Sitting of 26 March 1958

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

    V-Bombers
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Air what is now the cost of training a V-bomber pilot and the various members of the crew who would be entrusted with the task of dropping a hydrogen bomb.
    The Secretary of State for Air (Mr. George Ward): V-bomber aircrew, apart from the air electronics officer, are selected from personnel who have completed operational tours on other types of aircraft. The direct and indirect cost of their subsequent specialist training on V-bombers, up to the time of joining V-bomber squadrons, is about £150,000 for the five crew members.
    Mr. Hughes: Does not the Minister agree that that is quite a lot?
    Mr. Ward: It is, but I think that it might, perhaps, help to put it into proportion if I remind the House that, while the cost of one Valiant and its crew is as much as a war-time Lancaster squadron of sixteen aircraft, in one sortie a Valiant could hit harder than the whole of Bomber Command hit Germany during the whole of the last war. It is that sort of background which puts these training costs into perspective.
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Air upon what grounds he bases his estimate that the V-bombers could bomb Moscow and then return to this country.
    Mr. Ward: The aircraft's load and fuel consumption, and the known distance between London and Moscow.
    Mr. Hughes: Is the assumption made by the Under-Secretary during the last debate itself based on the assumption that the Russians have no aircraft and no defences, and that the aerodromes will be here when they return?
    Mr. Ward: This is not a matter for conjecture. It is a matter of known facts, and I have given the facts to the House.

    Missile Launching Sites
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Air the nature of the operational considerations which influenced his decision not to place missile bases in Scotland.
    Mr. Ward: It would not be in the public interest to discuss these operational considerations.
    Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that there has been a good deal of discussion on this matter in the Press, and that the scientific correspondent of the Daily Express has said that they are not to be placed in Scotland because the missiles might go over neutral territory such as Sweden? Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm or deny that?
    Mr. Ward: Had these missiles been based in Scotland, the question might have arisen. As they are not, it is purely hypothetical.

    Hydrogen Bombs
    Mr. Liptonasked the Secretary of State for Air to what extent the existing arrangements with the United States Air Force fix the maximum number of hydrogen bombs to be kept in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Ward: The arrangements with the United States Government do not include restrictions on the number of weapons to be stored in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Lipton: Is not this an unsatisfactory, if not an almost lunatic, state of affairs? Has nobody in Her Majesty's Government—the Secretary of State for Air, the Defence Minister, or the Prime Minister—come to some understanding or made some appreciation of how many H-bombs are required in this country? Is it necessary to have more of these devilish weapons than is absolutely necessary in the opinion of the Chiefs of Staff, or whoever it may be?
    Mr. Ward: As I explained to the House last week, the storage for the weapons is actually built by the Air Ministry, and we, therefore, naturally, know where the stocks may be deployed; but information about the actual number of weapons which may be stored here at any one time is not essential for mutual defence purposes.

  ROADS

    Manchester-Burnley Trunk Road
    Mr. Anthony Greenwoodasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (1) what plans are in hand for improving the A.56 trunk road between Manchester and Burnley; and by what date it is intended that these plans shall be completed;
    (2) when it is planned to provide a fly-over or by-pass on the A.56 trunk road at Rawtenstall so as to avoid the railway level crossing and the dangerous bridge over the River Irwell; and
    (3) when it is planned to improve the narrow A.56 trunk road at Loveclough so as to make it safer for both pedestrians and traffic.
    The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Harold Watkinson): We intend to improve this trunk road throughout its length, and our plans include a by-pass of Bury and local diversions at Edenfield and Rawtenstall. We shall also give priority to widening the road through Loveclough. I am not yet able to say how soon these schemes can be carried out.
    Mr. Greenwood: We welcome the proposals the Minister has in mind, but is he aware that, in the course of three and a half years, over 1,000 people were injured on this road, many of them being killed? Does he appreciate that this is the arterial road for the whole textile industry of North-East Lancashire, and that, so long as there is this tremendous hold up at the level crossing in Rawtenstall, great harm is inflicted upon the industry, and, of course, new industries are discouraged from going to the area?
    Mr. Watkinson: I am very anxious to get on with the road programme, and I will ask my divisional road engineer to look very carefuuly at what the hon. Gentlemen says.
    Mr. Burke: Does the Minister realise that this road circles the North-East Lancashire Development Area and that the sooner it is completed the better it will be for the industrial development of the area? Can he give any date?
    Mr. Watkinson: I cannot; but, as I have said, I will ask my divisional road engineer to look into it.
    Mr. Greenwood: If we were to table a Question again in a few weeks' time, would the Minister then, perhaps, be able to give a firm date for the completion?
    Mr. Watkinson: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put a Question down about it.

    Railway Bridge, Yiewsley
    Mr. Beswickasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what progress has been made in the preparation of plans for reconstruction in the vicinity of the railway bridge over road A.408 at Yiewsley; and by what date he will require the proposals to be submitted if the claims of this essential improvement are to be considered for his programme this year.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): We are considering a scheme submitted by the Middlesex County Council and I hope that we shall be able to authorise it in the coming financial year.

    "Halt" Signs
    Mr. Collinsasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he has now received the final report from the Road Research Laboratory on the value, in reducing the accident rate, of the practice of painting "Halt" on the road surface adjacent to halt signs.
    Mr. Nugent: No, Sir, not yet.
    Mr. Collins: Can the Minister speed up this matter, because in my own borough, over identical periods, at one road junction accidents have been reduced from 15 to 1 and at six other junctions they have been reduced by an average of from 15 to 5? It is important that this scheme should be put into operation. Can the right hon. Gentleman say, at the same time, whether the research people are considering the ideal distance from the road junction at which the sign should be painted—whether it is 30, 40, or 50 yards?
    Mr. Nugent: We are waiting upon the result of the survey of 100 sites by the Road Research Laboratory. It has completed some of it, but not all of it. We shall have to compose ourselves in patience for a little longer. In the meantime, we are consulting with local authorities about these and other road signs, so that we are making use of the interval. I am aware of the success in the hon. Gentleman's borough.

    Cable Street and The Highway, London (Accidents)
    Mr. W. Edwardsasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation the number of fatal and non-fatal accidents which have occurred in Cable Street, London, E.1, and The Highway, London, E.1, during the years 1955, 1956 and 1957, respectively.
    Mr. Nugent: As the reply consists of a table of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it with the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Edwards: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the proposal of the Minister to have one-way traffic on these two streets is viewed with great apprehension by the residents in the area? They are certain, just as the Stepney Borough Council is certain, that if one-way traffic is introduced in these two streets there will be faster traffic, but more fatal accidents. Will the hon. Gentleman undertake to review this question of one-way traffic again before he finally gives his consent?
    Mr. Nugent: I know that there has been a lengthy discussion on this matter, but the police are convinced that a one-way system in these two streets will be for the general benefit. I went to inspect them myself, and I am bound to say that I was convinced that it was right to make the experiment. If the experiment turns out to be a failure it will cease, but in the meantime in that street, which is very narrow, I am certain that there will be advantage in having one-way movement, particularly having regard to the heavy vehicles there and the narrow pavement, where so often there are accidents due to the fact that there is a standing vehicle and when another is passing it pedestrians on the pavement are injured by the overhang of the lorry. I am certain that the experiment is well worth while carrying out.
    Mr. Edwards: On a point of order. In view of the importance of this problem to my constituents in the area, especially the old people and the children, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the subject on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.
    Following is the table:

    Year

    Accidents involving personal injury

    Cable Street, London, E.1

    The Highway, London, E.1

    Fatal

    Non-fatal

    Total

    Fatal

    Non-fatal

    Total

    1955

    —

    38

    38

    —

    12

    12

    1956

    2

    42

    44

    —

    10

    10

    1957

    —

    30

    30

    1

    8

    9

    Night Accidents (Unlighted Vehicles)
    Sir I. Fraserasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation in how many night road accidents in the past twelve months the presence of unlighted vehicles on the road has been a contributory factor; and whether he is satisfied with the present regulations and their observance.
    Mr. Nugent: Some 890 accidents involving personal injury in Great Britain in 1957 were attributed by the police wholly or partly to the absence of front or rear lights on one of the vehicles concerned. I am satisfied that the standards prescribed for the lighting of vehicles are adequate, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the opportunity he has given me for emphasising the danger inherent in poor observance.
    Sir I. Fraser: May I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the last line of the Question, which asks whether the Minister is satisfied with the observance of the regulations?
    Mr. Nugent: Yes. Broadly, I think they are carried out as well as they can be.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: Will my hon. Friend look into the point that there are a number of vehicles running about the roads today which are not fulfilling the regulations laid down by Parliament a few years ago that they should carry two effective reflectors at the rear, in that the

    407
    reflectors have been dislodged, displaced or lost? Will he ask his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary whether the police might look into this a little more closely?
    Mr. Nugent: I will call the attention of my right hon. Friend to the point, but without specific instances it is difficult to follow up such a general thought.
    Mr. Isaacs: While he is looking into the question of lights on vehicles, will the Minister give attention to the present-day stop and direction lights, which on a number of vehicles are almost like headlights and can be blinding?
    Mr. Nugent: I agree that many of them are not entirely satisfactory. They will gradually become right as the new standards of manufacture come into operation.

    Driving Tests (Mopeds)
    Lieut.-Colonel Cordeauxasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation the percentage of failures among candidates taking the driving test for mopeds during the past twelve months from any convenient date; and what percentage of these failures was due solely to lack of knowledge and application of the Highway Code.
    Mr. Nugent: The information for which my hon. and gallant Friend asked is not readily available.
    Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux: Would my hon. Friend agree that his Chief Traffic Examiner is on the record in a recent report to the Committee on Road Safety as saying that these failures are largely due to lack of knowledge and application of the Highway Code? If that is true, and in view of the very low accident rate among riders of mopeds, will he consider the possibility of restricting the test for riding a moped to a theoretical one based largely on knowledge of the Highway Code?
    Mr. Nugent: We have considered doing that, but our view is that a practical test is necessary as well. Although a number failed on the theoretical side, there is quite a number who also failed on the practical side.

    Elephant and Castle Area
    Mr. Isaacsasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation the cost of providing and constructing new roads and bringing into conformity with the new scheme the existing roads in the Elephant and Castle area.
    Mr. Watkinson: The total cost of constructing the two roundabouts and the associated roads at this junction will be about £1½ million, including the cost of acquiring land and property.
    Mr. Isaacsasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what were the recommendations made to him by the London County Council and the Southwark Borough Council on the choice of surfacing material on the carriageways in the new Elephant and Castle area before the decision was made that part of the carriageways should be of mastic asphalt and part of hot rolled asphalt; what is the estimated cost and period of useful life of each of these road surfacing materials; what would be the extra cost if the whole surface instead of part of the surface were of mastic asphalt; and whether he is satisfied that such extra cost would not be fully compensated by a longer useful life, which, in the estimation of the Southwark Borough Council, would be twice that of hot rolled asphalt.
    Mr. Watkinson: The Southwark Borough Council recommended hand-laid mastic asphalt. The London County Council, whose scheme it is, provided in its specification for hot rolled asphalt because it was cheaper. The extra cost of using mastic asphalt throughout would be about £13,000, and I am not satisfied that the additional cost would be justified by a longer potential life of about five years.
    Mr. Isaacs: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the £13,000 extra cost on a total of £1½ million is worth all this trouble, in view of the undoubted fact that the use of hot rolled asphalt will mean that the road will require resurfacing in much less time than if mastic asphalt is used? In view of the amount and nature of traffic that will use this road compared with the present time, is it worth while going to the trouble of disturbing the road surface in five or seven years' time, when for another £13,000 it could be used for a longer period?
    Mr. Watkinson: It is rather difficult to debate this technical matter, but I think I can answer the right hon. Gentleman by saying that cane disadvantage about the type the Southwark Borough Council wants is that the road becomes very highly polished and dangerous to traffic. It is better, on the whole, to leave it to the London County Council, which is the authority to construct the road.
    Mr. Isaacs: Regarding the argument about the polished road, if we put this where buses stop and start, we shall polish the road. Will it lessen the danger to traffic on that account? In view of the fact that I have given the right hon. Gentleman time to deploy his arguments and consult his experts, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Motion for the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

    Eastern Avenue, Leyton
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation to what extent owners of houses to be demolished in connection with the extension of Eastern Avenue through the borough of Leyton are to be compensated financially at different rates according to whether they are or are not in occupation when their property is acquired for the purpose of demolition.
    Mr. Watkinson: Compensation is worked out on the same basis in both cases, but owners in occupation who have to vacate on account of the scheme will be entitled in addition to a sum for disturbance.
    Mr. Sorensen: Is the Minister aware that a good deal of anxiety exists already among my constituents and others in like position, lest they have to leave their houses and do not get the compensation anticipated? Will he look into this matter to see that a proper and equitable standard of compensation is paid?
    Mr. Watkinson: I have set out the general principle in my Answer, but I would say to the hon. Gentleman that I and my Ministry are most anxious that cases arising of dispossession or acquisition of land for road works should be fairly and equitably treated. If the hon. Gentleman can bring me any specific case or problem, I will certainly look into it.

    Footbridges and Subways, Metropolitan Police Area
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation how many pedestian bridges have been erected to date over thoroughfares in the Metropolitan Police area; how many have been removed or replaced by pedestrian crossings or underground crossings; and what is the average cost of erecting bridges and of constructing tunnels for pedestrians.
    Mr. Nugent: Eight publicly-owned footbridges have been put up across thoroughfares in the Metropolitan Police area and four have subsequently been removed. Of the latter, two have already been replaced by subways and the other two are to be replaced, one by a subway and the other by a new footbridge. The cost of a footbridge generally varies between £3,000 and £8,000 and of a subway between £20,000 and £30,000 depending on local conditions.
    Mr. Sorensen: May I ask the Minister whether some of these overhead bridges are to be replaced by permanent ones, as is the case in one or two places? Is it now the general policy not to go any further with bridges, whether permanent or temporary?
    Mr. Nugent: Generally speaking, bridges are not very popular. People do not like going up steps, and they do not like using them. The preference is to put in a subway wherever we can, but as the hon. Member will see from the figures I have given, unfortunately, they are very expensive.
    Mr. Page: May I ask my hon. Friend if the press-button light signals are very much cheaper than either the bridges or subways? Have they not proved very satisfactory on some of the approach roads to London?
    Mr. Nugent: No, they are by no means as satisfactory. The only safe solution is the segregation of pedestrians and vehicles at different levels.

    Parking Places, Greater London
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what recommendations he has given to, or what consultations have taken place with, local authorities and the London Transport Executive in respect of the provision of

    411
    more adequate parking places in the Greater London area in order to encourage motorists to park their cars in those areas instead of driving into and parking in the inner London area.
    Mr. Nugent: The London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee is at present considering this problem in consultation with local authorities in the London Traffic Area. I expect its advice within the next few months.
    We are in close touch with the British Transport Commission on this question and London Transport plans increases which will in total double the capacity available over three years ago.
    Mr. Sorensen: While thanking the Minister for that reply, which is encouraging, may I ask him whether he is aware that in many areas round London, and especially outer London, the congestion is becoming most acute, and that certainly it will help local authorities in this area and the central London area if the inquiry is speeded up?
    Mr. Nugent: Yes, Sir. We are well aware of the urgency of it, and we are pressing the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee in the matter, and the Transport Commission. We are most anxious to make the best provision we can.

    Traffic Lights (Guidance to Pedestrians)
    Mr. Russellasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will encourage local authorities to include signals giving directions to pedestrians in all traffic signals erected at intersections in the busiest streets of cities and towns.
    Mr. Nugent: Where conditions permit and it is safe to do so, guidance to pedestrians is incorporated in traffic light signals at busy intersections. But the scope for such installations is limited.
    Mr. Russell: Can my hon. Friend say why this is limited? Are not there many places in London now where directions could be given? What are the limiting factors?
    Mr. Nugent: The limiting factors are obvious. In order to have a phase for pedestrians crossing it is necessary to have an all-red phase in which traffic is held up altogether. A further limitation is where
    412
    there is traffic filtering while the main stream is held up. Finally, pedestrians in London tend to cross irrespective of what the lights say.
    Mr. Champion: Is not the Minister aware that there are many spots in the provinces where the "Cross Now" signal could be used, and would not it be an advantage to use these in some places in London? Will he look at that point again?
    Mr. Nugent: If the hon. Gentleman will give me details of any points where he thinks this signal should be introduced, I will gladly look at them, but to put in the "Cross Now" signal means an all-red phase in which the whole of the traffic is held up.

    Dual Carriageways
    Mr. Ronald Bellasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what steps he is taking to fill in gaps in the centre islands of dual carriageway roads, so as to prevent vehicles from making right turns; whether he is aware that some motorists park their vehicles on dual carriageways; and if he will make a statement on this practice.
    Mr. Watkinson: It is my Department's policy to see that as few gaps as practicable are left in the central reservation of dual carriageways, and my powers under Section 45 of the Road Traffic Act, 1956 are being used to give effect to this on existing roads as opportunity offers.
    I am aware that some motorists park their vehicles on dual carriageways. Highway authorities have powers to control such parking where they consider it necessary to do so.
    Mr. Bell: In spite of the highly satisfactory nature of that Answer, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend is aware that there still seem to be an enormous number of gaps in the centre islands of dual carriageway roads, that right turning is common and that this is a dangerous practice, as is also that of using the nearside lane of the dual carriageway for parking, which is also extremely common? Would my right hon. Friend initiate some effective action of enforcement, which would probably involve using police sent out especially to stop parking in near-side lanes?
    Mr. Watkinson: I am very sympathetic to what my hon. Friend has said because it is a dangerous practice and it restricts road space, and thus greatly impedes traffic. One of the difficulties is to discover how we can get better enforcement without making more regulations, which I am not very willing to do. If my hon. Friend has any ideas about how we could get a tighter and better implementation, avoiding right-hand turning and stopping parking in the wrong place, and will let me have them, I will look at them with pleasure.

    A.40 Road
    Mr. Ronald Bellasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation why he has referred to the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee for their consideration a proposal to impose a speed limit of 40 miles-per-hour on the stretch of trunk road A.40 which runs past Northolt.
    Mr. Nugent: This proposal was made to us by the Uxbridge Borough Council. In accordance with the usual procedure in such cases, I propose to seek the advice of the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee, and my intention to do so was recently advertised, in order to give objectors the opportunity to make their case.
    Mr. Bell: Does my hon. Friend know that this is one of the safest stretches of road in the country, that it consists of about two miles of straight double-track dual carriageway, with no access from either side and no houses, and that if he or his right hon. Friend puts a 40 m.p.h. speed limit on this stretch of road, then he must from the start impose a 40 m.p.h. speed limit on all the new motorways which are to be constructed?
    Mr. Nugent: No, Sir. I have said that this is a proposal by the Uxbridge Borough Council, which will now be considered by the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee. I do not doubt that the Committee will take into account the comments of my hon. Friend.
    Sir P. Agnew: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that this is only an advisory committee and that it rests with his right hon. Friend the Minister subsequently to reach common-sense decisions?
    Mr. Nugent: Yes, Sir, the Committee gives us good advice, but we shall certainly take a common-sense decision after receiving it.
    Mr. Ronald Bellasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation how much it would cost to complete the dual carriageway on that part of A.40 which runs over the Middlesex-Buckinghamshire boundary where work was suspended on the outbreak of war; and when he proposes to restart that work.
    Mr. Watkinson: About £.250,000. I am considering the possibility of including this project in my programme, but I cannot yet give any date.
    Mr. Bell: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that if his object is to stop accidents, he will stop far more by completing this bit of dual carriageway, as this place is really dangerous, than by imposing a 40 m.p.h. speed limit on perfectly safe stretches of road?
    Mr. Watkinson: Perhaps my hon. Friend will bear in mind that we are now engaged in the largest road programme this country has ever had, and I shall endeavour to extend it when I can.

    Blackwall Tunnel
    Mr. Cooperasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will make a further statement regarding the future of Blackwall Tunnel.
    Mr. Watkinson: Yes, Sir. I am informing the London County Council that I am prepared to consider a scheme for the duplication of Blackwall Tunnel. I hope that it will be possible to begin work as soon as detailed plans and estimates have been considered and approved.
    Mr. Cooper: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his announcement will give the greatest satisfaction to those many thousands of travellers who have suffered interminable hours in Blackwall Tunnel for many years? Can he give the House any indication when it is expected that this work will be completed?
    Mr. Watkinson: I should like the work to start as soon as possible, but consulting engineers will probably have to be appointed and the old scheme may have to be looked at again. I agree with my hon. Friend that this is one of the worst traffic bottlenecks in London. I have told

    415
    the L.C.C. it can go ahead and I hope it will expedite the work as much as possible.
    Mrs. Corbet: Is the Minister aware that the London County Council will receive this news with the greatest gratification after many years of pressing for this scheme?

  SHIPPING

    Tank Cleaning and Oil Separating Plant
    Mr. Awberyasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation how many of our ports are equipped with tank cleaning and oil separating plant which specialises in the cleaning of sea-going tankers and ballast tanks; and, in view of the rapidly expanding oil trade, what steps are being taken to construct such plants in our ports which handle such cargoes so that they can compete with Continental ports.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Airey Neave): Practically all our ports used regularly by ocean-going tankers have facilities of this kind provided by the interests concerned. These interests, particularly the port authorities and ship repairers, are well aware of the need to provide the facilities on a competitive basis.
    Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware that my information is that the full equipment is not available in many of our large ports? Is he also aware that oil tankers are developing much faster than dry cargo-carrying vessels and that we want to maintain our marine supremacy? Will he ensure that each of our ports has the equipment necessary to deal with oil tankers?
    Mr. Neave: I repeat—and I think that the hon. Gentleman knows it well—that the repair facilities are provided on a commercial basis. I have a complete list of all the ports and facilities available which I will send to the hon. Member.

  >TRANSPORT

    Staggered Working Hours, Central London
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what response he has received to his latest
    416
    appeal for the co-operation of Central London employers and their staffs for the staggering of working hours in Central London.
    Mr. Watkinson: This appeal was made to 26,000 firms and 115 have already asked the Committee conducting the campaign for advice.
    Mr. Ernest Davies: Does not the Minister think that it would be a good idea at this stage, following up his very useful circular, to have an intensive campaign throughout the country, particularly in urban areas, to urge upon firms and employees the need for the staggering of hours? Should not it be brought home to them that if they do not agree to this there is the danger of a further deterioration in services at peak periods and even higher fares—and that if they do not agree voluntarily it might be necessary to introduce a compulsive element?
    Mr. Watkinson: I will certainly look into what the hon. Gentleman has said. We are agreed that it is vitally important, for the sake of the travelling public, that we should make more progress with the staggering of hours.

    Carriers' Licences
    Mr. Ernest Daviesasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation the number of licences revoked or suspended, respectively, for offences committed under Section 19 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, and Section 16 of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, for the last quarter of 1957; and the comparable figures for the corresponding quarter of the previous year.
    Mr. Nugent: No carriers' licences were revoked or suspended for offences under these Sections during the last quarters of 1956 and 1957. Two vehicles were removed from licences for periods of three months during the last quarter of 1956.
    Mr. Davies: Does not the Joint Parliamentary Secretary appreciate that, in view of the large number of offences committed and convictions obtained, it is desirable that penalties should be more severe and that a fine of a few pounds is an inadequate penalty to act as a deterrent? Would not he agree that it is only

    417
    by a revocation or suspension of licences that firms which have committed offences against the Road Traffic Acts will be deterred from further offences?
    Mr. Nugent: It is within the discretion of the licensing authorities to decide what to do in the matter, and they normally consider that a fine is sufficient. In the case of a persistent offender licensing authorities do use these far more drastic penalties, but as a rule a fine is sufficient to deter the offender.
    Mr. Davies: Cannot the Minister do anything to draw the attention of traffic commissioners to the desirability of increasing penalties? Is he aware that only this morning I received a letter from the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation referring to a number of offences committed by drivers and by the road haulage operator concerned, where a total fine of only £15 10s. was imposed for several offences? That is guile inadequate. Cannot the attention of the traffic commissioners be drawn to this matter?
    Mr. Nugent: I do not doubt that the licensing authorities will read what the hon. Member has said; but they have statutory independence in the matter and I would be reluctant to send them a direction.

    Vehicle Tests
    Mr. Darlingasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation why heavy goods vehicles are not included in the list of vehicles for compulsory tests of roadworthiness.
    Mr. Watkinson: It is our experience that heavy goods vehicles are generally better maintained than light goods vehicles, and they are already liable to inspection under the provisions of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933. Although we propose to start with private cars, motor cycles and goods vehicles of up to 30 cwt. unladen, when the scheme is successfully under way I will consider extending it to other classes of vehicles, such as those which the hon. Member has in mind.
    Mr. Darling: While the Minister's statement about the roadworthiness of heavy vehicles may be correct, may I ask whether he is aware that a number of vehicles operated for general haulage purposes are in a shocking state of repair
    418
    and, because of difficulties of inspection, are not caught up by the provisions of the 1933 Act? Will he consider speeding up the road tests for these heavy vehicles as soon as possible?
    Mr. Watkinson: I wonder if the hon. Member is aware that we inspect over 100,000 vehicles a year under the 1933 Act.
    Mr. Nabarro: Would my right hon. Friend include in all future tests of roadworthiness for goods vehicles a provision that the emission of black smoke due to the poor condition of the engine, which is already an offence and is noxious to people living in built-up areas, should be taken into account by his inspectors?
    Mr. Watkinson: I will look into the point made by my hon. Friend. As he says, it is already an offence under certain circumstances, but I will certainly look at the point. I think that it is a valuable one.
    Mr. Ernest Daviesasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will assign officers of his Department to the testing stations for motor vehicles to be operated by private garages to ensure that consistent standards of inspection are objectively applied.
    Mr. Watkinson: This would not be practicable in view of the number of staff that would be required. However, the standards with which all testing stations must comply will be laid down by my Department, and the garages will be subject to regular inspection to ensure that uniform standards for the tests are applied. I am very anxious that all proper safeguards should be applied to the testing procedure.
    Mr. Davies: Is the Minister aware that there is an increasing opinion that garages will not act disinterestedly in regard to the testing of motor vehicles? Did he see the leader in The Times yesterday which took that point of view? Would not it be far more effective and efficient if the testing took place by the Minister's own inspectors rather than that it should be delegated to private garages, which have their own axes to grind in the matter?
    Mr. Watkinson: I think the hon. Gentleman's general distrust of private

    419
    garages is misplaced. I propose to lay a White Paper as soon as possible putting forward the details of the whole of this testing scheme to the House of Commons, when I think it will be seen that it is the best solution. Incidentally, as the hon. Gentleman knows, any municipality that wants to join in this scheme is welcome to do so, providing that it provides its own testing stations. The White Paper will set out the safeguards, and I think the House will see that they are quite adequate to ensure, in the motorists' interests, a fair deal.
    Mr. Chetwyndasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will include road steam traction engines in the regulations for vehicle tests on the same basis as veteran-type cars and motor cycles.
    Mr. Nugent: We intend to limit the tests initially to motor cycles, private cars and goods vehicles not exceeding 30 cwt. unladen weight, but I will consider the hon. Member's suggestion if and when the scheme is extended to cover heavier types of vehicles.
    Mr. Chetwynd: Is the Minister aware that his decision to regulate tests so that rallies for veteran cars and motor cycles may take place is much appreciated and that it would be a great pity if by regulations he did not allow the steam traction engines to steam up the roads now and again on their charitable occasions?
    Mr. Nugent: I will bear that in mind.

    Magistrates (Powers of Disqualification)
    Mr. Liptonasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether, by amending the Road Traffic Act, 1956, he will restore the power of magistrates to disqualify drivers who do not stop after an accident.
    Mr. Slaterasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation the number of drivers who failed to stop after an accident for the years 1955, 1956, and 1957; and, in the light of the information contained in the reports on these cases, if he will make a statement of his policy with regard to the amendment of the Road Traffic Act, 1956, to give magistrates power to disqualify drivers who fail to stop after an accident.
    Mr. Watkinson: I think the penalties for failing to report an accident are adequate. That is why this offence was not included in the list, set out in the Road Traffic Act, 1956, of offences for which a court may order disqualification. I will, however, review the matter when the next suitable opportunity offers.
    During 1955 and 1956 the numbers of convictions for this offence were 6,360 and 6,849 respectively; figures for 1957 I am afraid are not available.
    Mr. Lipton: In thanking the Minister for that information and his promise to look into the matter, may I ask him to regard it with urgency? Is not he aware that a hit-and-run driver cannot be banned and cannot even have his licence endorsed and that all that can be done is to impose a maximum fine of £20? The figures to which the Minister has referred show that this is a serious gap in the 1956 Act which should be stopped up at the earliest possible moment.

  CIVIL AVIATION

    Prestwick Airport
    Mr. Rankinasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what volume of passenger traffic he estimates will be handled at Prestwick by 1960.
    Mr. Neave: I expect that there will be about 175,000 terminal passengers together with a further 150,000 to 200,000 passengers in transit on flights to and from North America.
    Mr. Rankin: In thanking the hon. Gentleman for that Answer, may I ask whether he realises that that is a great increase on the number which was handled last year? Can he assure us that, in view of that estimate, the redevelopment which has to take place at Prestwick will be in keeping with the estimated increase in traffic and that at Prestwick he will nor repeat the errors into which we were forced at London Airport?
    Mr. Neave: My right hon. Friend and I have several times said that new schemes are necessary for Prestwick to meet the demands of the jet era. These are under consideration at the moment and I will certainly take into account what the hon. Member has said.
    Mr. Rankinasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what consultations he is having with the Secretary of State for Scotland in regard to the road problems which will originate from the redevelopment of Prestwick Airport.
    Mr. Neave: We are acting in the closest consultation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in all matters concerning the redevelopment of Prestwick airport, including road problems. An engineering survey of the road problems has already been arranged.
    Mr. Rankin: I appreciate all that the hon. Gentleman is seeking to do at Prestwick, but may I ask whether he realises that apart from the problem of redevelopment, which, I take it, is a minimum of redevelopment, there is now the problem of time and that time is running very much against us? Is it possible that the reconstruction may be speeded up?
    Mr. Neave: I will certainly bear in mind what the hon. Member says. I should like to reaffirm, as my right hon. Friend has already said, that the Government consider this our second international airport.

    Accidents Investigation and Ground Services (Staff)
    Mr. Beswickasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation the number of staff engaged in his Department in the Accident Investigation and Safety branches; what were the comparable figures for 1951; and how many of the staff appointed since 1951 have engineering or other technical qualifications.
    Mr. Watkinson: The Civil Aviation Accidents Investigation Branch of my Ministry has a technical staff of 21. A selection for one further appointment has recently been made. The comparable figure for 1951 was 19.
    All those appointed since 1951 have had the appropriate technical qualifications.
    Mr. Beswick: Probably I do not have the definitions correct, but are there not two departments, one dealing with safety and one with accidents? Can the Minister give the figures separately?
    Mr. Watkinson: Yes, Sir. The Civil Aviation Ground Services staff, which is
    422
    the technical name, has a staff of over 400 and is primarily concerned with air safety too. The figures I gave to the hon. Member represent the work of the staff of the Accidents Investigation Branch. I thought he probably wanted to know about the people who went out and did the work when an air accident occurs. In that case, the number is twenty-one—twenty-two including a recent appointment. We should like to raise the figure to twenty-four, which we think would be adequate.

    Aircraft Accident Inquiry (Recommendations)
    Mr. Beswickasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will now state the detailed steps taken by his Department to implement the recommendations made on 1st May, 1957, of the commission of the public inquiry into the accident to the aircraft G-AJBO, regarding the enforcement of regulations concerning aircrew tests.
    Mr. Watkinson: I hope to introduce by the end of this summer revised procedures for testing pilots following my acceptance in principle of the recommendations in the accident report dated 17th October, 1957. Discussions have taken place with interested parties and detailed procedures are now being worked out. I will make a fuller statement as soon as I am in a position to do so.
    Mr. Beswick: Does not the Minister agree that this has now gone on for a long time? It is ten months since the Commissioner made his recommendations. Was it not the substance of his recommendations that if tests and regulations are laid down, they should be enforced? Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that he has an adequate staff to ensure that the operator carries out the regulations laid down by the Minister for general safety and for the competence of air crews?
    Mr. Watkinson: There has been an interval of six months since the Report. I am just as anxious as the hon. Member to get something done; it is most important. In reply to the second part of his supplementary question, I would say that my staff is adequate to enforce the regulations.

    Airliners (Seats)
    Mr. Gresham Cookeasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will ask the Air Registration Board to consider the desirability of civilian airliners having seats constructed to stand 15G instead of 9G as at present, in the interests of safety.
    Mr. Watkinson: Present evidence indicates that no worth-while gain in safety would result from increasing the strength of seats beyond 9G. The Air Registration Board agrees with this view.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: As in a slow crash or belly landing the movement of seats can cause accident and sometimes death to passengers, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the practice of the Royal Air Force, which insists upon having seats with fixtures up to 20G instead of 9G, and consider whether it would be better to bring airliners into line with R.A.F. practice?
    Mr. Watkinson: I am aware of my Friend's interest in this matter. One must, however, make highly technical judgment in these matters of the force of gravity on passengers in civil aircraft. As I said in my Answer, the view of the Air Registration Board, whose statutory duty it is to advise me about these things, is that the present 9G standard is about right.
    Mr. Beswick: Is the Minister aware that the whole point about this is that there is no reason to increase the strength while the seat faces forward, because the force is put upon the lap-strap and not upon the seat, but that if he has the seats facing rearwards, it would be necessary to have greater strength in the seats?
    Mr. Gresham Cookeasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will instruct his representative on the International Civil Aviation Organisation to raise the question of backward-facing seats as being desirable in the interests of all airlines and their passengers.
    Mr. Watkinson: The matter was last discussed by the International Civil Aviation Organisation in September, 1956, on the initiative of the United Kingdom. No fresh evidence has come to light since then to justify a renewed
    424
    approach but I am keeping the matter under review.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: If, as a result of the inquiry into the Munich crash, my right hon. Friend thinks it necessary to reopen the matter, will he do so, because it would be a great thing for this country to take the lead in introducing a safety measure all over the world—in American airlines as well as British—by fitting backward-facing seats, which are obviously safer in the event of a crash in which the plane is going slowly along the ground?
    Mr. Watkinson: My hon. Friend might like to know that members of the Institute of Aviation Medicine have participated or are participating in the investigations into the Munich and Winter Hill accidents, and I will look very carefully at what they may say.
    Mr. Beswick: May I press the Minister on that? He says that no further evidence is available, but none is required. All the experts are really satisfied that the rearward-facing seat is safer, and the only question that has arisen is that of the commercial desirability of changing the seats round. In view of that, does not the Minister think he ought to take a fresh initiative with the international organisation, or set a lead from here?
    Mr. Watkinson: I have not ruled out the question of doing that, but I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman that all the experts are entirely agreed. They are not, and that is one of the reasons why we are seeking some fresh evidence about this.
    Mr. Hastings: May I ask the Minister whether, in view of the fact that, while the experts may not be in complete agreement, there are a great many people who travel by air who believe that it is much safer and would much prefer to sit in backward-facing seats, he will accordingly press that there should be at least some backward-facing seats in all aeroplanes?
    Mr. Watkinson: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will remember that I said recently in the House that modern British aircraft are already fitted so that the seats can face either forward or backward, and, in some modern British types there is a proportion of seats which already face backwards.

  RAILWAYS

    Finances (Minister's Letter)
    Mr. Ernest Daviesasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will make available to hon. Members by publication in the OFFICIAL REPORT the letter dated 22nd October which he sent to the British Transport Commission concerning advances to be made to it under the Transport (Railway Finances) Act, 1957, together with the reply he received thereto.
    Mr. Watkinson: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Davies: In thanking the Minister for publishing this letter, the existence of which we discovered only when he made his recent speech at Sevenoaks, may I ask whether he chose that particular occasion on which to refer to the fact that he had informed the Transport Commission that if it got into further financial difficulties, no further advances would be made to it than were provided under the Transport (Railway Finances) Act? Was it merely a coincidence that the Minister made his speech on the very day that the award for the London busmen was announced and on the eve of the hearing by the tribunal of the claim of the railwaymen? Was not this rather an interference with collective bargaining?
    Mr. Watkinson: The fact is that the letter was mentioned to the House by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the economic debate on 29th October, only a week after it was written. There was, therefore, no improper concealment. On the more general situation, the House must understand that we have committed ourselves, by a decision of the House, to finance the Transport Commission to the extent of £250 million to cover its future deficits. In my view, that is as far as we should go in the public interest and that is what I said in my speech.
    Following are the letters:
    Letter from the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation to the Deputy Chairman of the British Transport Commission
    22 nd October, 1957
    I wrote to your Chairman on 19th September about some of the measures the Government had decided must be taken to curb inflation and support the value of the pound sterling. In that letter I explained that the aim for the public sector was to keep the level of investment expenditure over the next two years
    426
    within the level attained this year and I gave the amounts within which the Commission would he expected to keep their actual expenditure on investment in 1958 and 1959.
    The same considerations must apply to the advances made to the Commission under the provisions of the Transport (Railway Finances) Act. 1957, to meet deficits on revenue account of British Railways. I am therefore letting you know in good time that it has been decided that for 1958 and 1959 no advance will be made to the Commission above the level contemplated in the White Paper. For 1958, therefore, the amount will not be in excess of the actual ascertained deficit for 1957 as certified by the Auditors in due course. For 1959 the advance will be reduced in accordance with the forecast on which the White Paper is based. I thought that the Commission would wish to know exactly how they stand over the next two years, in the light of the Government's present financial policy, under the provisions of the Act.
    (Signed) HAROLD WATKINSON.
    Letter from the Deputy Chairman of the British Transport Commission to the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation
    I have received your letter of 22nd October in regard to the advances made to the Commission under the provisions of the Transport (Railway Finances) Act, 1957. and have conveyed the contents to the Commission.
    (Signed) J. BENSTEAD.

    SUEZ CANAL (CLEARANCE COSTS)
    Mr. Awberyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how long it is estimated that the surcharge on shipping using the Suez Canal will need to be continued in order to pay off the costs of clearing the canal.
    The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. D. Ormsby-Gore): In his report to the General Assembly the Secretary-General estimated that on the basis of the current level of canal traffic a 3 per cent. surcharge would reimburse the costs of clearing the canal in about three years.
    Mr. Awbery: Will the Minister inform the House whether the Exchequer makes a contribution towards these costs, whether it is paid to the United Nations organisation, or whether the shipping industry carries the full burden of the folly of the Government in entering on this venture?
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The details of the scheme have not yet been fully divulged to us by the Secretary-General, but we

    427
    are having discussions with the shipping interests in this country about the matter.
    Mr. P. Williams: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the shipping industry is the least culpable of all in this matter, and that it is an unjust impost to place this tax upon that industry and to tax it for the failure of the campaign?
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I know that nobody has yet come forward with a better plan for reimbursing the United Nations for clearing the Canal.

    WEST GERMANY

      Forces (Atomic Tactical Weapons)
      Mr. Stonehouseasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what proposals Her Majesty's Government have made to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation for the immediate arming of West German forces with atomic tactical weapons.
      Mr. Ormsby-Gore: None, Sir.
      Mr. Stonehouse: Is the Minister aware that one of the main reasons given from his own Front Bench for failing to give this House information on foreign policy was the excuse that we had to consult the other members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation? May I ask him, therefore, why there was no consultation with the Secretary of State before General Norstad made his speech suggesting that the Germans should be armed with these weapons? Further, is he aware that there is widespread opposition on both sides of the House to the Germans getting these arms, which will increase tension and not reduce it?
      Mr. Ormsby-Gore: What, in fact, the hon. Gentleman asked me was whether Her Majesty's Government had made proposals to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation for the immediate arming of West German forces with atomic tactical weapons, and we have made no such suggestion.
      Mr. E. Fletcher: Will the Minister say whether or not it is correct, as is being stated, that all the troops under General Norstad's command must be armed with atomic tactical weapons or none of them?
      Mr. Ormsby-Gore: That does not arise out of this question, but at the N.A.T.O.
      428
      conference last December, the N.A.T.O. military authorities were requested to submit to the Council at an early date their recommendations on the introduction of these weapons in the common defence. The Council in permanent session will consider the various questions involved. These recommendations have not yet been made by the N.A.T.O. military authorities, so it does not arise yet.

      Weapon Production
      Mr. Healeyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what communication he has received from the West German Government regarding an amendment to treaty restrictions on the production of certain types of weapons in the Federal Republic.
      Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The Federal German Government have made no communication to Her Majesty's Government. They have, however, applied to the Council of Western European Union for an amendment to be made to the revised Brussels Treaty to entitle them to manufacture guided anti-tank missiles on German territory.
      Mr. Healey: Can the Minister of State assure the House that the Government will not accede to this request when it comes to be considered by the Council of Western European Union and will make proposals for limiting the number and nature of armaments in Central Europe on both sides of the Iron Curtain, instead of multiplying them in this dangerous and unstable area?
      Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is "No, Sir". I will not give any undertaking what attitude we will take up in the Council. I would point out that the Federal Government are already entitled to manufacture short-range guided missiles for anti-aircraft defence. I think they are being fairly punctilious in asking the Council whether they can make guided missiles for antitank defence which have a range of only 1,500 to 2,000 metres.
      Mr. Bevan: In various situations in which we are faced we are told over and over again by members of the Government that they will not give undertakings about the policy they will follow in international organisations. After decisions

      429
      have been made we are told, "Of course the decision has been made", and we can do nothing at all. It appears that this House has no influence at all upon the decisions of the Government.
      Mr. Ormsby-Gore: We listen to representations such as the right hon. Gentleman has just made, so that we may make our decisions.

    BRITISH INFORMATION SERVICES, U.S.A.
    Mr. Russellasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps are being taken by British Information Services in the United States of America to correct the distorted impression of Great Britain given in a recent television programme broadcast throughout the United States of America.
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The resources of the British Information Services are constantly employed to further understanding of the United Kingdom and to deal with criticism. I am glad to say that, no doubt partly as a result of the regular and frequent flow of accurate information made available by the British Information Services, friendly news about Britain considerably outweighs any distorted material.
    Mr. Russell: How much is television used in this respect? Is my right hon. Friend aware that these programmes, according to Press reports, give various incidents, such as demonstrations against United States bases in this country, as being typical of the British attitude, when they are not even typical of the party opposite? Does not my right hon. Friend think that distortions like that ought to be corrected in the medium in which they are given?
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I understand that about 250 television stations in the United States use our British information material. It must be borne in mind that a one-sided programme is the kind that makes news, and that it is not by any means typical of television programmes put out in the United States.
    Mr. Liptonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action he is taking to improve British information services in the United States of America.
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The operations of the British Information Services in the United States are always being reviewed and steps are taken to ensure that a fair picture of developments in this country is presented as effectively as possible.
    Mr. Lipton: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen reports that the overwhelming majority of people in the United States do not know or understand what British policy is on a variety of major issues? Is not that a very unsatisfactory state of affairs as between two allies which causes much misunderstanding? Is the right hon. Gentleman taking active steps to deal with it?
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman really has this great knowledge about what all the people in America know or do not know. We have considerably increased British information services in the United States. I believe that hon. Members of this House who have been in the United States will attest to the very good work done by these services?
    Mr. Bevan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, having regard to the means at their disposal, some of us in this House regard those in charge of British information services in America as highly efficient and extremely good officers?

    ADEN—YEMEN FRONTIER
    Mr. Healeyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will invite the United Nations to station observers in the Aden Protectorate along the frontier with Yemen.
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I have nothing to add to the reply which my right hon. and learned Friend gave to the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) on 19th February.
    Mr. Healey: Does not the Minister of State agree that it would be an unmitigated disaster if British troops were involved in another war with the Arabs and that experience in the Gaza strip has shown that the presence of United Nations observers can do much to reduce the dangers of conflict and to fix responsibility if a conflict should break out?
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I agree with what the hon. Gentleman says. In fact, my right hon. and learned Friend did say that we were examining these proposals. One of the difficulties is that the troubles in the Aden Protectorate are as much a question of subversion as of overt attacks across the border.
    Mr. P. Williams: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that it is the duty of the British Government to see that British territory is defended?
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore

    COUNCIL OF EUROPE RESOLUTION (HORSES AND LIVESTOCK)
    Mr. Willeyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a further statement on the action taken regarding the resolution of the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe on the regulation of the export of live horses and livestock for slaughter.
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The Assembly's Resolution was formally noted by the Ministers' Deputies at their meeting on 16th December last year. It is for individual Governments to take such action as they wish, to make the recommendations effective. As I told the hon. Gentleman on 27th November last year, Great Britain already has legislation to deal with the matter.
    Mr. Wiley: So that we can set a good example, will the Minister continue to encourage other countries to follow our lead?
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: We are always being told that we ought to set good examples and make moral gestures. I hope that on this occasion it bears fruit.

    UNITED NATIONS DISARMAMENT SUB-COMMITTEE
    Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government that there should be parity of representation on the United Nations Disarmament Sub-Committee between the Communist Governments and the non-Communist Governments.
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Owing to the Soviet Union's boycott of the Disarmament Commission, the Sub-Committee has not been reconvened and the question of its membership therefore does not arise at present.
    Mr. Henderson: Surely that does not prevent the Government making their position clear. Is not it a fact that the Sub-Committee is composed at the moment of four representatives of Western Powers and the Soviet Union representative? Will not the Government indicate mat they are prepared to consider favourably proposals for establishing parity between the Western Powers on the one hand and the Soviet and its associated Governments of the Warsaw Pact on the other hand?
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The Soviet Government object to the composition of the Disarmament Commission and not the Sub-Committee. That has not arisen yet. Proposals of the kind made by the right hon. Gentleman would be most unwelcome to a number of countries, whose policy is one of non-alignment. They are not prepared to be labelled either pro-or anti-Communist.

    EMPLOYMENT

      Heavy Engineering, Newcastle-upon-Tyne
      Mr. Shortasked the Minister of Labour what steps he is taking to ensure full employment in the heavy engineering industry in the County Borough of Newcastle-upon-Tyne.
      The Minister of Labour and National Service (Mr. Iain Macleod): There is no evidence that the high level of employment in this industry in Newcastle-upon-Tyne is endangered.
      Mr. Short: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the unemployment figures do not reflect the true position? Overtime work has stopped completely and large numbers of men are paid off. The extent to which they can be absorbed by other industries is strictly limited. The North-East depends to a large extent upon four basic industries and is extremely vulnerable. Will the right hon. Gentleman keep in close touch with the President of the Board of Trade and not let the position get out of hand?
      Mr. Macleod: Yes, I do bear these things in mind. I always try to look behind the figures and get the exact position. In this House, I can deal only with the exact Question which is on the Paper, which refers in terms to the heavy engineering industry in the County Borough of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, which has comparatively few difficulties. In the surrounding area, other occupations, like shipbuilding and ship-repairing, which are industries not normally included in heavy industry, there is, I understand, cause for some little anxiety.

      "Positive Employment Policies" (Booklet)
      Mr. J. Rodgersasked the Minister of Labour what response he has had from both sides of industry following the distribution of the official document, "Positive Employment Policies".
      Mr. Iain Macleod: There has been a gratifying response to the issue of this booklet. A large number of employers have written to comment favourably on its contents, and employers and their organisations, trades unions, educational organisations and voluntary associations have asked for a substantial number of additional copies. Inquiries are coming in from overseas.
      Mr. Rodgers: How many copies of this booklet have been printed? Is my right hon. Friend's Ministry prepared to follow up the distribution of the booklet by helping firms who wish to adopt some of the excellent policies dealt with?
      Mr. Macleod: The printing, all of which is required, is now about 42,000. My Ministry, particularly through personnel management services, is doing what it can to follow up inquiries which are coming in all the time.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

RENT ACT, 1957 (AMENDMENT) (EXCHANGES)
3.30 p.m.
Mr. George Darling: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to empower county courts to order on appropriate conditions exchanges of statutory tenancies in cases Where both tenants desire an exchange and a landlord's consent is withheld without sufficient reason; to preserve rent control in such cases and in other cases of exchanges; to enable local authorities to intervene in proceedings relating to exchanges; to amend section seventeen of the Rent Act, 1957, accordingly; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid.
The purpose of my proposed Bill is to facilitate the exchange of tenancies of privately rented dwellings, and I should have thought that that purpose would command the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House. We appreciate that, to achieve it, it will be necessary to amend Section 17 of the Rent Act, but I would point out that whether or not the Rent Act had been passed the housing situation in many parts of the country would have demanded such action as we now propose.
The housing difficulties we want to deal with arise when landlords refuse to allow tenants to exchange houses. We all know why exchanges of tenancies are asked for, Hon. Members on both sides of the House must have had experience of cases where tenancy exchanges should be allowed—where an old couple, whose family has grown up and gone to live in their own homes, find that the house they live in is much too large for their circumstances and, at the same time, a young couple who went into a small house at the time of their marriage now have a growing family and find that the house is too small for them. I am sure that, as these cases came to them, many hon. Members must have wished that they could act as exchange brokers, so to speak, and make the exchanges, so that the people concerned could get into houses suited to their circumstances.
Hon. Members will know that the only obstacle to these exchanges of privately rented dwellings is the attitude of the landlords themselves, who, in most cases, quite unreasonably oppose exchanges which are socially desirable. I hasten to point out that not all landlords do

435
this. I speak only from my experience in Sheffield, and I say at once that there are good private landlords in that city who not only agree to exchanges wherever they can within their own properties but work with the city council to extend the area in which tenancy exchanges can take place. Indeed, the purpose of the proposed Bill is to bring the general practice in this matter up to the standards of the best landlords. It is the bad landlord and the not so good one with whom we are trying to deal.
I want to support my case by giving an example of what I have in mind. It concerns a young couple in my constituency who, when they were married, just after the war, went into a small two-up and two-down cottage, which was rather decrepit but was the only dwelling they could get at the time. They painted, decorated and furnished it, and made it into a very satisfactory home. They now have two children— one, unfortunately, a polio case—and the home is too small for them. It would, however, be ideal for an old married couple, such as two old-age pensioners.
The tenants of this house found two such old-age pensioners who were willing to exchange a larger house for theirs, and they went to their landlord, but he refused permission for the exchange. He was quite callous and frank about it. He did not object to the incoming tenants, but he said that the tenants who were already in were ideal; they had improved his property, and he was going to stick to them, or make them stick to him, for as long as he could. He admitted that if they had been bad tenants he would have agreed to an exchange right away.
I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House would condemn that behaviour, but in present circumstances there is nothing that we can do about it. If a landlord wants to prevent an exchange he can do so. The purpose of the Bill is to remove the landlord's unreasonable veto to exchanges. We are not saying that all exchanges must be approved out of hand; there must be safeguards for the reasonable landlord. If the landlord wants a home for himself when the house becomes vacant he should be able to make out his case, and if he objects to the prospective tenants who
436
are arranging to come in, and he has good grounds for doing so, the court should uphold his objection.
We believe that there is nothing unreasonable in the Bill that we bring before the House; nothing in it to compel tenants to exchange. It is designed to facilitate voluntary exchanges, and only voluntary exchanges. We do not want landlords to exploit the present situation. In some cases, when exchanges are permitted to take place, we know that they are trying to lay down conditions which we believe are far too severe upon the tenants. We say, therefore, that we should make it quite clear that tenancy exchanges cannot remove houses from the control now laid down in the Act.
What we have in mind is an extension of the system that works so well in the City of Sheffield. There, we have about 40.000 council houses within the area, and about 2,000 voluntary exchanges of tenancies take place every year. They are helped by a special department of the corporation's housing department, and that department has persuaded some private landlords to join in the general scheme, so that tenants wishing to exchange can go to the housing department even when they are living in private houses. They are then given a list of houses whose tenants are willing to make exchanges. In this way, the corporation is able to help them considerably.
I pay tribute again to the private landlords who have joined in this scheme. The social spirit that they have displayed has undoubtedly helped to prevent much hardship and distress which might otherwise have occurred. From our experience of this limited exchange scheme we have estimated that if all the privately rented houses in Sheffield were thrown in with the council houses, and free exchanges of tenancies were generally permitted, we should be able to solve more than half the accommodation problems of Sheffield. That is what we want to achieve.
The landlords would not lose anything, they would get tenants in; their houses would be occupied, and they would receive the controlled rents. Before the corporation's housing department was allowed to negotiate exchanges it would have to give guarantees to private landlords against undesirable tenants, and so

437
on. Such a scheme, which has worked so well in Sheffield with the help of a few private landlords, should commend itself to the whole House.
In seeking support for the Bill I would remind hon. Members opposite that the Rent Act is still something of a gamble. It is based upon assumptions, estimates and forecasts which may not work out. If I were now sitting on those benches—which heaven forbid—I should take out an insurance policy. I would support some such Measure as I am seeking leave to introduce so that obstacles to the free exchange of tenancies could be removed; so that the unreasonable landlord's veto could be removed. As some hon. Members opposite admitted during the debates on the Rent Act, at the end of this year and during next there may not be sufficient housing accommodation to make the Rent Act a practical proposition. If landlords will not permit a widespread exchange of tenancies, the Rent Act may well break down. I am sure that hon. Members opposite do not want to find themselves having to face an enraged electorate because they made had forecasts about the outcome of the Rent Act.
If the Government are not proved right by events, this proposed Bill will help. If they are proved right the Bill will not do any harm, it will just fall into disuse. I am confident that what we require now to deal with the housing situation is a Bill that will prevent unreasonable landlords from putting a veto on tenancy exchanges and so preventing the full use of available housing accommodation in the country.
3.42 p.m.
Sir Keith Joseph: The hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) put his case with great moderation but it is, none the less, specious, because, as he says, this exchange system is working very well in many parts of the country.
The hon. Member cited Sheffield in particular. If I at once agree that there are some unreasonable landlords, I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree with me that there are some local authorities not as enlightened as the Sheffield local authority. The hon. Gentleman, by his modest Measure, is seeking to introduce a very large principle; no less than that, for the first time other than by requisitioning, a landlord shall he required to
438
accept a particular tenant and without any compensating benefit to the landlord—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If the hon. Gentleman denies this, he should follow the consequences of his own proposal.
A tenant suggests to his landlord that an exchange should take place with another particular tenant. If the landlord refuses, his tenant can take him to the county court. If the landlord's refusal is held to be unreasonable, he has to accept the nominated tenant. [HON. MEMBERS: "What is wrong with that?"] I will explain what is wrong with it.
We all want exchanges, and we all want the maximum number of houses to let, but I maintain that this proposal would discourage both those things. It would discourage the voluntary exchange system, which, the hon. Member admits, is going well on the whole, because landlords would be frightened at the prospect, first, of litigation, and then of a statutorily-controlled new tenancy. It would discourage landlords from building houses to let, because this is one more restriction on the already limited freedom possessed by a person who has a statutory controlled tenant.
There are five situations here. There is the situation where the landlord of the first and the second dwellings involved is the same landlord, a private landlord; there is the situation where the landlord is the same, but a local authority; there is the situation where there are two landlords both private landlords; there is the situation where there are two landlords, both public authorities, and there is the situation where there is one private landlord and one public authority landlord.
Of these five cases the hon. Gentleman provides for protection only in two cases, for exchanges where the landlord is either the same landlord or two private landlords. There is a vast range of tenancies where one or both landlords are local authorities and this proposed Bill makes no provision for the compulsory recourse to the county court in the case of tenants of a local authority who think that the local authority is unreasonably withholding consent to a change of tenancy. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Does the hon. Member for Hillsborough suggest that a local authority tenant is entitled to go to the county court if he thinks that a local

439
authority is unreasonably withholding consent to a change of tenancy?
Mr. Darling: If he wishes to do so.
Sir K. Joseph: Are we to accept that as the official policy of Her Majesty's Opposition? This is very interesting. For the first time local authorities are to be compelled to give their approval to exchanges, if it is shown that to withhold approval would be unreasonable.
Hon. Members opposite profess to be horrified that private landlords should retain the right to approve or to disapprove a change of tenancy. Do they think that there are no local authority tenants who are aggrieved by the refusal of one or more local authorities to permit an exchange? We debated this issue fully during the Committee stage of the Rent Act, and the Government agreed that in cases where one or both landlords agree there shall be voluntary retention of statutory control.
I should like to see an extension where this would be valuable in increasing the number of exchanges. Suppose a landlord owns a large and a small house, both statutorily controlled. The large house is not fully occupied. Suppose he says to the occupant of the large house, "I will give you the statutorily-controlled
tenancy of the small house which I have vacant if you will vacate the large house which is statutorily controlled at present and which you are not fully occupying." That is a procedure which would suit everyone concerned and make more accommodation available.
The proposal advanced by the hon. Gentleman was conceived at a time when everyone regarded the housing situation as frozen. My right hon. Friend has enabled the housing market to be unfrozen, and, as the hon. Member for Hillsborough, himself said, if the Government are right his Bill would fall into disuse. I maintain that this is an unfair proposal which does not specifically provide for local authorities who are the landlords of more than half the tenants of the country. I maintain that this would discourage voluntary exchanges and not help them. It would discourage the owners of statutorily-controlled dwellings, and I therefore ask the House not to accept this Motion.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 12 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business):—
The House divided: Ayes 191, Noes 233.

Division No. 80.]

AYES

[3.47 p.m.

Ainsley, J. W.

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Craddoch, George (Bradford, S)

Hastings, S.

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Cronin, J. D.

Hayman, F. H.

Awbery, S. S.

Cullen, Mrs. A.

Healey, Denis

Bacon, Miss Alice

Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

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

Balfour, A.

Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

Holman, P.

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

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Hoy, J. H.

Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.)

Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Benson, Sir George

Deer, G.

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Beswick, Frank

Diamond, John

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Bevan, Rt. Hon A. (Ebbw Vale)

Dodds, N. N.

Hunter, A. E.

Blackburn, F.

Donnelly, D. L.

Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

Blenkinsop, A.

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

Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

Blyton, W. R.

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

Boardman, H.

Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

Jay, Rt. Hon. D P. T.

Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Nets (Caerphilly)

Jeger, George (Goole)

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

Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

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

Bowles, F. G.

Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

Johnson, James (Rugby)

Boyd, T. C.

Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

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

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

Finch, H. J.

Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

Brown, Thomas (Ince)

Fletcher, Eric

Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

Burke, W. A.

Foot, D. M.

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

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

Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

George, Lady Megan Lloyd(Car'then)

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Callaghan, L. J.

Gibson, C. W.

King, Dr. H. M.

Carmichael, J.

Greenwood, Anthony

Lawson, G. M.

Castle, Mrs. B. A.

Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

Champion, A. J.

Grey, C. F.

Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

Chapman, W. D.

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

Lewis, Arthur

Chetwynd, G. R.

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

Lindgren, G. S.

Clunie, J.

Hale, Leslie

Lipton, Marcus

Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

Logan, D. G.

Colli s, V.J.(Shoreditch & Finsbury)

Hannan, W.

McAlister, Mrs. Mary

MCann, J.

Pargiter, C. A.

Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

MacColl, J. E.

Parker, J.

Stonehouse, John

McGhee, H. G.

Parkin, B. T.

Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

McGovern, J.

Paton, John

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

McInnes, J.

Pearson, A.

Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

McKay, John (Wallsend)

Peart, T. F.

Swingler, S. T.

McLeavy, Frank

Pentland, N.

Sylvester, G. O.

MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

Prentice, R. E.

Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

Taylor, John (West Lothian)

Mahon, Simon

Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

Thornton, E.

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Probert, A. R.

Timmons, J.

Mann, Mrs. Jean

Proctor, W. T.

Tomney, F.

Mason, Roy

Randall, H. E.

Viant, S. P.

Mellish, R. J.

Rankin, John

Watkins, T. E.

Messer, Sir F.

Redhead, E. C.

Weitzman, D.

Mikardo, Ian

Reeves, J.

Wells, Percy (Faversham)

Mitchison, G. R.

Reid, William

West, D. G.

Monslow, W

Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

Wheeldon, W. E.

Moody, A. S.

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

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

Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

Willey, Frederick

Mort, D. L.

Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

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

Moss, R.

Short, E. W.

Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

Moyle, A.

Shurmer, P. L. E.

Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

Silverman, Julius (Aston)

Winterbottom, Richard

Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

Oliver, G. H.

Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

Woof, R. E.

Oram, A. E.

Skeffington, A. M.

Zilliacus, K.

Oswald, T.

Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

Owen, W. J.

Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

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

Sparks, J. A.

Mr. Mulley and Mr. Darling.

Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

Steele, T.

NOES

Agnew, Sir Peter

Deedes, W. F.

Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

Aitken, W. T.

Digby, Simon Wingfield

Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

Allan, R A. (Paddington, S.)

Dodds-Parker, A. D.

Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

Alport, C. J. M.

Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. MA.

Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William

Drayson, G. B.

Hirst, Geoffrey

Arbuthnot, John

du Cann, E. D. L.

Hope, Lord John

Armstrong, C. W.

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

Hornby, R. P.

Atkins, H. E.

Duncan, Sir James

Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

Duthie, W. S.

Horobin, Sir Ian

Baldwin, A. E.

Eden, J, B. (Bournemouth, West)

Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence

Balniel, Lord

Elliott,R.W.(Ne'castle uponTyne.N.)

Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

Barber, Anthony

Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

Barlow, Sir John

Errington, Sir Eric

Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

Barter, John

Erroll, F. J.

Hulbert, Sir Norman

Baxter, Sir Beverley

Farey-Jones, F. W.

Hurd, A. R.

Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

Fell, A.

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

Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

Finlay, Graeme

Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)

Bennett, Dr. Reginald

Fisher, Nigel

Hyde, Montgomery

Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

Fletcher-Cooke, C.

Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry

Bidgood, J. C.

Foster, John

Iremonger, T. L.

Biggs-Davison, J. A.

Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale)

Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

Bishop, F. P.

Freeth, Denzil

Jennings, J. c. (Burton)

Black, C. W.

Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)

Body, R. F.

Gammans, Lady

Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

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

Garner-Evans, E. H.

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Braithwaite, Sir Albert(Harrow, W.)

George, J. C. (Pollok)

Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)

Brooman-White, R. C.

Gibson-Watt, D.

Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot

Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)

Glover, D.

Kaberry, D.

Bryan, P.

Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan

Kerby, Capt. H. B.

Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

Goodhart, Philip

Kerr, Sir Hamilton

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

Gower, H. R.

Kimball, M.

Campbell, Sir David

Graham, Sir Fergus

Kirk, P. M.

Channon, Sir Henry

Grant, W. (Woodside)

Lambton, Viscount

Chichester-Clark, R.

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

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Clarke, Brig. Terence(Portsmth, W.)

Green, A.

Leavey, J. A.

Cole, Norman

Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

Leburn, W. G.

Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

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

Cooke, Robert

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

Cooper, A. E.

Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

Harris, Reader (Heston)

Lins ead, Sir H. N.

Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

Longden, Gilbert

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby

Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Crowder, Petre(Ruislip—Northwood)

Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

McAdden, S. J.

Cunningham, Knox

Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

Macdonald, Sir Peter

Currie, G. B. H.

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

McKibbin, Alan

Davidson, Viscountess

Henderson, John (Cathcart)

Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

Hesketh, R. F.

MacIean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)

442

443

McLean, Neil (Inverness)

Page, R. G.

Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)

MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

Partridge, E.

Storey, S.

Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold(Bromley)

Peel, W. J.

Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

Pike, Miss Mervyn

Studholme, Sir Henry

Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

Pitman, I. J.

Summers, Sir Spencer

Maddan, Martin

Pitt, Miss E. M.

Teeling, W.

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

Powell, J. Enoch

Temple, John M.

Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

Profumo, J. D.

Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

Markham, Major Sir Frank

Rawlinson, Peter

Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

Marlowe, A. A. H.

Redmayne, M.

Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.

Marshall, Douglas

Remnant, Hon. P.

Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

Mawby, R. L.

Renton, D. L. M.

Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

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

Ridsdale, J. E.

Tweedsmuir, Lady

Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

Vane, W. M. F.

Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh

Robertson, Sir David

Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

Moore, Sir Thomas

Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

Vickers, Miss Joan

Morrison, John (Salisbury)

Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

Russell, R. S.

Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

Nabarro, G. D. N.

Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

Nairn, D. L. S.

Sharples, R. C.

Whitelaw, W. S. I.

Neave, Airey

Shepherd, William

Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

Nicholls, Harmar

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

Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

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

Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

Wills, G. (Bridgwater)

Noble, Comdr. Rt, Hon. Allan

Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Nugent, G. R. H.

Spearman, Sir Alexander

Wood, Hon. R.

Oakshott, H. D.

Speir, R. M.

Woollam, John Victor

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

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

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

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

Stevens, Geoffrey

Mr. Gresham Cooke and

Osborne, C.

Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

Sir Keith Joseph.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  LAND DRAINAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL
  Order for Consideration, as amended (in the Standing Committee), read.
  Bill recommitted to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the Amendments to Clause 4, page 5, lines 36 and 42 and page 6, lines 3 and 11; Clause 6, page 7, lines 22 and 26; and Clause 18, page 12, line 15, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. John Maclay.—[Lord John Hope.]
  Bill immediately considered in Committee.
  [Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

  LAND DRAINAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL

    Clause 4.—(REPAIR OF DAMAGE AND COMPENSATION.)
    3.59 p.m.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord John Hope): I beg to move, in page 5, line 36, to leave out from "shall" to the end of line 39 and to insert:
    "not be payable under this subsection to the tenant of an agricultural holding in respect of any damage suffered by him, being damage due to factors which, on a requisition made under subsection (1) or (2) of section six of this Act, would fall to be taken into account in assessing any increase or diminution in the rental value of the holding".
    Will it be convenient, Sir Charles, if, with this Amendment, we take the four Amendments in Clause 4, page 6, line 11, Clause 6, page 7, lines 22 and 26 and Clause 18, page 12, line 15?
    The Chairman: Yes, they go together.
    Lord John Hope: In the Scottish Standing Committee, the Opposition criticised as being too restrictive the proviso to subsection (2) of the Clause, which limits claims for compensation by an occupier of agricultural land to damage suffered by him in consequence of injury to growing crops, or tenants' improvements. I undertook to look into the points raised before the Report stage.
    The proviso to subsection (2), as at present drafted, would exclude claims for compensation in respect of damage to such things as hayricks, livestock and movable hen houses and I think it can be accepted that as it stands the proviso is too restrictive. The effect of the proposed Amendment, that is, the first of these five
    446
    Amendments, is to entitle an occupier of an agricultural holding to claim compensation for damage suffered by him in respect of injury to everything other than items which fall to be taken into account under the provisions which come in Clause 6 for assessing any increase or diminution in the rental value of the holding, such as the loss of the use of land because of the erection of flood banks or something of that sort.
    The second Amendment, the one deleting subsection (5) which defines tenants' improvements, is consequential. The expression disappears from the Bill in the amended version of the proviso to subsection (2). The third Amendment, which inserts a new subsection in Clause 6, is made necessary by the widening of the compensation provision of Clause 4 (2) effected by the first of these five Amendments, and also by the omission of subsection (5) of the Clause by the second Amendment.
    As the Bill stands unamended it is clear that the tenant of an agricultural holding would be entitled to claim compensation for damage to any improvements made by him to the farm and could not require that that same damage should be taken into account as an item entitling him to a reduction in rent, as indicated in the third Amendment. The Bill as amended would not make this clear, and it is, therefore, necessary to do that in the third Amendment.
    The Amendments omitting subsection (4) of Clause 6, page 7, line 26, which defines "agricultural holding" and inserting the definition of "agricultural holding" in Clause 18, that is, page 12, line 15, are consequential. The definition was previously required only for the purposes of Clause 6, variation in rent, but in consequence of the Amendment to the proviso to subsection (2) of Clause 4 it is also required for the purposes of that Clause. The definition of "agricultural holding" is, therefore, being transferred to Clause 18, the Interpretation Clause.
    I hope that by this means we have met what were constructive and reasonable criticisms by the Opposition on this Clause.
    Mr. A. Woodburn: It is very satisfactory that the Government have agreed to make

    447
    these changes. Many weary hours would have been saved in Committee had the acceptance of these reasonable improvements suggested by the Opposition been a little more prompt and a little more often. We can only regret that the time lost was not saved. However, all is well that ends well.
    I think that the noble Lord himself agreed that these improvements will obviate any feelings of injustice and that the Bill, by their acceptance, is thereby improved. I only hope that the lesson of this will be learned by all of us and that we shall realise that it is wise to accept improvements as soon as they are suggested and not stretch their consideration to such an extent that patience and sometimes tempers are rattled by unnecessary stubbornness and preconceptions on the part of the Government to change what is in the written law.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Lord John Hope: I beg to move, in page 5, line 42, to leave out from "maintainable" to "from" in line 43 and to insert:
    "if it is made to the authorised persons after the expiry of two years."
    Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the Committee if, together with this Amendment, we were to discuss the next Amendment, in page 6, line 3.
    These two Amendments increase the period for lodging claims for compensation from one year to two years from the date of the completion of the drainage and protective works specified in the order or the carrying out of maintenance works, and no distinction is made in the time limit as between the various interests which may suffer damage as a result of the execution of the works.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In page 6, line 3, leave out "within six months" and insert:
    "after the expiry of two years."
    In line 11, leave out subsection (5).—[Lord John Hope.]
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
    Mr. John Mackie: I was interested to hear what the right hon.
    448
    Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) had to say on the first Government Amendment. I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is desirable that Governments should act in a spirit of sweet reasonableness. But as I look back I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman can very fairly accuse the present Government of not having acted in a spirit of sweet reasonableness all the way through, especially when he reflects on the very stubborn opposition which his own party evinced during the Committee stage of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman ended by saying that many weary hours could have been saved in Committee. Of course, it is permissible for the Opposition to waste time if it so desires. That has always been the normal parliamentary procedure.
    Many of us on this side of the Committee—and I know that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Sir A. Gomme-Duncan) would agree with me in this—have recollections of many a weary hour that we had to spend in the Scottish Grand Committee when the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends were responsible for the government of the country. I can only hope that what the right hon. Gentleman has said today about the Amendments proposed by my noble Friend is an indication that if and when—I can go no further than that—his party is called upon to take office it will act differently from what it did in 1948.
    Mr. Woodburn: This is the first time that I have had any complaint to make about the accuracy of the memory of the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Mackie), but on this occasion it seems to have completely failed him. If he will examine the records he will find that I never resisted any reasonable Amendment, that I was always willing to consider a suggestion and that if my example is followed the Scottish Standing Committee will make much more speedy progress and will never have any necessity for the Guillotine.
    Mr. James H. Hoy: I had not intention of taking part in the discussion on this Amendment, but what the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Mackie) just said rather refreshed my memory of some of the many long and weary speeches which he has delivered

    449
    during the Committee stage of many Bills. Unlike himself, I am not complaining about it.
    The Chairman: I am complaining. We are only dealing with the Land Drainage (Scotland) Bill at the moment.
    Mr. Hoy: I would not attempt to defy your Ruling, Sir Charles, but, two hon. Members having said a few words on the subject, I thought that I might be allowed to make just a few remarks.
    I want to say a word or two about stubborness. What the hon. Member for Galloway failed to appreciate was that if it had not been not for stubbornness but for the very good reasoning of the arguments put forward by the Opposition, these Amendments would not have been moved. It was because of the efforts of the Opposition that we have these Amendments on the Notice Paper today. We are grateful to the Minister for having seen reason.
    Mr. E. G. Willis: I wish to express my thanks to the Minister, as one of the hon. Members who suggested that subsection (2) should be amended, for his having accepted the intention of the Amendment and put down words suitable to hover it. I should also like to express our thanks to the Minister for having accepted the Amendment first moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), who would have liked to be here today, but who is away on Parliamentary business. I am glad that the Minister has seen fit to accept these proposals.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 6.—(VARIATION IN RENT OF AGRI-CULTURAL HOLDING IN CONSEQUENCE OF EXECUTION OF WORKS THEREON.)
    Amendments made: In page 7, line 22, at end insert:
    (3) In assessing, for the purposes of either of the foregoing subsections, any increase or diminution in the rental value of an agricultural holding account shall not be taken of any injury to fixtures, buildings or other improvements which the tenant of the holding would be entitled under the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1949, to remove, or for which he would be entitled as aforesaid to be paid compensation by his landlord, on the termination of his tenancy.
    In page 7, line 26, leave out subsection (4).—[Lord John Hope.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 18.—(INTERPRETATION.)
    Amendment made: In page 12, line 15, at end insert:
    "agricultural holding" means an agricultural holding within the meaning of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1949;—[Lord John Hope.]
    Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended (in the Standing Committee and on recommittal), considered.

    Clause 1.—(APPLICATION FOR IMPROVE- MENT ORDER AND MAKING OF ORDER BY SECRETARY OF STATE.)
    Lord John Hope: I beg to move, in page 1, line 5, to leave out subsection (1) and to insert:
    (1) The owner of any agricultural land may apply to the Secretary of State for an order (hereafter in this Act referred to as an "improvement order") authorising the execution of such drainage works as will improve the drainage of the said land or will prevent or mitigate flooding or erosion to which that land is subject.
    The right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) can fairly claim the parentage of this Amendment. He suggested that the relevant wording as originally included in the Bill was too long-winded and contained a good deal which was unnecessary. The effect of the Amendment is that an owner of agricultural land would now be enabled to apply to the Secretary of State for an improvement order without having to be
    "of opinion that it is in the interests of agricultural production that the drainage of the said land should be improved. —"
    The principal difference between the Amendment and the subsection which it replaces is that it is not required that a farmer in making an application for an improvement order shall be of such opinion. He might not be in a position to express such an opinion. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman's original suggestion will be as welcome to him in the terms of the Amendment as it was in his own terms.
    Mr. Woodburn: When I read the Amendment this morning it struck me as greatly improved wording, and I am glad to hear that I was the parent of it. If any students read the proceedings of the Standing Committee they will get

    451
    lessons in grammar which will last them the rest of their lives. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) did a great deal of work in trying to make the Bill precise and to make it say what it means without florid declarations of propaganda and other unnecessary verbiage. It was a lesson to anyone who studies grammar.
    We are grateful to the Government. The lawyers may not be grateful, but the general public will be grateful that the words express so clearly and in such a straightforward manner what the Clause is meant to convey.
    Mr. Willis: Does the Amendment widen the scope of the Bill? We had long discussions in Committee on the limitations on the purposes of drainage schemes to those involving an increase of agricultural production. It seems that under the Amendment the owner of agricultural land has no longer to be concerned with agricultural production before he can apply to the Secretary of State for an order authorising the execution of drainage works.
    Will the owner of land still have to consider the necessity of increasing agricultural production? In very long debates in Committee we pointed out the great limitations which this imposed on the owners of land and in many Amendments we endeavoured to exclude the words "agricultural production". Will the substitution of this subsection for that originally in the Bill have that effect? If so, is it not necessary to move further Amendments throughout the Bill to delete the words "agricultural production"? I do not know. I am simply asking the question.
    Lord John Hope: The answer is to be found in Clause 1 (2). Under that subsection the Secretary of State has to satisfy himself that
    "it is in the interests of agricultural production that the drainage"
    of the land should be improved. The Amendment does not widen the scope of the Bill.
    Amendment agreed to.
    4.15 p.m.
    The Lord Advocate (Mr. W. R. Milligan): I beg to move, in page 1, line 15, to leave out "may".
    452
    Perhaps it would be convenient if we considered, at the same time, the next Amendment, in line 4, at the beginning to insert "shall have power to". The two Amendments go together.
    As usually happens in the Scottish Standing Committee, we had a most interesting discussion in Committee on the Bill about our old friends "may" and "shall". It would not be a Scottish Committee unless we discussed the appropriate occasions when "may" should be used and the appropriate occasions when "shall" should be used. On this occasion, the debate was unusually interesting because the Opposition pointed out with great cogency that in Clause 1 (2, c) we used the word "expedient", and they said with great force, "If the Minister finds it expedient, among other things, why should there by any reason for not having the word 'shall' and for retaining the word 'may'?"
    At the risk of wearying the House, I hope not for long, I will draw the attention of hon. Members to the circumstances in which it may be appropriate to use the word "may" and the circumstances in which it may be appropriate to use the word "shall". In nearly every Bill there is a Clause which is an enabling provision. It enables the Minister to do something which otherwise he could not do. In this Bill, in Clause 1 (2), we read that on receiving an application for an improvement order "the Secretary of State may …" That is an enabling provision.
    In other parts of the Bill, particularly in Clause 1 (4), the word "shall" is used. The phrase is
    "An improvement order shall be made".
    That is of a procedural nature. Again, we find "shall" dotted about in the Schedules, particularly in the First Schedule. In paragraph 5 of the First Schedule we find a substantive use of the word "shall"—the Minister, having satisfied himself on certain circumstances and as to certain conditions, "shall" take certain action.
    May I outline the machinery which is intended to be set up by the Bill? It is important in this connection in the use of the words "may" and "shall". Taking it very generally, the procedure as we see it is as follows. First, owners make an application for an order, which

    453
    comes under Clause 1 (1). They make it to the Secretary of State, who will then decide whether or not there is a suitable case. Obviously, if it is an impossible case he will take no more steps, but one assumes that if a request is made he will take action on it. If it is a prima facie case, he will issue a draft order under paragraph 1 of the First Schedule. There then follow certain procedural matters—intimations, objections, and inquiry.
    The Secretary of State, having completed these preliminary matters, then addresses himself to the question whether he will proceed with the draft order, in other words, whether he intends and hopes to go on to issuing a final order. We are now approaching paragraph 4 of the Schedule. At this stage, the Secretary of State must satisfy himself of the factors which are set out in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of Clause 1 (2). By this stage, having received objections and possibly having had an inquiry made, he is in a position to decide whether the conditions in those paragraphs have been satisfied and whether it is expedient for him to make an order.
    We are not quite out of the wood yet, however, because, having put into operation paragraph 4 of the First Schedule, in other words having found out what consents there are, he has to satisfy himself that the conditions set out in paragraph 5 of the First Schedule have also been satisfied. Having done all that, we find, at the beginning of paragraph 5 of the First Schedule, that
    "On the expiry of the period of twenty-eight days referred to in the last foregoing paragraph the Secretary of State"—
    and the House should note the word "shall"—
    "shall make the order if and only if …"
    The question arises, under a later Amendment, whether we should drop the words "and only if."
    Accordingly, having reached that point, the Secretary of State, having satisfied himself on paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of Clause 1 (2), and on the conditions in paragraph 5 of the First Schedule, has no option but to make the order. Therefore, the word "shall" which was suggested as desirable here, is found in the Schedule, and the word "may" appropriately in the enabling Clause 1 (2).
    Mr. Woodburn: I would consider myself out of order if I discussed the Lord Advocate's speech, but I should be glad if he would tell us exactly what difference the change in words makes. What is the difference between
    "… shall have power to make …"
    and "may make"? As far as I can see, all that has happened is that the Lord Advocate has shifted "may" from line 15 in page 1 and has put the same meaning in different words in page 2.
    I am quite at a loss to discuss this matter in view of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said, because what he has said does not seem to refer at all to what has happened in the change of words.
    The Lord Advocate: The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly right. I might have begun by saying that the Amendment will not give effect to what was requested by right hon. and hon. Members opposite, but I was trying to explain to the House that we put the Amendment on the Notice Paper to show by clear words that Clause 1 (2) is an enabling subsection. The meaning remains exactly the same, but the insertion of the words "have power" shows that this is an enabling subsection, whereas the word "may" might not have shown that so clearly.
    Mr. Woodburn: This is a perfect example of how we manage to waste a great deal of time in the Scottish Standing Committee. The Government are mainly responsible for it by reason of the number of irrelevancies with which we have to concern ourselves. In effect, "may" has been taken out of page 1 of the Bill and put in page 2, but the phrase has been altered to ensure the insertion of the word "shall", and it now reads:
    "… shall have power to make …"
    That is the same thing in English as "may". I have no objection to the change of words at all, but for the Lord Advocate to suggest that he has thus made a wonderful change in the Bill is an affront to our sense of the English language.
    This is not a change of meaning at all. It is a purely verbal change. In the old days, somebody would have risen from the Government Front Bench and merely said "drafting", and no doubt the

    455
    House would have agreed to the Amendment. There would have been no need to argue about it. In view of all this business of the Secretary of State having to be satisfied and find it "otherwise expedient" for him to do certain things, the words "shall make" could have been inserted in the Bill without the slightest trouble.
    The Secretary of State has plenty of safeguards. He is not bound to do anything unless he thinks fit. The inclusion of these words, which mean nothing and ensure nothing, clutter up Bills and make them incomprehensible to the ordinary citizen.
    Sir James Duncan: I agree that this is little more than a drafting Amendment by itself, but it is part of a series of Amendments which raise the question of definition. I, among others, raised that question of the definition of an improvement area in Committee. The previous Amendment and this Amendment improve the words and make the definition of an improvement area quite clear. They also make clear why the area has to be the subject of an improvement order whereas, to my mind, the Bill in this respect was previously incomprehensible.
    I therefore accept my right hon. and learned Friend's series of Amendments to improve the definition and make it clear, so that the authorised persons who will be promoting these orders will know where they stand. I believe that this will facilitate the making of these important improvement schemes for the benefit of everybody in Scotland, and for the benefit of agricultural land in Scotland which badly needs these drainage schemes.
    Mr. Willis: I do not know which Amendment the hon. Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) is talking about. This has nothing to do with definition. The Lord Advocate has made a speech in which he tried to link all sorts of other things in the Bill with the Amendment. I found it very difficult to follow. As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) pointed out, the Amendment makes the Clause mean exactly what it meant before, but we now have four words instead of one.
    It is grossly unfair of the Lord Advocate to try to present the Amend-
    456
    ment as if it were a concession to the Opposition. We on these benches did not ask for the Amendment. We argued that "may" should be "shall" in line 15 of Clause 1 in order to make it obligatory on the Secretary of State to take action if he was satisfied about paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). The right hon. and learned Gentleman has not gone any distance towards meeting our argument.
    Sir J. Duncan: He has met mine.
    Mr. Willis: I am sorry, but it is apparent from a reading of the Amendment that it has nothing whatever to do with more clearly defining an improvement scheme. The Lord Advocate was quite unfair. We are always glad when he takes the trouble to consider our suggestions, but when he substitutes four words for one and leaves the meaning exactly the same we do not accept that he is meeting a point that we made in Committee. The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that perfectly well, but we understand why he tried to give the impression that he was meeting the point. The Amendment, however, is quite harmless and we could not possibly take exception to it.
    4.30 p.m.
    The Lord Advocate: What the Opposition object to is not the length of the Amendment, but the length of my speech. I apologise for that. As I said at the beginning, we had an interesting discussion on this point in Committee. We took the view at the time, which is the view we still hold, that the word "may" was appropriate in Clause 1 (2). I pointed out that the purpose of the Opposition was met by the word "shall" in the First Schedule, and that, accordingly, it was unnecessary to accept the Opposition Amendment. We have merely tried to make the matter more clear, but I never suggested that we were accepting the Opposition's proposal.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 2, line 4, at beginning insert "shall have power to".—[The Lord Advocate.]

    Clause 2.—(CONTENTS OF IMPROVEMENT ORDER.)
    The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 2, line 36, after "land", to insert:
    "(hereafter in this Act referred to as 'endangered land') specified in the order as being".

    457
    Perhaps it would be convenient to the House if, with this Amendment, we discussed the Amendments in page 2, line 45; page 3, line 10; in Clause 8, page 8, line 6; and Clause 18, page 12, line 34, which relate to the same point.
    These Amendments are designed to meet a point which was raised by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) in Committee, when he said that the expression "any land", in Clause 2 (1, d), might possibly be construed as including land which had not been specially referred to in the original order. We saw the force of his suggestion. To make quite clear that "any land" referred to in subsection (1) should be limited to the land which was referred to in the original order these Amendments have been put down, so that the interested parties will know from the very beginning exactly what land may be affected.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In page 2, line 45, after "any", insert "endangered".
    In page 3, line 10, after "any", insert "endangered".—[The Lord Advocate.]
    Mr. Willis: I beg to move in page 3, line 11, at the end to insert "and maintenance".
    If this Amendment were accepted, the Clause would read:
    "An improvement order shall … specify the estimated cost of improvement and maintenance."
    We had a lot of discussion on this point in Committee, and it is was suggested that the authorised persons should he given some indication of what would be the cost not only of improvement but of maintenance. It was agreed by the Opposition, when we moved Amendments to this effect in Committee, that we could not expect to have a very accurate figure, but at least we thought it possible that some indication should be given of the likely costs that would be involved. We felt that an estimate of the burden could be made and that it ought to be indicated. It would, of course, only be an estimate, not only of improvement but of maintenance, too. We thought that it would be helpful to the people involved, and would enable them to determine whether or not to go ahead with a scheme.
    458
    In Committee, it became apparent that there were many factors which tended to act as disincentives. It was felt that we ought to remove as many of those disincentives as possible, and I think I am right in saying that if a person did not know exactly what he was involved in he might be disinclined to proceed. Therefore, we felt that he ought to be given some idea of this, so that he knew what was involved and so that the disincentive would be removed. We felt also that we would get rather more done than possibly we would get if these words were omitted.
    Mr. Hoy: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Lord John Hope: I see now, as I saw in Committee, what has been worrying hon. Members opposite. I have considered the point with great care since. and I think that the objections to making an Amendment of the kind suggested are as strong as they seemed to be at the time when the matter was first mooted.
    I fully appreciate that those concerned in wanting to go ahead with a scheme would, naturally, want to know as soon as possible what sort of figure might be involved. I think that the practical answer is to say that they will certainly be helped as much as possible by administrative action. We would, of course, do as much as we could to help them to arrive at a reasonable figure, but that is a different thing from putting an obligation in black and white into the Bill.
    Partly because of its merits, which would be unsatisfactory, partly also from a legislative point of view, the proposed Amendment would be inappropriate, because unlike the estimated cost of improvement, the estimated cost of maintenance has no statutory significance and would serve no purpose in relation to any other provision in the Bill. There is that clear distinction on legislative grounds. I hope that the administrative undertaking which I have given—because that is what it amounts to—will be accepted.
    Mr. Willis: I do not follow the hon. Gentleman on this point of legislative significance and the meaning of "cost of improvement" as against "cost of maintenance." This is a legal matter which I do not understand.
    Lord John Hope: All I meant was that the estimated cost of improvement is a

    459
    very relevant part of the whole operation, as opposed to the cost of maintenance which has no relevance in terms of the machinery. The two things are on different footings. There is nothing complicated from a legislative point of view.
    As I say—and this is, I think, the commonsense answer to the very real difficulty which hon. Members feel—we will do what we can, as any Department would do, to help owners in arriving at some sort of cockshy of what the estimated cost might be.
    Mr. Willis: On the understanding that something will be done to assist, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 3, line 19, to leave out "and" and to insert:
    (h) if the Secretary of State thinks it necessary, prescribe the procedure to be followed by the authorised persons in taking any decision relating to the discharge of their functions under the order; and,
    The purpose of this Amendment is to avoid any possibility of difficulty in procedure when the various interested parties have to make any particular decision. An improvement order will confer powers and impose duties on them, and it may be desirable, in certain circumstances, that a rule should be laid down on, for example, what decisions should be arrived at by a majority. It is purely to safeguard possibilities of trouble.
    Mr. Woodburn: I think that this Amendment arises from the question whether there should be a committee to administer on behalf of the owners if there were three or four of them. In Committee, we had a long discussion about who exactly would be responsible for carrying out the job if there were several owners.
    Do we understand that by this Amendment the Secretary of State may prescribe the procedure according to the number of owners or according to the circumstances, and decide how those owners are to share the responsibility and how they will delegate the responsibility to carry out the work, and also the procedure for the execution of the work? The Amendment appears to provide for all that, but the Lord Advocate did not say that the Amendment is in response to the debate
    460
    we had in Committee. However, it looks to me as if it is.
    I can recall that debate by a pertinent observation made by my hon. Friend the Member for Maryhill (Mr. Hannan), who quoted a remark of a noble lord, "Marriage is a committee of two with power to add to its numbers." For me, at least, that is a lively reminder of the discussion which took place on this question of who should be responsible on behalf of the owners for carrying out the job. I take it that the Secretary of State, with this power, will prescribe the procedure necessary to ensure that the work is carried out and who shall be responsible.
    Mr. Willis: I am bewildered by this Amendment, because Clause 3 provides that:
    "An improvement order may, where the whole of the agricultural land situated in the improvement area is not in the ownership of one person, provide for the establishment of a committee.…"
    It goes on to lay down that the improvement order may prescribe how the improvement committee should be appointed, and that its members shall be appointed by the authorised persons from among their number.
    Subsection (2) says that an improvement order may provide for a very wide range of things set out in eight paragraphs in subsection (2), including the size of the quorum; that the proceedings of the committee shall not be invalidated; the constitution of the committee; how it should keep its accounts; whether it can engage full-time staff; how much it shall pay its staff. Clause 3 (2) covers almost everything of consequence.
    Why, therefore, do we have this Amendment, saying that the Secretary of State can, if he thinks it necessary,
    "prescribe the procedure to be followed by the authorised persons in taking any decision relating to the discharge of their functions under the order"?
    That would be done by the committee already provided for. Surely this Amendment is unnecessary in the light of Clause 3. If it is not unnecessary, would the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us why? Up to the present I do not think that he has told us why this new paragraph is necessary.
    The Lord Advocate: I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) is probably

    461
    right in saying that this matter was mentioned at some stage during the Committee stage. There were various questions arising out of the provisions proposed for the improvement committee, and I have no note of this point.
    4.45 p.m.
    The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) asked why, in view of the provisions in Clause 3, we need this additional provision which, in certain circumstances, may be inserted in an improvement order. He will note from Clause 3 that even though there may be more than one party interested there is not necessarily an improvement committee. There may be an improvement committee. It would seem unnecessary to set up an improvement committee just to have rules made how the members should carry out their functions. I do not think the Secretary of State will necessarily find it very necessary to do this on every occasion, but I think it is right that the power should be there to be used possibly to accelerate the procedure.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Lord John Hope: I beg to move, in page 3, line 44, to leave out from the second "the" to "and" in line 46 and to insert:
    "agricultural land owned by that person which is situated in the improvement area, being land the productivity of which is likely to be improved in consequence of the execution of the drainage works specified in the order".
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): I think the next two Amendments in the name of the Secretary of State go with this one.
    Lord John Hope: My hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) moved an Amendment during the Committee stage to define an "improvement area" in Clause 1 (3) to secure that the improvement area would consist solely of land to be improved. His desire was to ensure that an owner's share of the cost of improvement would be related to the agricultural land actually to be improved by the drainage works and not, for example, to the whole agricultural holding of which the land formed part. He withdrew the Amendment on receiving an assurance that we would look into the question he raised. It has not been found desirable, because really it has not been found necessary to amend the definition of "improvement area" exactly in
    462
    the way my hon. Friend suggested, but this proposed Amendment to Clause 2 (4, a) achieves the end that he sought, the end being that each owner's share of the cost of improvement could be related to the extent of the agricultural land owned by him in the improvement area the productivity of which is likely to be improved in consequence of the execution of the drainage works. The other two Amendments are consequential.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In page 4, line 2, leave out "such portion" and insert "the said land".
    In line 5, leave out "portion" and "land".—[Lord John Hope.]

    Clause 3.—(IMPROVEMENT COMMITTEE.)
    The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 4, line 40, to leave out "may" and to insert:
    " are, or in the opinion of the committee will"
    This is not really much more than a drafting Amendment. It is just to make quite sure that the cost could be levied, as it were, before it had actually been incurred, in order possibly to have some funds in hand.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 8.—(SECRETARY OF STATE MAY REQUIRE EXECUTION OR MAINTENANCE OF WORKS.)
    Amendment proposed: In page 8 line 6, after "order" insert:
    "continue to be necessary for the protection of any endangered land and".—[The Lord Advocate.]
    Mr. Willis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Is the Amendment in page 7, line 37, not selected?
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is out of order on Report.
    Mr. George Lawson: Which Amendment is it you have ruled out of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker?
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East asked about the Amendment to Clause 8, line 37. That was out of order.
    Mr. Lawson: I know it is not usual to ask why matters are ruled out of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but this was a question upon which we were given a promise in Committee. A promise was given that

    463
    it would be looked at, and, for that reason, we withdrew our Amendment in Committee. There was an understanding that it would be sympathetically considered in the meantime. The Amendment on which you have ruled was put down for the purpose of raising the matter again. How does it come about that we have no opportunity now to raise it?
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The Bill was not recommitted in respect of it, and, of course, we cannot increase any charges within the Money Resolution during the Report stage. It should have been recommitted on that if hon. Gentlemen wanted to raise it.
    Mr. Lawson: Do we understand, then, that assurances given to us in Committee count for nothing?
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am not responsible for that.
    Mr. Woodburn: Further to that point of order. Did I understand you to say that it would increase the charge, Mr. Deputy-Speaker? As far as I can understand, it is only improving the grammar.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It is out of order on Report, and I concluded that it must increase the charge. I am afraid that I am not in a position to select it. I am sorry.
    Mr. Lawson: Is there no way of getting any further information? I certainly can see no way in which it increases the charge in this case.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I may be wrong on that, but it is out of order for some reason. I am afraid that I am only a deputy here; I do not exactly know Mr. Speaker's reason. I understand that it is increasing the charge, but I would not swear to that.
    Mr. Woodburn: As far as I can see, it only leaves out some unnecessary words. It makes no difference to the sense of the thing at all.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It is almost certain to increase the charge in some way, but I am afraid that I cannot tell in what way. It is certainly marked out of order.
    Mr. Lawson: May we ask that the matter be looked at again? The Joint
    464
    Under-Secretary of State gave us this assurance on 6th February:
    "I undertake to look at it again. That being so, perhaps the hon. Member will withdraw it, because we might have to word it differently if we decide to comply with his request."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 6th February, 1958; c. 309.]
    It was to raise the matter again now that this Amendment was put down.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It could, of course, have been recommitted; but it has not been. I am afraid that, in the House, there is nothing which can be done. Of course, the Bill will have to go to another place, and the Government might be able to have it put in in another place.
    Mr. Lawson: May I, through you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, ask if the matter can be reconsidered in another place? May we have that assurance?
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I can give no promise. It will have to go through the stages when it reaches another place, but that is outwith my province.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Willis: I beg to move, in page 8, line 20, to leave out "duly".
    There is no need for me to make a long speech on this matter. I understand from the right hon. and learned Gentleman that he had intended to accept the Amendment in Committee but, unfortunately, it was not called. He now has a chance gracefully to concede at least something which does not mean very much but improves the Bill grammatically.
    Mr. John Taylor: I beg to second the Amendment.
    The Lord Advocate: I have much pleasure in accepting the hon. Gentleman's Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 10.—(SECRETARY OF STATE MAY REQUIRE CERTAIN INFORMATION.)
    Mr. Willis: I beg to move, in page 9, line 29, to leave out:
    "local authority, public undertaker, or".
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: This Amendment and the next Amendment in line 29 go together. What about the Amendment in line 33? Does the hon. Gentleman wish that to be taken separately, or does it also go with the Amendments in line 29?
    Mr. Willis: I think that we can take the three together, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
    This Amendment deals with the powers of the Secretary of State to obtain certain information to enable him to perform his functions under the Bill. We had some discussion about this in Committee, I think, and we considered which were the bodies or people from whom the Secretary of State ought to be empowered to obtain information. We thought that it was unnecessary for him to demand the information from others than persons who actually owned the land, and they, of course, would include local authorities and public undertakers if they owned the land. I think that that was the point. I am sorry to have been a while getting at it, but it is rather difficult to fly from one Amendment to another. If a local authority or public undertaker did, in fact, own the land, they would be covered by the word "person". That is right, is it not? There is, therefore, no particular reason for the Secretary of State putting these words in the Bill.
    Mr. Lawson: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Before we proceed, I should like to tell the House that I have had further inquiries made. The Amendment in page 7, line 37, does increase the charge, and that is why it is out of order.
    Lord John Hope: The provision in its proposed amended form would not, I am afraid, be wide enough to cover all the information of the relevant kind which might be required from local authorities and public undertakers. There might be a local authority sewer or water main sited within an area of proposed drainage works for which no wayleave was granted. Authorities, of course, have statutory power to lay mains and sewers without obtaining wayleaves for them and, in the circumstances, they would technically have no interest in the land. That is an example of the difficulty we should be up against if we accepted the Amendment. I think that the words should be included.
    Mr. Willis: Would that not he covered by the words:
    "… may require the owner or occupier of any land to state in writing the nature of his own interest in such land and the name and address of any other person known to him as
    466
    having an interest therein and to furnish the Secretary of State with a particular description of the land."
    Surely, those words would include the local authority and public undertaker.
    Lord John Hope: I think that there is a little doubt about that. I see the hon. Gentleman's point, but I do not think that it could be held to be as certain as it now is with the words in, if I may put it like that. It helps to have the words in.
    Mr. Willis: I would prefer to have had the Lord Advocate's opinion about it, but, on the understanding that the words are legally necessary, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Lawson: I beg to move, in page 9, line 33, to leave out "fails" and insert:
    "refuses without good reason".
    This Amendment is proposed in an effort to be less exacting. Time after time in Committee the Joint Under-Secretary of State said that this was a purely voluntary Bill; he emphasised the voluntary nature of it. In Clause 10(2) we have a penal provision providing for punishment if a person fails to comply with the requirement to give information. Fairly elaborate information is to be asked for by the Secretary of State, and there is the consequence here that any person who fails to comply with a requirement under the Clause
    "shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five pounds".
    5.0 p.m.
    There may be many occasions when, for very good reason, a person fails to comply. We wish to be more tolerant. If a person refuses without good reason to comply, the penalties can be evoked, but the Clause is much too strongly drafted with the words "If any person fails to comply". I hope that for this reason the Government will accept the Amendment.
    Mr. Willis: I beg to second the Amendment.
    We had a lot of discussion about this in Committee, when we pointed out to the Government, who claim to be setting the people free, that they are always introducing legislation piling up the offences for which a person is liable to

    467
    be punished. They are not setting the people at all free. They are increasing the number of offences for which a person is liable to be charged and fined £5 for a first conviction or £20 later. We pointed out to the Government that they might at least modify this procedure.
    We suggest the addition of the words "refuses without good reason". Subsection (1) gives wide powers to the Secretary of State. He can require an owner or occupier of land
    "to state in writing the nature of his own interest in such land and the name and address of any other person known to him as having an interest therein."
    That is a big demand to make upon an owner of land. He may not know all the people who have an interest in the land. Furthermore, he has to furnish the Secretary of State with a description of the land. How can such a person possibly know what may be the interests of a local authority, perhaps five miles further down the river, in the land in question?
    This is a very wide provision. The person who is liable to be convicted under the Clause should have some safeguards written into the Bill. The Amendment proposes to provide the safeguard that
    "If any person refuses without good reason to comply …"
    In other words, if the person has a good reason for not giving the information, he should not be liable to these penalties. I do not think that the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Mackie) would object to that. I know that he is greatly concerned to preserve the freedom and rights of the individual and for that reason, he should vote for the Amendment.
    As it stands, the Clause simply states:
    "If any person fails to comply with a requirement of the Secretary of State under this section, he shall be guilty of an offence …"
    There may be all sorts of reasons why a person fails to comply with a request of the Secretary of State. One of them might be ignorance. He might not know some of the information which he is asked to provide under subsection (1). Surely, it is not asking too much that the rights of the individual should be preserved and the Amendment accepted. If a person has a good reason for not giving the information, he should not be guilty of this offence.
    468
    We are making a just request. I ask the Government to look at the Amendment in a reasonable frame of mind and to say that they have pleasure in accepting it, if only so that their deeds might measure up to their words. They have a lot to say about these things in Scotland when they get free at weekends and at other times. At dinners of the Faculty of Advocates and things like that, they have a lot to say about the rights and freedom of the individual and how they will protect them. We want the Government's deeds to measure up to their words, and we suggest that they should accept the Amendment.
    Mr. Mackie: I rise only because the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis), when making his moving appeal to the Government, referred to myself and indicated his belief that, as an individual, I was anxious to preserve the rights and, if possible, to increase the liberties of the subject. I certainly accept that. I certainly accept it as the philosophy of my party. I do not for one moment accept what the hon. Member said about the lack of response from the Government during nearly seven years of office under three successive Prime Ministers. The Government have been responsible for doing a good deal in this direction, and I do not accept the hon. Member's suggestion.
    I have no knowledge of what the Government will say in reply to the Amendment, but I do not think that the Clause does anything inimical or prejudicial to the rights of the individual. The Bill, after all, grants public money. I know that the Opposition regard it as a mean, paltry Bill which will not do very much in the way of improvement of land that needs draining in Scotland. They must, however, agree that we are granting sums of public money, even though they may regard them as insufficient. If an individual accepts public money for land drainage grants, why should he or she not be called upon to provide reasonable information?
    Mr. Willis: Many of these people who will be accepting public money will be compelled to accept it. If they were left to themselves, they would not accept it.
    Mr. Mackie: It is public money accepted in the interest of the State as a whole.
    Mr. Willis: It is forced upon them.
    Mr. Mackie: I know that there is lurking among nearly all hon. Members opposite the desire to end private ownership of land. No doubt, that lies at the back of their opposition to the Bill.
    Mr. Willis: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Mackie: At least we know where the hon. Member stands. When he interrupted me, I was about to say that I do not regard £5 for the first offence as at all unreasonable. The individual concerned will be accepting public money. Therefore, why should he not be called upon by the Secretary of State for Scotland to furnish reasonable information? If there is a second conviction, I do not think that the sum of £20 is in any way too much.
    Mr. Woodburn: When the Lord Advocate replies, can he say exactly how this process of law will work? Will the Secretary of State report such a case to the fiscal, or who will arrange for the prosecution in a case of a failure to comply? What kind of proof is necessary? The right hon. and learned Gentleman will, I think, agree with the intention behind my hon. Friend's Amendment that if we are making a criminal offence we should be very careful to specify clearly what the offence is and exactly how the retribution comes upon the offender.
    Mr. Hoy: May I put one more point to the right hon. and learned Gentleman? The Clause does not carry the interpretation that the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Mackie) has attributed to it. It states that
    "the Secretary of State may require the owner or occupier of any land to state in writing …"
    It is quite possible that the land may not be attracting a subsidy from the State. It is only because the person does not give information about somebody else's land that he is to be liable for this offence. The person concerned might quite well not have within his knowledge the information which the Secretary of State desires. It may be that he is held up to ridicule for it and even summoned before the court and fined.
    I should have expected the hon. Member for Galloway to want to defend the liberty of the subject. In fact, we know from the hon. Gentleman's record that he even has to defend his own political
    470
    liberty against the Conservative Party, and so we would have thought that on this occasion he would have been prepared to fight for this poor individual who is likely to be prosecuted and fined for an offence of which he is not guilty. Certainly, that is my interpretation of it, but I should like the Lord Advocate to confirm whether that is correct or not.
    The Lord Advocate: I do not wish to take sides as between the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy) and the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Mackie), but, on the whole. I rather support the hon. Member for Leith on this particular point.
    May I turn to the question put to me by the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn)? He asked me exactly what procedure would take place. In the normal case, if there was the type of failure referred to in subsection (2), it would be reported to the Procurator-Fiscal, and the person responsible would be liable to summary conviction. Any proceedings would be in the Sheriff Court, and that would be the normal procedure.
    May I now turn to the Amendment? One is naturally drawn, in the course of the stages of a Bill in Committee and on Report, to consider whether certain words should be put in or not. I have already been told this afternoon that I have put too many words into the Bill, and now I am being asked to put some more into it.
    Mr. Willis: It does not matter if they are the right ones.
    The Lord Advocate: If these words were necessary for the purpose which the hon. Member for Leith mentioned, certainly I should be delighted to accept the Amendment, but quite candidly I do not think the words in the Amendment are necessary. The right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire referred to procedure, and obviously before proceedings are taken the Procurator-Fiscal will make inquiries to find out whether there are any special circumstances. For example, a person may be abroad, he may be ill or something of that kind, and proceedings would not be taken. At the end of the day, the judge would not convict, if he was perfectly satisfied that there was not a failure, and one does not fail to do something if one cannot do it. That would be the normal meaning of a failure.

    471
    I appreciate the points made by hon. Members opposite, but I do not think it is necessary in this context that these words should go in the Clause. I am advised that the subsection is in common form—I know that that is not a complete answer—and I do not think that a case has been shown for the inclusion of these extra words.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Does the hon. Member wish to withdraw his Amendment?
    Mr. Lawson: No, Sir Charles; I cannot withdraw it on the explanation which has just been given.
    May I point out that, on the Lord Advocate's own interpretation, a person may very well be taken to court, and only after the matter has been judged in court would it be decided that he should not, in fact, be punished? What we are trying to do here is to make it clear that the circumstances must be such that, unless he refuses to comply without good reason, he cannot be taken to court at all. As the Clause is worded at present, he may on very little provocation be taken to court and a judgment given, either in his favour or against him. We need to have the position clearly safeguarded. It is not clearly safeguarded as the Clause is at present worded, and for this reason I cannot agree to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment negatived.

    Clause 13.—(MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS AS TO ORDERS.)
    Lord John Hope: I beg to move, in page 11, line 1, after "of", to insert "any of".
    Clause 13 enables the Secretary of State to make a varying or revoking order on the application of the authorised persons. The effect of the Amendment is to enable application to be made to the Secretary of State by any—not all, as at present drafted—of the authorised persons. Were the power to make a varying order or a revoking order to depend on all the authorised persons, it is obvious that a minority of owners, even a minority of one, would be in a position to prevent the making of an application for such an order, even if the majority wanted it.
    Amendment agreed to.
    5.15 p.m.
    Mr. Woodburn: I beg to move, in page 11, line 36, to leave out from the beginning to "and" in line 38.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: This Amendment and the next one to line 41, to leave out from "Commissioners" to the end of line 3 on page 12, may be taken together.
    Mr. Woodburn: That will be convenient, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
    The purpose of this Amendment is to delete the exclusion of Government Departments from the application of this Bill. The reason for this proposal is that Acts of Parliament have already been passed which have taken away the Crown inviolability of Government Departments for actions in the courts. We see no reason at all why the National Coal Board and all sorts of other people, mainly because they come under the Government and have charge of land, should not be involved in the necessary procedure required for the drainage of land.
    The Government may have some reason which is not apparent to us, but, so far as we can see, there is every justification for Government Departments, especially the nationalised industries, and even the Secretary of State himself, to some extent, as well as the Department of Agriculture and the Forestry Commission, being included in the normal procedure for the purposes of this Bill. It may be that there might be objection taken if these bodies were going to take the initiative, but I do not see why they should not take the initiative if we want the land drained, provided that it brings everybody in. One of the defects of the Bill is that the initiative was restricted, and we would certainly welcome any extension to this great public interest in land, which includes a great many Government Departments.
    As far as the Crown itself is concerned, we are satisfied—at least I am, having been one myself—that the Crown Estates Commissioners would never be so unreasonable as not to play their part in any necessary work of this kind. The nationalised industries and many of the public boards are relatively independent and might reserve to themselves independent judgements. It would be quite wrong if they handicapped very necessary work of draining land, and it would

    473
    be a reproach on the Government if we were a party to it.
    Mr. Willis: We had a very lengthy debate about this during the Committee stage of the Bill, and we did not get very far with it. I am bound to say that the arguments advanced by the Lord Advocate on our Amendments in the Scottish Grand Committee were not very good ones. They did not seem to convince anybody that it was right to leave Government Departments in this position.
    A very large part of the land of Scotland is, in fact, held by public Departments, and the position of Government Departments under this Bill is such that a whole group of landowners or farmers might want their land drained for quite good reasons, while some Government Department, with a few acres in the area, could hold up the scheme. Why should these Government Departments be placed in this specially privileged position? Only three Departments might lay some claim to being placed in a privileged position, and those are the Defence Ministries. There might be quite good reasons, on grounds of security, why such a Department might not want a scheme to proceed, but even the chances of that happening would be remote.
    As for the other Government Departments, there does not appear to be any good reason why the Board of Trade, the Department of Agriculture, the Post Office or the Coal Board should be in a position to prevent schemes for the benefit of the area being carried out. No other person is placed in this position. If he is in a minority he is compelled to take part in the scheme. That is how the Bill stands: the majority can compel the minority to take part in the scheme and share the cost. Why should Government Departments be placed in this specially privileged position?
    The right hon. Gentleman went further than merely admitting that there was a case for placing Government Departments on the same footing as other citizens. He said it was even debatable whether the Crown lands themselves should be placed in a privileged position, but he left it at that. We are limiting this Amendment simply to the land occupied by Government Departments, and there seems no reason why a scheme which might benefit thousands of acres
    474
    should be held up simply because some Government Department might, for a poor reason, say that it does not want to proceed with the scheme and that the Bill does not apply to it.
    That cannot be in the interest of Scotland or of agricultural procedure and therefore I am glad to support the Amendment.
    The Lord Advocate: May I correct what I am sure was a slip of the tongue on the part of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn). He referred to the National Coal Board as a Government Department; of course it is a nationalised industry.
    In moving the Amendment, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Stirlingshire quite rightly referred to the fact that it was a practice from 1947 to assimilate the responsibilities of Government Departments and the like with the needs of private citizens. That was a healthy development, but when we come to these questions the position is slightly different. As the House knows, there is an undivided Government responsibility. I will give the House an example of the responsibility that could arise. Here I am only talking of Government Departments because Crown land proper is not involved in this Amendment.
    Let us assume that the Secretary of State is considering a scheme and that a Government Department is the owner of land in an area in which the scheme is to take place. The situation under the Bill is that the Government Department could not be brought in unless it agreed. So in theory at least it could disagree. We will say, for the sake of argument, that the Secretary of State for War disagreed with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. Now we cannot have two Ministers disagreeing. They would have to thrash the matter out and at the end of the day the one who succeeded would be the one whose actions or intentions were in the greatest public interest.
    So it is not right to say that any Government Department, merely by sticking in its toes and saying, "We disagree", could hold up the type of scheme with which this Bill is concerned, because at the end of the day the Minister in charge of that Department might well be

    475
    coerced in accordance with his ministerial responsibility in order to bring him into line with the Secretary of State for Scotland. For this reason, it is desirable that the Bill should remain in its present form, and so I invite the House to reject the Amendment.
    Mr. Woodburn: After hearing that explanation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 18.—(INTERPRETATION.)
    The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 12, line 16, to leave out from "land" to the end of line 17 and to insert:
    "means agricultural land as defined in the Agriculture (Scotland) Act, 1948, and includes any dwelling-house or other building occupied for the purpose of farming any land."
    This Amendment adds to the definition of agricultural land in the Bill the words:
    "… and includes any dwelling-house or other building occupied for the purpose of farming any land."
    The object of the Amendment is to remove the doubt which arises as to whether farm houses and other farm buildings are to be regarded as falling within the definition of agricultural land in the 1948 Act. The doubt arises particularly where a farm house, although comprised in the agricultural unit, is situated outwith the boundaries of the agricultural land. This is really a clarifying Amendment.
    Mr. Woodburn: May I clear up one point? The definition of land in connection with houses came up in the consideration of a recent Bill concerning rents and rates. If the Lord Advocate will carry his mind back, the question arose about a house which might appear to be an agricultural house but which was largely used as a residence. An Amendment was moved, I do not remember whether it was carried, to the effect that the house should only be regarded as an agricultural house to the extent that a part of it was used in the working of the farm. In other words, a great mansion would not necessarily be considered to be altogether an agricultural house. I am wondering whether, in the framing of this Amendment, that point is covered
    476
    so that it will not lead to confusion with the other Measure?
    The Lord Advocate: I do not remember the Amendment referred to, but if the right hon. Gentleman is right, as I am sure he is, and there was a decision of that kind, and if it could be so construed in that case, I see no reason why this Amendment should not be construed in a similar way.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 12, line 34, at end insert:
    "endangered land" has the meaning assigned to it by paragraph (d) of subsection (1) of section two of this Act.—[The Lord Advocate.]
    5.30 p.m.
    Mr. Willis: I beg to move, in page 12, line 44, at the end to insert "and mineral rights".
    We had a long and interesting discussion in Committee on exactly what was meant by "land". The Lord Advocate referred to the Interpretation Act, 1889, and read us extracts. It was obvious that the definition did not include mineral rights, salmon fishings or land covered by water. The argument was that because the definition did not include those things it was necessary to specify them in the definition Clause of the Bill.
    We pointed out that by including salmon fishings the Lord Advocate was excluding almost everything else. The general attitude taken by the Government in Committee is that if we specify certain things we exclude the things which are not specified, unless there is a provision to cover the point. There is no general provision here, nor a definition—

ROYAL ASSENT
5.32 p.m.
Message to attend the Lords Commissioners:
The House went:—and, having returned;
Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

1. Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Act, 1958.

2. Nationalised Industries Loans Act, 1958.

LAND DRAINAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL
As amended (in the Standing Committee and on recommittal) again considered.
Mr. Willis: I was referring to the discussion that we had in the Scottish Standing Committee upon the meaning of the word "land". I do not want to go over the argument, because I find upon looking up the debate that I was right about what the Lord Advocate said.
The discussion arose because of the anxiety of hon. Members opposite about salmon fishings. Certain hon. Members opposite were very concerned to preserve the rights of those fishings. Hon. Members on this side of the Committee endeavoured to point out that there were other things besides salmon fishings which affected the lives and incomes of different people. We asked why specific mention was made of salmon fishings to the exclusion of anything else, and why mineral rights should not be included. It is quite possible that mineral rights could he divorced from the ownership of the land and held by another person, and that as a result of one of these schemes being put into operation that person might lose those rights.
The learned Lord Advocate did not give us a very satisfactory reply. In fact, to be quite blunt, he dodged the issue. I do not think that he really knew what was right and what was wrong. He did not know the law in regard to this matter, and so he dodged the issue. We do not like to see the Lord Advocate dodging his responsibilities. We always try to make him face them. We want to know why we should not include mineral rights. They are just as important to their owners as are salmon fishings to the people who own them. I suggest that if the right hon. and learned Member wants the Bill to he just and to give everyone a fair deal he should pay attention to people other than those who are interested simply in salmon fishings.
5.45 p.m.
The Lord Advocate: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) has reintroduced us to the old point raised in the Standing Committee, namely, inclusio unius est exclusio alterius.
Mr. Willis: In view of the fact that I have not Trayner's "Latin Maxims" with me, perhaps the right hon. and learned Member would translate.
The Lord Advocate: Certainly; it means, "the inclusion of one is the exclusion of another". He pointed out, quite rightly, that if mineral rights were not comprised in the land they would not be included. I must ask the Committee not to accept the Amendment, because it is unnecessary. Minerals are included in the word "land". A person who is the owner of minerals is the owner of land. If a person is a tenant of minerals he is an occupier of land. Accordingly, anybody with an interest in minerals—namely, the people whom the hon. Member is anxious to protect—would be included, for compensation purposes, either as the owner or occupier of land.
The position is different in regard to salmon fishings, because, although they are a heritable right, they are not land. I am sure that the Committee does not want me to go into a long discussion and to read treatises about mineral rights and so forth. If we take the view that minerals are land sufficient security is provided for the owner or occupier.
Mr. Willis: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give us the authority for this? In Committee he was most particular to bring with him a copy of the 1889 Interpretation Act, and was most careful to read to us from that Act what the expression "land" included, and there was no mention of mineral rights in that definition. I therefore assume that it is not under that Act that he makes his pronouncement, but as a result either of a legal decision or some other Act. Will he tell us what it is?
The Lord Advocate: Minerals in the land are part of the land and, being part of the land, are land. Doubt might arise whether something built on land, such as a house, was part of the land and, in order to make the position quite clear, special provision was made in the 1889 Act, with which we had such fun in Committee. But minerals, being buried in the land, are part of it, and fall within the description of "land".
Mr. Woodburn: I am intrigued by this question. Some time ago I read in a newspaper, a letter written by a man who had bought a new house. He said that he

479
had always been under the impression that land consisted of earth, but when he started to dig his garden he found old tin cans, bricks, bottles and every conceivable article. Is the Lord Advocate now telling us that all those things are land and that the man was under a misapprehension in thinking that land was earth?
The Lord Advocate: The right hon. Gentleman is tempting me to have a discussion as to whether a thing which is stuck into the land ultimately becomes part of the land. Obviously, some loose things lying in the land would not be treated as land, although technically they might be.
Mr. Lawson: Does the term "salmon fishings" include trout fishings? This matter is of great importance in rivers such as the Clyde, where there is extensive trout fishing.
The Lord Advocate: No. Salmon fishing, being a heritable right, is quite separate from trout fishing. Trout fishing is not a right in the sense that salmon fishing is. If we wish to catch trout, we are entitled to go to the place where we think they are to be caught.
Mr. Willis: In view of the much better explanation that the Lord Advocate has now given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord John Hope: I beg to move, in page 13, line 22, at the end to insert:
(2) For the purpose of construing references in this Act to agricultural land situated in an improvement area a change in the use of any land so situated occurring after the making of the improvement order in question shall be disregarded.
An improvement area, when the order which defines it is first made, will unquestionably comprise agricultural land to be improved and, incidentally, may comprise other land which may be waste land. Ownership of the agricultural land comprised in the area will carry with it, for instance, a duty to contribute to the cost of the execution and maintenance of drainage works.
Land to which such an obligation attaches may, over the years, cease to be used as agricultural land. It may possibly be used for building, for housing or industrial purposes, but the obligation
480
should not cease to be enforceable because the use of the land has changed. Put shortly, the intention is that such land shall continue to be treated as agricultural land for the purposes of the Bill.
Amendment agreed to.

First Schedule.—(PROCEDURE FOR MAKING IMPROVEMENT ORDERS AND ORDERS VARYING OR REVOKING IMPROVEMENT ORDERS AND AS TO THE VALIDITY OF ORDERS.)
Lord John Hope: I beg to move, in page 14, line 39, to leave out "council or town" and to insert "town or district".
This Amendment honours an undertaking to hon. Members that district councils should be brought into the procedure laid down in the First Schedule for the serving of copies of draft improvement orders, and so on, on
"any local authority or other statutory body which in the opinion of the Secretary of State may be affected by the making of the order."
The amended definition serves this purpose.
Mr. Woodburn: If I read this passage correctly, the county council is no longer involved. Does that mean that the inclusion of the district council makes it unnecessary to include the county council?
Lord John Hope: No. The county council is still included.
Mr. Willis: This Amendment meets the point contained in our next Amendment and we thank the Government for having accepted it. My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) who, unfortunately, cannot be present today, was very keen about this matter, as were a number of my hon. Friends. We were anxious that district councils should be consulted where they were affected.
Amendment agreed to.
Lord John Hope: I beg to move, in page 14, line 43, at the end to insert:
"subject to the provisions of paragraph 4 of this Schedule"
My hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) withdrew certain Amendments during the Committee stage discussions on the undertaking by myself to look into the matter which he raised relating to the procedure in the First Schedule, with particular reference to

481
the requirement placed upon the Secretary of State to serve notices of any proposed modification of an improvement order on any person who might be adversely affected by the modification.
The Amendments proposed by my hon. Friend had the defect of omitting from those on whom notices were to be served persons who might be affected by the proposed modification. This and other proposed Amendments give effect broadly to what was proposed in my hon. Friend's Amendments without the defect to which I have referred. The substance of the Amendments is to be found in those in page 15, line 7, and page 17, line 6. The remainder are consequential.
Under the Amendments proposed the procedure would be as follows. First, where no objections were made to a draft order, or if made, were withdrawn, and the Secretary of State proposed to modify the order, or secondly, where, following a public inquiry into the draft order, the Secretary of State proposed to modify the order. the Secretary of State, before deciding to proceed with the order as so modified, would be required to serve on every person on whom the draft order was served and on any other person who in the opinion of the Secretary of State might be affected by such modification a notice specifying the modification and allowing fourteen days for the making of representations. The amended procedure removes the distinction made in the Bill as at present drafted in respect of the first point I mentioned, where no objections were made to the draft order or, if made, were withdrawn.
I do not think I need say more, and I am sure the House will realise that this has cleared up what was an unsatisfactory position.
Mr. Woodburn: I am quite sure that the hon. Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan)—when he realises what has been happening in the last few minutes—will appreciate the trouble to which the Government have gone to meet the point which he raised during the Committee stage discussions. It seems eminently reasonable that people affected by the first order and those who might be affected by the draft order should have an equal right to know what is to happen to them, and therefore we welcome this change.
482
We commend this behaviour to the Government for future Committee stage proceedings. They should listen to proposals which are reasonable and sensible and then act promptly to implement them.
Lord John Hope: We shall take note of what the right hon. Gentleman has said. Of course we welcome reasonable suggestions.
Sir J. Duncan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and to the Government for accepting the suggestion I made. I was unavoidably absent during the first few minutes of this discussion, but I have studied the matter and I knew what was afoot. I am sorry that I was not present to listen to my hon. Friend and to—
Mr. Willis: Cheer him on?
Sir J. Duncan: —cheer him on to accept my suggestion.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendments made: In page 14, leave out lines 45 to 48.
In page 15, line 5, after "fit", insert:
"and subject to the provisions of the next following paragraph".
In line 7, leave out from beginning to end of line 15 and insert:
4. Where the Secretary of State proposes to make any modification in the draft order by virtue either of paragraph 2 of this Schedule or of the last foregoing paragraph he shall, before deciding to proceed with the draft order as so modified, serve on each of the persons referred to in sub-paragraph (a) of paragraph 1 of this Schedule and on any other person who in his opinion may be affected by such modification a notice specifying the modification and stating that such person may, within fourteen days of the service of the notice, make representations in writing concerning the modification to the Secretary of State and the Secretary of State shall consider any representations so made before he decides whether to proceed with the draft order as so modified.—-[Lord John Hope.]
Mr. Willis: I beg to move, in page 15, line 29, to leave out, "if and".
We had some discussion about this matter during the Committee stage and our previous effort to improve the position was not successful. Now we have put down another Amendment which should be acceptable to the Government. If the Amendment be accepted, paragraph 5 will still mean exactly the same as it does now. I have read this over and over again, and for the life of me I

483
cannot see why we should have all these words
"… shall make the order if and only if …"
I hope the Lord Advocate will say that the Government are grateful for the improvement to the Bill made by this important Amendment.
Mr. Hoy: I beg to second the Amendment.
6.0 p.m.
The Lord Advocate: If I could accept the view of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) that the Amendment made no difference, then I would accept it, because that would shorten the Bill. However, there is an important difference. Perhaps hon. Members will be good enough to read paragraph 5 of the Schedule. As I said when dealing with an earlier Amendment, paragraph 5 is mandatory. It says:
"… the Secretary of State shall make the order if and only if"
If the words "if and" were taken out, then the paragraph would read:
"… the Secretary of State shall make the order only if …"
It would not state that the Secretary of State must make the order.
This is a small and technical difference, but the paragraph is much stronger as it is. If the hon. Member is anxious to make it mandatory on the Secretary of State in these circumstances to make the order, it would not satisfy him if we accepted his Amendment, and in his own interests, I invite him to withdraw it.
Mr. Willis: In view of the Lord Advocate's explanation, and appreciating that once again we have failed to get this correct, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Further Amendments made: In page 16, line 28, leave out "person who may be adversely" and insert:
"other person who in the opinion of the Secretary of State may be".
In line 47, at end insert:
"subject to the provisions of paragraph 11 of this Schedule".
In line 49, leave out lines 49 to 52.
In page 17, line 5, after "fit", insert:
"and subject to the provisions of the next following paragraph".
In line 6, leave out lines 6 to 14 and insert:
11. Where the Secretary of State proposes to make any modification in the draft order by virtue either of paragraph 9 of this Schedule or of the last foregoing paragraph he shall, before deciding to make the order as so modified, serve on each of the persons referred to in subparagraph (a) of paragraph 8 of this Schedule and on any other person who in his opinion may be affected by such modification a notice specifying the modification and stating that such person may, within fourteen days of the service of the notice, make representations in writing concerning the modification to the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State shall consider any representations so made before he decides whether to make the order as so modified.
In line 36, leave out from "1" to second "of" in line 37 and insert:
"or paragraph 4 or, as the case may be, subparagraph (a) of paragraph 8 or paragraph 11"—[The Lord Advocate.]
The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 18, to leave out lines 13 to 15.
The House will remember that the present practice is that in certain types of proceedings, where the acquisition of land is involved, there is a limited appeal to the House of Lords. Normally. Scottish appeals to the House of Lords lie without any leave, provided that there is a final judgment, but in this particular type of case, since 1947 a restriction has been put on this type of appeal to the House of Lords, and the leave of the Court of Session has to be granted.
The Franks Report suggested that an alternative leave should be granted and that that should be given either by the Court of Session, or by the House of Lords. As neither of these types of leave would be needed in the normal case in the law of Scotland, it is suggested that in these cases, as in other cases, appeal to the House of Lords should lie without leave from anybody.
Amendment agreed to.
Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]
6.4 p.m.
Lord John Hope: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
It is a matter of regret, shared by both sides of the House, that insuperable financial difficulties stood in the way of introducing a more far-reaching Measure than this to deal comprehensively with all our land drainage problems in

485
Scotland. The Bill now before the House is, nevertheless, worth while and the proposals embodied in it, as the House knows, have commanded wide support in Scotland.
Under the Bill, we hope to increase the rate of arterial drainage improvement work on agricultural land to the level of perhaps about 10,000 acres a year. Improvement work is at present running at the rate of about 7,000 acres a year, but without the Bill this rate of progress would almost certainly slow down. Limited as its scope necessarily is, the Bill has given rise to a very considerable volume of debate. There is no need for me to prolong it.
Some of the Amendments which we discussed at length in the Scottish Standing Committee were designed to turn the Bill into a more comprehensive Measure. Those Amendments we felt bound to resist. Many more Amendments, however, were put forward, from both sides of the Committee, with a view to improving the detailed provisions of the Bill. It was a most helpful Committee stage as well as having the distinction of being the last Committee stage to be undertaken by the Scottish Grand Committee in its old form.
We have been able, with the help from both sides of the House, to improve the Bill by accepting many Amendments and I now commend it to the House as a useful Measure which will enable local agricultural drainage problems in Scotland to be tackled.
6.7 p.m.
Mr. Woodburn: There is another interesting feature of this Bill to which attention should be called. It is that this is the first time that the Bill has been discussed by the House. The Second Reading debate took place in the Scottish Grand Committee and it is, therefore, desirable to put on the record some of the points about the Bill which are of general public interest.
The Bill arose from the recommendations of the Duncan Committee, which sat about seven years ago. The Government have spent those seven years in labour and, as was generally agreed on both sides of the Committee, the mountain laboured and brought forth a mouse. I quoted the Scottish poet who said that this mouse was a
"Wee, sleekit, cow'rin, tim'rous, beastie."
486
It has not commanded any respect from anybody.
The Bill is an indication of the failure of landowners to deal with their problems. We have felt that the Bill does not tackle that problem with any reliability. Farmers are hardly mentioned although they are the people who will be mainly concerned with improving agriculture. The Bill depends entirely on the initiative of landowners.
Farmers will take anything from a Conservative Government without a grumble the recent Price Review and legislation now before the House and abolishing security of tenure are examples. So long as it comes from a Conservative Government, farmers will welcome a Measure as a benefit, however much harm it does to the farming community. Many farmers still seem to feel that so long as they do not have a Labour Government, which will bring forward an agricultural charter and help them to pay their way for the first time in the history of agriculture, they will take anything from a Conservative Government.
This is another case where farmers are hardly consulted, even though improvements to their land will depend on the initiative of the landowners.
Lord John Hope: Better than nationalisation.
Mr. Woodburn: There are some farmers who would be very glad to have nationalisation, because their fixed equipment would be improved as it should be improved. They would be very glad to have their farms improved instead of continuing to have to put up with bad fixed equipment because owners have not fulfilled their obligations.
The Bill does not depend only upon owners in the plural. The majority of owners affected have to agree, even if one owner has called attention to the need for drainage. The flooding of the Clyde and the blocking of improvements by the Hamilton and Kinneil Estates were brought before the Committee as examples of where one or two owners in an area have been able to prevent essential work. In many of these cases the interest of the occupier is quite ignored, and there is nothing in the Bill which solves that problem.
There is also the question of the absentee landlord. It is quite true that,

487
eventually, such a landlord might be got at, but many absentee landlords have not the slightest interest in the agricultural value of their land. They have long since ceased to depend on agriculture for their income and take no steps at all to improve it.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson) suggested the setting up of central drainage authorities to get over the difficulty. We were told in Committee that some landlords prefer to have their duck shooting and plenty of water about rather than to have drainage which would improve agriculture. If we do not get proper drainage, one of the dangers will be that many of the outlying areas will go back to the wild and will only be suitable for duck shooting.
The Duncan Report said:
"It is in the interests of agricultural production that the drainage of the said land should be improved or that flooding or erosion to which that land is subject should be prevented or mitigated."
That is a terrible thing from the nation's point of view, but the Government have shelved the responsibility by leaving the initiative to the landlord.
I am told that there are about 200,000 acres of land which the Department of Agriculture knows should be drained. All the information and knowledge is available. The Department says, "We know it should be drained, but we will leave it to the initiative of someone, when the spirit moves him, to suggest to the Secretary of State that it should be drained." The Secretary of State knows that the land should be drained. Why wait for someone else to tell him before he calls people together and formulates a scheme? If the Secretary of State does not move the owner, and that owner is not suddenly inspired to want some drainage done, the right hon. Gentleman, the farmers and the Department of Agriculture have to stand helplessly by looking at this watery land and wishing that some owner would take steps to have it brought to the attention of the Secretary of State.
This is the kind of lack of initiative on the part of the Government in tackling the problem that we regret. As the noble Lord said, this lack of initiative has not been confined to one side of the House. It is quite true that we pressed the noble
488
Lord to go far beyond the very limited area of the Bill. There is a great deal of verbiage in the Bill which blurs the reality, and my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) and other of my hon. Friends did their best to get the matter cleared up so that the issue would be brought to the fore.
The owner is supposed to limit action to cases where he
"is of opinion that flooding or erosion … should be prevented."
The Government have now altered that, fortunately. An owner may call the attention of the Government to flooding even if he is of opinion that certain things may or may not apply. The majority of owners must agree and then the Secretary of State must be satisfied. After that he may or may not make an order. The number of "mays" and qualifications that arise before anything is done is enough to deter anybody from starting on the job at all.
If ever there were an example of circumlocution, this Bill provides it in ample scope. The amount of expenditure which might fall to be borne by people who become involved in this kind of drainage is also a deterrent to action being taken. One thing which I think many hon. Members of the Scottish Standing Committee realised was that one of the great defects of the Bill was the small part that the Government were to play in the matter of responsibility for drainage.
Everybody realises the good sense of having a comprehensive drainage system. Everyone knows that that is the only sensible way of dealing with the matter, because a river and a watershed cannot be separated into little sections. The hill drainage improvements might be very wonderful up on the hills, but the hon. and gallant Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Sir A. Gomme-Duncan) found that one of the results of that hill drainage was that when the rain fell it came down to the Isla much more quickly than it used to do. The hill lost its holding capacity and the water rushed down the hillside. The Isla flooded and it was very doubtful whether we did not lose more agricultural land in the valleys around the Isla in spite of all the money spent on hill drainage.

489
Land, after all, is a very variable instrument. There is no doubt that the good land in the river valleys produces far more for the money spent on it than do the hillsides. I well remember the flooding, brought to our notice by the hon. and gallant Member for Perth and East Perthshire, that took place in the Isla and then in the Tay, because when the Isla reached the Tay the Tay itself was flooded, so that it could not discharge its waters into the Tay and, therefore, went up the valley and caused flooding.
No one can take one section of a river or one section of land and say that the treating of flooding in that section solves any problem at all. It sometimes solves the problem of one person by passing on the problem to another person further down the river. Flooding may be an act of God, but when the disaster comes is very much intensified by what has or has not been done about drainage further up the hillsides.
One of the confusions about the Bill is that it can evidently cover field drainage as well as arterial drainage. We have always thought of drainage in terms of clearing the arteries so that the water can flow easily. If these arteries are not kept clear all the brushwood, fallen trees and other matter are carried down the river. They come up against the barriers, weirs, bridges and other obstructions and the water is unable to pass.
One of the things recommended by the Duncan Committee was that many of these weirs, bridges and culverts should be inspected, because many of them were built to deal with conditions that no longer exist. Perhaps a charge of gunpowder would clear an area of the danger of flooding and waste simply by allowing the water to get through.
In Committee we discussed two disasters which took place. One was in Morayshire and the other on the Borders. In the case of the Borders, the floods brought down brushwood and trees which had been left lying in the river beds or hanging over the river. When all this material came up against the culverts it formed an enormous dam which eventually carried away bridges that had stood for nearly 100 years.
The Bill as it stands does nothing to tackle these great problems. We know very well that when disasters of this sort
490
take place the Secretary of State and the Treasury have to foot the bill. It seems only common sense that in framing this Measure the Government should have taken some action to insure themselves against sudden liabilities in the future. They could have done so by having a comprehensive drainage system coming right down the watershed and by taking all reasonable steps to prevent flooding whether of agricultural land, town land, villages, district councils, or anything else. One liability in which we in Berwickshire became involved was where damage was caused to houses and where the occupiers had to be rehoused. The cost to the nation was very much greater than it would have been if proper precautions had been taken earlier.
We ought to pay tribute to the late William Scott, who was a Member of this House, for the way that he placed his great skill and knowledge of the drainage of rivers at the disposal of the Department. He helped to a considerable degree. If all landowners had been as far-sighted and as wise in handling the dangerous waters as he was, the country would have been saved nearly £¾ million. In the constitutency of the former Secretary of State, over £300,000 was recently expended by the State in stopping this flooding.
The Committee was, therefore, justified in demanding that the Government should not rest upon this puny Bill. The Government assure us that the Bill will do something. We hope, after all the trouble we have taken, that it will do something. There were, however, so many handicaps and barriers in the Bill, so many obstacles that could be placed in the way and so much discouragement to people to take action, that we are doubtful whether it will make any great contribution to the problem. Our fear is that the Bill may become an excuse which prevents this and future Governments from getting on with the more comprehensive job. Once a Bill is passed, people are apt to sit back and feel that the job has been settled.
On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends and on behalf, I think, of many hon. Members opposite, who spoke freely on the subject in Committee, I say that the Bill is not solving the problem. It is not tackling the job in the way that it ought to have been tackled. While, tonight, we will not oppose the Bill, it is

491
on the basis not that half a loaf is better than nothing, but that in this case a slice of bread is probably all that we can expect, and we shall not refuse the slice because we cannot get the whole loaf.
The Bill is a disappointment. The Government have disappointed us. The amount of work done in Committee could have dealt with a comprehensive Bill in the same amount of time. The House has had its time wasted on something that is not worth while when it could have done a really worth while job.
6.22 p.m.
Sir J. Duncan: The only point from the long speech of the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) that I wish to refer to is his attempt to split the farmers from the landowners. He was quite wrong in trying that little bit of propaganda. Nearly half the farmers in Scotland are owner-occupiers. As for the other half, I believe that the vast majority of landowners are only too pleased to improve their land if they can. It is a pity, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman spoilt an otherwise good speech, with much of which I agreed, with his propaganda and political move, which did not interpret anything like the real feelings of the people on the land or of those concerned with the land in Scotland.
Mr. Woodburn: The hon. Member must have misunderstood me. What I said was that the farmers and landowners were like two fingers. close together, and that nothing could separate them. No matter what was done to them, the farmers would still cling to the landowners and to the Conservative Government.
Sir J. Duncan: I was referring not to that part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, but to his reference to the farmers not having an interest in the Bill because it was for the landowners to take the initiative. As I was trying to point out, the farmers and landowners, to the extent of nearly one-half, are the same people. As for the other half, the landowners are in very close and friendly contact with their tenants and are only too anxious to help if they can.
I should like to point out to all concerned, particularly to the owners, that they must look carefully at schemes
492
before they enter into them. As was made clear in Committee, those who enter into schemes face heavy potential liabilities. Nevertheless, I believe that within the small limits of the Bill, a few schemes—not many, but a few—will be put through and will be to the benefit of agricultural land in Scotland. I am sorry that the Bill is not more comprehensive I wish that it was.
I agree with the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire in hoping that the Scottish Office will persevere in negotiations, not only with the Treasury, but with the local authorities, to get a more comprehensive scheme. I believe that the biggest difficulty encountered by the Government in the negotiations is not the Treasury so much as the local authorities. I hope that in time, perhaps not during the next Session, but in the next Parliament, the Government will have ready a more comprehensive scheme to deal with the wider picture and the larger flooding to which the right hon. Gentleman referred.
I congratulate the Government on accepting Amendments which, in the main, were thoughtful and constructive and the attempts made by hack benchers to improve the wording or the meaning of the Bill. I am grateful to my noble Friend the Joint Under-Secretary for accepting my own Amendments as well as those of my hon. Friends. There is only one question which I wish to ask him before we leave the Bill.
Some drainage schemes have failed because of lack of maintenance. Under the Bill, for the first time, the authorised persons will be bound by law to maintain the works. This is extremely important. In the past, it has been a waste of time to spend capital on draining land and then to allow the land to go back to bog, but that is what has happened. In one case of which I have details, a scheme of land drainage was started under Defence Regulation 62 in January, 1945, and £779 of Government money was spent on it. The land is quite near to my home.
The land has now completely gone back to bog and rush because of the lack of maintenance. When it was first drained, it carried excellent crops of oats and potatoes for two or three years. Then, because of the lack of maintenance and the absence of any legal sanction on

493
the occupiers to maintain the drains, the land went back and is now in exactly the same state as it was before 1945. That is wrong. It is a waste of public money.
I should like to know from my noble Friend whether, in such cases, it will be possible to start again and to have a new grant for the same land, but, coupled with it, the obligation to maintain. In addition to any new schemes that the Department has in mind, there will be some—and I have quoted one—on which money has been wasted, but where the situation can be retrieved if a scheme is entered into under the Bill.
I have discussed this matter with the tenants and the landlord of the property in question. On fencing and other items, they have spent about £2,000 of their own money. They are prepared to put in more money if the Government will come in, too. They would be prepared to accept the obligation to maintain. Could we not, therefore, include cases of the kind within the provisions of the Bill? If we did, I believe that we could extend the beneficent results of the Measure beyond what we have been thinking of and thus get more agricultural land into first-class production. That, after all, is the object of the Bill.
6.30 p.m.
Mr. Lawson: My right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) described the Bill as a mouse of a Bill. I believe that that description would be accepted on both sides of the House. Even within its very narrow limits, the Bill is more timid than it need be; and it has one very serious defect within those limits. It seems to me that the Secretary of State and the Government have been over-scared that owners may not embark upon these schemes. They have fallen over backwards in their attempt not to scare away the owners.
The defect which I have in mind is that even after an application has been made for an improvement scheme, and the procedures described in the First and Second Schedules, which cover three pages of the Bill, have been followed—which must mean in all cases a substantial expenditure on the part of the Government—and even after agreement has been reached and a scheme started on expert advice to the Government that
494
it is worth while, the Secretary of State leaves himself with no power whatsoever to compel the owners to carry the scheme to completion where he thinks it desirable that that should be done.
Those who have studied the Bill know that it contains powers to ensure that, where a scheme has been started, any necessary protective works that are involved must be carried through and maintained. We accept and welcome those provisions, but we thought that at the very least the Secretary of State would have been prepared to assume the further power which I have mentiond. He should have ensured that he would be able to say, where he thought fit, that a scheme must be completed. This would be, for example, in cases where, for perhaps some minor reason, there had been a change in the balance between owners who were in favour of a scheme and those who were against. A change of one owner might mean a change from a 51–50 balance in favour of a scheme to a 50–49 balance against. Circumstances could be such that a scheme could be stopped at any stage, up to the point where the Government paid the grant—and I understand that the grant will not be paid until a scheme has been completed. Circumscribed as the Bill is, and full as it is of all sorts of qualifications to ensure that the owner shall not be scared away, there is nothing in the Measure to enable the Secretary of State to do anything about it if a scheme were stopped immediately after it had been started, or even when it was half-way or three-quarters of the way through.
All that we on this side of the House ask is that the Secretary of State should take power to enable him to judge whether or not he should say that a scheme should be completed in circumstances where he thinks that is desirable. We do not ask that he should say that in every case, but that he should be enabled to exercise his judgment and, where necessary, insist that a scheme should be completed. The Secretary of State has not assumed that power, and, with all its other limitations, the Bill is more limited even than it need be in that respect.
Even at this late stage I would ask that this point should be looked at and that provision should be made in another place for this power to he given to the

495
Secretary of State so that Government money may not be wasted. Once there has been a preliminary examination, or a scheme has been started, Government money must necessarily be involved. Both in respect of the spending of Government money and of the worthwhileness of a scheme—which I presume would not have been started if it had not been considered to be worth while—power to insist that in certain circumstances the scheme must be carried through should be vested in the Secretary of State.
6.37 p.m.
Mr. Mackie: I listened with very great interest to the gloomy speech of the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn). It was, indeed, a regular Jeremiad. He suggested that the Bill would do little or nothing to achieve better land drainage in Scotland. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman's predictions will be completely falsified. I preferred the candid remarks of my noble Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State in moving the Third Reading, when he admitted that in the matter of financial provision the Bill did not allow anything like the amount of money that the Government would have liked to have seen forthcoming. I hope that the whole House accepts my noble Friend's candour in making such a statement.
It is obvious, of course, that right hon. and hon. Members opposite object to the Bill because occupiers are not able to apply for grants in the same way as the owners of land in Scotland. At the last Scottish Grand Committee under the old régime—and I regret the passing of that régime—a very important Amendment was moved by the Opposition to ensure that occupiers should be able to apply for grants and receive them on the same terms as landowners. I remember saying on that occasion, in response to an hon. Member opposite, that the structure of the Bill is based on ownership and that to introduce that kind of clumsy legislation would, in my humble opinion, have made the Bill very difficult to work.
In the earlier part of his speech, which I describe, I hope not offensively, as a Jeremiad, the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire complained that the Bill would do little or nothing to achieve
496
what we had in view. He said that it would not matter, because tenant farmers and occupiers of land would take anything from the Government. They had taken the Agriculture Act, 1947, but had not said "Thank you" at a General Election, and they would take the agricultural policy of the present Government lying down. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his candour. He has thus declared, in the name of the Scottish Socialist Party, that he has abandoned all hope for his party in the rural constituencies of Scotland.
Mr. Woodburn: There are, of course, quite a number of intelligent and bright farmers who will vote for us.
Mr. Mackie: The right hon. Member did not say that. It would be out of order for me to go into detail in that direction, but the right hon. Member threw out the challenge and I am entitled to rebut it from my point of view. It is apparent that the right hon. Gentleman has abandoned all hope. He now says that he hopes that a few intelligent farmers may vote for him but that the unintelligent section of the community will weigh down those votes. I only hope the right hon. Gentleman is right, though he may be wrong. Only the ballot boxes will tell.
I, for one, support the Third Reading of this small Bill—much smaller in financial scope than my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary would have liked to introduce—in spite of the remarks of the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire.
6.41 p.m.
Mr. Willis: I do not know whether the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Mackie) was enthusiastic about the Bill or not. I heard what he said, but it is difficult to ascertain what he really thinks about the Bill. Most of his speech dealt with something else. I had intended to congratulate him on being the second Member on the Government side of the House to become enthusiastic about the Bill, because up to the present only one Member opposite has been enthusiastic about it, and he is not here to see it obtain its Third Reading.
Why are we on these benches not enthusiastic about the Bill? The answer is that we do not think it will do very much. Neither do we think it is the

497
proper way to tackle the drainage problems of Scotland. It will not do very much, because the amount of money being spent under the Bill. £20,000 a year, is far too small for the job in hand.
Lord John Hope: That point concerning the £20,000 was given an incorrect slant by the hon. Gentleman when we were discussing the matter on principle. That is just an estimate. It is not a limit.
Mr. Willis: The hon. Gentleman has given us an estimate and I have no doubt that the Treasury will ensure that the Scottish Office keeps to the estimate. Of course, I should like to think that they do not keep to it, but we can only accept the figure that has been provided by the Government, which is £20,000.
When we come to consider the figures given by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn), who said that about 200,000 acres of land in Scotland could be improved as a result of drainage, and when we compare this sum with that figure, we reach the very interesting conclusion that under this Bill it will take 100 years really to increase the productivity of this land as it ought to be increased. That is an absurd way of treating a serious problem.
The hon. Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) said that he hoped the Government would continue their negotiations with the local authorities concerned. We all hope that, but we also hope that the Government will do it in a more generous frame of mind than they have done previously. There is no doubt that the failure to reach any agreement to enable the Government to introduce a Bill capable of dealing with the problem in Scotland has been due, in the main, to the Government's attitude towards the financing of such a Measure.
The Government, only a year or two ago, had to foot a bill of £500,000 in the Spey Valley as a result of flooding, and £750,000 was involved in East Lothian and Berwick in 1948 because of floods. In this series of floodings alone we had to spend £1¼ million, and if we were prepared to spend that amount of money on drainage we could deal with more than 50,000 of the 200,000 acres about which my right hon. Friend spoke.
The fact is that in this Bill the Government are not measuring up to the job on hand. I do not think we can wait
498
for another seven, eight, nine or ten years. We still have a great drift of population in Scotland towards the central belt. We still have areas which are going out of cultivation in Scotland, and a drift within Scotland—never mind the drift away from Scotland—from our agricultural areas; and that is a bad thing. In spite of the encomiums of the Bill by the hon. Member for Galloway, the Bill will not stop that drift. Certainly, it is nothing to feel happy about.
The Bill is not only a small one but, let us face it, a very small one. In enabling this small amount of work to be done it places so many disincentives upon the owners of land and others concerned that it is even doubtful whether it will achieve what the Government want it to achieve. I agree with the hon. Member for South Angus that at least it creates the ability to compel the maintenance of drainage work, and that is important, but, of course, it will apply to only a very few schemes. This is not really the way to deal with the drainage problems of Scotland. The Bill might do something here and there. It prevents a situation from arising in which one man could obstruct a scheme being carried out in a certain area. In a few circumstances it makes possible the maintenance of drainage works.
These are small things, and to the extent to which the Bill does that we welcome it. Nevertheless, we recognise that it is a mean, paltry, trivial Bill. It is typical of the Government's attitude towards a lot of things, and is certainly not the sort of Bill which we should like to have seen to deal with these problems in Scotland.
6.47 p.m.
The Lord Advocate: I thank the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) for the nice things that he said about the Bill. Like him, we are sorry that it does not go any further. The right lion. Gentleman said something about verbiage in the Bill, but I think that the House will agree that it is better to have verbiage in a Bill than to have too much verbiage in the courts; and if things are not made clear in the Bill one may have to go to the courts to have matters clarified.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) stressed the importance, of maintenance. That matter

499
is stressed in the Bill. He asked whether, under the Bill, a grant could be given even though there had been a grant under a previous Measure. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent such a grant being given, and, of course, the land in question would be considered on its merits.
The hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) said that in the Bill there is no compulsitor upon the Secretary of State to make the operators carry on with a scheme once it had been started. That matter was fully discussed in Committee. One of the considerations that the hon. Member did not mention was the possibility that many interested parties might be reluctant to engage in a scheme if they felt that they would be bound to continue with it, whatever happened. Much was said in Committee about the desirability of getting those interested to come into a scheme.
I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for saying that it is not proposed to divide against the Bill, and I hope, therefore, that the House will give it a Third Reading.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

PUBLIC RECORDS BILL [Lords]
Order for Second Reading read.
6.50 p.m.
The Solicitor-General (Sir Harry Hylton-Foster): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This Bill is about public records. That may be a specialist subject, but it is far from being an unimportant one in the public sense. The object of the Bill is to make modern and apt provision for public records, for their custody, for the collection and preservation of those which ought to be preserved, for the destruction of those which ought not to be preserved and for the access by the public to public records. It gives effect to the main recommendations of the Committee on Departmental Records. That was a Committee under the chairmanship o f Sir James Grigg, which reported in 1954.
When it did, the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury expressed the
500
gratitude of the Government to Sir James Grigg and his colleagues, but I am sure that the House, as I move the Second Reading of the Bill, would desire me once again to emphasise how greatly indebted we all are to Sir James and his colleagues for the very able, full and useful Report which they did produce.
As the Report sets out so much of the history and deals with so many of the problems of this matter, and as the Bill has already been discussed in another place, I do not think that the House would wish me at this stage, to attempt an elaborate analysis of its provisions, but, if I attempt a rather more general approach, it would be on the basis, if the House were to approve that course, that I would seek to answer any questions which arise relating to the Bill either by leave of the House tonight or at a later stage if I want to have more mature consideration of the right answer so as not to mislead the House.
The Grigg Committee, of course, was dealing with Departmental records only, but the Bill deals with legal records, too, because it is obviously desirable, so we would submit, for administrative reasons and for the convenience of students and historians, that both kinds of records should be subject to the same general system.
The Master of the Rolls has long been concerned with records. By his patent I believe that he is
"Our Keeper or Master of the Rolls and Records of Our Chancery of England."
He has been responsible for curial records since early mediæval days as deputy of the Lord Chancellor, but he has acquired his additional responsibility for records in an odd way. The Committee looked at it in paragraphs 124 to 129 of its Report. He acquired under the Public Record Office Act, 1838, responsibility, in addition, for the records of the Court of Exchequer and other ancient courts and under an Order in Council of 1852 for Departmental records; and all that, says the Committee in substance, very largely as a result of accident.
The fact is that the Acts of Parliament which at present govern the disposal and custody of documents, whether they arise either from the administration of justice or from the groanings of Departments under the processes of Government, are not really adapted for the purpose. They

501
were directed fundamentally at legal records only. Our parliamentary forebears in the early part of the nineteenth century are certainly not to be blamed if they did not foresee how very prolific of documents the processes of Government would become, fertilised as they are by typewriters. Hence the present unsatisfactory position which the Bill is designed to remedy.
Basically, the Grigg Committee thought that there were two main defects; and the Bill seeks to deal with them both. The Government agree basically with the Committee's analysis. The first was that there was no Minister answerable to Parliament to whom the Public Record Office was subject. Obviously, that is not constitutionally as it should be, and it involved the Public Record Office, so the Committee thought, in a disadvantage in that it had not got a Minister to fight its battles, as it were, on a ministerial level in inter-departmental discussions—a Minister to urge other Departments to destroy their worthless documents and to transfer their valuable ones to the Public Record Office when the time came.
The other principal defect was that under the present law there is no power to destroy any document whatsoever, except pursuant to a statutory horror called the Destruction Schedule; fundamentally, a disappointing document. The Committee recommended—I quote from paragraph 128—their disappearance
"Considering the other calls on the time of Members of Parliament and the fact that their existing powers in relation to the Schedules are more apparent than real".
That is in no sense an overstatement. The Schedules have to be laid before the House before they come into force—I think that it is for nine weeks, but it does not matter—and when the House has them before it, it can neither amend them nor reject them; so that would seem a rather futile system in practice.
The Bill deals with both these two defects. Clause 1 gives the Lord Chancellor a general responsibility for public records, which are defined in the First Schedule. It also transfers direction of the Public Record Office to the Lord Chancellor as the Minister responsible to Parliament. He will have an Advisory Council for his assistance, and he will have to lay annual reports before both Houses.
502
Lest anyone should think that the transfer imports any slight upon the ancient office of the Master of the Rolls, still more upon the present occupant of that office, I think it right to say that no one who knows the noble Lord and the distinction which he has brought to the performance of that part of his duties could doubt that it would be difficult to find any holder of his ancient office—I believe he is the eighty-fifth in the straight line—who has done more for the Public Record Office than he has. He was himself an appointer of this Committee, and he has, so I understand, personally expressed his approval of the main provisions of this Bill.
The Master of the Rolls' predecessor, the late Lord Greene, expressed a view which is quoted in paragraph 127 of the Committee's Report, which says that he
"did not think that one man could fill the office of Master of the Rolls adequately so long as to his heavy duties as a judge were added the executive responsibility of preserving the public records."
That seems sensible enough, and it is certainly not an executive responsibility which is diminishing.
But if this Bill will relieve the Master of the Rolls of some of his executive burden it will still leave him a most important person in the world of records, which the House, I think, would think a desirable result. I have been tabulating what will be the Master of the Rolls' position in connection with records. He will, under Clause 1(2), be the chairman of the advisory council. Under Clause 7, he will retain his ancient responsibility for the records of the Chancery of England.
That means, in practice, that he will be responsible for most of the records of the executive Government of this country up to the end of the sixteenth century, and, in addition to that, three series of records which are still current: the Patent Rolls, the Coronation Rolls, and Warrants under the Great Seal. Under Clause 8(4), he will acquire a responsibility new to him in relation to private documents which have lain in the custody of a court for more than fifty years. He will retain, of course, his statutory superintendence under the relevant Acts of Parliament over manorial documents, which are private documents, and over copies of instruments of apportionment under the

503
Tithe Acts and he will remain the ex officio Chairman of the Historical Manuscripts Commission.
Clause 2 of the Bill deals with the constitution and direction of the Public Record Office. Clause 3 deals with the reviewing of records by Departments, the destruction of those which are not worth keeping and the transfer of those worth keeping to the Public Record Office or to some other place chosen by the Lord Chancellor. It is this Clause which makes it possible to introduce administratively the new system involving two reviews of Departmental records recommended by the Grigg Committee.
The House probably is—it certainly should be—aware of the need. When the Committee looked at the facts in May, 1954, it found that the Public Record Office, in its main repository in Chancery Lane and its branch repository at Ashridge Park, had records occupying 207,000 linear feet. I take these figures from paragraph 28 of the Grigg Committee's Report. As to 82,800 feet, they were legal documents in the custody of the Master of the Rolls, and as to the balance they were Departmental documents under his charge and superintendence.
The Departments themselves estimated, in 1951, that they had 450,000 linear feet of non-current material in their hands, which, under the existing practice, would pass to the Public Record Office in due course. The Committee's own inquiry, made in 1952 and 1953, led to its estimating that, year by year, there would be created by Departments and pass for ultimate preservation to the Public Record Office documents worth 14,000 linear feet of shelving space in each year, to which had to be added another 250 linear feet of shelving space for legal records.
Obviously, that accumulation would create a formidable problem of space and storage and of keeping the records easily and properly accessible to students, historians and others who wanted to look at them. I shudder to think of what it must have looked like to those working in the Office—a dreadful flood of documents descending upon those scholarly and not underburdened civil servants who give such admirable public service in the Public Record Office. It is plain, I submit, that there was dire need for the Bill.
504
The Bill provides, by Clause 3, that public records selected for permanent preservation shall be transferred to the Public Record Office not later than thirty years after their creation. However, before that happens, all documents, with certain exceptions, such as Ministers' files, will be inspected in each Department five years after they have been closed, and they will then be preserved only if they are thought to be of value for the purpose of the administration of the Department. Those preserved will be subject to a second review after about twenty-five years, when they will be inspected jointly by the officers of the Department concerned and officers of the Public Record Office.
Then, the decision whether to retain them will be reached not only on administrative grounds, but also after consideration of their value for historical purposes. At that stage, documents which a Department wishes neither to destroy nor to retain for its own administrative purposes will be transferred to the Public Record Office, or, if they are of particularly local character, to such other place as may be approved by the Lord Chancellor under Clause 4 of the Bill.
The new system is already under way, and the House will be interested to know how it is working. Of course, if it is to work well, it is essential that Departments must go through their records and destroy what is not worth keeping. In accordance with the recommendation of the Grigg Committee, in paragraph 131 of its Report, a Records Administration Officer has been appointed in the Public Record Office. There is some evidence that he and his inspecting officers are already playing a useful part. I take an almost sadistic satisfaction in thinking of these figures. It was estimated that the amount, or dead weight—if that be the happy description—of documents destroyed by the Departments in 1956 was 3,600 tons. Since the beneficial influence of the new system, the year 1957 produced an estimated quantity destroyed of 5,398 tons in the year—about 60 miles of shelving, for those who like to be statistically minded.
The Government accept in principle the recommendation of the Grigg Committee that documents transferred to the Public Record Office should be made available to the public after they have been in

505
existence for fifty years. Provision to that effect is made in Clause 5(1). Clause 5 refers not only to the fifty year period but also to
"such other period, either longer or shorter, as the Lord Chancellor may … prescribe".
The object is to withhold from public inspection, should it be necessary, documents the publication of which after even so long a period as fifty years might be harmful.
To choose specimens from two quite different classes of matter; one example might be criminal investigation records. the revealing of which might be very painful, not necessarily to the person concerned, but to his relatives. Another example might be the kind of material which individuals and businesses communicate to the Board of Trade, really under seal of confidence, for statistical purposes; clearly, it might be wise not to disclose those for some period of time different from the fifty years specifically provided.
In substance, the result of all these changes is that the Public Record Office Acts will cease to have effect; they are repealed by the Bill. Clause 10 supplies a new definition of "public record", that in the First Schedule, which, it is hoped, will prove more satisfactory than the rather vague statutory definition which is operative at the moment. I merely say now that that new definition is designed to exclude private records, for we are dealing with public records here, and, since we are dealing with Crown documents, it does not extend to local government records.
I understand that some anxiety has been expressed about the provision in paragraph 7(1) of the First Schedule enabling Her Majesty, by Order in Council, to direct that any description of records not falling within the provisions of the Schedule shall be treated as public records. It is feared that the Government might be hatching some design to take away from other bodies their private records. I am happy to give an assurance to the House that it is not the Government's intention to do anything of the kind or to use that power for any such purpose. The provision is there to cover bodies which may be established in the future. It is obviously wise to have some such provision. Moreover, the House will not have failed to notice that any action
506
under the paragraph is subject to the useful restraint that any such Order in Council will require approval by affirmative Resolution of both Houses of Parliament.
Mr. J. A. Sparks: I do not know whether I misunderstood what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said just now, but I thought that he said that the Lord Chancellor will present an annual report to Parliament arising from the duties and responsibilities placed upon him by the Bill, and, also, that an advisory council would be set up to advise the Lord Chancellor. I have looked at the Bill and I can see no reference whatever to those two rather important matters.
The Solicitor-General: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman's reading got as far as Clause 1. If he has the Bill, and looks at Clause 1(2), I need direct his inquiry no further.
7.10 p.m.
Mr. Eric Fletcher: The hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General has given the House a very comprehensive review of the general objects of the Bill and of the circumstances in which it has become necessary to introduce it. It was inevitable that in covering such a wide field he should leave certain gaps, and the House will, I am sure, forgive me if I traverse part of the ground which he covered in addressing myself to a number of questions on the Bill and on the Report of the Grigg Committee which occur to us. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will have an opportunity of answering some of these questions either later this evening or, if that is not possible, during the Committee stage.
The Bill deals with a very important subject, but one which attracts only a rather specialised interest. Perhaps the House will allow me to say that it gives me particular pleasure to have this opportunity to say a few words about the Bill, because some years ago I spent a great many happy hours in the Public Record Office in Chancery Lane when engaged in a modest amount of research into medieval manuscripts. Nevertheless, I imagine that few of us share the ecstasy of Frederick William Maitland, than whom nobody ever sang the praises of the Record Office more eloquently. To him the whereabouts of the first-hand

507
evidence of the law of the Middle Ages came as a dazzling discovery. In his own words, the Record Office was
"the most glorious store of material for legal history that has ever been gathered in one place."
I should like to take this opportunity of echoing from my own experience—and I know it is the experience of other users of the Record Office—the great debt which is owed to the staff of the Record Office for their unfailing courtesy and assistance, both to students and to members of the general public in advising and making available the vast collection of records in that building.
Even without any specialised knowledge of the subject, few of us who have any regard for this priceless heritage of the manuscript evidence of British history can fail to experience some thrill when we visit the Record Office and see, for example, such historic manuscripts in the original as the Domesday Book, Magna Carta and others, to say nothing of the shelves and shelves of rolls of Parliament, mediæval petitions, Curia Regis rolls, the Exchequer rolls, and so on.
It is worth while mentioning that the Record Office not only serves the needs of students in this country, but is used very extensively by students from overseas. As a result of the development of the photographic department, in recent years very large quantities of photographic copies of these important mediæval documents have been sent abroad. I do not want to weary the House with statistics, but I am told that last year alone the photographic department supplied over 1,300,000 microfilm copies or frames of documents from the Record Office, a large number of which went to the United States and Canada.
I have always regarded the Record Office as a model of Departmental efficiency. Indeed, it is generally regarded by those who have had any experience of it as being a very smoothly and efficiently run Department rendering invaluable and unobtrusive public service. That being so, it may well be asked why any change is called for and why it is necessary to change a system which works so well.
The answer to the question is two-fold—partly practical and partly technical. It arises, in the first place, as the right hon.
508
and learned Gentleman said, from the acute and urgent necessity of dealing systematically with the growing bulk of Departmental records. As you are well aware, Mr. Speaker, bulk and proliferation of written documents, largely due to the typewriter and other mechanical devices, is a modern phenomenon. It did not arise 100 years ago, still less in the Middle Ages.
Not all these documents can be preserved. Requirements of space alone forbid it. I am afraid that I do not share the right hon. and learned Gentleman's apparent sadistic satisfaction with the tremendous destruction which took place last year and the year before. It may have been inevitable, but, as the Grigg Committee pointed out, the necessity for some change of system arises because of the tremendous backlog of unsorted unclassified documents which have been accumulating in the hands of the various Government Departments during the last two generations.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman gave us the figures. Whereas today the records in the Public Record Office occupy about forty miles of shelving space, it is estimated that the records in the possession of Government Departments which will ultimately be transferred to the Public Record Office would require no less than another 120 miles of shelving space. The longer these records are left uncontrolled, or virtually uncontrolled, the more serious will the situation become. Not only will it become a burden on the Department itself and its staff, but it will produce a problem which will make the task of the, historian of the future almost unmanageable.
The path of the mediæval historian today is not free from difficulty. A great many documents there are untranslated, unpublished, unindexed, not always filed in chronological order, sometimes in an imperfect state of preservation and sometimes, in part, almost entirely illegible. But unless something drastic is done fairly soon about the vast accumulation of Departmental records not yet transferred to the Record Office, the task of future generations of historians will be infinitely more difficult. I quote the former Deputy Chief of Records who said:
"There is real danger that the historians of the future will be buried under a mass of manuscript authorities."

509
I should like to join in the tribute to the admirable Report produced by the Grigg Committee, and I think the House should be reminded that that Committee made several very stringent criticisms of the way in which Departments have been dealing—or failing to deal—with their records. In paragraphs 65 and 79, the Committee commented adversely on the practice of many Departments of entrusting the oversight of records to junior and inexperienced staff. It refers to bad management technique, the failure of adequate supervision and to the shortsighted policy of denying to registries a fair share of average quality staff. I think the House would be surprised to know that, in one of the opening paragraphs of its Report, the Grigg Committee, though not identifying the Department—and, of course, the practice varies from Department to Department—says:
"… the Department which seems to be most satisfied with its existing arrangements has in its possession unsorted papers going back to the eighteenth century—a state of affairs, which so far as we are aware, exists in no other Department."
Obviously, the problem that is faced by the present Government, or by any Government, is not an easy one—the problem of what to preserve and what to destroy—and, of course, that problem does not get any nearer solution by being shelved. The key to the problem is the one of selection. If I may quote from paragraph 30 of the Report, the Committee says:
"The problem is one to which there is no perfect solution. No one can forecast with certainty what papers future historians are likely to consider important. Not even the historian of today can do this; it has indeed been said that he is the last person who should be allowed to try … A further difficulty is that the usefulness of a document to a research worker often has little to do with the purpose for which it was originally created."
The right hon. and learned Gentleman has reminded us that the earlier Public Record Office Acts were intended to deal purely with legal documents. In fact, it is only as a result of a series of fortuitous and somewhat irregular accidents that the Master of the Rolls, as Custodian of the Public Records originally limited to legal documents, became responsible for the papers of all Government Departments. But only after they have actually been transferred to the Record Office. The present Master of the Rolls has said that
510
he has no effective control over what goes on in any Government Department with regard to the preservation or destruction of records.
I have referred to the practical difficulty. The technical difficulty is indicated in paragraph 55 of the Grigg Report, which says:
"The present arrangements for the preservation of the records of Government Departments are governed by an Act of 1838 which we believe was not meant to apply to them, an Act of 1877 which makes the selection of records for preservation about as complicated as it can be, and an agreement of 1845–46 which removed from those responsible for the ultimate preservation of the records a proper oversight of them."
This then is the situation with which the Bill is designed to deal. It is intended to simplify the procedure for preserving or destroying public records, but the first comment that one would make on the Bill is that it is conspicuously silent about the principles which are to be applied in future with regard to such preservation or destruction.
The only reference, in fact, is in Clause 3(1) of the Bill, which provides:
"It shall be the duty of every person responsible for public records … not in the Public Record Office … to make arrangements for the selection of those records which ought to be permanently preserved and for their safekeeping."
There is nothing in the Bill at all to indicate what principles are to be applied to this all-important problem of selection.
The Grigg Committee made detailed recommendations on how the arrears of work in the Departments should be dealt with and what procedure should be followed in the future. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, the Grigg Committee, in effect, recommended that there should be in every Department a departmental record officer of a recognised senior status, and that the staff of the Public Record Office should be strengthened by the appointment of a records administrative officer, and, under him, a number of inspecting officers, who should work in very close liaison with all the Departments; and that there should be a First Review after five years, and a Second Review after 25 years.
I gather from the right hon. and learned Gentleman that, in fact, a great many of these purely administrative changes, which, of course, require no legislative

511
sanction, have already been carried out, and that indeed was my own information. There is a document, which I believe is available to the public, called "A Guide for Departmental Record Officers", which strikes me as being an admirable production, and which, as far as I can see, attempts to carry into effect the detailed administrative recommendations of the Grigg Committee. I should be glad to have an assurance from the Government that adequate staff has been made available both the Public Record Office and to the Departments to enable these recommendations to be fully carried out, both in the spirit and the letter.
We must not conceal from ourselves the fact that one of the reasons why this problem has been allowed to drift and has now become so serious is the parsimony of the Treasury in not allowing adequate staff for this task. It was, perhaps, not unnaturally, put aside in the interests of what the Treasury thought were more important duties.
That brings me to what I think is perhaps the major controversial provision, in the Bill. May I pause again to reflect that the major work recommended by the Grigg Committee has, as I understand it, already been carried out without the necessity for this Bill at all. As the Solicitor-General has said, this Bill makes very important and novel changes in the responsibilities for the preservation of public documents. It makes a breach with the traditional duties of the Master of the Rolls, which, as the Solicitor-General said, is a very ancient and honourable office, and transfers the responsibility to the Lord Chancellor.
But the right hon. and learned Gentleman failed to draw the attention of the House to the fact that in this respect the Bill makes a notable departure from the recommendations of the Grigg Committee. I am not now commenting on the recommendation that responsibility should be vested in a Cabinet Minister. I want to comment on the choice of the most appropriate Cabinet Minister to be entrusted with these duties. Before doing so, may I add my tribute to that of the right hon. and learned Gentleman to the great diligence and distinction with which the present Master of the Rolls, like his immediate predecessor, Lord Greene, has discharged the responsible executive tasks that attach to his office.
512
It is said that the problem we face today has grown up over the years because it is inherent in the office of the Master of the Rolls which is primarily judicial and not Ministerial that he has not been able to exercise that control of pressure on Government Departments that a Cabinet Minister can do. Assuming the need for more effective control to ensure that this work does not get into arrears in future is made out, I ask myself, and I ask the Government, why choose the Lord Chancellor? The Grigg Committee says in paragraph 129:
"The choice of a Minister to take charge of the Department would seem to lie between the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Lord President of the Council and the Home Secretary."
The Government think otherwise. They have selected the Lord Chancellor. Without, of course, any disrespect to the present Lord Chancellor I must say that I am not happy about the choice. In so far as one of the reasons for making a change at all is because of the heavy judicial duties of the Masters of the Rolls—who already has other public responsibilities—one might well have thought that the Lord Chancellor, with his judicial responsibilities in addition to all his other Ministerial and miscellaneous functions, might have been regarded as one of the most overworked and understaffed of Cabinet Ministers. Therefore, I would have thought that prima facie there was a strong case for selecting as the appropriate Cabinet Minister, if there is to be a change, either the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Lord President of the Council or the Home Secretary. For myself I would have preferred the Lord President of the Council.
Mr. Montgomery Hyde: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that those three Ministers are equally overworked?
Mr. Fletcher: To some extent, that varies from year to year. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), who has had experience of being Home Secretary, will be able to express his views about that. But it will be agreed that each of the three Departments mentioned have far greater resources of staff on which to rely than has the Lord Chancellor. There is this to be said about the Lord President of the Council, that he discharges somewhat

513
similar functions in relation to the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research.
There is also the consideration that one of the reasons for transferring these functions from the Master of the Rolls to a Cabinet Minister is that it makes it easier to apply the principle of public accountability. It makes it easier for this House to control the operations and to put questions to the appropriate Cabinet Minister. I am sure the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Hyde) will agree with me that the responsibility for deciding what documents should be destroyed is not an easy one and not a light one to be treated with indifference. Once the decision is taken to destroy a batch of records, it is final and irrevocable. Whoever takes it should be answerable to this House.
One of the difficulties about making the Lord Chancellor responsible is that it is much more difficult for us in this House to address Questions to the Lord Chancellor than to any other Cabinet Minister. We have all had the experience of putting down Questions for which the Lord Chancellor is responsible. Sometimes we get replies from the Attorney-General, or from the Solicitor-General. However, I think all hon. Members will agree that the procedure is not entirely satisfactory. They are not quite on a par with junior Ministers. We are often told that such observations as we make will be passed on to the Attorney-General's noble Friend, and there is an end of the matter. All other Cabinet Ministers, even if they sit in the Lords, have someone in this House who is far more directly responsible to them than are the Law Officers to the Lord Chancellor. And, of course, the Lord President of the Council does not necessarily sit in the House of Lords; as often as not he sits in this House.
I do not want to press the matter, but I cannot help feeling that in reaching this decision the Government have sacrificed administrative efficiency to a sentimental desire to preserve the historic relationship between the Master of the Rolls and the Lord Chancellor. This is a matter which we can pursue further on the Committee stage. If the Government insist on the choice that they have made, I would merely remind the House that if the system does not work well, it
514
could easily be dealt with by an order under the Transfer of Functions Act, 1948.
I pass from that to a few comments of detail on the Bill which I raise now, but with which we can deal at greater length during the Committee stage. As it seems to me, the success of the plan contained in the Bill will reside largely in the Treasury making adequate staff available, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, in the powers given to the Advisory Council to be set up under Clause 1(2).
It is indeed reassuring to know that the Master of the Rolls is to have the statutory post of chairman of this advisory council. I hope that the remaining members of the council will not necessarily be selected, as the Grigg Committee recommended, from the judiciary and the legal profession, but that there will be representatives of the universities, of the Church, of local authorities, certainly of historians and archivists, and that the interests of scholars overseas will not be ignored. If one wanted to be critical of the Grigg Committee it might be thought, reading the Report and seeing the list of organisations consulted and the witnesses who attended, that it would appear doubtful whether the Committee took adequate advice from historians, and the general body of those using the Record Office.
I am not happy about Clause 2(4). We must remember that the problem falls into two different parts. There will remain the historic functions of the Public Record Office in preserving and making available to the public the collection of documents already there. That task must not be overlooked in the more immediate and pressing task of dealing with current Departmental records. In subsection (4) the duties of the Keeper of Public Records are listed, but no reference, it seems to me, is made to what I would regard as the important duty of repairing, binding and securing the records that are in need of such treatment. I hope that something to that effect will be written into the Bill to ensure that the Keeper of Public Records shall be provided with adequate funds to enable him to catch up with the delays that have been inevitable in preparing indices, lists and calendars of records actually there.

515
The Solicitor-General has already drawn attention to the provision in Clause 5 that documents should not be available for public inspection until they have been in existence for fifty years or such other period, either longer or shorter. I hope we can have an assurance that in the ordinary way, subject to special cases that will be designated, all documents at the Record Office will be made available to the public after not less than fifty years. I would also hope for an assurance that certain categories of document will in no circumstances be destroyed. I refer, for example, to Cabinet papers.
It is well known that the Cabinet only started to have a secretariat, or any papers, in 1916. Therefore, it will be only a few years from now before the most important and informative of all State papers will attain the age of fifty years. I imagine that all hon. Members agree that it would be wrong for any such documents to be destroyed in any circumstances. Historians and the public will expect these documents to become available to public scrutiny in 1966 and onwards.
Other classes of document will attract a great deal of interest as soon as they become available, such as those relating to security, and documents which were of a secret character at the time when they were made. The condition of secrecy evaporates with the passage of time.
That brings me to Clause 7 on which I would ask the Solicitor-General for more clarification than he gave us. The Clause appears to draw a distinction between the records that will continue to remain in the custody of the Master of the Rolls and other documents at the Record Office. I imagine that the distinction is preserved for historic reasons. From what the Solicitor-General told us, there did not seem any other, or any logical, basis for the distinction. In so far as it preserves a historical tradition I support it, but it should be made clear whether there is any intention in future to make a distinction between the records of the Chancery of England and all other records.
I am afraid that I have trespassed too long on the time of the House. My final point is to touch upon the question of private documents. For the purposes of
516
historians of the future, collections of private documents will be no less important than public records. I do not merely mean documents in the hands of private individuals, but documents and records in the hands of the ecclesiastical authorities, local authorities and others. The Solicitor-General has told us that the Master of the Rolls, by virtue of his manifold duties, is Chairman of the Historic Manuscripts Commission and has other responsibilities in relation to documents. He will act as a kind of pivotal figure in centralising the future collection of private documents, since the changes being made in the Bill will depend not so much on the provisions of the Bill but upon the manner in which effect is given to the recommendations of the Grigg Committee.
Perhaps I could conclude by saying that while this side of the House has certain reservations about some of the detailed provisions in the Bill, we recognise that a serious attempt is being made by the Government, in the words of the Grigg Committee, to make adequate arrangements for the preservation of its records as one of the inescapable duties of the Government of a civilised State.
7.49 p.m.
Mr. Edward du Cann: All inside and outside the House who are interested in the subject of the Bill will give a general welcome to the Bill. Not the least of its virtues is that it will strengthen the backing which the Government have given to local authorities in their efforts to preserve a series of records in each county.
The Solicitor-General, with his customary admirably clear and lucid speech, was good enough to invite us to ask questions about particular parts of the Bill, and to make comments. I would like to ask specific questions about Clause 4 and to make a comment on the attitude of the Government towards the keeping of records. I should like to follow the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher), but that would take up more time than I can spare. I will take up some of his points in Committee. I agreed with very much of what he said.
Clause 4 gives the Lord Chancellor a general power to appoint places in which to deposit public records, other than the Public Record Office. In other words,

517
it provides for the local storage of records, and that is a very good thing. Subsection (5) gives the Lord Chancellor a general authority to appoint an officer to be responsible for the safe custody of records in various localities. Neither those who have the responsibility for looking after public records in the County of Somerset nor I have been able to understand exactly what is involved in this Clause, as drafted. Does it mean that the Lord Chancellor can appoint virtually anybody in that capacity? Can he appoint an official of a Government Department, or of a local authority, or even the chairman of a local museum committee, or some other voluntary body of that sort? What sort of appointees are likely to be made by the Lord Chancellor under this subsection?
I shall be grateful if my right hon. and learned Friend can say something about the kind of places of deposit which he thinks might be designated under the Clause. Where the place of deposit is a records office owned by a local authority—for example, a county council—it would seem appropriate that the Lord Chancellor should be under some obligation to appoint the clerk of the council rather than one of the subordinate officials employed by the council. My right hon. and learned Friend will be very much better aware than I am that the clerk of the council will already be responsible for certain county records, notably quarter sessions records, and it would seem appropriate that he should be responsible for all records.
If an official of a county council, such as a county archivist, were appointed, it would seem that an unsatisfactory division of responsibility would be created, which could be avoided. I should very much like to have my right hon. and learned Friend's comments upon that matter, and in particular, to have his answer to the question whether it is intended, as a general rule, to appoint clerks of councils.
Mr. Ede: Would the hon. Member care to express his views as to the proper person to be appointed when the office of clerk of the council and the office of clerk of the peace are held by separate individuals?
Mr. du Cann: The right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has very great experience an matters of local government. I acknowledge that there might be
518
exceptional cases where it would not be possible to arrive at a satisfactory solution without making a firm decision which would disappoint someone.
I feel that the Bill, as drafted, is probably satisfactory in those cases where the situation is straightforward, as it is in Somerset, where the clerk of the council is at the same time the clerk of the peace, but it would be helpful to have a general expression of intention from my right hon. and learned Friend. I realise that there are difficult cases—as, for example, in the County of Lincoln. On the other hand, a principle is involved to some extent, and if the matter could be settled it would help certain local authorities.
I should like to quote something written in 1581 by Lambarde, in his Eirenarcha, or, to give it its proper title, "Of the Office of the Justices of Peace", which, presumably, has been superseded by Stone's "Justices' Manual" in these days. He said that
"the records … should be lodged in some proper or special room under safe custody and not without an inventory."
Hon. Members may well think that those are words which should be of general application today. They were certainly not of application when they were written, and they are not always of full application today—more is the pity.
The County of Somerset first had a record office about 350 years ago. In the words of the time,
"a strong and convenient room"
was established in Wells Cathedral. One hundred and forty years ago the county records were moved to Wilton Gaol, in Taunton, where, I have no doubt, they found a very strong and convenient resting place. One hundred years ago, exactly to this year, they were deposited at Shire Hall, at Taunton where, in the main, they rest at this time. Somerset has a very important and valuable collection. It has records of quarter sessions since the reign of James I, and very full records of county council and other statutory bodies, including the board of guardians, tithe and parish records, and manorial and estate records dating back to the twelfth century.
This collection was very much too large for the Shire Hall and some of the records have been deposited at Elmfield House, in Taunton—a thoroughly unsatisfactory repository, because it is an

519
extremely damp place and has an abnormal fire risk. Furthermore, the Somerset College of Art urgently requires to get back into full occupation of that house. Other county records are stored in an old barn, again an unsatisfactory depository, if for no other reason than that its tenure is uncertain. That arrangement is made through the courtesy of the chairman of the records committee of the county council.
All this means that proper administration by these devoted people, to whom tribute has been paid, is impossible; it means that examination is difficult, and that economic supervision is out of the question. Worst of all, it means that the stores are unable to accept more records. These stores are several miles apart and they are overcrowded. I do not suppose that the example that I have given is untypical of the state of affairs existing in other counties.
Strong representations were made by the Somerset County Council to the Government, requesting the approval of plans laid for the erection of a new record depository. As may be imagined, I warmly supported those representations, and the Minister of Housing and Local Government was good enough to approve the plans in principle in March of last year. He was good enough, further, to approve a tender in July of last year, and the work is now going ahead fast; indeed, the builders will be finished before time. My purpose in spending a little time talking about this matter was to express the appreciation of the people of Somerset to the county council and my own appreciation to Her Majesty's Government for the sympathetic consideration with which this matter was received and dealt with so expeditiously.
In quoting Lambarde I mentioned that we had to have not only a storeroom, but also a proper inventory—a thing that also does not always exist. We made up such an inventory three years ago in Somerset and I should like to quote from the preface. It says that a
"wise understanding of the present and of the possibility of the future can only be gained by a knowledge of the past."
I am sure that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen will agree that those words are very true. It is good to know that the Government acknowledge the need for a proper storage of records and are giving sound
520
practical help in that connection in the way that I have detailed and by the introduction of the Bill.
7.59 p.m.
Mr. J. A. Sparks: I wish to say a word in support of this Bill. Having listened to the remarks of the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann), particularly his references to the problem in localities rather than to the national problem, I think it regrettable that the Bill makes no provision for the collection and safe custody of the records of local government authorities. That seems to me a great weakness. At present, there is no body with any power in the counties which is responsible for collecting and maintaining the very valuable records of local authorities. When referring to local authorities in this context, I am not necessarily referring to county councils or county district councils, but to other authorities which existed before their constitution. The establishment of county record offices and the employment of county archivists is a matter for the discretion of county authorities, and there is no obligation on them to do so.
Even where county archivists are appointed, they have little power. Most of them say that there is a wealth of valuable material scattered throughout the parishes in the counties and forgotten about. Persons who have the custody of these documents often have not the faintest idea of their historical value. Much of this material has ben destroyed or lost, but a great deal still remains. Now we are proposing to pass legislation to deal with this matter, and I think we should include a provision for the collection of that valuable material into some central spot. The contribution made by this material to the amount of historical knowledge of our country is just as important as that of the national records, and once these documents disappear records of county history are lost for ever.
I welcome this Bill. Having had some experience of the work in the Public Record Office, I know that any member of the public or student engaged in research work among the documents deposited there will be struck by the willingness of the staff and their courteous attitude. It is a great pleasure for anyone to visit that office and benefit from their advice and help. It is becoming increasingly important that the Public

521
Record Office should be extended and its staff increased. When the recommendations of the Grigg Committee are implemented the status and importance of the Public Record Office will increase considerably.
Reference was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington. East (Mr. E. Fletcher) to the immense amount of documents already in Government Departments. He said that there were 120 miles of shelf space in Government Departments containing records awaiting sorting and transference into the keeping of the Public Record Office. On page 6 of the Grigg Committee's Report, it states:
"The result has been that useless material has been unnecessarily retained, and papers which ought to have been in the Public Record Office long ago and available for the 'free use' of the public are still in the hands of Departments"
When this Bill becomes law and this mass of documents is sorted and those considered necessary to be retained passed to the Public Record Office, it will result in the acquisition of an immense amount of new material all urgently required by students and research workers. This, added to the existing responsibilities of the Department, will make it necessary to provide more accommodation for storing the documents and for the public and students and research workers. A larger staff will be required to cope with the increased activities of the Office.
I am sorry that the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not refer to this matter. A problem will be created when this additional material is transferred to the Public Record Office. It is intended by the provisions of this Bill to make available to the public a much wider range of historical records which are now in Government Departments, and to introduce a system to provide a regular flow of such records to the Office for use by the public. There is no mention in the Bill about the measures necessary to provide for this influx of new material. To expect the Public Record Office to handle this increased material and to provide it to an ever-growing circle of students without doing something about the accommodation is not to face the realities of the situation.
The Report considers this problem and makes one or two suggestions, but a very important point of principle is involved
522
in this aspect of the matter. The problem from the point of view of the public, the research worker and student is that if the documents in the care of the Public Record Office are to be dispersed among a number of centres, particularly if those are outside London, a particular document being available only at place A and another document being available only at place B and another available only at place C, the process of research will be completely disrupted.
Whatever is done, it is vitally important that the Public Record Office should remain the centre where all the records are available for study by the public. That does not necessarily mean that all the records must be there at Chancery Lane. It may well be that, for storage purposes, it will be necessary to store certain records in certain other parts of London, but the Report makes the valuable suggestion that, if that is done, some arrangement should be made to transport the documents required from the outlying centres to the Public Record Office at the request of students and research workers so that those documents can be studied in this central place.
If we do not maintain the idea of a central place of study where all the documents are available to the public, then the main purpose of the Public Record Office will not be achieved. If the public search and study of records are decentralised, the work of the research students will be disorganised. It is essential to have these records under one roof.
If we accept that principle, as the Grigg Committee accepted it—the Committee accepted the importance of this factor—we must take into consideration the adequacy of the existing accommodation at Chancery Lane. At present, the accommodation available for the public is totally and absolutely inadequate. There are times when every seat is occupied, and it is with exceptional difficulty that a small place can be found for a student to sit down and study a document. At other times, of course, there is room; but there are periods when the facilities for study are hopelessly overcrowded. More accommodation must be provided if the public is to make the fullest use of the Public Record Office and the fullest use of the resources there.
Fortunately, there is room on the site of the Public Record Office at Chancery

523
Lane for an extension of the existing buildings to provide additional storage, as well as more accommodation for students and research workers. The ideal solution to the problem would be for the Government to sanction an extension of the existing buildings, which would very largely overcome the difficulty. The Ministry of Works has been consulted about this proposed extension and estimates that it would cost about £900,000 to extend the existing buildings in order to accommodate the increased volume of documents and place greater and better facilities at the disposal of the public.
The Government may feel that this is a lot of money to spend in these times, but I do not think that it is. I think it is a very modest and reasonable sum of money, and it is certainly the most economical way of dealing with the problem. Otherwise, if no further accommodation is to be provided at Chancery Lane, it must be provided elsewhere, and it can be provided only at the expense of the Public Record Office and of the public, and with the incurring of unnecessary costs in bringing documents backwards and forwards from the different depôts and storages where they may happen to be. Inevitably, sufficient staffing of the Public Record Office is involved if we are to expect it to cope with the increased responsibility which will be placed upon it by the Bill.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the enormous mass of documents which are now awaiting inspection and the masses of documents likely to be destroyed. What worries me and, to some extent, worried the Grigg Committee, too, is that under the new arrangement whereby at the end of five years the whole of the Departmental records are to be examined—and it is suggested that 50 per cent. to 90 per cent. will be destroyed—there is a grave risk and great danger that documents of great historic value will be destroyed by persons who have no idea whatsoever of their historic criteria or historic value.
This review is to be undertaken every five years by a Departmental officer and unless he has an instinct for historic criteria he may well come to the conclusion that the lot should go. The Report suggests that the Public Record Office should appoint a limited number of inspecting officers who would give some
524
vague assistance to the Departmental officers about what should be destroyed. That provision is not adequate for the purpose.
The Departmental officers in charge of the records of Departments and upon whom the responsibility will lie every five years to sort out the documents—those of historic worth and those of no further use—must be skilled and trained themselves. Before anything is destroyed, the approval of the Public Record Office should be obtained. I believe that the Public Record Office is in a unique position to be able to assess the merits for historical purposes of Departmental documents.
Unless there is some kind of supervision by the Public Record Office and those who have been trained in the historic sense, we may well lose in the first five years some very important documents which could not thereafter be replaced. All of us who are interested in the work of the Public Record Office and the provision of ever wider facilities to students, historians and the public will welcome the Bill as an effort to place upon a more satisfactory basis the great historic records of our country for public scrutiny and public study.
That, after all, is what the Public Record Office is for. What would be the use of all this historic material if the public could not have access to it? It is valuable only to the extent that it can be studied and read so that the historians can write and complete and continue the history of our country in all its many aspects and phases. Unless a maximum effort is made to give to the public the widest range of facilities for studying these documents and material, the whole purpose of the Bill will fail.
If the provisions of the Bill are carried through, as some are undoubtedly being carried through at present, a more regular flow of vital materials to the Public Record Office and to the public will be secured. The Bill will provide valuable assistance in the writing of the history of the country and in helping people to know more about government, about conditions, and about many other aspects of national life, about which they can never know a great deal unless the flood gates of our archives are opened wide for all to study and for all to see.
8.24 p.m.
Mr. Montgomery Hyde: Like the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) and the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher), I have a personal interest to disclose in that for many years I have been a user of the Public Record Office. I obtained my original student's ticket in 1931. I should like to join with them and with other hon. Members in adding my tribute to the invariable assistance and advice given by the competent and painstaking staff in the Office. I have been able to undertake research in other national archives, in Washington, in Paris, and even behind the Iron Curtain, in Moscow, but although in some of these places the archives are preserved in more spacious buildings, nowhere else have I encountered such help as in the office in Chancery Lane.
As we have been reminded, this is a Bill of specialised interest, but technical, complicated and detailed though it may be, it is also one of considerable public importance. The recommendations of the Grigg Committee, which form a substantial part of the Bill, are, on the whole, extremely sound. They were, of course, exclusively concerned with the treatment of Departmental records, but the Public Record Office contains another class of record which originally were greater in volume and of more importance—legal records.
In very early times, all records, both legal and administrative, were in the custody of the King's Secretary or Chancellor, later the Lord Chancellor. In 1396, King Richard II ordered that the legal records of the Chancery Court should be handed over to the Master of the Rolls. To carry out that object, he ordered that the job should be done by "one strong horse, not aged," which it was apparently possible to do.
Times have changed since then. Today there are thousands of tons of records in the Public Record Office, and its allied depositories at Ashridge and Hayes. There are about 50 miles of shelving in Chancery Lane alone, and we have been told that there is over twice that amount of shelf space of records at present in Government Departments awaiting transfer and eventual accommodation in the Record Office.
526
The records which are preserved in the Record Office include not merely documents but the more modern type of record such as photographs, films and speech recordings on disc or tape. In addition to students and research workers, the Public Record Office attracts visitors and members of the public, and it has a very interesting museum. For reasons of economy, it was necessary to close that museum in 1952, but I am glad to say that it has now been re-opened and that almost all the exhibits which were formerly on view—exhibits of the most fascinating interest in our history—are now available for public inspection every day.
The hon. Member for Islington, East referred to the Domesday Book. It is hard to say which document is more interesting than another, but there is one which struck my attention and which I can never look at without a certain feeling of awe. I have here a facsimile of it—an anonymous letter which was sent to a Member of another place, Lord Monteagle, on 26th October, 1605, advising him that he should devise some excuse not to attend the forthcoming opening of Parliament
"for God and man hathe concurred to punishe the wickednes of this tyme."
The letter continued:
"They shall receyve a terrible blowe this Parleament and yet they shall not sei who hurts them."
When one looks at documents of that kind the dramatic incidents in our history are very forcibly brought to mind.
The Bill has, from the public point of view two outstanding features. The first is the transfer of the direction of the Public Record Office for the first time to a responsible Minister, the Lord Chancellor, who is given general responsibility for the administration and custody of the public records. I am not sure that I am altogether in agreement with what the hon. Member for Islington, East said about the suitability or non-suitability of this Minister. There is certainly a strong historical reason why responsibility should be vested in him; and it seems to me that either my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General or my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General is a suitable person to answer to the House questions about the administration of the records

527
and any other questions about preservation and destruction and so on which may arise from time to time.
I am glad that the connection of the Master of the Rolls with the Office has been preserved, and particularly that he should become chairman of the Advisory Council which has been set up to give advice to the Chancellor. I have had the opportunity and privilege of talking about these matters with the present Master of the Rolls, and I have been tremendously impressed by the great interest and knowledge which Lord Ever-shed has shown in our public records.
The other feature of the Bill to which reference has been made, and to my mind an important feature from the public's point of view, is the provision, subject to certain exceptions, to make the opening of records to the public possible fifty years after their creation. This presumably means that in a few years, as the hon. Member for Islington, East has reminded us, the Cabinet records will begin to be available. Already the very important records of the Committee of Imperial Defence, which came into existence in 1904, should be ready for students to work over as soon as the Bill becomes law. There are, of course, other documents which we should like to see, though we may have to wait a little longer for them. I should like to see, in particular, and I am sure that hon. Members opposite would also like to see it, the Zinoviev Letter of 1924, which will not be available until 1974.
Mr. James Griffiths: I am very interested. Is the hon. Member suggesting that there ever was such a letter?
Mr. Hyde: I am assuming that there was such a letter. Perhaps that was not a particularly fortunate example to cite, but it is a document which has been referred to frequently. One assumes that it is in the Foreign Office and will be available in due course for examination.
This 50-year period is a satisfactory feature because a number of Government Departments have been more reluctant than others to hand over their documents to the Record Office. Perhaps it is invidious to mention examples, but according to the schedule in the Grigg Committee's Report the Home Office has not handed over anything after 1880. It has
528
held on to everything since that year, as well as quite a good deal before that time. I think that possibly the hon. Member for Islington, East, when he quoted a section of the Grigg Report which referred to one Department still having unsorted documents of the eighteenth century, may have had that Department in mind.
I have one or two brief and, I hope, constructive criticisms to make about the Bill, but they are of quite a minor character. One of them has already been touched on by the hon. Member for Acton. I think that public records as they are defined in this Bill, excluding such legal records as those of quarter sessions and similar courts which are mentioned in Clause 4, should so far as possible be brought together and kept in the Public Record Office, and that they should not be allowed to leave the Record Office if it can be avoided. If it cannot be avoided, they should be away for the shortest possible time.
Of course, certain parts of the Kingdom, including Scotland and Northern Ireland, have particular claims to documents of exclusive or mainly exclusive interest to them. It is appropriate, of course, that the records of any Department or similar organisation whose functions deal wholly or mainly with Scottish affairs should be in Scotland. The position is safeguarded, indeed, in the Bill.
It is also proposed in the Third Schedule to repeal a proviso in the Public Records (Scotland) Act, 1937, which require the consent of the Master of the Rolls to transfer certain public records to Scotland, and to leave the rest of that provision intact. The effect of that would be to enable any document that merely mentions Scotland to be removed from the Public Record Office, or, indeed, not to be sent there at all.
Similar considerations apply to Northern Ireland, which is specifically mentioned in Clause 12. There has been in Northern Ireland a Public Record Office since 1921 and, as I understand it, documents of particular interest to Northern Ireland can be handed over under the Bill as it now stands. I should be interested to know from my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General whether that provision will extend back to the years before 1921. Of course, there

529
are many documents on the constitution and political history of Northern Ireland, which were originally in the old Irish Office arid are now in the Public Record Office, which would be of great interest to us to have in Belfast.
Secondly, it is important that the Lord Chancellor, when he is advised that particular records do not merit preservation in the Public Record Office, should give a direction that these records should be destroyed.
The decision whether documents should he destroyed is not one for an officer of the Public Record Office. His job is to preserve and maintain documents. A decision whether a document should be destroyed is partly one for the Departments concerned and also, I should think, for the trained historian, historical adviser or librarian. I think it would be wrong or misleading to seek to put any responsibility for destruction of documents on anyone in the Public Record Office. Their job is to preserve and maintain and make the documents available in the best possible way for the public.
It is a very important and difficult question to decide what should be preserved and what should not be preserved. There is a story, which may be apocryphal—I apologise to hon. Members if they have heard it before—that during the First World War one of the Government Departments was in flames and a senior civil servant was seen making a big effort to drag files out of the flames. Somebody said to him, "You are saving papers." He is alleged to have replied, "No, I am seeing that the right ones should be burned." It is a difficult question, and it is one, of course, to which considerations must apply which it is not always possible to embody in a legislative Measure.
The administrative machinery provided by the Bill seems to be rather complicated, but, however that may be, these provisions do underline the importance of the functions of the office of Keeper of Public Records which is to be created. I would think that he should be chosen with very great care. He should combine good judgment, high administrative ability and a real understanding of what the Public Record Office is and what it does. It would be very sad and unfortunate if this new post were to be
530
used simply as a means of disposing of some person who was, as it were, a misfit elsewhere. I hope that those considerations will be borne in mind when the appointment is made.
Subject to these comparatively minor observations, I am very happy to give my support to the Bill. It is important that the public records of this country should not merely be preserved properly but that they should be maintained in the best possible manner for use by members of the public. I believe that this can be done and that this Measure is designed to achieve that object, and I welcome it as a valuable contribution to the preservation of what is a priceless national heritage.
8.45 p.m.
Mr. Ede: We have had a very interesting debate. I should like especially to refer to the speeches of the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) and my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks), who brought to our notice some of the practical issues involved. I could not help feeling that there must be grave jeopardy to public documents which are stored in a barn, for not merely do
"moth and rust … corrupt and thieves break through and steal"
but rats and mice may even devour some of the public records. What is worse, they may devour bits and then leave to archæologists the most appalling controversies about what the words were which the rats and mice had attempted to digest. I sincerely hope that that aspect of the matter will be borne in mind.
We appear to be astoundingly careless about the preservation of extremely valuable documents which record the history of particular localities, of families and of public institutions. It is a matter of great grief to me, as a Trustee of the British Museum, that many public documents have for years been awaiting codification and indexing, lying about wrapped in sheets of brown paper. Of course, as the pile grows, it becomes increasingly difficult to be quite certain that appropriate preservation is maintained of documents which really ought to be associated with one another.
My hon. Friend the Member for Acton alluded to the difficulties which may arise from the dispersal of documents from a

531
central store to other places. If I may, I will give an example of the dangers of that kind of thing which came within my personal knowledge. Derby Day, 1920, was very wet. It was just about the first Derby to which most of the public who travelled in vehicles went from London to Epsom in motor cars. They put their cars on the Downs, where, under an inch or so of soil, there are about 360 feet of chalk. As the rain descended, though the floods did not come, the motor vehicles steadily sank. While none of them completely disappeared from view, some were in such a position that the urban council's tractor had to be sent up from its place at the sewage farm to pull them out, at a charge of two guineas a time. I was chairman of the Epsom Urban Council at the time, and we made a penny rate out of it. However, that has nothing to do with historic documents.
The Jockey Club drew the attention of the Epsom Grand Stand Association to the inconveniences which the public had suffered as the result of the incident I have just described and said that, unless steps were taken to improve matters, the licence of the Grandstand Association to run a race meeting under Jockey Club rules would be withdrawn. At the same time, it was hinted that the roads leading to the Downs were not nearly adequate to cope with modern traffic.
The local authority for the town was very perturbed at this and agreed to widen all the roads on the Downs. The roads were, in fact, widened by 50 per cent. of their former width. Anyone who sees them now and remembers that, until 1921, they were two-thirds of their present width, can have some idea of the problems which used to confront people.
One of the roads leading to the Downs was Fir Tree Road, in the Parish of Ewell, which was then in the area of Epsom R.D.C., and Epsom R.D.C. declined to make the road up because it said, "We get no advantage to the rates because of the race course, but we are put to very considerable inconvenience. We will not make up the road for the benefit of Epsom U.D.C." The Epsom Grandstand Association indicted the inhabitants of Ewell at Surrey Assizes for having this road in founderous condition, and a local justice of the peace
532
and the manager of Barclays Bank in Ewell sat in the dock at Guildford Assizes to answer this crime. A merciful judge said that they could go into the town of Guildford if they came back in a couple of hours because he thought the case might by then have reached a position at which their attendance might be helpful.
It was contended by Epsom R.D.C. that this road had originated when Ewell Common was enclosed in 1806 and that it was to become repairable by the inhabitants at large when the county surveyor certified that it had been made up to his satisfaction. The R.D.C. said that it had searched the records at Kingston, where the Surrey records are usually kept, and had not been able to find that certificate.
The Epsom Grand Stand Association produced the certificate, for the Association had searched at Newington Sessions. When the records of the County of Surrey were divided in 1889, when the County Council came into existence and when all the records relating to the new and smaller county of Surrey were supposed to go to Kingston, and those relating to South-West London were supposed to remain at Newington, the document in question was retained at Newington, and the solicitor for the Epsom Grand Stand Association, being an archæologist or an antiquarian of some repute, when he could not find the document at Kingston went to Newington and discovered it there.
Apparently quite unimportant documents may give rise to grave inconvenience if, on occasion when records have to be divided, the utmost care is not taken. Even then, human frailty being what it is, with the best of effort, there may occasionally be a mishap of the kind I have just instanced. That, I think, ought not to debar us from trying to keep records which might be of some public interest in localities rather than in a central store, keeping them in places where they can easily be consulted. Nothing is more important in these days than to convince people, particularly children, young persons and students, that these documents relate to people who lived and worked and died in the areas in which their memory should be cherished.
I recollect once having to distribute prizes at Hurstpierpoint School, one of

533
the Woodard Schools. The man who founded that school said that Latin should be taught as if it were the language of the market place, the law court and the racecourse. In a speech which I had to make after this had been duly recited, I said that I would give a special prize to any boy who would go with me to the next year's Derby and put into Latin what he heard during the five minutes before the race was run. I had no offers.
I am quite sure that every hon. Member here must have known the thrill which a child or a young person, or an American visitor, gets when he is taken into the Lords Library and is there shown the historic documents which are in our possession.
Here is the document on the strength of which Charles I was actually executed. Here is the signature, almost illegible now, of the President of the Court, and here is the signature, which apparently will never be illegible, of the man whose 50,000 soldiers were the real authority on which that warrant was executed. There, we can see that very document in which Charles I gave his promise that he would give his assent to the Bill that sent Strafford to the block, and the note at the bottom:
"If he must Dey, it wer a Charitie to repryve untill Saterday."
And the Petition of Right. These are some individual items from the tremendous store of Parliamentary documents that is kept in the Victoria Tower. We have the three Minute Books of the House in the "No" Lobby. When I am in Opposition I always think that is the proper place for them.
I mention these things because there are some people who think that in dealing with public records we are dealing with dry-as-dust matters, which may be the concern of a few students, antiquarians and archivists, but these documents are, in fact, the records of the way in which this nation has grown and of its progress.
Therefore, I welcome this Bill. I hope that it means that adequate steps are to be taken to sort out the documents and to preserve those which are likely to be of interest. I hope that whoever has the job, if he is ever in a moment of doubt, will always, at any rate for that moment, decide on preservation rather than destruction. After all, we all know that
534
as sure as one destroys a document in one's own study, within a fortnight one wishes that one could refer to it once again.
As President of the County Councils Association, I have received a document from the Society of Clerks of the Peace of Counties and of Clerks of County Councils and I want to reinforce what the hon. Member for Taunton said about the position of these public officers, for it is quite clear that under Clause 4 of this Bill and other Clauses as well, they may very well be charged with heavy duties for the future in this respect.
In view of the fact that the offices can now be held separately, and in most of the populous counties are increasingly being held separately, I hope there will be a specific decision as to whether it is the clerk of the county council as such or the clerk of the peace as such who is to be responsible to the Lord Chancellor for the duties that are passed on to some officer in the county with regard to the matters raised in this Bill.
I hope there will be an increasing number of counties which will be able, as their public offices have to be rebuilt or extended, to take care to have efficient and sufficient muniment rooms where this kind of record can be preserved. It is curious that both the County Councils Association and the Society of Clerks of the Peace of Counties and of Clerks of County Councils, were invited last year to express their views upon the suggestions set out in the memorandum to the present Bill.
It must be remembered that the Grigg Committee took no evidence and made no recommendations as affecting three types of records that were the subject of the memorandum from the County Councils Association and the Society of Clerks of the Peace of Counties and of Clerks of County Councils, that is, the records of Quarter Sessions, magistrates' courts and coroners' courts. Emphasis also should be laid on the fact that the statement contained in the Ministry's memorandum, that the Bill would affirm the present responsibility of the clerk of the peace, has not been reproduced in the Bill despite the consultation with the two organisations I have mentioned. As a result, a memorandum dated 14th October, 1957, was sent to the Ministry of

535
Housing and Local Government, as follows:
"It is suggested that to remove all doubt the Public Records Bill should declare the records of Quarter Sessions and Petty Sessions to be public records, and should state what authority is responsible for their custody. The Bill would affirm the present responsibility of the Clerk of the Peace or of the Clerk of the Court for custody of the records, but it would enable him to select those worthy of permanent preservation and to destroy or dispose of the rest in accordance with the general provisions of the Bill and with due regard to such guidance as the Keeper of the Records may give. The Bill would empower the Clerk of the Peace or the Clerk of the Court, as the case may be, to transfer records for permanent preservation to any local repository maintained by a local authority, or to any other local repository, with the Lord Chancellor's approval."
I understand it is some advantage that the Bill declares the records of quarter sessions to be public records, thereby determining the doubt which has existed over the last century, although Sir George Jessel, who I understand was Master of the Rolls at the time, expressed the opinion in 1877 that they fell within the meaning of "records" as defined by Section 20 of the Public Records Office Act, 1838.
There is one other matter to which I want to allude. I did not get much enlightenment, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman will allow me to say so, on Clause 4(1). This subsection gives difficulty. It is worded as follows:
"If it appears to the Lord Chancellor that a place outside the Public Record Office affords suitable facilities for the safe-keeping and preservation of records and their inspection by the public he may, after consultation with the authority who will be responsible for records deposited in that place, appoint it as a place of deposit as respects any class of public records selected for permanent preservation under this Act."
There is no requirement that the authority in whom the building is vested shall consent to its being used. If, after consultation, the Lord Chancellor says, "It is a good place and, whether you like it or not, that's where they're going to be", it might be the cause of some difficulty. I hope that words will be inserted into the subsection to make clear not merely that consultation will take place, but that consent of those in whom the building is vested shall also be given.
536
There is one other matter. I had better read out a resolution of the County Councils Association dealing with costs. The Parliamentary Committee of the Association resolved—and this has subsequently been confirmed by the executive—
"That the financial responsibilities at county councils, in cases where records are placed in repositories owned by them, should be clarified and that, in particular, it should be made clear that expenditure connected with a direction to them under the terms of the Bill will be reimbursed by the Exchequer."
That is all the more important in these days when, we understand, the Government intend to persist in their iniquitous decision to institute a system of general grant, popularly known as a "block grant" instead of the past arrangement. It should be possible for there to be friendly consultations between the County Councils Association and the Lord Chancellor's Department so that amicable arrangements can be made on that score.
The question has been raised, Who is the most appropriate Minister of the Crown to take over this duty? I do not attach very much importance to it. All I can say is that in recent years there has been a tendency to pile a lot of work on to the Lord Chancellor. The present Lord Chancellor is a glutton for work. No one ever has to ask him to do anything and to plead with him for very long to do it. It may be that in future it might be necessary, if the Bill goes through in its present form, to transfer, as my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East suggested, the functions to another Department.
This is a valuable Bill, but it will need scrutiny in Committee where I hope, the Solicitor-General will not regard every word as verbally inspired and incapable of being removed; or that any suggestion that may be made cannot, with the right hon. and learned Gentleman's help and that of the Parliamentary draftsman, be clothed in such Parliamentary words as will not detract from the original perfection which a Minister introducing a Bill always regards it as possessing, when he submits it to us for Second Reading.
9.10 p.m.
The Solicitor-General: If I may speak again, with the permission of the House, I shall seek to deal with some of the

537
matters which have been raised. I cannot conceivably deal with them all tonight. I am most grateful to hon. Members on both sides of the House who have given a welcome to the Bill. I think that the right formula with which to address the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) is gratias ago; and I should like to refer first to the matters with which he has been dealing. He knows that I cannot say anything about financial responsibility in this context, but I shall be happy to give what help I can towards getting the Bill into a form acceptable both to the local authorities about whom he is concerned and to the Government. I take his point that consultation is not the equivalent of consent. That is clearly a sound point, and I shall certainly consider it. I will undertake to contemplate putting down an Amendment in Committee to meet that need.
The right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann)—in what I venture to think was a charming speech—asked me about Clause 4. I think that I would have their support for the general idea that it is wise to allow records whose real romantic significance is local to be kept and deposited locally, and if there are suitable facilities for preservation and inspection by the public it is right that the Lord Chancellor should have the power to seek to have them deposited there.
My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton asked me about the probable appointees under subsection (5). It is not possible to describe in advance everyone who might be so appointed; it would naturally depend upon the circumstances. What my right hon. and noble Friend has in mind are people such as the clerk of a county council, the librarian of a university, the town clerk or whoever may be appropriate to a certain situation.
I appreciate the added point of the right hon. Member for South Shields that it will be necessary to say in what capacity somebody who occupies two official capacities will be appointed the responsible officer. There is nothing in the Bill which prevents that being done; nor is it necessary to make any enactment to ensure that it is done.
The hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks), in a most interesting speech, asked a number of questions about administration, and added the complaint
538
that the Bill did not lay down these matters—but he would be the first to recognise that it is not necessary to have legislation in order to attain the objects about which he is concerned. He made a most valuable point, which I had omitted to mention, namely, that one of the effects of the Bill will be to regulate the flow of these documents into the Public Record Office. It should be a great help to the staff there, and there should be a most satisfactory result if the Bill works as we hope it will.
I hope that if he has time the hon. Member will look at paragraph 191 of the Report, on the subject of dispersal. It seems to me an attractive idea that the best judge on behalf of the consumers—that is to say, people who do research—are the staff who work in the Public Record Office. The decision is probably best left to them, and they should be, as the Committee evidently thought, the sole judges of what particular arrangements can best be made to meet the needs of research workers.
Mr. Sparks: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman bear those people in mind for membership of the Lord Chancellor's advisory council? It is most important that some of them should be represented on it. Many people come to London from outlying areas, and it is convenient for them to go to Chancery Lane. If they have to go outside London to consult certain documents it takes up an enormous amount of their time—and time is very important.
The Solicitor-General: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. In dealing with that point I will indicate what are the terms, and I am sure that the words he has used will be noted.
I wanted to give him one reassurance. At present, the Public Record Office has enough space at Ashridge for fifteen years; if someone wants a specific document at Chancery Lane, it could be provided with reasonable convenience. Perhaps there is some virtue in allowing the Public Record Office to be the judge of convenience.
I wish to reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Hyde). He should not suspect the Home Office of being the Department referred to in the paragraph mentioned by the hon.

539
Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher). The Home Office has played the game very well—if I may use that expression. All the Home Office records up to 1900 have been passed over, and considering the burden of paper work attaching to that Department, I should have thought that unworthy of censure.
Mr. Ede: No one who has read the books of J.L. and Barbara Hammond, "The Town Labourer" and "The Village Labourer" will fail to understand the extent to which these documents have been available for some time.
The Solicitor-General: That is true. I am obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman—
Mr. Ede: I am not "learned."
The Solicitor-General: Then may I "de-learned" the right hon. Gentleman, and say that he keeps supplying us with most attractive examples. I have very early recollections of the unmade-up Fir Tree Lane, having been born within fifty yards of it.
The hon. Member for Islington, East asked a number of questions, and I do not think that I can answer them all without detaining the House too long. The hon. Gentleman asked the impossible when he requested an assurance that an adequate staff to carry out the recommendations of the Committee would be available. It is the word "adequate" which creates the difficulty about giving such an assurance. I am sure that he will understand that any assurance I give might fall down on that word, which is a matter of opinion.
Mr. Ede: The Financial Secretary to the Treasury is present.
The Solicitor-General: My hon. and learned Friend wishes me to get on with what I have to say, so that he can start doing what he wants to do.
Membership of the Advisory Council was discussed. The hon. Member for Islington, East, I think by a slip, was a little unkind to the Grigg Committee which included representatives of the universities in its suggestions for the Council. The Bill is wide enough to allow the Lord Chancellor, no doubt on advice from every quarter, to make up that Advisory Council, apart from the
540
Master of the Rolls, with any person having any qualifications he desires.
I can give the hon. Member the assurance he asked about Clause 5(1). The general rule will be exactly in the way the Clause is enacted; that they should be open to inspection after fifty years.
The hon. Gentleman asked about Cabinet papers. No one is destroying Cabinet papers. Problems will arise about them in due course which can be looked at after this Bill becomes law One would assume that there will be discussions between the parties and the question of Royal Assent would arise and so forth; but the hon. Gentleman need have no anxiety about Cabinet papers being destroyed.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about Clause 7 and the operative distinction between the records of the Chancery of England and other documents in that context. If the hon. Gentleman wants further details, it is better that we should discuss that at some other stage. But if, with his scholarly skill, he likes to check up the particular line agreed as between the Lord Chancellor and the Master of the Rolls he should look, at Giuseppi's Guide to Public Records, 1923, and take from that what the records of the Chancery of England mean in this context.
It would be better at another stage of the Bill to have a debate on the problem of whether the Lord Chancellor is the appropriate Minister of the Crown to whom to entrust these duties, because that subject obviously demands a fuller discussion than can be given to it now. I was sorry to hear the hon. Member for Islington, East say that the Law Officers of the Crown in this House do not adequately stand up and receive the barbed shafts which hon. Members desire to deliver at the breast of the Lord Chancellor. We do our best. I hope, being at the receiving end of those darts, that we shall not be regarded as an inadequate target.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 38 (Committal of Bills),

INCOME TAX (SCHEDULE C EXEMPTION)
9.20 p.m.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. J. E. S. Simon): I beg to move,
That the Draft Central Banks (Income Tax Schedule C Exemption) Order, 1958, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17th February, be approved.
This Motion seeks approval for a draft Order under Section 22 of the Finance Act, 1957. The House will remember that that Section was concerned with overseas central banks which were defined as those overseas banks entrusted with the custody of the principal foreign exchange reserves of the country concerned. That Section enabled such a bank or its issue department to be exempted by Order in Council from Income Tax on its income from British Government securities. This is the first of the, Orders in Council which have been made under that Section.
The provisions were designed to overcome Income Tax anomalies which had arisen in recent years in connection with overseas currency boards and central banks. The House will be aware that an overseas Government or Government agency is entitled, on the basis of its sovereign immunity, to exemption from United Kingdom Income Tax on any interest which arises to it in this country. A currency board is, in general, a Government agency and, therefore, is entitled to such an exemption, and some of the Commonwealth central banks are also Government agencies and they, too, are, therefore, entitled to the exemption.
However, there is a third class of central bank which, although it may be wholly owned by the Government overseas, is technically a separate legal person and which, under the law as it existed before 1957, could not be given the exemption to tax liabilities which would be given to the overseas Government itself. It is to that class of central bank that Section 22 and the draft Order which is now before the House are directed. It was felt—and I think that it received general approbation in the House at the time—that it would be unreasonable to deny the exemption to such a bank merely because of the technical difference of status. It was particularly difficult to refuse an exemption where a central bank,
542
as so often happened, took over from a currency board which had previously enjoyed the exemption.
The progress from currency board to central bank is a logical step in the financial arrangements of a Government of a developing territory in the Commonwealth or elsewhere, and it was generally agreed that it was in the interests of the United Kingdom that the main external assets of the Commonwealth and other central banks in the sterling area should be held in sterling in London. When the Government of the territory in question owns all the capital of the central bank, the change from ownership by currency board to ownership by a central bank is, as I have said, a purely technical change. Such a Government would, with difficulty, be persuaded that the change should have to be so detrimental in its effect on its tax position. Naturally, if, after such a change, United Kingdom tax were imposed on the bank's income from British Government securities, there would be a very great temptation for the bank to transfer its external reserves elsewhere. That is why the House passed the original Section and why I move this Order.
The central banks specified in the draft Order are the National Bank of Libya, the Bank of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, the Union Bank of Burma, the Central Bank of Iraq and the Reserve Bank of India. All these banks are wholly owned by the Governments of the countries concerned. If they were agencies of the Governments instead of being separate legal entities they would be entitled to exemption from tax on the score of sovereign immunity.
In those circumstances, I hope that the House feels that this draft Order is reasonable and proper.
9.26 p.m.
Mr. Roy Jenkins: We did not oppose Section 22 of the Finance Bill last year, and we do not propose to oppose this Order, but I want to raise one or two points about it. First, as the Financial Secretary says, there are five sterling area banks listed in the Order. I understand that three other central banks—the Commonwealth Bank of Australia, the Reserve Bank of New Zealand and the Reserve Bank of Ceylon—already enjoy similar exemptions. I do not know what is the position about

543
other central banks in the sterling area. Why are they not listed in the Order? Do they already enjoy exemption? If not, what is proposed to be done about them in the future?
The Financial Secretary stressed that to qualify for inclusion in the Order and to obtain exemption from United Kingdom Income Tax in this way, a bank must be wholly owned by the Government of the territory concerned and, therefore, to all intents and purposes, must be the same as if it were a currency board, a part of the Government itself. Can he tell us exactly what is the position about the National Bank of Libya?
I understand that although, in practice, it is wholly owned by the Government, in theory this bank could issue shares to private shareholders. What if it were to do this? Would it lose the protection of the Order as a result? I also understand that the National Bank of Libya and, possibly, some of the other banks engage in commercial banking to an extent certainly very much greater than does the Bank of England. I imagine that this does not affect the position of the bank, but if the hon. and learned Member has anything to say about that we should be glad to hear it.
I should like to know, in particular, what is the position about the National Bank of Libya if it takes action, as it can, to issue some of its shares to private shareholders. The Financial Secretary stressed, I think wisely, that it is the Government's intention to extend this benefit only to such territories as are wise enough to have nationalised central banks. I think he will agree that that is the precise meaning of the Order, although it is understandable that he did not choose to use those precise words in commending it to the House. What would be the position if the Bank of Libya or any other bank were to be so unwise as to disqualify itself from this point of view? We can all agree with the general purpose of the Order, which is not to discourage the central banks of these territories in the sterling area from holding their reserves in London and holding them in the form of British Government securities.
Fortunately, a more powerful deterrent than would exist if we were to charge them Income Tax lies in the present
544
extremely depressed price of these currencies. That is not strictly within the terms of the Order, and I do not imagine that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will deal with it, at any rate at any great length this evening.
Under Section 22 of the Finance Act, 1957, power undoubtedly exists to give this exemption not merely to Commonwealth and sterling area central banks but to any central bank anywhere in the world. Is there any intention to extend this provision outside the range of the sterling area and the Commonwealth? There is certainly nothing in Section 22 to prevent it, and presumably the Government would not have made it possible under Section 22 unless they thought that there was some value in having the ability to deal with any banks anywhere in the world if they so desired.
If the Government will explain their view on this, it will help us in considering the Order, which we regard as a desirable implementation of a desirable principle in Section 22 of last year's Finance Act.
9.32 p.m.
Mr. Simon: Perhaps I should reply very shortly to the kind reception which the hon. Member for Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) has given to the draft Order. As he quite rightly pointed out, the Commonwealth Bank of Australia, the Reserve Bank of New Zealand and the Central Bank of Ceylon are not included in the draft Order. The reason is that they already enjoy exemption on the ground of sovereign immunity. In other words, they are agents of Government. The other central banks of the Commonwealth which are not included in the draft Order are the South African Reserve Bank, on the ground that it has private shareholding, and the National Bank of Pakistan, where, I think I am right in saying, the banking department—not the issue department—has private shareholding.
The National Bank of Libya, about which the hon. Member asked a question, can in theory, as he pointed out, issue shares to private shareholders. But that bank has given an undertaking that it will inform us if it is its intention to do this, so that it would then be possible to remove it from the operation of the Order made under Section 22. As the hon.

545
Member pointed out, the fact that these banks undertake commercial banking on a rather more extensive scale than the Bank of England does not affect the position under Section 22.
Mr. Jenkins: If the National Bank of Libya were to give notice that it was its intention to issue such shares, am I to understand that the Government's intention would be to remove the Bank from the operation of the Order?
Mr. Simon: I think I am right in saying that that would be the present intention, but it would be wrong to give a definite undertaking on the basis of a hypothesis.
The hon. Member asked me, finally, whether it is the Government's intention to extend the provisions of Section 22 by draft Order to institutions outside the sterling area. It is quite true that the terms of Section 22 are not restricted to the sterling area. Indeed, I am not sure that the sterling area has a legal definition—if not, that probably would be the reason. But it is not the Government's present intention to extend the provisions of Section 22 to institutions outside the sterling area. In any case, of course, the House of Commons retains control over the Government's actions, since they must operate by means of a draft Order of the kind which I have laid before the House today.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Draft Central Banks (Income Tax Schedule C Exemption) Order, 1958, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17th February, be approved.

PURCHASE TAX (HEATING APPLIANCES)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Colonel J. H. Harrison.]
9.35 p.m.
Mr. Gerald Nabarro: It will not have escaped your attention, Mr. Speaker, that during the last few months I have been devoting a good deal of attention to the Purchase Tax Schedules, and in a sustained series of Parliamentary Questions, which will reach their century next Wednesday, I have been attempting to draw attention to the jungle of anomalies, inequalities and, indeed absurdities which exist in the present condition of the Schedules. Of course, this has attracted a lot of attention. It was intended to do so. It was intended to ridicule the Treasury, and in that respect it has achieved a good measure of success.
This evening I wish to raise a matter associated with Purchase Tax which is of a very serious character. It is perhaps complementary to the subject that I raised last December—that is, the placing of a 30 per cent. Purchase Tax on the chassis of commercial road vehicles—the only item of industrial capital equipment which is subject to Purchase Tax.
This evening I seek to draw attention to a matter of equal importance and magnitude, the 60 per cent. Purchase Tax on gas and electricity domestic space and water heating appliances, of which hundreds of thousands are sold annually, and they are, of course, in use in nearly every home in the country.
I seek to relate this matter to the background of four acclaimed aspects of Government policy. I shall deal with each in turn, giving references, and I do not think it will be disputed by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that each of these matters truly reflect Government policy.
First, it is the acclaimed policy of Her Majesty's Government to employ to the maximum extent indigenous fuel—that is, home-produced fuel—and to reduce to a minimum the use of imported fuel for heating and power purposes in the United Kingdom. Second, it is the acclaimed policy of Her Majesty's Government to support clean air and to abate

547
atmospheric pollution. Third, it is the acclaimed policy of Her Majesty's Government to expand to the maximum extent the export of all domestic appliances. Fourth, it is the acclaimed policy of Her Majesty's Government to encourage the most efficient use of fuel in the homes of Britain. The caption that I have employed on many occasions in this House is "Warmth without waste" which has subsequently been adopted by the Government as the title for their latest domestic fuel efficiency pamphlet.
I submit that the 60 per cent. rate of Purchase Tax on gas and electricity space and water heating appliances for the home is directly inimical to each of these acclaimed facets of Government policy. First, in the matter of the maximum use of indigenous or home-produced fuel and reducing to the minimum the employment of imported fuel, only last Monday the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power used these words in responding to a Question by the hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. Palmer):
"It is my noble Friend's policy to make the maximum use of indigenous resources of fuel provided this can be done economically and in conditions of fair competition between fuels whether native or imported."
Shortly afterwards I was fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, to put this supplementary question to him in preparation for this evening's Adjournment debate:
"If it is the policy of the Government to encourage the use of indigenous fuels can my hon. Friend say why the Treasury puts a Purchase Tax of 60 per cent. on gas and electrical space and water heating appliances using indigenous fuel but no Purchase Tax at all on equivalent oil appliances using imported fuels?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th March, 1958; Vol. 585, c. 21 and 22.]
I have spent two years trying to extract from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, from the Minister of Fuel and Power and from other members of the Government a reasoned explanation why they consider it desirable to encourage the use of imported fuel, that is, oil and paraffin containing a substantial dollar element, by placing no Purchase Tax on the appliances using that fuel, and to discourage the employment of the lowest grade fuel we produce in this country, that is, low-grade coal burned in power stations, the means of generating electricity for space and water heaters in our homes. I have never succeeded in obtaining any explanation.
548
In this I am supported by the heads of the nationalised industries concerned. I thought that perhaps the most apposite statement was made by Sir Harold Smith, Chairman of the Gas Council. He is reported in The Times of 28th February as saying at the Ideal Homes Exhibition that
"What he wanted to emphasise was that the one sure way of being able to reduce the price of gas to the consumer was by increasing sales."
Sir Harold continued:
"We should normally look to an expansion of from 2 to 3 per cent. a year. As it is, we are just about breaking even. One of the most important factors acting against us is the stupid Purchase Tax which is placed on many gas appliances and the restrictions placed upon hire purchase."
Then he said—and these are strong words for the head of a nationalised industry appointed by the Minister of Power:
"Purchase Tax as it stands today is far more suited to a Gilbert and Sullivan opera than to any business or commercial undertaking."
No doubt my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary had that quotation in mind when he referred recently, in replying to one of my Parliamentary Questions, to the observation made by Richter to the second flute at Covent Garden.
I should like to ask the Financial Secretary to tell the House, without in any way anticipating his right hon. Friend's Budget statement, why, for the last two years, this extraordinary inequality has existed, why oil space and water heaters are free of Purchase Tax, and why the penal rate of 60 per cent. is applied to electrical and gas heaters. I called that, on 26th November last, during the debate on the gas and electricity industries, the
"economics of the lunatic asylum".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th November, 1957; Vol. 578, c. 1035.]
I was warmly supported on both sides of the House. I asked the Minister replying to that debate, the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power, the present Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he would give me the explanation I am asking for tonight, and, of course, he said it was not a matter for him, but was a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer's representative will reply tonight.
Secondly, I refer to the clean air policy. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government will readily confirm, as he

549
has done on previous occasions, that an increasing number of applications are now being received from the so-called black areas of the country for the establishment of smoke-control areas under the Clean Air Act, 1956. It is, of course, well known that a variety of smokeless appliances will be available, but at the centre of those smoke-control areas, comprising not only dwellings but shops and offices as well, it will be necessary to instal large numbers of smokeless, solid fuel appliances, large numbers of gas and electricity appliances for heating rooms. In the terms of the provisions of the Clean Air Act up to 70 per cent. of the cost of these appliances may be paid by the local authority under subvention from the Treasury in the form of Exchequer aid.
What happens, therefore, to a limited extent at present but in hundreds of thousands of cases next year—probably in millions of cases during the next few years—is that the local authority will pay up to 70 per cent. of the cost of an electric or gas heating appliance to the wholesaler who supplies it. That cost will include a 60 per cent. Purchase Tax. The wholesaler will collect the tax, remitting it. of course, to the Customs and Excise. Thus, the tax will find its way back to the Treasury. But the Treasury will be paying to the local authority 70 per cent. of the cost of the appliance, and in that 70 per cent. will be the 60 per cent. Purchase Tax. Thus, the circumference of the circle is exactly complete. The money which the Treasury pays out of one pocket by a circuitous route finds its way back to the Treasury's other pocket.
This sort of thing is highly inefficient. It is offensive to my business acumen. It is offensive to my every desire to economise in the administration of financial and public affairs. It is a blot on the otherwise tolerably clean record of the Conservative Administration at the Treasury. It should be remedied at a very early date, and remedied in the context of the clean air legislation which will require huge numbers of these appliances to be installed, in respect of which up to 70 per cent. of the cost will be paid from public funds. It is, therefore, rather stupid to continue to levy Purchase Tax upon them for the sake of returning the same sum of money to the Treasury.
550
Further, while I deal with clean air matters, it is surely important to all the Ministries concerned that some attention should be paid to the kind of thing which is at present affecting those persons in smoke-control areas who are seeking to make their appliances in the home smokeless. I would quote a paragraph which appears in correspondence in the Journal of Smokeless Air, spring issue, 1958, published a few days ago. The paragraph reads:
"I am just now installing at home a gas-fired boiler to replace one which was fired with so-called anthracite. On this new boiler I have to pay a Purchase Tax of more than £30. If I were to buy a boiler which used anthracite or coke, I would not have to pay any Purchase Tax on it. By burning coke or anthracite, I would be producing about"—
will my hon. and learned Friend the Financial Secretary please note this—
"25–30 times more sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere than by burning gas. By burning coke or anthracite I should also be producing a certain amount of carbon monoxide which would not be produced from a gas boiler."
I suggest to my hon. and learned Friend that, on technical grounds also, where domestic appliances are concerned, it is very important that he should encourage the use, by fiscal methods, of those appliances which put into the atmosphere the least impurities, namely, those appliances to which I am addressing myself tonight.
I mention, also, that we are concerned with the export trade in these appliances. Now that my hon. and learned Friend occupies the position of Financial Secretary to the Treasury, I suppose that he does not often have an opportunity to visit Germany. No doubt he reads the West German trade figures. It is very interesting to observe that the two major industries where the Germans have caught us up and, in some respects, are beating us, are motor vehicles and domestic appliances. Last year, the Germans actually beat us in the export of motor vehicles. We have now drawn level and gone ahead again very slightly; but, at present, the Germans are a very long way ahead of us in the export of domestic appliances, notably electrical appliances.
The cost of an electrical appliance from a manufacturer's standpoint depends very largely upon the bulk of production, upon the number of thousands of units he can put along his production lines in the course of a year. The Germans do not artificially depress their home market.

551
They put a 4 per cent. turnover tax on electrical appliances. We put a 60 per cent. Purchase Tax upon them. We have artificially depressed the demand for a large number of domestic electrical appliances in this country, prominent among them, and most widely used in our homes, being space and water heaters.
Perhaps these figures might commend themselves to a Financial Secretary desperately interested in British balance of payments. The export value of British electrical water heaters in 1955 was £409,000 In 1956, it was £382,000. The figures are not available for last year, but I understand that they have declined further. Let us compare them with the German figures. In 1955, the German exports were £1,900,000 worth of electrical water heaters, a figure almost five times as great as that of our exports. In 1956, when our figures had declined to £382,000, the German figures had risen to £2,300,000, or more than six times as great as the British figures. Every electrical appliance manufacturer in the country will confirm this.
I appeal to my hon. and learned Friend to remember that the German export figures, hugely in advance of ours, are rising in this category of electrical appliances when ours are falling. That is not unrelated to the onerous and unnecessary rate of Purchase Tax which we put on those appliances at present. The situation is very similar with motor vehicles.
I want to say a word about capital investment in these two major fuel industries, electricity and gas. If I dwell on electricity it is because it is so much more expensive in terms of capital investment than is the gas industry. In the year which ends 31st March next, the estimated capital investment in electricity is £233 million. I expect that it will run at that figure, including the contribution to be made by nuclear energy, at today's prices, for each of the next seven or eight years. It is by far the most expensive of all our basic industries in terms of capital investment. It equals coal, transport and gas put together.
Does the Financial Secretary know that the load factor of our hugely expensive power stations today is only about 45 per cent., which is much lower than the figure for Western Germany and the figure for the United Sates? He will
552
recognise at once that the load factor is the degree or the measure of occupation of the capital vested in these hugely expensive assets.
Why is it so low? The electricity experts will tell him why. Let him ask Sir Christopher Hinton. I recommend that my hon. and learned Friend should send a copy of my speech tomorrow to Sir Christopher and ask for his observations upon this facet. Sir Christopher will readily confirm to him the veracity of what I have said. The low load factor is in measure due to the lack of diversification of load. Yet we are deliberately depressing the domestic demand for electricity, which is largely an off-peak demand, by a stultifying rate of Purchase Tax at 60 per cent. on the two major appliances for water heating and space heating which could lead to a diversification of that load at off-peak times, both of great importance in the load factor, and therefore to increased occupation of these hugely expensive assets. We are depressing that demand and therefore using our capital much less ably than we should.
Finally, in this context, I draw my hon. and learned Friend's attention to an observation made by Sir James Bowman and reported in today's newspapers. Sir James suffers great embarrassment. He has millions and millions of tons of low-grade small coal lying around the country for which it is alleged that there is no demand. There is only one place in which it can be used effectively, and that is in the power stations for conversion into electricity. It will not be used unless the demand for electricity is more widely diversified and steadily increased, the greater part of which can come from building up the domestic electrical load. That should be achieved, in my view, at an early date by the Treasury making its contribution, by placing electrical space and water heaters on the same level for Purchase Tax as the equivalent oil heaters; that is to say, on a rate of no tax at all.
I will now summarise the case I have been putting to my hon. and learned Friend. This is a matter of the greatest financial and economic moment. The nation is losing large sums of money by this stupid Treasury policy, and I use the word "stupid" advisedly, knowing that it is all too readily confirmed by the

553
heads of the nationalised industries concerned. First, if we must use more indigenous fuel and less imported fuel; this Purchase Tax rate on electrical and gas domestic space and water heating appliances must be removed. Secondly, if we are to develop fully, and gain all the advantages from a comprehensive policy for clean air, we must remove the Purchase Tax from these appliances.
Thirdly, we should not encourage our foreign competitors, most notably the Germans, to draw even further ahead of us in the sale of domestic electrical appliances abroad by artifically depressing our home market. We should boost that home market in these appliances in an effort to catch up the leeway and reduce the German lead. Fourthly, we should encourage greater fuel efficiency in the home by doing what I have submitted this evening under the caption, "Warm without waste". Finally, we should use to better advantage our hugely expensive fuel and power capital assets, notably power stations, by diversification and improvement of the load factor.
I do not ask my hon. and learned Friend to anticipate in any way his right hon. Friend's Budget Statement. I ask him to reply to my questions, and to tell me why this distinction between gas and electrical appliance Purchase Tax rates, as compared with oil, has existed for so long. I ask him to declare what are the criteria which have dictated a rate of Purchase Tax at 60 per cent. being paid on domestic gas and electrical space and water heating appliances and no Purchase Tax on the equivalent solid fuel and oil appliances.
My hon. and learned Friend must know these criteria, or will he confess that there are no such criteria, and that an obscure "boffin" in the Treasury decided, many years ago, that it would be a good thing to encourage imported fuel, and that this wretched system has been perpetuated right down to the present day? These are questions that he can answer, and which I think he should answer tonight, without in any way anticipating the Chancellor's Budget Statement on 15th April.
10.0 p.m.
Mr. David Price: I am sure that I can speak for all hon. Members of the House in saying that we welcome the initiative of my hon. Friend
554
the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), who has, I think, made a very powerful case. This is part of his general campaign to show the absurdities of many of our present rates and definitions of Purchase Tax.
Of course, it is inevitable in any tax in which we have different rates that we should have a serious problem of demarcation and definition, but I believe that the case which my hon. Friend has made tonight is a very powerful one and goes further than the mere hazards of demarcation.
My hon. Friend is a great authority on fuel matters, and often in this House puts a powerful case to us. I feel that at times his very authority is part of his weakness, because sometimes he forgets the advice given to us by Saki when he said, "… In baiting a mouse trap with cheese, always leave room for the mouse."
It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Colonel J. H. Harrison.]
Mr. Price: I suspect that my hon. Friend does not leave enough room for Ministers to reply. The case he has made tonight puts my hon. and learned Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in rather a difficult position. First, he is in pre-Budget purdah and, secondly, he has in his present office inherited these taxes and rates from his predecessor. So in some ways it is a little hard to ask him to defend or, indeed, even to explain them.
I believe that this anomaly is something more than one of mere demarcation. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, space and water heaters when fired by oil or solid fuel bear no Purchase Tax, but when fired by gas or electricity they bear 60 per cent. Why is there this disparity between similar equipment merely because it is fired by gas and electricity? One asks oneself what has been the Treasury reasoning. It may be that the definition is between a luxury and a necessity, but when the use is precisely the same it seems difficult to make that distinction.
It is even more difficult to make it when one remembers that electrical space

555
heaters are fired by electricity, which itself has been made either by solid fuel or by oil. To make a distinction there seems to me like trying to make a distinction in taxing, shall we say, whisky and soda water. It might take in the parallel state where whisky would not be taxed and soda water would not be taxed but, if both were mixed, they would be taxed at 60 per cent. That seems to me to be the logic of the Treasury's position.
Or is it claimed that gas and electricity are inefficient ways of using energy whereas oil and solid fuel are not? If my hon. and learned Friend really bases his defence of the present disparity in rates on those grounds, I am sure he will find that technically they are no grounds at all; but this disparity exists in the present law. I think one would remark with Mr. Bumble: "If the law supports that, the law is an ass and an idiot."
We want to go further and ask the Financial Secretary whether he can tell us what is the rational pattern behind the determination of Purchase Tax rates. My hon. Friend's campaign at Question Time has shown the glaring state of these anomalies. Do the Treasury try to set the same rate for similar articles? In their determination of rates, do they determine it by the end use of the article, by its import content or by the intrinsic nature of the article?
I am suggesting that my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster was correct when he made his case that the present disparity of rates is not only bad but is against the public interest and against the policy of the Government in many respects. Firstly, as my hon. Friend has shown, it offends the clean air policy. I do not know whether my hon. Friend can recall in the Beaver Report on Air Pollution the chapter on domestic smoke. It is paragraph 72, which reads as follows:
"We anticipate an increased contribution from the continued expansion in the use of gas and electricity, especially for cooking purposes. We consider that their use in place of house coal should be encouraged by the removal of the present Purchase Tax of 50 per cent. on gas and electric room and water heaters."
The Government's contribution to the solution of the air pollution problem was to introduce a Clean Air Bill, which has since become an Act, but the Treasury's contribution has been not to take the
556
advice of the Beaver Committee but to raise Purchase Tax from 50 per cent. to 60 per cent. on the very appliances that people must be encouraged to put in their homes if we are to deal with air pollution.
Secondly, this disparity in rates attempts too much. My hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster has pointed out that because of mechanisation in the coal mines we shall get more small coal, a fact which troubles many of my constituents who prefer the old-fashioned large coal. My hon. Friend also pointed out that the most convenient way to deal with small coal is to burn it in power stations or in large factory furnaces where one can use it as pulverised fuel. Because of technical developments in the coal mining industry, there is a very strong case for encouraging people to electrify their houses, but the disparity in Purchase Tax rates is a discouragement to them to do so.
We have also to consider the great technical advances being made in our new nuclear power stations which are still under construction. The nuclear engineers are already worried about how to deal with the question of peak load. My hon. Friend said that electrification in the homes assists in spreading the load of our power stations; in terms of the economics of nuclear power, a solution to that problem will become increasingly important.
Reference has been made to the lower load factor here than in Germany and America. I do not know whether my right hon. and learned Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury saw the recent supplement in the Financial Tunes on the electricity industry, in which the director of British Electrical and Allied Manufacturers said that the load factor of Britain was only 45 per cent., while it was 70 per cent. in the United States of America. The best way to improve the load factor is by the use of electricity for domestic purposes. That would also help to achieve the purpose of the Clean Air Act, but that development is hindered by Purchase Tax and the housewife is being deprived of what is a necessity for her.
The disparity of rates is contrary to the public interest. It offends against cleanliness and mechanisation in the home. I am in a position to speak about this without being accused of vested interest. As a bachelor I cannot be accused

557
of wanting to ease domestic burdens of my wife. It is clear that more could be done by way of modern mechanisation and automation to help our housewives. This means electrifying the home more, but the present disparity of rates is a fiscal disincentive to electrifying the home, especially in the matter of automatic washing machines which can be run only by electricity.
Many things can be done to ease the burden of the overworked housewife. I need hardly develop the cleanliness argument, because it is obvious that electricity is clean; but these simple facts sometimes escape the wise men who fix these Purchase Tax rates.
The present disparity offends against equity as between one taxpayer and another. Why should we penalise the user of gas and electricity in order to give privileges to oil and solid fuel? I believe that my right hon. and learned Friend should either abolish the Purchase Tax of 60 per cent. on gas and electrical appliances or, alternatively, impose taxation of 60 per cent. on the other types of appliance, or produce a middle rate between the two.
I know that my hon. and learned Friend is in a very difficult position tonight and can say little to us. Even if he could say more, I cannot help feeling that, on the evidence which my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster and I have deployed before him, my judgment in this case might be summed up in the words of Alice—
"I can't explain myself, I am afraid, Sir".
said Alice,
"because I am not myself."
"I don't see",
said the Caterpillar. I afraid that even after my hon. and learned Friend has spoken tonight, like the Caterpillar, I will remain not seeing.
10.11 p.m.
Mr. Ray Mawby: I do not wish to detain the House but I want to deal for a few moments with a very important factor in this question of Purchase Tax, especially in regard to electric space and water heating. My hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) has pointed out the terrific amount of capital development which is going on to make certain that we have a large amount of installed capacity, and if we achieve that capacity we must make as much use
558
of it as possible. At present, since the load factor is less than 50 per cent. it means that there is a great waste of the capital involved.
There are ways of making certain that the low load factor is less of a problem. There is pump storage, and there are other methods, but the terrain of this country is not particularly adapted to any large development of pump storage. There should be more education to make certain that space heating is done by electricity, on the thermostatic principle, so that most of the domestic demands being made upon electricity come at other than peak periods.
One of the main problems of the electricity industry arises from the necessity to satisfy demand at peak periods while not being required to cope with anything like that demand at other periods during the twenty-four hours. Any education in this direction will certainly help the industry and the nation to make full use of the capital invested in the industry.
This education will not be effective if the circumstances are such that a person will say, "I can buy a paraffin stove without having to pay Purchase Tax on it, but if I carry out the Government's idea I shall have to pay it." I should be interested to know whether the basic idea of imposing Purchase Tax upon these articles in the past related not to their use of indigenous or imported fuels. but to the materials used in their components. It may be that the tax was imposed, in the first place, as a deterrent against using certain materials which might have to be imported. If that argument applied in the past it does not operate now, because the normal modern electric space heater uses materials similar to those which are used in other heating equipment which is free of Purchase Tax. I feel, therefore, that in the light of present-day conditions, and for reasons given tonight, particularly those advanced by my hon. Friend in a manner much better than I could do, a closer look at the situation would prove that it is time we had a change which would make us better off as a nation.
10.15 p.m.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. J. E. S. Simon): This debate comes at the end, comparatively, of a long campaign which my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) has

559
been waging against this tax. I did not come in at the beginning, but I did come in at a point where practically the only answer which I, or my right hon. Friend, could make was that it was impossible to anticipate the Budget statement. But I have been forcibly, reminded as I stand at this Box tonight, of Burke's saying that to tax and to please no more than to love and be wise is not given to man. Certainly, I have been very conscious that Purchase Tax, at any rate, has not pleased my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster nor my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. D. Price).
The hon. Member for Kidderminster mentioned the effect of Purchase Tax in producing carbon dioxide. Looking back at the vociferations of which I have been the object, I feel that he had something there.
My predecessor the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South-West (Mr. Powell) replied to a debate on the Purchase Tax initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster in July last and referred to the reply he must necessarily give. He said:
"I know that my hon. Friend realises that, for the very reason which makes it possible for him to raise this matter, namely, that Purchase Tax can at any time be adjusted by Treasury Order, it would be quite wrong for a Treasury Minister, or indeed any other Minister, at any time of the year to give the impression of anticipating any decision of the Chancellor by commenting in any way upon the case for or against any modification of Purchase Tax."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st July, 1957; Vol. 572, c. 864.]
If that were true as I think it was at the time it was said, it is certainly all the more true within three weeks of the Budget.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh referred to my being in purdah. That is true in its figurative sense. Certainly, it would be as improper for me to answer the questions which my how Friend asked me to answer as to give any prognostication about what if anything should be done regarding this tax in the context of the Budget. If one discusses the merit of any tax, it is to a great extent anticipating the discussion of it that the Chancellor is bound to inaugurate in his Budget statement. So there is very little that I can properly
560
say in answer to this debate, except perhaps one thing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster said that the Treasury put a 60 per cent. tax on the articles with which we are concerned. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh said that the Treasury raised the tax from 50 per cent. to 60 per cent. He went on to refer sarcastically to the wise men who fixed the rate of Purchase Tax.
In point of fact, he is the wise man who fixed the rate of Purchase Tax, and so was my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster, and so was my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby). It was they who raised the tax from 50 per cent. to 60 per cent., and they who voted for it—their names appear in the Division Lists. It is not the Treasury which does these things but the House of Commons, and particularly the majority of the House of Commons.
Mr. Nabarro: All fiscal arrangements must be related to the nation's economic position year by year. Because a certain rate of Purchase Tax was put on a certain article, two, three, four or five years ago, is it sane or reasonable to suggest that that rate must remain on that article in perpetuity, which seems to be the gravamen of what my hon. and learned Friend is suggesting?
Mr. Simon: My hon. Friend has not done me the courtesy of following my argument. I did not say for a moment that the tax once put on has to stay for all time. I said that it is constitutionally and factually incorrect to say that the Treasury puts on a tax and that the Treasury raised a tax and that in the Treasury were the wise men who fixed the rate of Purchase Tax. It is the House of Commons which does these things. It was the hon. Members themselves who, as part of the majority, raised the Purchase Tax from 50 per cent. to 60 per cent.
Having said that, there is very little I can add, except to congratulate my hon. Friends on the forcible and lucid way in which they put their argument, and to assure them that my right hon. Friend will take note of it.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes past Ten o'clock.

ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Strategic Reserve (Mobility)
  Strategic Reserve (Mobility)
  Airfields
  Airfields
  Air Training Corps
  Air Training Corps
  Maintenance Unit, Heywood (Civilian Employees)
  Maintenance Unit, Heywood (Civilian Employees)
CIVIL AVIATION
  Air Registration Board
  Air Registration Board
  Southampton Airport
  Southampton Airport
  London Airport (Passengers)
  London Airport (Passengers)
ROADS
  Speed Limit Signs, Slough
  Speed Limit Signs, Slough
  Schemes, Durham
  Schemes, Durham
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Aircraft (Nuclear Weapons)
  Aircraft (Nuclear Weapons)
EMPLOYMENT
  Building Workers, Aberdeen
  Building Workers, Aberdeen
  Durham
  Durham
  Dundee
  Dundee
  Aircraft Industry (Redundant Workers)
  Aircraft Industry (Redundant Workers)
ROYAL NAVY
  Suez Canal
  Suez Canal
  Unit, Malta (Victualling)
  Unit, Malta (Victualling)
  Shipbuilding (North-East Coast)
  Shipbuilding (North-East Coast)
  Aircraft Repair Yard, Donibristle
  Aircraft Repair Yard, Donibristle
BRITISH ARMY
  Highland Brigade (Headquarters)
  Highland Brigade (Headquarters)
  Boots
  Boots
POST OFFICE
  Newtownabbey (Postal Address)
  Newtownabbey (Postal Address)
  2d. Stamps (Sales)
  2d. Stamps (Sales)
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Dominion and Rainham Exchanges
  Dominion and Rainham Exchanges
MEDICAL RESEARCH
  Alcohol and Road Accidents
  Alcohol and Road Accidents
HOSPITALS
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Premium Savings Bonds
  Premium Savings Bonds
  Retirement Benefits
  Retirement Benefits
SCOTLAND
  Hydro-electric Generation (Capital Investment)
  Hydro-electric Generation (Capital Investment)
  Mental Defective Patients
  Mental Defective Patients
  Dancing Cairns Quarry, Aberdeen
  Dancing Cairns Quarry, Aberdeen
AFRICAN TERRITORIES
  Broadcasts
  Broadcasts
KENYA
  Social Security Committee (Report)
  Social Security Committee (Report)
  Health Services (Costs)
  Health Services (Costs)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Children's Homes and Nurseries
  Children's Homes and Nurseries
HOUSING
  Rent Act
  Rent Act
PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Reciprocal Agreements
  Reciprocal Agreements
MINISTRY OF SUPPLY
  Aircraft Industry
  Aircraft Industry
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Bacon Factories
  Bacon Factories
  Bacon Pigs
  Bacon Pigs
  Agricultural Workers
  Agricultural Workers
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers
  MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BOARD BILL
  Read 2a, and referred to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
  PORT OF LONDON (SUPERANNUATION) BILL
  Read 2a, and referred to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.

  DISC SYSTEM OF PARKING
  2.35 p.m.
  EARL HOWE: 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 it can be arranged for a disc experiment in lieu of parking meters to be carried out in an area of London comparable to the north-west Mayfair experiment, and in some important provincial city before any further steps are taken to experiment with and spend huge sums of money on parking meters.]
  THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD MANCROFT): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government do not propose to introduce a parking experiment with the French disc system in Central London. I have already explained the reasons for this in replies to my noble friend Lord Howe on February 11 and 25. My right honourable friend the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation is prepared to consider proposals for the use of the disc system in other areas but, since new legislation would be required, there can be no prospect of such an experiment in the immediate future.
  EARL HOWE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether, in the event of
  440
  some other area or provincial city desiring to have an experiment such as has been suggested, he would delay any sort of opinion, for or against, the experiment which it is proposed to conduct in North-West Mayfair in London?
  LORD MANCROFT: No, my Lords. I think it would be a great advantage to others who might be considering the French disc system to see how the parking meter experiments work in London.
  EARL HOWE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord how, without any equivalent experiment with the disc system, he can possibly tell whether it will work in London or whether it will not, observing that it is a huge success in Paris?
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I cannot tell how the system would work in London because it is not going to be tried. What we want to see is how the parking meter system is going to work.
  EARL HOWE: My Lords, may I say, as the noble Lord seems unable to answer this question, that I shall certainly put down a Motion at an early date?
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I am afraid that the answer will be exactly the same as those I have already given to the noble Earl on three successive occasions.
  LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, arising out of the noble Lord's reply, I wonder whether the Government would reconsider their decision about trying the disc plan in the London area. Surely at the present time anything that will save money—and the disc system will save money—is worth while.

  SPEED LIMITS ON TRUNK ROADS
  2.39 p.m.
  VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: 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 reason for instituting a 40 miles per hour limit on parts of the Great West Road and other trunk roads.]
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, the 40 m.p.h. speed limit has been imposed on lengths of the Great West Road and other trunk roads because they are roads

  441
  where some restriction of speed is necessary on safety grounds but where a speed limit of 30 m.p.h. would be unrealistic.
  EARL HOWE: My Lords, may I ask what is the real idea of first of all constructing a twin-track road in order to facilitate traffic flow and then promptly putting a speed limit on it?
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, after careful inquiry, it was decided that this scheme should be given a trial in order to see whether it would improve the flow of traffic. It is an experimental scheme and has been tried so far for only about ten days or a fortnight. I suggest that we give it a little longer trial. So far, the experiment seems to be not unsuccessful.
  VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: My Lords, arising out of the reply of the noble Lord, does he not consider that in building the extremely good Cromwell Road extension, which will help to ease traffic out of London more quickly, it seems rather absurd to control it when it gets on to this three-track road at the end?
  LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, could I ask the noble Lord whether, if it is necessary to impose a 40 m.p.h. limit on roads at present unrestricted, the Government will give precedence to roads with a single carriage way instead of roads with twin carriage ways where higher speeds can be indulged in with safety?
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, as I have told the House, this is an experiment and all these matters will be borne in mind when a careful inquiry is instituted on how the experiment has worked.
  LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: Arising out of the noble Lord's reply may I ask this question? As this is an experiment for a limited time, could the Minister say whether motorists will be taken up by the police during the time of the experiment and, if they are, as they will be victims of an experiment, will any fines be refunded by his Department?
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I am sure that the police will exercise common sense, as they always do.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTII: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether the House is now to take it that the
  442
  Government have dispensed with the policy which was originally instituted and which was that the building of by-pass roads and main trunk roads was to do away with speed limits entirely? Are we now to understand that all the bypass and main trunk roads of this country are to have 40 m.p.h. limits dispersed among them?
  LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, arising out of the noble Lord's earlier reply, I was under the impression that when the matter was first considered Her Majesty's Government gave the undertaking that the 40 m.p.h. limit would not be instituted on roads that already had no restrictions whatever but would be confined to the 30 m.p.h. roads. That undertaking has not been carried out.
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I am afraid that I have no remembrance of that undertaking. The limit certainly has been applied to roads where there was previously no limit and to roads where there was previously only a 30 m.p.h. limit. The whole of this question brings up this one point: here we are trying to do something, as we have so often tried to do, to speed the flow of traffic, and, as always, there are thirty or so adequate reasons why the Government should do nothing. In this case, the Government propose to do something and they propose to continue with the experiment.

  MAINTENANCE ORDERS BILL
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
  Moved, That Standing Order No. 35 be considered in order to its being dispensed with for the purpose of giving precedence to the Bills over the Motion Standing in the name of the Lord Lucas of Chilworth.—(The Earl of Home.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

  NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (SUPERANNUATION) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS, 1958
  2.43 p.m.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved, That the Draft National Health Service (Superannuation) (Amendment) Regulations, 1958 be approved. The noble Earl said: My Lords, before I move these Regulations, perhaps I may make an apology to the House for the fact that they have been put on the Order Paper somewhat quickly. I take full responsibility for that. Perhaps I did not read my correspondence or discuss this matter as I should have done, but I did not realise that the Regulations had to be through by April 1 to make them work in conjunction with the Act which your Lordships passed on December 5. I offer my sincere apologies if in any way I have been discourteous to your Lordships in the matter.
  These Regulations are entirely consequential on the transfer to the Minister of Health of the Royal Naval Hospital at Great Yarmouth under the Yarmouth Naval Hospital Transfer Act, 1957, which your Lordships passed in December. They deal with the superannuation position of the employees at the hospital, who will become officers of the East Anglian Regional Hospital Board from April 1, 1958, the date appointed by statutory order for transfer of the premises.
  The effect of these Amendment Regulations is that the employees in question are given option and other rights precisely similar to those accorded to staff transferred with ex-Ministry of Pensions hospitals under the Transfer of Functions (Ministry of Pensions) Order, 1953, which in turn are precisely similar to the rights granted to staff transferred with their hospitals in 1948, and staff in premises since acquired under the National Health Service Act, 1946. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the Draft National Health Service (Superannuation) (Amendment) Regulations, 1958, be approved.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
  LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My Lords, having listened to the noble Earl who introduced these Regulations, I have to say that we on this side of the House take no exception to the proposal, which seems to us quite sensible in all the circumstances.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES
  2.46 p.m.
  Order of the Day read for the consideration of the Second Report from the Select Committee.
  The Committee reported as follows:
  1.—TRAVELLING EXPENSES OF PEERS.
  The Committee considered the existing arrangements for the repayment of Peers' travelling expenses.
  2.—LIBRARY.
  The Report from the Sub-Committee on the Library was laid before the Committee, and in particular the Committee were informed that arrangements had been made for a folder, marked "Deposited Papers", to be placed in the Library containing Papers provided for the use of Peers but not available for distribution through the Printed Paper Office; and that a list of such Papers would be displayed in the Library.
  The Chairman of Committees was added to the Sub-Committee on the Library.
  3.—SUPPLEM ENTARY ESTIMATE 1957–58.
  The Committee approved the Supplementary Estimate, submitted to meet an excess which was mainly due to revised scales of pay. telephone services and further provision required for the reimbursement of travelling expenses of Peers, which have however been largely offset by savings on staff changes and an increase in Appropriations-in-Aid.
  4.—APPOINTMENT OF A CLERK IN THE PARLIAMENT OFFICE.
  The Clerk of the Parliaments informed the Committee of the appointment of Mr. John Victor Duncombe Webb as a Clerk in the Parliament Office in place of Mr. A. P. D. Smyth, who has resigned. The appointment dates from 16th January, 1958. The Committee sanctioned the salary payable to Mr. Webb.
  5.—VICTORIA TOWER.
  The Clerk of the Parliaments informed the Committee that the Minister of Works had authorised the commencement of the next stage, which would probably take four years to complete, of the reconstruction of the Victoria Tower, involving the substitution of lighter floors for the dangerously heavy floors removed in 1954, the provision of adequate air-conditioned storage space for the records of the House, and the installation of a lift.
  The Committee authorised an extension of the temporary employment of two male cleaners in the Victoria Tower.
  6.—STARTING PAY ON PROMOTION AND SUBSTITUTION PAY.
  The Committee authorised the application to the staff of the House of Lords of Establishments Circulars Nos. 50/57 (Starting Pay on Promotion) and 60/57 (Review of the 1949 Agreement on Starting Pay).
  7.—STJPERANNUATION.
  The Committee sanctioned the adoption of the provisions of the Superannuation. Act, 1957, for the staff of the House of Lords.
  8.—DOORKEEPER DUE FOR RETIREMENT.
  The Committee sanctioned a revised pension and additional allowance under the Superannuation Acts to Mr. John Spelman, M.M., B.E.M, at the age of 70 on the 23rd March, 1958, and authorised the temporary extension of his service to the 30th June, 1958.
  9.—RETIREMENT OF SENIOR CUSTODIAN INSPECTOR.
  The Committee sanctioned a pension and additional allowance under the Superannuation Acts to Mr. Edward George Warters, B.E.M., Senior Custodian Inspector, who retires on the 1st April, 1958.
  10.—RETIREMENT OF A SENIOR CUSTODIAN.
  The Committee sanctioned a pension and additional allowance under the Superannuation Acts to Mr. Frederick Frank George Rule who reached the age of 65 on the 7th February, 1958.
  11.—LIFE PEERAGES BILL.
  The Committee considered certain matters which might arise on the passing of the Life Peerages They have appointed a Sub-Committee. consisting of the Chairman of Committees, the Lord Great Chamberlain, the Earl Fortescue, the Earl of Lucan and the Lord Amulree, with the Clerk of the Parliaments, to inquire into and make recommendations upon certain of these matters.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD MERTHYR): My Lords I beg to move that the Report of the House of Lords Offices Committee be now considered.
  Moved, That the Report be now considered.—(Lord Merthyr.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now agreed to. In doing so, I think there are only two matters to which I need draw the special attention of the House, and they are contained in paragraphs 2 and 11. In the first, your Lordships will see that increased facilities are now being provided for those Members of the House who are interested in doing so to see deposited papers which they are unable to obtain from the Printed Paper Office. I hope that these facilities will prove for
  446
  the convenience of your Lordships, and that they will be made known so far as possible so that they can be used to the maximum extent. The other matter is that, in anticipation of the passing of the Life Peerages Bill through both Houses of Parliament, the Committee have thought it advisable to appoint a subcommittee to inquire into any matters which may arise in consequence of that change in the law. I do not think there are any other matters to which I need draw the attention of your Lordships, but if there are any questions which any noble Lord would like to ask, I will do my best to deal with them.
  Moved, That the Report be agreed to.—(Lord Merthyr.)
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, is it not going a little too far for this House to assume that, because it has agreed to the Life Peerages Bill, the House of Commons will also agree to the Bill, and to take steps accordingly?
  LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, with great respect to the noble Viscount, the Committee are making no such assumption. They are only taking steps to make certain provisions in the event of that Bill being passed through Parliament. They would not like to be accused of not having thought of it in time. I hope the noble Viscount will believe that the Committee are not committing themselves in any way and are only taking steps in case the Bill is passed.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I was only making a comment on the arrogant assumption that the House of Lords is always right.

  NATIONALISED INDSUTRIES LOANS BILL
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
  CONSOLIDATED FUND (NO.2) BILL
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

  THE CINEMATOGRAPH FILM INDUSTRY
  2.50 p.m.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH rose to call attention to the state of the cinematograph film industry; and to-move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in opening the debate on the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper, I should like to address to the noble Lord the Minister without Portfolio, who I understand will reply, two simple but important questions. First of all, do Her Majesty's Government still think that the cinematograph film industry can play a worthwhile part in the cultural and economic life of this country? Secondly, do they still think that the British section of this industry is a valuable medium for propagating throughout the world the British way of life? In those two questions is the nub of the problem which I am going to pose to your Lordships this afternoon.
  If the answer to those questions is "No", I want the Government to be honest enough to tell the industry, so that it knows the fate which awaits it. If the Government's answer to the two questions I have asked is "Yes," then I ask a third: What do the Government intend to do about it? For unless some form of first aid is given to this industry—the type of first aid which only the Government can bring—then within a measurable space of time it will cease to exist, with all the consequences, some of which I intend to outline, that that will entail. But what the Government cannot do is to answer in the affirmative the two questions I have asked and then bludgeon this industry to death with the killing force of a penal tax which they have been forced to remove from every other entertainment section of the life of this country, cultural or otherwise.
  During the last two months the Government have been inundated with propaganda, facts and figures. I will not weary your Lordships with many, but there are one or two basic figures which I think you should have to enable you to assess the seriousness of the present position. During the last ten years the attendances in the cinemas of this country have dropped 40 per cent., the biggest drop being within the last two years. In 1948, there were 4,600 cinemas; to-day, there
  448
  are 500 less—about 4,100. I am informed, on the best advice that is open to me that if this entertainments tax continues to be applied to the cinema industry, as the last remaining victim, even on the most optimistic figure available, another 1,000 cinemas will be closed; while the most pessimistic figure given is 2,000. If I divide the two, and put the probable figure at 1,500, that will bring the number of cinemas open in this country to about 2,600, which will be approximately 900 to 1,000 fewer than the datum line upon which the production industry of the cinema world can exist. The horrible thought might cross your Lordships' minds that of course the brewing industry would come to a standstill if all the public-houses were closed.
  The production side of the cinema industry needs a minimum of 3,500 cinemas in the United Kingdom in order to exhibit its products. The questions are two: what can the Government do in this crisis—because crisis it is—and what can the industry do? Our first responsibility in Parliament is to analyse what the Government can do. I am not going to be so naïve as to ask the noble Lord who is to reply whether it is the Government's intention to remove the entertainments tax when the Budget is produced and to put the appropriate clauses in the Finance Bill. The reason I am not going to do that is because if I could cajole him, or tempt him, or urge him, into some kind of reply, it might call for his resignation, which in my view would be a catastrophe for the Government and, if he will permit me to say so, a serious loss to everyone in your Lordships' House, wherever he may sit. So I am not going to ask that.
  But what I am going to do, or at least attempt to do, is to prove to your Lordships—and, I sincerely hope, to the noble Lord and, through him, to the Chancellor of the Exchequer—that the Government have no option whatsoever but to remove this entertainments tax from this industry, which, I repeat, is the last victim of this form of taxation which has been imposed upon every form of entertainment in this country. Even dog racing, all-in wrestling and all like forms of "culture" have be freed from this tax; the cinema—and various Governments for years, as far as I can remember, have said that a prosperous and successful cinema industry is essential to the British economy—is the last remaining victim and is now suffering

  449
  this slow torture which will ultimately end in death.
  I am going to attempt—and knowing the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, as well as I do, I do not think it will be an unsuccessful attempt, because he and I have debated this matter across the Floor of your Lordships' House over a number of years—to anticipate what his reply to me is going to be. There are people who are saying, very easily, that there is nothing wrong with the cinematograph film industry that the industry itself cannot put right. I hope that I am not over-stating my feelings in this matter, but I put that into the category of utter and complete nonsense.
  The next thing that is said is: "Of course, what the cinema industry requires to do is to make better films". I suppose that is one of the easiest things that anybody, without any knowledge or perception, can say. Of course it is. If the noble Lord, who occasionally, I happen to know, visits racecourses, could always hack winners, what a lovely life he would have—far better than having to reply to every tricky debate on behalf of Her Majesty's Government! If we could, in our business lives, always pick the winners; if the theatrical profession could always produce Flowering Cherries or Chalk Gardens or plays like that, what a lovely life it would be! But they cannot. Even with the Government, if they could choose officials in some of their Departments who did not lose £40 million of the taxpayers' money over building silly vehicles or futile aeroplanes, what a nice time the taxpayer could have! Why should you try and put on an artistic as well as a commercial industry a higher standard of business perception and crystal-gazing than you are prepared to accept in any other industry or sphere of activity in this country?
  My Lords, what is a good film? I suppose that, in the context in which we are discussing this matter this afternoon, a good film is one that will make the most money at the box office. I have been at pains to make some investigations. I suppose that we can divide films in this country into three categories—the good, the medium and the bad. In the case of the good, I am given to understand that the average which one of the most successful films in this country will gross at the box office during its life in
  450
  this country, which, as your Lordships know, usually runs for about 2½ years, is about £345,000. I have been able to obtain the exact results of three films, which I have chosen at random, that have grossed at the box office £400,000 and over—so they must be put in the category of the best British films and of a high standard.
  Perhaps your Lordships will bear with me if I give some details about the first of these three films, because I think it is essential, in view of all the ballyhoo that is talked about this industry, for you to have the absolute facts; and the figures I am going to give have been vouched to, me by responsible people in the industry as being correct. There was a film, The Good Companions. The estimated bookings of that film were 1,800. I should explain to you that immediately the first bookings of a film are made the experts can accurately forecast the residual bookings, and it is on these that they base their economics. In the case of The Good Companions—I am now dealing with the exhibition side—the estimated box office takings were £421,500. Entertainments tax to the tune of £131,500 was extracted. The levy that had to be paid into the production fund was £12,224. So that left a total of £277,776. The hire of the Wan cost the cinemas £95,000. So that the 1,800 cinemas of this country would net £182,776; and as estimated overheads were £190,000, that left a loss of £7,224 to be shared by the exhibitors.
  Now we come to the producer. As I have said, the cost of film hire was £95,000—that was what the distributor had gross. The distribution costs of that film were £44,000, so that the producer's share was £51,000. Money out of the production fund which has to be added to that amounted to £23,500. The export receipts of that film were estimated at £8,500, so the producer's gross receipts were £83,000. The cost of the film was £201,382, so that the loss on production was £118,382. And out of that film the Government took in entertainments tax £131,500. That is the first example.
  The second example is on the other side—it is a film that has recently been released, Woman in a Dressing Gown. Some of your Lordships have seen it, and I think you will all agree that it is one of the best films produced in recent times. I will not take you through the whole

  451
  of the figures, because I do not want to bore your Lordships, but the estimated gross box office takings of this film were £480,000. Taking the same progression of figures that I have just given your Lordships, I find that the exhibitors here—who number 1,900—will lose £14,000 on the film. On the production side, gross distribution receipts were £110,000, and the cost of the film was £100,387, and the figures will show on the home market a profit of £3,000. But because it is anticipated that there will be a good export market for that film, the producers hope to make a profit of £54,000-odd, of which the Film Finance Corporation will take one-third.
  My last example is the film which your Lordships will know as The Divided Heart, which I think was one of the best films made in recent years. The history of this film is that it grossed at the box office just about as much as the others; the exhibiting trade lost approximately the same amount as the others; and in spite of the fact that the film earned (and as it was produced four years ago its useful life is now over) export receipts of £62,000, it lost the producers £26,596. I could give your Lordships 108 examples to show how the producers of this country produced 108 first-feature films, and, after the levy payments had been paid, had lost £1 million by the end of 1957. That is why the production side of the cinema industry is in a crisis.
  That is why we are having cinemas closed over this country by the hundred. There is no getting away from these figures; they are authenticated; and I ask the noble Lord to accept them as I accept them.
  Now let us take the exhibitor. It has been said that there are too many cinemas. That may be right. I would not question that. But what I do suggest to Her Majesty's Government is that, if there are too many cinemas, the natural law of economics should be allowed to work, and the economic "cosh" (if I may use that colloquialism) should not be weighted by about £25 million to hammer an industry out of existence. That is something no other industry in the entertainment world has to suffer. I have here a letter from a man who owns eight cinemas in the working-class suburban areas of Glasgow. He had his auditors prepare figures for the eight weeks ended February 22, 1958. During those eight
  452
  weeks he lost on those cinemas £785, and while he was losing that sum he paid in entertainments tax £8,706. I repeat that if this goes on we shall be in this position in the cinema world: that it will not be worth while for producers to make films, because there will not be sufficient cinemas in which to show them.
  This decline has been going on for ten years. What is the real gist of the competition that is driving this industry into these dire straits? One has to face the fact that its principal competitor is television. In 1947, when the decline in the exhibition side of the cinema industry can be said to have started, there were about 15,000 television licence holders. To-day, there are 8 million licences, catering for an audience every day and night of 22 million adults. It is estimated that the 22 million adults view television for 11½ hours per week, and that three-quarters of the viewers of television in this country are drawn from the working classes—the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, will know what I mean by "working classes": the class to which we belong.
  My Lords, these are the figures. Every week, at the present time in this country, 54 million hours are spent in the cinemas viewing the films, and 259 million hours a week are spent in looking at television screens. That is the nub of the whole problem. May I say this, quite frankly: if the cinema industry, given a fair field, cannot cope with that economic problem, then the cinema industry will have to suffer. But I do not think it is right that the cinema industry should be saddled with a tax of £25 million—because that is what it will be this year, 1958—
  EARL WINTERTON: It will be £26 million.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The noble Earl says, £26 million. What is El million among so many! That is the weight that is put into the scales against this industry.
  My Lords, what are the implications of this situation? If British production goes out, will American production come in? We all know that the British cinema could not exist without American films. The quota of British films is still only 30 per cent.; 60 per cent. of the screen time is now filled with American films—and, may I say in passing, of very poor quality. I said this in your Lordships' House when we last debated this subject,

  453
  and I believe that I am right: that for a long time the American film industry has been so panic-stricken that it has tried to meet television competition in America by being more vulgar than the vulgar. And certainly the films it has sent over to this country simply put an emphasis on stars whose vital statistics—if that is the correct phrase, and I believe it is—are in inverse ratio to their acting ability. That is a had thing for the cinema industry. That the exhibition side has to look to American imports for 60 per cent. of its material is not something the industry can gloat over. What it does bring home is the fact that there never was such a time for the film industry to increase its export market.
  I think that a number of us have been wrong in saying that we could not make a dent in the American market. That has been proved wrong in the case of motor cars; I believe that it is going to be proved wrong in the case of films. But you can never get the British industry into an economic shape unless you preserve a really virile home market; and you cannot have that virile home market if the Government perpetrate something which, in their wisdom—and I have applauded them for it—they have removed from every other entertainment. Do not let the Government go the same way as they did with the "live" theatre. Entertainments tax killed the "live" theatre in the provinces. If the Government do not do something about this problem they will kill the cinema industry.
  My Lords, there are various remedies. The cinema industry has tried to do something. It has tried boycotting old films that are appearing on television. In doing that, I thought the industry was mistaken. I have seen some of these age-old films that have been bought and shown on the television screen. The only sort of amusement they give me is that when we sit and watch these old films my wife and I play a kind of game of "spotting the corpses", counting how many of the actors appearing in the film are now dead and gone and recalling when was the last time we saw them. But, to my amazement, I understand that when certain old films of renown are shown on the television screens of this country the cinema attendance on Saturday night falls by five millions. I have never thought that handicapping
  454
  one's competitors was the right way to succeed, and I am going to suggest something else that can, perhaps, be done. I would suggest to the noble Lord that this problem is not only one of finance, nor is it only the problem of keeping the cinema alive in this country for its culture, for its economic value and for its way of propagating British life overseas. The problem is, if we do away with the cinema, if we "kill" cinema entertainment in this country, what are we to offer the youth of this country? Pin-tables? Dance halls? Or the streets?
  A NOBLE LORD A NOBLE LORD: Or "pubs"?
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Or the "pubs"? Because I believe we have all known—some of us are not too old to remember—times when we wanted to get away from the parental eye. We wanted to slip mother and father and go out on our own. One did not want for ever to sit with them, even around the television set; and my information is that the juveniles of this country are getting rather sick of television. There is in this matter a social implication which I do not think Her Majesty's Government can afford to ignore.
  I posed a question to the noble Lord what can Her Majesty's Government do? There is nothing that they can do except to remove this tax from the cinema as it has been removed from every other form of amusement in this country. So I am going to do a little crystal-gazing. I am going to conclude by saying something that perhaps will be challenged by many of those in the industry. I have no financial interest whatsoever in the film industry. I am not its spokesman. The reason why I have raised this Motion is because I have been intensely interested in the economics of the film industry since I happened to be spokesman for the Board of Trade in your Lordships' House and piloted through the House one or two Bills connected with the industry, so perhaps standing here I could be considered to occupy the rôle of "honest broker"—perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, would say "broker", and I will settle for that.
  I will assume that Her Majesty's Government are going to remove this tax and I will say what I would do with the £25 million. First of all, it is quite clear that the exhibitors must be given

  455
  an economic return—and only an economic return—on their investment. It is equally clear that the producers must have a greater income. I feel that the producers were right when they said that the minimum amount they want from the levy is £5 million. Also, I am convinced that the levy is the finest method of passing it to them. And I believe that the public have to share in it, because I cannot get it out of my mind that the law of economics must apply even to the cinema industry. In all my business life, when I have had anything to sell—and, after all, this industry is selling seats for watching films—I have always believed that there is no substitute for low price; and I consider that the prices, loaded with entertainments tax, which are charged in the cinemas of this country are far too high. So I believe that the public, the producer and the exhibitor must benefit. And I believe, also, that the number of cinemas and of producers in this country must in future be regulated by economics and not by the weighted and ridiculous system that we have at the present time of taxing one entertainment industry—the one which caters for the working class of this country. If the industry cannot succeed when that is done, then I am sorry; but that is the only thing that I can suggest. I beg to move for Papers.
  3.27 p.m.
  LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has certainly painted a somewhat sombre and depressing picture of the cinema industry, but I do not think he has in any way over-emphasised it. I do not propose to weary your Lordships with a lot of facts and figures somewhat similar to those which the noble Lord has given, but I am sure that a little later in the debate noble Lords who are actually interested in the industry will be able to give your Lordships figures. I would say that the primary question is: do we want to see this great industry, which earns a substantial amount of foreign exchange, going from bad to worse for the lack of a helping hand at the right time?
  The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has already pointed out that if the decline in the industry is to be arrested, entertainments tax must be abolished or, at least, considerably
  456
  reduced. It is true that a small measure of relief was given by reduction of the entertainments tax in the Budget last year, but that has been completely wiped out by the colossal slide in box office receipts during the last twelve months. Surely it is only right that the cinema industry should be put on the same level as its great competitor—television—and be free from a tax penalty. I suggest that, however great may be the technical improvement and production, and so on, in television, it can never supplant the cinema in all its aspects, with its broad panel of art and entertainment and the production of the great spectacle which will live for all time. I say, therefore, that we must keep this vital industry alive, not only for public enjoyment but also for posterity.
  Why should the cinema industry bear a penalty as compared with other forms of entertainment? The cinema is an art, an art which reflects our way of life all over the world; and I am sure there are few of us who would like to see that in any way diminished. It is the only art or entertainment which really contributes in any substantial way to our balance of payments with foreign countries. I know it has been argued in some quarters that the film industry would be more deserving of relief if they practised greater economy in their methods of production, distribution and so on. That may well have been true in the past, but I do not think it is by any means true today. I believe that great care is now taken of expenditure. It must not be forgotten that the cinema industry must compete in a world market for the talented actors and actresses, and without adequate finance it can neither obtain them nor build up the stars of the future, nor in fact pay the very necessary directors to direct these productions.
  Is it really the case, as was put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, that Her Majesty's Government think that dog racing and all-in wrestling are more cultural than the cinema? I am sure that that cannot be true. It is sometimes argued that the tax is paid, not by the cinema but by the public; but this also, of course, is not true. We all know that every form of entertainment, in fact I would say any business, can charge only what one might describe as "what the traffic will bear"; and therefore in respect of the lower-priced seats the industry bears the tax,

  457
  because any rise in price at the present time would discourage the public still further and the box office receipts would again be reduced. The cinema industry, I believe it has been said, is paying some £25 million in entertainments tax; but, obviously, if the box office receipts continue to decline the tax yield will fall with it and the law of diminishing returns will operate, to the detriment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  I would emphasise that the British film industry does not receive any subsidy, but what do we find when we turn to other countries? Both the French and the Italian industries are heavily subsidised; in fact. I believe that the French industry is subsidised to the extent of 20 per cent. on overseas earnings. The British film industry is certainly not asking for a subsidy, but it is asking for fair treatment as compared with other forms of entertainment, and I hope that the noble Lord who is to reply to the debate will draw the attention of my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the most important points that have been raised this debate.
  3.32 p.m.
  LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, this is the first occasion upon which it has been my privilege to address this House, and I hope your Lordships will extend to me the usual kindness which you traditionally show to a beginner. The subject for debate this afternoon is one of tremendous social importance. The cinema has for too long been regarded as a place where young couples perhaps go on a Saturday night. It is something very much more than that, my Lords; it is somewhere where, above all, dollars are earned—many dollars; and I make no apologies for trying to impress the sterling quality (in more ways than one) of British films.
  But let us first consider the question: why do people go to the cinema? Do they go to be entertained? Do they go to be educated? I submit, both; and that is surely a cast-iron reason for promoting the welfare of the cinema far more than is being done now. Let us consider the entertainment value of British films. Seldom have we had better quality British comedies than at present. In the past few years we have had films like Doctor in the House, Genevieve, and happy is the Bride, to name just a
  458
  few films which portray tine British way of life with supreme faithfulness. I am the last person to go into a lot of anti-American feeling on this subject. There is no doubt that Hollywood has produced some very fine films; but equally, my Lords, there is no doubt that at the present time British films in quality have the edge on Hollywood, and let us not forget that.
  I have been doing quite a lot of research for this debate and I have seen at least two cinema managers. One has told me that British comedies attract approximately 70 per cent. of his clientele. The other week he showed, because he was forced to show by his circuit, one of these rock 'n' roll films, with Elvis Presley or some such star in it; and after the cinema showing some of his regular patrons went to him and said, "Why the blazes do you show this kind of stuff here? I have been patronising this cinema for many years and I shall think twice about coming again." This was said to the cinema manager, and he had to reply that his circuit ordered that he should show this film. Here, I think, is a case where circuits should arrange for a public local poll to be taken, so that the right kind of film is shown in the area. One of the troubles at present, I imagine, is that there is a sufficient dearth of British films to preclude the showing of more than the 30 per cent. quota which now exists, and they are forced to fall back on American productions, which, as the noble Lord who moved this Motion has rightly said, are often of very inferior quality.
  To come to the television menace, I must confess that I possess a television set, primarily because I have a young family and until quite recently I was not able to get out in the evenings very much. There is an important social factor involved here: that probably many young people possess television sets, in a lot of cases on hire purchase, the money for which would normally go towards the cinema; but because they cannot get to the cinema, since they are unable to arrange for people to look after their children, they are forced back on to television. It must be faced, also, that in the spell of bad weather which we have been having here recently and which we tend to get at this time of the year, unless the cinema is literally next door people are going to be tempted just to flick on the television knob

  459
  and perhaps see some third-rate variety show, rather than to trek along to the cinema to see a first-class British film. In saying that, I am not trying to denigrate television—some of the shows on television are very good—but it is disturbing that the cinema industry should be suffering through the medium of television.
  I should like to quote a passage of a well-known young British actor who in an interview said these words:
  "I love working and living in this country. I like the English way of life. This is the best country in the world to live in. Without all my friends, and without my golf on Sunday mornings, I'd be lost and unhappy."
  I quote that statement as an example of the loyalty which British actors have towards this country. Many of them have been forced over the Atlantic, often to their own detriment. Hollywood has improved very few British actors; it has been the ruination of many. But unless something is done, and quickly, to remove the tax on the cinema, there will be an increased fall off in patrons and the actors themselves are bound to suffer—and not only the actors, but also the "overheads", the doormen, usherettes, operators, and other employees. I have no financial interest in the cinema. I am speaking purely as a cinema patron who likes to go along and see the film of my choice and of my wife's choice every now and again. I implore the Government to remember, so far as the cinema is concerned, three words: British is best.
  3.42 p.m.
  LORD WESTWOOD: My Lords, I am sure that I am speaking for the whole House when I offer my sincere congratulations to my noble friend Lord Auckland, who has addressed us this afternoon for the first time. I hope sincerely that he will take part in our debates on many occasions.
  As is usual in this House, I must declare my interest in the subject of this debate by informing your Lordships that I am a member of the National Executive Committee of the Cinematograph Exhibitors' Association and have been connected with the cinema industry for some twenty-six years. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, for initiating this debate today. The present state of the whole cinema industry in this country is in a very critical condition, and it is only
  460
  right and proper that the attention of this House should be drawn to it and that some effort should be made to save it. It was only a few months ago that a well-known lady interrupted the proceedings of this House to draw attention to one theatre. To-day I am trying, if possible, to save, not one theatre but 4,085 theatres from extinction, from the large theatres which exhibit first-run films in cities down to the small village halls which cater for a few hundred patrons per week. In my view, both types of cinema are essential, and at this time both types are fighting for their very existence.
  There is one thing upon which we can all agree in your Lordships' House to-day, and that is that this is not a Party matter, but a matter which merits the attention of all noble Lords. The cinema industry, as it is at present constituted, can be likened to a three-legged stool: we have the producer who makes the films, the renter who distributes the films, and the exhibitor who shows the films. And, as with a three-legged stool, every leg is dependent upon the other two. It is essential, therefore, if British film production is to be maintained and improved, that the exhibitors in this country should be put in a position to keep the cinemas open. It is only through the pay-boxes that their means of existence is derived. The producers, the distributors, and the exhibitors owe their existence to the pay-boxes. I am sure that every noble Lord will agree with me when I say that during the past few years the British film producers have made many wonderful films, films which have now gained a foothold in the markets of the world and, I am happy to say, are earning much-needed dollars in America. I am told that in New York alone more than twelve British films are being currently shown. What an improvement on the position that existed a few years ago!
  The cinema industry is in a very critical condition, but the answer to most of its problems is a very simple one—abolish cinema tax. Your Lordships will observe that I say "cinema tax" and not "entertainments tax", because the cinema is now the only form of entertainment which bears the tax. Why should this be so? Why this discrimination? This tax was introduced in the year 1916 as a temporary war-time measure. Is it

  461
  not about time that it was totally removed'? We have finished two wars since 1916, yet this tax is still with us. The present Prime Minister, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1956, said:
  "I give this pledge, and I state it quite deliberately—I hope this will be the last occasion on which it will be necessary for me or Treasury Ministers to defend this tax."
  Alas! it is still with us to-day, two years later.
  The condition of the cinema industry generally is deteriorating week after week, and exhibitors simply cannot afford to refurnish, re-seat, re-decorate and re-carpet their theatres. If they are to meet the challenge of television, which has been mentioned this afternoon, they must be allowed to re-equip and modernise their cinemas. Can any noble Lord visualise what it would be like if there were no cinemas in this country and all the people were condemned to spend their lives gazing at television screens?
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Horrible!
  LORD WESTWOOD: As the noble Lord said, it would be horrible. It is a ghastly thought. When the Cinematograph Bill was being debated in your Lordships' House in December, 1956, several noble Lords stressed that unless substantial reductions in tax were made in the 1957 Budget many cinemas would be forced to close their doors. Although a small rebate was given in the Budget in 1957, it was a mere pittance; and as was forecast, many theatres had to shut down. In the years 1956 and 1957, 417 cinemas switched off their lights for the last time. They went out of business. Surely we just cannot sit and watch while more than four cinemas a week go to the wall and the livelihoods of many people go with them. It is nothing short of a major disgrace that such a state of affairs should exist in this country; and something must be done about it, and done very soon.
  Looking at the problem from the producers' point of view, the main reason why this unfair tax on cinemas must be abolished is the fact that, if it is not abolished in this year's Budget, more cinemas are bound to shut down; and if their sources of income are depleted by such closures, the producers are bound to suffer severe losses. In other words,
  462
  it will virtually mean that the whole of the British film industry will collapse. I have spent more than twenty-six years in the cinema industry, and I am speaking with some knowledge of what I am saying. Let there be no doubt in anybody's mind that this gloomy forecast will materialise unless help is given to the trade on April 15, when my right honourable friend presents his Budget in another place. The choice for the Chancellor of the Exchequer is a simple one: either he abolishes the cinema tax, or he abolishes the cinema industry. Let there be no mistake about that. I am quite sure that any Government is desirous of maintaining a healthy British film production. Therefore, it must create the conditions which will put a stop to the closing down of these cinemas; and this can be achieved only in one way—that is, by tax abolition.
  There is another important point which should also be borne in mind, and that is the loss to the local authorities throughout the country when cinemas close down. In many cases the local picture-house is the largest ratepayer; and, from information which I have gathered, I understand that several local authorities are now viewing the position with some alarm. It may be of interest to your Lordships to tell you of an incident which happened only a few weeks ago. The cinema to which I refer is the Ritz Cinema, in West Drayton, Middlesex. Last year that theatre paid a sum of £5,960 in cinema tax, and yet it ended up the year "in the red" by £2,122. The owners realised that they could not continue at this rate, and they suggested closing the cinema. The news spread round the town, and so much commotion was caused that the local council made a grant to the exhibitor of £200 to help him. The local clergy, of all denominations, in order to save the amenity of the cinema, launched an appeal, and a further £1,000 was raised by local subscriptions to keep the cinema open until Budget day next month. How would any of us here to-day like to carry on our business through the help of charity?
  I am fully aware that in some quarters (and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth mentioned the point in his speech) the opinion is held that there are far too many cinemas. I remember my noble friend Lord Mancroft making this point when the Cinematograph Films Bill

  463
  was given its Second Reading in your Lordships' House on December 20, 1956. His words on that occasion were [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 200, col. 1334];
  "We all know places in which there seem to be competing cinemas on every corner, and it is little wonder that in times of declining cinema attendance some of these must of necessity close their doors."
  That may well be so in large cities, but what is the position of the town or village where there is only one cinema? If that cinema shuts down, the patronage is lost to the cinema industry for ever, as in most of these instances the village or town is many miles away from the nearest large centre, and with the cost of transport the patrons of the village hall just cannot afford the extra expense involved in travelling. I am informed on good authority that where a cinema in a village closes down the percentage of its patronage which attends the nearest cinema to the village is between 5 and 7½ per cent. It will be clearly seen, therefore, that the fact that many theatres are closing does not necessarily mean that the patrons are swelling the admissions of those which are fortunate enough to remain open. I trust that my noble friend will bear this point in mind, as I am sure he will.
  I should like now to tell your Lordships of a few of the anomalies which exist in the cinema industry and which, quite frankly. I find it hard to understand, as they appear to me to be so unreasonable and unfair. The public can go to the Cup Final at Wembley, if they are lucky enough to get a ticket, and they pay no tax. But if they go to see the film of the game in their local cinema, then cinema tax must be paid. If the Bolshoi Ballet returned to this country your Lordships could all go and see it tax-free; but if you see only a film of this wonderful show, then you must pay cinema tax. Is it possible for discrimination to be carried to greater heights of absurdity? The cinema offers relaxation, good cheer, a comfortable and warm refuge from boredom and bleak weather; and, above all—and I emphasise this—it offers good family entertainment, carefully categorised by an excellent Board of Film Censors.
  The industry can start to plan ahead for a prosperous future—prosperous not only to itself but to Britain, too—if it
  464
  gets the green light from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If the cinemas prosper, then British production also will prosper and will be able to continue making good films; and they, in turn, will be able to show our way of life to the rest of the world. They say that trade follows the film, so here is a golden opportunity which must not be missed. The boost to this country would be immense and incalculable. But the producers must have a sound home market: every single cinema that closes down automatically cuts the scope of our home producers. Another point that must not be overlooked is that the abolition of this tax would result in a considerable saving of Government expenditure on administration of the tax, the revenue of which is bound to be affected by diminishing returns.
  In conclusion, my Lords, there is one other matter upon which I will touch, and that is the iniquitous Sunday charity levy which has to be paid by cinemas for the privilege of opening on Sundays. Here again there is discrimination against the cinema. No other form of entertainment suffers from this extortion. Television, working men's clubs, concerts, public-houses and fair grounds all cater for the needs of the public, but no Sunday tax is levied on them—and rightly so. Why should the cinema industry be victimised by this levy? I understand that in Nottingham the corporation have collected something approaching £50,000 from the cinemas in the last ten years, through the medium of the Sunday charity levy, and they are still undecided how this money should be spent. How grateful the cinema exhibitors in Nottingham would be if the watch committee of that city returned that money to them and helped them to keep in business!
  Well, my Lords, there it is—a sad story, but one which can have a happy ending if the Chancellor abolishes this onerous burden on April 15. The cinema tax must go. It is not only iniquitous, it is immoral, and it is destroying the cinema industry. What man in your Lordships' House would expect to pay more in tax than he actually earns? That is happening week after week in this industry which is now fighting for its very life. Exhibitors keep paying more out in cinema tax than they actually make. That cannot go on much longer.

  465
  I would ask my noble friend who is to reply to the debate to make early representation to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and to plead with him to save this once great industry before it is too late.
  4.0 p.m.
  LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I have no particular interest in this matter, but I have an important interest in that it is a consumer interest, and the consumer these days is sometimes forgotten. So my interest in intervening in this debate is personal and, at the same time, patriotic. As a middlebrow, I enjoy going to the local cinema and seeing a good film; and, by a curious coincidence, what I believe to be a good film nearly always turns out to be a British film. If the receipts go plunging down as they are doing, there will be not only a closing of these cinemas, particularly the rural ones, which I should greatly regret, but also fewer British films made both for home and export, which again I should greatly regret.
  Your Lordships' House is perhaps by tradition more associated in sympathy with the live stage, both variety and legitimate; but for years the drama has been brought to the masses by the cinema. In the last century it was the gin palaces which stood out as a beacon of light, attracting all in the slums of our great cities. In this century it is the Odeon in the High Street which is a blaze of light, attracting people to come there and, for a moment, forget their drab lives in their celluloid dream. In them, youth can, for once in a way, feel that it is living and walking with the great. I hope your Lordships will have great sympathy with this industry for that reason, because, until recently at all events, it was the great mass indoor entertainment, giving pleasure at home and also prestige abroad.
  All over the Empire people look forward to seeing the latest good British film—and outside the Empire, too. I understand that the Rank Organisation has been making a great effort to get into the South American market, and, moreover, has had considerable success in doing so. I remember that I happened to be in one of those great cities when a great British film arrived. Undoubtedly the whole prestige of the British community was very much enhanced as the
  466
  queues at the box office for this film grew longer and longer, and the congratulations of the local inhabitants came to their British friends on the achievement. As a nation we are modest, probably too modest, and we are reluctant to blow our own trumpet. One thing we may be quite certain of, and that is that Hollywood will never blow it for us. But our film industry can, and does.
  At the moment we have a 30 per cent. quota, but if the takings decline the levy will be less, and further down there will be pressure on the rent of the films, so that still fewer British films will be produced, and it will be impossible to fulfil the 30 per cent. quota, which I think would be disastrous. I should like to see that quota gradually increased, but, of course, that is impossible without increased box-office revenues. Previous debates in your Lordships' House have often taken the shape of discussion on the problem of how to divert enough revenue from the exhibitors to the producers, but now both the producers and the exhibitors are in the same bowl of soup. The industry is demanding total abolition of the tax. Of course, very big sums are involved, I believe £30 million a year or so—perhaps £25 million at the moment, but I doubt whether it will be much more than £20 million next year and perhaps £15 million the year after, unless something is done.
  But one must remember that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer remits £20 million of revenue he either has to impose another tax elsewhere, or to forgo the advantage of reducing another tax. Therefore the industry must clearly satisfy the country in the fullest possible way that it is doing the best it can for itself; that it is collecting the maximum possible revenue, and that it is operating with the maximum degree of economy. I think the first of these propositions can be more or less assumed from the fact that it is run by astute business men; but on the second I think the country would like some enlightenment, because there have been allegations in the past that in the studios, among the studio technicians, restrictive practices were very rife, and among artists and producers outbursts of artistic temperament led to considerable waste and extravagance. Now were these charges ever true, and are they true to-day? I hope the noble Lord, Lord Archibald, or my noble friend Lord

  467
  Winterton, who follows me, will be able to give the answer.
  Nevertheless, in the public eye there does appear to be considerable ostentatious spending by the principal artists. Maybe these are only foreigners, but if they are British, and in view of the request of the industry for tax remission, one is entitled to ask the question: is such expenditure really necessary in order to sell seats at the box office? Is a multiple mink and Cadillac standard necessary to fill the cinemas? I do not know. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Archibald, will answer that question. If it was proved that this was not necessary for the purpose of filling the cinemas, I could remind my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it would be impossible if the Inland Revenue collected the taxes which Parliament levies. If the answer to all those questions is satisfactory, if the industry has done all it can for itself, and if the existing path, as it would seem to do, leads to the awful certainty of the showing of an increasing number of sex-ridden Hollywood films in a decreasing number of British cinemas, accompanied by a smaller number of British films going abroad, then, I think, a remission of tax is highly desirable.
  It would not be without precedent. County cricket was saved from, I think, extinction some years ago by the remission of tax, and that brings one to the theory of so-called entertainments tax. It seems to me that if one is going to have a tax on entertainment it must be flexible and eclectic—in other words, you must follow the money. Public taste is fickle, and it is no good trying to tax a form of entertainment which the public are deserting. To-day, I think the money is going on television, motoring, dance halls and betting. If, for political reasons, the Chancellor of the Exchequer feels that he cannot tax or increase the tax on any of these, then I think he should give up the idea of an entertainments tax at all: in other words, either no tax, or else let the tax follow the money.
  Of course, the case for total remission is undoubtedly strong, but if, for revenue reasons, he feels unable to go the whole hog, I would earnestly hope that he would at least go half way and watch the position for two years to see whether it
  468
  stabilises or deteriorates any further. To-day it is the exhibitors who are raising their voices, but it is important, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, said, to see that the producers get their proper share, because it is to them that we look for maintaining British prestige abroad and for our entertainment in the cinemas at home. It will be impossible to maintain this industry on imported films. Particularly at this time of year many people and industries have cried, "Wolf, wolf!" and yet the sheep have grown fatter each year for shearing. But in this case I believe we are talking of a sheep which has lost pretty nearly all its wool already.
  4.10 p.m.
  EARL WINTERTON: My Lords, I rather run the risk of boring your Lordships by again speaking in a film debate and having once again to disclose my interest in the industry. I will try to avoid being repetitive, either in the sense of saying what I have said before or repeating the arguments which have been used by my predecessors in your Lordships' House in this debate. I think I can put my points, to avoid trespassing too much on your Lordships' time, in tabloid form. I will reply in a moment to the specific question put by my noble friend Lord Hawke.
  To me, as one who is deeply interested in more ways than one in the industry, this has been a most satisfactory debate, and I should like respectfully to thank noble Lords in all parts of the House who have taken part in it for what they have said. It is impressive in another sense, that there is in fact complete unanimity of opinion that the entertainments tax is an iniquitous and anomalous burden on the industry. There is another point about this particular situation which is of great interest: employers and employees, all three branches of the industry, in the shape of producers, distributors and exhibitors, the whole of the employees, whether they are usherettes in a theatre or cine-technicians or artistes, are in complete agreement that this tax is quite unjustified. I may be wrong, but so far as I know there is no other industry at the moment which is making a concerted movement, through the employers and through the trade union

  469
  representatives—notably that redoubtable member of another place and a personal friend of many of us, Sir Torn O'Brien—to try and get the Government and the Chancellor of the Exchequer to see reason and fairness.
  I want to be absolutely fair and honest in putting the case before your Lordships. Let me say at once that of course the industry is suffering from the competition of television, which is partly responsible for its troubles; though I was encouraged to learn from one noble Lord (I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Westwood) that in his opinion the younger generation were showing themselves to be slightly allergic to television, and consequently it was hoped that they might return to the cinema. It is also true that there has been a reduction in cinema attendance in countries where there is ro television. It is, I think, the fact—I believe that any expert would agree—that the way to meet television competition and to reduce, or, rather, bring to an end, the fall in attendance, is to have good films. Çsa va sans dire; that is obvious.
  Yet it is not quite so easy to find those good films as some critics of the industry have suggested. The British film industry, to which many tributes have been paid this afternoon (a fact which gratified me very much, as one connected with a company which produces on a large scale) has shown great enterprise and energy in the last few years. As other noble Lords have pointed out, we have built up an export trade which, though at present it runs into only a few millions, is very valuable because of the prestige which it helps to bring to this country in so far as the best British film portrays aspects of British life which are perhaps not known to foreigners. Far too many people in the United States, as noble Lords who have visited that country will agree, think that Britain consists of old mediæval churches, quaint Tudor villages, people who wear curious costumes in your Lordships' House and elsewhere, and whose only conversation is about the weather, the Test Match or the Cup Final. A good British film shows the throbbing and thriving life of this country, and in that respect alone does a great deal of good. In a few years since the war we have built up this trade, of only modest proportions; but we are, as a result,
  470
  bringing into the country several million pounds.
  The noble Lord, Lord Hawke, asked the noble Lord, Lord Archibald and my- self, both being connected with the industry, if we could give an assurance that everything possible had been done to increase efficiency in film production. I think the answer is, Yes. Considering how wages and what might be called the raw material of the production of a film, in the shape of various accessories, have risen in price in the last few years—and I think in the main British films cost less to produce than they did—I do not think we have a bad record.
  I did not quite see the relevance of his observation about the personal lives of theatre artistes. When the tax on the living theatre was taken off, people did not inquire whether actors or actresses were earning too much or living too lavishly. It was taken off because it was considered to be a wrong tax, presumably, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day; and, similarly, we who are connected with the film industry claim that the tax should be taken off for the same reason. I do not think it is fair to say that British film artistes, at any rate, necessarily set a bad example. The short answer to my noble friend is, Yes; everything possible has been done to increase efficiency. He referred to the difficulty which has been experienced in the past with some of the unions. He knows quite well that the employers in every industry, or at any rate most industries, have to contend with the same sort of thing. It is all very well to say that we ought to do away with restrictive practices, but it is a question of getting the unions to agree. I do not know that there is an undue amount of obstruction in that sense in the film-producing industry, or that it exists to a greater degree in this industry than in many others.
  Now I come to the question of the tax. I want merely to support to the fullest degree what previous speakers have said. Those of us connected with the industry are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, for the very interesting breakdown of figures which he gave in connection with certain films. Those figures are, I think, approximately correct. The entertainments tax taken from the industry this year will be approximately £26 million, and it cannot

  471
  be too often stressed that that is not a tax on profits but a tax on takings. Assuming that it was taken off, and that we pressed for the abolition of the whole tax, the money would be dealt with probably in this way. About £8 million to £10 million more would go to producers—that would be necessary under the arrangements in the industry. About half of that, perhaps more, would go to American producers. But as the noble Lord who is going to reply for the Government knows, and as he will probably tell your Lordships, there is a friendly arrangement between our Treasury and the industry in the United States by which a large proportion of that money has to be kept in this country, and it would probably result in the production of more films. I want to make it clear that we in the film industry have no hostility to the American production industry—indeed, without it we could not carry on.
  Incidentally, I want here to go off into parenthesis by saying that one or two people, who really know nothing about the circumstances, are always saying, "Oh, yes, it is quite easy to solve the problems of this industry. All you have to do is to produce enough British films." If pressed, they say, "Well, I think you ought to produce practically all the films that are shown in this country." To use an analogy, that is like saying that the whole of the school accommodation problem could be solved if enough schools were built in the next two years; or that the whole of the road problem of this country could be solved if enough money were spent on tearing down houses and building trunk roads, and so on. The effect would be that the Exchequer would have to pay an astronomical sum of money which it just could not afford. There is not the money in this country to produce all the films that are required for the British cinema. Nor would it be right to do so, because if we showed nothing but British films here, it would be difficult to induce the Americans to allow British films into America. Moreover, as I have said, we are building up a good export trade. Again in parenthesis, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Hawke for mentioning what for reasons of modesty, could not have mentioned: that the Rank Organisation is having considerable
  472
  success in exporting its films all over the world.
  That, my Lords, gives some idea of what the position would be if the tax were removed. Noble Lords may ask: What would happen to the rest of the money? I think the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, suggested that some of it should go to reduce the cost of seats. That may or may not be possible. But I should like to emphasise—I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Archibald, would support me in this point—that we require many millions to renovate the cinemas, many of which have got into a bad state of internal decoration owing to the fact that the money has not been available. In order to compete with television and to attract audiences back to the cinema, all the big circuits will in the next few years have to do what indeed they are doing on a small scale to-day—namely, to use a generic term, to improve certain methods of projection. All the time we are trying to improve the actual appearance on the screen.
  One argument which was used in the past—though I am glad to note that it has not been used to-day—for differentiating between the cinema industry and the "live" theatre, and which seemed to justify the Government's action in taking off the tax on the "live" theatre, was that the "live" theatre had a higher moral and artistic value than the cinema. I really do not think that that contention can be maintained. I do not want to attack the "live" theatre. Like others of your Lordships, I am a patron of it. But I do not see anything particularly high in the level of morals of some plays that are put on, or, indeed, in those who act in them. In the moral sense I do not think that they are any better or any worse than the cinema. In regard to the artistic value of the "live" theatre, it should be remembered that some of the most celebrated actors of the time, including that very great actor, one of the greatest in living memory, Sir Laurence Olivier, have been pleased and proud to act in films. Your Lordships may remember that Sir Laurence Olivier was in the celebrated film Hamlet a few years ago.
  My Lords, there is one point that has not been mentioned—namely, what is the position of the "live" theatre vis-à-vis the Government, and its financial attitude towards it. As I have said, from the

  473
  cinemas is taken every year in entertainment tax—though, like Lord Westwood, I should prefer to call it "cinema tax", because it is levied only on cinemas—a total of £26 million. Not only does the "live" theatre not pay that tax, but in one way or another it receives sums by way of subsidy. This year the subsidy will approximate to £1 million. That subsidy goes to Sadler's Wells, to opera and ballet, to orchestras and in other ways. Perhaps one ought to say that the subsidy goes to the "live" theatre and to orchestral concerts. The amount is over £800,000 this year, and next year it will be £1 million.
  Why should there be this astonishing contrast between the two? Perhaps the contrast is even greater when one considers the removal of the tax from dog racing—which cannot be said to have either a very high moral or artistic value—and its retention on the cinema. France is considered by many to be the homeland of artistic and esthetic perception. As a Feat admirer of France I would say that, in spite of all the terrific difficulties with which France is confronted at the present time, they have still maintained that position. I believe that both production and exhibition are subsidised. The Government also give a subsidy on every French film which is exported to be shown in other countries. What a contrast between the attitude of the French Government and that of the British Government!
  I do not want to trouble your Lordships any further. I think it would be difficult for the Government to resist the strong movement which exists in this country, not only in the industry itself but outside, in favour of the total abolition of this utterly iniquitous and anomalous tax. I am a great supporter of Her Majesty's Government. I think it is the first Government since the war which has shown courage in tackling questions the solution of which brings no popularity, and may, indeed, bring a loss of votes at by-elections. I commend it for that. But there is a limit to what you cart do in the way of making yourself unpopular. The Government can be unpopular with some of the people some of the time, but if it is unpopular with all the people all the time it will have a very nasty fall when the General Election comes. If the Government does not abolish this tax, it will earn a great deal
  474
  of unpopularity with a large number of people.
  My noble friend Lord Hawke seemed to suggest that there was some dilemma here—that if the Government did away with the £26 million tax they would have to increase other taxes. I see no reason why that should be so.
  LORD HAWKE: Or, alternatively, forgo the opportunity of reducing other taxes.
  EARL WINTERTON: I do not see why that should be so. But even if it were so, surely that is no reason for keeping on an unjust and iniquitous tax.
  LORD HAWKE: There are many unjust and iniquitous taxes.
  EARL WINTERTON: I do not think there is any other tax that is so unjust and iniquitous as this one, for the reasons which all noble Lords who have spoken, except my noble friend Lord Hawke, have mentioned in their speeches. I thought it was agreed that it is iniquitous and unjust. But I do not think that that dilemma really arises. I do not want to attack the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, because he made a very friendly speech, but I do say that only the abolition of the tax can save this industry. Although. obviously, no announcement can be made this afternoon, I very much hope that Her Majesty's Government will have due regard to the very strong pressure upon them, not only in your Lordships' House but elsewhere, to abolish it.
  4.30 p.m.
  LORD ARCHIBALD: My Lords, like the noble Earl who has just resumed his seat, I must declare an interest, though not perhaps as direct an interest as his. I am chairman of the Federation of Independent Film Producers, and therefore, naturally, I approach this question primarily from the producer's point of view, although I hope not exclusively from that point of view. I believe that the whole of this debate must be based on the assumption, which I think has once been stated, that the continuance of a forceful, energetic and thriving film production industry is regarded as of national importance. I believe that view has been accepted by every Government of this country since it was first formulated at the Imperial Conference in 1926. That must be our starting assumption in approaching this subject.

  475
  Like other noble Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, for having initiated this debate, but I am sure all who have taken part in it, including the noble Lord who moved the Motion, would agree that it would be a much happier position for the British film industry if there were no need to debate it in your Lordships' House for many years to come. It is always an indication of the sad state of an industry that so much of your Lordships' time has to be taken up in discussing it.
  I have indicated that I approach this subject substantially from the point of view of the producer, and I want to emphasise how much more the producer is hurt in a period of declining box-office receipts. I need not weary your Lordships with the technicalities of the booking or renting methods. It is sufficient to say that the system which prevails provides broadly that the more a cinema theatre takes at the box office, the higher the proportion of the takings which will go in film rental; and, correspondingly, the further it falls below its average takings, the smaller the percentage of those takings which will go in film rental. What has been happening in recent years? No one anticipated (he would have been foolish if he had) that cinema takings would remain at the boom level which they reached in the immediate post-war years; and they began to fall by round about 2 per cent. per annum. Then, with the coming of commercial television—I believe we can say that that was the direct cause—it became a drop of about 7½ per cent. per annum. Then, last year, the drop was about 20 per cent.; so that the graph of the decline has become an exceedingly steep and dangerous one.
  In that situation, from what I said a moment ago, it follows that the film renter's share is not the same share of lower box-office takings but is a lower share of lower box-office takings. I am not making here a point against the exhibitors. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Westwood, would agree that what I am saying is factually correct—that the producer is getting not the same percentage of lower box-office takings but a lower percentage of lower box-office takings. That, in itself, would naturally and inevitably produce a crisis
  476
  in the production side of the industry; but we have, in addition, the fact that production costs have been increasing, though I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, that is not because of extravagance.
  I believe that everyone would admit that a number of years ago many charges of extravagance could have been levied against the production side of the industry, but sheer economic necessity has had the effect of weeding out I will not say all, but the major part of the extravagance. On the particular point made by the noble Lord regarding the remuneration of "stars", it must be borne in mind that one is dealing in an international and not a British market, and that any outstanding British "star" or, for that matter, any outstanding British director or technician, can get much greater rewards in Hollywood—even with the declining level of Hollywood production. The British producer who wishes to use a "star" or director of international status has to be prepared to compete, if not on the full Hollywood level, at least on a level somewhat comparable with it. So that these inflated figures, as we might regard them, are not something that is thrown out lavishly and willingly but something forced on the producer by the fact that he is operating in an international field.
  Leaving that aside, I would point out that during the last few years practically all the basic costs of production have been going up; the costs of the raw stock which is used in filming, wages, paint, and all the various things used in a studio have increased. In addition, new techniques like the wide screen have inevitably involved higher costs of production. So that I might not be thought to be theorising about this matter, I have looked up certain films and have taken the cost of two films made in the same studio with the same artist, one made in 1955, the other in 1957. The film made in 1955 cost £ 188,000; that made in 1957 cost £284,000. I have allowed for the fact that the 1957 film may be physically slightly bigger and that there may have been accidental reasons raising the cost. I have gone into the question with the people concerned, and the most that we can knock off, due to this being a slightly bigger film or for any other reason, is £45,000; so we get, for strict comparison,

  477
  an increase in cost of £51,000. I have also had from another company details of the cost of two strictly comparable films, one made in 1953–54, costing £116,000, and what might be called the sequel or companion to it, made last year, which cost £150,000.
  I do not want to weary your Lordships by multiplying the examples, but the only lesson that can be drawn is that over as recent a period as the last three years the basic costs of production have gone up by in the region of 25 to 30 per cent. So that here we have the tragic position for the producer that to make to-day not a bigger film but the same level of film that he was making three years ago will cost him 25 to 30 per cent. more, and the returns he may expect from the box office in this country are in the region of 30 to 40 per cent. less; and that, obviously, is a situation which is very serious indeed
  My noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth referred to the returns which had been got out on, I think, 108 films, and he told us the amount by which they would fail to recover their costs. Of that same 108 films, 79 as individual films will fail to recover their costs. Those 79 films cost (in round figures) £9 million to produce. They will get back in this country from the box office roughly £4¼ million, so that the loss is more than 50 per cent. of their production cost—£4¾ million. That, I agree, is before allowing for the production fund, the statutory levy; but the statutory levy will not amount to more than £2½ million this year, and even if these films were getting the whole of it, it would fail to bring them to the position of breaking even with their costs of production.
  I want to emphasise that when I refer to the fall in box-office receipts, and therefore in the possible return to the producer from his films, we have also to reckon with a shortfall in the estimated return on the statutory levy. Your Lordships will remember, from what was said when the Bill providing for the setting up of the statutory levy was before us, that it was provided in that Bill that the Board of Trade should establish the level of the levy for the first year so as to produce £3¾ million. The Board of Trade, unfortunately, did not anticipate the steep decline in box-office takings, and provided for the levy on a basis which, according to present indications, will not produce more than £2½ million
  478
  in the current year; so that the producers, in addition to the natural falling off in the box-office receipts, are going to be somewhere in the region of £1¼ million short in what they might have expected to receive from the production fund.
  My Lords, it would be misleading your Lordships' House if one were to suggest that the problem of making ends meet in British film production is a new one, or that it is something which is occasioned only by the present slump in the cinema business. The problem of British film production has been before Parliament now for something like thirty years. The attempt to put it on a satisfactory basis was at first confined to quota legislation; then we had the voluntary levy; and now we have the statutory levy, all of which have been indications of the difficulties of the British film production industry.
  I think that these difficulties can be, well exemplified by the history of one film-producing company, and, as it is a public company, there is no breach of confidence involved in referring to its figures. It is A.T.P. Limited, which is the company which owns Ealing Films. Most of your Lordships will know of the films made by this company. It is particularly associated with British comedy—in the early days with the George Formby films and those of Gracie Fields and, more recently, the Alec Guinness films and many others which your Lordships who are cinema-goers will remember with delight. It has also made outstanding films in other fields, like The Cruel Sea, and epics like Scott of the Antarctic and Dunkirk. It is a public company which has been making films for twenty-nine years, and in that period its shareholders have twice had a dividend of 7½ per cent.—approximately ½ per cent. per annum—and I think it would be true to say that neither of those dividends arose from profits on film-making but arose from completely extraneous activities. If it has been as difficult as that for twenty-nine years, the point I am emphasising is that the present slump changes it from being difficult to being impossible, and if something is not done British film production is going to come to a standstill.
  At the present time, as one talks to producers one finds that the whole emphasis is on the point that they are

  479
  waiting to see what is going to happen before they put another film into production, and, in these circumstances, that the only thing that can be done that will give them any hope at all is the abolition of the cinema tax. The industry is not asking for a subsidy from the Government—it is not really asking for help from the Government in the proper sense of that term. What it is asking is that the Government should get off its back and give it a chance to stand upright and fight for its own existence against the new forms of competition that it has to meet.
  We have had reference already to-day to the cliché that there is nothing wrong with the industry that good films cannot cure. In over forty years' association with the industry, I think this is the third time that we have had an acute depression and that that cliché has been trotted out, so you will not be surprised that I am a little tired of it. I do not know why anyone should expect that film producers should be able to produce nothing but masterpieces. If you look at a publisher's list you do not expect that every volume in the list will be a best seller. It would be just as unreasonable to expect that every film that is produced in British studios should be a best seller. All that can be asked—and I think we are getting it—is that every endeavour is made to make the best possible films in the most economic manner possible.
  In this connection may I emphasise that this is not just a financial matter; it is a matter affecting the livelihood of thousands of men and women, ranging from the theatre staffs to the highly skilled technicians and others in the studios. It is their bread and butter which is at stake in this question. and they are entitled to ask that the industry in which they are engaged should be given the opportunity of finding its own level without being handicapped by this enormous volume of tax.
  If cinema tax is abolished the corollary to that should be (and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Westwood, will agree with me that the exhibitors accept this view) that the statutory levy should be increased to an amount which would produce £5 million a year. That is not a question of Government subsidy; that is simply a question of the internal allocation of the revenue of the industry, and
  480
  all sides of the industry are agreed that what is required is not only abolition of the tax but also raising of the statutory levy to the £5 million level. Granted that that can be done, I believe that the industry, despite the intense competition of television, can find its own level, can do a certain amount of internal reorganisation and can go on to contribute in the future, as it has done in the past, a useful amenity for the people of this country and an increasing earning of foreign currency to help with our balance of payments problem.
  4.50 p.m.
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I have been answering debates in your Lordships' House about the film industry for over five years now. Every time we have a debate on the industry, or introduce a Bill connected with it, my heart sinks lower, because every time it seems to me that the affairs of this extraordinary but fascinating industry become more and more complicated.
  Today, of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has pointed out in a friendly way, for which I thank him warmly, I am in additional difficulties because a Budget looms, and any aspect of the film industry's fortunes might of course find a place in any Budget. I wish to make it quite clear, however, that I have not discussed this matter in any way with my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I have no idea whatever of his present views on the fate of the cinema industry. Indeed, although he is an old personal friend of mine, I have of late been avoiding him like the plague whenever I have seen him, on either social or official occasions. I shall be happy when this debate is over and I can explain to him why, and thus repair a beautiful friendship. Of course, I will bring to his attention everything that noble Lords have said this afternoon.
  I must of necessity, therefore, fail to touch on or deal with quite a few points that I would otherwise have tried to answer to the best of my ability. I am sure your Lordships will appreciate my difficulty. Let me make it perfectly clear, therefore, that nothing I may say, accidentally or on purpose, or may omit, accidentally or on purpose, must be held to have any relation to a forthcoming Budget or, indeed, to anything. I am determined, whatever happens, that there

  481
  is to be no Budget leak inquiry, and that this debate will end in your Lordships' House and not in Church House.
  Let me, however, offer one or two general observations upon the topics your Lordships have raised this afternoon. After this debate, I think that we shall all realise that the problems of the film trade, which are so much in the public eye at the moment, stern directly from a fall in attendances. This seems to denote a major change in public taste for entertainment. Even if to-morrow we abolish the whole entertainments duty—or cinema tax, as my noble friend Lord Westwood naturally likes to call it—this change of attitude on the part of the public is unlikely to be affected. Perhaps a few cinemas might reduce their prices in the hope of attracting more patrons. Possibly others, as my noble friend suggested, would smarten up their appearance, with the aid of a reduction of tax if that proved possible. But we should delude ourselves if we thought that the abolition of this tax would entice everybody back into the cinema.
  I do not wish to minimise in any way the seriousness of the outlook, particularly for exhibitors. I am impressed, as anybody must have been, by the weight of complaint in your Lordships' House, but the plain fact is that the public is spending less of its "leisure pound" on seeing films and more on other forms of entertainment. Television may be the main cause of the drop in attendances, but there are several other competing candidates for the "leisure pound". There is the new "Do-it-yourself" fashion, which claims not only its share of the "leisure pound" but a great deal of the leisure time of householders which otherwise might be spent in the cinema. Many people—except, of course, builders and decorators—might think this was not a bad thing. Then there is the enormous popularity and expense of gramophone records, radiograms and record-players, which are clearly responsible for keeping out of the cinemas a great many in those age groups to which cinemas particularly look for their custom.
  No doubt if there were enough really outstanding films the position would be improved. But I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Archibald and Lord Lucas of Chilworth, that we can presume that when any producer of a first-feature film starts work on a new picture, he aims to produce a winner. I do not think that I
  482
  should shed any new light on the needs of the industry if I joined in pious exhortation to producers to make better films—particularly in a week which has seen four new British films reviewed in the London Press. Here I should like to join strongly with the views the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, expressed in his interesting maiden speech.
  There have been many gloomy forebodings expressed recently about the size to which the exhibiting industry might decline if certain steps—notably, of course, reduction in entertainments duty—are not taken to protect it: and even gloomier ones about the inevitable decline, even if such steps are taken. The exhibition industry must face the fact that it may have to reorientate itself in a world of changing fashions. Various individual attempts have been made to meet these changing fashions by the installation of dance halls, restaurants and so forth. I realise that in many cases this just is not "on." I think that some very painful readjustment is also probably necessary in the cinema seating capacity of a great many of our towns. Frankly, there are too many places that have too many cinemas.
  The latest figure of the fall in attendances for the year 1957 is 17 per cent. Total attendances for the year were 915 million—the lowest since the war. Of course, I regard this as a serious state of affairs, particularly in the villages—here I agree cordially with the noble Lords, Lord Westwood and Lord Hawke—but it is also right that we should reflect that this is only a trifle below the attendance in the year before the war. That would admittedly be a more comforting reflection if there were any signs that the decline in admissions to cinemas was slowing down significantly, or if we had any reason to believe that television was anywhere near its saturation point. It obviously is not.
  While the outlook for cinemas may be cheerless, I suspect that the fortunes of film producers may not be quite so seriously menaced as one might at first suppose. Of course we are concerned at the heartbreak of little independent exhibitors whose life-savings are in jeopardy, and of course we are worried by the risk of unemployment in the exhibition industry. But what of the money invested in the production of

  483
  films, in studios; and what of the prospects of the artistes and technicians as well as of the creative talent in the industry? The production of British films, as all noble Lords have said, is something which many Governments of different complexions—with this Government well to the fore—have sought to foster. We must bear in mind, therefore, the prospects of this part of the industry.
  Fortunately, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth suggested, the film production side of the industry is not wholly dependent on the outlet provided by the cinemas in the United Kingdom: it has an export market; and here I should like to pay tribute to the tremendous drive and energy which some producers, and particularly the Rank Organisation, have recently been putting into selling British films overseas. Until the Rank Organisation achieved their worldwide distribution of British films, the American companies were the only companies to maintain world-wide distribution arrangements.
  One has, I know, to be wary of talking in the same breath about the exploitation of films on both television and cinema screens, The cinema market must remain, of course, for a long time to come the most important outlet for British films. Nevertheless, in reviewing the state of the industry as we are to-day, I think we ought to bear in mind other outlets for British films. At present the revenue which a feature film could expect from television showing in this country would be only a tiny fraction—perhaps 2 or 3 per cent.—of what it might get from the cinema market, if we include both film rentals and levy payments. But television programme contractors are earning far more money than people had originally believed possible. One day, may be when the cinema and television have learned to live together, producers may find a useful addition to their income from this source.
  Then there is the possibility that the idea of subscription, that is, penny-in-the-slot payments to see new films on television, will open the way to revenues comparable to those obtained from exhibitors. In short, therefore, there is probably nothing which the Government could or should do to attempt to influence
  484
  the public to attend cinemas if they do not want to do so.
  EARL WINTERTON: Perhaps I may interrupt my noble friend to say that nobody has suggested that they should. I appreciate his difficulty in talking about entertainments tax, but nobody has suggested that. All we have asked is that the Government should treat us fairly by taking off the entertainments tax.
  LORD MANCROFT: I fully appreciate what my noble friend says, but there is a feeling that, if the Government remove the entertainment tax completely, most of the ills of the cinema will be automatically solved; I am merely trying to lay that bogy. I apologise for doing it to an expert like my noble friend; but not everybody is as aware of the fact as he is. The point I am trying to make is that the cinema market will have to find its natural size, and that size may be a good deal smaller than at present. Producers, on the other hand, may have a rather brighter outlook, and the developments to which I have referred give them a hope that other lucrative markets may later on be found.
  There have been suggestions in the last three or four weeks that the credit squeeze has been responsible recently for curtailing film production. In particular, it has been suggested that the National Film Finance Corporation's lending policy has got "tougher". The Managing Director of the Corporation has recently gone on record as saying that for the current financial year the Corporation have advanced larger sums than in any previous year since the Corporation were set up—when they made the £3 million loan to the old British Lion Film Corporation. Not only was more money lent, but more films were assisted during the year. This, I think, disposes of any idea that production is imperilled by some new financial policy.
  This is not to say, however, that the film industry has achieved some especially privileged position. The Corporation, like every other national corporation, must have regard to the Government's general financial policy of credit restriction. So far, their Managing Director has been able to state that he knows of no case where, because of the Corporation's need to go carefully with their loans, a film has failed to be made. I

  485
  am sure that producers generally will play their part in seeing that the available finance for film production goes as far as possible.
  My noble friends Lord Teynham and Lord Hawke drew attention to the question of the need for production economy. I myself have been very struck with what has been achieved in the direction of greater efficiency in film production during the five years in which I have answered for film affairs in your Lordships' House. I agree strongly with the point of view put forward from both sides, by my noble friend Lord Winterton and the noble Lord, Lord Archibald, that the average cost per camera day of films financed by the National Film Finance Corporation has now been reduced progressively from £2,935 in 1947–48 to £2,418 in the year ended March, 1956. Admittedly in the last financial year the figure rose to £2,840, but this is still below the figure at which it stood ten years ago. Bearing in mind the substantial increases in the cost of labour and materials, this is quite a startling achievement, for which both producers and the National Film Finance Corporation must be given credit.
  We must face the fact that there are limits to what can be done in this direction. If British films are to be made on the cheap, they will begin to look cheap: and if the stars we have been talking about this afternoon are not given the "rate for the job", they will, as the noble Lord, Lord Archibald suggests, go and shine elsewhere. My noble friend Lord Hawke spoke of personal extravagances, and I agree with what he has in mind. But I think the days of a surfeit of mink and magnificence may be passing. Here again, however, we must remember that the people who put up the finance for films feel more assured of the safety of their money if the film commands a star-spangled cast. I think the late and much-lamented Mike Todd offered good proof of that.
  The yield of the statutory film levy has been referred to by the noble Lord. Lord Archibald, and others. I should like to be able to tell your Lordships that it has been decided to alter the rate in this way or that, in order to achieve such-and-such a yield. But I cannot. No such decision has been taken. Nor can it be,
  486
  as yet. All I can say, therefore, is that the Government are very conscious of the importance of the levy to producers, and that they remember their obligations under the Act of 1957. Just how important it is to producers is shown by the fact that about 35 per cent. of the total revenues from the United Kingdom are at present received by British film producers from the levy fund.
  While I am on the subject of yield, I should like to say that the suggestion which has been made recently, that there is some sort of revolt against payment of levy, is without any substantial foundation. So far as I can find out, up to last week, only two cases of default had actually reached the courts where orders for payment were made. I believe that there are about seven other cases rending. In all other instances where proceedings for recovery had been ordered, payment has since been made, with costs where appropriate. Exhibitors, on the whole, have behaved extremely well over these payments, and for the most part realise that the levy is not simply a device for helping producers but is also a device for helping exhibitors to get more British films to show to their patrons, films which British patrons are obviously demanding in increasing numbers.
  Your Lordships will not expect me to comment at any length on the references this afternoon to the overhauling of quota legislation which is now in train. The Board of Trade have only recently received representations from the various trade bodies, and these are now under consideration.
  All I can do is to assure your Lordships that the views expressed by the trade and by your Lordships on this and, indeed, on all other subjects we have been discussing this afternoon, will be studied by those of us who have the unenviable task of dealing with such knotty problems as the definition of a British film; should the renters' quota be reimposed; how co-productions with European countries can be arranged and whether the anti-monopoly provisions of the Act require amendment.
  While on the subject of the 1948 Act I should like to say a word about the greatly improved situation as regards the achievement of quota by exhibitors. I think these figures may be new to your

  487
  Lordships. The average proportion of British films actually exhibited during the last quota year at all theatres was 31.8 per cent. for first-features and 28·1 per cent. for supporting programme. This compares with averaged prescribed quotas, after taking reduced quotas into account, of 25·5 per cent. for first-features and 23·8 per cent. for supporting programme. It may be too early to talk about dispensing with quota legislation, but these figures do not lend support to the idea that British films have any longer to be forced on the reluctant exhibitors. The average first-feature quota achieved by the three major circuits was as high as 37 per cent.
  By all means let us look soberly at the decline in attendances, as we have done this afternoon. We must face the blunt fact that no fewer than 572 cinemas have closed between October 1, 1954 and the end of February this year. But let us also not overlook that in this period of uncertainty and keen competition with American films, with all that they have in the way of assured finance and a larger home market, British films have secured a steadily increasing share of our screen time and have achieved a greater popularity almost everywhere. The industry has its troubles—real troubles—and we have discussed them frankly and firmly this afternoon. I am sorry that, for reasons which I have already explained in detail, I am not able to be more forthcoming, and to express the Government's view more firmly upon those troubles. It does not, to me, look like a dying industry: it looks to me a pretty vigorous one.
  5.11 p.m.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, may my first words in withdrawing my Motion be of congratulation to the noble Lord who made such an interesting maiden speech this afternoon? I enjoyed it thoroughly, and it was quite nice to have, if he will forgive my saying so, the views of the common man instead of the experts in the film industry who are becoming very numerous in your Lordships' House. My second word will be of congratulation to the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. As an admirer of and a humble practitioner in the art of forensic exercise, I think his speech was marvellous. I congratulate him upon it. He did not answer 99 per cent. of the ques
  488
  tions asked, but he answered a lot which were not asked but which it suited him to answer. I think that that is something upon which we should compliment him, because I knew he could not answer the main point.
  I would refer to two things he said, and I was glad the noble Earl, Lord Winterton, took him up on one point. Nobody throughout the whole course of this debate has asked for a subsidy for the film industry. Indeed, I even resisted the temptation of pointing out to the noble Lord that in another entertainment industry, the live theatre, the Government spend the taxpayers' money in subsidising plays which cannot be thought to be a commercial success.
  EARL WINTERTON: To the extent of nearly £1 million.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I did not ask the noble Lord to do that. When he talks about the ability of the public to find other avenues for spending their "leisure pound", may I remind him that the "leisure pound" which they want to spend in the cinemas is the only "leisure pound" spent in the entertainment world where the Government immediately grab 30 per cent. of it. He also said—and I agree with him; it was my contention—that we should let the law of economics regulate the number of cinemas, and that if they are not patronised they will close. But the law of economics is being weighted by £25 million. What the cinema industry is asking for, and what I ventured to ask for this afternoon, is a fair field, with no favour and no disfavour.
  I thank the noble Lord for the other information he gave. I will absolve him from all trickiness. He had a tricky job to do. He did it with skill, and perhaps the one satisfaction we can have in your Lordships' House is that he ran no risk of getting the sack, and that we shall for a long time to come see him exercising his usual skill, to our enjoyment and our edification. All I can ask him to do, if he will—and I know he will—is faithfully to represent to his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer the powerful case which he found quite unanswerable this afternoon, so that the cinema industry may at least be given the opportunity in the future of putting its house in order, without being unduly

  489
  prejudiced by taxation. With those words, and with many thanks to those noble Lords who supported this Motion, I beg leave to withdraw it.
  Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
  House adjourned during pleasure.
  House resumed.

  ROYAL COMMISSION
  5.30 p.m.
  The following Bills received the Royal Assent:
  Consolidated Fund (No. 2),
  Nationalised Industries Loans.
  House adjourned at twenty minutes before six o'clock.