Sitting of 27 July 1960

Preamble
The House met a half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

EXPERIMENTS ON LIVING ANIMALS
Address for Return,
"of Experiments performed under the Act 39 & 40 Via. c. 77, during 1959."—[Mr. Vosper.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  POST OFFICE

    Robberies
    Mr. C. Osborneasked the Postmaster-General how much money has been lost in each of the last three years, respectively, through Post Office robberies; how many robberies have taken place; if he is satisfied that the new steps he is taking to prevent robberies are adequate; if he is satisfied that the punishment which may be imposed upon those caught and convicted is sufficient to deter others; and if he will make a statement.
    The Assistant Postmaster-General (Miss Mervyn Pike): The amounts lost through robberies at Post Offices were £2,017. £7,290 and £5,421 respectively; and the numbers of robberies were 6, 28 and 17. The numbers of unsuccessful attempts at robbery were 20, 29 and 49. While the last-mentioned figures indicate that we are perhaps having some success in preventing robberies, this is not to say that we are satisfied with our security arrangements. I would assure my hon. Friend that we intend to go on trying to improve them. The question of punishment for offenders who are caught is not one for my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. Osborne: In view of the rather alarming figures of the attempts to attack Post Office workers, and thinking
    1616
    especially of the village and rural postmasters and post-mistresses, may I ask my hon. Friend to contact her right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to see whether more severe punishments can be imposed on these men, who have caused a great deal of trouble to people in rural districts?
    Miss Pike: The punishment is not a question for us, but we are prepared to do anything which will help in this matter.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Do the figures given by the hon. Lady include sub-post offices as well as Crown offices? Do they not indicate a rather widespread laxity in at least sub-office areas?
    Miss Pike: They relate mostly to sub-post offices, and only two relate to Crown offices.

    Stoke-on-Trent
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Postmaster-General if he will make a full statement on the consultations which have taken place between his officers, the British Transport Commission and the City of Stoke-on-Trent over the new Post Office headquarters in the City; what stage the plans have reached; whether it is intended to provide the most modern building and machinery including an underground electronic conveyor; and if the site will be laid out with trees, shrubs, and turf.
    Miss Pike: The scheme for a new main sorting office in Stoke-on-Trent has been cleared with the local authority. Close contact has also been maintained with the British Transport Commission, and the plans were referred to them some weeks ago. Building should start about a year from now and be completed two years later. The building will be a modern one. The equipment will not include an underground conveyor, as this would be uneconomic. The site will be laid out attractively, retaining existing natural features wherever possible.
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Postmaster-General when it is intended to provide a new modern post office for the increasing Meir area in the City of Stoke-on-Trent, and adequate telephone facilities for the Fenpark Road area of Fenton.
    Miss Pike: I am sorry but I should not be justified at present in building a new office to replace the Meir sub-post office which is giving a satisfactory service. I am reconsidering the question of providing a sub-post office in the adjoining Wood Farm estate and I will write to the hon. Member about this as soon a; possible. There are no people waiting for telephone service in the Fenpark Road district. An additional telephone kiosk is to be installed in Vivian Road within the next two months.
    Mrs. Slater: May I say how grateful the people of that area will be? Although it is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith), I met the previous Postmaster-General on this subject when my hon. Friend was ill, and at that time we thought that there was no hope at all of achieving what we wanted. The people of this estate will be very grateful for that reply.

    Mowmacre Hill, Leicester
    Mr. Jannerasked the Postmaster-Genera l whether, in view of the continuing concern of old-age pensioners and others at the lack of proper facilities for Post Office services at Mowmacre Hill, Leicester, and in view of the plans for future building there, which have now been put in hand, he will now provide a sub-post office suitably situated there.
    Miss Pike: I understand that the planned building development is not likely to start for some years. I can assure the hon. Member that when the time comes the question of providing a further sub-post office will be considered; but in the meantime I should not be justified in doing as he asks.
    Mr. Janner: Could not the hon. Lady reconsider her decision about this not being justified? Does not she agree that if she provided for the minimum needs—that is what it amounts to—of the people at present at Mowmacre Hill, ultimately when the buildings go up the services would be available for the new people as well as for those who are there now? Does not she realise the difficulties?
    Miss Pike: I accept the hon. Gentleman's persistence, but I cannot accept his arguments. The land in question will
    1618
    be lying fallow for about eight years. It is the site of a disused sewage farm, and we cannot expect development on the land for seven or eight years.
    Mr. Mason: In view of the many Questions arising in the House about the siting of sub-post offices, would not the hon. Lady consider a review of the arrangements for sitings, especially having in mind the hilly terrain and the situation of the residences of a number of old-age pensioners?
    Miss Pike: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point. With the ever-increasing changes in our community life, we often find that the siting of post offices is not as good as we would wish. We are keeping this matter and the standards which we employ in deciding whether we need sub-post offices constantly under review.

    Post Office Savings Bank (Centenary)
    Mr. Hunterasked the Postmaster-General what steps his Department is taking to commemorate next year the centenary of the Post Office Savings Bank.
    The Postmaster-General (Mr. Reginald Bevins): It is certainly my intention that this centenary, which falls in September next year, shall be suitably commemorated; and I will make a statement as soon as I can.
    Mr. Hunter: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. In view of the great services which the Post Office Savings Bank has rendered to this country for nearly a hundred years, will the right hon. Gentleman consider issuing a special stamp to mark the occasion and also providing extra facilities for its 22 million depositors?
    Mr. Bevins: I will give the hon. Gentleman's second suggestion consideration. In answer to his first suggestion, a commemorative postage stamp is now under way.
    Mr. Lipton: Would not the best way of commemoration be to give the loyal depositors in the Post Office Savings Bank a little more interest?
    Mr. Bevins: Having regard to certain concessions, they do not do too badly at the moment.

    Books of Stamps (Automatic Machines)
    Mr. Hollandasked the Postmaster-General whether he will provide more automatic machines selling books of stamps.
    Miss Pike: Yes, Sir. My aim is to provide machines selling 2s. 0d, books of stamps at Crown post offices generally. We hope to have a large number in position by the end of this year.
    Mr. Holland: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is she aware that Acton Post Office warmly welcomes the prospect of having one of these machines installed, in the belief that it will ease the burden on the counter staff and will also help to reduce queues? Would she agree that she should be selective about the siting of these machines and that perhaps what is good for Acton is not necessarily good for "Little-Bindingin-the-Marsh"?
    Miss Pike: I agree that we have to be very careful about the siting of all our post offices.

    Conferences and Exhibitions
    Mr. Costainasked the Postmaster-General whether he will make arrangements to provide simple postal facilities, on a self-service basis, at conferences, exhibitions, and so on.
    Miss Pike: Yes, Sir. Two transportable suites of self-service machines selling stamps, stamp booklets and letter cards are now available for use at conferences and similar events. A posting box is incorporated in each suite. If they prove popular we shall provide more of them.
    Mr. Costain: Is my hon. Friend aware that her reply will cause a great deal of satisfaction? May we have an assurance that a similar service will be available in the provinces?
    Miss Pike: Yes, certainly.

    Sub-office, London, S.W/
    Mr. Stewartasked the Postmaster-General whether he will establish a sub-post office at 4, Station Approach, London, S.W.6.
    Miss Pike: There are two post offices within half-a-mile of No. 4, Station
    1620
    Approach and three more within three-quarters of a mile. I am sorry, but I should not be justified in opening yet another office in the area.
    Mr. Stewart: Does the hon. Lady realise that this is a very populous area and that her reply does not sufficiently consider the very heavy pressure at the Putney High Street office which would be alleviated if this proposed office were established? Facilities in the Putney Bridge area, which are described in a letter to me as being of a good standard, are decidedly inferior to those in the Lower Richmond Road area. May I have an opportunity of discussing this matter further with the hon. Lady or with her right hon. Friend?
    Miss Pike: I would welcome a discussion on the matter, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it has been gone into very fully indeed.

    Long-Distance Communications (Space Research)
    Mr. Donnellyasked the Postmaster-General if he will give details of the steps his Department has taken to study the application of space research for the long-distance telephone system.
    Mr. Bevins: The Post Office is in regular consultation with other Departments concerned with space research and is participating actively in the work of the International Radio Consultative Committee. My officials have also had exploratory discussions with other Commonwealth telephone authorities and with the American Telephone and Telegraph Company about the possible application of earth satellites to long-distance communications.
    Mr. Donnelly: In view of that monumental labour by the Post Office, can the Postmaster-General say what conclusion the Post Office has reached so far?
    Mr. Bevins: Only in a very general sense. I am convinced, on the basis of technical advice which I have received, that there is a future in this field, and I believe that technically it is possible; but we have a great deal of further work to do on the financial and other implications.
    Mr. Chetwynd: Is not this problem becoming more and more urgent in view of the congestion of the existing cables and the high cost of replacing them with new cables? Would it not be better to make an early decision to go ahead with space satellites for this purpose?
    Mr. Bevins: I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that there will be no delay in coming to decisions. At the same time, I should like to make it clear that, even if this form of communication should materialise in the relatively near future, it is still the view of all the principal administrations that we should require to maintain submarine communications as well.

    Telephone Equipment (Contracts)
    Mr. Darlingasked the Postmaster-General what arrangements he makes for an independent costing of contracts given to manufacturers for the supply of telephone equipment.
    Mr. Bevins: The Post Office employs its own professional accountants and technical costs officers to investigate the books and the methods of production of contractors. We have complete freedom to decide which contractors shall be investigated and the extent of the investigation. We then negotiate prices as closely as possible in accord with the costs of the most efficient producers. The prices so fixed are paid uniformly to all the suppliers.
    Mr. Darling: Is the Postmaster-General satisfied that that arrangement works satisfactorily in view of the statement made recently by Mr. Stanley that equipment could have been supplied at lower cost if this manufacturers' ring was not in operation? If Mr. Stanley's statement is correct, does it not seem that the taxpayers have been overpaying for a considerable time and that we might have lost millions through supporting this manufacturers' ring.
    Mr. Bevins: Mr. Stanley has made a lot of statements in recent weeks, not all of which have been completely accurate. At the moment, I am satisfied that our existing practice is right, that our cost accountants are most careful to ascertain the actual costs of production and that the lowest costs are applied to all Post Office supplies. In regard to the assertion that Continental costs of production
    1622
    are lower than in this country, I have been at some pains to collate evidence on that and I find that the cost of the French handset is rather more expensive than the corresponding article in this country. The German handset is cheaper than that produced in this country, but I should add, in fairness to the Post Office, that the total cost of the handset and of installation in Germany and in this country are almost identical.
    Mr. Mason: Can the right hon. Gentleman enlighten the House and say what profit margin is allowed within his costing arrangements with these companies?
    Mr. Bevins: If the hon. Member would care to put down a Question about that. I should be glad to answer it.

    Mail (Collections)
    Mr. Coleasked the Postmaster-General if he will arrange for indicators, similar to those provided on pillar-boxes showing the next collection of mail, to be provided on the outside of all main post offices, so that members of the public will know, especially as regards the later collections of the day, whether they have posted in time for a particular collection.
    Miss Pike: We are already providing indicators at some of our Crown post offices and I will certainly look into the possibilities of providing them more widely. If my hon. Friend has in mind any particular office or offices at which he would like to see such indicators, I shall be glad to consider what can be done to meet his wishes.
    Mr. Cole: While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply and for the advancement in this field, may I ask if she is aware that I have no particular post office in mind and ask whether she is further aware that it is most frustrating not to know whether an important letter catches the night post and that it might also at times be useful as the post office would be able to sell a night letter telegram?
    Miss Pike: We are always anxious to help our customers as much as possible and I will certainly consider what my hon. Friend has said.

    Counter Duties (Reorganisation)
    Mr. Worsleyasked the Postmaster-General at what offices he is experimenting with a reorganisation of counter duties based on counter staff handling all types of business.
    Mr. Bevins: Trials at Walsall, Watford and Weston-super-Mare were started earlier this year. They have lately started at a further thirteen offices including Brentwood, Clacton-on-Sea, Folkestone, Neath, Newark, Pontypool, Southall, Weymouth and York. Arrangements are now under way for them to begin at a further eleven offices. I am circulating the names in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Worsley: Can my right hon. Friend give any indication of the reaction of the general public to the new arrangements when using these offices?
    Mr. Bevins: So far, the general reaction of the public has been very favourable indeed. I hope that we shall reach final conclusions on this changed method of working by the autumn. I am satisfied that, with the loyal cooperation of the Post Office staffs, we shall be able to make a substantial improvement in Post Office services
    Mr. W. R. Williams: Whilst I have no objection whatever to the Post Office experimenting at all times to improve the service, may I ask whether the Postmaster-General is aware that, after a fairly long association with duties of this sort, I am inclined to the opinion that complete non-specialisation will in the long run be a bad thing for the Post Office and for the customer? I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman two supplementary questions. At the end of the experimental period, will he give serious consideration to the point which I am putting, because I put it in good faith? Secondly, has the right hon. Gentleman had any firm estimate yet of what would be the additional cost, for instance, in balancing time and so on, if his scheme of complete non-specialisation is introduced?
    Mr. Bevins: I cannot give an exact figure of what this change in our method of working will amount to, but I should say off the cuff that it will probably cost at least £¼ million a year. If, however, as I believe, by means of spending this money we can succeed in doing away
    1624
    with queues in post offices, it will be money well spent. I will certainly take note of the general considerations to which the hon. Member has referred.
    Following is the List:
    Head Offices

    Brentwood.*

    Clacton-on-Sea.*

    Dorchester.

    Folkestone.*

    Leamington Spa.

    Neath.*

    Newark.*

    Newry.

    Oldham.

    Pontypool.*

    Southall.*

    Stafford.

    Stockport.

    Weymouth.*

    York.*

    Branch Offices

    Belfast—Donegal Square.

    Bristol—Bedminster.*

    Glasgow—Charing Cross.

    London—South Molton Street.*

    Hull—Brazil Street.*

    Liverpool—Walton.

    Manchester—Hanging Ditch.

    Salaried Offices

    Newtonards (Belfast).

    Jarrow (Newcastle-upon-Tyne).*
    * Experiments now in operation.

    Telephone Apparatus (Bulk Supply Agreement)
    Mr. Masonasked the Postmaster-General what estimate he has made of the effect of the recent take-over bid by Pye of the Telephone Manufacturing Company upon the ordering of telephone and telephonic communications equipment by his Department; whether any reduction in prices of telephone instruments can be expected; and whether a fresh agreement will have to be negotiated with the new company concerned.
    Mr. Bevins: The Post Office does not have a separate agreement with the Telephone Manufacturing Company, which is a party to the bulk supply agreement for the supply of telephone apparatus. The transfer of control of the Telephone Manufacturing Company will not, of itself, require a new agreement, or a change in the system of ordering.
    Uniform prices apply to all orders. These prices are fixed from the currency of the agreements as the result of cost

    1625
    investigation of the companies considered by the Post Office to be the most efficient. It is too early to say whether the change in the control of the Telephone Manufacturing Company will lead to a reduction in prices.
    Mr. Mason: On the question of production prices, may I take it from the Minister's reply, and particularly from what he said earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling), that he has no confidence whatever in the statement of Mr. Stanley that he would be responsible for reducing prices? Is it not a fact that members of this ring are in a privileged position and that only they can enjoy Post Office contracts? How does the Postmaster-General know that we are getting value for money when ordering this telephonic equipment When no other firm is allowed to compete?
    Mr. Bevins: The second part of that supplementary question is not quite true. If the Post Office is satisfied that it could profitably use the services of a company outside what the hon. Member calls the ring, it would be possible to order 10 per cont. of our annual requirements from such company or companies. If any of the companies which are party to the bulk supply agreements are able to manufacture equipment, whether telephone, cabling Or anything else, more cheaply than is done at present—that could conceivably happen in the new circumstances—that would lead to a saving all round to the Post Office.
    Mr. Mason: How many times has the Postmaster-General contracted out in the past three years while the agreement has been in being?
    Mr. Bevins: There was one occasion about twelve months ago when the Post Office invited firms outside the ring to contract for cabling. No tenders were received. At present, we are considering the advisability of going out to tender for another bulk supply.
    Mr. Masonasked the Postmaster-General if he will consider referring to the Monopolies Commission the Temco system of providing telephonic communications equipment to the Post Office.
    Mr. Bevins: The Post Office has no agreement with Temco as an individual
    1626
    company. It is one of the eight companies with which the Post Office has a composite agreement for the supply of telephone apparatus. The question of a reference to the Monopolies Commission is a matter for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade to my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) on 19th July.
    Mr. Mason: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that it was he who referred that Question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade after it had been addressed to the Postmaster-General? Is not this a monopoly? In view of the pressure from both sides of the House concerning the existence of this ring, which is in a monopoly position, is it not time that we had either a reference to the Public Accounts Committee or an independent investigation by an outside body?
    Mr. Bevins: The question which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade referred to me was a supplementary question as to whether a Government Department was being held to ransom in this matter, and it had nothing to do with a reference to the Monopolies Commission or with making a reference to the Restrictive Trade Practices Act.
    Sir R. Grimston: Is it not a fact, whatever else may be said about this bulk supply agreement, that it has been in force for many years and during the whole time when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) was Postmaster-General?
    Mr. Bevins: That is perfectly true. This agreement has been in force for a period of about thirty years under Governments of varying political complexions, and, what is more, as I said last Wednesday, these arrangements have been vindicated both by the Public Accounts Committee and various other bodies during that time.
    Mr. Paget: Is not the truth of the matter that the Post Office, having regard to its own experience and the experience of foreign post office companies, has come to the conclusion that competition is a thoroughly bad thing?
    Mr. Bevins: That, of course, is precisely where the hon. and learned Gentleman and I differ. I am prepared, as, indeed, are my hon. Friends on this side of the House, to look at these questions on their individual merits, and not to be doctrinaire.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Is not the position applying in the ring that the Standard Telephone Company is doing something in this country which by law it is prevented from doing in the United States and will not the right hon. Gentleman have regard to this fact, that a new agreement has been made within the last three years and that this agreement has never been under consideration by any Committee of this House?
    Mr. Bevins: I am not responsible for the laws which are on the statute book in the United States of America. I am concerned with the position in this country.

    Former Employees (Employment)
    Mr. Ness Edwardsasked the Postmaster-General why the application of an ex-Post Office servant to be allowed to take employment with a non-ring firm was refused, whilst application for permission to join a ring firm was allowed.
    Mr. Bevins: I assume that the right hon. Gentleman is referring to two separate persons. I am satisfied that to authorise the second person to accept an appointment with the Marconi Group was proper and consistent with the principles which govern these matters. The Post Office has no bulk purchasing agreement with this Group and the specific intention of the appointment is to help in developing the export side of the Group's activities.
    I was not responsible for the earlier case, but the circumstances were quite different.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Is not the allegation made by Mr. Stanley in the document he has circulated that the Postmaster-General has given preferential treatment to the employment of an ex-Post Office official by the ring people and that they have excluded or kept out for two years another official who wanted a job with someone outside the ring who wanted to engage in the export
    1628
    business? Is he really satisfied that there is no basis for the allegation by Mr. Stanley?
    Mr. Bevins: I have not, I must say, seen the paper to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, although I have heard of it, but if the suggestion is that the second gentleman referred to in my Answer has been permitted to take up an appointment with a firm or group which is party to a bulk supply agreement with the Post Office, that suggestion is wholly without foundation.

  WIRELESS AND TELEVISION

    Television Link (Northern Ireland-Great Britain)
    Mr. Maginnisasked the Postmaster-General what plans he has for providing a two-way television link between Northern Ireland and Great Britain.
    Mr. Bevins: None, Sir. I have not been asked to provide a link by the broadcasting authorities.
    Mr. Maginnis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Northern Ireland is the only region of the United Kingdom which cannot televise programmes in the national network? Is he, further, aware that many first-class cultural and sporting events take place in Northern Ireland and that viewers in Britain would greatly appreciate being able to see them? Is he aware that it is vital to televise programmes from Northern Ireland if we are to play our full part in the progress of television in Great Britain and the Continent of Europe?
    Mr. Bevins: I am in no doubt at all about the high cultural value of television programmes in Northern Ireland, but it is the fact that the B.B.C. sets up its own temporary link when it wants to relay programmes back to this country. I have had no request from the I.T.A. for a link back from Northern Ireland to this country.

    Television Reception, North Cornwall
    Mr. Scott-Hopkinsasked the Postmaster-General what steps he is taking to ensure an improvement in the reception of the British Broadcasting Corporation television programmes in north Cornwall.
    Mr. Bevins: The B.B.C. plans to build further low-power television stations in later stages of its satellite station scheme. It has in mind the need for improved reception in parts of North Cornwall.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Can my right hon. Fiend give me any indication when these new stations will be built? Is he aware that at the moment reception is quite appalling in many parts of the West Country, particularly north Cornwall, where the programmes are not received at all? Will he also bear in mind that the residents of north Cornwall pay exactly the same licence fee as those elsewhere in the country and should have exactly the same service at as early a date as possible?
    Mr. Bevins: I am aware that reception in north Cornwall is not as good as it ought to be, but it is too early yet to give my hon. Friend a definite date when the B.B.C. will move. I will gladly bring my hon. Friend's point of view to its attention.

    Reception, Yorkshire
    Mr. A. Robertsasked the Postmaster-General what steps he proposes to take to improve the television and broadcasting reception over the whole of Yorkshire.
    Mr. Bevins: The B.B.C. has recently opened an experimental low-power television station at Sheffield and will increase the power later this year. It intends to provide a V.H.F. sound station at Sheffield and a television station at Scarborough. The I.T.A. has it in mind to plan for additional stations but I do not yet know its detailed plans.
    Mr. Roberts: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask whether he appreciates that programmes received in that region are received in a very lukewarm way and that we feel that as a province we are being neglected? Will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that a county extending from the North Sea to within nine miles of the Irish Sea deserves far mire consideration than it is having from the British Broadcasting Corporation?
    Mr. Bevins: I have a great affection for Yorkshire and I should like the
    1630
    British Broadcasting Corporation and the Independent Television Authority to do all they can to help viewers in that county. I am satisfied that both authorities are doing all they possibly can.
    Mr. Darling: Did I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that this low-power station is in operation in Sheffield? I can assure him that my constituents' reception has not improved yet.
    Mr. Bevins: I said that the B.B.C. has recently opened an experimental low-power station which needs higher power. It will get higher power this year.

    Television Broadcasts (Influence on Children)
    Mr. Mayhewasked the Postmaster-General (1) if he will take steps to encourage research into the impact of television broadcasts on children;
    (2) what is the nature of the communications he has received from the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Independent Television Authority relating to the report of their joint committee on the impact of television on children; and if he will appoint to the Independent Television Authority persons specially qualified to ensure a high standard of television broadcasts seen by children.
    Mr. Bevins: I welcome some intelligent research on the influence of television on children, but I do not think it is for me to direct either the B.B.C. or the I.T.A. to undertake it.
    I have received no communication from either the B.B.C. or the I.T.A. on the O'Conor Report, though, of course, I have read their observations upon it.
    The I.T.A. already has a children's Advisory Committee.
    Mr. Mayhew: Is the Postmaster-General aware that we have as yet no real means of knowing to what extent children can be harmed by the kind of television programmes criticised by this committee? Should not a lot more research be done on this? Meantime, is it wise to brush aside the strong recommendations of this committee for precautions?
    Mr. Bevins: I realise that there are differing views in different parts of the House on this question, but the view of the British Broadcasting Corporation and of the Independent Television Authority is that they do not believe that the needs of children should be allowed to determine the content of programmes during peak viewing hours. I am bound to say that I personally am in agreement with that view. They also point out that this is largely, though not wholly, a matter of parental control of children in the home. I think it is dreadfully easy to exaggerate the supposedly evil effects of television on children. I myself think that children are very much more intelligent and much wiser than some of us give them credit for. As for research, a good deal of research is going on, and the Granada Organisation is sponsoring research at two provincial universities at the present time.
    Mr. John Hall: Will not my right hon. Friend agree that there has been an increasing tendency both in the legitimate theatre and in the cinema to dwell on subjects which have sexual sadism as their theme? Is not this creeping into television entertainment as well? Has he not some responsibility for this? It is not only a question of the effect on children but the effect on viewers as a whole.
    Mr. Bevins: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend—
    Mrs. Slater: Then what is the right hon. Gentleman doing about it?
    Mr. Bevins:—that there has been a tendency in that direction in the cinema and the theatre in recent years, but I do not believe that it has been so extensive on the television—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—as my hon. Friend would indicate. But I am perfectly prepared at any time when any Member of this House wishes to complain about any programme which features what my hon. Friend referred to as sadism and sex to make representations to either of the broadcasting authorities.
    Mrs. Slater: The right hon. Gentleman may leave it too late.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: If the right hon. Gentleman is going to carry out his promise he will have a full-time job of
    1632
    complaining both to the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. Is he not satisfied now that the needs of the advertisers are determining the contents of the programmes and that that really has led to this degradation?
    Mr. Bevins: I think that that is a very unfair allegation to make against the Independent Television Authority. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"] It is very easy to make loose accusations of this sort, but I am bound to say that my contacts with the Independent Television Authority have convinced me that it is a responsible body trying conscientiously to do a decent job of work.
    Mr. Driberg: Has the right hon. Gentleman read both last week's report and the Nuffield Report which led to it, and, if so, in view of the evident differences of opinion to which he has referred, why does he not positively encourage the research which is demanded in that report?
    Mr. Bevins: Because it is not my function to encourage research. That is the job of the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Independent Television Authority, and I am quite convinced that both authorities are responsible bodies which will give due and sufficient weight to those recommendations as they ought.
    Several Hon. Members—
    Mr. Speaker: We cannot debate this at Question Time

  TELEPHONE SERVICE

    Charges (Larne-Belfast Calls)
    Mr. H. Clarkasked the Postmaster-General what is the charge for a three-minute telephone call from Larne to Belfast; and if he will reduce this: charge.
    Mr. Bevins: The present charge is 1s. 0d. throughout the 24 hours. As from 1st September next, and in accordance with the tariff changes I announced on the 6th July, this charge will be reduced to 9d. for calls made between 6 p.m. and 6 a.m. and on Sundays.
    Mr. Clark: While thanking my right hon. Friend for the slight reduction which he is offering, may I ask him whether he will consider reducing the charge of the calls from Larne to Belfast

    1633
    to the ordinary 3d. tariff charge? There is a number of places very much further from Belfast than Larne where one can make the ordinary 3d. call, and one can also make the 3d. call over greater distances elsewhere. The high charge of telephone calls is a definite disincentive to businesses opening up in Larne.
    Mr. Bevins: I will gladly look at this matter, but, as my hon. Friend knows, I should find it very difficult to meet his point of view without departing from the basis of charging, which applies in Northern Ireland and in the United Kingdom, on a group basis.

    Timed Telephone Calls
    Mr. Liptonasked the Postmaster-General to what extent the system of timed local calls in Bristol and elsewhere has been successful; and what additional revenue has accrued thereby.
    Mr. Bevins: I believe that the public are well satisfied with the system. They are making more calls. About three-q carters are costing only 2d. instead of 3d. as previously. Local call revenue has so far remained about the same.
    Mr. Lipton: Is the Minister aware that this system is found by many people to be a rather burdensome imposition, especially when they telephone large organisations, hospitals and so on, and they are kept waiting on the line until the right person is found to produce the required information? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some hospitals ask callers to leave their telephone number and then telephone back, so that the Postmaster-General gets paid for two calls?
    Mr. Bevins: I should like to think about the point concerning cost to hospitals. On the general question, however, I think that the House would agree that it is wholly a good thing that people who are prepared to make short telephone conversations should get them more cheaply.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE

    Canteen, Nicosia (Complaint)
    Mr. Doddsasked the Secretary of Slate for Air what action he proposes to take in respect of the complaint of bad food and the conditions in the Royal
    1634
    Air Force canteen in Nicosia, details of which have been sent to him by the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. W. J. Taylor): The building in question is a temporary one which we hope to give up early next year. It is not ideal, but I cannot agree that the food or the conditions are bad. I am writing to the hon. Member about the detailed complaints in his letter.
    Mr. Dodds: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for part of what he said about building, may I ask whether he can say why Service men in Cyprus continue to be served week after week with dehydrated potatoes that are most unpalatable?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a matter trespassing on the next Question.
    Mr. Dodds: On a point of order. I am discussing Question No. 23—
    Mr. Speaker: I hope that I was not wrong in thinking that what the hon. Member appeared to be asking seemed to be trespassing on the next Question. I did not have much time to think about it, but if it is so, his supplementary question is out of order.
    Mr. Dodds: I should like to put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that in my letter to the Secretary of State for Air I particularly complained about the serving up of powdered "Pom" week after week.
    Mr. Speaker: However delightful is the phraseology in the hon. Member's letter, his supplementary question is out of order because it anticipates the next Question.
    Mr. Dodds: On a point of order. I am asking about food. If it is necessary in future that I stipulate all the items that I want to raise on the Order Paper may I take that I shall be permitted to do so? As I have said, I am talking about food and, believe it or not, Mr. Speaker, powdered "Pom" is looked upon as food.
    Mr. Speaker: I cannot adapt the rules of the House to each individual Member. Mr. Gresham Cooke.

    Potato Powder
    Mr. Gresham Cookeasked the Secretary of State for Air why National

    1635
    Service men in the Royal Air Force are still fed on reconstituted potato powder instead of natural potatoes.
    Mr. W. J. Taylor: Potato powder is included in our emergency reserve stocks. Its storage life is limited, and in order to turn it over we issue it occasionally to all ranks—usually twice a month.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: Is my hon. Friend aware that my constituents—I do not know about those in Erith and Crayford—are very fed up with this constant issue of reconstituted "Pom"? Will he give a categorical assurance that the R.A.F. is not using up war-time stocks of
    "Pom"?
    Mr. Taylor: The warranty for the life of this product is for two to three years. Therefore, I think that I can say categorically that we are not using up war-time stocks.
    Mrs. Slater: Why give it to the men?
    Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) made a distinction between National Service men and others. I can assure him that there is no such distinction.
    Mr. Dodds: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why in Cyprus week after week the men are getting powdered "Pom" which is most unpalatable? Is he aware that from both sides of the House yesterday there were bitter complaints about the dumping of potatoes from overseas into this country? Why cannot we divert them to Cyprus? I beg the hon. Gentleman to understand the revulsion felt by troops in Cyprus. Will he speak to the Chairman of the Kitchen Committee and ask him to arrange for some of this powdered "Pom" to be served for several weeks in the Members' Dining Room?
    Mr. Taylor: I can only say that the menus and messing generally in the R.A.F. are very satisfactory. I commend all hon. Members in all parts of the House to visit R.A.F. stations to see what is being served. As for Cyprus, in twenty-six days in June there was a choice for the midday meal between hot and cold dishes. "Pom" is used on two days only a month, as I said in my original reply.
    Mr. de Freitas: Is this entirely an Air Force matter or do the "Pommies" get powdered "Pom" too?
    Mr. Taylor: We get the "Pommies" from the War Office.

    Brize Norton Air Base (Security Measures)
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Secretary of State for Air, in view of the demonstration outside the Brize Norton air base on 16th July, what requests he has received from the United States Air Force authorities for additional security measures there.
    Mr. W. J. Taylor: None, Sir.
    Mr. Allaun: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the American authorities are taking the law into their own hands, notably by photographing and cataloguing the faces of each of the hundred marchers, who were committing no offence? Does the hon. Gentleman approve of that and, if not, will he ask the American authorities to destroy the film, as certain British chief constables have been induced to do in similar circumstances?
    Mr. Taylor: There is nothing in the Question about photographs. I must look into that, but the question of security generally at R.A.F. stations used by the Americans in this country is a matter for the American Air Force authorities.

    Free Church Chaplain, Lindholme
    Mr. Fernyhoughasked the Secretary of State for Air if he will make a statement about the dismissal of the Reverend William Raine, who was until recently Free Church chaplain at Lindholme Royal Air Force Station.
    Mr. W. J. Taylor: Mr. Raine courteously told our Principal Free Church Chaplain last month of his intention to take part in a march of protest against nuclear weapons. In the course of very friendly correspondence and discussion he accepted the view that this did not fit in well with his official ministry at R.A.F., Lindholme, and he therefore agreed to resign. We are most grateful for the services he has given.
    Mr. Fernyhough: Does this mean that henceforth only those padres who speak the Gospel according to the Establishment will be acceptable? Can the hon. Gentleman say whether any member of the Service who might hold views similar to those of this padre will also be dealt with in the same way? Quite a number would like to feel that this was a way of relieving themselves of their obligations. Does the hon. Gentleman mean that henceforth the Minister will write the sermons to ensure that they are according to what the Establishment would like?
    Mr. Taylor: It means simply that we can hardly have as a chaplain on a bomber station of the R.A.F. someone who publicly advocates the view that Bomber Command's main task is morally wrong. The incompatibility appears to me obvious, and I gather that Mr. Raine is of the same opinion.

    Jet Aircraft, Seaton Carew (Night Flying)
    Commander Keransasked the Secretary of State for Air what night flying by jet aircraft has taken place in the Seaton Carew area of West Hartlepool in recent weeks.
    Mr. W. J. Taylor: Fighter aircraft from R.A.F, Middleton-St.-George have carried out night flying as part of their normal training programme. Aircraft approaching to land under ground control necessarily pass close to Seaton Carew.
    Commander Kerans: Can my hon. Friend say at what height these aircraft cross the coast and what instructions are given to pilots to avoid residential and built-up areas?
    Mr. Taylor: Aircraft landing under ground control approach conditions pass close to Seaton Carew at heights varying between 2,500 and 7,500 feet dependent upon conditions.

    TSR2 Aircraft
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he has been authorised to go ahead with the production of the TSR2 aircraft, or if he proposes to accept the NA39 aircraft in stead.
    Mr. W. J. Taylor: As the hon. Member was told on 13th July, there has been no change in the status of this aircraft. Development is proceeding as planned, but the stage has not yet been reached at which a production order is needed. On the second part of the Question, my right hon. Friend explained on 28th January, 1959, in answer to supplementary questions, the reasons why we were developing a new aircraft rather than adapting the NA39.
    Mr. Rankin: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this matter has been going on for a very long time and speculation is rife about the Government's real intentions? Can the hon. Gentleman say when some clear decision will be taken? If a decision is taken that the TSR2 will go into production for the R.A.F., can he say what may happen to the NA39?
    Mr. Taylor: The hon. Member and the House know that the NA39 is a fully developed aircraft now and is in production. When the matter of the TSR2 was being examined we looked at the possibility of having a stretched version of the NA39 instead of ordering an entirely new aircraft to meet the new operational requirements. The question of time-scale also arose. There has been no significant change in any of the operational factors which led the Government to the decision to proceed with the TSR2.
    Mr. Wall: Is it not a fact that the Canberra is already obsolete for low-level flying and that the NA39 adapted to ground take-off could be in service in at least half the time that it would take to produce a new aircraft?
    Mr. Taylor: The Canberra will remain effective for a number of years. To replace it we need an aircraft with a greatly improved performance capable of penetrating strong defences during a long operational life. Developing it should not take much longer than adapting the NA39 to overland operations in all weathers. To develop a new aircraft will be more economical, because the aircraft will last longer.

    United States Aircraft (Bases, United Kingdom)
    Mr. de Freitasasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will

    1639
    now state the conditions under which United States aircraft operate from Royal Air Force airfields.
    Mr. W. J. Taylor: I can add nothing to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already said about consultations on the use of bases in this country by United States military aircraft.
    Mr. de Freitas: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that two weeks ago the Prime Minister said that he would consult the President of the United States? Is it true, as reported in the Press today, that the consultations began only yesterday?
    Mr. Taylor: I have not seen the report in the Press to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I repeat that consultations have commenced and are going on. I believe that the hon. Gentleman has tabled a Question to the Prime Minister tomorrow, and it is not my intention to anticipate that.

    R.A.F. Station, Finningley (Incident)
    Mr. de Freitasasked the Secretary of State for Air in what circumstances an American schoolmaster was recently removed by force from the married quarters attached to the Royal Air Force Station, Finningley.
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Secretary of State for Air why William Fitzgibbon was dragged along the ground by Royal Air Force police at Finningley on 24th July; why he and Ronald Taylor were photographed by Royal Air Force police; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. W. J. Taylor: Mr. Fitzgibbon and Mr. Taylor, together with several others, entered Air Ministry property at Finningley on Sunday last with the declared intention of preparing the way for a demonstration to take place next week-end. They were asked to leave, but Mr. Fitzgibbon persisted in refusing to do so. After ample warning he was removed by R.A.F. police as a trespasser. No unnecessary force was used. Two photographs were taken before any incident occurred, simply as a precaution in case anything serious developed which might need further investigation.
    Mr. de Freitas: Since tradesmen and political parties are allowed to deliver literature to these married quarters, is it not very stupid of the Royal Air Force to go out of its way to make a martyr of this man?
    Mr. Taylor: This was not normal commercial or political canvassing. It was action following up a threat of demonstrations of a type which have in the past taken the form of serious interference with work at Royal Air Force stations. The station commander felt bound to try to make the position clear before matters could possibly get out of hand.
    Mr. Allaun: But is it not seriously wrong that a man offering no violent resistance should be dragged by his feet along rough asphalt, during which process his shirt slipped over his shoulders so that his back was cut, requiring hospital treatment? Even if his removal were justified—which I question—why could he not have been carried?
    Mr. Taylor: He was being carried but he wriggled.

  ROADS

    A.30 Road
    Mr. Denzil Freethasked the Minister of Transport what plans he has for improving A.30 between Basingstoke golf course and the junction with A.33, such as by making the road a dual carriageway.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay): We are planning to provide dual carriageways but this will not be possible for some time yet, except on a short section near Dummer where we hope to authorise the work within the next two or three years. Meanwhile the existing carriageway is being realigned and widened.
    Mr. Freeth: While I thank my hon. Friend for that hope for the next two or three years, may I ask him to say why it was not possible, when the present alterations were being carried out, to make the relevant section into a dual carriageway at the same time?
    Mr. Hay: It is not quite as easy as my hon. Friend thinks. Consideration was certainly given to that, but I am afraid that it was not practicable at that time.

    Andover By-pass
    Mr. Denzil Freethasked the Minister of Transport 'when he hopes to begin and to complete the Andover by-pass.
    Mr. Hay: Preparatory work on this scheme is still at an early stage and it is too soon yet to say when it will be possible to start construction. Thereafter the work should take between eighteen months and two years to complete.
    Mr. Freeth: Is my hon. Friend aware that his Ministry asked the county council to have contract drawings ready for a by-pass to be finished in December, 1961, and that plans for the purpose of acquiring the land were submitted to his Ministry on 11th March this year? Would it not be a good thing to press on with this? Why is there delay?
    Mr. Hay: The position is not quite as my hon. Friend says. I understand that recommendations from the county council about the proposed route have only just reached our divisional road engineer. They will be submitted to our headquarters. If they are satisfactory, we can publish a draft order, so showing the effect of the proposed route on side roads as quickly as we can.

    Witham and Kelvedon By-passes
    Mr. B. Harrisonasked the Minister of Transport when he will be able to announce details of the line of the Witham and the Kelvedon by-passes.
    Mr. J. Hay: The lines of the Kelvedon and Witham By-passes were established by Orders made in 1939 and 1958 respectively. A draft Order to provide for a short extension of Witham By-pass was published on 17th June last.
    Mr. Harrison: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, but when will something be done about building the road?
    Mr. Hay: That was not the question I was originally asked. I was asked when I would be able to announce details of the line. We have had one of the lines since 1939.
    Mr. John Hall: Can my hon. Friend say whether the delay in starting these by-passes, the Andover By-pass and, even more important, the High Wycombe By-pass, is due to the fact that the cost of existing schemes has proved so much greater than the estimates that there is no money left to start new schemes?
    Mr. Hay: No, it is not. So many people want to do so much work in so short a time that we have not the money to do all of it at once.
    Mr. Benn: In view of the fact that the authorisations this year are lower than in previous years and that we are told that there is to be a standstill in Government expenditure, is the programme likely to be delayed still further?
    Mr. Hay: I expect that the hon. Member will wish to elaborate that point in the debate which we are to have tomorrow.

  RAILWAYS

    British Railways (Regions)
    Mr. Hollandasked the Minister of Transport when he expects to take the necessary steps to give a greater degree of independence to the regions of British Railways.
    The Minister of Transport (Mr. Ernest Marples): I am not yet in a position to make a statement on this subject.
    Mr. Holland: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that many of the older railwaymen who form the hard core of the service still think with pride of, for example, a region's safety record or good timekeeping record? Does he not think that we should do what we can to bring about a revival of this pride throughout the service by enabling regions to have a greater degree of independence?
    Mr. Marples: A special advisory group is taking evidence from all classes of people, and I am sure that it will bear this in mind before it makes its recommendations in this respect.
    Mr. Benn: As a Select Committee of the House has made a very thorough investigation of the railways and has presented a Report on the matter, will

    1643
    the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that no action will be taken following the Stedeford Committee's recommendations until the House has had an opportunity to debate his own proposals in a White Paper that we can put side by side with the Select Committee's Report?
    Mr. Marples: Decentralisation or any alteration of the areas would require legislation, and so discussions would be automatic.

  SHIPBUILDING

    Nuclear Propulsion
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Minister of Transport whether, in addition to his plans for nuclear tankers of 65,000 tons, he will consider inviting tenders for smaller nuclear ships, with particular reference to ships in the fishing industry, including factory ships and trawlers.
    Mr. Marples: It is too early to consider this step for any but large ships.
    Mr. Hughes: If there are any scientfiic objections to the application of nuclear energy to small ships and fishing trawlers, which represent one of Britain's major industries, will the right hon. Gentleman specify what they are? Does he agree that it is wrong to discriminate against the fishing industry in this way, and will he give his whole attention to this very important suggestion?
    Mr. Marples: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for his important suggestion. I am bound to say that if nuclear power is to be applied successfully to merchant ships, it must be competitive in order to survive. Therefore, in the early stages, technically it will be necessary to apply it to large ships, and we will see what happens after that.
    Mr. Wallasked the Minister of Transport how soon after the closing date for the receipt of tenders for nuclear reactors he expects to place an order for a nuclear-propelled merchant ship; and to what degree the Royal Navy will assist in her development.
    Mr. Marples: The Government will not be in a position to decide whether a nuclear-powered merchant ship should be
    1644
    built until the tenders have been assessed. This will be a highly complex task, and is bound to take several months.
    As regards the second part of the Question, my Department is working in close touch with the Admiralty.
    Mr. Wall: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the anxiety felt about the time the Galbraith Committee took to discuss the question? Also, did it not report some nine months ago? Will my right hon. Friend undertake to give his personal attention to this matter in order to try to get a nuclear-propelled merchant ship at sea as soon as possible?
    Mr. Marples: My hon. Friend's supplementary question seems to me a little inconsistent. The Galbraith Committee recommended precisely the course of action which the Government have taken in order to get competitive tenders. As soon as the tenders are received, they will be carefully examined in detail.
    Mr. Short: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this country is falling behind West Germany in respect of marine nuclear propulsion? Is not this one of the ways in which British shipbuilding could catch up again with our nuclear "know-how" applied to ship construction?
    Mr. Marples: That is exactly what we are trying to do. As soon as the tenders are received, which will be at the end of the month, they will be examined most carefully.

    Future
    Mr. Albuasked the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement on his discussions with the shipbuilding industry about its future.
    Mr. Marples: I have nothing to add to my Answer of 20th June to the hon. Member.
    Mr. Albu: While I recognise that many of the difficulties facing the shipbuilding industry are not of its own creation, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has seen some very serious criticisms made about the industry in a series of articles in Lloyd's List during March and April? Do not those articles require a serious reply or some action from him?
    Mr. Marples: I have not seen the articles but will look at them and write to the hon. Gentleman. A sub-committee is considering shipbuilding, and I understand that the D.S.I.R. will be co-opted to it at some stage of the discussion so that the scientific and research aspect will not be neglected.

  TRANSPORT

    Commercial Vehicles (Speed Limits)
    Mr. Mathewasked the Minister of Transport if he will now review the speed limit of 30 miles per hour still applicable to unladen light goods and pick-up type light vehicles.
    Mr. Wallasked the Minister of Transport if he will now consider raising the speed limit for cars towing light trailers.
    Mr. Hay: My right hon. Friend is not yet in a position to announce his decision or these and other applications for variation of the speed limits applicable to certain classes of commercial vehicles.
    Mr. Mathew: Does my hon. Friend really suggest that the difficulty that the police have when contemplating a prosecution in establishing whether a vehicles loaded or not at the time outweighs the widespread inconvenience, irritation and nuisance of this rule?
    Mr. Hay: The matter was gone into very carefully last year. I have recently been looking into it myself. The position is by no means as simple as my hon. Friend suggests. One of the main difficulties we had was that, with regard to goods vehicles in particular, the representatives of the trade union movement were very much against any change. On a matter of this kind we have to move with general agreement if we can get it, and that is what we are sec king.
    Mr. Wall: Is my hon. Friend aware that the previous Minister of Transport a year ago gave an indication that he would consider this favourably, and that it has taken a year to say that nothing has happened? Can we be doing something, particularly with regard to light trailers?
    Mr. Hay: The light trailer situation is a little different from the one dealt within the last Question. It is not easy to discriminate between various types of trailers drawn by private cars—ranging from small trailers carrying, perhaps, a dinghy up to the very large caravans. We are watching the whole position to see whether there is anything we can do about it.

SOUTHERN RHODESIA (BRITISH SUBJECTS AND BRITISH-PROTECTED PERSONS)
Mr. Callaghan(by Private Notice) asked the Minister of State for Commonwealth Relations what action he is taking to ensure the safety of British subjects and British-protected subjects in Southern Rhodesia.
The Minister of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. C. J. M. Alport): Responsibility for ensuring the safety of British subjects and British-protected persons in Southern Rhodesia is the responsibility of the Government of Southern Rhodesia.
As I said in the debate earlier today, I am sure that the Government of Southern Rhodesia will have the support of all responsible people in the task of bringing about an end of violence and the restoration of normal peaceful conditions.
Mr. Callaghan: Is it not becoming increasingly clear that the Southern Rhodesian Government do not have the support of many of their own people in maintaining law and order? Does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that he, too, has a responsibility in this matter? Can he confirm that after forty years of self-government there are still no African members of the Legislature and that hardly any Africans have a vote? Will he represent, through the High Commissioner, to the Government of Southern Rhodesia that their action in arresting reasonable Africans who are demanding elementary political rights is provocative, is stirring up trouble, and is not calculated to stop it?
Mr. Alport: That supplementary question goes far beyond the terms of the hon. Member's original Question. But this might be an opportunity of reminding him, as he was not present during

1647
the debate earlier today, that the franchise upon which the present Government of Southern Rhodesia are elected is a franchise which was brought in during the Premiership of Mr. Garfield Todd, and was supported by the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues as being an example of the most liberal form of franchise in contradistinction to the federal form of franchise.
Mr. Callaghan: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that history flows on, and that what may have been appropriate five or six years ago in the context of Africa at that time is not appropriate today? Will he please note that he still has a responsibility for the Colony of Southern Rhodesia, and that, therefore, it is for him and for Her Majesty's Government to make clear to the Government of Southern Rhodesia whether they believe that the policy which is being followed there is likely to promote law and order, or is likely to discourage it?
Will he also take note that many hon. Members on this side of the House as well as this—for I have read the debate today, even though I was not here—[HON. MEMBERS: "How?"] Hon. Members opposite do not realise that there is a typed copy of the debate in the Library of the House. They might care to consult it. I have read every word of the speech made by the hon. Gentleman, and it is quite clear that he still does not understand, or, at any rate, is not prepared to stand up to his responsibilities in this matter by telling the Southern Rhodesian Government that they are responsible for provoking these breaches of law and order if they arrest peaceably-minded Africans who are doing no more than asking for their elementary civil rights.
Mr. Alport: If the hon. Gentleman has studied the report of the debate which we had earlier today he will know that, at some length, I dealt with the limitations of the responsibilities of the United Kingdom in Southern Rhodesia in accordance with the decision of the United Kingdom Parliament at the time of the passing of the Act providing for Southern Rhodesia's Constitution. It is true that time flows on and that clocks cannot be turned back, but when the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are
1648
pressing us sometimes about Southern Rhodesia, that is a point that they should bear in mind.
Mr. Grimond: While it may be true that the Government's responsibilities in Southern Rhodesia are limited, the Minister has expressed, on behalf of the House, the hope that the Southern Rhodesian Government will be able rapidly to restore order, and we all agree. But if Her Majesty's Government are to express that hope, would it not be proper to make it clear that the majority of this House believes that constitutional progress in Southern Rhodesia would make the restoration of order a great deal easier?
Mr. Alport: The question of constitutional discussions was also included in our debate today, and reference has been made to it on previous occasions. I cannot go further than I went earlier today. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would care to study the report of the debate and then, in due course, we could carry the matter further.

MALTA (CONSTITUTION)
The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Iain Macleod): As I have repeatedly made clear, Her Majesty's Government are anxious to restore representative government in Malta. During the fifteen months that the present Constitution has been in operation, important progress has been made in diversifying the economy, but it was never intended that this Constitution should remain in force any longer than was necessary. Her Majesty's Government have decided that the time has now come to work out a new Constitution under which elections may be held as soon as it has been introduced.
Last December, I myself visited Malta, and during his recent visit my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State has had valuable informal consultations with the representatives of a wide range of Maltese opinion and many professional associations and interests on how to restore representative government while, at the same time, not abandoning our responsibilities to the people of Malta
Her Majesty's Government have come to the conclusion that the quickest and

1649
most satisfactory way of moving to early elections lies in the appointment of a small constitutional Commission, including a member from another Commonwealth country, whose task will be to formulate detailed constitutional proposals, after due consultation with representatives of the Maltese people and local interests. The method of consultation will be for the Corn-mission itself to decide.
The Commission will have to take account of Her Majesty's Government's intention that the Maltese people should be given the widest measure of self-government consistent with Her Majesty's Government's responsibility for defence and foreign affairs and their undertakings in respect of the public service, the police and human rights generally. Within this framework, the Commission will be free to make such recommendations as it sees fit.
I am glad to be able to announce that Sit Hilary Blood has accepted appointment as Chairman of the Commission, and that Sir Alfred Roberts has agreed to serve as a member. As I have said, I also hope to add a member from another Commonwealth country.
The Commission will go out to Malta as soon as possible. When its report has been received Her Majesty's Government intend that elections shall be held on the basis of a new Constitution, in the drawing up of which the people of Malta, the Commission and the United Kingdom Government will all have played their part.
Mr. Callaghan: We all welcome the attempt by the Colonial Secretary to break the deadlock in Malta, but may I ask him two questions? First, why is it that the directive which is being given to the Commission is so much narrower than that given in respect of the island of Singapore, when, although the Government reserved defence matters, they did not reserve to themselves foreign affairs, the maintenance of law and order, the public services, or human rights generally? Can the Colonial Secretary tell us why he feels it necessary, in the case of an island similar to Singapore, to keep this close control?
Secondly, what reply is he to make to the first question which he is bound to
1650
be asked—on the attitude of Her Majesty's Government towards the demand of a large section of the Maltese people for what is called self-determination, that is, the right to determine their own future, whether they stay in or go out of the Commonwealth?
Mr. Macleod: In a sense, the two questions are one. The Round Table Conference, as the hon. Gentleman knows very well, came to the conclusion that the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government in relation to defence and foreign affairs should broadly follow the lines of my statement today. With respect, I do not think that anything has changed from that. There is a difference with the other pledges. The reason is that my predecessor gave pledges in relation to individual members of the police and public service, in view of what had happened in Malta and the personal threats which had been made about them. I intend to fulfil those pledges to the full.
On Malta's long-term future, I should make it clear that what I am suggesting is what I believe to be the quickest way forward. Frankly, I believe that it is a better way than having conferences, in view of the history of conferences about Malta over the last few years. I believe that the quickest way forward is the step now in contemplation. I should make it clear that I am not saying "never" and not saying "always" in relation to what I may call the far future. I believe that this is the right step to take now in this stage in Malta's development.
Mr. Callaghan: While we recognise that the Government have at least learned that it is no good using the word "never," does the Colonial Secretary also appreciate that the people of Malta will want to have some idea of the proposed ultimate goal of this very limited form of self-government which he intends to ask the Commission to propose? Will he carefully consider, before the Commission starts work, making clear Her Majesty's Government's view about the issue of self-determination? I do not wish to prophesy gloom, but I believe that if he does not do so, he will never hold the elections which he wants and which we all want so that there shall be constitutional progress.
Mr. Macleod: I do not share the hon. Gentleman's view of the future for Malta. My statement is quite clear and speaks of
"the widest measure of self-government consistent with Her Majesty's Government's responsibility for defence and foreign affairs…"
As I have pointed out, that is precisely in line with the earlier recommendations of the Round Table Conference.
I have carefully considered how the people of Malta can be consulted. It could be done by having a conference, but I have rejected that for the reason that at the last conference which we had for Malta it was impossible even to get the political parties into the same room, and I think that the position might be the same today. Therefore, I have left that out. I do not wish, and I do not think that anybody in the House wants me to, to impose a constitution. I have given much thought to the possibility of convening a national assembly, which has happened twice in the history of Malta since the First World War, but that seemed to me to be an entirely unwieldy body.
Therefore, I decided on a Commission of three with someone like Sir Hilary Blood, who has, perhaps, more experience than anyone else in the country of this sort of work, and a well-known statesman of world rank in trade union affairs, like Sir Alfred Roberts, and a third member coming from another Commonwealth country, who, I think, will be an important addition to the strength. Having such a body in Malta talking to the Maltese people is the best way to consult them about their future.
Mr. Wall: While I welcome the proposal, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he can tell the House when he expects to receive the report of the Commission, so that a general election may take place in Malta?
Mr. Macleod: I cannot tie the Commission to particular times, but I expect to have its report at, say, the end of the year, and that elections will then be held in the first half of 1961.
Mr. J. Griffiths: I welcome the new initiative in Malta and note the Secretary of State's reference to the Round Table Conference, on which it was my privilege to serve with several of my
1652
colleagues. While taking the view about the limitations on the form of defence, and so on, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, and recognising the Maltese people's desire to have a form of political independence which had some reality, we were driven to the conclusion, agreed by a large majority, that the one way of satisfying both military responsibilities and the desires of the Maltese people for real independence was by a proposal for what we called integration.
Are we now to understand that, if the Commission concludes that the desire of the Maltese people for independence is to be satisfied beyond mere self-government, any further consideration of integration will be rejected and that the only alternative will be that some day Malta will become completely independent?
In considering the Constitution, are we to understand that the Commission will at least begin with the assumption that there will be adult suffrage?
Mr. Macleod: I was not a member of the Round Table Conference and I know only what I have read about it. Integration is not what might be called above the surface in Maltese political thought. I always thought that it was an imaginative idea and what I have said in no way rules out the Commission's consideration of the concept of integration, if it so wishes. Questions of suffrage are for the Commission, but I have no doubt that it will follow the long-established traditional practice of Malta in this matter.
Sir P. Agnew: While I believe that within the terms of reference which my right hon. Friend has announced there is ample provision for a wide restoration of self-government in Malta, can he say whether he envisages that the Commission, while it will regulate its own procedure, of course, will visit Malta to take evidence?
Mr. Macleod: Yes, certainly it will and, I would have thought, more than once.
Mr. Driberg: When the right hon. Gentleman talks about "the widest measure of self-government" consistent with this, that and the other, especially defence—which somewhat recalls what was being said about Cyprus six years ago—and when he also talks about human rights, does he accept explicitly

1653
that one of those human rights is self-determination and does he accept the proposition that self-determination is applicable to the Maltese people?
Mr. Macleod: I made that position clear earlier. There is a verse in a hymn which says:
"…I do not ask to see The distant scene; one step enough for me."
I am announcing this step and I am making no reservations or prophecies about the future after that.
Mr. Brockway: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that after the failure of integration it is quite clear that the mass of the majority of the people in Malta, as expressed in the Labour Party, which was the Government of Malta, will now be satisfied with nothing less than independence, and that unless the terms of the Commission are such that they include a consideration of independence, it will be very unlikely that that party will give evidence to the Commission?
Mr. Macleod: There is more than one opinion in Malta, and if the hon. Member has followed Maltese politics lately he will conclude that there is more than one opinion even inside the Maltese Labour Party.

HOUSE OF COMMONS PAPERS
Mr. Speaker: I have an announcement to make to the House. The House will recall proposals that we should improve our Papers dealing with the daily business of the House. We have prepared a new set of Papers which we have been able to submit to the Select Committee on Publications and Debates Reports for its consideration and report to me. I should like to express my gratitude on behalf of the House and on my own behalf to the Committee for the great help it has given to me.
I have adopted, with some trifling modifications, all the Committee's suggestions. I will not detain the House now by attempting to describe the new Papers. They will be available to the House in their new form from the beginning of the new Session, expected to be on 1st November next, and I hope that hon. Members will find them to be an acceptable improvement on what we have now.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  CARAVAN SITES AND CONTROL OF DEVELOPMENT BILL
  Order read for consideration of Lords Amendments.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Lords Amendments be now considered. [Mr. H. Brooke.]
  3.51 p.m.
  Mr. Ede: I rise to oppose the Motion which has been moved by the Minister of Housing and Local Government. The way in which we are being asked to deal with constitutional processes this afternoon is reducing the relationship between the two Houses—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members please be a little quieter as they leave the Chamber.
  Mr. Ede: As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, the way in which we are being asked to deal with constitutional processes this afternoon is reducing the relationship between the two Houses to something which involves us in proceedings here which can have no effect if we wish to express our opinion as a House. We are to be asked today to consider Lords Amendments to four Bills. A similar protest could be made on each of the Motions, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered", but I am an old enough Member of the House to realise that that would not greatly advance the case that I am putting now.
  I raise the matter, therefore, mainly as a question of principle, whether, on the last day but two of the regular sittings of the House before an Adjournment for three months, it is right to bring before us four sets of Lords Amendments to Government Bills, and to have on the Order Paper, also the question of consideration of Lords Amendments to three Private Members' Bills in which, although the Government have not formally adopted and starred them on the Order Paper, I understand they have some interest, and have been helpful, at any rate, to the hon. Members promoting the Bills during their progress through the House.
  When the Motion is accepted, as I have no doubt it will be because of the

  1655
  Government's majority and in spite of what the arguments against it may be, we shall then proceed to consider the Lords Amendments to each of these Bills. Presumably, we are still a free enough House to be able, if a majority suddenly bursts all the shackles that have bound us during the past Session, to decide that we will reject one of the Lords Amendments, and, when the Question is put, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment" to vote it down. In addition, we might even, although I am sure that the Treasury Bench would regard that as an extreme example of recklessness, amend one of the Lords Amendments.
  On the last Government Bill which we are to consider I have been reckless enough to put down an Amendment. I do not intend to enter into the merits of it now. During the early hours of tomorrow morning I might get an opportunity of doing that, but I should like to read to the House a paragraph from a letter which has been written to me by the Minister, who, I understand, will be in charge of that Bill. It says:
  "We shall be somewhat embarrassed by the time factor, as I think you will understand."
  Ministers always put it in that patronising way, as if one has just about enough intelligence to realise what they say although one may not have sufficient intelligence to be able adequately to reply to it.
  If we either reject or amend one of these Lords Amendments, the procedure then is that a committee is appointed, consisting of hon. Members of both sides of the House. They meet in a little room behind your Chair, Mr. Speaker, and assign a reason for taking this view of the efforts of another place. Negotiations then go on, and an effort is made to reach some accommodation which will enable the Bill to be passed.
  I am sure that any Minister who replies to me will say that the Patronage Secretary will be able to assure him that it does not matter; this will all go through because we have decided what we are going to do on the Lords Amendments. That will happen, and, therefore, this is all theory.
  The power of the House to dissent from the views of another place, and to amend its views, is part of the heritage we have, and we ought not to acquiesce in this
  1656
  kind of procedure on the last working day of the Session for this purpose because of the agenda before us. There was a week at Christmas which might have been devoted to the business of the House. That might have enabled some of these Measures to be brought before us at an earlier date, even with Lords Amendments.
  It is quite evident that the Government have made up their mind, and I am not going to be so foolish as to suggest that we should come back on Monday to deal with the matter. I have an engagement at Epsom Downs on Monday which I intend to fulfil, and I have no doubt that other hon. Members will also be seeking rest and refreshment in less salubrious places.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: More salubrious places.
  Mr. Ede: They might possibly be more profitable, but not more salubrious. Hon. Members have made their arrangements for next Monday, and, therefore, I protest, and I hope that I protest on behalf of all the right hon. and hon. Members on this side of the House, as well as on behalf of any hon. Gentlemen opposite who still retain a slight respect for the British Constitution which, we understand, it is their special delight to preserve and admire, at this way of treating the House of Commons.
  I suggest that the Patronage Secretary should endeavour to give us an assurance about future Sessions while he retains that position. Of course, we do not know whether he, also, is to be moved or transferred, or given a governorship like our former right hon. Friend, Mr. Buchan-Hepburn. I notice that the right hon. Gentleman is indicating that he is not being moved, and I thank him for that assurance. We know that too frequent a change of Chief Whip makes the work of members of the Opposition somewhat hard.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. This is extremely agreeable, but it is a long way from the Question, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered".
  Mr. Ede: I hope that the Chief Whip will be able, in future Sessions, to arrange that on the last working day of the Session for this purpose we are not

  1657
  confronted with four, or possibly seven, sets of Lords Amendments to consider. It would not make for the smooth and agreeable working of the House if such a situation arose, because he could not expect on a future occasion that one would merely be content with making a protest against the procedure.
  4.0 p.m.
  The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Mr. Henry Brooke): At all costs we must enable the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) to get to Epsom Downs on Monday. I hope that we shall also use our best endeavours to enable him to move his Amendment to the Betting and Gaming Bill today and not tomorrow, so to speak.
  I agree that it would be undemocratic if we were to assume in advance that everything will go smoothly and that there will be no contretemps and no difficulties during the day. The right hon. Gentleman realises that I am responsible for only the first of these Bills which, I am glad to say, has gone through to this stage with a degree of unanimity which I cannot remember with any similar Bill. As no Amendments have been put down to it by the Opposition, I trust that I shall not be thought by him to be rendering the business of the House more awkward and more impracticable.
  The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I do not arrange the business of the House. This business was announced last Thursday and, as far as I can recollect, no protest was made at that time. It has been made clear, too, that we do not seek to take tonight the Private Member's Bill and certain other Government Bills on the Order Paper; they will be held over until October.
  The right hon. Gentleman asked the Government to take into consideration what might happen in future Sessions, but I hope that he will forgive me for saying that we have first to finish this Session. This is not the last working day before the Recess, and certainly not the last working day of this Session. In view of the fact that until the right hon. Gentleman rose and exercised his democratic right there had not been any protest against these four Bills being put down for today, I hope that he will agree
  1658
  that we should seek to make such progress as we can with them.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

  CARAVAN SITES AND CONTROL OF DEVELOPMENT BILL
    Clause 1.—(PROHIBITION OF USE OF LAND AS CARAVAN SITE WITHOUT SITE LICENCE.)
    Lords Amendment made: In page 2, line 11, leave out "purpose" and insert "purposes".

    Clause 3.—(ISSUE OF SITE LICENCES BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES.)
    Lords Amendment: In line 32, leave out from "order" to end of line 35.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Sir Keith Joseph): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    It might also be convenient to discuss at the same time, three consequential Amendments, one in page 9 and the other two in page 10.
    These Amendments deal with short-term licences for caravan sites which have short-term planning permission. Up to now we have always taken the view, unanimously, that site licences should not be issued for only a limited period, but in our previous discussions we did not take into account the fact that there may be occasions, such as agricultural fairs, which involve only the licensing of a caravan site for a very limited period. It would be absurd to exclude them from a site licence, because we have rightly decided, in general, that for normal purposes a site licence shall have no limit.
    The Amendments provide that instead of excluding from the site licensing powers of the local authority under Clause 3 all caravan sites which have planning permission which will cease to exist within six months of the application for a site licence, that exclusion shall not appear in Clause 3 but shall be reproduced separately in a separate Clause which is to be moved as a new Clause. This will permit local authorities to grant a site licence where planning permission has been given for a temporary use for a caravan site, while

    1659
    leaving unaffected the last sentence of Clause 4 (1), which says that
    "a site licence shall not be issued for a limited period only".
    We reproduce the exclusion of a site licence for a site which has planning permission for less than six months in the new Clause, in respect of existing sites.
    Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: The Parliamentary Secretary has almost persuaded me that this Amendment is necessary, but I still have a marginal doubt about it. As he explained it, the argument for the Amendment is that a licence might be required for a purely temporary caravan site needing only a very short-term planning permission.
    It was my impression that we had covered all such cases as he visualised when we debated the Schedule in Committee and on Report. It seemed to me that we dealt exhaustively with all this kind of exemption in the Schedule, particularly in paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 12. We tried to cover all these short-term needs, such as agricultural shows. It was my impression that when the right hon. Gentleman spoke to the Schedule in Committee, he quoted an agricultural show as an example which might be covered in the Schedule under the five-day rule.
    This Amendment seems to broaden the field considerably, certainly far more than we had intended in Committee, and I should like a further explanation. I do not think that the example of an agricultural show is sufficient. Does the Minister visualise that it is not covered by the Schedule as it stands?
    Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes) is quite right in drawing attention to the exemptions under the Schedule. My hon. Friend made it plain that if there is a project requiring perhaps more than five days there is no reason why planning permission should not be sought. The hon. Member will notice that exempted organisations have to have as part of their objective the promotion of recreational activities, and it is conceivable that there could be a need for a caravan site for longer than five days or for an organisation which is not specifically recreational, and which might, therefore, successfully seek planning permission for
    1660
    a very short period. In all fairness, we must make provision for a site licence.
    Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 4.—(DURATION OF SITE LICENCES, AND POWER OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES TO ATTACH CONDITIONS THERETO.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 3, divide Clause 4 into two clauses, the first to consist of subsections (1) and (2); and the second to consist of subsections (3) to (7) inclusive.
    Mr. H. Brooke: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    The Clause deals with two quite distinct subjects. The first two subsections deal with the duration of site licences and the other subsections deal with conditions which might be attached to site licences. It would make for clearer presentation if the Clause were accordingly divided into two separate Clauses.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords Amendment: In line 40. after "or" insert
    "subject to the provisions of subsection (2) of this section."
    Mr. H. Brooke: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This is a paving Amendment for the next Amendment, to page 4, line 16, to insert a new subsection, and perhaps it would be convenient to discuss the two together.
    Hon. Members who were on the Standing Committee may recollect that there was some discussion as to whether the Bill, as worded, would empower local authorities, in the conditions attached to a site licence, to control the standards of construction of caravans. That was never the intention, and I think that it must be plain to everybody that that is a matter which can only be dealt with satisfactorily on a national basis. Indeed, I am aware that it is now being examined by the British Standards Institution. These two Amendments will put beyond doubt that the authorities will have no power to control standards of construction by licence conditions.
    Mr. C. Hughes: As the Minister has said, there was a good deal of discussion on this point in Committee and on Report, and we were all agreed at the time

    1661
    that local authorities should have the power to exclude certain types of vehicles and structures. I think that the Minister himself mentioned old bus bodies, if I recollect rightly. I take it that now, notwithstanding this Amendment, that right is still vested under this Bill in the local authorities.
    A further point is that the Minister has just said that the British Standards Institution is giving the matter its attention on a national level. Can we take it now that the Minister is keeping in touch with the Institution? I do not think that we should cut the local authorities out and leave the whole matter in the air. The House would like to be assured that the Minister is keeping in constant touch with the Institution so that we can have a national standard published as soon as possible.
    Mr. James Dempsey: Listening to the reply of the Minister in support of this Amendment, I wondered just what is to happen in regard to the construction of vehicles known as caravans until such time as we have some national standard introduced to control the construction of caravans. I wonder whether the Minister is aware that there is a tremendous development at present both of caravans and of caravan sites. Indeed, in my own part of Scotland, I understand that the authorities have been dealing with ten times as many applications for caravan approvals in the past year as have been dealt with since the passing of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, which is an indication of the extent of developments of this type.
    If we do not have any control at all of the materials to be used in the construction of caravans, how will it be possible for a planning authority, for instance, to protect the neighbourhood by ensuring that, before planning permission is granted, the caravans concerned come up to the standard of an acceptable modern design? As I see it, from the terms of the Lords Amendment, which have obviously been reinforced by what the Minister has said, until such time as the British Standards Institution lays down certain standards regarding the materials used in the manufacture of caravans, and unless at that
    1662
    stage we have a national policy, there seems to be little or no control to be exercised through the local authority over the type of vehicle which will receive approval and will come to be regarded as a caravan.
    In my own part of Scotland we have all sorts of contraptions which have been fastened together, which are regarded as caravans and are sited in some place, and for which planning permission is sought. We have great difficulty in trying to control this development, and in trying to ensure that whatever is placed on a site will in no way injure the amenities of the district.
    4.15 p.m.
    We are not receiving a very great deal of encouragement by these Amendments, because the second Amendment is almost sympathetic to some of these proprietors, who are quite willing to construct any type of vehicle, irrespective of its value to the general community, and to regard it as a caravan for caravan purposes. It would seem to me that the Minister, in accepting the last Lords Amendment, should have been absolutely clear about its implications, and that he should give some assurance to the House that, in asking us to support the Amendment, he and his officers will certainly do all in their power to prevent the desecration of the countryside by all sorts of contraptions which may be called caravans.
    I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman to give us an assurance that there will be some control left in the hands of the local authorities when it comes to the granting of site licences for such contraptions. I should have thought that, to have that control, the Minister must have some regard to the nature of the construction, in order to effect the protection of the amenities. Can we have an assurance that there will be some control over the nature of the materials to be used in the construction of caravans, from the planning point of view, so as to prevent any further injuries to local amenities by irresponsible caravan proprietors?
    Mr. Edward Short (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central): I wish to raise one point which we raised on Second Reading and during the Committee stage as well.

    1663
    Clause 4 (3, b) lays down that one of the conditions of the issue of a site licence may be for
    "controlling (whether by reference to their size, the state of their repair or any other feature) the types of caravan which are stationed on the land;".
    I pointed out, both on Second Reading and in Committee, that the words "any other feature" would include the colour. Local authorities could make certain colours, such as green, cream, pink or blue, one of the conditions of the site licence.
    As I see it, this condition which has been inserted—that no condition shall be attached to the site licence in respect of controlling the types of caravans stationed on the land by reference to the materials used in their construction—only takes away from "any other feature" the materials used, but does not detract from the possibility of a local authority specifying the colour of the van to be stationed on the site. I had hoped that the Minister would have brought forward an Amendment to omit this, because I think that it is a very retrograde step to give a local authority power to specify the colour of the caravan in the site licence.
    Mr. H. Brooke: The point raised by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short) was discussed both in this House and in another place, but on each occasion it seemed best not to withdraw entirely from the local authorities the power to include the condition relating to colour in their site licence. I should think that the power would be rarely used, but I can envisage a place of exceptional beauty which was a caravan site, perhaps in a prominent position in a National Park, and it might be considered desirable to require, under the site licence, that caravans in that place should not be of some extraordinary variegated colours which would catch the eye and spoil the enjoyment of other people. It seems rather different from standards of construction.
    Regarding standards of construction, we must think principally of new caravans. Unquestionably, there is power in the Bill, with this Amendment included, for local authorities to control the standards of repair by site licence and also to exercise control against contraptions which one could barely call a caravan
    1664
    coming into a site. I think that the House would agree on that. But it seems rather unfair if a person buys a modern caravan and then finds that he is excluded from a site in a particular area because there happens to be a licence condition in force with which his caravan could not apply and could not be made to apply. So, here the approach has been different.
    The hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes) asked that we should not lose touch with discussions which are going on. May I say that it was my Department which asked the British Standards Institution to take on this work. We are in close touch. We are represented on the technical committee of the Institution which is considering the standards and I can assure hon. Members that the work is going forward. I hope that it will reach agreed conclusions. There is no hostility to the idea among the caravan manufacturers, who realise the advantage of having British standards established. Hon. Members may be quite confident about caravans manufactured in the future. All we can do about the variety of caravans now existing, it would seem to me, is to empower the local authority to require a certain standard of repair, without enabling them to forbid a certain type of caravan from coming on to any of their sites simply because, in the past, when it was constructed it was not made in the way in which we should like caravans to be made today.
    That is the plan behind the Amendment. If the Bill be enacted with the Amendment, it will retain for the local authorities all the powers which were given to them when the Bill left this House, with the sole exception that we have put it beyond doubt—as I think would be the wish of the House—that a site licence cannot contain a condition which would actually control the materials used in the construction of a caravan. In every other respect the powers of the licensing authority will remain undiminished.
    Mr. Short: If I may speak again with the leave of the House, I would say that I am a little alarmed by one phrase which the Minister used. He envisaged an area of great national beauty, a National Park, and a caravan which would catch the eye. As I have explained many times, many of us consider that a

    1665
    spot of colour on the landscape which catches the eye is a desirable feature. When the right hon. Gentleman drafts the model conditions I hope that he will not put in any stuffy old-fashioned regulations about vans having to be painted a uniform colour—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot discuss model conditions on this Amendment. Some restraint is required to keep in order.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 8.—(PROVISIONS AS TO BREACHES OF CONDITION.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 6, line 26, leave out from "situated" to end of line and insert:
    "make an order for the revocation of the said site licence to come into force on such date as the court may specify in the order, being a date after the end of the period of fourteen days mentioned in subsection (1) of section eighty-four and subsection (2) of section eighty-seven of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952, as the period within which the person convicted may bring an appeal, whether by case stated or otherwise, and if before the date so specified an appeal is so brought the order shall be of no effect pending the final determination or withdrawal of the appeal.
    The person convicted or the local authority who issued the site licence may apply to the magistrates' court which has made such an order revoking a site licence for an order extending the period at the end of which the revocation is to come into force, and the magistrates' court may, if satisfied that adequate notice of the application has been given to the local authority or, as the case may be, the person convicted, make an order extending that period."
    Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    Perhaps it would be convenient if, with this Amendment, we considered the Amendment to Clause 29, in page 18.
    These two Amendments fill out a power already in the Bill for a court, under certain circumstances and on the application of a local authority, to revoke a Cite licence. But no details are given about the date from which the revocation is to take effect. The first Amendment fills that gap. It lays down that the court shall be able to determine when the revocation shall take effect. It may be desirable to postpone revocation in
    1666
    order to allow a reasonable time for the caravans to be removed or for someone else to take the site over. It provides for the suspension of the revocation on appeal and, if it is then found necessary, to extend the time of the application by either party provided due notice has been given by that party to the other party. These are the provisions enabling the court to fill in the details of any revocation. The second Amendment gives equivalent powers in respect of Scotland.
    Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 9.—(TRANSFER OF SITE LICENCES AND TRANSMISSION ON DEATH, ETC.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 6, line 45, at end insert:
    "() If an application is made under subsection (1) of this section for consent to the transfer of a site licence to a person who is to become the occupier of the land, that person may apply for a site licence under section three of this Act as if he were the occupier of the land, and if the local authority at any time before issuing a site licence in compliance with that application give their consent to the transfer they need not proceed with the application for the site licence."
    Mr. H. Brooke: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This Amendment is designed to meet a small contingent difficulty which was mentioned during the Committee stage discussions It would not be likely to arise, but it might occur in connection with the transfer of a site licence where a caravan site changes hands. Clause 9 (1) requires the local authority's consent to a transfer of the licence in these circumstances.
    As was explained in Committee, that is a convenient method of making sure that a local authority knows of the transfer. It is most improbable that an authority would wish to withhold consent. After all, the site already has planning permission so that if the consent for a transfer were withheld the new occupier would, in any case, be entitled to obtain a fresh licence under Clause 3. There would seem to be no object, therefore, in the local authority withholding consent. But as the authority's consent has to be obtained, we must provide for a conceivable case where, for some reason or other, the local authority thought fit to withhold consent.

    1667
    In that event, under the Bill as it is drafted, the person taking over the site might be in some difficulty because he might not be able to obtain a licence in time. He might find himself in the position of having caravans on the site without a licence and he would be committing an offence under Clause 1.
    This Amendment is designed to remove that possible difficulty. It enables a man who is proposing to take over a caravan site to apply for a licence in advance. If by any chance the local authority were to withhold consent to the transfer of the old licence, he would have an opportunity to apply for a licence in advance under the terms of this Amendment and there would be no danger of his falling foul of the law.
    Mr. Dempsey: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain what is implied here regarding the consent of the local authority? Does it mean that an application must be made with a plan and details for the renewal of the licence, or does it merely involve a normal application by letter advising the change of use which in turn might receive the approval of the local authority?
    4.30 p.m.
    Mr. H. Brooke: It merely means this. Here is a caravan site in use, with the site operator having planning permission and a site licence issued by the local authority. He is transferring or, maybe, selling the site to somebody else. The man who is coming in will be able to apply by letter to the local authority, giving particulars and referring to the licence, the existence of which will be perfectly well known to the local authority as it will have issued the licence, and asking for it to be transferred to him. It will be the simplest kind of formality.
    Mr. A. J. Irvine: Does that mean that there can be in respect of a site two licences taking effect concurrently? In other words, can two people, one the transferor and the other the transferee, have concurrently rights of appeal against conditions attached to the licence?
    Mr. Brooke: By leave of the House, may I say that I do not think that there is any danger of there being two site licences outstanding at the same time.
    1668
    The person taking over the site can make two applications, one for a new licence and one for the transfer of the existing licence. If he gets the existing licence transferred to him, as is probable, he will naturally withdraw his application for a new licence as it would be no use to him.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

    New Clause.—(EXISTING CARAVAN SITES WITH SHORT TERM PLANNING PERMIS SION GRANTED BEFORE COMMENCE MENT OF THIS ACT.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 10, line 40, at end insert new Clause "A":
    "Where an application for a site licence is made in respect of an existing site and—

    (a) the existing site has at the date of the application the benefit of a permission for the use of the land as a caravan site granted under Part III of the Act of 1947 otherwise than by a development order, but

    (b) the said permission was granted before the commencement of this Act and in terms such that it will expire within a period of six months beginning with the date of the application,

    no account shall be taken of the said permission either for the purposes of section three of this Act or for the purposes of the last foregoing section; and the last foregoing section shall have effect in relation to the said application as if for the references in subsections (3) and (4) thereof to a period of six months beginning with the date on which the application is made there were substituted references to a period of six months beginning with the date on which the said permission will expire."
    Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This Amendment exactly replaces for existing sites the provision inserted previously in general terms in Clause 3 and which we have just, by Amendment, caused to be omitted. It provides that a planning permission given
    "before the commencement of this Act"
    and with less than six months to run from the date of application for site licence shall not entitle the applicant to a site licence. The Amendment therefore replaces the provisions in the Bill which we omitted earlier to allow for a temporary site licence for such things as agricultural fairs.
    Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 17.—(CONDITIONS REQUIRING REDUCTION IN NUMBER OF CARAVANS ON SITES.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 11, line 11, leave out from "that" to "unless" in line 13 and insert:
    "the conditions shall not be framed so as to require the reduction of the number of caravans below the greatest number which can in the opinion of the local authority, and having retard to the said standards, be properly stationed on the land.
    (2) Conditions restricting the total number of caravans stationed on a caravan site, other than conditions of the description in paragraph (a) of the foregoing subsection, shall not be attached to a site licence in respect of an existing site"
    Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move, That is House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    Perhaps, with this Amendment, it would be convenient to take the following Amendments in lines 38, 39 and 42.
    These Amendments reinforce what my right hon. Friend has always made clear, ti at a local authority may not, in attaching a condition to a site licence, arbitrarily reduce the numbers of caravans on the site and that, in reducing the numbers of caravans on an existing site, it must have regard to the availability of alternative accommodation for the families living on the site.
    There are two parts to the first Amendment. The first makes it clear that conditions may not require the number to be reduced below the number considered appropriate for that site having regard to the model standards. The second Dart makes it clear that, for existing sites as well as for new sites, local authorities may not impose conditions reducing the number of caravans unless satisfied that alternative accommodation is available for the people displaced.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

    New Clause.—(POWER OF RURAL DISTRICT COUNCILS TO PROHIBIT CARAVANS ON COMMONS.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 12, line 2,5, at end insert new Clause "B":
    "(1) This section applies to any land in the area of a rural district council which is or forms part of a common, not being land
    1670
    falling within any of the following descriptions, that is to say—

    (a) land to which section one hundred and ninety-three of the Law of Property Act, 1925 (which relates to the rights of the public over certain commons and waste lands), for the time being applies;

    (b) land which is subject to a scheme under Part I of the Commons Act, 1899 (under which schemes may be made for the regulation and management of certain commons);

    (c) land as respects which a site licence is for the time being in force.

    (2) The council of a rural district may make with respect to any land in their area to which this section applies an order prohibiting, either absolutely or except in such circumstances as may be specified in the older, the stationing of caravans on the land for the purposes of human habitation.
    (3) Without prejudice to the provisions of section one of this Act, any person who stations a caravan on any land in contravention of an order under this section for the time being in force with respect to the land shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding ten pounds.
    (4) It shall be the duty of a rural district council to take all reasonable steps to secure that copies of any order under this section which is for the time being in force with respect to any land in their area are so displayed on the land as to give to persons entering thereon adequate warning of the existence of the order, and the council shall have the right to place on the land such notices as they consider necessary for the performance of their duty under this subsection.
    (5) An order under this section may be revoked at any time by a subsequent order made thereunder by the rural district council, or may be so varied either so as to exclude any land from the operation of the order or so as to introduce any exception, or further exception, from the prohibition imposed by the order.
    (6) Where the whole or a part of any land with respect to which an order under this section is in force ceases to be land to which this section applies, the said order shall thereupon cease to have effect with respect to the said land or part; and where an order ceases under this subsection to have effect with respect to a part only of any land, the rural district council shall cause any copy of the order which is displayed on that part of the land with respect to which the order continues in force to be amended accordingly,
    (7) The provisions of the Schedule (Further provisions as to orders relating to commons) to this Act shall, subject as therein provided, have effect with respect to orders under this section.
    (8) In this section the word 'common' includes any land subject to be enclosed under the Inclosure Acts. 1845 to 1882, and any town or village green."
    Mr. H. Brooke: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in 'the said Amendment.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): I must inform the House that this Amendment involves Privilege.
    Mr. Brooke: I do not know, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether it would be convenient to discuss with this new Clause the proposed new Schedule A on page 6 of the Amendment Paper, which is related to it.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If the House so wishes.
    Mr. Brooke: The proposed new Clause and the new Schedule together look bulky, but, in fact, they redeem a pledge which I gave in Committee. The question was raised—I am not sure that I did not raise it myself first—about provisions concerning the stationing of caravans on commons. The reason why special provision is needed in that case is that, at any rate with certain commons, there may be no occupier who could be said to
    "cause or permit…the use of land as a caravan site",
    to use the words in Clause 1.
    As the whole of the licensing provisions in the Bill presuppose someone who is the occupier they would not be applicable to commons of that character. Yet I think that it was unanimously agreed in Committee that there ought to be effective means to control the stationing of caravans on commons of this kind. Fortunately, we have not got to go deeply into the law on common land in these Amendments, but the House will appreciate that a common may range from a small village green to a very large tract of country.
    The new Clause is comparatively simple, and I will seek to explain it. First, it applies only to commons which are not already subject to the restrictions in Section 193 of the Law of Property Act, 1925. That Section applies mainly to urban commons and that is why this new Clause refers to rural districts and does not extend its provisions to urban districts. There is no need for that because of Section 193. It also does not apply to commons subject to schemes of management under the Commons Act, 1899. That, too, includes provisions for the control of caravans, so that there is no need for us to make fresh provision here.
    1672
    What the Clause does is to enable a rural district council to make orders which will prohibit the stationing of caravans on commons in its area subject to any exceptions which may be specified in the orders. The procedure for making the orders is set out in the new Schedule. It includes prior consultation with any statutory conservators of the common and public advertisement of proposed orders. It provides for objections to the making of an order by the lord of the manor or other owner of the land. When an order has been made, notices must be posted on the land to inform the public of its effect. Contravention an order will be an offence punishable by a fine of up to £10.
    The House will see from subsection (1) of the new Clause that it will not apply to any land which has a caravan site licence under the Bill—that is to say, it fits right up against the provisions in the Bill but does not overlap them. It adds to them. This proposal, which seemed to provide the most satisfactory and efficient way of ensuring control over the stationing of caravans on rural commons, is complementary to the licensing system in the rest of the Bill which, as I have said, presupposes the existence of an identifiable occupier.
    It is the hope of the Government that this new Clause and Schedule, fitting in, as I have explained, to the other provisions of the Bill and also fitting into the existing statutes which will provide for control over the remaining commons, will thus effectively fill a gap which there certainly would otherwise be, as we all perceived in Standing Committee, in the application of the Bill to caravans on common land.
    I am sorry that it is a rather complicated subject. I would willingly explain the matter at greater length if the House should so desire, but it has been examined in another place and the Government seek the assent of this House because, unquestionably, something of this kind is needed, and we believe that we have fashioned an instrument that will provide an effective control where there is no occupier, as there may not be in the case of common land.
    Mr. C. Hughes: I think that the House will generally agree this is a necessary

    1673
    Amendment The Minister is to be congratulated on producing what is, after all, a relatively simple and clear Amendment out of the difficult maze of legislation on this subject. I do not wish to detain the House, but I have one question which I hope the Minister will be good enough to answer.
    Am I right in thinking that, if there are several commoners, as there are in the great majority of cases, some who use the land and some who do not, and one of these commoners objects to an order, than the council is precluded from proceeding with the order if there is one objection? It is my experience that one does find the occasional commoner who is capable of making a frivolous objection. As I understand, if one commoner does object to public use being made of common land, the only way of getting use made of it is by introducing an Act of Parliament. I had an experience of that kind myself.
    Is that the power of veto which is referred to, and is that the provision under the Commons Act, 1899? If that is so, it really will weaken the power of a rural district council to carry out the provisions the Minister intends. Perhaps he will be good enough to explain that point.
    Sir Wavell Wakefield: I thank my right hon. Friend for the way in which he has met the position as regards common land. It was I who raised it in Standing Committee, and. indeed, my attention, and that of my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple), was drawn to the matter when we were going over Dunmail Raise, in the Lake District. The chairman of the planning board there pointed out a place which was common land and which was causing the planning board considerable difficulty. For that reason I raised the matter in Standing Committee, and I am sure that the whole House is extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend for the very comprehensive way in which he has dealt with the matter.
    As far as I can see, the Amendment certainly will meet all the difficulties which, it seemed to me, would arise if nothing were done. I wish just to express to my right hon. Friend my appreciation
    1674
    and that of those of us who felt that there was a gap in the Bill for the way he has filled it.
    4.45 p.m.
    Mr. H. Brooke: I am grateful to hon. Members for what they have said, particularly to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield). I recall now that he was the first Member of the Standing Committee to draw attention to the omission of provisions far commons from the Bill. I am particularly glad that he feels that this new Clause and Schedule will cover the matter satisfactorily. I am grateful, too, for what the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes) said, and I would just like to try to answer his question. It really relates to subparagraphs (1) and (2) of paragraph 4 of the Schedule.
    The position is this. If an owner of a common objects to the proposal to make an order, then the council may not proceed with the order. That accords with the lord of the manor's power of veto as regards schemes of regulation under the Commons Act, 1899. In practice, of course, it is unlikely that the lord of the manor, or other owner of the common, will wish to object to the making of an order. It is difficult to conceive of any circumstances in which he would, unless he was satisfied he had alternative existing powers of control which rendered further powers of control unnecessary. There may, however, be objections by other persons, and I think that that was what the hon. Member for Anglesey had particularly in mind.
    An objection by anybody other than the owner is dealt with in subparagraph (2) of paragraph 4. If objections are made by anyone other than the owner, then the order must be referred to the Minister. The Minister then has a duty to consider the objections and, having considered them, he must reach his decision. He must either confirm the order or vary the order so as to make it less restrictive or refuse to confirm it. Nobody except the owner has power of veto.
    Mr. Ede: I take it that we are considering now only the new Schedule A, not Schedule B. Has the right hon. Gentleman given any attention to what would happen when, under the processes of the Local Government Act, 1958,

    1675
    what was an urban common is found in a rural district? It may even be a common that is in a borough at present, and the borough may become what is known in that Act as a borough included in a rural district. Some of the protection which is there now may be lost. Will it be part of the duty of the county council, in making the review of the county districts, to include in the order the necessary provisions to preserve the existing protections of the urban common when it is put into a rural district and ceases to be an urban common?
    Mr. H. Brooke: If I may speak again, by leave of the House, I think that I can only take the responsibility today of explaining this now Clause and Schedule, and I should hesitate to explain what might be the effect of Section 193 of the Law of Property Act if a common which had been in an urban district and had been under the provisions of that Act were, through the operation of a county review, transferred into a rural district. What I can assure the House is that, if the common at the time in question, whether now or in the future, is in a rural district, then the rural district council will have power under this new Clause to make an order. I think that is the one thing about which the House, in connection with this Bill, will wish to be satisfied.
    Mr. Short: I hope the Minister has satisfied himself about relying on lords of the manor not vetoing the orders. Is he aware that some lords of the manor are making a great deal of money out of caravan sites on common land and that he cannot be certain by any means that they will not veto orders made by rural districts? I should have been much happier if he had applied the same rules to objections by a lard of the manor, the owner of the soil, as he is applying to other objectors. I hope that he will watch this point.
    Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

    Clause 25.—(APPLICATION OF PART I TO CROWN LAND.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 15, line 19, leave out "This Part of this Act" and insect:
    "The provisions of this Part of this Act relating to site licences".
    Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    As drafted, the whale of Part I is applied to Crown land in cases where the occupier is not the Crown. Part I is almost entirely concerned with site licences, but there is a power of compulsory purchase in Clause 21. The Amendment maintains the application of all the site licensing contents of Part I to such land, but excludes that compulsory purchase power. Local authorities can acquire such land by agreement.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 29.—(APPLICATION OF PART I TO SCOTLAND.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 17, line 38, after "reference" insert:
    "in subsection (3) of section one, or in section eleven, of this Act".
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gilmour Leburn): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This is merely a drafting Amendment. Paragraph (d) is needed to translate into Scottish legal terms the term "licence" in the sense it is used in Clauses 1 (3) and 11, but it is felt that there might be some ambiguity in other Clauses where the term "licence" is used in relation to a "site licence". The Amendment removes any possibility of confusion.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.
    Lords Amendment: In page 18, leave out line 45 and insert:
    "the following sections shall be omitted, that is to say, section (Power of rural district councils to prohibit caravans on commons), section twenty-seven and section twenty-eight."
    Mr. Leburn: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    The main purpose of the Amendment is to disapply the new Clause B—Power of rural district councils to prohibit caravans on commons—
    Mr. E. G. Willis: What does "disapply" mean?
    Mr. Leburn: It means that it shall not in fact, apply to Scotland.
    The purpose of the Amendment is to disapply new Clause B, which has been accepted for England and Wales. The commons to which the new Clause refers are peculiarly English, and the Amendment ensures that the Clause will not apply to Scotland. The remaining purpose of the Amendment is purely drafting, namely, to add Clause 28 to those that do not apply to Scotland.
    Question put and agreed to.

  Cause 37.—(REPEATED OPERATION OF ENFORCEMENT NOTICES.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 25, line 7, at end insert:
  "() Without prejudice to subsection (1) of this section, any requirement in an enforcement notice for the discontinuance of any use of land shall operate as a requirement for the permanent discontinuance of the use to the extent that the use is in contravention of Part III of the Act of 1947, and accordingly the resumption of the use at any time after its discontinuance in compliance with the enforcement notice shall to that extent be in contravention of the enforcement notice"
  Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  Will it be convenient to the House to take with this Amendment the following five Amendments, which are all consequential?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes, that will be convenient.
  Sir K. Joseph: Perhaps it will be convenient if I first explain that we are making now a distinction between responsibility for compliance with an original enforcement notice and responsibility for an offence against a continuing enforcement notice. Responsibility for compliance with an original enforcement notice is still governed by Clause 33, and the responsibility falls upon the owner.
  Clause 37, to which all these Amendments apply, deals with the continued effect of an enforcement notice—that is to say, its effect if anybody should reinstate buildings, works, or developments which have been the subject of an enforcement notice and which have been pulled down, altered or abated as a result of an enforcement notice, but which are later reinstated—or the con-
  1678
  tinuing effect of an enforcement notice where the resumption of a use of land which has been abated in compliance with an enforcement notice is itself resumed.
  In the second case, namely, the case covered by Clause 37, where a continued enforcement notice is disobeyed—that is to say, where there is a resumption of a forbidden use, or the reinstatement of a forbidden development—there is a positive action, the perpetrator of which can be identified.
  The Amendments seek to pin the responsibility, therefore, not upon the owner who is at the moment responsible, as Clause 33, which pins the responsibility on the owner, is brought into the present draft of Clause 37, but upon the person who resumes the forbidden use or reinstates the forbidden development.
  I hope that that explains this rather complicated series of Amendments, which I will now discuss in detail.
  The Amendment in line 7 makes it abundantly clear that an enforcement notice will continue to apply to a use of land which is resumed after being discontinued in compliance with the notice.
  The Amendments in lines 16 and 20 go together. They refer to the reinstatement of buildings or works which have been demolished or altered in compliance with an enforcement notice. They provide that a local authority may go in, in the last resort, and abate the 'offending development, recovering the cost from the perpetrator. But the Amendments also remove, by the omission of subsection (3), the responsibility that at the moment lies upon the owner by bringing in Clause 33.
  The next two Amendments to take together are those in lines 24 and 29. These specifically exclude the sanction on the owner in Clause 33, to which I have been referring. The final leg of this multiple Amendment is the Amendment in line 25, which makes it clear that there is no offence in reinstatement of works which have been subject to an enforcement notice if planning permission for that reinstatement has been granted.
  Mr. Dempsey: I find it rather difficult to follow the explanation of the hon. Gentleman. We are dealing, first, with a particular proprietor against whom

  1679
  the local authority has taken an enforcement notice. We assume that the notice has been upheld by the machinery of appeal. When that occurs a penalty is imposed on the proprietor of that caravan for every day that he occupies those premises beyond the permitted time. That is the normal course which events take.
  The Parliamentary Secretary has said that we are dealing in all probability with another set of circumstances where, as far as I can follow his argument, the owner in this case may be the owner of the caravan but may be causing an offence against the owner of the land.
  Sir K. Joseph: By leave of the House, I wish to draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that we are on Part II, which deals with general planning and not just caravans.
  Mr. Dempsey: We are dealing with general planning, which reinforces my argument to an even greater extent. In general planning there is enforceable legislation operating at present which can be very detrimental towards the perpetrator of any unnecessary development or unnecessary existence of any development which, in the opinion of the powers that be or the authorities concerned, should not be tolerated any longer. From the general planning point of view, when consent has been refused and the refusal has been enforced at court level, penalties exist to such an extent that it is unwise, unprofitable and undesirable for any unauthorised developer to proceed with the development of his site or area, or whatever his fixture or asset may be.
  5.0 p.m.
  I am trying to ascertain the purpose served by these Amendments. In accepting them, does it mean that we are in all probability negating the present powers whereby very strong action can be taken against unauthorised developments in various part of the country. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to clarify this matter for me. If, from my reading of the Amendments, they negate the effect of provisions at present in force, I should be very surprised that the hon. Gentleman was arguing for their acceptance. It may be that he has arrived at the conclusion that these Amendments will further enforce the existing legislation.
  1680
  I realise that at present where a development has been rejected by the authorities concerned and the developer continues the development, a very heavy penalty can be meted out for such unauthorised development. It would appear to me that to some extent these Amendments may be in conflict with the operation of existing legislation; on the other hand, they may not. As a member of a local authority, I should like to be satisfied that these Amendments in no way detract from the use of existing powers and existing legislation which render it well-nigh impossible for unauthorised developers to continue any development without the planning consent of the local authority.
  Mr. James McInnes: I gather that there is justification for the Amendments in as much that to quote the Parliamentary Secretary's own words, they would relieve the owner of certain responsibilities. He stated, also, that in the process action would be taken against perpetrators where they were identified. Does he visualise instances where such perpetrators would not be identified?
  Mr. A. J. Irvine: I think that the purpose of the Amendments is not open to any objection, but, like my hon. Friends, I feel that there are some matters which possibly need further explanation.
  As I understood the Parliamentary Secretary, he was telling the House that the effect of these Amendments would be that where an enforcement notice had been served on an owner of land, and there was a resumption of contravening use of the land, the enforcement authority could go not against the owner but against the current perpetrator. If I am right in that, it would seem to be an objective which was desirable in the public interest, subject to the perpetrator being given sufficient notice of what was toward.
  I should be grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary would enlighten the House on that matter, because it would be undesirable that the perpetrator, to give him that title, should be made subject to enforcement proceedings without notice to himself in circumstances where he might have had no intimation from the original owner and recipient of the enforcement notice of any proceedings having been taken. I do not think that

  1681
  I can usefully develop that point further. There seems to be a need here for the House to be informed of the protection, if any, to prevent the undesirable effect of the perpetrator of the contravening use being made suddenly, as it were, the object of enforcement proceedings in circumstances in which he could not reasonably have discovered that originally enforcement proceedings had been commenced and carried through against the owner.
  Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: What the hon. and learned Member for Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) said surely reinforces the need to see that there is a proper registration of enforcement notices. If enforcement notices are, in future, as it were, to run with the land, the normal considerations of a public register giving full particulars of the enforcement notice ought to be secured. I am not sure to what extent it is at present secured, or to what extent it may be improved by administrative action. I should think that there is good room for improvement. I intervene only to ask my hon. Friend to give an assurance, to help both the hon. and learned Gentleman and myself, that enforcement notices, in some detail, should be registered against the land, so that persons sub-sequently dealing with and on the land may have full notice thereof.
  Mr. Graham Page: I want to express my gratitude for this Amendment. During the earlier stages of the Bill, I sail on this subject that Clause 37, as it is now, was most unfair on the owner because, as it stood, it made him absolutely liable for resumption of a breach of enforcement notice although he might not be responsible for it. This Amendment plants the responsibility on the perpetrator, on the right person, and to that extent I am very glad that it has been tabled. Nevertheless, it does raise the difficulty that it is now absolutely necessary that the new owner of the land—the purchaser of the land—should be able to be perfectly clear about the liabilities arising after the enforce-meat notice.
  The enforcement notice may be quite a complicated document. It may set out the conditions on which the land is allowed to be developed as well as the breaches that have been committed. That means that, as it stands, the register is
  1682
  really quite useless. As far as I can recollect, if one searches for an enforcement notice in the register one gets only the name of the person against whom it is registered, the property, and the date. That is all.
  That will not be sufficient for owners in future, because the enforcement notice will be a charge on the land for ever or, at least, until some one removes it. Therefore, every future owner of the land will want full particulars of that enforcement notice. I recollect trying to obtain from a local authority full particulars of an enforcement notice, after I have searched the register and obtained merely names and dates. I was refused that information by the local authority. I argued, from the legal point of view, that it could not refuse to give me those particulars, but I think that I was wrong and that the authority was quite right as the law stood, in refusing it. I therefore hope that my right hon. Friend will look into this and, by regulation, produce a really effective register of enforcement notices.
  Sir K. Joseph: With permission of the House, I will try to reply to these points First, I would stress that the Clause, and the Amendments to it, share with the whole of Part II the object, which has been welcomed on both sides, of strengthening planning powers. In fact, the Amendments increase the planning authorities' powers. There is a power given to the local authority to abate the contravening development and, secondly, the fact that enforcement notices are continuing in their effect is emphasised and made absolutely plain, where as before it was not 100 per cent. so.
  I am asked how we can be sure that the perpetrator will be identifiable, since these Amendments pin the responsibility on the perpetrator. I tried to explain that we are here dealing with a resumption of a use or a development that offends against the enforcement notice requiring an abatement or alteration of an existing development. Consequently, there is positive action which must have a perpetrator, so there should be no difficulty—unless the local planning authority has its eyes shut—in identifying the perpetrator.
  The hon. and learned Member for Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for

  1683
  Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) asked about the purchaser's position in knowing of an enforcement notice. I can tell them that an enforcement notice is registered in the local land charges register—but, here, I must meet the criticism of my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) that the information is not definite enough and, in complicated cases, not nearly definite enough. I think, however, that my hon. Friend will agree that the purchaser of the land is at least put on inquiry by seraching the local land charges register, and it is then up to him to seek the full details he requires from the vendor, or through his solicitors. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will have taken note of my hon. Friend's suggestion about a suitable regulation if there should be need.
  Mr. A. J. Irvine: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind the possibility that, as we are dealing with perpetrators who are resuming a contravening and prohibited use, it may be found that, in practice, the registration will not give the perpetrator sufficient notice to enable him to be dealt with fairly? I think that this is true, and the reason is very simple. At the date of the search of the register he may not have contemplated renewal of the prohibited use. In cases like that, before enforcement proceedings are begun against him, his attention should be drawn to the fact that what he is doing and the work that he is carrying out are in contravention of the planning permission, and are the subject of an earlier enforcement notice.
  The point is an administrative point, but I want to emphasise it at this stage, because I think that the risk of possible unfairness is not entirely met by registration of the land charge since, at the operative date of his search into the land charge, he may not have formed the intention to resume the contravening use.
  Mr. Graham Page: Before my hon. Friend replies to that, I should like to draw attention to the case in which an enforcement notice may have been issued two or three vendors back, and the present vendor may have no copy of the notice to supply to the purchaser. There may be no copy other than that registered with the local planning authority.
  Sir K. Joseph: I hope that I can untie these knots. I would draw the attention of the hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) to the fifth line of the Amendment in page 25, line 20, which states that before taking any action to require compliance with the enforcement notice the local authority must give not less than 28 days' notice to the owner and occupier. I think that that meets the hon. and learned Gentleman's main point.
  In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), I can only say that it is open to any occupier to clarify the position once and for all by seeking planning permission for the use or development that he wishes to carry out. He could, therefore. if he was at all doubtful about the position regarding a use or development, put himself in the clear with the local planning authority, right or wrong, by seeking planning permission.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

  Clause 40.—(ADDITIONAL POWERS OF ENTRY FOR PURPOSES OF CONTROL OF DEVELOPMENT.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 26, line 39, at end insert:
  "(2) This section shall apply in relation to a notice or order served or made before the commencement of this Act as well as in relation to one served or made after the commencement of this Act"
  Mr. H. Brooke: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  The Clause enables officers of the local planning authority or the Minister to enter upon land to see whether a notice that has been served, or an order that has been made under Part III of the 1947 Act has been complied with. It seems clearly desirable that the power of entry should apply to notices served or orders made before the commencement of this Measure, as well as after. That is the sole point of the Amendment.
  Question put and agreed to.

  Clause 41.—(APPLICATION OF PART II TO SPECIAL POWERS OF CONTROL.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 26, line 40, leave out subsection (1).
  5.15 p.m.
  Mr. H. Brooke: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  This Amendment needs to be read in conjunction with the following Amendment in page 27, line 13, which seeks to insert new Clause C, with the new Schedule B, and with two small consequential Amendments thereafter. It looks formidable but, in fact, this is nothing but an honourable attempt by the Government to meet a perfectly legitimate criticism, which was first voiced in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) and which received other support.
  That criticism was that subsection (1) of Clause 41 enabled the Minister to make regulations, and the suggestion was that there was no reason why, instead of giving that power to the Minister, the actual application should not be set out in full in the Bill. The Government examined this and, as a result, it has been found possible to meet this criticism, so there will be no question of passing the Bill with a power to the Minister to make unknown regulations applying the new procedure as regards enforcement notices in the Bill to notices served under Sections 30 and 33 of the 1947 Act. We are leaving out subsection (1) and propose to insert the new Clause C.
  The meat of the matter is actually in Schedule B. and the House will probably wish me, without going into great detail, to explain that Schedule. Part I of the Schedule deals with notices that may be served under Section 30 (8) of the 1947 Act; that is where alterations have been made to a building of special architectural or historic interest in contravention of the terms of that Section. Part I simply and solely makes provisions in regard to such notices corresponding to the provisions in this Bill relating to enforcement notices in so far as these are applicable.
  I will willingly go into further detail if it is desired, but I can assure the House that there is nothing here except a suitable application of the Clauses of the Bill relating to enforcement notices so that they will suitably apply to the case of alterations to buildings of special architectural or historic interest to
  1686
  which, as the House will remember, Section 30 of the 1947 Act refers. Part II of the proposed new Schedule B contains similar provisions in regard to notices served under Section 33 of the 1947 Act. That is a quite separate matter. Section 33 is concerned with the position that may arise where the condition of any vacant site or other open land is injurious to amenity. As with Part I. Part II simply applies the general enforcement provisions in this Bill so that they will fit accurately to the case of the vacant site or other open land.
  However, in this instance—that is to say, in Part II—there is one important difference. If hon. Members will look at paragraph 10 of the proposed new Schedule they will see that it preserves the present right of appeal to the magistrates' court against notices under Section 33 of the 1947 Act, whereas appeals under Clause 30 of the Bill will lie to the Minister and not to the court. It seems to the Government that this is the more appropriate course in that case, because the questions which may arise on a notice under Section 33 will depend very largely on the local circumstances. They will never involve issues of planning policy, and it is the issues of planning policy that will come to the Minister under the Bill.
  The grounds of appeal to the magistrates' court are set out in paragraph 10 of the Schedule, and the House may notice that they are somewhat wider than the grounds of appeal allowed by the present regulations under Section 33 of the 1947 Act. That is deliberate. It is a further attempt to meet criticisms of the present regulations which were voiced in Committee. That paragraph is the only one to which I should specifically draw attention. Apart from that one point, that these appeals, for the reason that I have explained, are to lie to the magistrates' court and not to the Minister, the whole of this new Schedule B is designed simply to apply in suitable terms the enforcement provisions in the Bill to the special cases in Sections 30 and 33 of the 1947 Act.
  Mr. Ede: The heading to Part II of the proposed new Schedule B is:
  "Notices relating to Waste Land, etc."
  Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this includes land which is generally described as "waste of the

  1687
  highway", or is it just some tract of land that has not been put to any particular purpose?
  Mr. H. Brooke: I think I can best answer the right hon. Gentleman by referring to Section 33 of the 1947 Act. The words there are quite open. Section 33 says:
  "If it appears to a local planning authority that the amenity of any part of the area of that authority, or of any adjoining area, is seriously injured by the condition of any garden, vacant site or other open land in their area …".
  There is no limitation.
  Mr. Graham Page: I do not think that I can let this Schedule go through without expressing surprise about paragraph 10 which my right hon. Friend was explaining and which retains the right to go to the magistrates on appeal.
  Under the existing law there are several procedures of appeal—to put it briefly, either to the Minister, to the magistrates or to the High Court. The whole purpose, as I understood it, of Part II of the Bill is to streamline those three procedures and bring them entirely through the procedure of appeal to the Minister and thence to the High Court on a point of law.
  In fact, throughout the Committee stage when I put forward certain proposals for splitting the right of appeal away from the Minister when there were established rights which were purely subjects of law, I was met with the argument that the purpose of this Bill was to streamline it into one form of procedure. If we are to leave paragraph 10 as it is, we shall get into great difficulties in future. In one small section of the whole procedure of appeal from town planning decisions and from enforcement notices we are having the procedure of appeal to the magistrates. It will be in very few cases, but in those few cases it will be an abnormal procedure.
  I must express surprise that after the principle of streamlining has been so expressed by my right hon. Friend throughout the stages of this Bill, we should find that this procedure is being retained at the last moment.
  Mr. R. T. Paget: The right hon. Gentleman assured my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) that the heading to
  1688
  Part II of the proposed new Schedule included waste of the highway. Is that so?
  Mr. H. Brooke: If I may have the leave of the House to speak again, every Minister is cautious about expounding existing Acts of Parliament but, as I understand, the words
  "any garden, vacant site or other open land in their area"
  are not limited in any way so as to exclude waste of the highway.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman is more learned in the law than I am, and if he says that I am wrong I will, of course, accept his opinion, but I do not see any exclusive limitation here.
  Mr. Paget: On the contrary, I do not for a moment wish to say that the right hon. Gentleman is wrong. I can assure him that he is mistaken if he thinks that I am more learned than he is. What I want to know—and surely, if we are being asked to legislate about this matter we are entitled to know what we are legislating about—iis what "waste of the highway" is. I have never heard of it. Surely I am entitled to an answer.
  Mr. H. Brooke: If I may have the leave of the House to speak again, in order that the hon. and learned Gentleman shall have an absolutely correct definition I would refer him to the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) Who first brought this concept and this phrase into our discussions. It certainly does not arise in the Lords Amendments to which I am seeking to get the House to assent, and, although I am always anxious to help the hon. and learned Gentleman, I do not think that I can take the matter any further today in either defining the phrase which the right hon. Gentleman used or expounding Section 33 of the 1947 Act.
  In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), I accept all he said about streamlining. Nevertheless, it seemed to the Government that here was a case where there was no mixture of planning considerations with other considerations. Here was a case which depended purely and simply on the local circumstances. That is exactly the kind of thing which the magistrates, with their local knowledge, are so well qualified to determine. I am not such a pedant that I would claim

  1689
  that because we are laying down a principle for the Bill as a whole there can be no exceptions whatever. The Government approach here is a purely practical one. It would seem more convenient to all concerned, and better suited to the achievement of right decisions on appeal based on local knowledge, if this kind of appeal went to the magistrates' courts.
  I can assure my hon. Friend that there was nothing sinister in our intentions, and we were certainly not wishing to undermine our general argument about the desirability of appeals lying to the Minister.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to

  First Schedule.—(CASES WHERE A CARA-VAN SITE LICENCE IS NOT REQUIRED.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 30, line 29, at end insert:
  "for the purposes of recreation".
  5.30 p.m.
  Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  The Amendment makes it clear that the exemptions in paragraph 5 of the Schedule—sites approved by exempted orranisations—covers recreational caravanning only. This was always the intention, and it is given effect by the Amendment.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Lords Amendment: In page 32, line 7, leave out from beginning to first "in" in line 11 and insert:
  1690
  "and, except in the case of an order the sole effect of which is to revoke in whole or part a previous order, the local authority shall, not less than three months before the order comes into force, cause a notice setting out the effect of the order and the date on which it comes into force to be published in the London Gazette, or, if the land is in Scotland, in the Edinburgh Gazette, and".
  Mr. H. Brooke: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  The Amendment deals with the very small matter of machinery. Where an order is made under the Bill withdrawing any exemptions under paragraphs 2 to 10 of the First Schedule the Bill as drafted would require the order to be advertised in a local paper at least three months before it comes into effect. The Amendment requires any such order to be advertised, in addition, in the London Gazette or the Edinburgh Gazette as the case may be.
  This arrangement, as embodied in the Amendment, would correspond with the existing arrangements for publicising Article 4 directions under a general development order, and the Amendment seems desirable in principle because the revocation of licensing exemptions might well affect national organisations and touring caravanners as well as the people living in the area referred to in the order, and if the order were only to be advertised in the local papers there might not be sufficient opportunity for people outside the immediate area to get to know about it.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.

MENTAL HEALTH (SCOTLAND) BILL
Lords Amendments considered.
MENTAL HEALTH (SCOTLAND) BILL

  Clause 2.—(ESTABLISHMENT AND CON-STITUTION OF MENTAL WELFARE COMMISSION.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 15, at end insert:
  "(4A) No person who for the time being is employed in the civil service of the Crown whether in an established capacity or not, and whether for the whole or part of his time, shall be appointed to the Mental Welfare Commission; and for the purposes of this subsection 'civil service of the Crown' includes the civil service of Northern Ireland, Her Majesty's Foreign Service and Her Majesty's Overseas Civil Service."
  5.33 p.m.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  The Amendment makes it impossible for a civil servant to be appointed as a Commissioner on the Mental Welfare Commission and so puts beyond any doubt the independence of the Commission. The Amendment meets an undertaking given by my right hon. Friend on Report.
  Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: I am very disappointed that the Joint Under-Secretary has not been more charitable in his remarks. If he will re-read the report of the Report stage and of our proceedings in Committee he will see that we tried to convince him and his right hon. Friend of the wisdom of putting in words of this kind. Admittedly our efforts were hardly satisfactory; we never pretended that they were. But we needed something of this kind. The hon. Gentleman might have complimented hon. Members on this side of the House on their persistence in ultimately driving the Government to make a distinction of this kind.
  The Amendment is very welcome to my hon. Friends. It gets over many of the difficulties we foresaw. In fact, it is much wider in its implications than many of us expected, and I have no doubt that it will receive an all-round welcome. I am sure that a welcome will be given to it even by some of our critics in the medical Press, who said
  1692
  that this matter might have been pressed less vehemently by the Opposition. I think that we have done a good job, and I am sorry that the Joint Under-Secretary has not paid us the gracious tribute that we so thoroughly deserve.
  Question put and agreed to.

  Clause 40.—(DETENTION OR GUARDIANSHIP OF CERTAIN PATIENTS AFTER THE AGE OF TWENTY-FIVE.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 29, line 18, leave out "and" and insert:
  "(2) Subject to the provisions of the next following subsection,".
  Mr. Galbraith: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  This is a drafting Amendment.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Lords Amendment: In page 29, line 19, leave out "subsection" and insert "section".
  Mr. Galbraith: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  This is a further drafting Amendment.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Lords Amendment: In page 29, line 21, leave out "said age" and insert "age of twenty-five".
  Mr. Galbraith: I beg 'to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  This is another drafting Amendment.
  Mr. E. G. Willis: The Joint Under-Secretary is getting away with murder here, with his pleas that these Amendments are purely drafting. These Amendments appear to me to be part of one specific change in the Bill. Will he be kind enough to explain why this change is being made, and what it means?
  Mr. Galbraith: The hon. Member always doubts what I say. There are drafting Amendments, consequential on the division into two of the former subsection (1) of Clause 40, which had become rather long as a result of previous Amendments. The changes also have the advantage of bringing the structure of the Clause more into line with that of Clause 39, which deals with the regular reviews of the authority in

  1693
  regard to detention or guardianship of patients.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.
  Lords Amendment: In page 29, line 27, after "informed" insert "forthwith".
  Mr. Galbraith: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  The Amendment makes it plain that the board of management or local health authority concerned must inform the patient and his nearest relative immediately when authority for detention or guardianship is renewed at the age of 25 since there is a limited period for appeal to the sheriff.
  Mr. A. C. Manuel: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) in his plea for a little more information. It is rather disturbing to note that the hon. Member agrees more easily with another place, which is unelected, than he does with the elected representatives of Scotland who put forward these points in Committee. We are delighted that he has seen the light, and that the persons in another place have convinced him, but I still think that the plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) earlier on is still pertinent. We have struggled manfully to try to get this principle inserted.
  Question put and agreed to.

  Clause 57.—(REQUIREMENTS AS TO MEDICAL EVIDENCE.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 42, line 24, after first "person" insert:
  ", subsection (4) shall have effect as if for the reference to an accused person there was substituted a reference to a child or young person."
  The Lord Advocate (Mr. William Grant): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  This is extension of an Amendment accepted by the House on Report and it ensures that a child or young person brought before the court under the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act, 1937, shall have the same right to
  1694
  a medical examination, as that given to other persons under this Bill.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

  Clause 82.—(REMOVAL OF ALIEN PATIENTS.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 62, line 28, after "there" insert:
  "and that it is in the interests of the patient to remove him,"
  Mr. Galbraith: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  Hon. Members will recollect that a somewhat similar Amendment was resisted at an earlier stage of the Bill. What we were afraid of then was that the words
  "in the interests of the patient"
  might have to be construed rather narrowly and might require my right hon. Friend to be satisfied that the standards of psychiatric treatment in the patient's own country were not only satisfactory, but were as high as anything which existed in this country. After further careful consideration, we have however decided that the words:
  "in the interests of the patient"
  can be construed rather more broadly so that it would be proper for my right hon. Friend not only to have regard to the standards of psychiatric treatment, but also to more general factors such as the benefit which would accrue to the patient from being among his own people. In light of this reconsideration, we now feel that we can accept the words originally proposed by the Opposition.
  Miss Margaret Herbison: We on this side of the House welcome the acceptance of this Amendment, which was moved in the Lords by one of my noble Friends. It is interesting to listen to the reasons now adduced by the Joint Under-Secretary to show why the House should accept the Amendment. I remember the long debate we had in Committee and the feelings that were forcibly expressed by the Joint Under-Secretary. The reasons given then were not that perhaps the psychiatric treatment available, say, in China—that was the country referred to by the Joint UnderSecretary—might not be as good as in

  1695
  our country and that, therefore, the patient could not be sent back. They were not the reasons adduced, but I am sorry to say that financial reasons were in the main adduced that morning in Committee.
  On Report we felt that we should try some other way. The Secretary of State, who replied to that debate, was in very great difficulty because time after time he used the words:
  "in the interests of the patient"
  and we had to intervene to tell him that those were the very words we had tried to get accepted in Committee but they were not accepted. I am glad, not only for the sake of the patients, but for the sake of the good name of my country, that this Lords Amendment is now proposed, I felt that we were making great improvements in the Bill and that the rejection in Committee of this proposal would bring shame and disgrace on us. I am delighted that the Government at long last saw the light and that when the Amendment was moved in another place it was accepted.
  On a previous Amendment, my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) seemed a little annoyed that something had been accepted in the Lords, but that Amendment was one which my hon. Friends had tried to get accepted in Committee and it was moved by the Government in order to meet the points we had made.
  5.45 p.m.
  Mr. Willis: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison), I am glad that at last the Government have seen wisdom on this matter. Once again I think that the Joint Under-Secretary might have expressed a little gratitude to hon. Members on this side of the House for their perspicacity in seeing the weakness of the Clause as it stood.
  I suggest that there is another lesson to be learned. It is that the hon. Gentleman must not look askance at ideas which come from this side of the House. In the course of time he will find, as he continues to occupy his very high office, that more and more he should rely upon what is said on this side. If he does so, he will get very good Bills.
  Question put and agreed to.

  Third Schedule.—(TRANSITIONAL PROVI-SIONS)
  Lords Amendment: In page 90, line 14, after "thirty-nine" insert "and section fifty-one".
  Mr. Galbraith: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  This Amendment makes it plain that when the Bill comes into operation Clause 51 relating to appeal to the sheriff, as well as Clause 39, will be applicable to those already in hospital or under guardianship.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.
  Lords Amendment: In page 94, line 51, after second "of" insert:
  "section eighty-nine of the Lunacy (Scotland) Act. 1857,".
  The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  This is consequential on Amendments which were made in Committee and, of course, I am prepared to give credit where credit is due. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I cannot remember whether they were Government Amendments or not. The effect of this Amendment is merely to ensure that a patient who has been transferred to a mental hospital from prison under Section 89 of the 1857 Act has his sentence treated as expiring at the end of the period for which he would be liable to be detained had he not been so transferred.
  Question put and agreed to.

  Fourth Schedule.—(MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 95, line 9, at end insert:
  "The Land Tax Redemption Act, 1802 (42 Geo. 3, c. 116)
  In section fourteen, as it applies to Scotland, for the words 'lunatics or of idiots' and 'lunatics, idiots', wherever they occur, there shall be substituted the words persons suffering from mental disorder within the meaning of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act, 1960'.
  The Admiralty (Signal Stations) Act, 1815 (55 Geo. 3, c. 128)
  In section three, as it applies to Scotland, for the words 'lunatics, idiots' there shall be substituted the words 'persons suffering from mental disorder within the meaning of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act, 1960'.
  The Defence Act, 1842 (5 & 6 Vict, c. 94)
  In sections ten and eighteen, as they apply to Scotland, for the words lunatics, idiots there shall be substituted the words persons suffering from mental disorder within the moaning of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act, 1960'.
  The Companies Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act, 1845 (8 & 9 Vict, c. 17)
  In section eighty-two, for the words' be a lunatic or idiot, fatuous or furious person, such lunatic or idiot, fatuous or furious person 'there shall be substituted the words is suffering from mental disorder within the meaning of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act, 1960, and is incapable by reason of his mental disorder of managing and administering his property and affairs, he'.
  The Lands Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act, 1845 8 & 9 Vict, c. 19)
  In section seven, for the words 'lunatics or idiots, fatuous or furious persons' and for the words 'lunatics, idiots, fatuous and furious persons', wherever they occur, there shall be substituted the words persons suffering from mental disorder within the meaning of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act, 1960'.
  In section sixty-seven, for the words 'lunatic or idiot, fatuous or furious person' there shall be substituted the words person suffering from mental disorder within the meaning of the 114, mental Health (Scotland) Act, 1960'.
  In section sixty-nine, for the word lunacy there shall be substituted the words incapacity by reason of mental disorder within the meaning of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act, 1960'.
  In section seventy, for the words 'idiotcy, lunacy' there shall be substituted the words 'incapacity by reason of mental disorder within the meaning of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act, 1960'."
  Mr. Galbraith: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  It might be convenient to discuss this Amendment with the next three Lords Amendments in lines 37, 43 and in page 96, line 6. The effect of all of them is to replace by the terminology introduced in the Bill various out-dated reerences to:
  "lunatics, idiots and furious and fatuous persons."
  Question put and agreed to.
  Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.
  Lords Amendment: In page 96, line 45, leave out from beginning to the end of line 47 and insert:
  "Section three shall cease to have effect.
  The Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict, c. 60)
  In section fifty-five, in subsection (1), as it applies to Scotland, for the word 'lunacy' there shall be substituted the words mental disorder within the meaning of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act, 1960'.
  The Friendly Societies Act, 1896
  (59 & 60 Vict, c. 25)
  In section thirty-four, as it applies to Scotland, for the words 'becomes lunatic' there shall be substituted the words 'is suffering from mental disorder within the meaning of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act, 1960 '."
  Mr. Galbraith: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  This Amendment does two things. First, it substitutes the terminology of the Bill for obsolete wording under the Merchant Shipping Act and the Friendly Societies Act. Secondly, this and the last four Lords Amendments ensure that Service personnel discharged because of mental disorder will be dealt with under the appropriate mental health legislation of the United Kingdom country concerned if compulsory admission to hospital is necessary.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Lords Amendment: In page 99, line 8, at end insert:
  "or in a hospital or institution within the meaning of the Mental Health Act (Northern Ireland), 1948,"
  Mr. Galbraith: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  The effect of this Amendment, read with the first part of the following Amendment, is to extend to persons receiving treatment for mental disorder in Northern Ireland the exemption from liability to recall for service contained in paragraph 2 of the Schedule to the Recall of Army and Air Force Pensioners Act, 1948.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Lords Amendment: In page 99, line 10, at end insert:
  or, as the case may be, of the Northern Ireland Hospitals Authority.
  The Legal Aid and Solicitors (Scotland) Act, 1949 (12 & 13 Geo. 6, c, 63)
  In section nineteen, in subsection three, for the word 'insanity' there shall be substituted the words 'mental disorder within the meaning of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act, 1960'.
  In the Fifth Schedule, for the word 'insanity', wherever occurring, there shall be substituted the words 'mental disorder within the meaning of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act, 1960'; in paragraph 4, for the words 'upon an order or warrant being granted for the detention of a solicitor as a lunatic' there shall be substituted the words 'where in pursuance of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act, 1960, a solicitor is, by reason of mental disorder, admitted to a hospital and becomes liable to be detained therein or becomes subject to guardianship,' for the words 'any such order or warrant remains in force' there shall be substituted the words he continues to be so liable or so subject', and in the proviso to the said paragraph, for the words the order or warrant ceases to be in force' there shall be substituted the words 'he ceases to be liable to be detained or subject to guardianship'."
  Mr. Galbraith: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  This Amendment is partly consequential on the previous Amendment. It also substitutes references to the provisions of the Bill for obsolete terminology in the provisions of the Legal Aid and Solicitors (Scotland) Act, 1949.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Lords Amendment; In page 99, line 35, leave out "and (3)" and insert", (3) and (4)".
  The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  This Amendment, again, extends the right under subsection (4) of Clause 57 to independent medical examination in private. It applies to persons who are detained in hospital at a time when they are subject to the procedure under Section 3 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act, 1949.
  Miss Herbison: I am very pleased that this Amendment was accepted in another place and that the Government agree with it. The Lord Advocate will be aware that throughout the whole passage of the Bill in this House, we on this side tried to ensure that there was the greatest civil liberty for all people, whether they were brought in from civil life or had been sentenced for any kind of crime. This seems to be an improvement and we welcome it.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.

ROAD TRAFFIC AND ROADS IMPROVEMENT BILL
Order read for consideration of Lords Amendments.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Lords Amendments be now considered.—[Mr. Renton.]
5.54 p.m.
Mr. Wedgwood Benn: I take it that it is in order to debate whether the Lords Amendments should be discussed. A sort of brainwashing technique is now going on in which we are being invited to agree with the Lords in so many Amendments. This is, no doubt, to prepare us for the statement which is to be made at six o'clock from No. 10, Downing Street concerning other important changes. We shall, I hope, get through these proceedings on the Bill rapidly and agreeably. It is a great pleasure to see the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department in his place.
Question put and agreed to.
Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

Clause 1.—(PUNISHMENT WITHOUT PROSE-CUTION OF OFFENCES IN CONNECTION WITH LIGHTS, REFLECTORS, OBSTRUC-TION, ETC.)
Lords Amendment: In page 1, line 9, after "road" insert:
"during the hours of darkness (as defined by the Road Transport Lighting Act, 1957)"
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Renton): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Clause - (1, a) is intended to apply to lighting and reflector offences committed in respect of stationary vehicles at night, but the Regulation which the offences are created—Regulation 24A of the Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations, 1955—requires that a vehicle shall at all times, which means even during the day, carry the equipment that is necessary to ensure that it can be adequately lit at night. An offence against that Regulation, albeit a technical offence, can therefore be committed during the day.

1701
Hon. Members will, I am sure, agree that it certainly is not appropriate that the ticket system should be used for merely technical offences of that kind. The effect of the Amendment will be to ensure that this offence can be the subject of the ticket system only when it is committed during the hours of darkness.
Mr. Benn: As I understand it, it is an offence to have during daylight a car which is not capable of being lit at night.
Mr. Renton Mr. Renton indicated assent.
Mr. Benn: That is to say, if I have a car parked in the street and it does not have a battery under the bonnet, I am committing an offence. Nobody suggests in the Bill that traffic wardens should go round peeping under car bonnets, because that is not their function. On the other hand, if a car does not have a reflector, which is a quite difficult thing to fit, and it is spotted by a traffic warden in the late afternoon without reflectors, it is almost bound to commit an offence when darkness falls.
It is rather riduculous to preclude a traffic warden, who will soon be called upon to perform quite important functions, from taking action when he sees a car without a reflector fitted. That is to say, lighting equipment, which is a quite technical matter—we almost get into the field of vehicle testing when we come to the serviceablility of lighting equipment—is one thing. The reflector is an essential part of the safety apparatus of the car.
I only wish to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman whether a traffic warden, seeing a car without a fixed reflector, will be in a position to take any action to prevent the driver and owner of that car being allowed to get away with it without having it corrected. Possibly, the hon. and learned Gentleman can settle the point.
Mr. Renton: Yes, indeed. I give the hon. Member that assurance. There is nothing in the Amendment which prevents the traffic warden from drawing the constable's attention to the defective state of the reflector, whether shortly before the hours of darkness or at some other time. The main point of the Amendment is that the ticket procedure
1702
could not be used except for an offence committed during the hours of darkness.
Mr. Benn: Will it be in order for a traffic warden to take the number of a car that is not equipped with a reflector and to report it in the absence of a constable?
Mr. Renton: Yes. There is nothing to prevent him from doing that.
Question put and agreed to.
Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 9, leave out from "offering" to end of line 13 and insert:
"the opportunity of the discharge of any liability to conviction of that offence by payment of a fixed penalty under this section; and no person shall then be liable to be convicted of that offence if the fixed penalty is paid in accordance with this section before the expiration of the twenty-one days following the date of the notice or such longer period (if any) as may be specified therein or before the date on which proceedings are begun, whichever event last occurs."
Mr. Renton: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Clause 1 as it left this House gave an option to pay a fixed penalty to the court or to wait and be prosecuted. That description was accurate as far as it went, but it was not complete and it has caused doubts to arise concerning the description of the offer as an option. We hope that these doubts will be removed by the Amendment.
It may be convenient if I remind the House that the purpose of the ticket is to allow a person who knows he has committed an offence to pay without being convicted. In nearly all cases, if the fixed penalty is not paid proceedings will be taken. Therefore, in practice, the choice will be to pay or be prosecuted. The Bill does not, however, oblige the police to prosecute if in their discretion, and having regard to the circumstances, they decide not to do so. I must point out that it would only be in exceptional cases that the police would exercise their discretion not to prosecute. Therefore, a more accurate description of the choice is to say that the driver may pay and so avoid the possibility of prosecution and conviction, or do nothing and run the risk of proceedings being taken against him if the police are satisfied that there are grounds for doing so.

1703
6.0 p.m.
In the Clause as it was drafted the ticket was described as an option in order to make it clear that the person liable was not bound to pay unless he wished, but for the reasons I have given it is arguable, and doubt was thrown on the position in another place that the word "option" is not quite appropriate to the circumstances, because more precisely what is offered is not an option so much as an opportunity to compound, or, in other words, to discharge the liability to be convicted after prosecution and after failure to pay the fixed penalty.
That is what the first part of the Lords Amendment says. In other words, it is a more precise statement than we had in the previous draft of the Bill of what payment is. Conversely, the effect of non-payment, which is liability to conviction and which would have been discharged by payment, remains; but it is liability, not certainty. It was felt in another place that the word "option" implied a certain amount of certainty of prosecution if the fixed penalty was not paid.
The Government also took advantage of the opportunity in another place of improving the precision of the second part of this subsection as well so as to give complete protection against conviction where the penalty is paid either within the 21 days, or even if it is paid outside that period before proceedings are begun. If the person responsible for an offence lets the 21 days elapse before he pays he is at risk, because if an information is laid before his money reaches the clerk to the justices the payment will not discharge his liability to conviction. It is only if the money is paid within the 21 days that the protection is absolute.
Mr. Benn: I must say that the hon. and learned Gentleman's explanation has raised clouds of doubt in my mind about whether we ought to agree with the Lords in all these Amendments although we want the police to have discretion. For example, I have a ticket on my car and I go to the police and give a perfectly reasonable explanation and as a result they do not want to prosecute. That seems to be a very sensible thing. We want that. On the other hand, we do not want to get the public into the
1704
state of thinking that there is not a very great likelihood of prosecution, because they then will postpone paying their ticket fine either in the hope that the police will forget it, or at any rate not prosecute, or just because they feel that they lose nothing by postponing the payment.
The hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by saying that if one does not pay within the 21 days and on the twenty-second day one gets a summons, even if one then pays, one does not discharge one's liability to prosecution. In those circumstances I can conceive of it happening that people will be getting tickets and will hope—or some at any rate—that they will not be prosecuted by the police, and that they may even write a letter explaining to the police, in the hope that they will not be prosecuted, and they will not pay the money, and at the end of the 21 days the police will prosecute in certain cases. Then in such a case a man will say, Heavens, they mean to prosecute. I must pay." But the money will not be accepted and the case will go to court. That is what we want to avoid—cluttering up the courts with small offences.
So, although I think that this is going to work all right, it would be wise for the hon. and learned Gentleman not to say anything in this House at this stage which suggests that prosecution will not follow non-payment of tickets, because I think that the certainty of prosecution following non-payment of tickets has an essential part to play in getting the public to co-operate with the authorities by paying when they know themselves to be guilty. If the hon. and learned Gentleman would clear this point up I think it would be a great convenience for the operation of the scheme.
Mr. Ede: Surely this narrower point that we are now discussing is one for administration. I would have thought that, if a ticket has been served and then the chief constable or the lawyer in the chief constable's office decides that it is not a case in which prosecution should take place he ought to write and say so. I should have thought that there should be some administrative arrangement whereby that could be carried through. On the other hand, I do not want to see these cases kept out of court. I view this method

1705
of getting notice and then avoiding a conviction, which is a real advantage, as not a thing to be encouraged. If a breach of the law is committed in this country it ought to be dealt with in the courts.
Mr. Renton: If I may have the leave of the House to speak again, I would answer the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) by saying that, in moving, "That this House does agree with the Lords in the said Amendment", I did point out that the most usual practice would be for the police to prosecute if the fixed penalty was not paid; it is only, as I said, in rare cases, exceptional cases, that in their discretion they may find that it is not appropriate to prosecute. This must be coupled with the other statement that I made that in these cases where the motorist concerned knows that he has committed the offence—and he will generally have no doubt about it—he will be wise to pay up. We expect that most motorists who know that they have committed an offence will pay up.
That, to some extent, also answers the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), but I think it is fair to the Government that I should point out that it was partly in deference to the view which he expressed in Standing that we should do nothing to interfere with the discretion of the police to prosecute or not prosecute, that we in another place asked their Lordships to amend the Bill in this way which I am now commending we should follow, so as to make it perfectly clear that there is that discretion in rare and exceptional cases in which it would not be appropriate either for the motorist to pay the fixed penalty or the police to prosecute.
If it gives any assurance to the hon. Gentleman, I stress here and now that in nearly all cases, if the fixed penalty is not pa d, there will be prosecution.
The only other point for me to answer is the point which the right hon. Gentleman referred to as an administrative matter, namely, that if there is to be no prosecution the police or the court or somebody should write and say so. That is an administrative matter, and we will consider it, and I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the suggestion.
Mr. Benn: I want to put one final point. I conceive a difficulty here, If
1706
a man receives a ticket then he may or may not be guilty but he might decide to pay to save trouble, and the police meanwhile might decide that he probably was not guilty and will not in any case prosecute. Can there be no procedure, as my right hon. Friend said, for the withdrawal of the ticket so that the man may be left in no doubt? We cannot go into this at this stage when we can speak more than once only with the leave of the House, but I think that the point was worth raising, in that we have alerted the hon. and learned Gentleman and his Department to possible administrative difficulties which may arise in the operation of this Lords Amendment.
Mr. Joseph Slater (Sedgfield): May I ask my hon. Friend whether there is a specified period, between the time that a man receives a ticket and the time that the charge is made against him, during which he can pay?
Mr. Benn: The question should not be addressed to me, but the period is 21 days, and after that even if he pays he is not free from prosecution.
Question put and agreed to.
Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 18, leave out from "may" to end of line 19 and insert:
"have been specified therein"
Mr. Renton: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
It might be convenient also to discuss with this Amendment the Amendment in line 38.
These Amendments are necessitated by the Amendment to which we have just agreed and it might be of help to the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Slater) to point out that subsection (6) as proposed to be amended will require the ticket to specify instead of the period of option the period during which the police and the local authority are precluded from taking proceedings. This is the effect of the second Amendment. The hon. Member will find from the Bill that that period is 21 days.
Question put and agreed to.
Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.
Lords Amendment: In page 3, line 15, at end insert:
"(9A) In any proceedings for an offence to which subsection (1) of this section applies no reference shall be made after the conviction of the accused to the giving or affixing of any notice under this section or to the payment or non-payment of a fixed penalty thereunder unless in the course of the proceedings or in some document which is before the court in connection with the proceedings reference has been made by or on behalf of the accused to the giving or affixing of such a notice or, as the case may he, to such a payment or nonpayment."
Mr. Renton: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The Amendment was moved by the Government to deal with a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and others in Committee in another place, and indeed it had been the subject of discussion in our Standing Committee. It is the question whether the fact that a driver had been served with a ticket could be quoted against him in the courts. In dealing with this matter perhaps it is appropriate for me to acknowledge that I felt that it could be dealt with by the existing practice and rules of evidence and that justice would be obtained in that way. But in view of all the discussions that have taken place in this House and in another place we feel that the matter might very well be more specifically dealt with by writing something into the Bill.
There are two types of proceedings to which the question may be relevant. First, there are the proceedings for the offence for which the ticket was served while the fixed penalty has not been paid, and subsequently separate proceedings for another offence but one of a similar character. In neither proceedings could payment of a fixed penalty be referred to by the prosecution, because the question would be irrelevant to the question of guilt on the evidence before the court. Therefore, it would be inadmissible except in so far as the defence might raise the matter in proceedings for a ticketable offence on the ground that a penalty had been paid and therefore there was a defence. The defence obviously would raise that matter before conviction, because there would be conviction if it did not raise it.
There remains, however, the question whether the service of a ticket or the
1708
payment of a penalty could be quoted as part of an offender's antecedents, his past history as known to the police. That is clearly a matter which is considered after conviction and while the court is considering sentence. While the offender has been convicted of an offence for which a ticket was served, the fact that he sought to exercise his right to defend the case instead of paying a fixed penalty ought not to 'be quoted against him. We have come to the conclusion that it would be right specifically to prohibit this in the Bill. I think that it was common ground between us in Committee.
6.15 p.m.
On the other hand, where the fixed penalty has been paid there is no conviction and the liability for conviction has been discharged. In these circumstances also, we think it reasonable that the offender should be protected against a reference to the fact that he has been previously served with a ticket and has paid if he is brought up before the court later for a similar offence. In other words, payment of a fixed penalty after the serving of a ticket is not in itself a conviction and it should not be treated as a previous conviction if he is later prosecuted for a similar offence.
Mr. R. J. Mellish: Let us take the extreme case of a man who in one year has received ten tickets which he has paid within the 21 days and at some stage he is then accused of dangerous driving, which of course is an entirely different offence and he is taken to court and prosecuted. I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman to be saying that previous offences, whether paid for by ticket or by means of the court procedure, must not be referred to by the prosecution, and that they ought not to be mentioned unless the defendant is stupid enough to refer to them himself in court.
Mr. Renton: Yes. The hon. Member of course is referring to the persistent offender. If the traffic warden or the police constable notices that a certain person, whether with the same vehicle or with different vehicles, is becoming a persistent offender and is always having tickets served on him and always paying, the warden or constable may decide that it is no use going on serving a ticket on such a man, that it is a waste of time

1709
and therefore he had better be prosecuted. The case of the persistent offender will not be allowed to reach such proportions that he is such a nuisance that his behaviour ought to have a bearing on the conviction for dangerous driving which is a very different and very serious kind of offence.
The effect of the Amendment is that thy; fact, that the man has paid up a fixed penalty will not be admissible as part of his antecedents if he is later convicted of dangerous driving. To sum up, the effect of the Amendment is that the fact that a person has had a ticket served on him so that a fixed penalty has been paid or has not been paid should not be mentioned in proceedings before or after conviction of an offence to which Clause 1 (1) applies, unless it has been mentioned by or on behalf of the accused in the course of proceedings or in some document before the courts, for example, in a statement submitted with a plea of guilty sent by post. I have fairly fully explained the reasons for the Amendment and I think that they follow the views expressed at an earlier stage in the House and in another place. I hope that the House will feel that we should agree with the Lords Amendment.
Mr. James Dempsey: I have been trying to follow the logic of the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument, especially as I did not have the opportunity of serving on the Sta.-Wing Committee. Incidentally, I am ass fired that I did not miss much.
Here we are dealing with an actual offender. A person has committed an offence on the road and has been served with a ticket, which is the equivalent of a monetary penalty. He may agree to accept the ticket and forfeit the penalty for committing the offence. The Minister has told us that that is not an offence at all and that it should not be quoted as an offence against that individual in the event of a subsequent appearance in court. Frankly, I am unable to follow that line of reasoning.
The hon. and learned Gentleman proceeds further and quotes the case of another person who rejects the ticket and decides to defend himself in court. If during the course of the proceedings an admission about the previous affair is made by the individual concerned, then that conviction would be regarded
1710
as one set against his record. If it is not mentioned at all by the individual, then it will not be referred to. So we may have a person who accepts the ticket and forfeits the monetary penalty and another who appears before a court, is convicted and fined, and it is quite possible that in the event of subsequent prosecutions these would not be regarded as convictions.
Frankly, I wonder whether we are going to relax the law for other offences against society to the same extent. In this case, whether we like it or not, we are creating a very dangerous precedent. I can very well visualise other sections of the administration of the law demanding similar concessionary relaxations in legislation or the enforcement of the law in general if concessions of this nature are made.
Would the Minister explain why he was in such a hurry to accept the Amendment from the Lords? Incidentally, I spent most of the afternoon listening to Minister after Minister accepting the guidance of the Lords. I wonder whether the Prime Minister might consider that attitude in connection with his great problem, because, whether one likes it or not, it seems to me—especially as a member of another Standing Committee in which we urged Amendment after Amendment on the Minister and Amendment after Amendment was rejected—that we have the satisfaction of finding not only that in another place some of our Amendments were agreed to but that this afternoon they are approved by the Minister and recommended to this House.
Surely, therefore, if we are serious about controlling our roads we must be serious about enforcing penalties. Does the Minister realise that the time has arrived when a greater discipline must be imposed on all road users because our roads and our road programmes are hopelessly incapable of meeting the demands of twentieth century traffic. That calls for the imposition of greater discipline on all road users. Yet we find the Minister rushing about almost breaking his neck this afternoon to accept an Amendment designed not to impose greater discipline on the road users but to relax discipline. I honestly feel that we are taking a step in a backward direction. I wonder whether

1711
when the Minister came to the conclusion that the Lords Amendment was one worthy of recommendation to this House he bore in mind that we require a more effective discipline for road users today and not a relaxed discipline?
Mr. Ede: This is undoubtedly a very difficult matter in view of the line that the Government have adopted. As a practising magistrate for thirty-seven years, I know only one similar provision, and that is with regard to the non-payment of the excise licence on a motor car. When it is reported that a car has been discovered without a current excise licence in force the county council, or county borough council, as the case may be, can suggest to the offender that he should pay what is called a mitigated penalty. The council considers what the appropriate figure is. It is generally less than what it thinks it would get if the case went before a magistrate. The offender has the option of paying it or not. There may be other cases; no doubt the hon. and learned Gentleman and the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport will vouchsafe that there are others, but it is the only one that I have met.
I have heard prosecutions in these cases. I have not adjudicated upon them because most of the time that I was a magistrate I was also a member of a county council and it was, therefore, inadvisable—though I think I was not prevented from doing so—for me to adjudicate. But I have recollections in those cases of hearing it said that the defendant was offered a mitigated penalty or that he had had a mitigated penalty inflicted upon him on two or three previous occasions, and the local authority had come to the conclusion that it was about time he had it brought home to him that he ought to comply with the law.
I find some difficulty in thinking that this complete exemption from any publicity for having committed an offence should be granted to a person who has committed an offence. If I am right about what happens with regard to the mitigated penalty for not taking out an excise licence, I wonder whether the hon. and learned Gentleman could tell me why the Government thought it desirable to set a precedent in this case that
1712
was not followed by some Government in the past when the mitigated penalty was arranged.
Mr. Benn: Before the hon. and learned Gentleman replies I should like to raise two points. The first is the case of the man who is being taken to court for the first time. He has left his car somewhere, has got a ticket, strongly resents the ticket he has received and is take to court and prosecuted by the police for non-payment. In other words, he has pleaded not guilty; that is why the case has gone to court. In that case, it cannot matter a bit that it is mentioned that he has not paid the ticket fine. Indeed, it helps him in a way. It is part of his argument why he should never have received the ticket in the first place.
The second case is that of the persistent offender. It may be found that the Amendment creates a differentiation between people who have a record of offences which they know they have committed. There are the people with guilty records who have paid their ticket fines and there are the people who have resisted tickets, have chosen to fight the case and have lost. If a man pays ten ticket fines and not the eleventh and comes to court, the court will have no cognisance of the ten earlier offences. However, for the sake of argument—I admit that it is not very likely—let us suppose that a man feels that he has been wrongly convicted ten times, having fought every one of the cases, and also fights the eleventh prosecution. There will be records of his previous convictions on the ten summonses.
Therefore, the position which we have created, in so far as we have created a new situation at all, is that the persistent offender who was certainly guilty gets away with it whereas the persistent offender who claims that he was innocent and chose to stand on his rights and fight the arguments in the courts suffers. In those cases we are putting a penalty upon pleas of innocence which is incompatible with the object of the ticket system. I should be grateful if the hon. and learned Gentleman would clear that point up.
6.30 p.m.
Mr. Renton: The hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey)

1713
need not feel that we are blindly following the Amendments of the Lords in this matter. Indeed, the discussions in another place may well have been inspired to a great extent by those that we had in Standing Committee. He did not take part, as far as I remember, in our earlier proceedings on this Bill, and therefore he will perhaps allow me to remind him that in instituting this standard penalty procedure we are, in the main, breaking new ground. The nearest that we have to a precedent is the kind of thing mentioned by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), the compounding by a local authority of offences relating to failure to pay a car Excise licence.
As was pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport on Second Reading, there is a similar provision for Customs offences dating back to 1825. Thus, in instituting a procedure for compounding offences, we are not doing something new, but we are making a new departure in providing for the service of a ticket offering, as I said on the second Amendment which we discussed, the chance to pay or in the alternative to incur a liability to prosecution.
We have all been at pains in that departure—certainly the Government have—to ensure that the compounding of the offence by payment of the fixed penalty shall not amount to a conviction, and that a person who compounds the offence in that way shall not be under the fear that by doing so he will be referred to in court on some later occasion as having been previously convicted. If we are not agreed upon that then it raises difficulties in the mind of any Member about this Amendment. I thought, however, that we were all agreed upon it. Certainly when the Bill went to the Lords it seemed that we were, and their Lordships are agreed upon it. The Lord Chancellor, in consultation with the Home Secretary, was right to move a Government Amendment in another place to put this matter right. The right hon. Member for South Shields asked me why we were creating a precedent by writing this into the Bill. As we are making a new departure to the extent which I have mentioned, and one which affects so many people in our highly motorised society, it is right that we should put the matter beyond doubt.
1714
The hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn), with that great sublety of mind which we now associate with him, at any rate in motoring matters, challenged me to say why one type of persistent offender should be dealt with differently from another type. In order to illustrate his case he over-simplified the position that is likely to arise in practice. As I have said, we shall not allow people to become too persistent. When I say "we" I mean, of course, that the Government do not expect that the traffic wardens and the police will allow people to become too persistent in their use of the opportunities of compounding offered by the ticket system, because when it seems that somebody is getting into the habit of doing so he will be prosecuted.
Mr. Sydney Silverman: How will the warden know whether the owner of a car parked too long in the wrong place has, in the past, been a persistent offender or a persistent ticketee or not? Is he to be supplied with a black list? Are we to have a roll of people who have paid fines in this way and those who have not, and how many times?
Mr. Renton: That is a fair point, more especially as the ticket is to be fixed to and will relate to the vehicle and not to the motorist or the driver or the owner. Nevertheless, both police officers and wardens have eyes and are trained to use them. There will be people whose faces they will become accustomed to, and if they find that a certain person has become a persistent offender they will stop wasting time sticking tickets on his vehicle and will bring him to court.
Mr. Gordon Walker: The hon. and learned Gentleman is advising motorists to commit their offences in different parts of London or Edinburgh, as the case may be, so as to avoid this risk.
Mr. Renton: Hardly a law is passed by this House which some people do not find a way of getting round. Indeed, it sometimes causes the House the trouble of making further legislation. We believe that this is a reasonably cast-iron system because the ticket is related to the vehicle. I acknowledge that it is only in those cases where the offender who is persistent becomes known to the

1715
police or to the traffic warden—as he will do if he is really persistent—that what I have said about offenders will apply.
Mr. Ede: The hon. and learned Gentleman said that we are doing this because we live in a highly motorised civilisation. We also live in a highly burglarised civilisation. Why not apply this to burglars?
Mr. Mellish: I do not know that the hon. and learned Gentleman treated this point seriously enough. He accused my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) of being extremely subtle, but my hon. Friend asked a straightforward question. Do I understand that if a man pays a £2 fine and does not bother to go to court, the records are not kept, but that if he decides that a grave injustice is being done and each time he is served with a ticket he goes to court and fights the case, then this is recorded as a conviction against him?
We want justice to be done. I am all against the persistent offender, the character who gets into so much trouble on the roads, but we must be fair and make people understand that there is no real difference between getting a ticket and paying the fine at once and going to court to put one's case, but that the principle is that if he feels that he has not committed an offence he has the right to argue in court.
One of the dangers in taking a case to court, as I see it, is that where a ticket has been served by a warden or a policeman, then to a very large extent the man is condemned before he gets to court. I have argued this point before and I know that the hon. and learned Gentleman did not like the trend of it. We have the position in which a man is told "Pay up and have no record or go to court and have a record."
Mr. S. Silverman: The longer this discussion goes on the more puzzled I get. Until the hon. and learned Gentleman made his reply I thought that I agreed with him. It seemed to me that the point was simple enough. As he himself said at the beginning of his speech, what everyone wanted was to secure that the system of wardens and notices, now that we have decided upon it—some of us reluctantly—should work.
1716
To make it work, it is suggested that when a man recognises that he has transgressed and has committed an offence against the regulations, and that he is at fault, and is prepared to concede that he has done so when his attention is called to it by a ticket being put upon his vehicle, and therefore agrees to pay a compounded penalty, that shall be the end of the matter for all purposes. If, on a subsequent occasion, he feels that he is being wrongly accused and does not accept the opinion of the warden that an offence has been committed and exercises his right to go to court to defend himself, but is nevertheless convicted, he shall not be penalised by having not made a lot of fuss on previous occasions when he knew perfectly well that he was in the wrong.
All that seems perfectly simple so far. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn), if he will forgive me for saying so, somewhat confused the issue by saying that that created unfairness, in that a man who never admitted that he was wrong and who went to the court every time and was convicted every time would somehow or other be worse treated than a man who, when he was in the wrong, frankly admitted it. He is quite right, but I cannot see what can be wrong with that.
If a man chooses to contest an accusation which is made against him, he knows perfectly well that if he does not satisfy the court that the warden was wrong, he will be convicted, and that is a risk which he voluntarily assumes. If he goes to court and shows that the prosecution has failed to satisfy the court that he was guilty, he gets away with it and there is no conviction and there is no penalty, and there ought not to be. But if he fails and the prosecution discharges the onus, which is always on it, of proving him guilty, he has had his chance and has failed and the conviction is made and there is no reason why it should not be used against him on subsequent occasions.
Up to that point, I was on the side of the Government, but then the hon. and learned Gentleman said that there would be two classes of convicted offenders.
Mr. Renton: I was at pains to stress that the compounding of an offence by

1717
the serving of a fixed penalty notice did not amount to a conviction. It is a compounding.
Mr. Silverman: As a question of semantics, the hon. and learned Gentleman is obviously quite right and I would not contest that, but he said something which justified the comment which I made. He said that the warden would be entitled to use his own discretion and to determine whether a particular person, or driver of a particular vehicle, was a persistent offender or not. In order to decide whether he was a persistent offender or not, the warden will have regard not to any convictions in court but to the question of how many times in the past that person has confessed that he was wrong. The hypothesis is that if the man confesses that he is wrong and pays up, that is not a conviction, and if he does it often enough and confesses every time and pays every time, then he becomes a persistent offender, although not a single one of the cases entitled him to regard it as a conviction.
Mr. Benn: That is a persistent confessor, which is a different thing.
Mr. Silverman: The man has to be a persistent irregular practitioner of the regulations before he can be put in that position, and, ex hypothesi, he is not an offender at all.
The whole purpose of this provision is to encourage people not to make a fuss and to pay up when they are wrong. The encouragement to them to do that is to say, "Do not think that by admitting it and paying up you are building yourself a bad character." If we are to say, "You are building yourself a bad character", then the inducement not to make a fuss and to pay up when in the wrong has been taken away. It is that which worried me about the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech.
He must have it one way or another. Either the fixing of a ticket and the paying of a compounded penalty is to be the end of the matter for all purpose or it is not. The hon. and learned Gentleman cannot have it both ways, as he pretended. I hope that he will make it perfectly clear that the wardens are not to be given any discretion of that kind to discriminate between man and man.
1718
Those of us who have been practising in police courts for many years—and the hon. and learned Gentleman was certainly one of them in his time—know perfectly well that policemen and wardens are just as human as motorists and just as likely to take likes and dislikes and just as likely to have prejudices and just as likely to have favourites.
If the warden is given power to decide for himself whether a particular person is the kind of man who ought to be given an option of a ticket or prosecution to conviction in the court, having regard either to his knowledge of the man or any previous habit or past conduct, we will completely destroy the confidence of the public in what can be a very delicate and difficult operation of a wholly new branch of the law. This system will not work unless the public has confidence in it. If the public loses confidence in the warden, as it has largely lost confidence in these matters in the police—
Mr. Hay Mr. Hay indicated dissent.
6.45 p.m.
Mr. Silverman: The hon. Gentleman should consult his hon. Friends if he does not know it. I do not say that it is the case everywhere, or that it is on a wide scale, but everybody knows that there has been a considerable loss of confidence in the police in motoring cases. If we do what the hon. and learned Gentleman suggested, we shall produce in the public—may be quite unfairly—a great deal of lack of confidence in the wardens and the system, and in that case the whole scheme will break down.
Question put and agreed to.
Lords Amendment: In page 3, line 36, at end insert:
"(b) In subsection (2) the words 'before the expiration of the twenty-one days following the date of the notice or such longer period (if any) as may be specified therein or' and the words whichever event last occurs' shall be omitted."
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Niall Macpherson): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment suitably adapts the Amendment which has just been made to

1719
Clause 1 (2) to meet the needs of Scotland.
Question put and agreed to.
Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2.—(TRAFFIC WARDENS.)
Lords Amendment: In page 4, line 32, after "sixty" insert:
", not being an order authorising the employment of a traffic warden for the purposes of section one of this Act in so far as it relates to a vehicle's obstructing a road,"
Mr. Renton: I beg to move, That this House doth agreed with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The effect of this Amendment is that traffic wardens will not be able to enforce the law relating to obstruction by means of the fixed penalty procedure or ticket system until a proposal to empower them to do so has been approved by affirmative Resolution in either House of Parliament.
The Amendment gives statutory effect to undertakings given by my noble Friend in another place and by me in this House, that the first order prescribing the functions of traffic wardens to be made under Clause 2 (3) would not empower the wardens to make use of the procedure for offences of obstruction. This is the fulfilment of an undertaking which was given in response to pressure in both Houses.
Mr. Benn: We are grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for this Amendment, which does two very important things. It safeguards the right of the Minister to bring forward a plan to extend the powers of the wardens for which, if the traffic situation in London gets any worse, he will probably soon have to ask. At the same time, it safeguards the rights of the House to review what may be very important advances in the status of traffic wardens beyond the automatic ticket offences to something involving judgment more like that normally exercised by a constable. I do not think that one can say more than that this new procedure of the affirmative Resolution to provide an extension of responsibilities in this way will, in the judgment of myself and some of my hon. Friends, have to be brought into operation before very long.
Question put and agreed to.

Clause 11.—MISCELLANEOUS AMEND-MENTS AS TO LOCAL AUTHORITIES' PARKING PLACES AND TRAFFIC SCHEMES.)
Lords Amendment: In page 16, line 30, after "area" insert:
"nor to an order made under the said Act of 1960 revoking or varying an order so made and confirmed".
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
I think that it would be for the general convenience of the House if we discussed, also, the Amendment in page 16, line 31.
Mr. Speaker: Yes.
Mr. Hay: Clause 11 contains a number of miscellaneous Amendments as to the powers of local authorities to institute parking places and what we call general schemes of traffic control. Subsection (8), which these Amendments seek to amend, contain provisions which make it clear that when a local authority is producing a general scheme of traffic control certain protective provisions contained in Sections 26 and 81 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, are not to apply.
I call these protective provisions, because, as the opening words of the subsection makes clear, they are intended to insure that when either parking places are instituted, or waiting and loading and unloading is restricted in a road, access to premises must be preserved.
In agreeing to subsection (8) at an earlier stage of the Bill, we have already approved the general principle that when a local authority makes a general scheme of traffic control these protective provisions shall not apply. In precisely the same way, where the road affected is a trunk road, again they are not to apply. Those are the concluding words of subsection (8).
At a later stage of the proceeding on the Bill in another place it was discovered that there was some doubt about the procedure which would arise when what was being done was not to make an order of a general scheme of traffic control, but to vary or revoke it once it had been made.
Therefore, for the avoidance of any doubt in the matter, and to ensure that

1721
any scheme which is made can work properly and be corrected as experience shows it to be necessary, these two comparatively simple though complicated locking Amendments were passed in another place. I hope that we can agree with them.
Mr. Benn: Does the Amendment, or the Amendment associated with it, deal with the disc system?
Mr. Hay Mr. Hay indicated assent.
Mr. Benn: It was agreed by the Minister of Transport that to facilitate the experimentation by local authorities of the disc system provision should be made in the Bill for it. I am not legally trained, but, as I understand, the Amendments permit the disc system to be introduced and followed elsewhere, consequential on that scheme. It occurs to me that we have in this part of the Bill, and in the Amendments, the weakness of attempting to proceed by legislating for detail, because the Bill now lays down simply tilt; disc system. The Amendments would make possible the experimentation of the disc system.
There are other techniques of traffic control. Indeed, quite recently I took up with the Ministry another machine which was brought to my notice. The machine prints tickets which can be glued on to a car instead of using parking meters. That would be a considerable economy.
Under the Bill as it stands, even with thy; Amendments, it will not be possible to experiment with anything but the limited type of disc system. I make the general complaint that if we insist, and if the Minister insists, on legislating in such great detail, he will make it more difficult, even though it is his intention to make it easier, for local authorities to approach these problems flexibly and to find other ways of solving the difficulties which confront them.
Mr. Dempsey: Will there be the fullest co-operation with local authorities on this matter? I am concerned with the position in Scotland. Local authority schemes must be submitted for approval by the Department. I cannot think of a set of circumstances arising which would necessitate limiting the prerogative of to al authorities to the extent mentioned in the Amendment, because before a
1722
local authority can proceed with any arrangement, or with any plan or scheme, such a scheme or arrangement has to be approved in general, and approved in particular, before the Department in Scotland will consider granting power to the local authority to carry out its proposals. I recognise that it might be necessary to have this legislation, but will there be the fullest cooperation between local authorities and the central Government in the application of this so-called Amendment?
Local authorities endeavour to improve their towns without antagonising the Government Department concerned. I realise that on certain occasions it is necessary for the Government to take action because of the need for monetary control, but it is difficult to see the need for the proposed Amendment. I suppose that the Government have arrived at the conclusion that the Amendment would provide the necessary safeguards, but surely a local authority, when considering road access and parking places, would not approve a plan which would in any way restrict the smooth and easy working of such services. A local authority is not likely to introduce a scheme which would hamper traffic, yet we are here taking steps to make sure that a local authority does not pursue a policy which would inconvenience the swift movement of traffic and other services.
I am a former member of a local authority. I hope that the Minister will assure me that there is no intention on the part of the Ministry to cut the activities of local authorities, and that he does not intend to dissuade local authorities from proposing plans which they hope the Government will accept. I hope that the Ministry will not try to discourage local authorities from dealing with their problems in the meticulous fashion with which they deal with them now. I also hope that the Ministry will not prevent local authorities from playing their part in insuring the smooth working of the Bill when it becomes an Act.
When one sees Amendments of this nature, one wonders if the Department is suspicious that local authorities will not be inclined to co-operate to the full with the Government. They always do, but they must be guided by local needs,

1723
and I hope that the Minister will bear in mind the great work which local authorities do on a voluntary basis. I hope that he will assure me that the object of the Amendment is to ensure close co-operation between local authorities and the Government, and that it is not the intention to antagonise or dissuade local authorities from performing their functions.
7.0 p.m.
Mr. Hay: If I may speak again, by leave of the House, I hope that I can straight away disabuse the mind of the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) of some of the ideas that are apparently there now. If he will study the Bill and, in particular, this and the succeeding Clauses, he will see that, far from curtailing or restricting the powers of local authorities in these matters, it is doing precisely the opposite. Not only are we giving local authorities extended powers but, in many cases, we are taking away checks and fetters which, at the moment, prevent them from fully acting in their own areas as they wish. This Amendment is intended to deal with a Clause that itself removes an impediment from local authority actions.
As I tried to explain earlier, the whole point of this subsection is to enable local authorities to bring into force a general scheme of traffic control in certain streets in their areas, but no longer to be hindered in doing so by those protective provisions, which go back for some years, in the interests of frontagers to the streets. This is a matter we have discussed before, and upon which the House has decided. I need not go over the arguments. All that we are trying to do is to ensure that these impediments do not operate when what is sought to be done is to vary or revoke an order already made under subsection (8).
I now turn to the speech of the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn). First, it is true that the disc experiment is involved. I was careful to avoid referring specifically to that experiment in my earlier remarks because the disc system is only part of the sort of thing that can be done by a local authority under a general system of traffic control. It is true that under
1724
Clause 11 (3) parking meters in off-street parking places and the disc experiment are authorised for local authorities outside London. That provision is closely tied up with the extended powers we are giving in subsection (2), which allow for general schemes of traffic control.
I should like to give an example of the way in which the Amendment will work in connection with the disc experiment. If a local authority wanted to extend a disc order by authorising parking in an additional street where parked vehicles might 'be held to cause some interference or inconvenience to the premises in the street, it might be impossible for it to do so by way of a variation order if this Amendment were not made.
It is true that in this House we may be a little too careful to write out the minutiae of Bills but, on the whole, that is a good fault, and it is probably better to try to do the thing properly than to leave the matter at large and allow people to litigate, as often happens.
Mr. Ede: It is not a fault; it is a virtue.
Mr. Hay: It is a matter of semantics. I chose to refer to it as something of a fault that we should try to legislate in great detail. I hope that with the explanation I have given of what we are trying to do the House will agree to the Amendment.
Question put and agreed to.
Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.
Lords Amendment: In page 17, line 20, at end insert:
"(11) An order made by the council of a county district by virtue of the last foregoing subsection may be varied or revoked by a subsequent order made by them and confirmed by the Minister, and the provisions which, by virtue of subsection (8) of this section, do not apply to an order made by virtue of the last foregoing subsection shall also not apply to an order made under this subsection."
Mr. Hay: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment is similar in its intentions to the two that we have just been discussing. Those dealt with the powers of local authorities to amend or revoke orders made under subsection (8). Subsection (10) provides for the making

1725
of general schemes of traffic control, but only by small non-county boroughs or urban districts with populations of less than 20,000. Under the provisions of Section 26 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, such non-county boroughs or urban districts are prevented from making such an order, and subsection (10) of this Clause provides that where a small local authority of that kind wants to introduce a general scheme of traffic control the county council may delegate to it the right to make an order under Section 26, so that it may then make an order jointly under that power and the power it already possesses under Section 81.
Subsection (10) also provides that the Minister of Transport may delegate to such a non-county borough or urban district the right to make such an order as respects trunk roads, which belong to the Minister of Transport.
Because, in cases like this, an order under the powers of Section 26 will not be made by the local authority specified under that Section but, instead, by a non-county borough or urban district to which the powers have been delegated, it seems to us that the power to amend or revoke given by Section 27 (3) of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, would not apply. The Minister would have power under that subsection to amend or revoke any such order, but neither a non-county borough nor the county council which had given it delegated powers would have any power to amend or revoke the original order. This was a thoroughly unsatisfactory situation, which we wanted to try to put right.
The new subsection was introduced in another place and provides that any order made by a non-county borough or urban district by virtue of subsection (10) may be varied or revoked by a subsequent order made by it, and confirmed by the Minister, in the same way as the original order made under subsection (10). It also provides that what I have referred to as the protective provisions relating to access in Sections 26 aril 81 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, shall not apply any more than they did in the case of the original order.
Briefly, the result of the Amendment is that these small local authorities will have power to amend or revoke an order made under subsection (10) in almost exactly the same way as with an order
1726
made under subsection (8). In both cases amending orders made by the local authority which made the original order will be free from the protective provisions of Sections 26 and 81.
Question put and agreed to.
Lords Amendment: In page 17, line 29, leave out "subsection (2)" and insert:
"under or by virtue of subsection (2), (10) or (11)".
Mr. Hay: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is a drafting Amendment. Its intention can be explained simply by saying that it seeks to ensure that the procedure regulation which the Minister will be making under Section 29 will cover orders for general schemes of traffic control made under subsection (10), to which I have already referred, and Amendments to those orders made under the new subsection (11).
Question put and agreed to.

New Clause.—(AMENDMENT OF S. 26 OF THE ROAD TRAFFIC ACT, 1960)
Lords Amendment: In page 19, line 3, at end insert new Clause "A":
"A. In subsection (4) of section twenty-six of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, the words 'if the restriction does not prevent loading or unloading for more than six hours in all in any consecutive period of twenty-four hours' shall cease to have effect."
Mr. Hay: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
As this Clause has been the subject of a certain amount of apprehension and misunderstanding, it may be as well if I briefly explain what it sets out to do.
Under the existing law, which is contained in the Road Traffic Act, 1956, local autihorities have very wide powers to make orders regulating traffic. In respect of orders imposing bans on loading and unloading, however, the powers of local authorities are subject to one very important restriction, which is, in effect, that they cannot ban loading and unloading for more than six hours in any given period of twenty-four hours. I have already referred to this restriction in a debate on a previous Amendment. The present Clause proposes to sweep

1727
away this restriction, which is now contained in Section 26 (4) of the Road Traffic Act, 1960. In consequence, if the House decides to agree with the Lords in the Amendment the power of local authorities to make orders restricting loading and unloading will be unfettered.
At first sight this may seem quite arbitrary, but it has to be remembered that we have always taken the view that local authorities should be trusted to act with discretion in the exercise of powers of this kind. In case they do not, I would remind the House that the Minister of Transport already has wide powers to revoke, vary or amend orders of this kind. The provision was inserted as a safeguard when the Act of 1956 was going through Parliament, and the House may be interested to know that, so far as we can trace, no Minister of Transport has ever been called upon to exercise this revisionary power.
The limitation on bans on loading and unloading to a maximum of six hours in any twenty-four, as the House probably realises, has some rather serious snags. It stops local authorities from establishing clearways, an experiment which we are trying out with increasing success on the open roads throughout the country, even where such clearways are desirable, if there is any chance that the restriction could impede anyone's right of access, which a clearway order, quite obviously, might do. Further, experience in London, where there is no legal limitation on loading and unloading bans, has shown that it is often more effective, in the interests of traffic, to impose restrictions of this kind over a short length of road for a long period rather than over a long length of road for a short period. This is how we work, for example, in Mayfair at the moment. As the law stands at present, however, local authorities outside London cannot follow the example which my right hon. Friend has been setting in London, because it is in London that he is the traffic authority.
We therefore came to the conclusion that we should accept this addition to the Bill. I think that local authorities can be trusted to act reasonably. After all, local authorities are responsible to their ratepayers, and it is quite often the case that the bigger ratepayers are the
1728
people who own commercial and business premises that will be substantially affected by the loading and unloading bans, so that there are already means to check cases of any excess or abuse of that power.
I realise that some hon. Members, and indeed some commercial interests concerned, have legitimate apprehensions about what would happen under this Clause. I have already referred to the powers which my right hon. Friend has to revoke, vary or to amend local authority traffic regulation orders, but the difficulty about this is that he cannot intervene until the order has actually been made, and it is possible that by that time some damage might have been done.
We have given a great deal of thought to what should be done to safeguard the legitimate interests of commercial operators. What we propose is this. We shall try to modify the procedure regulations which local authorities have to observe when they make traffic regulation orders. When they are making these orders, they will have to comply with the code which the Minister will lay down in a Statutory Instrument, and which we will call the procedure regulations. The exact details of these regulations must be a matter for discussion between my right hon. Friend's Ministry and the associations which are representative of the interests principally concerned in this business.
What we will propose to do, if this Clause is adopted in the Bill and if the Bill receives the Royal Assent in this form, is to consult with the appropriate associations on a formula on the following lines. If I may quote from the proposals which we have it in mind to make in the formula, they run as follows. Where a local authority proposes to institute a ban on loading and unloading on any particular road or any particular area for more than six hours in any twenty-four, that is to say, anything beyond its powers under the existing law, and objections are made to the order and are not resolved, the local authority will be required to hold a public inquiry, and, further, will have to send to the Minister of Transport a copy of the inspector's report of the inquiry at least a month before it actually makes the order.
I think that will ensure that my right hon. Friend will have ample notice of any possible misuse of these powers by

1729
local authorities. Frankly, I shall be very surprised indeed if my right hon. Friend ever has to intervene, except, possibly, in some quite exceptional case, and I hope that the House will accept my assurance that safeguards of this nature, in our view, will be sufficient to protect the proper interests of those who make their livelihood from commercial transport. There are a number of other cases. There is the case which was mentioned only this afternoon about the building trade, which might wish to load or unload building materials on a site. This would also be adequately covered by the formula which we have in mind.
I regret having taken a long time to explain the new Clause, which is a difficult one, and on which some of my hon. Friends have put down an Amendment. I hope that in view of my explanation of what the Clause sets out to do, and in view of the safeguards which we intend to bring in by way of incorporation in the regulations, the House will agree that the Clause as it now stands represents a logical and sensible step forward.
7.15 p.m.
Mr. Percy Browne: I must first declare my interest as a commercial vehicle operator myself. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for the assurances which he has given, because as he amended Bill came from another place it was obvious that it was wholly unacceptable, for the reasons which my hon. Friend has given. Having said that we should have a right of access under the Road Traffic Act, 1960, and having provided that these bans were to be allowed for twenty-four hours, the situation was bound to be unsatisfactory. We wanted a safeguard whereby the Minister, if a local authority went mad, could intervene before the order was made rather than after. Having had that assurance from my hon. Friend, I am now perfectly certain that nobody will have any cause to worry in the future.
Mr. Mellish: I should like to thank the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for the very clear explanation which he has given of their Lordships' new Clause, and for the assurances which he has give n. I ought to tell him that we on this side of the House felt rather like
1730
his hon. Friend and thought that if there was one Amendment which we were likely to have a row about, it would be this one. I am most grateful that the hon. Gentleman has seen the matter in this way.
When we talk of restrictions on the roads—and we were talking earlier about the ticket system—too many people tend to believe that the roads are for the benefit of the private motorist. It is often forgotten in this House that thousands of our fellow countrymen earn their living on the roads, and they are among the finest drivers. Most motorists will agree that they get more courtesy and understanding from the lorry drivers than from anybody else, and these restrictions very often make their job very difficult.
Arguments have been made about loading and unloading on our highways, and I see the logic of them, because so often it does create congestion, particularly on main roads. I emphasised in Committee and I repeat now that this is where we often see a mutual understanding between the police on the one hand and the lorry drivers on the other. A sensible policeman will always recognise the wretched plight of the lorry driver, and will usually say "Don't be too long here; get away", and will try to be co-operative. I wonder whether the ticket system will continue that kind of relationship. I can assure the Joint Parliamentary Secretary that the trade unions will welcome the new Clause. I hope that they will taken advantage of the good will that has been expressed here and that, through their organisations, the Minister will be made aware of any sound objections which they may have. Therefore, on this side of the House we support him in what he is now proposing.
Mr. Robert Mathew: I also should like to thank the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for having explained this new Clause so very clearly. I am sure it will do much to dispel the apprehensions which were, in my opinion, wrongly expressed both by the road haul age business and at first be some of the trade unions concerned.
Throughout the country, we have traffic conditions in many cities and towns which are every bit as grave as in London, and, as the Joint Parliamentary

1731
Secretary has explained, this new Clause will bring the powers of the local authorities in these cities and towns broadly into line with the powers already existing in the London area under the Road Traffic Act, 1960. In particular, difficulties have occurred near road junctions where there was a suitable alternative access and where lorry drivers could unload in a suitable side street. I am sure that the safeguards so clearly explained have dispelled those fears and I should like—
Mr. Mellish: No one on this side of the House would defend a lorry driver who failed to take his vehicle to the rear of a factory if that were possible or who failed to unload it out of the way of the traffic if he were able to do so. But the vast majority of lorry drivers are not able to take advantage of such facilities and have to unload in the main road. They cannot help that, it is just how things are.
Mr. Mathew: I agree with the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish).
I wish to add my welcome to the Amendment and also to say to my hon. Friend, the Member for Torrington (Mr. P. Browne), whose constituency is in the best county in England, that we must assume that local authorities act reasonably. We know from experience that almost always local authorities do act reasonably but occasionally insanity overtakes them as it also, from time to time, affects certain Ministries.
Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: As a representative of a Middlesex constituency I cannot allow to go unchallenged the claim that Devon is the best county.
There has been perturbation about this matter and the question of loading and unloading is an extremely difficult one. The other day when I was walking up Piccadilly I saw a new site being developed, and it would have been impossible to carry out that development without having a lorry standing in the roadway outside the site for considerable periods, even though we all want to see Piccadilly a clearway for most of the day.
If one motors up the Edgware Road in the morning, one sees furniture being brought into the large number of furnishing stores in that road and other lorries
1732
being used to collect the empties from the public houses. One cannot go more than a few hundred years in most main roads at certain times of the day without seeing a number of lorries whose drivers are engaged in perfectly lawful business loading and unloading, and therefore it will be extremely difficult for any local authority to be ruthless in this respect and to declare that the main streets must be entirely free of traffic loading and unloading for long periods.
The safeguards mentioned by my hon. Friend are reassuring, but I was not sure what he meant by the inquiry being held by local authorities. Is the inspector to be appointed by the Ministry of Transport or will he be a local inspector? Will the inquiry be under the control of the Ministry or is it a matter for the local authority to report back to the Ministry? We should like to get that clear.
Mr. Ede: I was proposing to ask the same question. From what was said by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, it was clear that he was giving us only a sketch of what is in the mind of the Minister. Who would appoint what he calls the inspector? I realise that it would be wrong to attempt to get too many details from the hon. Gentleman at this stage, but will the matter have to come before the House for confirmation when the Ministry has drafted a scheme? Secondly, when the scheme is made, will the local authority have some guidance in the Ministry document about the sort of person who will hold the inquiry? It may be an engineer or, to use the new phrase, a "traffic engineer", but will sufficient guidance be given to the council regarding its share of the scheme and so warrant the action of those hon. Gentlemen oppostie who have decided not to move the Amendment which they had down to this Lords Amendment? We wish to now something mare than the vague sketch which the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has given to us.
Mr. Hay: By leave of the House, may I thank hon. Members for the welcome which they have given to what we intend to do in relation to a somewhat difficult matter and in the light of the Amendment made in another place. I can clear up the anxieties and doubts which may exist about the holding of the inquiry

1733
and the appointment of the inspector. These matters are to be dealt with fully, and I trust comprehensively, in the procedure regulation to which I have referred. I have already seen a draft of the procedure regulation. We have produced a draft letter which will go out to all the representative organisations should the House agree to this Amendment. If the Bill receives the Royal Assent tomorrow, as we hope, the letter will be issued and we shall take account of the suggestions and comments which are made.
When the regulations are made, I am advised that they are laid before Parliament and are subject to Prayer and the negative procedure so that there will be ample opportunity for the House to review what we suggest in the regulations and to comment on them. The inspector will be appointed by the local authority, but it is intended that we shall have a panel of suitable people from which the inspector will be appointed.
Question put and agreed to.

Clause 14.—(CHARGES FOR REMOVING AND STORING VEHICLES.)
Lords Amendment: In page 21, line 30, let.ve out paragraph (c) and insert:
"(c) in relation to a vehicle removed by a pet son other than as aforesaid from a parking place provided or controlled by a local authority, means that authority;
(d) in relation to a vehicle removed by a person other than as aforesaid from a parking place in the London Traffic Area designated under section thirty-four of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, means the local authority (being the council of the county borough or county district, the Common Council of the City of London or the council of the metropolitan borough) within whose area the parking place is situate;"
Mr. Hay: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is a minor drafting Amendment. A contingency emerged during the preparation of the order and regulations which will have to be made under this Clause and under Clause 15. By virtue of subsection (4, c) and the definition of "competent authority" in Clause 15 (4) the power of a local authority to make
1734
a charge for the removal of a vehicle from an on-street parking place in the London traffic area as well as its power to sell a vehicle which appears to have been abandoned, is limited to local authorities which provide or control such parking places. In the London traffic area the Minister of Transport appoints on-street parking places other than those controlled by parking meters. He does so by regulations made under Section 34 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960.
It could be argued that it was not the local authority which provided or controlled such parking places, but the Minister. In our view such local authorities ought to have power to remove vehicles which appear to have been abandoned on street parking places in the London traffic area and to recover the cost of removal and to sell or dispose of the vehicle. It was thought wise in another place to make this small amendment to this paragraph in subsection (4).
Question put and agreed to.

New Clause "B".—(EFFECT OF REGULA TIONS UNDER S. 64 OF Rom) TRAFFIC ACT, 1960.)
Lords Amendment: In page 26, line 37, at end insert new Clause "B":
"B. No such provision contained in regulations made or having effect as if made under subsection (1) of section sixty-four of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, as imposes or varies requirements with respect to the braking systems with which motor vehicles must be equipped shall be taken, for the purposes of subsection (3) of that section, or of any other provision of the regulations, to be one relating to the construction of vehicles."
Mr. Hay: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
On this point I must stand in a white sheet. The House will recollect that at a very early stage in our discussions on the Bill we had to make strong suggestions to hon. Members that they should exercise a self-denying ordinance regarding the extension of the scope of the Bill. At that stage it appeared likely that if the scope of the Bill were widely extended from matters in the original draft, and if road safety and cognate matters were introduced, there might be a serious risk that we should lose the Bill altogether in view of the timetable

1735
to which we were working. We therefore urged hon. Members not to extend the scope of the Bill.
7.30 p.m.
In another place the Government had to swallow their own words and ask far the scope of the Bill to be extended because this new Clause became necessary. The problem we are up against is this. As the House knows, the vehicle testing scheme is due to start on 12th September. The standard which must be applied by the test, particularly in respect of brakes, is laid down in new amending Regulations which we have recently made to the Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations. Those Regulations themselves provide that certain standards must be complied with by all vehicles at all times and the new test will be conducted in respect of the amending regulations.
A risk we have to face when we are talking about brakes is that someone might claim that brakes are not part of the equipment of a vehicle, but part of its construction. The fact is that the statute law which governs the making of the Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations appears to require a standard to be laid down related only to the equipment and not to the construction of vehicles for the purposes of the test.
We were in this difficulty, that, although we ourselves were satisfied that brakes were part of the equipment of a vehicle and not part of its construction, there was a risk that after 12th September someone might go to a testing station with his car, have it failed because his brakes were wrong, and then take the matter to court, saying that our regulations were ultra vires, and that, therefore, his test certificate ought to have been issued. If the court then decided—and it is a possibility, in view of a recent case—that the brakes were not part of the equipment, but part of the construction, the new scheme would have been "bust" right open and we would be in great trouble. For that reason, we have to take the opportunity presented by this Bill to ask Parliament to enact this new Clause, which puts the matter beyond -any kind of doubt. I hope that with that explanation and apologies for having broken the advice I myself gave to the
1736
House, the House will give us this new Clause.
Mr. Benn: The hon. Gentleman is always plausible and, in a white sheet, he is irresistible. It would be a pity, however, if we passed this new Clause without comment. We have been told over the last four years that there were legal difficulties which prevented the implementation of the vehicle testing scheme. The scheme, when it comes in, will be a modest and a poor measure. It will make compulsory testing of vehicles over ten years old, but in other countries—in Germany for example—cars are tested every two years. We regard this as a poor scheme, but it has been delayed for four years because of this particular legal difficulty.
This is the only legislative change that it has been necessary to make to bring the scheme into operation. We have the Orders already on the Table of the House and they do not concern us here, but those Orders derive from legislation already passed by the House. The only legal difficulty which requires legislation was the one which is being corrected by this new Clause. It seems quite startling, and amazing, that this House should have to delay the implementation of the testing scheme for four years until a Bill on a quite different subject happened to come from the Department to the House.
We are all experimenting in traffic control, road safety, and everything else. I think that the lesson of this new Clause—which we on this side of the House warmly welcome—is that we must be prepared to accept from the Minister certain powers even if the House does not always know exactly for what they are needed. We must, of course, build into that the precaution of the affirmative Resolution. If we can get over the difficulty by the Department having greater powers to prevent a delay of this kind—which, on a statistical basis, must have cost many lives because it is known that the scheme will lead to a reduction in the number of deaths on the road—we ought, in future, to have enough powers in reserve to prevent such a thing happening.
I do not say this in a truculent spirit, but when we first saw the Bill we said that the Long Title was too tightly

1737
drawn. We pleaded with the hon. Gentleman to widen the Title and the Financial Resolution so that it would have been possible for us to correct other anomalies and omissions which we thought existed in road traffic and road safety law. We should certainly have put them forward in a very constructive spirit. We would have brought them for ward in Committee and the Government would still have had the Bill by tomorrow, but they turned down our suggestion.
Now the hon. Gentleman comes along with a nice smile and a good case—and those two together are unbeatable—and says that we shall have to alter the Title. Without saying "I told you so", we feel tint there are lessons to be learned from this. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be promoted in future, but, if we have another Bill from his Department I very much hope that there will be an opportunity to make the powers wide enough to deal with contingencies as they arise.
Mr. Gresham Cooke: I do not think that the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) quite appreciates that anything to do with motor vehicles has an effect on the law which makes the lane exactly contrary to what everyone else thinks it is. The ordinary person has always regarded brakes as part of the construction of the vehicle, but apparently legally they are part of the equipment. This little difficulty is not by any means the only difficulty in the testing of vehicles. There are all sorts
1738
of guarantees of braking, standards of braking, and so on. From my experience of this matter I think that we ought to pass this Clause to put the matter right.
Mr. Hay: I am obliged to the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) for the way in which he has received the new Clause. I thought it might be trying human nature a little hard to expect him to refrain from trying to rub our noses in it to some extent, but I am obliged to him.
Since he has asked about it, I should like to put on record that this is the only legislative change we have had to make before bringing in the testing scheme, if, by legislative change, we mean a change in Statute law, but there have been other changes in administrative and legislative arrangements. I can assure the House that we think that we have now got the thing absolutely right. I beg the House to consider what would have happened, and what an outcry there would have been—how triumphant some people outside who have been inveterate opponents of the vehicle testing scheme would have been—if it were discovered that there was a loophole or error which could have brought the scheme down. That is why I think that we are justified in bringing this forward and I am obliged for the way in which it has been received.
Question put and agreed to.
Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.

BETTING AND GAMING BILL
Lords Amendments considered.
BETTING AND GAMING BILL

  Clause 1.—(REPLACEMENT OF BETTING ACT, 1853, ETC., BY NEW PROVISION.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 5, at end insert:
  "and, without prejudice to section three of the Betting and Lotteries Act, 1934, shall also not apply in relation to pool betting transactions."
  7.40 p.m.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Dennis Vosper): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  This is a technical drafting Amendment to eliminate a duplication which was inserted in error into the Bill during the Committee stage resulting in the restrictions on pool betting and the use of a place in connection therewith appearing in this Act and in the Act of 1934. This will eliminate one provision.
  Question put and agreed to.

  Clause 3.—(AUTHORISATION AND REGIS-TRATION OF AGENTS BY BOOKMAKERS AND BOARD.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 3, line 5, at end insert:
  "(aa) he has attained the age of twenty-one years; and".
  Mr. Vosper: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  The House will recall that, under the Bill, a principal bookmaker has to be aged 21 or over before he can receive a permit, that persons under the age of 18 may not be employed in betting transactions or in a licensed betting office, that it is illegal to effect betting transactions with a person under 18 and that a person under the age of 18 must not be employed as an agent.
  This matter was debated in another place. It was suggested that, before a person could be employed as the registered agent of a bookmaker under Clause 7, he should be required to have attained the age of 21 rather than 18. It is my belief that, in practice, agents employed by principal bookmakers are almost invariably over this age, but it seems reasonable to the Government that
  1740
  what is a fairly responsible position should be held by someone of an age equivalent to that of the principal bookmaker. It gives an added protection in regard to a matter about which the House has shown concern on previous occasions, namely, the protection of young people. This provision requires that an agent employed by way of business by a principal bookmaker under the relevant Clause of the Bill must have attained the age of 21.
  Miss Alice Bacon: In general, I am against restricting the activities of young people between the ages of 18 and 21 and, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree, it is sometimes rather difficult in practice to do it. Nevertheless, I regard this as a reasonable Amendment in that it means that young people between 18 and 21, while they might be employed in certain tasks inside a betting shop, will not be employed, I take it, as factory runners or agents in a factory or in other places.
  I have one question. Is it the case now that it will be illegal for someone under 21 to take a bet outside the bookmaker's office, but that it will still be quite legal for anyone between the ages of 18 and 21 actually to take a bet inside the betting office? This seems to be an anomaly. In general, I think that we accept the Amendment, even though, as I said, it is sometimes difficult to restrict the activities of young people between the ages of 18 and 21.
  Mr. Ede: I share the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon), but I welcome generally the Amendment because I think it will add to what I am sure we all hope to establish, namely, that these people shall be responsible persons. To keep the age lower than 21 might mean that those who deal with this Bill after it becomes an Act will think that these were not positions requiring persons of some responsibility.
  Mr. Vosper: By leave of the House, in answer to the hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon), I can tell her that this provision applies only to those who are registered agents under Clause 7 of the Bill, factory runners as they were formerly described. The age of 18 will operate within the

  1741
  betting office itself. This might appear to be an anomaly, but, at an earlier stage of the Bill, we discussed raising the age generally to 21, but that did not find favour with the Committee as a whole.
  I think there is a difference between a person doing a routine job behind a counter and a person moving around a factory and contacting individuals. It is, therefore, logical to accept the difference provided for in the Amendment, which, while it does not go all the way to meet the views of those who think that young people should be completely isolated from this activity, does add a reasonable further protection.
  Question put and agreed to.

  Clause 5.—(CONDUCT OF LICENSED BETTING OFFICES.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 5, line 28, at end insert:
  '(5) If, save in a licensed betting office or in such manner as may be prescribed on premises giving access to such an office, any advertisement is published—

  (a) indicating that any particular premises ire a licensed betting office; or

  (b) indicating where any such office may le found; or

  (c) drawing attention to the availability of, or to the facilities afforded to persons resorting to, such offices

  then, in the case of an advertisement in connection with the office or offices of a particular licensee, that licensee, and in every case any person who published the advertisement or caused or permitted it to be published, shall be guilty of an offence:
  Provided that it shall be a defence for any person charged with an offence under this subsection to prove—

  (i) that he did not know and had not reasonable cause to suspect that the advertisement was, and that he had taken all reasonable steps to ascertain that it was not, such an advertisement as aforesaid; or

  (ii) if he is charged by reason only of being a licensee that the advertisement was published without his consent or connivance and that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the publishing of any such advertisement in connection with his office or offices."

  7. 45 p.m.
  Mr. Vosper: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  The House will be familiar with the terms of this Amendment because it is identical with one which appeared on
  1742
  the Order Paper on Report earlier this year. Both on Report and in Committee, hon. Members expressed a variety of views, some taking the view that there should be no prohibition of advertising whatever, some taking the view that the new licensed betting offices should be allowed to advertise, others seeking a complete prohibition of all advertising extending to credit bookmakers who at present are permitted to advertise.
  After the debate on Report, my right hon. Friend and I said that we would consider the matter further. It was discussed in another place. Both sides in another place supported the Amendment which had been moved on Report by my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan). Further, my right hon. Friend felt that there was merit in accepting what is admittedly a compromise Amendment in the sense that it will prohibit the advertising of a licensed betting office. In other words, those bookmakers operating on credit who have hitherto been allowed to advertise will be allowed to go on doing so, on the ground that a credit bookmaker cannot operate unless he is allowed to advertise.
  The licensed betting office has not the same need to advertise. It is a place of business to which the clients will usually resort without the need for advertising. I think it is logical to differentiate between the two types of bookmaking in the sense that, if advertising for the licensed betting office is allowed, that would be liable to attract to the betting offices people who would not otherwise resort thereto. If advertising is prohibited in the way provided in this Amendment, those who habitually bet will be able to resort to the betting office without any difficulty, and those who might otherwise be induced to go there by a rather attractive advertisement may not be so attracted.
  The argument is, I believe, somewhat similar to the argument which found favour in Committee regarding conditions in the betting office itself. I argued that the betting office was a place of business and must be sufficiently equipped to permit that business to be transacted but it must not be equipped with facilities for music, dancing or other attractions so as to attract people, particularly the young, who would not

  1743
  otherwise resort to it. There is a similarity in the arguments there.
  I appreciate the argument against this particular provision, but it seems reasonable to restrict advertising which is not necessary and which might be abused and which, again, might be a cause of inducing young people to bet. As I say, this proposal found unanimous favour in another place, and, on balance, my right hon. Friend commends it to the House.
  Mr. Eric Fletcher: Speaking for myself, I am very glad that the Government have taken this course. A variety of views on the subject was expressed in Committee and there was a good deal of debate about it. In general, I think that we should all agree that there ought not to be any restriction on the advertising of legal facilities of any kind, but considerable feeling was expressed on the subject in various quarters.
  As the right hon. Gentleman has said, it is quite clear that, once betting offices are established, with the nature of their business clearly indicated, those who wish to resort to them will have no difficulty in finding them. If, on the other hand, they were permitted to advertise freely without any restriction, that would inevitably lead to a considerable encouragement of betting which there would not otherwise be. In my view, therefore, this is a very sensible compromise and, speaking for myself, I am glad that the Government have accepted the view put forward in another place.
  Sir James Duncan: I do not want to argue or re-argue the case I put on Report, when I moved this Amendment originally. I am grateful to their Lordships for their action. The proceedings in another place were noticeable for the complete absence of division and unanimous support for this Amendment. I am very glad that the Government and the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) have supported it here.
  Mr. George Wigg: I congratulate the hon. Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) on the support that he has had from another place. I had not intended to speak on this stage of the Bill, but this is a perfect example of our national feeling. This is complete
  1744
  bunkum and hypocrisy. The Government reform the law by having betting offices, but we must not tell anyone where they are. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Fletcher), with a masterpiece of logic which makes it clear where he derived it from, said that everyone knows where the betting office is and, therefore, we must not advertise it.
  If the House is satisfied, I do not want to hold up the Bill. Every time I look at the Clause a blush of shame will spread over my face when I think that, once again, England, once the master of the free, has been subjected to another piece of Scottish hypocrisy.
  Mr. James H. Hoy: I did not intend to take part in the debate, but something has just occurred which necessitates my intervention. I thought, like my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg)—I even mentioned it to him—that there was a little humbug about the Amendment. If people want to go to betting shops, they will soon find a way, without them being advertised. Merely to provide that they should not be advertised will not prevent people from getting to know about them.
  But for my hon. Friend, having said that it is a typical piece of English humbug, then to put the blame on the Scots is a little more than I can understand or bear. Such an argument is so distorted that it is about as logical as the Amendment. While I agree with my hon. Friend that it may be a piece of humbug, his reasons for thinking that it is humbug are far from the truth.
  Mr. John M. Temple: I think that the voice of England should be heard in support of the Amendment. I played a considerable part in Committee and on Report.
  I want to answer the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), who seems to be a professor of logic and a master of hypocrisy at one and the same time. I associate myself with my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) and claim that England has had a full share in the Amendment, which will be for the benefit of the public. It will have the advantage of not encouraging betting. When we set out

  1745
  on this Measure, we started with the object of making cash betting legal, but not with the object of encouraging cash betting in England.
  Question put and agreed to.

  Clause 6.—(INCREASE OF PENALTIES FOR STREET BETTING.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 5, line 34, leave out "or any subsequent".
  Mr. Vosper: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  Would it be convenient to discuss with this Amendment the next Amendment, in line 35?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes, that will be convenient.
  Mr. Vosper: The hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) expressed a dislike for compromise. Therefore, it may well be that the Amendment will not find favour with him. It is a sincere endeavour to try to meet the wishes of the hon. Member for Dudley and my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), which they put forward both in Committee and on Report.
  The present position in relation to penalties for street betting is that the maximum penalty for a first offence is a line not exceeding £10. For the second offence it is a fine not exceeding £20. For the third offence on summary conviction it is a fine of £30, or three months' imprisonment, and on indictment it is a fine of £50, or six months' imprisonment.
  It was proposed to substitute in the Bill penalties of £100 for the first offence, £200 or three months' imprisonment for the second offence, and a similar penalty for the third and subsequent offences. There was to be no question of indictment. Therefore, the imprisonment provisions in the Bill are less harsh than they are under the existing law. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend and several hon. Gentlemen argued that they were in themselves excessive.
  My hon. and learned Friend who dealt with this Amendment argued that the ultimate sanction of imprisonment was still necessary. We still subscribe to that view. It is my belief that the majority
  1746
  of street bookmakers are at the moment trying to bring themselves within the ambit of the Bill and find premises. I believe that the vast majority will do so, but there may be a small minority who will persistently try to ignore the provisions of the Bill. Amongst them there may be some to whom the financial penalty itself may not be a deterrent. It is logic to retain a penalty of imprisonment.
  With regard to the points made on previous stages, my right hon. Friend has suggested that, instead of making imprisonment available for the second offence, it will become available only for the third offence. It will be limited to three months, as it is at the moment on summary conviction. That may not entirely meet the views expressed by hon. Members. However, it is essential to retain some deterrent of imprisonment. I hope that it will not be necessary to use it, except on rare occasions, and that this compromise will commend itself even to the hon. Member for Dudley.
  Miss Bacon: The right hon. Gentleman said that some of us thought that the penalties were very harsh. We adhere to that opinion. Nevertheless, in so far as the Amendment makes the penalties even a little less harsh, we agree with it. We still think that, even with the Amendment, the penalties for street betting are far heavier than they ought to be.
  Mr. H. P. G. Channon: I thank my right hon. Friend very much for the concession which has been made in another place. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said on Report that this matter would be given further consideration. I am grateful that some concession has been made. I agree with the hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon) that perhaps it does not go all the way to meet some of the objections we had to imprisonment and which we expressed earlier. However, I am grateful to the Home Office that it has been able to make this compromise.
  Mr. Ede: I, also, objected very strongly to the Clause from the moment it appeared in the Bill. I did so on Second Reading, throughout the Committee stage, on Report, and on Third Reading. I still regret that the penalties should be so high for an offence which

  1747
  nobody, neither the perpetrator nor the people with whom he associates, regards as involving any moral turpitude.
  We are dealing with a group of men to whom the Lord Chancellor bore this testimony in another place:
  "For the first eight years of my professional life, when practising in Liverpool, I largely had a criminal practice, as many young barristers have, and I appeared in very many cases involving either street bookmakers or betting house keepers. I cannot remember …it ever being suggested that these bookmakers, however illegally they acted, were defaulters and did not keep faith with their clients. In fact, their illegal position made it all the more necessary that there should not be any question of their defaulting."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 4th July, 1960; Vol. 224, c. 924.]
  All that the Government appear to have achieved is to have made the position of these men still illegal. Therefore, as and when they carry on their hazardous occupation, they will have more reason for not defaulting, which may be some gratification to their clients, who have never doubted their honesty.
  Mr. Wigg: As I was associated with the efforts to get the Government to go even further than they have gone, I want to express my gratitude for the steps that they have taken. I also want to tell the right hon. Gentleman that I am not opposed to a compromise. I am all for a compromise, provided that it takes account of the facts.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

  Clause 7.—(BETTING WITH YOUNG PERSONS.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 6, line 20, at end insert:
  "(3) In paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of section seven, and in paragraph (d) of subsection (1) of section sixteen, of the Betting and Lotteries Act, 1934 (which empower the licensing authority to refuse to grant or, as the case may be, to revoke a licence in respect of any track on the ground of a conviction of the applicant for or holder of the licence, or, where the applicant or holder is a corporate body, any director or the manager thereof, for an offence under Part I of that Act) the reference to an offence under that Part of that Act shall be construed as including a reference to any offence under this section."
  8.0 p.m.
  Mr. Vosper: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  1748
  This is a very technical Amendment designed to facilitate the consolidation of the betting and gaming laws. I shall explain it if any hon. Member is in any doubt about it, but I assure the House that it is purely a drafting point
  Mr. Fletcher: I hope that we may have some assurance that there will be consolidation at an early stage.
  Mr. Vosper: By leave of the House. I give that assurance.
  Question put and agreed to.

  Clause 17.—(GAMING MACHINES.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 15, line 1, at end insert:
  "(aa) that not more than two gaming machines are made available for play in any one building or, where different parts of a building are occupied by two or more different persons, in the part or parts of the building occupied by any one of those persons; and"
  Mr. Vosper: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  This is a rather unusual Amendment in that it is an Amendment to a Clause that has never been discussed at any stage of the Bill. I think that it was the only Clause in that category, despite 25 meetings in Committee.
  This Clause deals with gaming machines, more commonly known as fruit machines. The Royal Commission recommended that these machines should be prohibited completely, but the Government took the view that they should be legal in places where the public have no access. At no stage of the Bill in this House was that view challenged. There have been representations to my right hon. Friend and in another place that there was a danger that some form of racket might develop through the use of these machines. In the Bill there are already two safeguards in that the coin to be inserted in the machine is limited to 6d. and that the proceeds must not be devoted to private gain.
  Nevertheless, there is reason to believe that certain promoters might wish to take advantage of the Clause to set up arcades, establishments or clubs devoted entirely to these machines. That was not the intention of the Government in inserting the Clause. Many clubs of all descriptions have illegally at the moment a fruit machine of this type. It was to

  1749
  meet their genuine need that the Clause, despite the Royal Commission's advice, was inserted in the Bill. It was not intended that clubs should be devoted wholly to this purpose.
  The Amendment provides a further safeguard that only two machines shall be allowed in any one club. I think that is a reasonable safeguard. So far as I can discover, there are few, if any, clubs that have more than that number at the moment and I do not think that anyone in genuine need at the moment is being of set by this provision.
  Mr. Wigg: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman a question? He said that or cannot have more than one machine in any one club. That is not what the Amendment says. It says, "in any one building". I should like to be clear about this. It might create great difficulties. For example, the Government might want to install a fruit machine in the Commons and at the same time their Lordships might want one installed. Would this Amendment prevent that?
  Mr. Vosper: I think that the hon. Gentleman misunderstood what I said or that I did not make myself clear. I thank that the words on the Amendment Paper are sufficiently clear in themselves to answer the hon. Gentleman. They are
  "…that not more than two gaming machines are made available for play in any one building…"
  except, of course, where different parts of the building are occupied by two or more different persons, when there may be more than two machines.
  The special case raised by the hon. Gentleman in respect of this building would, I think, be a matter for the courts to determine and not for me. I think that the words are reasonably explicit in their intention that not more than two machines should be available in any one building, except where that building is occupied by more than one club. Then each club could have not more than two machines.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

  New Clause.—(SAVING FOR DOMINOES AND CRIBBAGE ON LICENSED PREMISES ETC.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 15, line 29, at end insert new Clause "A":
  "A.—(1) Section eighteen of this Act shall not apply to the playing of dominoes or cribbage

  (a) on premises in respect of which there is for the time being in force a justices' on-licence granted under the Licensing Act, 1953, or a hotel certificate or public house certificate granted under the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1959; or

  (b) on premises in any district specified in Part 1 of the Ninth Schedule to the said Act of 1953 or in Part 1 of the Eighth Schedule to the said Act of 1959 which are being used for the sale on behalf of the Secretary of State of intoxicating or, as the case may be, exciseable liquor for consumption on those premises.

  (2) The licensing justices for any licensing district within the meaning of the said Act of 1953, or the licensing court for any licensing area within the meaning of the said Act of 1959, may at any time, if in the case of any particular premises such as aforesaid situated within that district or area they think fit so to do, by order impose such requirements or restrictions with respect to the playing of the said games on any part of those premises to which the public have access as they consider necessary to secure that the games are not played on that part of the premises in such circumstances as to constitute an inducement to persons to resort thereto primarily for the purpose of taking part in gaming at those games and that any such gaming on that part of the premises does not take place for high stakes.
  (3) The justices or court aforesaid may at any time by a further order vary or revoke any previous order made under this section.
  (4) An order under this section with respect to any premises shall come into force upon notice thereof being given—

  (a) in the case of premises such as are mentioned in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of this section, to the person who is for a time being the holder of the licence or certificate aforesaid in respect of those premises;

  (b) in the case of premises such as mentioned in paragraph (b) of that subsection, to the Secretary of State,

  and the justices or court shall send a copy of the notice to the chief officer of police for the police area in which the premises are situated; and, subject to any further order varying or revoking it, the order shall continue in force so long as the premises continue to be premises such as are mentioned in the said subsection (1).
  (5) Section one hundred and sixty-six of the Licensing Act, 1953 (which relates to the application of that Act to the Isles of Scilly) shall have effect as if the reference therein to the functions of the licensing justices under

  1751
  Part VII of that Act included a reference to the functions of those justices under this section."
  Mr. Vosper: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  I have reason to believe that this Amendment will be acceptable to both sides of the House. It departs, of course, a long way from the Report of the Royal Commission, which recommended that no gaming should be allowed in public houses; in other words, a continuation of the existing state of affairs. The Government took the view that that was not logical, and was not likely to be acceptable or enforceable. In Committee, I moved a series of Amendments that went considerably beyond that to create what I hoped might be an acceptable and reasonable state of affairs.
  In doing that, I was aware that two games which were played in public houses—dominoes and cribbage—were excepted from my Amendments. That was discussed on Report, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said that he accepted that these two games were played frequently in public houses but that, as they were not games of skill but games of skill and chance—and there could be no dispute about that—they were not covered by the Government Amendments. By this somewhat ingenious Amendment from another place, dominoes and cribbage have been brought into the Bill, and can be played in the bar of a public house—something which, I believe, will be acceptable.
  However, one condition has been imposed, which is that the justices have power under subsection (2) to impose conditions if, in brief, the gaming on these games gets out of hand. My hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) suggested that this should be left to the licensing justices. The matter was discussed with the Magistrates' Association, which took the view, I think rightly, that this issue should be decided by Parliament. We have therefore written these two games into the Bill—the first and only two games to be named in the Bill—as games which may be played legally in the bar of a public house, in addition to those previously legalised in Committee as being games of skill. I think that it is
  1752
  desirable to do this, as it is common knowledge that these games are played all over, generally for small stakes, and it is a practice which, while one might not want to encourage it, one should accept.
  Miss Bacon: As the mover on Report of an Amendment to legalise the playing of dominoes in public-houses, I want to thank the right hon. Gentleman for facilitating in another place the passage of this new Clause. It means that people everywhere, who now have a harmless bet on a game of dominoes or cribbage, will, in future, be able to do so without breaking the law. We shall no longer have the anomaly between the game of darts and the game of dominoes.
  I understand that some of my non. Friends are a little concerned about the extent of the powers given by subsection (2) to the licensing justices. I gather that the intention is that they shall exercise that power only if the game of dominoes or cribbage has got rather out of hand. As the new Clause now stands, that might be interpreted rather differently, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would like to give some assurance on that point. The new Clause may not be logical or in conformity with the Royal Commission's Report, but it has the great merit of being sound common sense.
  Mr. Ray Mawby: I welcome this new Clause, mainly because, as I said on Report, my own constituents have always believed that these two games were in any case legal. They have never believed that either was a game of chance. After all, in dominoes, the only chance is in the dominoes that one draws. After that, skill comes into it, and the average person has believed that he was not doing anything illegal in going to the "local" and playing a game of dominoes or cribbage. Parliament has, at least, now made something legal that everyone thought was legal previously.
  I hope that under subsection (2) the magistrates will not view too narrowly the point about the games constituting an inducement to persons to resort to the public house primarily for the purpose of taking part in gaming. We all know that there are many people who

  1753
  go to the "pub," not necessarily to consume drink therein but to join the company of their friends and neighbours and to take part in a harmless game of dominoes and cribbage. Personally, I do not think that the ordinary justices will use this power where it is obvious that a group of men are going to a pub, not necessarily to drink large quantities of beer but to join together in a game of dominoes or cribbage.
  8.15 p.m.
  Mr. William Blyton: I am pleased that the Minister has legalised the playing of dominoes in public houses, and that a breath of fresh air has blown around his advisers who have previously found it impossible to legalise the game. I am pleased that the new Clause means that participants in a game of dominoes can, if they play for a stake without being liable to prosecution if they are caught, but what worries me is that the licensing justices have the power to fix rules. Are we to see different rules fixed according to the lights of the licensing magistrates? If that is so, we are likely to see restrictions on the game in one place and not in another, which would spoil all the good done by legalising the game.
  Subsection (2) says that the magistrates must
  "… secure that the games are not played on that part of the premises in such circumstances as to constitute an inducement to persons to resort thereto primarily for the purpose of taking part in gaming at those games and that any such gaming on that part of the premises does not take place for high stakes."
  Does that mean that the magistrates can lay down what the participants may play for? If so, we may find some magistrates saying that the participants can play for 6d., others, Is., some 2s. 6d., and so on. It would be much wiser to say that the participants can play for any stake they like. I emphasise that here I speak only of the participants.
  No magistrates can fix the stakes. If people want to play for 5s. a corner, they will do so, no matter what the magistrates may lay down. They will have an understanding among themselves to play in public for the figure laid down by the magistrates, and pay the rest later. Let those playing the game decide their own stakes rather than be tied down by magistrates' rules, which will differ from place to place. We do
  1754
  not tie down anyone to a maximum stake in the betting shops, so why adopt a Mrs. Grundy attitude to the game of dominoes that we are legalising?
  Can the right hon. Gentleman explain what part of a public house constitutes an inducement to resorting for gaming? In the main, the bar of a public house is the place where dominoes and cribbage are played. Will the bar be regarded as part of the premises for pun poses of gaming? If that is the case, and if the magistrates make rules debarring the playing of dominoes in the bar, we will only make things worse for the participants in the game as, under the present Act, they play dominoes in the bar.
  On the other hand, if the Minister aims at side betting on a game of dominoes in a public house, he has my full support Side betting spoils the game being played by the participants. It leads to many shady tricks that cause much trouble. If four men are playing the game, and side bets are made by those not playing—by backing each of the four to win—it spoils the game because tic-tacking goes on behind the players' backs.
  The side backers can see the hands of at least two of the players. They stand behind the players, and they can tic-tac Pulling a handkerchief out of a pocket may mean that the man who is following in play is holding the double six, or a scratching of the nose may mean that he has the double five. No matter how a person may play in front of another, tic-tacking means that the man is not getting a fair chance in his game.
  I have seen countless troubles caused by this practice, and I should have liked side backing to be made illegal. I should like to see the responsibility put on the licensee to see that no side betting takes place on his premises. If that were made an offence in this Bill it is certain that the licensee would, to the best of his ability, see that the law was not broken.
  Again, if the Bill contains no definition, magistrates may, in different places, make different rules even on side betting. Whether the side betting stakes are high or low, I think that side betting should be made an offence. I am not a prude. I sometimes have a bet on a horse. I play dominoes. I take a glass of beer. It will therefore be appreciated that my

  1755
  attitude to side betting is not actuated by any motive other than to see that those who play a game can play it fairly, without it being spoiled by those standing around backing a certain player to win.
  I want to make it clear that this does not happen in all public houses, but it does go on in many. We should make it clear that the purpose of this Clause is to allow only those who are playing to play for a stake, and not those who want to make side bets as to who will win the game. If the Minister cannot see his way at this late stage to do that, can he make it clear to the magistrates that side betting has to be an offence in any order they may make under the new Clause?
  I can assure him that if he does this, he will be helping those who enjoy this game as a relaxation, and he will ensure that they are not subject to side betting, which undoubtedly spoils the game and causes very many unnecessary troubles in public houses. I have made this speech tonight to find out, in particular, whether the Minister can do something about side betting.
  Mr. Eric Johnson: Like all hon. Members on the benches opposite, I welcome this proposed new Clause, but I should like it better without subsection (2), which seems to be of a vague character. I do not understand whether the magistrates are to go round and investigate, or whether they have to wait until they receive complaints that the game of dominoes is being played for excessively high stakes, and then investigate and make regulations to prevent this happening.
  Then the magistrates are given the extraordinarily difficult task of deciding what are high stakes. It would be much more simple if this subsection could be omitted. I for my part do not believe for a moment that the game of dominoes will be played for high stakes on licensed premises. I think that there is a good deal to be said in favour of what the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton) has just said, but I think that it is almost impossible for any magistrates to define what are high stakes.
  Mr. Fletcher: As I understand it, the House is in this position. Despite the
  1756
  criticisms of my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton) and the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. E. Johnson), there are no Amendments to this new Clause which reaches us as one of the Amendments from another place.
  Mr. Blyton: We cannot amend it.
  Mr. Fletcher: Therefore, the only alternatives before us are to accept this proposed Clause or to reject it. We have either to accept the Lords Amendments in toto or to disagree with them.
  I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon) has said. Despite the practical difficulties that have been pointed out, we should welcome the fact that the Government have adopted this new Clause. We pressed for it in Committee and our pressure was then resisted. We pressed for it again on Report when my hon. Friend moved her Amendment. We were then told—in fact, we have been told repeatedly until tonight—that there were almost insuperable objections to permitting gaming in respect of dominoes or cribbage in public houses.
  We were also told that it was contrary to all accepted evidence to try to prohibit the playing of games if they were identified by name. Both Royal Commissions were emphatic about that and the Minister told us that repeatedly. The point was pressed home by the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies). We were told that if we started to identify any particular game by name in a Bill, it would lead to all kinds of unfortunate consequences because it would be possible to introduce some variation of the game and still call it by the name which was put in the Bill.
  I am glad to find that all those objections have now been swept aside. I regard the acceptance of this Amendment as a victory for common sense. It would have been ridiculous if the Bill had gone forward enabling people to have a wager on a game of darts in a public house but preventing them from having a wager on a game of cribbage or dominoes. It would have been an intolerable interference with the recognised habits of those who frequent public houses. As I say, this is a victory for common sense and for realism, and I

  1757
  hope that we shall have an opportunity of hearing what the Minister wishes to say. I am sure that the House will give him leave to answer any points which have been made.
  I should like to state the position as I see it. It is part of the concession that we have obtained by forcing the Government to allow dominoes and cribbage to be played in public houses, that there should be this reserve power which would in some circumstances—which perhaps may never arise—allow the justices to intervene if the playing of dominoes and cribbage were to develop into something quite different from the kind of harmless recreation as we now know those games to be.
  As I understand it, the justices will have no power in any circumstances to prohibit gaming in dominoes and cribbage in any public houses. I imagine that it is unlikely that their intervention will ever be required. In the ordinary case things will go on as the public wish. I hope that these powers that are given to the justices will be treated as reserve powers, and that they will not lead to any restrictions or conditions being laid down in any ordinary case. Therefore, I hope that there will not grow up some variation of practice as between one set of licensing justices and another. If that were to happen, it would be unfortunate.
  I agree with the remarks made at an earlier stage that this is a matter on which Parliament should pronounce, and that, now that Parliament has pronounced, that should be the end of the matter. I imagine that justices will wish to be guided by the general consensus of opinion which has led the Government, belatedly but happily not too late, to accept this Clause.
  Mr. Ede: I, too, welcome this Clause and I support the line that has been taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton) who is a constituent of mine and has given me some interesting sidelights on the conduct of the people in the licensed houses in my constituency.
  One of the difficulties that confront us is this. We are not now dealing with an amendment of the gaming laws. We are dealing with an amendment of the liquor licensing laws, and the justices who are alluded to here are not the justices who will serve on the authority that
  1758
  will settle where betting shops and so on ought to be. These are the justices who will deal with liquor licences.
  I am not quite clear how the thing works. Subsection (2) gives me some trouble. After all, the fact that we have an Amendment at all is a proof that if a Government are determined to get something out of a draftsman they will get it, and then the licensing justices have to see what they can make of the words that have been put into the Act of Parliament. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will tell me if I am wrong in any particular when he replies but I gather from the Clause that when it becomes law it will be possible to play dominoes or cribbage in any public house or hotel.
  But if it comes to the notice of the licensing justices that some public house has been turned into a gambling den by the playing of dominoes or cribbage to such an extent that people, instead of going to the licensed premises to consume intoxicating liquors, or even temperance drinks as I do, go there mainly for the purposes of gambling, the justices can do something. I am not quite sure what, and I am not sure who will tell them, or when they will tell them and how they will tell them. Similarly, if it reported to them that high stakes are being played for they can make an order, which I understand may prohibit the playing of these two games on the premises or may limit the stake or in some other way bring the playing of the games into conformity with the justices' wishes.
  8.30 p.m.
  I can see the kind of argument that would go on in a justices' room when the licensing justices are considering a complaint. Half-a-crown would not be a high stake in a first-class hotel in a district but it is a high stake in the bar or games room of some particular public house. Have the Government given any thought to the exact way in which it would be possible to administer this law? I imagine that what will happen will be that the complaints, if any, will be made by the chief officer of the police for the district on a report that he has received from one of his subordinate officers. The complaints will appear at the annual licensing sessions but as far as I can see no offence is created in the Clause.

  1759
  The police do not bring a case in the magistrates' court or before the licensing committee at one of their regular sittings but they say, "At the Barley Maw high stakes are being played for" or, "The Barley Mow is developing into a gambling den. The brewers are very perturbed because they cannot sell any beer and there is some rake-off for the landlord on the stakes." I repeat that, as far as I can see, no offence is created under the Clause and the justices do not have to adjudicate on any prosecution of that kind. I think that they will rely on a report from the police when the licence comes up for renewal.
  Mr. Wigg: It is not a question of when the licence comes up for renewal. The Clause says that it is at any time.
  Mr. Ede: I have been chairman of a licensing committee. My ban. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) is knowledgeable about bookies and the Jockey Club and I regard his experience and opinions with great esteem, but it has been my complaint throughout about the Bill that it has never been looked at from the point of view of the magistrates' court. During earlier stages of the Bill Ministers have paid me compliments at which I blush about the way in which I dealt with the practical aspects of this matter. I want to see the Bill work out, but work out in the only proper way if its provisions are to be enforced.
  I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton-le-Spring said about the iniquities of those who stand round the game and make their own bets on the way it is developing. If anyone has ever seen that going on, he will know that some of the bystanders at any rate think that one player has mare skill than another.
  Sir J. Duncan: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that it is absolutely illegal under the Bill.
  Mr. Ede: I hope it is.
  Sir J. Duncan: The right hon. Gentleman will surely have read Clause 18 (1) and also the first line of the Amendment which we are discussing, which says that Clause 18 shall only apply to the playing of dominoes and not to side bets on the game.
  Mr. Ede: That is just the kind of point on which a defending barrister before the licensing justices will make a good effort to show that the words are not quite as clear as the hon. Baronet thinks.
  I am merely seeking to obtain assurances about how this provision will work. It is now so late—the first complaint that I made immediately after the House proceeded to the Orders of the Day was that the Lords Amendments are left to such a late stage—that if we are to get the Bill at all we cannot make any amendment which is worth-while. I very much doubt whether it would be reasonable of us to ask you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to accept a manuscript Amendment, and I would not ask you to express an opinion about what you would do if anyone made such a request.
  I hope that this provision will not mean that there will be police spying on the games which are being conducted, and that one publican, finding that he has lost trade because there happens to be a very popular games room in another house, will be able to incite the police to ascertain whether things are going on quite correctly in that house.
  As the Clause stands, I do not believe that it is reasonably workable. We might just as well have said that dominoes and cribbage will be allowed and left it at that, because if there is to be effective supervision of the games there will have to be some machinery devised and some offence will have to be created and the case will then have to go before the licensing justices, or, more probably in the first place, before the main court in the area and its decision will be reported to the licensing justices. However, I see in the Clause as drafted no offence, but a power vested in the licensing justices if they think that the Clause is being abused, to make an order that will restrict activities in a certain house. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us some reassurances about the way the provision will be administered.
  Mr. Wigg: Once again, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has placed the House in his debt because he has brought to bear upon the Clause a wealth of experience and understanding which has been lacking in previous speeches. Of course it is

  1761
  desirable, if one can, to liberalise the Bill in accordance with public demand. But the Clause is a perfect example of hasty reappraisal of what is, I agree, a difficult position for the Government. They are under considerable pressure to make it legal for cribbage and dominoes to be played on licensed premises. However, I do not think that they stopped to think how the provision will work out. My right hon. Friend thinks that proceedings will came before the licensing session. The Clause does not make that provision. It is an open invitation to competitors in the same street, rival brewing firms or any person who wants a "down" on the licensee to go to the bench and denounce him.
  Forthwith, this provision should be withdrawn. It is not in accordance with our traditions that here, by a side wind, we seek to amend the licensing laws. This is an astonishing move. I cannot understand the leaders of my party acquiescing in a proposal of this kind. If we want to revise the licensing laws there will be an opportunity in the next Session. Do no let us do it by a side wind when dealing with gaming. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields that it is so late, and we want the Bill to get the Royal Assent tomorrow—
  Mr. Ede: I do not.
  Mr. Wigg: I do, because, on balance, it is a step forward. I do not want to throw away six months' hard work. We must, therefore, either take this or leave it. In taking it, I hope that the justices will keep this provision under review—indeed. I hope that the Government will do the same. It may well be that those we think we are serving will be wiser than we and that same of the fears expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields will prove to be groundless, but this could be fruitful of a great deal of friction and could prove to be a thoroughly retrograde step in practice.
  I do not think that dominoes and cribbage are quite the innocent games that the innocents on my Front Bench think they are, but then, unlike them, in my youth I was a bit more steeped in vice. These games could be sources of a great deal of gambling in the worst sense.
  1762
  While they look innocent, they can be anything but innocent, although I agree that the intention is innocent. I hope that we shall at least get from the right hon. Gentleman an assurance that the situation will be watched, and that if abuses become evident the Government will take action.
  Mr. John McKay: I enter this discussion not because I am interested in the Bill as a whole, but because of what has been said during the few minutes in which I have been in the Chamber. What I have heard has created interest for me in the subject.
  I had always understood that the Bill was in no way framed with the idea of encouraging more gambling, but for the simple purpose of regulating whatever betting was taking place in the country. Yet, from the discussion to which I have just listened, it appears that Amendments are now being made to extend facilities for gambling in public houses. One hon. Member mentioned that it was not legal to gamble with dominoes in public houses. Now, however, we are making it legal.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton)—whom I generally support, although I am not able to do so tonight—seemed to object to placing any limitation upon the stakes that can be placed on dominoes in public houses. Gambling is now to be allowed where it was not allowed before, and in that respect it seems that we are departing from the Bill's original intention. To judge from the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton-le-Spring, a great deal of illegal gambling is already going on.
  8.45 p.m.
  Mr. Blyton: And, perhaps, in my hon. Friend's constituency.
  Mr. McKay: There is any amount of it in my constituency. We are now to provide greater facilities.
  Mr. A. P. Costain: And greater control.
  Mr. McKay: My hon. Friend is now advocating that there should be no limitation on the stakes in a game of dominoes.
  Mr. Blyton: No, I was dealing with the participants in the game and not with the spectators.
  Mr. McKay: Even with that restriction, if there is no limitation on the stakes, gambling on dominoes in public houses will increase and public houses may become gambling rather than drinking places—although neither is very good, because occasionally people go to extremes. I believe that the licensing authorities should have power to intervene and make restrictions if they have reason to believe that gambling in a public house is becoming excessive. I prefer an arrangement like that to increasing facilities with no limitation on the amount of gambling, which, I believe, would be a departure from the initial intentions of the Bill.
  Mr. James McInnes: I have the maximum possible sympathy with the views expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), who pinpointed the difficulties and problems which will inevitably arise from subsection (2) of the Amendment. The licensing justices—in Scotland we call them the licensing magistrates—
  "may at any time, if …they think fit so to do, by order impose such requirements or restrictions with respect to the playing of the said games on any part of those premises…"
  The situation which I visualise developing is the licensing justices in one town imposing certain conditions and restrictions, while magistrates in another town impose different conditions and restrictions. Throughout the country there will be a hundred and one different types of restrictions about what one can and cannot do when one goes to play dominoes. It is unfortunate that no amendment has been proposed to the Amendment from another place. I think that every hon. Member would like to amend the proposed new Clause so that it would operate satisfactorily.
  The latter part of the Amendment provides that the magistrates may also deal with the question of location and decide whether the game is being played where it constitutes an inducement to other people. We are somewhat unfortunate in Scotland because we have public houses of one apartment only, with no waiting, or side rooms, or anything of that kind. I wonder what the licensing justices would say if they went into a one-apartment pub. Would they forbid the playing of dominoes in that apartment because it would attract or
  1764
  induce other people to participate in the game?
  Like my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields, I visualise a thousand and one difficulties arising from this. It is unfortunate that we have either to accept or reject the Amendment. It would not take very much to convince me that it was necessary to reject subsection (2), but, if I did, according to my right hon. Friend I would be accused of not being reasonable in my attitude. For that reason, I have to accept the Amendment.
  Miss Bacon: I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), who does not, after all, possess a monopoly of wisdom in the matter of betting and gaming, that I am by no means an innocent in these matters. Perhaps he did not hear my original speech, when I invited the right hon. Gentleman to explain how subsection (2) will work. It may be that magistrates will not have the power to come in, except in exceptional circumstances. If that is so, it is a pity that something of that kind was not included in subsection (2).
  Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, as I hope he will, I should like to ask why it was thought necessary to include subsection (2) in the new Clause dealing with dominoes and cribbage, when, as I understand, it is not necessary to include a subsection, or these recommendations, in the case of those games which in any case will be legal because they are games of skill. I refer to darts and shove-ha'penny. Without these restrictions it seems that we will allow the undesirable practices which the Government think might arise out of the playing of dominoes and cribbage to arise in the case of darts and shove-ha'penny.
  I am sorry that subsection (2) has been included. In spite of that, I hope that the new Clause will be accepted, because, on Report, many hon. Members on both sides of the House were very keen that the law should not make an ass of itself, which is what it would do if the Bill were not amended. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us an assurance about the justices, and say how this will work.
  Mr. Vosper: If I may speak again, by leave of the House, I think that I can

  1765
  give the assurance which the House requests, although I doubt whether I can bridge the gap between the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton) and his hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend (Mr. McKay) whose speech I very much welcomed because it expressed the attitude which impressed the Royal Commission and presumably made it come to the conclusion that the existing law should be maintained and that there should be a complete prohibition on all forms of games in public houses. We have come a long way from that position, but it was obviously the point made by the hon. Member that the Royal Commission had in mind.
  When the Government followed the advice of the Commission and introduced a Bill on those lines it was not criticised at any time during the Second Reading debate, despite the fact that that debate took two days. In spite of that, as the hon. Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon) said considerable Amendments were moved in Committee, because it was felt that the operation of this law was not practicable, and that some easement should be made to bring it into line with what was really happening. The object was to make all games of skill legal, because, under the definition of the Bill, that is not gaming. By the wording of the Amendments anything which was not gaming became legal in the bar of a public house. A game of skill, such as darts or bar billiards thereby became legal.
  Secondly—and I think that this is an answer to the point raised by the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring—the Amendments moved in Committee allowed dominoes to be played in a room set apart in a public house and enabled the game to be played under conditions laid down in the Small Lotteries and Gaming Act, and by hotel residents. The Amendment did not cover the playing of dominoes and cribbage in the bar of a public house. I was aware at the time that these games were excluded, but if the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) refers to the report of our proceedings in Committee he will find that not many hon. Members shared my view at the time. Most of them thought that dominoes and cribbage were games of skill and would therefore be included in
  1766
  the terms of the Amendment that I was moving. I shared their anxiety that these games should be included, and my right hon. Friend said that he would do his best to overcome any difficulties in this connection.
  That there were difficulties is shown by the inclusion in subsection (2) in this new Clause, which worries so many hon. Members. The point is that there is no definition of a game of dominoes. As hon. Members on both sides have played it, it is an innocent game but, as the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) suggested, it need not always be so. In Committee hon. Members were most impressed by the expertise shown by my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies), who repeatedly said that it was possible for a wise man to invent almost any form of gaming given a name, and that with no definition of dominoes there is a danger of advantage being taken of this provision to produce some form of gaming which would not be acceptable to the public or to the House. That is the reason for the insertion of subsection (2).
  Nevertheless, I do not think that, initially, any public house will be subjected to any impositions under this subsection. As has been said, it is a reserve power to be used if at some time someone seeks to take advantage of this liberalising move to produce a form of dominoes which is pure gaming and is designed to introduce a gaming den under the guise of a public house. To the extent that this form of dominoes excluded all other social amenities from the public house, then and only then—and the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) is right in this—would the police approach the licensing justices with a request that some conditions should be imposed upon the licensee of the public house concerned.
  I must tread delicately when I discuss the activities of magistrates in the presence of the right hon. Member for South Shields, because I value very much his experience of these matters. Nevertheless, I should have thought that the matter could be raised at the annual meeting of magistrates, or elsewhere, and that magistrates could then impose a form of conditions in a case where a form of dominoes had been invented which was an inducement to gaming and was not a form of social activitiy.
  9.0 p.m.
  Mr. Ede: I am not concerned with some other form of dominoes. I could not define dominoes, although I have played the game. It is like the case of the elephant. The boy attempted to define it by saying that it was an animal with a leg at each corner and a tail at each end, which, while it described it, was not accurate. I should know when the game of dominoes was being played if I watched it. I have had policemen come before me charging people for gaming on Epsom Downs by playing a game of chance, to wit, nap. I had no idea what that meant, and neither had the policeman nor the defendant. I do not want to ride off on that kind of thing. I want to know how the administration of subsection (2) is to be carried out. May I make one suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman? When the Bill becomes law, he should try to draft some model arrangements to send round to the justices for their consideration.
  Mr. Vosper: I am always glad to take advice from the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). The last thing that I want to see happen is what the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) feared—different benches imposing different conditions. My conception is that no bench will start by imposing any conditions at all, and that the use of this power will be very rare and unusual. I will certainly consider whether some further advice should be given in the light of this debate and of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, but I gladly give the assurance that while I believe this reserve power is necessary, if one wants to make this step forward there is a possible risk for which one must provide safeguards, and I would suggest that subsection (2) should be retained in the Bill.
  The other point was that raised by the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton) who expressed anxiety about side betting. I value his experience in this matter and I know it has caused him some anxiety. I think it is a matter to be examined, but I am afraid that I must disappoint him, because this provision would not prohibit side betting. What we are dealing with here are provisions about gaming, and what the hon. Member has in mind is private betting. Nowhere in the Bill do we seek to prohibit private betting. The hon.
  1768
  Member has in mind private betting on a game of dominoes or cribbage, or it might be private betting on a game of darts, or upon the extent of the Government reshuffle tonight. All that might take place in a public house. So far, the Government have not thought fit to intervene in private betting, and it would be difficult to intervene in the limited sphere of private betting on dominoes and cribbage which he has in mind—and in no other game.
  I value the hon. Gentleman's experience in this matter, but I think there would be difficulty if Parliament thought fit to intervene in this sphere. I have no experience of side betting on dominoes and cribbage, though I will accept what he says as correct, but the Bill as drafted could not deal with that problem. Some other form of legislation, if Parliament thought fit, would have to be introduced. My final word in answer to the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) is that this has not been an easy Bill. It is easy to say now, "Why did not you do it originally?" It still is not easy. There are still difficulties, and these must be watched most carefully.
  Question put and agreed to.

  Clause 21.—KLOCAL AUTHORITIES NOT TO SUBSIDISE PREMISES FOR GAMING.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 16, line 29, to leave out "solely or partly" and insert "wholly or mainly".
  Mr. Vosper: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  On the final stage of the Bill in this House, the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) moved an Amendment to make certain that local authorities should not take advantage of Section 132 of the Local Government Act, 1948, to run a municipally-owned casino, and that was the general wish of the House. As I previously advised the House, it is most unlikely that advantage would be so taken. The hon. Member's Amendment made certain, but he said it would require some modification. That is the purpose of this and the subsequent Amendment, to leave out line 31 and insert a new proviso, which perhaps we may take together.
  As that Amendment was drafted, it would have included the use of a card room in a municipally-owned golf

  1769
  course, of which there are many, and the use of a room in a public hall for a whist drive or something of that nature, which I am sure was not the intention. Therefore by the alteration of the words in the first Amendment we have taken care of something, in a way in which I am sure the House would wish us to do.
  One further point. As the Amendment was drafted it would have excluded what it is intended to legalise in another part of the Bill, the provision of amusements for prizes on the pier at Southend or in some such place. Therefore, the proviso in the second Amendment is designed to see that the provision which the House has legalised shall not be prevented by the hon. Gentleman's Amendment.
  Mr. Fletcher: I was responsible for proposing the new Clause during the Report stage and I am perfectly content with the Amendment moved by the right hon. Gentleman. I agree that it is an improvement to substitute the words "wholly or mainly" for the words "solely or partly".
  Question put and agreed to.
  Subsequent Lords Amendment made.

  Clause 27.—(INTERPRETATION.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 23, line 28, at end insert:
  "(including the said paragraph 25 as applied by sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 25D of that Schedule)"
  Mr. Vosper: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  This Amendment together with the Amendments in page 25, page 26 and page 30 and the Amendments in page 34—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): Order. The Amendments in page 34 include the Amendment to line 31 to which the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has an Amendment down, and that had better be taken by itself.
  Mr. Vosper: Perhaps I might initiate a general explanation, because the earlier Amendments are paving Amendments for the second Amendment on page 34. Here there are two points at issue—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I am anxious to avoid any confusion, regarding the second Amendment in page 34, to which there is an Amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for South Shields. So let it be clear that we are not discussing that Amendment.
  Mr. Vosper: My difficulty is to explain the Amendments prior to those on page 34, because they would make complete nonsense unless I include an explanation of the Amendments in page 34. I think that I can meet the point which you have in mind, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
  Here there are two points at issue which were not raised in the debates in this House, although one was brought to my notice at a late stage before the Bill went to another place. It was represented to me that, whereas it was not possible for a bookmaker to obtain a licence and to transfer the licence to another bookmaker, there was no possibility of one bookmaker getting a licence as a fit and proper person and then transferring it to another person who was not fit and proper. But if the bookmaker was a company and a new director who was not a fit and proper person joined the company he would not be covered by the Bill. The purpose of the Amendment to which these earlier Amendments are paving Amendments is to take care of that possibility.
  The second and more substantial point is that it was represented to me, and it was pressed in another place, that it was wrong that a bookmaker who defaulted during his year, and who was warned off the course by Tattersall's or some other body, should be able to enjoy the benefit of a permit for the rest of the year, and that some power should be available to deprive him of his permit before the new period came up.
  The purpose of these paving Amendments and the long and complicated Amendment to which the right hon. Member for South Shields has an Amendment, is to deal with the issue that power is now available for a bookmaker who commits some offence or defaults and is warned off the course to come before the justices, or at least for a complaint to be made to that effect It provides power for complaint to be made to the clerk of the court who then submits the case to a licensing justice, who decides whether or not the case is

  1771
  sufficiently severe to be brought before the full court at that period or can stand over until the annual period as proposed originally in the Bill.
  I do not expect that many such cases will come up during the year. It was argued from many points of view in another place that at least that power ought to be available and that the protection of a bookmaker's permit should not allow a bookmaker who had been found guilty of some serious default to continue in practice, or at least to prevent his case being heard before the licensing justices. I bad some doubt about accepting those proposals, but there was considerable pressure to do so and I understand that bookmakers themselves would welcome some provision on these lines. It is protection for the public.
  We hope that we have devised some machinery which will not impose too great a burden on the licensing justices. That is the purpose of the Amendment, which I hope will commend itself to this House as it did to another place.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.
  Lords Amendment: In page 32, line 49, leave out "to the authority".

  "Notification of change in directors during currency of bookmaker's permit

  5

  25A. If, where the holder of a bookmaker's permit is a body corporate, any change occurs in the persons who are directors thereof or in accordance with whose directions or instructions the directors thereof are accustomed to act, the holder of the permit shall as soon as reasonably practicable after the occurrence of the change give particulars thereof in writing to the clerk to the appropriate authority and to the appropriate officer of police; and if the holder of the permit fails to comply with this paragraph he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding ten pounds.

  10

  Cancellation of bookmaker's permit by appropriate authority

  15

  25B. If in the case of any bookmaker's permit an application is made at any time to the clerk to the appropriate authority by any person in the prescribed form and manner requesting that the permit be forfeited and cancelled and accompanied by two copies of a statement of the grounds on which the application is made, the clerk to the authority shall submit the application to any one member of the authority who, after considering the statement accompanying the application—

  20

  (a) if he is of opinion—

  25

  (i) that further consideration of the matters referred to in that statement is unnecessary or inexpedient before the renewal of the permit falls to be considered; or

  30

  (ii) that the authority would be required by virtue of sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph 25C of this Schedule to refuse the application,

  Mr. Vosper: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  A separate point is raised by this Amendment and the Amendment which follows with all the Amendments to page 33. Perhaps they can be discussed together.
  This is a somewhat technical point relating to appeals. As the Bill was drafted, it was laid dawn that the licensing authority should be respondent to an appeal both in regard to an appeal against refusal to grant a bookmaker's permit and refusal to grant a betting office licence. It has been urged that in the case of the bookmaker's permit it is not reasonable that the licensing authority should be respondent in that facts only are relevant to the appeal, whereas in the case of the betting office licence the question of licensing policy comes into effect as it does under the licensing Acts. This Amendment makes the licensing authority no longer respondent to an appeal in respect of a bookmaker's permit.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.
  Lords Amendment: In page 34, line 31, at end insert:

  shall cause notice in writing to be given to the applicant that the application is refused without prejudice to the raising of the same matters by way of objection in accordance with the provisions of this Schedule to a renewal of the permit;

  35

  (b) unless he is of such opinion as aforesaid, shall refer the application to the appropriate authority.

  25C.—(1) Where an application for the cancellation of a permit is referred to the appropriate authority under the last foregoing paragraph, the clerk to the authority shall, unless the application has been withdrawn, give to the applicant, to the holder of the permit and to the appropriate officer of police not less than twenty-one days notice in writing of the date, time and place appointed for the consideration of the application by the authority, and shall send to the holder of the permit together with that notice a copy of the applicant's statement of the grounds on which the application is made.

  40

  45

  (2) Subject to the next following sub-paragraph, at any meeting of the appropriate authority to consider the application, the applicant and the holder of the permit shall be entitled to be heard either in person or by counsel or a solicitor; and where the applicant is a person other than the appropriate officer of police the authority shall also hear any representations made by, or by any person authorised in that behalf by, that officer; and paragraphs 14 and 15 of this Schedule shall apply in relation to the application as they apply in relation to an application for the renewal of a permit, subject to the following modifications of the said paragraph 15. that is to say—

  50

  55

  (a) as if the reference therein to the applicant for renewal were a reference to the holder of the permit; and

  60

  (b) as if the reference therein to any person who made an objection as mentioned in that paragraph were a reference to the person by whom the application under paragraph 25B of this Schedule was made.

  (3) The appropriate authority shall refuse the application if they are satisfied that it is made on grounds which—

  65

  (a) have been or ought properly to have been raised previously by way of objection either when the permit was granted or on an occasion when it has been renewed; or

  70

  (b) are or have been the subject matter of proceedings for such an offence as is mentioned in subsection (1) of section eight of this Act.

  (4) The appropriate authority shall not cancel the permit unless—

  (a) satisfactory evidence is produced that the holder is no longer a fit and proper person to hold such a permit; or

  75

  (b) the authority are satisfied that the business to which it relates is being managed by, or carried on for the benefit of, a person other than the holder, being a person who would himself be refused the grant of such a permit either under paragraph 16 or under subparagraph (a) of paragraph 17 of this Schedule:

  80

  Provided that for the purposes of this sub-paragraph the authority shall disregard any conviction such as is mentioned in paragraph 19 of this Schedule.

  85

  (5) If the appropriate authority decide not to cancel the permit, they shall cause notice in writing to be given to the applicant that the application is refused without prejudice to the raising of the same matters by way of objection in accordance with the provisions of this Schedule to a renewal of the permit.

  90

  (6) If the appropriate authority decide to forfeit and cancel the permit, the forfeiture and cancellation shall not take effect—

  (a) until the expiration of the time within which notice of an appeal under the next following paragraph may be given; nor

  95

  (b) if such notice is duly given, until the determination or abandonment of the appeal.

  100

  25D.—(1) Where the appropriate authority decide to forfeit and cancel a bookmaker's permit on an application under paragraph 25B of this Schedule, the holder of the permit may appeal against that decision to a court of quarter sessions (or in Scotland the sheriff) having jurisdiction in the authority's area, whose decision on the appeal shall be final.

  105

  (2) Paragraphs 22 (except sub-paragraphs (4) and (7) thereof), and 23 (or, as the case may be, sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 25) of this Schedule shall apply for the purposes of an appeal under this paragraph against the forfeiture and cancellation of a bookmaker's permit as they apply for the purposes of an appeal against the refusal of an application for the renewal of such a permit subject to the following modifications, that is to say,—

  110

  (a) as if any reference therein to the applicant for renewal were a reference to the holder of the permit; and

  115

  (b) as if any reference therein to a person who opposed the application before the appropriate authority were a reference to the person by whom the application under paragraph 25B of this Schedule was made,

  120

  and, in the case of an appeal to the sheriff under this paragraph, the sheriff may make such order as to the expenses of the appeal as he thinks proper."

  Motion made and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  9.15 p.m.
  Mr. Ede: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in line 21, to leave out from "to" to "after" and to insert:
  "a member of the authority appointed by the authority for the purpose at the January meeting in each year for the period until the next January meeting. Such member".
  The right hon. Gentleman has done me the courtesy of telling me in writing that he intends to advise the House to reject this Amendment. Realising the balance of power in the House at present, I have no doubt that he will have his way, but that is no reason why one should not go down fighting. I regard this matter as of very considerable importance. The effect of the Amendment would be that, instead of the clerk of the licensing authority selecting the member who is to decide whether or not the case shall proceed or be adjourned until the annual meeting, the justices themselves will do it.
  I had a conversation with the right hon. Gentleman's colleague, the other Joint Under-Secretary of State, and he conveyed my views to the right hon. Gentleman. Among the inquiries I made was whether there was a precedent for what the Government are doing. It is a wonderful example of the need for the most meticulous examination of Bills that there is a precedent for this to be found in the Maintenance Orders Act, 1958. One of the problems which con-
  1776
  front the House is how, with the detail and volume of legislation, we are to ensure that what we understood were accepted principles are always applied in the administrative parts of Acts of Parliament of this kind.
  As a justice, I object to the clerk selecting who among the justices shall do a certain thing. The clerk is the servant of the justices. The best thing that Lord Goddard did when Lord Chief Justice was to make quite certain that the justices were responsible people and that the clerk was not to accompany them when they retired to consider their decision unless they wanted his advice on a point of law. Of course, once they have him in their room, what happens there only the justices can tell us.
  However, I have worked with clerks who, when a justice has put a question, have said, "Sir, that is not a matter of law. That is a matter of fact and you are the masters of that. I have no right to express an opinion to you about it". I have even known a justice ask the clerk what the proper sentence should be. He was given the same answer, namely, that it was nothing to do with the clerk as long as the maximum sentence allowed by the law was not exceeded.
  It is important that that principle should be maintained and should never be deviated from in these administrative arrangements. There are plenty of people who believe that the clerk runs the court. There are plenty of evil-minded people who say, "He chose old Bill Smith to be the justice to try the

  1777
  case because he knows that Bill Smith will always do as he wants him to do and will raise no objections."
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) has been imploring me for the last week not to move the Amendment. He said to me, "If you do it, you will wreck the Bill. They will not be able to get the necessary Amendment through the other place in time for the Bill to become law". I should shed no tears over that, although my hon. Friend would.
  We are faced with this difficulty. It would be quite wrong for one Member to wreck the Bill, even assuming that the Government have no way of getting a quorum into the other place tomorrow morning to deal with any Amendment that we pass tonight. After all, they require only three for a quorum there. The quorum could be made up from the three Lords Commissioners who will have to announce the Royal Assent later in the afternoon. However, it would be quite wrong of any one Member to wreck the Bill on an administrative point like this, and I do not intend to do it.
  I impress on the right hon. Gentleman that it is important that the position between justice and clerk should always be most carefully observed in this sort of matter. The right hon. Gentleman has assured me that he could find other objections. First, this is a layman's drafting, and the profession must be protected. Secondly, if we provided that it should be a justice, on the day he was wanted he might be suffering from an infectious disease and nobody could get to him. He might even be away from home on holiday.
  One of the things we on this side complain about is that in drafting a fairly complicated Amendment we have no drafting assistance, although some of our hon. and learned Friends render us very great assistance in this respect, particularly my hon. and learned Friends the Members for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) and Kettering (Mr. Mitchison).
  I admit that what I am proposing must break any draftsman's heart, because it is quite clear on the face of the Amendment exactly what I mean to do. If I had had the services of the draftsmen available to the right hon. Gentleman, I have no doubt that I could have tabled an Amendment which would deal with
  1778
  the case when the justice selected was for some reason not available and there might be an alternative person to whom people could go. Even if I had done that, I should have received exactly the same advice from my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, who has just returned to see that I remain of good behaviour. He would still have said to me, "If you do that and you carry it", which is a thing I never expected to do, "you will wreck the Bill and we shall not get it this year".
  I move the Amendment, in the circumstances, as a protest against expecting the clerk to select the justice who is to fulfil this particularly responsible job of advising on how the complaint is to be dealt with. I think that it should be the choice of the justices, and when the law is consolidated I hope that this will be one of the minor Amendments and that proper provision will be made to secure that the appointment shall be by the justices. I should not have thought that it would have been too revolutionary to suggest that the application should go to the chairman of the authority instead of the clerk selecting a member.
  I do not intend to delay the House any longer, but I make my protest against taking a function which belongs to the justices collectively and giving it to the clerk.
  Mr. Vosper: I appreciate the way in which the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has moved his Amendment to the Lords Amendment. There is, as he said, a perfectly respectable precedent for this in the Maintenance Orders Act, 1958.
  I would not rest my defence of the Lords Amendment simply on that, however. That would be most inadvisable. Nor would I rest my defence simply on the argument that if I were to accept the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment it would wreck the Bill. I must disclaim any responsibility for the activities of the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), much as I appreciate his good intentions.
  There is a difficulty here. I see the force of the right hon. Gentleman's argument, and I must accept from him, in the light of his experience, that the clerk to the justices could select a justice to

  1779
  his own way of thinking and not necessarily the man best suited to give a decision, but I should have thought that that would happen only in the minority of cases.
  I think that the right hon. Gentleman realises that if I were to adopt his procedure that the justices should name for the whole of the year one justice there would be the risk that the procedure would fall down because that justice might not be available. That is particularly so in the opening year of this procedure, when there may be quite a number of rather irresponsible applications. I even envisage that there may have to be more than one justice named, and possibly a panel in some of the large petty sessional divisional areas. I think that if the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment were accepted it would probably be open to more dangers than would result from the Lords Amendment in its present form.
  I hope that it will work out all right in the way that the justices themselves will select for a period, a month or three months, one, or two, of themselves, and it might be left that the chairman might do it for an initial period. I would have thought—I am open to correction, because I have not the right hon. Gentleman's experience—that, in fact, the justices would sort this matter out for themselves without being open to the dangers to which the right hon. Gentleman has quite correctly drawn attention. Even if I did not think that, I would still think, on balance, our method to be slightly better—it may be only slightly better—than the method that the right hon. Gentleman suggests. I think that it is true that it was probably inserted in this form on the precedent of the 1958 Act. I have no evidence that that has not worked extremely well.
  I ask the right hon. Gentleman not to press for his Amendment. I do not know whether there is any way in which one can bring this to the attention of the justices and suggest that they should on a voluntary basis arrange something on these lines, but I think that in the majority of cases they will meet the point that he has raised.
  9.30 p.m.
  Mr. Wigg: I must apologise to my right hon. Friend the Member for South
  1780
  Shields (Mr. Ede) that I had to leave the Chamber during the latter part of his speech, and therefore unfortunately did not hear the allusion to myself and to our conversation on his Amendment. If my right hon. Friend did press his Amendment, and it was carried against the Government's wishes, the result would be that we would not get the Bill, which I would regard as regrettable.
  One could make too much of this Amendment, although it is important, because one of the influences that have been at work is a desire among the bookmakers themselves to weed out undesirable characters, and make it more difficult for them to operate. I think that the House should know of that gesture, as it is an encouraging sign that the bookmakers intend to do their best to make the Measure work, and that is of importance if the Bill is to have any chance at all.
  For that reason, I hope that my right hon. Friend will not press his Amendment. I understand, of course, his reason for putting it down, but, if he will pardon my saying so, I do not think that it is as important as is the Amendment enshrining the definite decision of the bookmaking profession to put its house in order and do its best to make the Measure operate in the public good.
  Mr. E. Johnson: I very much welcome the Lords Amendment. It was very badly needed, and will greatly improve the Bill. There are those who believe that the possession of a bookmaker's permit means that the bookmaker is a man of honesty and financial stability but, as the Bill stood, if, during the course of the year, he proved himself otherwise he would have been able to go on. This Lords Amendment will safeguard that position, and the Bill is very much the better for it.
  Mr. Ede: I do not wish to prevent any other hon. Member from speaking on the Lords Amendment by maintaining my Amendment before the House, Having listened to what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I would point out to him that the Lords Amendment says
  "… the clerk to the authority shall submit the application to any one member of the authority …"
  The type of clerk I most dread is the one who, if a justice said to him, "Will

  1781
  you use my esteemed colleague, Thomas Robinson, for this purpose?" would reply, "If you will read the Act you will see that you have nothing to do with it. The Act puts the duty on me". I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment to the Lords Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question, That this House doth agree wth the Lords in the said Amendment, put and agreed to.
  Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

  STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL [Lords]
  Considered in Committee; reported without Amendment; read the Third time and passed, without Amendment.

SCOTLAND (UNIVERSITIES)
9.36 p.m.
Mr. A. Woodburn: I beg to move,
That an humble Address by presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will withhold Her Assent from University Court Ordinance No. 350 (Universities of St. Andrews, Glasgow, Aberdeen and Edinburgh No. 12) (Regulations for Research Students and Appointment of Research Fellows), a copy of which was laid before this House on 12th May, 1960.
We should like to be assured before coming to a decision on this matter that the universities in Scotland are doing all they can in the revival and stimulation of industrial activity and in extending Scotland's participation in the scientific life and progress of the nation.
Scotland's population is approximately 10 per cent. of that of Great Britain as a whole. The population of students with a first degree in science in Scotland is 17 per cent., and that at first sight seems satisfactory. In the case of first degrees in science and technology the figure is 11 per cent., but research students in science and technology amount to only 8 per cent. of the student population who have attained that standard in Great Britain.
The reason for this seems to be that the Scots have more ordinary degrees and fewer of the higher degrees. In Scotland, 49 per cent. of the students took ordinary degrees whereas, in Great Britain as a whole 27 per cent. took only
1782
ordinary degrees. The chance of the final year science honours student holding the D.S.I.R. research scholarship in Scotland is, fortunately, approximately equal to that of the similar student in Great Britain. There are about 14·2 per cent. in Scotland as against 14·6 per cent. in Great Britain.
The position of research scholarships is fairly satisfactory, but when we come to advanced course students in Scotland, in 1958–59 there were only 14 applications and 11 awards, only 4 being taken up. In 1960 the position has fortunately improved. There were 25 applications, 17 awards and 10 were taken up. In the United Kingdom however, there were 539 applications, 344 awards and 251 were taken up. Therefore, Scotland in the matter of D.S.I.R. awards taken up had only 4 per cent.
It may be that the Master of Science degree in Scotland will help in this direction, but we require some explanation why in our universities there should be such a small percentage of applications for post-graduate courses compared with the percentage in Great Britain as a whole. In the past, these courses have been largely concentrated in London and Birmingham. Is this due to any difficulty in Scottish universities and should they be doing more to promote post-graduate courses? Will the Ordinance, which seems to bend in that direction, make any considerable contribution to the improvement of Scotland's scientific contribution?
The D.S.I.R. has given grants in support of special researches at Scottish universities for years to the extent of £267,000. This is very good in its way, but it is only 7 per cent. of the Great Britain total. It seems less than we might have expected when we depend so much on education as an economic factor in Scotland. I am told that this is due to the small number of applications and proposals for research and not due to the D.S.I.R. putting on any restriction. It seems entirely fair in granting these research scholarships.
Can the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland give any explanation why Scotland is so defective in keeping up with the rest of the country in this respect? Can he give us an assurance that there is a close enough co-operation between the D.S.I.R. organisation in

1783
Scotland and the universities? My information is that there is a considerable amount of what one must call jealousy. I know that some of the scientists in the D.S.I.R. who ought to have been asked to tackle a certain problem were carefully excluded because the universities wanted to tackle it on their own. It was a very important problem from the point of view of Scottish and international shipbuilding.
One would have thought that, when the D.S.I.R. has established a big organisation in Scotland, the universities, instead of keeping aloof, would have kept in constant touch and would have combined their efforts. It is difficult enough to get scientists to come to Scotland in the first place, because there is always a tendency for them to hang around London and not to go further away than Oxford from where their wives can easily reach the shops in London and they can easily get away to the clubs for an odd "blather" at night.
I have been making some inquiries into the reason why Scotland lacks in this respect. I am not at liberty to give the name of the authority from whom I shall quote, but he is a person with outstanding qualifications to judge. Probably there is no one who is better qualified to do so in Scotland. He says:
"Frankly, I do not think that either Scottish industry or the Scottish Universities have quite come to terms with this age of science and technology. Things have improved enormously, one must admit, during the last ten years, but there is still some way to go. I suspect that not enough graduates are employed in Scottish industry; certainly one rarely sees an advertisement, in the Sunday papers, for skilled technologists, from a Scottish firm.
Then take again the welcome incursion of the light industries into Scotland to mop up the pockets of unemployment. Here the Scottish asset is skilled labour, the ideas and know-how in most cases come from England and the U.S.A. This can be changed if more research of all kinds is done in Scotland. We do not want our really good people to be obliged to go elsewhere for the right conditions and atmosphere. They should have a choice."
This is a very serious matter from the point of view of Scotland and its future, and it is very closely linked with the debate we had the other day about the future of Scottish industry.
The last survey showed that of all research and development in private industry in this country Scotland had
1784
2·7 per cent. while London and the South-East had 28·8 per cent. and the Midlands 13·1 per cent. It is a dreadful state of affairs that Scotland should have only that small proportion. This research is called private enterprise research, but most of it is on Government account, and, therefore, the Government can play some part in directing or guiding industry. Directly or indirectly, most of the research is paid for by the Government.
Forty-nine per cent, of the research is in the aircraft industry. Some of that comes to Scotland, I agree, but not very much. I also agree that we are not likely to have aircraft industries in Scotland, and in the light of the present trade trend I am not sure that we now want them. However, there are industries developing out of aircraft which are equally important, and some of this research should certainly be guided in our direction.
A more serious matter is that 10·7 per cent. of the research is done in shipbuilding and engineering. Eighty-one per cent. of the research in shipbuilding and engineering is done by D.S.I.R. I do not know whether the Joint Under-Secretary could give us any idea offhand how much of that comes to Scotland, but obviously it must be a relatively very small amount. Yet Scotland is the main centre of shipbuilding, not only in this country but in the world. I should like to know how much of the shipbuilding research is done in Scotland and whether a great deal is done South of the Border and, if so, why at least some of it should not be attached to the industry in Scotland. The amount in respect of metal manufacture is 3·4 per cent., and, therefore, it is not so important.
Our students are leaving Scotland in great numbers. I received some facts in this respect from the Secretary of State some time ago. I propose to deal with the faculties in which we are interested. For instance, about 58 per cent. of the students in engineering at Glasgow University leave Scotland, having to go elsewhere to find work. This is one of Scotland's main industries. It is tragic that when half our students on the scientific side of engineering enter the university they are at the same time buying a ticket to go abroad. In other words,

1785
they go into the university as the gateway out of Scotland. That is a tragedy for Scotland.
In the case of Edinburgh the proportion is even worse. About 69 per cent. of the students in engineering at Edinburgh have to go elsewhere to find work. In chemistry the figure is 67 per cent. That rather surprises me because chemistry is one of the subjects for which we have outlets in our medical chemistry in Scotland for a great number of scientists. There is almost exactly the same proportion in respect of physics and mathematics in Edinburgh; 65 per cent. of the students have to go out of the country to find work.
Much the same thing happens at Aberdeen, where 64 per cent. of the students in engineering have to go outside the country, as well as 52 per cent. of the science students. The only students we keep are those studying the arts, law and divinity. We keep our morals all right, whatever we do with our engineering.
We are looking at this from the point of view of the effect that this new development will have on Scotland's industry and Scotland's future. I was interested to read the report of a speech by Mr. Alan Beaton who was, if my recollection is correct, Conservative candidate for Leith. He is now a management consultant. His comment was interesting and important. The report said that Mr. Beaton stated that
"Scots would not halt emigration"—
I agree that we would not want to keep everyone at home—
"achieve real prosperity or banish unemployment unless they started backing their faith in their own country. Our costs were too high, our designs too traditional, our selling efforts lacking in drive. There were too many dead end jobs in Scotland, too little investment, and lack of opportunity in research work.
Of the major post-war industrial undertakings in Scotland, Mr. Beaton claimed that no less than 66 per cent, were English, 23 per cent. American, 4 per cent. Canadian, and 3 per cent. Dutch.
'We Scots have been responsible', Mr. Beaton said, 'for less than 1 per cent. of the new undertakings in our own country—scarcely more than that invested by the Swiss and Italians.'
Scotland's only major disadvantage was distance from the main consumer markets in the south. But even that could be eliminated by a 10 per cent. increase in productivity
1786
which could be achieved almost overnight, given a combination of faith, determination worker."
There should also be stimulation from the Government. This Ordinance, if accepted, will take us some way to success and we welcome that and would not propose to reject it today. The idea of bringing people in to do research in Scottish Universities seems a very small but welcome step towards the solution of the terrible problem which faces us not only educationally but industrially.
Tonight we must finish perhaps the last debate in this Session on Scottish affairs by renewing our plea to the Government to get down to the problem of thinking about Scotland as a whole. One of the basic factors in Scotland's future is provision for research and development, and opportunity for people coming out of universities. The universities assure me that one of their great disadvantages is that there is no opportunity to encourage people in Scotland to find jobs there.
The Government are the main financiers of research, whether it be private or public. They have great power in directing it. No one can tell me that a man thinks better in the smoke of London than in the fresh air of Scotland. If he could get out to East Kilbride and play a game of golf in the evening, his research would be all the better next day than if he had the soot and smog of London about him. The Government should get people and research out of London and into Scotland. There people can think, feel and live freely. Research itself would improve. This is linked up closely with the use of research in industry, and it is tragic that we must depend so much for our ideas on America, England and other parts of the world for the development of our industries.
I know that it is difficult to ask people to invest in something which does not show great promise. Perhaps we are a nation which does not like to take risks and in the long run it may be the Government who will have to take the risks. But the Government will have to have a policy and I am sure that if they give a lead and a stimulus to industry and even, if necessary, some guarantees, there will be some chance of getting not only industry, but the universities in Scotland to provide the

1787
kind of education and scientific and technological training which will keep Scotland abreast of the rest of the nation.
I would have liked to have said something about medical research, because the universities may not be doing as much as one would expect from a country with our tradition in medicine, but I have said enough on the main subject to show that, while we appreciate what the universities intend to do by this Ordinance in giving research fellowships and bringing people into the universities and encouraging them to undertake new research, it may be that that move is too limited and that further steps in that direction will have to be taken.
We do not propose to divide the House on this issue, and I am happy to relieve anybody who is somewhat apprehensive on that score. We have raised this matter because it is of such importance. I think that we are doing the universities some little service in calling attention to the fact that they are taking this step forward. Our only wish is that it should be a greater step. We are entitled to ask that the universities should play their part in the life of the nation, but they are entitled to ask that the Government should do their share in making that possible.
9.57 p.m.
Lady Tweedsmuir: I have been asked by all four Scottish universities to speak in support of this Ordinance. We are indebted to the right hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) for raising the rather wider issues of research which are involved. There are many aspects which we as Scottish Members would like to debate in closer detail, but which might not be in order now.
However, we would be greatly helped if we had more information about how the money for research is spent. For example, how is it divided between teaching and research and between manpower and materials? It is true that we have the reports of the University Grants Committee and the annual reports of all the Scottish universities presented in one form or another. Anyone happy enough to have a university in his con-
1788
stituency knows that, if one inquires, the universities always willingly give as much information as they can. However, a more specific inquiry on how the money is spent would be welcome, because with that information we would be better able to discuss the wider issue of the use of research in industry.
For instance, to take the example of my own University of Aberdeen, in 1954–55 there were 77 full-time and 22 part-time post-graduate research students, while in 1959–60 the numbers had risen to 91 full-time and 24 part-time. It is expected that that number will increase. Research fellows are very few. For instance, only two junior and one senior research fellows are paid out of general funds, while nine research or senior fellows are paid out of moneys from other sources. In the University of Aberdeen expenditure on salaries from general funds in 1959–60 totalled £3,500 while that from outside funds totalled £26,828.
Out of a total of 276 teaching staff, salaries and superannuation together total £½ million, and it is written into the contract of every member of the teaching profession that he shall engage in original study and research. That being so, we would like to know in greater detail how this affects all the universities and also what are their plans after this Ordinance is passed. I am sure that everyone is glad that there is not to be a Division on this matter tonight.
If one asks how many more students it is hoped to have by the new Ordinance, universities say that it is impossible to give a firm reply because of the difficulties and differences in accommodation in the four universities, and also because of the differences in the various departments. That being so, they feel that by this Ordinance they will be able to do what they want to do, which is to encourage as many research workers as possible by making use of every available resource open to them.
If I might turn to the specific Ordinances, we should remember that the last Ordinance which now has force was passed in 1895, and came about at a time when the facilities for research were far inferior to what they are today. What the universities are asking of this new Ordinance No. 12 is that the Scottish universities shall have the

1789
same facilities as are now enjoyed by English universities to attract research workers. As everyone knows, this Ordinance is approved by the Senatus and General Councils of all four universities.
The universities feel that an Ordinance which was passed sixty-five years ago, while very much more detailed and comprehensive than the present one, has some rather needless and, in many ways, undesirable restrictions. This falls under two main headings. First, they feel that the pattern and structure of research today is far more varied and complicated than it was sixty-five years ago. As all hon. Members know, the universities obtain their funds from two main sources: first, Treasury grants; and, secondly, the more widely used grants given in increasing numbers from industry in various forms. The universities feel that it is necessary to try to encourage research at all levels, particularly in the science and medical departments, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred.
Paragraph II of the 1895 Ordinance went into great detail, but it laid down that all persons who were allowed to carry on original studies in research must be research students under supervision. These rules, while perhaps suitable for research students for higher degrees, are, in the universities' view, too rigid to cover research workers who are badly needed at all levels, and it is this point they wish to stress. For example, research posts can be filled by persons of seniority who already hold Ph.D. degrees and have several years' experience behind them. It is, therefore, felt that it is unreasonable to say that their research should be done under close supervision. Section II of Ordinance No. 12 provides a far more flexible arrangement.
The second provision in Ordinance No. 61 which the Scottish universities find particularly hampering in paragraph VIII. This restricts the choice of research Fellows to those who are, or have recently been, research students. Therefore, in law it is not competent for a Scottish university to appoint to a research fellowship a candidate who has taken a higher degree elsewhere, or who has not been a research student in the university in which he now wishes to become a
1790
research fellow. It is maintained that this is a serious handicap to Scottish universities, because valuable research fellowships are being offered to Scottish as well as to English universities, mainly from industry. It therefore makes it impossible invariably to appoint a candidate who had been a research student in that particular university.
On the merit of this Ordinance, we should congratulate the universities on having reached agreement on what is not a very easy subject. They feel convinced that they can give greater facilities for research. I hope that the Government will try to obtain more information as to the way in which this research is broken up between the various Departments and the universities themselves. I hope that the House will approve the Ordinance.
10.6 p.m.
Mr. G. M. Thomson: I am glad that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir) has emphasised the need for Parliament and Scotland to have a good deal more information about the universities of Scotland and, in particular, about the research work that they are doing. I am sure that the House is grateful to her for the amount of information she provided as to the need for this new Ordinance. and I hope that I shall not seem ungallant if I tell her that although we are grateful to her for this information it does not seem to be quite the proper way of doing things that the House should have to receive information about the case for this new university Ordinance from a back bencher.
In presenting this Ordinance to the House the universities might have adopted the practice that we use, of providing an explanatory memorandum, so that we know exactly what the Ordinance is about.
Lady Tweedsmuir: As I understand, the universities circulated not only copies of Ordinance No. 61, but also of Ordinance No. 12 short explanatory memoranda. I said that I hoped that we would have further information, on top of that.
Mr. Thomson: I am obliged to the hon. Lady for that information, but the circular from the universities was sent

1791
to us only as a result of my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself tabling this Prayer. If there had been no Prayer this Ordinance, so important to Scotland, would have gone through without anybody knowing precisely the reasons for it—and I concede that the reasons are good ones.
Miss Margaret Herbison: Not only that; they reached hon. Members only yesterday. This does not seem a very courteous way of dealing with a matter in which hon. Members are greatly interested.
Mr. Hector Hughes: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend, but I would like to tell the House that I received a letter from the Secretary of the University of Aberdeen informing me that information had been sent to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir), but not to me. That supports the argument that my hon. Friend is presenting.
Mr. Thomson: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for reinforcing the point I want to make, which will be the main emphasis of my speech. My right hon. Friend has ably dealt with the wider question of academic research in Scotland, and I want to deal with the narrower point of the universities' relationship with Parliament and the people of Scotland and, in particular, with the responsibility of the universities to provide us with a much bigger flow of information at an earlier date than they have been accustomed to doing up to now.
When one tries to discover all the available information in the House about the operations of Scottish universities one goes to two main sources. We find that there are, first, the returns of the University Grants Committee, to which, no doubt, the Minister will refer us in due course. In these annual returns the Scottish universities are very much lumped together with other universities in the country. Therefore, it is difficult to get any real details about the operation of the very large sums of money which become available to the universities each year.
Then, one pursues one's researches a little further—and even a humble Member of Parliament is allowed to be a
1792
research student in a modest way—and one discovers in the Library of the House of Commons that there is a bundle, tied somewhat flimsily with string, and called "unprinted papers." These unprinted papers are the annual accounts of the Scottish universities, together with various other statistical data about the universities. It is a somewhat haphazard arrangement, and not very satisfying for one who is trying to find out what is happening. I may also add that they are considerably out of date. The latest accounts of the Scottish universities available in the Library are for the year 1957–58, and I should have thought that they could be a little more expeditious than that.
When we are looking at the available information, meagre as it is, for specific facts about the expenditure on research and the number of research students at Scottish universities, as the hon. Lady so very rightly said, there is a very great dearth of that kind of information. We have had no indication as to whether the existing regulations, which, admittedly, are very out of date, may, in fact, have been one of the reasons for the decline in the number of research students, and we do not know how this affects them.
I am sure that in the long run the number of research students that we have at Scottish universities is bound to depend on the number of entrants coming into the universities. We get complaints from our constituents from time to time that there are not enough places at the Scottish universities for those who are qualified to obtain entrance. Though the hon. Lady told us she had no difficulty in getting information from the universities about this matter, I must confess that I have not had her experience, because it has not been possible for me to get adequate information if I ask how many people have been turned away by Scottish universities, or how inadequate the places may be in other faculties.
Then there is the question of the qualifications of the people going into the universities themselves. There were alterations in these qualifications recently which might very well affect the number of people who will come in under these regulations. These alterations, which

1793
were carried out by the Scottish Universities Entrance Board, were of a controversial nature and were raised on the Floor of the House. When we wrote from this House to the Scottish Universities Entrance Board asking it to provide us with information as to the reasons for this change, we are told politely, but firmly, in academic language, that it is none of our business. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House that the entrance regulations to the Scottish universities are very much the business of the people of Scotland and of their representatives, and that we ought to have a more helpful and more courteous response from the universities to that kind of request.
I sometimes wonder whether some of the difficulties difficulties we have about the inadequacy of research activities in Scottish universities, which my right hon. Friend has described, are in part due to the out-of-date pattern of the professorships in the universities. I sometimes feel, on looking over the structure of our universities, that they have failed rather badly to keep pace with the swiftly changing needs of modern communities. I find, for instance, that in my own University of St. Andrew's, which has been notably progressive in recent years, in the divinity faculty, there is one professor for every eight students.
When we turn to the sciences, both pure and applied, the ratio becomes 1 to 27. The Scottish universities have failed to a much greater extent than many English universities to set up chairs in the more modern sciences, particularly the social sciences, and perhaps that might help a good deal in extending the research facilities in Scotland.
Then there is the question whether the regulations which we are removing by this Ordinance have been the sort to persuade industry to give adequate help to the universities. I notice in the annual returns that the payment for research received at Scottish universities is much lower than for universities in England and Wales. Considering the fact that Scotland has one-sixth of the university student population of the United Kingdom one discovers that the payments for research are half of what they ought to be in relation to the student population. When one looks at the figure of income from local authori-
1794
ties one discovers—I do not know the reason—that Scottish local authorities contribute to the universities again about half of what English local authorities contribute to universities in England and Wales. Clearly, there is room for a big improvement in that direction.
Of course, the success of these regulations in promoting research in Scottish universities will depend to a considerable extent on the adequacy of the finances that the Scottish universities receive. In passing, I may say that there has been more than one occasion when the Public Accounts Committee of this House has commented on the inadequacy of the public scrutiny of university expenditure of the very large sums of public money which they receive. Last year, they received about £46 million and there is no other single institution which gets public help on this scale with so little public accountability.
I wish to say a word about that in a moment, but I am wondering, in particular, whether we can be satisfied with the way in which research in Scottish universities is financed. So far as I have been able to find out—I must tell the House that these figures are necessarily very imprecise—about half the funds for research in the universities come from three sources: from the Government, from the big educational foundations, and from industry. The proportion between these three is about seven parts from the Government, two from the educational foundations, and five from industry.
I understand that one of the reasons for the universities feeling sensitive about matters like this being discussed in the House of Commons is their proper caution about any suggestion of political interference with their work and of political pressure on their academic freedom. I suggest that a look at these figures would indicate another danger about which we might get a little more public discussion. The research money comes mainly from the Government and industry and these parts of the money come particularly in relation to defence contracts and, in the case of industry, as the result of research work which is necessarily closely related to the kind of work of the industry making the grant.

1795
The smallest source of money is from the educational foundations, which one would have thought freer from external consideration. There is, therefore, concern that there might be a danger of non-academic influence being brought to bear on the kind of research done by the universities. Perhaps some attention might be paid to that and we might get more information on which to conduct a public discussion.
Although, so far as I can make out, about one student in twelve in the Scottish universities is a post-graduate student, there is remarkably little provision for dealing with the tuition and training of the post-graduate student. I am not here dealing with the future research fellows under these new regulations, the people who come back to the universities with a distinguished record of service. I am referring to the normal student who takes his degree and goes on to post-graduate work. Our universities are different in this matter from the American universities and there might be some discussion about whether we ought to have post-graduate school on the American model. It is something that does not receive adequate consideration.
Another question which interests me a great deal, and which I am sure will interest my hon. Friend, is whether the new regulations which will be drafted under this new Ordinance we are passing tonight will make it easy enough for someone who has acquired a technological qualification which is not necessarily a formal university qualification to qualify for post-graduate research facilities. I am thinking, for instance, of people who will take the new Diploma in Technology, or those who will take the Higher National Certificate, or some of the associateships in one of the mechanical or electrical sciences. I hope that the universities will make sure that there are proper facilities for taking them in the post-graduate stage without forcing them to go through some of the more formal and academic hoops.
I hope that I have said enough to underline the need for a much greater flow of information between the universities and Parliament and the interested public at large. I fully admit that there is need for a very careful distinction between what might be called
1796
proper matters of academic concern and questions of public policy, although, of course, it is not always easy to see where to draw the borderline between them. I certainly do not want, and I am sure my hon. and right hon. Friends do not want, any sort of political interference with the academic work of universities. No one is suggesting that we should have the right to put down Parliamentary Questions about these subjects.
No one wants a State university, although I sometimes think that the arguments advanced against having a State university concentrate too much on quoting the example of some of the obscurer universities in America, and forget the large number of State universities throughout the world where academic questions are not called into question. One can think of some distinguished examples in the United States, of the Sorbonne and of the historic Vienna University, all of which are State universities. We have our own traditions and the University Grants Committee is working them out very well. But there is the question of adapting these conditions and making sure that the universities remain thoroughly responsible to the community they are serving. I think that the universities, if, by mistake, they have fallen into what seems a rather superior attitude, will now try to get away from it. I believe that they have a responsibility to the community which they themselves will recognise. In any case, although they may feel they do not like Parliamentary interference, in practice they have to keep coming to Parliament. They have to come to Parliament for their money and for the legislation which gives them their being.
My first experience of participating in debates in this House was in connection with the new legislation to set up and organise the University of St. Andrew's. I am glad of the progress made in that university since that time. I should have thought that these Ordinances, one of which we are discussing, are mainly matters of academic concern and not, in genereal, proper matters for us to discuss in this House. I think that this one is the exception rather than a rule, but so long as they are the only means we have of obtaining information about the universities, we are bound to go on

1797
using them. I hope that the universities will draw as a moral from this debate that they should cease to be what sometimes seems an esoteric secret society and should provide freely the information we would all like to see made available, so that those of us who are proud of our ancient universities and wish them well may have the means to take part in informed public discussion of their problems.
10.24 p.m.
Mr. Forbes Hendry: I have the greatest confidence in commending this Ordinance to the House. I do so with greater confidence because of the arguments adduced by the right hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) who said that the Scottish universities have to some extent failed to produce the number of research scholars that Scotland ought to produce. I think that was due to a large extent to the Ordinance which it is proposed to repeal and to replace by this Ordinance.
When we think about a university, we are apt to forget that a university has two functions, not only the function to teach students but the function of research and adding to the sum of human knowledge. It seems to me that the old Ordinance was designed entirely to facilitate teaching and to do little or nothing for the research which is so necessary when academic subjects, particularly scientific subjects, are progressing as rapidly as they are today. By giving the universities elasticity, this new Ordinance will go a very long way in helping to do precisely what the right hon. Gentleman is so anxious should be done.
I have been extremely interested by the arguments which have come from the benches opposite about a greater flow of ideas between this House and the universities. This is the second Ordinance to
1798
come under discussion in this Chamber within a fortnight. That, I think, is proof in itself that there is a certain lack of liaison between the universities and the House of Commons.
I recommend to my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State that he should take this matter up with his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in his consideration of electoral reform. After all, it was right hon. and hon. Members opposite who did away with the very close liaison between the universities and this House which lasted for many years through the University Members. [Interruption.] Hon. Members will have noted that my noble Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir) was appointed ad hoc to put the case of the universities tonight. Various hon. Members from both sides have tried hard recently to make sure that the universities are properly represented and that the academic point of view is understood in the House.
Mr. G. M. Thomson: Will the hon. Gentleman explain what he means by saying that his noble Friend was appointed ad hoc to present the case to the House? Are we not all equally Scottish Members of Parliament?
Mr. Hendry: I ask the hon. Gentleman to cast his mind back to my noble Friend's speech when she said that she had been asked by the four Scottish universities to present the case for this Ordinance. That should not be. For many years, the universities were directly represented in the House, and it was the party opposite which did away with that. I ask my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State to take a message from the House to the Prime Minister, asking that consideration be given to restoring the University Members to the House of Commons.
10.27 p.m.
Sir Myer Galpern: I have learned more about Parliamentary procedure as a result of the debate so far than I have learned of university practice and habits. It seems strange to me that one should be able skilfully to weave round this very simple Prayer asking Her Majesty to withhold her assent a general discussion of the widest possible nature on university activities. I say quite frankly that, had one expected that that would be permitted under this sort of heading, one would probably have come better armed with factual information. However, from the limited knowledge I have gained as a result of my practical experience as a member of a university court and as a governor of the Royal College of Science and Technology, I wish to make one or two points to dispel some of the erroneous views which are, unfortunately, held by some of my hon. Friends.
First, what is the set-up in a university? There is, of course, the senate, which is composed entirely of the professorial staff, senior lecturers and a few others. There is the university court, which is the overriding body and which receives reports from the senate. Then there is a very valuable watch-dog body known as the general council, which is representative of all the graduates of the university. The general council publishes admirable reports. As for the completeness of them, I can speak only from the point of view of Glasgow University. Anyone who cares to study the Quarterly Report of the University of Glasgow General Council will find a great deal of the information which hon. Members have sought so anxiously this evening. I know that a similar practice is followed by the other three universities in Scotland.
I am certain of the opinion that there should be the fullest possible information. Glasgow University celebrated its quincentenary a few years ago. St. Andrew's is even older. For 500 to 600 years these ancient universities have suffered no interference, but there is the ever-present danger that, after the short step of inquiring about the financial arrangements, will come pressures and exertions such as we know existed and led to undesirable situations in other countries. I am sure that no hon. Member would welcome such a state of affairs in this country.
1800
Unlike my right hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan and East Stirling-shire (Mr. Woodburn), I Think that we Should be proud of our achieve rent in Scotland. I want to refer to, the Royal College of Science and Technology which is recognised us the finest technological institute in this country. Lt attracts people from all over the world. It carries out the very research work to which my right hon. Friend referred, namely in shipbuilding, engineering, mechanical engineering and electrical engineering. Research into these subjects is carried out to an extent which I do not think is surpassed in any other technological institute in this country. We are rightly proud of it.
At Glasgow University a department of virology will be opened next year. It will carry out research into virus diseases in competition with only two other similar institutions in the whole world. We in Scotland do not lag behind the rest of the world in our research development.
All the things which my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) are anxious to achieve are likely to be achieved by the simplification and flexibility of this Ordinance, which we shall obviously agree to. Its purpose is the abolition of the petty restrictions which were applicable and relevant in 1895. They are no longer necessary. The Ordinance will ensure the attraction of more research students to the Scottish universities.
There is a limit to the amount of research work which can be undertaken by a university with a student population well below that in English universities. This is because our numbers are much more restricted. We turn out a far higher calibre of research student than any other university in the country. The fact that the students may be unable to find employment in Scotland after they have completed their research work is something over which the universities have very little control.
A book is published by the University of Glasgow which records the amount of research done and the number of publications as a result of that research from 1952 to 1955. It contains literally

1801
hundreds of reports on the research work carried on at Glasgow University alone.
The information that we all seek as to the financial arrangements of the universities, the U.G.C., and so on, should be available to hon. Members, but if hon. Members were to do some research on their own account they would find much of the information in the reports of the U.G.C. They would find information about the establishment of chairs, and whether chairs are being brought up to date and keeping abreast of the needs of modern university development. All these things are regulated by the amount of money made available by the U.G.C. I have been a member of the university court which made representations for the establishment of chairs, but had to abandon that idea because we recognised that the U.G.C. had available only a limited amount of money to promote the new chains that we were so anxious to establish.
I think that the criticism levelled against the inadequacy of the information, especially on the financial side, can be remedied easily, and perhaps a great deal more information that this House should rightly receive and discuss could be obtained if, instead of a committee being set up to inquire into the workings of the university, the practice of the English universities was followed of publishing an annual report on the work of the university. That would make available to hon. Members each year the information for which they have asked and would satisfy their just inquisitiveness.
If, therefore, it could go forth from this House as a unanimous suggestion to the four university courts that such annual reports should be prepared, I am quite sure that those institutions would pay heed to it and we, in turn, would get that general information on their workings to which we are entitled.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): Mr. Niall Macpherson.
Miss Margaret Herbison: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I understand that the debate on a Prayer can go on until 11.30 p.m. This is a matter of very great interest,
1802
not only to hon. Members but also to Scotland, and I suggest that the Minister ought to wait, in order to reply to the whole debate.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Lady is quite correct in saying that the debate on the Prayer can continue until 11.30, but if the Minister rises and catches the eye of the Chair, the Chair will call the Minister. Mr. Niall Macpherson.
Mr. Hector Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. May we take it that what the Minister has to say will not conclude the debate? There are others of us who wish to be heard on this subject.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. and learned Member knows perfectly well that the Minister's speech does not necessarily conclude the debate. If other hon. Members rise, they will have every opportunity to be called. Mr. Niall Macpherson.
10.38 p.m.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Niall Macpherson): This is a Prayer for the annulment of a university Ordinance—it is not a Prayer for the annulment of regulations made by any Minister—but I think that it might be convenient if I were to intervene now, if only to emphasise that I am in no way winding up the debate but merely intervening to indicate the Government's attitude.
This is the second occasion this month on which a Prayer has been moved against a Scottish university Ordinance, the Prayer on 13th July in connection with the Glasgow University LL.B. Ordinance being the first of its kind, so far as can be traced, since the universities obtained the power to make Ordinances under the University of Scotland Acts. 1859 and 1889.
The Glasgow University Ordinance was to some extent a special case in that what the universities do about law degrees and law degree courses must have a direct effect on the training and qualifications of members of the legal profession.
Miss Herbison: The Minister could not wait to hear hon. Members speak from this side of the House, but surely he might wait till the noble Lady the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady

1803
Tweedsmuir) returns to the Chamber. She was appointed ad hoc to speak for the four Scottish universities. She is not now in her place.
Mr. Macpherson: I am sorry, but I cannot control the movements of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir). I was not aware that she was not in her place, but she is free to come and go and, of course, to see my name on the tape. She can come into the Chamber if she likes to do so.
I think that it is important that one should draw this distinction between this Prayer and the Prayer that was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) against an Ordinance which had a direct effect outside the universities as well. In that case, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West indicated, there was some difference of opinion on the merits of the proposed changes. I have listened to the debate so far, and I think I am right in saying that there are no differences of opinion about the merits of this Ordinance. It is an amending Ordinance replacing one which, as my noble Friend said, dates back to 1895.
It is not, in any event, for me to express anything in the nature of a Government view on the question of merits. Nor is it for me to answer a debate as if it were a Prayer against a Government Regulation or as if it were an occasion to debate Scottish affairs. In the view of the Government, this is a matter for the universities alone, and it is for the House to judge whether or not to approve this Ordinance.
The right hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) will, therefore, forgive me if I do not follow him in the exceedingly interesting speech that he made, but we will most certainly look carefully at all that he has said. I think he made a most valuable contribution to our debate tonight.
Mr. G. M. Thomson: The Minister has made a very interesting point on a matter that is new to the House—namely, the procedure that we are adopting on these university Ordinances. He says that this is not in any way a matter for the Government but a matter which lies directly between the universities of Scotland and
1804
the House of Commons. Can he give an assurance that on a future occasion when an Ordinance may be more controversial than this one there will be a free vote on the Government side?
Mr. Macpherson: One is often asked for assurances about the future, but one cannot look into the future, and it is always better to let the future take care of itself. I should not be prepared to give any such assurance, because it is always conceivable that a university might make an Ordinance—I do not say that it would or could, but it might—on which the Government might have a very strong point of view to express either for or against. It is always conceivable that it would then be a question of the point of view of the Government vis-à-vis the independent universities. I want to make that position quite clear.
It is not for me to express anything in the nature of a view on the part of the Government on the question of merits. As the House is aware, it has been the policy of successive Governments to preserve the autonomy of the universities and not to infringe on their independence on matters of academic policy, and I would suggest that it would be impossible for me to be suspect in the box and not at the Box, so far as this debate is concerned.
This is a matter, as the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) put it very aptly, between the universities and the House at the moment. Therefore, for these reasons, I feel that I must resist any temptation to influence the House one way or another on the substance of the Ordinance. Nor would it be appropriate for me, on the basis of the present Prayer, to be drawn into discussion of the wider questions concerning research facilities which have been raised tonight, although I recognise their great importance and the intrinsic interest of every hon. Member in them.
In the earlier debate on the Glasgow University Ordinance I described at some length the procedural steps relating to university Ordinances. I do not intend to repeat them in detail, because they will be fresh in the memory of the House from a very recent debate, except to remind the House that any Ordinance prepared by a university court must be first submitted to the Senatus Academicus

1805
and the General Council. After those consultations it is submitted to the Privy Council, but before that body considers it, it has to be laid before Parliament.
In this case it is my duty to inform the House that the procedure has been followed in each of the Scottish universities—because the Ordinance is common to them all. No representations have been made against it to the Privy Council within the statutory time limit, which has now expired, and it has been approved by each of the university courts. Therefore, the Ordinance comes to the House in order, and I would not suggest to the House that it should reject it on the ground that it is not in order.
Hon. Members have raised on this and also on other recent occasions, including Question Time, the extent to which the Scottish universites publish information about their activities. As I said on a previous occasion, I have no doubt that the universities will take careful note of what has been said tonight, including some valuable suggestions from both sides of the House. As for the information which has to be laid before Parliament by the Secretary of State in the terms of Section 30 of the 1899 Act, my right hon. Friend has indicated in reply to the hon. Member for Dunfermline Burghs (Dr. A. Thompson) that he will consider carefully the suggestions he then made. I shall certainly bring to my right hon. Friend's attention the additional points that have been made tonight.
But one cannot stress too often that the universities are independent self-governing bodies. In matters concerning the financial needs and the development of the universities as a whole the Government are advised by the University Grants Committee, to which the task of allocating grants to particular universities is entrusted. I believe that I am right in saying that the grants are allocated en bloc and are generally not earmarked for particular purposes, so that it is still more difficult for anyone standing at the Dispatch Box here to account for the way in which that money is spent.
Mr. James H. Hoy: Is it not a fact that when universities make application to the University
1806
Grants Committee for certain capital expenditure, and so on, they are considered for specific projects?
Mr. Macpherson: I stand corrected. The hon. Member and I have together looked into these matters at the Committee of Public Accounts in days gone by. There are two different kinds of university expenditure. There is recurrent expenditure and capital expenditure. The capital expenditure is gone into very carefully, but I was talking about recurrent expenditure. I take it that most of the expenditure arising out of this Ordinance would be mainly concerned with recurrent expenditure.
Mr. Hoy: It ought to be made perfectly clear. I think that even the hon. Gentleman will admit that, contrary to what my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern) said, the Committee of Public Accounts has only at long last made some little inroad into finding how the money has been spent. That is what has worried the House of Commons.
Mr. Macpherson: This is a more general matter which leads me to the next point with which I intended to deal. I shall certainly report to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State the feeling that hon. Members have expressed, particularly my noble Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South and the hon. Member for Dundee, East. My right hon. Friend will no doubt wish to discuss this matter with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who in turn will discuss it, no doubt, with the Chairman of the University Grants Committee, which is at present the recognised channel not only for the disbursement of the money but for the collection of information from the universities.
A great deal of information about the universities is available already in "Returns from Universities and University Colleges", which are published annually. It is a University Grants Committee publication annually presented to Parliament.
Sir M. Galpern: It publishes an annual report.
Mr. Macpherson: It publishes the annual returns and a detailed quinquennial review.
I return to the question which is before the House tonight, namely, whether the

1807
Ordinance made in 1895 should now be replaced by a new one which will, among other things, give research Fellows a status entirely separate from that of research students. The purpose of laying the Ordinance before the House is to give hon. Members an opportunity to object to the terms or the effect of the Ordinance and to ask for it to be annulled. It will be for the House to consider whether any valid objections have been raised such as to warrant the Prayer for the annulment.
No doubt the debate will have served a very useful purpose in other respects, because it is not often that the House gets an opportunity collectively of expressing opinions to the universities. But in accordance with the doctrine of non-interference in the internal affairs of the universities, I would say again, in order to make it quite clear, that it is not for me as a member of the Government to attempt to influence hon. Members either way. I hope that I have done what I conceive to be my duty, which is to try to report to the House the position of the Government in this matter.
10.53 p.m.
Miss Margaret Herbison: We did not expect any more from the Joint Under-Secretary than he has been able to give. We realise the difficulty in which he is placed. However, I am very glad indeed that he agreed that the Prayer has served a very useful purpose. I am also very glad that he has made it clear that his right hon. Friend and the Chancellor of the Exchequer will take note of the points which have already been made.
I was interested in the speech of the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry). He seemed to think that we should not need such a Prayer, that all our problems in regard to the universities and their relationship with Parliament would be solved if the Government were to return to university representation. I do not think the hon. Member would have made that suggestion had he been in the House from 1945 when we decided to do away with university representation because those who represented the universities just did not do the job that the hon. Member suggested that they did. Indeed, the university seat was in many instances a mere refuge for
1808
discarded politicians—Tory politicians, of course.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I appreciate that the subject was raised by an hon. Member on one side of the House and, therefore, the hon. Lady is perfectly entitled to refer to it, but she is not entitled to go into it in detail on this Prayer.
Miss Herbison: I accept your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker—
Lady Tweedsmuir: When the hon. Lady says that all Members representing Scottish universities did not do their job, I must come to the defence of one of them in particular, the right hon. Gentleman who—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I am afraid that we must not pursue that matter further now.
Miss Herbison: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I think that I have made the point.
I was more amazed by the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern), for whom I have the greatest respect and regard. He took a line very different from that taken by the Minister. The Minister felt that the debate had served a very useful purpose, but my hon. Friend seemed to think that because the universities had continued for 500 or 600 years without any matter such as this being raised in the House of Commons, it was not fitting that we should talk about it tonight.
He suggested that there might creep in the great danger of political interference in the universities. It is incumbent upon me to emphasise what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member far Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) and my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson), who made it perfectly clear that they had no intention of interfering with what one could term the academic freedom of the universities. We have no interest at all in interfering with them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston said that Members could get the information which they were seeking in the report of the general council. I am a member of the general council of Glasgow University and I get a quarterly

1809
report, but many of the facts which my hon. Friends felt ought to be given are just not to be found in that report, good as it is. My hon. Friend said that we could find information on financial matters in the Report of the University Grants Committee, but the detailed expenditure about which my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East was asking is not shown in that Report. We should make it perfectly clear that, without any desire Ito interfere with the academic freedom of our universities, we think that we have a right to the sort of information for which my hon. Friends have been asking.
Again, my hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston said that we might be giving the impression that in research we were lagging behind the rest of the world. I do not know the facts about the rest of the world, but I know some of the facts about Great Britain and about Scotland vis-à-vis the rest of the United Kingdom and
"… Facts are chiels that winna ding".
There is no doubt that we are lagging behind many of the universities in England, although not all. For instance, only a small proportion of the advanced course studentships are held in Scotland and if the Ordinance helps more of them to be taken up in Scotland, it will be an excellent thing. However, it is a fact that only a small proportion of the advanced course studentships given by the D.S.I.R. is held in Scotland and that the concentration of post-graduate courses is in the Universities of London and Birmingham.
In 1959, 59 per cent. of the Great Britain advance course scholarships were held at the Universities of London and Birmingham. It is not that we do not have a great number of university graduates—our proportion of the United Kingdom total in 1959 was 17 per cent. in science and technology, 11 per cent. having obtained first-class honours degrees, so that we had more than our share, even among those with first-class honours degrees.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston about the valuable contributions made by our universities, but they do not make sufficient use of the advanced course scheme. If this Ordinance makes us use it more, it will be a very good thing indeed. In
1810
1959, London, Birmingham, Manchester, Oxford, Cambridge and Durham Universities all had a greater proportion of these advanced scholarships than Glasgow University and the Royal College of Science and Technology together.
During the past four years grants for special research at Scottish universities amounted to £267,000, or 7 per cent. of the amount spent in Great Britain. Our universities use a lower proportion of the D.S.I.R. grants than they ought to use when one considers our high proportion of university students. That must surely reflect the small number of proposals for research which have been made by the Scottish universities.
During the last six months of 1959, there were 292 applications from the United Kingdom for grants. Of that figure, only 21, or 7·2 per cent., came from Scotland. Our figure is much lower than pit ought to be. In 1959–60, there were 25 applications from Scottish universities. We have no complaint about the D.S.I.R. which is willing to give us all the help we can take. Out of 17 awards made, only 10 were taken up. Of the 25 applications to which I referred, 13, or more than half, came from the Royal College of Science and Technology in Glasgow. In other words, the one college which is not a university, although it is very closely associated with Glasgow University, accounted for more than 50 per cent. of the applications from Scotland.
It is not to be wondered at that we on this side of the House felt that this was an opportunity to show very clearly that we are perturbed about this matter, and that we want our Scottish universities to put forward more projects for research work. We want our students to take up more of these advanced scholarships. We are not complaining tonight. We are not going cap-in-hand asking for anything; it is there for the taking.
Aberdeen University felt that it was incumbent upon itself to approach one back bench Member on the Government side. If it had approached hon. Members on both sides of the House, it would have found that our desire in putting down this Prayer was to help our universities in Scotland to get their share of this research work. If we continue to neglect these matters, not only the

1811
academic future of our universities but the industrial future and well-being of our country will be marred.
I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary will ensure that the points which have been made in the friendliest spirit from this side of the House are brought to the notice of everybody concerned. I hope that the four Scottish universities will do as well as the Royal College of Science and Technology, of which we in the West of Scotland are very rightly proud.
11.5 p.m.
Mr. Hector Hughes: It has been made abundantly clear in this debate that hon. Members on this side of the House do not oppose the Ordinance on its merits; indeed, the Minister has certain misgivings as to the way in which the Ordinance had been handled. Several times he repeated that the universities are independent bodies, and that neither he nor the Government are responsible for them. I do not intend to address my remarks to the merits of the matter, which have been adequately dealt with. I want to say that it is a pity that the great universities of Scotland should have lent themselves to presenting this Ordinance to the House in a party political way. It is quite obvious from what has been said in the debate and from what I shall adduce shortly that the universities did that. The dates show that.
The remarks that fell from the lips of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir), who spoke comprehensively and presented her case very well, showed that she was approached before any hon. Member on this side of the House.
Mr. N. Macpherson: It would be a great mistake if an impression were given that this debate was in any way political. I would point out to the hon. and learned Member—and I hope that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern) will bear me out in this—that in the previous debate the hon. Member for Shettleston was the spokesman for the university, and merely because it happens that on this occasion the spokesman for the university came from this side of the House I hope that the hon. and learned Member will not say that this is a political debate.
Mr. Hughes: The Minister was a little too previous in saying that. I will refer the House to a letter I received from the Secretary of the University of Aberdeen dealing with this Ordinance. He said:
"At the request of Mr. Angus who is at present out of Aberdeen, I am writing to draw your attention to a Prayer against the above Ordinance which I understand is to be heard in the House of Commons on Wednesday next, 27th July, 1960. The University of St. Andrews on behalf of all four Scottish Universities, will be circulating to all M.P.s an explanatory memorandum … We should be greatly obliged, therefore, if you would lend your support to the Universities' case, the main speaker for' which is to be Lady Tweedsmuir, your colleague from South Aberdeen."
Does not that show that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South was privy to this; that she had been consulted before anyone on this side of the House was consulted, and that we were left in the dark about it? Does not that in itself justify the Prayer?
Worse than that; this letter is dated 22nd July. In common with my colleagues, I had no communication from the University of St. Andrews at that time. I subsequently received a communication from that university dated 23rd July, 1960. It is quite obvious from these dates that hon. Members opposite were privy to this before any hon. Member on this side got any inkling of it. In those circumstances, we on this side of the House were perfectly justified in putting down the Prayer.
I close as I began, by saying that the dates show, notwithstanding the disclaimer of the Minister, that the universities treated this matter in a party political way which is quite unworthy of the great traditions of the universities of Scotland.
Lady Tweedsmuir: The hon. and learned Gentleman is not at all fair to the universities. It is perfectly open to the universities to approach anyone to speak in support of an Ordinance when they hear that there is to be a Prayer for its rejection in the House of Commons. Hon. and right hon. Members have received copies of both Ordinances and of the explanatory memorandum. To be fair to the universities, when they hear that there is a Prayer put down and that that is the way the matter is to be taken, it is only sensible that they should approach someone whom they think may be likely to support them.
Mr. Hughes: I am sorry that the noble Lady has said that because she is unfair to the universities and she is unfair to herself in lending herself to a transaction of this kind.
The universities of Scotland have a great tradition, a great reputation and a great history. It is wrong that they should be party political in their approach and engage in a transaction of this kind on a party political basis which leaves hon. Members on this side no alternative but to put down a Prayer so that the matter can be explained adequately. I said at the beginning of my speech that we do not oppose the Ordinance on the merits. We approve of it, but to get an explanation it was necessary to put down the Prayer.
11.12 p.m.
Dr. Alan Thompson: My hon. and right hon. Friends who put down this Prayer tonight deserve to be congratulated. As I see it, their case rests on two propositions, both of which are sound. First, they say, the original Ordinance, Ordinance No. 61 dated 1895, is inadequate. I accept that. Secondly, they say that the new Ordinance should be the subject of Parliamentary debate so that we may discuss how the flexibility provided for in it can be used to give us the research which Scotland and the United Kingdom need and deserve today.
I take, first, the proposition that the original Ordinance was a bad one. It imposed restrictions which may have been suitable in the nineteenth century but which are not suitable today. Its restrictions supervising students in great detail in the conduct of their research may have been useful for young students in 1895, but senior people, at the postdoctoral level, let us say, coming to a university now would not accept research grants in the restricted conditions applied by the old Ordinance of 1895.
For example, the University of Edinburgh has been more or less ignoring Ordinance No. 61 for a long time. Out of 687 research students last year, only three were admitted under the terms of Ordinance No. 61, and 684 were accepted under different Ordinances which related to specific degrees such as Ph.D., M.Sc., and so on. In other words, a device has been found to admit the other 684 under different Ordinances—that is, those relat-
1814
ing to specific degrees. Ordinance No. 61 is, in fact, moribund and it should, obviously, be repealed.
The second proposition is that this House should discuss whether the kind of research we can really look forward to is the right kind. We cannot be completely satisfied with research as it is now. My right hon. and hon. Friends have dealt in detail with this matter, and I wish merely to add one or two points. I say at once that an essential function of the universities is the pursuit of knowledge not controlled or dominated by any private or corporate interests.
Without this academic freedom, learning will suffer irreparable harm, but the State, which endows research to such a large extent, should I think, guide the lines of broad policy. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) has said, it is that line of demarcation which causes us so much concern. The universities must administer, but the State must decide on the broad lines of policy.
We all have differing views about research, and which forms should have priority; and everyone has his own views as to which should come first. I remember an irate professor telling me that he had just been asked to sanction a research project into the sociological significance of the British Christmas card. Another research project I remember was an attempt to determine the correlation between the social class of families by the length of the bookshelves, which was supposed to give a quantitative index to reading habits in particularly selected homes. The proposition, I remember, was that the higher the social class, the more bookshelves there would be and therefore the wider reading habits, but I do not know if the £1,000 spent on that was justified. However, I think that we have to leave it to the universities to decide on the research which is undertaken, whether in sociology or another science. My only point is that although most research projects are sound, there are sometimes "fringe" projects by junior people which can be banal, and even worthless. The danger is perhaps greater is sociology than, say, medicine or science.
We know, of course, that research workers may have their quirks. I have never understood, for instance, why an archaelogist, in order to prove that he

1815
is good, feels forced to demonstrate that his predecessor was bad. We have only to think of the archaeologists who write for the Sunday newspapers, and the mutual accusations of fraud over the most trivial issues.
Mr. E. G. Willis: Where so much money—public money—is involved, surely we should be able to criticise fairly forcibly this apparent waste of public money?
Dr. Thompson: That may be so, but I was trying to put my criticisms as ingeniously as I could while still at the same time upholding the autonomy of the universities.
An essential function of the universities is, as I have said, the pursuit of knowledge, not controlled or dominated by any private or corporate interest; but the reputation of a university is often founded on the efficiency of its research rather than on its standing as a teaching establishment. Research enters fundamentally into the life of a university, and some students, if a vital and vigorous climate of research prevails in their university, become imbued at a relatively early stage of their careers with the idea of becoming research workers themselves. Such a vigorous attitude to research can, therefore, have an impact on a university much wider than the benefits which accrue to the individual subject itself.
Admittedly, research and teaching go hand in hand, but it may be necessary sometimes to separate the functions. It may be necessary in certain subjects to establish research readerships or professorships with only nominal teaching duties attaching. I do not think that the status of research is sufficiently appreciated in this country, and it would help to make research, and especially research within the university, a real profession. It is the teaching jobs which are permanent and the hope of gaining a teaching job is often the goal of the research worker. But some very good researchers are, I think, shockingly bad teachers and it would help all concerned to keep them away from students. It would enable the research worker to dedicate himself to his subject, and it would protect the young from inefficient and careless instruction.
Research staffs are usually on limited, fixed, grants and do not sit on
1816
the faculties or on the bodies which give them a voice in university government, and there is the tendency to treat them as the poor relations of the university teachers. I suggest that it is our job to see that good research workers, however, are given the status of university teachers. Where a trained research worker is also a good teacher, so much the better of course, but this does not always happen.
Research is an exacting occupation, and it must be pursued in suitable conditions. Universities do not always give research workers the same conditions of service as they give to teachers. There must also be adequate funds for expenses. It is not enough to provide maintenance for research workers. There must be an endowment of the work itself. Research workers must be re-imbursed for the expenses that they incur. I put in a plea to the Inland Revenue in this respect. It is difficult for anyone on a research scholarship ever to claim from the Inland Revenue expenses incurred in travel or whatever he does in pursuit of research.
If university researchers are to keep fresh minds, they must have freedom of choice and conduct. If the research worker's interests do not lie in the field of work favoured by the professor, he should not be coerced, directly or indirectly, into taking up any line of work against his will. A good professor realises this. He does not force a research worker into a field dominated or dictated by himself. Bad professors sometimes do. They coerce research workers into things which interest the professors rather than things which interest the research workers. This often results in poor work, and a good deal of mutual irritation and frustration.
The Association of University Teachers has made the very good suggestion that every university should have a research endowment fund, administered centrally by a fairly large committee, from which all departments and individuals could draw money. In other words, the suggestion is that people endowing the university should put the money into a central fund, and it would be up to the Committee administering the central fund to allocate money, rather than allowing the sponsoring bodies to dictate too closely the nature and conditions of the work.

1817
Universities cannot be closed institutions in the matter of research. My hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) made this point very well. There should be a much greater working with and co-operation with the technical colleges. There should be much greater facilities for exchange of staff between universities and other research institutions.
Student research is a slightly different problem. The first consideration for students, as distinct from post-graduates, is the need for mental training. It is not so much that they widen the area of knowledge of a subject in the way that senior researchers do, but that they receive training in the use of the mind. I do not think that very many undergraduates advance the frontiers of knowledge very much. They get mental training, although occasionally they stumble upon an idea. There must be very few professors and lecturers who have not occasionally filched an idea from a student which they have later claimed as their own. We are all only human.
We have had the opportunity tonight to ventilate a few points which are important. This opportunity has been provided by the movers of the Prayer, who have allowed Parliament to discuss it. For that reason, right hon. and hon. Gentlemen have reason to be grateful.
Mr. Woodburn: With the permission of the House. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

SCIENCE AND EDUCATION
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sharpies.]
11.23 p.m.
Mr. Frederick Peart: I am very glad that Scottish members have raised a subject which, in a way, is very similar to what I am raising concerning English education. I will not deal specifically with universities, but rather with the impact of science upon our general educational system. I recognise that the subject is a large one, and in the short time at my disposal obviously I can touch only upon certain aspects of it.
I am sorry that there has been no major debate on science and the responsibilities of the Minister for Science during this Session. I do not blame the Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister. I wish that Parliament, during the months which we have had at our disposal, had debated the responsibilities of the Minister for Science, and especially his rôle in relation to the Ministry of Education.
This year we are celebrating the tercentenary of the Royal Society. I make the point that Parliament should discuss the application of science to education, industry and agriculture, because if we are to make a challenge in this rapidly-developing world we must plan our science, in the sense that we must give priorities—and, of course, education plays an important part.
I shall not this evening go in detail into the scientific manpower situation. The figures have been quoted ad nauseam. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree, however, that we must increase our scientific manpower, and that the key to that situation is undoubtedly the school itself. I have always argued with my hon. Friends who are interested in colonial development that only by making a scientific contribution can we develop the colonial territories, and end poverty and insecurity in the under-developed countries.
We must be able to send to those areas skilled technicians, scientists, engineers and the like who will, through their work, not only give advice but themselves play a major part in the development of those territories. If we are to challenge poverty all over the world and

1819
exert leadership in colonial administration, in the end it will all depend upon our ability to supply fully-trained men and women with scientific training.
That brings me back to the problem of our schools, and of our whole educational system. I know that the Parliamentary Secretary will agree that this is also true of our own economy, our own industrial development, and our agriculture. I should like to see—although I do not wish the Minister to comment on this tonight—the full implementation of the De La Warr Report on higher education in agriculture.
First, the Parliamentary Secretary has some responsibility here. He has a connection with the administration of education. Secondly, he must be concerned with our attitude towards science in the educational system itself, and whilst, in the time now available, I cannot deal with this vast problem in detail, I want to deal with certain aspects as I see them.
I know that both the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary are optimistic. In a speech to the Association of Local Education Committees in June, the Minister confirmed a previous announcement that there would be a further 8,000 training college places; that the Government would produce 3,000 of those places by 1964; would produce by 1965 a further 2,500, and that by 1966 there would be a further increase of 2,500 places. I accept that—I hope that it is right.
In a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) the Minister, I know, has given very detailed programmes. He has given the extended programme for training colleges and has said how each college is to have an expanded number of places. I applaud that—I believe it to be a right policy—but I want to know whether the Minister is really satisfied that more science will be taught in the colleges. It is all very well to have an expanded teacher training programme, to have more training college places and to expand the growth of the training college system, but is the Minister really satisfied that in the training colleges we are recruiting enough science lecturers and senior mathematical lecturers to train our potential teachers? I hope the Parlia-
1820
mentary Secretary will be able to answer because I believe it is important. It is the key.
I am not just concerned with people who are going to be trained in our training colleges, although they are important and form a major part of our educational system. But what about our graduate teachers in science? Is the Minister satisfied that we shall get from our universities over the next five or ten years an adequate supply of good graduate science men and women who will take a teacher's diploma and who will eventually go into the teaching profession? I am not sure.
I have here a quotation from that very excellent educational journal The Times Educational Supplement of Friday, 17th June. It is actually a quotation from a speech by Miss D. N. Glenday, who gave a presidential address to the Association of Headmistresses at its annual conference in London. Mentioning "Some of this year's facts", she said:
"One school seven years without a senior mathematics mistress, another four years without a physics mistress, still another (a new one) without a chemistry mistress since its opening two years ago."
I could go on. That was a quotation from a person who holds a distinguished position in the educational world, a practising teacher, who knows this problem and she shows figures and quotes facts illustrating the position in our educational system, especially in our girls' schools.
As the Parliamentary Secretary knows, I have prejudices about the educational system. I believe that girls' schools, these single-sex institutions, are out of date. I am certain that the only way in which we could have girls taking more science and more engineering subjects would be to have what I have always advocated—mixed comprehensive schools, which I know are growing up in different parts of the country.
I am rather alarmed at the position of our girls' schools and particularly our girls' grammar schools, which do not have adequate facilities for training the girls in science and, indeed, in applied science itself. I know this is a difficult problem. It is a question of changing people's attitudes. Only a few weeks ago I conducted a personal survey of some of the children of hon. Members on this side of the House—very gifted

1821
children who are at universities and, in the main, products of girls' schools. All of them have gone up to the university, not to study science but to study the arts. If in those schools there had been proper facilities, it may well have been that one of the children I have mentioned would have shown an aptitude for science, and applied science, and would have gone further to the university.
Let us be honest. In girls' schools generally in this country, when we consider the facilities for teaching science and, indeed, the laboratory facilities, the position is deplorable. I hope that the Minister will give me an answer and I trust that his influence and that of his Ministry can be brought to bear on what I consider to be a scandal. I have always argued that a girl, if she has ability, should go in for engineering. Why should she not? Why should we have this silly attitude that girls should be taught domestic science only or, if necessary, botany or biology? I should like to see more girl engineers.
This is happening in other countries. We in our education system must make a bigger challenge than we are making at present. I have argued that the comprehensive school is the answer, because there boys and girls grow up together and there are not the silly differences that there are in the single-sex institutions.
Another point concerns school equipment for the teaching of science. It is important from the point of view of economy to have standardised laboratory equipment. This is of great value to the teacher, yet no British manufacturer is in this field. We have to rely on a German firm, Leybolds of Cologne, to supply the grammar schools and on the Swedish firm. Norstedts, which supplies sets of scientific equipment for children. Has the Ministry thought about this? It is important. This is an aid to teaching which can save considerable sums of money and lead to more efficient teaching where it is not possible to supply immediately a full-scale laboratory.
I do not always agree with The Times Educational Supplement but it is a very fine paper which plays an important rôle. The Minister must have noted some of the excellent articles which it has published on the teaching of science.
1822
An article which appeared in the issue of 13th May of this year deals with the teaching of science in grammar schools. It is concerned especially with modern physics at A level. The author, Mr. Armstrong of the College of Further Education, Welwyn Garden City writes:
"Entering science teaching some four years ago after a period in industry the writer was surprised to find how little work on twentieth century physics was included in the A level physics papers of the various examining boards, and experience soon showed that it was difficult to find teaching time even for the small amount present …"
I could quote further from the article which gives details of how in school after school—mainly grammar schools but also independent schools—there is not enough scientific equipment to teach modern physics. If the Ministry conducted its own independent survey it would confirm what is stated in The Times Educational Supplement.
A new attitude is needed. I know that the Ministry is trying. It produced a very fine pamphlet dealing with the teaching of science in secondary schools. The Crowther Report argues that science training should be given even to arts students in our schools. Why not? When we think of the atom and the application of nuclear energy to industry, nuclear physics can be exciting to the arts student. I believe that arts students should have some general science training and that science men should also have some general training in the humanities.
I hope therefore that the Ministry will seek to carry out the spirit of the Crowther Report and will try to "push" science much more than is done now. The position in the girls' school is deplorable. There is a great reservoir of scientific womanpower to be tapped in the girls' schools. After all, if a girl can work a sewing machine she can be interested in a lathe.
I think that the Minister will agree that the old dichotomy between arts and science is out-dated. It is a stupid thing which has grown up. It affects not only our schools but still, unfortunately, our universities. I know that in our universities to this day there are men and women who are supposed to be educated but who have never had any real general science education. This is wrong. Science should be for all. There are not two cultures—arts and science. They are

1823
one. This silly dichotomy which is often seen even in the grammer schools where boys and girls at an early age have to specialise to the detriment of another study is repeated right up to the universities.
I trust that on some other occasion when the House returns after the Recess we shall have a major debate on the subject—about the place of science in our economy, about the responsibilities of the Ministry for Science and about that Ministry's relationship with the Ministry of Education. We have to face this challenge. After all, we are in a scientific revolution and our educational system as yet has not caught up. We are still living in the past.
I will again quote the words of one of our most distinguished scientists, Sir John Cockcroft. They are the words that he uttered in 1958 when he returned from Russia, and they were quoted in the Evening Standard of 28th November of that year. I know that was more specifically concerned with nuclear developments, but he made this statement:
"At present Russian science and technology is not up to ours in all fields but in those given top priority it is already as good and soon will be better."
As I said earlier, I will not go into details about our scientific manpower position and also its relative position compared with the Soviet Union, Western Germany and the U.S.A. All I say modestly this evening is that the country must wake up quickly. We all say this. The Minister for Science says it, the Minister of Education says it, the Government say it and the Opposition say it. But in the end if we are to produce the scientists we do it only if we really have a drive right down in our schools, not only at the secondary stage but also in our primary schools. I have on many occasions in the House argued that science should be taught even in the primary schools. That is why it is important that we should have in the training colleges proper teaching of science to intending teachers.
I merely say in conclusion that here we face a major revolution. That is obvious to all of us. I merely ask near the end of a Parliamentary Session, when hardly any hon. Members are here, when Parliament is perhaps tired, that we should at least think about this, and per-
1824
haps we shall be able to challenge the Departments by our activity and concern for the scientific manpower position and the place of science in our educational system.
11.44 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Kenneth Thompson): I thank the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) for having taken the opportunity of this debate to discuss a matter which, as he rightly says, is of the greatest possible importance. I do not suppose that at any time in the development of the educational system of any country there was a matter nearer to the heart of our problems, both educational and as a nation careful for its future, than this subject of how we are to provide ourselves with the scientific manpower that the conditions of the modern world will demand of us.
What I do not think we ought to accept lightly is the idea that everything is going wrong or that processes are being either delayed or neglected—
Mr. Peart: I did not.
Mr. Thompson:—which would not be true. I am glad that the hon. Member does not feel that the processes are all as bad as some people sometimes would have us believe.
Of course, we are short of teachers of most of the science subjects—and short of teachers of mathematics—both in the schools and, to a lesser extent, in the training colleges. Of course, it is true that we hope to turn out a larger number of qualified scientists and mathematicians and technologists from our school and colleges; I hope that the House will not believe that nothing is being done to try to remedy this defect and meet this need.
On the contrary, a very great deal is going on. The hon. Member referred to the expansion of the teacher training colleges by 8,000 places, but he and other hon. Members will be aware that that is the third stage of a much larger programme. The first stage was expansion by an additional 12,000 places. The second stage was the addition of 4,000 places. Added to that, there is now the third stage of 8,000 places and the sum total of these changes rather more than doubles the total teacher training resources of the country. The House will

1825
be interested to note that a very large part of the expansion will be in increasing the number of teachers coming from the colleges who are qualified to teach science in the schools at the various levels which the schools will require.
Perhaps it will be convenient if at this stage I deal with what the hon. Member said about the primary schools. I do not disagree with what he said about the desirability of having primary school children become familiar with the language and processes of the subjects which they will probably meet in later stages of their educational life.
Whether or not it is called "science" in the primary schools is another matter. We must not intimidate young children, nor frighten them off subjects with which they may have to deal later. However, certainly the processes of the science subjects should be brought to their notice when they are very young. In many schools—those with which we are all familiar through our normal visits to schools—there are "biology corners" with all sorts of experimentation with plant and animal life. Probably we do not call such things science subjects and they may be taught by teachers who are not specially trained in science subjects and perhaps that is a defect, but the fact of the matter is that the child at a very young age is making his first nodding and perhaps distant acquaintance with the science subjects which will be important to him later on.
I agree with the hon. Member that there may be more which we can do by using the output of the expanded training colleges, which are themselves giving greater emphasis to science to help this process along, first in the primary schools and then in the secondary modern and grammar schools.
I should like the House to know that we regard this as of the greatest possible importance and priority and we hope that the expanded training colleges, with their lengthened courses and therefore greater opportunities for training science teachers, will give us a greater output of those who can take on this job.
In the main, the training colleges have three separate levels of teacher training for science courses. There is the ordinary curriculum course in which the ordinary teacher, who is not going to specialise as a science teacher, takes a certain amount of science in his stride
1826
along with other subjects in the course of his experience at the training college. That is very important in every way. First, it qualifies the teacher to do a certain job of work of this kind in the schools, but it also helps to complete his training in the sense that he is much more likely to be a fully trained teacher with a broad approach to all the problems and all the subjects with which he will deal When he leaves training college.
The second type of course provides opportunities for a main study of one of the science subjects in the training college. Students take either one or two of their main subjects in science. They may go either to primary schools or to secondary modern schools when they have qualified from the training college. These same students may also take an additional one year supplementary course in a science subject, and from there on they are very well qualified to take science to quite a high level in either secondary modern schools or, in the case of good students, in a grammar school.
Then there is the advanced specialist course in one of the science subjects, in which the science subject itself constitutes the student's entire academic work. These students will be the mainstay of the science departments of the secondary modern schools, and in many cases then can render very useful service in some grammar schools. I think it is probably true to say that teachers trained in that way have an approach which is singularly useful in certain types of work in the schools, perhaps more useful than that of those trained as graduates.
The number of training college students in mathematics and science, taking the two together, for that is how we collect the figures, has increased from 600 in 1956–57 to over 1,100 in 1959–60, an increase of almost 100 per cent. The net increase in mathematics and science graduates in 1959—that is the increase in the total number of teachers available in one year—was 612. The comparable figure in 1958 was 303, which shows that the figure was doubled.
Not only are we increasing the size of the training colleges, but the universities themselves are expanding at a very rapid rate and to a very high figure. I have every reason to believe that we can get a large increase in the number of graduates who come forward to teach

1827
from this vastly increased output from the universities. It is from there that we want to draw the great strength for the teaching of science subjects to a high level in our grammar schools. We have every reason to hope that we will get the figures we want. The plans that have been laid for the expansion of the universities mean that there will be an 80 per cent. increase in the number of science graduates leaving the universities in the period up to 1966.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned a number of subjects which I am sorry I have not time to deal with in detail, but I want to refer briefly to science teaching for girls and, if I have time, to deal with his point about science equipment.
It is true that the shortage of science teachers is most severe in the case of
1828
girls. It is not difficult to see the reason. Girls tend to lean towards non-scientific subjects and if, as is true, the schools at which they attend are deficient in their provision for science, for historical reasons, and if the teachers are not available in their schools to take the science subjects to a high level, this tendency is encouraged. But, here again, there is good reason to think that the trend is in the right direction—
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at seven minutes to Twelve o'clock.

ROADS
  Traffic Signals (Modified Timings)
  Traffic Signals (Modified Timings)
  Hatfield Peverel By-pass (A.12)
  Hatfield Peverel By-pass (A.12)
  Western Avenue Under-pass (Hanger Lane)
  Western Avenue Under-pass (Hanger Lane)
  Immingham-Grimsby Road
  Immingham-Grimsby Road
  Newbury Relief Road
  Newbury Relief Road
  London-Yorkshire Motorway
  London-Yorkshire Motorway
  Road Intersection, Coventry (Accidents)
  Road Intersection, Coventry (Accidents)
  Forth Bridge
  Forth Bridge
  Winchester By-pass
  Winchester By-pass
  Hampshire
  Hampshire
  Stanway By-pass
  Stanway By-pass
  London-Colchester Road
  London-Colchester Road
  Road Junction, Totton (Redbridge)
  Road Junction, Totton (Redbridge)
  Southampton (Coast Road Scheme)
  Southampton (Coast Road Scheme)
  Shrewsbury By-pass
  Shrewsbury By-pass
  Parking Meters
  Parking Meters
  Accidents, Portchester (A.27)
  Accidents, Portchester (A.27)
  Trunk Roads
  Trunk Roads
  Isle of Wight
  Isle of Wight
  Roads Board
  Roads Board
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  Kings Lynn By-pass
  Kings Lynn By-pass
  A.170 (Keldholme Diversion)
  A.170 (Keldholme Diversion)
  Malton By-pass
  Malton By-pass
  A.30, Moor Hill
  A.30, Moor Hill
  Middlesex
  Middlesex
  A.30 (Blackbushe Airport)
  A.30 (Blackbushe Airport)
  Emsworth By-pass
  Emsworth By-pass
  Stratton By-pass
  Stratton By-pass
  Havant By-pass
  Havant By-pass
  Cornwall
  Cornwall
  Pedestrian Crossings
  Pedestrian Crossings
  Road Signs, Greenwich
  Road Signs, Greenwich
  New Road, Godrergraig
  New Road, Godrergraig
  Mopeds and Bicycles (Separate Lanes)
  Mopeds and Bicycles (Separate Lanes)
  Dartford Tunnel (Tolls)
  Dartford Tunnel (Tolls)
  Fordingbridge-Burgate By-pass
  Fordingbridge-Burgate By-pass
  A.31 Road
  A.31 Road
  B.3053 Road
  B.3053 Road
  High Wycombe By-pass (A.40)
  High Wycombe By-pass (A.40)
TRANSPORT
  Motor Vehicles (First-aid Kit)
  Motor Vehicles (First-aid Kit)
  Driving and Vehicle Excise Licences (Revenue)
  Driving and Vehicle Excise Licences (Revenue)
  Insurance (Accident-proneness)
  Insurance (Accident-proneness)
  Rural Transport (Report)
  Rural Transport (Report)
  Carriers' Licences
  Carriers' Licences
  Horncastle-Louth Bus Service
  Horncastle-Louth Bus Service
  Minimum Speed Limit
  Minimum Speed Limit
  Traffic Commissioners and Deputies
  Traffic Commissioners and Deputies
  Car Mascots
  Car Mascots
  Old-age Pensioners (Fares)
  Old-age Pensioners (Fares)
  Bus Stop (Houses of Parliament)
  Bus Stop (Houses of Parliament)
  B.R.S. Employees (Disciplinary Action)
  B.R.S. Employees (Disciplinary Action)
RAILWAYS
  Epping-Broad Street Line
  Epping-Broad Street Line
  Central Line (Congestion)
  Central Line (Congestion)
  Railway Superannuitants
  Railway Superannuitants
  Modernisation Programme
  Modernisation Programme
SHIPPING
  Oil Pollution
  Oil Pollution
  Life-saving Equipment (Kapok)
  Life-saving Equipment (Kapok)
  Chandos Report
  Chandos Report
  Shipping Industry
  Shipping Industry
  Channel Islands
  Channel Islands
  Ships (Turn-round)
  Ships (Turn-round)
  ESPIONAGE
  ESPIONAGE
  AIRCRAFT (RECONNAISSANCE FLIGHTS)
  AIRCRAFT (RECONNAISSANCE FLIGHTS)
  BRUSSELS TREATY
  BRUSSELS TREATY
CONGO
  British Subjects
  British Subjects
  Service Missions
  Service Missions
  COUNCIL OF EUROPE (LOCAL GOVERNMENT CONFERENCE)
  COUNCIL OF EUROPE (LOCAL GOVERNMENT CONFERENCE)
EMPLOYMENT
  The Hartlepools
  The Hartlepools
  National Service (Deferment)
  National Service (Deferment)
  Government Training Centres (Apprenticeship Classes)
  Government Training Centres (Apprenticeship Classes)
  Strikers (Loss of Earnings)
  Strikers (Loss of Earnings)
ROYAL NAVY
  Life-Saving Equipment (Kapok)
  Life-Saving Equipment (Kapok)
  Aberdeen Fishing Vessels, Faroes (Protection)
  Aberdeen Fishing Vessels, Faroes (Protection)
  Ocean Minesweepers "Bramble" and "Tanganyika"
  Ocean Minesweepers "Bramble" and "Tanganyika"
  Leander Class Frigates (Tenders)
  Leander Class Frigates (Tenders)
BRITISH ARMY
  Bank of England Picket
  Bank of England Picket
MINISTRY OF WORKS
  Meteorological Office, Bracknell
  Meteorological Office, Bracknell
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  National Health Service (Patients' Compensation)
  National Health Service (Patients' Compensation)
  Infant Mortality Rate, Wales
  Infant Mortality Rate, Wales
  Social Workers and Health Visitors (Training)
  Social Workers and Health Visitors (Training)
HOSPITALS
  Patient, Manchester (Treatment)
  Patient, Manchester (Treatment)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Potato Marketing Board
  Potato Marketing Board
  Rabbit Control
  Rabbit Control
SOUTH AFRICAN PROTECTORATES
  Union Citizens (Permanent Residence Permits)
  Union Citizens (Permanent Residence Permits)
BECHUANALAND
  Unemployment
  Unemployment
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Polaris Missile
  Polaris Missile
  Surrey, Hampshire and Berkshire (Land)
  Surrey, Hampshire and Berkshire (Land)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Ingleby Committee (Report)
  Ingleby Committee (Report)
  Flag Days (Authorised Collections)
  Flag Days (Authorised Collections)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Public Works Loan Board
  Public Works Loan Board
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Freefone Service
  Freefone Service

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Exeter

IMPORTUNING BY MALES
2.35 p.m.
EARL WINTERTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many convictions there were in the Metropolitan Police area in the years 1949 and 1959, respectively, for soliciting by males, and how many convictions there were in the same periods of adults for indecent assaults upon boys and youths.]
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, the number of males convicted of persistently soliciting or importuning in a public place in the Metropolitan Police District in 1949 was 470. In 1959 the number was 407. I regret that it is not possible to give figures for indecent assaults by adults on youths and boys, because this offence is not classified in the criminal statistics according to the age of the victim.
EARL WINTERTON: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Earl for his Answer.

DESPATCHES FROM THE CONGO
EARL WINTERTON:My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government if they will place in the Library copies of any despatches received from British Consuls in the Congo describing events there since the date of independence.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE): My Lords, since my noble friend put down his Question, my noble friend the Leader of this House has twice made very complete statements on recent events in the Congo, based on reports by Her Majesty's Ambassador and Her Majesty's Consular representatives in that country. There have also, of course, been detailed Press reports. Though I appreciate the importance of my noble friend's wish for full information on this subject, I do not think that it is necessary for the moment to publish any further material.
EARL WINTERTON: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend if he would give consideration to these three points, with a view possibly to the publication of a White Paper during the Recess? First of all, it is difficult to get an accurate knowledge of the number of Belgian women who have been attacked by Congolese and raped. There are terrible stories of this and there is a conflict of evidence in the Press. The second point is that it is very difficult to understand from the Press reports the extent of the administrative chaos, if it exists, in all parts of the Congo except Katanga. The third point, which is a delicate one, is that in one single newspaper, which I hope was incorrect, it was stated that Mr. Lumumba had been imprisoned recently for embezzlement. If that is true, it does not seem that he is quite a suitable person to be a V.I.P. in this country. One would like further information on these points. Perhaps my noble friend would give consideration to this.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, of course we all appreciate that it is important for us to learn what lessons there are to be learned from this tragic situation. Naturally, Her Majesty's Government will give consideration to what my noble friend has said, and if it is deemed desirable, certainly we will consider later on the publication of as many of the facts of this unhappy story as can be revealed.
EARL WINTERTON: My Lords, I am much obliged to my noble friend.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I ask

795
whether the noble Marquess is aware that the Opposition are very anxious that, in all these matters concerning the Congo, we should steadily pursue the line that it is in the hands of the United Nations Organisation? It would be a great pity if steps were specially taken to try to denigrate the native question in the Congo. But let all the facts be brought out, as they ought to be brought out, by the United Nations Organisation.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition. I entirely agree with what he said.

ANTI-DAZZLE FENCE ON M.1 MOTORWAY
LORD ALLERTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the anti-dazzle fence on the motorway M.1 is considered to be satisfactory; and, if so, whether it is to be extended for the full length of the road, and when the work will be completed.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM): My Lords, the studies which have so far been undertaken indicate that the experimental length of anti-dazzle fencing on the M.1 gives satisfactory protection for the motorist against glare from approaching headlights. There are, however, some accompanying disadvantages. For instance, because the screen encourages drivers not to dip their headlights, there an increase in reflected dazzle from the headlights of following vehicles. It has been described as unsightly. In certain conditions it may help to form snowdrifts. It is therefore not yet established that in present traffic conditions the screen is a proper provision, and pending further experience of the experimental installation, my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport does not propose to extend it on the M.1.
LORD ALLERTON: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply.

DENTAL RESEARCH AND SUGAR CONFECTIONERY
THE EARL OF WOOLTON: My Lords, I beg leave 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 state the figure that is being spent per annum through the Medical Research Council on dental research, and what proportion of this sum, if any, is being spent on the prevention of caries in children's teeth; and further, what relation this sum bears to the total Government expenditure on medical research; and, also, if they can give any estimate of the financial value of the production of sugar confectionery in this country.]
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, the Medical Research Council's current annual expenditure on dental research amounts to more than £35,000. The function of the Council is research, and not prevention, but a considerable proportion of their expenditure on dental research is used to support investigations into the early development of dental caries at all ages, including the influence of biochemical and bacteriological factors and the rôle of fluoride, calcium and other minerals in tooth formation and resistance to decay. Since these problems are studied in both adults and children, a separate financial estimate for work in children alone is not practicable. The sum spent by the Council on dental research represents about 1 per cent. of their total expenditure on medical research. I understand that the value of home-produced sugar confectionery, including chocolate confectionery, during 1959, was £193,000,000 and that the total consumption, based on prices paid by consumers, was £259,000,000.
THE EARL OF WOOLTON: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Viscount for answering my Question. I wish that his reply gave me greater satisfaction. I know that the noble Viscount has taken a personal interest in this matter in his official capacity, and has spoken about it in the country, but I wish that he could give a little more satisfactory information. He said, I think,

797
that £35,000 was being spent. Of course, £35,000 on the subject of dental caries in this country is—I was going to say insignificant; but surely it is ludicrous. Here is a disease (I am not making a speech, I hope) which may have so much effect on our health later on. I would ask the noble Viscount—and that puts me in order—whether he will take any steps to contact the makers of sugar confectionery to see whether, by an increase in chemical research, they cannot produce a confectionery which does not cause dental caries. Out of a turnover which the noble Viscount says is £259 million a year, there must be a great deal of extra profit which they might use to such a noble cause, and I ask the noble Viscount if he will inquire from them whether they would be prepared to undertake such research.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, as my noble friend indicated, I have for some time been concerned about the lack of dental research in this country, and he quite rightly said that I drew attention to it—I think over a year ago now—in a public speech out of doors. Unfortunately, I satisfied myself—and I have again satisfied myself in connection with my noble friend's question—that the cause of this lack of research is not lack of funds but lack of interest and enthusiasm on the part of both dental and scientific graduates. The funds would be there if the promising leads and the available personnel were to come forward. That is what the Medical Research Council is for. Incidentally, the figure of £35,000 which I mentioned could have been slightly misleading. My noble friend asked me how much the Medical Research Council were spending on this subject, and I answered £35,000; and this is quite right. But, of course, there is £750,000 a year going on dental work in the universities through the University Grants Committee, and I should estimate that, if the true figure was to be found for the whole country, probably about a quarter of that would have to be added to the figure of £35,000, and it may be a little more, to take account of work in private institutions. However, that does not invalidate my noble friend's conclusion that the total sum represents a totality of effort which is much less than the requirement the country really has.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, is it not a fact that the tobacco manufacturers make a donation to the Medical Research Council for research into cancer of the lung? Might it not be of value if the sweet manufacturers were to consider a similar donation, because one wonders whether the noble Viscount is quite right in assuming that the lack of finance is not the limiting factor. It may be that if a sufficiency of high-level posts are offered, then people may be ready to devote their time to dental research work. In other spheres the difficulty has been that there is no career structure for research in the particular subject.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, one does not want to turn away any suggestion which would result in private industries connected with particular subjects which may have quite important results on health supplying funds for research into the medical questions concerned. I should therefore think that, on general grounds, the noble Lord's question is a very reasonable one, and that his suggestion is one which might well be followed. But I should be less than candid with the House if I did not say this. All medical research, and indeed all scientific research generally, depends for its progress ultimately on the existence of promising leads and the availability of suitable personnel. This, as my noble friend said, is a subject about which I have taken a certain amount of trouble to ascertain the truth; and I can only say that on the evidence before me—which I have verified again since this Question was put down—I am satisfied that the trouble does lie in a lack of interest in the subject. After all, as the Minister ultimately responsible for the Medical Research Council, I should have already provided for them. But this is something I have not been able to do in spite of encouragement. And, incidentally, I am in a private capacity a trustee of other funds which would have money available for this.
The truth of the matter appears to be that there is a lamentable lack of interest in this subject; and I cannot say that too plainly. Of course I welcome the idea that donations should be given; in fact, the mere giving of donations may serve to arouse the interest. But I should be less than candid with the House if I did not stick to my original

799
attitude, which is that I think there is a lamentable lack of interest in the subject.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Viscount if the researches which he mentioned earlier cover the question as to whether the use of what are commonly called chemical manures—sulphate of ammonia and things of that kind—in the growing of roots, leaves or fruits, has any effect on caries? I have some information which leads me to think that that is one of the causes. I should like to know whether the noble Viscount's research covered that point, or whether it will be directed to doing so.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, we are getting into rather deep water for me. Without notice, I could not say what is the exact scope of the current research. As I understand it, there are two or three broad schools of thought in this matter, which is still rather hotly debated in scientific circles. One ascribes it to a bacterial action, and another emphasises a degeneration in a particular polymer in the teeth. Obviously diet must enter into it, and this was the significance of my noble friend's remarks about the confectionery industry. But I do not think much is known since the fundamental researches —which I am sorry to say were carried out a great number of years ago—which tended to point the finger at sugar rather than chemical manure.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, is it not the noble Viscount's duty, in his present office, to see that an interest is created in this admittedly vital subject; and if, after to-night, he remains in his present office, will he use the very long Recess to inspire this interest?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I can only tell the noble Lord that I have done my best to excite interest in this subject, both by private stimulation and by public utterance. It is my duty, obviously, to encourage interest among the scientists who are capable of taking an interest in this subject. I should not say that it was within my capabilities, even if it is within my province, to
800
compel it. The Recess is a very valuable period of time. Whether those who would otherwise take an interest will be in a particularly responsive mood during August, I do not know. But I know that the noble Lord's supplementary question will assist me in my difficult task.
LORD SILKIN: The Recess continues into September and October.
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: My Lords, may I ask the noble Viscount whether the result of the research that has taken place shows that if children's teeth were properly looked after we should not get these caries in the adult? Can nothing be done now about the school dental service?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, my noble friend has raised an important question, but it goes well outside the realms of research about which my noble friend asked his Question. I happen to know that my right honourable friend the Minister of Health has been concerned about the school dental service, where the problem is a different one—the shortage of dentists. But, of course, quite apart from research, I do not think it requires any research to tell us that if children's teeth are not looked after you do get damage, from want of care and attention, which cannot be repaired in after-life at all satisfactorily. Undoubtedly, if one forgets for a moment the field of research, which is my province, and embarks for a moment on the wider field covered by the executive departments of my right honourable friends the Minister of Health and the Minister for Education, it is obviously plain that the dental health of the nation, whatever the actual cause of caries, would be vastly improved by an improvement in the school dental service.
THE EARL OF WOOLTON: My Lords, may I thank the noble Viscount for the courtesy he has extended to my Question? There is such an obvious interest in the House on this subject that perhaps it may be convenient if, after the Recess, I raise it in another form, when we can have a general debate. I should like to do that. I am most grateful to my noble friend.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I should like to inform the House that at a suitable moment after half past three a statement will be made by my noble friend Lord Perth on Malta.
GLOUCESTER AND SHARPNESS CANAL (WATER) BILLM
Read 3a, and passed.

CARDIFF CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
THE CHARIMAN OF COMMIIIEES (LORD MERTHYR): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Message be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Message be now considered.—(Lord Merthyr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Message from the Commons was as follows:
That they have resolved, That the Promoters of the Cardiff Corporation Bill and the Esso Petroleum Company Bill shall have leave to suspend any further proceedings on the Bills until the next Session of Parliament.]
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, beg to move the Resolution standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved to resolve, That the promoters of the Bill have leave to suspend any further proceedings thereon, in order to proceed with the Bill, if they shall think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that notice of their intention to do so be lodged in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than three o'clock on the day before the close of the present Session, and that all fees due thereon up to that period be paid;
That such Bill shall be deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than three o'clock on or before
802
the third day on which the House shall sit after the commencement of the next Session of Parliament, with a declaration annexed thereto, signed by the Agent, slating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill at the last stage of the proceedings thereon in this House in the present Session;
That the proceedings on such Bill shall be pro formâ only in regard to every stage through which the same shall have passed in the present Session, and that no new fees be charged in regard to such stages;
That the Standing Orders by which the proceedings on Bills are regulated shall not apply to such Bill in regard to any of the stages through which the same shall have passed during the present Session.—(Lord Merthyr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ESSO PETROLEUM BILL
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Message be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Message be now considered.—(Lord Merthyr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I beg to move that the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper be agreed to.
Moved, That leave be given to the Promoters to suspend any further proceedings on the Bill until the next Session of Parliament.—(Lord Merthyr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill, within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911, and read la.

FINANCE BILL
2.56 p.m.
Debate resumed (according to Order), on the Motion for Second Reading moved yesterday by the Earl of Dundee.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, I venture to suggest that we should look at the Finance Bill and the financial considerations which surround it with a certain amount of proportion—see it in its right proportions. I listened to considerable parts of the debate yesterday, and I have read other parts, as well as the debates in another place and comments in the newspapers over the last few weeks and months. I discern that the main issue between the political Parties in this matter seems to be whether we should try to control the background of our nation's financial affairs by financial means or by physical means—by financial controls or by physical controls. The old idea that "the man in Whitehall knows best" dies hard in the Labour Party, and variations of this theme are constantly brought to our notice: "If only this had been done, or only that were done, how much better it would be."
I beg leave to doubt the validity of this theory. Much as I respect the integrity and the ability of our civil servants in Whitehall, and much as I realise that ultimate control of financial design must be in their hands under the Ministers, I beg leave to doubt whether it is wise to try to get them to do more and more business, more and more commerce and more and more regulation. I venture to think that the market, in its widest sense, and the controls which arise from the laws of supply and demand, are better and more likely to serve our purpose. I believe that an impartial examination of the last fifteen years will show that we have done better in the last nine than we did during the previous seven.
In the debate yesterday, the noble Lord w ho spoke from the Opposition Front Bench, in what, if I may say so, was a notable speech, said that the financial crisis surrounding this country gave him as much anxiety as the threat of war itself—or words to that effect. I hope that I have not misquoted the noble Lord. I venture to think that that is the most grievous exaggeration. It is understandable that the Opposition
804
should oppose. It is understandable that they should make the running with the small coin of Party clap-trap from time to time. We have all done that in Opposition. But that a Leader should pronounce that the present state of this nation is as perilous to ourselves or to mankind as upon the threshold of the last great war, seems to me wholly out of proportion.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will forgive me for interrupting him. Of course he has not quoted me correctly. I said that in peace there was a danger to survival which was comparable to the danger in war. I was dealing with the economic situation. I said that if it was not dealt with it might mean that we lost our position as a great nation.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: I thank the noble Lord, and of course I accept his interpretation of what he said. I am bound to say I prefer the perils of peace to the perils of war. Then I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Citrine, followed by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, who said that the bank rate was a blunt instrument which caused great harm in its application, which upset people—or words to that effect. And others, including a noble Lord behind me, asked that these rates and other matters that are fixed from time to time should be fixed for long periods and not changed at all suddenly.
Pondering these matters, I beg leave for a few minutes to ask noble Lords to consider where we find ourselves. It has taken us hundreds of years to evolve a political system of government by consent through Parliamentary means. In passing, I would say that it is well to remember that, when some assume that our methods can be applied to others who are not yet ready for it. It has taken us hundreds of years. And it is only forty years since Maynard Keynes made popular, and even propounded, his idea, or the idea, that it would be possible to add to the ordinary economic controls of the market and the ordinary law of supply and demand some effort at a higher level by the Bank or by the Treasury, or both, to keep the ship of State sailing straight and well. We ignored Maynard Keynes throughout the greater part of the interwar period, and I blame the Tory Government for that.
LORD BOOTHBY: The Treasury.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: Then came the war itself, and, of course, for obvious reasons, physical controls had to be applied, and shortages had to be dealt with as best they could be. But nobody could say that those measures were desirable. They were necessary to save our lives, but the sooner we got rid of them the better. But we did not get rid of them. Unhappily for Britain, this period was followed by the first seven years of Labour Government in power, and much as I admired Sir Stafford Cripps, whom I thought a virtuous and strong man, even that iron Chancellor was unable to restrain the eager iconoclasts and inflationeers behind him. So we had reforms which were valuable, and they remain, to the everlasting credit of our country, upon the Statute Book. But we had them accompanied by unstable finance, by such bad conditions that before very long the currency itself was deflated, along with Dr. Dalton.
Then came the Tories' period for nine years; and at first, of course, they were recovering from the effects of the war and the damage done by the Labour Government. And some of the trends which had been set up of rising prices continued because they could not be stopped in a hurry. But gradually the policy (and this is the great political clash of policy in this field) of abandoning physical controls, of allowing the terms of trade and the play of the market to intervene, began to take its effect, with astonishingly good results. Now, we have had for same few years a stable cost of living, accompanied by all the evidence of tremendous growth in our wealth and in the widespread wealth of the people. So much so that the days of poverty are largely gone, except for some old people, with whom I have a deep sympathy. The Welfare State, the magic words, are now giving way, even in the minds of Labour men themselves, to the affluent State, and we are all worried to death to know what to do with it. This stabilisation of the cost of living was one of the most important acts of State or of government, and it has now lasted for so long that we may hope that, with minor variations, it may continue.
Having regard to the denigration of Britain's efforts from so many speakers
806
on the Opposition side, in both Houses; to the extent to which we are said to be in such a bad way—going downhill; all the promises of a year ago evaporating into thin air as we approach the slump—and to the crisis which is foreshadowed for us, may we, in the light of that greatly exaggerated view, make the briefest comparison of what has in fact happened to us in the last two years? In the employment field, unemployment is down by 100,000 persons as between this time this year and this time last year. Employment is up by half-a-million persons, and in the difficult areas where special measures are taken to create employment there has been such a notable increase that the Minister in the other House only the other day was saying that he could now take some two or three principal districts off the list of development areas.
Industrial production in the twelve months has gone up by 10 per cent. The balance of payments has improved in the same period by £27 million, and the gold reserve up to the last day of June is up by £56 million. Wages, as we were told only this morning from an official source, were 7 per cent. up at the end of April this year upon what they were at the end of April last year. It is still a twelve-months' comparison, but those are the latest figures available. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, talked about 1½ per cent. He was not wholly incorrect, but, as often, a bit right and a bit wrong. The basic wage is a different thing from the money you take home, and it is the money you take home that counts in the family budget. Even in the few months since the last General Election wages have gone up by 4·2 per cent. Those are notable figures.
May I just remind your Lordships that in the last three years taxation in Britain has been reduced by some £400 million a year, and of course is still at that lower level. In other words, in this particular year, when everything is as gloomy as noble Lords opposite would see it, we are going to pay £400 million less taxation than we were paying three years ago. Surely these few figures (and I will not trouble your Lordships with more) make it abundantly clear that Britain is doing well.
What then is the measure of the criticism? I think it can be said that we have learned extraordinarily quickly how it is possible for the Treasury and the

807
Bank to keep a measure of control upon the ship of State, even as a helmsman steers a vessel. If, at the moment when the vessel turns half a point to starboard, the helmsman apprehends it and brings his helm across gently with skill, she is back on course and she probably loses no distance, and certainly is not bumped by the waves. If he is a little sleepy at his post and takes a little time to apprehend the change of bearing, and has then to bring her back three or four degrees, he may check the whole ship; he may impede her progress; and if he does it much, he will affect the way she sails.
I think it follows from this analogy, which I venture to think is a true one, that the Treasury and the Bank must, between them, be constantly watching to see the small trends or changes of statistics, or small changes in the economic atmosphere, and must adjust themselves to them, and do it swiftly and perhaps do it often. It is not really a terrible affair to have the price of money changed. The price of other commodities changes. Rubber, copper, tin, labour, management, rents, all change from time to time. They go up, and they come down—particularly the prices of commodities. But money is a commodity, and that there should be a change in the value of money is nothing out of the way; nor, indeed, is it something that is going to cripple manufacturers as a whole.
It may be that the last change made in the "Never-never" system came at a time when some motor car manufacturers had over-produced, or had undersold, old models, and that it was the last straw which affected their sales policy, so that they had to find a few men redundant and "job off" a few cars. The redundancy of these men is a grievous hurt to them and their families, though I expect by now they have all been re-absorbed. Generally, that is what happens. When a crisis occurs in regard to employment in Luton or Liverpool or in one of the cotton towns, as I know from my earlier experience, one generally finds that, after a little time, it has been a nine-day wonder, and that the men are re-absorbed, often in comparable jobs, sometimes in better ones.
But look at it from the nation's point of view. If, instead of manufacturing,
808
shall we say, a million motor cars—I take the figure at large; it may not be anywhere near the right figure—and selling them at the full price, in one particular year we sell 970,000 at the full price and 30,000 at a lower price, the nation has not really come to grief over it. The adjustment has been made, and we are ready now for the new models coming out at the Motor Show. It is obvious that every salesman and every manufacturer likes to keep this month's figures as high as last month's. If he is a chairman, in his statement to his shareholders, and if he is a salesman, in his report to his managing director, he likes to be able to show that this half-year is as good as the last half-year.
But this recession is hardly worthy to be called a recession. This small turndown of turnover of sales is really not the crisis which noble Lords opposite would have it to be. I venture to think that Britain is doing well, and that the Government have taken the right course. The nation seemed to think last October, whatever noble Lords opposite thought, that we were "having it so good" and the Government are now trying to make sure that we shall continue to "have it so good" and that it will stay good. I think we should be grateful to them for what they have done in these last nine years, and particularly in this last year, when courage was required to apply the helm at the right moment when the ship was going a little off course.
I have spoken of the helmsman. Perhaps it would not be inappropriate if I were to refer to the helmsman in this particular context. During this period he was Mr. Derick Amory. I knew him first as Minister of Pensions, in which office he was a sympathetic, generous and capable man—his attitude in these matters being not a little influenced, I daresay, by the fact that in a gallant action he was himself grievously wounded. He then went to the Board of Trade, then to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and then to the Exchequer. Now we are given to understand that he is to lay down the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer. He has conducted it with integrity, and if I were to write three words to describe him as I saw him in the House of Commons for so long, I would say that he is able, he is modest and he is kind. I cannot think of any three words which I should

809
regard as paying a greater tribute than that. When he lays down his office I—am sure many others will wish to join me in this thought—hope, that his retirement, or whatever other office the winds of change may take him to, will do him good and give him pleasure.
3.16 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I feel sure that the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, will not take the slightest objection if I do not follow him into the tortuous financial paths, among the nettles and potholes, that he traversed in the early part of his speech. I suggest that there is one speech in the debate of yesterday which he could not have read—that is the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Brand, which I heard and read with the greatest of interest. On his dissertation regarding the motor industry I shall have something to say later on.
I intend to confine the remarks that I shall venture to make to your Lordships to what is, in my view, the one overwhelming problem that this country has to-day: how in the future are we to earn our daily bread? For the sake of dismissing it without further comment, I will accept Lord Fraser of Lonsdale's dictum that we "have never had it so good", and his theory as to why. I prefer to follow the noble Lord, Lord Brand, into the question: what of the future? The noble Lord said that our crucial task is to expand our exports. He will not mind my saying that that is one of the most obvious of a number of obvious remarks that were made yesterday. We cannot keep 52 million souls in this country on a rising standard of living unless we increase, and go on increasing, our exports. We have to put ourselves in a competitive position vis-ávis growing competition. All this is obvious. It has been obvious since the end of the First World War. Our visible exports have always been out of balance. All that saved this country from bankruptcy before the war was the great "invisibles" which the banking, insurance and shipping interests of the country built up.
Now, after fifteen years of peace, we are once; again exhorted, from the Prime Minister downwards, that we must export or die—a very different picture from that painted by the noble Lord who has just sat down—and the Prime
810
Minister's words are echoed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We can understand that industrialists, listening to these exhortations, are now saying to themselves, "This is where we came in, nearly 40 years ago." All this is so obvious—obvious to everybody except the Treasury, because it appears to me and to many others that the fiscal policies followed by the Treasury, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Her Majesty's Government for home consumption entirely ignore the dire necessity for this country to export.
I intend to give your Lordships an illustration. The illustration I will give is that of the most dynamic industry this country has, an industry which needs no exhortation; which is at the top of the list for exports, and which in 1959 contributed a higher proportion of our total visible exports than any other industry—16 per cent. I refer to the motor industry. It is the industry of which I was a member for many years. I have no axe to grind. I have no interest to declare except an abiding affection for an industry into which I was born and in which I lived all my industrial life.
Last year 16 per cent. of our visible exports were produced by that industry. It is one of the largest, if not the largest, industry in this country; and, whether we like it or not, the industrial economy of this country will be geared to the motor industry for the next ten years. I have stood at this Despatch Box in debates in your Lordships' House, speaking on aspects of our roads, and I have given forecasts (not my own personal forecasts but those I have received from others) as to the number of motor cars that were to be turned out by our factories in the next three or four years. Those who drive on our roads see them packed with cars, and it is even said that we shall have physically to control the number of motor cars that are built in this country. And yet, through all those wonderful achievements, our biggest and most dynamic industry is rapidly declining in its position in the world's exports; and in Europe its production is being overtaken by that of its competitors. That is a sobering thought for anybody who is thinking on the lines of the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale.

811
In the last five years, production of motor cars in the United Kingdom went up by 51 per cent. In Italy production went up by 138 per cent.; in France by 143 per cent. and in Germany by 157 per cent.; and the United Kingdom percentage of European production fell from 38·8 per cent. in 1954 to 27·6 per cent. in 1959. Let us now take exports. There were record exports of £546 million from this great industry of ours in 1959— 16 per cent. of our total export business; and yet that industry is fast slipping down in the leadership. Here are the figures. In the same period—that is, from 1954 to 1959—the United Kingdom increased its exports by 47 per cent.; Germany by 191 per cent.; France by 385 per cent. and Italy by 400 per cent. The United Kingdom percentage of that total was 48·9 per cent. in 1954 and 27·4 per cent. in 1959. And we are not keeping pace. In real terms we are losing ground. We are not keeping pace with the dynamic impulse of Europe.
What are we going to do? We hear a lot of loose talk about pricing ourselves out of the market. In materials and labour the difference between the cost of producing motor cars in this country and in those countries I have mentioned—which are our principal competitors—is marginal. Only 5 per cent. of the content of the modern motor car has to be imported, except when, now and again, through circumstances which I quite understand, the steel industry cannot give the industry all the sheet steel supplies they want. What is the principal factor in these things? It is cost—and not the cost of material and labour. It is because we in this country cannot increase the volume of production so that we may get all the cost advantages that are gained by our Continental competitors. We artificially limit our home market and therefore put up our export costs.
Every motor car produced in this country carries purchase tax of 42 per cent. on its retail price. Our competitors about whom I have been telling your Lordships—France, Germany and Italy—vary in their internal user taxation between 9 per cent. and 24 per cent., with an average of 18 par cent.; and the whole prosperity of the motor industries of Germany, France and Italy, which
812
were dynamic enough up to 1959 but in the first six months of this year have gone sky-rocketing, is based on marvellously increased home consumption. I will give your Lordships an example, and again I will take the years from 1954 to 1959. In those years the home market in the United Kingdom increased by 65 per cent. in France it increased by 79 per cent.; in Germany by 156 per cent., and in Italy by 75 per cent.
Now it is upon those facts and figures that I base my charge that our fiscal policy is directed without sufficient consideration for its effect upon our exports whose expansion is so vitally necessary. The noble Lord, Lord Brocket, questioned the wisdom of a 6 per cent. bank rate. The only thing a 6 per cent. bank rate does is to put up production costs. I do not know whether the Treasury will learn the lesson of to-day when, in spite of two increases of 1 per cent. in the special deposits, the bank returns for July show a rise in total loans of £100 million. The reason is that the country is bursting with prosperity, made artificial by a fiscal policy. We have nothing to fear from the Germans, the French or the Italians when it comes to producing high-class motor vehicles. We have nothing to fear from America. If we had only the handicaps placed upon our home market that they have upon theirs, the price of British products overseas could come down, the price at home could come down, and there would be no need to have this jumping about of hire-purchase terms which has been so disconcerting.
I am no financier. I am not like the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale. He seems to think that a daily change of bank rate is in the interests of industry.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: Not quite daily.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Almost daily. Weekly, then; let us say weekly or monthly. My Lords, that is the position and these are the facts. The Government know these facts as well; I am not telling noble Lords opposite anything they do not know. But what are they going to do about it? Let us look at the markets. Where do we go? We have just seen a 66⅔ per cent. fall in our exports to the United States. Was any industry so dynamic as the motor

813
industry in going into that market, when they must have known, and anybody with any sense knew, that it was anything but a honeymoon? You do not create a market of any great size in the United States of America before the Americans muscle in on it and show you the hack door. We have finished, in my view, with the Americas as a market. We shall sell specialised motor cars there, because it does not pay them to make them. But the compact motor car has been forced upon the Americans by our entry into that market and, believe me, the American manufacturer is not going to let go of it now. So where do we go?
I am gradually getting on to dangerous ground. I have listened with rapt attention to a lot of voices which have said that of course the Commonwealth can provide us with the markets. I do not believe it. British motor cars on entry into Australia are now taxed at 25 per cent. Admittedly, that shows a 10 per cent. preference. But Australia is now an exporter and has, quite rightly, her own secondary industries to protect. Canada will go the same way as the United States. Already Canada is applying to have a tariff put on the imports of British motor cars. Where do we go?
There is one market which we must get into. We shall be isolated if we stay out of one market, and that is the European market. I am not going into any detail of the pros and cons. I only hope that the Government will give us a lead in this matter. I come back to the first sentence I uttered: how are we going to earn our daily bread? To me, my Lords, that is a paramount consideration. We must increase our exports; we must have every encouragement from the Government to increase them. As to exhortation, I can assure you of this, having spent all my life in industry: it does not get under the skin of the industrialist. It never got under mine. What the Government have to do is to dangle more carrots in front of the nose of the donkey and throw away the stick with which they keep whacking the poor wretched beast's posterior. Incentive! That is the thing we have to find a way of giving the exporters of this country. If your Lordships do not mind my saying so., in the export market we cannot live on fun; it is the hardest of all the
814
markets in the world. The noble Lord, Lord Mills, who has had even longer in industry than I have, does not need me to tell him that.
So, my Lords, that is the position as I see it. The Government must have rethinking upon their taxation policy. They must have a policy which will definitely encourage exports from this country. I have cited the motor industry because it is a good case. It is the best industry for exports in this country: 50 per cent. of its production is exported to the extent I have told you.
And now may I make an appeal on perhaps a slightly different aspect? I am appalled to-day at the lack of ambition, the lack of spirit of adventure in the young men. It was brought home to me forcibly recently when I was talking to a group of young executives, the brightest products we have, in the 32 to 33 age group, who were just at a time when they were having to educate their children, which involves all the expenses which your Lordships know exist. They were already in the surtax class, and when they wanted to become members of this property-owning democracy and purchase a house they found they had to pay Schedule A tax. One of them said to me, "Then you wonder that our one thought in life to-day is superannuation and pension and security!" When I was that age and I first started to pit what skill and brains I had after the First World War, if anybody had offered me superannuation and pension I should have laughed in his face.
But is there any joy in adventure? The noble Lord, Lord Brand, quoted Harold Wincott in the Financial Times. I read the article. It was very good. What did he say?—that up to a certain point nobody minded sharing prosperity with the Government on a fifty-fifty basis, but that all you did after that was to give the Government an increasing amount of money; and for all your enterprise, risk and trouble you got far less. How do you expect these men to take risks? By exhorting them, and by telling them that it is fun to take them? That will not put our exports on the map, believe me! It is no good: the Treasury have got to have the same dynamic spirit pumped into them as the Prime Minister of this country would pump into the industrial world.

815
When we have that, my Lords, then we shall get where we want. But until then, until we give industry some encouragement—until we at least give them a fair chance to compete with their chief Continental competitors—do not handicap them vis-â-vis those Continental competitors. There is not one Continental manufacturer in the industry of which I am speaking who has to carry a home taxation anything like 42 per cent. The highest is 24 per cent., as I have told your Lordships, and the lowest is 9 per cent. Yet we expect the British motor industry to carry that rate of tax in the face of increased competition. The amount of American money that is being pumped into Western Europe to-day is staggering. With the amalgamations, there has been a dynamic increase. I have given your Lordships the figures showing the competition for the year 1939, and when figures for 1960 are available the increase will be even greater as a percentage of the total.
That is what we are facing, and I beg your Lordships not to take the complacent line advocated by the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale. I am not decrying British industry; I am not taking a gloomy view. We have the ability, we have the "know-how", we have the brains. But do not keep on whacking industry like a grandmother who always sends the maid up to the nursery to see what the children are doing and to tell them not to. The Treasury has no theory about anything except restriction. It has been so since 1920. All they can think of is restrict, restrict and restrict. One day the floodgates will burst, I am quite convinced. I repeat: British industry, the British people, are prosperous. You cannot stop the dam bursting. It burst months ago—that is why we had that Stock Exchange boom—and it will burst again. I hope that the Government will take at least what I have said as an earnest desire to make some contribution to the prosperity of this country in the years to come.
3.44 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COLONIAL AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF PERTH): My Lords, I think it might be convenient if, with your Lordships' permission, I interrupted and made my statement on Malta now.
Her Majesty's Government, as has been repeatedly made clear, are anxious to restore representative government in Malta. During the fifteen months that the present Constitution has been in operation, important progress has been made in diversifying the economy, but it was never intended that this Constitution should remain in force any longer than was necessary. Her Majesty's Government have decided that the time has now come to work out a new Constitution, under which elections may be held as soon as it has been introduced.
Last December my right honourable friend the Colonial Secretary visited Malta, and during my own recent visit I had valuable informal consultations with the representatives of a wide range of Maltese opinion, and many professional associations and interests, on how to restore representative government, while at the same time not abandoning our responsibilities to the people of Malta.
Her Majesty's Government have come to the conclusion that the quickest and most satisfactory way of moving to early elections lies in the appointment of a small Constitutional Commission, including a member from another Commonwealth country, whose task will be to formulate detailed constitutional proposals, after due consultation with representatives of the Maltese people and local interests. The method of consultation will be for the Commission itself to decide.
The Commission will have to take account of Her Majesty's Government's intention that the Maltese people should be given the widest measure of self-government consistent with Her Majesty's Government's responsibility for defence and foreign affairs and their undertakings in respect of the public service, the police and human rights generally. Within this framework, the Commission will be free to make such recommendations as it sees fit.

817
I am glad to be able to announce that Sir Hilary Blood has accepted appointment as Chairman of the Commission, and that Sir Alfred Roberts has agreed to serve as a member. As I have said, we also hope to add a member from another Commonwealth country. The Commission will go out to Malta as soon as possible. When its report has been received, Her Majesty's Government intend that elections shall be held on the basis of a new Constitution, in the drawing up of which the people of Malta, the Commission and the United Kingdom Government will all have played their part.
3.47 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, we are obliged to the noble Earl for letting us know about this statement of Government policy with regard to Malta at the present time. We welcome the fact that a Commission is to be set up; but we must remember that it is essential, for a satisfactory outcome of this Commission, that there should be co-operation by all sections in Malta, including the Labour Party, which, in the Legislature which does not now meet, used to carry a substantial majority. From that point of view, I am glad to know that a former President of the Trades Union Congress here is to be one of the Commission, which I take it will be composed of the three persons mentioned; and I hope that every possible step will be taken to get reasonable consultations with Labour as well as with the other sections of the Maltese population.
What I do not see in the statement is any formal recital of the terms of reference. Having regard to the constitutional conversations, the trials and the errors we have gone through so far on the matter, it is rather important that we in Parliament should know what are to be the Commission's exact terms of reference. That will then allow us to try to find out, in particular, whether the Commission, under those terms of reference, will be able to recommend a division of power between the Government of the United Kingdom here and the Government-to-be of Malta. I take it from the actual statement, which excludes from any possible future Constitution power for the Maltese Government to deal with defence and foreign affairs, that Her Majesty's Government
818
rule out any question of the Island community of Malta being able to engage in what is called "self-determination". Perhaps before Parliament thinks about this, as we shall do through the Recess, and before we proceed on holiday, we ought to try to get that information from the Government.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I should like to assure the noble Earl that noble Lords on these Benches welcome the setting up of this Commission. I would ask him whether, in view of the fact that the political instability in Malta arises to a large extent from the economic difficulties, it will be possible for the Commission to make recommendations on economic grounds. Secondly, is he in a position to indicate what other Commonwealth country will be asked to appoint a member to the Commission?
EARL WINTERTON: My Lords, as the only one of your Lordships to be present in Malta during the referendum, and as one who is on friendly terms with more than one political leader in Malta, may I take the rather strange line, for the first time since corning to your Lordships' House, of associating myself almost entirely with what the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition said. This is a most vague statement. I do not know if the noble Earl, Lord Perth, is aware of this, but I put this very directly to him: the people of Malta say that if they were in Asia or in Africa, instead of in Europe, they would have been given what the majority of them want long ago—that is, the right of self-determination. I very much hope that when this White Paper comes out or an announcement is made, we shall be given far more details than have been given. Further, will not the Maltese people think that this is just another move to put off what the Government will have ultimately to face—that is, are they, or are they not, in favour of self-determination for Malta?
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, may I say first that I very much agree with the noble Viscount opposite about the importance of all Parties in Malta co-operating with the Commission in their work. Clearly, that is of the greatest importance, and without it the task of the Commission would be a very difficult one. The noble Viscount is right

819
in assuming that the Commission will be restricted to three members. At the present moment, I am not able to say from what Commonwealth country the third member may come, but as your Lordships know, several Commonwealth countries have special associations with Malta. So far as terms of reference are concerned, it is true that they are not set out in detail, but I think that, from the statement I have made, it is clear what is the purpose behind the Commission. It will draw up a Constitution with the widest measure of self-government consistent with defence, foreign affairs and one or two other matters being reserved to Her Majesty's Government, so that elections may be held in Malta. Although I have not the precise terms of reference, the purpose behind the appointment of the Commission is clear from what I have said.
The noble Viscount also asked—and the noble Earl, Lord Winterton, raised the same point—whether this rules out self-determination for all time. Of course, the answer to that is, No. These things never take that form. But at this moment we are proposing to get back to representative government, through elections, as soon as possible; and that is the purpose behind the Commission's work. I would only add, in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, that we had not thought of the Commission working on economic questions and it has not been chosen with that in mind. There is already a five-year development plan going ahead. But if the Commission come across any economic point which they think is significant, I have no doubt that they will make an appropriate recommendation.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, has the noble Earl any indication of whether the Malta Labour Party will co-operate in this plan?
THE EARL OF PERTH: No, My Lords, I have none.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: If they boycott it, will the Government continue?
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I think that that is one of those difficult hypothetical questions which the noble Viscount puts from time to time. In view of the general opinion expressed in your Lordships' House, which I am sure
820
is the opinion of all in this country at the present time, I hope that we shall be able to get on with this matter and give Malta what we all want—that is, Parliamentary government.
EARL WINTERTON: Yes, My Lords, but cannot the noble Earl say whether the conditions which Her Majesty's Government are going to lay down are the same as those that have been laid down for Kenya? It has been said pretty clearly by his colleague that the Kenya Constitution will lead to ultimate self-determination or independence. Is that the view of the Government with regard to Malta? That is what we want to know.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, with regard to that, I can add nothing to what I have already said.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords in view of the way in which the Maltese people will examine meticulously the publication that is to be made, is it not important to make the terms of reference clear in that publication? If there is any difficulty, let us get over it as soon as possible. It is much better to do that than to have a statement which is not clear about what exactly is intended.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I do not believe that there is any difficulty on the terms of reference. It is not something that I am aware of at all. I think that the purpose of the Commission is quite clear, and the terms of reference will certainly follow the lines laid down in the statement. But I will bear very much in mind what the noble Viscount has said about announcing the terms of reference.

FINANCE BILL
3.58 p.m.
Debate on Second Reading resumed.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, if I may bring your Lordships back to the economic problem confronting this country, I should like to begin by saying that I feel that the crux of the problem has been succinctly put by the noble Lord, Lord Brand. It is, in fact, the insufficiency of our liquid reserves. By and large, as the noble Lord, Lord Brand, pointed out, they have remained

821
at under £1,000 million over the past decade, as against liabilities, in the form of overseas sterling holdings, of over £4,000 million—that is to say, our reserves are only 25 per cent. of our short-term liabilities. And the fate of all bankers who accept deposits with inadequate cash reserves is the constant nightmare of every Chancellor of the Exchequer and every Government. We met it in 1947, and we met it again in 1951.
The remedy is clear enough. It is, as the noble Lord, Lord Brand, said, to build up an excess of exports, both visible and invisible, not only over imports but also over what we find it desirable or necessary to lend abroad. And it is easier said than done. The Prime Minister has been exhorting industrialists to do just this: to export more. But I want to examine for a moment what the Government have been doing. So far as imports are concerned, they have dismantled all our defences. I protested vehemently against this in another place. I have no dogmatic views, one way or the other, on the subject of physical controls. Where they are unnecessary, as the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, said, they are obviously undesirable; but I have always thought that they should be kept in reserve, to be used in case of necessity. And they are not now in reserve.
The Government have also failed to reduce expenditure above the line. I know that this is an old theme; but the fact remains that a certain part of our expenditure on the Welfare State is wasteful. I do not think that there has been nearly enough pruning in sheer administration; but, of course—and this is not going to be very popular—the real enemy here is defence. We are no longer a great world Power in the 19th century sense of the term; and ever since the war successive Governments, both Labour and Conservative, have tried to behave as if we were—for example by having what has been called hitherto an "independent deterrent". I want to ask the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, who I believe is going to reply, what we have spent on defence since the war, and what we have to show for it to-day. But I would beg of him not to look up the figures now, because I am anxious that he should reply to this debate; and I believe that, if he did look at the figures
822
of what we have spent on defence since the war, and what we have now got to show for it, he would be rendered unconscious and therefore be unable to make any reply at all.
As a result of this tremendous expenditure, we have to-day a system of progressive taxation on earned income which has been described by the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, as a discrimination against enterprise and ability such as has never before existed for any long time in any large-scale civilised community. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, spoke a great deal about incentives, and seemed to imply in one part of his speech that a reduction of direct taxation would be a good idea. He talked quite a lot about carrots, and taking away sticks. I should like to ask the noble Lord if this is the new Socialism; because if so, it will be hailed with considerable interest by large sections of the public. It might even lead to my own transfer to the other side of the House, if it is really sincerely believed; because, for my part, I am convinced that direct taxation, which obliterates most of the difference between success and failure in business and which makes it almost impossible for anyone in this country to-day to save out of earnings, is at least one of the primary causes of our present difficulty. It is really true to say that there is practically nobody, at any level of our society, who can save substantially out of his or her present earnings.
But that is not all. Despite repeated appeals, Her Majesty's Government insist on maintaining the 2 per cent. stamp duty on Stock Exchange transactions. It does not bring in all that amount of revenue, but it does discourage investment in productive enterprise by those with moderate incomes; and, worse still, it discourages investment in this country from abroad, and therefore has an adverse effect upon our invisible exports and on our balance of trade. It is not without significance that a great deal more foreign money is at the present moment being invested on the Continent of Europe than it is in this country. While I do not say that this stamp duty is the only reason for that, it certainly plays a part.
Finally, there is the bank rate. Here the underlying philosophy of the Treasury seems to me to be to knock

823
the whole national economy about from time to time, in the hope that a reduction of imports will come as a by-product. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, will not take it amiss if I say that dear money is expensive. It is a truism; it is a platitude that dear money is expensive. I hope it will not startle your Lordships, but it remains a fact from which we cannot escape. It is expensive for the Government; it is expensive for local authorities; and it presses very hard on those who have entrusted their savings to the Government.
I will not comment on the present condition of the gilt-edged market, which the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, has already dealt with very well. I will content myself by saying that the two biggest swindles that have ever been perpetrated on the British public were the 3½ per cent. War Loan and what have since become known as "Daltons"—I am sorry the noble Lord has left the Chamber. As one of those swindles was perpetrated by a Conservative Government and the other by a Labour Government, your Lordships will observe that I am preserving the impartiality which becomes a member of the Cross Benches.
Dear money also directly hits the export trade, for the conduct of which industries—both large and small—require capital for the provision of credit to their purchasers overseas, and also for the purchase of stocks to ensure prompt delivery. I should like to suggest that the policy of attempting to increase exports by repressing industrial investment and development at home is, in the long run, a suicidal policy. Bank rate is the clumsiest of all methods of controlling monetary and credit policy; and that was brought out clearly in the Radcliffe Report. It hits the small man rather than the big; it acts as a restraint on productive investment which may be desirable and necessary; and at the same time it does not necessarily curb loan expenditure on those products which are neither desirable nor essential. It is, in effect, wholly non-discriminatory. It is a clumsy, blunt-edged weapon, as the noble Earl must know.
I was therefore horrified to hear him say yesterday—and I am referring to the noble Earl, Lord Dundee—that the Government intend to use the weapon
824
of bank rate more frequently (I think that is a fair expression), as one of the main weapons of their economic policy. It reminds me of nothing so much as Alice and the mushroom. First a nibble one side, then a nibble the other side; and never the right size. How do they expect the business community to plan ahead against this kind of background of constant change?
This brings me to a brief consideration of the Treasury, a Department for which I have never had any very warm affection or enthusiasm. I have been in public life on and off for 35 years. I have always thought that the Treasury was much too powerful, and I have always been quite sure that it is seldom right. I will now give an account of its recent activities which may differ slightly from that given by the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale. I will spare your Lordships by drawing a veil over the conduct of the Treasury in the interwar period, when it managed to maintain a steady rate of unemployment at levels between one million and two million for nearly 20 years. But after the war, what happened? We got off to a bad start with the American Loan, which was used as a drug. Then we had premature convertibility, which got rid of what was left of the American Loan, and forced us to repudiate the terms on which we obtained it. Then we had Crippsian austerity. Then we had a devaluation of the pound sterling, which was not so hot. Then we had a 7 per cent. bank rate and a credit squeeze. And since then we have been alternately putting on the brakes so hard and taking them off again so completely that the business community is dizzy, if not absolutely crazy.
That is the view of many industrialists who at the moment are trying to plan ahead, and do not know the background against which they must plan. It in no way detracts from the regard and affection with which, as the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, said, Mr. Derick Heathcoat Amory is universally held, or the regret felt by all at his departure from the Government. Like most of his predecessors, he was a prisoner of the Treasury; but there were moments when he saw the light, and struggled against them.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Radcliffe, is one of my oldest friends

825
and no one has ever questioned his great abilities. But he has also great failings: he is modest, the is reticent and he is discreet. For my part, I have never been able to see that these alleged virtues are anything but grave defects. He is, in fact, all these three things; and I wish that he were standing here in my place to-day and really setting about the Government and the Treasury.
A NOBLE LORD: He is sitting here.
LORD BOOTHBY: He may have been sitting here, but I do not think he is now. Oh! I see that he is. If I had realised that the noble and learned Lord was here I do not think I should have said what I have said. Anyway, having started off, I may as well plunge on and say that he must be aghast at the manhandling of the Report of his Committee by the Treasury, who have clearly never read it.
I want to make one constructive proposal with regard to the new Chancellor of the Exchequer. I think that he ought to be given the Radcliffe Report as required reading; and I think he should also react a great part, if not perhaps all, of the evidence on Which it is based. Then I think he should sit for an examination, both written and oral, by Lord Radcliffe and his colleagues; and if he fails in that examination, he should be replaced.
I must also give one warning to the new Chancellor of the Exchequer. About half a century ago I was Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the Treasury. One day a very high Treasury official came to me and said. "I want to tell you one thing. It will stand you in good stead, I think, as a promising young politician"— because that, incredible as it may seem, was what I then was. This high Treasury official continued: "There is only one man who has ever been able to make the Treasury do what it did not want to do, and that was Lloyd George. I can tell you something else—there will never be another." I think that that is true, certainly so far as my experience carries me."
In the last analysis it is the physical use of our available resources that matters—and I am now nearing an end. Look at what confronts us. In the
826
Common Market they have set themselves a rate of expansion—that is to say, an increase of productivity—of between 4 and 5 per cent. per annum, and are now achieving it. In the United States, the Eisenhower policies have been jettisoned by both the Presidential candidates; and they now aim at an annual rate of economic growth of not less than 5 per cent., to be achieved by increasing both public and private investment. This is the measure of what we are up against, we who are doddering along at 2½ per cent. rate of increase at the present time. Do we aim to tag along like this for ever? Because we are up against two formidable, large and dynamic economies, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, rightly pointed out.
I certainly do not want to tread on ground I have already covered with regard to the Common Market. I know that there are strong feelings about this on both sides, but certain things have been put around which distort the issue and which, as Sir Winston Churchill, to use one of his favourite expressions, would say, "darken counsel." It has been said, for example, that over 50 per cent. of our trade is done with the Commonwealth. That is not true. It is less than 40 per cent., and, as the Financial Times pointed out a day or two ago, when exports to those areas of the Commonwealth which do not grant us preferences and the imports of raw materials which would in any case continue to enter the country duty-free are subtracted, the preferential element in Britain's foreign trade is not much greater than our trade with Europe as a whole. It will certainly diminish still further in the years that lie immediately ahead.
The second thing which is being whispered is that some people, and particularly M. Monnet, are bitterly anti-British and opposed to our entry into the Common Market. I can only say that I received a letter from M. Monnet, after my speech to your Lordships on the subject of the Common Market, telling me how much he agreed and approved of it. He sent me a copy, which I have here, of a declaration by the Action Committee for the United States of Europe, of which he is President, and from which I should like to quote one paragraph only which seems

827
to me of the greatest importance. It says:
"The Action Committee, echoing the wishes of the vast majority of citizens in our countries, earnestly hopes that the United Kingdom and other European countries will simultaneously become members of the Coal and Steel Community, of Euratom and the Common Market, which are three facets of a single reality. This reality is the emerging European economic union, that is paving the way for a political unity, the exact nature of which cannot now be foreseen."
That is quite clear. They are not committed to any particular form of political integration; and it seems to me an awful pity, if we are going to be so slow, that we ourselves shall be able to take no part in framing the political union which is inevitably coming to Western Europe. I will content myself with saying just this. If we keep out of the Common Market we shall not like it, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, will agree with that.
What is our aim? What is the aim of Her Majesty's Government? It does not clearly emerge from any Government statements—still less from the Opposition. I listened the day before yesterday in another place to the speech of Mr. Harold Wilson. He accused the Government of being inept of giving no leadership, and of having no policy. Then what did he do? He chased his own tail for nearly three-quarters of an hour. The whole of the second part of his speech flatly contradicted the first part. He put out for half an hour all the advantages of going into the European Market, and then all the disadvantages. At the end, he came as near as a toucher to saying—if your Lordships will forgive this expression—that he did not really know what the hell we ought to do. This is the final impression that was given to me by Mr. Harold Wilson's speech. The Government were a shade more comprehensible, but Mr. Wilson sat down in a state of complete mental chaos, to which he had also reduced the whole of another place.
As I see it, three broad alternatives confront us. We can have another attempt to go back to the laissez faire multilateral system of the nineteenth century; we can relax into the rigid national, economic autarchy so dear to the heart of Socialist purists who want nothing better than to go back to the
828
utmost misery and austerity in order to be able to get the chance to impose upon us their true-blue Socialism. That was implicit in Mr. Crossman's pamphlet: we do not want prosperity; we want misery, and only then shall we have a chance of getting real Socialism.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, this speech, and many others made in the House during the last few years, forget that if a Tory Government had been returned in 1945 there would have been no recovery at all. We are living to-day upon the foundations that were laid then.
LORD BOOTHBY: We are living to-day, if the noble Viscount will forgive me, on the foundations which were laid by Marshall Aid. That is what brought about our recovery; and nothing else. We were just about sunk by the time that came along. We had lost the American Loan through our own folly, and Marshall Aid came in the nick of time to salvage us.
There is a third alternative, which I know is distasteful to the noble Viscount, and that is to build up regional, economic units capable of standing on their own feet in the modern world through effective economic co-operation within and between various groups of nations. That is what everybody is jibbing at at the present time on both sides, let me admit. I reject the first alternative, because it is quite impracticable. We cannot go back to 19th century laissez faire. I reject the second, because it would involve a drastic cut in our standard of living. But let us be under no illusion as to what is required by the third. It will demand greater surrender of national sovereignty, both in the political and economic fields, than either side in this country has yet been willing to contemplate. There is no doubt about that. There are the three choices, and which one we will take I do not know. I am quite sure in my own mind which one we ought to take.
Let me conclude with a quotation—a most remarkable quotation—from Barbara Ward's book, The West at Bay, which was published some years after the war, but which is still as up to date as ever. It is as follows:
"The British, the French, and the Low Countries, all assumed that the inter-war world"—

829
that is, the world between 1918 and 1939—
"could be a recognisable version of the nineteenth century with a gold standard, with free trade, with national sovereignty (only slightly limited by the League of Nations), with liberal ideas and capitalist economics. The possibility that the first war had torn a gaping hole in the old fabric was not considered. Even the portent of the Russian revolution was tidied away behind explanations of the backwardness and barbarism of Russian society. Over these days the last light of the Victorian sun still streamed, the light of a safe world of order and progress, the light of great certainties and greater wealth. But the illusion cannot be re-created after this struggle. For this time, it seems, all the pillars have fallen. The last ray of the old sun has been extinguished, and if we of the Western world do nothing but look backwards, then 'we are for the dark'".
4.20 p.m.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, if "we are for the dark", let it be in the company of the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, because I am sure he will cheer us all up and refuse to allow any of us for a moment to become unduly downhearted. There is no more delightful speaker in this House to listen to, and anybody who failed to enjoy a speech by Lord Boothby would, I think, be certifiable—and I hesitate to describe any noble Lord as being in that condition. I sympathise very much with the European ideas of the noble Lord, and perhaps he would allow me, as someone who shares those views, to express the ponderous hope that he will commend those ideas more persuasively to some of those on my Benches. He treats it so lightly and as so totally devoid of problems that some of those who are not converted find it difficult to take his arguments seriously. He speaks with an air of infallibility. I am all for infallibility, but coming from the noble Lord on these matters I am not sure that it is as telling as another form of argument may be.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, the noble Lord would not deny that if you have faith it is infallible; and I have faith.
LORD PAKENHAM: Perhaps faith is to supplement reason and not supplant it. But I hope he will commend those ideas more astutely to my colleagues. He was not fair to Mr. Harold Wilson and the noble Lord, Lord Dalton, and quite a number of others among us whom we value very greatly. The noble Lord,
830
Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, has left us. I was rather sorry to hear him say that the noble Lord, Lord Dalton, was deflated—I think in that context he meant devalued, but whatever word he had in mind it clearly was not a kind thing to say. I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, to go to the North East Coast, which he may know, and if he remembers it before the war he will find many thousands of people who bless the name of the noble Lord. Lord Dalton, for what he did as President of the Board of Trade and Chancellor of the Exchequer.
My Lords, we have had a most interesting debate, and perhaps I may be allowed, without taking any sort of credit whatever, to pay particular tribute to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Newton, who did what no other noble Lord has ever done—described me as his tutor. I dare say there are other noble Lords I have tutored, but none of them has thought it prudent to mention it. The noble Lord recalled that we were colleagues in the old School of Philosophy, Politics and Economics at Oxford. I am not sure that I am capable of teaching any of those subjects to a Conservative Minister, or ex-Minister as he is now. Philosophy is a difficult subject for politicians. Some people think that in the Labour Party we have too much philosophy, and we should say that in the Conservative Party they have too little. To look for philosophy in the Conservative Party is like looking for a black cat in a dark room; it may or may not be there, but so far it has not disclosed itself. The noble Viscount who is going to reply is a philosopher of a more ancient school than mine and he may put that right later on. The noble Lord, Lord Newton, and I studied politics together. I think, looking back, it was rather impertinent of me; to try to teach politics to the Conservatives would seem very injudicious. Here they are, having won three Elections with an appalling economic record. If that is not politics I do not know what it is. Perhaps I should have been better employed trying to teach economics.
It is economics that is the subject of to-day's debate, and we are trying to discuss the Government's economic record. The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, made a charming speech and he does not need

831
me to tell him that he is always very acceptable in this House. He made the kind of speech which I have no doubt I should have made, or tried to make, lacking the charm, in his place. Indeed, it is the kind of speech I did make in his place for about six years when I helped the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, to speak in your Lordships' House for the much-berated Treasury. I hope the noble Earl will obtain ever wider opportunities; in the phrase of someone who was then Prime Minister of a National Government, I hope in the redistribution he will "go on and on and up and up".
We are told that all sorts of high positions are being allocated to this House. Perhaps we shall see the Chancellor of the Exchequer coming here, or perhaps, if the Economist is right, two Chancellors of the Exchequer. That is the latest idea; if you cannot find the right man, have a couple, and maybe the idea will be to have them both in the House of Lords. I only feel that the noble Earl is perhaps too sunny-natured for a Chancellor of the Exchequer. I think we need someone with more iron in his soul, ready to take occasionally a pessimistic view of things, or, should I say, an objective view of things.
If we look at column 715 of yesterday'sHansard we get a picture of the situation of the country, given us by the noble Earl, which has, on the whole, not been echoed in this debate except by the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, who was very effectively answered in advance, if I may put it that way, by the noble Lord, Lord Brand. I will not weary your Lordships with what was said, and said more gracefully than I should say it, by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, yesterday, but he did begin a passage, which comes in column 715 of Hansard, by saying:
"The country is enjoying greater prosperity that it has ever enjoyed before."
And he goes on to call attention to record levels in wages, production, exports, capital investment and private savings. Well, I am not disputing, of course, any facts which the noble Earl offers to the House.
But the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, put the situation in a very different perspective. I think all of us, however jaundiced we may be about one another's views, would agree that the feat
832
of the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, at the age of 88, in delivering a speech yesterday almost without looking at any notes, was a prodigy which we may not see equalled in our time—except by the noble Lord, for many years. I happened by chance to-day to share transport to the City with a gentleman of 86, and I said to this gentleman, "You look much younger than that". He replied, "I am about a lot with young people. You smile more often with kiddies." And it may be that years of work in the House of Lords has kept the noble Lord looking so young, being, if I may say so, in the presence of so many juvenile minds. Whatever his secret, it is something we all greatly envy him.
With the diagnosis, or at any rate the account of the situation, offered by the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, not only has there been a good deal of concurrence, not only among those on these Benches, such as the noble Lords, Lord Stonham, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, and Lord Alexander of Hillsborough; there has also been a good deal of support from what one might call the more reserved view from the noble Lord, Lord Brand, and the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, and other noble Lords opposite, such as the noble Lord, Lord Hawke. I feel sure that the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, has been the first to note that there has been much more agreement, so to speak, with the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, than with him.
Is there any hope amidst all this argumentation of reaching an agreed account of our economic progress during the 1950s. When we in debates elsewhere—and we have taken part in plenty of debates here—criticise the Party opposite for their very moderate showing during this period, they retort, not unnaturally, that we should have done worse, and they argue from what they think was our performance when in office and our policies now. It becomes fine Party knockabout, and economic sense is rather difficult to come by under those conditions. We hope that the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, will gradually establish himself as the most dispassionate economic commentator in this House; and so long as he achieves that without depriving us of his humour, may that time come soon!

833
I should like to try to find a quotation from somebody who would not be regarded as a Party man, in so far as he had no leanings—certainly not Socialist leanings. I refer to Sir Oscar Hobson, the most distinguished of living financial journalists, who has written an article, as every month, in the current number of the Banker. This is the only passage I want to read to the House from these experts, but perhaps I could just set out Sir Oscar's views before I go on. He reckoned that it is
"only in the past year that the rate of growth of British industrial production has made a decent showing against that of other comparable countries. In the nine years 1950–1958 we were at the bottom of the ranking list with an annual increase of only 2·2 per cent. compared with—I spare my readers the mouth watering figures of Germany and Japan—4·3 per cent. for France, 4·5 per cent, for the Netherlands, 5·5 per cent. for Italy,"
Then he goes on to point out that this rate of growth during the 1950's—and my noble friends opposite have been in power for almost all that time—of 2·2 per cent. of increased production
"was well behind the comparable figure for the greater part of the despised 1920's "
and it is below the rate at which we have to progress if we are going to double our standard of life, as forecast by Mr. Butler, in 25 years.
Those are the facts, set out as dispassionately as we can ever hope to have them sec out, and certainly not set out by somebody favourable to our political point of view. I can only hope that the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, does not deny that in fact the record has been far from satisfactory during the 1950's. If he does deny that, and if that is the view of the Government, then it is very alarming indeed. If they really tell us that what they have clone is good, and that we must not expect anything better in the 1960's, then I think there is cause for despondency.
I do not myself think that we can find much to boast about in this period that ends in 1958; but we shall be told, not unnaturally—we were told by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, stressed the point—that there has been a big increase in production in 1959 and 1960. But the heartbreaking thing there is that as soon as we get under way with an increase in production, at once we find that we are going
834
too fast and we have to be brought under control again. If your Lordships were to look at the Banking Supplement of the Financial Times as published this Monday, you would see that among the leading articles is one called "The Return to Restraint" by Professor Victor Morgan. Then one comes to an article headed "Once more the Squeeze" by Wilfred King, the editor of the Banker. In short, we are back again in the old difficulty that as soon as we try to run about with any reasonable degree of activity after our confined period of sedentary occupation we are threatened with a heart attack and we have once again to go slow.
That is the story, so to speak. We can attribute praise and blame as we think fit, and offer all sorts of remedies; but that seems to be the story that is in front of us in this debate. The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, defended (though I do not think he used the word) what is sometimes called "flexibility of monetary rates". He talked, in column 719 of yesterday's OFFICIAL. REPORT, of
"Necessary movements in a direction of credit restraint or relaxation."
I am afraid that most of us who have been in business during the last few years would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Citrine, who, at column 763, in his powerful speech spoke as follows:
"I am sure that this stopping and starting process would not commend itself to any businessman."
The same point was made just as forcefully and eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, to-day. My noble friend (and the noble Lord) said that the businessman
"would prefer a long-term policy, so that he could see ahead and know how his business is likely to fare."
I am not arguing against all flexibility of interest rates; but the demand of the Government has gone much further than anything that could be called a reasonable flexibility, and I wondered whether I might call attention to some new figures, which have been available for some time but which have not been brought out up to now in this debate. I refer to the figures for hank advances made by the banks here since the war. Between 1946 and 1951 these hank advances roughly doubled. In 1951, they stood at £1,822 million. In 1954, they were still at about the same figure—in fact, they were rather

835
lower, at £1,804 million. But, there having been fairly steady progress, there was this stabilisation for those years. In 1955, there was a jump of £215 million. I should not like my objective pretensions to be destroyed by pointing out that 1955 was an Election year. Be that as it may, they did jump in 1955. After then, and from 1955 to 1958 they were steady again. In fact, in 1958, they were slightly lower than they had been in 1955. So there was no progress, measured in this way, between 1951 and 1954, and then again from 1955 to 1958.
But in 1959, with the removal of the credit squeeze—in fact it was removed in 1958—the figures go hopping up very fast, and by the end of 1959 they were £2,617 million. That was an increase of more than one quarter in one year—in the year 1959, compared with 1958. I suppose I must point out that that year was an Election year, but it may be that that was just a coincidence. But still there was this large increase again in 1959. Since then they have gone merrily ahead, and the last figure published to-day is £3,560 million. That is an increase of 67 per cent. since 1958. I do not think that anybody could feel that that was a kind of well-regulated progress. I think that most people, in thinking about it, would conclude that there was something pretty seriously wrong somewhere.
I should not like it to be thought that this extraordinary stagnation in bank lending, followed by an equally pronounced expansion, had been due mainly to changes in the outlook of banks in their general readiness to lend. It is true that they have gone in for hire purchase, and there is something over £100 million in loans for hire purchase. I have not seen the latest figures, but in May the increase of loans for hire purchase was something of the order of £120 million; but the total increase is, of course, many times that. The revolutionary change since 1958 is simply a reflection of the fact that banks are extremely competitive businesses who would naturally have expanded much more, had they been allowed to do so, in the period 1955 to 1958, but who were artificially restrained during that period. Since then they have been making up for lost time. That is simply a fact,
836
as noble Lords are well aware. At the present moment, the ratio of advances to deposits is 46·3 per cent., which is very high when compared with the 1958 figure of 30 per cent. But this figure of 46·3 per cent. is not necessarily too high. It is high by any standard, but some people would say that it was not necessarily too high, because just before the war, or rather earlier, there was a still higher ratio.
What I am saying—I am afraid I am saying it in a rather complicated manner and rather quickly—is that though the banking part of our story is only one part of the story, it is a part which affects all the rest. When one thinks over the figures and the working movement that I have indicated, I think one reaches the conclusion that, somehow or another, we have not yet found the right answer. Some years ago, soon after I myself went into banking, I was among the first, though certainly not the first—I am not sure that the noble Lord, Lord Bothby, was not the first—in recommending a fundamental inquiry into our financial affairs. I think the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, was among the very early ones.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, I was ahead of the noble Lord.
LORD PAKENHAM: I always try to yield precedence and I do not usually find that in any way difficult. The Radcliffe Committee has come and gone. The noble Lord, Lord Radcliffe, has come and gone this afternoon; and in spite of the great collection of knowledge with which that Report presented us, it hardly seems to have affected policy by one iota.
LORD BOOTHBY: Hear, hear!
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Boothby is with me there. Where are we now? After this tremendous inquiry that we have had, we may have seemed to have shot our bolt. We cannot start another Radcliffe Committee and we are no wiser, it seems, in practical policy.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord, it is possible that one day the Treasury may read it. That is the great hope.
LORD BRAND: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether the answer is

837
not to increase our central reserves, so that we need not go up and down—and how will he do that?
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I was hoping not to detain the House very much longer, but I believe the answer, logically, is that which was propounded yesterday by the noble Earl: to increase our exports. That is obviously the practical answer, for unless we increase our exports we shall never be able to increase our central reserves. That is the short answer—and I am not trying now to give the complete answer.
LORD BRAND: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that in their policies both Parties—Conservative and Labour—go up and down because our reserves are too small? They try to create prosperity and then find they have gone too far and have to come back—and all because we are not viable so far as reserves are concerned.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord tempts me to go very wide of my immediate remarks, but I would say that, although I was not then in banking, there was nothing in the period of the Labour Government which corresponded to the credit squeeze. I believe the noble Lord will agree that this tremendous shut-down of the credit squeeze, followed by the tremendous free-for-all is something which, on the face of it, had no parallel during the period of the Labour Government. I could pursue that thought further.
LORD BRAND: My Lords, I believe the noble Lord was a banker and he will remember when our credit was on the basis of 2½per cent. I do not believe the noble Lord, Lord Dalton, is present, but it will be remembered that his famous "Daltons" were issued because, as he then said, our credit was so good that we could stand a 2½per cent. rate. In fact, we could not. We were bankrupt at that moment.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Brand, wishes me to broaden my front wider and wider. I would only say that most dispassionate people consider that this country made a very remarkable economic recovery during the first two years after the war. The noble Lord, Lord Dalton, was Chancellor of the Exchequer during that time;
838
and had he not resigned on a point of extreme fidelity to honour I believe that he would have been Chancellor for many years.
LORD BRAND: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord, I do not think that what he has said would be supported by those who bought "Daltons" at the issue price.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, there are plenty of people who have had a bad time in gilt-edged, without the noble Lord, Lord Dalton coming on to their horizon; and to pin that on one man is hardly in keeping with the tremendous spirit of generosity that I have always found in the noble Lord, Lord Brand. I rather deplore the idea that in some way the noble Lord, Lord Dalton, has been responsible for our troubles.
LORD BRAND: I was only pointing out that the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham had one flaw.
LORD PAKENHAM: An argument usually has some flaw, but the flaw here has not yet been pointed out to me. I was pointing out that there had been a very irregular and extraordinary progression in the bank rate during the period I was discussing—the last nine years. The noble Lord asks about 1946 and 1947, and about the 2½per cent. rate—and we could go very wide here. But I have to reply generally that I feel that the noble Lord, Lord Dalton, did a first-class job under the leadership of my noble friend Lord Attlee. Returning to the last nine years that we are now discussing—
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: We are discussing the Finance Bill.
LORD HAWKE: Is the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, leaving the question of bank loans? It would be interesting 'to hear his views, as a banker, on the influence of this new form of very profitable lending—personal loans, which bring in about 10 per cent.—on the increase of bank lending. Previously bank overdrafts were much less profitable.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I have no intention of leaving bank loans until released by the noble Lord, Lord Brand. I will stay as long as I am questioned on them; but so far as personal loans are concerned, although

839
I have not the figures, I do not think the total amount of personal loans would make much difference here. I think the noble Earl, Lord Woolton, would agree that that is not a really significant factor on the scale of things we are discussing. Hire purchase would be a larger factor, for there there has been an increase of more than £100 million; but here we are discussing an increase of about £1,300 million in eighteen months. That is not due to a change of policy of individual banks but to the fact that up to that time they were told not to lend more money than they had been lending. Then they were allowed to go ahead. There is no parallel with that in the period of the Labour Government. I am not coming forward as someone with a miraculous answer. Here is a problem which has not yet been solved, and I hope Her Majesty's Government are aware that it has not, for it would be a pity if they thought that in some way, and without anybody noticing it, it had solved itself. I am sorry to detain your Lordships a little longer but I believe you will understand.
Where were we before the Radcliffe Committee? Changes in the bank rate was regarded as the traditional method of regulating our credit. The bank rate is rather frowned upon these days for that purpose. My noble friend Lord Pethick-Lawrence has many times pointed out the weakness in that system. I am not sure that I go as far as he sometimes goes in his destruction of the bank rate method. I think that we are all agreed, since the Radcliffe Committee's Report was published, that the bank rate method, by itself, is not going to solve our problems; and it is not a method which can be over-exploited.
Then there is the method which was tried by the Government. Quite a number of Chancellors of the Exchequer in the past—no more than one at a time, but serving in quick succession—tried the method of political directives. Bankers dislike political directives in banking, and I believe that most people would agree that political directives should not be used unless they have to be. Bankers themselvs are anxious to pursue their own business and to make a success of it, and I personally favour free competition in banking. I believe that they should be allowed to compete
840
freely one with another. Somebody has said that it is not a bad thing occasionally to rub in a platitude, so may I rub in one now? May I say that money is a peculiar commodity and that the amount of money provided in the community has social implications which do not arise in the case of motor cars or soap, for example.
Some method of regulation there must be if we are to keep the economy healthy and to see money and lending expanding in proportion to our powers of production. I am not criticising any individual, and certainly not the Governor of the Bank of England—a most distinguished man in every way. But I am bound to point out that the responsibility for finding the answer rests upon our rulers. Our present rulers have been presiding over our affairs for nine years, and look as though they have a long period ahead of them. They have the heavy responsibility of finding the answer which has not yet been found.
Some years ago in this House I ventured to suggest a system of variable liquidity ratios. The Government spokesman on that occasion, the noble and learned Viscount, treated that as something too complicated for your Lordships or, at any rate, for him; and with charming modesty he dismissed that topic as rather outside our range. But in fact something of that kind, or very close to it, has been introduced, through the system of special deposits, and I regard that, on the whole, as a step in the right direction.
LORD HAWKE: Hear, hear!
LORD PAKENHAM: I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, agrees with me, and I am certainly not criticising the introduction of that system. It is not likely to be popular with bankers, because bankers, like other human beings, do not want to be interfered with more than is necessary. But taking it all in all, and comparing it with the use of the bank rate, which can be very deadly or very ineffective, and with political directives, which no one adopts unless he has to, it seems to be a process towards the right system.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, does the noble Lord not think that these valuable liquidity ratios could be achieved by

841
agreement rather than by the Bank of England's apparently having to wave a stick?
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I noted very carefully and listened with special attention when the noble Lord was arguing along that line last night. With that in mind I drafted some conditions this morning of what would seem to me to be a satisfactory system. It seems to me that for success in this field there have to be conditions, three of which are essential. First, any system of regulation should leave room for effective competition between the banks. We must not go back to the period of a self-denying ordinance which operated during the credit squeeze.
Then there is a point which is made only by bankers—and it was made by the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, last night: that any system must impose on the finance houses, the outside sources of credit, regulations which are at least as strict as those imposed on the banks. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, and I am rather surprised with our authorities that something has not been done along those lines. I certainly agree that it must be. Thirdly—and here f go as far as I can with Lord Hawke—such a system must be thoroughly understood and, so far as possible, should be acceptable to the leaders of banks. I say "so far as possible" because I am afraid that bankers are not going to like very much any system that interferes with them. But it should be made acceptable so far as possible. So far as day-to-day operation is concerned, however, I think the decisions must be left to the authorities. You cannot consult the leaders of the banking world every time you want to make some alteration in special deposits and liquidity ratios and all the rest of them. So I go a long way with the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, if not the whole way.
I have said nothing about exports, not because they are not the most important of all, but because my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth, and other noble Lords have already dealt with that so much more effectively than I could. The two deepest notes struck in the debate can be illustrated, it seems to me, by quoting a sentence from the noble Lord, Lord Citrine, who is not with us, and,
842
later, one by my noble friend Lord Pethick-Lawrence. My noble friend, Lord Citrine, said this—arid I think he focused the discussion exactly [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 225 (No. 110), col. 762]:
"We here believe"—
he meant those on our side of the House—
"that it is utterly impossible to solve this problem permanently without adequate and proper planning. The Government believe in what they are pleased to call private enterprise '."
I agree with my noble friend Lord Citrine that here there is a fundamental distinction of principle which would divide those of us who, so to speak, agree with the noble Lord, Lord Brand, and with many points in a further movement in Lord Brand's direction. I agree with my noble friend Lord Citrine—and I think that all who are on these Benches do—that here is a fundamental distinction of principle, though agree with what Lord Citrine said also: that how far the planning is to be carried is a matter of experience.
No-one outside a very heated Election is going to suggest that because we favour planning in certain vital respects, we favour it in all respects. The difference between us and noble Lords opposite is wide enough to be called a difference of principle. But I agree with the clear implication of the speech of my noble friend Lord Citrine, as I think others on this side of the House do; that in this way we shall continue to have a large sector of private business, and we must all, whatever our political Parties, make that sector successful.
As noble Lords opposite are aware, there have been many strenuous discussions in our Party during recent months about the place that public ownership should occupy in our ultimate policy. There is something called "Clause 4", which noble Lords opposite probably had not heard about until lately.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I invented it.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, the noble Viscount does make the most extravagant claims. I thought it was Sidney Webb who invented it—but they may have done it together. Perhaps what the noble Viscount means is that he popularised it. Nevertheless, there have been these strenuous discussions, and I

843
should like just to offer two comments which, I suppose, could be discribed as personal, but certainly I think they would express the point of view of many members of my Party. I believe that in our Party, the Labour Party, we must make it plainer than hitherto (this point was made in the speech of my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth as well) to the business community that we are not there to stick pins into them. We do regard them, apart from a few scallywags—and there are scallywags in all professions and Parties—as doing a patriotic job. They are earning a living for themselves and their families, and that is not a crime, so far as I am aware. We consider that while we allow or agree to a certain sector being a public sector, it is up to us to make them realise that we regard them as helping the country as much as anyone else. And I think we should make that plainer in the future than we have made it in the past.
But as regards the public sector and the question of how far it could be properly extended, it seems to me that there is an economic issue and also a moral issue. From the purely economic point of view, it seems to me that each industry should be considered on its merits; and that has, in fact, been the point of view of our Party for a number of years. I would suggest—and I speak here without any authority whatever, except a personal conviction—that if there is any view strongly held in our own Labour Party that some particular industry ought to be nationalised, we should have a public inquiry, even while we are in Opposition, and clear up the matter once and for all. That is a purely personal view, but I offer it as a view which I think would be shared by a number of members of my Party. But noble Lords opposite will never understand us on these Benches if they do not realise that in any matter of nationalisation, or planned economy or the public sector, and all the rest of it, we are not animated only by economics: there is also this moral issue.
The House responded unanimously and without distinction of Party yesterday to what was said by my noble friend Lord Pethick-Lawrence. He warned us of this scramble in this country at the present time for personal prosperity and wealth. Each of us, according to his
844
different political views, will try to follow up that thought which the noble Lord placed before us so tellingly during the debate; and certainly the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, needs no instruction from me on how to apply moral ideas. It may be that some years from now this painful process of self-criticism which has been going on through our Party, and which I believe will be for the good of our Party in the end, will throw up novel ideas. But there is one thing which I am sure will always remain permanent in the Labour Party: we shall seek to give effect throughout all our policies—social and political policies—to a certain moral conviction about the infinite worth of every human being. That is our fundamental stand, and nothing will alter that, although it might come to be applied in different ways as the years pass. I would say to noble Lords opposite that we wish them all good fortune; that we shall assist by constructive criticism and, where necessary, correction in the heavy responsibilities that lie ahead. We know that they are, like ourselves, very anxious to serve the country, and we hope that they will be successful in that endeavour.
4.58 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, this is the fourth consecutive Finance Bill in which I have played a part. I speak last in this debate only because I think it was thought more seemly that in a debate in which so many of your Lordships had spoken there should be a second Government voice, in place of that of my noble friend simply exercising his right of reply. At any rate, it affords me two very great pleasures. One is to say how much we on this side of the House appreciate the way in which my noble friend Lord Dundee opened the debate and handled the debate on behalf of the Treasury, having taken on the task which I have previously performed; and indeed, political differences apart, I think he commended himself to all parts of the House.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: The second is to congratulate my noble friend Lord Newton on his maiden speech yesterday. My noble friend referred to himself as "a bottle corked up ". He certainly opened an admirable vintage. I do not think lie was quite right in describing it

845
as effervescent. I thought—not champagne; a red wine, possibly: mature, full-bodied, full of fragrance and bouquet. And I hope that he will in due course let us have a pipe of the same stuff. At all events, I rejoiced, and I think all of us rejoiced, at the great success that he made with his first speech. I feel that he is a great acquisition to our numbers in debating strength. If I may venture a compliment of my own, it is a great pleasure to hear the real style of English Parliamentary oratory in its simplicity and perfection of diction and delivery from time to time. I think that both the way in which it was pronounced and the language which he selected, in its precision and delicacy of touch, are things which we should all do well to emulate.
My Lords, the debate to-day has, I think, been a little untidier than yesterday's, and a little more difficult to reply to. We have had many subjects. There was the Common Market; there was the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, to the labours of the Labour Party, into which I will not intrude; and the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, delighted us by breaking the solemn promise which he made on the last occasion en which he spoke about the Radcliffe Report, which was on November 11. He said then. when he came to hills peroration on the Radcliffe Report [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 219, col. 532]:
"I promise that I have nearly finished, and will never, never mention the subject again so long as am alive. In fact, I can tell your Lordships that the Radcliffe Report and every document connected with it is now in my wastepaper basket. This is my swan-song: it is not a subject one can return to at frequent intervals and keep sane".
I was delighted, and I am sure your your Lordships were delighted, that the terrible menace of silence which he had levelled at our heads was withdrawn, and we hope we shall hear many more such onslaughts.
The debate has resolved itself very largely into a question whether my noble friend who proposed the Second Reading was right in the relatively optimistic picture which he painted of the prosperity of the country, or whether a slightly gloomier picture was right. The noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, described it as something near crisis and, in language which, I agree with my noble
846
friend Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, was perhaps a little rhetorical, as a crisis corn-parable even to that of a war. Making allowance for oratory—and nobody's oratory is more vigorous than that of the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence—I would say that while my noble friend was right in his optimism the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, was right in his concern. There are features which give rise to concern in the present situation. In one of the earlier debates which we had, I described our condition as being "prosperity on a knife-edge"; and although, again, allowance must be made for the rhetorical, in such an expression I am not sure that I was not trying to express something which is perpetually with us.
My Lords, I should, however, like to start at the point at which the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, stopped: that is, with a reference to the peroration of the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence. Like the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, I was moved by that peroration. It reflected the noble Lord's great sense of public spirit, statesmanship and patriotism. I happen to disagree with it, and I want to tell the noble Lord why I disagree with it—or, rather, why I disagree with his conclusion, although I accept his premises; because I think this is very near the kernel of the economic subject which we are talking about this afternoon. My Lords, the noble Lord said this [OFFICIAL REPORT, VOI. 225 (No. 110), col. 730]:
"I am terribly afraid"—
and he said, quite rightly, that he was speaking as near as possible to a non-Party point of view as a person speaking from the Front. Opposition Bench could (and I say, in parenthesis, that I am speaking as near as possible to a non Party point of view as a person speaking from the Government Front Bench can)—
"of the scramble in this country at the present time for personal prosperity and wealth. I do not care from which side it comes; I think it is a very dangerous system. People are anxious to feather their own nests and let the country go hang. I remember very well"—
and he went on to remind us that we would all remember—
"the great speech of Mr. Winston Churchill when he did not offer to the nation wealth or ease, but blood and sweat; and the country took up the challenge and gave its blood and sweat. And shortly afterwards Churchill said that he thought it was the country's 'finest hour'."

847
My Lords, I, and, I think, the whole House, was moved by these words though not in the sense that the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, meant—that is, to agreement; and I think it is well to state quite clearly why I did not agree with them.
I absolutely agree with the noble Lord in his underlying conviction; that what makes this country great—and, perhaps, much greater than its size, its numbers or its wealth would otherwise entitle it to be—is its sense of public spirit. This is something which pervades the whole of British life. It can be seen in the country magistrate discharging justice for nothing; it can be seen in the scientist working, at the great research councils; and perhaps it can be seen in us, speaking in Parliament—practically the only unpaid Legislature in the world, the House of Lords. It can be seen in a number of different ways. People in this country are genuinely anxious to live a life of service and patriotism, rather than one of mere profit; and I think there is a great deal more in that to explain the greatness of Britain than in all the wealth and ingenuity which we are able to assemble.
Moreover, I would also agree with the noble Lord that in a bounding economy—and, despite the Jeremiad of the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, his colleague on the Front Bench, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, described this country as "bursting with prosperity", in striking contrast to the gloomy picture which the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, was seeking to paint and lay at the Government's door—here are, of course, some superficial signs of a flashy materialism; and this, if it reflected the general mood or the ultimate purposes of the nation, would be a thoroughly dangerous and corrupt influence. I think I would agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, about that, but I am quite certain that it does not represent the view of either the Government or the people at the present time. And that brings me right into the centre of the economic subject which we are discussing this afternoon.
It is said that we are in some kind of trouble economically and financially. Personally, I should not like to put it like that. I should prefer the attitude of my noble friend, that we are seeking to avoid trouble which will certainly hap-
848
pen if we do not take avoiding action. But this is very largely a debating point from the point of view of the underlying analysis of the situation. Whether or not we are in trouble now, the underlying difficulty which faces us as a nation is this. On current account, we are in credit; and we have been in credit for every year during the last eleven years, except, I think, for one or two bad years. On capital account, we are in deficit, and very heavily in deficit, and have been for every one of the last eleven years except for one or two very good years. I could give the precise figures, but they really do not matter. This is a true statement of our position.
Our overall deficit would be utterly different from what it now is if we were not spending, on current account about £62 million a year—no more, but still a substantial sum—in Europe on our troops there, and in the Far East a similar sum on our presence there. Our position would be altogether different if we were not spending on our capital account something like £100 million a year of Government money in aid of undeveloped countries, apart from the services we provide, and if we were not investing about £300 million a year across the exchanges in private money. These are the underlying facts of our situation. If we are in trouble, it is because of them. If those facts were not true, this debate would not be being held in these terms at all.
If I may come back to the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, and the point where I differ from him, respect, as I do, his sentiments and agree, as I do, with two of his premises, I still think that it is a remarkably odd comment upon the current situation, upon the Government and people of this country, who, if they are in trouble, are in trouble precisely because of the public service they are doing to the world, to talk of "feathering one's own nest" and a "scramble for profit" as being abiding characteristics of this people. It is a libel on British politics, a complete misconcepton, if that kind of notion gets abroad. I mention it not because I want to differ from the noble Lord in his notion (I hang on to his lips as one of the great purveyors of wisdom in this House) but because I think that this misconception is widely believed among the people of this country. I think that it

849
is a wholly false picture both of the nature of the problem which we have to face and of the nature of the motives which underlie the policy of this country.
The trouble we are in is the trouble that, being a relatively small country, with a currency which is one of the great reserve currencies of the world, only a small portion of which is in the hands of this Government, but which forms the common currency of over half the trade of the world and of half-a-dozen or more of the major Governments of the world, with that handicap this country has to provide services for the world which are quite out of proportion to the sort of strength many other Powers, who could provide those services and do not do so, have got. I do not suggest for a moment that this is a wrong policy on our part. On the contrary, my own view, for what it is worth, is that if we did not perform these services, if we did not make some show as a defence Power by our presence in different parts of the world, if we did not finance underdeveloped countries and invest in their future and prosperity, we should be faced, even internally, with a much worse fate than we now have to face, because one thing that is certain about our prosperity (or reverse) is that a disastrous world is a disastrous Britain.
Other countries are perhaps not so vulnerable. America is not nearly so vulnerable. Though spending generously an even higher percentage of their national income on defence and foreign aid, the vast protected market they possess and the fact that the dollar is not an international currency in the same sense as ours is and that they can control it, render their economy far less vulnerable than ours. If we were to allow chaos and disorder to overtake the world, as they would surely overtake it if we did not play the part we are playing, then I think we should be pursuing a policy of folly, as well as of cowardice and weakness. If we are going to criticise our financial policy, let us remember that it is not the mad scramble after wealth which is causing us anxiety. It is our long tradition of public service in the international field, the burden of which is almost too heavy for us to bear and which, by one means or another, we are seeking to bear despite our weakness. It is not an ignoble and inglorious thing that we are discussing.
850
I turn from the criticism of the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence to the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. The noble Lord is another speaker, if he will allow me to say so, for whom I have both affection and respect. He, too, has taken a considerable part in the four Finance Bills that we have discussed, but I find myself in some ways more in disagreement with him than with the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence. His criticism, of course, is fundamentally the opposite. He said that this is a bad Finance Bill and enumerated the reasons. It is because he ultimately believes in laissez-faire, in which certainly I and most of us in our generation were brought up. So much does he do so that he criticises the modest proposals attacking two classes of device for tax evasion—dividend stripping and bond washing—and does so apparently on the ground that to attack tax evasion of this kind is to "create a nation of imbeciles". That was the phrase he actually used.
LORD GRANTCHESTER: My Lords, that is not true. I wonder whether the noble Lord would quote what I said.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I will read what the noble Lord said, because it struck me at the time as excessive. He said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 225 (No. 110), col. 732]:
"Do the authorities really think that a citizen, having the option to do a transaction in two ways, will, or even should, choose the way which will make his liability to tax larger? Do the authorities wish to create a nation of imbeciles?"
LORD GRANTCHESTER: My Lords, that is perfectly correct.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, that is what the OFFICIAL REPORT has, and it accords with my own recollection. It is true that for many years interference in economic life by what is called the "credit squeeze" and the bank rate and by other economic actions taken by all post-war Governments, were anathema, because it was thought, for reasons which are perfectly familiar, that we could not interfere with economic laws and, if we tried to do so, all we should do would be to damage, without improving, the underlying situation. For various reasons, this not only is incorrect but also bears no relation to the post-war world at all. When the

851
noble Lord equates the ordinary action of the conscientious taxpayer in trying to avoid a greater incidence of tax with the elaborate, ingenious and professional devices for avoiding the spirit of the taxation law comprised within the two phrases, "dividend stripping" and "brain"—no, not "brain", but "bond washing", I can only say that I think that in a certain area he is almost morally purblind.
LORD GRANTCHESTER: My Lords, I must really protest at the noble Viscount's inference in this matter. What I suggested was that, if the Government want to take any action upon this, they must define it strictly and submit the case to the jurisdiction of the courts. It is because they are departing from that principle, not because they are not entitled to make any action illegal, that I criticise their action. That you can do. But they must define it, and they must not give discretionary powers to the authorities to interpret the motives of the person who does it.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: In the first place, I should say that nobody has made anything an offence under the relevant clause of this Bill. All they have said is that if a particular type of tax avoidance device is employed, although it is neither ineffective nor an offence, the particular tax advantage which it would otherwise have had shall not accrue to it. I must say quite frankly to the noble Lord—and I think the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence is perfectly right here —that I think the great majority of taxpayers in this country, whilst they do not wish to attract an unnecessary large burden of tax (this would be to carry patriotism to the point of quixotry), at the same time wish to shoulder a fair share of the burden laid upon them by law. We all know that there are people who indulge in quite different kinds of practices. If the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, were to tell me that there is great difficulty in providing an objective legal distinction between the two classes, I should agree. Therein lies the whole problem. But if he says that there is no moral difference, then I am bound to say that he is saying something which I utterly fail to understand.
LORD GRANTCHESTER: My Lords, it is difficult to interpret anyone's
852
motives. That is why I think it is serious when a Government departs from law.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I should hope to persuade the noble Lord that in fact the Government have pursued a nice balance. It is not always impossible to divine the motives of a dividend stripper or a bond washer. Most of us can hazard a reasonable guess as to what they intend. It may well be—and I think it was conceded to be the case—that in the form originally drafted my right honourable friend's Bill cast its net too wide, because in a desire to take away advantage from, to my mind, a wholly morally reprehensible class of practice, he did in fact propose a law which could have been used to harry perfectly respectable taxpayers. But in the form in which it has reached your Lordships, the thing is very closely defined—although in language which I regret my noble friend Lord Teviot did not understand. Nor do I understand it, if by that is meant: could I give the House an absolutely judicial, watertight account of what it means? But I can tell the House what it means. It means that dividend strippers and bond washers will not get the advantage they expect if they do it this year. This, it seems to me, is an object which is thoroughly praiseworthy.
However, the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, then went on (I take him as an example, although there were several of my noble friends who took the same line) to attack the Budget fundamentally on the opposite line to that of the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, on the hypothesis that there were vast sums of money to be saved to the public revenue if only the Government spending Departments would not be so profligate in their expenditure. This is something which the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, has said before, and the answer, I am bound to say, I have given before. If these vast, undesirable expenditures exist, where are they? Hitherto, the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, has said: "It is not my business to tell you where they are; but it is the Government's business to economise." But where are they?
LORD GRANTCHESTER: My Lords, the noble Viscount, if I may say so without offence, is again misrepresenting me. It is not a question of expenditure being undesirable but of choosing what is most desirable and limiting your

853
expenditure to what you can afford. That is what we all have to do. There are many things which each of us would like to buy if we could afford them. It is all desirable expenditure, but we have to limit it by our income. That is what the Government should do.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Again, I rather feel that the noble Lord is confusing the issue with which, he is presented. Of course, this is exactly what we try to do in the Government; this is exactly what is sought to be done in the Budget. But the noble Lord says it is a bad Budget; he says it is a bad Finance Bill, and a bad point on which the judgment has been taken. He says that too much is being spent. Which items would be hack off in this present situation? This seems to me to be a fair demand from any member of a Government under criticism. The noble Lord, so far, has never vouchsafed one.
LORD GRANTCHESTER: As the noble Viscount insists, I will give one. I would suggest the advances to, for instance, the steel industry, which I say they should have been allowed to raise in the market. That is the sort of expenditure which I think was totally unnecessary.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: This is a form of Government loan which would not save the taxpayer a single pound of money, because it is a loan and is not raised by taxes; and its main purpose is to do the very thing which, in the main, I think, has been demanded from all quarters of the House—namely, to increase the productivity of industry. I realise that as between those who belong to my Party and those who belong to the Party opposite there is criticism as to whether the ownership of that industry should be in one set of bands or another; but that the money should be forthcoming for The making of a strip mill in Newport and another one in Lanarkshire is something, I should have thought, which all public opinion in this country could conscientiously support.
The fact of the matter is this. There are, I believe, no significant economies which could be made. I should be more than pleased if anyone pointed them out to me, because there is nobody more anxious than my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to find
854
out unnecessary sources of expenditure, if they can be discovered. Of course it can be said—and it is said every year, both inside and outside the Government —that in an expenditure of £5,000 million you can prune off certain items and yield £4 million, £5 million, £10 or perhaps even £20 million. That is worth having if you prune off unnecessary items; but you do quite a disproportionate amount of damage if you choose the wrong ones.
But the big money is not to be had there. The big money is to be had only by changes of policy, and changes of policy will involve one or more of the following sort of things. You can refuse to build roads; you can refuse to build hospitals; you can refuse to build schools; you can refuse to recruit teachers; you can disband your Army; you can close down Singapore, Malta and the British Army in Germany—any one of those things would yield very big money indeed. But I should be a very surprised man if any one of these things were done—at any rate, if they were done without careful consideration—and the result was not infinitely wore to this country and to the world than if we had kept on with them. I would venture to say to your Lordships, whose contributions to this debate I think have been remarkable, that it does not follow that because a Budget is hard and sometimes unpleasant it is necessarily the wrong way of tackling a financial situation.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, the noble Viscount was careful to omit Blue Streak. That was a pretty formidable commitment.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I think the noble Lord will give me credit for having answered fully on Blue Streak when Blue Streak was the subject of discussion. I do not think I can be said to have avoided that particular topic. All I say is that we must assume that this country is compelled by its tradition, its sense of duty and it sense of self-preservation to do more at the present time than a prudent country would in ordinary times be asked to afford. It is not necessarily a criticism of the Government that they are seeking to do it.
There is just one more word I should like to say about the main line of criticism which has followed from that

855
point. Laissez-faire produces, in our experience, a rapid alternation of booms and slumps and a very high general rate of unemployment. Like the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, I do not claim to be a dogmatist on this point, but on the whole physical controls were the philosophy underlying the practice of the immediate post-war years, and on the whole I think the country does not want them. The country does not want them because, if anything is crude, blunt and unpleasant, physical controls, even where they are necessary, are crude, blunt and unpleasant.
We have, in fact, used this instrument of control, the bank rate and the credit squeeze. My noble friend Lord Dundee was taken to task because he had supported the view that there should be changes frequently. Of course, it all depends upon what you mean by "frequently". Looking back again on the four Finance Bills in a row in which I have taken part, I would point out that in 1957 we were dealing with inflation, and a chorus of criticisms was directed towards this Bench, saying that we must not try to deal with it in this way because it would not succeed, as it was not enough. It did succeed in dealing with inflation. The following year we had to deal with the world recession, which had the temporary effect of improving conditions of trade in our favour, but also deprived our customers of the means of purchasing from us. We had therefore to stimulate the economy. Were we wrong? The only criticism I heard at the time was that we acted too late, but not that we were wrong. Now all the omens point to a period of time in which demand is again threatening us with inflation, and again threatening our balance of payments. Are we wrong to apply the remedy, unpleasant as it undoubtedly is, which succeeded last time? If so, let us have an alternative. But I have not heard an alternative.
LORD BOOTHBY: The Common Market.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: The Common Market is another very interesting subject which I shall be glad to debate with the noble Lord. Lord Boothby.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt the noble
856
Viscount, because he is giving a good, interesting speech, which I am enjoying very much. I think I am right in saying that it was not the words of the noble Earl who opened the debate, but the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself. I understood him to say that the economy of this country must be prepared for more frequent ups and downs than it has had in the past. I may be wrong in the use of the word "more". It was against that that I made a protest. I think we have had sufficient ups and downs, and I was much alarmed when he proposed to increase their frequency.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My noble friend, who is perhaps better informed about this, says that the particular reference was to special deposits rather than to the bank rate. However that may be, I would wholly agree with the noble Lord that these changes are to be deplored. We do not like them; we do not want to apply them, except where we regard them as necessary. But I am driven back to the point from which my noble friend started: that we have, after all, four different objectives of policy. We have full employment, stable prices, expansion and a favourable balance of payments. Of course, it is true that the policies which produce any one of these do not necessarily produce the other three. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, twitted the Treasury with always restricting. But I think it is also true that Government interference in economic affairs is more likely to take the form of restriction in some way than anything else. Indeed, it would be open to criticism if it were not. The truth is that all these economic evils which we collectively deplore are, in the last analysis, nothing more than slight deviations of conduct in the individual, multiplied by 50 million or by a large proportion of 50 million. Occasionally they have to be restricted. If they were not, there would be no case for Government interference.
We have had a fine debate, and I must apologise for having answered it at rather greater length than I had intended. I was deeply moved by many of the speeches made, and particularly by the spirit of public feeling which I think has animated all your Lordships from beginning to end.
On Question, Bill read 2a; Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 14), Bill read 3a, and passed.

CHARITIES BILL [H.L.]
5.36 p.m.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of the Commons Amendments.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered. In moving this Motion may I say to your Lordships what I intend to do? I intend to take the Commons Amendments in four groups: first of all, Nos. 1 to 5, as they are little more than drafting; then Nos. 6 and 7 together, as they both concern a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Charley; then No, 8, which deals with a point originally raised by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and then Nos. 9 to 31 tog ether because, with the exception of one or two on which I should like to say a word as to the Commissioners, they are little more than drafting. I hope that that coarse will commend itself to your Lordships. Of course, I shall be more than delighted to answer questions on any individual Amendment within the groups, should it appeal to your Lordships. At the moment, I am moving what is usually a formal Motion, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I rise merely to say that the noble and learned Viscount, with his usual courtesy, had informed me of his intention of dealing with the matter in the way in which he has proposed. I think it is an admirable idea and I wholly approve, because I think it will be to the advantage of the House. In those circumstances, I reserve any comments that I may wish to make.
LORD NATHAN: My Lords, before this Bill proceeds to its final point and is passed by your Lordships' House, I may perhaps be permitted to say a word,
858
because in this Bill, as your Lordships know, I have a sort of avuncular interest. It was some ten or twelve years ago that my noble friend Lord Attlee, then Prime Minister, asked me to become Chairman of the Committee on Charitable Trusts. It was in December, 1952, that the Report of my Committee was made to the then Prime Minister, Sir Winston Churchill. A considerable period passed before this Bill was presented to Parliament, in the first instance in your Lordships' House, but it now comes back to its final stage, and in a few moments it will pass from your Lordships' House.
I believe that all your Lordships will agree with me if I say that the smooth passage of the Bill through the House is mostly due to the care, the flexibility, the dexterity, the skill and the sympathy of the noble and learned Viscount who sits upon the Woolsack. It is the first Bill to deal with this subject comprehensively for over 100 years, and that it has attained its present form (reflecting, I am glad to say, many of the recommendations of the Committee over which I presided) is, I think, a monument to the noble and learned Viscount. I should like for my part—and I am sure that all your Lordships will share my feeling—to express to him cordial thanks for the way in which he has dealt with it and express the hope that he may look back upon it with satisfaction, as I am sure it will be for the welfare of those many organisations in whose interests it comes before Parliament.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am grateful and very touched by what the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, said. As he knows, but is too modest to disclose to your Lordships, the immense amount of preparatory work which I took over was done by him and his Committee, and I think "avuncular" was putting the matter in far too modest a way. I do not know whether the word ought to be straight "paternal" or "godfather"— certainly would not say the putative father. I think that all those interested are extremely grateful to him, and I am grateful to him for what he said. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, for accepting my proposal this evening.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[The references are to Bill [98], as first printed for the House of Commons]
In the Title, line 5, after ("charities") insert ("or with respect to gifts to charity")
Clause 4, page 4, line 42, leave out ("not having") and insert ("having neither")
Clause 4, page 6, line 4, at end insert ("and for the purposes of this subsection building' includes part of a building")
Clause 5, page 6, line 32, after ("decision") insert ("of the Commissioners")
Clause 6, page 8, line 5, after ("district") insert ("and, in London, the Common Council of the City of London and the council of a metropolitan borough")
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I rise to move Amendments Nos. 1 to 5. As I have said, they are little more than drafting and consequential Amendments and Amendments of formal clarification. If there is any one on which your Lordships desire information, I shall give it. Otherwise I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in Amendments Nos. 1 to 5.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
Clause 10, page 11, line 5, at end insert—
("(6) The provisions of this section may be adopted in any urban district by resolution of the council, and shall thereupon (subject to any further resolution of the council revoking the adoption) have effect in relation to the district as if it were a borough.
A council passing any such resolution shall transmit copies of it to the commissioners and to the Minister of Education, and to the council of the county in which the urban district is situated.")
Clause 11, page 11, line 35, leave out ("(6)") and insert ("(7)")
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I now move that this House doth agree with the Commons in Amendments Nos. 6 and 7. Your Lordships will observe that they follow suggestions, made by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, in the Committee stage in this House, and on both sides of the Standing Committee, that urban district councils should be empowered to maintain indices and undertake reviews of local charities. As I indicated, the Government do not think that the facts justify urban districts being placed on precisely the same footing as boroughs. The figures of local charities
860
provided by the Urban District Councils Association indicate an average of about five charities of all kinds per urban district. It is fair to say that some charities probably exist which have not come to the notice of the councils making the return; but even so the number existing in non-county boroughs is vastly more numerous; a sample count showed an average of 60 per borough.
On the other hand, this Act will last a long time, and urban districts of to-day may be the boroughs of twenty years hence. The Government have therefore agreed that individual urban districts, by taking certain formal steps, may assimilate their position to that of non-county boroughs, but they hope that before doing so a council will give proper consideration to the matter, consulting perhaps the Charity Commissioners and making sure that there is work it can usefully do. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD SILK1N: My Lords, I only want to say, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Chorley, who is not here, that I am sure he will be very appreciative of the fact that his advice to the Committee of this House has been accepted by both sides in another place and that the substance of his Amendments is now before us and being accepted.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
After Clause 13, insert the following new Clause—
Application cy-près of gifts of donors unknown or disclaiming
(" .—(1) Property given for specific charitable purposes which fail shall be applicable cy-pr ès as if given for charitable purposes generally, where it belongs.—

(a) to a donor who, after such advertisements and enquiries as are reasonable, cannot be identified or cannot be found; or

(b) to a donor who has executed a written disclaimer of his right to have the property returned.

(2) For the purposes of this section property shall be conclusively presumed (without any advertisement or enquiry) to belong to donors who cannot be identified, in so far as it consists—

(a) of the proceeds of cash collections made by means of collecting boxes or by other means not adapted for distinguishing one gift from another; or

861

(b) of the proceeds of any lottery, competition, entertainment, sale or similar money-raising activity, after allowing for property given to provide prizes or articles for sale or otherwise to enable the activity to be undertaken.

(3) The court may by order direct that property not falling within subsection (2) above shill for the purposes of this section be treated (without any advertisement or enquiry) as belonging to donors who cannot be identified, where it appears to the court either—

(a) that it would be unreasonable, having regard to the amounts likely to be returned to the donors, to incur expense with a view to returning the property; or

(b) that it would be unreasonable, having regard to the nature, circumstances and amount of the gifts, and to the lapse of time since the gifts were made, for the donors to expect the property to be returned.

(4) Whore property is applied cy-près by virtue of this section, the donor shall be deemed to have parted with all his interest at the time when the gift was made; but where property is so applied as belonging to donors who cannot be identified or cannot be found, and is not so applied by virtue of subsection (2) or (3) above.—

(a) the scheme shall specify the total amount of that property; and

(b) the donor of any part of that amount shall be entitled, if he makes a claim not later than twelve months after the date on which the scheme is made, to recover from the charity for which the property is applied a sum equal to that part, less any expenses properly incurred by the charity trustees after that date in connection with claims relating to his gift; and

(c) the scheme may include directions as to the provision to be made for meeting any such claim.

(5) For the purposes of this section, charitable purposes shall be deemed to 'fail' where any difficulty in applying property to those purposes snakes that property or the part not applicable cy-près available to be returned to the donors.
(6) In this, section, except in so far as the context otherwise requires, references to a donor include persons claiming through or under the original donor, and references to property given include the property for the time being representing the property originally given or property derived from it.
(7) This section shall apply to property given for charitable purposes, notwithstanding that it was so given before the commencement of this Act.")
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I now rise to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in Amendment No. 8—the new clause to be inserted after Clause 13. This clause has been inserted to meet the views expressed in both Houses, that provision should be made to enable gifts raised in
862
response to public appeal or public subscription for a particular purpose which fails or has been achieved to be applied cy-près. Your Lordships will remember that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, raised this point, and I promised that I would deal with it before the Bill came back here. Hitherto, this has not been possible where the subscribers had a particular, as distinct from a general charitable, intention in making their gifts so that the money still belonged to them if the gift failed. Whilst it would be wrong simply to expropriate private rights over property, it is legitimate to take account of the realities of the matter and to recognise that for one reason or another very little of the money ever finds its way back to the owners.
The clause deals with the subject as follows. I hope that I make this clear, and I particularly hope that my noble friend Lord Saltoun will interrupt me without hesitation if I am not making any point clear, as I am very anxious that he should follow what we have in mind. It proceeds on the footing that the gifts still belong to the donors; otherwise they would already be applicable cy-près or would be bona vacantia, and it is thought that they cannot be bona vacantia. Subsection (1) of the new clause declares that property given for a particular charitable purpose shall be applicable cy-près if it belongs to, first, donors who cannot be identified or cannot be found and, secondly, donors who disclaim it. I do not think anyone could have any objection so far. The reasons for including donors who disclaim it are, first, that without it a mere disclaimer might result in the property becoming bona vacantia and, secondly, that subsection (4) back-dates a disclaimer in these circumstances to the date of the gift, which may be important for estate duty purposes.
The rest of the clause deals with the expropriation for Charity and schemes of various kinds of property coming unifier subsection (1) (a). A cy-près scheme may be made by the Charity Commissioners as well as by the court; but that does not apply To an order—my noble friend will appreciate that—under subsection (3), which may be made only by the count. First, the clause expropriates for amity all money subscribed in the ways mentioned in subsection (2), whether those subscribers want their

863
money back or not. But this subsection does not expropriate, for example, the value of an antique given to a charity sale, or, secondly, a subscription, because a subscription of that kind falls to he dealt with under the provisions of the clause.
Next, subsection (3) gives power to the court to expropriate for charity any property which it would be unreasonable to attempt to return to the owners, either because the expense would be out of all proportion to any success likely to attend the attempt, or because, for one reason or another, no sensible subscriber would now be expecting it back anyway. Then (and I think this is the point which my noble friend should specially have in mind) subsection (4) enables a scheme to be made in respect of the money for the time being unclaimed, but without prejudice to the right of the donor to claim his entitlement within twelve months. It is believed that this clause steers a proper and practical course between the extremes of the present law, on the one hand, and anything which might be regarded as sharp practice to the subscriber, on the other. That is what we have tried to do. It is a difficult problem, as I indicated, and I hope that we have been successful in the matter. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in Amendment No. 8.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
5.52 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to commend this Amendment. It was an Amendment which I had the privilege of moving. I think it aroused a good deal of interest, not only in the House, but outside. We have particularly in mind the Gillingham bus disaster, where large sums of money were collected which subsequently turned out to be unnecessary because compensation was provided elsewhere. This created a problem as to what should be done with the money that had been collected. This Amendment deals with this type of problem in a completely satisfactory way. It required a good deal of careful drafting, and it becomes only too clear that my own Amendment was drafted in a wholly inadequate fashion. But the Amend-
864
ment now before us deals with the problem, and I personally feel very grateful indeed.
I feel grateful for another reason. The noble and learned Viscount, in connection with the previous debate, referred, quite incidentally, to the fact that a good many of us give our time here in the public interest, freely and without hope of reward. One of the ways in which we do it is to scrutinise most carefully complicated Bills of this kind and to put forward suggestions for amendment. One of the most gratifying things—one is only human—is that occasionally one's ideas are accepted. Nobody would wish to go on for ever putting forward Amendments which are never acceptable to the Government and never put into practice; and one gets a great sense of satisfaction to find that in an important matter of this kind, and not merely in a drafting Amendment, one has been instrumental in influencing an important piece of legislation. I hope that the House will forgive me for introducing this personal note, but as one who probably has moved as many Amendments in the last few years as any noble Lord in this House, I feel that there is some satisfaction in having Amendment No. 8 put to the House and accepted.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, perhaps your Lordships will allow me to be a little general in my comments, because I do not want to interrupt your Lordships by rising many times in the course of these discussions. In the first place, this Bill make a great change in regard to English charities. I am bound to say—I have never concealed it—that I view it with a considerable amount of apprehension. We are doing away with the old Charity Commissioners and we are setting up a new body, and I think that the future course of English charity will depend very much on how they handle the problems that come before them. I should also like to take the opportunity of repeating what I said on the last occasion this Bill was in your Lordships' House; that I and the charities which I was asked to represent, and which instructed me in this matter (when I say "instructed", I am using that word not in the legal sense, but in the sense that they told me what I had to say), owe a great debt of gratitude to the noble and

865
learned Viscount who has been in charge of the Bill for the concessions which he has given us and on which, I may say, we quite definitely now rely.
With regard to the clause immediately before us, I am bound to say that I am completely at issue with the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and with the Government. I say that for this reason: it is founded upon the Gillingham case; and if I remember, the Gillingham case (I hope I shall be corrected if I am wrong) was one M which a motor bus ran out of control and killed a number of children. The Mayor of Gillingham raised a large fund for the benefit of the relatives of the children who were killed. But the motor bus company came forward and said that they would undertake all compensation, and it was therefore felt that this fund was no longer needed, and so the money had to be returned.
I hope and believe that my feelings in the mater are those of the man in the street. During the passage of the Bill through your Lordships' House, I quoted expressions of opinion and feeling of the workers in the Caledon shipyard in connection with the Broughty Ferry disaster. When they heard that the monies that they had given, in a very generous and full subscription, were going to other purposes than those of the bereaved families, they were most indignant. They said that, no matter how wealthy those relatives would be, they all wanted the fund to be distributed in that manner for which it had been subscribed. In the Gillingham case, my own feeling has always been that whatever money was collected should have, been given to the people who had been bereaved. That was the purpose for which it was subscribed. I am not one of those people who would ever dare to measure the value to a woman of the death of her son. I think that is the feeling of the general public.
I can give your Lordships a parallel case, rather before that time. It was an English case, and it makes my point quite perfectly, I think. It concerns the Mumbles lifeboat disaster. The institution to which I belong made what I think was a most generous subscription in aid of the bereaved families; a public appeal was launched and there was collected a large surn of money—I think it came to over £100,000. All of that money was
866
devoted to the eight families, and I hold that, in the same way, the money raised after the Gillingham disaster should have been devoted to the families who were bereaved.
It so happened that during that year the Lifeboat Institution had lost either two or three other people in circumstances comparable with those of the Mumbles disaster: they lost their lives on service while going out to save other people. It would have been a most pleasant thing for the Institution to which I belong to have had some of that large Mumbles Fund to devote to the families of the other people who had lost their lives in a precisely similar manner, but who happened not to be in that particular Mumbles boat. But it never occurred to us to put in a plea. We realised that the money had been subscribed by the public for these particular families and not for any other families. The other people were looked after, as was proper and right, and the whole of the money went, and is still going, to the bereaved families. That is the view of the man in the street, and that is my view on this matter. That is why I regret that the Government have taken up this clause.
It seems to me that if this is the law, if a public appeal for the victims of any particular disaster is to be issued in the future it will have to be stated that the funds will go to those people so far as is thought proper, but that if the amount exceeds the sum which the authorities consider is sufficient it can be applied cy près. If such an announcement were made, it would be doubtful if one would get as great a response from the public. That is one reason why I very much regret this clause. I realise that it is of no use to oppose it and I accept it. I hope that it will work reasonably well. I should like to ask the noble and learned Viscount a question on subsection (6). Is there any limit of time here? Does the limit of 40 years, under Section 17, apply or have any effect? Is there a limit on the time during which money or property can go back to the original donor or his representatives?
LORD SPENS: My Lords, may I say a word on this clause, as one who practised for many years in the Chancery Division and therefore had to deal with a good many of these charities which

867
failed? I should like to congratulate the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack and those who have drafted this clause on finding a solution for what was one of the most difficult problems with which we have ever had to deal in the Chancery Division and which, from time to time, resulted in vast quantities of money given to charities being wasted on expensive inquiries to try to find out from whom they had come and who could claim them.
If I may say so, with great respect, this seems to me to be an extremely useful solution to those difficulties and one which should avoid a great deal of the throwing away of charitable money in costs, which used to occur. I am particularly interested to see that subsection (7) applies to property given for charitable purposes, notwithstanding that it was so given before the commencement of this Act, and without any date as to how far back it goes. I apprehend that there must be a good deal of money which, as a result of those old inquiries, was added to funds in court and which has been lying there for many years. I do not know to what extent it is going to be possible now to get on its legs a scheme to deal with those funds on something analogous to cy-près for the purposes for which they were originally given. If that can be done, and if this opens up that machinery, there will be certain funds which are completely locked up at the moment made available once again for valuable charities. I hope that that may be possible, although at the moment I am not quite sure.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Spens, has raised a most interesting point. The only difficulty will be that while information about these funds may be available to the Charity Commission's lawyers it will not be so easily obtained by charitable trustees. I wonder whether there is any method by which publicity can be given to subsection (7), with a list of the amounts available and the type of object for which the original subscriptions were made, so that those who have in mind possible cy-près alternatives may have a sporting try.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, may I first answer the specific
868
points? My noble friend Lord Saltoun asked about the limit of time. There is no limit of time upon the right of the subscribers to have their money back unless, in theory, a scheme is made after the advertising, when the twelve-months' limit applies. Subsection (6) is just to make sure that rights are not lost because someone has died and passed it on to his heirs.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble and learned Viscount? That was in my mind: that a man who is dying may take a long time to die, and twelve months may elapse.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the heir has exactly the same rights, but of course the twelve-months limit applies but starts to run only after the scheme, so that there is a fair time allowed. On the very interesting and important point raised by my noble and learned friend Lord Spens, taken up so cheerfully by my noble friend, Lord Hawke, I should like to make some inquiries. I will write to them both on that point; and I hope that they will be satisfied. I am sorry that we have not entirely satisfied the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, because he has given much attention to this Bill and been very helpful and reasonable, even when we have not satisfied him. But we have done our best to draw the limit and I believe that it will work well.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
Clause 16, page 15, line 21, leave out ("of the land")
Clause 16, page 15, line 24, at end insert ("or for accepting the surrender of a lease")
Clause 16, page 15, line 29, after ("covenant") insert ("agreement")
Clause 19, page 21, line 16, at end insert ("save that where the Commissioners have by order removed a trustee, charity trustee, officer, agent, or servant of a charity under the power conferred by subsection (1) of this section, an appeal against such an order may be brought by any person so removed without a certificate of the Commissioners and without the leave of one of the judges of the High Court attached to the Chancery Division")
Clause 21, page 23, line 24, at end insert ("and to the value of the fund at the time of the transfers")
Clause 28, page 30, line 24, leave out ("expressly authorised") and insert ("for which general or special authority is expressly given")
Clause 42, page 39, line 20, leave out from second ("be") to end of subsection and insert ("subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament")
First Schedule, page 45, line 16, leave out ("to meet any temporary need")
Page 46, line 8, at end inser—
("4. Legal proceedings may be instituted by or against the Commissioners by the name of the Charity Commissioners for England and Wales, and shall not abate or be affected by any change in the persons who are the Commissioners.")
Third Schedule, page 47, line 23, leave out paragraph 5.
Third Schedule, page 47, line 30, column 2, leave out line 30.
Sixth Schedule, page 51, line 35, column 2, at end insert—
("In this section 'building' includes part of a building.")
Seventh Schedule, page 56, leave out lines 48 to 54.
Page 57, line 43, at end insert—

("10 & 11 Geo. 6. c. 44.

The Crown Proceedings Act, 1947.

In section twenty three, in subsection (3), paragraph (d) and the word "educational' in paragraph (e).")

Page 61, line 25, at end insert—

"2 Edw. 7. c. 41

The Metropolis Water Act, 1902.

Subsection (2) of section one from 'having' on wards.

3 Edw. 7. c. 20.

The Patriotic Fund Reorganisation Act, 1903

Subsection (1) of section one from 'and power' on wards.")

Page 61, line 34, at end insert—

("10 & 11 Geo. 5.c. 16.

The Imperial War Museum Act, 1920

Subsection (1) of section one from 'and power' on-wards.")

Page 62, line 23, column 23, at end insert ("in the First Schedule, paragraph 2, from 'and power' onwards")
Page 62, line 24, at end insert—

("9 & 10 Geo. 6. c. 46.

The Police Act, 1946.

Subsection (1) of section five from 'and with' on-wards.")

Page 62, line 30, column 3, at end insert ("subsection (4) of section twenty-five".)
Page 63, line 16, at end insert—

("14 & 15 Geo. 6. c. 53.

The Midwives Act, 1951.

In the First Schedule, paragraph 5 from 'and power' onwards.")

Page 63, line 23, at end insert—

("2 &3 Eliz. 2. c. 55.

The Television Act, 1954.

In the First Schedule, paragraph 1 from 'and power' onwards.

4 & 5 Eliz. 2. c. 48.

The Sugar Act, 1956.

In the Second Schedule, paragraph 1 from 'and power' on wards.")

Page 62, line 25, at end insert—

("5 & 6 Eliz. 2. c. 15.

The Nurses Act, 1957.

In the First Schedule, paragraph 8 from 'and power' onwards.")

Page 64, line 53, at end insert—

("8 & 9 Eliz. 2. No. 1.

The Church Property (Miscellaneous Pro visions) Measure, 1960.

Section twenty three.")

THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I now beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in the remaining Amendments, Nos. 9 to 31, which are drafting and clarifying Amendments. A number of them refer to mortmain appeals and I should just like to say one word on Amendment No. 12, because that gives an appeal as of right to the High Court Ito any person removed by the Commissioners under subsection (1) of Clause 19. If my memory is right, that was a point about which my noble friend Lord Saltoun was concerned during the Committee stage.
I should like to say only one other thing, which really arises under the more general remarks of my noble friend Lord Saltoun on the last Amendment. I wish to make a brief statement on behalf of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the Charity Commissioners, especially in view of what my noble friend has said. It has been said—indeed, it was repeated at the conclusion of the proceedings in another place—that uneasiness is still felt lest the independence of the Charity Commissioners is somehow being impaired because they are to be appointed by the Home Secretary and can be removed by him; and that through them the Government will be able to bring pressure to bear on charity.
In both Houses Her Majesty's Government have sought to bring out that this is not so. The Home Secretary will appoint the Commissioners to carry out their statutory functions. The Chief Commissioner, aided by his colleagues, will be responsible to him, as the head of any other public department is responsible to his Minister; and, of course, the Minister is, in turn, responsible to Parliament for the efficient conduct of the public service. But the Bill gives no power whatever to the Home Secretary to give to the Commissioners any directions or to influence their decision in an individual ease. The discretion they will exercise is their own and

871
it is subject to review, not by any Minister but by the courts.
It is often said that we have accepted this from this Home Secretary because he has undertaken that he will not do anything and, anyway, we do not think he would. But I do not feel that that is a material objection here, because both the larger political Parties have expressed their desire that charities should be insulated from political pressure. We think that in law the Bill does this effectively; and, in view of what has been said on both sides of both Houses, it is really unthinkable under our system of government that a Home Secretary, of whatever Party, would attempt by some extra-statutory means to influence the Commissioners in the exercise of their discretion by threats of dismissal or other pressure.
The Commissioners have been placed by Clause 1 (4) under an express statutory duty to act in the case of any charity so as best to promote and make effective its work in meeting the needs designated by its trust, and this serves to preclude their being activated by other considerations. What a future Government will do by legislation is something we cannot control. But it would have to be done by legislation, and not by action behind the scenes. I wanted to make that quite clear because I know that a certain amount of uneasiness has been felt, and I think that my statement should do the utmost that can be done to dispel it. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for Ills explanation. I am bound to say that I am very much reassured by it. I hope that the four noble Lords opposite will not cross the House to scratch my eyes out if I say that the new position of the Charity Commissioners seems precisely analogous to that of the old relieving officer when I worked alongside him. If I remember aright, he could not be given any directions by the Minister of Health and his removal was a major proposition. That seems to me to be a considerable safeguard.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

BUILDING SOCIETIES BILL [H.L.]
6.14 p.m.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of the Commons Amendments.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do now consider the Commons Amendments. This is a rather formidable task. There are 83 Amendments. I can suggest only one of two alternatives. One would be that I explain the important ones in a preliminary statement and then ask for the House to pass them en bloc; or alternatively to follow the line taken on the last occasion, which I think is the better course—that we deal with them in blocks of Amendments dealing approximately with the same subject. If that meets with the convenience of the House it is what I would propose to do. In the meantime, I move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I think it would be preferable to deal with the Amendments by the second method which the noble Viscount suggested. It is not easy to follow these Amendments without giving far more time than has been available in the last day or two. I believe that these Amendments reached me only on Monday. But if the noble and learned Viscount would confine himself in his explanation to only Amendments of substance, I think that would be sufficient for the needs of the House. Probably there are not more than a limited number of that kind, and most Amendments would be drafting. I do not know whether the noble and learned Viscount can give guidance as to the number of Amendments of substance that there are in this formidable list.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I do not know that I can. I will be as brief as possible, but the truth is that, although I looked at this list of Amendments, it is impossible for me to say quite conscientiously that there is no substance in a great number. But I should think that I have now, with some amount of professional assistance, got a fairly good summary of blocks of Amendments, which should enable us to

873
handle them, if I am not cross-examined too closely on the drafting.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[The references ore to Bill [115] as first printed for the House of Commons.]
Clause 1, page 1, line 20, at end insert—
("For the purposes of paragraph (c) of this subsection, the amount in which a person is indebted to the building society shall be ascertained both immediately after the making of the advance and also at the end of a period of three months beginning with the date of the advance or (if sooner) at the end of the financial year in which the advance was made; and that paragraph shall not apply to an advance to any person so as to make it a special advance unless either the amount so ascertained on the first occasion exceeded ten thousand pounds (or, in a year for which references in this subsection to five thousand pounds are to he taken as references to a sum prescribed under this section, twice the amount of that sum) or the amount so ascertained on the second occasion exceeded five thousand pounds (or such other sum as may be prescribed under this section)".)
page 2, line 34, at end insert ("and may not make in that year any advances as respects which it cannot be ascertained at the time they are made whether they will be special advances or not")
page 2, line 38, at end insert ("and shall not make in that year any advances as respects which it cannot be ascertained at the time they are made whether they will be special advances or not").
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, may I move Amendments Nos. 1 to 3 in the first group? They deal with the case where a man gets an advance from a building society to buy a new house before the sale of his old house has been completed. The Amendments provide that if, as a result, two advances are outstanding to a single borrower for a short time, bringing his total indebtedness to more than £5,000 but less than £10,000, the second advance need not count as a special advance if the indebtedness is reduced to below £5,000 within three months or before the end of the financial year, whichever is the shorter period. This avoids what might otherwise have been something of an anomaly. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
Clause 1, page 2, line 45, leave out ("other") and insert ("greater")
Clause 1, page 3, line 1, leave out ("(whether greater or less)")
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, may I now take Amendments 4 and 5? These two Amendments provide that the figure of £5,000 in the definition of a "special advance" will be a minimum figure. I beg to move that this House Both agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
Clause 5, page 6, line 45, at end insert ("on an application in writing made in accordance with the following provisions of this section.
(2) An application for permission under this section—

(a) may not he made in the financial year in which the building society is incorporated or, unless it was incorporated on the first day of any year, in the financial year next following that in which it was incorporated; and

(b) may not be made at any time in any financial year before the building society has, in accordance with the provisions of this Act, sent to the Chief Registrar its annual return (with the auditors' report annexed) for the last preceding financial year, and a copy of the corresponding balance sheet, including every document required by law to be annexed or attached thereto.

(3) On an application under this section the Chief Registrar shall grant permission if all the requirements set out in the Schedule (Requirements to be met by a new society desiring to advertise) to this Act are fulfilled as regards the building society making the application.")
Clause 6, page 8, line 21, leave out from ("and") to end of line 27 and insert—
("specifying the considerations which have led him to conclude that it would be in the interests of persons who have invested or deposited or may invest or deposit money with the building society to make the order, and shall also serve on every director of the building society a notice stating that he proposes to make an order;
(b) the Chief Registrar shall consider any representations with respect to the notice made to him by the building society within such period (not being less than fourteen days) from the date on which the building society is served with the notice as the Chief Registrar may allow and, if the building society so requests, afford to the building society an opportunity of being heard by him within that period;

875
(c) on making an order applying subsection (2) of this section the Chief Registrar shall serve on the building society, and on every director of the building society, a notice of the making of the order, and shall serve on the building society a notice specifying the considerations which have led him to conclude that it is expedient to make the order in the interests of persons who have invested or deposited or may invest or deposit money with the building society; and the Chief Registrar shall not have power to make an order unless all of those considerations were those, or were among those, which were specified in a notice under paragraph (a) of this subsection;
(d) a notice under this subsection may be served on a director of a building society by sending it by post to his address, or latest address, as notified to the Chief Registrar or registrar by the building society or the director, and failure to serve a notice under this section on a director shall not affect the validity of an order under this section.")
Clause 7, page 9, line 21, leave out from ("give") to end of line 30 and insert ("a direction—

(a) prohibiting the issue by the building society of advertisements of all descriptions, or

(b) prohibiting the issue by the building society of advertisements of any description specified in the direction, or

(c) prohibiting the issue by the building society of any advertisements which are, or are substantially, repetitions of an advertisement which has been issued and which is specified in the direction, or

(d) requiring the building society to take all practicable steps to withdraw any advertisement, or any description of advertisement, specified in the direction which is on display in any place,

or a direction which contains two or more such prohibitions or requirements.")
Clause 7, page 9, line 31, leave out from ("may") to ("be") in line 34.
Clause 7, page 9, line 40, leave out from ("and") to end of line 44 and insert—
("specifying the considerations which have led him to conclude that it would be in the interests of persons who may invest or deposit money with the building society to give the direction, and shall also serve on every director of the building society a notice stating that he proposes to give the direction;
(b) the Chief Registrar shall consider any representations with respect to the notice made to him by the building society within the period of one week from the date on which the building society is served with the notice and, if the building society so requests, afford to the building society an opportunity of being heard by him within that period;
(c) on giving a direction under this section (other than a direction revoking a previous direction) the Chief Registrar shall serve on the building society, and on every director of the building society, a notice of the giving
876
of the direction, and shall serve on the building society a notice specifying the considerations which have led him to conclude that it is expedient to give the direction in the interests of persons who may invest or deposit money with the building society; and the Chief Registrar shall not have power to give a direction under this section unless all of those considerations were those, or were among those, which were specified in a notice under paragraph (a) of this subsection;
(d) a notice under this subsection may be served on a director of a building society by sending it by post to his address, or latest address, as notified to the Chief Registrar or registrar by the building society or the director, and failure to serve a notice under this subsection on a director shall not affect the validity of a direction under this section.")
In the Schedules
After the First Schedule, insert the following new Schedule:—

REQUIREMENTS TO BE MET BY A NEW SOCIETYDESIRING TO ADVERTISE
Special advances
1. The proportion of outstanding advances determined in accordance with paragraph (b) of subsection (3) of section one of this Act by the building society as at the end of the last financial year ending before the date of the application must not have exceeded ten per cent.
Liquidity
2.—(1) At the end of the last financial year ending before the date of the application, the value of the liquid funds of the building society must have been seven and a half per cent. or more of the value of the assets of the building society.
(2) For the purposes of this paragraph—

(a) the expression 'liquid funds' means the funds of the building society (whether represented by investments or on loan to a bank or held in cash) which were not immediately required for its purposes, less any amount due from the building society (whether immediately payable or not) otherwise than in respect of shares in, or deposits with, the building society, and

(b) the value of such of the funds of the building society as were represented by investments shall be the value at which they were taken into account in the balance sheet for the said financial year, and not any alternative value shown in that balance sheet.

Advances to officers of society, or companies in which they are interested
3.—(1) At the end of the last financial year ending before the date of the application there must not have been outstanding in whole or in part any advance made by the building society of which particulars were, in compliance with section fifty-four of this Act, shown in any annual return sent to the Chief Registrar by the building society, or in any auditors' report made to the building society.
(2) If particulars of any advance were so shown in any such annual return or auditors' report before the date of the application, the application shall be accompanied by a statutory declaration by the manager or secretary of the building society stating that the advance has been wholly repaid.
Avoidance of losses
4. The application shall contain or be accompanied by a report by the auditors of the building society stating that in their opinion the balance of the revenue and appropriation account for the last financial year ending before the date of the application represents a surplus after making any adjustments which in their opinion are necessary to provide for diminution in value of assets, or in respect of items of an exceptional or abnormal nature.
Interest on shares
5. The building society must not at the date of the application be in arrear with any interest due on shares in the building society.
Directors
6. The application must be accompanied by a statutory declaration by the manager or secretary of the building society stating that none of the directors of the building society held office at the date of the application for a fixed term exceeding five years from appointment, or for a term which was not fixed.
7. Neither any director of the building society nor the manager or secretary may at the date of the application be a person who has been a director or the manager or secretary of a building society at a time when an order has been made against the building society under section six of this Act or section eleven of the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act. 1958, or section eleven of the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act, 1939, unless the order was made more than five years before the date of the application.")
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, may I now take Amendments Nos. 6 to 10 and 61, the new Schedule? These Amendments follow the Government's decision that no right of appeal from the discretionary decision of the Chief Registrar can be provided either to the courts or to an ad hoc tribunal. Your Lordships will remember the discussions we had, and this was really to be expected, although I think it is to be regretted. The Amendments have the effect, therefore, following that decision, of narrowing the scope of the Chief Registrar's discretion and of requiring the Chief Registrar to state the reasons for his actions. In this way, we have gone as far as we can to meet the point of view expressed in this House and in the House of Commons that the Registrar's discretion was too wide and should be limited. I beg to move that this House doth agree
878
with the Commons in the said Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
Clause 8, page 10, line 21, at end insert—
("Provided that the Chief Registrar shall not have power to require the production of documents which do not belong to the building society, and which are not deeds relating to property mortgaged to the building society, from a person who is or has been an auditor of the building society or from anyone other than a person who is or has been an officer or servant of the building society.")
Clause 9, page 11, line 15, after ("have") insert ("in his opinion")
Clause 11, page 16, line 23, at end insert ("and a trustee savings bank or other savings bank established under any Act of Parliament whether public or local")
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, Amendments 11 to 13 are minor Amendments. I beg to move that this House cloth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
Clause 14, page 18, line 10, after ("(2)") insert ("or subsection (3)")
Clause 14, page 18, line 10, at end insert.—
("(2) For the purposes of paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section a person who is a director or the manager or secretary of a building society shall be disqualified for reporting on any freehold or leasehold estate comprised in security to be taken by the building society in respect of any advance:
Provided that during the period of ten years beginning with the commencement of this Act this subsection shall not apply to a person who has been a director or the manager or secretary of the building society at all times since the commencement of this Act, but after the holding of the first annual general meeting after the end of the year nineteen hundred and sixty, only so long as at that annual general meeting and every following annual general meeting he has been authorised by a special resolution to make reports for the said purposes until the next annual general meeting, and for the purposes of this proviso retirement from office followed by immediate reappointment shall not be regarded as a break in the tenure of office.")
Clause 14, page 18, leave out lines 13 to 17.
Clause 14, page 18, line 29, after ("estate") insert ("and any person receiving a commission or gift for introducing the parties to the transaction involving that disposition")
Clause 14, page 18, line 42, leave out ("if") and insert ("(b)")
Clause 14, page 18, line 43, leave out from beginning to ("a")
Clause 14, page 18, line 45, after ("(2)") insert ("or subsection (3)")
Clause 14, page 18, line 45, after ("section") insert ("knowing or having reason to believe that it will be used, or is likely to be used, for the purposes of paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section")
Clause 14, page 18, line 45, leave out from ("be") to ("and") in line 46 and insert ("liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding two hundred pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months")
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, may I take Amendments 14 to 22, inclusive, together? These Amendments waive the disqualification for reporting on the value of a property in respect of directors who hold office at the commencement of the Act, subject to the approval of the society in question and to a maximum period of ten years. The offence of preparing a report when disqualified is limited to the case where it is done knowingly, so as to avoid inadvertent offences. In this way, we seek to minimise the risk of causing hardship to individuals or inconvenience to building societies. It will be remembered that quite a number of noble Lords expressed a large difference of opinion when we discussed this matter in this House; indeed, perhaps this was the question which, on the whole, was the thorniest we discussed. This is really done to mitigate the hardships which some noble Lords (I believe my noble friend Lord Saltoun among them) anticipated would be the result of passing the legislation in its original form. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.
Moved, That this House both agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Viscount Hailshatn.)
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I welcome these Amendments, but it is a pity that we were given such discouraging replies when we put the case in this House. We were then given to understand that this was wholly unacceptable to the Government. I do not know whether it was by the noble Viscount himself (it probably
880
was), but we were given what were apparently most convincing reasons for not accepting the Amendments which are now being put forward in a form which I think is undoubtedly a compromise, though a very satisfactory compromise. I think it meets the case of those who put forward the Amendment, and those who objected. But, if I may respectfully say so, I think it is a pity that we were not given a little more encouragement when the Amendment was originally put forward, and that the Government did not promise to give it further consideration.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I think it better, when one is limited as to what one can say, not to exceed those limits. Otherwise, one sometimes gets the reputation of breaking one's promises. I can only say, so far as the general point made by the noble Lord is concerned, that it illustrates the point he made earlier: that these debates do a great deal of good.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
Clause 16, page 19, line 30, at end insert ("and section six of the said Act (which prescribes a period within which any advance in respect of which such a guarantee is taken is to be repaid) shall cease to have effect")
Clause 16, page 19, line 31, leave out subsections (2) and (3).
Clause 17, page 20, line 16, leave out from beginning to ("the") in line 25.
Clause 24, page 22, line 35, leave out ("an infant") and insert ("a person under the age of twenty-one years")
Clause 24, page 22, line 37, leave out ("an infant") and insert ("under the said age")
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 23 to 27 are minor and consequential. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Viscount Hailshatn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 27, page 23, line 30, leave out from beginning to end of line 5 on page 24 and insert—
("(3) At any time—
(a) when an order is in force as respects a building society under section six of this Act or under section eleven of the Prevention

881
of Fraud (Investments) Act, 1958, or under section eleven of the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act, 1939, or
(7) Any dispute as to the rights of a member under this section which arises between the member and the building society shall be referred to the Chief Registrar, and the award of the Chief Registrar shall have the same effect as that of arbitrators under section thirty four of the principal Act.")
6.22 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, Amendment No. 28 again deals with a question which we discussed in Committee here. The Amendment restricts a member's Tight of access to the register of mines and addresses of members to cases where a society has been subjected to an order by the Chief Registrar, has failed to meet a request for withdrawal of funds or is in arrears with interest. In other cases, a member may apply to the Chief Registrar for access, and the Chief Registrar will decide, after giving the member and the Society an opportunity to make representations, whether or no: to grant access. This meets with the widespread desire of small investors that membership of a building society should be a private matter, whilst ensuring that in appropriate cases members will be able to get in touch with one another in connection with the society's business. My Lords, again I beg to move that this House Both agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
Leave out Clause 29 and insert the following new clause:—
Special resolutions
("(1) A resolution shall be a special resolution when—

(a) if has been passed by not less than three-fourths of the number of the members of the building society qualified to vote on a special resolution and voting in person, or by proxy on a poll on the resolution at a meeting of the building society, of which notice specifying the intention to move the resolution as a special resolution has been duly given;

(b)

(2) The members qualified to vote on a special resolution at a meeting of a building society shall be all the members of the building society who were also members at the end of the last financial year before the date of the meeting, except that, if the rules of the building
882
society so provide, members who, at the end of that financial year, or at the date of the meeting, did not hold shares in the building society to a value of one pound or more shall not be qualified to vote.
(3) For the purposes of this section—

(a) notice of a meeting shall be deemed to be duly given if the notice is given in the manner provided by this Act and the rules of the building society;

(b) the meeting of the building society shall be deemed to be duly held if it is held in the manner provided by the rules of the building society.

(4) Notwithstanding anything in the rules of a building society, the business which may be dealt with at the annual general meeting, or at any other meeting, shall include any resolution to be passed as a special resolution.
(5) In any rules made by a building society after the commencement of this Act the expression "special resolution" shall, unless the context otherwise requires, mean a special resolution as defined in this section.
(6) This section shall come into force as respects any resolution to be moved at a meeting held after the beginning of the year nineteen hundred and sixty-one.")
Leave out Clause 30 and insert the following new clause:—
Circulation of members' special resolutions
(".—(1) If a member of a building society applies in writing to the building society and gives notice of his intention to move a special resolution at a meeting of the building society, it shall be the duty of the building society to include in the notice of the meeting a notice specifying the intention to move that resolution as a special resolution at the meeting.
(2) If the applicant does not specify the meeting at which he intends to move the resolution, or if he specifics a meeting which will be held fifty-six days or less after the receipt of the notice by the building society, the building society shall act on the footing that he intends to move the special resolution at the first meeting of the building society held more than fifty-six days after the date of the application.
(3) If a building society fails to comply with an application duly made under this section, the building society and every officer of the building society who is in default shall be guilty of an offence under this Act.
(4) In this section the expression 'special resolution' means a resolution which will not be effective unless it is passed as a special resolution.")
After the clause last inserted, insert the following new clause:—
Cases under existing law in which a special resolution is required
(".—(1) A building society may alter or add to its rules by a special resolution, and any provision in its rules which authorises it to alter or add to its rules without passing a special resolution shall be void.
(2) in section thirty-three of the principal Act (under which two or more building

883
societies may unite) for the words from 'upon such terms' to the words 'for the purpose' there shall be substituted the words—

'(a) if the terms of the union are approved by a special resolution (as defined in the Building Societies Act, 1960) of each of the societies, and

(b) if the union obtains the concurrence in writing of the holders of not less than two-thirds of the whole number of shares in each society, whether they are present at the meeting or not',

and section nineteen of the Building Societies Act, 1894 (which amends the said section thirty-three), shall cease to have effect.
(3) In section twenty-two and paragraph 4 of section thirty-two of the principal Act (which relate respectively to a change of name and to a winding up) for the references to a resolution of three-fourths of the members of a building society passed at a meeting called for the purpose there shall be substituted references to a special resolution, and in section five of the Societies (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1940 (which relates to a transfer of engagements), for the references to a special resolution as defined by that subsection there shall be substituted references to a special resolution as defined by this Act.")
Clause 31, page 26, line 5, after ("the") insert ("manner in which")
Clause 31, page 26, line 5, leave out ("to be given")
Clause 31, page 26, line 6, at end insert ("is to be given to members")
Clause 31, page 26, line 22, at end insert ("and a building society may, where it has by its rules provided for a matter specified in subsection (1) of this section, also by its rules expressly exclude the relevant provisions of that Schedule")
Clause 33, page 27, line 25, at end insert—
("(3) Notice of a meeting of a building society shall not be sent to members of the building society more than fifty-six days before the date of the meeting.")
Clause 34, page 27, line 26, at beginning insert—
("(1) Written notice of any meeting of a building society which specifies the intention to propose a resolution as a special resolution at the meeting shall be sent to every member qualified to vote on a special resolution at the meeting.
(2) Subject to the provisions of subsection (1) of this section.")
Clause 34, page 27, line 34, at end insert—
("(2) The accidental omission to give notice of a meeting to, or the non-receipt of notice of a meeting by, any person entitled to receive notice shall not invalidate the proceedings at that meeting.")
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, may I now take Nos. 29 to 38, which are really Amendments standardising and simplifying the provisions relating to the circumstances in which a resolution passed at a meeting of a building
884
society is required to be treated as a special resolution. They also lay down the requirements as to the circulation to members of special resolutions. My Lords, I beg to move that this House Both agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, for the sake of accuracy, may I point out a misprint? In the first subsection of the proposed new clause, Amendment No. 29, the letters (a)" and (b)" should I think be omitted, and the first word after "(a)" should be "it" instead of "if".
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I am much obliged to the noble Lord.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
Clause 42, page 32, line 7, after ("year") insert ("by way of investments in or loans to the building society")
Clause 42, page 32, line 7, leave out from ("members") to ("and") in line 8 and insert ("or depositors")
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, Nos. 39 and 40 are drafting Amendments. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
Clause 47, page 36, line 23, leave out ("that") and insert ("a")
Clause 47, page 36, line 35, at end insert—
("Provided that a person who is an auditor of a building society at the commencement of this Act shall, notwithstanding that he is not at the time a member of any of the said bodies, be qualified for appointment or re-appointment as an auditor of that building society at any annual general meeting of the building society if he is at the time of the said meeting authorised under paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of the said section one hundred and sixty-one to be appointed as auditor of a company.")
Clause 47, page 36, line 38, leave out ("that") and insert ("a")
Clause 47, page 36, line 40, after second ("if") insert (",or who employs")
Clause 50, page 38, line 10, at end insert ("made to the Chief Registrar")
Clause 52, page 39, line 21, leave out ("fourteen days") and insert ("one month")
Clause 53, page 39, line 38, leave out ("shares")
Clause 53, page 39, line 39, at end insert—
("shares the nominal value of which exceeded two and a half per cent. of the total paid up share capital of the company or other body corporate, or
(d) to a company or other body corporate of which, when the advance was made, or at any later time in the said financial year, a director or the manager or secretary of the building society was a director, general manager, secretary or other similar officer.")
Page 40, line 1, after ("his") insert ("employment by or other")
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, may I take Nos. 41 to 49 next? With the exception of No. 42, they are all minor and consequential Amendments. No. 42 again deals with a matter which was discussed in this House. It enables a present auditor of a building society not professionally qualified to continue to serve if he is authorised by the Board of Trade. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
After Clause 53, insert the following new clause:
Officers not to take commissions for insurance business connected with the making of advances
(".—(1) Where—

(a) a charge upon a policy of life assurance is given as additional security for an advance made by a building society, or

(b) a building society makes an additional advance to enable payment to be made of a premium on a policy of insurance, or

(c) any policy of insurance is taken out so as to comply with the terms on which an advance is made by a building society, whether by way of insuring the property given as security for the advance or otherwise,

and the policy is effected through the building society, or the building society nominates or selects the person by whom the policy is to be issued, it shall be unlawful for a director or other officer of the building society in connection with the effecting of the policy to receive any gift, bonus, commission or benefit from a person by or through whom the policy was issued.
(2) A person who pays, and a person who accepts, any gift, bonus, commission or bene-
886
fit which it is unlawful to receive under the foregoing subsection shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months.")
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, Amendment No. 50 is a new clause which makes it an offence for a director or officer of a building society to receive a commission in respect of an insurance policy which is effected through the society or issued by someone selected by the society in connection with an advance. It is not suggested that this practice is necessarily improper in all circumstances, but it is, I should have said, undoubtedly open to abuse, and it is better (at any rate, so it is thought) that the commission should accrue to the society rather than to individuals. My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
Clause 54, page 40, line 44, leave out from ("by") to end of line 47 and insert ("any member to whom the building society sends notice of a resolution to be moved at a meeting of the building society for the union or, as the case may be, the transfer of engagements to which the statement relates not later than he receives that notice")
Page 41, line 8, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
("(4) Where for the purposes of the said section five of the Act of 1940 the building society applies to all or any of the members of the building society to obtain their consent to the proposals, the statement shall, without prejudice to the provisions of subsection (2) of this section, be sent so as to be received by a member at or before the time when the application is made to him.")
Page 41, line 22, leave out from ("to") to end of line 23 and insert ("any such document as is mentioned in that section")
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I think I am right in saying that Amendments Nos. 51 to 53, inclusive, are minor. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
After Clause 54, insert the following new clause:—
Transfers of engagements and unions which involve a building society of Northern Ireland
(".—(1) A building society may, subject to the provisions of this section, by a special resolution transfer its engagements to a building society of Northern Ireland which undertakes to fulfil those engagements; and a building society may, subject to the provisions of this section, undertake to fulfil the engagements of a building society of Northern Ireland by a special resolution or, with the consent of the registrar, by a resolution of a general meeting or of the board of the building society.
(2) The transfer of engagements shall not take effect by virtue of this section unless or until the consent thereto in writing of the holders of not less than two-thirds of the whole number of shares of the building society acting under this section has been obtained:
Provided that if that building society makes an application to the registrar and publishes notice of the application in the London and Edinburgh Gazettes, the registrar may, after hearing the building society and any other persons whom he considers entitled to be heard, confirm the transfer of engagements notwithstanding that the concurrence of the holders of two-thirds of the whole number of shares in the building society has not been obtained in the manner required by the foregoing provisions of this subsection.
(3) The transfer of engagements shall not take effect by virtue of this section until the registrar has given his consent in writing to the transfer, and he shall not give that consent unless he is satisfied that the transfer of engagements will also take effect under the law of Northern Ireland.
(4) The registrar on giving his consent under the last foregoing subsection shall register the transfer of engagements and thereupon section five of the Building Societies Act, 1877 (which provides for giving effect to transfers of engagements) shall, so far as it forms part of the law of Great Britain, apply to the transfer of engagements.
(5) Section fifty-four of this Act shall apply in relation to a building society which proposes to act under this section as it applies to a building society proposing to become a party to a transfer of engagements under section five of the Societies (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1940, but as if in the said section fifty-four—

(a) references to the other building societies concerned included references to any building society of Northern Ireland concerned, and

(b) references to section five of the said Act of 1940, were references to this section.

and the statement under the said section fifty-four as applied by this subsection shall indicate that the other party to the transfer of engagements is a building society of Northern Ireland or, as the case may be, that one or more of the other parties is or are a building society or building societies of Northern Ireland.
(6) A building society may not, under section thirty-three of the principal Act, unite with a building society of Northern Ireland.
(7) In this section the expression "building society of Northern Ireland" means a building society which is, or, for the purposes of the Building Societies Acts, 1874 to 1894, is deemed to be, registered in Northern Ireland; and references to a building society acting under this section do not include references to any such society.")
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, Amendment No. 54 is a new clause and represents the fulfilment of an undertaking which I gave to the noble Lord. Lord Milner of Leeds. Its effect is to permit societies registered in this country to transfer their engagements to, or to accept the transfer of engagements from, societies registered in Northern Ireland. Such transfers will be subject to the same procedure as transfers between British societies, and to the additional requirement of the approval of the Registrar. Complementary provision will doubtless be made in Northern Ireland legislation when circumstances permit. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
Clause 55, page 41, line 28, leave out from second ("the") to ("for") in line 33 and insert ("words 'required by the Building Societies Acts to be sent to the registrar' there shall be substituted the words 'sent to the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies or the registrar under or in pursuance of the Building Societies Acts, 1874 to 1960', and".)
Clause 58, page 43, leave out lines 8 to 12.
Line 14, leave out ("said Act of") and insert ("Building Societies Act".)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, Nos. 55 to 57, inclusive, are minor Amendments. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
After Clause 61, insert the following new Clause:—
Joint shareholders
(".—(1) Except where the rules of a building society otherwise provide, any notice or other document may be given or sent by the building society to the joint holders of shares in the building society by giving or sending it to the joint holder who is first named in their books (hereinafter in this section referred to as the senior joint holder), but this subsection shall not he read as preventing any joint holder of shares from exercising the right under this Act of a member to obtain from a building society on demand a copy of the balance sheet or of the annual return.
(2) Any shares in a building society which are held jointly shall, for the purpose of determining who is qualified to vote, whether in person or by proxy, on any resolution at a meeting held after the commencement of this Act and, where relevant, the number of votes any person may then give, be regarded as held by the senior of the joint holders alone; and accordingly a person who is only a member of a building society by reason of being a joint holder of shares, other than the senior joint holder, shall not be qualified to vote on any such resolution.
(3) For the purposes of the following enactments (under which the consent or concurrence of a certain number of members of a building society is required)—

(a) paragraph 3 of section thirty-two of the principal Act, and

(b) paragraph (b) of section thirty-three of that Act, as amended by this Act, and

(c) section five of the Societies (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1940, and

(d) section (Transfers of engagements and unions involving a building society of Northern Ireland) of this Act,

any shares in a building society which are held jointly shall be regarded as held by the senior of the joint holders alone, and accordingly a person who is only a member of a building society by reason of being a joint holder of shares, other than the senior joint holder, shall not for the purposes of those enactments be regarded as being a member.
(4) The senior joint holder, and not any of the others, shall have the right to join in making any application under section five or section seven of the Building Societies Act, 1894 (which confer certain powers of inspection and investigation), and any reference in those sections to the total membership of a building society shall be read accordingly.
(5) The name and address of any person who is a joint holder of shares in a building society, other than the senior joint holder, need net on that account be entered in the register to be maintained under section twenty-seven of this Act, and if a name and address is so entered the entry shall indicate that the person named is a joint holder who is not the senior joint holder.
(6) Joint holders of shares in a building society shall be entitled to choose the order in which they are named in the books of the building society.")
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, Amendment No. 58 also fulfils an underking I gave in the course of the debate on May 12. I then promised that provisions would be inserted in the Bill to deal generally with the position of joint shareholdings. The clause ensures that one joint holder is regarded as acting for all joint holders for the purposes of attending and voting at meetings and so on, but the substantive rights of other joint holders to their property are not affected. I beg to move that this House Both agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said A mendment.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
After Clause 62, insert the following new Clause:—
Regulations with respect to form, etc., of documents, and fees
(".—(1) Without prejudice to any other power in that behalf conferred on him by this Act, the Chief Registrar shall have power with the consent of the Treasury by statutory instrument to make regulations with respect to—

(a) the form of, and the particulars to be included in, any certificate issued under the enactments relating to building societies, and any application, notice or other document made or sent to the Chief Registrar or the registrar under or in pursuance of those enactments; and

(b) the fees to be paid for the inspection, or the furnishing of copies, of any document in the custody of the Chief Registrar or the registrar, or in connection with the exercise by the Chief Registrar or the registrar of any of their functions under the said enactments.

(2) Section twenty-six of, and the Third Schedule to, the Building Societies Act, 1894 (which prescribe the form of certain certificates issued by the registrar), shall have effect as if contained in regulations under this section and may be varied or repealed accordingly.
(3) Section forty-four of the principal Act (which confers a power to make regulations with respect to certain fees, and generally for the purpose of carrying into effect the enactments relating to building societies), and so much of subsection (2) of section thirteen of the Building Societies Act, 1939, as provides for the form and contents of the return required by that subsection to be prescribed by rules under the said Act of 1939, shall cease to have effect.
(4) Nothing in the last foregoing subsection shall affect the continuance in force of any regulations in force at the commencement of this Act under section forty-four of the principal Act, or of any rules under the Building Societies Act, 1939, in force at that date and relating to the return required by subsection (2) of section thirteen of the said Act of 1939; but—

(a) such of the said regulations as could have been made under this section shall have effect as if they had been so made, and may be varied or revoked accordingly;

(b) such of the said regulations as could not have been so made may be revoked (but not varied) by regulations under this section; and

(c) the said rules may be varied or revoked by regulations under this section.")

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, No. 59 is a new clause simplifying the provisions in the Acts relating to the power to make regulations, and it is required primarily to facilitate consolidation. In those circumstances, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Viscount Hailshant.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
Clause 68, page 47, line 4, at end insert—
("(2) It is hereby declared that references in this Act to mortgages of land in Northern Ireland include references to registered charges which by virtue of subsection (4) of section forty of the Local Registration of Title (Ireland) Act, 1891, operate as mortgages by deed.")
Third Schedule, page 52, line 1, leave out paragraphs 4 to 7.
Page 53, line 10, leave out ("register of members") and insert ("books of the society")
Page 53, leave out lines 20 to 22.
Page 55, leave out lines 15 to 19.
Page 56, line 38, at end insert—
("Joint shareholders
14.—(1) A joint holding of shares in the society shall not give to any of the joint holders, other than the one who is first named in the books of the society, the right to attend a meeting or any right conferred by these rules on a member.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions of this rule, any shares which are held jointly shall, for the purpose of determining which members are qualified to vote, whether in person or by proxy, on any resolution, and the number of votes they may give, be regarded as held by the joint holder who is first named in the books of the society.
(3) Any reference in these rules to the total membership of the society, or to any number of members of the society, shall be read as if any shares held jointly were held by the joint holder so first named.")
Fourth Schedule, page 57, line 12, at end insert—
("In section eighteen for the words that the provisions of this section have been complied with' substitute the words that the resolution has been passed as a special resolution as defined in the Building Societies Act, 1960'.")
Fourth Schedule, page 57, line 14, leave out ("present'") and insert ("purpose'")
Fourth Schedule, page 57, line 15, leave out ("passed")
Fourth Schedule, page 57, line 20, after ("present") insert ("at a general meeting of the society specially called for the purpose")
Fourth Schedule, page 57, line 21, leave out ("passed")
Fourth Schedule, page 57, line 23, at end insert ("Section four shall cease to have effect")
After the amendment last inserted, insert—
("In subsection (2) of section six, for the words the Gazette' substitute the words ' the London and Edinburgh Gazettes'.")
Fourth Schedule, page 57, line 27, at end insert—
("In subsection (3) of section seven, for the words the Gazette' substitute the words the London and Edinburgh Gazettes'.")
Fourth Schedule, page 57, line 32, at end insert ("In section twenty-three, for the words and in default of payment', substitute the word or'")
Fourth Schedule, page 57, line 44, at end insert—
("In subsection (2) of section five, for the words 'the Gazette' substitute the words the London and Edinburgh Gazettes'.")
Fifth Schedule, page 58, line 22, column 3, at end insert ("Section forty-four")
Fifth Schedule, page 58, line 26, column 3, leave out ("and three") and insert ("to four")
Fifth Schedule, page 58, line 33, column 3, at beginning insert ("subsection (3) of section three")
Fifth Schedule, page 58, line 33, column 3, leave out lines 34 to 37 and insert ("Section six")
Fifth Schedule, page 58, line 38, column 3, at end insert—
("In section thirteen, in subsection (2), the words from which shall be' to 'particulars as may be prescribed, and in subsection (3), the words from subject to' to 'Building Societies Act, 1874'.")
Fifth Schedule, page 58, line 41, column 3, at end insert ("and words whether they of the society'.")
Fifth Schedule, page 58, line 48, column 3, at end insert ("the words 'in such manner as he may prescribe' and".)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, the remaining Amendments in the Bill—that is to say, No. 60 and Nos. 62 to 83 inclusive, we having already agreed

893
to No. 61—are, I am happy to say, all minor and consequential Amendments, and I now beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.
Moved, That this House cloth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

BLACKFRIARS BRIDGEHEAD IMPROVEMENTS BILL
  BRISTOL CORPORATION BILL
    BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION BILL
    Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
    HERTFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL
    Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
    MANCHESTER SHIP CANAL BILL [H.L.]
    Returned from the Commons, agreed, to, with Amendments: the said Amendments considered, and agreed to.

    OLDHAM CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
    Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.
    House adjourned at half-past six o'clock.