remaining in the hands of local authorities special local powers to make orders to expand the hours. The Government are taking away from the local authorities that great principle of local option which has appeared so much in modern Statutes passed by Parliament,

303
in which they can, in meeting the wishes of the majority of the local residents, keep the hours to as short a time as may be. So you are defeating the policy of local option in this case whilst extending it in others where it will be more reactionary. I shall have the greatest possible pleasure in making this position quite plain to the people in the country who have to work in the industry.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I am sure that if the noble Viscount makes it quite plain he will also make it quite accurate. The policy of the Government in this case is to secure a greater degree of uniformity in the direction of liberalisation. The noble Viscount is entitled to his opinion, but so are other people. At least so far as I am concerned, the Government and I think also my right honourable friend, are not approaching this Bill in a dogmatic or doctrinaire spirit at all. It will not have escaped the noble Viscount's notice—in fact, it has not escaped his notice, because he was good enough to tell us so in relation to the former Amendment—that this Bill has attracted a certain amount of criticism in the country. There can be no objection whatever to a Government's taking into account criticism and keeping the promises they made on the original Committee stage. If the noble Viscount has reason to believe that there is a great movement in the country for local option in this matter, I can only say that it has not been brought to the Government's attention. In this matter the Government seek both to be conciliatory and to pay attention to opinions of all kinds, including that of the noble Viscount.
LORD BURDEN: There is one point with regard to the local authorities to which the noble Viscount has not made reference—namely, what are the views of the local authorities on this and the other Amendments to Clause 1. Surely the local authorities have the right to be consulted in this matter. Have they been consulted? Has there been consent, or at any rate has it been agreed that they should not oppose the Amendment? On behalf of the local authorities of whom I have some knowledge and with whom I have some contact, I wish to make it quite clear that they reserve their right at a further stage in another place, to have
304
their views heard in connection with this Amendment.
LORD DERWENT: After the noble Lord's assertion, I should not like it to be thought that all local authorities necessarily hold the opinion of the local authorities that have given their views to the noble Lord opposite. I know intimately of three local authorities who are not of his opinion.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: This Amendment involves the same point. I do not propose to initiate a third debate. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 5, leave out (" or such earlier tune as may be fixed as aforesaid.")—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: This again involves the same point. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 11, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert
"(2) The requirements imposed by the provisions of the foregoing subsection (apart from the proviso thereto) are in this Act referred to as ' the evening closing requirements ')."—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.9 p.m.
LORD GRANTCHESTER LORD GRANTCHESTER moved to omit Clause 1. The noble Lord said: In spite of the small improvement to which the Committee has just agreed, against what I can only call retrograde and reactionary opposition, I feel it is necessary to move the Amendment to delete this clause altogether from the Bill. I do not wish to weary the Committee with the arguments which I used on a previous occasion. All I need do, I think, is to try to counter two arguments which the noble Viscount used in rejecting any suggestion designed to create greater flexibility—I emphasise flexibility—in shopping hours.
The Committee will remember that the Gowers Committee assumed that very restricted hours for shopping had become accepted policy. They therefore refrained from taking any evidence on this matter from the public as consumers. Nor was any up-to-date evidence sought by Her Majesty's Government from the public as consumers before the introduction of this

305
Bill. The Times recently summed up the position in these words:
"Bureaucrats, trade unions and trading associations have all used their 'pull' at the expense of shoppers, who, not being organised, have had little more than lip service paid to their convenience."
On the last occasion on which I moved this Amendment, the noble and learned Viscount taunted me with the fact that if the public were really perturbed there would have been more protests; that if there was the opposition to the provisions of this Bill which I claimed, opportunity would have been found to make that opposition more vocal. I believe I can say to-day that the noble and learned Viscount on that occasion "asked for it". He has had the expression for which he asked. The protests against the restrictive provisions of this Bill which he then invited have found very vigorous expression, both in the popular Press and in what the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers is pleased to call the "serious-minded papers", such as the Manchester Guardian, the Economist and the Observer. But as the noble and learned Viscount wanted a popular expression of popular reaction, I should like to quote from the Daily Express, which sums up a discussion with this advice:
"Shops should adjust their changing times to the changing market, while the union very properly take care of the working hours at its members."
This makes the proper distinction between the hours of shop closing and the number of hours worked by a shop assistant. As we know, the object of this clause is to regulate shop hours and not the number of hours which a shop assistant should work.
One other comment out of many which have been made in the popular Press, this time from the Sunday Dispatch, will, I think, suffice:
"Customers ought to insist that shops should open or shut not according to any artificial time-table but according to the convenience of the customer and the readiness of the shopkeeper to adapt himself to it."
That the public, who are their customers, should adjust themselves to hours fixed by shopkeepers rather than that shopkeepers should serve their customers is surely an example of topsy-turvey thinking.
If the Minister requires any further evidence of popular feeling on this matter,
306
I would refer him to the memorandum from the National Council of Women, who express their views in forcible language. I understand that they have sent the noble and learned Viscount a copy. This memorandum deplores the intention of Her Majesty's Government to advance the closing time of shops. It points out that there are 3½ million married women in employment—nearly half the total number of female employees in the country. It emphasises the contradiction with the expressed intention of Her Majesty's Government to encourage staggered hours of work in order to ease the burden on transport. It refers to the great difficulties which are experienced by women in doing their household shopping outside their working hours. It records the opinion that freedom of action could well be given to shopkeepers without any hardship befalling their employees. It considers that the clause makes unnecessary difficulties and produces frustration. I submit that in view of the evidence of public feeling on this matter which has now been received from customers, the Minister should change his attitude. After all, there is no possible reason for the existence of a shop other than to serve the customers whom it seeks to attract, and there is no valid excuse for clamping restrictions on the hours of opening on working days in which shopkeepers seek to serve the convenience of their customers.
I want to come back for a moment to this question of hours of working as distinct from shopping hours. On the last occasion that this matter was discussed, the noble and learned Viscount admitted that most shop assistants are members of a union which can look after their interests; but he emphasised that there are many small shopkeepers who run their business as a family business, and he was concerned about what might happen to them if the freedom for which I am asking was granted. Some shopkeepers—some small shopkeepers—may prefer very restricted shopping hours as providing for them an easier life without their having to worry about competition from more energetic rivals. I do not think that that argument can be acceptable to a Minister of a Party which professes to be believe in individual enterprise and which recently has urged the elimination of practices in industry which

307
are designed to restrict and limit competition.
I believe that to provide any kind of justification for the argument that these small shopkeepers should be restricted, the Minister would have to prove the probability of a great social evil which might arise from the exercise of this freedom. I am sure that he cannot do that today. In the days of his distinguished grandfather, to which he referred, when parents could make greater demands on their children and when the claims of education were less insistent, it might have been possible to make some kind of case along those lines. I suggest to Her Majesty's Government that such an argument today is an insult to the work of education done by the Ministry over which the noble and learned Viscount so ably presides. The present generation is well equipped to protect itself, and there is no evidence that it wishes to use its freedom to overstrain itself by unnecessary or unproductive overwork.
I suggest that this matter is more important than Her Majesty's Government seem to have realised when they "trotted out" what they called a "tidying up" measure. The imposition of more restrictions on working days of shopkeepers is surely a blow calculated to undermine the initiative of a "nation of shopkeepers." If this clause is dropped, then, of course, some consequential Amendments will be necessary. The tidying up provisions can still be saved if the Government wish. I suggest that this restrictive clause should be dropped. More is at stake than shop hours, important as is that question. There is no adventure like the adventure of growing up, and the privilege of growing up and determining how they will offer their services must not be denied to shopkeepers, who are amongst the most individualistic and independent-minded members of the community. They do not need this sort of protection which is rightly extended to children and imbeciles.
The pattern of shopping, like many other customs, is steadily changing, and late night opening is appreciated by the public. In one large and progressive stores with a reputation for looking after their staff as well as for service to the public these extra hours of opening have enabled them to increase their rates of pay and to pay a Christmas bonus. To
308
the shopkeeper, his shop and its equipment are his plant. Freedom to utilise it to secure maximum profitability is just as much his right as that of any factory owner. Ministers have spoken of creating an "Opportunity State." I ask what sort of an "Opportunity State" are we creating in this country if the opportunity to serve customers in the most useful and efficient manner is to be denied by law to a shopkeeper?
I ask the Committee to drop this clause altogether, so as to make possible flexibility in shop hours—not necessarily longer shop-hours, for no shopkeeper would he compelled to open his shop for one minute longer than he desired. If he wished to keep to the present hours or even cut them down he would be tree to do so. But those who have other views should he equally free to do what they think is best for themselves and their customers. I should like to make my final appeal to the noble Viscount in words which he himself used last week. This freedom for which I am asking is a part, even if a small part only, of the redeployment necessary to meet the crisis of the changing conditions of the 20th century. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 1.—(Lord Grantchester.)
3.25 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Listening to the speech which has just been made has again taken me back at least fifty or sixty years. This "liberalising," which was the term attached to the acceptance of the previous Amendment by the noble Viscount, this liberalising idea, is the most extraordinary reaction I have come across in the whole of my public life. Take, for example, the kind of argument which has just been put forward—that there is no compulsion on any private trader, if we leave out Clause 1, to open his shop an hour longer than he wants to. Anyone with experience in distributive trade during the last fifty or sixty years knows that, in regard to half-holidays and daily hours of opening, unless there is some reasonable agreement about closing hours the majority of the people concerned are practically bound to keep their shops open late at night in order to keep a share of the trade others get by staying open late.

309
I have told the House before of my own personal experience. My mother was a widow. She had four children. I was the youngest. When my father died, I was twelve months old. For years my mother tramped off before eight o'clock in the mornings, and she never arrived home until ten o'clock at night. She was working in connection with a distributive shop, partly on production and partly on delivering and selling. Does anyone want to see that sort of thing come back? Does the noble Lord think for one moment that people have become so wonderfully improved in morals, religion and spiritual outlook that we can never have that sort of thing arising again if we do not have decent, national restrictive legislation in the Bill? At the time of my own introduction to politics it was Radicals of the Liberal Party who first educated me in the matter of fighting for the real freedom of the people, before any Labour Party was available in my constituency to join. We have indeed gone back a long way when we can have from the Liberal Benches a speech like the one to which we have just listened.
We are dealing now with what the noble Viscount's friend, the Minister in charge of the Bill, has put into this part of the measure as the result of the Report of the Gowers Committee. That Committee sat ten years ago. It was set up for the specific purpose of hearing both sides of the question before attempts were made to revise the legislation. It heard evidence from fifty-five different bodies representing local authorities (that is why I think my noble friend Lord Burden was well entitled to say what he did say just now about the local authority position); traders, both large and small; women's organisations, including the Standing Joint Committee representing the working women's organisations; Labour, trade unions and the Co-operative Movement; the T.U.C., representing 9 million people, and representatives of the organised working people in the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers.
The Government, in their wisdom, accepted the Report of the Gowers Committee. The Committee felt that there would be a reasonable amount of freedom in allowing an hour longer opening each day—and a further hour on the special days—than was the practice in more than
310
60 per cent. of the shops in the country. The noble Lord talks about the individual trader and his rights in the matter. He also talks about the big combine store which is supposed to be especially up to date. As I listened, I began to wonder which side the noble Lord is on—that of the small individual trader and individual freedom, or that of the big combine. It was. I think, one of the big combines developing one of the new supermarkets, that was taking the line to which he was referring. Almost every year of my experience in the distributive trade for more than fifty years has shown that collectivisation of the distributive trade goes on apace. Year by year collective ownership for distributive purposes increases, putting the decreasing number of private traders in a position which is a very minor one compared with what it was before.
I have no doubt that some of these organisations will be only too glad to extend their hours of business. I dare say that some would even pay bonuses to their workers. But what about the effect on the general standards of workers throughout the country? It cannot possibly be arranged that these are maintained except by adding hundreds of thousands of people to the present number of distributive workers. For the last twenty-five to thirty years we have been begged by every successive Government to do all we could to reduce the percentage of the population engaged in the distributive trades and to put more of them at work in productive industry, instead of mere servicing work. If we now do what is advocated by the noble Lord. Lord Grantchester, we shall do exactly the reverse. The distributive employees, because they have been much better educated (as the noble Lord suggested) and better organised into their trade unions, will not allow any attempt to introduce a partial shift system without a struggle. The people who talk so much about the necessity of the working people of this country having good will in these matters ought at least to pay a little more attention to the collective view of the workers about the conditions under which they should work.
3.31 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: I think that I approach this problem with a more open mind than either the noble Lord,

311
Lord Grantchester, who moved this Amendment, or the noble Viscount who has just spoken. Though I have no doubt whatever that in the view of the noble Viscount I am a reactionary, I would nevertheless say to him that I have no particular objection to reasonable interference with liberty, when the case for such interference is made out. On the last occasion I agreed largely with the approach of my noble friend Lord Hailsham, who is in charge of the Bill. It is to some extent, I suppose, a question of the balance of evidence, and one can exaggerate the point of principle involved. I agree with him about that. Nevertheless, it is important that there should not be great interference with liberty unless there is good reason to think that that interference produces some useful consequence.
What is it that it is feared might result from carrying the Amendment proposed? One would imagine that the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, thinks that the result of carrying this Amendment would be that every shop would close much later. But why on earth should it? As things are, shops do not stay open nearly so long as they may legally do. Curiously enough, this point was emphasised by an official of the trade union concerned at their recent conference. But if, at the present moment, shops do not stay open so long as they legally could, why on earth should it be supposed that they would all stay open so much longer if there were no legal restriction at all? I find it very hard to see why they should.
I do not wish to repeat the points that I made in my speech of February 12. I still believe that they are sound. As the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, has pointed out, under this Amendment we are not discussing when shops shall shut. If his Amendment is carried, they may shut at any hour, so far as the criminal law is concerned. Nor are we discussing what is the proper maximum amount of hours of labour that should he worked by shop assistants. As I shall show, from quotations from the Gowers Committee Report, this legislation is no longer an apt instrument to regulate that matter; and I have a quotation from the T.U.C. itself in this connection. We are considering simply the question: shall it be
312
a criminal offence for a shop to remain open after a particular hour? That is the sole matter which we are considering. In trying to make up my mind on the issue raised, I have some difficulty, perhaps because I am plagued with a sense of logic, in understanding two of the arguments put forward by supporters of the Bill. On the one hand, they say that the Bill involves no hardship at all, because people do not want to stay open late; on the other, they say that the moment you allow shopkeepers to open late, they will all do so. Whichever of these two arguments one believes, I cannot think that they work very well in double harness.
I deployed my arguments in the debate of February 12, but since then I have read with interest the report of the proceedings of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers at their recent conference. At that meeting their chairman, Mr. Walter Padley, M.P., maintained that, if retailers were free to open their shops whenever they liked, they would charge higher prices. That was why, in The Times of April 25, I asked whether this had happened in countries where such freedom is enjoyed; and if so, where. I am grateful to Mr. Padley for having answered my letter eleven days later. He had an interesting letter in The Times of yesterday. I understand from that reply that the countries in which the freedom I mentioned is enjoyed are France, Italy and North America. His answer about France and Italy was that this had not led to higher prices being charged, but I must add, in fairness to his argument, that he said it had led to other bad results in the conditions of labour.
So far as North America was concerned, he said that in his view, which he supported by argument, this freedom had, in fact, resulted in higher prices. I find this a little surprising, because such experience as I have of the United States leads me to believe that a great many people in that country are not at all indifferent to prices, and if it were true that opening late meant increased prices, I should have thought it almost certain that some shops would try the experiment of closing earlier and charging lower prices. I suggest either that Mr. Padley is wrong in assuming that prices have been raised, or, if he is right, that the public think it well worth paying whatever the addition is for the additional facilities.

313
In fact, however, I think that Mr. Padley was wrong in many allegations set out in his letter. As it appeared only yesterday, I have been unable to check them all, but perhaps I may mention one. In the last paragraph of his letter he says:
"There is no need to go to other countries to prove my point."
He then refers to the experience of the sugar confectionery trade in this country. Unfortunately, however, he gives the figure of 49·5 per cent. as the total of distribution costs in that trade. My noble friend Lord Mackintosh of Halifax can speak with far greater authority than I can on this point, but I am told that the figure of 49·5 per cent. must have been based on 1938, and that the present figure is probably under 30 per cent. That is a fairly substantial inaccuracy, 49·5 per cent., instead of under 30 per cent.
I come now to the question of liberty, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, but rather ridiculed by the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough. I always listen with great respect to the speeches of the noble Viscount when he is basing his arguments on his own experience of a long time ago, but I would suggest to him that it is possible that conditions have changed considerably. If he will refer to the Gowers Committee Report, he will see that that Committee recognised that fact. In paragraph 10 of the Report, the first question raised is:
"In coming to a conclusion about this, what weight are we to give to the need of the shop assistant for further protection?"
The Committee expressed the view—and I ant quite prepared to accept their view—that this shop legislation has in the past been of assistance to the shop assistants. I would not deny it. The question is: is it necessary to-day, and has it a further contribution to make?
Here I would draw the attention of the Committee to some words used by the Gowers Committee in paragraph 11 of their Report. The say:
"On the former question the first thing to observe is that legislation fixing the hour at which shops must close cannot in itself ensure to shop assistants working hours which are in line with present-day practice in industry, or indeed any definite maximum at all. It is not an instrument apt for the purpose. We are satisfied that it has been of the greatest benefit in saving shop assistants from having to work hours grossly excessive. But that is
314
not the same thing, and it has in large measure already been achieved."
Then the Report goes on:
"As the General Council of the Trades Union Congress pointed out in a memorandum submitted to us, 'the method of securing a shorter working week for shop assistants by curtailing the shopping week, whilst feasible and desirable when shopping facilities were unnecessarily extensive, is now reaching its limits.' "
I pray in aid that statement by the Trades Union Congress as the clearest expression of their view that times have changed; and whatever the contribution that the shop legislation had made in the past, that does not show that it is a good instrument at the present time for securing any of those purposes, such as the limitation of the hours of shop assistants.
Before I pass from that statement I should like to draw attention to some words I have already read out. In considering this legislation, how easy it is for those who support it to slip into the language of tyranny! Look at those words:
"when shopping facilities were unnecessarily extensive ".
Who is to say that except a tyrant? It is easy to be dogmatic and to say that facilities are too extensive. But that statement falls into insignificance compared to the sort of statement of which the Gowers Committee complained, the sort of thing that was said in evidence before them which they record in paragraph 19 of their Report. They say there:
"We heard much about the public's having been 'educated' to shop earlier and the need to guard against their slipping back into bad habits."
Who are we to tell the public what their habits ought to be? I am wholly in favour of the desire both of the trade unions and of the noble Viscount to secure good conditions for shop assistants. I am certain that the union will do what unions should do and can do—that is to say, exert all their efforts in that direction. But that is not to say that it ought to be part of the criminal law of this country that a shop shall not be open after a certain hour.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I appreciate the tribute the noble Lord pays to the trade unions, but I would answer that point in this way. It took us twenty-five years of agitation in this particularly difficult distributive

315
trade to get a trade board established to fix the wages, because it was a sweated industry recognised by Parliament. The trade union that went before the Gowers Committee is a large and important unit, but you can organise only to the extent to which you have numbers employed in particular shops of a size. You cannot get trade unionism where you have one assistant, or sometimes two. They are just subject to the trade board conditions; to the minimum that can be got from a board set up by a Government in a sweated industry. The noble Lord admits that the evidence is that the existing Shops Act has helped to save sweating of that kind in the industry, yet he is not prepared to give us the wholehearted support that we deserve.
LORD CONESFORD: I have not yet indicated how I propose to vote on this Amendment; that is a subject which I now approach. In answer to what the noble Viscount has just said about there being certain shops in which trade unionism has not much chance, I would point out to him that, in conditions of full employment, if people do not like their conditions of work there are plenty of alternative employments open to them. I mentioned on the last occasion the the grounds on which I supported the proposals of the late Mr. Ernest Bevin in the Catering Wages Act, the argument, as I reminded the Committee, being that he could not direct anybody into a trade unless he was satisfied of a proper wage structure. But in circumstances in which nobody is being directed into anything, I think a far stronger reason is required than has yet been given for interfering with freedom of contract.
I now come to the difficult question of how we should vote on this Amendment. Let me say that I am going to listen to what my noble friend says in reply to this Amendment. I hope that he has considered the letter of Mr. Padley in The Times yesterday. If he has, I should like to know whether he and his economic advisers agree with the statement that prices in America have been raised by freedom regarding the hours of shops. Unless he produces a very convincing argument, I think that this Amendment has merit and deserves support. The thing that troubles me is this. I have no doubt whatsoever, speaking for
316
myself and, I expect, for many of my friends, that this is a matter in which we should unhesitatingly follow whatever may be the opinion of the House of Commons. If I were convinced that the House of Commons thought the restrictions set out in Clause 1 of this Bill were still necessary, then, whatever my personal doubts as to the philosophy underlying it, I should have no hesitation in supporting the views of the House of Commons. But here we are in the unfortunate position that the Bill has been introduced in this House, and we have not the benefit of debate in the House of Commons.
In those circumstances, I am inclined to think, subject to anything my noble friend may say, that on this occasion we should vote on what we believe to be the merits of this Amendment. If we strike the clause out, it will not stop the House of Commons putting it back or putting back any variation of it that it thinks fit. I have no doubt that the views of the House of Commons in that matter are those which I should unhesitatingly follow. But since the Bill has been introduced in this House, and since the argument on the merits so far appears to be with the Amendment and not with the clause, I think I shall vote for the Amendment unless my noble friend in charge of the Bill gives convincing reasons to the contrary.
3.54 p.m.
LORD REA: I will not detain your Lordships for more than a few moments before the noble Viscount replies. I think it is necessary to say that there seems to be great confusion about the straightforward motives behind this Amendment. This Bill is aimed at protecting the conditions of the shop working people. For the noble Viscount who leads the Opposition to say that the Liberals have forgotten their tradition and ideals in that respect is not quite fair. We are fully in support of the objects of this Bill, which are particularly set out in Part V, but it is the method of achieving those objects to which we take exception. We do not believe that, in order to limit the overworking of shop assistants—and we are fully in favour of stopping such overworking—it is necessary to restrict shop hours, thereby penalising the whole of the shopping public and all the small shopkeepers. We should like to see these

317
shop assistants entirely protected by legislation and looked after by their own union, which has done such good work for them in the past. We gladly grant the noble Viscount that this in the past has done a great deal for the benefit of shop assistants. But we think the time has come when other measures should be taken to protect the shop assistants, and that the people of this country should not have their liberty impinged upon in this way.
Restrictive Bills are all very well, but there must be sufficient reason before they are passed. It would be logical to say that if we could have earlier closing hours it would mean cheaper trade and reduce the cost of living. On that basis, we might have introduced a Bill which would say that nobody should leave their house after nightfall. In that way we should save a lot in police, street lighting and criminal statistics—at any rate, it is riot necessary to go out at night. We are prepared to pay something for our liberty, and the reason for this Amendment is to throw out a link between working hours and shop hours. I hope your Lordships will take note of the appeal of the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, to vote according to your real feelings, and let the matter sort itself out in another place.
LORD CONESFORD: I did not give a quotation which I think deserves to be in the records of this House because it is, I think, the clearest statement I have seen of the philosophy behind this clause as it appears to some of us. It runs as follows:
"The family shop in a village or small town…is a standing reproach to initiative. To allow such shops to keep open as long as they please can only result in anarchy, and is grossly unfair to the big chain-stores, who, as it is, find it hard enough to drive the anomalous small man out of business. That the small shop is still allowed to open at all is proof of the impartiality with which the Tory Government is carrying out its policy of enterprise and opportunity."
That quotation is from my friend Beachcomber, but it is the best statement of the philosophy behind the clause that I have yet seen.
3.57 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: I had not intended to intervene on this Amendment, but may I put one other point of view? I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, in that I do not think this type of Bill
318
is a suitable medium for controlling hours of work. I am entirely with the noble Lord that it is a Wages Council job. As I see it, if this Amendment is passed—the noble Viscount will correct me if I am wrong—it will make nonsense of the rest of the Bill, and the Bill will be withdrawn. Many people think that that would not be a bad thing. But may I say that the effect of it will be that the present Shops Act will remain in force and, quite frankly, that would be a disaster. I believe that if this Bill is lost we shall not get another Shops Bill introduced in a hurry. This new Shops Bill, when the new Government Amendments are in, is better than the existing Act. I know, at any rate, that holiday resorts are anxious to get the present Act off the Statute Book and for this Bill to become an Act as soon as possible. Before your Lordships vote in favour of the Amendment, I should like to sound that word of warning: that in my view the result would be that the present Act would stay in force. That Act is quite unenforceable, and in most cases makes complete nonsense of the law.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: The only speech with which I have been in wholehearted agreement so far has been the last, because it seems to me to summarise the exact consequences which would follow almost certainly (although I speak without having consulted my right honourable friend in the matter) from the passage of this Amendment by this House at the present time. To be perfectly candid, I was in some doubt whether it would be proper for me to speak at any length in this matter at all. I expressed my views—and they were perfectly candidly expressed—when the same Amendment was proposed on the previous Committee stage. I think there is nothing quite so detestable as a Minister who repeats himself unnecessarily. I feel, on the other hand, that as several noble Lords have spoken at, perhaps I might say, some little length on the matter, it might be thought to be treating the Committee with a degree of discourtesy if I did not express my views, even if they felt that I was trespassing a little on their patience.
I must confess that I was sorry the noble Lord put down this Amendment. I have, like my noble friend and, indeed, like several of the noble Lords who have

319
spoken, spent the greater part of my adult life either in one House of Parliament or the other. I have always thought myself that the Committee stage of a Bill was the proper occasion for improvements, but that even in another place, which has a much wider range of legitimate Parliamentary tactics than we allow here by custom, the wrecking Amendment was something which was really out of place in Parliamentary procedure. Do not let us make any mistake about it—this is a wrecking Amendment, and nothing else. Do not let us deceive ourselves about it. One must accept that.
There was a Second Reading of the Bill where the principles of the Bill were fully discussed. There was a first Committee stage at which this identical Amendment was put forward. I pointed out to the Committee then that the effect of the Amendment was really to reintroduce a Second Reading debate on the first clause in the Committee stage, which I deprecated then but which I made no particular complaint about since noble Lords desired that their opinions should be heard. There has now been a second committal so that we should put forward specific proposals in accordance with certain undertakings that we made to noble Lords who pressed various Amendments upon us in the first Committee stage. Advantage has now been taken of that to reintroduce what is virtually the third Second Reading that we have had upon this Bill.
I must say, with great respect to the noble Lord who introduced this Amendment, that I find it surprising that he was unable in the course of his quite discursive speech to refer to the very considerable concessions that were being made as a result of the first Committee stage. It is true that he referred briefly to the one which we had made already, which was germane, of course, to the present topic and which provoked a violent protest from the noble Lords of the Party immediately opposite; but he did not refer to other Amendments which are even more significant. I am quite aware that the noble Lord can produce any number of expressions of doctrinaire opinion on one side or, I imagine, the other about this Bill. We have heard a certain number this afternoon. The Press is full of them and some of them were
320
quoted by noble Lords. One of them was quoted from a source outside. What I asked for on the previous occasion was a single case of specific hardship, a single concrete piece of evidence. We have had none—none this afternoon and none in the voluminous correspondence which the Government have had about the Bill—except in certain specific trades. As I pointed out on the last occasion, there is a strong case for exceptions to be made for what is called the impulse trade, in relation to sweets and tobacco. We have had a number of letters from sweet and tobacco shops complaining that early closing hours would have an adverse effect upon their trade. We are also aware of the situation with regard to holiday resorts and fishing resorts. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, raised a question about a specific trade, the motor car trade.
I think I am right in saying that, although this Bill has now been very carefully canvassed by public opinion, and although there have been, as I have indicated, some strong expressions of theoretical opinion (which I am bound to say I respect because they come from persons whose opinions I respect) both in favour of and against the Bill, the only complaints containing any specific evidence at all relate to the trades I have mentioned, and every one of those trades is, rightly or wrongly, dealt with in one of the concessions which we have made between the last Committee stage and this. I say this with respect—I do not say it with rancour in any way at all—that the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, was doing a little less than justice by having what was, in effect, a third Second Reading to this Bill, through putting down the identical Amendment which was rejected on the first Committee stage, without once referring to the fact that the extensive concessions, to which I have referred, were already on the Order Paper in the name of the Government. To refuse to take into account the conciliatory and generous Amendments which the Government have made and which have had the effect, which I would hardly say that I desired, of antagonising the Party opposite who are strongly in support of the Bill, seems to me to burke the whole question which we are discussing to-day. I think that in that we have been done a little less than justice by the noble Lord.

321
The noble Lord, Lord Conesford, said that he approached this matter with an open mind. Nobody's mind, I can assure my noble friend, was more open than mine when I took on this Bill. It was not my Bill. It was originally the Bill of my noble friend, whom I can see sitting below the gangway. It was not a Bill of the Department which I represented. I had previously no very strong convictions about the opening or closing of shops, and I was sincerely anxious only to do my duty to the House in piloting this Bill through it without any serious doctrinaire view in one way or the other. If I had thought that this was a serious encroachment on the liberty of the consumer, I should, I think, have used whatever little influence I possessed against the Bill. I waited to hear some evidence, which was evidence rather than mere expressions of opinion, of some sets of consumers who would be put at a serious disadvantage by it. I have heard none. I gather there is none, because, with all the wealth of scholarship and research which he usually devotes to these matters, my noble friend was unable to produce any. He sought, instead, to draw the inference that the Bill ought to be rejected, not because it was a serious infringement of liberty but because it was of only marginal utility, a criticism which I find damaging but, for reasons which I am about to adduce, not conclusive.
The situation, as I see it is, is this. Noble Lords are entitled to say by way of assertion that this Bill has nothing whatever to do with the treatment of shop assistants. I do not agree with them. The main and primary purpose of this Bill, lest there be any doubt about what we are discussing here, as contained in Clause 1, was to continue closing hours for shops and to reduce their permissible hours of opening by one hour, from eight o'clock to seven o'clock. That was justified by a long Report of the Gowers Committee, setting out the arguments for and against and coming down in favour of this proposal. The object of the proposal is to continue to defend shop assistants from exploitation. I agree that in theory it would be possible to legislate for a definite number of maximum hours for shop assistants, but I venture to point out that no such legislation exists at the moment; and therefore, if this Amendment were carried with the intention, to which the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester,
322
owned on the previous occasion—though whether he still possesses it I know not—of destroying any sort of restriction on hours for the opening of shops, the effect, and the only effect, of it would be to destroy altogether the little protection that shop assistants have, without putting anything whatever in its place.
I know that the trade unions concerned consider—and I must say I agree with them—that the only way in which one can effectively protect shop assistants at all is by limiting the number of hours for which the shops open. I know that that was the view of the Gowers Committee. It is also, as it happens, my own view, for the little that it is worth; and the reason it is my own view is that shop assistants are normally not well organised and not employed in large numbers in any one shop. The typical pattern is a shop consisting of a family with either one asistant or two assistants. It is true, as the Gowers Committee Report said in terms, that in itself shop hours legislation is not an apt instrument for the purpose of fixing a definite maximum number of hours for assistants. But that does not mean that it is not an apt instrument for providing them with some sort of protection.
In the very next sentence they said:
"We are satisfied that it has been of the greatest benefit in saving shop assistants from having to work hours grossly excessive."
I thought it was a little less than fair of my noble friend to say that because that statement is in the past tense it meant that we were now in a position not merely not to reduce the permissible hours but to abolish the restrictions altogether, for that is the effect of the Amendment for which he has announced his provisional intention to vote. The effect of the Amendment is to abolish all restrictions on hours altogether; in other words, to set aside the situation which the. Gowers Committee Report said in terms had been of the greatest benefit in saving shop assistants from having to work grossly excessive hours.
LORD CONESFORD: I would point out to my noble friend that I went on to quote the next sentence, and it was on that that I based the past tense. That sentence is:
"But that is not the same thing, and it has in large measure already been achieved."
My point about the past tense is based on that sentence.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: In my rather inefficient way I was dealing with that. I was pointing out that it was not good enough for my noble friend to say it has already been achieved, because the Amendment for which he has announced his provisional intention to vote is an Amendment which abolishes that situation, so that the achievement is destroyed. My noble friend said he was plagued with a sense of logic, and he must follow the logic of the argument now presented, because my argument is slightly more logical than that he presented to the Committee. I did not intend to show any degree of warmth about this matter, because it is something which I am seeking to elucidate on the same basis as my noble friend—namely, one of practical approach and logic. The fact remains that the noble Lord's Amendment is one which would destroy a situation which is alleged by the Gowers Report to have achieved the greatest possible benefit for shop assistants. To put the Report in its proper context, I am bound to add that the Gowers Committee went on to say that in making their recommendations they had in mind the possibility of legislation defining maximum hours for assistants. That is to be found in the last sentence of paragraph 11, and they went on to make the very recommendation upon which this Bill is based.
I do not think much comfort can be obtained by my noble friend from that paragraph when it is read in a logical way. I take this view about it. I agree that to protect shop assistants by permitted hours of shop opening is not fully satisfactory, and the next step might be in another direction after this Bill; but I am bound to say that my opinion is that the provision which reduces the permitted hours by one hour, in Clause 1, does add a small amount of additional genuine protection to shop assistants. The question the House has to decide is not whether that is so or not (that was established by the Gowers Committee), but whether the House is being asked to pay too big a price in terms of liberty for shopkeepers and the consumer in granting that additional hour for shop assistants. But to say, as some noble Lords have suggested, that the welfare of shop assistants does not enter into this matter is, as I think, merely to delude oneself. I should very
324
greatly regret to see this clause go out for that reason.
I now proceed to look at some of the more general arguments that have been put. The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, has to make up his mind whether his Amendment is designed in the interests of shop assistants, to get them a greater bonus, or shopkeepers, to allow them to open all night if they like, or the consuming public. In point of fact it achieves none of those objects. The shop assistants do not want it. Through their organised trade union they have pressed strongly for this Bill and even stronger Amendments. The shopkeepers do not want it, except for certain trades, for which we have made provision between the two Committee stages. The consuming public, as Lord Conesford was constrained to admit, do not want it either, as far as any evidence we have been able to obtain has shown.
It is not correct to say, as Lord Grantchester said, that the Gowers Committee took no evidence. They did, in fact, make a social survey which was carried out on their behalf, and ascertained as a result that at that date, ten years ago, practically everyone would be satisfied with the 7 p.m. closing. But the noble Lord says that that is ten years ago, and things change. I can only say that at the last Committee stage the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, produced convincing evidence on his own Amendment on that occasion of a fresh social survey, taken in November, 1956—only six months ago—which had precisely the same effect. There was no substantial demand for shops to be open after seven o'clock. Indeed, the social survey was urged by the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, in support of the earlier closing which he desired, at that stage, of six o'clock. So it does not seem to me that when I said on the previous Committee hearing, that no substantial evidence had been produced of any value which could be obtained from the Amendment, I was over-stating the case. Indeed, every organised body of opinion except one, which has expressed itself at all, has expressed itself strongly in favour of the Bill. I do not think that that is something the House or the Government can properly disregard. On the contrary,

325
it seems to me that in considering legislation of this kind one must take exactly that kind of organised opinion into account.
The noble Lord, Lord Conesford, said that what we are discussing is whether permitted hours should be part of the criminal law. My Lords, it has been part of the criminal law for the greater part of the time during which I have been alive. The only change introduced in this Bill is to change the hour at which the thing becomes, not a crime, but a summary offence. People sometimes use the words "criminal law" as if some serious sort of indictable offence was in question, but the only difference which is being introduced in this clause is to change the hour at which it is already a summary offence from eight to seven. I cannot myself believe that, by any rational stretch of the logical imagination of my noble friend, it can be fairly stated that the issue before the Committee on this Amendment is whether it should be part of the criminal law or not.
I come back to where I started: the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, to those who would reject this Bill altogether. It would, I think, be preferable if it were rejected on a Second Reading or Third Reading debate rather than by a sidewind, through an Amendment of this kind. I, myself, if it were to be rejected, should like to see it argued before another place. I think it would be the greatest pity, from a constitutional point of view, if on a matter which is supported as strongly as this has been supported by the organised trade union movement, the Co-operative Movement, the National Chamber of Trade on the other side, and the numerous bodies enumerated by the noble Viscount on the previous Committee stage, and by the Government of the day, this Committee should pass an Amendment which would wreck the whole purpose of the Bill. I believe that it would perhaps do serious Farm to the position of this House in the future, and I could not conscientiousty advise the Committee to take that step, even if on the merits I were persuaded that the Amendment had substance in it, which I am not. I do not believe that this is a serious infringement of liberty. I do not put it forward under the great oriflamme of a remarkable social advance. I think it is a modest social advance,
326
and I have not yet heard any evidence at all from any opponent of the clause which has convinced me personally that the stand I took on the previous occasion was not fully justified.
4.21 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Before the noble Lord who moved this Amendment addresses the Committee, either to press or to withdraw it—I believe it is his intention to press the Amendment—I think your Lordships should know precisely the attitude which we on this side of the House adopt. As I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, there came into my mind the old tag, "Liberty—what crimes have been committed in thy name!" The only virtue that I found in the noble Lord's speech was that it brought forth from the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill, I would say with great respect, for the first time a really logical statement of Government thinking behind this Bill.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: If the noble Lord will forgive me, I did not speak on the Second Reading. I am not supposed to make a Second Reading speech on every Committee Amendment. I have so far appeared only on Committee.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The noble Viscount interjected too quickly. I was going to commend him, because it must have impressed your Lordships. The noble Viscount is quite right. We have to consider things in the distributive trade as they are, not as a theoretical approach would have us believe them to be. There are 2 million insured employees in the distributive trade, including those in the family shop. There are 700,000 only in the multiple and large stores, and in the only union which organises these workers the total membership, as my noble friend has said, is 350,000. What are we going to do with over 1 million unorganised shop workers in this country? They have no union and no effective voice to protect their interests. I agree with the noble Viscount in what he has said. This may be the wrong measure by which to protect wages and conditions of employment in the distributive trade, but it is the only measure we have. In years to come the distributive trade may be better organised than it is to-day. But with the multiplicity of small concerns brought about

327
by a lot of the liberty which the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, requires, that is the position in which we find ourselves to-day.
When I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, who has had a distinguished career in the Law, one thing struck me—that his experience in keeping a shop has not been great. I can assure him, from an experience covering over half my life, that long hours in keeping open retail establishments add to the cost. That is an irrefutable fact. There must be a balance. I hope the noble Lord will not mind my saying this, but he made one unfortunate statement: "If a shop assistant cannot find a job in one shop, let him go to another!" That is reminiscent of an ill-starred speech which was once made in your Lordships' House, when the speaker said, "Of course, what we in this country want is a tiny bit of unemployment to discipline the worker."
LORD CONESFORD: I am sure the noble Lord does not wish to misrepresent me. What I was pointing out was that in conditions of full employment the shop would certainly have to provide decent conditions, otherwise it would not obtain its labour. That was my point.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The noble Lord did not say that; he may have meant it. But even that is not true. We have found that even in a period of full employment there are pockets of unemployment, because of social conditions and family ties and all those things. Mobility of labour is a wonderful ideal, but it counts not one jot in human nature. So again, like the noble Viscount, I find myself largely in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Derwent. There are things that we do not like about this Bill. In places it is a wretched thing, and in other places it is good. But on balance, it would be quite wrong in my view to pass this Amendment. If that were done, it would wreck the Bill, and the noble Viscount in charge of it might just as well withdraw it because the rest of the Bill does not make sense. So far as we on this side of the House are concerned, for the reasons that I have stated—that the Bill does at least give some protection, although not an ideal form of protection, to over one million shop assistants in this
328
country whom we on this side of the House are not going to see jettisoned, as would the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and the noble Lord, Lord Conesford—if the noble Lord decides to divide the Committee on this Amendment, we shall go into the Division Lobby in support of the Government.
LORD CONESFORD: There is one matter that will certainly affect my own procedure in regard to this Amendment. Did my noble friend Lord Hailsham mean by the concluding words of his speech that, in the event of this Amendment being carried, another place will not have an opportunity of considering this Bill? That seems to me to be a serious statement. If he did mean that, it is clearly wrong to deprive another place of the opportunity should we pass this Amendment.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: As I said, I have not had the opportunity of consulting my right honourable friend, and therefore I can express only a personal opinion. But my own opinion, for what it is worth, is that the passing of this Amendment would be equivalent to a Second Reading rejection, whatever that may mean.
VISCOUNT THURSO: Surely this is a most extreme doctrine. It means that the noble Viscount who is responsible for this Bill is saying that if noble Lords vote according to their opinion on this Amendment, and if their opinions happen to be different from his, he is going to advise the Government that that is equivalent, as he calls it—how the word "equivalent" is justified, I do not know—to a Second Reading rejection, and the Bill will have to be withdrawn and will not go to another place. I cannot help thinking that another place would have something to say about that, if the noble Viscount tried to carry out his threat. After his charming and entertaining speech, I think it is a most misguided line which the noble Viscount is following—to crack the whip over the heads of noble Lords and say, "Vote as I tell you, or I will say that the Bill is wrecked."
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: The noble Viscount really has no right to say that at all. I was asked a perfectly courteous question by my noble friend. I was

329
particularly anxious not to express an opinion about it, but since the question was put to me directly I thought it courteous to him and to the Committee that I should state my opinion, for what it is worth. My opinion is that to carry the Amendment would be equivalent to a Second Reading rejection. I may be wrong. Each noble Lord must make up his mind for himself. I was asked my opinion and I gave it, without any threat or any desire whatever to coerce noble Lords to act contrary to their opinion in the matter.
To my mind, what would be left of this Bill, if we were to abandon the principle of closing hours, is so little that Her Majesty's Government would really be left only with these alternatives—and I speak subject to consultation with my right honourable friend: we should either have to ask the House to put the clause back again on the Report stage, and your Lordships would then send it to another place with that clause in it; alternatively, we should have to do what we could not ask this House to do—that is, send down a Bill which made no real sense, a Bill without this clause. I may be wrong, and if your Lordships' recommendation is that the Committee should do it, let it be done. But this House should always be careful and jealous and proud of legislation which it sends to another place, and it should be legislation which makes sense, not nonsense. If the noble Lord wishes to recommend the Committee to send to another place the Bill without this clause, then let it be done on his advice and not on mine.
VISCOUNT THURSO: The clause could be put back on the Report stage.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: With respect, the noble Viscount is really tying himself up in a frightful manner. He says that the clause could be put back on the Report stage. Since he is accusing me of trying to crack the whip over the Committee, let us see what he is advising should be done. Is he advising the Committee to vote in favour of rejection of this clause on the Committee stage, in order that Her Majesty's Government may put it back on the Report stage? May I have an answer to that question?
VISCOUNT THURSO: If your Lordships are courteous enough to allow me to answer the noble and learned Viscount,
330
my answer is that I want this Amendment carried, and for that reason I shall vote for it. I was criticising the noble and learned Viscount for saying that if we were to carry this Amendment it would be equivalent to a rejection on the Second Reading. Out of his own mouth I judge him. It is not equivalent to such a rejection because, as he says, the clause could perfectly well be put back on Report or Third Reading and if a majority of your Lordships supported the noble Viscount then the Bill could complete its passage through this House in the ordinary way and arrive in another place.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My understanding of the matter is totally different from that of the noble Viscount. As I understand the position, a Bill is, in effect, rejected on Second Reading when the principle underlying it is rejected; and to my mind that is what is involved in this Amendment. It is self-deception to pretend that that is not so. I cannot be a party to the course of action which it was suggested this Committee should take, or (as I gather the suggestion now is) Her Majesty's Government should take. It would involve my omitting the clause on the understanding that Her Majesty's Government would make or ask the House to put it back on Report or Third Reading. To my mind, that is not in the interests of this House, and as a Member of Her Majesty's Government I think it my duty so to advise the Committee.
LORD GRANTCHESTER: I do not think I need say much, but to noble Lords in Opposition I would say that I think they are often out of date, behind the times, restrictive in their outlook and retrograde in their actions—and this is one such occasion. Evidently the noble Viscount does not think that the outcry in the Press has anything to do with public opinion; otherwise he could not say that public opinion had not shown itself against the provisions of this Bill. It is neither appropriate nor reasonable for him to put on an air of injured innocence and even to drag in the Constitution. Who but Her Majesty's Government are responsible for introducing this Bill—not even a "tidying-up measure", with the same hours as are now permissable, but with reduced hours? Injured innocence when they are trying further to restrict the hours permitted at present

331
without the commission of an offence! When Her Majesty's Government do that it is quite ridiculous to talk as the noble and learned Viscount has done.
I will deal with the other point—the question of "wrecking" the Bill. The noble Viscount has made this point and the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, has also done so. If the noble and learned Viscount feels that, I will make him an offer. Let him increase the hours instead of reducing them, and give us an assurance that more flexibility will be granted by substituting say nine, ten, or eleven for seven—and I will not push this Amendment to a Division.
EARL OF SWINTON: As almost anything is in order in this House, the noble Lord might move from the Liberal Benches a clause to repeal the abolition of slavery.
LORD GRANTCHESTER: On one occasion a noble Lord did introduce slavery into his argument, but I do not think that that is appropriate in 1957. I did not put in an Amendment to increase the number of hours but rather to delete
this clause because I thought that by suggesting a later hour than was proposed by Her Majesty's Government I should destroy the impression I wanted to give—that it was flexibility and not necessarily longer hours that I was trying to achieve by this Amendment. For instance, hours from midday to late at night would be flexibility not permitted under this Bill. Why not? And Her Majesty's Government call it a "tidying-up" measure! Why in such a measure do they cut down the existing hours? If there is any chance of "wrecking" the Bill, then if the noble and learned Viscount will undertake to alter the hours, even if it means limiting the hours during which the shop can remain open, we need not press this Amendment to a Division. But I say that in my view it is vital to give more flexibility in this matter, and if there is no other suggestion for achieving that than the rejection of this clause, then I hope the Committee will reject the clause.
On Question, Whether the Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 9; Not-Contents, 69.

CONTENTS

Esher, V.

Colwyn, L.

Rea, L.

Thurso, V.

Elton, L.

Sinha, L.

Grantchester, L. [Teller.]

Swaythling, L.

Amulree, L. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Waldegrave, E.

Gifford, L.

Glentanar, L.

Home, E. (L. President.)

Alexander of Hillsborough, V.

Glyn, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Greenhill, L.

Sutherland, D.

Devonport, V.

Haden-Guest, L.

Falmouth, V.

Hawke, L.

Cholmondeley, M.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Henderson, L.

Lothian, M.

Goschen, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Reading, M.

Hailsham, V.

Jessel, L.

Willingdon, M.

Margesson, V.

Kershaw, L.

Maugham, V.

Kinnaird, L.

Attlee, E.

Mersey, V.

Leconfield, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Tenby, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Fortescue, E. [Teller.]

Mathers, L.

Jowitt, E.

Ashton of Hyde, L.

Merrivale, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Milverton, L.

Listowel, E.

Birdwood, L.

Newall, L.

Lucan, E.

Blackford, L.

Ogmore, L.

Morley, E.

Burden, L.

Pakenham, L.

Munster, E.

Chesham, L.

Rathcavan, L.

Onslow, E. [Teller.]

Coleraine, L.

Remnant, L.

Perth, E.

Congleton, L.

Silkin, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Derwent, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Selkirk, E.

Dynevor, L.

Teviot, L.

Swinton, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Wise, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Power of local authority, in sea-fishing centres and holiday resorts, to permit later evening closing and dispense with observance of early closing days]:
4.50 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM VISCOUNT HAILSHAM moved, in subsection (1) to leave out sub-paragraph (i) and to insert instead:
"(i) a direction that, in such weeks as may be specified in the order, the evening closing requirements shall not have effect in the case of shops situate within the area of the authority or within such part of that area as may be so specified; "
The noble Viscount said: The effect of this Amendment, which again is in the direction of liberalisation, is that a local authority in a holiday resort or a sea-fishing centre will have the power to abolish the evening closing hours during twenty-two weeks in the year. As the clause stands, they can only put the hours back to 8 p.m. during those weeks. Under the present Act, a local authority have power during the season to fix any hour later than the normal closing hour they think fit. This Amendment is moved consequentially upon a discussion we had at an earlier Committee stage upon an Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Milverton, who desired to restore the position under the present Act. My noble friend was supported both by my noble friend Lord Derwent and by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth. On that occasion, I agreed that a strong case had been made out, but thought that perhaps we had better wait for the matter to be discussed in another place. My right honourable friend has taken soundings of public opinion and he feels that he would be safe in acceding to the wish of noble Lords. Therefore, I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 13, leave out sub-paragraph (i) and insert the said new paragraph—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: This is a new Amendment, in that it is not based on previous discussion in your Lordships' House. The effect of this Amendment and No. 8 (I suggest that they should be taken together) is to remove the power of the local authority in a holiday resort
334
to distinguish between different trades in making orders dispensing with evening closing hours and requirements to observe an early closing day. The orders would apply to all shops concerned, without distinction of trade. Admittedly the power to distinguish between different trades makes for flexibility, but at the cost of creating anomalies for many shops where different classes of goods are sold. It is thought that if the law is to be as fair and enforceable as possible, this must be done to reduce the risk of these anomalies. That is what is intended to be done by these Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 24, leave out from ("aforesaid") to ("it") in line 26.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: This Amendment deals with the same point. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 29, leave out subsection (2).—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 [Power of local authority to suspend evening closing requirements at Christmastide]:
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: This Amendment is consequential on the Amendments to Clause 1, which we have already passed. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 45, leave out subsection (3).—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 [Powers of Secretary of State and local authority to suspend evening closing requirements on special occasions]:
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: This Amendment is also consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 21, leave out subsection (3).—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7 [Modification, at Christmastide and Easter, of requirements with respect to early closing days]:
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM VISCOUNT HAILSHAM moved to leave out Clause 7 and to insert the following new clause in its place:
Dispensation with observance of early closing days at certain seasons
".—(1) It shall not be necessary for a day to be observed as respects a shop as an early closing day—

(a) in any of the three weeks of Christmastide;

(b) in Holy week;

(c) in the week next before Whit week;

(d) in the week next before that in which falls the first Monday in August.

(2) If, in any of the following weeks, namely, Easter week, Whit week, and the week in which falls the first Monday in August, a shop is closed all day on each of the first two weekdays thereof, it shall not, as respects that shop, be necessary for a day to be observed as an early closing day in that week."
The noble Viscount said: In moving this new clause, I would suggest that Amendments Nos. 11, 12 and 13 be considered together. This Amendment meets the views expressed by a number of noble Lords on the existing Clauses 7, 8 and 9. Your Lordships will remember that on Committee stage a number of noble Lords attacked these clauses on one ground or another, and, amongst others on the ground that they were far too complicated for the ordinary man to understand. I said then, in substance, that although I sympathised with that viewpoint, a price would have to be paid for greater simplification, in that enforceability would be weakened in one respect or another. I think that it was the view of the Committee then that that was a price worth paying. This Amendment is the result of my right honourable friend's consideration of our discussion.
Clause 7 in the Bill as introduced merely allowed two early closing days to be dispensed with during the three weeks of Christmastide, which is defined in Clause 63 (1), on condition that the shopkeeper closed on two of the Christmas and New Year holidays. In the previous Committee stage the Government accepted an Amendment, moved by my noble friend, Lord Coleraine, allowing the early closing day to be dispensed with, in addition, in Holy Week, on condition that the shopkeeper closed on Good Friday. Another Amendment was moved by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel,
336
to allow all three early closing days to be dispensed with in the three weeks of Christmastide without imposing the condition that the shopkeeper closed on any of the Christmas and New Year holidays. The Amendment was withdrawn on my undertaking to consider it.
Clause 9 was attacked on all sides of the Committee, on the ground that it was very difficult to understand. Its object at that time was to allow a shopkeeper to change the day of the early closing day either in the week in which a public holiday occurred or in the previous week, provided that he closed his shop on the public holiday. Clauses 7, 8 and 9 were based on the proposition that shopkeepers ought to observe an early closing day in addition to the normal public holiday except during two weeks of the Christmas and New Year shopping rush, and that during other bank holiday periods they should only be allowed to change the day of their early closing day—for instance, if it fell on the Thursday before Good Friday.
My right honourable friend has considered these views and has decided on a slightly different approach to this question. He feels that it would be reasonable to give more latitude as regards the observance of early closing days before all public holidays, and that nowadays there is little point in insisting upon the closing of shops on the public holidays as a condition of dispensing with the preceding early closing days, because, in fact, they always do so close.
Subsection (1) of the new clause accordingly allows the early closing day to be dispensed with in any of the three weeks of Christmastide, in Holy Week and in the weeks before Whitsuntide and the August bank holiday. This removes the need for Clause 9, and Clause 8 also becomes redundant. Subsection (2) of the new clause makes special provision for the custom which, I understand, is observed in Leeds and Bradford, whereby both the Monday and the Tuesday in Easter Week, Whit Week and August bank holiday week are observed as whole holidays, but no separate early closing day is observed. We desire this practice to continue. The new provisions do not affect the right of assistants to weekly half-holidays, but special provision about this is made in the Government Amendments to Clause 37, which we have not yet reached. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 7 and insert the said new clause.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8 [Compulsory change of early closing day falling on a non-business day]:
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 8.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9 [Voluntary change of early closing day in, or in Week before, week in which non-business days falls]:
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 9.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10 [Sales for which shops may remain open after 1 p.m. on early closing day]:
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: This Amendment is purely consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 40, leave out "for the sale of goods of that kind".—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11:
Special provisions with respect to the sale of certain refreshments for off-consumption
11.—(1) Notwithstanding anything in section one of this Act or a requirement subsisting by virtue of paragraph (i) of subsection (1) of section four thereof, a shop which is registered under this section may—

(a) on any weekday, be open at any time for the sale, for consumption elsewhere than in The shop, of refreshments to which this section applies, other than fried fish or fried potato chips;

(b) on a weekday other than one required by this Part of this Act to be observed as respects the shop as an early closing day, be open at any time far the sale, for consumption elsewhere than in the shop, of fried fish and fried potato chips or either of them.

(2) A local authority shall, on the application of the occupier of a shop situate within their area or of a person who proposes to occupy a shop so situate register the shop for the purposes of this section if they are satisfied that it is the applicant's intention that the business carried on or, as the case may
338
be, to be carried on at the shop should consist, as to the whole or a substantial part thereof, in the sale of refreshments to which this section applies at times at which, apart from this section (and without regard to the exception for sales of refreshments for consumption in railway trains, omnibuses, aircraft or workplaces in connection with which canteens are provided for which provision is made by the following provisions of this Act), the shop could not lawfully be open for the sale of refreshments for consumption elsewhere than in the shop.
5.0 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM VISCOUNT HAILSHAM moved, in subsection (1), to omit all words from the beginning down to and including "thereof ". The noble Viscount said: It might be convenient if this Amendment and Nos. 16, 17, 18 and 19 were grouped together for the purpose of discussion. The first Amendment is the fulfilment by the Government of their promise to my noble friend Lord Mackintosh of Halifax, when I said that it was our intention to make an exception in respect of the confectionery trade and that it followed that we thought it proper also to make an exception in respect of the tobacco trade.
The original Amendment related to the sale of sugar confectionery, soft drinks and ice cream. The effect of the Government Amendments now on the Paper is that a shopkeeper who intends to do substantial trade in sweets, tobacco or smokers' requisites after 7 p.m. may have his shop registered by the local authority under the machinery of the Bill as it stands and, having registered his shop, can sell these goods at any time. These Amendments do not deal with soft drinks and ice cream because, being refreshments, these already come within the scope of Clause 11. Whether it will be possible to sell them at any time will depend on whether they are specified in the regulations which the Secretary of State will make under subsection (7) of Clause 11. I am not giving an undertaking, but it is contemplated that they will be so specified.
The Amendments that I am now moving go further than my noble friend went, in that they fix no closing hours for the sale of goods. That, I think, is probably an advantage, and rather than fix a closing hour as late as nine o'clock, with ten on the late night, we thought it would be preferable to fix no closing hour at all. As your Lordships will know, under these provisions a shopkeeper will

339
now apply for registration under Clause 11 (2). The local authority must register the shop if they are satisfied that the shopkeeper intends to do a substantial trade in sweets or the other goods after 7 p.m. The only ground for refusing registration is that they are not satisfied about his intention, and therefore they cannot justifiably refuse registration in the ordinary way. There is an appeal by virtue of subsection (5) of Clause 11, which enables the shopkeeper to appeal to the magistrates' court if the local authority refuse. Once a shopkeeper is registered he can take advantage of the exemption and carry on his trade at any time, and cancellation will take place only if he is not doing a really substantial trade. I hope that in putting down these Amendments we have satisfied my noble friend, because that is our intention. I beg to move the first Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 2, leave out from the beginning to ("a") in line 3.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
LORD MACKINTOSH OF HALIFAX: As the noble and learned Viscount has said, this Amendment has been put down as a result of my intervention at an earlier stage. I want to say immediately that I am grateful to the noble Viscount and to the Government for the consideration which, clearly, has been given to this matter. I have a number of points to make on the Amendment, but I do not want anything I say to be taken as implying that I do not greatly appreciate this solid step in what I think is the right direction. I did not comment on Clause 11 at an earlier stage, but now that it is proposed to include confectionery and tobacco within its scope, I feel it is appropriate for me to comment on parts of the clause which are not directly affected by the Amendment. Much of what I say about it will, I feel, apply equally to the sale of refreshments for off-consumption, which were originally the only articles covered by the clause.
First, I should like to refer to subsection (2) which, as I read it, lays down that a shop's sales of refreshments, confectionery and tobacco after 7 o'clock in the evening must represent a substantial part of that shop's business in all goods at all times. I shall be glad to hear whether the noble Viscount agrees that my interpretation of the subsection
340
accords with his. If it does, I must say that I think this will, in practice, be difficult to work. Would it not be better to take the shop's business in refreshments, confectionery and tobacco altogether and relate this to its total sales for all hours, thus confining the registration to a shop whose business was substantially in these items and not one just selling sweets and confectionery, for instance, as a sideline? It would be much simpler to obtain an indication of total business in these products, whereas the records of sales after 7 o'clock in the evening would be difficult or impossible to check.
Then we come to the question of the meaning of the phrase "a substantial part". If the word "substantial" means, as some dictionaries give it, "not negligible", then I think that the Bill ought to say so. I am not suggesting that the word "substantial" should be defined in, for example, terms of percentages, but I feel that some other expression which clearly means "not negligible" would be more appropriate and more consistent with the Government's intentions in this matter. I would point out that in the sales of any business it is the last bit where profit comes, when all the overheads have been covered, so that quite a small loss of turnover can make a substantial difference to the profits.
I understand that it is the normal procedure, in connection with legislation of this sort, for the Home Office to give guidance to local authorities in interpretation and in administration. If the Government consider it essential to retain the use of the word "substantial," I hope that guidance from the Home Office will make it clear that this word is intended to mean "not negligible," or some such phrase. Otherwise, there would not only be the possibility of quite unnecessary restrictions on evening selling, but there could be aggravating differences of interpretation between neighbouring local authorities. Moreover, when guidance is issued to local authorities I trust that it will cover the procedure to be adopted, and that this will be as liberal as possible. It seems to me that the only reasonable thing for a local authority to do would be to register virtually all applicants and to cancel their registration only if it became clear that the shop was not fulfilling these provisions. And if a shop's evening sales are concentrated in

341
only a few weeks of the year—for example, in a small holiday resort—this should certainly not preclude registration. One other small point relates to subsections (5) and (6), which lay down that a shopkeeper has only three weeks in which to give notice of intention to appeal. Could this be a misprint for three months? At any rate, three weeks seems too short a time.
To sum up, I am grateful to the Government for their consideration of this matter, and I know that the confectionery trade shares my gratitude. I should, therefore, like to appeal to the noble Viscount to consider the points I have raised. In particular, I should like to know whether he can give the Committee any assurance regarding the guidance which the Home Office will issue to the local authorities, both as to the meaning of the word "substantial" and as to the way they should set about their task. In practice, so much will depend on this administration. I would conclude, as I began, by thanking the noble Viscount and the Government for their endeavours to meet the point of view of the confectionery and tobacco industries.
LORD DERWENT: I understand from the noble and learned Viscount that he would like me to talk now about my Amendment to the Government Amendment No. 16.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Yes.
LORD DERWENT: The point about my Amendment to the Government Amendment is this. The Government list of exemptions refers to
"the sale of sweets, chocolates or other sugar confectionery, tobacco or smokers' requisites".
That was originally settled in the first Shops Act, which I think I am right in saying was passed in 1912. It was repeated in 1928, again in 1936 and again in 1950. My Amendment seeks to put into this list mineral waters or other non-intoxicating drinks and ice cream, with or without edible containers. Since the list was drawn up in 1912, the method of selling these things has entirely altered, and almost without exception now confectionery shops, which also frequently sell tobacco, almost invariably sell mineral waters, other non-alcoholic drinks and ice cream.
I cannot agree with the noble Viscount, if I understood him aright, that this matter
342
should be left to a schedule under an order to be made by the Minister. If this schedule made by the Minister does not include ice cream and mineral waters, we shall see the position that is causing so much trouble under the 1950 Act. We shall find that confectionery, and so on, may be sold, yet in the same shop—they are often small shops—the sale of mineral waters and ice cream, which are a normal part of the trade, will not, in certain circumstances, be permitted. I hope, therefore, that the noble Viscount will accept this Amendment. It is only a matter of common sense, and does nobody any harm. These two things are normally sold with the others in the same type of shop, therefore this matter ought to be part of the Bill and should not be left to an order of the Minister.
LORD MACKINTOSH OF HALIFAX: I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, in his remarks.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Would the noble Viscount like me to proceed?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I thought I might answer all noble Lords, instead of making two speeches.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I listened gratefully to the concessions made to the Committee by the noble Viscount, but I cannot join in these jollifications. I think it is a mistake in dealing with the proper situation. After all, the effect of the Amendment is to permit the sale of tobacco, smokers' requisites and sugar confectionery up to any time in the evening, provided that the shop is registered with the local authority. A condition of registration is that the sale of these commodities should represent a substantial part of the business carried on.
Before I speak in more generality against the proposal in the noble Viscount's Amendment, I must say that to me it seems a little abstruse. I do not know what is to be represented to the local council as "a substantial part of the business carried on." Will the co-operative society which is having a jollification evening of its shareholder members now be permitted to sell not only ice cream but the other things mentioned in the schedule? If the society was doing a general business of £5 million a year, and these sales represented only £100 for

343
the night, would that be reckoned to be "a substantial part of the business"?—because the business is all one. I am not quite sure what is to be the basis of settling this "substantial part of the business". That is by the way. I should like to hear the legal view of the noble Viscount on that.
With regard to the general question, I must say that the present Act either fixes directly or authorises the fixing of the maximum permitted hours of closing, even although later than the general hours. The Amendment lays down no ceiling at all. Is it intended by the noble Viscount, or the Minister who is behind the Bill, that a local authority will be instructed in some way to have a limited time, or can they give a licence without any limit of time whatsoever? That would seem to me to be totally unreasonable. I rather gathered that the noble Viscount has "beaten the pistol" (I am sure he did not do so intentionally) on this particular issue—that is, in relation to the trade conference which is to be held this week. I think that the trade conference is likely to suggest a maximum closing time of about 8.30 p.m. I cannot go further than that because I am not absolutely certain. The side of the National Chamber of Trade which is connected with this side of the business will probably be pressed, at any rate, in the conference to deal with the matter in that way.
When the original Amendment was moved by Lord Mackintosh of Halifax on February 12 to provide for the sale of sugar confectionery, it provided that shops selling sugar confectionery should be permitted to keep open two hours later than the general closing time. Does the noble Lord really want this complete absence of a "ceiling" as will be the case under the Government Amendment, or was he certain that he was going to get all he wanted by the extra two hours? What is the reason why this Government Amendment goes so far beyond the request of the noble Lord? I am rather at a loss to understand this position. I think your Lordships must have gathered—at least I did—from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, that if this exception with regard to the sale of sweets and tobacco from general hours is accepted, it opens a wide door to other transactions, which will complicate enforcement. I think it
344
is quite reasonable for the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, to come along and ask for these matters to be considered. I am quite sure he does it on an absolutely bona fide basis, and many other traders will be absolutely bona fide; they will obey the law, whatever the law is. But when it comes to having the shops open without a "ceiling" at all, unless some instruction is to be given to the local authority in issuing the licences, then it seems to me there will be all kinds of "under the counter" trade in the other commodities.
LORD DERWENT: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Viscount. The point I raised about these two commodities is that it is not a question of extending the things that may be sold, but that they are the normal things sold in confectionery shops.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I am quite aware of that, but the same question arises, as we know, in the chemists and druggists. We argued that before, on previous stages of the Bill. You can make arrangements for Sunday trading for the chemist and druggist, and once you have made it absolutely general there are all kinds of things added to the list that should never be added for Sunday trading. If we are to have this Amendment with regard to the sugar confectionery and tobacco trades, then I am quite certain that the noble Lord is right that many people who are selling them will add at least six, eight or ten other regular attributes to their trade, which they will also want covered. If they are not covered, then, leaving out the conscientious traders who will obey the law, whatever it is, the others will be doing an "under the counter" business. Once a law is brought into disrepute, it becomes bad law. It is better, therefore, to have a good law at the beginning and for shop keepers to know things beyond peradventure: first, what time they have to close, and secondly, what are the commodities that may be sold? Without these two considerations, it is impossible to get enforcement. That is the problem, and if the law is not enforceable it is not worth anything at all—in fact, it does real harm.
I am sure the noble Viscount will remember that this question of enforcement was one of the matters carefully examined again and again by the Gowers

345
Committee; and it led the Gowers Committee, after full consultation with the tobacco and sugar confectionery trades, to come down unanimously in favour of a general closing hour of 7 o'clock with one late night at 8 o'clock, which would apply to these trades as to others. If any slight Amendment is required to that (I do not think there is; I am all in favour of the shorter hours), then I should have thought that a local authority might be authorised to license such shops in the vicinity of cinemas, or cinemas and theatres themselves, to sell up to 8.30. That would enable them to cover the normal times of the two houses a night, which is usually the maximum of that kind of entertainment, and in that way most of the situation would be met.
The aim of the Gowers Committee was to reduce as much as possible the area of exemptions from the general closing hours they recommended, and to confine exemptions to transactions concerning foods, refreshments and meals. It was this principle which went a long way towards influencing the Committee in favour of 7 o'clock as the general closing hour, rather than an earlier time. In view of what I call the adequate defence of the general principle of the Bill that the noble Viscount made on a previous Amendment to-day, I do not want to delay this Bill, but I want him to know that there will be strong views expressed in another place about this particular Amendment which he is conceding. So, although I have put the case here not very briefly—I do not propose to say more—I should not propose to divide the Committee on the Amendment here; but I think it was necessary for me to say what I have said in order to draw necessary attention to the point when it goes to another place.
5.22 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I do not suppose anyone will quarrel with the noble Viscount for putting his point of view. It only goes to show how difficult it is to please everybody. My personal feeling is very much in favour of this Amendment. After all, we have to take account of public opinion, and there was no doubt in the mind of the Government or in my mind—because I was the recipient of most of the criticisms at that time—that there was a very general feeling in the
346
sweet and tobacco trade that this restriction would impose a serious hardship on them, because, as I explained in answer to my noble friend in the previous debate, the sweet and tobacco trade is an impulse trade—that is to say, the total turnover of the business would be affected. People who find a sweet shop shut at night do not buy sweets the next morning at breakfast time; they do not buy them at all. Nobody thinks of buying a pot of marma-lade at nine o'clock at night; and when people see boots in a shop window at nine o'clock at night, they do not have an impulse to buy boots which they would not buy anyhow. But shops selling sweets and tobacco are in a different position from ordinary shops. That is the basis of this Amendment—that and the public opinion which exists.
This is an Amendment designed to help the small shopkeeper; therefore I did not imagine that it would be held in much favour by the representative of the great co-operatives. It was not intended to be in favour of the great co-operatives; it is in favour of the shopkeeper, who might suffer if it were not passed. If we are going to say it at all, should we not say it the right way? I think the noble Viscount opposite is under a delusion when he thinks that the local authority is going to license the shops. It is not going to license the shops; it is going to register them. When they are registered, they will be open at all hours if they wish to be.
The question which then arises is: what is the qualification for registration? That point was raised by both the noble Lord, Lord Mackintosh of Halifax, and the noble Viscount opposite. It is a very difficult point for a Minister to make, especially when he is a Minister with legal qualifications, because we are simply never believed when we say that there is a strong distinction between questions of fact and questions of law. Lawyers cannot give adequate definitions of things which are questions of fact or opinion; they can only give legal opinion on things which are questions of law. What is a substantial part of a trade is a question of fact, not a question of law. With great respect to my noble friend on the Cross Benches, I myself do not find "not negligible" any more intelligible than "substantial", because it raises the question of what can be neglected or not,

347
whereas "substantial" raises the question of what is a substantial part. In our dictionaries these terms are treated as synonymous. I will not venture to offer to the noble Viscount opposite legal advice on his conundrum, although it struck me on the facts, and in the form in which he presented them, that they did not form part of the retail trade at all; that the jollification was something outside. I am probably wrong about it, so perhaps he would be wise not to follow that advice.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Would the noble Viscount answer this point as a question of fact? I am anxious not to get him on the wrong foot. If, in fact, it is the purpose of an organisation to supply all the needs of its members—all of them, everything from the cradle to the grave, including refreshments and entertainments—is the supply of refreshments a "substantial" part of the business?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I would not say it was not a substantial business. I gather that these jollifications are very substantial needs. The only question I ventured to raise was whether or not it was a retail sale. I am not sure that it is made a retail sale by being substantial. I should have thought that the noble Viscount's jollifications might be subject to special legal opinion and would have to be considered.
My noble friend Lord Derwent is proposing an Amendment to my Amendment. I propose to accept that, with some misgivings, because I, like the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, in this particular case, and only in this case, have a predilection for using regulations, because they can be amended if they are wrong. But, on balance, my right honourable friend and I both think that this Amendment can be written into the Bill without very great disadvantage. I am glad to be able to make a concession, which shows that we are always prepared to listen to arguments, within reason. Therefore, when the noble Lord conies to move his Amendment, which he has not yet done, I will, with the permission of the Committee, accept it. I do not think I have anything more to say.
LORD MACKINTOSH OF HALIFAX: The noble Viscount has not mentioned the question of guidance.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I am sorry; I overlooked the noble Lord's point. I think I shall have to write to him about it. I am not sure whether it is customary to give guidance in such matters. If my right honourable friend did give guidance, he would not, as my noble friend knows, be in any position whatever to influence the court by such guidance; therefore it would be without any legal effect at all and might even be misleading. But it may be that in administrative matters of this kind it is the custom, and, if it is, I know that my right honourable friend will bear in mind what my noble friend has said.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Before this Amendment is put, could the noble Viscount tell me this? I quite see his dilemma upon what is "substantial." A turnover of £10 a week in a total turnover of £100 a week I would say would be substantial; but £10 a week in a total turnover of £10,000 a week would not be quite so substantial. I think he is going to have difficulty, but it will be got over if he will answer me this question. Can all shops that exist to-day and which do this type of trade apply to be registered automatically—that, I think, is a very important point—or are you going to use this registration to weed them out? Are you going to say that, from the date of this Bill, all those who are doing a business of the type described in the clause will be automatically registered?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Anybody who wants to be registered has to apply to be registered. In that sense it is not automatic, but the registration cannot be refused except on the ground that substantial business is not intended or is not being carried on. We do not intend to weed anybody out. But, if I may put it bluntly and plainly, this is a Bill to restrict hours of opening of shops. That will include, for instance, boot shops. I do not think that a boot shop ought to be allowed to stay open till any hour by selling a few sweets on the off moment and then having itself registered under this provision. That would lead to abuse. I take an extreme case because extreme cases are the best way of illustrating legal principles. They also happen to be the most amusing way of doing it. The object is, therefore, to allow local authorities, in the first place, and magistrates, if the shopkeeper is aggrieved, to apply their

349
ordinary common sense to the matter. If you propose, for example, a colourable attempt to get round the Act, it will not be allowed; but if it is a genuine trade which is genuinely making a profit, I do not think there will be any difficulty.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: We are on an important point here, because the applicant for registration has an appeal if the local authority refuses the registration. The court of appeal is the magistrate, one of the fraternity about which the noble Viscount has just been commenting. The magistrate has to find an interpretation of "substantial". How will he arrive at the legal definition of what is "substantial" in the context of this Bill? Does the noble Viscount, with all respect to his profession, think the magistrate is the best person to preside over the appeal? Does he not think that perhaps the local authority, the Shops Act inspector or someone like that, would be better? Somebody has to decide what is substantial. In the last analysis it appears to be the magistrate. Is there any appeal against the decision of the magistrate? If so, who then is going to decide what is substantial? I am afraid the noble Viscount, if I may use an Americanism, has "got to come clean" at some time, arid somebody must decide the correct definition of "substantial".
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I have had this point again and again on other occasions, and I am not "going to come clean" at any time if by "coming clean" the noble Lord means attempting the impossible. He is, of course, quite wrong in supposing that the magistrate is ordinarily a lawyer. I am upset that the noble Lord in the Chair should be in the Chair when this concept is being advanced; he is the chairman of the Magistrates' Association. In fact magistrates are seldom lawyers, except in benighted places like the metropolis where the work is so intense that we must have a lawyer to stand up to it.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The magistrate has to take the opinion of a lawyer—the clerk.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I will tell the noble Lord what the clerk will tell the magistrate. He will tell the magistrate it is a fact; the word is used in the ordinary sense in the English language, and the magistrate is entitled to apply his
350
common sense and make a decision. That is what the clerk will tell the magistrate.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I think there is a great deal in what the noble Viscount has just said. What we really want to get at is the drafting of legislation which can be more easily interpreted. The question is about the use of this sort of qualifying adjective from time to time. Sometimes it is "reasonable" sometimes it is "not negligible". I agree with the noble Lord that "not negligible" is not very much better than "substantial". It would be a great service on the part of the noble Viscount, as a lawyer, if he could address himself to seeing how art explanatory phrase rather than a single qualifying adjective might be used to give a clearer interpretation. I would invite him to look at one of the Reports of the Standing Committee on Trusts, in which the late John Hilton told the story about painters who were painting a public-house. The publican, who was not a rich man, wanted to give them something for their trouble, and he gave them some of the worst beer—what is called "drawings off". When he went to see the men he asked them if they had had their drink and enjoyed it. They were rather gloomy, and he asked them what was the matter with the beer. The spokesman for the men said: "If you want our real opinion, if it had been any worse we could not have drunk it, and if it had been any better we know we should not have got it, so we thought it was reasonable." That is a very long process to get behind qualifying adjectives. It was on that basis that the Standing Committee on Trusts and Prices very often would not proceed to legislation until they found proper language to use. Let that be a study and let our laws be in better English.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I have dealt with this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 5, leave out from (" time ") to end of line 8 and insert

" (i) for the sale, for consumption elsewhere than in the shop, of refreshments to which this section applies, other than fried fish or fried potato chips;

(ii) for the sale of sweets, chocolates or other sugar confectionery, tobacco, or smokers' requisites; ".—(Viscount Hailsham.)

LORD DERWENT: I am grateful to the noble Viscount for saying that he will accept my series of Amendments, and particularly the Amendment to his Amendment, which I beg to move.
Amendment to Amendment moved—
Leave out paragraph (ii) and insert—
" (ii) for the sale of mineral waters and other non-intoxicating drinks; sweets, chocolates and other sugar confectionery; ice cream (with or without edible containers); tobacco and smokers' requisites; ".—(Lord Derwent.)
On Question, Amendment to the Amendment agreed to.
Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 20, leave out from ("of") to end of line 27 and insert ("goods such as are mentioned in subsection (1) of this section at times at which, apart from this section (and without regard to any exceptions for transactions for which provision is made by the following provisions of this Act) the shop could not lawfully be open for their sale").—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I beg to move Amendment No. 18.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 31, leave out (" refreshments to which this section applies ") and insert (" goods such as are mentioned in subsection (1) of this section ").—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I beg to move Amendment No. 19.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 34, after ("registration") insert ("under this section").—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12 [Restriction on carrying on on weekdays, of retail trade or business otherwise than in shops]:
5.37 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: This Amendment is, in a sense, consequential. It carries through to Clause 12 the Amendment to Clause 11, which we have just been discussing, thereby providing for the sale of sugar, confectionery, tobacco and smokers' requisites, with the additions which my noble friend Lord Derwent suggested to the last Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 38, at end insert (" or in the selling of sweets, chocolates or other sugar confectionery, tobacco or smokers' requisites;")—(Viscount Hailsham.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Clause 12, as I understand it, deals with carrying on on weekdays of retail trade otherwise than in shops. Am I to understand by this Amendment that the ice cream barrow and cycles (if Amendment No. 21 is accepted) can perambulate the streets at any hour of the day or night, that a man can sell sweets away from a sweet shop if he can get a licence so to do? The shop has a licence, so the representative of the shop, I take it, can go out and sell sweets other than from the shop; because the noble Viscount's Amendment to Clause 11 means that if the shop is registered it may sell at any hour. Does it mean that the representative of the shop can sell at any time under Clause 12? If he cannot he will be able to, I take it, by this Amendment of the noble Viscount. Would he mind telling me whether I am right or wrong.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I do not quite follow what the noble Lord is trying to say. Clause 12 is a restriction on the carrying on, on weekdays, of retail trade or business otherwise than in shops. The Amendment I am moving, which is No. 20 in my list, is Clause 12, page 10, line 38, at end to insert the words printed. That is the one we are both on, is it?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Yes.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: The effect of that is that the items mentioned will be excepted from the operation of subsection (1) of the clause which deals with the prohibition on retail trade, otherwise than in shops, at hours which would not be permitted if they were a shop, the trade or business consisting in the selling of articles which include the ones which I am now adding. The effect of that, as I understand it, is that anybody may sell those goods day or night.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Away from the shop.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Anybody to whom the clause applies—that is, a person who carries on a business of selling goods away from the shop—can do so. I think that is correct.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Otherwise than in the shop?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Otherwise than in the shop. I think that is right. But I did not quite agree with what was said about a licence, because, as I pointed out, there is no question of a licence.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I meant registration.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I do not know what is the correct procedure now. I am moving Amendment No. 20, and my noble friend Lord Derwent is to move, as an alternative, his Amendment, No. 21, which I propose to accept.
LORD DERWENT: The other one was put down as "an Amendment to the above Amendment." This is put down as a separate Amendment. Might I suggest that Amendment No. 20 be not agreed to?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I think that if my noble friend moves Amendment No. 21, I do not need my Amendment, because my noble friend includes my sweets in his Amendment. So I will not persist in my Amendment No. 20. I will withdraw it, and perhaps he will move instead Amendment No. 21.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DERWENT: I beg to move Amendment No. 21.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 38, at end insert ("or in the selling of mineral waters and other non-intoxicating drinks; sweets, chocolates and other sugar confectionery; ice cream (with or without edible containers); tobacco and smokers' requisites;").—(Lord Derwent.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.45 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, in subsection (3), after paragraph (a) to insert:
"(b) trade or business consisting in the selling of mechanically propelled vehicles, caravans and trailers;".
The noble Lord said: On the previous stage of this Bill I raised the question, which the noble Viscount kindly said he would look into, of the dilemma and anomaly in which the motor trade will be placed in conforming to this clause. This clause says that one cannot engage in the retail selling of any article away from
354
a retail shop if the provisions of the Bill compel the closing of that shop at a certain hour—either 7 o'clock or, on the late night, 8 o'clock. Therefore one cannot sell a motor vehicle, a trailer or anything like that after 7 o'clock at night, or after the hour which is set down for the closing of a retail shop.
I suggest that in the case of motor vehicles it is absolutely impossible, and it would be wrong to attempt, to enforce that provision. Motor vehicles to-day, except in the heart of the West End of London, are seldom sold on showroom floors. Generally, they are sold outside the house of the prospective customer. What happens is that the salesman leaves the retail shop at 5 o'clock in the afternoon, and at 7 o'clock, when the shop has to close, he is ensconsed in the prospective purchaser's house, busily getting an order for a motor car. What does he do? Does he walk out then to conform with the law? If the noble Viscount thinks he is going to do that, he is not a good judge of human nature. This goes on every day of the year.
First of all, as I say, it is impossible to enforce this provision, and secondly, it is wrong to attempt to enforce it. I do not at all object to the shop itself having to close at 7 or 8 o'clock, as the case may be. The noble Viscount has accepted my argument in a later Amendment, in that the half-day provision does not apply to the selling of motor vehicles. I maintain that it is equally ridiculous to try to stop the ordinary process of trade in this particular case in this way. Taking the rural districts, I suppose I should not be far wrong if I said that 50 to 60 per cent. of those engaged in the selling of motor vehicles in the rural districts are self-employed persons. How can one stop the village garage proprietor after 7 o'clock, when he may not sell motor cars from his establishment, engaging in selling motor cars if his customers want to talk business with him in the evening in their own private houses? I am sure the noble Viscount does not want to stop that. He does not want the law to look foolish by attempting to stop it. The difficulty is that motor car showrooms are rarely retail selling establishments; they are display spaces. A motor car showroom even in the West End of London, is not much different from a kiosk in the hall of an hotel. All the real

355
business in the selling of motor vehicles is done away from the premises. They do not sell commercial vehicles inside a showroom. A commercial vehicle is sold through doing the job that the commercial vehicle has to do—on the route that the man who is going to buy it wants it to travel.
The next dilemma which the noble Viscount will be up against is that of wholesale sales. The wholesale salesman can do all the things I am talking about, because wholesale selling is not covered by the Bill. There is no real definition in this Bill of what is a retail sale, nor is there such a definition in the Act of 1950. In quite 75 per cent. of the establishments—I suppose there are 30,000 in this country—the man who sells retail sells wholesale. If a man leaves the shop or showroom in a motor car to sell wholesale, he is quite at liberty to do so; but if the next day he is engaged on selling retail, he is not at liberty to do so. Would it not be far better to accept my Amendment, so that the law can be reasonably well kept by applying it only to the particular establishment?
May I put this question to the noble Viscount?—this is one reason why I asked him about the previous Amendment which he himself proposed. A man can now sell sweets and chocolates away from the premises. I can have a small motor car fitted up as a sweetstall, and I can sell sweets away from the premises after closing time; and I can sell ice cream. But I cannot sell a motor car, which is far more saleable away from the premises than a bar of chocolate is. That is one anomaly that this Bill creates, and one which it need not create. So I hope that the noble Viscount will accept my Amendment.
If I may say so, with respect, it does not make sense not to accept it, for this provision can never be enforced. One cannot police every salesman in this country to see that he does not engage in selling a motor vehicle, caravan or trailer when the shop or showroom premises from which he operates closes at seven o'clock. Every substantial firm in this country supplies its sales staff with a motor car, and those salesmen are allowed to use those motor cars not only on the firm's business but for their private business. That is an accepted
356
practice, and in the summer months those men sell more motor cars after the showroom from which they operate is closed than they do during the day, for that is the time when people have the leisure to consider their purchase. Those who are engaged in business during the day are happy to discuss the purchase of a motor vehicle in the evening, when they have not to attend to their own business.
How then can we bring in legislation like this to say that that is illegal? To do that would be to stop 60 per cent. or 70 per cent. of the trade of the country, because when one sells a motor car one has to suit the convenience of the buyer; and it is to the convenience of a buyer for himself and his wife to be able calmly to take a run of thirty, forty or fifty miles by way of demonstration. That cannot happen while the wife is busy with her housework or the man is busy with his business. Such runs take place in the evening. I could elaborate this, but there is this anomaly between the wholesale and the retail salesman—that a motor car can be sold to a trader after hours but cannot be sold after hours to the man who lives next door. I should think that that is proof enough that my Amendment is only logical. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 38, at end insert—
("(b) trade or business consisting in the selling of mechanically propelled vehicles, caravans and trailers;").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
5.53 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I must say that this is the kind of Amendment and speech which makes me weary of well-doing. On the earlier committee stage the noble Lord moved an Amendment the purpose of which was to permit the sale of motor cars on early closing day. That is what the noble Lord moved. He got me to draft his Amendment for him, because his would not have done; and in fact I have accepted the principle, and it appears, at a later stage, on the Second Schedule, as an accepted Government Amendment. The noble Lord now proceeds to move this Amendment, full of fresh criticism of the Bill, which would have the effect of allowing the sale of motor cars, caravans and trailers to take place otherwise than in shops at any time, while their sale in shops, including

357
garages, would not be allowed after the general evening closing hours on weekdays or at any time on Sundays. That is the effect of the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord, as a result of my having accepted, I thought kindly, his earlier Amendment—
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The noble and learned Viscount is being less than fair. I raised this issue on the previous stage, and I said that I should raise it again. It is a different issue from the one he has mentioned. The first mutter he mentioned is that the shop itself should keep open on early closing day; this is different. It is not a question of allowing a shop to keep open but of prohibiting a salesman from earning his living at the best time for him to earn it—when other people are not working.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Unfortunately, the noble Lord did not allow me to finish my sentence, and therefore I was not able to complete my argument. I was saying, and I say again, that the Amendment previously moved was to allow the sale of motor cars on early closing days, whether in a garage, a shop or on a golf course. That has been accepted in the phraseology of Her Majesty's Government, and the noble Lord is now proposing an Amendment which would have the effect of permitting the sale of cars, caravans and trailers otherwise than in shops at any time, while sales in shops, including garages, would still not be allowed after the general evening closing hours on weekdays or at any time on Sundays. This would be an absurd anomaly and contrary to the whole principle adopted in the Bill, that any restrictions on sales should apply equally to shops and other places. That is what is now being sought. It may be that casual deals in motor cars do take place on golf courses or over dinner tables, and it is quite arguable that that should be allowed at any time. While it is no part of my business to give advice to the courts, I am advised that such occasional transactions are not to be regarded as carrying on a retail trade, and therefore are not prohibited by Clause 12. Circumstances alter cases, of course, and it may he that a person who habitually did deals on golf courses might he held to be carrying on retail trade—I do not know. But it can be said that in these matters the Bill does not alter the existing
358
law, and there is not the smallest reason to suppose that any more difficulty will be experienced under the Bill than under the Act which is at present in force.
On the last occasion the noble Lord said categorically that he did not want to allow "used car" parks to do business on Sundays. I do not know whether he now wants this and yet does not want garages to be able to sell cars on Sundays, but Her Majesty's Government, at any rate, could not be party to such an unfair and anomalous distinction. Trade on Sundays and after the weekday evening closing hour must either be prohibited generally or be allowed generally. I do not think it has occurred to the noble Lord that trial runs and things of that kind are not necessarily retail business at all. Though I cannot claim the noble Lord's experience of selling motor cars, I can claim a fairly extensive experience of buying them, new and secondhand, since I have owned motor cars since I was seventeen, and I have never yet concluded a transaction after 7 o'clock at night, although I dare say that I have been on a number of trial runs after that hour. It surprises me to know that, in order to do justice to motor car salesmen, it is necessary to create a situation whereby the sale of motor cars can take place outside a shop at any time but can take place inside the shop only during the permitted hours. That seems to me an absurd situation. I must tell the noble Lord frankly that after going to some trouble to satisfy him, as I thought, on a previous occasion, I am a little discouraged to find myself faced with fresh criticism of the Bill and with a fresh series of dilemmas alleged to face me in defending what seems to me to be a perfectly logical position against an absurdly anomalous one.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I can only say that the noble and learned Viscount is easily discouraged, for if he will be just he will recall that I argued the one and then the other. Though I have not Hansard with me, I believe the noble and learned Viscount's words were that there was a case for taking the motor car trade out of this particular clause of the Bill; and with that I sat down, thinking that the noble and learned Viscount was going to frame an Amendment in both respects. He has done it in only one respect. I thought I was

359
plain and clear. The noble Lord gets a note in front of him and answers questions and points which I did not raise. I do not want car parks and parking lots at Chelsea to be open on Sunday, or at any other time. I do not want any motor car sales point opened at any time other than that which is contained in this Bill—that is, up to 7 o'clock on a normal day, 8 o'clock on one day of the week, and not at all on Sunday; but I want the noble and learned Viscount to face the realities of the situation.
There are in this House noble Lords with just as much knowledge of this subject as I have of the fact that the selling of motor cars in this country is largely done at places away from the point at which the establishment is sited; and the salesman makes his sales at hours when other people have finished their work. That is all right if he engages in wholesale business, but he is not allowed to do it if he is in retail business. I say that that is an absurd anomaly. The noble Viscount then says he is advised that nothing will be altered by this Bill that is the practice to-day. I am advised that to-day it is technically illegal to engage in retail business—that is, selling an article to a private purchaser—away from premises after the statutory closing hour. All that sort of thing that goes on to-day is illegal.
Lord Mancroft, on the Second Reading of the Bill, characterised the 1950 Act as a "farrago of nonsense". I am trying my best to see that this Bill is a bit better. If the practice to which I have referred was illegal under the 1950 Act, there is nothing in this Bill to make it legal. I am trying to make it so. I am only trying to help the noble Viscount, because I can assure him that the law will not be enforced in the future any more than it has been enforced in the past. Does he want his Bill to read sense in this regard, or does he not? If the assurance which he has just read out from his advisers, that nothing will happen in the future that has not happened in the past, may be taken as a Government pronouncement, all right. That will be a defence against any prosecution in the future, I suppose.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: The noble Lord will be wrong.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: It will be wrong! That is why I am trying to put this right. It is no good the noble Viscount accusing me of doing this, that and the other. I understood that the noble Viscount's assurance on the previous Committee stage was that he would clear up these two points—one, that it was against the public interest for motor car showrooms to close on early closing days, because the staff would simply move; and, two, that it was illegal at the present time to sell motor cars away from the seller's premises outside statutory hours. All I am asking the noble Viscount is: will he exempt this trade? He has exempted chocolate and ice-cream. Here is something which it is also desirable to exempt. If the noble Viscount does not want to do it, all right. His Bill can be a farce in this respect, as the law has been since 1950. If he is content with that, then I also am content. But I did not think that he would be content.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 13 to 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 [Offences under Part I]:
6.5 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 23, leave out from ("Act") to ("the") in line 24.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: This Amendment also is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 33, leave out ("or such a requirement as aforesaid").—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I beg to move the next Amendment, which is also consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 43, leave out ("of any kind").—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD GRANTCHESTER LORD GRANTCHESTER moved, in subsection (1) (b) to leave out "female".
The noble Lord said: May I speak on this Amendment and No. 27A together—

361
they are really part of the same matter? After the argument which we have had on Clause 12, I think the noble Viscount will understand why I did not praise the liberalisation he mentioned under certain clauses of this Bill. They are not general concessions at all, but particular concessions. Sweets, ice cream and confectionery have been exempted. Lord Lucas of Chilworth is indignant because he cannot get motor cars, caravans and trailers excluded. All his arguments on the previous Amendment would apply, I think, to pictures or hats, or almost anything else. The Amendment which I am now moving is put forward at the instigation of the Federation of Hairdressers who paint a gloomy picture of having to put on the street, with their hair still wet, a number of ladies who were in the shop and who had their permanent waves started before the closing hour. Being allowed only one hour to finish, when the process takes three hours, the hairdressers are afraid that there will be a good deal of trouble from the ladies who have to be put into the street with waves unfinished and their hair wet. Perhaps the concession for which I am asking is one of the particular concessions which the noble Viscount might accept, since he is confining himself to concessions in particular cases. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 43, leave out ("female").—(Lord Grantchester.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I am bound to say that to my advisers both the noble Lord's Amendments were something of an enigma; therefore I am not altogether prepared to give a final ruling on the principle underlying them, though I am bound to tell the noble Lord that they cannot be accepted in their present form. The first Amendment would omit the word "female"—
LORD GRANTCHESTER: Perhaps I may explain. I assumed that male customers came under paragraph (a) and were allowed half an hour in which their hair-cut or shave could be finished. The hairdresser might be able to finish one in process of being served, but there might be two or three people waiting; and in such a case half an hour would be too short a time. In the ladies' department it would be worse: if a permanent wave had not long been started, it could not be finished within an hour.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I still do not understand the purpose of this Amendment. It is true that in the case of a male customer a barber at these shops is allowed half an hour's grace. I am not sure that an hour is much better to do the longer job to which the noble Lord refers.
LORD GRANTCHESTER: I wanted the time limit cut out altogether.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Doing the "short back and sides" business may not be a long process, but I am wondering how much longer the barber's assistant would be made to wait as a result of the noble Lord's Amendment. I do not see the purpose of omitting the word "female". Women's hair does take longer than men's hair to deal with. That is the purpose of the distinction in this matter. The second Amendment—which is at Page 12, line 2 to leave out from "kind" to the end of line 4, we cannot make head nor tail of.
LORD GRANTCHESTER: It should be line 3—not line 4.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: The only effect, as we see it, is to leave out the substantive clause containing the main verb of the sentence, and the effect would be meaningless. Neither I nor my advisers could understand the purpose of the second Amendment.
LORD GRANTCHESTER: The intention was to enable a hairdressing establishment to finish off customers who were in the shop at the prescribed closing hour. That is to say, if two or three people were waiting the hairdresser could deal with those customers and would not be restricted to half an hour, in the case of men, and to one hour, in the case of women.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I still do not understand how that is achieved by leaving out the main verb, but I was going to say that as the real purpose of the Amendment has now been elucidated by means of question and answer, I shall take an opportunity of consulting the experts with whom I have been dealing on this matter, and perhaps the noble Lord would not press his Amendment now. Obviously it will not do, and I will consider the matter before Report stage and see what we can make of it.
LORD GRANTCHESTER: May I send the noble Viscount the memorandum which I have received from the National Hairdressers' Federation? I think that he will be able to make an adjustment which will satisfy the purpose of my Amendment.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: At any rate, it will be considered, as I have tried to consider everything put forward. I am only sorry that the form in which this Amendment was cast did not enable me to consider it before.
LORD GRANTCHESTER: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 46, leave out ("or such a requirement as aforesaid").—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I beg to move the next Amendment, which is again consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 1, leave out ("for the purpose of effecting transactions of that kind").—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 17 [Extent of Part II]:
On Question, Whether Clause 17 shall stand part of the Bill:
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: On the previous Committee stage, after debate, we withdrew the Amendment to leave out this clause, and I have not put it down again, but I do not want the noble Viscount to be under any misapprehension about what is in my mind concerning it. I am hoping that the deletion of the clause will be moved in another place, when the Bill gets there. I do not want to make another speech on it to-night. Our objection remains.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I do not think that I am under any illusion as to what may happen in another place.
On Question, Clause 17 agreed to.
Clause 18:
Sunday closing of shops
18.—(1) Subject to the following provisions of this Act and to the provisions of any order relating to Sunday trading in London which is continued in force under this part of this Act, every shop shall be closed on Sunday:
Provided that—

(a) a shop may, on Sunday, be open until seven o'clock in the evening, or such earlier time (not being earlier than six o'clock in the evening) as may be fixed by order of the local authority within whose area it is situate, for the sale of goods of any kind specified in the Third Schedule to this Act;

(b) a shop which is registered under section eleven of this Act may, on Sunday, be open at any time for the sale, for consumption elsewhere than in the shop, of articles of food or drink specified or described by regulations having effect by virtue of that section.

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM VISCOUNT HAILSHAM moved to leave out from "evening" to end of line 34. The noble Viscount said: The purpose of this Amendment and Amendment No. 30 is to bring the Sunday closing hour provisions into line with Clause 1, as altered by the Amendments which we discussed earlier—that is to say, the local option is removed. The noble Viscount opposite made an effective attack on this change in Clause 1, which was overcome after a struggle. I am not sure that any purpose is served by renewing the battle on this Amendment, because probably the noble Viscount would agree that the same sort of argument would apply to both and that it would not be desirable to draw a distinction between the two sets of provisions. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 32, leave out from "evening" to end of line 34.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I ant sure of this: that no good purpose will be served by debating this question at length. But I am also sure that people attached to churches and who support the Lord's Day Observance Society will certainly not be in favour of this series of Amendments to Clause 18 which extend greatly the special licence for Sunday trading. I do not want it to be understood that I have removed my objection to it at all. I object now on another basis. I object to the removal of this matter from the ambit of the local

365
authority, and I object on the basis that it will be a further extension of shops hours on Sunday.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I must say that that is simply not the case. The effect of this provision, unless I am mistaken, is not to extend hours. What it does is to reduce hours, but to remove from the local authority the power of reducing them still further. That is the effect of the general legislation, and this clause simply puts into effect in relation to Sunday what we have already decided in relation to other provisions.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I do not know whether the convenient course would be for my noble friend Lord Derwent, who has an Amendment on the Order Paper amending the one I am about to move, to move his first, but, if I may, I would explain shortly the purpose of my Amendment as amended by that of my noble friend. The purpose is to carry through to Sundays the Government's previous Amendments making provision for the sale of tobacco and confectionery after the general evening closing hour. I understand the position of the noble Viscount opposite, which he has made plain in relation to Amendment No. 28. I do not wish in any way to prejudice the position, but I should have thought that it was consequential, in a substantial sense, on what we have already done. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 38, leave out from ("time") to end of line 41 and insert—

("(i) for the sale, for consumption elsewhere than in the shop, of articles of food or drink specified or described by regulations having effect by virtue of that section;

(ii) for the sale of sweets, chocolates or other sugar confectionery, tobacco or smokers' requisites.")—(Viscount Hailsham.)

LORD DERWENT: I beg to move the Amendment to the Amendment.
Amendment to the Amendment moved—
Leave out paragraph (ii) and insert—
("(ii) the sale of mineral waters or other non-intoxicating drinks, sweets, chocolates or other sugar confectionery, ice cream (with or without edible containers), tobacco or smokers' requisites."—(Lord Derwent.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I accept my noble friend's Amendment.
On Question, Amendment to the Amendment, agreed to.
Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: This Amendment deals with the same point as that raised on No. 28. We are bringing the Sunday closing hour provisions into line with the Amendments made to Clause 1. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 42, leave out subsection (2).—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 19 [Exception for sale of food on Sundays at registered food shops]:
LORD DERWENT LORD DERWENT moved to leave out Clause 19. The noble Lord said: On the earlier Committee stage, I moved an Amendment to this clause providing that the closing time should be 12 noon rather than 10 a.m., as in the Bill as drafted. If the Bill had not been recommitted and the alterations had not been made in Clauses 18 and 20, I should have put down the same Amendment on Report stage and pressed it to a Division; but in view of the new Amendments to Clauses 18 and 20, I believe that the proper way of dealing with this matter now is to delete the whole of Clause 19. Clause 19, as drafted, is completely valueless. It re-enacts in principle Section 48 of the Shops Act, 1950, which in turn reinstated part of the Shops (Sunday Trading Restriction) Act, 1936.
When I say that this clause is useless, I mean that it has hardly been made use of at all, although the powers granted by it were in force before. Recently, the officers responsible for the administration of the Shops Act in 158 local authorities, who comprised county councils, county boroughs, non-county boroughs and large urban districts, including most of the big cities and holiday resorts, were circularised with a series of questions. The majority of them replied to the circular. The first question they were asked was whether their own local authority had made an order under Section 48 of the Shops Act: in other words, had they made an order enabling those shops to be open until 10 a.m. on Sunday. In 117 cases the answer was "No"; there

367
were only 15 cases of authorities who had made use of their powers, and of that number 9 were in holiday resorts, which are dealt with separately in this Bill. So that up till now these powers have hardly been used. Then they were asked whether, if Clause 19 were to remain, 10 a.m. was a realistic hour, in the present circumstances. Only 5 said "Yes." It has long been realised that to ask people in modern times to shop before 10 a.m. means nothing at all. These officers were asked to what hour the opening should be extended if not 10 a.m. A few said 11 a.m. and a few said 7 p.m., but the vast majority said that, to be of any use, this clause must provide for a closing hour of 11 a.m. or 12 noon.
There remain, therefore, two alternatives: either to amend the hour in this clause to 11 a.m. or 12 noon, or to do away with the clause altogether. Which is the better course to take? Under this Bill holiday centres—not only holiday resorts, as generally understood—are covered by the special provisions contained in Clause 20. This Bill will now leave shops free to be open for the sale of food, to be defined by the Minister under Regulation 18; they will also be free to sell articles enumerated in the Second and Third Schedules. So that the majority of things it is necessary to sell on Sundays are already covered. What remains is the list that the Minister is going to make of what is going to be allowed to be sold. I should like to ask the noble Viscount whether the list is going to be long and comprehensive and contain a wide variety of foodstuffs; or will it be short? If it is going to be long and will cover a wide variety of goods, then there would seem to be no objection to the shop staying open until 12 noon, as I suggest, because most of the things it sells will be saleable until 7 p.m. If the list is going to be short, then 10 a.m. is useless. Nowadays, people are not going to shop before 10 a.m. and you might just as well do away with the whole clause.
If the noble Viscount accepts this Amendment, well and good. But if he refuses to accept it, and if the list is a long one, then on the Report stage I will revert to my original Amendment and move that the closing hour shall be 12 noon. At the moment, on balance, I feel that the clause is of no value—these
368
powers have hardly ever been used—and it may lead to certain difficulties again when a few things are saleable up to 10 a.m. and not afterwards. One does not know what the list will be, but, on balance, I think it is better to do without Clause 19. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 19.—(Lord Derwent.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I am inclined to think that my noble friend is right, although I would ask him not to press the Amendment at this stage, on the understanding that my right honourable friend's present inclination is to do as he suggests. He would like further time to consider whether any consequential Amendments are desirable. In principle, therefore, I accept the Amendment.
LORD DERWENT: I thank the noble Viscount. I think there will be one or two consequential Amendments, and on that undertaking, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, will want to move further Amendments consequential upon the withdrawal of this Amendment.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: No. There is still a Report stage to come, and my right honourable friend would like to consider what the consequences of having accepted this Amendment in principle will be. Therefore this Amendment is not pressed by my noble friend Lord Derwent, and the Bill remains as it was, but I have given an undertaking that the principle embodied in the Amendment will be accepted.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I am not anxious about the stage which has been reached; I am prepared to wait and see what the noble Viscount does if it can be debated on the Report stage. However, I was hoping that we should avoid a Report stage on this Bill, and I was willing to assist in avoiding it. It seems to me that, in spite of what the noble Viscount says, we are gradually extending the different powers for Sunday trading, and a great many people in this country object to it. It is no answer for the noble Viscount to say that he is not allowing an extension of the hours of Sunday trading. The more

369
I see the way the debate is going, the more I think there is pressure being exerted to extend Sunday trading.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: The Amendment that I have accepted in principle is to remove a concession on Sunday trading. I do not know why that should cause the noble Viscount any anxiety.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: It is only because of the two concessions that have already been made to the noble Lord.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clause 20:
Power of local authority, in sea-fishing centres and holiday resorts, to extend certain Sunday opening hours and to permit Sunday opening for transactions specified in Fourth Schedule
20.—(1) A local authority whose area—

(a) includes a harbour used for the purposes of the sea-fishing industry, being a harbour whose use for those purposes is substantially greater during some seasons of the year than during others; or

(b) consists of, or includes, a place frequented (whether at all times or during certain seasons of the year) by tourists or holiday-makers;

may by order direct that, as respects shops situate within their area or such part thereof as may be specified in the order, being shops registered by the authority under the last foregoing section, subsection (1) of that section shall, as respects such Sundays as may be so specified, have effect with the substitution, for the reference to ten o'clock in the morning, of a reference to such hour later than ten o'clock in the morning but not later than eight o'clock in the evening as may be so specified.
6.28 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM VISCOUNT HAILSHAM moved, in subsection (1), to leave out all words after "direct that", and to insert instead:
". notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this Part of this Act, shops situate within the area of the authority or within such part thereof as may be specified in the order may, on such Sundays as may be so specified, he open at any time for the sale of food (other than raw meat or raw poultry)."
The noble and learned Viscount said: It may be convenient to take the rather complicated drafting of Amendments Nos. 32, 33, 34, 35 and 36, together for the purpose of discussion. These Amendments serve two purposes. The first is to make subsection (1) of Clause 20 independent of Clause 19. As the Bill stands, on certain Sundays in the year the local authority can make an order
370
allowing the sale of food in a holiday resort or sea-fishing centre until 8 p.m. only if they first make an order under Clause 19 (7). It has been suggested that this is undesirable. The local authority may find that there is a need for food shops to stay open on Sundays during the holiday season, but no justification for their opening at all on the remaining Sundays of the year. The Amendments cater for this possibility, and I hope that this will give some satisfaction to the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough.
The second purpose of the Amendments is to bring the Sunday provisions into line with Clause 4 as altered by the new Government Amendments to that clause. In other words, under these Amendments to Clause 20 the local authority in a holiday resort will be able to dispense with the closing hours during the season for shops which are already allowed to be open on Sundays for the sale of goods in the Third Schedule, and also to allow food shops and shops selling the goods in the Fourth Schedule to keep open without limit of time. This, like the Amendment to Clause 4, takes account of the views expressed by several noble Lords on the previous Committee stage. Under the present Act, on Sundays as on week-days, local authorities have power to fix as late an hour for these shops as they think fit. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 19, leave out from (" that ") to end of line 26, and insert the said new words.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: It is useless to prolong the debate. This just pinpoints what I was saying earlier in the discussion to-day: you take away from the local authority the option of fixing shorter hours if the majority of the traders want it, and here you enlarge the powers of the local authorities in these particular places to extend the amount of Sunday trading which may be done. There you are using local option for the reactionary aim. You have taken away the local option where it could have had a progressive and improving aim. I am very much against it, but it is no good arguing.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: The first two purposes have again as their object the limitation of Sunday trading, and not the extension of it.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: What about the others?
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 31, leave out from ("Act") to ("for") in line 36 and insert ("shops situate within the area of the authority or within such part thereof as may be specified in the order may, on such Sundays as may be so specified, be open at any time").—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 41, leave out from ("that") to ("for") in line 44 and insert (", notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this Part of this Act, shops so situate may, on such Sundays as may be so specified, be open at any time").—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 1, leave out from ("order") to end of line 7.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 10, at end insert—
("(4) In subsection (1) of this section the expression "food" has the meaning assigned to it by subsection (9) of the last foregoing section and, so far as regards a shop registered under that section which is situate in an area to which an order under the said subsection (1) applies on a Sunday, the provisions of the order shall, in respect of that Sunday, have effect in lieu of the provisions of subsection (1) of that section.")—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 21 [Restriction on carrying on, on Sunday, of retail trade or business otherwise than in shops]:
LORD STRATHCLYDE: It might be for the convenience of your Lordships if we took Amendments Nos. 37, 38 and 39 together. These Amendments are consequential upon the Government's previous Amendments, and they make the same provision for persons trading from vans as the Government's Amendments to
372
Clauses 18 and 20 do for shops. I do not propose to move Amendment No. 39 if my noble friend is going to move his Amendment No. 40. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 26, after ("Act") insert ("or subsection (1) of the last foregoing section").—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 40, leave out from ("shop") to ("and") in line 42.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD JESSEL: In the temporary absence of my noble friend Lord Derwent from the Chamber, he has asked me to move this Amendment. It embodies the same principle which has already been accepted twice by Her Majesty's Government. It adds non-intoxicating drinks and ice-cream to what the Government have already proposed. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 47, at the end insert ("or in the selling of mineral waters or other non-intoxicating drinks, sweets, chocolates or other sugar confectionery, ice cream (with or without edible containers), tobacco or smokers' requisites.")—(Lord Jessel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 22 and 23 agreed to.
Clause 24 [Offences under Part II]:
LORD STRATHCLYDE: This is a purely drafting Amendment, consequential upon the Government's Amendments to Clause 20. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 1, leave out from ("effecting") to ("is") in line 5 and insert ("with a customer a transaction of a kind for whose effecting the shop may be open on that Sunday for a limited period only (being a customer who is in the shop immediately before the end of that period), the shop").—(Lord Strachclyde.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 25 agreed to.
Clause 26:
Special provisions with respect to shops occupied by persons of the Jewish religion or others who observe the Jewish Sabbath
(12) Where an application is made to a local authority in accordance with the provisions of

373
this section for the registration under this section of a shop, the authority may refuse to register the shop if its registration under this section or the registration there-under of any other shop (whether situate within or outside the area of the authority) has previously been revoked or cancelled at a time when its occupier was the applicant or a partnership or company any of whose partners or directors was the applicant or (where the applicant is a partnership or company) a partner or director thereof.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: This Amendment would extend the grounds on which the local authority can refuse to register a Jewish shop under Clause 26. As subsection (12) stands, they can refuse only if registration under the Bill has previously been revoked or cancelled. It has been represented that local authorities would be put to the trouble of referring applications to the tribunal even, for example, when they knew that the tribunal, in a case referred to it under the 1950 Act, had previously found the applicant not to be a genuine Jew. The Amendment has the effect of empowering the local authority to refuse registration in such cases. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 14, at end insert ("or if it was registered under section fifty-three of the Shops Act, 1950, or the corresponding provision of the enactments repealed by that Act but is, at the commencement of this Act, neither registered under that section nor required Ito be taken to be so registered").—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SWAYTHLING LORD SWAYTHLING moved to add to the clause:
"(16) This section shall not apply to persons carrying on or purporting to carry on the business of retail dealers in Kosher meat or Kosher poultry."
The noble Lord said: I think I can explain to your Lordships in a few words why I wish to move this Amendment. This clause provides for Jewish traders generally who observe the Jewish Sabbath. Jewish Kosher butchers are, however, specially provided for under Clause 29. Such special provision would be superfluous if it were the intention to make the provisions of Clause 26 apply to Jews holding themselves out as Kosher butchers. As the Bill stands, Clause 26 provides a butcher who fails to comply with Clause 29 with a loophole, since there is nothing to prevent a Kosher
374
butcher who loses his licence from taking advantage of Clause 26 as it now stands. It is desired to remove any doubts in this respect, and the proposed Amendment would effect this. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 37, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Swaythling.)
LORD STRATHCLYDE: I have to explain that under Clause 26, as it stands, the local authority need have no regard whatsoever to the kind of trade carried on when registering shops under the clause. Under the Amendment, the local authority, before registering any shop, would have to make sure that it was not intended to sell Kosher meat or what was purported to be Kosher meat. A person registered under Clause 26 can sell ordinary butcher's meat on Sundays, and it would be impossible for a local authority to determine, before registering the shop, whether it was intended to sell the meat as Kosher meat. Moreover, the Amendment would have the effect of preventing shops which sold Kosher meat under the provisions of Clause 29 from getting registered under Clause 26 for the purpose of selling other things as well. The Amendment would, therefore, have substantial disadvantages, and I cannot recommend the Committee to accept it.
LORD SWAYTHLING: In view of what the noble Lord has said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 26, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 27 to 30 agreed to.
Clause 31 [Provisions to have effect in lieu of s. 12 in case of persons registered under Part III]
LORD STRATHCLYDE: It may be for the convenience of the Committee to take Amendments Nos. 44, 45, 46 and 47 together. I would not propose to move Amendment No. 47 if my noble friend Lord Derwent is going to move the Amendment which he has already had inserted on a number of earlier occasions. The first three Amendments, Nos. 44, 45 and 46, are purely drafting. The last is consequential on the Government's previous Amendment. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 44, 45 and 46.
Amendments moved—
Page 27, line 40, after ("on") insert ("within the area of a local authority").
Page 27, line 41, leave out ("a local") and insert ("that").
Page 27, line 44, leave out ("such a person") and insert ("him within the area of that authority").—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD DERWENT: I beg to move Amendment No. 48.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 32, at end insert ("or in the selling of mineral waters or other non-intoxicating drinks, sweets, chocolates or other sugar confectionery, ice cream (with or without edible containers), tobacco or smokers' requisites.")—(Lord Derwent.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 32 to 34 agreed to.
Clause 35 [Offences under Part III]:
LORD STRATHCLYDE: Amendment No. 49 is a drafting Amendment designed to correct an oversight. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 43, leave out ("(1)") and insert ("(2) or (3)").—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
6.41 p.m.
LORD SWAYTHLING: The Shops Act, 1950, defined clearly the penal results of a Jewish butcher opening on Sunday in contravention of the Act. Sections 61 to 63 of that Act laid down the requirements as to holding a Kosher butcher's licence. Section 64 said that any person contravening any of those three sections was liable to a penalty. In this Bill there is no such clear provision. It might be said that if the conditions of Clause 29 were not complied with the shop would be open in contravention of Part II of the Bill, and the occupier would be guilty of an offence under Clause 24. But Clause 24 is in Part II and is headed "Offences under Part II." Clause 24, moreover, states that it is an offence under Part II to keep open. The question might well be asked: if Clause 24 is sufficient to cover offences under Part III, as well as under Part II, why do Clauses 26, 27 and 28 in Part III each specifically refer to
"an offence consisting in a contravention of the foregoing provisions of this section"?
Why is Clause 35, which sets out offences under Part III, necessary? In each Part
376
of this Bill there is a clause referring to offences in that Part. Furthermore, my legal friends tell me that it is apprehended that a defendant might put forward as a defence the principle expressio unius exclusio alterius. The addition now proposed is designed to remove such doubt and the possibility of putting forward such a plea. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 6, after ("thereof") insert ("or any of the provisions of section twenty-nine thereof").—(Lord Swaythling.)
LORD STRATHCLYDE: I am advised that this Amendment is unnecessary, for the very reason given by the noble Lord in moving it—that is, that if the conditions in Clause 29 are not complied with, the shop will be open in contravention of Part II of the Bill, in which there is a general prohibition on Sunday trading, and the occupier would therefore be guilty of an offence under Clause 24. That is the reason for my being unable to recommend the Committee to accept the Amendment. It is unnecessary. The point is already covered.
LORD SWAYTHLING: I cannot understand, therefore, why Clause 35 is necessary at all. If the offences under Part III are covered by Clause 24, it seems to me unnecessary that Clause 35 should exist.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: I was really dealing with the Amendment moved by the noble Lord. I was not dealing with offences under Part III of the Bill.
LORD SWAYTHLING: I am sorry. The reason I suggest that this should be included in Clause 35 is because Clause 29 itself is in Part III. It seems to me only logical that it should therefore appear under Clause 35.
LORD SILKIN: I do not pretend to understand this legal argument. I do not know whether the noble Lord who is refusing the Amendment understands it either. It is very complicated. I would only suggest, respectfully, that if there is no issue of principle involved, as is the case so far as I know, it would be worth looking at more carefully. The noble Lord who has moved the Amendment has obviously been advised by high legal authority. I think it is just worth while having another look at the matter, to see

377
whether there is not something in the point that the noble Lord has made. We can return to it at a later stage.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I have listened to all that has been said, and I am sure that what has been said will cause another look to be taken at it. Without expressing, on a very complicated matter of this kind, a conclusive opinion, I would say that it is Clause 29 which the noble Lord seeks to introduce into this Bill by his Amendment. All my noble friend said was that he was advised that a person who contravened Clause 29 would be guilty of an offence under Clause 24. Clause 35, which is the substantial clause under consideration and to which the Amendment is proposed, deals with a contravention of Clauses 26 and 27, which are more complicated and raise quite different issues from the general Sunday trading prohibition under Clause 24. At first blush, I do not see any of the difficulties which the noble Lord envisages. In view of what has been said, I am sure that my noble friend will cause the legal draftsmanship of this to be looked into again. The last thing we want is to have any anomalies of this kind. I am grateful to the noble Lord for having raised the doubts which were in his mind.
LORD SWAYTHLING: In view of what the noble Viscount has said, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 35, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 36 agreed to.
Clause 37 [Weekly half-holidays]:
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM VISCOUNT HAILSHAM moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "the following subsection" and insert "this section". The noble Viscount said: It would be convenient if this Amendment and Amendment No. 53, but not Amendment No. 52, were considered together for the purposes of the discussion. The first of the Amendments simply paves the way for the second. Amendment No. 53 is necessitated by the new form of Clause 7. As it stands, Clause 37 (2) enables a shopkeeper to postpone for up to four weeks his assistants' half-holidays in two out of the three weeks of Christmastide, provided that he allows them two out of the three Christmas and New Year holidays. This provision helps him to take full advantage of the provision in Clause 7
378
(as it was drafted in the Bill, but not as it now stands) allowing him to dispense with two early closing days during the three weeks of Christmastide. Since it is now proposed, as a result of our Amendments, that the new Clause 7 should allow the shopkeeper to dispense with early closing days in the three weeks of Christmastide, it is necessary to make provision for the postponement of assistants' half-holiday during that period. Similar provision has to be made for postponement of the assistants' half-holidays during Holy Week and the other weeks in which, under the new Clause 7, early closing days may be dispensed with. Apart from Christmastide, however, it seems sufficient to allow postponement for not more than two weeks. A longer period would add to the difficulties of enforcement.
During the previous Committee stage my noble friend Lord Coleraine moved Amendments to enable shopkeepers to give their assistants compensatory half-holidays before Christmas and Easter as an alternative to postponing the half-holidays. This would provide more flexibility for employers, without depriving assistants of their total entitlement to holidays. Indeed, it might well have the effect of inducing employers to give assistants a shopping holiday before Christmas, when it would be most valuable. My right honourable friend has accordingly decided to adopt Lord Coleraine's proposal, and this is provided for in the Amendments I am now moving. It should be noted that, although under these Amendments a shop assistant may lose his half-holiday in the specified weeks, he not only gets a compensatory holiday in another week within a limited period but is also guaranteed holidays on public holidays. I therefore hope that these Amendments may commend themselves to the Committee. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 43, leave out ("the following subsection") and insert ("this section").—(Viscount Hailsham.)
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: As the noble Viscount suggested that we discuss Amendments Nos. 51 and 53 together, I shall take advantage of his proposal to make one or two comments on No. 53. I think it is going to be difficult for me to avoid No. 52, so perhaps he will forgive me if I bring in No. 52 as well. The

379
suggestion I want to make is that it seems, on the face of it, that the drafting of Amendment No. 53 is not completely satisfactory, although the noble and learned Viscount may be able to explain it in a satisfactory way. It looks as though there has been an omission in relation to the notification of the compensatory whole-holidays or half-holidays in the proposed new subsection (2).
The noble and learned Viscount will remember that on the Committee stage we had a long discussion of the method of notification, which is usually by putting up a notice in the shop giving the time and day of the holiday. He thought, and I agreed, that it would be better done by regulations under the Bill, rather than in the terms of the Bill. That is what the noble and learned Viscount proposed to do in relation to ordinary weekly half-holidays, under subsection (1) of Clause 37. Subsection (1), with the Amendment that he is proposing, No. 52, would read as follows—I will not read the first few words which are not relevant:
"…the occupier of a shop shall allow in each week to every shop assistant employed to work about the business of that shop a half-holiday on a business day which shall he notified "—
and here I take in the words of the Amendment—
"at the prescribed time and in the prescribed form and manner."
That is to say, the Minister will have power to make regulations under Clause 54 for the notification of the half-holiday in the appropriate way. But the Minister is not taking any such power in regard to notification of the compensatory holidays provided for under the new subsection (2) of this clause. That is how I read it, and I very much hope the noble and learned Viscount will look at it carefully to see whether there has been an omission to provide for notification, because it is extremely important, and especially in the case of these rather unusual holidays and half-holidays, from the point of view of the local authorities who have to enforce the provisions of the Bill.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I am bound to say that this point has taken me, to some extent, unprepared. I had myself considered that the position was that under the main subsection, which is subsection (1), the half-holiday would have
380
to be notified in the prescribed form and manner. Subsection (2) was limited to the compensatory half-holidays, and I had not thought that they were subject to any special prescription. I thought that what had happened was that during the whole of the year, except the holiday period, the half-holidays must be notified in the prescribed form, time and manner, but that it was a defence in regard to failure to perform that duty in respect of the holiday period if the shopkeeper could say he had, in fact, allowed the compensation. That was how I looked at it. I have to some extent not been apprised of this point, and it may therefore be that I am mistaken; but if I am mistaken, and if there is anything that ought to be added, in view of what I have said, I will undertake to communicate with the noble Earl.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: May I ask the noble and learned Viscount whether it is his intention that these compensatory half-holidays should be notifiable? That is the essential point. I think I can assure him that from the point of view of the local authorities it is important that they should know whether or not the employees are getting their compensatory holidays. It will be impossible for them to inspect the shops to see whether they are getting these half-holidays unless there is a notice when the half-holidays will take place.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I had not thought that that was the case. As I had read it, it was not done, and it was intentionally not done. If I should turn out to be mistaken, I, not having taken special advice about this matter, will undertake to communicate with the noble Earl. I had thought the position was that the shopkeepers were being given a concession which was generally suggested, and it was not made a condition of that concession that a separate notification should be made to the local authority as to the form in which the concession should be used. It is, of course, true that the result of that would be that the local authority would not have in respect of every shop a vast mass of notifications about Christmas time, but I should have thought that that was as much to the advantage of the local authority as of the shopkeeper; and it would not seriously

381
impede enforcement because enforcement depends upon complaint. Whereas complaint over the general period of the year would depend upon a regular day being granted and notified in the proper way, the whole point of this concession is that for the particular period of the year, namely Christmastide, the concession is adopted by giving the assistant the half-holiday at no previously determined or specified time, provided he is told and is able to avail himself of it. If I am wrong about it, I will undertake to communicate with the noble Earl. The point is not specifically dealt with in the advice I have received. I am really giving what is my first opinion.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am entirely satisfied and indeed grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for his undertaking, and I regret I could not give him prior information. Clearly, it is not a thing he could reply to in a final way without having the advantage of advice. If he will be good enough to look into it, that is all I am asking, and I shall await his reply between now and the Report stage of the Bill.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: This matter has already been discussed in relation to the other Amendment, but as I did not discuss it myself perhaps I should deal with it briefly. It is intended that regulations should be made for the purpose of Clause 37 (1) prescribing the form and manner in which assistants should be notified of the day of their weekly half-holiday. Such regulations have long been in force under the present law. The purpose of this Amendment is to give specific power to require the notification to be given by, say, the Saturday before the week in which the holiday falls. This power exists under the present law. The purpose of requiring advance notification is, of course, to ensure that the assistants are not given their holidays at such short notice that they are unable to make the best use of them. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 2, after ("notified") insert ("at the prescribed time and").—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I have already dealt with this subject. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 3, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
("(2) The occupier of a shop may, in the case of a shop assistant employed to work about the business of that shop, dispense with compliance with the foregoing subsection as respects the three weeks of Christmastide, or any of them, provided that he allows that assistant, for each week as respects which such compliance is dispensed with,—

(a) a whole holiday on one of the Christmas and new year holidays; and

(b) a half-holiday on a business day during the four weeks next preceding or succeeding that week.

(3) The occupier of a shop may, in the case of a shop assistant employed to work about the business of that shop, dispense with compliance with subsection (1) of this section as respects Holy week, provided that he allows that assistant a whole holiday on Good Friday and a half-holiday on a business day during the two next preceding or succeeding weeks.
(4) The occupier of a shop may, in the case of a shop assistant employed to work about the business of that shop, dispense with compliance with subsection (1) of that section as respects—

(a) the week next before Whit week;

(b) the week next before that in which falls the first Monday in August;

provided that he allows that assistant a whole holiday on the Monday next following and a half-holiday on a business clay during the two next preceding or succeeding weeks.
(5) A half-holiday which a shop assistant is, by virtue of subsection (2), (3) or (4) of this section, entitled to be allowed in any period shall be in addition to the half-holidays which he is, by virtue of subsection (1) of this section, entitled to be allowed in that period.").—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 37, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 38 [Intervals for meals and rest]:
7.3 p.m.
LORD DERWENT LORD DERWENT moved to add to subsection (2):
"Provided that this subsection shall apply only to such an assistant in respect of any week in which he is employed about the business of a shop for more than twenty-five hours."
The noble Lord said: In the earlier Committee stage I tried to deal with one or two anomalies in respect of part-time workers. In perhaps a rather clumsy way, I sought to alter the definition of "shop assistant" and to put part-time workers back into the Bill. On this occasion in two places I have sought by Amendment to deal with part-time

383
workers. The definition of a part-time worker is as in the Shops Act, 1934, for young persons—those who work twenty-five hours a week or less. As that definition has been accepted up to now, it would seem to be a suitable one in this Bill. These part-time workers are covered in Clause 38 (1)—I am not suggesting that they should be treated differently from anyone else.
The noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, raised the question before of what would happen if these people did most of their work during the week on a couple of days, working about ten hours each day. Of course, they have to be protected against that, and I have not sought to amend subsection (1). But with regard to subsection (2) there is, if I may so term it, a little bit of nonsense. Many part-time workers come to work in the middle of the day only. I referred last time to a large body of part-time workers who come to the City at about 11.30 a.m. and serve lunches, and who go away at about 2.30 or 3 o'clock. They do about twenty hours' work a week, or perhaps not quite so much, and they work at no other time in the City. According to subsection (2) as drafted, not only must these people have time off for lunch—of course, the only time they are working is during lunch time—but they must have it during the lunch hour and at no other time. If that is the effect, there is no point in their going down to the City at all.
This happens all over the country. When I said "the City", I meant that it is particularly prevalent there at lunch hours as regards restaurants, but it happens also in shops. A large number of married women, part-time workers, take over their temporary jobs in the middle of the day while the other permanent work people go off to their luncheons. It seems absurd that during the short hours these part-time workers are working each day they should have time off for lunch when they are not working the rest of the day. The effect of the Amendment is that it will not be compulsory to give these temporary workers, who work twenty-five hours a week or less, unless they work more than five hours in any one day, time for meals and rest. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, line 12, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Derwent.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: The Government cannot accept this Amendment. As regards the first of the two complaints of my noble friend, I would say that the case of the person who is employed to serve lunches and nothing else, if he serves in a catering establishment which produces food for consumption on the premises, is adequately protected, in our view, by Clause 40 (3). That clause provides adequate facilities for catering workers and meets my noble friend's point: that is to say, the employer, if he is in a catering establishment (which is the first case proposed) is not bound to give a lunch hour during the lunch period, because the person is employed to serve lunches.
As regards the second point, I think my noble friend is under some misapprehension. The lunch hour must be provided—I think it is called "dinner hour" in the clause—only if the employee is continuously employed from 11.30 to 2.30. I am bound to say that, except in the catering trade, I think a dinner hour ought to be provided. I do not think it is legitimate to employ a worker, except in the catering trade, in the ordinary course between 11.30 and 2.30 without providing some interval for refreshment. This is an extremely generous provision to employers. They have only to employ the worker from 12 o'clock till 3 o'clock, which is the same period of time and covers the period in which the normal employees are at their dinners, and they need not provide a lunch hour at all. Or they can employ from 11.30 till 2 o'clock, which equally in some other cases would cover the dinner hour, and they need not provide a lunch hour at all. All that the Bill says is that if the employees go the whole way through from 11.30 to 2.30 without a break they must have a lunch hour in that period. I do not think that that is unreasonable. I am not sure that I understand why my noble friend thinks it is unreasonable, except in the catering trade, which is the subject of special provisions.
LORD DERWENT: I must admit that I had not read that he had to be employed during the whole of that period from half-past eleven. Shopkeepers are therefore

385
fully warned in future that they must "wangle" it. If you are going to "wangle" it by employing people from 11.31 a.m., there does not seem to be much point in having this clause in the Bill. I really think that the argument that shopkeepers are expected to "wangle" a thing by one minute so as to avoid the Bill is rather regrettable. I still think it is rather stupid, if a person is employed for under five hours. The hours laid down are the times when these people come to work—they have their dinners before or afterwards at home. They are working a very limited time. Now, everyone will know that the Minister intends that shopkeepers shall "wangle" this business and therefore they need not bother.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I very much resent the suggestion that I intend that anybody should do what my friend has described as "wangle". I am not sure that I am aware what a "wangle" is, but I am quite sure that it is something that. I should not advise anybody to do, either personally or practising as a lawyer. If any shopkeeper is misguided enough to take my noble friend's advice and to try working on a margin of a minute, can only say that he will do it against, and not with, my advice.
LORD DERWENT: I still regret the attitude that Her Majesty's Government have taken about this matter. I think it is unpractical and, in spite of what the noble Viscount has said, I think it will lead to what I call "wangling". But in view of the fact that he is not prepared to give way at the moment, I ask leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.10 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 38 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: May I ask the guidance of the noble and learned Viscount? I have put down an Amendment, No. 61, which seeks to provide that this clause shall not apply to a particular section of the community. Having listened to the noble Viscount, I am in doubt as to whether my Amendment should be to this clause or to Clause 45. Clause 38 makes it obligatory upon an employer to see that his staff have proper intervals for meals—which I think is right; but Amendment
386
No. 45 turns travelling salesmen into shop assistants. Do I move to amend Clause 45 or Clause 38? Perhaps the noble and learned Viscount could advise me. If not, I will move my Amendment on Clause 45, and if the noble and learned Viscount then tells me that that is the wrong place for it I shall have to consider putting it down at another stage of the Bill. The argument I shall raise is that, while it is highly desirable, it is absolutely impracticable to impose, and try to enforce, on an employer an obligation in respect of a travelling salesman who may be 100 miles away from the place of business at the time when the employer should be arranging for him to have a meal interval.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: The only Amendment with which I was dealing was that of my noble friend, and perhaps I had better wait until Amendment No. 61 before discussing it, as it relates to a somewhat different matter. I am distressed that the noble Lord should think I might complain, if I should resist the Amendment, that it is in the wrong part of the Bill, as that is not the kind of point that I am in the habit of making.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I said that only to be helpful. I am sorry that the noble and learned Viscount has taken umbrage. He has had a strenuous day and it is now ten minutes past seven. Perhaps he will be more fortified after the adjournment.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I shall deal with the matter, I hope faithfully, when it comes. I was only a little impatient at having the matter raised thirty Amendments before it should be.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: If the noble and learned Viscount wishes to be meticulous, I was merely asking advice, on the Question that the clause stand part of the Bill.
Clause 38 agreed to.
Clause 39 [Sunday work]:
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: This is a purely drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, line 33, leave out ("subsection (1) or (2)") and insert ("any of the provisions").—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DERWENT LORD DERWENT moved to add to the clause:
"(4) This section shall not apply to a shop assistant employed to work about the business of a shop on a Sunday if he was not employed about the business of that shop on any weekday of the preceding week."
The noble Lord said: This is a clause dealing with Sunday work, and I am seeking to take out of the provisions of this clause those who work only on Sundays. It applies only to two classes of people. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that in many cases it refers to petrol pump attendants who work only on Sundays when the ordinary attendants are off duty; and it applies very largely to shops which open at holiday resorts in the season. They employ a great many people on Sundays only. That is very important in the North, where the season is comparatively short, and where whole-time workers always have Sunday off and there are one or more persons who come in and work only on Sundays. For the purpose of this clause, I suggest that those who work only on Sundays might well be left out of the operation of the clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, line 41, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Derwent.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My right honourable friend is disposed to agree to consider this Amendment if the noble Lord will agree not to press it at this stage. The effect of the Amendment appears to be that those shop assistants who work on Sundays only could be employed every Sunday, unlike whole-time assistants who, except in catering establishments, must be given one Sunday off in four. There might be a good deal to be said for this Amendment taken on its own, and we are certainly prepared to consider it, but all the employment provisions in Part V are closely related and a number of suggestions have been made for amending them. Her Majesty's Government would wish to examine how far they affect one another. Moreover, it may well be that in matters affecting conditions of employment Her Majesty's Government would wish to take the opinion of another place before reaching a conclusion. I hope, however, that my noble friend will not think my attitude unfriendly, and that in those circumstances
388
he will not press the Amendment.
LORD DERWENT: I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount, and on his undertaking I will not, of course, press the Amendment. But when he comes to consider this, will he and his right honourable friend look carefully into the effect on holiday resorts, particularly the smaller resorts, where considerable difficulty might be caused? I leave that thought with him, and I am grateful to him for saying that he will go into the matter again. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 39, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 40 [Special exceptions as regards persons engaged in the catering trade]:
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: This Amendment is purely drafting and consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 35, line 20, after ("(2)") insert (3) or (4)").—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 40, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 41 [Special exceptions as respects employment of certain pharmacists on Sunday]:
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: This Amendment also is purely drafting and consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 36, line 34, leave out ("subsection (1) or (2)") and insert ("any of the provisions")—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 41, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 42 agreed to.
Clause 43:
Construction of references to allowance of half-holidays and whole holidays
43.—(1) For the purposes of this Part of this Act, a person employed to work about the business of a shop—
(a) shall be deemed to be allowed by the occupier of that shop a half-holiday on a day if on that day that person is not employed to work about the business of that shop after half-past one o'clock in the afternoon or the expiration of four and a half hours from the time when he begins to be so employed on that day, whichever is the later;
LORD DERWENT LORD DERWENT moved, in subsection (1) (a), to leave out all words from and including "after half-past one" down to the end of the paragraph, and to insert instead:

"(i) After half-past one o'clock in the afternoon; or

(ii) in the case of a person employed to work about the business of that shop for not more than twenty-five hours in a week on the expiration of four and a half hours from the time when he began to be so employed on that day or half-past one o'clock in the afternoon, whichever is the later; "

The noble Lord said: I have put this Amendment down as it seems to right what is an unfairness. The catering industry are dealt with under an entirely different clause. They have this problem of hours of work and of when one should count a half holiday, because, of course, they have strange hours. But for the rest, those who come under Clause 3, it seems grossly unfair that a man should be told he can have his half-holiday after four and a half hours' work, and that the shopkeeper might say that he shall start work after 11.30 and finish at 4 o'clock in the afternoon, when he can be off duty, thus taking his half-holiday. To most of us outside the catering trade, a half-holiday which starts at three or four o'clock in the afternoon is not a half-holiday. I have therefore sought to alter this clause so that the provision dealing with the four and a half hours shall apply only to part-time workers. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 37, line 9, leave out from ("shop") to end of line 12 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Derwent.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I have a good deal of sympathy with the purpose of this Amendment, but Her Majesty's Government cannot accept it, for reasons that I am about to give. Under Clause 43 (1) (a), as printed, a shop assistant is deemed to be allowed a half-holiday if he is released by 1.30 in the afternoon, or four and a half hours after the time when he began work. Either of those arrangements will give him the half-holiday to comply with the law. The effect of the Amendment would be to confine the four-and-a-half-hours provision to part-time workers; so that the full-time worker would be deemed to have a half-holiday only if he were released by 1.30 p.m.
390
It was, of course, largely for the part-timers that the four-and-a-half-hours provision was inserted. But it is by no means the only purpose that it serves. In many establishments of various kinds, including catering establishments, assistants commonly begin work late, and the effect of the Amendment would be that at such establishments a whole-time assistant who was beginning work at 11 a.m. would have to be released on his weekly half-holiday at 1.30 p.m., which would give him only two and a half hours' work. Under Section 21 of the present Act the employer in a catering establishment can, if he wishes, adopt provisions which include, among other things, the requirement that assistants must be released on their half-holiday not later than 3 p.m. So in that case he would be dealt with. If the four-and-a-half-hours provision for whole-time workers were abolished, I think that some similar provision in this Part of the Bill would he necessary.
If some similar provision to this were introduced into this Part of the Bill, an assistant might be required to begin work at, say, 9 a.m. and he might be employed for six hours on his so-called half-holiday, which would clearly be unfair to the employee. On the other hand, the employer would not be able to require his assistant to work serving dinners for a few hours on the evening of the assistant's half-holiday, even though the assistant was free until, say, 5 p.m. to 6 p.m. That would be unfair to the employer. We think that the only fair and flexible provision which overcomes these anomalies is to ensure that on his half-holiday the assistant is not employed more than approximately half a working day. The four-and-a-half-hours provision serves a useful purpose in relation to whole-time workers, as well as to part-time workers, in so far as it achieves this result. I hope that, with that explanation, my noble friend will not think it necessary, to press his Amendment.
LORD DERWENT: I do not intend to press the Amendment, but I wish the noble Viscount would have another look at it. I am still wondering whether something cannot be done. I see the difficulties, in view of the way in which the Amendment is drafted. Suppose the half-day is Saturday, and the youthful members of the staff, or the younger

391
members of the staff, at a biggish place, are not let off until 3 o'clock in the afternoon in the winter. Such people like to play football or to go to watch football matches. If this is insisted upon, these people do not really get a half-holiday. I see the difficulty in regard to drafting. I would ask the noble Viscount to have another look at this question, because it seems to me that in certain cases there might be gross unfairness. I know that the noble Viscount always has another look at things when we ask him to do so. In the circumstances, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, though I am not very happy about the position.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 43 agreed to.
Clause 44 [Records of Sunday work and certain holidays]:
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: This is purely a drafting and consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 38, line 2, after ("(2)") insert ("(3) or (4)").—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 44, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 45 [Application of foregoing provisions of Part V to persons employed in connection with retail trade or business otherwise than in shops]:
7.25 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved to add to the clause:
"(6) Section thirty-eight of this Act shall not apply to travelling representatives and salesmen."
The noble Lord said: As I read Clause 45, it makes travelling salesmen and travelling representatives shop assistants, with the result that the provisions of Clause 37 which relate to weekly half holidays, and Clause 38, which deal with intervals for meals and rest, and Clause 39, which has reference to Sunday work, all apply to them. I have no complaint in that; I think it is right that Clause 37 and Clause 39 should apply to them. But with regard to Clause 38 I would suggest that it is absolutely beyond the ability of any employer to see that his travelling representative or salesman, who might be a hundred miles from his place of business, conforms to the Statute
392
regarding meal times. I think it is unfair to put a responsibility of that sort on the employer. As I understand it, Clause 45 puts that onus upon the employer. I would repeat that I do not think it is practicable for the employer to enforce it, so I do not think it is good policy to put it in the Bill. I have therefore drafted this new subsection. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 39, line 23, at end insert—
"(6) Section thirty-eight of this Act shall not apply to travelling representatives and salesmen ".—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: This is an Amendment for which I would have, I think, considerable sympathy were I not advised that it is unnecessary and is based on a wrong reading of the way in which Clause 38 would in fact apply to travellers—if that is the right word nowadays to describe them. The only effect, I am advised, of Clause 38 in relation to travellers is that employers cannot legally compel them to disregard the provisions concerning half-holidays and meal hours. They cannot make them work in such a way as to have no half-holiday and no meal hour. It is probably not unreasonable to exact that as a safeguard against exploitation. The reason I am advised that this is so is that Clause 62 provides employers with the defence that they used all due diligence to secure compliance with the requirements of the Bill. The most that the Bill requires them to do is to refrain from instructing their travellers (that is to say, those who sell retail; ordinary commercial travellers who are engaged in the wholesale trade are outside the scope of the Bill) to work hours which are contrary to the requirements of Clause 38, and it may be possible to inform travellers of their entitlements under that clause. If the travellers chose, nevertheless, to ignore their entitlements, their employers could not possibly be regarded as having committed an offence. For that reason, and not because we do not sympathise with its purpose, we do not accept this Amendment. I rather entertain the hope that in view of what I have said the noble Lord will not press it.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am grateful to the noble Viscount for his explanation. It was because I had a slight doubt in my own mind that I raised this

393
matter on the Motion that Clause 38 should stand part of the Bill—for which I was severely reproved. May I study the noble Viscount's explanation, which at first blush is rather like other explanations which he has given me: I do not know whether it is going to hold legal water—if that is a correct expression. If I am advised that it does not, the noble Lord will not mind if I return to this matter at another stage of the Bill. In the meantime, I ask permission to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 45 agreed to.
Clauses 46 to 48 agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended at half-past seven o'clock and resumed at half-past eight.]
Clause 49:
Local authorities for purposes of this Act
49.—(1) The local authority for the purposes of this Act as respects England and Wales, other than the administrative county of London, shall he the council of the borough, urban district or rural district.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, in subsection (1), after "Act" to insert
"the Shops Act, 1950, and Part I of the Young Persons (Employment) Act, 1938,".
The noble Lord said: With your Lordships' permission, I should like to take Amendments Nos. 62 and 63 together. They are on the same line as the Amendments I have moved to try to get over what I think are serious anomalies in the Bill. I will be as brief as I can, but I should like to point out to your Lordships again that this Bill repeals most of the provisions of the 1950 Act in regard to enforcement. It replaces them with fresh provisions, the enforcement of which will be the duty of the county district councils, while the unrepealed provisions of the 1950 Act will still remain the responsibility of the county councils. The effect of this Bill will be that in rural arid smaller urban districts two local authorities will be exercising enforcement functions, so that the same shops w ill be visited by two sets of inspectors. This seems to me an absurd duplication of the enforcement machinery. What is even more absurd is that many of the duplicated functions will be closely related—for example, the
394
county council inspectors will be concerned with the hours of employment of young persons, while the district council inspectors will be concerned with the half-holidays and meal intervals of the same employees.
On the previous Committee stage, I argued that all Shops Act functions should become the responsibility of the county district councils, and this would be achieved if the Government would accept this Amendment. What I have done in this Amendment, which I did not do before, is to provide for the transfer to the district councils of the provisions of the Young Persons (Employment) Act, 1938. By doing that, I try to meet one of the objections which the noble Viscount had to my previous Amendment. The noble Viscount then said that the 1938 Act was outside the scope of the Bill and therefore it would not be in order to amend it. I would question that, and I would suggest that the Bill could modify the 1938 Act if it were desirable administratively to do so, because when the Shops Act, 1950, was before Parliament, Sections 8, 11, 12 and 13 of the Young Persons (Employment) Act, 1938, were repealed. Similarly, when it suited the Government's purpose to do it, the 1938 Act was utilised to amend the Shops Act, 1934. The Young Persons (Employment) Act has always been closely related to the Shops Act, and this relation is emphasised by the section in the Act which provides for a measure of joint consultation.
There seems to be no reason why the present Bill should not further amend the Act and ensure that the whole of the functions relating to the closing of shops and to employment is placed in the hands of one authority—that is, the district council. If at any future date there is any reorientation of the functions of local authorities and this needs to be altered, then it could be altered, I should say, by consent. I have been brief because I do not want to go over the arguments I have used before. But I would say to the noble Viscount that the next Amendment, No. 64, is an alternative to the one I am moving now. It does riot clear up all the anomalies, but it does ensure that related functions are carried out by the same local authority.
I thought I would put these Amendments down again to see whether the

395
noble Viscount and his advisers had altered their views, now that they had had time to consider the position. In view of the recent Government White Paper, I suggest to the noble Viscount that the arguments I have advanced may have even greater validity now than perhaps they had before. I hope he will be able to consider these Amendments, which are put forward for the sake of simplification. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 41, line 32, after ("Act") insert the said words.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
8.36 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I fully appreciated the spirit in which these Amendments have been moved, but the crux of the matter remains exactly where it was when we last discussed the point. The noble Lord, with commendable industry, has sought to meet a particular point which I raised, and I must, without any presumption, I hope, say that I appreciate what he has done. However, the ultimate crux of the matter is whether we deal with this particular problem in advance of the reorganisation of local government, or whether we deal with it as part of the reorganisation of local government. The Government take the latter view.
In order to put the Committee "in the picture" as regards this particular dispute, which I regret to admit is a highly technical one, I may say that Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendments during the previous Committee stage which would have had the effect of making all district councils in England and Wales outside London responsible for enforcing not only the provisions of this Bill but also all the untouched provisions of the Shops Act, 1950, concerning the employment of young persons, both in shops and other places where retail trade is carried on, and the health and comfort of shop workers. One of the reasons why I objected to the Amendments on that occasion was that under the Amendments responsibility for enforcing the provisions of the Shops Act, 1950, about young persons' hours would be transferred to the smaller district councils, but responsibility for enforcing the almost identical provisions contained in the Young Persons (Employment) Act, 1938, would remain with the county councils. I thereupon argued that the result would have
396
been that, in order to cure one anomaly, the Amendments would create another.
I think the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has recognised the force of this, and his new Amendments are the same as the Amendments he moved before, except that he now seeks to overcome the Government's objection by transferring to all district councils responsibility for enforcing the 1938 Act as well. As I have said, I appreciate the sincerity with which he has moved in the matter to meet what was a genuine objection on our part. I wish I could say that, as a result of his good work, we were prepared to accept the Amendment, but to my mind the proposal is still open to serious objection. I think it is fair to myself to remind the Committee that I said so before, and I am not now putting forward a new objection. I said this [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 202, (No. 38) col. 59]:
"The crux of the matter is young persons' hours. The responsibility for enforcing the almost identical provisions contained in the Young Persons (Employment) Act, 1938, is and must remain with the county councils."
I then added the words:
"I say' must remain', because an arrangement designed to transfer it from the county councils would be outside the scope of this Bill and, therefore, out of order."
I am afraid that that is the view the Government take at the moment, although I would not put it on a question of order, but on a question of constitutional propriety, since one can never be sure that one is perfectly right on a technical point of order.
The Government are not necessarily opposed in principle to the eventual transfer to district councils of all functions in this field, but this is not the occasion, we feel, on which to do it. This is a Bill which relates to shops and to retail trade. The 1938 Act relates to the employment of young persons in a wide variety of occupations, including, for instance, messenger boys employed in any business whatsoever—the publication of newspapers, or as swimming bath attendants, cinematograph projectionists and so on. The only connection between the Act of 1938 and the present Bill is that they both contain employment provisions enforceable by some local authorities. Special statutory protection for young persons, such as that contained in the 1938 Act and in the untouched provisions of the Shops Act,

397
1950, is a distinct subject on which the Gowers Committee reported separately, and which the Government have under separate consideration. The health and comfort of shop assistants is, in our view, at arty rate, again a separate subject, being part of the wider subject of health, welfare and safety in non-industrial employment generally, which again the Government are considering.
Of course, it is appreciated that the simplest arrangement would be for district councils to be given all these functions without delay, but I would point out that there is no reason why, if any difficulty is experienced locally, a county council should not delegate its remaining functions to district councils—in fact, I understand that this bas already been done fairly widely. Indeed, many district councils have for a long time past been given, by delegation, practically complete responsibility for the health and comfort provisions of the 1950 Act. Subject to that, I would say, as I said on the previous occasion, that we must await a more general reorganisation of local government functions to collect together the various statutory provisions and to make them into a more intelligible pattern. Whilst I appreciate what has been done by the noble Lord, and especially his consideration in meeting what was at any rate a surface objection on the previous occasion, I must stand where I stood before in saying that an attempt to interfere with the provisions of the 1938 Act relating to young persons is really outside the scope of this Bill, and that this Bill is therefore not the appropriate instrument to choose to put the matter right.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am grateful to the noble Viscount, because it appears to me, listening to him with the attention that what he said deserves, that there is nothing between us as to the desirability of doing what I want to do. The point is that he does not consider this is the right time or the method by which to do it. I accept that. I can only hope that continual attention will be given to this matter, because I am sure it is the noble Viscount's desire—perhaps when legislation is brought forward on the reorientation of the functions of local government—to consider whether that might be the time to bring many of these desirable features into force. I am sure the noble Viscount does
398
not want to duplicate statutory authorities' duties or to employ redundant labour. I will accept, though with some regret, what the noble Viscount has said, I can appreciate the force of his argument, and with your Lordships' permission I will withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH had given notice of an Amendment to add to subsection (1):
"and section seventy-three of the Shops Act, 1950, and section six of the Young Persons (Employment) Act, 1938, shall cease to have effect so far as they relate to England and Wales other than the administrative county of London:"
The noble Lord said: In view of what the noble Viscount has said, I imagine that he will see less virtue in this Amendment than in the last, because this is an alternative. In view of what the noble Viscount has said, I will not trouble your Lordships by moving it. Nor do I propose to move my Amendment No. 64.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved to add to the clause:
"(5) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1) of this section, as respects any administrative county in England and Wales, other than the administrative county of London, the council of a borough, urban district or rural district may at any time, by agreement with the council of the county in which the borough or district is situate, relinquish in favour of, and transfer to, the council of the county any of their functions tinder this Act for such period and upon such terms and subject to such conditions, if any, including terms and conditions as to the transfer of property and liabilities, as may be specified in the agreement, provided always that any such agreement shall contain provision for the council so relinquishing any of their functions to reimburse to the county council the full cost of discharging such functions."
The noble Lord said: This is the Amendment that I hope the noble Viscount will see some virtue in, because, in his explanation to me, he said that it was possible under existing legislation for the county councils to delegate their functions, or some of there, to district councils, If your Lordships will remember, I argued upon the Committee stage that it might be advisable in places in certain circumstances, between now and the time when further legislation is passed, for district councils in turn to delegate their functions to county councils. I argued that perhaps it was not economic for the smaller rural district

399
councils to set up the machinery that would be necessary under this Bill, when it becomes an Act, and that they should be allowed to opt out.
I have put down this Amendment and have tried to meet again what the noble Viscount had, I think, in mind: the problem of who would bear the cost if extra burdens not taken care of by legislation were put on to the county councils. The district councils would be relieved of the cost, the county councils would have to bear it, and that might cause some complications. The noble Viscount will see that I have added a proviso now to the Amendment. Where, by agreement, an urban district or rural district council opts out and requests the county council to carry on their functions under this Bill, when it becomes an Act, this proviso lays down:
"provided always that any such agreement shall contain provision for the council so relinquishing any of their functions to reimburse to the county council the full cost of discharging such functions."
That would do away with the necessity for the county councils to levy a charge upon all their other district councils to meet the increased cost because one of them wanted to relinquish their functions.
I hope that that will tempt the noble Viscount to accept this Amendment, because I believe that, administratively, it is desirable, where there is mutual arrangement and mutual agreement, for there to be the reciprocal arrangement that, where county councils can, under previous legislation, delegate some of their functions imposed by the Bill to the district councils, district councils should, in turn, delegate to the county council some of their functions, if it is far more suitable and economic for them so to do, provided now that they stand the cost of so doing. The noble Viscount has admitted, and I quite agree with him, that it is a highly complicated subject, about which I do not pretend to know much. I hope that what I have said may tempt him to accept my Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line 6, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
8.50 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Again the noble Lord, if I may say so respectfully, deserves full marks for the industry with
400
which he has studied and mastered an extremely technical case and also for the care with which he has sought to meet an objection with which he was faced before. This Amendment is in almost identical terms with those of the previous one, except that the noble Lord has, as he said, added the provision for reimbursement of county councils. I wish I could accept an Amendment which has, at any rate on personal grounds, so much to commend it; but on the previous occasion it was resisted on the ground that it remained to be seen whether power for district councils to relinquish their responsibilities to county councils was desirable not only in the field of shops legislation (which is what we are discussing now) but over the whole field of local government responsibilities.
In accordance with our general custom, I think I may have given a specific undertaking to do so, but whether I did or not it is part of our general custom to give further consideration to matters of this kind. It appears, however, that there is no general agreement on the desirability of providing such a power of relinquishment, and my right honourable friend cannot at present, therefore, accept the Amendment. The Government would, I think, be wrong to do so or to accept it in the absence of such a general agreement. In particular, I understand that the Urban District Councils Association are unlikely to agree to it and, in fact, are not in favour of it. Although, therefore, I would thank the noble Lord for having raised the subject again, I am bound to tell him that the Government is still unable to accept the Amendment.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount. I hope his explanation will placate those folk who feel rather strongly about this question. In the long term I do not think it matters much. In the short term I thought it would be of convenience. As the noble and learned Viscount says, there is no agreement upon this matter between the parties concerned, and I wondered whether the Government, in face of this disagreement, were prepared to step in and be the arbitrator. But perhaps fools rush in where angels fear to tread, so I suppose we must wait till the respective local authorities can agree, which I hope they will be able to do between now and the introduction of

401
fresh legislation in about two years' time. I thank the noble Viscount for the explanation and I think we must say that that is the end of it. I beg leave to withdraw The Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 49 agreed to.
Clauses 50 to 63 agreed to.
Clause 64:
General interpretation provisions
"Kosher meat" means butcher's meat prepared according to Jewish law and "Kosher poultry" means poultry so prepared;
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: This Amendment is purely drafting and consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 47, line 11, at end insert (" 'the evening closing requirements' has the meaning assigned to it by subsection (2) of section one of this Act;").—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Perhaps I may take this Amendment and No. 70 together for the purposes of discussion. This Amendment, as your Lordships appreciate, is an insertion in the definition clause, which relates to the definition of Kosher meat. It has been represented to the Home Secretary that with the definitions of Kosher meat and of Kosher poultry as they stand in the Bill, some people might be led to think that, for the purposes of the Bill, meat or poultry might be regarded as Kosher even though it had not, in fact, been killed according to Jewish law. This is not, of course, our intention, and we think these Amendments make it plain beyond any possible doubt that this is not our intention. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 47, line 19, after ("meat") insert ("killed and").—(Viscount Hailsham.)
LORD SWAYTHLING: Before this Amendment of the noble and learned Viscount is put to the Committee, may I say a word about Amendments 68, 69 and 71, which stand in my name? I feel that if No. 67 is passed it will make a technical difficulty in considering No. 68. Amendments Nos. 68, 69 and 71 are all part of the same Amendment. The Slaughter of Animals Act, 1933, pre-scribed the conditions under which
402
animals could be slaughtered according to the Jewish ritual method. To ensure observance of these conditions, it set up a body called the Rabbinical Commission, and it laid down that only those slaughter-men who hold the licence of the Commission may kill by the Jewish method. Those provisions were arrived at after much thought, deliberation and consultation with all the parties concerned. It is felt that, statutory effect having been given to them, it would he more logical, more precise and generally more satisfactory to define Kosher meat by reference to the statutory provisions which are set out in Section 1 of the 1933 Act. I am not particularly wedded to the wording of my Amendment. If the noble and learned Viscount would accept the principle of reference to the Jewish method of slaughter in the Slaughter of Animals Act, 1933, I should be quite prepared to alter the wording in such a way as would better meet the question. I hope that some reference can be made to that proviso in the Act in relation to the definition of Kosher meat and poultry. The difficulty I am in is that if Amendment No. 69 is accepted, we insert the words "killed and", and therefore we cannot consider my Amendment No. 68.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: If I might make a suggestion, subject to any ruling of the Lord Chairman, I think the convenient course is that we should continue to discuss these Amendments together, and then we should decide the proper course in regard to putting the Question when we decide what we really want to do. They are alternative Amendments. Although I think they could he married, I do not particularly want them married; I think they ought to be discussed as alternatives.
LORD SWAYTHLING: I should be ready to agree to that.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I do not know whether the Committee would allow me (I think technically I am entitled to make a second speech, but I do not want to trespass on the Committee) to address some remarks on what the noble Lord has just said about his own Amendment, which I had not taken into account in my remarks. Of course, it is the desire of the Government to satisfy the requirements of Jewish feelings in this matter, but for the reasons which I am about to give, we still prefer our own

403
Amendments and I hope that both the noble Lord and the Committee may find them satisfactory.
As originally drafted, and as it stands in the print at the moment, we agree that the text of the Bill is open to doubt and therefore objectionable. It was for that reason, as I explained to the Committee, that we proposed to insert the words "killed and" in front of the word "prepared". The Amendment in the name of the noble Lord contains a reference to Section 1 of the Slaughter of Animals Act, 1933. From the point of view of drafting that is inept. Draftsmanship is of considerable importance in considering a matter of this kind, because the Slaughter of Animals Act, 1933, is not confined to the Jewish method of slaughter at all. It provides for slaughter alternatively by humane killer and by the Jewish method of ritual slaughter. Therefore, simply from the point of view of draftsmanship, the Government Amendment does, and in our view the alternative Amendment does not, meet the requirements of the Jewish authorities. Even then, assuming that something can be done (I am not quite sure what the noble Lord wants to be done), I do not think it would really be as good as we now propose.
In dealing with provisions relating to what is Kosher meat, I have to look back at Clause 29, and one must draw a distinction between the provision relating to the keeping open of a shop by a person of Jewish persuasion and the selling of Kosher meat: one is dealt with in Clause 26, whereas Kosher meat is dealt with under Clause 29. In the sale of Kosher meat, looking at the provisions of Clause 29 (1) (a), the contention there is that the person who wants to get the benefit of Clause 29
"must be licensed for the sale of Kosher meat by the Local Board of Shechita or, in the absence of any such Board, by a committee appointed for the purpose by the local Jewish congregation established in accordance with Jewish law; "
In other words, not only must Kosher meat itself be killed and prepared in accordance with Jewish law, but in order to invoke the clause the person claiming it must be licensed by the local Board of Shechita.
That is a test to which a Gentile court can pay attention, because it is a test
404
which does not involve any considerations which it is quite incompetent to discuss. Nobody knows that better than I do, because professionally I have from time to time had to advise on, and even to conduct, cases involving questions of this kind; and the embarrassment and difficulty which a Gentile or Christian counsel has in discussing such matters need not be emphasised. The same must be true of Christian or Gentile magistrates. It is far better to take the licence of the Jewish Board as valid on the face of it and not to make any inquiries behind it.
If I were to redraft the noble Lord's alternative Amendment, with the object of getting something which would do (this, frankly, will not do), I should be in the position that if, in the alternative Amendment, I proposed that meat had actually to be prepared in accordance with the ritual provisions of Jewish law in order to qualify as Kosher meat within the meaning of the Act, it would be open to anybody to raise before the magistrates' court (which would be composed, presumably, of Gentiles, with an inspector or prosecuting counsel who will not be conversant with Jewish law) the question as to whether the particular meat was, in fact, killed in the right way. This would involve these questions being ventilated in public in a way we consider undesirable. Supposing, for example, the wrong kind of knife is used. I suppose that, if the alternative were accepted, that would be a matter which could be ventilated in public, and personally I should have thought it undesirable from every point of view that that should be the case.
Under the Government Amendment, in order to invoke the clause the proper licence must be in force. If, for any reason, the person claiming the benefit of the clause has been flouting Jewish law, as distinct from an inadvertent breach of it—which could happen—he will have his licence taken away and Clause 29 (1) (a) will not be available to him. On the other hand, if I accept the alternative Amendment, even if the licence is in force, the meat will not qualify as Kosher unless the objective provisions of Jewish law have been observed. I cannot believe that an Act of this Parliament should make it possible for questions of that kind to be ventilated in a Gentile

405
court. Therefore, though our sympathies are with those with whom my noble friend has been consulting, my conviction is very strong that Her Majesty's Government are right.
LORD SWAYTHLING: I should like to thank the noble and learned Viscount for what he has said, and I hope that he will consider, between now and next stage of the Bill, whether something can be put in to alter the definition so that the proviso that the slaughter of animals has to be licensed by the Rabbinical Commission, as laid down in the Slaughter of Animals Act, 1933, shall apply.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I will certainly consider anything I am asked, but on a matter of this kind I would urge that the ecclesiastical authorities concerned should make representations to the Home Office. Although I have done my best, it may be that for the purpose of these Amendments I am not the most appropriate person with whom to discuss the matter.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I beg to move this Amendment. It relates to poultry as distinct from meat.
Amendment moved—
Page 47, line 20, at end insert ("killed and").—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I beg to move this purely drafting and consequential Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 48, line 39, after ("of ") insert ("Part V of").—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 64, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 65 to 73 agreed to.
Clause 74 [Provisions relating to Scotland]:
LORD STRATHCLYDE LORD STRATHCLYDE moved, in subsection (1), after paragraph (b), to insert:
"(c) in section (Dispensation with observance of early closing days at certain seasons)
406
for paragraphs (b) to (d) of subsection (1) there shall be substituted the following paragraph—
"(b) in the week next before the week in which there falls a day customarily observed in the locality as a public holiday ",
and subsection (2) shall be omitted;
(d) in section thirty-seven for subsections (3) and (4) there shall be substituted the following subsection—
"(3) The occupier of a shop may, in the case of a shop assistant employed to work about the business of that shop, dispense with compliance with subsection (1) of this section as respects the week next before any week in which there falls a day customarily observed in the locality as a public holiday, provided that he allows that assistant a whole holiday on that day and a half-holiday on a business day during the two next preceeding or succeeding weeks." "
The noble Lord said: This Amendment adapts for Scotland new provisions relating to the early closing days and assistants' half-holidays which have been introduced earlier in Government Amendments. The adaption, as your Lordships may know, is necessary because holiday arrangements in Scotland differ from those in England. Whilst in Scotland Bank Holidays, as such, are not in practice observed as general public holidays, there are no statutory provisions appointing public holidays in Scotland; they are normally fixed by the magistrates or the local authorities. It is common practice to appoint three days to observe—Spring, Victoria Day and the Autumn holiday. The days so appointed vary from place to place. The Amendment will permit the shopkeeper to dispense with early closing days in the weeks preceding days which are customarily observed in the locality as public holidays. The Amendment also provides that the weekly half-holiday may be dispensed with in the week preceding any day customarily observed in any locality as a public holiday. If that option is exercised the shop assistant must also he allowed a whole day's holiday on that day, or a half-holiday in each one of the two preceding weeks. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 52, line 15, at end insert the said paragraphs.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 74, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 75 and 76 agreed to.
First Schedule:

FIRST SCHEDULE
GOODS WHOSE SALE IS PERMISSIBLE AFTER 1 P.M. ON EARLY CLOSING DAY

PART II
GOODS WHOSE SALE IS PERMISSIBLE UNTIL LATER HOUR OR, IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, WITHOUT LIMIT OF TIME
3. Mineral waters and other non-intoxicating drinks.
4. Sweets, chocolates and other sugar confectionery.
5. Ice-cream (with or without wafers or edible containers).
6. Milk and cream, not including tinned or dried milk or cream, but including clotted cream whether sold in tins or otherwise.
7. Tobacco and smokers' requisites.
8. Newspapers, periodicals, magazines, guidebooks, picture postcards and photographs.
9. Bread.
LORD STRATHCLYDE LORD STRATHCLYDE moved to add to paragraph 9: "and flour confectionery." The noble Lord said: Under the Bill a shop can stay open on the early closing day for the sale of bread, but flour confectionery cannot be sold unless the shop is registered under Clause 11. Your Lordships will remember that this is a matter on which we had considerable discussion on a previous occasion. In view of the representations then made on both sides of the Committee my right honourable friend has decided that flour confectionery should be added to the First Schedule. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 54, line 20, at end insert ("and flour confectionery").—(Lord Strathclyde.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I cannot allow this concession to go without some word of thanks. I am sure that the Government are pleased that the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, can now eat his currant bun, but I suspect that the real reason why the Government gave way and put up the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, to admit their failure is that the pressure of Scotland was too much, because under the Bill they could not even have bought a bap.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Or a bannock.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: This is an Amendment which we have partly discussed already during to-day's Sitting. It
408
was one moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, on a previous occasion, and in the light of what the noble Lord then said my right honourable friend has given further consideration to the matter, with the result that this Amendment is now on the Order Paper. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 54, line 20, at end insert—
("10. Mechanically propelled vehicles, caravans and trailers.").—(Lord Strathclyde.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I should like to thank the noble Lord, in spite of the fact that earlier this evening he thought that I was looking his gift horse in the mouth. I am grateful to the noble Lord because it will mean that a number of foolish anomalies will now be removed and service can now be given to the vehicle-using public at times when they require such service.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
9.13 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved to add to Part II:
"10. Flowers.
11. Fresh fruit and fresh vegetables (including mushrooms and other edible fungi)."
The noble Lord said: I hope that I am right in saying that these items have been left out of the Schedule by mistake. From a long list of goods, whose sale is permissible until a late hour, in certain circumstances, flowers, fresh fruit and fresh vegetables are omitted. Yet in the Third Schedule, in the list of goods whose sale is permissible in England and Wales on Sunday until 7 p.m., or other time fixed by local authority are
"Flowers.
Fresh, frozen or dried fruit and fresh, frozen or dried vegetables (including mushrooms and other edible fungi)."
I conclude that flowers and fresh fruit and vegetables were included in the Third Schedule because they are perishable, and that it was convenient for many people to purchase them for the purpose of taking them to hospitals and places of that kind. My Amendment seeks to put them back into the First Schedule, from which they seem to have been omitted.
Surely they are just as perishable on the half-day as they are on the Sunday, and if there is need for flowers and fresh fruit and vegetables to be purchased out

409
of hours on Sunday, the need is equally there on weekdays. I see no reason why they are left out. It is a small matter, but I hope that for the convenience of the public, of those who have to visit hospitals or have the unfortunate duty of visiting cemeteries, it will be possible to purchase cut flowers on weekdays in the same way as it is on Sundays. I hope that the noble Viscount will reinsert these items. I have tried to help him by omitting from my original Amendment the dried produce, which I cannot say perishes. But the others I can say perish. I hope the noble Viscount will either accept this Amendment, or duplicate in the First Schedule the provisions of the Third Schedule. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 54, line 20 at end insert the said paragraphs.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
LORD STRATHCLYDE: As the noble Lord has said, in this Amendment he seeks to exclude frozen and dried fruit and vegetables. I have no doubt that his intention is to confine the exemption mainly to florists' and greengrocers' shops, but there are some grocers and mixed shops that sell fresh fruit and vegetables. Again here, as my noble and learned friend has done, I have to thank the noble Lord for the trouble to which he has gone to try to find a compromise. Unfortunately, as the Government see it, the Amendment is open to the serious objection that it creates an anomaly; that is, that on the early closing day greengrocers would then he allowed to sell some of their goods but not others, such as boxes of dates and frozen fruit, which they commonly sell. This is just the kind of anomaly the Government are anxious to avoid, so far as possible. Perhaps I can say this to the noble Lord: that we do realise that there may be a problem, and we are continuing to apply our minds to it, in the light of what the noble Lord has just said.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am grateful to the noble Lord for saying that. But when he speaks of an anomaly, would he not grant me that the anomaly is there on the Sunday, when precisely the same thing can happen? Flowers and fresh fruit may be sold by greengrocers and by other establishments on Sunday, but the same establishments are not permitted to sell those goods on an early closing day. So when the noble Lord
410
talks about anomalies, it is he who is creating them, and not I. I am trying to relieve him of the anomaly he has created by making one law for the after-hour opening on Sunday, and he will not concede the same law for the after-hour opening on the weekday. However, the dawn of enlightenment is breaking. Let me be satisfied with that; and between now and the passage of this Bill through Parliament I expect to see provision for fruit, flowers and fresh vegetables to be sold on Sundays and on weekdays under precisely the same conditions. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Second Schedule [Transactions permissible in Great Britain at any Time on Weekdays and in England and Wales at any Time on Sundays]:
9. The sale of guide-books, reproductions of works of art, picture postcards, photographs, photographic films or photographic plates or souvenirs—

(a) at a museum or art gallery; or

(b) at a place of natural beauty or historic interest, any zoological, botanical or horticultural gardens, or an aquarium, to the extent that the local authority within whose area the place, gardens or aquarium is or are situate certify that the sale of the things aforesaid is desirable in the interests of the public; or

(c) on a vessel, while it is engaged in carrying passengers; or

(d) at the Festival Pleasure Gardens as defined by the Festival Pleasure Gardens Act, 1952.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved to add to paragraph 9:
"or (e) at any garden or park under the control of a public authority."
The noble Earl said. The object of this Amendment is to limit the scope of an Amendment which I moved during the Committee stage of the Bill, as I think the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Hailsham, will remember. My earlier Amendment aimed at excluding from the Sunday trading restrictions open spaces as well as parks and gardens owned by local authorities, and this Amendment limits the exclusion to parks and gardens. I should like to illustrate my case by pointing out what would happen in London if the Bill were passed without this Amendment. Your Lordships will

411
remember that the Bill repeals the provisions in the Shops Act, 1950, which allow the sale on Sundays of guide books, and so on, in parks and gardens if they are run by local authorities.
I have asked the London County Council to give me some figures about the number of these guide-books which the public like to buy in order to get greater enjoyment from going about the London parks and gardens. Last summer, between May and August, 23,400 copies of guide-books relating to the London County Council's parks and gardens were sold. Of course, there are no figures for the number of these guide-books sold on Sundays, but as people have more time for going out at week-ends it is to be assumed that a large number were in fact sold on Sundays. It seems ridiculous that this Bill should prohibit the public from doing something which they have been accustomed and authorised to do in the last seven years since the Shops Act, 1950, was passed.
Moreover, pursuing the example of London as the largest local authority concerned, I would point out that the London County Council have been selling descriptive leaflets about places of great interest, such as Holland House, which was acquired after the war, and Marble Hill House, which has been in the hands of the London County Council for a much longer time and is, as your Lordships will remember, a most interesting 18th century house. It is obviously much more agreeable for visitors to be able to have a history and an explanation of the whole background of the historic places they visit in London. Unless the Government can give a convincing argument for putting an end to this practice it seems unjust to end it. It is undesirable that the public should be deprived of the extra pleasure that a guide-book or catalogue to these places can give them.
This Amendment goes rather farther than the existing practice, in that it would allow the sale of guide-books and catalogues during the week after the hours at which shops have to close. In the summer months people like to go out into the gardens, such as Battersea Park or Victoria Park, and enjoy the fresh air in the evening until quite late. They often sit around listening to bands and enjoying the music. It seems ridiculous that after a certain hour when shops close they
412
should not be able to buy a guide-book in the particular garden they happen to be enjoying. I hope that the Government will consider this point, which applies, of course, to all local authorities but which I am illustrating by reference to London. They will otherwise be depriving the public of a special satisfaction which they get at the present time. Indeed, unless there is some very convincing argument for prohibiting the sale of guide-books to parks and gardens in London and other large towns, it will be difficult to justify the omission of a provision of this kind from this Schedule of the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 55, line 34, at end insert ("or (e) at any garden or park under the control of a public authority ").—(The Earl of Listowel.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I will, indeed, agree on behalf of the Government to consider this Amendment. I have been much impressed by what the noble Earl has said, and I will ask him on that assurance to withdraw the present Amendment. It arises, as he said, out of a previous Amendment with the same object which he moved on the Committee stage. I then took what was, in substance, a drafting objection. Probably he had the same object in view, but I pointed out that his Amendment was too widely drawn, because it would cover a number of open spaces where it was undesirable to have opening outside closing hours.
The only thing which will not do in the present Amendment is that the words "public authority" are too widely drawn, because there are many authorities that come within that definition. Indeed, there is some doubt as to what authorities come within the definition, strange as it may seem. The words "local authority", which are the obvious alteration, have a special meaning in this Bill by virtue of Clause 49, which has to be read with this particular provision. If, therefore, the noble Earl will take it that his points will be carefully considered—and so far as I am concerned I confess frankly that he has made his case, although that last observation is a personal one—and will not press his Amendment, I will assure him that it will be so considered.
9.26 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am much obliged for the noble Viscount's assurance that he accepts the principle of my

413
Amendment, because I am certain that he will be much more ingenious in drafting an Amendment than I could be. I appreciate his objections to the drafting of the present Amendment. I hope he will be willing to ask his advisers to consult the local authorities between now and the next stage of the Bill. They may between them be able to work out a satisfactory formula. I am certain that it will be much appreciated by the general public if a provision of this kind can be included in the Bill at a late stage. I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: This Amendment, I think, requires little to commend it. It was, in its origin and genesis, a suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, to add the words
"or of parts of, or accessories to, caravans or trailers."
Our view is that it would improve the Bill, and my right honourable friend therefore desires that this Amendment should be incorporated. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 55, line 38, at end insert ("or of parts of, or accessories to, caravans or trailers.").—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether the Schedule, as amended, shall be agreed to?
LORD MATHERS: Before we part with this Schedule, I should like to raise a point with regard to paragraph 2:
"The sale of intoxicating liquor."
I wonder how a paragraph of this kind got into this Shops Bill. Is this not a matter for licensing legislation? The heading of the Second Schedule is:
"Transactions permissible in Great Britain at any time on weekdays and in England and Wales at any time on Sundays."
That seems to me to raise the question of Sunday closing in Wales. There is Sunday closing in Wales, however much it may be infringed by the way in which the clubs in Wales are taking the place of public-houses. The question remains: how does an item like this get into this Schedule?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I think I can allay the noble Lord's fears in this matter, although, as in the case of many other perfectly legitimate points, I am to some extent taken by surprise by the particular
414
point which the noble Lord raised. As this is a very complex measure, I hope he will forgive me if I do not give an absolutely conclusive answer. While he was speaking, I gave the matter my consideration and I hope he will feel that the view I have formed is probably the right one. I think the noble Lord has been misled by the heading of the Second Schedule, which reads:
"Transactions permissible in Great Britain at any time on weekdays and in England and Wales at any time on Sundays."
The real thing to look at, to see what is the effect of the Schedule, is not the heading, any more than the side notes, but the clauses in the body of the Bill to which the Schedule relates. In this case the clauses to which the Schedule relates are, respectively, Clauses 14 and 22. As the noble Lord will see, the form of words used in Clause 14 is:
"The foregoing provisions of this Part of this Act shall not render unlawful the effecting, on a weekday of any of the transactions mentioned in the Second Schedule to this Act or the keeping open, at any time on a weekday, of a shop for that purpose."
The words of Clause 22, which is the other relevant clause, are these:
"The foregoing provisions of this Part of this Act shall not render unlawful
(a) the effecting, on Sunday, of any of the transactions mentioned in the Second Schedule to this Act or the keeping open on Sunday, of a shop for that purpose…"
I think that, if the noble Lord will consider the matter, he will see it has this effect. The Second Schedule only provides, if it is read with the relevant clauses, as it must be for the purpose of giving it legal effect, that the Bill itself does not render unlawful transactions mentioned in the Second Schedule. But it does not render anything lawful either. The purpose of the Schedule, read with the clauses, is exactly what the noble Lord would have; that is to say, intoxicants are a matter for the licensing law and not for this Bill. If I am right, as I think I probably am—it does sometimes happen that I am—the view taken by the draftsman of the Bill is exactly that which the noble Lord would have him take.
LORD MATHERS: I should like to have this put more definitely and authoritatively than the noble Viscount has thought fit to put it now, and I would ask him if he would be kind enough to

415
look at the matter and put himself on an absolutely sure foundation before we part with the Bill as a whole.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Perhaps the noble Lord will take it from me that if I have made any error in my construction I will communicate with him and explain the error, but I feel sufficiently confident that I am right about this to offer to confess my errors if I have made any.
Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Third Schedule [Goods whose sale is permissible in England and Wales on Sunday until 7 p.m. or other time fixed by local authority]:
On Question, Whether the Third Schedule shall stand part of the Bill?
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I raised a point on the Third Schedule during the Committee stage, and I wonder whether the noble Viscount has given his mind to it in the meantime—it concerns paragraph 8. The point, I think, is rather appropriate, on account of the matter raised by Lord Strathclyde with regard to the proposed Amendment of Lord Lucas of Chilworth on the First Schedule, in which he wanted to include fresh fruit and flowers. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said that it would create anomalies because greengrocers sell dates and dried fruits, as well as fruit and flowers. This part of the Third Schedule includes frozen or dried fruit and vegetables as well as fresh fruit and vegetables. Frozen and dried fruit and vegetables can be sold in grocers' shops, as well as by greengrocers. Grocers sell any number of things besides these particular articles. It makes the Bill much more difficult to enforce and, from the point of view of the local authorities, introduces a very big obstacle. It might not be going too far to say that the Bill might become unenforceable in this respect. Apart from that, it offers an almost irresistible temptation to break the law. I mentioned this matter on Committee stage. I know that the noble and learned Viscount has been burdened with an enormous number of comments and criticisms, and I shall not take it amiss if he has omitted to consider the matter; but if he has, I should be obliged for his views on it.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I may as well, as I was invited to do at an earlier stage, "come clean" on this matter. It had escaped my notice that I had been asked to look into it, and I must therefore undertake to write to the noble Earl and give him my views, because I cannot give him an offhand explanation. It is rather intricate. I am always afraid of my offhand explanations. They are not always right, even though they are not always wrong.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am obliged to the noble Viscount.
Third Schedule agreed to.
Fourth Schedule agreed to.
Fifth Schedule [Provisions as to Exercise of order-making Powers of Local Authorities]:
9.36 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I have some rather good news for your Lordships, if your Lordships will accept it from me: that this and, in fact, all the other Amendments standing in my name are consequential Amendments necessitated by the Government's previous Amendments. Therefore, I do not propose to speak to them but simply beg to move them.
Amendments moved—
Page 57, line 23, leave out ("five") and insert ("six")
Page 57, line 24, at end insert—
("(2) A provision of an order that alters a pair of days previously specified for the purposes of section two of this Act must have been approved by the votes polled, on a poll taken for the purpose, of a majority of the persons who, severally, either—

(a) were, on the relevant day, the occupiers of shops as respects which the pair of days so specified is altered by that provision; or

(b) had, during the six months ending with the relevant day, regularly carried on, from stalls or vehicles situate on particular cites within the area to which that provision extends, retail trade or business of a class which, if it had been carried on in a shop within that area, would have made the shop one falling within head (a) of this subparagraph,

and were entitled to vote on the poll:
Provided that this sub-paragraph shall not apply to any provision made by a local authority in the exercise of powers conferred on them by virtue of subsection (1) of section thirty of this Act in so far as that provision extends to any area as respects which the

417
authority have not previously exercised those powers.")
Page 57, line 26, leave out ("one, three or four") and insert ("three")
Page 57, line 32, after ("area") insert ("being shops")
Page 58, line 6, leave out from ("limited") to ("to") in line 8.
Page 58, line 40, at end insert—
("( ) A provision of an order that makes, varies or revokes such provision as is authorised by section four of this Act must have been approved by the votes polled, on a poll taken for the purpose, of a majority of the persons who, severally, either—

(a) were, on the relevant day, the occupiers of shops in the area to which that provision of the order extends; or

(b) had, during the six months ending with the relevant day, regularly carried on retail trade or business from stalls or vehicles situate on particular sites within the area aforesaid;

and were entitled to vote on the poll.")
Page 58, line 41, leave out sub-paragraph (3) and (4).
Page 59, line 35, leave out ("date") and insert ("day").
Page 60, line 5, at end insert—
("( ) A provision of an order that makes, varies or revokes such provision as is authorised by paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of section twenty of this Act must have been approved by the votes polled, on a poll taken for the purpose, of a majority of the persons who, severally, either—

(a) were, on the relevant day, the occupiers of shops situate within the area to Which that provision of the order extends, being shops where retail trade or business consisting in the selling of goods
418
of a kind to which that provision relates was carried on on that day; or

(b) had, during the six months ending with the relevant day, regularly carried on, from stalls or vehicles situate on particular sites within the area aforesaid, retail trade or business consisting in the selling of such goods as aforesaid;

and were entitled to vote on the poll.").—(Viscount Hailsham).
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Fifth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining Schedule agreed to.
House resumed.

  AIRCRAFT INDUSTRY EXPORTS
  AIRCRAFT INDUSTRY EXPORTS
  EXCHANGE OF SECURITY INFORMATION
  EXCHANGE OF SECURITY INFORMATION
  UNIVERSITY OF EXETER BILL
  UNIVERSITY OF EXETER BILL
  BLYTH HARBOUR BILL [H.L.]
  BLYTH HARBOUR BILL [H.L.]