Sitting of 21 May 1958

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
MESSAGES FROM THE QUEEN

  RIVERS (PREVENTION OF POLLUTION) ACT, 1951
  The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:
  I have received your Address praying that the period of seven years ending on the thirty-first day of July, nineteen hundred and fifty-eight, during which River Boards are, under subsection (2) of section eight of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act, 1951, prohibited from taking action without the consent of the Minister of Housing and Local Government in respect of certain contraventions or apprehended contraventions of section two of that Act, be extended for a further period of three years, so as to expire on the thirty-first day of July, nineteen hundred and sixty-one.
  I will give directions accordingly.

  IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES
  The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:
  I have received your Address praying that the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges of the Council of Europe) (Amendment) Order, 1958, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament.
  I will comply with your request.

NEW WRIT (ARGYLL)
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for Argyll, in the room of Major Sir Duncan McCallum, M.C., deceased.—[Mr Heath.]
Mr. Woodburn: I recognise that this Motion is in accordance with custom, but it is only a few days since the hon. Member died. Does not the Patronage Secretary think it a little unseemly to rush this Writ at this time? Could not more time be left for this very difficult constituency to gather itself together for an unexpected election? It is one of the most difficult constituencies in the country, and there might be a certain amount of resentment at treating this constituency——
Mr. Speaker: Order. If the Motion is objected to, it must be left over until after Questions.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

PRIVATE BUSINESS
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL
  Read the Third time and passed.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  POST OFFICE

    Robberies
    Mr. Osborneasked the Postmaster-General how many robberies of post offices have occurred during each of the last three years, respectively; and what steps he is taking to ensure greater protection for Post Office workers from violent attacks.
    Mr. Liptonasked the Postmaster-General whether he will provide better protection for post offices and staff against robberies.
    The Postmaster-General (Mr. Ernest Marples): In the last three financial years there were respectively 14, 17 and 26 actual or attempted robberies at post offices in which violence was used or threatened. I am considering whether more can be done to protect Post Office staff.
    Mr. Osborne: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the public think we are sentimental and soft towards these criminals, and will he use his influence with his Cabinet colleagues to ensure that flogging is reimposed to deal with these people

    1271
    and to give protection to those who, especially in country districts, need protection?
    Mr. Marples: The question of flogging is not one for the Postmaster-General. Sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses are incredibly brave people. I frequently give awards for great bravery and I am astonished at the way elderly and fragile women tackle intruders. I pay a great tribute to them. I hope to meet the general secretary of the Federation of Sub-Postmasters to see what the Federation has in mind to prevent this kind of thing happening.
    Mr. Lipton: Is the Postmaster-General aware that the figures he has given are appalling and that there is a certain amount of perturbation on the part of sub-postmasters in that there have been over 30 raids already in the London area, 13 of which were attended with violence? Would the right hon. Gentleman at least consider one practical suggestion, namely, the installation of a bandit alarm bell in sub-post offices, which could alert the public in the neighbourhood and also the nearest police station?
    Mr. Marples: There are alarm bells in some sub-post offices, but that is one question the general secretary of the Federation will be discussing with the Post Office if he accepts the invitation, as I hope he will. Whilst I think this trend is alarming—let the House make no mistake about that—it only reflects the general trend in crime and is not specially confined to the Post Office.
    Mr. C. R. Hobson: Is the right hon. Gentleman considering strengthening his own Post Office Investigation Branch and giving some of its officers specific advice with regard to the protection of post office premises?
    Mr. Marples: I will look into that suggestion with the general secretary of the Federation of Sub-Postmasters. Normally, the officers of the Investigation Department get there after a crime has been committed, not before. The difficulty is to prevent these crimes, not to investigate them.
    Mr. Osborne: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of this reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

    Letter Telegrams
    Mr. Snowasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that in London twenty-four hours elapse between the reception of deferred rate telegrams and their delivery; and, in view of the effect of this delay on commercial activities in the United Kingdom, if he will arrange for its reduction.
    Mr. Marples: The arrangements are in conformity with international regulations, which prescribe a delay in the delivery of letter telegrams. The charge is one-half the ordinary rate, and the present practice ensures that telegrams sent at the ordinary rate are always faster. Letter telegrams are rarely delayed as much as twenty-four hours.
    Mr. Snow: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is a wholly artificial delay and that it is one of the international arrangements we could well do without? Is it not possible to apply a commonsense attitude on this point and let delayed telegrams take their chance in the order they are received and be subject to delivery when first-class or ordinary telegrams have been despatched?
    Mr. Marples: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is an artificial delay, but it is also an artificial price. It is an international regulation which applies to all the subscribing countries, and if telegrams charged at half the rate arrived more quickly than telegrams charged at the ordinary rate, it would mean the end of the ordinary telegrams.
    Sir G. Nicholson: Is not this the only case today as regards the Post Office where a measure of inefficiency or delay is obligatory? Surely it is a complete anachronism nowadays?
    Mr. Marples: A half-price telegram is also an anachronism. If anyone wants a telegram to arrive quickly, it can be done by paying the normal rate. This is a cheap rate for the convenience of subscribers.

    Welsh Administration (Devolution)
    Mr. Gowerasked the Postmaster-General what progress has been made in the last year in the devolution of the administration of the work of his Department in Wales; what progress is contemplated during the next twelve months; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Marples: The Director of the Post Office in Wales exercises the Postmaster-General's full powers in a number of matters and in other matters authority has been devolved to the maximum extent practicable. Devolution is kept under continuous review and the Director's powers are increased whenever necessary or desirable.
    Mr. Gower: Is not the Post Office completely out of step with all the other Government Departments in Wales? Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is now the only Department whose activities in Wales are concentrated on Shrewsbury? Is he also aware that it is practically the only authority which has such a large overlap between Wales and the border counties? Will he re-examine the problem?
    Mr. Marples: I am sure my hon. Friend will know of the third memorandum of the Council for Wales and Monmouth issued in 1956, which gave the reasons why certain parts of England had to be included in Wales. That is because we have to use the existing communication system for the delivery of post. However, the Director in Wales has immense powers. He can purchase sites and provide new buildings; he can deal with cases of indiscipline; he can write off cash or stores. There is tremendous power given to the people in Wales. We cannot go further than that.

    Business Reply Envelopes (Welsh Language)
    Mr. Gowerasked the Postmaster-General if he will reconsider his decision regarding the specimen business reply envelope in Welsh, submitted by the Welsh National Folk Museum at St. Fagans; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Marples: No, Sir, but as my hon. Friend has already told the House, I am prepared to accept designs incorporating Welsh alongside English.
    Mr. Gower: Does my right hon. Friend recall that the Assistant Postmaster-General, dealing with a similar application by another body, gave an assurance in the House that in cases where there were requests for these facilities the Post Office always tried to meet them? Is he also aware that these envelopes are intended solely for the use of Welsh-speaking
    1274
    people in Welsh-speaking parts of Wales? Will he, therefore, look at this point again?
    Mr. Marples: I am sorry but I think my hon. Friend is wrong. Whilst they are probably sent by a person who speaks Welsh and received by a person who speaks Welsh, they may be collected, sorted and delivered by someone who may not speak Welsh; so it is necessary to have the English alongside the Welsh.
    Mr. G. Thomas: Is the Postmaster-General aware that the Welsh people are not unreasonable on this question? As long as an opportunity is given to those who are keen and anxious to address the envelope in Welsh alongside the English, no difficulty will arise from the overwhelming proportion of the Welsh people.
    Mr. Marples: I am very glad to have the hon. Gentleman's assurance that Welsh people are reasonable.

    New Cable Ship
    Mr. C. R. Hobsonasked the Postmaster-General if a decision has yet been made regarding the building of a new cable ship.
    Mr. Marples: Yes, Sir. We hope to place an order for a new ship before the end of this year.

    Western District Office
    Mr. C. R. Hobsonasked the Postmaster-General what progress has been made in the erection of the new Western District Office.
    Mr. Marples: The first stage, namely the sinking of the shaft and the extension of the Post Office railway, is well up to schedule. We plan to start work on the building itself as soon as this is finished—probably at the end of October.
    Mr. Hobson: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken any steps to see whether this work can be accelerated, in view of the very cramped conditions existing in the Western District Office and the tremendous amount of mail order business which has now been transferred there from the City? Can he do something to expedite the matter?
    Mr. Marples: I agree with the hon. Member that the present premises are hopelessly inadequate, but the contract

    1275
    has been let and the work is proceeding smoothly according to that contract and keeping up to time. Any acceleration of a contract which has been let normally tends to be a very expensive process and perhaps not worth it in the long run.

    Facilities, Liverpool (Garston)
    Mr. Binghamasked the Postmaster-General what plans he has for improving the Post Office facilities in Garston, Liverpool; and when they will be put into effect.
    Mr. Marples: The present post office at St. Mary's Road, Garston, is much too small and we are replacing it with a larger, modern office in Speke Road. This should provide excellent facilities for many years to come. We hope to open it in November. Meanwhile, delivery work for the Speke area will be transferred to another new office which is to be opened in Speke on 2nd June. A new district, Liverpool 24, will be created, and this should lead to a considerably improved delivery service throughout the area.

    General Post Office, Devonport
    Miss Vickersasked the Postmaster-General what decision he has made in regard to the site of the new General Post Office in Devonport.
    Mr. Marples: Negotiations for a new site are still in progress. I am writing to my hon. Friend, and will keep her informed of developments.
    Miss Vickers: I thank my right hon. Friend for agreeing to write to me on the subject—I have already had three letters from him—but is it fair that Plymouth should have two General Post Offices and Devonport none? I hope that my right hon. Friend is not taking the same view as the Socialist leader of the local council, that Devonport is a suburb of Plymouth.
    Mr. Marples: I can assure my hon. Friend that I realise the importance of Devonport. I will write to her after the next meetings have been held between the Ministry of Works estate surveyor and the developers' architect. I shall then have more tangible information.

    Flats and Houses (Postboxes)
    Miss Vickersasked the Postmaster-General whether he will consult local authorities and others concerned in the
    1276
    building of flats to see if it is possible to have a set of postboxes on the ground floor for each individual flat, in order to save the postman climbing up and down many flights of steps, as has to be done in many cases.
    Mr. Marples: We have already had some consultations of this kind, but I think there is scope for extending them, and I am arranging for this.
    Miss Vickers: Will my right hon. Friend be careful, particularly in regard to new dwellings, to take steps to prevent what happens now, when postmen often have to go upstairs with just one letter? I hope that my right hon. Friend will look into the matter again in order that he may understand the circumstances of the trouble.
    Miss Vickersasked the Postmaster-General if he will have consultations with builders of houses with front gardens to ascertain if it would be possible to have postboxes at the gate or entrance to the path leading to the front door.
    Mr. Marples: We are seeking people's views on this form of delivery in our current public opinion survey on the Postal Services. At the same time, I am looking into the advantages and disadvantages of the arrangement.
    Miss Vickers: Has my right hon. Friend ever seen the way in which it is worked in New Zealand? The system works very well there. The postbox is at the gate. Very often, on undulating sites in this country, the postman has to take as many as sixteen steps to the front door and sixteen steps back in order to deliver one letter. I hope that my right hon. Friend will see that this matter is treated as one of urgency.
    Mr. Marples: I can assure my hon. Friend that we are going into this matter seriously by having time and motion studies made in order to find out the time saved if postmen can deliver letters at the end of the garden instead of having to go right up to the front door. We are also examining the American system. Those are two examples of the steps that we are taking to go thoroughly into this matter.
    Sir P. Agnew: If this change is brought in, since it will be less convenient for

    1277
    residents, will my right hon. Friend be able to reduce the cost of the postage stamp on letters?
    Mr. Marples: I would rather await the outcome of our investigations.

  WIRELESS AND TELEVISION

    Low-Power Station, Folkestone
    Mr. Darlingasked the Postmaster-General which areas of Kent are to be served with low-power television transmitters; and what are their approximate populations.
    Mr. Marples: An experimental low-power satellite station is to be installed by the B.B.C. at Folkestone during the next few months, and is expected to serve about 40,000 people.
    Mr. Darling: Could the Postmaster-General tell us what priority the B.B.C. works on in this matter? Is he aware that Sheffield, with a population of half a million, has been asking for experimental low-power transmitters for some years? Sheffield is one of the most important wealth-producing areas of this country. Why cannot it have the treatment its position deserves?
    Mr. Marples: First, this is an experiment; it is not an installation in the normal course of expansion. If it is successful, the B.B.C. will consider applying it to other parts of the country, and I am sure they will not exclude Sheffield from their consideration.

    Members (Broadcasts)
    Mr. Lewisasked the Postmaster-General (1) if he will give the names of the Members of Parliament who have, since 1945, appeared more than once on the British Broadcasting Corporation and Independent Television Authority television; and the number of times which these Members have appeared on the British Broadcasting Corporation and Independent Television Authority television;
    (2) whether he will give the names of the Members of Parliament who have contributed to the British Broadcasting Corporation's television and Independent Television Authority's programmes, respectively, for each of the last twenty-four months for which figures are available.
    Mr. Marples: I would not feel justified either in asking the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. to compile the information, or in burdening the House with it, in view of the fact that, as the House will have seen from my reply to the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) on 14th May, there were 187 occasions in two years, excluding party political broadcasts and news items, when Members appeared on B.B.C. Television, and 156 occasions in nine months when Members appeared in I.T.A. programmes. The matter concerns the detailed arrangements made by the B.B.C. and I.T.A., and these two organisations will, I am sure, be glad to answer any specific inquiry.
    Mr. Lewis: Has the Postmaster-General not heard the remarks going round the House that in order to get on to the regular contributors' list one must join the Boothby Harriers Club, and if one is not a member of that club one cannot get on? Since this appears to be an example of a closed shop, should not the right hon. Gentleman—who has a reputation for trying to defeat closed shops—take action?
    Mr. Marples: I do not think it is a closed shop, and I do not think that one has to be a harrier in order to get on the B.B.C. or I.T.A. list. One has really to have a certain amount of what they call broadcasting skill and ability—which I am sure the hon. Member possesses in large quantities.
    Mr. John Hall: Will not my right hon. Friend do his best to ensure that at least the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Lewis) is given an opportunity to broadcast as often as possible both on sound and television, because it could only be of the greatest possible benefit to the Conservative Party?
    Mr. C. R. Hobson: Arising from the right hon. Gentleman's reply, will he state the number of Members who make contributions which are confined to the "icebox"—for which they are paid—and state to which party they belong?
    Mr. Marples: I do not understand the hon. Member's question. I do not know what he means by "icebox".
    Mr. Hobson: I am referring to the talks which are kept in the "icebox" in case somebody does not turn up, which can then be broadcast.
    Mr. Marples: I presume the hon. Member is referring to undelivered speeches. They are always better than those which are delivered.
    Mr. Simmons: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider publishing a list of Members who have not appeared on television?
    Mr. Marples: I am afraid not; it would be too lengthy.
    Mr. Lewisasked the Postmaster-General whether he will publish in HANSARD the names of the Members of Parliament who have, since 1945 until the latest convenient stated date, contributed to the series, "The Week in Westminster."
    Mr. Marples: No, Sir. The Corporation has made this information available on request to Members who are interested, including the hon. Member for West Ham, North, and they tell me that they will continue to do so.
    Mr. Lewis: It is because the hon. Member for West Ham, North has received information that he thought other hon. Members would be interested in the news contained therein. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that several of these regular contributors have contributed on two and in some cases three occasions to "The Week in Westminster," while many other hon. Members, who have been Members for twenty years, have not contributed once? Does not the Minister think it is wrong that a Member who has been here for only two years should broadcast two or three times while other hon. Members who attend regularly to their duties here and have been Members for twenty years have not yet been on "The Week in Westminster"?
    Mr. Marples: I should not like to interfere with the B.B.C.'s discretion in this matter, because in my view they lean over backwards to preserve a balance and, as long as the numbers of each party are correct, it is not for me to interfere in the selection of Members who broadcast. I would remind the hon. Member that the B.B.C. selects them not merely because they are good or even brilliant politicians, but because of their broadcasting skill. I think that the B.B.C. is extremely fair and impartial in this matter.

  TELEPHONE SERVICE

    Urmston and Longford
    Mr. Storeyasked the Postmaster-General the number of telephones installed at the Urmston (West) Exchange between 1st May, 1957, and 1st May, 1958, and the number of outstanding applications at the latter date.
    Mr. Marples: For the Urmston Exchange area the figures are 518 and 377, the latter including 36 in course of provision. All the outstanding applications in Urmston (West) at the date of my hon. Friend's previous Question on this subject have now been met. Special inquiry, which I do not think would be justified, would be needed to find out the current number of outstanding applications in that part of Urmston.
    Mr. Storey: Whilst thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply and for what he has done for Urmston (West), can I have an assurance that the Post Office will press on with the other two sections of the Urmston Exchange as quickly as possible?
    Mr. Marples: We hope that all the people who are waiting for line plant will have their telephones by the spring of next year, when the new cable scheme is completed.
    Mr. Storeyasked the Postmaster-General the number of telephones installed at the Longford Exchange between 1st October, 1957, and 1st May, 1958, and the number of outstanding applications at the latter date.
    Mr. Marples: The figures are 132 installed and 50 outstanding, of which on 1st May, 1958, 34 were in course of being met.
    Mr. Storey: Can my right hon. Friend explain the delay in completing the work on this exchange? Completion was first promised by September, then by the end of March, and there are still 57 outstanding applications.
    Mr. Marples: Although they have been outstanding, 34 have been met, so there are only 16 outstanding, which is not a great number.
    Mr. Storey: If I may say so, there were 179 outstanding last year; I had an undertaking that they would all have

    1281
    been met by the end of March, but they have not been installed. Can the right hon. Gentleman say when they will be?
    Mr. Marples: As I have told my hon. Friend, we are waiting for cables, but I assure him that we shall press on.

    Dinas Powis, Glamorgan (Murch Area)
    Mr. Gowerasked the Postmaster-General what progress has been made in effecting the preparatory works necessary for the provision of private telephones for subscribers in new houses in the Murch area of Dinas Powis, Glamorgan; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Marples: New cables are needed and, provided there is no difficulty with wayleaves, the work of laying them will start next month. It is hoped to complete the job in about three months.

    New Telephone (Cost)
    Mr. C. R. Hobsonasked the Postmaster-General what are the present costs of the standard black telephone instrument and of the new-type black telephone instrument on show in the Upper Waiting Room, respectively.
    Mr. Marples: We expect the new type black telephone to cost about the same as the present one—around £6.

    Kiosks, Shropshire
    Mr. Langford-Holtasked the Postmaster-General what allocation he has made for the County of Shropshire for the installation of rural telephone kiosks for the year 1958–59; and how this figure compares with the year 1957–58.
    Mr. Marples: One thousand, five hundred and fifty pounds for 1957–58; £900 for 1958–59.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE

    Conference
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Air what religious leaders were invited to attend the recent conference Prospect II.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Charles Ian Orr-Ewing): Invitations were sent to members of the Advisory
    1282
    Board on Chaplaincy Services and to the Army Chaplain in charge of Jewish interests in the Royal Air Force. In addition, a few clergymen were invited in other capacities: for example, as members of the Air Cadet Councils.
    Mr. Hughes: Were any religious leaders invited to discuss the religious implications of the H-bomb? Why were only ministers and clergymen who are suspected of not believing in the Sixth Commandment invited?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: These gentlemen were invited because the Churches themselves had nominated them as representatives on this Board. They give us a great deal of valuable assistance, and naturally we were anxious to have them present at this very important conference.
    On the wider question, the Bishop of Maidstone, who is Bishop to the Forces and was there in his official capacity, made the point, without committing himself, that those who think it wrong to abandon the bomb do not take this view just from side-stepping the moral issues, but take it because, having faced up to the moral issues, they have come to the conclusion that the possession of the bomb is the lesser of two evils, and that invasion by forces like those of Communism, which distorts children's minds, is, in their opinion, worse than anything that could be done by violence.
    Mr. Hughes: Could the Minister tell us why the Moderator of the Church of Scotland, who takes a very different view, was not invited?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: He is not a member of the Board.
    Mr. Speaker: The Under-Secretary of State is not responsible for the views of the Moderator of the Church of Scotland.
    Mr. Hughes: Surely, he is responsible for the personnel invited to this conference? My suggestion was that if a belligerent bishop was invited the pacifist Moderator should also have been invited.
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member asked about the views of the Moderator of the Church of Scotland. It was not in connection with this meeting at all.

    United States Strategic Air Command (Co-operation)
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Air to what extent he is now co-operating with the American Air Strategic Command.
    Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: As the Prime Minister indicated in answer to Questions from the hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) on 17th and 22nd April, there is close operational co-ordination between Bomber Command and Strategic Air Command.
    Mr. Hughes: Has the Minister read the recent statement by General Griswold, who is in charge of the American Strategic Air Command, who said that no aeroplanes carrying nuclear weapons leave the ground? Is this also the policy of Her Majesty's Government?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: The conditions under which nuclear weapons are carried over this country were made very clear by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in an earlier statement. I have nothing to add to that statement.
    Sir A. V. Harvey: Is not my hon. Friend aware that some of the hon. Member's right hon. Friends will shortly be visiting Strategic Air Command, and will he tell them to inform him of what goes on, because he will find that there is close co-operation?
    Mr. Mason: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the recent agreement between the Canadian and American Air Forces, particularly in regard to the use of nuclear missiles without inter-Governmental consultation if there is an enemy attack? Have Her Majesty's Government had consultations, and does the same apply here?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: That is another question, but there is no Ministerial responsibility for agreements made between Canada and the United States.

    Cyprus
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Air for what purposes the Royal Air Force is now maintained in Cyprus.
    Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: R.A.F. units are maintained in Cyprus for the support of
    1284
    the Bagdad Pact and N.A.T.O.; for the protection of British interests in the Middle East; and to maintain an important link in our air and signals communications.
    Mr. Hughes: Has the attention of the Minister been drawn to a recent article by Mr. Randolph Churchill called "The Real Reason why Britain Must Stay in Cyprus?" Could he tell us if his officials in Cyprus told Mr. Randolph Churchill that Canberras would soon be obsolete, and that they were going to place in Cyprus V-bombers which could attack Stalingrad? Is this true, or is Mr. Randolph Churchill to be prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: I am afraid that I have no responsibility for journalists and their writings, but I should have thought that as to the usefulness of Cyprus recent events have clearly emphasised the importance of the very sensible stabilising influence which the presence of British Forces there has.

    Beverley Aircraft
    Mrs. McLaughlinasked the Secretary of State for Air if he has yet decided on a successor to the Beverley aeroplane.
    Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: Our examination of the operational requirement is not yet complete.
    Mrs. McLaughlin: Is my hon. Friend aware that many people in the aircraft industry today are anxiously awaiting the result of these deliberations? Will he do all he can to expedite them so that firms which are endeavouring to get contracts in order to maintain employment may do so as soon as possible?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: I am aware of that. We are working towards a final solution as fast as we can.
    Mr. de Freitas: Surely, this is not fast enough? Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that this is now becoming a public scandal in the aircraft industry with all this continuing delay and the battle between the Government and the Air Council? Surely, if the importance of the mobility of our defence forces is recognised, a decision must be taken very soon?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: No one is more anxious than my right hon. Friend to

    1285
    reach an early conclusion, but we must make certain that that conclusion meets the main operational requirements of the War Office. It would obviously be folly to order aircraft which are not going to meet the needs of the Services when they come into operational use.

    A.T.C. Thames Estuary Squadron (Headquarters)
    Mr. Braineasked the Secretary of State for Air whether a firm decision can now be made regarding the provision of a new headquarters building for 1341, Thames Estuary Squadron, Air Training Corps, at Thundersley, Essex.
    Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: Yes, Sir. We have decided that a timber prefabricated building should be provided. We are asking the County Association to invite tenders and arrange for the necessary site work.
    Mr. Braine: Is my hon. Friend aware that this is a long and tragic story of muddle and delay, that this decision was taken seven months ago, and yet there has been no progress? Can he say when these headquarters will be completed, because the squadron is operating in very difficult conditions?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: I agree with my hon. Friend that it has taken rather a long time, but my right hon. Friend will be replying in detail to the points made in the letter which my hon. Friend wrote to him some three weeks ago.

  ROADS

    Canvey Island (Access)
    Mr. Braineasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he has yet decided to make a grant towards the scheme for improving vehicular access to Canvey Island.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): We have told the Essex County Council that we are prepared to make a grant towards a scheme for improving this road in the present financial year, and I hope that the details will be settled fairly soon.
    Mr. Lipton: On the subject of vehicular access, could the Minister do something in the matter of vehicular access to the
    1286
    Houses of Parliament in view of the fact that the car of the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) and that of a less important—
    Mr. Speaker: This question is about Canvey Island.

    London—Shoeburyness Road, Hadleigh
    Mr. Braineasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what progress has been made with the proposal to widen the London—Shoeburyness road at Hadleigh, near the junction of Woodfield Road.
    Mr. Nugent: I understand that the Essex County Council have decided in present circumstances not to carry out the scheme, which we had approved in principle, for a 44-foot wide divided carriageway at this point.
    Mr. Braine: Is not my hon. Friend aware that there have been three fatal accidents at this spot over the last two years? Can he say what reasons have been given by the Essex County Council for refusing the very wise counsel given by his Department?
    Mr. Nugent: I am not responsible for the reasons given by the Essex County Council. I believe that the proposed scheme would have made an improvement there, but the council is the highway authority and it is for it to decide.

    A.22 Road, Blindley Heath
    Colonel Beamishasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation for how long there has been single-line one-way traffic in the neighbourhood of Blindley Heath on the A.22 road, which is the main road from London to many parts of East Sussex; what work has been accomplished during this period; what has been the average number of men employed and the average number of hours worked per week; why this work has taken so long; when it will be finished; and whether he is aware of the great inconvenience regularly caused and the traffic jams at busy times.
    Mr. Nugent: I am aware of the traffic conditions on this road, but if improvements are to be made some temporary inconvenience must be accepted. The Surrey County Council, which is the highway authority for the road, has done

    1287
    all it can in the matter and I am glad to say that the road will be open for two-way traffic over the Whitsun holiday and the work will be completed next month.
    Colonel Beamish: My hon. Friend has not answered any of my questions. Is he aware that this work has taken a fantastic length of time and caused quite unnecessary inconvenience? Does he know that it has been going on for many months and that whenever one passes the spot nothing seems to be happening? Has his right hon. Friend any power to insist on work of this kind being stopped when the highway is being obstructed unnecessarily as it has been?
    Mr. Nugent: My hon. and gallant Friend has overlooked one point in my answer. The Surrey County Council is the highway authority and I am not responsible.

    Construction Programme
    Mr. Ernest Daviesasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he has considered the report on delays in road construction he has received from the County Surveyors' Society through the County Councils' Association; and what action he proposes to take upon it.
    The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Harold Watkinson): This report has recently been discussed by my Department with the County Councils Association and a number of helpful suggestions have been made to hasten procedure. The County Councils fully share with me the responsibilities for carrying out the trunk roads programme, and I welcome their co-operation.
    Mr. Davies: I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that it is his Department which is largely blamed for the long delays, and has he looked into the arrangements within his Department regarding the procedure when plans are under consideration?
    Mr. Watkinson: Yes, and as the hon. Gentleman knows, we have made a good many changes which have speeded it up.

    City Road, Tividale
    Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether, in view of the representations of the Rowley Regis Borough Council, he will now authorise the completion in 1958–59 of the council's scheme for the improvement of City Road, Tividale.
    Mr. Nugent: As we have already informed the right hon. Member, we cannot find room for this scheme in our grant programme for this year.
    Mr. Henderson: In view of the fact that this road improvement scheme has been under consideration for four years, and that in the meantime the traffic on the road has increased considerably, does not the Minister think it time that some action should be taken? Would he not at least agree to receive a deputation from the council to discuss this proposal?
    Mr. Nugent: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman asks to bring a deputation, of course I shall be very glad to meet it. But I am afraid that at present I cannot give any better prospect of the scheme being carried out.

    Lighting Schemes
    Sir I. Fraserasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will increase the grants paid on approved lighting schemes on trunk roads to such an extent as will exempt the parishes through which they pass from all financial obligations.
    Mr. Watkinson: No, Sir. The powers of a parish council to light any road are permissive. If a parish wish to instal lighting to full traffic standard on a trunk road I am willing to contribute 50 per cent. of the cost, but I cannot go further in present circumstances.
    Sir I. Fraser: Is it not begging the question to say that the powers of a parish council are permissive? Surely no trunk road can be allowed to continue at the whim and fancy of a parish council without proper lighting? If it must be lighted to a high standard in order, to ensure the safety of the public, is that not mainly national expenditure?
    Mr. Watkinson: That may be so, but I have accurately set out the present position. To go further would not only increase the expenditure of my Department, but would interfere with the functions of local government.

    Cromwell Road (Parking Restrictions)
    Sir F. Medlicottasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what arrangements are planned to prohibit or limit the parking or waiting of cars

    1289
    in Cromwell Road and West Cromwell Road as soon as the extension road is in full use.
    Mr. Nugent: Waiting restrictions will come into force on Talgarth Road, together with a short adjoining length of West Cromwell Road on 1st June. We will shortly consult the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee about the imposition of similar restrictions on the narrow length of West Cromwell Road east and west of Warwick Road.
    Sir F. Medlicott: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that this road provides us with an opportunity to build a first-class highway through the heart of London, and that his right hon. Friend will receive a great deal of support if he is firm about imposing restrictions on waiting, not merely on limited sections but throughout the whole length of this roadway?
    Mr. Nugent: I will certainly consider that point of view.

  TRANSPORT

    Station Taxi-cab Ranks (Report)
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will now report the conclusions of the transport consultative committees on the use of privileged station ranks by licensed taxi-drivers.
    Mr. Watkinson: I understand that the committees have almost completed their extensive inquiries into this system and hope to be able to present their reports some time in July.
    Mr. Brockway: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to make sure, if he can, that the result of the inquiry is then made known, because this matter has now been discussed for seven years? What is the reason why a simple proposal that station cab ranks should be served by rota from nearby public ranks cannot be put into practice without this long delay?
    Mr. Watkinson: The committees have not been discussing it for seven years, but as soon as I get their reports I shall certainly make them known.

    Drivers (Working Hours)
    Miss Burtonasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he is aware that Section 19 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, says that no driver may drive for more than a total of 11 hours in any 24-hour period, commencing at 2 a.m.; and how he secures effective inspection.
    Mr. Nugent: Yes, Sir. Inspection is carried out by the licensing authorities and the police who may examine the records of hours of work kept by employers and drivers and carry out spot checks of vehicles in service. Offenders are warned or prosecuted, and for frequent or wilful breaches of the law carriers' licences may be suspended or revoked.
    Miss Burton: Is the Joint Parliamentary Secretary aware that we in the Midlands, and certainly in Coventry, feel that this inspection is really not adequate? Is he not further aware that it is a great benefit to employers if extra journeys are made, because they make more money out of them? Does he not also agree that the drivers on the return journeys are not mentally alert, which is a great danger to road safety?
    Mr. Nugent: We have discussed this subject on more than one occasion, and I have told the House that I believe that the general standard of enforcement is reasonable.
    Mr. Ernest Davies: Does not the Joint Parliamentary Secretary realise that a great number of hon. Members do not agree with his view and that we have presented evidence of the continued infringement of the law in this respect? Is not the evidence given by my hon. Friend further confirmation of the fact that there is an increasing number of instances of the law being breached regarding the keeping of records, and that there are an inadequate number of enforcement officers? Would he not agree that 100 officers is an inadequate number to deal with 1¼ million cars?
    Mr. Nugent: I accept that we need to increase the number of enforcement officers, and we are taking measures to do that this summer. Inevitably there will be some breaches of the regulations of this kind, but I maintain that the general level of enforcement is reasonable.
    Mr. Langford-Holt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for Questions to be put down asking the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he knows the law which it is is his responsibility to administer?
    Mr. Speaker: I think it is open to hon. Members to plumb the depths of any Ministerial omniscience.
    Miss Burtonasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he is aware of violations of Section 19 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, by operators of road transporter vehicles engaged in the transporting of cars from various Coventry car factories to different parts of the country; and what steps he proposes to take, following the information given to him on 30th April last by the hon. Member for Coventry, South, on this matter.
    Mr. Watkinson: I have written to the hon. Lady about the alleged irregularities to which she refers; these are under inquiry, and I will let her know the result as soon as possible.
    Miss Burton: While being appreciative of the letter which I received from the Minister, may I ask whether he feels able to give publicity to that reply, that the licensing authority will do everything to bring these inquiries to a successful conclusion? Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the evidence submitted to him by the Transport and General Workers Union secretary in Coventry gives chapter and verse in support of the action which I and my hon. Friends have been pressing?
    Mr. Watkinson: As the hon. Lady knows, the evidence which she supplied is being checked and, if it is found to be accurate, the necessary action will be taken.

    Car Delivery Vehicles
    Miss Burtonasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he is now in a position to make a statement concerning the removal of the anomaly whereby the operation of car delivery vehicles is made possible under general trade licences when carriers' A or B licences are not required.
    Mr. Watkinson: I am discussing with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of
    1292
    the Exchequer the best method of removing this anomaly. The problem is, however, complex and I want to be sure that the solution adopted properly caters for the interests of the motor industry and of those engaged in professional road transport.
    Miss Burton: Without wishing to commit the members in advance until they know the Minister's final decision, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the Transport and General Workers' Union secretary in Coventry, and the industry, will be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman can do anything about this? May we take his answer as affirmative and that when he discovers a solution he will apply it?
    Mr. Watkinson: That is right, but it is a difficult problem. One difficult matter which arises is that we have to try to secure the possibility of these people carrying on their business if they do so under proper conditions.

    Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents
    Mr. Darlingasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation to what extent executive posts on the road safety side of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents for which his Department is partly financially responsible, are publicly advertised.
    Mr. Nugent: All vacancies in these posts are advertised in at least two national papers and in local and provincial papers where appropriate.
    Mr. Darling: Is the Joint Parliamentary Secretary aware that many local authorities are critical of the services they get from the Royal Society; that many of them believe that if the officers on the road safety side were recruited from among experienced road safety officers of local authorities, instead of from among retired Army officers, as is now the case, they would get better service?
    Mr. Nugent: No, I am not aware of that. Local people are recruited for all these local appointments. If the hon. Member has any specific instances in mind, I shall be pleased to consider it.
    Mr. Darlingasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation why the

    1293
    annual grant from his Department to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents has been increased.
    Mr. Nugent: Part of it is to cover increases agreed last year in the salaries and travelling and office expenses of the area organisation of the Society. Some provision has also been made for the possibility of a more extended use of the Society's organisation.
    Mr. Darling: Is the Joint Parliamentary Secretary aware that here again there is much criticism, both of the quality of the posters issued and of the charges made, particularly to local authorities, for the posters and the literature they get? Will the hon. Gentleman agree that, in view of the increased grants being made to the Royal Society, the whole question of the Society's work and its possible duplication in the Ministry should be inquired into to see whether road safety work can be improved?
    Mr. Nugent: We have these matters continually under review and attention. There is no road safety branch, as such, in my Department. The Royal Society is the chosen instrument of the Government for road safety services. Its organisation has recently been subjected to examination by the O. & M. Division of the Treasury, and I can assure the hon. Member that it is an efficient organisation.
    Mr. Strauss: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is some difficulty about the relationship of the Royal Society with local authorities, and, to put the other side of the case, that the Royal Society often complains that it does not get the co-operation it ought to receive from the local authorities regarding posters and matter which it sends out?
    Mr. Nugent: It is entirely a matter for the local authorities to decide what material they will use. But through the area organisations the Society keeps in touch with over 1,000 road safety committees and, taking the country as a whole, there is a good working relationship.
    Mr. Snow: Is the Minister aware that this is not the first time this matter has been raised, as I raised it myself two years ago? As the Society is the chosen instrument, could it not make quite sure that it is truly independent in its views?
    1294
    Is he aware that I applied to the Society for statistics and they were refused when I explained that I proposed to use them to criticise certain aspects of Government policy.
    Mr. Nugent: If the hon. Gentleman will give details——
    Mr. Snow: I have already given them.
    Mr. Nugent: —I will examine them.

  RAILWAYS

    Capital Investment
    Mr. Ernest Daviesasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation by how much it is proposed to increase the capital investment programme for railway modernisation for each of the years 1958 and 1959; how the totals to be authorised compare with those planned to be spent on the accelerated programme of British Railways before the capital restrictions imposed in 1957; and by what year it is now anticipated that the modernisation programme will be completed.
    Mr. Watkinson: On the understandings described in my letter of 5th May to the Chairman of the B.T.C., the Government are prepared to authorise additional investment in railway modernisation of £25 million for the two years 1958 and 1959. This will make the total investment for the two years about £15 million more than the original estimates made by the Commission before the investment cuts were made, but less than the totals forecast in the regional budgets produced subsequently. There has been no change in the date forecast for the completion of the modernisation plan. Much of it is well ahead of schedule and the object of the increased capital investment which the Government is now prepared to authorise is to accelerate the more immediately remunerative items.
    Mr. Davies: I welcome the fact that additional capital investment is to be permitted to enable the British Transport Commission to accelerate its modernisation plans, but would not the Minister agree that it is most regrettable that these cuts were ever made in the first place? Would he not also agree that these cuts were made without adequate consultation with the Commission, which has put the Commission into a serious position?
    Mr. Watkinson: No, Sir. The cuts were made after full consultation with the Commission. They were made as part of the Government's policy to restrain inflation, which has been notably successful. Now the Commission has come forward with a detailed "shopping list" showing how, for a certain amount of money, it can expedite the provision of things like diesel locomotives, and so on, which are immediately remunerative. Therefore, I think that the whole examination has been useful and presents a solution which is the best in all possible circumstances.
    Mr. Popplewell: Can we have an assurance that any expenditure in which the British Transport Commission has been involved in having to cancel trains and pay compensation will not now be a liability to the Commission, as a consequence of Government action?
    Mr. Watkinson: I answered a Question the other day which said that no such question arose.

    Economies
    Mr. G. Wilsonasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether, in the light of the railway wages settlement, he will make a statement on steps which the British Transport Commission have agreed with him to take to improve their financial position.
    Mr. Straussasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what economies in the running of the railways were agreed upon between himself and the Chairman of the British Transport Commission in the discussions preceding the final wage negotiations.
    Mr. Watkinson: The general steps which the British Transport Commission is taking were set out in the Chairman's letter of 2nd May. These measures were put in hand on 1st May and have since been intensified. They will result in heavy cuts in services and thus reductions in manpower as the following examples show.
    Cuts in train mileage, including the withdrawal of services on main line routes, will become effective on 30th June in the Western Region which plans to save nearly 100,000 train miles in total weekly; the London Midland Region has already made a reduction of 690 trains a
    1296
    week and will make further economies by 30th June.
    Other regions are also active, and proposals to close unremunerative services which will come forward very shortly to Transport Users Consultative Committees include one from the Eastern Region, eight from the London Midland, nine from the North Eastern and fourteen from the Western.
    I am seeing the Chairman of the Central Transport Consultative Committee this afternoon.
    An approach has already been made to the Consultative Committee concerned for the withdrawal of the passenger service between Newhaven and Dieppe during the winter months, and the Southampton/Havre service is under discussion.
    Wagons are now being withdrawn from service at a rate of 3,000 per week.
    I am satisfied that the Commission with the co-operation of the unions has made a good start, and I shall keep the House informed of further progress.
    Mr. Wilson: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask if it would be possible to give reports from time to time as to the actual progress made with these economies?
    Mr. Watkinson: Yes. I shall be delighted to do that. At the end of my Answer, I said that I intended to keep the House informed.
    Mr. Strauss: While, of course, we all welcome good economies in this public service, can the Minister give an assurance that the many cuts he has now suggested will not in fact as a result interfere with a good public railway service to this country? In view of the fact that the cuts are so extensive, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the question arises in the minds of most hon. Members who have listened to him today of whether our railway service is being severely damaged by the cuts he has announced?
    Mr. Watkinson: I do not take that view, nor does the Commission. The facts are that these cuts are part of the policy of streamlining our railway service to make it fit in with the twentieth century and not the nineteenth century.

  CIVIL AVIATION

    Soviet TU104 (Noise)
    Mr. Beswickasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what steps he has taken to secure international agreement on the standard of noise level above which aircraft are not permitted to land at major civil airports; to what extent, according to data officially available to him, the Soviet TU104 does not conform to this standard; and if he will make a statement as to the circumstances in which a TU104 was recently diverted to Stansted Airport.
    Mr. Watkinson: I am in informal consultation with the airport authorities in a number of other countries on this difficult but most important question. I have repeatedly said that before permitting the new big jet aircraft to use my Ministry's major airports, the Government would have to consider whether their noise had been reduced to a tolerable level. According to widely accepted methods of noise measurement, the TU104 has been found to be considerbaly more noisy than any transport aircraft currently in use, and the Soviet authorities have been aware for some time that until it can be made quieter it cannot be used for regular operation into London Airport.
    Mr. Beswick: The Minister has not answered the second and third parts of my Question, in which I asked him in what way this decision to divert this particular aircraft, which was made on technical grounds only, was made known to the Soviet authorities? How did we express our disappointment to them that it was necessary to have this diversion? In view of the fact that this kind of difficulty will arise much more in the future, can anything be done to get international agreement about noise level so that there is no future misunderstanding?
    Mr. Watkinson: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is high time that there were some international agreement on the noise level standard. I discussed the first part of his Question with officials of Aeroflot when they were over here for the recent talks, and they were in no doubt at all that this aircraft could not come into London Airport until silencing had been carried out, and which they say they can carry out satisfactorily. There was no misunderstanding.
    Mr. Beswick: Surely the discussion over past months took place on general topics and not about this particular flight? In what way was our decision made known and our disappointment expressed to the people concerned that this diversion was necessary?
    Mr. Watkinson: It is part of the general policy. I again made it plain that until further silencing had been done, not only on this jet aircraft but on all other jet aircraft, they could not come into London Airport, even on an ad hoc basis.
    Mr. Hunter: Is the Minister aware that residents around London Airport will welcome his attempt to get an international agreement on this matter?

    Swallow Aircraft (Research Project)
    Mr. Peytonasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what discussions he has had with British Overseas Airways Corporation concerning the Swallow project and its possible development as a civil airliner.
    Mr. Watkinson: As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply explained in reply to Questions on Monday last, the Swallow project was a research project in the supersonic field for military purposes but B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. have kept in touch with it.
    Mr. Peyton: I am not sure what my hon. Friend means when he says that B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. officials are keeping in touch with this project, the design of which is of vital importance. When there is a project like this, which opens up new fields, should it not be considered against the background of its military and civil potentiality? Quite apart from its military value, does my right hon. Friend realise that this is a project of a man who has already made a unique contribution to aircraft development? Will he look very carefully into the matter?
    Mr. Watkinson: I accept the view that this is a very interesting aircraft, but it is only one of a very large number of interesting new projects which may or may not have civil possibilities and which are to be studied by both Corporations.

    Helicopter Services
    Sir F. Medlicottasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if his attention has been drawn to the successful use

    1299
    of passenger-carrying helicopters in Brussels and other Continental cities; and what plans are in hand to develop this method of transportation in London and other parts of Great Britain.
    Mr. Watkinson: Yes, Sir. The introduction of air services is a matter for the commercial judgment of airlines, but I understand that B.E.A. intend to introduce helicopter services from London when suitable multi-engined aircraft are available.
    Sir F. Medlicott: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the value of this kind of transportation for cities based within reasonable distance of each other, like Norwich, Birmingham and Bristol.

    Ghana Airline
    Mr. F. Beswickasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation on what terms the British Overseas Airways Corporation are assisting Ghana to establish her national civil airline; whether this agreement has received his approval; what traffic rights will be granted this company to operate into the United Kingdom; and to what extent he now proposes to limit the additional rights recently granted to an independent British company to operate scheduled passenger services to Ghana.
    Mr. Watkinson: The arrangements under which B.O.A.C. will participate in the formation and development of the Ghana airline are at present being negotiated. They are naturally confidential but I approve their general lines and when they are completed I should be quite willing to make a statement in agreement with the Government of Ghana.
    Mr. Beswick: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if, as appears inevitable, Ghana will want its own national airline, we can be gratified that it will be our Corporations that will help it along? Would he answer the second part of my Question and say to what extent he will reconsider his decision to divide the traffic between this country and Ghana, between the Corporations and an independent airline?
    Mr. Watkinson: These are two quite different services between this country and Ghana; one goes round the coast and another across the desert. I do not think I should say more while the negotiations are taking place at this moment.

  SHIPPING

    Oil Pollution, Southampton Water
    Dr. Bennettasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether, in view of the clear default of any action by the Southampton Harbour Board in respect of the widespread dissemination of black oil in Southampton Water on 6th May last, he will institute proceedings against the Esso Petroleum Company and the company owning the tanker concerned which has now long since departed; and if he will encourage the Southampton Harbour Board to act more decisively in future in order that he may not have to use his powers by reason of their default.
    Mr. Watkinson: No, Sir. The evidence is that the oil came from a tanker of foreign flag, and the Southampton Harbour Board, who are most active in the exercise of their powers in this connection, intend to institute proceedings against the master.
    Dr. Bennett: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his announcement, which has come some fifteen days after the event, may I ask whether he is aware that it will be greeted with great relief by people who have suffered loss and damage from this default? Will he ask Southampton Harbour Board to get an active rather than a passive surveillance of the conditions in Southampton Water? After all, they are not slow in collecting their dues.
    Mr. Watkinson: I accept that this excessive discharge of oil is very unpleasant and damaging for the port. I think the Harbour Board is doing its best and that is would be only too glad to have assistance and advice about tankers which appear to be breaking the rule.

TELEPHONE CALLS (CHARGES)
The Postmaster-General (Mr. Ernest Marples): Mr. Speaker, with your permission and that of the House, I would like to make a statement about charges for telephone calls.
As the House is aware, Post Office policy is to encourage greater use of existing telephones by making calls cheap, quick and easy. On 1st January, 1958, the area covered by the 3d. local call was greatly enlarged and some trunk charges were reduced. I now announce two further steps which will make many telephone calls cheaper. These are:
First, all users of telephones will have the cheap rate period extended. At present, it is from 6 p.m. to 10.30 p.m. As from 1st July it will be from 6 p.m. every weekday to 6 o'clock the following morning. On Sundays it will be from 2 p.m. until 6 o'clock on Monday morning. This is the first time that the cheap night rate has been given on Sunday afternoons.
Secondly, as already announced, some subscribers—at first those in Bristol—will soon be able to dial their own trunk calls. For these subscribers, and in the first instance for these subscribers only, the basis of charging for all calls will be radically changed. What I have to announce now is that they will be able to make telephone calls to anywhere in this country for 2d. The amount of time 2d. will buy will vary with the distance. Naturally, for the really long distance call the amount of time for 2d. will be small—in fact, 12 seconds.
On trunk calls, the new charges will have two advantages. Here are examples of those advantages for a call of over 125 miles. The first advantage is that the charge itself will be reduced. At present, a three minute call costs 3s. 6d. In future, it will cost only 2s. 6d., which is a reduction of nearly 30 per cent. The second advantage is the existing minimum of 3s. 6d. for three minutes will be abolished and subscribers will pay only for the time they use in multiples of 2d.
The new charges for a call over 125 miles will be: for 12 seconds 2d.; for one minute 10d.; for two minutes 1s. 8d.; and for three minutes 2s. 6d. At present,
1302
these calls cost a minimum of 3s. 6d. whether they last one, two or three minutes.
Now to local calls in those areas with Subscriber Trunk Dialling: these will be timed, because only by timing can the call charge be reduced. Instead of 3d. untimed they will be 2d. for three minutes in the ordinary period and 2d. for six minutes in the cheap rate period.
These new charges will start at Bristol on 1st December, 1958. They cannot be applied elsewhere until equipment is installed to enable subscribers to dial trunk calls. This will be done as quickly as possible but, of course, it will take a long time to cover the whole country.
A new coin box to allow trunk calls to be dialled from kiosks will be introduced later. Telephone time that costs 2d. from an ordinary telephone will cost 3d. from a coin box.
Full details are given in a White Paper which will be available in the Vote Office later this afternoon.
In addition, Members of this House and the other House will be able to see the equipment and how it works in the Upper Waiting Hall tomorrow from 12 noon.
Mr. C. R. Hobson: I am sure that the whole House will welcome the statement which has been made by the Minister. We on this side are particularly gratified that this is a nationalised industry. I am sure that the whole House wishes to pay tribute to the Post Office engineers who have made this development possible.
There are two questions I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman. First, arising from the statement, which, obviously, we shall need time to study, will he give an undertaking to make capital available to extend the trunk dialling system to larger cities, including the Metropolis? Also, when the new coin boxes are put in, making trunk dialling possible from kiosks, will he see that steps will be taken to include a timing device to show the length of the call?
Mr. Marples: There will be a device for timing in the box for both local and trunk calls. On the question of providing capital, it is expected that three-quarters of all trunk calls will be dialled in this country by 1970. We shall continue with a gradual process and an Appendix in

1303
the White Paper will show the towns which will get it by 1960 and 1961. I think that the House will see that there will be a gradual development, but that, at the same time, it will be fairly speedy.
Sir R. Grimston: Is my right hon. Friend aware that from this side of the House he will be congratulated on bringing such a climate of private enterprise to this nationalised industry? Can he tell us what the effect will be on the Post Office Commercial Accounts, which in 1956–57, I think, showed a loss of £3 million?
Mr. Marples: The Commercial Accounts this year will be showing a profit. These reductions are made available by increased mechanisation and will not result in an increased loss to the Post Office.
Mr. Randall: In conjunction with my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. C. R. Hobson), may I also say to the Minister that there are many on this side of the House who wish to congratulate him on his speedy introduction of the first phase of through-trunk dialling and also on the expansion of cheap trunk calls during the evening?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the staff of the Post Office are most grateful to him for his generous approach to the problems which have been arising as a result of automation? Can he give an assurance that the whole of the redundancy that will arise will be absorbed and that, in addition, there will be no extension of part-time working?
Mr. Marples: I am grateful to the hon. Member. I have always been of the opinion that a humane and efficient approach to redundancy is the answer in mechanisation and is, indeed, more important than the technical side. I am grateful to the unions, with whom we have now complete agreement in tackling the problem.
I would ask the House to note three points. First, this introduction will be gradual over the country as a whole. Secondly, we have stopped the intake of operators. A large number of these attractive operators get married and I presume that the marriages will go on. The extended cheap rate period for which the unions asked is a practical way of the Post Office and myself showing our gratitude to them by
1304
enabling more hours of work to be available to union members to cushion redundancy.
The motto I have adopted is that I hope there will be no one in the Post Office who gets a raw deal as a result of mechanisation.
Mr. Robert Cooke: I thank my right hon. Friend for the splendid news that he has given to the citizens of Bristol this afternoon. Will he note that they will attribute this great advance to the new energy and methods which he has brought to this Department?
Mr. Ross: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether there are any snags here at all? Can he tell us whether subscribers will be able, in future, to check their accounts for trunk charges? Will they be able to separate the trunk charges from the ordinary local calls?
Mr. Marples: The savings that are now being made are possible for two reasons. The first is that the subscriber himself does the dialling instead of the operator, and the second is that he will have to accept a simplified bill based on a meter, just as for gas and electricity. That meter will be kept at the exchange and we shall invite any subscriber to look at that meter. We also hope to make facilities available for the subscriber to have a meter in his own premises, at a rental, if he so wishes.
Mr. J. Rodgers: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the new, welcome charges he has announced will apply to calls from kiosks as well as from private houses?
Mr. Marples: They will apply to kiosks both for local calls and trunk calls.
Mr. Popplewell: Did I understand the Postmaster-General to say that we shall be able to make a call to anywhere in the country at 2d. for 12 seconds? If so, can he say how much cheaper this is than the prevailing rate? At present, if one puts through a call one must pay 3s. 6d. for three minutes. Can he say how much cheaper the 2d. represents on that?
Mr. Marples: At present a trunk call for a distance over 125 miles from Bristol costs 3s. 6d. Under the proposed new methods it will cost 2s. 6d. for three minutes, 1s. 8d. for two minutes and 2d. for 12 seconds.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS
  East-West Trade
  Dr. King: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 13th June, I shall call the attention of the House to the necessity of extending East-West trade, and move a Resolution.
  Homosexuality and Prostitution
  Mr. Hyde: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 13th June, I shall call attention to the Report of the Departmental Committee on Homosexuality and Prostitution, and move a Resolution.
  Liberty of the Subject and the Freedom of the Press
  Lieut.-Commander Maydon: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 13th June, I shall draw attention to the conflict of interest between the liberty of the subject and the freedom of the Press, and move a Resolution.
ADJOURNMENT (WHITSUNTIDE)
House, at its rising on Friday, to adjourn till Tuesday, 10th June.—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

NEW WRIT (ARGYLL)
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for Argyll, in the room of Major Sir Duncan McCallum, M.C., deceased.—[Mr. Heath.]
3.45 p.m.
Mr. A. Woodburn: I know that it is not customary to raise any objection to Writs being issued, but this one seems to have appeared with unseemly haste after the death of the former hon. and gallant Member for Argyll. The reason I am asking the Patronage Secretary to give us an explanation is that elections in West Highland constituencies are exceptional, and it is very difficult for candidates to visit constituencies. In this case there will be new candidates on both sides, and presumably they will be quite unknown to a large number of people in this area.
Since election expenses do not permit of the use of helicopters to fly from point to point, transport makes it extremely difficult for candidates to cover this area. That might have been arranged if a more reasonable time had been allowed before the by-election.
I should like to know whether the Patronage Secretary has taken these circumstances into account, because this area does not have an election very often—and certainly not by-elections—and it will be a new experience after a good many years.
I am quite sure that the electorate in the area would have appreciated more time, but it may be that the Patronage Secretary has reasonable grounds for having the election now. It would be most unfortunate if the people of Argyllshire were to gain the impression that the Government did not want the case to be discussed in Argyll and were treating this burgh as a rotten burgh.
3.47 p.m.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: The Government are doing, in the case of Argyll, exactly what they did some time ago in the case of Inverness-shire, when there was considerable resentment in that very scattered constituency against the way in which the Government forced the

1307
by-election. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) has said, Highland and island constituencies present very great difficulties to the various candidates. There is special reason at present why they should have abundant opportunity of being able to reach their electors.
There is, I understand, a Liberal candidate in the field. I understand that the absence of the Leader of the Liberal Party is due to the fact that he has already gone off to start the campaign. As in Inverness-shire, this is a constituency in which the Liberal Party is very interested, because in Inverness-shire the Liberal candidate nearly defeated the Tory candidate. At present, in Argyllshire, the Liberal candidate happens to be the chairman of the Scottish National Farmers' Union and he is very anxious to have the utmost opportunity of putting before the electors the difficult position which the farmers will be in when the Agricultural Bill, now before the House, comes into operation.
I understand the Government's motives very clearly, because, on the Agricultural Bill, we are just on the point of discussing the whole question of security of tenure for farmers. In those circumstances, I can quite understand that the Government do not want the Liberal candidate to have an opportunity of putting the case to the farmers before the by-election in Argyll. This is essentially a very different kind of constituency from that of Islington or Rochdale. This will be the second time that this sort of thing has occurred, and in those circumstances I believe that we are entitled to object very strongly, on behalf of people in Argyll, against this rushing of the by-election.
Mr. Ross: Does not the Patronage Secretary think it also desirable that the Liberal candidate should have plenty of opportunity of explaining to the people of Argyll why the Liberal Member on that Committee supported the Government all the way through Clause 1?
3.50 p.m.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): The Patronage Secretary moved the Writ for this by-election, and, as there was opposition, you, Sir, rightly
1308
decreed that the debate on it should take place now. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) and the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) have both raised points on it, but the Government see no reason whatever to go back on their decision to carry the Writ through the House.
Let us examine the position. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire shed some crocodile tears on behalf of the Liberals. I have made inquiries, and I understand that the Liberal candidate was adopted as long ago as early December. On studying the Glasgow Herald for 12th May, I found these words:
"By-election in Argyll.
The Liberals, whose country organisations has been reformed, have also adopted a farmer as candidate …"
and they give his name. The candidate has not only been adopted, but has had ample opportunity should he have wished to do so, since December, to get to know the constituency. The more the Liberal candidate discusses the farming policy of the Government, the more likely we are to have a resounding victory there.
No crocodile tears were shed on behalf of the Labour candidate. If my own inquiries, which have had to be made rather quickly, are correct—and again basing myself on the Glasgow Herald of 12th May—I find that the Labour candidate has stood twice before, and that this will be the third time that he has contested the seat. If that be so, I am somewhat surprised that he will find it so difficult to get to know the whereabouts of his constituency. If that be his main credential, I can only say that the omens are extremely good for the Conservative candidate in the by-election.
I now have to fall back on the one serious argument that has been put forward, which is that this Writ has been brought forward too soon. I have looked up the precedents, and I find that on previous occasions—it is true that some of them were not on death, which we all regret so much, but were on occasions of Members retiring and accepting the Stewardships of the Chiltern Hundreds or of the Manor of Northstead—the intervals under the Labour Government were shorter than this. Therefore, I do not find anything indecent in the proposal made by Her Majesty's Government.

1309
I should like the House to know that before deciding to move the Writ, and authorising the Patronage Secretary so to do, the Government made inquiries about the circumstances in the constituency with a view to the fairest conditions for the by-election. We found that there were two important reasons why a by-election in June, on a date to be chosen by the returning officer, would probably be better for the district: one, because of the tourist trade which, afterwards, would be rather heavy, and might distract from the by-election, and the other, an agricultural reason, not unconnected with sheep and other animals.
Having examined this impartially, with no regard to the votes of the sheep or of the tourists, the Government came to the conclusion that the constituency would be at its quietest and most susceptible in June. We therefore considered that this was a suitable time at which to move the Writ. I hope that these words will show what great trouble the Government have taken in coming to their decision, and how right and just their arguments have been. I therefore hope that the Motion may pass.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for Argyll, in the room of Major Sir Duncan McCallum, M.C., deceased.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  FINANCE BILL
  Considered in Committee [Progress 20th May].
  [Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

  FINANCE BILL

    Schedule 1.—(SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES IN PURCHASE TAX RATES, ETC.)
    The Chairman: I think that the Amendments on page 29, line 35, at the end to insert:
    (c) in the case of harps and harpstrings, where the rate under Group 19 would be so reduced to 30 per cent., they shall instead be exempt from tax.
    and at the end to insert:
    (c) in the case of musical instruments where the rate under Group 19 would be so reduced to 30 per cent., the articles (other than gramophones, radio-gramophones, player pianos, musical boxes and similar instruments or parts thereof or accessories thereto or gramophone records) shall instead be exempt from tax.
    go together. Mrs. White.
    Mr. Goronwy Roberts Mr. Goronwy Roberts (Caernarvon) rose——
    The Chairman: Mrs. White.
    Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose——
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Derick Heathcoat Amory)The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Derick Heathcoat Amory) rose——
    Mr. Harold Wilson: I think there is some confusion, Sir Charles. I do not know whether the Chancellor wants to address the Committee on Welsh harps, but if he is not to speak on that, would it be possible for you to inform the Committee of your intentions about the calling of these Amendments?
    Mr. Amory: I wonder whether you would allow me, Sir Charles, to take the opportunity to take counsel with the Committee on our immediate programme? Would that be in order or not? I would only like to say, because I think that it would be for the convenience of the Committee——
    Mr. Wilson: On a point of order.
    The Chairman: I thought it might be helpful to let the Chancellor speak.
    Mr. Wilson: Did we not have a Motion to report Progress on this Amendment

    1311
    last night? If so, would it not be appropriate for the Chancellor to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again"?
    The Chairman: I think that we had better have the Amendment moved, and then we can decide.
    Mr. Wilson: Would it not be a good opportunity for the Committee to know on what grounds the Chancellor wants to seek advice, and, therefore, would you not like to leave the Chair forthwith?
    The Chairman: I should very much like to go, but I do not think I shall.
    Mr. Wilson: If the Chancellor wishes to take the advice of the Committee, we hope that he will do so as soon as it is convenient for him, but may I repeat my request that you inform the Committee which, if any, Amendments you propose to have debated with the one about Welsh harps?
    The Chairman: I started by saying that the first two in line 35 might be taken together. The Amendments in line 35, at the end to insert:
    (c) in the case of mirrors whether framed or not, where the rate under Group 11 would be so reduced to 30 it shall instead be reduced to 15 per cent.
    and at the end to insert:
    (c) in the case of the following appliances and apparatus, where the rate under Group 12 would be so reduced to 30 per cent. it shall instead be reduced to 15 per cent., that is to say:

    (i) appliances and apparatus designed for operation by electricity or gas;

    (ii) sewing machines, electrically operated or not, electric motors for sewing machines, and cabinets, bases, covers, tables and stands for sewing machines

    are not selected. In fact, the next Amendment is that in the name of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), in line 42, at the end to insert:
    (e) in the case of toilet preparations where the rate under Group 32 would be so reduced to 60 per cent., it shall instead be reduced to 30 per cent.
    Mr. Wilson: I take it that you are not taking lipsticks with Welsh harps?
    The Chairman: The lipstick Amendment will be taken separately.
    Mr. Wilson: We understood that you were proposing to take the debate on
    1312
    Welsh harps and harpstrings—and not necessarily the Welsh ones only; I understand that there are Scottish harps as well—and that with it would be taken the Amendment on musical instruments. If that is the view of the Chair, I think that we will probably find it convenient, although I should like to make an alternative proposition to you, which is that you might like to take harps and harpstrings together with asbestos clothing, so that the interests of both sides of the Committee could be protected in the life to come.
    The Chairman: I think that it is quite clear. The first Amendment deals with harps and harpstrings, and the second with musical instruments. They go together.
    Mr. G. Roberts: I beg to move, in page 29, line 35, at the end to insert:
    (c) in the case of harps and harpstrings, where the rate under Group 19 would be so reduced to 30 per cent., they shall instead be exempt from tax.
    I understand that the Amendment dealing with musical instruments is to be discussed with this one, but I propose to confine my arguments to the one that I have just moved. Those arguments, Sir Charles, for the abolition of Purchase Tax on harps and harpstrings, fall broadly into three categories. First of all, there is the importance of this instrument to Wales and Welsh people. Secondly, there is the real concern in musical circles generally, not only in Wales, about the survival of the harp as an instrument of study and culture in schools, colleges, orchestras, and, indeed, in private homes. Thirdly, there is the anomalous operation of Purchase Tax in this connection.
    The harp is as much the national musical instrument of Wales as bagpipes are of Scotland, saxophones of America and the washboard of Hammersmith Broadway. In the Principality, the art of the harpist is an ancient and venerated accomplishment, and from the earliest times the harp has been handed down with pride from father to son. To its music much of our poetry has been sung and many of our annals recorded. In days of defeat its strings have comforted us, and reminded us that, though outnumbered, we have never been overwhelmed by a certain predatory neighbour, whose name I shall not mention.

    1313
    In triumph, its music has tempered our natural pride. Under the old Welsh law, it was the one article which was exempt from seizure for non-payment of debts. Under the English law, it is heavily taxed to pay the Chancellor's debts.
    4.0 p.m.
    Today, the instrument is cherished and played with great skill and beauty in the Principality by quite ordinary people. The harpist in my village is a slate quarryman. I could give instances of road workers, farmers and farm workers being accomplished in the practice of harp playing. We have, of course, not only professional players like Ossian Ellis, whom many hon. Members have heard, but also a large number of accomplished and enthusiastic amateurs.
    There is in Wales a flourishnig society devoted to the practice and study of the harp and its music, with branches everywhere. In many a Welsh valley—tonight, for instance—after work the people will gather in the farmhouse or, perhaps, in the barn to make their own music and entertainment. There the harpist will have pride of place in the very centre of the gathering, accompanying the folk dancing and also what we call penillion singing. This, incidentally, is a contrapuntal style of singing unique to the Welsh and properly taken only with the harp. It is not an oddity but a widespread and attractive accomplishment indigenous to the area and to its people.
    The Committee should encourage and not inhibit an active natural, indigenous culture of this sort at a time when radio, television and the cinema seem to be united in a cacophonous coalition to debase the musical sense of an entire generation. When the traditional harmonies of England as much as of Wales are being drowned in the clatter of tinned musical goods from America, we ought at least to place no fiscal hindrance in the way of the harp and its music. What the Government are doing is to tax the harp as heavily as the juke box.
    That brings me to my second point: namely, that musical circles generally, not only in Wales, are deeply concerned about the future of the harp. No real orchestra is complete without this classical instrument, but very many of them find great difficulty in obtaining one. The cost is now almost prohibitive to orchestras, colleges, schools and homes. The
    1314
    craft of harp making has now almost completely disappeared from these islands. In Britain, a harp can be obtained only at secondhand or by importing one, or by leaving Britain and the world altogether. Even a secondhand harp costs between £100 and £200. Many of these are old and rapidly going out of commission. Soon they will be unobtainable by students, pupils, teachers, professionals and amateurs alike. The harp, indeed, may go the way of the dulcimer and the sackbut and one more element in the classical antedote to the neurotic uproar which passes these days for music will be lost.
    A large pedal harp suitable for orchestras is made in France, but I do not think that more than a few have been imported to this country since the end of the war. The reason is clear: they cost anything from £800 to £1,000. When one adds import duty of 25 per cent. and Purchase Tax at 30 per cent., the cost approaches £1,500. One would think that there should be thrown in a pair of wings and a single ticket to Heaven for that sum.
    The question of harp strings is just as important as the question of harps. Indeed, the leaders of the musical world feel that it is probably more important because of the need to repair the existing number of secondhand harps, there being no new ones coming along. A harp contains 46 strings, which vary in length until we reach the bass, where they are quite long and made of steel wiring encased in copper. These strings vary in price according to length. The longer strings may cost as much as 14s. 6d. or more each and the cost of replacing three or four of these longer strings may amount to £2 or £3, a heavy imposition on the kind of enthusiastic amateur whom I have mentioned and who is particularly obvious in Wales.
    I do not know what is the yield of the tax on harps and harp strings. In the context of the Chancellor's accounts, it must be quite infinitesimal. At the same time, its impact on those who have to bear it is very heavy indeed. I calculate that the cost of replacing 46 strings in a pedal harp must amount to between £20 and £23, of which, under the present proposal of the Chancellor, anything between £6 and £8 would be Purchase Tax. To an amateur, to a person of moderate or small means, that is a heavy imposition.

    1315
    That brings me to my final point. There is in any case a glaring anomaly in the fact that while pianos and piano strings are exempt from Purchase Tax, harps and harp strings are still subject to it. Harp strings are almost identical with piano strings, so that the discrimination is difficult to understand. Somebody has said that a harp is only a piano upside down; I would have said, downside up. The tax on pianos and piano strings was abolished three years ago because it was killing the piano trade. Surely, the same should apply to harps and harp strings.
    There is an obvious quotation which is bound to be made before this discussion ends and I might as well make it, and make it correctly, myself:
    "The man that hath no music in himself,
    Nor is not mov'd with concord of sweet sounds,
    Is fit for treasons, strategems, and spoils."
    I acquit the Financial Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer of treason and, less confidently, perhaps, of strategem, but like their predecessors they seem awfully fond of spoils. Let their spoilation be consistent. If they let off piano and piano strings, let them let off harps and harp strings. After all, like the rest of us, they no doubt would like to be certain of a tax-free harp in congenial surroundings some time later on.
    Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: I warmly support the eloquent plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarvon (Mr. G. Roberts). Speaking as a Welsh Member, I would say that both our history and our culture, and our hopes for the future, are tied up with the Amendment.
    The Committee will be aware that the earliest records of the Celtic race, both Welsh and Gaelic, give the harp a prominent place. As my hon. Friend has said, harpists were always regarded with peculiar veneration and distinction in Wales. The Welsh harp was a hereditary instrument to be used with great care and respect. It was played by the bards of the family, who were also the poet-musicians and the historians of the nation. It is interesting to note that according to the old Welsh law to which my hon. Friend has referred, a serf was not allowed to touch the harp and it
    1316
    was by law exempted from seizure for debt. It is quite clear that our old Welsh laws were in some respects well in advance of present legislation.
    The harp is, of course, an instrument of great antiquity in the history of other nations, although a Latin writer, Venantius Fortunatus, described it in the seventh century A.D. as "an instrument of the Barbarians". That was a characteristically Whitehall view of things. Today, there are harp societies in Wales whose activities are being curtailed and stifled by the Purchase Tax, especially the tax on harp strings. The cost of harp strings has risen sharply during the years. For example, a set of harp strings which cost £1 in 1914 would cost £12 today and thicker strings now cost as much as 14s. each. The harpist or pupil of the harp in a Welsh village can hardly afford the cost of replacements if half a dozen strings are broken.
    It is invidious that nylon harp strings, which are becoming more and more popular, should be taxed, whereas nylon fishing tackle escapes tax completely.
    Dr. Barnett Stress: And nylon stockings.
    Mr. Hughes: We are going down the ladder now. The central point that I ask the Chancellor to consider is that harp strings are a replacement. The harpist purchasing new strings is not buying a new instrument. He is repairing an old instrument. A person pays tax when he buys a new car, but he does not pay it when he gets the car rebored.
    I have a letter from the secretary of Cymdeithas Cerdd Dant, a Welsh Harp Society, urging the Chancellor to treat this plea sympathetically. The letter is written in Welsh, but I will seek to translate it.
    Mr. S. O. Davies: Read it in Welsh.
    Mr. Hughes: I am afraid I should be ruled out of order if I did so. The letter states:
    "Our Society has seven harps, which are lent out to children and young people under eighteen who are desirous of learning to play the instrument, but because of the high cost of strings, many families are deterred from borrowing the harp and this is a loss to the children and to this ancient tradition."

    1317
    The removal of the tax would be a substantial relief to these societies, whose chief aim is cultural and educational. As my hon. Friend has said, the revenue from the tax is negligible. The prospects of the Chancellor and the Financial Secretary playing a harp themselves some day would be considerably enhanced if they made this trifling concession.
    I cannot see any hon. Members from Ireland in the Chamber, but if they were here—[HON. MEMBERS: "There is one."]—I beg his pardon. I am sure that the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McKibbin) will forgive me if I paraphrase a famous Irish ballad to give point to our argument:
    "The harp that once through Tara's halls
    The soul of music shed,
    Now hangs so mute on Tara's walls
    With tax at 30 per cent.
    So sleeps the pride of former days,
    So glory's thrill is o'er;
    And hearts, that once beat high for praise,
    Now feel that pulse no mare."
    I hope that the Chancellor will enable the pulse to beat again.
    4.15 p.m.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: I intervene at this stage in order to speak not particularly to this Amendment but to that which follows, in the same line. I understand that we are discussing the two at the same time. I shall talk about musical instruments in general rather than harps and harp strings in particular. The tax on musical instruments has been at the rate of 60 per cent. until the introduction of this Finance Bill, and the Chancellor suggests that we should reduce it by half to 30 per cent. The second Amendment would have the effect of remitting the tax altogether.
    The Chancellor may well say that there is no pleasing some people and that the fact that he has halved the tax should have satisfied those of us who are interested in music. I admit straight away that the trade has welcomed the Chancellor's action. Professional people, who for a long time have laboured under the burden of a swingeing tax on the tools of their trade, are pleased and music lovers everywhere are also delighted. The difficulty is that although the Chancellor has made this reduction, those who buy musical instruments remain under a very heavy burden.
    1318
    I am sometimes inclined to wonder whether the Chancellor, who has not been in his present office very long, is fully aware of how much tax is borne by musical instruments. I am one of those who were in the House when Purchase Tax was introduced during the war, I think in 1940. It was regarded by the music industry as a burden which it had to accept because spending had to be controlled during the war and as much revenue obtained as possible. The book trade did not take the same view, and although the Chancellor of that time was anxious to levy Purchase Tax on books, there was such an outcry that in the end he had to give way and no tax was imposed. I have often wondered whether, if the music industry had taken the same line and brought equal pressure to bear on the then Chancellor, he would have had to remit the tax on musical instruments as he remitted it on books. Instead, the music industry took what some might describe as the patriotic view and accepted the tax, which it paid quite cheerfully over a number of years.
    The war has been over for 13 years and it is 18 years since this tax was first imposed. The astounding thing is that in spite of the reduction which the Chancellor has announced, the tax is still 30 per cent., which is almost the same as it was during the height of the war, when it was 33⅓ per cent.
    Musical instruments are still classed as a luxury and bear the same rate of tax as furs and jewellery. Some of us think that grossly unfair, because music should not be described as a luxury. To a great many people, music, like books, is an essential to the good living. For that reason it occurred to some of us that we should put down this Amendment to see whether we could persuade the Chancellor that the 30 per cent. rate which he now proposes to charge is still much too heavy and that, in common fairness and justice, he should remove the tax altogether or reduce it to 15 or 5 per cent.
    I do not know whether the Financial Secretary is to reply to the debate. If he is, I hope that he will remember that the number of people who now take an interest in music has grown immensely, particularly since the end of the war. Those of us who listened to the debate last night on gramophones and gramophone records realise that. The number

    1319
    of records now sold runs into millions. The Solicitor-General, who replied to that debate, resisted the suggestion that the tax on gramophones and gramophone records should be reduced, on the ground that we were dealing with a potted version of music and not the living music which one gets from an orchestra or a band. Here, in taxing the musical instrument, we are taxing the person who uses that instrument and not the mechanical recordings, such as gramophone records. This strikes us as unfair. We impose a tax at a stage where the music is made by the living performer and tax again when it is reproduced on a record.
    We therefore suggest to the Chancellor that he should look at this matter again. The Arts Council, which has done a great deal towards educating people to a love of music, spends about £560,000 in this one direction alone, and practically all that, if not all, is provided by the Government. We therefore have the curious spectacle of the Government providing money, some of which at least has to be found for Purchase Tax by such bodies as the Arts Council.
    The London County Council spends at least £9,000 a year on musical instruments which are used in schools. It has at least 670 classes, and the number is growing. It is therefore obvious that we are not here dealing with a luxury but with an item which is an integral part of the educational system of the country. The number of musical instruments and the teaching of music are growing in the schools and a good deal of money is spent on them. Throughout Great Britain, in schools, in towns and in villages, orchestras and bands need these instruments, and it seems to us unfair that they should have to pay this heavy tax on them. Although the tax is levied only on new instruments, it has a considerable effect on secondhand instruments, which have risen greatly in value and are difficult to get at a reasonable price.
    If a youngster or a youth, or even someone older, wishes to own a musical instrument of his own, naturally he wants the best he can get. If he is to spend a considerable sum of money—because these instruments are not cheap—it is important that he should get an instrument of which he is proud and which will give good music when it is used. I hope that the
    1320
    Chancellor will remember that although some of these instruments are cheap, to get one which is worth while a performer has to spend a considerable sum.
    When the tax was 60 per cent., the tax on a violin could be anything up to about £70; one could pay less for a violin, but on a good instrument the tax could amount to as much as £70. On an accordion it could rise to £105. These are very big figures. With the tax at 30 per cent. the amount of Purchase Tax will be about halved, but, even so, as much as £30 or £35 in tax is a lot to pay on a single violin or up to £50 on an accordion or similar instrument.
    I was interested to hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarvon (Mr. G. Roberts) said about the tax on harp strings. He indicated that to re-equip a harp fully with 46 strings would cost at least £23, which is 10s. a string. I have been told by those who play the cello that until recently the tax on a new silver string was as much as £2. It will now be reduced to about £1, but even that is a lot for a single string.
    I hope that the Chancellor will have second thoughts about this tax. I have listened to the debates in the last two days in which we have been told either by the Chancellor or by the Financial Secretary that, although the proposals put forward were excellent in themselves, the Chancellor could not afford the millions of pounds which it would cost to accept the Amendments. I understand that. The tax on a single button or on some of the other articles which we have been discussing is not very much in itself; it is probably negligible. When we remember how many people buy and use buttons, however, we realise that the tax amounts to millions of pounds a year in the aggregate. So far in the discussions it has seemed that the smaller the tax the larger the amount involved.
    When we consider the tax on musical instruments the exact reverse is the case. The return to the Treasury is quite small. Recently the Chancellor was good enough to tell me at Question Time that he estimated that the income from the tax on musical instruments was about £400,000 a year, which is not a great sum when we are talking in terms of a national annual income of £5,500 million. Nevertheless, for the person buying an instrument it is a very large sum indeed.

    1321
    I therefore hope that the Chancellor will be willing to look at the tax on musical instruments again. If he cannot remit the whole of the 30 per cent. this year—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"]—I sincerely hope that he will remove the tax altogether, but I look upon myself as an eminently reasonable person—no doubt we all look upon ourselves as eminently reasonable—and if I cannot get a whole loaf I am always willing to take half. I am sure that the industry and music lovers generally would take the same view. If the Chancellor cannot accept the implications of the Amendment and remit the whole tax, I hope that he will go some way to meet us and reduce it to 5 per cent.
    4.30 p.m.
    Mr. Alan McKibbin: I am grateful for being called to speak after the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall), because he put the case for a reduction in tax very much better than I can. I am also particularly glad because it is well known that he is a good friend of Northern Ireland.
    On behalf of the Northern Ireland Bands Association, I thank my right hon Friend for reducing the tax to 30 per cent. There are 103 bands in the association, with 10,000 members, and every one of them will be grateful to him. All the members are amateur in status. Not one gets paid. All the expenses of running the band and buying the uniforms, on which Purchase Tax has to be paid also, are met out of the members' own pockets, assisted by subscriptions from some of their friends. Owing to the tragic unemployment situation in Northern Ireland at the present moment, such subscriptions are difficult to obtain.
    I was informed by the secretary of the Brass Bands Association that many of the instruments in use are thirty years old, some of them with valves worn out just as the cylinder of a car engine wears out, and slides which have become loose and joints which leak. To try to keep them in condition, many of the bandsmen have to solder the leaky joints themselves and bind the slides with thread and chewing gum to keep the air from escaping.
    Even with a reduction in tax to 30 per cent., the purchase of new instruments is quite outside the reach of most of the bands. They can, of course, as the secretary of the association pointed out, get
    1322
    new instruments on hire purchase, but in some cases where they have done so they have been unable to keep up the instalments and have had to return the musical instruments to the makers, and they then get a reduced price for them and also lose the Purchase Tax.
    I regret that I am not musical. I would not know a practice chanter from tympani, but I saw those names on a list, and I noticed that the Purchase Tax on the chanter was 13s. 3d. and on the tympani—which had to be sold in pairs; male and female, I suppose—£28 19s.
    So that I should learn something about the matter, the secretary of the Brass Bands Association took me to the Easter Festival of the Brass Bands League so that I should see things at first hand. It took place in the beautiful Floral Hall in Belfast, and twenty bands competed. The players ranged from 14 years of age to one grand old veteran of 78 who was playing the euphonium in the same band in which he paraded when the troops were going out to the Boer War. I did not ask him, but doubtless his instrument was about the same age.
    I am sorry that my right hon. Friend was not with me. It might have softened his heart if he had seen those beautiful bands and realised the difficulties that that they had in keeping their instruments in order. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Knox Cunningham), who is in a very good position to do so, will ensure that the Chancellor comes over to Northern Ireland on some other occasion for this festival.
    Finally, I would stress the important educational and social work that these amateur bands are doing in the small villages and towns throughout my country. While I do not wish to appear ungrateful for the concessions which my right hon. Friend has made, I earnestly hope that he will give these amateur bands the encouragement which they require and abolish the tax altogether.
    Mr. T. W. Jones: I have very great pleasure in supporting the Amendment. I hope that the Chancellor does not think that we from Wales are far-seeing in moving it. This afternoon we are not concerned with the harps above. There will be no Purchase Tax on them—[HON. MEMBERS: "How does the hon. Member know?"]—for the simple reason that the Chancellor will

    1323
    never be up there to impose the tax. I cannot conceive of Heaven with a Tory Chancellor there.
    The Committee will recognise that the harp is a very popular musical instrument in Wales. In order to ensure that the Chancellor should know exactly what we mean when we speak of the harp, I have taken the precaution to bring with me to the Chamber the Concise Encyclopædia of Antiques, where, under the heading "Harps", I read the following:
    "The largest and most familiar of these is the double action harp used in modern orchestras, usually known as the Gothic harp on account of its elaborate applique gilt decoration in high relief. These instruments may have 47 strings …"
    My hon. Friend the Member for Caernarvon (Mr. G. Roberts) spoke of 46 strings. Evidently, one of his harp strings has been lost.
    "… or more, tuned diatronically, and seven pedals working in notched slots, each of which gives three positions. By means of a complicated mechanism in the fore pillar and cone, the pedals reset the tuning of the strings. In the middle notch"—
    I want the Chancellor to note this—
    "the pedal raises the strings, by controls, by half a tone and in the lower by a whole tone."
    I am asking the Chancellor to put his foot on the pedal in that middle notch and reduce the tax by half a tone. We would rather that the Chancellor reduced the tax by the whole tone and removed it altogether.
    I said that the harp is popular in Wales. Indeed, no Welsh festival is complete without it. One does not have anything in Wales which is of any note unless the harp is regularly displayed there.
    I wish to impress upon the Chancellor three things in particular in relation to this instrument. In Wales the harp is used purely for cultural purposes. It has never been commercialised. Ninety-nine per cent. of the harpists of Wales play the instrument only for its cultural value; they are interested in the instrument only for the pleasure which they get by playing it. I repeat that it is used for cultural purposes only.
    There was a time when the harp was somewhat commercialised. There were professional harpists in Wales who were financed by Tory landlords, but, because of the Conservative Government, these landlords cannot today afford it any more.
    1324
    Why a Tory should vote Conservative I do not know; but there it is, and they have gone out of existence in Wales.
    However, I want to impress upon the Chancellor the fact that today the peasantry are extremely interested in this instrument. As a matter of fact, large classes in harp playing are held throughout the Principality every week of the year. Aberporth, in Cardiganshire, has a class of 70 young people who meet regularly to learn to play the harp, just for the sheer pleasure of playing it.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes) told us about the society that we have in Wales, of which I am a member, which is called Cymdeithas Cerdd Dant. That is a phrase which no one in this Committee or anywhere else can translate. If any hon. Member wants some idea what it means, perhaps he would see me afterwards.
    Secondly, unlike most musical instruments, the harp is liable to constant breakages. Only five minutes ago I was given the reason for this. I was told that with other instruments one strikes the strings, but with the harp one pulls them, and because of the pulling the strings are always liable to break.
    I have just said that the Gothic harp has 27 strings. [HON. MEMBERS: "The hon. Member has lost 20 strings."] I apologise; it has 47 strings. If every member of the class at Aberporth has a Gothic harp, one can imagine the number of strings which are being pulled every time they meet—thousands of them. Consequently, it must entail a great expense for those people. Yet the Chancellor says, in effect, "These young men and young women are not modern. They should interest themselves in skiffle or rock and roll. I will stop their enjoyment. I will impose a 30 per cent. tax on the instrument which they love so much."
    I ask the Chancellor to listen to the plea which is being made this afternoon. I wonder whether he has consulted the Minister for Welsh Affairs, who is interested in the harp. I have not yet seen the Minister for Welsh Affairs growing any wings, but he has been to Wales often enough to know that there is a deep feeling about this tax. Whatever else the Chancellor promises to do, I hope that we have persuaded him how necessary it is, in the interests of culture

    1325
    and so that the young men and women of Wales shall spend more leisure hours learning to play this delightful instrument, that he should reduce the tax.
    I have just been told that a Gothic harp costs £1,000. Who in Wales can afford to pay £1,000 for a musical instrument, particularly when one realises that the people who are today mainly interested in the instrument are the sons and daughters of the working class? If ever the Chancellor comes to my constituency I will take him to cottages where the harp is displayed with pride. When I think how these poor people are compelled to go to unnecessary expense every time they break a string, which happens so regularly, I think it is cruel on the part of the Chancellor to insist on retaining the tax.
    Mrs. Harriet Slater: Perhaps it is a little presumptuous for an English person to talk about the Welsh harp, but I claim that right as I have a little Welsh blood in my veins. My grandfather was a Welshman. On a glorious early morning at a Welsh Eisteddfod, at the Gorsedd ceremony, I have listened to Welsh harpists on the hills, and it is a memory which has stayed with me for very many years. I have also very happy memories of listening, in the village from which my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Mr. Idwal Jones) comes, to the most wonderful penillion singing which occurs in that area.
    Stoke-on-Trent has a very close connection with Wales. My grandfather, who was a Welshman, came to Stoke-on-Trent, and in that city we have a very strong Welsh community, so much so that on St. David's Day we fly the Welsh flag above our town hall. I ought to add that on St. Andrew's Day we also fly the flag of St. Andrew. For very many years the people of Stoke-on-Trent have excelled in using their vocal chords, and we are very proud of the fact that we have some wonderful choirs in North Staffordshire.
    In the years before the First World War, Stoke-on-Trent choirs used to go to the Welsh National Eisteddfodau and were not very popular because they often carried off the first prizes. I am told that on one occasion they were even stoned because they had repeatedly carried off the prizes at the National
    1326
    Eisteddfodau. We have in North Staffordshire a very good young girls' choir, the Bedford Girls' Choir, which last year won a prize at the International Eisteddfod at Llangollen—a very wonderful experience.
    4.45 p.m.
    In supporting my Welsh colleagues in their plea on behalf of the harp, I should like to say that they have a real case for the total abolition of duty on this lovely instrument. I congratulate the mover of the Amendment and the other Welsh speakers who, in their unique way, have made a very strong claim that this rare and lovely instrument should be tax-free.
    Last week I attended the Children's Committee of Stoke-on-Trent Council where we heard a report about a boy who had been committed to the care of our local authority. At some time in the past he had been a very difficult boy. We did not know what to do with him. Then he asked if he could join the Marines. We allowed him to do so and he became interested in the regimental band. Last week at our meeting we had a report from his commanding officer saying that this boy, because of his great interest in music and because we had touched the chord of one thing in which he was particularly interested, had become a very prominent member of the band and in addition had a very fine record generally.
    On 12th June, significantly the day of Trooping the Colour, this boy passed out, and it was reported to our committee that the organisers of the passing-out parade would be glad if we could send a representative to the ceremony. Our town clerk, of whom we are very proud, said that he would go to this passing-out parade and that he would act as a father to this boy.
    It was also reported that the boy played two instruments. He had not got one of his own but it was hoped that contributions could be raised to augment the boy's savings so that he would be able to buy his own instrument. I remembered that in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) there was a band which was about to go out of existence. I suggested that we might contact this band to see if we could have the use of one of its instruments. The chairman said, "No, we have not anything good enough for a boy like

    1327
    that. We will give him £50 with which to buy a cornet."
    There is a boy who, through music, has been able to rehabilitate himself, who might not have been a good citizen but who, in fact, is going to become a first-class citizen. How foolish it is that on a musical instrument which can do so much for a difficult boy we should have to pay 60 per cent. Purchase Tax. That means that over half the cost of the instrument goes in tax.
    I cannot be as eloquent as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central was last night when he spoke about gramophone records, but to large numbers of people music is the salvation from the destruction of the soul in a modern world. If people can escape from stress and worries, if they can find a new interest and wider culture through music, why should a Government of a country which prides itself on being interested in culture tax the instruments which bring this salvation to our people?
    Shakespeare was quoted last night. I should like to quote a line from another poem:
    "We are the music makers,
    We are the dreamers of dreams."
    Cannot the Financial Secretary make the Chancellor of the Exchequer dream a new dream and decide that musical instruments, including harps, shall be exempt from Purchase Tax?
    Mr. William Hannan: The speech to which we have just listened was, if I may say so, on a par with the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) last night. In eloquence and reasoning the whole case has already been stated, but, being that little bit anxious to lend our aid to the cause, those of us who are interested in musical instruments want to add our quota to the case.
    I start by referring briefly to the first Amendment and by paying tribute to my fellow Celts, the Welsh people, in asking that the tax should be remitted on Welsh harps. Of course, it is possible to talk of harps or instruments associated with other countries in such a way as brings ridicule on the whole case, but, whatever the musical instrument, it is making its contribution to the comfort of the world and to the spirit of mankind. Even the
    1328
    bagpipe, about which some of my hon. Friends, no doubt, would like to twit me, is making its contribution in other countries, not only in Scotland but in Turkey, India and other countries. It is part of world culture and education.
    It is to education in the widest sense that I would like to address my remarks. This tax has been crippling local authorities, parents, the Royal Academy of Music and students in the pursuit of their studies. I have a feeling that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary are paying particular attention to what is being said on this matter. I hope that they will go a little further and abolish this tax on musical instruments which require the skill of the executant.
    In London, 6,000 children in schools and classes are being taught music and the playing of musical instruments. There are 100 school orchestras. In the past ten years £75,000 has been spent on musical instruments, 60 per cent. of the wholesale price going in tax. It would, therefore, help the local authorities to meet the increasing demand which is coming from young people for such classes if this tax were to be remitted. In the City of Glasgow there were 15 orchestras and five brass bands within the school education system. Last year, because of the difficulties of this tax, there were only five orchestras and three brass bands left.
    I am thinking not only of schools, but of education in the widest sense. To make proper use of leisure time is one of the biggest social problems confronting local authorities and educationists. What happier, better and more useful way is there than by inducing our young people to meet together? Speaking for myself, I would much prefer that they should have a guitar in their hands than an iron bar or a bottle with which to attack people.
    The brass band movement, with its festivals, is an indication of the great potential that is within our people, and when we consider this 60 per cent. tax on musical instruments surely Britain must be one of the most musical countries in the world when its citizens have to meet such an obstacle. There are the Foden and Black Dyke Mills Bands, and, incidentally, the National Union of Mineworkers supports this movement for the

    1329
    abolition of this tax because many of the miners' bands find it very difficult to afford the tax on the instruments which they need to buy. In addition, there is the Salvation Army—and let no one sneer at that body. Its bands are amongst the finest in the country. The Salvation Army is helping to build up the community spirit wherever it exists. Then there is the Boys' Brigade.
    The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McKibbin) was quite right in what he said. The length to which many clubs clubs and boys' organisations are driven is scandalous. Their fathers have been brought in to solder in an amateur fashion valves which need the delicate skill of craftsmen to solder. Indeed, the instruments are not giving the executants the great satisfaction which can only be obtained from the use of a first-class instrument. Moreover, when these second-hand instruments are bought by schools, local authorities and boys' clubs, there is the criticism that in the matter of hygiene they are not absolutely safe. Nothing is more likely to spread disease than the use of a second-hand instrument which has already been used by two or three people before.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater) referred to the case of a young lad who was helped by her local authority. Perhaps I saw that young boy. I will admit that I followed the Marines band, when it passed the House the other day, along to Victoria because of the attraction which music has for me.
    I should like to refer to some correspondence which has come to my attention. A letter was written from Eastbourne House, which runs a youth club, to a firm of musical instrument manufacturers asking for the loan of a double bass instrument. I should mention that music was among the activities practised at this club. The firm had to say that even to loan an instrument they would be mulcted to the extent of a further £20 in Purchase Tax. The leader of the club wrote:
    "As you will appreciate, this is a big item for a young lad to purchase and we cannot afford to buy one with club funds unless it is offered at a nominal price. Can you please help us in any way?"
    The firm replied that the cheapest would
    "cost us £24 without bow and without case. For the privilege of lending that to you, or
    1330
    giving it to you, or even selling it to you, we would have to pay an additional £20 …"
    Of course, the matter went by default. There is no tax on pianos and organs, because those instruments cannot be carried. This is the reason why a tax is levied on other musical instruments, because presumably they can be carried from place to place. There is no Purchase Tax on a piano, but there is a Purchase Tax of from £3 to £40 on a clarinet, according to the price that one pays for it.
    The Purchase Tax on an oboe ranges from £8 to £40. Those figures are, of course, on the wholesale price. But on the retail figures a moderately priced clarinet would be £28 16s., which includes £4 16s. Purchase Tax. The price of an oboe, which cannot be bought at a moderate price, is about £114. That includes £19 Purchase Tax. People will not waste money on musical instruments if they have no use for them. People purchase them only if they have a keen desire to use them for their own pleasure, or in conjunction with others to give pleasure to some of their friends.
    5.0 p.m.
    I know that I am speaking at some length, but may I put this point to the Financial Secretary? If we must have a tax on musical instruments, why should we not have a tax on the most delicate musical instrument in the world, the human voice? Has this possibility evaded the ingenuity of the people at the Treasury? I am not suggesting a new form of income, but why should we not tax the Glasgow Orpheus Choir or the Luton Girls' Choir? In logic, where is the difference? When we listen to a fine rendering of Bishop's, "Lo, hear the gentle lark", who can distinguish between the obligato of the flute and the voice singing? Meticulous co-operation is needed between the two, but there is a tax on one instrument but not on the other, yet both are essential to a proper rendering of this work. I would support a tax on voices which seem to be operated by exaggerated gyrations of the anatomy.
    The tax on some of the accessories for musical instruments is ridiculous. I have in my hand a simple little thing which is called an oboe reed. It is not an offensive instrument; it is part of a musical instrument. This is perhaps the most delicate and most important

    1331
    part of the musical instrument, because, no matter how dexterous the fingers of the operator, unless he has this for a proper embouchure he will be frustrated and he will feel angry. The most important thing about wind instruments is the embouchure. The cost of it is 8s. 3d., 1s. 3d. of which is Purchase Tax. A musician could buy half a dozen of these things, go home and not find one suitable for the embouchure because the line between the reed and the mouthpiece is so fine that it makes all the difference unless there is ample air space with which to have access to the keys. There is Purchase Tax on all strings, but, as has been mentioned, on certain strings for the cello one can pay up to £2 in Purchase Tax. We do not only wish to see this tax reduced, but we want to see it abolished. The conductors of today, such as Sir Adrian Boult, Sir Malcolm Sargent and Basil Cameron, and the Royal Academy of Music, all want to see the tax abolished.
    I sincerely hope that the Financial Secretary will be prepared to render a great service to music so that the teachers of today will be able to provide the cream—and, after all, we cannot get the cream without milk—for the orchestras of Britain, which is recognised to be one of the most musically-minded countries in the world and for the attainment of the spirit that we all want to see, namely, international peace and brotherhood, so that we can enjoy not merely the material things of life but those which comfort the spirit during the dark days.
    Mr. Elwyn Jones: It is not often that I am moved to take part in what has become to a certain extent a Welsh debate. However, I confess that the eloquence of my colleagues from Wales on the theme of harp strings has certainly tugged at my heart strings. I hope that this debate has had the same effect on the Financial Secretary. The argument is quite overwhelming and I hope that he will make a further gesture on this matter which will be a real encouragement to a vital folk art of our community.
    We have had support for the Amendment from all parts of the British Isles. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) has given a most impressive account of the difficulties that
    1332
    this tax causes to schools and voluntary organisations, which have done so much to raise the cultural life of our country. I am told by those who speak with authority on these matters that the standard of amateur music in these islands today is greater than anywhere in the world. That has been achieved in the face of discouragement. The Government have not a good record in the arts. They could do much more. The contribution by the Government to the Arts Council is miserably inadequate, and now we have this gesture to retain half of this miserable tax on culture. A tax on the harp—what a thought it is!
    I ask the Government to consider this point because serious discouragement is being caused. Music is not a luxury, and it is astonishing that in 1958 the taxation that is still to be levied after this Budget has gone through is still round about the high figures of the postwar period, when circumstances were entirely different.
    We have heard a graphic account of the difficulties which the Chancellor's financial provisions are imposing. I do not know whether the Government will be moved by the difficulties of the harpists in Wales, but when I heard of the leaky joints of the Northern Ireland bands being patched up with chewing gum, that is a picture of the miserable state to which this wretched financial stringency is reducing those who are trying to raise our musical standards.
    There was only one part of the speech of the hon. Member for Maryhill that filled the Committee with some despondency. That was the faint prospect that there might be a tax on the exercise of the human voice. We have heard that speech is silver, but the idea that it should be subject to Purchase Tax is a perpetration that it would be not for us in this Committee, of all places, to commend.
    One is tempted towards frivolity, and frivolity is excellent on this occasion, but this is a serious matter. We must try to raise our cultural standards higher, whether through the brass bands of Northern Ireland, the harpists of Wales, or the school orchestras of West Ham, which, at present, are in grave difficulties in getting the equipment and replacements that they require.

    1333
    In face of this most powerful case, I hope that the Financial Secretary, who has spent a good deal of his life in considering the force of argument and applying it, will accept the force of the argument on this occasion and make a full concession to those who have asked for it.
    Mr. J. Idwal Jones: I should like to say a few words in support of the Amendment, although I do not want to harp upon it too long.
    I have been examining the effigies of the British saints in the Central Lobby. There is something very striking about four of them. When I examined St. Andrew, I found that there was no suggestion of a harp at all. I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan), whose speech we all enjoyed, will forgive me if I say that Scotland seems to have gone over to the pipe and left the harp behind. St. George, on the other hand, is engrossed in slaying the dragon—not, I hope, the Welsh dragon. When we come to St. Patrick, we find that there is a harp motif in the design, and I think that there is a sound reason for this assumption, because St. Patrick was essentially a Welsh Saint, although that may sound very Irish. When we come to St. David in the mosaic in the Central Lobby, we find that the harp forms a very prominent feature in the design indeed.
    Mr. Leslie Hale: I think that the hon. Gentleman is being a little unfair to Scotland. We have the authority of the minstrel boy in the poem, whose
    "father's sword he has girded on,
    And his wild harp slung behind him".
    so that one would not see it.
    Mr. Hannan: This argument does not apply to Scotland at all; it belongs to Ireland.
    Mr. Idwal Jones: If I may proceed, the strange thing is that neither the Greeks nor the Romans took any interest in the harp. They played the lyre, but they never played the harp. My hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes) referred to the Latin writer in the tenth century who said that the Romans play the lyre, but it is to the Barbarians that we must turn to hear the harp. We
    1334
    are not ashamed to be considered barbarians in that connection.
    The word "harp" is of Teutonic origin, but, despite the beauty of the tone of this instrument, the domestic use of the harp has virtually disappeared from all Saxon lands. As hon. Members will remember, it was Thomas Moore who made the complaint that,
    "The harp that once through Tara's halls
    The soul of music shed,
    Now hangs as mute on Tara's walls
    As if that soul were fled."
    This is not so in Wales, where its use is on the increase, as indeed it should be. As other Members have already pointed out, from the earliest recorded history of, Wales the harp has always been an instrument which has found prominence in the hall and in the home, and the harpist has had a place of peculiar distinction and veneration.
    5.15 p.m.
    The harp has still its appeal, because we have a peculiar form of musical expression, which has been referred to by many Members, known as pennillion singing, where the harp plays the air and the singer accompanies the harp. The House will forgive me for making a personal reference. I had a pupil in my school who played the harp. She brought that harp to school frequently, and on many an occasion she played the air on the harp and the whole school joined in pennillion singing. In what other country in the world would one find that taking place? This girl will be going next September to the Manchester School of Music. She wants to buy a harp, and now the question of Purchase Tax comes into the picture.
    I have never believed in Purchase Tax being levied on school equipment. I am speaking from experience in what I say next. We tried to form violin classes and children had to buy their violins. We knew it was not fair for those children to pay tax to the country because they wanted to join a violin class in school. I also had a school band. If I remember rightly, the only instrument of which I was short was a drum. When I inquired into the cost of a drum, I was surprised that it was so high. It would certainly have been cheaper if there was no Purchase Tax on it.
    All art seeks to attain the conditions of music, and in many respects music is

    1335
    the highest expression of art. It is certainly the widest art in its appeal, and it has revealed qualities in which the world is still very poor—the quality of harmony, the quality of balance and the quality of soul. I think it is very wrong indeed for Purchase Tax to be put upon the instruments of music which may inspire our people in these very difficult days.
    I want to conclude on another note, and my observation will be brief. A plea for the traditional right of the harp has already been made. The Welsh harp was an hereditary instrument to be preserved in the family at all costs. It was a sacred treasure. It had a double protection even when it merely hung on the wall, as it often did because the family had no harpist. Even then, however, the family never parted with the harp because it cherished the fond hope that sooner or later a harpist would be born. So the harp was retained in the home and in the family. It was also protected by law. In payment of debts every article in the household and every animal in the field—cow, horse, sheep and goats—was liable to be seized——
    The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Blackburn): I am enjoying the hon. Member's speech, but if the harps are still preserved it is not necessary to worry about Purchase Tax.
    Mr. Jones: The harp stood above the law. It possessed an inalienable right of its own. It could not be used to pay debts. On the other hand, Purchase Tax on a harp and on harp strings is meant to help to pay a national debt. I want to restore the position of the traditional right of the harp, and if some English or Scottish friends derive benefit from that concession, I personally will have no objection.
    Mr. John Diamond: May I contribute briefly to this debate, prefacing my remarks with an apology for the fact that I have not been here during the whole of the discussion. It would be an embarrassment to me if what I have to say had already been said—I am sure it would have been said with more emotion than I would be capable of—but some of us sometimes have other things to do at the same time. However, so important is this discussion that I am
    1336
    sure I shall have the indulgence of the Committee in speaking in these circumstances.
    There are several points of detail and two major points of principle which apply here. The points of detail are many and some have been referred to. I was particularly interested in the remarks about the clarionet and the oboe, which showed that where there is an ad valorem tax of this structure there are most unexpected and undesirable results. What one is concerned with in a clarionet is a musical instrument which produces a note. What one is concerned with in an oboe is a musical instrument which produces a note. They both do exactly the same thing in a slightly different way, and both are necessary for the balance of the orchestra.
    What is desired is to produce one note. Why, in those circumstances, should the person who wants to produce his note on the clarionet be able to do so for a moderate contribution to the Chancellor, whereas the person who wants to produce it on the oboe has to pay a major contribution to the Chancellor, merely because it is an ad valorem duty? Also, because the clarionet can be made largely by manufacturing processes and the oboe has to be made entirely by hand, the cost of the two is so different that one gets this ridiculous result. Not that there is anything wrong with the oboe or with the clarionet. All that is wrong is the idea of taxing music, the idea of taxing culture.
    I come immediately to the points of principle. The Financial Secretary must feel very uncomfortable, unless he is going to meet us on this point, because there rests a tremendous responsibility on his shoulders to justify taxing culture in this day and age. There is no doubt what the whole world feels about it. This is purely a tax on art and on culture, and it hits at the most effective point. Because it is not only the desire to play or to make music that enables one to do so; unfortunately, one has to have the cash as well.
    Everyone knows this who tries to form amateur orchestras, school orchestras or university orchestras. He knows that the limitation of the orchestra is not the desire of the child. It is not the musical ability of this country which, in spite of the way we try to decry it, has for many generations set the standard for the world. There is a great flowering going on in

    1337
    music today—and in this country, of course, I include Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and anywhere else we are entitled to discuss in this Committee.
    The difficulty is to get the funds with which to buy instruments. A good instrument costs money, and the more it costs the more does one have to contribute to the Exchequer. There can be no doubt that there rests on the shoulders of the Financial Secretary a heavy responsibility, if he is to discharge it, in satisfying the Committee that there should be a tax of any kind. Because once one admits a variation in tax—as one does because there are many rates, 5 per cent., 30 per cent., 60 per cent.—one cannot rely on the fact that there should be the same rate for everything. Once he admits the power to discriminate, the Financial Secretary is in a very difficult position; he has to show both sides of the Committee that discrimination against music, against this vital and living form of art, is justified.
    The other major argument of principle I want to mention is not a party point. Of course this is not a party matter. I would be astonished if there were any difference between any side of the Chamber on this point. I am distressed beyond measure at what I see happening to our civilisation in this country. Let me explain why. We have television, we have wireless, we have films, we have all kinds of methods of entertainment in which the human spirit is encouraged to sit and gawp and be silent and be passive, to do nothing whatever. Yet whatever in each one of us is worth while, right in the heart of each one of us, is encouraged or discouraged by these emotions, by the arts, by the expression of art. In our civilisation we are doing everything possible to discourage people from enlightening their spirit, from blowing the spark into a flame. We are doing everything possible to discourage that and we should do the reverse.
    We should take the greatest possible pains, by fiscal methods and any other methods open to us, to encourage participation in this way. We should make it our endeavour that every child shall be encouraged to make music first, and through making it to listen and to understand. The first thing is to make sure, no matter in what simple form, of the growing of the soul of that child. This is something which ought to appeal to
    1338
    the Financial Secretary because he has an added responsibility for a new child. Is the child to have the opportunity of playing the recorder? I anticipate that there is no tax on a recorder—[HON. MEMBERS: "There is."] That is utterly shocking—tax on a 7s. 6d. recorder. Well, at all events it has been possible to make recorders by mechanical means and the child can start that much better off.
    I do not need to underline this point, which is of fundamental importance. Would that it could be settled merely by removing Purchase Tax, but it can be encouraged by doing so. We in this Chamber have a standard to set to the community and I appeal to the Financial Secretary to do so.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. J. E. S. Simon): We have had many good debates on Purchase Tax during these last two days, but from the point of view of the quality of the speeches, I think that all hon. Members of the Committee who have been attending the debates regularly will agree that the discussion that we have had so far today has been outstanding.
    I will deal, first, with the Amendment relating to harps and then with the question of musical instruments generally. It is clear that the plea for the exemption of harps from Purchase Tax appeals particularly to the Committee, for five different reasons. The first was undoubtedly the point made by the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. G. Roberts) that the cost is, as I admit, inconsiderable. The second is the one which appeals particularly to those of us who are not Welsh, in that we recognise that the traditional gift of music—which I am sure the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) is right in saying is at the moment in revival—was kept alive in Wales during the days when it was not so noticeable in this country.
    The third is, as we know, that the harp means a great deal to the culture of Wales. The fourth, I am sure, is the effect of the singular felicity, wit and erudition of the speeches of hon. Members from Wales, particularly today. The hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Mr. Elwyn Jones) said that the eloquence would have an effect on my heart strings. I have no doubt that if my heart strings could be affected by

    1339
    eloquence in this matter, they would have been today.
    I should like to deal with one or two minor points before dealing with the main point of the Amendment. First, the hon. Member for Caernarvon, the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes) and the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. T. W. Jones) referred to the question of the repair of old instruments. It is quite general in the structure of Purchase Tax for taxable materials which are used in repair to bear tax in the same way as all other materials which are taxable. It is not peculiar; it is general to the structure of Purchase Tax for reasons which will be apparent to the Committee.
    The second point was made by the hon. Member for Anglesey. He drew a distinction between the material for harp strings and the nylon used for fishing tackle which, he said, was tax-free. That gave a rather false impression, because the nylon used for sporting fishing is not tax-free; it is taxed at the same rate as other taxable sports commodities, namely, 30 per cent.
    5.30 p.m.
    I now come to the main point. Harps are only part of a large range of orchestral or solo instruments which are now taxed at 30 per cent. and which, before the Budget, were taxed at 60 per cent. The hon. Member for Gloucester said that they were penalised, because this is an ad valorem tax. Purchase Tax is an ad valorem tax, but it would be quite impracticable so to construct it as to vary its incidence so that the end-product—the tax actually charged—was more nearly similar over wide ranges of articles like those covered by the definition "sports gear" or musical instruments.
    I recognise that harps are by no means cheap; although they are not necessarily the most expensive of instruments—as the examples given by the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) show. We really come down to this: there can be no argument for isolating and exempting one out of the many orchestral and solo instruments. Indeed, if I accepted the Amendment I hesitate to think what the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) might say if the pipes were not similarly exempted.
    Mr. Hannan: I can give the hon. and learned Member the assurance that I would agree to making harps an exception. He can do what he likes about the pipes.
    Mr. Simon: In that respect, the hon. Member could not speak for all Scotland.
    Reference was rightly made to the exemption of pianos, but that was a particular case. I recognise that it is an anomaly, but the concession was made because the piano-making industry was in a very serious state. The decision was made for economic reasons, in 1953, and the considerations there have not applied to other musical instruments.
    Mr. Hale: The Financial Secretary is embarking upon somewhat dangerous theological grounds. The harp has metaphysical implications; it is an instrument for use in the next world as well as this. Its use in this world may be regarded as a preparation for its use in a different sphere of activity, so there is an argument for treating it in a quite different way from the way in which one would treat a saxophone.
    Mr. Simon: The hon. Member's point is a perfectly valid one, but for the moment I am limiting my remarks to the Purchase Tax on harps in this world.
    The main question arises out of the taxation of all musical instruments, and we have had a number of very persuasive and eloquent speeches on this subject. The right hon. Member for Colne Valley, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater)—who made a very remarkable speech—and, finally, the hon. Member for Gloucester, whose services to music many of us know, are entitled to speak with authority. But I think it is recognised generally that the Chancellor has performed a very great service to the industry in reducing the tax from 60 per cent. to 30 per cent.
    I have here a letter from the chairman of the Association of Musical Instrument Industries, which says:
    "Even warmer thanks are due to you for what this concession means"—
    he had already referred to the effect on the manufacturing industry—
    "to the child who wishes to learn to play a musical instrument of its own; to the Salvation Army bandsman, and the player in the miners' band or the works' band; to the young

    1341
    people in the youth clubs, in the Boys' Brigade, and in great organisations like the National Youth Orchestra …"
    That is an expression of thanks from the chairman of the association of manufacturers of these instruments.
    The basis of the case against the tax is that music-making and the playing of instruments is educational, as the right hon. Member for Colne Valley said, and that it is purely a tax on culture, as the hon. Member for Gloucester said—and there were various variations on that theme. I would ask the Committee to recognise, however, that while all that is true it is not the whole truth. That musical instruments also have a recreational function is not in question. In that way, they are an alternative form of recreation to such things as cameras and photographic materials. Those, too, have an education and cultural value, as the Committee will readily recognise, and it is right, for that reason, that musical instruments should be taxed at the same rate as sports requisites, cameras and photographic equipment, namely, at the standard rate of 30 per cent.
    The hon. Member for Merioneth pictured my right hon. Friend as saying, "I will impose a 30 per cent. tax on their enjoyment." Surely the fairer way of picturing him would be as saying, "I will reduce the tax on their enjoyment from 60 per cent. to 30 per cent.; I will halve it." That is the way I would ask the Committee to view this matter. The hon. Member for Caernarvon, in an excellent speech, quoted again what the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) quoted yesterday—the lines from Shakespeare, beginning:
    "The man that hath no music in himself …"
    I realise that I am rendering myself liable to be stigmatised as fit for "treasons, stratagems and spoils", but nevertheless I cannot advise the Committee to accept the Amendment.
    Mrs. White: As a Welshwoman I am sure that the Committee will appreciate that I am disappointed at the reply that we have received from the Financial Secretary. We have had some excellent speeches, and I do not propose to repeat the arguments which have been put with very great eloquence and sincerity by a number of my hon. Friends.
    The main burden of our plea—to which we have had a very dusty answer—is that
    1342
    this tax is largely one upon young people. If a person is to learn to play a musical instrument, whether it be a harp, oboe or any other instrument, it is essential that he or she should start early in life. There have been exceptional individuals who have started somewhat later and have become proficient, and there is no doubt that one can take up such a thing as painting relatively late in life; but, normally, one cannot take up music with any hope of great proficiency unless one starts very early.
    Mr. Amory Mr. Amory indicated assent.
    Mrs. White: I see that the Chancellor agrees. I have a nephew who, for his age, is a reasonably competent violin player. He goes to a village school in Kent, whose educational committee is one of those which encourage violin playing in school. It would be very beneficial if all the children in his class who take violin instruction could have their own violins, but I believe that only two have parents who are in a position to buy even a child's violin.
    The cost of other instruments, especially the wind instruments, is prohibitive. My right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) had thought of intervening in the debate, but I can reveal that he is liable to purchase an oboe for his son in the fairly near future, and he felt that his interest might lead him into an excess of emotion.
    Mr. H. Wilson: I would not like that statement to be regarded as a commitment in quarters where it might be so regarded.
    Mrs. White: I am happy if I have now committed a parent to his duty towards his child.
    Our plea is that this is one of the finest forms of recreation—if one wishes to call it recreation. In fact, it is something very much more than that. It is something which anyone who has had anything to do with young people recognises as one of the finest forms of expression open to them. The tax is a very genuine burden upon schools, youth clubs, and youth organisations of all kinds, and it is because many of my hon. Friends who have had experience in this matter feel very strongly about it that we cannot accept the argument of the Financial Secretary as adequate.

    1343
    We know that one can argue, in respect of the Purchase Tax on any item, that if it were removed it would have repercussions in other directions, but we feel that our plea for musical instruments is such a strong one, on its merits, that
    we must express our dissatisfaction with the answer received.
    Question put, That those words be there inserted:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 188, Noes 225.

    Division No. 136.]

    AYES

    [5.42 p.m.

    Ainsley, J. W.

    Healey, Denis

    Owen, W. J.

    Albu, A. H.

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

    Paget, R. T.

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Palmer, A. M. F.

    Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

    Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)

    Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

    Allen, Soholefield (Crewe)

    Holman, P.

    Pargiter, G. A.

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

    Holmes, Horace

    Parker, J.

    Benson, Sir George

    Houghton, Douglas

    Parkin, B. T.

    Beswick, Frank

    Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

    Paton, John

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

    Howell, Denis (All Saints)

    Pearson, A.

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

    Hoy, J. H.

    Popplewell, E.

    Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)

    Hubbard, T. F.

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Bowles, F. G.

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Proctor, W. T.

    Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Pursey, Cmdr. H.

    Brockway, A. F.

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Randall, H. E.

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Hunter, A. E.

    Rankin, John

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

    Redhead, E. C.

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Reeves, J.

    Burke, W. A.

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

    Reid, William

    Burton, Miss F. E.

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

    Reynolds, G.

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Jeger, George (Goole)

    Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Callaghan, L. J.

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

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Carmichael, J.

    Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

    Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

    Champion, A. J.

    Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

    Ross, William

    Chapman, W. D.

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Royle, C.

    Chetwynd, G. R.

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

    Clunie, J.

    Kenyon, C.

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Coldrick, W.

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

    Collins, V. J. (Shoredith & Finsbury)

    Lawson, G. M.

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

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Snow, J. W.

    Cove, W. G.

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Lewis, Arthur

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Crossman, R. H. S.

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Sparks, J. A.

    Darling, George (Hillsborough)

    Lipton, Marcus

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

    Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

    Logan, D. G.

    Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

    de Freitas, Geoffrey

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

    Delargy, H. J.

    McAlister, Mrs. Mary

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

    Diamond, John

    McCann, J.

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

    Dodds, N. N.

    MacDermot, Niall

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

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

    McGovern, J.

    Taylor, John (West Lothian)

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    McInnes, J.

    Thomas, George (Cardiff)

    Edelman, M.

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    McLeavy, Frank

    Thornton, E.

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Tomney, F.

    Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    Finch, H. J.

    Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)

    Viant, S. P.

    Forman, J. C.

    Mann, Mrs. Jean

    Wade, D. W.

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

    Weitzman, D.

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

    Mellish, R. J.

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then)

    Mikardo, Ian

    Wheeldon, W. E.

    Gibson, C. W.

    Mitchison, G. R

    White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    Monslow, W.

    Willey, Frederick

    Greenwood, Anthony

    Moody, A. S.

    Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)

    Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

    Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

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

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Mort, D. L.

    Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

    Griffiths, William (Exchange)

    Moss, R.

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

    Grimond, J.

    Moyle, A.

    Yates, V. (Ladywood)

    Hale, Leslie

    Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

    Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

    Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

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

    Zilliacus, K.

    Hamilton, W. W.

    Oliver, G. H.

    Hannan, W.

    Oram, A. E.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Hastings, S.

    Orbach, M.

    Mr. Short and Mr. Deer

    Hayman, F. H.

    Oswald, T.

    NOES

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    Arbuthnot, John

    Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

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

    Armstrong, C. W.

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Alport, C. J. M.

    Ashton, H.

    Balniel, Lord

    Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

    Atkins, H. E.

    Barlow, Sir John

    Baxter, Sir Beverley

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

    Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

    Beamish, Col. Tufton

    Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

    Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    Nairn, D. L. S.

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald

    Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

    Nicholls, Harmar

    Bidgood, J. C.

    Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.

    Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)

    Biggs-Davison, J. A.

    Heald, Rt Hon. Sir Lionel

    Noble, Comdr. Rt. Hon. Allan

    Bingham, R. M.

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

    Nugent, G. R. H.

    Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

    Henderson-Stewart, Sir James

    Oakshott, H. D.

    Bishop, F. P.

    Hesketh, R. F.

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

    Body, R. F.

    Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Boothby, Sir Robert

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

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

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

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Osborne, C.

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Hobson, John (Warwick & Leam'gt'n)

    Page, R. G.

    Braine, B. R.

    Holland-Martin, C. J.

    Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

    Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

    Hope, Lord John

    Peel, W. J.

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

    Horobin, Sir Ian

    Peyton, J. W. W.

    Brooman-White, R. C.

    Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)

    Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

    Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

    Bryan, P.

    Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

    Pitman, I. J.

    Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

    Howard, John (Test)

    Pitt, Miss E. M.

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

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

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Campbell, Sir David

    Hurd, A. R.

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh, S.)

    Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Hyde, Montgomery

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

    Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry

    Profumo, J. D.

    Cole, Norman

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Ramsden, J. E.

    Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Rawlinson, Peter

    Cooke, Robert

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Redmayne, M.

    Cooper, A. E.

    Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)

    Remnant, Hon. P.

    Cooper-Key, E. M.

    Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

    Renton, D. L. M.

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Ridsdale, J. E.

    Corfield, Capt. F. V.

    Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)

    Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Joseph, Sir Keith

    Roper, Sir Harold

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Kaberry, D.

    Russell, R. S.

    Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

    Keegan, D.

    Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

    Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

    Kerby, Capt. H. B.

    Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

    Cunningham, Knox

    Kerr, Sir Hamilton

    Sharples, R. C.

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Kershaw, J. A.

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

    Dance, J. C. G.

    Kimball, M.

    Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

    Davidson, Viscountess

    Kirk, P. M.

    Spearman, Sir Alexander

    D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Speir, R. M.

    Deedes, W. F.

    Langford-Holt, J. A.

    Stevens, Geoffrey

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    Leather, E. H. C.

    Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

    Leburn, W. G.

    Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)

    Doughty, C. J. A.

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

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Drayson, G. B.

    Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

    Summers, Sir Spencer

    du Cann, E. D. L.

    Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

    Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)

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

    Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)

    Temple, John M.

    Duncan, Sir James

    Linstead, Sir H. N.

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Duthie, W. S.

    Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Elliott, R. W. (Ne'castle upon Tyne, N.)

    Longden, Gilbert

    Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby

    Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

    Erroll, F. J.

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth S.)

    Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

    Fell, A.

    McAdden, S. J.

    Tilney, John (Wavertree)

    Finlay, Graeme

    Macdonald, Sir Peter

    Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

    Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

    Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Tweedsmuir, Lady

    Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale)

    McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Freeth, Denzil

    Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

    Vickers, Miss Joan

    Gammans, Lady

    McLean, Neil (Inverness)

    Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

    Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)

    Wall, Patrick

    Gibson-Watt, D.

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)

    Glover, D.

    Maddan, Martin

    Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

    Glyn, Col. Richard H.

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

    Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

    Godber, J. B.

    Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

    Webbe, Sir H.

    Gower, H. R.

    Marlowe, A. A. H.

    Wills, G. (Bridgwater)

    Graham, Sir Fergus

    Marshall, Douglas

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Green, A.

    Mathew, R.

    Wood, Hon. R.

    Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

    Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.

    Woollam, John Victor

    Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

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

    Yates, William (The Wrekin)

    Gurden, Harold

    Medlicott, Sir Frank

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.

    Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Mr. Edward Wakefield and

    Mr. Hughes-Young.

    The Temporary Chairman: I understand that an assurance was given by the Chairman of Ways and Means that there could be a vote on the next Amendment, so I will put the Question.
    Amendment proposed: In page 29, line 35, at end insert:
    1346
    (c) in the case of musical instruments where the rate under Group 19 would be so reduced to 30 per cent., the articles (other than gramophones, radio-gramophones, player pianos, musical boxes and similar instruments or parts thereof or accessories thereto or gramophone records) shall instead be exempted from tax.—[Mr. G. Roberts.]
    Question put, That those words be there inserted:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 183, Noes 228.

    Division No. 137.]

    AYES

    [5.52 p.m.

    Ainsley, J. W.

    Hayman, F. H.

    Oswald, T.

    Albu, A. H.

    Healey, Denis

    Paget, R. T.

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

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

    Palmer, A. M. F.

    Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)

    Pargiter, G. A.

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

    Holman, P.

    Parker, J.

    Benson, Sir George

    Holmes, Horace

    Parkin, B. T.

    Beswick, Frank

    Houghton, Douglas

    Paton, John

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

    Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

    Pearson, A.

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

    Howell, Denis (All Saints)

    Popplewell, E.

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

    Hoy, J. H.

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)

    Hubbard, T. F.

    Proctor, W. T.

    Bowles, F. G.

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Pursey, Cmdr. H.

    Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Randall, H. E.

    Brockway, A. F.

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Rankin, John

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Hunter, A. E.

    Redhead, E. C.

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

    Reeves, J.

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Reid, William

    Burke, W. A.

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

    Reynolds, G.

    Burton, Miss F. E.

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

    Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

    Jeger, George (Goole)

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Callaghan, L. J.

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

    Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

    Carmichael, J.

    Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

    Ross, William

    Champion, A. J.

    Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

    Royle, C.

    Chetwynd, G. R.

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

    Clunie, J.

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Coldrick, W.

    Kenyon, C.

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

    Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch & Finsbury)

    King, Dr. H. M.

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

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Lawson, G. M.

    Snow, J. W.

    Cove, W. G.

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S)

    Lewis, Arthur

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Darling, George (Hillsborough)

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Sparks, J. A.

    Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

    Lipton, Marcus

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

    de Freitas, Geoffrey

    Logan, D. G.

    Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

    Delargy, H. J.

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

    Diamond, John

    McAlister, Mrs. Mary

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

    Dodds, N. N.

    McCann, J.

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

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

    MacDermot, Niall

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    McGovern, J.

    Taylor, John (West Lothian)

    Edelman, M.

    McInnes, J.

    Thomas, George (Cardiff)

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)

    McLeavy, Frank

    Thornton, E.

    Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Tomney, F.

    Finch, H. J.

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    Forman, J. C.

    Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)

    Viant, S. P.

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Mann, Mrs. Jean

    Wade, D. W.

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

    Mellish, R. J.

    Weitzman, D.

    George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then)

    Mikardo, Ian

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    Gibson, C. W.

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Wheeldon, W. E.

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    Monslow, W.

    White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

    Greenwood, Anthony

    Moody, A. S.

    Willey, Frederick

    Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

    Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

    Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Mort, D. L.

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

    Griffiths, William (Exchange)

    Moss, R.

    Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

    Grimond, J.

    Moyle, A.

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

    Hale, Leslie

    Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

    Yates, V. (Ladywood)

    Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

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

    Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

    Hamilton, W. W.

    Oliver, G. H.

    Zilliacus, K.

    Hannan, W.

    Oram, A. E.

    Hastings, S.

    Orbach, M.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES

    Mr. Short and Mr. Deer.

    NOES

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    Barlow, Sir John

    Bossom, Sir Alfred

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

    Baxter, Sir Beverley

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

    Alport, C. J. M.

    Beamish, Col. Tufton

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

    Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

    Braine, B. R.

    Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald

    Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

    Arbuthnot, John

    Bidgood, J. C.

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

    Armstrong, C. W.

    Biggs-Davison, J. A.

    Brooman-White, R. C.

    Ashton, H.

    Bingham, R. M.

    Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)

    Atkins, H. E.

    Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

    Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

    Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

    Bishop, F. P.

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

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Body, R. F.

    Campbell, Sir David

    Balniel, Lord

    Boothby, Sir Robert

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)

    Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

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

    Cole, Norman

    Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

    Osborne, C.

    Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

    Howard, John (Test)

    Page, R. G.

    Cooke, Robert

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

    Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

    Cooper-Key, E. M.

    Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

    Peel, W. J.

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

    Hurd, A. R.

    Peyton, J. W. W.

    Corfield, Capt. F. V.

    Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh, S.)

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Hyde, Montgomery

    Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry

    Pitman, I. J.

    Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Pitt, Miss E. M.

    Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Cunningham, Knox

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Currie, C. B. H.

    Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)

    Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

    Dance, J. C. G.

    Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

    Davidson, Viscountess

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Profumo, J. D.

    D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)

    Ramsden, J. E.

    Deedes, W. F.

    Joseph, Sir Keith

    Rawlinson, Peter

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    Kaberry, D.

    Redmayne, M.

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

    Keegan, D.

    Remnant, Hon. P.

    Doughty, C. J. A.

    Kerby, Capt. H. B.

    Renton, D. L. M.

    Drayson, G. B.

    Kerr, Sir Hamilton

    Ridsdale, J. E.

    du Cann, E. D. L.

    Kershaw, J. A.

    Rippon, A. G. F.

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

    Kimball, M.

    Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

    Duncan, Sir James

    Kirk, P. M.

    Roper, Sir Harold

    Duthie, W. S.

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Russell, R. S.

    Elliott, R. W. (Ne'castle upon Tyne, N.)

    Langford-Holt, J. A.

    Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Leather, E. H. C.

    Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

    Erroll, F. J.

    Leburn, W. G.

    Sharples, R. C.

    Fell, A.

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

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

    Finlay, Graeme

    Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

    Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

    Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

    Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

    Spearman, Sir Alexander

    Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale)

    Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)

    Speir, R. M.

    Linstead, Sir H. N.

    Stevens, Geoffrey

    Freeth, Denzil

    Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

    Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

    Gammans, Lady

    Longden, Gilbert

    Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

    Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Gibson-Watt, D.

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth S.)

    Summers, Sir Spencer

    Glover, D.

    McAdden, S. J.

    Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)

    Glyn, Col. Richard H.

    Macdonald, Sir Peter

    Temple, John M.

    Godber, J. B.

    Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Gower, H. R.

    McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Graham, Sir Fergus

    Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

    Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.

    Green, A.

    McLean, Neil (Inverness)

    Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

    Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

    Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)

    Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

    Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Tilney, John (Wavertree)

    Gurden, Harold

    Maddan, Martin

    Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

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

    Tweedsmuir, Lady

    Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.

    Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

    Marlowe, A. A. H.

    Vickers, Miss Joan

    Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

    Marshall, Douglas

    Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    Mathew, R.

    Wall, Patrick

    Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

    Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.

    Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

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

    Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

    Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.

    Medlicott, Sir Frank

    Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

    Webbe, Sir H.

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

    Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Wills, G. (Bridgwater)

    Henderson-Stewart, Sir James

    Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Hesketh, R. F.

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

    Wood, Hon. R.

    Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

    Nairn, D. L. S.

    Woollam, John Victor

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Nicholls, Harmar

    Yates, William (The Wrekin)

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)

    Hobson, John (Warwick & Leam'gt'n)

    Noble, Comdr. Rt. Hon. Allan

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Holland-Martin, C. J.

    Nugent, G. R. H.

    Mr. Edward Wakefield and

    Hope, Lord John

    Oakshott, H. D.

    Mr. Bryan.

    Horobin, Sir Ian

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

    6.0 p.m.
    Mrs. Lena Jeger: I beg to move, in page 29, line 42, at the end to insert:
    (e) in the case of toilet preparations where the rate under Group 32 would be so reduced to 60 per cent., it shall instead be reduced to 30 per cent.
    The effect of this Amendment is to carry further the reduction in Purchase Tax on cosmetics which has already been reduced by 30 per cent. to 60 per
    1350
    cent. It would be ungracious not to express the thanks of the female population for the small reduction we have already enjoyed, but cosmetics are so much a part of the every-day equipment of women that it seems most unfair that they should continue to be among the few goods which are taxed at 60 per cent.
    There is such a narrow dividing line between goods treated as cosmetics and those treated as toilet preparations that the boundary between what is purely

    1351
    cosmetic and what is essential for cleanliness and hygiene has become blurred, causing considerable difficulty to the industry and great confusion to the purchaser. I wish to quote to the Committee the words of the Schedule which try to describe the scope of the goods with which we are dealing.
    "Toilet preparations are chargeable with tax … whether they are medicated or not. Accordingly, the fact that a preparation commonly used as a toilet preparation contains medicaments or is held out as a remedy or is claimed to have medicinal value does not remove it from the scope of this heading. Medicated preparations fall to be considered under Group 33 only if they are not toilet preparations."
    I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will be able to clarify what seems to me an extraordinarily confused situation and the difference between a medicated preparation and a toilet preparation.
    I ask the Committee to consider the importance of cosmetics. To most hopeful girls cosmetics and clothes are a sort of mute "Professor Higgins" which can make all the difference to their future lives. The purpose in moving this Amendment is not to deal with the obvious features concerned with the contribution which cosmetics can make to one's appearance, because I am sure that the Committee needs no persuasion about that. I ask hon. Members to consider the effect of this heavy taxation on cleanliness, which is even a more elementary virtue than beauty according to some authorities.
    In this connection, we find all sorts of anomalies. For example, nicotine stain removers are treated as cosmetics for the purpose of Purchase Tax. It is a revolting sight to see a man or woman whose fingers are stained with nicotine. We should encourage them to get rid of this offensive sight, and I cannot see the justification for including articles which assist this primary purpose of cleanliness in the same group as cosmetics.
    I wish to quote to the hon. Gentleman the example of what are called barrier preparations. Perhaps I should explain that these are usually creams used on the hands, both in industry or in connection with domestic work, as a form of protection. It is most inadvisable, in my opinion, that the heavier rate of tax should be charged on barrier prepara-
    1352
    tions and, quoting the exact words of the Schedule,
    "… barrier preparations (whether or not sold for factory use against occupational dermatitis) perfumed or put up in a form comparable with cosmetics"
    are chargeable at the higher rate. What is meant by
    "perfumed or put up in a form comparable with cosmetics"?
    That must be interpreted to mean that even if the barrier cream is unperfumed, if it is packed in a comparable form, it is chargeable at 60 per cent. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will explain. What does
    "put up in a form comparable with cosmetics"
    mean? Does it mean that if someone produces a barrier cream in a dirty paper bag it is chargeable at 30 per cent., but if the cream is put in a neat little jar it is chargeable at 60 per cent.? Of course, the jar itself would also be chargeable at 60 per cent. which adds to the confusion.
    This is a more important point than it may at first appear. With the increasing use of detergents and other synthetic cleansers in the home, many women find these creams a help against various forms of dermatitis. It would be a good thing to encourage the use of barrier creams, rather than that a housewife should wait until she is suffering from dermatitis and then obtain from her doctor—at the expense of the community—some preparation which may well cost more than the shilling prescription fee. In this connection, may I remind the Financial Secretary that protective gloves of the sort that women would wear to protect their hands when doing housework are charged at 5 per cent. If only we could regard barrier creams as a form of glove and not as a cosmetic, it would be very helpful.
    There are other inconsistencies with which I do not intend to weary the Committee in detail, but I should like to know why it is that if we try to make our eyelashes curl, we have to pay tax at the rate of 60 per cent. for the necessary equipment. But if we treat ourselves to a yard of false eyelashes we are charged not duty at all. If false eyelashes are free from duty, it makes it difficult to understand why false beards and moustaches should be taxed at 60 per cent.
    Surely cleanliness of the hair must be accepted as an obligation in a civilised

    1353
    society, but we find that all the articles designed either for
    "waving, curling, setting, dyeing, tinting, bleaching, or in any way dressing or treating the hair"
    are chargeable at 60 per cent. I submit that the phrase, "dressing or treating the hair" means that many preparations charged at 60 per cent. are useful and necessary. Nothing is more unpleasant than to go out with a man who has dandruff over his dinner jacket, and I should have thought that such preparations should attract only 30 per cent. and not 60 per cent. tax.
    The hon. and learned Gentleman may say that if a preparation does not smell it can be chargeable at 30 per cent. because, reading this Schedule through very carefully, I find that the main "sin" is to smell pleasantly. Time and again we find that preparations are charged at 30 per cent. so long as they have no perfume. I cannot imagine what may be the sinister, Freudian explanation of this prejudice against perfume and a pleasant smell. There are certain cases in which smell is part of the function of the preparation. To take an unpleasant smell first as an example, anti-midge preparations have a rather noxious pseudo-lavender smell to make them effective and are chargeable at 60 per cent. because of what is called the perfume content. We must ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to find out what ingrained grudge his right hon. Friend the Chancellor bears against the use of the olfactory apparatus given to us all. Surely to enable us to have full enjoyment of our scents.
    Sunburn and skin lotions of various sorts are chargeable at 30 per cent. unless they have an element of scent in them. Sometimes the purpose of a preparation can be achieved only by means of an ingredient which smells. If it is a sort of olfactory neutrality, which is the Chancellor's objective, we must point out that this—[Interruption.] I am sorry, but I am being quite serious about this. This neutrality of the sense of smell can be achieved only by countering bad smells with good smells.
    Mr. Gerald Nabarro: I would rather like to know whether the Customs and Excise Department employ special officials to go round and smell all these preparations in an effort to
    1354
    determine what is taxable at 60 per cent., what is taxable at 30 per cent., and what is not taxable at all?
    Mrs. Jeger: The hon. Member must address that question to his hon. and learned Friend who may be able to tell him the number of "sniffers" employed in the Customs and Excise Department.
    What is the use of a deodorant which does not smell? Yet something which is called a personal deodoriser is chargeable at 60 per cent. if it is perfumed. The idea of an unperfumed personal deodoriser is a contradiction in terms. Another preparation which must have a smell if it is to work is a man's hair cream. Its function is to counteract the greasy sort of smell which is most unpleasant if it is not dealt with.
    In these debates we seem to have agreed upon a rough rule of thumb applying the highest rate of tax to what are usually classed as luxuries. I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to look again at the goods in this group to see whether there is some way in which the list can be revised in order that articles which have more to do with personal cleanliness and hygiene should be put in the lower 30 per cent. group.
    6.15 p.m.
    It is very confusing that there should be tax at 60 per cent. on the very things which we buy normally to keep ourselves clean and to help us to look a little more pleasant, which is a social duty. Group 29, which covers
    "fancy or ornamental articles suitable for personal or domestic use",
    has been reduced to 30 per cent. Stockings, as the hon. and learned Gentleman will know are charged at 5 per cent., but in the summer it is quite usual for women not to wear stockings but to use instead preparations which are generally referred to as "liquid" stockings. This is a cosmetic with which we cover our legs in an endeavour to economise while enjoying the full benefit of the sun's rays. The Chancellor is charging this preparation at 60 per cent., which seems a little unfair.
    It is important that the hon. and learned Gentleman and his right hon. Friend should see the effect of all this upon the export position of the industry. In France, the Purchase Tax on goods of this kind is only 24 per cent., and in Germany 4 per cent. Tax on these preparations in

    1355
    this country has to be added to the tax on the containers which are so important for packaging in the cosmetics industry, and it is bound to be detrimental to the firms which are trying to export these goods to Europe in the face of very severe competition.
    I would refer seriously to the psychological importance of the articles that we are considering in this group. I have here a letter which was sent to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle)—who is very sorry that she cannot be with us today—by a specialist who is responsible for a scheme of beauty treatment in Goodmayes Hospital. She writes to say how delighted the medical staff at Goodmayes have been with the effect on the patients, on the patients' relatives as well as on the staff, by the efforts that have been made in that hospital to give patients the use of cosmetics and the opportunity to learn how to use them and to take more care of their appearance. Psychologically, this has been of the utmost importance.
    I have also heard of a beauty salon recently opened at Croydon in a home for young female spastic patients, who are quite incurable but who have been given a new interest as the result of this activity.
    There are two women's prisons where attempts have been made to make it possible for women to take a pride in their appearance by the use of cosmetics and other preparations. In several cases there have been reports of the good this has done to the psychology of the people concerned.
    For all these reasons, I hope that the Financial Secretary, who, perhaps I may say without embarrassing him, is among the most gallant Members of this House——
    Mr. Gordon Walker: How does my hon. Friend know?
    Mrs. Jeger: I hope the Financial Secretary will give us some proof of his concern for the well-being not only of the women who use cosmetics but of the men who also use them in their toilet preparations. Many men need to use, more of them. If I cannot touch the heart of the hon. and learned Gentleman in that way, I would remind him that this penal taxation applies also to preparations used for the beautifying of pets. Animals are charged this penal rate for
    1356
    preparations the only purpose of which is to make their fur look fluffier or their plumage more handsome. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman now has before him sufficient reasons to justify him to revise this taxation.
    Mr. Nabarro: I intervene in the debate because an Amendment which stood in my name on the Notice Paper, and the general purpose of which was similar to that of the Amendment we are now discussing, was not selected. I wish, therefore, to say a few words on the Amendment.
    It would be churlish and ungenerous of me not to acknowledge that a very substantial reduction in the price of cosmetics and toilet prearations has followed the relief of Purchase Tax, from 90 per cent. to 60 per cent., proposed by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In that connection, the hon. Lady the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. L. Jeger) was a little less than generous in referring to the reduction as small. On the contrary, the reduction is very substantial.
    The reduction ranges over the whole field of cosmetics and toilet preparations irrespective of price, from the cheapest lipstick to the most expensive perfume. I will give two examples at random. My researches have shown that lipstick formerly costing 5s. 6d. has been reduced, as the result of the Budget proposals, to 4s. 9d., and that a box of face powder which cost 25s. before the Budget now costs 21s. 6d. They are surely very considerable reductions.
    I am sorry that the hon. Lady the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann) is not in her place, because she have been foremost in suggesting that shopkeepers have not reflected in their retail prices, since the Budget, the reductions in Purchase Tax to which my hon. and learned Friend has referred. A careful market survey has been carried out on that point and it is relevant to this discussion that the findings of the survey should be quoted in this Committee. I will read an extract from the survey, so that the nation may realise that the overwhelming majority of traders have faithfully reflected, in their retail prices, the reduction of Purchase Tax in my right hon. Friend's Budget. The survey covered no fewer than 1,231 items of toilet preparations and cosmetics, of which

    1357
    1,166 had been reduced in price. The average reduction of price is approximately 10½ per cent. or approximately in line with the two examples which I have just cited.
    Secondly, in connection with the hon. Lady's Amendment, it might be observed that the Amendment is tabled in the name of six hon. Ladies sitting on the benches opposite. That might lead one to suppose that only ladies have an interest in the price of cosmetics.
    Mrs. Slater: We are very concerned with the welfare of the hon. Gentleman, as well.
    Mr. Nabarro: There are many people who are concerned about my welfare. A generous member of the public has just delivered to me at the House two tubes of Pomade Hongroise, that famous moustache ointment, which is classified as a toilet preparation. I readily confess that I am addicted to Pomade Hongroise. My pocket will no doubt benefit by my right hon. Friend's generosity. I would make it clear that most men are just as interested in toilet preparations as described in the Schedule as are women in both cosmetics and toilet preparations. Men have benefited from the proposals that have been made in the Budget almost as much as women.
    I shall not support this Amendment in the Lobby, because it does not conform to the "Nabarro plan" for Purchase Tax. The "Nabarro plan" for Purchase Tax requires a single, uniform, non-discriminatory rate applicable to all articles that at present attract tax. The rate should be 15 per cent., in present circumstances. My right hon. Friend has brought the rate of Purchase Tax down from 90 per cent. to 60 per cent. Next year, I want him to bring it down, in pursuit of his general ideal, to a uniform rate of tax to which he has paid tribute on several occasions in the last few days, of 15 per cent. particularly in the interests of——
    The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Gordon Touche): The hon. Member is now straying from the terms of the Amendment.
    Mr. Nabarro: I am giving my reasons for not supporting the Amendment. I will halt there and say that what my right hon. Friend has done in the Budget by bringing the rate down from 90 per cent. to 60 per cent. is certainly a move in
    1358
    the right direction. It is another example of the short and faltering step which my right hon. Friend takes in my direction.
    But in the current year I want my right hon. Friend to remove many absurdities which still exist in the field of Purchase Tax upon cosmetics and toilet preparations. The hon. Lady has drawn attention to some of those anomalies. Perhaps I might summarise them and give them to my hon. and learned Friend the Financial Secretary in very short form. By administrative action he could remedy the majority of these anomalies, help the export trade and assist the general level of business in this country.
    The first anomaly is that toilet preparations, which are in any way perfumed, are liable to tax at 60 per cent. even if they are such essential products as preparations for preventing dermatitis, sunburn or insect bite, or be they deodorants. If such products are not perfumed they are either liable to be taxed at 30 per cent. or they are not liable to tax at all. Surely the Customs and Excise Department does not wish to continue to employ sniffers.
    Secondly, a pre-shaving lotion suitable for application before the use of an electric razor—an increasingly popular instrument—is liable to tax at 60 per cent., whereas shaving soap pays tax at only 30 per cent. That anomaly should be remedied.
    The third example is of face cream, cleansing cream, massage cream, hand cream or man's hair cream, which are liable to Purchase Tax at 60 per cent., while a shaving cream pays only 30 per cent.
    The fourth example is toothbrush bags and holders, which pay Purchase Tax at 60 per cent., while toothbrushes are free of duty. Toothpaste and toothbrush racks, however, are liable to tax at 30 per cent. Surely the Treasury ought to consider abolishing the tax on these articles, particularly toothpaste.
    Fifthly, eyelash curlers pay tax at 60 per cent. while artificial eyelashes are free of tax. Eyelash growers, on the other hand, pay tax at 60 per cent. but eyebrow combs pay tax at only 30 per cent. This anomaly should be put right.
    Finally, bath salts and smelling salts pay at 30 per cent. if unperfumed, but if the slightest element of perfume is added

    1359
    they become liable to tax at 60 per cent. All these anomalies would disappear if there were a flat rate of tax.
    I would make a specialised point to my hon. and learned Friend which is of very considerable importance to the nation's export trade. He may or may not know what is an aerosol. It is taxed at the same rate as the perfume or preparation which it contains. The Americans and the Germans have developed aerosols to a very high degree of perfection.
    Sir Robert Boothby: What are aerosols?
    Mr. Nabarro: I will describe an aerosol very briefly. It is the most modern and progressive form of spray for toilet preparations. It is similar in principle to a syringe and the action for ejecting the fluid or spray from the container is controlled by a small and rather expensive valve, set in the neck of the aerosol. Many American, German and French toilet preparations are sold in aerosols.
    In those countries the aerosol is free of tax and is not in any way associated fiscally with the preparation, or with the tax on the preparation which the aerosol contains. In this country the Customs and Excise Department and the Board of Trade have found it impossible to separate for taxation purposes the wholesale price of the aerosol from that of the preparation itself. The result is that the aerosol, until this Budget and now after the Budget, attract Purchase Tax. They formerly attracted tax at 90 per cent. and they now attract tax at 60 per cent.
    The cost of production of an aerosol, which is very considerable in this country—1s. or 2s. each—is largely governed by the bulk of output of aerosols. The fact that the Purchase Tax rate is so high has not only militated against the use of this most progressive and scientific package, but it has given manifest and manifold advantages to our foreign competitors.
    6.30 p.m.
    If my right hon. Friend would consult the President of the Board of Trade, he would find that I was questioning him six months ago on this point, in pursuit of an expansion of export trade for toilet preparations packaged in aerosols.
    1360
    The President of the Board of Trade admitted that I was quite right in the argument I was putting to him. He said that there was an administrative difficulty in separating the wholesale price of the aerosol from the preparation in the aerosol. I say to the Chancellor that I could solve the problem in five minutes by a simple arrangement with manufacturers for the declaration of the cost of the aerosols at the point of origin.
    Would my right hon. Friend, in pursuit of an extension of export trade—which in toilet preparations and cosmetics is very important indeed, and worth millions of pounds a year—give our manufacturers parity with American and German manufacturers by removing aerosols from the field of Purchase Tax, and, therefore, increasing the production of these most progressive and scientific of all packages?
    I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Sir R. Boothby) is now fully enlightened on the merits, advantages and export potential of an aerosol. I propose to donate one to him in the early future so that he can spray shaving cream on his face, thereby assuring an even covering, instead of using an old-fashioned lather brush. This will help him more easily to remove his whiskers.
    I am unable to support this Amendment because it does not conform with the "Nabarro plan", but it moves in the right direction. Now that the Chancellor has returned, may I thank him most cordially—I am sure I echo the thanks of millions of women—for the substantial reduction in the price of cosmetics and toilet preparations which his Budget proposals contain. The epitome of that was the magnificent cartoon which appeared in a national newspaper, showing my right hon. Friend's face adorned with the marks of ladies' attentions made by lipsticks: surely an earnest of the gratitude they felt for him in this important field of feminine adornment, although, as I said earlier, I believe that it is equally important to the male population of the country that they should have toilet preparations at a reasonable price and without such a heavy burden of Purchase Tax resting upon them.
    Mrs. Slater: I am quite sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be rather weary of hearing about the "Nabarro plan" before this part of the Finance Bill is finally dispensed with.

    1361
    The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) mentioned that my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann) had repeatedly said that the reduction in tax had not been passed on to the consumer. Perhaps the hon. Member for Kidderminster will tell his friends this: have in my possession a long list given to me by a person in the trade showing that the whole of the effect is not felt by the consumer. A very well-known hair cream for men, which is advertised extensively for doing away with dandruff and keeping the hair nice and smooth, used to retail in a small jar at 2s. If the whole reduction were passed on to the consumer, the price should now be 1s. 9d., but instead, because manufacturers put up their wholesale price on the day after the Budget, the price is now 1s. 10d. So the consumer loses 1d.
    Mr. Nabarro: The survey which I quoted covered the large number of items to which I referred. Had the whole of the tax reductions been passed on for the whole of the list of items, it would have resulted in a reduction in retail prices of 12½ per cent. Out of the 12½ per cent. the survey showed that 10½ per cent. had been passed on to the consumer. That is most generous.
    Mrs. Slater: The point is that the whole of it should have been passed on to the consumer. We have a Budget speech in which it is said that there is a reduction in Purchase Tax on these commodities. Naturally, retailing chemists began to make reductions on the first day when the Budget became operative, and consumers understood that the whole of the reduction of the tax would be passed on to them.
    A very well-known hair tonic, which is supposed not only to make children's hair grow beautifully, but also to make it curl, used to retail at 12s. 3d. If the whole tax were passed on, it should sell at 10s. 7½d., but instead it is being retailed at 11s. 6d. The consumer has some right to expect that when a reduction is made in Purchase Tax the consumer should feel the whole of the benefit. It is deluding the consumer to say that there has been a reduction when not the whole reduction is passed on.
    I do not want to speak on the general topic of cosmetics because my hon.
    1362
    Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. L. Jeger) did that extremely well and showed how many foolish little anomalies there are in this group. I want the Financial Secretary to look at the section on page 74 of Notice No. 78 which mentions preparations used in chiropody which are liable to the whole of the tax. Many people are more concerned about their feet than they used to be. Because the Ministry of Health will not allow them to start a full-scale chiropody service, many local authorities have to leave this work to voluntary associations, like the W.V.S., which are undertaking schemes for chiropody for old people. Money has to be raised voluntarily unless a grant can be made by the local authority.
    A large proportion of the cost of such a service is in the wages of those operating it and in the materials they use. To many people, particularly old people and housewives who go out to do a hard day's work, it is absolutely essential to have comfortable and well-cared-for feet. This place, to which we come every day, is served by large numbers of women who have a heavy job to do. If their feet are uncomfortable and they cannot have them attended to, their job is much more arduous. If one's feet are bad one feels miserable and unable to measure up to the job. Therefore, preparations used in chiropody form a small part of this group which could be given special consideration.
    I agree with the whole case which has been made in relation to the effect which cosmetics, shampoos and other things, have not only on cleanliness and hygiene, but also in making one feel good as a result of being able to take full advantage of these aids.
    Mrs. White: We have been told that
    "beauty is in the eye of the beholder"
    but I think that the object, nevertheless, may occasionally be improved by artificial aids.
    We have argued in previous debates on Finance Bills that the range of goods we are discussing now are of interest not only to women, who are mostly concerned with their use, but also, we hope, of interest to men who behold the results. There are also other preparations which

    1363
    are of value to men. Those were mentioned by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) who, having made his speech, has—as is his usual custom—left the Committee. It is noticeable that he did not refer to one item on page 75 of Notice No. 78, which we thought he might find of special interest—"plumage improving preparations."
    The serious argument on this particular group is that this is a trade which enters into the export market, as my hon. Friend for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. L. Jeger) pointed out. As I think the Financial Secretary realises, she is not able to be present for the rest of the debate. We are placed at a considerable disadvantage by comparison with America, Germany and France, our three main competitors in this matter. One of the reasons is the attitude which the Customs and Excise take to the question of perfume or odour. A very large group of articles which come into this section of Purchase Tax attract a relatively low rate of tax if they have no smell, but they attract a high rate of tax if they are in any way perfumed.
    We are informed that the legal interpretation of the word "unperfumed," which relieves such articles from the high rate of tax, is extremely strict. Any odour whatsoever is regarded officially as a perfume, even though the odorous ingredient is included as an antiseptic or for preservative or other reasons. Because this is an important matter commercially, we should be told how these differences are applied.
    I am pleased to see that the hon. Member for Kidderminster has now returned to his place, because this is a point on which both sides of the Committee would like to have information. By what standard does one decide whether a particular article is, in fact, unperfumed or has an odour? Some articles, such as deodorants, are made of substances which have a positively unpleasant smell, depilatories among them. If they are to be saleable they have to have some kind of counteracting scent.
    It seems quite ridiculous to expect not only the manufacturer for, the trade in this country, but also for export, to have any hope whatever of competing in the export trade in these toilet preparations if a D line is to be used. We all know
    1364
    of the difficulties into which our manufacturers were led when we had a financial D line in textiles. This discrimination in toilet preparations has very much the same effect on the manufacturer. It distorts the manufacture, it distorts the development and it is something which should be considered seriously.
    It has been pointed out to some of us that the whole trend of modern manufacture is to make perfume or a pleasant scent of some kind an additional reason for buying a particular product. If one buys a scouring powder to clean a sink one finds that the modern type of powder is perfumed. The modern floor polish is also perfumed. Manufacturers of all these household goods have, during the last few years, realised that it is an added attraction, an added quality for their goods that they should use some kind of pleasant and antiseptic scent.
    6.45 p.m.
    When we come to one's own personal preparations, then this addition of any scent whatsoever leads one into the position of having to pay a very much higher rate of tax. That, I think, is one of the most serious difficulties with which our manufacturers have to contend. The other one, which has also been touched upon, is the question of packaging. Again, if we are to compete at all, especially with countries like France and America that are so particularly skilled in this matter of packaging their goods attractively, it is unfortunate that the container as well as the content is subject to a high rate of tax. These are very serious and substantial reasons why we feel that the Chancellor should look again at this group.
    One could, of course, go into other arguments on anomalies—my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann) had some opportunity to do so in an earlier stage of the debate—but I will not detain the Committee today on that very interesting annual discussion. I could do so, of course, because there are even some metaphysical comments in the pages on Group 32. We have been talking about aerosols, and essences which have an almost medieval air about them.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: Aristotle.
    Mrs. White: Aristotle, as my right hon. Friend reminds me. It was not for

    1365
    nothing that he was once a don. I will not, however, venture into these rather academic fields. I will content myself by asking that we should have a serious reply to the question of how Customs and Excise administers this testing of the perfume or odour of these preparations, and also a reply to the very serious point I made that this particular provision does act as a serious check to the development of this trade in this country.
    Mr. Simon: We have come a long way since the year 1770, when there was introduced into this House a Bill which had the following preface:
    "That all women of whatever age, rank, profession or degree, whether virgins, maids or widows, that shall from and after such Act impose upon, seduce or betray into matrimony, any of His Majesty's subjects by the scents, paints, cosmetic washes, artificial teeth, false hair, Spanish wool, iron stays, hoops, high heeled shoes bolstered hips, shall incur the penalty of the law in force against witchcraft and like misdemeanours, and that the marriage, upon conviction, shall stand null and void."
    Mr. Gordon Walker: Has the Act been repealed?
    Mr. Simon: Happily, it was never passed into law. We have now come so far that we find my right hon. Friend reducing the tax on the very articles that are stigmatised in that Bill.
    I want to make it clear upon what principle these articles are taxed at 60 per cent. under the new dispensation. My right hon. Friend has fixed, as he indicated, a basic rate of Purchase Tax at 30 per cent. and under that there are two lower rates where it seemed socially desirable to tax at the lower rate, but above that there is a higher rate, not because the articles are thought to be luxuries but because they are the sort of articles which will yield a high revenue and where there seems to be an expandable demand. It is not because it is thought that the use of motor cars or cosmetics or gramophones is luxurious or wicked; it is simply because they are higher revenue producers.
    It is for that reason that I must say, at the outset, that my right hon. Friend is unable to accept this Amendment. The acceptance of the Amendment would cost £6½ million a year and all the articles concerned are very well able to stand a 60 per cent. tax. Indeed, I think that it would be fair to say—I do not want to get led into controversial subjects—that
    1366
    even a 90 per cent. tax was very little noticed by the consumer. I think that the hon. Lady the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater) might be unwilling to accept that but, by and large, that is a fair statement.
    The second reason—and this is merely a technical point—is that the Amendment is defective in that it does not reduce the 60 per cent. rate on perfumery or on hairdressing preparations and therefore it would have the effect of creating further anomalies. It is therefore mainly on the ground of cost, because these articles are properly taxable at a higher rate and because there is an expandable demand for them and they can stand such a tax that I am resisting this Amendment.
    The real purpose of the Amendment was, I think, to explore the various matters connected with the incidence of this tax. The hon. Lady the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North and the hon. Lady the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. Jeger), who has explained to me why she could not be present now, and my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) all drew attention to various points of detail. I do not think that it would be profitable for me to attempt to go into them at this stage. What I will do is to undertake to read what has been said very carefully and to look into these matters.
    Mr. Nabarro: Would my right hon. and learned Friend allow me one question? One matter is not a point of detail. It is a matter of administration and a very important one for the export industry. Will he try to do something about separating the value of the package, including an aerosol, from the value of the contents? I am sure, as the President of the Board of Trade has already said, that it is not part of the Government's policy to put a Purchase Tax on packages, particularly this most progressive and scientific package, the aerosol. Can he not give us an assurance that he will look into that point very carefully in the early future in the interest of the export effort of this important industry?
    Mr. Simon: I was going to deal with that matter, particularly exports and packaging, because the hon. Lady, as well as my hon. Friend, mentioned it. I

    1367
    will certainly myself look into that matter specifically, although, of course, without giving or implying any undertaking.
    There is one general matter which was raised by a number of hon. Members. That is the question of the discrimination, as it was put, against perfumery and against articles if they are scented. Again, that is simply on general revenue grounds. It is a fact that when articles are scented it seems to make them more glamorous and those are the articles which seem to have a more immediate appeal.
    Mrs. White: On that basis, there should be a higher rate of tax on perfumed floor polish, detergents and that kind of thing. If one is to argue on those lines, one should have a different tax for perfumed household articles.
    Mr. Simon: I should have thought that it was particularly relevant in the field of toilet preparations, where it is the scent that makes them particularly attractive. I cannot really believe that the housewife buys one detergent in favour of another because it smells better. That is essential in the field of cosmetics and that is the reason why there appears to be a discrimination.
    Hon. Members will have noticed that perfumery itself is specifically enumerated in Group 32. I would add that Group 32 (b 2) provides for the tax to be at the basic rate—the standard rate—on a number of the more essential preparations and also on unperfumed toilet preparations. I think that if I went further I should be merely dealing with points of detail, without much profit to the Committee.
    I ask the Committee to say that this reduction has been of great value to the trade, as has been recognised. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster was absolutely right when he said that the vast bulk of this reduction in tax has been passed on.
    Mr. Nabarro: Hear, hear
    Mr. Simon: I think that the figures that my hon. Friend quoted of the national survey that was undertaken were very striking. For those reasons, I ask the Committee not to accept the Amendment.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. H. Wilson: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again."
    The reason I move this Motion is that at 3.30 p.m., when an Amendment had been called on harpstrings and harps, the Chancellor showed an almost uncontrollable desire to rise to his feet and address the Committee on a subject other than harps and harpstrings. At that time, it will be recalled, your predecessor in the Chair, Sir Gordon, the Chairman of Ways and Means, said that the right thing to do was to move to report Progress.
    Objection was taken to this point. I gather that the further research that has since been made into the constitutional aspect suggests that that may not have been the right Ruling. Nevertheless, if the Chancellor was so moved at 3.30 that he wanted to address the Committee, I am sure that nothing has happened since to alter his desire, and I wonder whether you would accept this Motion now to enable the Chancellor to make now the statement to the Committee which he obviously wanted to make at 3.30.
    Mr. Amory: What I wanted to do at 3.30—I chose my moment, I think, rather unhappily—was just to remind the Committee how much work we have ahead of us.
    As I said last night—I still have no complaint at all about the manner in which hon. Members have applied themselves to these problems—we have a Finance Bill with seven parts, 34 Clauses and nine Schedules in it, and our work so far has enabled us to complete one Clause and part of one Schedule. I thought then, and I still think, that three days is not an unreasonable period to allow for the consideration of Purchase Tax, the Schedules and the two Clauses.
    I realise the importance of it and the number of points that can legitimately be raised. But I still feel that this is not an unreasonable allotment of time to cover this important subject. I was only going to appeal to hon. Members—although I realise that we must all do our duty in this matter by raising any points that we think ought to be raised—to make their speeches as concise as possible so that we can make faster progress than we have made. Otherwise, I feel that we ought to proceed probably well into the night tonight.

    1369
    On the other hand, I recognise that that would be inconvenient to many hon. Members, particularly in the present situation, and I would be reluctant to do that unless it became necessary. I was only going to say that, and I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving me the chance to say it now.
    Mr. Jay: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that progress is apt to be much more rapid when the Government listen to arguments advanced from other parts of the Committee and make concessions from time to time?
    Mr. Amory: I recognise that. I think that when the right hon. Gentleman thinks back over the course of our debate so far he will concede that we have listened to the speeches and the points that have been raised. I think that the number of concessions that we have made is well up to the average of those made on any previous Finance Bill at this stage.
    7.0 p.m.
    Mr. H. Wilson: There is no doubt at all that the Government representatives have listened most carefully to the debates, and only last night we acknowledged that fact, but I am sure that the Chancellor will recognise that once he laid open the whole field of Purchase Tax to examination by this Committee hon. Members in all parts—because this has not been debated from one side only—feel it necessary to examine the very many items listed in the Schedule, some because of a constituency interest in their manufacture, and others because of their concern about the position of those called upon to buy and consume the articles. Surely, the Chancellor, when he took his decision in the Budget, realised this was one of the prices that inevitably and rightly has to be paid for the decision that he thought proper to put before the Committee.
    There is another thing that will be in the minds of all hon. Members. We have had some brief discussions on the subject of retrospective legislation, dividend stripping and so on. I do not want to enter into that subject now, as there will be ample opportunities to do so at a later stage of our proceedings, but I think that right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House felt at that time that, whatever disagreements there might be on the subject, we must all agree that the lesson
    1370
    of what happened on dividend stripping is that Parliament really must do its job and get the legislation right.
    I am sure it would be a great relief to many of us if the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) did not have to get up quite as often as he feels he must at Question Time to draw attention to anomalies in Purchase Tax. I am sure that he would be as happy as we if some of the anomalies could be removed by this Committee so that it was not necessary for any hon. Member to keep drawing attention to them. I hope, therefore, that there will be no feeling on the part of the Chancellor that this time is being wasted, however tedious it may, perhaps, be for him and his hon. and learned Friend.
    As to his hopes for tonight, I am sure that the Committee will have studied the Amendments and will have seen that there are a very large number of rather important debates in prospect. Time could be saved if the right hon. Gentleman made the concessions, and made them speedily, but if the Amendments are to be properly debated I do not see how we can really hope to get through them at anything like a reasonable hour.
    The Committee was extremely co-operative with the Chancellor on Monday, when the debate on the Motion that Clause 1 stand part went through much more quickly, I think, than he himself expected. That showed great restraint on the part of hon. Members on both sides. The number of speakers was equal—it was not a question of my hon. Friends doing all the talking. I do not think that anybody will disagree with what I have said about Monday's proceedings. Since then, we have had all these Amendments. I do not think the Chancellor will feel that any time has been wasted, but if we are to get through this Purchase Tax section of the Bill in a proper manner he really must examine his timetable.
    In view of the right hon. Gentleman's excitement at 3.30 this afternoon, I thought that he intended to say something much more momentous than what he has just stated. I was a little disappointed that it was just this very short but courteous homily, but now that we have had it I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mrs. Jean Mann: I beg to move, in page 29, line 44, to leave out from "cent." to the end of line 45 and to insert:
    "they shall instead be exempt from tax."
    The Deputy-Chairman: The Committee might find it convenient also to discuss the Amendment in page 31, line 2, at end insert:
    5. Baby dusting powders, previously chargeable under Group 33 at 30 per cent., shall be exempt from tax.
    Mrs. Mann: This Amendment asks that baby dusting powders shall be exempt from Purchase Tax. I was surprised to learn that they were in fact taxed. When I referred to Notice No. 78, I found that they were classified under
    "Cosmetics and preparations of comparable character."
    When I looked up the "preparations of comparable character," I found
    "Face cream, cleansing creams, massage creams, including slimming or fleshforming creams … astringent lotions … dusting powders … face powder in all circumstances …"
    Surely it is a great anomaly to class together dusting powder and face powder as "preparations of comparable character". Face powder is used on the face. A baby dusting powder—well, if the right hon. Gentleman is not sure where that is used, some of the hon. Ladies on his own benches will be glad to inform him, as will some of us on these benches. The two are not comparable, and it is anomalous to put them in the same group.
    As I say, baby dusting powder is not used on the face. No mother would so use it. The infant would be in danger of inhaling it, and probably choking. It is used downwards from the chin—the folds under the chin, the fold under the arm—and so right down, used very lavishly, to the feet, where we dust between the toes. A small tin such as I hold in my hand would contain enough face powder to supply a lady for, perhaps, a full month, but no mother would dream of buying dusting powder in anything so small. It would not last one solitary day.
    I do not blame the right hon. Gentleman for the great hardship caused by this classification of baby dusting powder. Perhaps some other bachelor some years ago was persuaded by a civil servant
    1372
    who also knew nothing at all about the subject to classify these powders together. The right hon. Gentleman has taken a step in the right direction in reducing the tax, but I do ask him, as I have pleaded in this series of debates, to keep all children's equipment and clothing out of Purchase Tax. It is a great hardship to impose even 30 per cent.
    I recall that in the days of the clan struggles in Scotland there was a couplet that mothers used to sing as a lullaby to their babies:
    "Hush thee, hush thee,
    Do not fret thee,
    The bad Douglas will not get thee."
    Today, perhaps, they are singing:
    "Hush thee, hush thee,
    Do not fret thee,
    The bad Amory will not get thee."
    I am sure that the Chancellor would not like to hear a baby crying at all hours of the day or night just because its mother had not a sufficient supply of dusting powder.
    We have striven for years to keep all babies' and children's equipment out of the range of Purchase Tax. Babies' bottles are not chargeable, nor are babies' napkins, and it is napkins that really should be classified with dusting powder. The powder should be grouped not with face cream or face powder but with babies' nappies, and should go completely free of tax. In any case, I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman can be making very much out of it, and I do ask him to look at it again and to take babies' equipment and preparations right out of the line of
    "Cosmetics and preparations of comparable character."
    Mr. Simon: I am grateful to the hon. Lady the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann) for her very clear and concise statement of her case on the subject of baby powders. The position is that before the Budget these were thought to be properly taxed as medicines or drugs at 30 per cent. Legal advice was given that they were properly treated as toilet preparations and, therefore, taxable at 60 per cent. The effect of the Budget has been to bring them down to 30 per cent. at the standard rate.
    There is really no greater case for exempting baby dusting powder than there is for a great many other toilet articles which are used for babies, and

    1373
    are taxed; such things as baby cream, babies' brushes and combs, toilet soap, and even toys. They are all taxed and, in the bulk, they produce a large revenue. If one started to exempt such articles it would certainly lead to widespread evasion and gross anomalies. How, for example, do we distinguish between a babies' brush or comb and one for larger children, or for adults—particularly those adults who are rather sparse in hair?
    Babies' clothes are in a class by themselves, and that accounts for the exemption of babies' napkins. Babies' clothing is exempt because it is perfectly clearly distinguishable from children's and adults' clothing. I simply ask the hon. Lady to consider, even in this field, the liability to evasion if baby dusting powder were exempt. It would immediately lead to evasion into the field of ordinary face powder and talcum powder for adults. It would be indistinguishable and, although I have very great sympathy with the case that she has made for the special consideration that naturally should be paid to the welfare and cleanliness of children, it is not possible to accept this Amendment without making a nonsense of this tax.
    I would just say that it is possible to get a free dusting powder for babies on prescription, as I think the hon. Lady knows. That is a matter that we went into yesterday when discussing drugs and medicaments. There is the provision whereby, if a doctor prescribes for a child, the dusting powder will be made up free——
    Mr. Charles A. Howell: But would the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that it is not free? It costs 1s.
    Mr. Simon: Tax-free—we are talking about Purchase Tax. In the ordinary course, the shilling prescription fee would be payable, but there is exemption from Purchase Tax in such cases.
    For the reasons I have given, I cannot advise the Committee to accept the hon. Lady's Amendment.
    Mr. Douglas Jay: The Financial Secretary has given just the sort of rather negative reply——
    Mr. Gordon Walker: Dusty answer.
    Mr. Jay: Yes, a dusty answer, as my right hon. Friend says—which is regrettably likely to prolong rather than to curtail our discussions. He wants the Committee to agree to continue taxing this dusting powder at 30 per cent. The hon. and learned Gentleman gave as an example toys which are taxed at 30 per cent. which he seemed to think were a parallel with baby powder. Without going back on all the arguments about luxuries and amenities, to use the phraseology of the Paymaster-General, I should have thought that baby powder was certainly a more essential and more necessary type of product than the toys to which the Financial Secretary referred.
    7.15 p.m.
    If one looks casually through this famous document, Notice No. 78, one can find various things which are much more parallel to baby powder, such as ordinary household necessities, which are taxed not at 30 per cent. but at 5 per cent. There is the whole category of furniture, for instance, as the hon. and learned Gentleman well knows. In Group 6, there are cushions, cushion pads, pillows, bolsters, overlay mattresses and mattress shapes, and so on; they are all at 5 per cent.
    Mr. Simon: The right hon. Gentleman must not misunderstand me. What I was enumerating was a series of articles designed specifically for, or specifically suitable for, children.
    Mr. Victor Collins: What the Financial Secretary forgot to mention at the same time is that in the range of furniture, invalid chairs, babies' chairs, babies' cots and all the whole paraphernalia of babydom concerning furniture are exempted from tax and have been for years. It seems extraordinary that a baby should be taken out of an exempted cot and dusted with a taxed powder.
    Mr. Jay: The Financial Secretary's new argument, which he produced in his intervention, seems to be even more extraordinary. He appears now to be saying that these household essentials should be taxed at 5 per cent. if intended for adults but should be taxed at 30 per cent. if intended for children. That is even less convincing. I notice, for instance, that there are all sorts of normal household articles, such as handkerchiefs,

    1375
    scarves, shawls, braces, gloves and all sorts of things of that kind, which even the present Government by a series of ups and downs and shifts this way and that have now got down to a Purchase Tax rate of 5 per cent. In these circumstances, I cannot see why this one particular children's essential, whatever
    we like to call it, should be classed with toys and taxed at 30 per cent. I find the Financial Secretary's answer negative and extremely unconvincing.
    Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 196, Noes 164.

    Division No. 138.]

    AYES

    [7.19 p.m.

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    Godber, J. B.

    Medlicott, Sir Frank

    Aitken, W. T.

    Gough, C. F. H.

    Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

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

    Gower, H. R.

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

    Alport, C. J. M.

    Graham, Sir Fergus

    Nairn, D. L. S.

    Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

    Green, A.

    Neave, Airey

    Arbuthnot, John

    Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

    Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)

    Armstrong, C. W.

    Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

    Noble, Comdr. Rt. Hon. Allan

    Ashton, H.

    Gurden, Harold

    Oakshott, H. D.

    Atkins, H. E.

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

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

    Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

    Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

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

    Barlow, Sir John

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Page, R. G.

    Barter, John

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

    Baxter, Sir Beverley

    Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

    Partridge, E.

    Beamish, Col. Tufton

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Peel, W. J.

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald

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

    Peyton, J. W. W.

    Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

    Henderson-Stewart, Sir James

    Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

    Bidgood, J. C.

    Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

    Pitman, I. J.

    Bingham, R. M.

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Bishop, F. P.

    Holland-Martin, C. J.

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Body, R. F.

    Hope, Lord John

    Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

    Bossom, Sir Alfred

    Horobin, Sir Ian

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

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

    Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

    Profumo, J. D.

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

    Ramsden, J. E.

    Braine, B. R.

    Howard, John (Test)

    Rawlinson, Peter

    Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

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

    Redmayne, M.

    Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)

    Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

    Remnant, Hon. P.

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

    Hurd, A. R.

    Renton, D. L. M.

    Campbell, Sir David

    Hyde, Montgomery

    Ridsdale, J. E.

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry

    Rippon, A. G. F.

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Roper, Sir Harold

    Cole, Norman

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

    Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

    Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)

    Sharples, R. C.

    Cooke, Robert

    Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

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

    Cooper-Key, E. M.

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

    Joseph, Sir Keith

    Spearman, Sir Alexander

    Corfield, Capt. F. V.

    Kaberry, D.

    Stevens, Geoffrey

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Keegan, D.

    Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Kershaw, J. A.

    Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)

    Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

    Kimball, M.

    Storey, S.

    Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

    Kirk, P. M.

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Cunningham, Knox

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Summers, Sir Spencer

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Langford-Holt, J. A.

    Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)

    Dance, J. C. G.

    Leather, E. H. C.

    Temple, John M.

    D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Leburn, W. G.

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Deedes, W. F.

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

    Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

    Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

    Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

    Tilney, John (Wavertree)

    Doughty, C. J. A.

    Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)

    Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

    Drayson, G. B.

    Linstead, Sir H. N.

    Tweedsmuir, Lady

    du Cann, E. D. L.

    Longden, Gilbert

    Vane, W. M. F.

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

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth S.)

    Vickers, Miss Joan

    Duncan, Sir James

    Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick)

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Duthie, W. S.

    McAdden, S. J.

    Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek

    Elliott, R. W. (Ne'castle upon Tyne, N.)

    Macdonald, Sir Peter

    Wall, Patrick

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)

    Finlay, Graeme

    McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

    Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

    Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

    Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

    Webbe, Sir H.

    Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale)

    Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)

    Wills, G. (Bridgwater)

    Freeth, Denzil

    Maddan, Martin

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

    Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

    Woollam, John Victor

    Gammans, Lady

    Marlowe, A. A. H.

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

    Marshall, Douglas

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Gibson-Watt, D.

    Mathew, R.

    Mr. Brooman-White and

    Glover, D.

    Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.

    Mr. Bryan.

    Glyn, Col. Richard H.

    Mawby, R. L.

    NOES

    Ainsley, J. W.

    Healey, Denis

    Peart, T. F.

    Albu, A. H.

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

    Pentland, N.

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Hewitson, Capt. M.

    Popplewell, E.

    Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

    Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)

    Proctor, W. T.

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Holman, P.

    Pursey, Cmdr. H.

    Benson, Sir George

    Holmes, Horace

    Randall, H. E.

    Boardman, H.

    Howell, Denis (All Saints)

    Rankin, John

    Bonham Carter, Mark

    Hoy, J. H.

    Redhead, E. C.

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

    Hubbard, T. F.

    Reid, William

    Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Reynolds, G.

    Bowles, F. G.

    Hunter, A. E.

    Rhodes, H.

    Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

    Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

    Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

    Brockway, A. F.

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

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

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Jeger, George (Goole)

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

    Rogers, George (Kensingon, N.)

    Burke, W. A.

    Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

    Ross, William

    Burton, Miss F. E.

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Short, E. W.

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Kenyon, C.

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Callaghan, L. J.

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

    Carmichael, J.

    King, Dr. H. M.

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

    Champion, A. J.

    Lawson, G. M.

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Clunie, J.

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Sparks, J. A.

    Coldrick, W.

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Steele, T.

    Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

    Logan, D. G.

    Stones, W. (Consett)

    Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch & Finsbury)

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

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

    Cove, W. G.

    McAlister, Mrs. Mary

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    McCann, J.

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

    McGovern, J.

    Taylor, John (West Lothian)

    Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

    McInnes, J.

    Thomas, George (Cardiff)

    de Freitas, Geoffrey

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

    Delargy, H. J.

    McLeavy, Frank

    Thornton, E.

    Diamond, John

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Tomney, F.

    Dodds, N. N.

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

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

    Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)

    Viant, S. P.

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    Mann, Mrs. Jean

    Wade, D. W.

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

    Weitzman, D.

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)

    Mellish, R. J.

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

    Mikardo, Ian

    West, D. G.

    Fernyhough, E.

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Wheeldon, W. E.

    Finch, H. J.

    Monslow, W.

    White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Moody, A. S.

    Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

    Gibson, C. W.

    Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

    Willey, Frederick

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C

    Mort, D. L.

    Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)

    Greenwood, Anthony

    Moyle, A.

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

    Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

    Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

    Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

    Grey, C. F.

    Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

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

    Woof, R. E.

    Griffiths, William (Exchange)

    Oram, A. E.

    Yates, V. (Ladywood)

    Hale, Leslie

    Orbach, M.

    Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

    Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Paget, R. T.

    Zilliacus, K.

    Hamilton, W. W.

    Palmer, A. M. F.

    Hannan, W.

    Parkin, B. T.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Hastings, S.

    Paton, John

    Mr. J. T. Price and Mr. Deer.

    Hayman, F. H.

    Pearson, A.

    Mr. Collins: I beg to move, in page 30, line 23, to leave out from the beginning to "shall" in line 25 and to insert:
    (2) Furniture of a kind used for domestic purposes and comprised in the list there set out previously chargeable under paragraph (b) at 5 per cent. shall be exempt from tax and this exemption.
    The Temporary Chairman (Sir Robert Grimston): It would also be convenient if we discussed, at the same time, the Amendment in page 30, line 28, at the end to insert:
    (3) The rate of tax on mirrors, whether framed or not, shall be reduced to 15 per cent.
    Mr. Collins: I am sure that the Committee will agree that the most pleasant
    1378
    feature of the debate during the last three days has been the unfailing courtesy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary, the patience with which they have listened to what we have said and, most important, the fact that they have given answers to the debates. Unfortunately, the quality which we most desired has been almost completely absent; at no time have they given an unqualified "Yes" to our request. It would have been much more to the taste of my hon. Friends and myself if we had had shorter but more favourable answers. We carry on hopefully, and I hope that this time the Chancellor will give a favourable answer.

    1379
    The effect of the Amendment is to exempt from tax domestic furniture, which is presently chargeable at 5 per cent., and also to exempt from tax office furniture, metal furniture and hall furniture, which were previously taxed at 15 per cent. and which in the Bill are taxed at 5 per cent. I am fully aware that arguments must be strong under existing conditions to justify a reduction in tax from 5 per cent. to nil, but I submit that those arguments are strong in the furniture industry, and I will try to set them out as briefly as possible.
    First, there is the social argument. Furniture is an article of daily domestic commerce. I suppose that most people will agree that the priorities in the budget of the home are, first, food; secondly, the rent which must be paid; thirdly, the clothing which must be bought; and then furniture. Furniture occupies a very high priority. It is part of the every-day commerce of life. Beds and bedding, tables and chairs, cupboards and wardrobes, and chests of drawers, are all intimate utilities of the domestic landscape, and in my view they ought not to be a target for the tax gatherer.
    7.30 p.m.
    We on this side of the Committee recognised that in the Utility scheme, when furniture first began to be made before the end of the war and after the war, because the utility group comprised 90 per cent. of the group of furniture which we are now discussing, which comes in the 5 per cent. tax range. Under the Labour Government that group was tax free. It is no answer to say that some articles were then more highly taxed than they are now and that on the more highly taxed range of furniture the tax has been reduced to 5 per cent. The essential point is that under the Labour Party's policy the worker's home was tax free, and it should still be tax free. We insist on that.
    The 5 per cent. tax was therefore a new imposition, a direct imposition which had an immediate impact on the cost of living and the standard of living of the lower-paid workers and others in the lower income groups. It meant at the same time a big reduction—a financial sacrifice to the Exchequer—in the tax on the more expensive furniture. In my submission that was a retrograde step.
    1380
    The D scheme which followed the abandonment of the Utility scheme—an abandonment which I very much regretted—adopted very much the same pattern. The D mark was so fixed and the articles which had formerly been in the utility range and had been tax free continued to be tax free under the Douglas scheme. In conflict with many in the furniture industry and with many hon. Members, I protested when that Douglas pattern was destroyed. Again, I think it was an anti-social step and I believe that many who at that time acquiesced in the ending of that scheme now very much regret that it was ended. It must therefore be considered that the tax which we are discussing is wrong on grounds of social justice.
    It is wrong, secondly, because it is part of the cumulative attack which the Government have made and maintained on the furniture industry. The severity of the effect of that attack on the furniture industry may well be unintentional, but we have to consider the facts as they are. For instance, as soon as the first fine bloom wore off the hopes of the then Chancellor of the Exchequer early in 1955 and the last blizzard but one began to be felt financially, the first thing attacked was furniture. Immediately it was decided that there must be a 15 per cent. initial deposit on hire-purchase agreements. I am strongly opposed, and always will be opposed, to no-deposit hire-purchase trading or the unrestricted development of hire purchase, but unquestionably the present deposit is too high.
    Another fact which adds to the difficulty caused by the Purchase Tax, and which has particular application to the furniture industry, is the proviso that every fresh purchase requires a fresh deposit. That is a great blow to young people setting up a home or to many families in constituencies like mine, where hundred-years-old slums are being torn down and where families are moving into new flats or new houses for the first time. They want a new home to go into these new flats, because that which they have endured for so long is not fit to move into their new accommodation. They are anxious to start a new life, but they cannot do this in the way they want because they cannot afford to do so under existing restrictions.
    Even when they do buy part of their home on hire purchase, and perhaps

    1381
    nearly pay for it, they cannot make any purchase without a fresh deposit. Therefore, they cannot do what they would normally like to do and what this Committee ought to want them to do—that is, gradually to add to their home as they can afford to pay for it. It is much better that money should be spent in that way than on excessive amounts of drink or pools or things of that kind. This is a capital investment which we ought to encourage our people to make—an investment in their own domestic capital.
    The Chancellor may well ask, what has this got to do with Purchase Tax? It should be obvious that if we have these restrictions in addition to the credit restriction and the credit squeeze—all part of the Government's policy and about which the furniture industry in particular cannot make any more complaint than any other industry—these two spearheads directed at furniture and particularly at the prohibition of "add to" agreements, which do not affect any other industry, have brought this industry very low indeed. We have this 5 per cent. tax added to the handicaps which I have already mentioned—the difficulties experienced by ordinary people to furnish their homes and to add to extra furnishing, this prohibition of the "add to" agreements which affects the furniture industry because it is a technique of convenience with a long historical background, a technique built up to help many people to obtain their homes in stages. This is part of the Chancellor's policy just as this 5 per cent. Purchase Tax is part of his policy about which we are now protesting.
    What is the cumulative effect of all this? It is to bring the industry very low indeed, as I shall show later. First, in order that the Chancellor may have the whole picure, I would mention that there is particular difficulty which is increasing at the present time due to competition from abroad. I welcome competition. I think that the greater the freedom of trade we have, the better it will be for this country, with the proviso—other things being equal. All has got to be fair and above board. At present in this country we are subjected to an assault, particularly from countries like Czechoslovakia and Eastern Germany, of exports of furniture at prices far below the cost of production or even the retail
    1382
    prices obtaining in those countries. That is no direct fault of the Government, but my complaint about the Government is that they have failed signally to deal with the situation. We are told that these things cannot happen. We have not even got a trade pact with Eastern Germany. The furniture industry is up against all these things.
    The furniture industry is trying very hard in existing conditions to make the best go of things that it can. It has not run away from any of its problems. It has done its utmost to promote exports. But furniture is not a commodity which can easily be exported. In almost every country there is a furniture industry which is capable of supplying the domestic needs of that country. It has been built up to match the state of the country's economic and sociological development. All those countries, because they have their own furniture industry, have a fairly high tariff at an average of about 20 per cent.
    Then there are other difficulties, which will be obvious and manifest to the right hon. Gentleman, of the bulk of furniture, the immense cost of transport, freight, packing and so on. The industry has even considered the question of freight aircraft for the transport of furniture for export purposes. It has approached the Government to obtain a reduction in foreign quotas so that this country may export furniture. No effort has been spared to do the utmost possible in existing circumstances.
    Recently the Federation of Retail Furnishers was sufficiently enterprising to ask the Economist Intelligence Unit to conduct a survey of the industry. I have a copy of its report here. It ought to be studied by every hon. Member and I am sure the Chancellor ought to look at it, certainly before taking any firm decision to turn down this Amendment. It is an impartial and invaluable survey of the furniture industry. This report, which examines the conditions of the industry, which delineates beyond a peradventure the causes of the present conditions and suggests remedies, must be accepted as a fair and impartial record of the facts.
    The report represents an unhappy but clear picture of a steadily declining industry, declining through no fault of its own. There is no question but that

    1383
    this decline is largely, and perhaps entirely, attributable to direct Government interference—not only overall economic policy but points of Government policy which directly affect the furniture industry. For example, in February, 1955, which I mentioned earlier, there was a fall in the hire-purchase sales of furniture of from 41 per cent. to 65 per cent. compared with the same month in 1954. Over the year there was a decline in the whole furniture trade of 39 per cent. as compared with 1955 and 1954.
    Nobody could pretend that the difference in the general economic circumstances was such between those years as to justify anything like a fall of that size. The right hon. Gentleman could not possibly mention any other industry in this country which in two consecutive years, or indeed since the war, has suffered a decline of anything like that. It would be idle to pretend that it was the result of anything but direct Government action. The official figures of furniture sales, in case the right hon. Gentleman wants to quote them, conceal the truth. That is unavoidable by reason of the fact that the official figures include sales of other goods like radio, television, china and crockery and all sorts of things with no relation whatever to furniture, but which retail furnishers have had to buy and sell in order to continue to pay their expenses and "tick over" at all.
    Although total sales have declined in volume and in some measure in value, the relative actual sales of real furniture have declined to a greater extent. I ask the Chancellor to consider these figures. In 1941 there were 4,100 furniture manufacturers. Today there are less than 2,000. No other industry can point to such a decline.
    As the Committee knows, I am particularly concerned in this matter because Shoreditch produces more furniture than any other area in the country, even more than High Wycombe. I see the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) is present. He is fond of saying—and I would agree if I were in his position—that it may not produce the most but that it produces the best. I am not here to dispute that suggestion, although I hold an entirely contrary
    1384
    view. We both have a considerable constituency interest in this matter.
    7.45 p.m.
    In my constituency there are what are called "small working masters" who have to an ever-increasing degree been going out of existence through no fault of their own. It is a serious matter and one which the Chancellor should consider in forming his policy in order to give what help he can.
    By 1955 a serious position was arising in the industry. The industry was then employing 100,000 operatives. The Ministry of Labour index gives a figure of more than 100,000, but that includes blind makers and others making oddments of that kind, men whom we do not really regard as being in the furniture industry. The latest official figure that I have from the Ministry is 86,700. That means that in the last two or three years many skilled men from the industry have gone into other jobs, many of them not skilled. Many of these men have become park keepers and bus conductors, which are important and necessary jobs but not the jobs for which those men were trained. This represents so much skill lost to the country. These men have been driven out of the industry by intermittent unemployment and short-time working. If all those men had remained in the industry and gone on the dole, it would have meant that more than 13 per cent. of the men in the industry were wholly unemployed. Fortunately, not many industries have a situation like that.
    Of the 86,000 persons remaining in the industry, nearly 20,000—nearly one in four—are today working short-time according to the National Union of Furniture Trade Operatives. The official figure is 6,000 or 7,000; but that is unreliable because it does not include firms with fewer than eleven employees or firms which are, through agreement between the management and the men, restricting their output in order to spread the work among the men to avoid discharges. Nevertheless, the men working one kind of short-time or another now number about 20,000, which is very nearly 25 per cent. of the men employed in the industry.
    In his taxation policy the Chancellor cannot refuse to have regard to the relative social importance and essentiality of

    1385
    goods in their relation to each other. He has been diffident—I understand it—about classifying anything as a luxury, but surely he can say that beds, tables and chairs are not luxuries? Some of us at about 5 o'clock tomorrow morning may be thinking what a luxury a few hours in bed would be, but, generally speaking, these articles would not be regarded as luxuries. They are a comfort, but they are an absolute essential to ordinary social existence at all income levels.
    The industry is an important, skilled and efficient one. The Government have admitted the principle of preferential treatment based on social importance. The Chancellor may have tried to depart from that. He has said that Purchase Tax is a means of raising revenue, not of discriminating between one industry and another. In large measure, we accept that, but when a social reason also enters into it the Government have accepted the principle, because when the initial deposits for the hire purchase of cars, radios, television sets and so on were raised to 50 per cent., the initial deposit for furniture remained at 20 per cent. Thus, we had discrimination there.
    The men in the industry—it is not only the employers; it is the men also—under the wise leadership of their trade union have increased productivity to a degree which is unsurpassed since the war in any other industry. Are they now to be told that they have worked themselves out of a job? That is an important question. The industry has not over-produced, nor has it over-expanded. After the war the industry did not become wholly uncontrolled in its production until 1953. First we had rationing, and then there was control of imports of plywood and timber, and it was not until 1953 that there was complete freedom to produce. Taking the index in 1948 as 100, the highest figure of production reached was 172 in 1954. Since then the figure has declined every year. Although there is no way of checking it, because there are no figures of production before the war, I would say that, having regard to purchasing power, the volume of production is no more today than it was before the war, and it may, in fact, be less.
    Since we all say that we want a rising standard of living and an expanding economy within the limits of our overseas
    1386
    difficulties, it would obviously be utterly wrong to destroy or seriously cripple the furniture industry by directing fiscal policy and credit policy at it. The industry has not over-expanded; it has had the demand for its products artificially stifled by Government policy. I urge the Chancellor to do what he can to right the wrong by accepting the Amendment and removing the tax tonight.
    Mr. John Hall: I am sorry that I was not here in time to hear the opening remarks of the hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Collins). The Committee will appreciate that I must naturally have considerable sympathy with the purpose behind the Amendment. Indeed, on Second Reading I said that I thought furniture should be taken outside the Purchase Tax range altogether and treated as a necessity free from all tax. I must confess that that principle is attractive to me.
    Nevertheless, we must have a sense of proportion. At the moment, the greatest volume of furniture bears tax at 5 per cent. and a small part of it tax at 15 per cent. I do not think the removal of the 5 per cent. rate of Purchase Tax will make all that difference in stimulating greater sales of furniture.
    The hon. Gentleman has referred to more important factors, such as the credit restrictions, for they affect the industry as they affect many others. I would single out the "add to" agreement as being the greatest contributor to the difficulties which the industry has faced in relation to its credit sales. I do not think that that is a matter on which the Chancellor can help us very much today. It is more a matter for the President of the Board of Trade, who, I hope, will look with sympathy upon any representations that we make to him in the near future.
    I wish to take up some points which the hon. Member mentioned. He referred to the effect on the industry of the dumping of foreign-made furniture here, notably from Poland, Czechoslovakia and Eastern Germany. There are also a number of chairs—very well made chairs—coming here from Yugoslavia—which has had an adverse effect upon the smaller firms, in particular, which have specialised in the past almost entirely in making chairs. There are one or two small firms in the

    1387
    Wycombe area that have been affected in that way.
    I understand that in the London area the effect has been felt more severely. Nevertheless, the total import of that kind of furniture has been very small indeed when related to the total turnover of the furniture industry. It may be for that reason that the industry as a whole has not yet asked the President of the Board of Trade officially to take action under the anti-dumping legislation. I think that that is so. It may be because of the difficulty in proving that the industry has been damaged to any appreciable extent. Nevertheless, it is a problem to which attention should be given.
    The hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury also said that in his view it was difficult to export furniture. I would cross swords with him here. I do not think the furniture industry has done all it could to export furniture. One or two firms in my own constituency—and I promise not to say that we make the best furniture—have successfully—entered the export market. They have managed in particular to find markets in the newly developing areas of the world where new enterprises are being built up, new oilfields found, and so on, and there is considerable scope for development.
    The hon. Gentleman perhaps rather spoilt the case that he tried to make by over-emphasising the reduction in the size of the industry as a whole by pointing out that the number of manufacturers in the industry have fallen to, I think he said, 2,000. He will know that during and after the war a number of small manufacturers entered into the furniture industry who had previously taken no part in it at all. Their experience was very limited, but they found a ready market for what they could make. Many manufacturers could not stand up to the stress of competition as well as longer established manufacturers who had perhaps a greater percentage of craftsmen and men with experience in the industry in their employ.
    It is my experience in Wycombe, whatever may be the experience in London that some of those who have been leaving the industry because of a falling off in the demand for furniture have not necessarily been the craftsmen. There were a lot of people in the industry who
    1388
    were not craftsmen but who learnt the art of making furniture only in recent years because of the considerable expansion that took place in the post-war years, and they have perhaps gone back to similar occupations that they had before they entered the industry. I do not think we are losing so many craftsmen through that cause as the hon. Gentleman might believe.
    Mr. Collins: There may have been an influx of new firms during the war, but I would not have thought so. However, the number of firms has declined since the war from 3,148 in 1950 to less than 2,000 seven years later. That is post-war development. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman cannot ignore the very sharp decline in the total labour force despite the fact that he will agree there has been a very considerable increase in mechanisation and a great increase in productivity. There are less men in the industry.
    Mr. Hall: The hon. Gentleman has quoted another reason, in addition to those that I have mentioned, why there has been a reduction in the labour force. It is true that there has been a considerable increase in the mechanisation of the furniture industry. It is true to say that before the war, and certainly almost immediately after the war, there was less machinery per operative in the furniture industry than any other industry. But it has been making great strides in increasing its mechanisation and introducing new and improved machines. Therefore, to that extent, it has been able, as is nearly always the case, to reduce the number of operatives for a particular operation in the manufacture of the furniture. That is one of the contributing factors.
    I do sympathise with the purpose behind the Amendment, and I hope it will be possible for the Chancellor to look at this matter again from the point of view of considering furniture as one of the necessities of life. The Conservative Party has always supported the concept of a property-owning democracy. Although "property-owning" covers many things other than the ownership of houses, nevertheless we have always tried to encourage house ownership. It is no use merely owning a bare house of bricks and mortar unless it is furnished and turned into a home, because it is homes that we are trying to provide rather

    1389
    than houses or housing units, as they have been described.
    If we are to encourage people to own their own houses we must make it easier for them to furnish them. It is difficult for young couples who are starting in life to meet the many calls made upon them in buying, renting or furnishing a home, and Purchase Tax, small as it may be, adds to the cost. Above all, the real culprit, if culprit there be, as it affects the reduction in the sale of furniture is not Purchase Tax at all but the credit restrictions and the things that go with them.
    I hope the Chancellor will consider the points that have been made and see if he can do something on Report to help the industry further.
    8.0 p.m.
    Mr. Austen Albu: The speech we have heard from the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) is another example of hon. Gentlemen opposite supporting an Amendment in principle but opposing it in practice. We have had the usual well-informed discussion on the industry by hon. Members who represent it. I include myself in this category. I will not add a great deal to the valuable information that the Committee has been given about the present state of the industry. I want to consider the Amendment from the point of view of the hon. Member for Wycombe in his last remarks.
    Of course, the industry has undoubtedly suffered a decline in recent years. The loss of 10,000 workpeople in the industry since 1956 cannot be attributed to an increase in mechanisation in that short period, because the industry had already mechanised and modernised itself by that time. I agree with the hon. Member for Wycombe that the industry has become a modern mass production industry which employs not so much skilled workers as semi-skilled workers. This applies to wooden furniture, but it does not apply to the upholstery side, which again is a very highly skilled part of the furniture industry. It does not affect the hon. Member's constituency as it does other hon. Members' constituencies.
    This side of the industry is losing skilled workers who may not come back when the industry recovers and may be lost completely. This is an important
    1390
    and serious loss to the industry. As the Economist Intelligence Unit points out, a good deal of the troubles of the industry is due to fluctuating Government controls, restrictions and the whims of Government economic policy. I entirely agree that these are much more important with regard to credit restrictions and hire-purchase restrictions than they are with regard to taxation.
    I agree that the industry should make a greater effort to export, although it is not only the constituents of the hon. Member for Wycombe who are contributing towards this aim. I was glad to see when I was in Salisbury, Southern Rhodesia, that Harris Lebus Ltd., which employs the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Redhead) and myself and is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Sir F. Messer), had some of its new Link furniture on show in a showroom in one of the main streets. This company is perhaps taking the lead.
    The case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury and the hon. Member for Wycombe is that furniture is a necessity and that any tax on it falls particularly heavily on young married couples and those who are setting up homes for the first time. The "add-to" agreement is a burden for those who are continuing to furnish, and that probably applies to young people, too. When one is faced with the necessity of obtaining furniture for a house, even if it is only the bare tables, chairs, and beds, undoubtedly a tax of this sort is quite serious, and it comes at a time when the Government have put serious burdens on those who are setting up homes for the first time.
    Young married couples are finding it more and more difficult to get accommodation at rents they can afford to pay. If, in addition to the rent, or in the case of those who are property-owning, the mortgage charges, they have to pay an additional tax on the basic necessities for setting up a home, considerable hardship may ensue. This is at a time when Government policy, both credit and financial, is keeping the economy well below its possible economic level. There is thus a considerable reduction in earnings because there is either short-time working or much less overtime worked than was

    1391
    the case two or three years ago. So, since both the young man and woman are probably working, they will each have smaller incomes than they had a year ago.
    There is a strong case for removing furniture from the operation of Purchase Tax. There certainly is a case for the tax in general principle, as both sides of the Committee recognise, but there is no case in principle for taxing the necessities of life and of the home. There may have been a case for some taxation under the old Utility and D schemes, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, when the more expensive and luxurious types of furniture were taxed, but there is no case for putting a tax on the equipment without which no couple can set up a home. I hope, therefore, that we shall have a sympathetic response from the Chancellor to the plea made from both sides of the Committee.
    The Paymaster-General (Mr. Reginald Maudling): The hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Collins) moved this Amendment in a speech which displayed his considerable knowledge of the subject, and both hon. Members who have since addressed the Committee equally have knowledge of this industry in their own constituencies. The effect of the Amendment would be to exempt the major items of furniture which are now chargeable at 5 per cent., and the cost of it would be £8 million. That is the sum which I am afraid in any case my right hon. Friend would find it extremely difficult to contemplate by way of reduction in his revenue.
    I do not think that the arguments put forward so far in discussing the Amendment, eloquent as they were, are conclusive. One can sum them up by reference to the speech of the hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury as having two characteristics. He said, in the first place, that furniture should not be regarded as a luxury. Secondly, he accused the Government, I am sorry to say, of making an attack upon furniture.
    Mr. Collins: And proved it.
    Mr. Maudling: I hope to show that the hon. Gentleman failed signally to prove any such thing, but that is a matter of controversy, I admit. Those are his two points, and I will deal with them.
    1392
    The hon. Gentleman said that furniture is not a luxury. Of course everyone admits that furniture is not a luxury. He said that there should be some social preference in these matters. With respect, that is a rather horrible phrase, but I think we all know what he means by it. There is social preference in the rates of tax because furniture is not charged at the 60 per cent. luxury rate. It is not even charged at the standard rate of 30 per cent. or the reduced rate of 15 per cent. It is charged at the lowest rate of 5 per cent., the effect in retail prices, I am told, being about 8d. in the £. That cannot be regarded as a very heavy rate of tax.
    The fact is that when we contemplate the level of Government expenditure we now have—and with all respect to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite I have not seen any proposals of theirs that were likely to reduce the total burden of Government expenditure in the future—we realise that this cannot be obtained from luxuries alone. It must be realised that the burden of taxation must be widely spread. On Monday, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said to the Committee:
    "I have on this occasion reduced hardly at all the coverage of the tax"—
    It is the coverage of the tax we are talking about now—
    "because I believe that it should be spread widely. I believe that if one has an indirect tax of this importance it should cover a pretty wide field and be levied at moderate rates."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th May. 1958; Vol. 588, c. 988.]
    Certainly 5 per cent. on the wholesale value is a moderate rate. I think, therefore, that the maintenance of the tax at this level falls entirely within the principle for which my right hon. Friend was stating the case in the general debate on Monday.
    The second point of the hon. Gentleman was the question of the attack on the industry. He referred to the three difficulties which the industry is facing: the credit restrictions, the dumping and the rate of tax. I think there is a certain amount of disagreement between the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend as to the relative importance of the three elements. On the whole, I would agree with my hon. Friend, not merely because I always agree with him, but because I think that

    1393
    in this case the balance of arguments probably lies with him.
    Mr. Collins: Prejudice.
    Mr. Maudling: Well, as someone once said, there is not always a great deal of difference between prejudice and conviction in some of these matters. As regards credit restrictions, the hon. Gentleman said fairly that these are of general application over a wide field. They are an essential part of my right hon. Friend's general policy for combating inflation. I do not think it can be fairly described as an attack on the furniture industry. Certainly the industry has not been singled out. Certainly those in the industry are affected, and I am sure severely at times, by the hire purchase restrictions, but they are an inevitable part of the general restrictions on credit which are fundamental to my right hon. Friend's policy.
    Mr. Collins: I am marching in step with the right hon. Gentleman so far, but there is one point he has not appreciated. That is probably my fault. The superiority of his hon. Friend's argument was due to the fact that I thought, if I pursued it too far, I should be out of order. The hon. Gentleman found I was not, and so developed it. The point is that the prohibition of the consolidation of hire-purchase agreements only affects furniture. People do not buy another motor car on hire purchase before paying for the first one. So this only affects furniture, and that is the spearhead of the attack which the Government have made, and persist in carrying on, against furniture.
    Mr. Maudling: It would be unwise to venture too far, because I might be out of order. Nor am I as conversant with these matters as my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. It was said by one hon. Gentleman that the deposit was 20 per cent. in the case of furniture and 50 per cent. in the case of other things, so although we should realise that these restrictions affect the furniture industry, it would be exaggerated to describe them as an attack or as the spearhead of an attack.
    Secondly, as regards dumping. As the hon. Member was speaking I wondered why no application had been made to the Board of Trade for anti-dumping duties. If it can be established that there
    1394
    is dumping and that injury is being done to the British trade, I am sure that my right hon. Friend will carry out his duties under the Act. So far, however, from what I heard from my hon. Friend, the industry has not found it necessary to take action. If at any time the industry feels it should be necessary, no doubt they will make representations to the President of the Board of Trade.
    Mr. Collins: The brief is being prepared.
    Mr. Maudling: I am sure it will be a good one, and no doubt it assisted the hon. Gentleman this afternoon in his well-informed speech.
    On the question of the tax, it cannot be said that there was an attack on the furniture industry in the Purchase Tax provisions of the present Bill, because in the present Bill a 5 per cent. rate is extended to cover the major items of office furniture, hitherto taxed at 15 per cent., together with the remaining items of, domestic furniture. For example, I am informed that hat, coat and umbrella stands and racks have been added to the 5 per cent. list, and the exclusion of articles made of metal has been removed. All are examples of the way in which this Bill has brought noticeable help to the furniture industry, though no doubt it will be argued that we should go further and do more.
    Finally, I return to the point that the tax at 5 per cent. which is now levied on the articles about which we are talking represents in practice only about 8d. in the £ retail. I cannot believe it is a serious impediment to the retail sale of furniture. Certainly, in view of the cost of £8 million a year which this Amendment would mean, and in view of my right hon. Friend's general principle that there must be wide spreading of this tax, I must advise the Committee to reject the Amendment.
    8.15 p.m.
    Mr. Jay: Once again we have had a negative reply from the Government to what seemed to me a very powerful case, made out by three hon. Members, for a tax relief in respect of furniture. The Paymaster-General says that the tax is a mere 5 per cent. When the railwaymen asked for a 3 per cent. rise in wages the Government made a great fuss about it. They did not seem to regard that as "a

    1395
    mere 3 per cent.". Of course, they gave way in the end, as they always do, and they caused a great deal of trouble about this mere 3 per cent. But the essential point in the story, which the Paymaster-General entirely ignores, is that the present Government are levying the 5 per cent. on a household necessity which was almost entirely tax-free under the Labour Government.
    As my hon. Friend has pointed out, under the Utility scheme, which operated until 1951, 90 per cent. of furniture was altogether free of tax. The Government, therefore, are imposing this tax on something which was previously tax free, and raising £8 million in the process, as the right hon. Gentleman admits.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Collins) was quite right in saying that in the last five or six years the furniture industry has been made the victim of Government policy, especially with all the changes and shifts which the industry has suffered as a result of the Government's attitude towards it.
    Mr. John Hall: That is a little too sweeping. If the right hon. Member examines the figures he will find that furniture production increased considerably in the first four or five years after the accession to power of this Government.
    Mr. Jay: Furniture production may have increased for all sorts of reasons. Nevertheless, there has been a remarkable series of changes of Government policy. First, the D scheme was introduced in place of the Utility scheme, and then, in its turn, the D scheme was abolished. The Government take one action after another which tends to cause a rise in living costs. This is a new tax on a household necessity. It is not very surprising that the total yield from Purchase Tax has risen from £290 million to £490 million in the last six years, when these widely used household necessities are brought into the ambit of the tax. By this sort of action the Government have continually created pressure for higher money wages, and they then blame the workers for putting in claims designed merely to counteract the rise in the cost of living caused by the Government themselves.
    1396
    This is another example of their restrictionist policy, which, as the Paymaster-General admitted in the Budget debate, landed us in the situation where the Government must now prevent any rise in production for fear of raising prices still higher.
    The imposition of the tax on furniture, apart from its effect on living costs generally, is particularly regrettable because it is a tax on home ownership—as the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) said. I only hope that the hon. Member will have more courage than did his hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), and back up his convictions in the Division Lobby tonight. We all know that the hon. Member for Kidderminster runs away when it comes to the test.
    Mr. John Hall: The right hon. Gentleman may remember that in the Second Reading debate, when I was asked by hon. Members opposite whether I would vote for this sort of Amendment, I said that if I voted for any Amendment I would vote for my own.
    Mr. Jay: I am disappointed to see that the hon. Member has neither the courage to put down an Amendment himself nor to vote for one carrying out his beliefs when it is put down by somebody else.
    Although we shall not have the support of his vote we entirely agree with his argument that this is a further tax on home ownership. Almost every action which the Government take tends to raise the cost of acquiring a home. I find that in my constituency, where housing is by far the most important problem, again and again I am asked to advise people who are homeless. In many cases they are young couples who have just been married or are about to be married, and they are faced with the impossible problem of acquiring a new house—impossible because of high interest rates, mortgage restrictions, the credit squeeze and everything else. On top of all that, we have to endure a tax on every article of domestic furniture.
    All three hon. Members who have spoken have made it clear that the industry is facing a condition of depression. The Chancellor has admitted, as have the Government, that there is an additional argument for giving tax

    1397
    relief when an industry is facing difficulties. It was done in the case of the cotton industry, and the argument has been accepted for other industries from time to time. Therefore, I hope that my hon. Friends, with or without the support of the hon. Member for
    Wycombe, will press this claim to a Division.
    Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 197, Noes 161.

    Division No. 139.]

    AYES

    [8.21 p.m.

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    Gough, C. F. H.

    Nairn, D. L. S.

    Aitken, W. T.

    Gower, H. R.

    Neave, Airey

    Alport, C. J. M.

    Graham, Sir Fergus

    Nicholls, Harmar

    Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

    Green, A.

    Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)

    Arbuthnot, John

    Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

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

    Armstrong, C. W.

    Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

    Oakshott, H. D.

    Ashton, H.

    Gurden, Harold

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

    Atkins, H. E.

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

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

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    Page, R. G.

    Barlow, Sir John

    Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

    Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

    Barter, John

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

    Partridge, E.

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Peel, W. J.

    Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

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

    Peyton, J. W. W.

    Bidgood, J. C.

    Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

    Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

    Bingham, R. M.

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Pitman, I. J.

    Bishop, F. P.

    Hobson, John (Warwick & Leam'gt'n)

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Body, R. F.

    Holland-Martin, C. J.

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Bossom, Sir Alfred

    Hope, Lord John

    Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

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

    Horobin, Sir Ian

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

    Profumo, J. D.

    Braine, B. R.

    Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

    Ramsden, J. E.

    Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

    Howard, John (Test)

    Rawlinson, Peter

    Brooman-White, R. C.

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

    Redmayne, M.

    Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)

    Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

    Remnant, Hon. P.

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

    Hurd, A. R.

    Renton, D. L. M.

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh, S.)

    Ridsdale, J. E.

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

    Hyde, Montgomery

    Rippon, A. G. F.

    Cole, Norman

    Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry

    Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

    Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Roper, Sir Harold

    Cooke, Robert

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

    Cooper-Key, E. M.

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Sharples, R. C.

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

    Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)

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

    Corfield, Capt. F. V.

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Spearman, Sir Alexander

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Joseph, Sir Keith

    Speir, R. M.

    Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

    Kaberry, D.

    Stevens, Geoffrey

    Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

    Keegan, D.

    Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

    Cunningham, Knox

    Kershaw, J. A.

    Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Kimball, M.

    Storey, S.

    Dance, J. C. G.

    Kirk, P. M.

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Davidson, Viscountess

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Summers, Sir Spencer

    D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Leather, E. H. C.

    Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)

    Deedes, W. F.

    Leburn, W. G.

    Teeling, W.

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

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

    Temple, John M.

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

    Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Doughty, C. J. A.

    Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Drayson, G. B.

    Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)

    Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.

    du Cann, E. D. L.

    Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

    Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

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

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

    Tilney, John (Wavertree)

    Duncan, Sir James

    Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick)

    Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

    Duthie, W. S.

    Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

    Tweedsmuir, Lady

    Elliott, R. W. (Ne'castle upon Tyne, N.)

    Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

    McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

    Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek

    Finlay, Graeme

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Wall, Patrick

    Fletcher-Cooke, C.

    Maddan, Martin

    Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)

    Fort, R.

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

    Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

    Freeth, Denzil

    Marlowe, A. A. H.

    Webbe, Sir H.

    Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

    Marshall, Douglas

    Wills, G. (Bridgwater)

    Gammans, Lady

    Mathew, R.

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

    Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.

    Wood, Hon. R.

    Gibson-Watt, D.

    Mawby, R. L.

    Woollam, John Victor

    Glover, D.

    Medlicott, Sir Frank

    Yates, William (The Wrekin)

    Glyn, Col. Richard H.

    Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

    Godber, J. B.

    Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Goodhart, Philip

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

    Mr. Bryan and

    Mr. Chichester-Clark.

    NOES

    Ainsley, J. W.

    Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

    Albu, A. H.

    Hamilton, W. W.

    Oram, A. E.

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Hannan, W.

    Orbach, M.

    Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

    Hastings, S.

    Paton, John

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Hayman, F. H.

    Pearson, A.

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

    Healey, Denis

    Peart, T. F.

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

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

    Pentland, N.

    Benson, Sir George

    Hewitson, Capt. M.

    Popplewell, E.

    Boardman, H.

    Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Bonham Carter, Mark

    Holman, p.

    Proctor, W. T.

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

    Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

    Pursey, Cmdr. H.

    Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)

    Howell, Denis (All Saints)

    Randall, H. E.

    Bowles, F. G.

    Hoy, J. H.

    Rankin, John

    Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

    Hubbard, T. F.

    Redhead, E. C.

    Brockway, A. F.

    Hunter, A. E.

    Reynolds, G.

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

    Rhodes, H.

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

    Burke, W. A.

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Burton, Miss F. E.

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

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Jeger, George (Goole)

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

    Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

    Callaghan, L. J.

    Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

    Ross, William

    Carmichael, J.

    Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

    Short, E. W.

    Champion, A. J.

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Clunie, J.

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Coldrick, W.

    Kenyon, C.

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

    Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch & Finsbury)

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Sparks, J. A.

    Cove, W. G.

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Steele, T.

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Lawson, G. M.

    Stones, W. (Consett)

    Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

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

    Deer, G.

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

    de Freitas, Geoffrey

    Logan, D. G.

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Delargy, H. J.

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Taylor, John (West Lothian)

    Diamond, John

    McAlister, Mrs. Mary

    Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

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

    McCann, J.

    Thornton, E.

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    MacColl, J. E.

    Tomney, F.

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

    MacDermot, Niall

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    McGovern, J.

    Viant, S. P.

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)

    McInnes, J.

    Wade, D. W.

    Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    Fernyhough, E.

    McLeavy, Frank

    West, D. G.

    Finch, H. J.

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Wheeldon, W. E.

    Foot, D. M.

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

    Forman, J. C.

    Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)

    Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Mann, Mrs. Jean

    Willey, Frederick

    George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then)

    Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

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

    Gibson, C. W.

    Mellish, R. J.

    Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    Mikardo, Ian

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

    Greenwood, Anthony

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Woof, R. E.

    Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

    Moody, A. S.

    Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

    Grey, C. F.

    Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

    Zilliacus, K.

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Mort, D. L.

    Griffiths, William (Exchange)

    Moyle, A.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Hale, Leslie

    Mulley, F. W.

    Mr. Holmes and Mr. Simmons.

    The Temporary Chairman: We now have a whole series of Amendments dealing with household requisites.
    Mrs. White: I beg to move, in page 30, line 33, at the end to insert:
    (c) pastry boards and rolling pins.
    Perhaps it would be to the advantage of the Committee if I were to remind hon. Members of the subjects which, as you have very properly suggested, Mr. Blackburn, we may discuss together. They are primarily the subjects which were made taxable in that disastrous Finance Bill of 1955. They are the tools of trade of housewives. If one looks at the Notice Paper, one will see that, of a very large number of items to which we might perhaps have drawn the attention of the
    1400
    Paymaster-General, we have, in fact, selected only a representative number.
    These include—
    "pastry boards and rolling pins, coal or cinder sieves and sifters, baths, wash tubs, wash boards, ironing boards, shields, and stands for smoothing irons or pressing irons, clothes line posts, clothes props and clothes airers (other than heated airers), pot scourers and steel wool, vessels designed for use primarily as containers for food or drink,"
    and various other receptacles.
    Then, if we turn to the other objects listed in the Amendment to line 49, we shall observe another group also subject to tax, which includes—
    "electric kettles and other cooking utensils incorporating heating elements, smoothing irons and pressing irons"—

    1401
    I have already mentioned the stands and shields for them—
    "interval timers incorporating an alarum mechanism, kitchen scales and weighing machines, hand operated wringers and hand operated mangles."
    Finally, in the last of the Amendments which we are to discuss with this Amendment, there are—
    "cooking and cleaning utensils of a kind used for domestic purposes."
    I think that the Committee will understand that, in addition to this representative list which I have enumerated, there are many other items which we could mention which come within Group 11 as set out in the very useful Notice No. 78, but, from the smaller number which I have mentioned, it is quite clear that this tax, which is at the rate of 15 per cent., is a most onerous tax on the housewife.
    As we have pointed out before, industrialists and manufacturers are, for the most part, able to obtain their tools of trade free of tax. Constantly one finds something which is for industrial use defined in these Schedules and exempt from tax. It is only when one comes to the unfortunate housewives that one finds that their tools and equipment are taxed.
    This tax was imposed after these objects had been freed from tax by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell). They were brought into the tax range again by the Lord Privy Seal when, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, he had to find same method of recouping himself in the autumn of 1955 for the extremely generous tax concession he had made to quite a different section of the community before the 1955 General Election.
    It seems to us most regrettable, therefore, that these articles which we are now discussing should not have been included even among the items upon which tax has been reduced by the present Chancellor. Although the groups of other tax rates have been reduced—the 90 per cent. range to 60 per cent., and so on—the 15 per cent. group has not been reduced and most of these articles come within that group. Had the tax on these articles been reduced to 5 per cent., for example, one might still have regretted it as a discrimination against the housewife, but at least it would not have been quite so unreasonable; if one accepts that Purchase Tax of some sort
    1402
    is part of our fiscal structure and cannot be dispensed with entirely.
    A token tax on some of these articles might have been justified, but to keep the tax at 15 per cent. on such articles as coal or cinder seives and sifters—articles which help in fuel economy—seems to us an extremely unintelligent policy.
    To tax something like a pot scourer at 15 per cent. would appear to be beneath the sense or dignity of a Chancellor. If any housewife realised that she is paying tax at the rate of 15 per cent. for the privilege of using a pot scourer she would be extremely indignant. On some expensive items, like refrigerators, a shopkeeper does sometimes distinguish between the actual price and the tax but, unfortunately, in the case of a number of these smaller items that is not done. The housewife has to buy them and to pay what she is asked, and it is not always realised how much is being contributed to the Revenue in the purchase of these items which, after all, are essential items to the housewife.
    It is not only housewives who are concerned about these things. Dustbins are of interest to local authorities as well as to householders. Local authorities have obligations connected with public health and sanitation, and I have no doubt that some of my hon. Friends who are members of local authorities, or who have had experience of their work, will wish to put the point of view of the local authorities about the continuing impost on dustbins.
    There is also a tax on cooking utensils. We do not have a tax on food. No Chancellor would dare to put a tax on food, so what is the logic of taxing utensils in which the food is prepared? Again, it seems to us that this is taxing necessities. The Paymaster-General has been quoted on a number of occasions already regarding his careful distinction between luxuries, amenities and necessities, but I think that even the right hon. Gentleman would agree that almost all of these articles come into the category of necessities. Therefore, by the right hon. Gentleman's own definition they ought to be in the very lowest range of tax, if they have to be taxed at all.
    We feel that many of these things are not suitable subjects for tax. Take washtubs, for instance. If used as a musical

    1403
    instrument a wash board is, perhaps, another matter, but so far as I know, a washtub has never been used yet by a skiffle group, so it seems to me that if any woman has to use a washtub she is at least entitled to an untaxed tub. I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) was about to tell me that a washtub had been used as a musical instrument. That may be so. I do not pretend to be entirely au fait with modern music.
    Dr. Stross: That is a dangerous piece of advice for my hon. Friend to offer, because it might put ideas into the minds of members of skiffle groups.
    The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Blackburn): Order. I must remind the Committee that we have already had a debate on musical instruments.
    Mrs. White: You are quite right, Mr. Blackburn. We had a most eloquent debate on musical instruments and I should hesitate to suggest that we bring washtubs into a category which we have already disposed of.
    I suggest that any woman who has still to use a washtub because she is not sufficiently affluent to have invested in, or persuaded her husband to invest in, a washing machine should be pitied and not taxed. Similarly, women who have to use the kind of pressing or smoothing iron which requires a shield or a stand are worthy of our sympathy because it means either that they cannot afford an electric iron or they live in a rural area where, owing to the restrictions on capital expenditure imposed by the Government, an electricity supply is not yet available. The domestic life of such persons is hard enough as it is, so we ought to make it easier for them rather than more difficult.
    I am sure that my hon. Friends who represent the Stoke-on-Trent constituencies will wish to speak about the pottery industry and the effect of the tax upon it, so there are good reasons why we should object to the tax being imposed on all these articles. Some items may be considered to be of minor importance. One of the Amendments mentions interval timers and kitchen scales. There are some women who have a natural genius for cooking and are able to proceed without using scales or measures. They
    1404
    seem to know by instinct the quantity of materials to use and may not require to have interval timers.
    8.45 p.m.
    Those of us who are not so skilled find that we need to have scales, weights and weighing machines. Those who are busy housewives—I speak for myself—and who very often try to do cooking while possibly preparing a speech to be delivered in this House, regard an interval timer as almost essential. It tells me when I have to return to the kitchen stove from studying at my desk. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about timing speeches?"] We do not have interval timers in the House of Commons for timing speeches. We might have that particular type of interval timer, not one fitted for the kitchen, in which case the Chancellor might be inclined, after our recent debates, to exempt it from tax.
    In the same group we have hand-operated wringers and mangles, which are almost——
    Mr. John Rankin: Museum pieces.
    Mrs. White: Yes. They bring to mind a picture of the dingy Victorian kitchens, sculleries and wash-houses, which were dark and gloomy. I can only sympathise with any woman who still has to use a hand-operated mangle. She is a subject for sympathy and not for penal taxation. We are absolutely entitled to ask why this very large group of articles, which is reasonably representative, should have been left out of the welcome remissions that the Chancellor has made. There are still other articles which we might have selected.
    I do not know the domestic capacity of the Paymaster-General. I expect that he has had some domestic experience in his life. Some Government supporters have not entirely escaped it throughout their lives. He will no doubt have sufficient experience, or imagination, to realise that this group of articles is peculiarly unsuitable for taxation. In those circumstances, I hope that he will be able to tell us that some remission is to be made for it.
    Mr. E. C. Redhead: I have understood throughout these debates on Purchase Tax that one of the ostensible purposes of the Chancellor was to infuse a certain degree of

    1405
    rationality into it, and to give the Schedules the tidiness of Income Tax Schedules. If he is, at the same time, trying to effect some degree of easement in the burden of tax, I fail to see why it should be necessary for those who have been responsible for this series of Amendments to have had cast upon them the burden of seeking to establish a case for exemption for this group. There was no need to make that case because it was made a very long time ago.
    Without exception, all the articles listed in this series of Amendments were exempt until the emergency autumn budget of 1955. If we are returning to a greater degree of fairness and rational complexion of our Purchase Tax Schedules, this is the moment when the former pattern ought to be reverted to. Exemption for this group existed at a time when the general level of taxation was higher. What the Chancellor now proposes over the whole range is surely doubly justified for that reason alone.
    In that case I do not propose to spend time in arguing the justification for exemption in this group. I support it. I want to call particular attention to one item to which reference has been made and which illustrates the illogicality of the tax of 15 per cent. in this group. I have heard about dustbins, which are not a particularly romantic subject. I started off with buttons and now I find myself dealing with dustbins.
    Dustbins are now chargeable at 15 per cent. under Group 11 (a). I do not think that even the Chancellor will attempt to argue that a dustbin is other than a necessity. It is not only a necessity, it is a statutory requirement enforceable by law. Under Section 72 of the Public Health Act, 1936, it is obligatory upon the owner or occupier of any premises to provide a receptacle for the storage, disposal and collection of refuse.
    There is an alternative whereby a local authority itself can provide such dustbins for the populace at large and charge the cost to the general rate fund, or levy an individual annual charge upon the person to whom the dustbin is allocated. Many local authorities take the view that on grounds of public health it would be preferable to adopt a comprehensive scheme of that kind, but they are now deterred from doing so because, whatever method is adopted to fulfil this
    1406
    obvious, simple necessity of public health—and a statutory obligation at that—Purchase Tax must be paid on the receptacle.
    Dustbins are clearly admitted and acknowledged to be an essential and indispensable part of the machinery of public health. The case for exemption of items which are important and vital in sanitation and public health is already admitted in the existing Schedule by the exemption provided in Group 11 (f) for such articles as sanitary bins and pans. Also, presumably out of consideration for public health, the Chancellor is adding to the list of exemptions the provision he makes in respect of water filters. Surely it is not too much to ask that on public health grounds he might extend the same process of reasoning and logic to exempt dustbins from the imposition of a 15 per cent. tax.
    The case is just as strong on public health grounds, plus the inequity that in this instance compliance with the law involves liability to a tax which is most illogical and I should have thought entirely wrong to be operative in any matter of this kind. It is not that the burden of the tax is perhaps so heavy on a single item. I am advised that it is about 4s. 6d. per bin on the average, but to a local authority which may choose to adopt a scheme of providing dustbins for the populace at large on some basis of charge to the general rate or to the individual concerned, this clearly is a deterrent factor. To that extent it minimises the possibility of a really efficient public health service.
    If it is argued that the purpose of this tax is to deter spending and to limit consumption, clearly that has no possible effect in this instance for sales must approximate to the satisfaction of the legal requirement. On the other hand, if it be argued that it does deter excess sales and purchases of these articles, such deterrence is only at the expense of public health. That is not a tenable position to get into on a matter of this kind. These arguments seem to see-saw in a convenient way. If it is suggested that the purpose is to receive revenue by Purchase Tax, one must admit that the revenue in respect of dustbins, if we speak of those alone, must be quite insignificant—perhaps £100,000 all told.

    1407
    Having been reproached by the Financial Secretary last night for being somewhat immoderate in proposing a series of Amendments which I was told, if accepted, would involve the Chancellor in a sacrifice of about £50 million, I hope that now I have come down to a simple plea for £100,000 I may elicit some response which my colleagues and I have failed to induce hitherto. To the extent that revenue of this character on dustbins is derived from local authorities, it is doubly unjust to impose a tax of this kind on the performance of their statutory functions in the sphere of public health, when another Ministry is at the same time sending them circulars with great frequency urging them to reduce their expenditure in every possible way.
    Some local authorities, as I have said, are being deterred by this charge. I understand that the Chancellor has received very urgent representations on this subject from the Institute of Public Cleansing, and I hope that he will now feel impelled to say that there is at least a case for some modification. I hope that he will be disposed to accept the logic—not only of the argument about dustbins but about the whole of the articles in this group—of restoring a proper pattern of Purchase Tax, and that he will exempt the whole of this group.
    Mr. James Simmons: I want to raise a constituency point on the question of utensils made of enamel hollow-ware. The enamel hollow-ware trade is only a small trade, mainly constituted in the Black Country in the divisions of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson) and my own and in South Wales.
    Immediately after the war the industry employed about 4,000 persons which has now dropped to about 2,000 as a result entirely of Government action. The wares which are made by this industry include pots and pans, cleaning utensils, tidy bins and all those kind of things which go to brighten the kitchen. In case anyone is thinking of the old type of dirty white hollow-ware or something like that, these utensils are made today in most attractive colours and are really an adornment to any house-proud wife's kitchen. They make a great contribution to brightening up the home.
    1408
    It was a great blow when the Chancellor in 1955 put a 30 per cent. Purchase Tax on these commodities, because when we look at the industry since 1945, in response to urgent pleas to speed up production to assist the export drive, it increased its production almost immediately by 25 per cent. and, by the end of 1951, 50 per cent. of its total production went in exports.
    No industry can live on the export trade alone; there has to be a substantial home market. The trouble is that now that the export trade has gone again owing to Government action, or rather I should say to Government inaction—the inaction of the Board of Trade—by reason of Hong Kong dumping in the export market and by the Treasury making pots and pans liable to Purchase Tax, there is unemployment in this small but important industry. In order to find work for employees, a firm in my constituency improved its layout and machinery and practically doubled its production. In order to utilise plant and find work for its employees as a result of the depression and of the Hong Kong competition, it even went into the production of plastic materials, but a great deal of the productive capacity of the plastic factory is unused at the present time.
    Nigeria, which imported 20 per cent. of enamel hollow-ware in 1954, now imports only 3 per cent., and outstanding orders are practically nil. The same applies to practically all the colonial and Commonwealth markets upon which this industry is dependent. Hong Kong prices in world markets are 50 per cent. below United Kingdom economic prices. The trade has had to concentrate intensively on the home markets, and, as I say, after these blows the imposition of the 30 per cent. tax was a further and grievous blow. The trade was suffering the worst depression in its history, but the Government, instead of tackling the dubious and improper trading methods of foreign competitors, put on this tax.
    9.0 p.m.
    The continuance of Purchase Tax at 15 per cent. will not help the industry much. To save it—from both the export and the home-market angles—the tax must be abolished altogether. Almost all the goods are household utensils, and it is monstrous that the housewife should have

    1409
    to pay 16s. 4d. Purchase Tax on a set of saucepans. These domestic articles are more important to her than is office furniture and hat, coat and umbrella stands, on which the tax has been reduced to 5 per cent. The tax on pots and pans is a serious item in the cost of living of the ordinary housewife.
    The Chancellor has made a fetish of tidying up and streamlining. The Government reject controls and give us the plan. They reject a planned economy, but plan the housewife's economics in such a way as to eliminate any possibility of her having a surplus. The Chancellor tidies up Purchase Tax, but retains a tax of 15 per cent. on the tidy bin. The Government reduces the workers' share of the national cake, but taxes the cake tin. Even with all this tidying up, we have such absurdities as tax-free mops but taxed pails in which to put them.
    Let the Chancellor scrap his fetish and amend his Finance Bill on human considerations rather than on mathematical calculations. All the things which we are discussing in this group of Amendments represent human problems, because they affect the lives of ordinary people. I am fed up with all the people who talk a lot about tidying up, streamlining and the rest. I would call them cool, calculating individuals with no heart. We have to look at these things with a human eye and not just with the eye of the economist. If we were to put all the economists head to toe and measure them they would not add up to one good housewife, so let us do something for her.
    Mr. Arthur Henderson: I should like to support the plea of my hon. Friend the Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Simmons). As he has pointed out, in his constituency and in mine are situate two of the main factories concerned with the production of hollow-ware. Going back beyond the more recent days to which my hon. Friend referred when he spoke of the threat to the prosperity of this industry as the result of the dumping measures that are alleged to be taking place in Hong Kong, I can remember that, before the war, the threat to this industry came from unfair competition by Japanese traders in both East and West Africa, as well as other parts of the world.
    1410
    Our manufacturers had also to face very intense competition from countries like Czechoslovakia, and if they had not tried to put their house in order and to keep up with modern developments one would have had less sympathy with them than one has today. Anybody who has visited these factories must realise that the firms have done everything possible to improve their productive efficiency. Now, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, as a result of the advent of Purchase Tax, their efforts to maintain a certain level of production for the home market have been thwarted as, indeed, one might claim with regard to other industries.
    I ask the Minister to consider the plea that we are making tonight to help this important industry. Many thousands of individuals depend for their livelihood, directly or indirectly, upon its prosperity. The fact that they are small in proportion and are, therefore, not able to bring the big guns to bear upon the Treasury, as may be the case with larger concerns and the great corporations that exist today in industry, is no reason why their plea should not be given the most sympathetic consideration. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will listen most sympathetically to the plea we are making tonight concerning the tax that is imposed on upon the products of the hollow-ware industry.
    Mr. Hale: There are three possible reasons for imposing the Purchase Tax In my view, all of them are bad. The first is to raise revenue for the Government, which I would not trust with a penny of my money if I could avoid it, because we know what has been done with the money that has been collected in taxation. It is fair to say to start with that taxation itself is fundamentally a bad thing. It should be avoided as far as possible. I agree with the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) in this. I do not believe that the man in Whitehall can spend my money any better than I can spend it myself, if I had any money to spend; but unfortunately, the Government have not permitted me to have any money to make any marked effect upon public expenditure.
    The second reason, which seems to me to be perhaps the more valid one, is to apply a certain measure of economic planning. For example, in the days when the Conservative Government left us with no electricity, we found it necessary

    1411
    to put a tax upon electrical appliances because they would be using the limited quantity of electricity which was available and which was necessary for the maintenance of industry.
    The third reason, which we have talked about from time to time in the last few days without coming down very much to brass tacks, is the sort of idea of social planning which occurred in Russia in about 1918 and which was not particularly successful. It is at least a point that can be borne in mind.
    One concedes, therefore, that if a majority of the House of Commons is persuaded that hydrogen bombs are necessary, it may be necessary to raise money. I do not accept the point. I do not accept the premises, but some people, on both sides of the House of Commons, do. Therefore, we concede the possibility of Purchase Tax.
    We had an astonishing speech this afternoon purporting to deal with harp strings, which, I concede at once, we are not now discussing, but laying down some general principles for the rest of the debate—or some general lack of principles—from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury which left me, for once at least, gasping for breath. What the Financial Secretary said was that the Government had to maintain a uniformity of application. Applying it to this Amendment, the hon. and learned Gentleman would say that if it had to be applied to pastry boards, it must be applied to them as well as to souffle dishes with special covers of some sort which will be found in the Schedule. It seems to me that there are lines of demarcation which could be applied.
    The Financial Secretary went on, however, to say that the principle must be applied to all forms of recreation. I would not like to be indelicate in this Committee, but that form of recreation to which most of our literature is directed is not subject to any tax at all. If we consider the forms of recreation which are subject to tax, we find the Financial Secretary laying it down that in considering the use of the harp we must link it up with the use of the crown and anchor board and that "Happy Families" must be applied in the same way.
    The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member is going rather far from the Amendment, which does not deal with recreation.
    Mr. Hale: That is the trouble, Sir Gordon. The moment one tries to be brief and streamline my argument in the way that the Minister said that he is trying to streamline the Schedule, one loses the rational points and becomes misleading. I hope and believe that this is relevant. Indeed, I shall venture to quote some points in aid of my argument.
    On this Amendment I want to know, first, whether it is necessary to say that we must apply the same standard of treatment to
    "rat traps (break back and other household types)"
    to dustbins, to flower blocks and holders, to cash boxes and log boxes, to posting trays and accessories for domestic stoves, or could we draw a line? I cannot expect, Sir Gordon, that you, occupying the Chair, will express any assent, but I hope that I am putting an argument which will find general assent in the Committee when I say that on the whole there must be a line of demarcation between Mr. Bung the Brewer and Mrs. Bung the Brewer's Wife in "Happy Families" and a Beethoven sonata. But the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said, "No. Both these are recreations. Some people like 'Happy Families', some like music, and we must apply an overall standard in terms of so-much percentage to every form of taxable occupation which gives people a certain recreation."
    I am glad to see that the Financial Secretary has returned to the Chamber, because I am sure that he would wish to ruminate upon this. I do not wish to lead him astray—your eagle eye would stop me if I did, Sir Gordon—but having listened to his argument and having thought over it on the Terrace for half-an-hour, I went to one of the best psychiatrists in London and said, "There is something wrong either with me or with the Financial Secertary to the Treasury. Will you have a look at me?"
    He said, "Well, what has upset you?" I recited the Financial Secretary's speech as closely as I could remember it, word for word, and within ten seconds the psychiatrist was out on the couch, and I have been administering sedatives to

    1413
    him for the last two hours. I am not sure that he will ever recover.
    It seems to me that this point about pastry boards has some relevance. I know that I cannot carry you with me about pastry boards, Sir Gordon, but they are the sort of things that I handle at half-past six in the morning. Surely if one had met the ordinary circumstances of domestic life one would know that a pastry board is also a bread board. When I start to cut the toast, I cut it on the pastry board. I do not suppose that my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) does much cooking, but I have to work for my living and I can assure her that the pastry board is also the place where one scrapes the burnt piece off the toast when one has burnt it.
    Mrs. White: If my hon. Friend cuts the toast on the pastry board, he is spoiling the pastry board. He should use a bread board.
    Mr. Hale: I am not a journalist but a common-or-garden M.P. with no other income. We have to use what boards we can. I do not mind telling you, Sir Gordon, that I have seen pastry boards in the greenhouse, used as potting boards, too. This is a classic example of an all-utility article.
    I will not go into the question of rolling pins, because anybody who has practised in the divorce courts knows that they can be used in many connotations and with varying effects. My hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann), who has had a most happy domestic life, probably is not aware of these things. They are—
    Mrs. Mann: Powerful sedatives.
    Mr. Hale: Year after year for about ten years, to my knowledge—and I will not go back to the time when there was a Labour Government, because even then we had occasional little differences about Budgets—the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said one of two things on a brief from the Treasury which he reads assiduously and carefully, enunciating each word with admirable clarity and putting forward a series of words which often do not mean very much. The first is, "I cannot forgo this tax, because it is very large"; and the second is, "There is no reason for abolishing this tax,
    1414
    because it is very small." That is what is said. He says, "What does it matter, a mere matter of £13,000 a year tax on pastry boards? Who will lose any sleep over that? Who will go short of a pastry board?"
    I was recently told that during the war one of the results of our economic planning was that notepaper got thinner and toilet paper got thicker. As far as I remember, this represents precisely what happened in relation to trying to keep costs down. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend says "No", I understand.
    Mrs. White: I beg pardon; I was not referring to my hon. Friend's remarks.
    9.15 p.m.
    Mr. Hale: If we come down to brass tacks, there are people in Oldham who have to face many more problems than anyone in this Committee has to face—people in those little kitchens in Oldham, some of which are not even kitchens, some of them in houses with two rooms up and two rooms down, one of which is partly kitchen and partly scullery with a shelf on the wall for a pantry and with the lavatory outside. There is no room for storing kitchen apparatus.
    If you are the most thrifty person alive, Sir Gordon, trying to live in those conditions, you have to furnish it as simply as you can. You could not carry half the things which are mentioned, including soufflé dishes, those things with fantastic covers on, I gather. If the Government are really interested in economic planning and in creating a decent society, they would say, as I have said before, "We as a Government want to make every home in the country worth living in and want to be able to say to our people, 'If you can buy a washing-up machine do so.'"
    I must not expatiate upon washing-up machines at this stage, because I am not sure whether they come into the discussion. They might do. I did, however, mention them last year, and I declared a personal interest, because at that time I found that the amount of time that I was spending washing up detracted from the amount of time which I might usefully spend in digging the garden. So I looked for a washing-up machine and eventually got a secondhand one. I was able to buy a secondhand washing-up machine because the man who sold it to me used to run a canteen and he had

    1415
    transferred the washing-up machine from his canteen to his house, it having been paid for at the expense of the Government, and, therefore, he was able to sell one to me. That is exactly what is mentioned in the "Nabarro plan". All the expensive implements are paid for by the Chancellor out of taxation—but not pastry boards, to which we return, or rolling pins.
    If the Government were administering a sane policy, if they had their priorities—I will not mention the hydrogen bomb at all, Sir Gordon, tempted as I am—they would say, "Our policy is to see that every home in Oldham is decently equipped. We want to see that every woman who is working 14 hours a day in Oldham—getting up in the early hours of the morning, sending the children to school, cleaning her rather miserable house, paying extra rent for it which the Government have imposed, facing all the financial burdens—at least has a decent kitchen, decent equipment and does not have to work unnecessarily, because she lacks the ordinary decent implements of life."
    Therefore, we should say, "So far from taxing these things, we shall give a bonus on them. We are going to encourage their sale." This is part of the ordinary economic planning of a sane society, and we would say that if we are to build a new society and create something worth while, we will try to create decent homes; we will try to see that they have a television set and a wireless set; we hope the day is coming when they can have a Frigidaire and a washing-up machine; at least we will see that they have the minimum of equipment that anyone in employment can reasonably buy if it is not excessively taxed.
    The dividend on that approach would be that we would create nice homes, we would reduce juvenile delinquency, we would reduce crime, we would lay the sort of foundations of society which really did exist in my middle class and bourgoise days in 1913, even if they did not extend as far as we hoped they would. This would be the sort of policy which any sane Chancellor would try to enforce.
    Sometimes I wonder whether we here do not occasionally find ourselves limited
    1416
    by the rules of order—which have placed a heavy burden on me in the last few minutes—and deprived of the opportunity of discussing fundamental principles of taxation and social planning because we confine ourselves to the discussion of individual items which do not of themselves create any wide public interest. I wonder whether it may not be sometimes felt that Parliament is failing in its duty in that it is forced to discuss these things instead of fundamental general principles.
    I apologise if, in building up a statement about pastry boards and rolling pins, I may have built it on a rather wider foundation than is usually provided for a rolling pin, but I venture to submit to Her Majesty's Minister that these are matters of vital importance to the community at large which they ought to be considering.
    Mrs. Mann: I often think that Members of Parliament as a whole have their noses too much to the legislative grindstone and could well do with finding out more about people and how they live. When I look at these articles and see that under the "pots and pans" Budget they are still subject to Purchase Tax, I wonder why the Chancellor, finding himself with £30 million to distribute this year, did not consider the people who really require relief from their burdens.
    Let us begin with baths. What kind of baths are there? There are the zinc baths that hang out in the back yard in England or are pushed under the bed in Scotland and taken out into the middle of the kitchen floor when needed. The very poorest of the poor, the old-age pensioners, are singled out here.
    Then we come to the wash board. Who uses wash boards today, apart from skiffle groups? The higher income groups do not, nor do the middle income groups; they have washing machines. Instead of looking to the poorest of his human family, the Chancellor looks to those with washing machines and says, "I have some money to distribute. There will be a reduction in the Purchase Tax on washing machines." Who uses shields on irons? It must be the poorest old-age pensioners who have been unable to renew any item of kitchen equipment who use irons which require shields.
    Next, we come to clothes posts. Local authorities have written to me about housing costs increasing because of the clothes

    1417
    posts which they have to erect in the gardens of houses. It is not only the dustbin which is a matter for local authorities.
    Then we have clothes airers. Today, we have the spin dryer. There has never been a woman at the Treasury; Heaven send us one soon, and we may then get some daylight on these problems. The old fashioned clothes airers which go in front of the fire—the ones which cause so many accidents—are taxed, but the spin dryer, which eliminates a great deal of work, is relieved of tax.
    Let us consider how this man-made Budget money is divided. It singles out women. Let us think of the woman who has to sieve her coal with a sieve. She is taxed. But let us think of the other woman, the one who uses lip salve, rouge, greasepaint, eye black and other cosmetics. She is relieved of tax to the extent of 30 per cent. Then there are skin foods, skin tonics, eyelash grower, perfume, pomade—
    The Deputy-Chairman: I think that the hon. Lady is now on a previous Amendment.
    Mrs. Mann: I am contrasting how the money is divided and where I would have given relief.
    The Chancellor is always asked in advance of his Budget whether he intends to do certain things. I have asked him about clothes dryers and other things time and again. The reply that I have always received is, "I cannot anticipate my Budget statement." I think it would be a fine thing if sometimes he consulted a few of the lady Members of the House and asked them where they thought relief was most needed. As it is, he has played the part of the wicked baron in Cinderella. Poor little Cinders, who is sifting out the coal with a sieve, is penalised by a tax on the sieve, whereas the ugly sisters, who require the pomade, the false eyelashes and the lipstick, are singled out for the Chancellor's favours and get a 30 per cent. reduction.
    I confess that I do not think that the Chancellor looks like a bold, bad baron. I could much more easily visualise the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) in that rôle. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] I can conceive why such a tax should be imposed in an emergency, in the "pots-and-pans Budget",
    1418
    of 1955, the emergency Budget. One would imagine that since these things were imposed in an exigency, during an emergency situation, whenever the Chancellor found himself with some money he would have immediately taken off the tax where it bore most heavily. That is why I believe that he ought to do this tonight.
    One of my hon. Friends said that the housewife knew more than most economists. I have been a housewife for a very long time. I have had a rather big family and I know that my family would never have forgiven me if I had shown unfairness to any of them. I have always tried to be fair to all of them. Anybody who has a child knows that one of the first things that children look askance at in a parent is the slightest tendency to be unfair. A housewife knows that needs come first and she turns her attention to those members of the family who really require first-aid and she gives it to them first. Surely the poor old-age pensioners who are struggling to bring out their zinc baths from under their beds, those who use washboards, dustbins and buckets and have to sieve cinders, and the Mrs. Mopps of the household, ought to have had the Chancellor's first consideration. I therefore plead for the removal of this tax.
    9.30 p.m.
    Dr. Stross: The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when we were discussing Clause 1, agreed that if we have any philosophy in reference to matters of taxation we should consider the home very closely and try to favour it as much as possible. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) made a powerful plea, and I think the Committee accepted what he said when he asked us to see that neither the home nor its contents is taxed in any way.
    I shall speak briefly on pottery. The history of the imposition of Purchase Tax on pottery is recent. It was not thought fit to impose it during the war nor in the immediate post-war years. Our citizens paid for this by being without decorated ware of any kind, making do with plain, crude, white ware, and very crude indeed it was compared with what we used to enjoy. We exported all our decorated ware while we were struggling with an implacable foe.
    When the war was over we were naturally short of money, so the citizens

    1419
    of England were again without decorated ware, every scrap of which was exported. The only bits of decorated ware we saw were seconds and spoiled ware which was not good enough for export. Then, as the years went by, frustrated exports sometimes came our way. Australia changed her mind about what she could afford to import and a certain amount was left on our hands. South Africa did not want it either, all these countries having different designs and different habits, so we were able to have it at home. Then, after a year or two, there was an improvement in the sale and use of decorated ware, but long before our people had become accustomed to buying it, we found in the Autumn of 1956 that tax was imposed at the rate of 30 per cent. This temporarily crippled the industry. It did it very great harm.
    My colleagues in North Staffordshire spoke strongly about this and warned the then Chancellor, who is now the Home Secretary, of the ill effect of the tax. The right hon. Gentleman at that time made it clear that he wanted the money. He said that our arguments were logical—that was the adjective he used. He said they were sensible and logical arguments but he could not accept them because he wanted the money, and the money he required from the industry was £7 million. We thought he would not get that. We thought that before the year was over the industry would have been so injured that he could not get the full amount. This proved to be the case and I think he got £5½ million.
    If that had been the only damage it would have been difficult enough for the industry; but, once a tax of 30 per cent. is imposed where no tax has existed before, everybody expects that sooner or later it will be either taken off or diminished. The result was that before the next Budget, in 1957, none of the wholesalers would buy anything. They were waiting to see what would happen. In fact, Purchase Tax was halved, to the figure of 15 per cent. which now operates. Only then, when they knew what it would be, did the customers—the wholesalers—buy from the manufacturers.
    That created a second difficulty, resting upon the first one. Members of Parliament representing pottery constituencies, and all those with an interest in
    1420
    kindred trades, were implicated in this, for the harder they struggled to get the tax removed the more certain they made it that confusion would be brought to the industry for a time. That sounds queer, but it is true. Therefore, the Government should be very careful not to chop and change in their policy towards this industry. Speaking as I do for one of the constituencies in Stoke-on-Trent, I feel that I have a right to say that the time has come when the tax should be taken off once and for all.
    Before there was a 30 per cent. Purchase Tax Stoke-on-Trent employed about 30,000 workers. Between 6,000 and 10,000 went as a result of what happened. It may be argued that other factors have operated, but they are subsidiary to the imposition of a 30 per cent. Purchase Tax in 1956. We have never recovered those workers. We pointed out in the House that if the time came when our export markets opened up again as fully as we wished, our workers would be gone and we should not be able to deliver. That is what happened.
    One woman decorator—one girl, trained to handle a brush in the way they do after years of training; with a patience and experience that even the Chinese cannot better—is worth at least £6 or £7 a week to the export industry, much of it in the dollar markets. There are many thousands of these girls in Stoke-on-Trent. It seems a pity that we should throw away opportunities. We are thriving again; we are now doing reasonably well. But many factories have closed permanently. Those that are doing well are doing so after a sort of blood-letting. This type of surgery, which has been imposed on this industry, is more suitable to horses than to human beings. It would be far better to have a blood transfusion. When a person recovers from blood-letting he gets back his functions, but at a lower level than is reasonable or normal.
    I speak for an attractive industry. The other day I visited the Wedgwood factory, and I noticed that coach-loads of people were going into the factory. I asked who they were and the reply was, "This is customary. We get nearly 30,000 people visiting us each year. We employ four guides, full-time, to show them round the factory." It is an age-old craft, and

    1421
    when I plead on its behalf that there should be a reduction in the tax it will be understood that I am not putting forward a piece of special pleading but am merely submitting that an industry on which North Staffordshire depends so much has a right to special consideration.
    Mr. James Callaghan: I make my first intervention in the debate on the Finance Bill, and possibly my last, because I want to make an appeal to the Chancellor on a particular constituency point concerning Cardiff, and that is the tax on hollow-ware and enamel ware.
    We have in Cardiff a very large factory which, during the war, was turned over wholly to making munitions, and it did a very good job with the Bofors gun and in making a lot of other equipment for the Services. Since the war, that has tailed off and the number of workers there has been reduced. This firm, Edward Curran, Limited, which is well-known to a great many people, has shown considerable initiative in turning over to the manufacture of hollow-ware and many other types of domestic utensils. It was doing very well, and employing a great many of my constituents, until this iniquitous Purchase Tax on hollow-ware was clapped on in the autumn of 1955.
    Since then, its trade had dropped off. I have here a letter from the firm, which says, quite simply and shortly:
    "We feel that the decline in our home sales was in a very large measure due to the imposition of the Purchase Tax."
    As a measure of its seriousness, the firm tells me that its home sales—and it has given me permission to use these figures—have fallen by 35 per cent. since the autumn of 1955.
    Perhaps to many people this does not matter very much, but, in fact, Cardiff is having one long succession of hammer blows from the Government. B.S.A. Tools closed down, followed by the closure, or the announcement of the closing of the Royal Ordnance Factory at Llanishen, which is taking place at this very moment, when men are being stood off. Throughout the whole of Cardiff's industry, of which there is far too little, we find recession, drawing back and retreat from South Wales. Cardiff is becoming far too much a commercial centre, and far too little an industrial one. There is now no outlet for boys wishing to become apprentices,
    1422
    and no real outlet for skill. We are back again to steel and coal as the only industries into which young men can go.
    Here is another example where there is a substantial decline in employment because of the operation of a fiscal duty which is being used to prevent the full development of its industry. The number of employees in the factory has fallen from 650 to 450, and that is a serious matter to us. Messrs. Curran has shown very great initiative in its attempt to turn over and adjust its industry, output and production from munitions to civilian goods, but it is far more frustrating to a firm than almost anything when it uses its initiative, energy and skill to retool its factory and go out and find new markets and then find that a fiscal blow descends on them, so that its initiative and energy has gone for nothing.
    Messrs. Curran, in conjunction with a great many other people, finds itself in a situation of very great difficulty, and has asked me to speak in support of the Amendment to reduce the Purchase Tax on enamel ware and hollow-ware. I do so because many of my constituents are being stood off work at present. Some of them are women, and their menfolk are already suffering from the other blows which Cardiff has suffered. Therefore, because we wish to protect the livelihood of the workers, I have the utmost pleasure in supporting this Amendment, and fervently trust that the Chancellor will think again and will give us in Cardiff the opportunity of earning our living.
    9.45 p.m.
    Mr. Victor Yates: I have listened to every speech in the debate on these Amendments and I am amazed that there have been no expressions of opinion voiced by hon. Members opposite. Is not this one of the most fundamental matters which we can discuss?
    Mr. H. Wilson: May I remind my hon. Friend that it is only by the courtesy of hon. Members on this side of the Committee that the Government have been able to maintain a quorum for the last six hours?
    Mr. V. Yates: That evidently explains the matter.
    These Amendments relate to tax on a series of articles which increase the cost

    1423
    of living to the housewife. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) has mentioned aluminium hollow-ware. I have here a letter from the British Aluminium Hollow-ware Manufacturers' Association, in Birmingham. I support what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Simmons) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson) who advanced similar arguments. Where is the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro)? Where are other hon. Members from the party opposite who, we are told, are supposed to speak for the manufacturers?
    The British Aluminium Hollow-ware Manufacturers' Association point out that aluminium cooking utensils are an essential commodity which in no sense may be classed as a luxury, and that a tax upon such articles adds to the cost of living and bears most hardly on young married people who are setting up a home. The association maintains that the restrictive effect of the tax on home sales has increased manufacturing costs. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East mentioned a case which emphasises this. The association states:
    "Prior to the imposition of the tax in 1955 the indications were that it was the desire and intention of the Government to gradually reduce direct taxation and eliminate Purchase Tax. Their action in introducing the tax, was, therefore, inconsistent with their declared policy and was regarded by the Association as a retrograde step."
    I mention that to indicate how strongly the manufacturers in Birmingham and in other parts of the country feel about this matter. I have no doubt that they will note that hon. Members opposite have not thought fit even to be present in the Chamber when this matter was being discussed.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), in an interesting speech, referred to pastry boards and rolling pins. I know from experience that many people cannot afford to buy rolling pins and have to use bottles instead. It is out of the question for them to purchase a Pyrex rolling pin because they might have to pay 10s. or more for such an article. I can use a rolling pin myself—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear hear."] As one bachelor to another, I say to the Chancellor that I would not mind entering into
    1424
    competition with him in the use of a pastry board and a rolling pin. I have had to use those things and I know that it is necessary for housewives to be able to replace these articles from time to time. Is not it terrible to contemplate that there are people who have to make do with their old kettles, pots and pans? I have been into the homes of old-age pensioners who cannot afford to replace their saucepans and kettles let alone buy expensive pastry boards.
    The Government ought to give us guidance. The Paymaster-General has been sitting on the Government Front Bench, taking no notes, and behaving as though he almost had his reply ready prepared. Can he give us guidance whether the Government can move to exempt ordinary pots, pans, pastry boards and rolling pins? A number of articles are exempt in Group 11, such as brooms and mops. Why should not aluminium utensils be exempt? Are the Government to give us no answer, no guidance about their intention to remove this tax and to reduce the cost of living for the people upon whom it bears very heavily?
    Today I have addressed a letter to the National Assistance Board—it is not the first—asking the Board to provide additional clothing for old-age pensioners who cannot afford to buy clothes. I wish much more consideration could be given in this debate to such matters. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Redhead) mentioned dustbins. I should have thought the Government would have decided no longer to permit taxation on dustbins. We had a debate not long ago, in which I pointed out how many dustbins Birmingham would provide and how much it was to cost. Dustbins are still essential to health. I am always calling the attention of the authorities to the need to replace dustbins which ought to have been replaced long ago if it had not been for considering the cost.
    All these matters are of vital importance to the people. Government supporters ought to have made some contribution to the debate if they were interested in the cost of living as they pretend they are. They ought to have given guidance to this Committee. The Government should remove the tax from articles which are vital to the people, are urgently necessary, and are in no sense

    1425
    a luxury. It is time we sent a message to the Government that at the first opportunity they should get rid of the tax on these articles.
    Mr. Maudling: The hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White), who moved these Amendments with her usual lucidity and moderation, made it quite clear that her general purpose was to reintroduce the exemption for the particular article within Groups 11 and 12, known as "pots and pans", which was rescinded in the autumn of 1955. She covered the general field and subsequent speakers have dealt wth particular items in that field.
    The hon. Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Simmons), the right hon. Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson) and the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) whose incursions to the Opposition Front Bench are so much welcomed, although I cannot accept his conclusions, dealt with hollow-ware. There was a reference to Hong Kong competition. This is a very serious problem for the industry. I think it was the hon. Member for Brierley Hill who talked about Hong Kong and who spoke of "foreign competition". After all, Hong Kong is a Colony and we have to treat these articles as goods coming from a country for which we have a special responsibility. The Government cannot ignore Hong Kong, or the other countries to which the hon. Gentleman called attention.
    Mr. Simmons: Does not that make it worse, because we can deal with a Colony?
    Mr. Maudling: That is a rather strange statement. It is possible to put a quota on goods coming from foreign countries, but to put a quota on goods from Commonwealth countries would be against the principle of Commonwealth trade. The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), in the course of one of his characteristic interventions, made many remarks, some of which I thought a little inconsistent. For example, he was complaining that we had not reduced the tax on washing machines. The hon. Lady the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann) strongly disagreed with the tax, I am afraid again ignoring the fact that we had reduced the tax on cosmetics. I thought there were some
    1426
    inconsistencies in some of the arguments which have been advanced.
    All of them, broadly speaking, including the argument of the hon. Member for Ladywood (Mr. V. Yates), were broadly concerned with the position of the housewife and covered the wide field constituted in "pots and pans" from the position of the industries, the producers, and the housewife as the consumer. I am sorry that the hon. Lady the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie is not now present. Although she has not a complete monopoly of knowledge of domestic difficulties, she may call my right hon. Friend the Chancellor a bold, bad, bachelor baron but the other Treasury Ministers can speak collectively from knowledge as they have seven children between them. That shows they have some knowledge of these matters.
    The reason I cannot recommend the Committee to accept this group of Amendments is as follows: in framing his Budget proposals dealing with Purchase Tax, my right hon. Friend had three particular ends in mind. He had first of all in mind the removal of anomalies so far as possible. I agree with the hon. Member for Brierley Hill and the hon. Member for Ladywood and one or two others that anomalies still remain. That is perfectly true, but over the whole wide range anomalies have been removed by the simplification of the Purchase Tax structure. Secondly, my right hon. Friend had in mind the belief that an indirect tax of this character should be spread over a wide field at a moderate rate. Thirdly, he had in mind that he had to raise large sums of revenue, and Purchase Tax is a major contributor to revenue. The hon. Member for Oldham, West implied that if the H-bomb were abolished the Government would need no further revenue, but that seems rather an exaggeration.
    Mr. Frederick Mulley: Will the right hon. Gentleman give some indication of the yield from these categories, because one of the difficulties when we see some of these groups of items is to know what individual items would bring in?
    Mr. Maudling: I was intending to deal with that later, but perhaps I had better do it first. The effect of accepting the Amendments in this group would represent a loss to the Revenue of £8½ million.
    Mr. Mulley: What about individual items?
    Mr. Maudling: There is a vast number of individual items. The Amendments have been treated as a group and the cost of that group would be £8½ million. The purpose of treating these items as a group is not to introduce further anomalies.
    Mr. H. Wilson: As the right hon. Gentleman will realise, this Committee will be called upon, not to vote on the group, but on certain individual items. No hon. Member can really decide whether the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman are sound. For instance, on pastry boards it would be useful to know whether the Purchase Tax yield is £50,000 or £5 million.
    Mr. Maudling: The argument I am about to adduce is that it would be wrong to treat these items other than as a group, and one of the troubles about the Amendments is that if they were adopted they would introduce a number of anomalies. For example, one of the Amendments would reduce the tax on pastry boards but not that on pastry cutters.
    Mrs. White: I made very clear in my opening remarks that instead of putting down an Amendment to the whole Schedule, as we could have done, we selected certain items where we thought it reasonable to suggest a reduction.
    Mr. Maudling: I heard the hon. Member make that point. My answer is that I have pointed out that the Amendments would lead to anomalies. That is inevitable because a system of exemptions pre-1955 which it is sought to restore would give rise to more anomalies and distortions than almost any other provisions of the Purchase Tax Schedules.
    Mr. Chapman: Does that mean that we have them for ever now?
    Mr. Maudling: No. Whatever the exemptions, we have got rid of anomalies; but to restore the 1955 position would be to restore a position extremely fruitful of anomalies.
    10.0 p.m.
    Mr. Hale: Let me take one single section from the Schedule of equal taxation. It ranges from cocktail sticks to copper lids, seats of plywood for chairs,
    1428
    washboards and knifeboards. Is there some social significance and some easily defined demarcation between cocktail sticks and seats for kitchen chairs?
    Mr. Maudling: As a matter of fact, the relief proposed by the Amendments would include relief for table china and glassware including whisky decanters and champagne buckets. While anomalies will remain in Purchase Tax the effect of restoring the exemption proposed by the series of Amendments would be even wider to extend the range of anomalies. One of the main considerations that my right hon. Friend had in mind in framing his Purchase Tax proposals was to modify as many as possible of these existing anomalies.
    To come to the second point, my right hon. Friend's argument, which is supported on this side of the Committee, is that if we have to raise substantial sums by indirect taxation of this character and importance it should cover a pretty wide field and be levied as far as possible at a moderate rate. My right hon. Friend on Monday went on to say that we have now a standard rate of 30 per cent. and below that
    "… a range of articles which enter particularly into the cost of living and come into the category of necessities or near necessities and which for social and economic reasons I think should bear less than the standard rate".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th May, 1958; Vol. 588, c. 988.]
    All these articles bear less than the standard rate at 15 per cent. which is half of the rate of 30 per cent., having been reduced from 30 per cent. to 15 per cent. in the Budget of last year.
    Mr. Callaghan: If social reasons are to be adduced for reducing this rate of taxation, what is the social reason for maintaining the tax at a point where it means that men are discharged and a number of my constituents are unemployed?
    Mr. Maudling: The 30 per cent. rate is the standard rate and on social grounds these articles, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, are at a rate less than the standard rate—in fact, half of the standard rate. I should have thought that with a rate of 15 per cent. on the wholesale value, the burden so far as the home market was concerned would not be as drastic as is sometimes maintained. Fifteen per cent. on the wholesale value

    1429
    cannot be described as a penal rate of taxation. I think that it compares very reasonably with the general burden of taxation, direct and indirect, on industry which this country has to bear in the light of the level of Government expenditure that exists at the present time.
    Mr. Donald Chapman: Surely the right hon. Gentleman's mind must go back, as mine does, to the whole of those very arduous debates in 1955, when the whole justification for these taxes at that time was the danger facing the country at that time. Assurance after assurance was given from the Front Bench that these were meant as temporary taxes for the danger period. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that he is going back on the whole of those assurances? He is, in fact, now saying that we must envisage this almost as a permanent tax, even at a low rate, on a whole range of necessities. He is really throwing overboard everything that his colleagues said at that time.
    Mr. Maudling: Since October, 1955, the rate of tax has been halved, and I do not think that one can say that the economic emergency is by any means passed at the present moment. The tax, in the meantime, has been halved from 30 per cent. to 15 per cent.
    Once again, to quote my right hon. Friend on Monday, while he agreed that Purchase Tax in the aggregate could be legitimately adjusted from time to time according to the need to stimulate purchasing power, he pointed out that to make frequent changes in individual rates would lead to chaos in administration. That principle has to be borne in mind, Finally, the cost of this Amendment, taking all the things together, would be £8½ million in a full year. That in itself my right hon. Friend feels is a sum larger than he can accept as a remission of Purchase Tax over and above the £41 million in a full year which already he is remitting by his Budget proposals.
    These are the three reasons why I cannot recommend——
    Mr. Callaghan: What about unemployment?
    Mr. Maudling: I have already dealt with the question of varying individual tax even for any short-term change in circumstances. I think that I have dealt with that point.
    Mr. Callaghan: If I may again interrupt, as the Paymaster-General was good enough to give way just now, I asked him what social reasons led him to maintain the tax at a rate that leads to the discharge of people in my constituency. He then brushed me off by saying that he was coming to it. He has not come to it, so perhaps I might be allowed to put it to him again. If social reasons led him to reduce the tax from 30 per cent. to 15 per cent., will he now reduce it to nothing so that my constituents can remain in a job?
    Mr. Maudling: Then I must say that it is too much for the hon. Gentleman to assume that the maintenance of 15 per cent. on the wholesale value will certainly affect the demand for hollow-ware, and the present level of employment in the industry. My point is that we cannot accept that Purchase Tax can be varied for individual articles at short notice to meet the short-term difficulties of particular industries.
    That is what I think that my right hon. Friend had in mind in the passage I quoted. It would not be a good plan to vary the individual rates of tax for any short-term change of circumstances. That is the answer to the hon. Gentleman. He may not think it an adequate answer, but I am sure that he will acquit me of any discourtesy. I did not intend to ignore what he said.
    To sum up, my three reasons for advising the Committee to reject the Amendment are: the need to avoid the reintroduction of anomalies; my right hon. Friend's principle that if we are to maintain a moderate tax rate in this field it should be a fairly wide field, and thirdly, the fact that £8½ million is more than he can afford.
    Mr. Hale: My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) has raised the question of unemployment in his constituency in relation to the hollow-ware industry. If the right hon. Gentleman were to come to my constituency and find four houses out of five without an adequate supply of modern hollow-ware, would not he then feel that the time had come to apply the general Socialist principle that goods are produced for use, and not for profit; and that, whilst some of Her Majesty's citizens are deprived of things they vitally need

    1431
    while others of Her Majesty's citizens are not allowed to make them because of the tax, the time has come for an intervention by Her Majesty's advisers?
    Mr. Maudling: I do not think that the time would ever come for the general application of the Socialist principles.
    Mr. H. Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman's last reply is really on a par with the speech that we have just heard. It was a great disappointment to us to hear him speak in such a manner, because, as Economic Secretary, he had a very good reputation for the quality of his replies. Whether it is that he is spending too much time in the Free Trade Area, or wherever he has been, I do not know, but his speech tonight was not of the quality that we have come to expect from him.
    Furthermore, the right hon. Gentleman's speech is completely inconsistent with any other reason given for these taxes. These that we are debating are, as has been made very clear in the last hour or so, a very important group, and I am bound to say that I slightly resent his saying that they must be treated as a group; that the Opposition have put them down as a group, and that we have debated them as a group.
    The fact is that we have put down a whole series of Amendments, and that nothing would have given us more satisfaction than to have considered them separately——
    Mr. Maudling: The hon. Lady, in moving the Amendment, did treat them as a group, so I thought that that was the intention.
    Mr. Wilson: We had no choice in the matter. Otherwise, it would have been possible to mount a full debate on each one, as happened, the Committee may recall, in the autumn Budget of 1955. However, having examined this, it was considered by you, Sir Charles, to be a greater convenience for the Committee as a whole that they should be debated as a group, the first having been moved by my hon. Friend. That, however, was not our intention, and since we shall be called upon to vote on certain Amendments separately, and not as a group, the right hon. Gentleman might at least have taken the trouble to get the figures,
    1432
    in order to see the loss to the Revenue that would be involved in the acceptance of the Amendments on which we shall be called to vote.
    Although we are delighted now to see that there are more Conservative Members in the Committee than there have been all day, we have gone on for long periods of the day without seeing a single backbencher anywhere on the benches opposite, apart from the indefatigable Parliamentary Private Secretary, who is worth every penny that he is paid. I am sure that most hon. Members opposite have no idea whatever how much revenue is involved in each of the Amendments on which they will shortly be dividing.
    As has been made clear to the Committee, most of these items which we have discussed in this debate are now taxed at 15 per cent., although some of the later ones to which my hon. Friend drew attention—electric kettles, timing mechanisms in alarm clocks, and all the rest—are still taxed at 30 per cent. It is this group which is of great historical interest to many hon. Members, because these items formed the central theme of the Lord Privy Seal's famous "pots and pans" Budget.
    We all recall how that Budget came about, how, earlier in the year, we had had the Election Budget, introduced by the Lord Privy Seal, and how, in the economic crisis which occurred and which the Government had denied had ever been with us, he found it necessary in the autumn to introduce the autumn Budget. That, of course, killed the Lord Privy Seal. The purpose of that Budget——
    Captain Richard Pilkington: He is a very robust ghost.
    Mr. Wilson: Nobody thinks that the present Prime Minister would have been made Prime Minister if the Lord Privy Seal had been "alive."
    Mr. V. Yates: The "speech" of the hon. and gallant Member for Poole (Captain Pilkington) was the first that we have had from the Government side.
    Mr. Wilson: It is, I think, the first speech that we have had all day from the other side.
    Mr. Nabarro: Order.
    Mr. Wilson: It is interesting to see that the "chocolate soldier", the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), is with us again. For months, he has been carrying out his great publicity campaign about Purchase Tax, but all we have had from him was one Amendment for which he could not even vote when a Division took place yesterday.
    The debate on these successive items in the Amendments was the subject of that famous all-night sitting on or about 17th November, 1955, when we had one debate after another on each of these items. We all remember the subjects that we debated on that occasion the clothes line posts, clothes pegs, pot scourers, steel wool, babies' baths, cast iron baths, hollow-ware, pots, pans, cutlery, and all the rest. It is nice to see the right hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) back with us. That all-night sitting will live in the memory of many of us for many years to come, and not least of yourself, Sir Charles, since that was probably the only time during your tenure of the Chair that you have been forcibly removed from it with the good will of the whole House and of yourself.
    Tonight, we are taking all these Amendments together. What is common to most of these items—I will not say to all of them—is that they are household essentials in the plainest sense, as my hon. Friends have made clear. I am not saying that electric kettles are household essentials, but they are at the 30 per cent. rate; I am not suggesting that the timing or alarm mechanisms are essential. There is, however, no doubt that the other items—wash boards, ironing boards, hollow-ware, bread boards, sauce-pans and all these other things—are obviously essentials.
    What we want to know is why it is necessary to tax them. We argued this in the autumn Budget of 1955. I shall not weary the Committee with long quotations from what was said on that occasion. I do not want to embarrass any further than he has already been embarrassed the present Minister of Housing and Local Government. He said that these items had to be taxed because there was a yawning gap, because these items were tax-free and other things were carrying the tax.
    1434
    10.15 p.m.
    Next, we had the then Economic Secretary to the Treasury, now Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education, who produced a much more sophisticated theory—but, of course, he is a much more sophisticated Member of the House. He produced the same argument throughout the night on each Amendment. It was the argument which I dignified with the title "Boyle's law". It was first enumerated in the debate on clothes line posts, which are included in the Amendment which we are now discussing. He repeated it later on babies' baths, and it arose at 3 o'clock in the morning on pot scourers and coal and cinder sifters. He was particularly eloquent on the same theme when discussing pedal-operated sanitary bins and coal hods.
    We asked him whether he wanted to reduce consumption and to deter people from buying to save metal, but he said that that was not the argument. He said that he knew that they would not be deterred by the tax because these were essential goods, and that if something is essential people buy it. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) has pointed out that many people cannot afford to buy essential goods in some of these categories, and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. V. Yates) pointed out that many people used bottles instead of rolling pins and then challenged the Chancellor to a most interesting duel between the two bachelors, both using rolling pins or bottles.
    The argument was that the tax was not to deter consumption. We asked whether it was because the Government wanted to increase exports of pedal-operated sanitary bins, or did they think that there was a vast, challenging dollar market for coal hods or steel wool or pot scourers? Was the idea that if the tax were high enough, people would stop buying them and they would be sent into the export markets of the world, or was it that it would save some imported material used in these clothes line posts and clothes pegs and babies' baths? No; the then Economic Secretary was quite clear about it, and he was sure that that was not the Government's motive.

    1435
    At last, we got it out of him. It was because they were necessities, and anyone buying them and having to pay more through the tax, would then have less money to spend on other things. It was a mechanism for syphoning off surplus purchasing power. That was the essence of "Boyle's law". The idea was that when the Jones family needed a new coal hod, because coal was dropping through the bottom of the present coal hod, and they had to have a new one, then if they paid a little more for it they would have less to spend on other things, and it would be the other things which would be exported or would lead to import economies. If the Brown family had to pay more for a pot scourer they would have less to spend on other things. The argument was that this disinflationary operation would solve all our economic problems.
    That is what we were told in the autumn of 1955. We attacked it at the time. We said that it was the economics of Bedlam, that it would not solve the economic problems, that it would not increase exports, and that it would not put the gold and dollar balance right, and we said that far from being anti-inflationary, it was about the most inflationary thing which could be done, because if we increased the cost of living by taxation of this kind the only result was that wage pressures must inevitably follow. Of course, the Government in those days had never heard of the difference between cost inflation and demand inflation, and the right hon. Member for Monmouth never believed it when he heard of the difference. We know that he is quite ready to take over the functions of government at any time. The present Chancellor is still fighting against the inflation of three or four years ago with every weapon at his command, including this. We felt that to put up prices in this way was highly inflationary, and, of course, the Government deliberately gave another twist to inflation by that very method.
    I have made many unwise speeches, but I think that the unwisest that I have ever made in this House was when I said "On this argument, why do not the Government tax bread?" Of course, in the next Budget the present Prime Minister, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, took me at my word and removed the
    1436
    bread subsidies. The result was a further twist of the inflationary spiral. That was the only reasonable argument that we had. It was obviously fallacious, but it was the only clear argument that the Government put forward in those autumn Budget debates.
    We must ask the Government—because the Paymaster-General has not made this clear—whether they still stand by this argument. Do they still believe those taxes are necessary to syphon off purchasing power, because these are essentials, because people cannot do without them, and because if there is a tax on them people will have less money to spend on other things? That was the justification for imposing those taxes. Is that the argument for keeping them on? The Paymaster-General has not told us.
    At present, we have recession and unemployment over wide sections of the country. My hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) and for Brierley Hill (Mr. Simmons) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson) have made plain the industries which are affected. Do the Government think that it is right to maintain these taxes which, as I say, were designed to be anti-inflationary, when the problem is a rather sharp measure of deflation?
    I will say this for the right hon. Member for Monmouth, to whom I have paid many tributes in the past—not that it has done him a great deal of good; obviously, the right hon. Gentleman only half believed this "Boyle's Law" argument, when he was Chancellor, in his one and only Budget, last year, he reduced the tax on essentials from 30 per cent. to 15 per cent. He could not have maintained that the inflationary problem was less serious than it had been in the autumn of 1955. Prices were much higher and we were facing a most serious inflationary crisis at the time of the then Chancellor's Budget last year. Yet he showed this one little element of courage in that Budget when he repudiated the policies of the Lord Privy Seal, no doubt with the full support of the Prime Minister, and reduced these taxes from 30 per cent. to 15 per cent.
    Yet today the Paymaster-General is still asking us to support these taxes. He

    1437
    is still recommending the Committee to maintain them at their present level of 15 per cent. when we have first seen the whole economic theory and policy of the Government shattered by the action of the right hon. Member for Monmouth, and, secondly, we have seen the utter irrelevance of policies which are designed to deal with a demand inflation at a time
    when the demand inflation is over and has been over for a long time, and when the problem of cost inflation has assumed a very different significance from what we were facing a year or two ago.
    Question put, That those words be there inserted:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 152, Noes 187.

    Division No. 00.]

    AYES

    [10.0 p.m.

    Ainsley, J. W.

    Hamilton, W. W.

    Pargiter, G. A.

    Albu, A. H.

    Hannan, W.

    Parkin, B. T.

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Hayman, F. H.

    Peart, T. F.

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

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

    Pentland, N.

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

    Hewitson, Capt. M.

    Popplewell, E.

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

    Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)

    Prentice, R. E.

    Benson, Sir George

    Holman, P.

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Boardman, H.

    Holt, A. F.

    Proctor, W. T.

    Bonham Carter, Mark

    Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

    Pursey, Cmdr. H.

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

    Howell, Denis (All Saints)

    Randall, H. E.

    Bowles, F. G.

    Hoy, J. H.

    Rankin, John

    Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

    Hubbard, T. F.

    Redhead, E. C.

    Brockway, A. F.

    Hunter, A. E.

    Reynolds, G.

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

    Rhodes, H.

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Burke, W. A.

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

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Burton, Miss F. E.

    Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

    Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

    Callaghan, L. J.

    Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

    Ross, William

    Champion, A. J.

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Royle, C.

    Chapman, W. D.

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Short, E. W.

    Chetwynd, G. R.

    Kenyon, C.

    Clunie, J.

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Coldrick, W.

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

    Lawson, G. M.

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch & Finsbury)

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Sparks, J. A.

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Steele, T.

    Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Stones, W. (Consett)

    Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

    McAlister, Mrs. Mary

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

    Deer, G.

    McCann, J.

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

    Delargy, H. J.

    MacColl, J. E.

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Diamond, John

    MacDermot, Niall

    Taylor, John (West Lothian)

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

    McInnes, J.

    Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Thornton, E.

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Tomney, F.

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)

    Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)

    Viant, S. P.

    Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

    Mann, Mrs. Jean

    Wade, D. W.

    Fernyhough, E.

    Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

    Weitzman, D.

    Finch, H. J.

    Mellish, R. J.

    West, D. G.

    Foot, D. M.

    Mikardo, Ian

    Wheeldon, W. E.

    Forman, J. C.

    Mitchison, G. R.

    White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

    Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

    George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then)

    Moyle, A.

    Williams, Rev. Llywellyn (Ab'tillery)

    Gibson, C. W.

    Mulley, F. W.

    Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E)

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

    Greenwood, Anthony

    Oram, A. E.

    Woof, R. E.

    Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

    Orbach, M.

    Yates, V. (Ladywood)

    Grey, C. F.

    Oswald, T.

    Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Owen, W. J.

    Hale, Leslie

    Paget, R. T.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Palmer, A. M. F.

    Mr. Pearson and Mr. Simmons.

    NOES

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    Barter, John

    Brooman-White, R. C.

    Aitken, W. T.

    Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

    Bryan, P.

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

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Alport, C. J. M.

    Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

    Bidgood, J. C.

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

    Arbuthnot, John

    Bingham, R. M.

    Cole, Norman

    Armstrong, C. W.

    Bishop, F. P.

    Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

    Ashton, H.

    Body, R. F.

    Cooke, Robert

    Atkins, H. E.

    Bossom, Sir Alfred

    Cooper-Key, E. M.

    Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Braine, B. R.

    Corfield, Capt. F. V.

    Barlow, Sir John

    Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

    Peel, W. J.

    Crowder, Petre (Rulslip—Northwood)

    Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

    Peyton, J. W. W.

    Cunningham, Knox

    Hurd, A. R.

    Pitman, I. J.

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh, S.)

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Dance, J. C. G.

    Hyde, Montgomery

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Davidson, Viscountess

    Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

    D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Profumo, J. D.

    Deedes, W. F.

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Ramsden, J. E.

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Rawlinson, Peter

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

    Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)

    Redmayne, M.

    Doughty, C. J. A.

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Remnant, Hon. P.

    Drayson, G. B.

    Joseph, Sir Keith

    Renton, D. L. M.

    du Cann, E. D. L.

    Keegan, D.

    Ridsdale, J. E.

    Duncan, Sir James

    Kershaw, J. A.

    Rippon, A. G. F.

    Duthie, W. S.

    Kimball, M.

    Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

    Elliott, R. W. (Ne'castle upon Tyne, N.)

    Kirk, P. M.

    Roper, Sir Harold

    Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

    Langford-Holt, J. A.

    Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Leather, E. H. C.

    Sharples, R. C.

    Finlay, Graeme

    Leburn, W. G.

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

    Fletcher-Cooke, C.

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

    Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

    Fort, R.

    Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

    Spearman, Sir Alexander

    Freeth, Denzil

    Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

    Speir, R. M.

    Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

    Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)

    Stevens, Geoffrey

    Gammans, Lady

    Longden, Gilbert

    Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

    Garner-Evans, E. M.

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

    Glover, D.

    Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick)

    Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)

    Glyn, Col. Richard H.

    Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

    Storey, S.

    Godber, J. B.

    Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Goodhart, Philip

    McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

    Summers, Sir Spencer

    Gough, C. F. H.

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)

    Gower, H. R.

    Maddan, Martin

    Teeling, W.

    Graham, Sir Fergus

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

    Temple, John M.

    Green, A.

    Marlowe, A. A. H.

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

    Marshall, Douglas

    Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.

    Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

    Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.

    Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

    Gurden, Harold

    Mawby, R. L.

    Tilney, John (Wavertree)

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Medlicott, Sir Frank

    Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

    Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

    Tweedsmuir, Lady

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Vickers, Miss Joan

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

    Nairn, D. L. S.

    Wall, Patrick

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Neave, Airey

    Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)

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

    Nicholls, Harmar

    Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

    Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

    Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)

    Webbe, Sir H.

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

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

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Oakshott, H. D.

    Wood, Hon. R.

    Hobson, John (Warwick & Leam'gt'n)

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

    Woollam, John Victor

    Holland-Martin, C. J.

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Yates, William (The Wrekin)

    Horobin, Sir Ian

    Osborne, C.

    Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

    Page, R. G.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

    Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

    Mr. Wills and Mr. Gibson-Watt

    Howard, John (Test)

    Partridge, E.

    Amendment proposed: In page 30, line 33, at end insert:
    (c) baths, wash tubs, wash boards, ironing boards, shields, and stands for smoothing irons or pressing irons, clothes line posts, clothes props and clothes airers (other than heated airers).—[Mr. H. Wilson.]
    Question put, That those words be there inserted:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 146, Noes 186.

    Division No. 141.]

    AYES

    [10.31 p.m.

    Ainsley, J. W.

    Callaghan, L. J.

    Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

    Albu, A. H.

    Champion, A. J.

    Fernyhough, E.

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Chapman, W. D.

    Finch, H. J.

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Chetwynd, G. R.

    Foot, D. M.

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

    Coldrick, W.

    Forman, J. C.

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

    Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Benson, Sir George

    Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch & Finsbury)

    George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then)

    Boardman, H.

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Gibson, C. W.

    Bonham Carter, Mark

    Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

    Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

    Greenwood, Anthony

    Bowles, F. G.

    Deer, G.

    Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

    Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

    Delargy, H. J.

    Grey, C. F.

    Brockway, A. F.

    Diamond, John

    Hale, Leslie

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

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

    Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    Hamilton, W. W.

    Burke, W. A.

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

    Hannan, W.

    Burton, Miss F. E.

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Hayman, F. H.

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)

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

    Hewitson, Capt. M.

    Mann, Mrs. Jean

    Ross, William

    Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)

    Mellish, R. J.

    Royle, C.

    Holman, P.

    Mikardo, Ian

    Short, E. W.

    Holt, A. F.

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

    Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Howell, Denis (All Saints)

    Moyle, A.

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Hoy, J. H.

    Mulley, F. W.

    Sparks, J. A.

    Hubbard, T. F.

    Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

    Steele, T.

    Hunter, A. E.

    Oram, A. E.

    Stones, W. (Consett)

    Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

    Orbach, M.

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

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Oswald, T.

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

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

    Owen, W. J.

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

    Paget, R. T.

    Taylor, John (West Lothian)

    Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

    Palmer, A. M. F.

    Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

    Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

    Pargiter, G. A.

    Thornton, E.

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Parkin, B. T.

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Peart, T. F.

    Wade, D. W.

    Kenyon, C.

    Pentland, N.

    Weitzman, D.

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Popplewell, E.

    West, D. G.

    Lawson, G. M.

    Prentice, R. E.

    Wheeldon, W. E.

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Proctor, W. T.

    Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Pursey, Cmdr. H.

    Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)

    McAlister, Mrs. Mary

    Randall, H. E.

    Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

    McCann, J.

    Rankin, John

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

    MacColl, J. E.

    Redhead, E. C.

    Woof, R. E.

    MacDermot, Niall

    Reynolds, G.

    Yates, V. (Ladywood)

    McInnes, J.

    Rhodes, H.

    Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Mr. Pearson and Mr. Simmonds

    Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)

    Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

    NOES

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    Duncan, Sir James

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Aitken, W. T.

    Duthie, W. S.

    Joseph, Sir Keith

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

    Elliott, R. W. (Ne'castle upon Tyne, N.)

    Keegan, D.

    Alport, C. J. M.

    Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

    Kershaw, J. A.

    Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Kimball, M.

    Arbuthnot, John

    Finlay, Graeme

    Kirk, P. M.

    Armstrong, C. W.

    Fletcher-Cooke, C.

    Langford-Holt, J. A.

    Ashton, H.

    Fort, R.

    Leather, E. H. C.

    Atkins, H. E.

    Freeth, Denzil

    Leburn, W. G.

    Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

    Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

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

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Gammans, Lady

    Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

    Barlow, Sir John

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

    Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)

    Barter, John

    Gibson-Watt, D.

    Longden, Gilbert

    Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

    Glover, D.

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald

    Glyn, Col. Richard H.

    Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

    Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

    Godber, J. B.

    Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Bidgood, J. C.

    Goodhart, Philip

    McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

    Bingham, R. M.

    Gough, C. F. H.

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Bishop, F. P.

    Gower, H. R.

    Maddan, Martin

    Body, R. F.

    Graham, Sir Fergus

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

    Bossom, Sir Alfred

    Green, A.

    Marlowe, A. A. H.

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

    Marshall, Douglas

    Braine, B. R.

    Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

    Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.

    Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

    Gurden, Harold

    Mawby, R. L.

    Brooman-White, R. C.

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Medlicott, Sir Frank

    Bryan, P.

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

    Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Chichester-Clarke, R.

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

    Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

    Nairn, D. L. S.

    Cole, Norman

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

    Neave, Airey

    Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Nicholls, Harmar

    Cooke, Robert

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

    Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)

    Cooper-Key, E. M.

    Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

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

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Oakshott, H. D.

    Corfield, Capt. F. V.

    Hirst, Geoffrey

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

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Hobson, John (Warwick & Leam'gt'n)

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Holland-Martin, C. J.

    Osborne, C.

    Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

    Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

    Page, R. G.

    Cunningham, Knox

    Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

    Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Howard, John (Test)

    Partridge, E.

    Dance, J. C. G.

    Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

    Peel, W. J.

    Davidson, Viscountess

    Hurd, A. R.

    Peyton, J. W. W.

    D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh, S.)

    Pitman, I. J.

    Deedes, W. F.

    Hyde, Montgomery

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

    Doughty, C. J. A.

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Profumo, J. D.

    Drayson, G. B.

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Ramsden, J. E.

    du Cann, E. D. L.

    Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)

    Rawlinson, Peter

    1442

    1443

    Redmayne, M.

    Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

    Vickers, Miss Joan

    Remnant, Hon. P.

    Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Renton, D. L. M.

    Storey, S.

    Wall, Patrick

    Ridsdale, J. E.

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)

    Rippon, A. G. F.

    Summers, Sir Spencer

    Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

    Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

    Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)

    Webbe, Sir H.

    Roper, Sir Harold

    Teeling, W.

    Wills, G. (Bridgwater)

    Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

    Temple, John M.

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Sharples, R. C.

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Wood, Hon. R.

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

    Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.

    Woollam, John Victor

    Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

    Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

    Yates, William (The Wrekin)

    Spearman, Sir Alexander

    Tilney, John (Wavertree)

    Speir, R. M.

    Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Stevens, Geoffrey

    Tweedsmuir, Lady

    Mr. Legh and Mr. Hughes-Young.

    Amendment propose: In page 30, line 33, at end insert:
    (c) dustbins, buckets, pails, pedal-operated sanitary bins, coal hods and coal scuttles.—[Mrs. White.]
    Question put, That those words be there inserted:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 145, Noes 184.

    Division No. 142.]

    AYES

    [10.41 p.m.

    Ainsley, J. W.

    Hannan, W.

    Pargiter, G. A.

    Albu, A. H.

    Hayman, F. H.

    Parkin, B. T.

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Henderson, Rt. Hn. A (Rwly Regis)

    Pearson, A.

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Hewitson, Capt. M.

    Peart, T. F.

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

    Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)

    Pentland, N.

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

    Holman, P.

    Popplewell, E.

    Benson, Sir George

    Holt, A. F.

    Prentice, R. E.

    Boardman, H.

    Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Bonham Carter, Mark

    Howell, Denis (All Saints)

    Proctor, W. T.

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

    Hoy, J. H.

    Pursey, Cmdr. H.

    Bowles, F. G.

    Hubbard, T. F.

    Randall, H. E.

    Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

    Hunter, A. E.

    Rankin, John

    Brockway, A. F.

    Hynd, J. H. (Attercliffe)

    Redhead, E. C.

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Reynolds, G. W.

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

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

    Rhodes, H.

    Burke, W. A.

    Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Burton, Miss F. E.

    Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Callaghan, L. J.

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

    Champion, A. J.

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Ross, William

    Chetwynd, G. R.

    Kenyon, C.

    Royle, C.

    Coldrick, W.

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

    Lawson, G. M.

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch & Finsbury)

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Sparks, J. A.

    Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

    McAlister, Mrs. Mary

    Steele, T.

    Delargy, H. J.

    McCann, J.

    Stones, W. (Consett)

    Diamond, John

    MacColl, J. E.

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

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

    MacDermot, Niall

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    McInnes, J.

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Taylor, John (West Lothian)

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Thornton, E.

    Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

    Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    Fernyhough, E.

    Mann, Mrs. Jean

    Wade, D. W.

    Finch, H. J.

    Mellish, R. J.

    Weitzman, D.

    Foot, D. M.

    Mikardo, Ian

    West, D. G.

    Forman, J. C.

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Wheeldon, W. E.

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

    White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

    George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then)

    Moyle, A.

    Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

    Gibson, C. W.

    Mulley, F. W.

    Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

    Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

    Greenwood, Anthony

    Oram, A. E.

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

    Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

    Orbach, M.

    Woof, R. E.

    Grey, C. F.

    Oswald, T.

    Yates, V. (Ladywood)

    Hale, Leslie

    Owen, W. J.

    Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

    Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Paget, R. T.

    Hamilton, W. W.

    Palmer, A. M. F.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Mr. Short and Mr. Deer.

    NOES

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    Armstrong, C. W.

    Barter, John

    Aitken, W. T.

    Ashton, H.

    Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

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

    Atkins, H. E.

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald

    Alport, C. J. M.

    Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

    Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

    Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Bidgood, J. C.

    Arbuthnot, John

    Barlow, Sir John

    Bingham, R. M.

    Bishop, F. P.

    Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

    Osborne, C.

    Body, R. F.

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

    Page, R. G.

    Bossom, Sir Alfred

    Heald, Rt. Hon Sir Lionel

    Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

    Boyle, Sir Edward

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

    Partridge, E.

    Braine, B. R.

    Hill, Mrs E. (Wythenshawe)

    Peel, W. J.

    Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Peyton, J. W. W.

    Brooman-White, R. C.

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Pitman, I. J.

    Bryan, P.

    Hobson, John (Warwick & Leam'gt'n)

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Holland-Martin, C. J.

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

    Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

    Profumo, J. D.

    Cole, Norman

    Howard, John (Test)

    Ramsden, J. E.

    Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

    Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

    Rawlinson, Peter

    Cooke, Robert

    Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

    Redmayne, M.

    Cooper-Key, E. M.

    Hurd, A. R.

    Remnant, Hon. P.

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

    Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh, S.)

    Renton, D. L. M.

    Corfield, Capt. F. V.

    Hyde, Montgomery

    Ridsdale, J. E.

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry

    Rippon, A. G. F.

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

    Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Roper, Sir Harold

    Cunningham, Knox

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)

    Sharples, R. C.

    Dance, J. C. G.

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

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

    Davidson, Viscountess

    Joseph, Sir Keith

    Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

    D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Keegan, D.

    Spearman, Sir Alexander

    Deedes, W. F.

    Kershaw, J. A.

    Speir, R. M.

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    Kimball, M.

    Stevens, Geoffrey

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

    Kirk, P. M.

    Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

    Doughty, C. J. A.

    Langford-Holt, J. A.

    Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)

    Drayson, G. B.

    Leather, E. H. C.

    Storey, S.

    du Cann, E. D. L.

    Leburn, W. G.

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Duthie, W. S.

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

    Summers, Sir Spencer

    Elliott, R. W. (Ne'castle upon Tyne, N.)

    Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

    Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)

    Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

    Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)

    Teeling, W.

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Longden, Gilbert

    Temple, John M.

    Finlay, Graeme

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Fletcher-Cooke, C.

    Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

    Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.

    Fort, R.

    Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

    Freeth, Denzil

    McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

    Tilney, John (Wavertree)

    Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

    Gammans, Lady

    Maddan, Martin

    Tweedsmuir, Lady

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

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

    Vickers, Miss Joan

    Gibson-Watt, D.

    Marlowe, A. A. H.

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Glover, D.

    Marshall, Douglas

    Wall, Patrick

    Glyn, Col. Richard H.

    Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.

    Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)

    Godber, J. B.

    Mawby, R. L.

    Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

    Goodhart, Philip

    Medlicott, Sir Frank

    Webbe, Sir H.

    Gough, C. F. H.

    Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

    Wills, G. (Bridgwater)

    Gower, H. R.

    Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Graham, Sir Fergus

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

    Wood, Hon. R.

    Green, A.

    Nairn, D. L. S.

    Woollam, John Victor

    Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

    Nicholls, Harmar

    Yates, William (The Wrekin)

    Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

    Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)

    Gurden, Harold

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

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Oakshott, H. D.

    Mr. Legh and

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

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

    Colonel J. H. Harrison.

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Mr. Julian Ridsdale: I beg to move, in page 30, line 37, to leave out from the beginning to "the" in line 42.
    The object of the Amendment is to remove oil heaters from Purchase Tax, and to prevent the Chancellor from imposing a tax of £1½ million which, in my submission, will tend to fall on those who have been hardest hit by inflation. On Monday, my right hon. Friend said that in this Budget he had set out to accomplish some reduction in the Purchase Tax burden. I certainly welcome the reduction of £30 million this year and of £41 million in a full year which, as he pointed out, was made up of a gross reduction of £43 million, and an increase of about £2½ million. Unfortunately, the fact is that of this
    1446
    increase no less than £1½ million relates to oil heaters.
    I quite understood the Chancellor when he said on Monday that he wants to move in the direction of a reasonable degree of uniformity; when he stated that he must be fair and reasonable to all concerned. Later, he said that the purpose of Purchase Tax—and I emphasise this—is to raise revenue. But is it fair and reasonable to raise revenue from those who use oil heaters, the majority of whom do so because they cannot afford to pay the ever-increasing price of coal, gas and electricity? A lot of them are the old people, but there are also those in rural areas, who rely very extensively on oil stoves for their heating.

    1447
    I know that the increase in the tax on oil heaters may not seem very much, but if the Chancellor has been able to understand, quite rightly in my view, the psychological factor involved in increasing the tax on miners' safety helmets, let me assure him that there is just as great a psychological factor to be taken into account when dealing with a section of the community which is far less able to bear such an increase in tax even than were the miners.
    If my right hon. Friend replies that he cannot afford to lose the revenue, will he look again at thermo-storage block heaters, which are at present being used in business and commercial premises, but which, because of an anomaly that the Minister of Power admits it is in the hands of my right hon. Friend to alter, cannot at present be put on the domestic market. The saving in capital expenditure would be considerable, as it would shift the load on the power stations from day to night. We should then be able to give householders the advantages of a low off-peak tariff. All that is required here is a decision by him to let these thermo-storage block heaters be used on the domestic market. I am sure that the saving of capital expenditure would more than balance the loss of revenue that he might have got, not from oil heaters alone but from all heating appliances. I hope, therefore, that when my right hon. Friend thinks again about this tax on oil heaters, he will agree that there is doubt whether he is being fair and reasonable, as he said was his aim on Monday.
    I have no intention of pressing the Amendment to a Division, but I hope that if my right hon. Friend does not see fit to accept it now he will have reconsidered the position before the Report stage. I ask him, however, to look again into the incidence of this tax and who will be affected by it, because I am sure I am right in saying that it is those who have been hit hardest by inflation who will have to bear this tax.
    Mr. John Hall: When I talk on Purchase Tax matters, I am reminded of the advice given by that great preacher, the late Dr. Spurgeon, to young ministers. When advising them how to express themselves, he said, "My friends, when talking to your congregation about Heaven, let
    1448
    your faces light up with joy and radiate with a heavenly glee. When you are talking about Hell, your ordinary face will do." When I am talking about Purchase Tax, I feel that my ordinary face will do quite well.
    We have had today debates on baby powder, rolling pins and pastry boards. We are to have debates, I gather, on mouse traps and fly swatters.
    Mr. Nabarro: The Amendments about them are not selected.
    Mr. Hall: That is excellent.
    Oil heaters are important. I support the Amendment and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale) on dealing with the Amendment, which was not called, on thermo-storage block heaters, for two main reasons. The first is that the Purchase Tax was removed from oil heaters shortly after the war, because they were regarded at that time as essential items for public use. In my view, they are still essential items for public use. Secondly, I support the Amendment because it is a retrograde step to reintroduce a tax.
    It seems to me that the Treasury has been bemused by the skilful and energetic campaign waged by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro).
    Mr. Nabarro: Very successfully.
    Mr. Hall: The officials in the Treasury have been so bemused that they have genuflected to the West rather than to the East. They have worshipped at the shrine of the sacred cow of my hon. Friend—the sacred cow of standardisation.—[Interruption.] I would not dream of regarding my hon. Friend as a sacred cow. I am referring to his sacred cow of standardisation. I will change the metaphor if my hon. Friend desires.
    Mr. Collins: Is the hon. Member thinking of the "Bull and Bush"?
    Mr. Nabarro: Do not call me a cow.
    Mr. Hall: My hon. Friend cannot have been listening with his usual care to what I was saying.
    I do not want the plea for standardisation by the removal of anomalies to result in the equal sharing of complete misery rather than in improvement.

    1449
    I support the Amendment also because the tax hits particularly badly those living in the agricultural areas. In those areas, there are few instances where gas supplies are available, in some cases there is no electricity supply and the people rely on oil not only for heating, but often also for cooking. These remote areas—my constituency is only 30 miles from London—are often extremely remote from the ordinary amenities of life. They are cut off by the lack of transport facilities and other facilities which country areas lack. They are divorced from the facilities of life, but we are proposing to make such amenities as they have a little more expensive by the introduction of this tax. Even where electricity exists in the countryside it is often very expensive, which is one of the great problems of providing electricity in country areas. Many people living there can afford only to use oil-burning heaters. Coal is very expensive, and they burn it in grates which are free of tax.
    11.0 p.m.
    Indeed, some curious anomalies arise from the taxation of these heaters. This is the very situation which my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster was trying to avoid. For example, in the nursery, babies' high chairs, cradles and cots are untaxed, but the oil heaters which we need to keep the children warm are taxed. In the invalid's room, invalid chairs, commodes and commode stools are free of tax, but the oil heater to keep the room warm is taxed. Oil lamps, which are widely used in parts of my constituency, are free from tax, so that the vestal virgins need not worry very much. Batteries for radio sets—and battery sets are largely used in country areas—are free from tax, but oil heaters, also required in country areas, are to be taxed.
    Whereas the big blocks of flats will have their oil-fired central heating free of tax, and whereas the great houses, occupied perhaps by the National Coal Board or by the headquarters of some great trade union, can have oil-fired central heating free of tax, the man in the small cottage has to pay tax on his oil heater.
    Mr. Nabarro: What about the National Union of Mineworkers?
    Mr. Hall: I believe that I am right in saying that it has, or proposes to
    1450
    install, oil heating instead of coal heating in its headquarters. I hope that that is not correct, but I believe that it is.
    Why has it been decided to introduce a tax on oil heaters? Is it because there is already a tax on gas and electric appliances? I cannot believe that it is because of such a dog-in-the-manger attitude; surely we are not told that just because we have a tax on gas and electric heaters we must have a tax on oil heaters. If my right hon. Friend pays a visit to a hardware shop in any small country town throughout the country and sees the large number of oil-burning appliances of all kinds, and the spares for them, it will be borne home to him how vital oil heaters are to those who live in country areas. I hope that he will look at this proposal again between now and Report.
    Captain Richard Pilkington: After the very colourful speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) I am left with the memory of his reference to a sacred cow radiating glee. In view of the fact that in six of the seven Budgets which this Government have introduced there have been tax reductions, it would be a pity if there were to be any increase unless there is a very strong reason for it. The reason which has been advanced for some of the increases in Purchase Tax which are to be imposed is the need for conformity. I suggest that if conformity is to be achieved, it should be achieved by rating downwards and not rating upwards.
    Oil heaters are of great importance to many people living in homes which are not very rich and in homes in the outlying parts of the country. Moreover, the tax will hit the industry itself in its home market and it will injure it in its export trade. The industry has responded to the Government's demands that it should do all it could to increase its export trade and it has succeeded in doing so. This seems a very poor return for its efforts.
    In my constituency there is a very go-ahead firm, Chalwyn Lamps, which concentrates upon these heaters. It began some years ago making hurricane lamps, and it exported over 90 per cent. of its production—a fine record. Unfortunately it met very strong competition from Germany and Japan in its markets, particularly in East and West Africa, but

    1451
    undeterred by this and under great difficulty it switched largely to the production of these oil heaters. For this tax now to fall upon those heaters is a harsh and cruel blow. I should like to add to the arguments we have already heard, and ask the Chancellor to reconsider his proposals in this matter; and, when he has reconsidered them, to withdraw this tax.
    Dame Irene Ward: I should like to associate myself with this Amendment, mainly on the ground that this Purchase Tax will hit very hardly those living on small fixed incomes. I have tried to make up my mind about how the Chancellor has been able to resist so many Amendments. I have been very interested in his technique and, having studied it, I consider that this particular Amendment will almost defeat him. I do not think that he will be able to use his usual argument because, after all, one cannot mistake an oil heater. One may be able to mistake baby powder for some other sort of powder; we may get mink mixed up with sable, or sable mixed up with mink, but one cannot get oil heaters confused with other kinds of heaters. It will be very difficult for him to find a new technique to resist this Amendment.
    May I remind my right hon. Friend that when he was talking about the problem of the baskets made by blind people he said that they might get mixed up with other types of baskets. Because of all this, I think that this Amendment will defeat the ingenuity of the Chancellor. I shall listen with great care to hear what sort of an argument he submits. In my own mind I am wondering if he is preparing himself against an increase in the price of coal because, if coal prices go up with the arbitration award which goes forward this week, people who did not want to use coal at a higher price would want instead to use oil heaters. It will be very awkward with all the small coal lying about. Is the Chancellor looking far ahead?
    Furthermore, when he is discussing these matters with his officials and getting advice as to whether Amendments such as this should be accepted or not, does he ever ask how many of those officials have gone out to look at the problem on the home level? I always notice that he is a clever operator from
    1452
    the Front Bench; he is always careful to say "My advice is …". We should know what is the background of his advisers. Although he makes his own breakfast, and goes out with a shopping basket, as he has told us, he has not yet told us if he has an oil heater. Perhaps he has oil central heating which is free of tax. Perhaps he will tell us.
    I want to know whether those who advise my right hon. Friend ever come down from their Olympian heights to look at what really goes on in life, because it is easy to advise from the mountain top, but when one comes down to the plain and into the homes of the people, and sees what is going on, experience in life teaches a lot. One can get experience on the mountain tops, and one can get the sun there, so one does not need oil heaters, but when ones comes down to the plains in the valley, where the sun does not follow, then one gets a quite different point of view. I have always thought the trouble with the Treasury is that they sit on the Olympian heights, and I want to see a few of them really down on the plains.
    As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister are always saying how difficult it is to find anything that can be done fairly to help those living on small fixed incomes, here is a really straightforward case, and that is what I want accepted. It is tremendously important, and I have had something to say about quid pro quo before. The Chancellor will be in for a rather rough time if the price of coal goes up. I know he may argue that it is no good trying to look into the future, but I like to have my money on the table and I like to prepare the way, to be quite sure that that particular section of the community in whom I am interested are not to be penalised.
    Here is a heaven-sent opportunity. It will not mix anyone up, or make people dishonest. It is just a simple, straightforward argument, and I hope my right hon. Friend will realise that it is not in the Conservative philosophy that any tax should go up. We are set on reducing taxes, and I hate spoiling a good, long, straight path by suddenly digging a ditch. Therefore, I hope that my right hon. Friend will accept the Amendment.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: I find it a little more difficult than usual to follow the logic and some of the metaphors of the

    1453
    hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), but I understand she was supporting her hon. Friends who submitted this Amendment—from the mountain tops. I would have thought that, generally, the higher ones goes the colder it gets. This is an extremely important Amendment, and we on this side strongly support it.
    Mr. Nabarro: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the National Union of Mineworkers has resolved on many occasions recently that there shall be a restriction placed on the use of oil, so that more coal may be used. How does that square with his support for the Amendment?
    Mr. Gordon Walker: The oil central heating which consumes a great deal more oil than the oil heaters we are talking about is free of tax. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman wants tax to be imposed there—otherwise I do not see the logic of what he is saying.
    Mr. Nabarro: What the right hon. Gentleman is saying now is that he does not support his friends in the National Union of Mineworkers, who have been quite adamant in the last few months in seeking an increase in the consumption of coal and a diminution in the consumption of oil. If this Amendment were carried, it would lead to an increase in the consumption of oil, which is exactly contrary to the wishes of the union.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: I do not want to swap logic with the hon. Gentleman, because it would not help. Before the Budget there was no tax on these heaters. If we have our way, it cannot lead to an increase in consumption of oil. I want to add my plea to those made from the other side of the Committee to the Chancellor to consider seriously the argument that has been put forward. I hope he will tell us that he will consider it and will come back and tell us the result when we reach the Report stage.
    11.15 p.m.
    It seems to me that in this matter fiscal logic has been carried to a lunatic conclusion. I can see the logic in saying that if some sorts of heaters are taxed others must be taxed, but that is the sort of logic which led the Chancellor temporarily to put tax on miners' helmets and boots, and the sort
    1454
    of logic he had the good sense from which to withdraw when the defect in it was pointed out to him and he reconsidered it. I hope he will do likewise now and not pay close attention to the arguments which have been put before him.
    If we cannot have some such hope and assurance, we for our part will certainly do our best to bring this matter up on Report, when we shall hope to be able to discuss it again, and at greater length at a more reasonable hour, and when, if necessary, we shall, of course, press the matter to a Division, with the support, we hope, of hon. Gentlemen opposite who feel so strongly about it.
    Dame Irene Ward: Following the Conservative lead.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: Would the hon. Lady like to say something?
    Dame Irene Ward: How sweet of the right hon. Gentleman to allow me. I said, "Following the Conservative lead," because right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite had slipped in not taking up this matter.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: We have an exactly similar Amendment down on the Paper. It just happened that the Chair called this Amendment. That had nothing to do with us. It is a matter within the discretion of the Chair. I am not sure that our Amendment was not put down first and that the Conservatives are not following our lead.
    However, we will not quarrel about this matter. It is a matter about which many hon. Members opposite happen to be saying the right thing, and whenever that happens we are very glad to associate ourselves with them. I hope they will carry their views into the Division Lobby if necessary.
    We have got so used to the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) making powerful speeches and then finding feeble reasons for not voting in support of them, but the hon. Lady is far more courageous than the hon. Member for Kidderminster and we hope she will carry her view to the Division Lobby if necessary. I hope it will not be, and that the Chancellor will give the assurance for which he has been pressed. We await his conclusion, and I hope he will be able to give it to us in a favourable manner.
    Mr. Amory: No Chancellor enjoys putting on a new tax charge. I really think that there have been very few Budgets which have contained fewer tax charges than this year's Budget. I thought very carefully before I included this proposal in my Budget. The reason I did so was, first, that up to the present oil space heaters were in a glaringly anomalous position. One of my objects in this Budget was to get rid of as many obvious anomalies as I reasonably could. The question is whether the removal of this anomaly was a reasonable step. I believe that it was.
    Let me briefly sketch the history of this position. In 1945, electric, gas and oil heaters were all free of tax. Subsequently the electric and gas space heaters were made subject to tax, following the supply shortage. Oil was then left exempt. Now I have reduced the tax on electric and gas space heaters from 60 per cent. to 30 per cent. These three methods of space heating, which generally, but not, I agree, invariably, are in competition, will, under Purchase Tax, at least, be able to compete on an equal basis. We have to remember that gas and electric heaters use domestically produced raw material. Oil heaters are using an imported raw material. From that point of view, there would be an argument—I do not say how good—for having a higher rate of tax on oil heaters than on the two alternatives.
    Mr. John Hall: Am I not right in saying that paraffin, which is used in heaters, is merely one of the by-products of oil imported into and refined in this country, and thus makes no difference to the import of raw material?
    Mr. Gordon Walker: Is it not true that a lot of electricity is made from oil? Is not the Chancellor advancing an extraordinary argument?
    Mr. Amory: My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) is quite right. It is one of the by-products of the refining process. In reply to the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker), I should have thought that the proportion of electricity made from oil, taking the country as a whole, was insignificantly small.
    Now I come to the point of view of the country dwellers, which I agree is an important matter; and I took this matter into consideration before I reached my decision. I am a countryman myself,
    1456
    and I hope that I am in sympathy with the conditions in which people live in country districts. The main form of heating houses by country dwellers is that of solid fuel, though I admit that there are many oil heaters in use in the countryside. But statistically I understand that by far and away the bigger proportion of oil heaters are sold in areas in which they have to be sold in competition with gas and electricity.
    The numbers of oil heaters that have been sold have been going up astonishingly over the past few years, which is, of course, quoted by their competitors as evidence that they have been preferentially treated in this matter. In 1953, oil heaters to the value of just over £2 million were sold. In 1957, it was just under £8 million—in fact £7·8 million. It may be that oil heaters are more economical—I do not know; in certain cases they may be. But if they are, that in itself is not a reason which would justify a preferential treatment in the rate of tax.
    The conclusion that I have reached is that taking all the factors into consideration, we really ought to look at this matter rather broadly. In this grade I have made reductions amounting to £24 million, reducing the tax from the 60 per cent. to the 30 per cent. rate, and I have made additions amounting to only £2 million. The net reduction, therefore, in this grade is one of £22 million. The benefit which will be enjoyed from those reductions is spread very widely over the whole community.
    To sum up, my reasons for reaching this decision were, first, to deal with what was a glaring anomaly which we have found harder and harder to justify over the past few years. I believe that the position before the Budget was quite unfair to the producers of the alternative types of heaters. I believe that we are bound to attach some weight to the fact that the oil heater uses an imported raw material, and I cannot agree that to put these three methods of space heating on to the same basis of tax is, in general, and, on balance, unfavourable to the consumer or to any sections of consumers.
    Mr. Douglas Marshall: I regret the speech that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made. I fully realise that he must feel that a tax of £41 million in a full

    1457
    year which is going back to the taxpayer through Purchase Tax which has been extracted from him in the past should be taken into account, and, of course, one takes it into account and thanks my right hon. Friend for it, but it puzzles me a little when the Chancellor, who has so lately been Minister of Agriculture, should not have thought a little more deeply about the small farmers on the hills and elsewhere who have not got electricity or gas. It is absolutely essential that they should use these oil heaters.
    The argument that my right hon. Friend adduced about the use of oil in general instead of the consumption of coal and the other fuels that we have at home did not impress me at all. My right hon. Friend knows better than I do the amount of heavy oil that has to be used for industrial purposes plus the normal petrol consumption and the situation in relation to the cracking of oil to produce paraffin and the rest. Therefore, the question of oil from the point of view of imports does not ring a bell with me.
    I do not know whether my right hon. Friend realises how very seriously and angrily a number of his very good supporters in the countryside feel about this. I have a letter from a very great personal friend of mine who lives in Devon—that is to say, in England, not in Cornwall—saying:
    "Can you tell us why Derick Amory has put Purchase Tax on oil heaters? We and all our country neighbours are simply furious."
    That reflects the feeling of a great number of people living in areas where they can derive no benefit from the reduction of Purchase Tax on electric heaters, refrigerators, and so on, because they are not supplied with electricity to work them.
    I hope that the Chancellor will reflect on this matter. Many years ago, when the late Sir Stafford Cripps introduced a rather severe Budget, I tabled an Amendment to remove the Purchase Tax from oil lamps. At first, he would not agree to it, but the argument that I and my hon. Friends adduced from the point of view of a part of the country dwellers who had not got other forms of fuel impressed him so much that he removed the tax in spite of the difficulties confronting him at the time. I therefore hope that between now and the Report stage the Chancellor will give further consideration to this Amendment.
    Mr. Douglas Glover: I believe that in his Purchase Tax proposals
    1458
    in this Budget my right hon. Friend has done an excellent job, and on most of them I give him 100 per cent. support.
    The one thing that I would say is that in this case, although I am prepared to agree with him that he has logic on his side, I think he has forgotten the psychological reaction to the problem. In country districts there are many households with no other means of heating apart from coal. The people there would dearly like to have electricity and gas. They see aircraft flying overhead, yet they themselves live in an age, from the point of view of amenity, long past compared with most of their fellow countrymen.
    I know the reason behind the Chancellor's operations, which was to try to remove the anomalies in Purchase Tax. I have an enormous respect for him and I think that he has done a wonderful job in his Budget, but I would say to him, "Let not the Treasury rabbit be mesmerised by the stoat from Kidderminster".
    Mr. Gordon Walker: We heard with very great disappointment the speech which the Chancellor felt that he had to make. We will do our very best to come back to this subject again when we can deploy before him at greater length the arguments which we feel very strongly, to some extent the same arguments as put forward tonight and to some extent different arguments.
    We shall, therefore, return to this matter if it is in order, and we hope that, meanwhile, the Chancellor will bear very well in mind the speeches which have been made by his own supporters and will not forget that had the hour not been so late there would have been a great many speeches from hon. Members on this side of the Committee, who feel very strongly on the subject.
    11.30 p.m.
    Mr. Nabarro: I assure my right hon. Friend the Chancellor that the action he has taken in this matter follows by only three weeks a rather lengthy Adjournment debate which we had on 26th March, when all the arguments were ventilated from every point of view. I strongly urged my right hon. Friend to do something about the glaring anomaly and, far from being a stoat in this matter—or a cow——
    Mr. Charles Howell: Or a vestal virgin.
    Mr. Nabarro: —or a vestal virgin, I am very grateful for this important change, which not only has logic, but is in the general and long-term interests of our fuel economy. If the matter is raised again on Report, I assure my right hon. Friend that I shall give him the most powerful support.
    Mr. Ridsdale: I have listened very carefully to what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, and I must say that it caused me a great deal of disappointment, since I thought he would pay attention to the fact that the fixed income group is having a difficult time. I hope that before we reach the Report stage, my right hon. Friend will realise that this tax falls on those people who have been hardest hit by inflation. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    To report Progress and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. Amory.]
    Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

  PENKETH TANNERY (CLOSING)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hughes-Young.]
  11.32 p.m.
  Mr. Frederick Lee: I apologise for delaying the House a little longer at this late hour and I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for attending. I have a most important constituency matter to put to the Parliamentary Secretary, and I hope that he will give me a sympathetic reply now and sympathetic consideration to those matters to which he cannot reply tonight.
  In the village of Penketh, there is the Penketh Tannery Company Limited, which has decided to go into voluntary liquidation. This firm is the only large firm in the village. It employs a substantial number of people, about 270 in all, who are now to lose their jobs.
  This is an old-established firm which has been in existence for about eighty years. Most of the employees have been there since they were young men, many
  1460
  of them going there direct from school. Naturally, it will be most difficult for them to get employment once the tannery has closed.
  The directors of the company have said that because the sole leather trade is in a bad way, and they have had continuing losses, they will recommend to the shareholders that they should put the company into voluntary liquidation. That is to be done at a meeting which is to take place on 25th June, and unless we can get something done in the meantime, liquidation will take place then.
  The shareholders are also advised not to sell their shares, since it is said that it is virtually certain that they will receive not less than the nominal value. The strange thing is that since the announcement of voluntary liquidation the shares have rocketed from 3s. 9d. to 7s. It would appear that in this day and age it is a better thing to go into voluntary liquidation than to have a fire.
  The issue to which I wish to draw the Parliamentary Secretary's attention, however, is that although that has been done for the shareholders the employees are to be given two weeks' wages, at the basic rates, and no other type of compensation at all. The firm has paid a 4 per cent. tax-free dividend, plus a 2½ per cent. interim dividend, and it has very considerable reserves, which may be the reason why the shares rocketed suddenly on the announcement of liquidation.
  I know that this firm has sustained a working loss over the year, but so have many others. The whole basis of the credit squeeze and high interest rates has that effect on the working results, over a period of twelve months, of quite a lot of small firms. I therefore ask the Government—perhaps the Board of Trade is the appropriate Department—diligently to inquire into the reason why the firm considers it necessary to go into voluntary liquidation at this stage.
  I know that the tanning industry is in some trouble, because compositions of various types and rubber are replacing leather in footwear and driving belts used in factories, but I should have thought that it was advisable for the Government to examine this industry to discover where, precisely, it is going, in the light of the fact that many firms are deciding to go into liquidation.

  1461
  I suggest that the Government should consider the needs of the industry and study the programme outlined in the case of the cotton industry, which is similar. There, the trade unions have put forward proposals which would enable the Government to play a leading part in rationalising the industry. In this case, it might enable the tannery industry to function on a better basis.
  I want to ask the hon. Member whether he does not agree that private enterprise has a responsibility not only to its shareholders, who have invested money, but to those who have invested their lives in it. I ask him whether he will ensure that the Board of Trade will consider holding a public inquiry into the affairs of the company. I also ask his right hon. Friend and himself to remember that this village of Penketh is in the vicinity of the American air base, at Burtonwood, which we have now been told will dismiss 800 people this year, many of whom come from the area with which I have been dealing, in which the tannery is the only alternative industry. There is, therefore, likely to be considerable redundancy.
  On the other side, there is the Warrington area, but many firms there have decleared short-time working, and there is precious little prospect of my constituents being able to get work there. I know that about 30 people who were already redundant have obtained employment with two other firms in the area, but both those firms refuse to employ people over the age of 45, and many of the people affected have had no other employment than in the tannery since they were boys. They are now men of middle-age or above, and there is not the slightest hope of their being able to obtain work, because of their age.
  A further complication is that the firm has a large number of tied houses, with about 80 of its employees' families living in them. If the firm goes into voluntary liquidation, it is difficult to know what will be the future of some of my constituents. I take it that these houses will be sold and it may be that the new owners will want to live in them, or to put some other tenants in them. Some of the houses are occupied by the widows of former employees.
  All this is causing great apprehension among these people and I am sure that
  1462
  the hon. Gentleman, who, I know, sympathises with such cases, will appreciate how sincere are their feelings in this matter. For those reasons, I felt it necessary to bring this matter to the attention of the Ministry and to do so before what I can only describe as a tragedy for some of my constituents actually occurs.
  I ask that the Board of Trade investigate the financial background of this company, which I believe to be perfectly sound, to try to ascertain why, because a temporary loss has been incurred, it should go into voluntary liquidation. The resources of the company are sound and its going into liquidation will result in hardship to 270 of my constituents.
  If, after such an inquiry, it is found that the employers cannot be prevailed upon to keep this firm going, I ask that efforts be made by the Board of Trade to get other people to take over the factory, which is in first-class condition. The plant is modern and a short time ago it was regarded as one of the most modern tanneries in Britain. We understand that there are other people who are interested in the factory and I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman could say whether he knows of any possible future employers.
  No real basis of compensation has been offered to the employees who have been displaced, except a week's wages at the minimum rate, which amounts to about £15. No matter what we may think politically about nationalisation or private enterprise, I should have thought that we had passed the stage where work-people were considered as chattels and could be dispensed with because of a temporary loss. If that kind of thing is to happen, especially in places live in the area of the Warrington emment, we shall find a soured and embittered atmosphere growing up in our villages which will be detrimental to the prospects of increasing production.
  I will not go into other details, owing to the lateness of the hour. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will tell me that the Government are alive to this problem and that his Ministry will do all that is possible to place the redundant workmen. I hope that he is able to give me some information about the future of

  1463
  the property in which some of my constituents are living so that they may have some assurance of continued tenancy. I repeat that I desire an investigation to be carried out. I do not believe that the real reason for the liquidation has been disclosed, and that is why I have raised this matter tonight.
  11.45 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and National Service (Mr. Richard Wood): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. F. Lee) for having given me a chance of trying to explain what our view is about this matter. I understand that this firm to which he has drawn attention is one of the largest manufacturers of leather soles in the country. As he pointed out, like other such manufacturers, this firm has recently been experiencing competition from substitute materials. As the hon. Member rightly told us, it is its intention, at the end of June, to suggest to a meeting of shareholders that the factory should close.
  I understand that the intention of the firm is to run down the employment in the factory over a period of six to nine months—which I think is an important point—and that it intends to give at least two weeks' notice to its employees. The hon. Member also pointed out that 20 or 30 of the employees had lost their jobs. Twenty have been placed by my Department in jobs in the Warrington area and another 8 or 10 have independently found other jobs. All these finished work at the factory on 16th May. They were given two weeks' pay instead of notice and started their other work three days after they terminated work at the factory. I understand that no further discharges are contemplated for the next few weeks.
  The hon. Member, naturally, was very concerned with an immensely important matter, the future tenure of the 80 families in the company's houses. I cannot give any information on that, because, as he will appreciate, that is very much a matter for the company. Naturally, I hope that everything will be done to try to ease the difficulties or any possible hardship those families may be fearing at the moment.
  I should like to say something about the general employment situation in the
  1464
  Warrington area because, obviously, this, strictly from the point of view of my Department, is a very important factor. I understand that about two-thirds of these workers at the Penketh Tannery live in the area of the Warrington employment exchange and that most of the remainder live in the Widnes area. In Warrington, out of a total insured population of 62,000 there is a percentage of unemployment of 1·7 per cent., which as the hon. Member will know, is considerably below the national average, as I am glad to say it has been for several years. Until recently there was in Warrington a shortage of most kinds of workers, but it is true that the employment situation at present is a little more difficult. On the other hand, I do not think that we should be pessimistic about the future.
  Since March, 1957, I understand that civilian employment at Burtonwood has fallen by nearly 1,000. It is true that there are likely to be more discharges there and at the Admiralty depot. The number now unemployed whose last employment was in Government service, however, is only 55. Therefore, experience seems to show that in this area workers who lose jobs, whether at Burtonwood or other places, seem to find other work without very much difficulty. I very much hope that that will continue.
  The hon. Gentleman raised the question of possible action by the Board of Trade in this area but, as I have been saying, the present employment situation in the Warrington area would not justify special action at present by the Board of Trade to encourage industrialists to set up there, because, as he will know—and I have no doubt that he had experience of this when he was in another capacity—this is not the first example of this kind of situation.
  In the Isle of Wight, as he will remember, about 500 people lost their jobs at the end of January of this year. All but 60 of them had found work by a week ago. Again, at Blackpool, out of 2,600 who lost their jobs between February and October, 1957, about 1,300 went straight into other jobs and there have never been more than 150 of them unemployed at any one time. Those are two examples of redundancies being absorbed, and in areas where the unemployment figure was above 5 per cent., as compared with an unemployment figure in Warrington of only 1·7 per cent.

  1465
  It is, of course, impossible to know at present just what will be the effect of the declining employment at Penketh, to which he has drawn attention, on the local level of employment in the Warrington area. I can certainly assure him with the greatest readiness that my right hon. Friend will watch this situation extremely closely.
  I cannot give the hon. Member the information for which he asked about the availability of premises in this area in which he is interested which will be suitable for industrial use. I understand that, at the Penketh Tanning Company, the arrangements for the disposal of the plant, machinery and buildings have not yet been decided, but I have the assurance of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade that he will watch this very carefully. He has authorised me to say that if circumstances required it, the Board of Trade would certainly do all it could to draw the attention of suitable firms to whatever facilities may be available, including any existing premises that might be appropriate for industrial use.
  The hon. Gentleman asked particularly whether the Board of Trade would be willing to undertake an inquiry into this matter. I understand that this proposed meeting at the end of June will, as he has said, vote the company into voluntary liquidation. As I expect he knows, the decision voluntarily to liquidate a company is one which shareholders must reach by a resolution passed by a majority of not less than three-quarters of the shareholders who are entitled to vote at a general meeting which has been called for the purpose in accordance with Section 278 of the Companies Act, 1948. I
  1466
  am advised that as long as those requirements are complied with the Board of Trade has no right to intervene.
  It is certainly true that a company's affairs may be investigated under Sections 164 and 165 of the 1948 Act, if there are circumstances which suggest that the business has been conducted with an attempt to defraud, or that the persons connected with its formation or with the management of its affairs have been guilty of fraud, or if information about the company's affairs has been withheld from members. No application for such an investigation has been received in this case, and there is no evidence before the Board of Trade which would support the appointment of an inspector to carry out such an investigation.
  I hope that I have made clear, as I have tried to do, that the responsibilities in the matter which the hon. Member has raised seem to me to be divided between the company, the Board of Trade and my Department. As far I can see, the firm has not acted, and will not act, beyond its rights. The hon. Member knows very well the views of my right hon. Friend about the obligations which he feels that the employers should always observe. My right hon. Friends certainly recognise their responsibilities in this matter.
  I have given an undertaking to the hon. Member on behalf of the President of the Board of Trade. As for my Department, I assure the hon. Member that my officers in the Warrington area will take every step they possibly can to try to find jobs for any workers who may lose their jobs in that area.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to Twelve oclock.

ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Metal-Working Craftsmen
  Metal-Working Craftsmen
TRANSPORT
  Canals and Inland Waterways (Committee's Report)
  Canals and Inland Waterways (Committee's Report)
ROADS
  Selby Bridge (Toll Rights)
  Selby Bridge (Toll Rights)
  Road Bridge, Kelvedon
  Road Bridge, Kelvedon
  Louth-Grimsby Road (Cordeaux Corner)
  Louth-Grimsby Road (Cordeaux Corner)
RAILWAYS
  Passenger Fares and Freight Rates
  Passenger Fares and Freight Rates
CIVIL AVIATION
  Gatwick Airport (North Runway)
  Gatwick Airport (North Runway)
SHIPPING
  Radio Officers (Employment)
  Radio Officers (Employment)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  United States Aircraft, United Kingdom (Nuclear Weapons)
  United States Aircraft, United Kingdom (Nuclear Weapons)
EMPLOYMENT
  Radio and Aircraft Industry
  Radio and Aircraft Industry
  Feltham and Hounslow
  Feltham and Hounslow
  Maltby
  Maltby
  Engineering and Shipbuilding Industries (Courts of Inquiry Reports)
  Engineering and Shipbuilding Industries (Courts of Inquiry Reports)
NATIONAL SERVICE
  Personal Case
  Personal Case
  Conscientious Objectors
  Conscientious Objectors
BRITISH ARMY
  Teachers, Singapore (Air Trooping Flights)
  Teachers, Singapore (Air Trooping Flights)
MINISTRY OF SUPPLY
  Helicopters
  Helicopters
ROYAL NAVY
  Dispatch Vessels "Alert" and "Surprise"
  Dispatch Vessels "Alert" and "Surprise"
  Visits to Welsh Ports
  Visits to Welsh Ports
BAHAMAS
  Constituencies and Electors
  Constituencies and Electors
EAST AFRICA
  Makerere College (Vacation Courses and Lectures)
  Makerere College (Vacation Courses and Lectures)
SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH
  Research and Development Committee (Management and Control)
  Research and Development Committee (Management and Control)
  COUNCIL OF EUROPE (COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS)
  COUNCIL OF EUROPE (COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS)
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD BLACKFORD on the Woolsack.
Prayers

  COUNTY COUNCILS AND PRIVATE LEGISLATION
  2.35 p.m.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD MERTHYR)THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD MERTHYR) had given Notice of his intention to move to resolve, That in the opinion of this House the principle that a County Council Bill should not confer on local authorities or any other authority or person functions in which the county council has no interest should in general be observed in private legislation. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion which stands in my name on the Order Paper. May I say straight away that, with the permission of the House, I should like to move it in a slightly amended form? I would propose, if I have leave to do so, to insert after the word "should" at the end of the third line, the words "pending any further inquiry."
  Last week, on May 13, I made a statement under the Standing Orders of the House about the Kent County Council Bill. After I had made the statement I was asked to put a Motion on the Order Paper in order to test the opinion of the House on the matter, and it is in fulfilment of that undertaking that I move this Motion this afternoon. I am proposing that the principle which is embodied in this Motion should be observed "in general". The words "in general" are inserted because I am anxious that Committees of the House who will be working in future should not be unduly fettered in this matter and should not be placed under too rigid rules.
  There are, and are bound to be, exceptions or borderline cases—for example, clauses relating to police powers and, if I may give one more example, clauses which often appear in Private Bills promoted by county councils conferring powers upon district councils to effect greater safety against fire, although the fire authority is the county council and
  474
  not the district council. In that sort of case, I should take the view that the county council had an interest and that a clause of that kind ought, therefore, to be allowed under the principle. But, of course, this is an example of a case which may be classed as a borderline case. Then there is the case of London, with which I will deal in a moment, which must also be classed, in some senses at least, as an exception to the principle. I would also draw the attention of your Lordships to the words in the Motion "in which the county council has no interest." I submit that in moving this Motion I am not really endeavouring to effect any change; rather I am maintaining an old principle which, until a comparatively recent date, had always been observed, but which admittedly has been repeatedly departed from in several respects in recent years.
  The immediate occasion of bringing this matter before the House was a report made by the Minister of Housing and Local Government on April 10, copies of which are available to your Lordships, upon the Kent County Council Bill. In fact, there are now before the House three County Council Bills all at present in Committee stage and all containing some clauses which offend the principle contained in this Motion. The number of such clauses it is not easy to ascertain with exactness, but I must emphasise that it is the Kent Bill, much more than the other two, which brings the matter to a head. In these clauses I think it can truthfully be said that the County Council has no interest. As I indicated last week, I do not say that these clauses offend in a manner unprecedented, but I do say that, in the case of the Kent Bill, they do so on a scale unprecedented in the history of this matter.
  Perhaps I may suggest to your Lordships that we should consider an administrative county as being, so to speak, a federal state in miniature: within it are the districts, and within them, again, are the parishes. To every class of authorities—to the county, to the districts, to the parishes—there are given by the local government legislation certain powers and certain duties. What is happening here, I suggest, is that one of these authorities, the county, is seeking to promote legislation to confer powers upon another class of authorities within this, so to speak, federal structure.
  Next I would invite your Lordships to consider, because I think it is important, the question: what exactly is a Private Bill? I would say, in answer to the question, that a Private Bill is a petition to the Sovereign in Parliament for a dispensation or an exception from the Common or Statute Law to be made—and these are the words I would underline—for the benefit of the petitioner. Also, it should be borne in mind that all Private Bills, unlike most Public Bills to-day, commence with a Preamble. The Preamble sets out the situation which it is desired to remedy; it has to be proved, and always is, by evidence on oath by the petitioner before a Committee of your Lordships' House.
  That leads me to a consideration of the question of the proof of local need, which really results from the proof of the Preamble. It is an old-established doctrine, in my submission, that a Private Bill should not be granted unless there is proof of local need; that is, the need of the promoter and not the need of someone else. On May 13 I dealt at some length with the extent to which of recent years this principle has admittedly been breached, and I do not propose to repeat those figures to-day. I also dealt with the recent cases in which the breaches of the principle have been allowed. These exceptions admittedly make this question a difficult one; and on that I seek to justify taking up your Lordships' time. I did not then deal, as in fact I had intended to, with an important exception—namely, the question of London. Since 1888 the London County Council has conferred upon the metropolitan boroughs almost, if not certainly, annual powers which fall under this head. In the year 1903 this arrangement was expressly sanctioned by an agreement of the House of Commons; and in the year 1948 it received statutory recognition in the London County Council (General Powers) Act passed in that year.
  That being so, and London being in many respects a special case, no one, I suggest, would seek to impugn at this stage the authority of the London County Council in that regard; and certainly I have no proposals for altering it or attempting to do so. But I would point out that no other counties, except
  476
  London, have ever received express sanction to do that, although in fact they have done it. London, I suggest, therefore, is a very special case in the legislative structure of this country. I mentioned last time that in 1921 there began the process of breaching the principle, as I shall call it. Since then, fifteen counties have promoted 26 Bills containing clauses which, as I phrase it, offend the principle. Compared to the Kent County Council Bill, I say again, the extent to which it has been done in any one of these Bills is extremely small. Here I again draw attention to the words in the Motion "in general", because those words will allow, in the future, generosity to be shown in doubtful cases and, where there is a doubt, the giving of the benefit of that doubt to the promoters—and probably for good reason.
  I want now to draw the attention of the House to one or two other considerations which I think are pertinent this afternoon—I make no attempt to deal with them all. It is hardly too much to say that should there be in a future Session two or three, or more, Bills of the size of the Kent County Council Bill in this Session—and unhappily the tendency is for them all to come to your Lordships' House simultaneously, or nearly so—there is a real danger that, in part at any rate, the machinery may break down. I would justify that remark by asking your Lordships to consider that these Bills have to be examined by a certain number of people almost literally line by line and word by word. For instance, nearly all, if not all, the Government Departments have to do that; and anybody who is intending or inclined to petition against the Bill has to do it. The question arises whether, in the various offices concerned, there is the necessary staff to cope with this problem which, as I have already said, is apt to come all at once in the course of a Session.
  Next I should like to refer to a question I mentioned last time; that is, the question of town meetings and polls. Section 255 of the Local Government Act, 1933, provides that there should be a right of veto in the hands of the electors when Bills are drafted by county boroughs, municipal boroughs and rural district councils. But no right of veto is given in the case of Bills promoted by

  477
  a county council. So if the county council promotes a Bill on behalf of those other authorities—that is, the municipal boroughs and urban district councils—the effect is that the right of veto is avoided, and the electors and the citizens of the towns are deprived of the opportunity of voicing their protest against the Bill. I would remind the House that in these three Bills quite a number of authorities are thus deprived—56 in Kent, 28 in Surrey and 33 in Essex. I want to make it clear that I lay no charge against the promoters of doing this for that purpose. I acquit them, if I may say so at once, of any deliberate intention of avoiding the law by this procedure. But the result is there, and we must face the facts. The result is that, whereas in an ordinary Corporation Bill the electors and residents have a voice in the matter, in this case they have none.
  Nor is this, in my submission, an academic point. In the Birmingham Corporation Bill, which is in the House of Commons this Session, nine clauses have already been struck out by a town poll before the Bill reached Parliament. Clause 44 of the Birmingham Bill is almost exactly similar to Clause 411 of the Kent Bill and Clause 90 of the Surrey Bill. But while in Birmingham the electors had, and exercised, the right to reject the clause, in the Kent and Surrey counties they have no opportunity of doing so, and the clause is substantially the same. I do not want to over-emphasise that point, but I think it is one which should be borne in mind when this matter is considered. Is that situation the intention of Parliament?
  I might mention one other example. Very often in Local Government Private Bills there is a clause—there is in the Kent Bill—to confer the power to have municipal golf courses. If such a clause appears in a Corporation Bill, the residents, if they do not like it, can defeat it on poll; but in the Kent County Council Bill, which seeks to confer that power on all the boroughs and the urban districts in Kent, they have no such opportunity of saying that they do not want a municipal golf course.
  I pass to another consideration to which I especially invite the attention of the House. I dealt with it last time, but it is of such importance that I must again do so. We are faced with the
  478
  possibility that, if this process is continued, we may have a separate code of law in every county in the Kingdom. Let us face it. I would remind the House that these Bills contain clauses which create criminal offences, and I must ask whether it is really desirable that, as you pass from one county to the other, you must beware lest the criminal law should be different on the other side of the border. Even if the crime is the same, the penalty may be different. Is that really the intention of Parliament? At least, I contend, it must cause confusion and doubt in wide places.
  In an endeavour to be constructive, may I, on that point, make a suggestion? If these powers are desired—and I much sympathise with the suggestion that they are—may I suggest that the great national associations of local authorities, which do such a tremendous amount of work in this sphere, should get together to see whether they cannot bring together these powers, which so many authorities desire, into a Public Bill, the great merit of which would be that it would apply to the whole country. It may be that, as in the case of the Parish Councils Act, which your Lordships passed into law last Session, such a Bill would have to he a Private Member's Bill, but there are ample precedents for that. It has been done very recently, and I suggest that it might be done again.
  In moving this Motion, I hope that I have said nearly enough to show that it is a matter of some importance and, if I may say so, that it is a timely Motion. Last week I ventured to say that it was a case of now or never, so far as these County Council Bills were concerned, because if these powers were allowed in the Kent Bill it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to prevent them from passing into law in other cases, if it was desired to do so. I would go so far as to say this. I realise that it may be that some change is desirable in this practice, but not, I insist, without the whole House being informed of what is going on. In order to give your Lordships the opportunity, if you so desire to use it, properly to consider this matter and all the many issues involved, I hope I am right in thinking that it is my duty to bring this matter to the notice of the House, so that, if the House says that it is quite all right for these clauses to be allowed, at least

  479
  it cannot be said that it was done without the House being informed. If again the House desires, after this matter has been dealt with, that the whole subject should be inquired into at leisure and in due time, it will have the chance and opportunity of doing so.
  May I say that if a suggestion should be made that there should be some form of inquiry, such as a Select Committee or a Joint Select Committee, which might be better still, I, for one, not only should do nothing to oppose that but, indeed, should welcome it gladly and would do everything I could to further it and help it, because I believe that it is merited. I should also like to say that in this matter, as I have done up to now, it is my intention to keep in close touch with the Chairman of Ways and Means in another place so that the two Houses can work on the same lines, which I am sure your Lordships will agree is most desirable.
  Now I want—because I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, would expect me to do so—to tell the House exactly what will be the effect of the passing of this Motion, if it should be passed, on the Bills which are now before the House. If this Motion is passed and the principle thereby applied to these Bills, in rough figures—and I regret that it is impossible to give exact figures—184 clauses in the Kent Bill, 52 clauses in the Surrey Bill and one clause in the Essex Bill will be disallowed. That will be the effect of the passing of this Motion. I have only to add to that statement that, in my view that would be the right course to pursue.
  I apologise for detaining the House once again, but I thought it right to bring the matter before your Lordships. I now beg to move this Motion and, because it is not on the Paper, may I say once more what the Amendment is? It is in line 3, after the word "should," to insert the words. "pending any further inquiry." I hope that I have explained why I have put in that Amendment. I had in mind, of course, the possibility that the House might wish to appoint some form of tribunal which would inquire and report to your Lordships upon the whole subject. I beg to move.
  Moved to resolve, That in the opinion of this House the principle that a County Council Bill should not confer on local
  480
  authorities or on any other authority or person functions in which the County Council has no interest should, pending any further inquiry, in general be observed in private legislation.—(Lord Merthyr.)
  3.0 p.m.
  THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD MANCROFT): My Lords, this is not a Party political matter at all and it is, of course, one for your Lordships to decide; but I thought it might be of convenience to your Lordships if I were to intervene at this stage very briefly to indicate what the Government's view is upon the idea which has been put forward by the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees. I think we ought to be grateful to my noble friend, Lord Merthyr, for bringing this important matter before us. It has been simmering for a long while, but I believe this is the first time it has been brought before Parliament for some years. It is therefore right that he should have done so. It was clearly his duty to do it. I think it is a good thing that the essential principle he has enunciated should be restated, namely, that Private Bills should relate to local needs. That seems to be a principle which has occasionally been lost sight of.
  Equally I think that since the noble Lord, the Lord Chairman of Committees, made his speech to us on May 13, it has become apparent to those of us who have looked into the matter that it is a good deal more complex than some of us originally thought. It has equally become clear, to me at any rate, that it is not a matter into which we should be rushed or in which we should be right to take a snap decision. The Government certainly agree that county councils ought not to promote Bills conferring on their district councils a host of powers for which there is no particular local need. One cannot help but be reminded of the apocryphal Local Bill promoted by a borough whose town clerk's marriage was upon the rocks, which included in Clause 171 the provision that "the town clerk's marriage is hereby dissolved." The clause escaped your Lordships' notice and the marriage was thereby dissolved.
  On the other hand it may be perfectly proper for county councils to seek certain powers on behalf of their district councils when those powers are justified by local

  481
  need. Your Lordships may remember the Kent Water Act in which my noble friend, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, whom I see in his place, was particularly active at the time. The Kent Water Act, 1955, by which the county council reorganised the water administration of their county although they had no water supply functions themselves, is a good example of the point I am making. I am told that county councils certainly have power to promote such Bills, unless, of course, a rule is adopted to prevent it. I think, therefore, that there is strong reason for asking for more time for consideration of this new rule, or this re-enforcement of an old rule, which the Lord Chairman of Committees proposes.
  The rule (I make no criticism of this fact) has been brought to public attention at rather short notice, and it refers to the practice of many years' standing. It is a course hallowed by many years of practice. This is surely another and more compelling reason for us to ask the Lord Chairman for more time. In the last three days I have received a large number of letters from local authorities, pointing out the difficulties which might arise if this rule were adopted without further consideration. I have not had time to examine these letters, but I know from conversations with your Lordships that you, too, have received similar letters from your local authorities. I feel we cannot disregard those letters without examining them carefully. I feel that out of mere courtesy to the local authority associations and the other bodies concerned there should be time for more consultation before a rule which so vitally affects them and might have far-reaching consequences is rather precipitately adopted.
  I should like to suggest that the Amendment which the Lord Chairman of Committees was good enough to put forward verbally is right and proper and one we ought to welcome. This is a matter for the House, of course, and not for the Government, but I am sure that the setting up of a Joint Select Committee, or whatever may be the appropriate and convenient form of consultation, is the right way out of our difficulty. We have a real difficulty. Equally, we have got to tackle it, and I am certain that the Lord Chairman's proposal, as amended, is the right way.
  3.5 p.m.
  LORD SILKIN: My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, last week made his statement, my first reaction—I had no idea he was going to make that statement—was that he was very controversial. I have had no reason to change my views since then. I make no complaint about the fact that he made that statement and that he has brought this matter to the notice of the House. I think this is one of the most important questions that we have had to consider for a long time. It goes to the root of our democratic system of local government, and we have to consider ab initio what are the relationships between local government and national government, what is the position of the county councils vis-à-vis the district councils, and so on.
  The noble Lord in putting down this Motion is seeking to make a complete change from what has been the practice for a great many years—to he exact, for the last thirty-seven years. I want to comment first of all on the procedure. At the latest possible stage the noble Lord has informed us that he is proposing an Amendment to what is on the paper. He now recognises the need for an inquiry. But, my Lords, is it the normal thing to state your policy, to act on it, to strike out clauses—large numbers of clauses—from Bills on the assumption that your policy is in operation, and then say, "We do not really ask you to adopt this policy pending further inquiry"? It is a procedure which seems to me most extraordinary. It the noble Lord wants an inquiry on this matter, by all means he is entitled to have it; but he is not entitled to put before the House and ask the House to accept a principle and then have an inquiry on it. Still less is he entitled to act on that principle pending the result of the inquiry.
  Last week when we had this question under consideration I was under the impression that the noble Lord was not going to strike out any clauses at all pending these further discussions, and that, in fact, any clause about which he had doubts on the basis of the principle he was laying down would be deferred. I now gather that a considerable number of clauses have already been struck out of the Kent Bill, even before the House has had an opportunity of expressing its views. I must say that this is a topsy-turvy procedure and

  483
  makes the whole of our consideration of this matter a farce. If the noble Lord is going to be in a position to decide first and then ask the opinion of the House, what is the good of getting the opinion at all?
  LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, may I interrupt? I apologise to the noble Lord for interrupting, but it might be helpful if I said this. When I said that a certain number of clauses would be disallowed if this Motion was passed, it was subject to the real position, which is this: the Committee stage of all these three Bills is not yet concluded, and the technical constitutional position is that no Amendments are made to the Bills until the conclusion of the Committee stage. Therefore, although it is true that a great deal of consideration has been given to the Bills, clause by clause, technically it is also true that no clauses have yet been irrevocably expunged from the Bills. I ought perhaps to add that the Committee stages of all three Bills have been adjourned until to-morrow morning—that is, of course, purposely until after the debate this afternoon.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Does that mean that the clauses in the Kent County Council Bill that were struck out the day before yesterday will, in certain circumstances, be reinstated; and, if so, on whose initiative?
  LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, technically speaking, they have not yet been struck out; but even if they had been—if the noble Viscount would like to phrase it that way—they can be reinstated to-morrow morning, and on my initiative.
  LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I do not think that I have anything to withdraw. These clauses have been struck out, in pursuance of a principle which the House has not yet accepted, and which we are only now being asked to accept, pending further inquiry. So that it would have been much more proper, had the noble Lord so desired, to defer consideration of these debatable clauses until there had been a decision on the matter. However, the position has been somewhat changed by the suggestion that we might have an inquiry.
  I want to say a few words, as the noble Lord has done, about the position of
  484
  local authorities in relation to Parliament and their private legislation. I should like to advance the principle that unless there is good public reason why clauses in a Private Bill should be disallowed, they should be allowed. After all, county councils render a great service to the community by putting forward ideas which can be tried out in their own locality and which, if found to be successful, can be applied to other parts of the country. I think we owe a great deal to the county councils for giving us the opportunity of trying out these things. It would be rash in the extreme if we jumped into legislation applicable to the whole country before we knew whether or not particular powers were desirable or practicable. A great mass of the law relating to local authorities has been built up as a result of the experiments carried out by individual local authorities, by their being allowed to put clauses in their own Bills which, when they have been tried out, have been found successful and generally extended. I think it is a great pity that we do not have legislation periodically, say every ten years, incorporating all the clauses in local authority Bills which have been found to work. But that is not the fault of the county councils.
  When the noble Lord complains of lack of uniformity as between one council and another, he is perfectly right, but that is no argument against a particular local authority getting the powers that it wants and trying them out. My own approach would be that the onus of refusing powers to a county council should be on the Government, on Parliament, and not the reverse. Unless it can be shown that the powers that the county council is seeking are injurious or undesirable, they ought to be granted. The noble Lord referred to every district council in Kent having power to provide a golf course. I see no particular harm in that. Why should they not have such powers? It does not compel them to provide a golf course; it merely enables them to do so should they so desire. Why does the noble Lord think it wrong that such powers should be conferred? Why does he want to stop them? I just do not understand. Would he rather that every district council in Kent, or anywhere else, that wants a golf course should promote separate legislation in order to get it? Surely it is a most

  485
  convenient way of providing powers for district councils.
  This is not the first time that this matter has been considered. It has been considered on a number of previous occasions, the last one as recently as towards the end of 1955 by a Joint Committee of both Houses. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, will remember that, because he was a member of that Committee, and he will remember all the discussions that took place. He will remember that the recommendations were unanimous, and therefore he was a party to them. I want just to remind him of one or two of the recommendations in that Report. May I remind him of paragraph 72, which I will read, as it is fairly short.
  "A practice has grown up in recent years by which county councils promote Private Bills containing adoptive clauses or parts making powers available generally to district councils in their areas."
  And that, of course, is exactly what the Kent County Council Bill is proposing to do.
  "The practice has definite advantages"—
  this is what the noble Lord himself said at the end of 1955—
  "although it seems likely that if certain powers are desirable in some counties they might well be made available to district councils over the whole country. The London County Council has a somewhat similar, though wider, power to promote, in effect, clauses on behalf of the Metropolitan Borough Councils. The Committee approve the adoptive method of private legislation as tending to reduce costs and simplify procedure."
  Why has the noble Lord changed his mind? Is it because of the Kent County Council Bill? There is nothing in his Motion about the Kent County Council Bill; it is quite general. Would he have objected to the Surrey County Council Bill or the Essex County Council Bill which are before him, on the same grounds? Why has he changed his mind? What pressure has been put upon him? Perhaps we can be informed.
  LORD MERTHYR: If I may interrupt the noble Lord again on that point. I would point out that the clauses on these Bills are not adoptive clauses—at least, generally speaking—and paragraph 72, which I anticipated the noble Lord would comment on, dealt with adoptive clauses. There is there, in my submission, a great difference.
  LORD SILKIN: Frankly, I fail to understand the distinction. The general
  486
  principle of the noble Lord's Motion is that county councils all over the country, not only the Kent County Council, should not include in Private Bills which they promote powers applicable to district councils, if the county council has no interest in those powers. Paragraph 72 is definitely against that principle. Paragraph 72 regards it as a good idea that a county council should be able to promote legislation. I really do not understand the significance of the noble Lord's intervention. That being the case, we are in fact discussing the Kent Council Bill. If it were not for the Kent Council Bill it may be that this Motion would not be before the House at all.
  The Kent County Council, wisely or unwisely—and I do not argue the merits of the Bill itself—have gone to an enormous amount of trouble to work out the powers they want. They have never before had a Private Bill. They have taken many years to work out the powers they want and have at last incorporated them in one Bill. That may be convenient or inconvenient, and I confess that I have considerable sympathy with what the noble Lord has said about the length of the Bill and about the difficulty of scrutinising a Bill of that length as it should be scrutinised when one has so many other Bills to go through. It is probable that the Kent County Council were ill-advised to promote a Bill of this magnitude, although the noble Lord himself, when he spoke last week, said that he made no point of its length. I was rather surprised that he should say that, for I believe that there is a point to be made about the undue length of the Bill and the difficulty of Parliament properly fulfilling its functions in scrutinising a Bill of that size. Be that as it may, we are not in this Motion judging the Kent County Council Bill; the noble Lord is seeking to lay down a principle which would apply to all county councils throughout the country, whether their Bill is long or short. It is to that principle that I strongly object—or, at least, I object until there has been a proper inquiry, if an inquiry is considered necessary.
  There is one other matter to which I want to refer—town meetings. The Joint Committee to which I have referred were not very enthusiastic, as the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, will remember, about town meetings; in fact they recommended that

  487
  legislation should be introduced to abolish town meetings and polls. We all know that these town meetings have become somewhat farcical. One gets possibly 5 per cent. of the townspeople voting; and even then there is a strong suggestion that they are people with a special interest in the matter or who have been the subject of considerable pressure, and that town meetings are in no sense representative of the views of the town or borough as a whole. I am sure that that is the experience of everyone who has experience of holding a town meeting. Nevertheless, that is the law; and the recommendation of the Joint Committee, which the noble Lord accepted, was that this requirement should be abolished. But is there any reason why, if the noble Lord and his Committee are in any doubt as to whether particular powers in a county council Bill are required or wanted by the electorate, they should not insert in the Bill a provision that there should be a poll, if it is demanded, say, by a certain number of people? The noble Lord was good enough to say that he was not accusing the Kent County Council of seeking to circumvent the provisions requiring a town meeting. That being the case, there is no question here of bad faith. Could there not be a provision introduced, as has been suggested by the County Councils Association, in which, in particular cases, the views of the townspeople should be taken on particular provisions? That would meet the case.
  I want to suggest, in conclusion, that this Motion is ill-timed and somewhat arbitrary. After all, the County Councils of Kent, Essex and Surrey, in introducing their Bills and going to the enormous expense involved, have acted in good faith and on the basis of a practice which has now been established without question for thirty-seven years and which has been reaffirmed by Parliament on a number of occasions—the last being as recently as the end of 1955. They have acted in good faith in the belief that what they were doing was justifiable and had the approval of Parliament. Is it not somewhat arbitrary, therefore, suddenly to come down on them and say: "We are going to strike out 184 clauses from your Bill on which you have taken so much trouble, every one of which has a precedent"—because the noble Lord has admitted that that is so. Is it not somewhat arbitrary to say to Surrey: "We
  488
  are going to strike out 52 of your clauses"? I would submit to your Lordships: is not the right course not to make a decision?
  The noble Lord unwittingly misinterpreted me when he thought that I had asked that the House should come to a decision. I thought that this matter ought to be ventilated and that everyone who was interested in the subject should have the right to express a view; and that then possibly the right thing would be to have the matter inquired into by a Joint Committee, such as has been suggested, without a decision of this House at all. I hope that the noble Earl the Leader of the House will advise the House that it would be undesirable to have a vote on this matter and then to have an inquiry, but that, the matter having been ventilated, it should be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses; and that in the meantime the clauses that offend against the principle should not be struck out but should be merely suspended.
  It may well be that such a course would mean delaying the Kent County Council Bill and others. I would suggest that the Kent County Council would rather have the Bill delayed than have 184 clauses struck out of it; and the same applies to Surrey. As I understand it, a Private Bill can be extended from one Session to another; and, that being the case, at least they ought to have the option. But it seems to me to be acting rather harshly if these clauses are struck out without any warning of any kind to the county council. I would appeal to the noble Earl the Leader of the House to advise that this matter should not be forced to a decision to-day; that, having had this discussion, we should make no decision, but that, if necessary, a Committee should be set up to look into the whole question.
  LORD MESTON: My Lords, may I ask this question: if the Kent County Council Bill is in a sense sub judice, is it in order for us to discuss the details of that Bill? I want to do so myself but I do not want to "put my foot in it".
  3.29 p.m.
  THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that the issue which is raised today both in the Motion of the Lord

  489
  Chairman and in the Kent County Council Bill is one of the greatest importance; but the issue which is before the House, I respectfully submit, is not whether the provisions which have been inserted in the Kent County Council Bill, and by which it is proposed to confer a number of powers on some 240 or 250 parish councils in Kent, are good or bad provisions; but whether it is right to include those provisions in a Kent County Council Private Bill.
  The noble Lord said that this question went to the heart of local government and local government legislation. I entirely agree; but equally it goes to the heart of national government and national public legislation. I should have thought that this was a proposition which everybody in this House would accept: that there is a wide field which is the function of Public Acts of Parliament, and there is a much narrower field which falls properly within the scope of Private Bills; and that narrower field relates broadly to local needs which are promoted by the promoter. Of course, there will be borderline cases where the local and the general impinge upon one another. I think it was Robert Louis Stevenson who said that it might be difficult to define precisely where day merged into night, but the ordinary man had not much difficulty in distinguishing day from night. That, broadly, I think, is the common-sense principle which we ought to apply and have, indeed, I believe, always hitherto applied in judging what is the proper scope of general public legislation and what is the scope of private legislation.
  Broadly speaking, the conferring of general powers on local authorities is, I would submit without any doubt, the proper function of a Public Act of Parliament. That, surely, has been the practice ever since county councils and all other organs of local government were instituted. A Public Act of Parliament set up county councils. As to this particular instance—the proposal to confer very wide general powers on all the parish councils in a county—we had the principle actually decided, or the principle carried into effect, only a year ago in a Public Act of Parliament. I think it was last year that Parliament passed the Parish Councils Act. That was a General Act of Parliament conferring a number of powers on parish councils.
  490
  Incidentally, I understand (I shall be corrected if I am wrong) that that Public Act of Parliament conferred seven new powers on parish councils in England and Wales, whereas the Kent County Council Bill proposes to confer no fewer than sixteen new powers on all the 240 parish councils in Kent. I am not going to say whether those are good powers or bad powers; I do not know. I am not concerned with that, nor, I suggest, should the House concern itself with that problem, even if it were accepted that all those powers are perfectly good powers and it is a good thing for parish councils to have them. In that case I say that those powers should be conferred upon parish councils by a Public General Act of Parliament, and they should be conferred upon all the parish councils in the country.
  The noble Lord has said that we could find a precedent for almost everything, perhaps for everything, that is in the Kent County Council Bill or in any of these Bills. I think that that is common ground. The Lord Chairman of Committees has frankly stated to the House that you can find a precedent no doubt where a power has been given, in one or two instances; but not for this universal usurpation of the function of public legislation. Of course, it is true that Private Bills vary the general law in particular cases. But surely, as I think has already been said in this debate, the established practice has been that the general law should be varied by private legislation only in the case where there is proof of local need; and that, I take it, is the intention of the noble Lord, the Lord Chairman of Committees: to safeguard that practice by inserting the words "in general" in the Motion which is before us.
  I would go a little further and say that if the Motion is adopted (I will come in a moment to whether we should adopt it or the proposal of the noble Lord that all these Bills should stand over), and if that principle, which I submit is a principle which Parliament has hitherto accepted, is endorsed, then I would hope that it would be quite liberally construed. However, it has not even been argued to-day that there has been any proof of local need in support of the general powers which are sought in the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said he could give the precedents. I am sure that he

  491
  could, but I would venture to guess—I do not pretend, naturally, to have gone into them all—that in every case a local need for the conferment of the powers by private legislation had really been established; and, indeed, the examples which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has cited really do not support his very broad thesis but rather support the contention that they are exceptions which prove the rule.
  Surely this enormous extension giving these sixteen new powers to all the parish councils in Kent, which I say more properly belongs to general legislation, is not just a difference in degree, but it is a difference so enormous that it clearly becomes a difference in kind. My Lords, if these clauses were allowed to go through, we in Parliament should be creating a precedent to which, as far as I can see, no limit could be set. Any county council could propose an amendment of the general law which the majority on the county council for the time being thought would be agreeable in their county. Indeed, as the noble Lord, the Lord Chairman of Committees, has said, they could even vary the criminal law from county to county. That, really, is a very strange proposition. Lord Silkin said that it is rather a good idea to have these experiments made: that it should be tried out. But where are you going to stop over the whole field of general legislation? There is a great dispute about whether there should be a death penalty. Is the noble Lord going to say that it is practical, if it works, to have it in the County Palatine and not in another county?
  LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I do not want to follow that example; but, after all, it is for Parliament in the last resort to decide whether it is desirable to confer those powers on local authorities.
  THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, I am delighted to hear the noble Lord say that. That really presents me with the whole of the case. If it were intended that fresh powers should be given, whether to county councils or to parish councils, they ought to be given all round, and they ought to be, as they have always been in the past, the subject of general legislation.
  EARL ATTLEE: My Lords, the noble Earl has referred to the law varying from district to district. I understand the law
  492
  about the opening of public houses varies from district to district.
  THE EARL OF SWINTON: The law about what?
  EARL ATTLEE: The law about drinking after certain hours varies. Is that very shocking?
  THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, I am not greatly shocked by it, although I have no doubt that the noble Earl has often found it inconvenient. The noble Earl must really get his history right. Parliament, by a general Act and not by a local Act—
  EARL ATTLEE: My Lords, I agree with the noble Earl on that, but the point is not whether the law was laid down by Parliament or anyone else. The noble Earl is shocked that there should be a variation in this country between localities.
  THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, the noble Earl must not try to get away with that; it is beneath both his intelligence and his dignity. Of course, Parliament can legislate about anything, but the whole question here is between legislation by Public Act or Private Act of Parliament. The noble Earl said that Parliament in its wisdom gave local option or the right to vary the hours of drinking. The localities decide. But it was a Public Act of Parliament which conferred on the individual local authorities the right to regulate the hours of drinking. The noble Earl is enormously strengthening the case of the Lord Chairman.
  If we do not stand by the principle that general powers should be conferred by General Acts of Parliament, what we are really doing is giving local option by Private Bill to contract out of the general law. if that were done, I submit that the county councils would be assuming powers of the national Parliament, and I think that Parliament should be very chary of allowing such a trespass upon its own land. I do not know where it is to stop. I am entirely in favour of an inquiry. I gather that what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, was proposing was that there should be a Joint Select Committee of both Houses to inquire into the matter. Well, that may be a very useful and convenient way of doing it. I think that probably the whole House would accept it. But what is to

  493
  happen in the meantime? Obviously, if these Bills are to go through, a decision must be taken; and if they are to go through I submit that we ought unquestionably to support the Lord Chairman and say that these clauses cannot be allowed and ought to be struck out.
  SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No, no.
  THE EARL OF SWINTON: That is my view. The noble Lord is entitled to his view but he will not persuade me just by shouting at me. I remember once a friend of mine borrowing a book of sermons from a clergyman, who said that he might find them useful when doing his duty. In the margin he found the letters "A.W.S." over and over again. He could not understand them and so he asked his friend what the letters meant. His friend answered, "Oh, that means, 'Argument weak—shout!'" I think that the argument is strongly in favour of the Lord Chairman.
  If it is preferred to pass these Bills with or without these clauses, I would support the Lord Chairman in deciding to strike them out. But if the county councils prefer to have the Bills suspended—which I should have thought might be very inconvenient to them, because I understand that they contain many good local provisions which the county councils would like to have, and it would be much better if they had the benefit of the two Bills, which now become Unopposed Bills—I would support the inquiry. The Joint Select Committee should sit, and if they should make some recommendation which Parliament adopted, then it would be possible, if it varied with the Lord Chairman's proposition, for the Kent County Council or any other council to bring forward the Bill amended in conformity with what the Committee had recommended and the House decided. But I should be happy to leave it to the county councils to decide whether to have their Bills without what I may call, without offence, the peccant clauses in them, or to have the whole Bills left over.
  I have only one other thing to say, which I mentioned on the last occasion. It is unfortunate that this important question should come up in this way towards the closing stage of a Private Bill. I am not blaming anybody for it; I think it is the fault of the system. As I said last time, the convenient way to
  494
  deal with these matters of principle and any matters of wide importance on Private Bills is for them to come before the House on Second Reading and to be discussed then. Your Lordships can then either, in an extreme case, throw out the Bill, which you are very unlikely to do, or do what we often and properly do—that is, give a direction to the Committee that it shall not pass certain clauses or that it should pay particular attention to them and make a report. I think that we should have been in a better position if this debate had taken place on Second Reading.
  And if we have not the machinery by which that can be managed, ought we not to have it? We have the machinery for Special Orders of a special Committee who report to the House from time to time on Orders which require affirmation by the House, and draw our attention to anything which they think may be ultra vires or ought to receive the general consideration of the House, I should have thought that some special Select Committee could, with the assistance of Counsel to the Lord Chairman, have before them Private Bills, and then we should know whether there are any points of importance of this kind. But if we have to take a decision to-day on what is to happen to these Bills and they cannot be left over, for the reasons I have given I will most strongly support the Lord Chairman.
  3.47 p.m.
  LORD REA: My Lords, I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, when he said that he hoped that this debate would not become a Party matter. It does not seem to me to be a Party controversy and I am sorry to see that it tends to be leaning in that direction. This is really nothing new. This state of affairs has existed for a long time, but the matter is surrounded by difficulty and by localised potential hardship in respect of the one specific Bill which, more or less fortuitously, has brought to a head a matter of general principle, no merely in regard to Kent or Northumberland or Cornwall, but in regard to the delegation of legislative authority in general.
  Delegation is essential in this modern world, but surely there is always a risk in the delegation of future or anticipated legislation, in the same sense, though in

  495
  the opposite direction, as there is danger in retrospective legislation, which we all deplore. As I see it, the position is that in the past the promoters of Private Bills have, without any impropriety, taken advantage of the opportunity to anticipate the requirement of certain powers by obtaining those powers in advance, in case they should be needed in the future. They have sometimes even sought for third parties powers which they themselves had no intention of exercising. And, by the grace of Parliament, through Select or other Committees (which exercise the delegated authority of Parliament), such powers have frequently been granted, as the noble Lord the Lord Chairman has told us.
  The Kent County Council Bill outrages no precedent; it merely magnifies the licence, if I may so call it, which has been given in the past; and it seeks to invest itself with an authority in regard to future possibilities to such an extent that I think some of us feel that it is arrogating to itself powers which properly should lie only with Parliament. In these circumstances, the House is indebted to the Lord Chairman for placing before it so clearly and so objectively the situation as it actually is: a situation without any impropriety, but one which obviously calls for a decision upon whether small and perfectly justifiable indulgences in the past are to be regarded as precedents for almost unlimited extensions in the same field in the future.
  This is a matter of personal opinion; and, for my part, I feel it would be improper for the smaller local authorities and for the people who compose them to be given powers (which they do not at present even seek) to expend the money of the ratepayers without any further reference to those who have to find the money; and that covers the matter of the golf courses in Kent. I maintain that there should always be as close a connection as possible, both in time and in context, between the cause for expenditure and the actual expenditure of the ratepayers' money, so that those who pay the piper should at least recognise the tune. For those reasons, I am inclined to support the Motion, particularly as amended by the Lord Chairman, and I hope that some inquiry such as he suggests may be put into being.
  3.51 p.m.
  EARL ATTLEE: My Lords, I hope that the Lord Chairman will not press this Motion, which arises out of a special Bill, the Kent County Council Bill. I do not know whether these provisions are wise or not, but on this Bill the noble Lord is formulating a general principle which goes very far. I suggest, first of all, that it is running counter to practice over a considerable number of years; and secondly, that we ought to consider what would be the effect of agreeing to this Motion. I think one effect would be to put a heavy burden on the ratepayers. One of the burdens on the ratepayers is the promotion of Private Bills. Many people think that promoting a Private Bill is far too expensive. It is generally in the hands of a small group of people, a small group of barristers and a small group of expert witnesses, and they all charge a great deal of money. It is a most expensive thing for a small authority to come to Parliament for powers. On the other hand, county councils do come for powers, and it is a simple thing—we do it in London—for a small local authority to ask a county council to put into an omnibus Bill some provisions which they want, which saves all the trouble and expense of preparing a separate Bill. It does not involve the town clerk going away, or the chairman of the urban district having a few days in London, and the calling in of all kinds of expert witnesses. I think the adoption of this Motion would put thousands of pounds on to the rates and into the pockets of people who, frankly, I think do not deserve it. That is the first point.
  The second point is this. I am rather shocked at the centralising views of the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, and the noble Lord who leads the Liberal Party in this House. I believe that we do not want so much centralisation in this country. I do not want every county to look exactly alike. The idea—and I have heard it ventilated in another place—is that we must not give special powers unless they can be made universal—I should not say "universal"; I do not approve of the word. I do not think this country is a universe; and, with respect to the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, I do not think Yorkshire is a universe. Let me say unless they are made general. I think we want to live with plenty of diversity in different counties; and that is the object of Private Bill legislation.

  497
  It may be that the Kent County Council have gone too far, but I want to see county councils not narrowly restricted and thinking only of the exact thing for the county council. I believe in our counties and in the individuality of our counties; and I think that the counties should take an interest in the other local authorities and help them whenever possible. Therefore, if a county council, having taken a general opinion, think it will be a good thing for their amenities to have more cricket grounds—let us say they want more cricket grounds in Yorkshire to compete with Surrey, for instance—they should be able to take power for the smaller authorities to build cricket grounds and have that included in a Bill. The noble Lord suggested that there was a great difference whether these powers were to be mandatory or adoptive. But this Motion sweeps oat everything. There is no reason why a special provision should not be put in if it is considered necessary to protect the right to hold a poll; but it is an advantage that county councils should think broadly and should be helpful to other local authorities.
  This Motion forbids a county council from including in its Bill special provisions for special parts of its district. I have heard the noble Lord refer to the democratic principle of the poll. My experience of these popular polls is that they are almost always occasions for vested interests to defeat something which is for the general use. My experience was in the borough of Stepney, before the First World War. In those days we had a vacant market outside Aldgate blocking the traffic. An overwhelmingly Conservative borough council proceeded to promote a Bill to get rid of the market. But there happened to be certain public-houses there who thrived on the custom of the people in the market, and they decided to oppose the Bill. They rallied al, the public-houses in the neighbourhood; they went around and took care of the polls, and the proposal was overwhelmingly defeated on a very small poll. We had to have a whole world war before we could get rid of that block. That is an example of how polls and plebiscites generally work. Another example occurred with Napoleon III in France. I am against plebiscites, but if provision is to be made for them in a Bill, there is no reason why, on the ground that there
  498
  must in certain circumstances be a plebiscite, we should reject the general principle, which I believe is a thoroughly sound one: that we should cut down as far as possible the resort to Private Bills by small authorities who cannot afford them, and that such authorities should be able to join with the county council.
  Whatever be the merits of this particular Bill, I suggest that this Motion as it stands, even with the Amendment, is far too sweeping. I think you should inquire first and act afterwards. Further, I think it would be advisable to have a full discussion with the local authority organisations, and perhaps with the other place, before we pass such sweeping legislation.
  3.58 p.m.
  LORD MESTON: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, for having moved this Motion. I think he has done good work, and he has made the position quite clear. I hope that he will stand to his guns, notwithstanding the considerable opposition from the Front Bench of the official Opposition. Allow me to tell your Lordships that on that Front Bench six out of nine are members of the legal profession; and, as your Lordships know, lawyers should always be regarded with the greatest suspicion. As your Lordships have heard, the process by which power is conferred by one authority to another can be traced back to the Bill promoted in 1921 by the Middlesex County Council. In addition to the Kent County Council Bill, I understand that Surrey and Essex County Councils are also promoting Bills on a smaller scale in the present Session.
  The Kent County Council Bill must be almost a record in size. It consists of nearly 300 pages, more than 440 clauses and six Schedules. The contents of the Bill cover a wide range. They include compulsory purchase powers, protection of highways, auctions, restrictions on house-boats, boxing and wrestling licences, drains, nuisance from pigeons, hop-pickers, weighing machines, commemorative plaques, robes of office, collection and delivery of washing and prizes for garden and allotment competitions. I should like personally to add one to that, and say that it might confer powers on the district councils to choose beauty queens.

  499
  There are, however, certain powers in the Bill which may be regarded as too extensive. I use the word "may" advisedly, as clearly one should not be allowed to express any opinion on a matter which is being dealt with at the moment. About half the clauses confer powers on other authorities exclusively. The necessity to hold town meetings to obtain powers would be escaped by thirty-eight district councils. There is no local need by all authorities for all the powers given in the Bill. In my submission, local need should not be proved by one party on behalf of another. I may say that sixteen new powers are conferred by the Bill on the parish councils of Kent. Examples of the new powers are the planting of trees and the provision of life-saving appliances.
  In conclusion, may I be permitted, with due deference, to refer to two observations that have been made this afternoon by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee? He said that town polls encourage vested interests to come forward and carry the day. That is an argument as old as the hills. The short answer is, let the non-vested interests come forward and defeat the vested interests. They have a perfect right to do so. Another point raised by the noble Earl was the difference in the closing hours of licensed premises in one district as compared with another. I am glad that we have that elasticity in our legislation. I live on the borders of Berkshire and Buckinghamshire. When I am thrown out of the licensed premises at night in Berkshire, all I have to do is to go to Buckinghamshire and carry on until the early hours of the morning when I am put to bed. Therefore, I hope that this elasticity, of which the noble Earl thinks so little, will always continue in our legislation. I wish the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, every success in the matter which he has so bravely raised.
  4.4 p.m.
  LORD LATHAM: My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Silkin said in his impressive speech, the issue dealt with in this Motion is a fundamental one, dealing with the rights and powers of local government. I think this it not an occasion for mincing words. In my own view, this Motion is a grave and serious attack upon local government, and I think that view is shared by the associations representative of local government in this
  500
  country. With all respect, I cannot feel that the matter has been technically handled in the best and most tidy way. Last week local government was suddenly faced with a cavalier announcement, made in the middle of a Parliamentary Session, in the middle of the passage of the Kent Bill, and with the knowledge that two other Bills of a like character—namely, one promoted by Essex and the other by Surrey—were pending. I understand that no notice at all was given to the Kent County Council of the intention to make this statement, although one county council apparently, curiously enough, had some knowledge of it in advance of the statement made by the Lord Chairman of Committees.
  I feel personally that the Kent County Council have a real grievance at the somewhat, shall I say, uncivil way in which they have been treated. The announcement or, shall I say, the pronunciamiento of the Lord Chairman on the 13th May, and joined in by the Chairman of Ways and Means, was to the effect that they had the intention of taking away from county councils powers which they had enjoyed for thirty-seven years, and powers which there is no evidence to show have been abused. They have been used with proper moderation in the pursuit and exercise of the progressive development and expansion of good government in the counties of this country.
  It seems to me that this kind of treatment is hardly commendable. After all, local authorities are not infant bodies. County councils have been in operation since 1889, and they ought not to be treated, even by Parliament, in an attitude and climate, as it were, of grace and favour. They are adult bodies. They are responsible for carrying on the bulk of the administration of this country. Without local authorities, society as we know it, with its economic and social aspects, could not function. Moreover, let this be said: that the local authorities did a magnificent job of work during the war, and have done a splendid job of work in the resettlement of affairs since the war. I suggest that no more unpropitious time could have been chosen to consider this matter or to take this intended step.
  All those interested in local government have for many years been increasingly concerned as to the functioning of local goverment: as to the distribution of its

  501
  functions, as to its areas, and as to its finance. The proper tendency has been gradually and reasonably to transfer to local authorities, especially relatively small local authorities, additional powers and responsibilities which it was hoped—and, indeed, there is some evidence that the hope may be in part in course of realisation—would attract good citizens of good will who desire to serve their respective districts, citizens of all Parties and of none. Those who have any experience of local government know that finding people to man local government is becoming an increasingly difficult task, and the way to overcome it, I will not say in whole, but certainly in part, is to increase the powers and responsibilities of the various local government units. So I cannot think that there would he any more unhappy occasion or time to introduce proposals which will in effect substantially diminish the powers of local government.
  The local authorities were surprised and they are very anxious. The County Councils' Association, the Urban District Councils' Association the Rural District Councils' Association—all of them are very much concerned at the proposal set forth in the Motion we are considering, and they are all strongly and resolutely opposed to it. It is a peremptory declaration, without any discussion whatsoever with the important local government associations—just a statement that it was intended to impose a curtailment, an important curtailment, of the powers of local government, at a time when, as I have said, a Bill was in the process of consideration. I think that Kent has a very legitimate grievance, especially when one remembers that this Bill was introduced and deposited as far back as December last.
  The Lord Chairman, in his statement to your Lordships' House on May 13, used the words "extent and scale of the Kent Bill"; but they were known soon after the deposit of the Bill in December. If it was intended to take a step of this kind, if there were in fact real grounds for taking a step of this kind, surely the proper thing to do was to raise the matter then and not wait until the middle of May. Instead, things were allowed to go forward and very substantial expense to be incurred, expense of money and of manpower; and then, suddenly, there bursts on a startled
  502
  local government world this quite unexpected declaration of an intention to take away powers they have possessed for the last thirty-seven years. The Kent Bill was promoted at the definite request of the urban and rural district councils and also of the parish councils. There was an express request to the county council to promote this Bill intending to give the powers comprised within it, and the Bill has been drafted, I understand, with the assistance of a committee of eight clerks of local authorities. If that, my Lords, is not an indication of need and desire to have these powers, I should like to know what would be so regarded.
  I will now come to the Lord Chairman's statement of May 13 last, and I quote the OFFICIAL REPORT (Vol. 209), at col. 236. The Lord Chairman said:
  "Finally, it is said, among other things, by the Promoters, that the good government of the county is the concern of the County Council. One can understand that sentiment, but I can find nothing in the Local Government Acts to support it. There is nothing which shows that in 1888, when the county councils were formed, it was the intention of Parliament to make that the function of the county councils."
  My Lords, I regard that as a most extraordinary statement—that the county councils should not be concerned with the good government of their counties. It seems to me to be a most obscurantist view of local government. May I ask the Lord Chairman who are the latter-day schoolmen who have been imbuing him with this idea of a rigid and frigid county government in this country? The noble Lord the Lord Chairman said that it was the Minister of Housing and Local Government who raised this question in a Report submitted in connection with the Kent Bill.
  This means, of course, that very largely the policy adumbrated in this Motion is Government policy, which really raises another important issue, as to what is the attitude of mind of the Government towards local government. Are we to regard all the protestations which have been made during the passage of the Local Government Bill through another place, those express statements of interest in the development of local government, really as of naught? And are we to understand at the same time that the Government are proposing to take away from local government this power which,

  503
  as I have said, they have enjoyed and properly exercised for the last thirty-seven years?
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I want to ask the noble Lord only this, as I am going to say a word or two later. I do not quite understand what he means when he says that the Government are taking away powers by this Bill. Is that his view?
  LORD LATHAM: No, what I said was this. As I understand it, this question had been brought to the notice of the Lord Chairman as a result of a report (which is customary) by the Minister of Housing and Local Government on the provisions of the Kent Bill; and, flowing from that, the Lord Chairman looked into the question of the exercise of powers of this order and character by county councils and came forward with a statement on May 13 that he, with the support and concurrence of the Chairman of Ways and Means, proposed to make a new rule.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: But the noble Lord is not saying that the Lord Chairman is acting under the direction of the Government?
  LORD LATHAM: I did not say that he was acting under the direction of the Government.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Did the noble Lord mean that?
  LORD LATHAM: I meant this. In those circumstances it is fair, I submit, to say that this Motion does reflect the Government's view as to the exercise of powers by local authorities; and, if that be the case, it raises some very fundamental issues.
  I want to ask the Lord Chairman of Committees whether county councils are to be prevented, as would he the case under this Motion, from getting powers for the good government of their counties because there is no specific reference in the Local Government Act, 1888? Do we, my Lords, stand still at 1888? Do we disregard the tremendous changes which have taken place in this country since 1888, all of which affect the administration, functions and powers of local government? Are county councils in future to have to say to their districts, "We can do nothing to get you powers,
  504
  however desirable and necessary, because there is nothing in the Act of 1888"?
  LORD MANCROFT: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but since he is bringing the Government into this matter I must ask him to bear in mind, if he would be so good, the point of view I put forward. I said that in the Government's opinion it was perfectly proper for county councils to seek certain powers on behalf of their district councils if those powers were justified by local need. I am sure the noble Lord is not going to quarrel with that.
  LORD LATHAM: No, except that I have some reservation as to who is going to determine what is local need. That is the very essence of the thing. The other words are of no significance at all. I submit, from what has been said by the Lord Chairman, that one is entitled to infer that this Motion reflects Government policy. The Lord Chairman went on to say, at Col. 236:
  "So I suggest that, however attractive that view may be in theory, it is not really the national policy that county councils should undertake this work and become, in effect, miniature Parliaments."
  If I may say so, with every respect, that is really easy nonsense. The practice that has been followed since 1921 has not in any way usurped the functions of Parliament; it has not in any way derogated from the rights and powers of Parliament. The real position is that either the county council promotes a Bill, and is used as the vehicle for getting or seeking powers, or, in default of the county council having powers so to do, the individual local authorities within the county, do the same. It is only, as it were, a question of the channel of communication. Parliament exercises its full rights; the Bills must go before the appropriate Committees; they must be examined and they must pass through both Houses. There is no change whatsoever, except that in the one case, if it is done collectively, an immense amount of costs in money and manpower is saved; Parliamentary time is saved, and congestion from a flood of Private Bills is avoided.
  Now I come to the Motion itself. I confess that, notwithstanding the explanation given by the Lord Chairman, I cannot see how local authorities themselves can interpret what is meant by the

  505
  words "in general". Do they mean as regards authorities? Do they apply only as regards powers? Or do the words "in general" apply to both powers and authorities? I gather that those words were introduced to deal with borderline cases. But how can local authorities intending to promote legislation determine whether they are a borderline case—whether they should include or exclude certain proposals in regard to the Bill which they intend to deposit? If those words remain as a part of the rule to be applied, it seems to me that local authorities are entitled to have the words "in general" defined in regard to their application. That might lead to a promulgation of rules, which perhaps would not be the wisest way of dealing with a matter of this kind.
  Similarly, I find some difficulty about the difference between the statement made by the Lord Chairman, and the statement made in writing under Standing Order 85 of another place by the Chairman of Ways and Means. In his statement the Chairman of Ways and Means says this:
  "The Lord Chairman and I have therefore reached the conclusion that the promoters of Private Bills should revert to the old practice whereby a petitioner may petition Parliament only"—
  and these are the important words—
  "on his own behalf. Accordingly, with my full support, the Lord Chairman has to-day ruled that in future:
  'A County Council Bill should not confer on local authorities or any other authority or person functions in which the County Council has no interest'."
  I do not know whether it is intended, in the interpretation of that rule, to apply the words "only on his own behalf". If so, then in many cases, even though the county council may have an interest, they cannot promote a Bill on behalf of an urban district council within the county because it must be promoted by the authority on its own behalf. That seems to me to support what I am bound to say appears to be a much too hurried and hasty consideration of the consequences of this proposal. It means that the Kent County Council could not promote a Bill to give certain highway powers to a subsidiary unit, but the subsidiary unit must do it itself, because then it must be acting on its own behalf. I should like some clarification of that point. It
  506
  seems to me that in some respects haste has displaced serious thought in arriving at this decision.
  Then in his statement the Lord Chairman said, as my noble friend, Lord Silkin, indicated, that nothing was without precedent. He said—and I quote from Column 235 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of May 13:
  "First of all, I confess at once that there is nothing in this Bill which is not precedented. I cannot point, I own, to a single clause in this Bill which has never been in a Bill before."
  That is confirmed by the Minister in his report. He says, in paragraph 2:
  "From this point of view the Bill does not differ in principle from measures promoted during the last few years by other county councils—Gloucestershire in 1956, for instance, Monmouthshire in the same year, Cheshire in 1953 and Nottinghamshire in 1951."
  I should like to say here, en passant, that the very passage of those Bills made those counties in many respects different from other counties, which is of course the case through the whole pattern of local government in this country. The report goes on to say, in paragraph 6:
  "Precedents can be quoted for nearly all the clauses in the Bill …"
  Then the Lord Chairman went on, in his remarks, to talk about "an extent" and "a scale". I do not know whether the extent and/or the scale, or the extent and the scale, refer to authorities or to powers, or to both. There would seem to be, in his statement and that of the Chairman of Ways and Means, matters of interpretation that one might find most confusing.
  As my noble friend Lord Silkin has said, this is the first general powers Bill promoted by Kent and represents the accumulation of needs and requirements of that county. But is it so unusual, even in regard to size or powers, compared with what has been granted to other counties? For instance, in Middlesex, where there are only twenty-six municipal units—eighteen boroughs and eight urban district councils—the Council promoted and got an Act which, even after it had been, as it were, "pruned", had 482 sections.
  LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord to ask: was that not a Consolidation Act?
  LORD LATHAM: My Lords, so far as I know it was not a Consolidation Act, but I would not say definitely that it was not. Then in 1956 Middlesex promoted another general powers Act with 101 sections. So there we have 583 sections as compared with the 400-odd of the Kent Bill, now to be reduced to 358. In those two Acts 233 powers were granted, 187 direct to district councils and forty-six as joint powers, to be exercised by both the county council and the county districts.
  Then in 1933 Essex had an Act with 211 sections, and in 1952 another with 239 sections, conferring, as I am informed, 239 powers on county district councils. In judging these comparisons one must bear in mind the local government organisation of the county and the differing developments and otherwise in the counties. I therefore submit that there is nothing exceptional in the size of the Kent Bill or in the number of powers that it seeks to confer upon its local units. I should here like to emphasise one point: even supposing that the case was made for a cutting down of the powers to be given to local authorities, the Motion is not designed to cut them down: it is intended to cut them out, except where an interest can be shown; and even then that power will be qualified by the words used by the Chairman of Ways and Means, that the promoter must promote "only on his own behalf".
  My noble friend referred to the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure which reported in 1955. The Lord Chairman was a member of that Committee, as I was. The Committee took evidence from the then Lord Chairman of Committees, the late Lord Drogheda. I have checked and, so far as I can see, neither in his written evidence nor in the evidence which he gave orally to the Committee did he raise any questions about this procedure. We also had the benefit of the evidence of Sir Charles MacAndrew, the present Chairman of Ways and Means. So far as I can see, there was in his written statement no criticism of this procedure, nor any suggestion that it was becoming so large as to become dangerous. There was nothing at all, other than a very oblique reference to the matter, in the evidence which he tendered orally when he came before the Committee.
  508
  The Lord Chairman has said that the question of the size of these Bills and the number of powers conferred was raised by the Minister of Housing and Local Government. Representatives of that Minister appeared before the Select Commitee on Private Bill Procedure. Though I cannot say that I have been able fully and exhaustively to examine all that was said in the evidence tendered by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, I believe I am correct in saying that there were no serious representations by that Minister or Ministry to the Committee against the continuance of this procedure—and this was after the Middlesex Act, which, as I have said, contained more than 400 sections.
  LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, that was a Consolidation Act.
  LORD LATHAM: My Lords, I must accept what the Lord Chairman says. Nevertheless, whether it was a Consolidation Act or not, I am advised that it provided for the grant to county districts of 233 powers—powers which are, of course, merely enabling powers; they are not compulsory. It seems to me therefore a little difficult to understand why, for no apparent reason, the situation regarding this matter, which was satisfactory, or at any rate did not attract criticism or blame in 1955, should suddenly become, in the early months of 1958, a menace and a danger. I cannot really understand how that can be the case. What mischief has recently been disclosed? What dangers have recently emerged which have led the Minister, the Lord Chairman and the Chairman of Ways and Means to be so concerned that they must contemplate taking this power away from the local authorities?
  My own view is that this Motion, if carried—which I sincerely hope will not be the case—would, in effect, put a premium on inertia in local government and would penalise the active, forward-looking authorities who want to break new ground. And in the field of local government it has always been the pioneer authorities who first sought, and with difficulty gained, new powers, to be followed by others, until the situation was such that, in the past, at all events, the Government of the day took the view that these powers, which became so widely distributed among the various

  509
  local government units, ought to be given to all local government units and a Public General Bill introduced for that purpose. Unhappily, of course, we have not had such a Bill, apart from the Parish Councils Act, since the war; and the expectations of getting one are not, even now, I understand, too rosy. Immediately one local authority got powers which other local authorities did not have, there arose the situation that one county was different from another. And that is the case. I believe that there are twenty-six counties which have had general powers, of a varying order and extent, granted to them. The twenty-six county councils concerned may well differ in quite material degrees and elements from the other county councils which have not the general powers. Like my noble friend Lord Attlee, I see no disadvantage in having this variation of pattern. Certainly there is a great advantage in heaving pioneer local authorities blaze the trail, by experience and otherwise, for the benefit of local government generally.
  Then the noble Lord, the Lord Chairman of Committees, referred to town meetings. Town meetings are an expensive and stupid farce, as everyone knows. Let me be perfectly frank—and I am speaking from experience: they are usually used, or the technique is used, by a small number of people who are not interested as citizens, and not interested as ratepayers, but are interested for their own personal considerations. Usually with quite adequate resources at their disposal, they whip up a few people to attend a town meeting, and then very often for those quite discreditable reasons, they defeat the good local government of the particular corporation or urban district council or whatever the authority may be.
  The Committee of 1955 reported that town meetings and polls should be abolished. They were not new in expressing that view. The Royal Commission on Local Government appointed in 1923 did the same; and they were supported by the Local Government and Public Health Consolidation Committee, presided over by Lord Chelmsford, in 1932. Every independent inquiry into the utility and efficacy and, if I might say so, the decency of these town polls or town meetings has come down on the side of abolition. In connection with the Kent Bill it is fair to Kent to say that
  510
  arrangements have been made, in Clause 179 of the Bill, by which there will be provision for a town poll under approved conditions.
  LORD MERTHYR: On one Part of the Bill only.
  LORD LATHAM: On one Part of the Bill. That just shows that the local authorities are co-operative: they wish to assist and are not obstructive. And the County Councils Association, I well recall, recommended to the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure that there should be worked out, so long as the town meeting requirement remained the law, a reasonable basis of ascertaining whether, in fact, it was necessary and appropriate to hold a town meeting. I think it was to be on the basis of a request by one hundred ratepayers.
  I would point out that the Committee's recommendation for the abolition of town meetings and polls was unanimous. The Lord Chairman of Committees was a member of the Committee, and I noticed that he displayed some interest in this question, for I find that on page 53 of the Report the Lord Chairman of Committees said this:
  "Might I ask Sir Charles"—
  that was Sir Charles MacAndrew—
  "if he has any opinion as to whether any safeguards would be lost if the town meeting were abolished?"
  Then Lord Belstead interposed with the question:
  "And the poll retained."
  Lord Merthyr then said:
  "And the poll retained, or if they were both abolished?"
  And here is the answer of Sir Charles:
  "I really have no views on it. It is just a question as to whether it is worth the expense. I think the meeting is very impracticable. I do not know how they scrutinise the attenders, and if people are keen on one thing they can bring in bus-loads of people from somewhere else who have no qualifications. I do not think you can possibly check the attenders anyhow, and there would not be a hall big enough to hold them, anyway, I think, if you had the lot."
  When we are dealing with this important matter of local government rights, need we be concerned with the continuance of or the compliance with this farce of holding town meetings?
  We come to the question of whether the arrangement envisaged in the Motion should become operative before the

  511
  inquiry. I suggest that it would be mighty unfair to Kent, to Essex and to Surrey to visit this truncation of powers on them, having regard to the situation. It seems to me that if there is to be an inquiry, as my noble friend Lord Silkin said, any action changing the present practice, which is supported by thirty-seven years of experience, ought to be deferred until the Committee, or whatever body it is, has reported; and, in any case, if that be not so, that the new procedure and the new practice should not apply until the next Session of Parliament at the earliest. I should like to conclude by saying this. The Lord Chairman of Committees, in his statement on May 13, made some reference to the Private Bill promoted to deal with the use, I think, of a churchyard. I honestly feel, as one who has spent a pretty active life in local government, that if this Motion is carried, and these powers are taken away from local government, the Lord Chairman of Committees will have been one of the assistants in providing a large graveyard for an imaginative, developing and expanding local government.
  LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I did not want to interrupt the noble Lord, but may I ask him one question? He suggested that I was wrong in saying that in the Local Government Act of 1888 there was nothing which conveyed a power or a duty on to a county council to take a general interest in the good government of the county. If I was wrong will he quote the section of the Act concerned?
  LORD LATHAM: My Lords, I am sorry if the noble Lord understood it in that way. I do not think that generally there is any declaration of intention in an Act of Parliament. What I said was that because there was no reference in that Act or in any other to the desirability of good government, that is no reason why we should not take steps to secure good government.
  4.50 p.m.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, it is not my intention to take up the time of your Lordships for more than a few minutes, for I know that we have other matters to discuss, and, of course, the ground has been fully covered already by the noble Lord, Lord Latham. I intervene only to try to
  512
  bring the House back to what I understand, rightly or wrongly; to be the realities of the position. As I listened to the noble Lords, Lord Silkin and Lord Attlee, and even more to the noble Lord, Lord Latham, I could not help feeling that the noble Lords opposite are making a mountain out of a molehill. I would agree entirely with them as regards the issues in question, which are very great and wide, but not with regard to the wording of the Motion of the noble Lord the Lord Chairman of Committees.
  After all that has been said—and I have listened to every word of it—I cannot see that there is anything very wrong with the Lord Chairman's Motion. I have heard what the opponents of the Motion have to say. There is the extremist view, which I take to be that given by the noble Lord, Lord Latham, in the speech that he has just delivered to your Lordships. The impression he made on me and I am sure on others in the House, though I know he would disagree, was that he thought it deplorable that Parliament should interfere at all in local administration.
  LORD LATHAM: No, no, my Lords; I did not maintain that proposition.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That is the impression that the noble Lord made on me and, I believe, on other noble Lords: that local government should be autocratic and autonomous. I felt that we were getting back to the days of the Heptarchy when I listened to him. Then there were the moderates, the noble Lords, Lord Silkin and Lord Attlee. Their main complaint, as I understood it, was that the Lord Chairman's principle, which is enunciated in the Motion, raised something entirely new. I do not agree at all. With the best will in the world, I cannot see that the noble Lord, the Lord Chairman, has sought to introduce any new principle. What, after all, has been the guiding principle in this country for many years? It has been, so far as I know, that Private Bills should not confer upon local authorities functions beyond what has been approved by Parliament. That is the broad principle which I imagine to be absolutely necessary if we are to ensure a balance of responsibility between national government and local government. It is absolutely essential that that principle should be maintained.
  EARL ATTLEE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess this question? Surely there are instances to the contrary—for instance, the Birmingham Bank, which was introduced by Mr. Neville Chamberlain. No other local authority has such a bank. Such Bills have been passed to meet exceptional cases.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: If the noble Earl would only wait until I have finished my argument, he would find the position as I see it made clear, and not so illogical as he thinks. I thought that this was universally accepted and I am astonished to find it questioned in any part of the House. I should have thought it to be absolutely necessary to have some broad general principle of this kind to maintain throughout the country the broad general uniformity of administration which is so greatly required in a modern and highly integrated State. It is true—and here I come to the point which the noble Earl quite naturally mentioned—that, as so often happens in this country, and I think wisely, a broad general principle of that kind is interpreted extremely liberally, and I think properly so. There has always been in Parliament a great readiness to make relaxations of principle, modifications of principle, to take account of special local considerations, and I would entirely agree that that is the really sensible thing.
  EARL ATTLEE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess a question on that point? Surely the object of Private Bill legislation is to make exceptions from the general rule—exactly contrary to the position he is taking.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Earl must allow me to finish my argument. I listened to his argument: I did not agree with it, but I listened to it. There have to be very special exceptions to justify it and those exceptions have to be caused by very special conditions in the localities concerned. The reason for the present difficulties that have arisen in this case is that these relaxations which have been asked for by the Kent County Council are so extensive as almost to drive a cart and horses through the general principle. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, himself admitted that he thought that very likely they had gone too far. That is the difficulty. We can work an elastic system like this with a certain amount of concession to meet local con-
  514
  siderations if it is not carried too far, but if it is carried too far, then we get a situation of this kind.
  The object of the noble Lord, the Lord Chairman, who is faced with the very difficult situation that if the matter were allowed to go by default it would alter the whole basis of government in this country, is to reaffirm the general principle which has hitherto obtained. I recognise that the noble Lords opposite sincerely feel what they argue, but I cannot see any intention on the part of the noble Lord, the Lord Chairman, to go beyond that and impart a rigidity into the interpretation of the principle which it has never had before. I should have thought that that, which has already been mentioned by other speakers, was made clear by the words "in general" which were deliberately put into the Motion by the noble Lord, the Lord Chairman, to safeguard that point. When a man says to me, and I am sure to any other noble Lord, that a law should be applied "in general," I take him to mean that there should be exceptions, otherwise he does not use these words; he merely says that the law should be applied.
  LORD LATHAM: Who decides, and when, the exceptions?
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That is a matter which has to be decided when it comes before Parliament. I do not think that we can lay down beforehand an absolute rule.
  LORD LATHAM: That means that a local authority goes to the expense of promoting a Bill, uncertain whether it will be caught by the words "in general" or not?
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: But a local authority has also the obligation of seeing that it does not go too far. That is an obligation on the local authority as well as on Parliament. The noble Lord is a great representative of local government, but there is a national Government as well, and the rights of Parliament must be maintained. As I said, the purpose of the Lord Chairman's Motion is to reaffirm the principle and yet allow for exceptions to meet local conditions. I should have thought that that was exactly the right balance—at least to my mind it should be—and personally I hope that the House will support the noble Lord in the step that

  515
  he has taken in clearly regularising a situation which was getting out of hand.
  Of course, it may be that we ought to recognise that in the light of changing circumstances—and we are living in extremely changing circumstances—the whole position needs re-examination; and I would agree with any noble Lord, in whatever part of the House he sits, that that is a task which Parliament ought not to shirk. In that case, I think that the right course is to put the whole of this matter before a Joint Select Committee of both Houses—I think that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, suggested that and I am in the fullest agreement with him—to examine the position which has developed and to report to Parliament.
  On this point, I think, with all deference to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that he was a little unfair to the noble Lord, the Lord Chairman. He said that the noble Lord recognised the need for an inquiry. I do not think that the noble Lord the Lord Chairman recognised the need for inquiry. As I understand his position, he was perfectly clear in his own mind about the subject and believed that he was maintaining the existing principle. But he does recognise—as of course he ought to do—that there are a number of noble Lords here who do not share that view but who think that some modification is necessary. Therefore he has suggested in the Amendment he has put into the Motion that Parliament should take the necessary steps and find out whether further legislation on this aspect of national affairs is necessary. I should have thought that that was perfectly proper, and that it would be to the advantage of the county councils themselves, or those councils which I understand are anxious to formulate similar legislation, to know where they stand. That would equally prevent the increased burden on the rates about which the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, is so worried.
  EARL ATTLEE EARL ATTLEE indicated dissent.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: If he does not think that, then the noble Earl cannot be in favour of the Select Committee, because the whole purpose of a Select Committee is to regularise the position. What I do not think is legitimate or justifiable is to try to make an alteration in the present position by
  516
  means of invasions of the principle in the course of a single Private Bill. Therefore I hope that the House, whatever its ultimate feelings may be, will not resist this Motion of the Lord Chairman, which I believe is intended to maintain the present position pending an inquiry, of which I am sure we should all be in favour.
  5.2 p.m.
  LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: My Lords, we have had a lengthy debate and I do not propose to detain your Lordships for long, but having had supervision of Private Bill legislation in another place for some years I venture to offer some observations to your Lordships. I would say, in reply to the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, that I think he is in error. At the end of his speech he said that the Lord Chairman's proposal would retain the present position. In point of fact, the Lord Chairman's Motion, if it were carried, would change the present position, because for thirty-odd years, local authorities have introduced Bills into both Houses and have obtained powers for other authorities within their region.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think I said that relaxation of the principle was always open, possibly to meet local conditions. I think that is right. But I do not think the principle should be relaxed further than that. If there have been undue relaxations of that principle in the past, it is that fact that has led to the present position with which we are faced.
  LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: That may well be. But it is not true to say, as the noble Marquess said, that the practice hitherto has been not to confer on local authorities powers which have not previously been approved by Parliament. In point of fact, Private Bills have in many instances set the example or the pace for Public Acts of Parliament.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not wish to interrupt the noble Lord again, but I could say something further.
  LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: The noble Marquess also said that the Lord Chairman's proposal would reaffirm the present principles. But that is not the case. The Lord Chairman's Motion would change the principles on which Private Bill legislation has been carried on in both Houses

  517
  for thirty-seven years, in a general sense, and for a hundred years, I think, in the case of the London County Council.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYIt is not for me to answer for the Lord Chairman, but I clearly understood from his speech that it would not alter the position and would still allow the same relaxations, if they were justified.
  LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: I do not think the Lord Chairman would agree with that.
  LORD MERTHYR: I would.
  LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: If that is so, the Lord Chairman is saying, in effect (and this is something we should like to hear), that he will continue with the Kent County Council Bill the principles that have been adopted in the last thirty-odd years, and he does not propose to change them, as his Motion would seem to indicate he wishes to do. He cannot have it both ways. Then the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, spoke about the exceptions to the general rule which were indicated by the use of the words "in general" in the Motion. But, as was asked by one of my noble friends behind me, who has to decide on what principles those exceptions are to be made? That, as I understand it, is one of the purposes that could be fulfilled by a Select Committee that was appointed.
  However, I think I should say, in the first instance, that in my view—and I hope I may say this without impertinence—the Lord Chairman, who had a duty under Standing Order 91 to direct the attention of the House to what he considers a special circumstance, has acted perfectly properly and constitutionally in so directing the attention of the House. The Lord Chairman has, however, gone a little further, possibly quite properly, in asking the House to give him guidance on the course he should adopt, and for that purpose he has put down a specific Motion on the Order Paper. If I may say so with respect, I think that course might perhaps have been better adopted at an earlier stage. The normal course would have been to introduce such a Motion, or to have brought the matter to the attention of the House, at the time of the Second Reading of the Bill. In that I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Swinton. It appears, however, that in this House
  518
  perhaps ninety-nine out of a hundred Private Bills have their Second Reading "on the nod" and without comment. It is rarely that we have a Second Reading debate on them, although under Standing Orders that is possible; and I should have thought that, in more instances than is at present the case, it might be desirable. However that may be, I think the Lord Chairman has adopted a perfectly proper course in asking for your Lordships' guidance.
  In this House, contrary to the position in the other place, the Lord Chairman is himself a one-man Committee in the case of unopposed Private Bills. That, I assume, though the Lord Chairman has not said so, is really why he thinks it to be his special function to bring these matters to the attention of your Lordships. Again differing from another place, it must be a very onerous duty for a Lord Chairman in this House to have to go through and decide upon a long and complex Bill such as this particular Bill. That duty in another place is carried out by a Committee; and your Lordships might like to consider at some other time whether there ought not to be an Unopposed Bills Committee in this House in order to relieve the Lord Chairman, to some extent, of his present arduous duties.
  The question before the House is simply whether the practice which has been carried on to an increasing degree since the introduction of the Middlesex County Council Bill in 1921 should be continued; and, if so, on what principles and to what extent. This question, to go back to fundamentals, arises for two reasons. First, in this country the law is that local authorities can carry out only those duties that are conferred upon them by Act of Parliament. In the United States and in some Continental countries the contrary is the case: local authorities can do all those things which the supreme authority in the country, whatever it may be, has not forbidden them to do. The contrary is the case here and that is one of the reasons why local authorities and others in this country have to come to your Lordships' House and to the other place for powers.
  The second reason is that the existing local government law in this country is, in many instances, deficient and behind the times. Your Lordships may know

  519
  that at least twice in the last twenty-five years, in 1930 and in 1955, Committees have recommended that Governments should periodically promote Public Bills to extend the powers of local authorities in well-precedented and generally acceptable matters. But since 1925 every Government so far has said that they are unable to find time for such legislation; and there has been no such legislation, of course, for a great many years. The noble Earl, Lord Swinton, who has left the House, made practically the same point. He has been a member of many Governments, and I do not think any of them have thought fit to bring forward the general powers Bill which is undoubtedly necessary.
  If a Government of this country, whether the present Government or a future Government, would take the trouble to bring forward at regular intervals a general powers Bill, then, in my opinion, once the initial back-log had been overcome a great deal of Parliamentary time would not be required to keep matters up to date. The difficulty is to deal with the back-log, which is gradually getting larger and more complicated and, in some respects, more controversial with every year that passes, when nothing is done in the meantime. I understand that the present Government have such a Bill in preparation. The Prime Minister in, I think, 1956, said that that was the case, and I hope that the present Government will promote such a Bill without further delay. If they would do that, it would relieve local authorities of a great deal of the difficulty under which they now labour. Theoretically and, if I may use the term, politically, many of us—and I certainly—would favour the obtaining of powers by local authorities if and when, as in the present case, the Central Government does not take such action as I have indicated. I entirely agree with a great deal of what has been said by my noble friends and others on this point. But there are practical difficulties which I know from experience.
  In his statement on May 13, the Lord Chairman was at pains to point out that he was not objecting to the Kent County Council Bill on account of its length. Whilst he may not have been objecting to it for that reason alone, it must be
  520
  clear to the House that he is, in fact, objecting to it because of the multitudinous and far-ranging nature of the clauses of the Bill. From a practical point of view, of course, that does create great difficulty. All Private Bills have to be considered by every single Ministry; a great many precedents have to be considered by all those Ministries, and their lawyers have to be fully employed on that work. Then, of course, the officials of both Houses have to go through the Bill with a tooth-comb and point out to the Chairman of Ways and Means or the Lord Chairman matters which they think should be brought to his attention; it is all a tremendous job. And, of course, the more complex the Bill, the greater the work that has to be done.
  Furthermore, there is no doubt whatever that an increasing number of local authorities do seek the occasion of promoting a Bill to include powers which, though not necessary, might conceivably be useful at one time or another. Previous Acts are combed by Parliamentary agents, town clerks and others, for precedents, without regard to the fact that provisions are often inserted in Private Bills to meet special circumstances and that powers so conferred do not necessarily have any application to every authority. If some action was not taken, it is quite possible, in my view, that a flood of Bills of the character of the Kent County Council Bill might fall upon this and the other House. It is difficult to say where the line should be drawn: that is one of the difficulties in this matter. My own view—and I state my own view alone—is that the present practice should be modified. Then, of course, the question arises of how that can best be done. Quite frankly, I am not happy about the Lord Chairman's proposal. If it were insisted upon, and if it were not administered—as it probably would be, as the Lord Chairman said—with tolerance and taking a broad view, then it might hamper and impede progress in this country.
  Then there are great difficulties in interpreting the Motion which the Lord Chairman has put before the House. What is meant by "an interest"? Has a county council, for example, an interest in roads which are the property of rural

  521
  or urban authorities and which, under the law, the county council have an obligation to repair and maintain? I should have thought that the county council had such an interest, though I know that there are opinions to the contrary. There are many difficult questions of that sort. The Lord Chairman has told us that he would interpret the question of interest broadly and liberally. Nevertheless, on his own showing, if he will permit me to say so, the Motion which he has brought forward to-day would, if carried into effect, mean that a fair number of clauses—I do not know how many—would not pass his scrutiny in the present Bill.
  Then the Motion uses the words, "in general". Those words, incidentally, do not appear in the Report of the Chairman of Ways and Means in another place. I, of course, express no opinion as to the course adopted there. Presumably, however, they mean that the Lord Chairman reserves power to make exceptions to the general rule he desires to be laid down. In any event, is it not clear that either the insistence of "interest," or the reservation indicated by the words, "in general", would mean that the Lord Chairman would still have to consider every single clause in a Bill; that he would have to decide on its merits and how far it came within either of those two provisos? If that be so, there may be some value in the proposal, but it is not clear how much.
  Undoubtedly, in my view, this is a case when something ought to be done. But it is difficult, on the short notice your Lordships have had, to lay down a principle which would be consistent, and which could be applied to every case. There are many possible alternative courses. For example, the present practice might be continued with some safeguards. If I may respectfully say so, the Lord Chairman might insist more on proof of need than I gather is at present the case. I gather that, where there are precedents, they are more or less accepted, and that proof of need is not insisted upon. If that be so, that is one course that might be adopted.
  There is another: possibly also power should be permissive. As has been said, there are clauses in this present Bill which are in fact permissive and which have to be adopted, in that particular case, by, I think, the rural councils.
  522
  That principle could be extended. There might be some limit, for example, on the length or the size of the Bills. That could be done, presumably, by Standing Order, and it would avoid monopolising Parliamentary time, as might happen with a very long Bill such as the one before the House at present, by one or more long and complicated Bills. All these and other suggestions occur to one. The question is, what course should the House adopt?
  In my submission, it is not fair to alter the rules in the middle of the game, and if the Lord Chairman's proposal was carried in its present form that would be the effect. In my submission, this is eminently a matter that ought to be referred either to a Select Committee of this House or, preferably, to a Joint Committee of both Houses to consider and advise Parliament upon. It seems to me that if the Government would undertake that that should be done, the Lord Chairman might, with perfect propriety, withdraw his present proposals, and we could agree that no further steps should be taken on the present Bills before the House until that Committee had reported. They have been, no doubt, many years in preparation—in fact we have been told so. No great harm would be done, and the resources of this House are surely sufficient to enable some procedural step to be taken for that to be done. I would therefore respectfully suggest to your Lordships that the reasonable and proper course to-day is for the Government to give an undertaking to set up a Select Committee to consider this matter, and for the Lord Chairman, having regard to that proposal, to agree to withdraw his Motion and allow the Bills to stand in the present position until such time as the Select Committee has reported.
  5.23 p.m.
  LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, I apologise for intervening at this late hour; I promise to be a very short time indeed. Having recently been resident in Kent, until about a year ago, I was appealed to in connection with this matter over the past week-end. As your Lordships may remember, I was able to help them once before over the Water Bill, and so I was consulted. I expressed straight away the view that my sympathies were entirely with the Lord Chairman of Committees. I think any diminution of

  523
  the liberty of the subject or delegated legislation is abominable; I hate it. But in this particular case that is not so much the point as the fact that the ruling on these clauses came at a very late hour, at the very end of the proceedings, and undoubtedly this has placed the county council in an extremely embarrassing position.
  I am not authorised to speak for the county council, though I have been in touch with them. I received the very strong impression that if there were some method by which this matter could be pondered over and considered, they would be only too delighted to find it. In connection with that point, there was something which the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, mentioned and to which I have no doubt the Lord Chairman of Committees will refer—namely, the question of ruling out these clauses. I do not quite know how that can be covered. He was talking of the possibility of a Joint Committee of both Houses, which I thought was an admirable suggestion. The question arose as to what happens in the meanwhile about these clauses. So far as I can remember, I think the noble Earl suggested that they should be discussed with the council; I was not quite sure. If the Lord Chairman of Committees could cover that point in his winding up, I think it would be helpful. It would certainly help me a good deal and I believe it would help the county council also. It was not very clear how that matter was left.
  I repeat that I am for the principle of the retention of Parliament's control of these things; I could not be more strongly so. But I think that in this particular case the county council has been left, through no fault of its own, in a most embarrassing position. Alarm and distress is very great in those circles, I can assure the noble Lord, the Lord Chairman, of that—he probably knows it already. I think we should, if we can, find a way out of this impasse. I come back to what the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, proposed. I cannot remember the exact terms, but it seemed to me a way out. The question is, what about these clauses which have been ruled out and which are very essential? If the noble Lord the Lord Chairman of Committees could cover that point in his final summary, I think it would help the House.
  5.26 p.m.
  LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, when I first saw this Motion on the Order Paper, and still more when I heard the Amendment that was proposed by my noble friend, the Lord Chairman of Committees, in moving it, I had great hopes that there might be agreement between all sides of the House. If there were such agreement I think it would be generally welcomed. It is clear that there is no such agreement, but, in view of the statements made by sonic noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite, I think it ought to be made quite clear by some of us who support the Motion of the Lord Chairman of Committees that we do not support it out of any hostility of any kind to local government. That ought to be made absolutely clear. Some speeches have been made suggesting that there was something in this Motion that sought to limit the powers of local authorities. The question is not so much a question between local authorities and Her Majesty's Government as a question of what should be done by private legislation and what should be done by public legislation. That is the really important question before the House.
  Let me agree with something said by my noble friend, Lord Swinton, and I think by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and certainly by the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds. I confess to a good deal of sympathy with the Kent County Council on account of the late stage at which this question has come to public notice and been debated in this House. I do not wish to examine the cause of the delay or whether it could have been avoided, but it cannot really affect the fact that we have a very important question to decide, namely, what can properly be done by private legislation, and what should be done by public legislation. I strongly support one of the very few conclusions generally agreed by all sides of the House, that this matter should now be examined by a Joint Select Committee of both Houses. That is quite clearly the best machinery that we can devise, and it is also extremely desirable that the practice, whatever it is to be, should be one that is common to the two Houses of Parliament. That is convenient, of course, to the local authorities themselves.

  525
  The question, therefore, that remains, if we are all agreed on that, is what is to be done in the interval. If such a Joint Select Committee is to be set up, it is quite clear that it ought to consider the matter at its leisure and report. There must be some principle to be adopted in the meantime. For that reason I think that my noble friend the Lord Chairman of Committees was not only justified in bringing this matter before the House but was almost bound to do so to enable him to carry out the wishes of the House. I should have thought that what he was proposing was right.
  I know that there is a genuine difference among noble Lords who have spoken as to what it would involve if the existing practice continued to be carried on. If I understood him correctly. I think the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, suggested that it would mean that any county council should be able to promote a Private Bill in which anything could be inserted that had ever been done before, no matter what were the new scale on which it were done. That is one view. Another view is that taken in the temperate and considered report of the Minister of Housing and Local Government which, in accordance with the general practice, was made by the Government Department concerned. That points out the serious precedent which would, in effect, be set if this Bill went through without objection. Whichever view is adopted, it is quite clear that we should be setting a quite definite precedent if this Bill were allowed.
  I listened most carefully to the proposal made by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, in his opening speech. As an alternative to adopting such a principle as is laid down in the Motion, he suggested that, in the interval before a Joint Select Committee had reported, these Bills should be held up. That might be a possible alternative, if that were the wish of the Promoters of the particular Bill. I quite agree, subject to what may be said later, that that is a possible alternative. But it would not really meet the case, because non constat there are not other local authorities which may wish to bring forward measures in the meantime. Surely they ought to know what is the principle on which Parliament is likely to act. I suggest that the principle upon which Parliament is likely to act, pending the report of a new Joint
  526
  Select Committee, is more or less the principle laid down in this Motion, which for that reason I support.
  I hope I have not been unduly provocative. The question before the House presents some difficulties. As I say, I have some sympathy with the county council, on the ground mentioned earlier in the debate by my noble friend Lord Swinton regarding the lateness of the time at which the objection was brought forward. On the other hand, I agree entirely with my noble friend the Lord Chairman of Committees on the important principle that is raised by this Bill, on which I think this House is under a duty to declare itself. I should like to say, in reply to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and I think to the noble Lord, Lord Latham, who made strong attacks on town polls, that I thought that was a curious argument to advance in this debate. I am not for one moment saying that the town poll procedure is a good one or a bad one, but it is at the moment laid down by a General Statute, and the right way to get rid of it would be to pass a General Statute to that effect. Really, the stronger the case against town polls in general made by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, the stronger seems to me to be the case for abolishing them, if his case is a sound one, by appropriate public legislation. It is not a ground on which, under private legislation, you should allow, for certain authorities, an exception to be made to the general law of the land. That is my submission to the House.
  For these reasons, I hope I have made it clear that those of us who support the Motion now before the House do so from no lack of sympathy with local authorities, or with the Kent County Council in particular. I think it is quite clear that there should be a Joint Select Committee of both Houses to consider the problem and that, meanwhile, there must be some rule which shall he operative; and I do not think anything better has been suggested than what is embodied in the Motion.
  5.35 p.m.
  THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: My Lords, I had not intended to intervene in this debate, but the fundamental matter at issue, which is the good of local government in this country, has been so befogged by the opposition of some

  527
  noble Lords opposite to town polls—because I gather that they invariably go the wrong way—and by one or two Members on this side of the House on the constitutional aspect, that it has tended to be forgotten. It has been mentioned only by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. I have been engaged for over thirty years in local government. 1 seldom attend your Lordships' House, but it so happened that to-day, fortuitously, I happened to be here for another reason. I am one of the few country backwoods Peers here to-day, and I am pretty certain that I speak for almost all of them who are not here in saying that, by and large, members of local authorities, whether county councils or county districts, attach great importance to the power of county councils to include in their Bills provision for powers for the county districts, although I must confess that I greatly doubt the propriety of the Kent County Council's action in including in the Bill, only a year after a Parish Councils Act was passed by Parliament, powers for parish councils.
  The reason we welcome this power of the county councils is that, by and large, we work under laws passed a great many years ago. Conditions change generally and we have to try to get our powers and duties up to date. Both the Select Committee of 1930 and, if I recollect aright, that of 1953 recommended that the Central Government should, at periodic and reasonably close intervals, introduce legislation bringing up to date the powers of local authorities. Successive Governments have failed completely in their duty to do that. We all admit that the powers of local government should be laid down by the Central Government, but when we are faced with the fact—we have to face up to it—that successive Governments have neglected their duty, it is bound to fall on the local authorities to take such powers as they can by means of Private Bills to bring their powers and duties up to date. For that reason, I would most earnestly ask the Lord Chairman not to press his Motion in its present form. Even with the Amendment which he suggests, it will put the local authorities in a quite impossible position.
  I do not hold much brief for the local authority associations, because, by and
  528
  large, they exist only to build greater empires for people whose empires are quite big enough already. Yet they do represent the local authorities, and therefore (I say this very strongly indeed) they should be consulted before any action like this is taken. I think it would be a thousand pities if the Lord Chairman were to press this Motion to-day. If he does, although I must confess that one or two of the remarks made by noble Lords opposite very nearly drove me into the Lord Chairman's arms bitterly though I am opposed to this Motion. I shall be bound to find myself in the Lobby against him.
  5.40 p.m.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I should like to join the very small group of noble Lords who have spoken up for their own counties, and say a word to the Lord Chairman about Clause 19 of the Essex Bill, which is a very simple clause. It asks merely that five small, subsidiary authorities, should have power to go to the Minister to ask permission to organise their superannuation funds in a way approved by the Essex County Council. That is all that is asked. That is the power which the Lord Chairman has said they are not to be allowed.
  Very briefly, and even at the risk of appearing controversial, that drives me to speak quite plainly about what people outside think of the attitude of your Lordships towards local government. I have been a London citizen since I was born, a great many years ago. For many years the London County Council fought and fought for powers with which it did something to make the London which we have; and they were always resisted by your Lordships. Generally speaking, the House of Lords is regarded as the enemy of progressive, domestic, civic local government, because in general noble Lords, with their wise, statesmanlike and Olympian point of view, say, "We do not want to encourage this Socialist legislation", and that applies not only to bodies which may happen to have a Socialist majority but to many others. I hope I am not driving the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, into the wrong Lobby.
  THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: My Lords, I am almost there already.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I mention that because it is only right to do so. What has been done? The Lord Chairman says: "They have been going too far. Let us rivet the thing down. Close the door and screw it up". And he introduces a rule which would limit the scope of local authorities in bringing forward these things. I do not know what that rule is, whether it is a Standing Order or an aspiration passed on to the Lord Chairman. It is a Motion of the House and naturally there is nothing in Standing Orders about it, because Standing Orders do not deal with Dowers.
  The Lord Chairman is asking that "for keeps" this House is to take power to restrict the local authorities in their endeavours. I will tell your Lordships why, for it is a point that has not yet been mentioned. Such terms as "in general" or "the local needs"—whatever may be the governing words—are wonderful terms, but it depends on who decides. The Lord Chairman and this House are to decide whether they consider something is a local need, and therefore local authorities who may be desiring to do these things are clearly discouraged.
  The point which has not been mentioned is that the Bills which we are discussing have not got the protection of the Parliament Act. With an ordinary Bill, if we have—as we shall have before very long—a strong and riotous majority of Labour men in the House of Commons, they have always the Parliament Act at their disposal if they want something done; but the Parliament Act does not cover Private Bills. So what the Lord Chairman is asking now is that not only should we define in a restricted way—and he will give details where required—the powers of local authorities but that we in this House should take power always to restrict their activities. I believe that that is a very serious consideration which I submit respectfully to your Lordships' attention.
  5.44 p.m.
  LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, I do not want to make a speech but to ask the Lord Chairman of Committees a question. If his Motion should be carried, would facilities be given to the county councils in question to carry forward their Bills until some Joint Committee or other body has reported upon
  530
  this question? Otherwise they will have lost their position completely and it might be that the decision was in favour of what they have asked. They will then be put to double expense in order to achieve it. If the answer to that question is "Yes", then I would put to the Lord Chairman this point: would it not be better to withdraw his Motion and let a Motion be put down for a Joint Select Committee or such other machinery as is required, and, at the same time, arrange for these Bills to be postponed?
  5.46 p.m.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, the Lord Chairman, for whom I have a good deal of sympathy, has treated the rights of this House with the most scrupulous care and will himself answer this debate, as it is not at all a Party matter—unless it is made so. I might warn the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, that it will be a very topsy-turvey result if all the Labour Party go into one Lobby and all the Conservatives into the other, because, by and large, the noble Lords opposite are the champions of "Whitehall knows best" arid Conservatives are always said to be the champions of the backwoods and parish pumps and denationalisation.
  I am not going to give a Government view or lead, but will say how the situation appears to me, as a Member of your Lordships' House with some experience in both Houses of Parliament—as a great many of your Lordships have had. The Chairman of Ways and Means and the Lord Chairman, who are both men of long Parliamentary experience, after very long and close study and advice from their advisers, have concluded that the Kent County Council Bill seeks to give to parish councils powers which, in the opinion of the Chairmen, seriously encroach upon a field which should be the field of Parliamentary legislation. This is really the fundamental point.
  LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, is there not only one small clause in this Bill that affects parish councils?
  THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, the fundamental point is: what is to be the field of private legislation and what is to be the field of public legislation? In

  531
  the opinion of these two very distinguished and experienced gentlemen the Kent County Council Bill makes an encroachment upon the field of Parliamentary legislation on a scale which has never before been attempted. I may say at once that the Chairman of Ways and Means and the Lord Chairman have reached these conclusions completely independently of the views of Her Majesty's Government. I believe that they did not know at any time the views of Ministers upon this question. The only view held by Her Majesty's Government is that read earlier to the House by my noble friend Lord Mancroft which I will repeat. He said:
  "Her Majesty's Government certainly agree that county councils ought not to promote Bills conferring on their district councils a host of powers for which there is no particular local need. But I believe it may be perfectly proper for them"—
  and this was the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook—
  "to seek certain powers on behalf of their district councils justified by local need."
  In so far as Her Majesty's Government have a position, that is their position.
  I have tried to look at this matter impartially and I do not myself believe that the Lord Chairman is doing any more than interpret a broad principle which is perfectly familiar to your Lordships in this field, to meet a particular situation. I am not going to rehearse the arguments for or against this Motion which we have heard from both sides of the House in great detail, but only to respond to the appeal made by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, to know whether we might take no decision to-day but postpone it to a future occasion. I always like to take refuge in these easy ways out if I possibly can. But I must tell the House, in the situation before it now, that it has to instruct its Committees how to act on the Kent Bill and other Bills before the end of the Session.
  As I see it, the Lord Chairman and the Chairman of Ways and Means are perfectly clear that they are right in the proposal that they are making. Therefore, for myself, I do not feel inclined to ask the Lord Chairman to withdraw this proposal for dealing with these Bills in the present Session. But I believe I am right in saying—the Lord Chairman will correct me if I am wrong—that he
  532
  is not asking us to take this action as laying down the law for all time, but only as a guidance to the Committee for Bills in this present Session. It seems an eminently reasonable way which the House can support for dealing with these Bills in this Session.
  If the Lord Chairman sees fit to be more definite about an inquiry in the future by means of a Select Committee, or whatever way may be thought most appropriate, then I would certainly support that myself, and I would ask the Minister of Housing and Local Government, who is concerned in these matters, whether he would not support it too, because I think it is probably needed. At such an inquiry the formula proposed by the Lord Chairman could be applied, modified or adjusted. So, for myself, I should have no hesitation in supporting the Lord Chairman's proposal this afternoon, as a means for dealing with these Bills in the present Session, and supporting an inquiry so that the long-term policy may be worked out.
  5.53 p.m.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I have sat right through this debate and heard every speech that has been made. I should resent the idea that, because we have not agreed with the views expressed by the Lord Chairman of Committees, we regard the real principle in this debate as being a Party issue. It does, of course, arise sometimes that issues of this kind tend to have different receptions in different Parties, but I do not wish the procedure of the House to be regarded as a Party question. Nevertheless, I think we should be quite untrue to ourselves if we did not challenge the line which seems likely to be taken in your Lordships' House tonight.
  I have never had the great privilege of the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, and many of the other noble Lords on the other side, of giving, as so many have voluntarily done, long years of public service in county councils. But I had the great advantage of being trained in the office of a Conservative county council in Somerset and of watching the procedure and general attitude to public affairs—on the one hand, national affairs, and, on the other, the affairs of wide administrative areas like a county area—under such tutelage as that of the

  533
  right honourable Henry Hobhouse, Howard Fox, Joseph Cooke-Hurle, and people of that type, in Conservative centres. I am bound to say that I never found among any of them anything lacking in the finest, open, public spirit they displayed in dealing with such questions as we are dealing with to-day.
  Moreover, in my experience of them and under their training, they faced the same kind of problem that we have in the case of Kent. There is the same mixture of authority: the county authority; the borough authority, which is no more than a "Part III authority", as we used to call it in the old days; the urban district council, and the parish council. In all the matters covered, it seems to me, looking at it quite impartially, that in the Kent Bill, which has brought this matter to a head, there is ample provision for the proper democratic control of the matter by the very system which operates every year. You have an urban district council which has some members elected every year, and those not agreeing with the policy in regard to their own district can instruct the new-found members. But what is more, all those urban districts have themselves to elect, triennially, members of the county council; and therefore they may express, through those triennial elections, a view as to what the action of a county council should be. And, finally, when a Bill itself comes to be presented under the well-known practice to the House of Parliament, it is subject to the whole of the democratic measures for passing it through until it becomes a Statute of the Realm. That seems to me to be the only basis upon which we can judge the matter.
  It is perfectly clear, too—and I was glad that the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, took up this point—that this bombshell, as it were, into local government has come suddenly, mainly on account of two Bills, although three have been mentioned. So far from its being a Party issue from our side of the House, all the county councils involved are Tory councils. Kent is a Tory county council; Surrey is a Tory county council; and, at the time of the promotion of the Essex Bill, Essex County Council also was Tory, although in the last few weeks it has lost its actual Conservative ruling power. Therefore, we shall not be voting—as we shall most certainly have to vote on this matter, unless there is some adjustment
  534
  —from a Party point of view, but on the way best to promote progressive development of local government.
  You have a case like that cited by the County Councils Association, the Berkshire Bill of 1952, where powers were sought for the small town of Newbury to deal with its need of a public cemetery. By the very kind of procedure proposed under this Motion to-day Newbury Council were told that they could not join with the county council and use the promotion of the County Council Bill in order to promote their cause with the county council. That little town, which could by that simple process have covered the cost involved with £200, had to promote its own Bill through Parliament all over again; and instead of £200, the cost was £800. The County Councils Association have cases like that in their archives which they put to us again and again when these matters come up. I do not want to weary your Lordships with all the illustrations I could give, but, surely, it is a matter not of Party but of principle on this question. Parliament, instead of trying to over-centralise itself now, ought to be willing to go in for that measure of devolution which is requisite for a growing, expanding population, and for a growing industrialisation, with the growing diversity in these general practices and sets of social legislation.
  For those reasons it seems to me to be absolutely essential that the reasonable view put to us this evening by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, should be adopted. If that is not done, and if the Lord Chairman is going to tell us that he will not depart from the attitude he took today about the Kent County Council Bill, I shall be bound to feel that the Kent County Council Bill has been made just a jumping-off point for something much bigger that people have in mind.
  When the Leader of the House says that there is no doubt at all that these things have been quite impartially examined, I am bound to say that it seems queer to me (I have been in hospital for ten weeks and have got out of touch) that I can pick up the Memorandum of the Minister of Housing and Local Government, dated April 10, on the points of these powers which are now sought under the Kent County Council Bill, yet it is not until May 13 that this matter is raised at all in this House. It seems to me that this

  535
  Motion is the jumping-off point. If the House does what it is asked to do and agrees to the Motion—though we should welcome an inquiry by a Committee or a Joint Select Committee—it means that Kent, and Kent alone, is going deliberately to be penalised in this Session, months and months after this Bill was first promoted, with all the expense entailed and in reliance on a practice which had been maintained unbrokenly for thirty-seven years. That is entirely unfair and completely unjustified. I hope that the noble Lord the Lord Chairman will take note of what I am saying, because it is certain to have created, not only in the minds of those who govern the county of Kent but also in the minds of other local authorities of a similar kind, the idea of a grave Parliamentary injustice.
  6.0 p.m.
  LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I hope that the House will forgive me if I make no attempt to deal with all the points that have been raised in the debate this afternoon, but, if I may, I will try to group under a few headings some of the questions that I have been asked and attempt to deal with them. My first group comes under the heading, "Timing". Much has been said this afternoon, and very understandably, about the timing of this procedure. It is always a matter of dispute as to what is exactly the right time to do a great many things, and I should certainly include this one. The Committee stage of this Bill began on May 13 and I think that I can justly claim that the Promoters themselves were not ready for that stage to begin until that day. It is perfectly true, and I do not want to hide it, that the Minister's Report was received some weeks before that; but I would say this and I hope that I shall not be blamed for it: that during that interval I was giving this matter careful consideration. I feel that if I had jumped to a hasty conclusion, I might equally have been criticised for that. It is not an easy matter to get the timing exactly right.
  Factually, I would say one or two things about timing. The noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, asked me a question and I am very ready to try to answer it. The Kent, Surrey and Essex County Councils, if they so choose, can withdraw their Bills and present them
  536
  again next Session, and the same thing applies to the clauses. Or, if they so choose—and if they ask for it I am certain that I would agree—consideration of the clauses (in other words, the Committee stage) could be postponed even for a long period, though I think that that would be an unusual course and personally I do not think that it would be the best course, even in the interests of the Promoters themselves. But your Lordships will see that the Promoters have considerable width of choice in this matter.
  The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, urged that we should inquire first and act afterwards, but I think that if the House considers the machinery for dealing with Private Bills it will hardly agree with that suggestion. I still ask the House to pass the Motion to-day, but I say, with great emphasis, that if it is passed, that in no way prejudices the most full consideration of all these questions by a Select Committee in due course. If this Motion is not decided to-day, I must put this difficulty to the House: what is to happen to these three Bills? I think that that is enough to dispose of the question. In the interests of the Promoters and of the House and of the general question, the problem of the clauses in these Bills ought to be dealt with now. I repeat that that will be without prejudice to the general and wide consideration at a later stage of all the issues involved.
  EARL ATTLEE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord this question? Does that mean that the noble Lord is asking us to condemn these clauses?
  LORD MERTHYR: Yes, my Lords.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Withdraw the Motion!
  LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I was going on to say that if that course is adopted, in my opinion, that would be the right course. I take full responsibility for it, realising always that I am not infallible.
  The next point I want to deal with was raised by several speakers. In the course of the debate there has emerged a sharp cleavage of opinion on whether what I am proposing to do constitutes a change. I say that it does not constitute a change in the established procedure of the House, but in saying that I readily admit, as I

  537
  have done several times already, that since 1921 there have been a large number of exceptions to this established procedure. The question is: which is the rule and which is the exception?—that is the point. I say that the rule is that county councils should not promote clauses in which they have themselves no interest. I say that that is the rule and that the other is the exception. Noble Lords opposite say exactly the reverse. They say that what has been done since 1921 is the rule and that what I am proposing is an exception. I must leave it to your Lordships to decide who is right. I cannot take the matter further than that, but I do not withdraw an inch from my contention that what I am doing is continuing the established, ancient tradition of the House. whilst admitting that a great many holes have already been made in it.
  I want to say the next point with great emphasis. The noble Earl the Leader of the House has informed your Lordships that this is not only not a Party matter but also not a matter in which the Government, as the Government, are interested—perhaps I am wrong in saying that they are not interested, but this is not Government business. I want to say emphatically that in what I am doing or have done, be it right or be it wrong, I take responsibility. I have not been in the slightest degree urged to do it by Her Majesty's Government or by any member of the Government in this House or outside. I hope that your Lordships will accept that categorical statement, which I have no doubt is absolutely true. I will be frank with the House. What I did was that before I made up my mind finally on this question, I informed the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor and the noble Earl the Leader of the House. I did not ask their agreement and did not obtain their agreement. But a short time before I spoke in your Lordships' House, a matter of two or three days, I did inform them of what was in my mind. I did not either expect or receive their agreement or otherwise.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, did the noble Lord inform the Leaders of the two Opposition Parties?
  LORD MERTHYR: Not at that time, but I did before I made my statement.
  538
  I want now to deal shortly with the question of polls, which has been raised by myself and other noble Lords. I want to say now what I did not say earlier, because I thought that my own opinion on this was irrelevant. But since the noble Lord, Lord Latham, has spoken so much about it, I want to say, on the narrow point of whether town polls and town meetings are good or bad, that I entirely agree with him that they are bad. I have always been of that opinion, both before and since the Committee to which he referred. But I think my opinion is irrelevant. The point is: Is Parliament satisfied with the position that a clause in a Private Bill which can be thrown out of the Bill by a town poll in Birmingham, can be submitted to and passed by Parliament in a Private Bill for Kent or Surrey, without the poll being available to the urban districts and the boroughs?
  The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, if I understood him aright, contended that on the matter of proof of private need the onus was upon the Committee of the House and not upon the Promoters. I cannot accept that contention for a moment. On the contrary, I shall contend until I am corrected that always, by tradition and up to this very moment, it has been for the Promoters to prove affirmatively their local need for the clause, and not for a Committee, or the House, or a petitioner to prove to the contrary. I rather expect that the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, who, if I may say so, made such an extremely helpful speech, with his great experience in these matters would agree with my contention.
  The noble Earl, Lord Home, said that I was not asking the House to agree to this principle for all time, and the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, putting it in slightly different language, used the phrase "for keeps"; but I think the two noble Lords meant the same. I would say emphatically that I agree entirely with the noble Earl. I am asking the House to pass this Motion to-day for the purpose of enabling me to deal with these three Bills, but I am leaving it completely open for the House to inquire by any means it wishes after that has been done.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, does the noble Lord really say that if this Motion is passed and if the Kent County Council Bill is killed we shall

  539
  not have created a precedent that will be insurmountable for the future?
  LORD MERTHYR: I say, on the contrary—I may be right or wrong, but I say it with great sincerity; and I was going to conclude with this statement—that I am of the opinion that if I had
  Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.

  TELEPHONE CHARGES
  6.24 p.m.
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to make a statement similar to that made by my right honourable friend the Postmaster-General in another place. As your Lordships are aware, Post Office policy is to encourage greater use of existing telephones by making calls cheap, quick and easy. On January 1, 1958, the area covered by the 3d. local call was greatly enlarged, and some trunk charges were reduced. I now announce two further steps which will make many telephone calls cheaper.
  First, all users of telephones will have the cheap rate period extended. At
  540
  not taken the course which I have, I should have made things extremely difficult, if not impossible, for anybody who succeeded me in this office.
  On Question, Whether the said Motion shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 53; Not-Contents, 26.

  CONTENTS

  Lansdowne, M.

  Aberdare, L.

  Hawke, L.

  Salisbury, M.

  Amulree, L. [Teller.]

  McCorquodale of Newton, L.

  Auckland, L.

  Mancroft, L.

  Albemarle, E.

  Balfour of Inchrye, L.

  Merrivale, L.

  Bathurst, E.

  Banbury of Southam, L.

  Merthyr, L.

  Bessborough, E.

  Broughshane, L.

  Milverton, L.

  Fortescue, E.

  Chesham, L.

  Newall, L.

  Gosford, E.

  Clilheroe, L.

  Rank, L.

  Haddington, E.

  Colyton, L.

  Rathcavan, L.

  Home, E.

  Conesford L.

  Rea. L.

  Onslow, E.

  Croft, L.

  St. Oswald, L.

  Selkirk, E.

  Denham, L.

  Sandford, L.

  Swinton, E.

  Dynevor, L.

  Strang, L.

  Winterton, E.

  Ebury, L.

  Strathclyde, L.

  Woolton, E.

  Evans, L.

  Teviot, L.

  Glyn, L.

  Teynham, L.

  De L'Isle, V.

  Grantchester, L. [Teller.]

  Thurlow, L.

  Goschen, V.

  Hampton, L.

  Tweedsmuir, L.

  Ridley, V.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Attlee, E.

  Cottesloe, L.

  Milner of Leeds, L.

  Cranbrook, E.

  Darwen, L.

  Morrison, L.

  Lucan, E. [Teller.]

  Digby, L.

  Nathan, L.

  Douglas of Barloch, L.

  Ogmore, L.

  Addison, V.

  Faringdon, L.

  Pakenham, L.

  Alexander of Hillsborough, V.

  Henderson, L.

  Pethick-Lawrence, L.

  Mersey, V.

  Latham, L.

  Shepherd, L. [Teller.]

  Stansgate, V.

  Lawson, L.

  Silkin, L.

  Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

  Williams. L.

  Brabazon of Tara, L.

  present it is from 6 p.m. to 10.30 p.m. As from the 1st July it will be from 6 p.m. every weekday to 6 o'clock the following morning. On Sundays it will be from 2 p.m. until 6 o'clock on Monday morning. This is the first time the cheap night rate has been given on Sunday afternoons. Secondly, as already announced, some subscribers—at first those in Bristol—will soon be able to dial their own trunk calls. For these subscribers, and in the first instance for these subscribers only, the basis of charging for all calls will be radically changed. What I have to announce now is that they will be able to make telephone calls to anywhere in this country for 2d. The amount of time 2d. will buy will vary with the distance. Naturally, for the really long-distance call the amount of time for 2d. will be small—in fact 12 seconds.
  On trunk calls, the new charges will have two advantages. Here are examples of those advantages for a call of over 125 miles. The first advantage is that the charge itself will be reduced. At present, a three-minute call costs 3s. 6d. In future it will cost only 2s. 6d., which is a reduction of nearly 30 per cent. The second advantage is that the existing minimum of 3s. 6d. for three minutes will be abolished, and subscribers will pay only for the time they use, in multiples of 2d. The new charges for a call over 125 miles will be: For 12 seconds, 2d.; for one minute, 10d.; for two minutes, Is. 8d.; and for three minutes, 2s. 6d. All those calls, my Lords, at present cost a minimum of 3s. 6d., whether they last one, two or three minutes.
  With regard to local calls in the areas with Subscriber Trunk Dialling, these will be timed, because only by timing can the charge be reduced. Instead of 3d. untimed, they will be 2d. for three minutes, in the ordinary period, and 2d. for six minutes, in the cheap rate period. These new charges will start at Bristol on December 1, 1958. They cannot be applied elsewhere until equipment is installed to enable subscribers to tha trunk calls. This will be done as quickly as possible, but, of course, it will take a long time to cover the whole country. A new coin box to allow trunk calls to be dialled from kiosks will he introduced later. Telephone time that costs 2d. from an ordinary telephone will cost 3d. from a coin box.
  Full details are given in a White Paper which is mow available in the Printed Paper Office. En addition, your Lordships will be able to see the new equipment, and how it works, from 12 noon to-morrow, in the Upper Waiting Hall, which is on the Committee Floor in another place.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving us the advantage of hearing the statement from him. Of course we welcome it wholeheartedly, and with a good deal of thanks for the change which is to take place. The only thing I am anxious about is how long it is going to take to give everybody the same justice as it is proposed to give to people in the Bristol area. Why is it that the London area is so far behind the
  542
  town of Bristol, which I know so well, in getting the advantages that the General Post Office authorities want to give?
  LORD REA: My Lords, may I support the noble Viscount in thanking the noble Lord for his statement. One effect of it, of course, will be that our Scottish friends will learn to speak much more quickly, which might be an advantage.
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I think it is estimated that 70 per cent. or 75 per cent. of telephones will be on this system by 1970. So far as the reason for its start in Bristol is concerned, a start had to be made somewhere, and I believe that, for technical reasons, Bristol was the most suitable place for the new system to be introduced.
  LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether the new coin boxes will provide for an automatic falling in of the coins when the caller is connected with the number, or will the old-fashioned business of pressing buttons A and B continue?
  LORD CHESHAM: No, my Lords, it will not continue. The new box is so designed that unless the number you have dialled obtains an answer you cannot even put the coins in.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, who are these new charges being made for, the quick or the dead?
  LORD CHESHAM: As the noble Lord, Lord Rea, said, naturally the quick.

  CONTROL OF POLICE FORCES
  6.31 p.m.
  EARL WINTERTON: 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 if they will appoint a Committee to inquire into whether local authorities having statutory control of police forces are exercising that control satisfactorily; and. if not, whether, to prevent inefficiency or abuse of their duties by senior police officers, local authorities and the inspector of constabulary should be given a greater power of control over county and borough police forces.]
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, it is the duty of my right honourable friend, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, to satisfy himself that local police authorities properly discharge their statutory responsibilities, and he does so on the basis of reports by Her Majesty's inspectors of constabulary. Her Majesty's Government do not consider that there are grounds for appointing a Committee as suggested by my noble friend to inquire whether local authorities having statutory control of police forces are exercising that control satisfactorily.
  As to the second part of the Question, senior police officers are amenable, like any other person, to the ordinary process of the courts. In addition, police officers of every rank are subject to the police discipline code: police authorities have adequate powers to deal with inefficiency or misconduct; and Her Majesty's Government do not consider that there are grounds for extending the powers of local authorities and Her Majesty's inspectors of constabulary.
  EARL WINTERTON: My Lords, I do not want to trouble your Lordships with a long supplementary question at this hour of the evening, but in view of what I must regard as, to quote a term more common in another place than in your Lordships' House, the very unsatisfactory nature of the Answer, I beg to give the Minister notice that if I can find an available day I shall put down a Motion with a demand for Papers.

  TRADE WITH CHINA
  6.33 p.m.
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: 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, with reference to an Answer given by them in this House on May 8. (1) what precisely is the objective of the United Nations which is to be achieved before the termination of the embargo on strategic materials to China which was adopted in May, 1951, to provide additional measures to meet aggression in Korea; and (2) at what date the objective was discussed and defined at a meeting of the General Assembly of the United Nations.]
  THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF GOSFORD): My Lords, the objectives of the United Nations in Korea, as last defined and reaffirmed in a resolution adopted by the General Assembly on November 29, 1957, and previously established in resolutions of January 11, 1957, November 29, 1955. December 11, 1954, August 28, 1953, and October 7, 1950, are to bring about by peaceful means the establishment of a unified, independent and democratic Korea under a representative form of government, and the full restoration of peace and security in the area. In view of the nature of the noble Viscount's Question, I feel that I should remind your Lordships that the objectives already mentioned are not the sole factors involved. The question of control of strategic exports to China is subject to the same considerations of security as apply to exports to the Soviet Union.
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl. Is it not the case that we are acting in relation to the embargo under the original United Nations resolution of May 19, 1951, and is it not clear that there is a vital distinction between the early part of that resolution recommending the embargo, and the appendage, which reaffirms the achievement of United Nations objectives by peaceful means after the fighting is over? Is it not, therefore, equally clear that by importing this general statement of ultimate objectives into the embargo question the Government are really turning the embargo—which was imposed to limit a temporary military danger—into a bargaining counter in the interplay of present-day opposing policies in the Far East?
  THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, the noble Viscount asked me two questions: what precisely is the objective of the United Nations which is to be achieved, and at what date the objective was discussed and defined at a meeting of the General Assembly. I have answered both those questions, and I really cannot see how the noble Viscount's supplementary question has anything to do with either.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I ask whether it is a fact that some of the

  545
  contracts, in regard to which British producers would be very glad to tender and supply the result to China, are being obtained by powers like West Germany and other powers in the world, leaving us, therefore, in a very much worse position than would otherwise be the case if some reasonable amendment could be found for this resolution of the United Nations?
  THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government fully realise that there are possibly cases where orders may be going elsewhere which would otherwise be coming to us. As the noble Viscount knows full well, the question of these controls is at present being considered by the Committee in Paris.
  LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, may I ask whether until the ultimate aims have been achieved it is proposed to maintain the embargo and to continue the exclusion of Communist China from the United Nations?
  THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, I think I would ask the noble Lord to put down a further Question.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, the noble Earl has been asked about once a fortnight for over six months and has told us they are actively considering this matter in Paris. We have asked more than once whether anyone has proposed that the embargo should be lifted. Has he got an answer, or can he promise an answer?
  THE EARL OF GOSFORD: I think I answered the noble Viscount last time on that matter. If he cannot take "No" for an answer—
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I do not know what the noble Earl's answer, even with his gestures, really means. Does he mean he will not answer the question or will not propose that the embargo be lifted? He said, "No." What does that mean?
  THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, this time I certainly mean "No," in this respect: that I will not anticipate what will come out of the meetings in Paris.
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, can the noble Earl say when the deliberations are coming to an end and when we shall have a result?
  THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, I think I told the noble Viscount last time I hoped it would be before the middle of this year.

  EGYPT'S STERLING BALANCES
  6.38 p.m.
  LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask Her Majesty's Government (1) the amount of Egypt's sterling balances at present and still frozen; (2) how much they were on 26th July, 1956, the date when Egypt seized the Suez Canal, and before they were frozen, and (3) at what sum they were fixed when they were originally agreed to by Her Majesty's Government immediately after the war.]
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (THE EARL OF SELKIRK): My Lords, it is not the practice to reveal the balances of individual countries. Figures are, however, published from time to time by the National Bank of Egypt and according to them on November 30, 1957 (which is the latest date for which information is available), there were £E.27·1 million in the Egyptian No. 1 Accounts and £E.66·1 million in the No. 2 Account. On August 30, 1956 (the nearest date for which figures are available), there were £E.11·4 million in the No. 1 Accounts and £E.100·5 million in the No. 2 Account.
  With regard to the third part of the Question, on July 12, 1947 (two days before the date on which the first Financial Agreement relating to Egyption sterling balances came into force), these balances totalled £E.347·1 million. That Agreement provided for the establishment of No. 1 Egyptian Transferable Accounts, for the remainder of the Egyptian Sterling Balances to be held in a No. 2 Account, and for transfers, on the conditions set forth in the Agreement, from the No. 2 to the No. 1 Accounts. On October 4, 1947, there were £E.21·7 million in the No. 1 Accounts and £E.322·7 million in the No. 2 Account.
  LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his Answer.

  THE HOSPITAL SERVICES
  6.39 p.m.
  LORD NATHAN LORD NATHAN had given Notice of a Motion to call attention to the hospital services; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the debate on the Lord Chairman's Motion on Private Bills has, I am afraid, taken far longer than any of us anticipated. It was unfortunate that the approach of the Recess made the collision between my Motion and his inevitable. I am particularly sorry because the distinguished speakers on the list for my Motion this afternoon had encouraged a wide circle to take a special interest in the debate, which it had become an honour to open. However, I make no complaints on my own account; I am too old a hand in Parliament not to accept a disappointment of this kind without any hard feeling. I have consulted my noble friends, and we are agreed that I must ask your Lordships to allow me not to move my Motion this afternoon but to move it at an early day after Whitsun, when I am sure that I can count on the co-operation of what are known as "the usual channels" to clear the course for me on the date we shall agree. I would add that certain consultations have taken place, as a result of which it is hoped that a practicable date may prove to be July 2.

  THE WHITSUN RECESS
  6.40 p.m.
  EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, before the House adjourns, I should like to inform your Lordships that Parliament will reassemble after the Whitsun Recess on Tuesday, June 10.

  AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BILL [H.L.]
  Reported from the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, with an Amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.
  PREVENTION OF FRAUD (INVESTMENTS) BILL [H.L.]
  Reported from the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, without amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.
  STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL [H.L.]
  Reported from the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, without amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.
  GLOUCESTER CORPORATION BILL
  The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: the Order made on May 15 last discharged, and Bill referred to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
  SLEEPING BERTHS ON ABERDEEN TRAINS
  SLEEPING BERTHS ON ABERDEEN TRAINS