Sitting of 27 April 1961

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

  IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES
  The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:
  I have received your Address praying that the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (Immunities and Privileges) Order, 1961, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament.
  I will comply with your request.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  SIERRA LEONE

    Messages of Good Will
    Mr. Boydenasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what message of good will he has sent the Sierra Leone Government this day.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Bernard Braine): My right hon. Friend is at present in Freetown. I am obtaining the text of the message which he is conveying personally to the Government of Sierra Leone, and will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has also sent a cordial message of congratulations, and I feel sure that the House will wish to associate itself with it.
    Mr. Boyden: While thanking the Minister for that announcement, may I ask him whether his right hon. Friend is, in fact, negotiating any economic aid or assistance with the Government of
    596
    Sierra Leone at the moment, and what the order of it might be?
    Mr. Braine: That, Sir, is quite another question.

  COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS

    Migration (Discussions)
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what recent discussions have taken place between Her Majesty's Government and other Commonwealth Governments, and what information he has received in the course of these discussions of other consultations between Commonwealth Governments, in respect of migration within the Commonwealth.
    Mr. Braine: As regards migration from the West Indies, I have nothing to add to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 13th April. The only other recent discussions have been with the Governments of India and Pakistan. These were of a routine nature relating to the control of emigration from those countries. I am not aware of any recent consultations between other Commonwealth Governments on the subject of migration.
    Mr. Sorensen: Does not the Minister realise that this is a rather unsatisfactory Answer in view of the very great need for some kind of co-ordinated and cooperative consultation among all members of the Commonwealth on this very vital matter? Can the hon. Gentleman say whether what has been done in this connection is what was promised some time ago?
    Mr. Braine: As far as immigration into this country is concerned, which is what I think the hon. Gentleman may have in mind, the House will recall that my hon. and learned Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department made it quite clear on 17th February that the Government have no intention of imposing control on the entry of British subjects into this country without prior consultation with the Commonwealth Governments concerned. But with regard to the general question, as to whether there should be full Commonwealth talks on the question of the free

    597
    movement of British subjects throughout the Commonwealth, all I can say is that this will be borne in mind.
    Mr. Fisher: Could my hon. Friend tell the House whether the Government are in favour, in principle, of what I might call cross-migration within the Commonwealth under which countries which need immigrants, such as Australia, New Zealand and Canada, might, perhaps, take them from countries like the West Indies, India, and Pakistan which need to emigrate some of their surplus manpower?
    Mr. Braine: I think that it would be quite improper for me to comment on a question of that kind, because a matter which concerns the recipient countries concerns them primarily and the initiative in a matter of this kind must come from them.
    Mr. Sorensen: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

  UNION OF SOUTH AFRICA

    South-West Africa (Mandate)
    Mr. Stonehouseasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations if he will take steps at the United Nations to secure the transfer of the mandate for South-West Africa from the Union of South Africa to the United Kingdom, in view of South Africa becoming a Republic.
    Mr. Braine: No, Sir. The changes of status of the Union of South Africa after 31st May will in no way affect its rights and obligations under the mandate.
    Mr. Stonehouse: Is the Under-Secretary of State aware that this is a very important matter which affects the standing of Britain in the eyes of the world, in view of what appears to be our primary responsibility? Will the hon. Gentleman at least consider, and ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to consider, consulting other members of the Commonwealth with a view to this mandate becoming a Commonwealth responsibility?
    Mr. Braine: I would refer the hon. Member to the explanation of the constitutional
    598
    position governing the South-West Africa mandate question given by my right hon. and noble Friend, Lord Alport, in the debate on 15th December. It was put so well on that occasion that I do not think there is any need for me to add to it today.
    Mr. Callaghan: Whatever rights the South African Government may have possessed, have they not forfeited them by their failure to account for their trusteeship to the responsible authorities, including the United Nations, as they have been repeatedly requested to do, and in view of the fact that they have flouted the authority of the United Nations on many occasions, why does he say that he will take no steps to remove the mandate from their control?
    Mr. Braine: The first pant of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is a matter for the United Nations in any event. The question is under consideration by the International Court, and it would be quite improper for me to comment further.
    Mr. Stonehouse: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the Union Government would not have got this mandate unless it had been in the Commonwealth at that time?
    Mr. Braine: That, of course, is another question. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer it."] I am going to answer it. The mandate was granted to His Britannic Majesty as the King, the constitutional head, of the Union of South Africa, a sovereign independent country at the time.
    Mr. Callaghan: But is not South Africa now a Republic?

  HIGH COMMISSION TERRITORIES

    Economic Development
    Mr. Marquandasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations whether he intends to implement in full the recommendations of the Morse Report on the economic development of Bechuanaland, Basutoland and Swaziland.
    Mr. Braine: I am not yet in a position to add anything to what was stated by

    599
    my right hon. Friend in reply to a Question by the right hon. Gentleman on 23rd March, and to what I said in the debate on the Republic of South Africa Bill on Monday.
    Mr. Marquand: Why is there this continual delay? The Morse Commission's Report was published much more than a year ago, and we have already heard from the Government that they have had promises of a very substantial contribution towards this plan from international agencies. Why cannot the Government now say whether they accept the whole Report in principle, even if they are not able to tell us the pace at which they will proceed with the detailed implementation of it?
    Mr. Braine: The right hon. Gentleman and the House can be assured that we shall make an announcement as soon as a decision has been reached. I cannot be expected to name a date now, but I can assure the House that we are taking full account of the recommendations in the Morse Report and are actively considering ways in which they can be implemented. I should add, in view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, that Commonwealth Development and Welfare funds have been made available already to enable the Director of Overseas Services to undertake further aerial survey work in all three Territories and, although this is not strictly a matter on which the Morse Commission reported, the right hon. Gentleman may be aware that we have approved increases in teachers' salaries earlier this year.
    Mr. Marquand: In view of developments in South Africa generally, will the hon. Gentleman at least assure the House that his right hon. Friend regards the rapid economic development of the three High Commission Territories as the highest priority in the economic field for which he is responsible?
    Mr. Braine: I can give that assurance.
    Mr. Marquandasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations whether he will invite all independent members of the Commonwealth in Africa to join with the United Kingdom, through the Special Commonwealth African Aid Plan, in the rapid economic development of Bechuanaland, Basutoland and Swaziland.
    Mr. Braine: I do not think that the development needs of the High Commission Territories are of a type that could be met in this way.
    Mr. Marquand: Are there not experts on administration and economic development generally in the independent countries in Africa whose services could be used most effectively? Would not this be a valuable way of introducing the kind of co-operation for which the special Commonwealth Aid for Africa Plan was designed? Would it not be to the mutual encouragement of the people of the three High Commission Territories and of the independent countries of Africa?
    Mr. Braine: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, if we exclude South Africa from the category of nations which he mentioned, Ghana, Nigeria and Sierra Leone are themselves recipients of development aid from the United Kingdom, and we should not overlook any suitable sources of assistance. It is unlikely that the independent countries of West Africa, grappling with serious development problems of their own, will have resources to spare for the High Commission Territories, whose problems are different from theirs, and, where they are similar, the countries concerned have to give their own needs the first priority.
    Mr. Marquand: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I am suggesting technical assistance, not capital assistance? Did we not have an assurance only the day before yesterday, when we debated the Department of Technical Co-operation Bill in the House, that technical assistance would be mutual wherever possible? Is this not an ideal opportunity, even if it is only the seconding of two or three Africans from the independent Territories to undertake this?
    Mr. Braine: I think that the operative word is "ideal". If something like this could be done, no doubt it would be done, but there is an acute shortage in Africa of the kind of technical assistance which the right hon. Gentleman has in mind.

    African Postmasters, Basutoland
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations on what grounds African postmasters in Basutoland have been excluded from

    601
    the senior service since 1948 whilst fulfilling the same duties as white postmasters in the senior service.
    Mr. Braine: This Question appears to be based on a misapprehension. The senior service in Basutoland ceased to exist in 1959.
    Mr. Brockway: Even if that is technically true, may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether it is not the fact that up to 1948, African postmasters were of the same status as the European postmasters in Basutoland, but that in 1958, one African postmaster was reduced, and they have been reduced ever since? May I also ask the hon. Gentleman whether it is not desirable to end apartheid in our own Protectorates in South Africa?
    Mr. Braine: I do not accept for one moment that apartheid exists. Since 1959, all postmasters have fallen within Division 2 of the new structure of the Civil Service introduced in that year, and the salaries paid to officials are the same, irrespective of race.

  EDUCATION

    Farm Institutes
    Sir H. Legge-Bourkeasked the Minister of Education if he will make a statement regarding his plans for the building of farm institutes and similar establishments in England and Wales.
    The Minister of Education (Sir David Eccles): Yes, Sir. I am anxious that everything possible shall be done to further the development of agricultural education and for the year 1961–62 I have authorised a building programme of about £¾ million for farm institutes and other similar establishments in England and Wales. This is substantially more than in any previous year. I will with permission circulate the details in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    It is the intention to continue building at this level for the next few years until the main needs are met. I shall shortly be inviting local education authorities to submit their proposals for 1962–63.
    Sir H. Legge-Bourke: While thanking my right hon. Friend and congratulating him upon his statement, may I ask him whether he will ensure that, before the final sites are decided upon for the building
    602
    of these institutes, all the experienced gained from the initial effort by the Isle of Ely Education Authority in setting up the horticultural institute at Wisbech will be taken into account, because it is very important that the land that lies around the institutes should be suitable, as well as the actual sites of the buildings?
    Sir D. Eccles: I certainly will take that experience into account.
    Mr. Willey: Is the Minister satisfied that he will attract the teachers who are required, as indicated by the Lampard-Vachell Report?
    Sir D. Eccles: It is going to be difficult, but we have a variety of plans for doing so.
    Following is the list of establishments at which major improvements will he undertaken:

    County

    Establishment

    England:

    Bedfordshire

    Mander College of Further Education (Agricultural Department).

    Buckinghamshire

    County Demonstration Farm.

    Cumberland/Westmorland.

    Farm Institute.

    Essex

    Institute of Agriculture.

    Hertfordshire

    Institute of Agriculture and Horticulture.

    Lincolnshire (Kesteven).

    Farm Institute.

    Nottinghamshire

    Farm Institute.

    Oxfordshire

    Rycote Wood College of Rural Crafts.

    Shropshire

    Farm Institute.

    Somerset

    Farm Institute.

    Surrey

    Farm Institute.

    Yorkshire (West Riding).

    Farm Institute.

    Wales:

    Breconshire

    Rural Technical Institute.

    Cardiganshire

    Farmers' Education Centre, Felinfach.

    Caning
    Mr. K. Lewisasked the Minister of Education how many education authorities forbid headmasters and teachers to use the cane; and how many authorities forbid teachers but allow headmasters to use the cane.
    Sir D. Eccles: Individual authorities have discretion in this matter, and the information asked for is not available. I would hope that local education authorities in their turn leave to head teachers the choice of disciplinary methods.
    Mr. Lewis: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that he would do much to help his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary if he requested education authorities throughout the country to allow corporal punishment, and not to forbid it as some of them do?
    Sir D. Eccles: I think that this is a matter in which we should leave the local education authority a discretion, but, in fact, good discipline in the schools, which is very necessary, is largely a matter for the head teacher, and if the head teacher thinks that the use of the cane is one method, I hope that he will be supported.

    Size of Classes, Essex
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Minister of Education if he will state, approximately, the number of school classes in the County of Essex in which the pupils number over thirty; and by what date it is estimated that no classes over that number will exist in the county.
    Sir D. Eccles: In January, 1960, there were 3,538 junior classes and 2,425 senior classes with over 30 pupils. The supply of teachers is going to improve during this decade, but I cannot forecast the date when classes of this size will be eliminated in any particular county.
    Mr. Sorensen: Does not this look rather serious? Can the Minister say approximately how many classes have over forty pupils? Can he hold out no hope of a progressive reduction in the size of classes in the near future?
    Sir D. Eccles: In the primary schools there are 1,518 with over forty. I do not know the figures for the secondary schools. Certainly, the number will be reduced, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, Essex is a county in which the school population is growing very rapidly and it is impossible for me to make a forecast of any value.
    Sir L. Plummer: As the school population in Essex is increasing rapidly, will the right hon. Gentleman have a word with the new county council to see that it does not revert to the old practice of making children walk three miles to
    604
    school and back in the interests of economy?
    Sir D. Eccles: I will certainly talk to the new council on a variety of topics.

    Nursery Schools (Part-time Teachers)
    Mrs. Butlerasked the Minister of Education what steps he is taking to staff additional nursery schools or classes on a part-time basis, where married women teachers are available for part-time teaching only.
    Sir D. Eccles: While these teachers are urgently needed for teaching children of compulsory school age I regret they cannot be spared for staffing additional nursery schools or classes.
    Mrs. Butler: In view of the undoubted need, which I do not think the right hon. Gentleman disputes, where a local education authority can establish that married women teachers are available for part-time teaching in nursery schools but will not in any circumstances teach in primary schools, will he permit the establishment of additional nursery schools?
    Sir D. Eccles: I should welcome such information from a local education authority, but I have never had anything like it.
    Mrs. White: Does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that by allowing certain nursery schools to be opened in suitable areas he may release other married women who would be available to teach in primary or secondary schools? This is a matter of balancing the advantages. In many areas it would be far better to allow some nursery classes or schools to be opened to release other married women.
    Sir D. Eccles: It is not my policy to attract married women into schools by providing them with the means for leaving their small children if they do not want to.

    Advanced Business Studies
    Mr. Walkerasked the Minister of Education whether he will introduce legislation to provide for the establishment of advanced business schools.
    Sir D. Eccles: Following the Report of the Advisory Committee on Further Education for Commerce, considerable development of advanced business studies is being undertaken at the colleges of commerce and in certain technical colleges. I am discussing further plans with the colleges and industry. No legislation will be required for these purposes.
    Mr. Walker: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his reply. Is it not a fact that we are falling behind our industrial competitors in the provision of education for business management and administration?
    Sir D. Eccles: I think that we have a considerable leeway to make up. We are now trying our best to do it, but we require more support from industry itself.

    Village Schools
    Mr. P. Browneasked the Minister of Education if he is satisfied that the increasing rate at which village schools are being closed is in the best interests both of the children and the rural community as a whole; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Kenneth Thompson): Proposals to close village schools require my right hon. Friend's approval, and objections can be taken. The facts of each case are very carefully considered before a decision is made. Approval is not given to any proposal against the interests of the children. My right hon. Friend believes that local education authorities have the same considerations in mind.
    Mr. P. Browne: I agree that the interests of the children come first, but is my hon. Friend aware that it would appear that many local education authorities plan the concentration of children by the map without paying special attention to the human element in the interests of the children themselves? Is he further aware that many teachers say that, because of this concentration of schools, children having to travel long distances are much more difficult to teach when they get to the other end?
    Mr. Thompson: Those are the considerations which my right hon. Friend
    606
    has to balance very carefully when he is reaching a decision on these proposals. I assure the House that they are taken very carefully into account.

    Teachers (Married Women)
    Mr. P. Browneasked the Minister of Education what response he has had to his appeal to married women to return to the teaching profession; and if he will make a statement.
    Sir D. Eccles: I have so far received reports from two out of three local education authorities which show that they have appointed 700 qualified married women between 1st February and 31st March. They are still considering applications from another 400 qualified married women who wish to return to teaching. This is an encouraging response particularly as many authorities have only just begun their own local publicity campaigns.
    Mr. Chetwynd: Are the bulk of these full-time or part-time?
    Sir D. Eccles: Of these, 380 are full-time, and 320 part-time.

    Widdicombe House School, Stokenham (Handicapped Children)
    Mr. Doddsasked the Minister of Education what was the form of the investigation by his Department into the treatment of handicapped children at the Widdicombe House School, Stokenham; what did the investigation reveal; what action was taken to inform those concerned about the results; and what information he has on the effect on the school population, and particularly on the number of children now attending the school.
    Mr. K. Thompson: Her Majesty's inspector and two of the Ministry's medical officers inspected Widdicombe House School and reported serious doubts as to the suitability of the school for pupils requiring special educational treatment. After the report and the proprietor's comments on it had been considered, all local education authorities were told that the school was unsuitable for the education of handicapped pupils for whom they are responsible and were asked to remove such children.
    The school has re-started with privately-financed pupils. It will therefore

    607
    be my right hon. Friend's duty to watch its progress carefully in pursuance of his obligations under Part III of the Education Act.
    Mr. Dodds: I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his interest and for the statement he has made. Will he bear in mind that I am still receiving reports from local people in the district which refer to scandalous goings-on among children and the staff? Will he bear in mind that, whether the child is handicapped or is sent by the local authority, if the details are correct it is most unsuitable for any child to be in a school of this sort?
    Mr. Thompson: I assure the House that my right hon. Friend's duty under Part III of the Act will be very seriously observed.

    Awards to Students (Standing Advisory Committee)
    Mr. Willeyasked the Minister of Education whether he will state the membership of his Standing Advisory Committee on questions arising from the system of awards from public funds.
    Sir D. Eccles: The Committee is to be appointed jointly by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and myself. I am glad to say that Sir Francis Hill has accepted our invitation to be Chairman. The names of the remaining members will be announced as soon as possible.
    Mr. Willey: I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's statement and I look forward to the announcement of the names of the other members of the Committee. Is the right hon. Gentleman in a position to say when he is likely to introduce the Bill which has been promised?
    Sir D. Eccles: I cannot say that at present.
    Mrs. White: As the Committee will be particularly concerned with matters relating to students, will the right hon. Gentleman bear their interests in mind when forming the Committee?
    Sir D. Eccles: That is the purpose of the Committee, but I am doubtful about representation by students, if that is what the hon. Lady means.

    European Ministers of Education (Meeting)
    Mr. Willeyasked the Minister of Education whether he will make a statement on the meeting of European Ministers of Education at Hamburg.
    Sir D. Eccles: This was the first meeting at which all member countries of the Council of Europe were represented. There was a useful exchange of views on such subjects as the teaching of modern languages, the education of young people after they have left school, and the possibility of making greater use of television in adult education.
    A paper making recommendations on future work was presented jointly by the Austrian Minister of Education and my hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Secretary.
    The next meeting of the Ministers will be held in Rome on the invitation of the Italian Government.
    Mr. Willey: I fully appreciate the work which has been done. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware there is a feeling that the work being done within the Council of Europe group is lagging far behind the work being done within the Six? In view of this, will he do his best to provide an initiative, a dynamic, for this very useful collaboration?
    Sir D. Eccles: I will. The work done depends to a certain extent on finance, and it is not very easy to get finance for this purpose.

  HONG KONG

    Women Medical Officers
    Mrs. Castleasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) how many women medical officers are employed by the Hong Kong Government; how many of them are receiving equal pay; and what are the grounds on which some women medical officers receive equal pay and others do not;
    (2) why the Government of Hong Kong has not carried out the recommendations of the Salaries Commission with regard to the remuneration of women medical officers in the Government service.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Hugh Fraser): Women medical officers with the requisite

    609
    experience and serving on the pensionable establishment or on agreement, who can be regarded as making their careers in Government service, receive equal pay. At present, fifteen officers out of seventy-two employed by the Hong Kong Government so qualify.
    This is as far as the Governor considers it possible to go in giving effect to the recommendations in the Salaries Commission's Report.
    Mrs. Castle: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that both he and his right hon. Friend have been misled by the Governor of Hong Kong on this matter; that in fact what the Governor is doing is refusing to implement the recommendations of the Salaries Commission, which said that married status should not be taken into account in assessing rates of pay; that these women medical officers are being treated differently, depending on whether they are single or married; that married women are not allowed by the Government of Hong Kong to have permanent employment in Government service, and that therefore it is only single women who have served a probationary period of four years who are getting equal pay, although the Salaries Commission insisted that they should all have—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."] I am sorry, but I put down two Questions—
    Mr. Speaker: However many Questions an hon. Member may put down, it is desirable that supplementary questions should not be long.
    Mrs. Castle: I was just coming to the end, but it is difficult when one is raising a complicated matter and when two separate issues are answered together. Are the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend aware that they have been misled by the Governor of Hong Kong, who is not carrying out the recommendations of the Salaries Commission, and will they therefore look at this matter again to see that women medical officers get equal pay?
    Mr. Fraser: No, Sir. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] We cannot look at this matter again because it is evident, in the light of what the hon. Lady has said, that we have not been misled. The Governor is doing what he can to implement the Report and it is a perfectly
    610
    well established custom in Hong Kong that people who are married cannot be regarded as career officers. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] There was a considerable increase in pay in 1959.
    Mrs. White: Surely the hon. Gentleman is aware that Hong Kong is notorious for its discrimination against professional women—[Laughter.]—perhaps I should say women in certain professions. Will not the hon. Gentleman see that at least the Government set a good example in the matter?
    Mr. Fraser: I thank the hon. Lady. The pay for those of professional status will be re-examined in the current year.
    Mrs. Castle: On a point of order. In view of the totally unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

  KENYA

    Europeans (Emigration and Immigration)
    Mr. F. Harrisasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will give information, up to the latest possible date, of the average monthly number of Europeans who are leaving Kenya permanently and the corresponding number of new and permanent European immigrants into Kenya.
    The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Iain Macleod): The latest figures I have available are for 1960, when permanent European emigration totalled 1,802 and permanent European immigration 1,733. Monthly emigration only once exceeded 200 persons, and twice fell short of 100; immigration was between 100 and 200 in all save one month.
    Mr. Harris: I am rather surprised by that reply, but it was a very pleasant reply. As 85 per cent. of the economy of Kenya is dependent on the efforts of the Europeans in Kenya and upon those efforts depend the maximum employment of people of all races and their standard of living, what has my right hon. Friend in mind not only to encourage those people to remain in Kenya and to continue to make their homes there, but to send to Kenya further people to assist in the great work which has to be done there?
    Mr. Macleod: I, too, am very glad to see that the figures are steadier than some reports may have led us to believe. I entirely agree about the enormous importance of European agriculture, which is the backbone of the whole economy of Kenya. I am sure that the progress which we have been making in the last day or so in forming a stable Government for Kenya is an essential part of the process of seeing that people of all races have a future there.
    Mr. Callaghan: Will the Colonial Secretary give every encouragement to young men and women who are willing to go to Kenya and to serve side by side with Africans on terms of equality to do so? May I ask him not to listen to a great deal of the propaganda which is going on and which gives the impression that there is no future for that great country?
    Mr. Macleod: Kenya is a great country and I am certain that it has a great future. Whatever matters we may disagree on, everyone wants to see people of all races make a home there in future.

    Mr. Per Wästberg
    Mr. Stonehouseasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why Mr. Per Wästberg, a Swedish journalist, has been declared a prohibited immigrant in Kenya.
    Mr. H. Fraser: Mr. Per Wästberg has not been declared a prohibited immigrant in Kenya. He and his wife were informed on 10th April, on their return to Kenya from a visit to other territories, that no further extension of their visitors' passes could be made. These had been granted on 17th February, valid for one month, and subsequently extended for a further three weeks. Mr. and Mrs. Wästberg were, however, given passes to legalise their stay in Kenya until 13th April when they could conveniently depart on the next stage of their tour.
    Mr. Stonehouse: Does the Under-Secretary realise that his Answer means the same thing as my Question? Mr. and Mrs. Wästberg were asked to leave. Why was that stupid action taken against a distinguished Swedish journalist and author? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that sort of action can undo the
    612
    good will established for Britain in Sweden by the work of the Colonial Secretary in Tanganyika, for instance? Will not the hon. Gentleman have another look at this matter?
    Mr. Fraser: No, Sir. This is a question for the Governor, and, as I have explained, these people were not declared to be prohibited immigrants.
    Mr. G. M. Thomson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that is an unsatisfactory answer? Is he aware that when these Swedish citizens arrived in Kenya in February, there was no question of any limit on their time of stay? Is he aware that the territories which he mentioned and which they visited were the Central African Federation Territories? Will he give the House an assurance that no pressure was brought to bear in this case by the Central African Federation Government which made the Governor change his mind?
    Mr. Fraser: I can give that assurance.

    Political Situation
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the political situation in Kenya.
    Mr. Macleod: The Kenya African Democratic Union has recently agreed to take part in the formation of a Government, and discussions are now proceeding with a view to recommendations being made to Her Majesty The Queen for the appointment of Ministers. The Governor will announce a date for the formal opening of the Legislative Council as soon as possible.
    Mr. Brockway: While recognising the need for a stable Government in Kenya, does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the arrangements which have been made with K.A.D.U. are not likely to be stable and may be very temporary and that there is no likelihood of a stable Government in Kenya until Jomo Kenyatta is released?
    Mr. Macleod: I am bound to say that I do not accept the first or second part of that supplementary question. I believe that the Government which is being formed will prove to be strong and stable.
    Sir H. Oakshott: Has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to reports coming through in the last hour or two which seem to indicate that a Government is almost on the verge of being formed, and can he give the House any details? Is the report true? If so, is it not a very welcome step forward?
    Mr. Macleod: Yes, I can confirm those reports. In the last hour or two, I have received from the Governor a list of six names for the more important portfolios—three African, two European and one Asian. Those appointments will be confirmed at once and I imagine that the Governor will be making an early announcement on them.

  NORTHERN RHODESIA

    United National Independence Party, Northern Province
    Mr. Callaghanasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if, in view of recent incidents in the Northern Province of Northern Rhodesia, he will review the administrative arrangements in the territory and ensure that the United National Independence Party is permitted to function freely during the forthcoming election period.
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if his attention has been drawn to the imprisonment, punishment, and ill-treatment of supporters of the United National Independence Party of Northern Rhodesia in the Northern Province; what action he has taken to investigate these matters; and if he will take steps to ensure freedom of speech and association in the territory.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: I am confident that no restriction will be placed on the lawful activity of any political party. The Governor has found no evidence to support the statement that supporters of the United National Independence Party have been maltreated. Where members of U.N.I.P. have been imprisoned this has followed breaches of the law, all of which have been brought to trial before the courts in the normal manner.
    Freedom of speech and association within the law are ensured to all inhabitants of the territory.
    Mr. Callaghan: Is the Colonial Secretary aware that his confidence is, unfortunately, misplaced and that the facts do not bear out his confidence? Is it not significant that the only complaints which are coming, some of which I have had an opportunity of investigating, pretty well at first hand, are coming from this province? If the right hon. Gentleman will not review the arrangements himself, will he ask the Governor to keep a careful oversight over the behaviour of some members of the administration in this part of the Territory?
    Mr. Macleod: I have drawn the Governor's attention, in correspondence with him, to a number of allegations. That does not mean that I accept them in any way, but it is my duty to draw his attention to them. I should have thought that the hon. Member's suggestions were repudiated by the fact that in the last six months alone, I am told, no fewer than 125 branches of U.N.T.P. have been formed in the Northern Province.
    Mr. Swingler: Will the Colonial Secretary say what form of inquiries into the allegations have been made? Did he see a few days ago a report of a speech made by Mr. Kenneth Kaunda, leader of the United Independence Party, giving chapter and verse about the treatment of some African citizens with whom he had stayed in the Northern Province? Have those allegations been examined and, if so, who has done the investigating?
    Mr. Macleod: They have not been examined, but they are being examined because, apart from making a speech at a Press conference in London, Mr. Kaunda came to see me and discussed some of these matters with me. I have drawn this to the attention of the authorities in Northern Rhodesia, as I have said.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Will my right hon. Friend do his utmost to see that all lawful parties in Northern Rhodesia are able to function free of the sort of intimidation which has sometimes disgraced sections of the United National Independence Party during an election period?
    Mr. Macleod: I am certain that it is essential that all parties, African and European and every other party, should function within the law and free from intimidation.

  GAMBIA

    Disturbances
    Mr. Callaghanasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will hold an inquiry into the disturbances in the Gambia in January last which resulted in two deaths and forty injured.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: No, Sir. There were no deaths. Three people were admitted to hospital and have since been discharged.
    Mr. Callaghan: I am usually right in these cases, especially when the Monckton Commission went to Africa—and the Devlin Commission.
    Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: Go on—ask the Question.
    Mr. Callaghan: On a point of order. Will you restrain the hon. Baronet the Member for Knutsford (Sir W. Bromley-Davenport) from usurping your functions, Mr. Speaker?
    Mr. Speaker: I should like the House to get on with Questions.
    Mr. Callaghan: Is the Colonial Secretary aware that I was told by the secretary of the General Workers' Union in Gambia in this House last week that the figures I have quoted represented the true situation? Can the right hon. Gentleman account for the apparent discrepancy?
    Mr. Macleod: Obviously, neither the hon. Gentleman nor I has first-hand information. I naturally rely for my information on these matters on the Governor and I am sure that his information is right. After all, he has access to the records of the hospital which treated some people for minor bruises and others who were detained. With respect to the hon. Member, I therefore assume that the balance of evidence is probably on my side.

  COLONIAL TERRITORIES

    Colonial Development Corporation
    Mr. G. M. Thomsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is now in a position to make a statement on the future arrangements for the Colonial Development Corporation.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: As the Answer is rather long and detailed, I will, with permission, make a statement at the end of Questions.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE

    Imports from Hong Kong (Marking)
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will require that imports from Hong Kong are marked as made in Hong Kong.
    The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Reginald Maudling): No, Sir. The Merchandise Marks Acts, 1887–1953 prescribe the conditions in which imported goods should bear an indication of origin; I do not think that any change in this respect is needed.
    Mr. Allaun: Is not the description "Empire Made" misleading in this case, and would not "Made in Hong Kong" be preferable in view of the appallingly low wages and other sweated conditions there with which our British workers have to compete?
    Mr. Maudling: The descriptions permitted are either "Foreign" or "Empire", and it would not be right to single out one territory for a special limitation.

    Roumanian and Polish Eggs
    Sir A. Hurdasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the outcome of the urgent examination given to the application for an anti-dumping duty on Roumanian and Polish eggs.
    Mr. de Freitasasked the President of the Board of Trade what action he has taken on the anti-dumping application by the National Farmers' Union and the British Egg Marketing Board in respect of eggs from Poland and Roumania.
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the President of the Board of Trade what action he has now taken in response to the producers' organisations' application for an anti-dumping duty on Roumanian and Polish eggs.
    Mr. Maudling: The Poles are traditional suppliers of eggs to the

    617
    British market. This year their supplies were earlier and heavier than usual. I am satisfied that last month they sold at a price that involved a margin of dumping, and had their sales continued at that rate they could, in my opinion, have caused material damage within the meaning of the Act. I have talked to the Polish authorities. They tell me that shipments are on the decline. At the peak they were about 60,000 boxes in a week. They intend that their sales on the shell egg market next week will not be more than 18,000 boxes and not more than 11,000 boxes a week thereafter. Planned shipments in any quantity will not extend beyond late May or early June.
    Sales of Roumanian eggs have been on a much smaller scale and the Roumanian authorities informed me that future arrivals are negligible.
    In these circumstances I do not consider that I should be justified in imposing an anti-dumping duty.
    Sir A. Hurd: I thank my right hon. Friend for his Answer, so far as it goes. Will he recall that when we sought to unload some surplus eggs on Germany a year or two ago, we were very quickly called to order, and will he be all the more prompt in the Board of Trade about calling to order the Poles, Roumanians, or anybody else who seeks to dump eggs here to the detriment of the British producer and also the British taxpayer?
    Mr. Maudling: We received the application only on Wednesday of last week and I think that we have acted fairly promptly.
    Mr. de Freitas: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the view that he acted promptly is not shared by the farming communities and that there is a feeling that whereas the Board of Trade may act very quickly when it comes to dumping industrial products, it is not so quick in its action about agricultural products?
    Mr. Maudling: That is the opposite of the truth. We act particularly quickly in the case of perishable products, and this is a very good example.
    Mr. Turton: Did my right hon. Friend say that he found there was evidence of dumping in the Polish case but because he thought it was not going to
    618
    continue for very long he refused the application for a duty? Is not that an abuse of the whole system?
    Mr. Maudling: My point was that there was a margin of dumping, but I have also to be satisfied that there is substantial damage—"material injury" is the phrase—and as these cases concern only a very small proportion of the British market I am satisfied that there was no great damage within the meaning of the Act.
    Mr. Fernyhough: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what percentage these imports represent of total home consumption?
    Mr. Maudling: At their largest they were 10 per cent. of the sales of the Egg Marketing Board and are now reduced to about 2 per cent.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: My right hon. Friend said that the application was received only on Wednesday? Was not the state of dumping widely known in the country long before that? Is the Board of Trade in close contact with the Ministry of Agriculture to see that prompt action can be taken in these cases?
    Mr. Maudling: Yes, Sir. I said that the formal application was received last Wednesday but the first informal approach by the N.F.U. and Marketing Board took place only two days before that.

    Industrial Development Certificates, Faversham
    Mr. P. Wellsasked the President of the Board of Trade how many applications for industrial development certificates have been received from industrialists desiring to build factories in the Borough of Faversham during the period January, 1956 to January, 1961; and what decisions were taken.
    Mr. Maudling: One application was received to build a new factory, and ten applications to extend existing factories. All were approved.
    Mr. Wells: While thanking the Minister for that Answer, may I ask if he will note that there is great difficulty in Faversham in finding jobs for school leavers at present and that a large number of workers have to commute long

    619
    distances each day? Will he take these facts into consideration when considering further applications for I.D.C.s?
    Mr. Maudling: I think the record of applications to which the Answer refers shows that we are well aware of the problems in this district.

    Major Yuri Gagarin
    Mr. Pentlandasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, on the occasion of his visit to the British Trade Fair in Moscow next month, he will extend an official invitation to Major Yuri Gagarin to visit Great Britain.
    Mr. Maudling: I understand that those responsible for organising the Soviet Industrial Fair in London are considering inviting Major Gagarin to visit it.
    Mr. Pentland: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that an official invitation by him when he is in Moscow would not only reinforce the recognition this country has of the superb courage displayed by this man, but also give our top scientists and technologists an early opportunity of having discussions with him That is very important because, does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that, some day, whether we like it or not, a Britisher will have to travel this road opened by Major Gagarin?
    Mr. Maudling: I understand that an invitation is being offered. I do not think we should butt in, but certainly everybody will be delighted if such an invitation is extended and accepted.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: In view of the Home Secretary's recent refusal to allow certain people to come into this country, will the President of the Board of Trade give an assurance that the Home Secretary will not ban Major Gagarin as a prohibited immigrant?

  THE PRIME MINISTER AND PRESIDENT KENNEDY (TALKS)
  Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement about his conversations with President Kennedy relating to Polaris missiles, and particularly their test failures.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): I would refer the hon.
  620
  Member to the Answers which I gave to the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly) on 25th April. I made it clear then that I did not think it would be proper for me in answering Questions to go beyond the points contained in or arising out of the joint communiqué issued by President Kennedy and myself after our meeting. I see no reason to depart from that in this particular case.
  Mr. Allaun: Did the President mention that of the eighteen underwater tests of the Polaris missile, eight have been failures according to United States Navy spokesmen? Does not that mean that our country is being made even more vulnerable by the use of an unreliable weapon?
  The Prime Minister: If I were to answer that question either in the positive or the negative, I should be departing from the principle I set myself in the original Answer.

  CORPORAL PUNISHMENT
  Mr. Haleasked the Prime Minister whether the statement on corporal punishment made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department on 19th April, 1961, to the Conservative Women's National Advisory Committee represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
  The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department explained the objections to judicial corporal punishment. What he said certainly represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
  Mr. Hale: The Home Secretary also said other things. Is the Prime Minister aware that while his right hon. Friend, with his customary vagueness, did not say which end of the belt was to be used on which end of the child or even which end it was intended to reform, this was recommending an offence against Section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, for which people have been sent to prison? While we appreciate that there is a difference of opinion among people of decent feeling on these questions of corporal punishment and on the value of the leather belt, indeed on tea, veal and ham

  621
  pie, provincial newspapers or even commercial television, the right hon. Gentleman might find some lessons on the pernicious effects of the whip on the basis of "si monumentum requiris, circumspice".
  The Prime Minister: I must congratulate the hon. Member on a supplementary question admirably delivered and very comprehensive in its character. I am fortunate in that, although I have held many offices, I have never been Home Secretary or Minister of Education. Therefore, my experience has been entirely on the receiving end of this matter.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Look at the result.
  The Prime Minister: Judged by certain aspects, that might be said to be not altogether unsuccessful. I think it was quite clear what the Home Secretary was saying. He was saying that while there was a strong feeling in favour of disciplinary measures applied either in school or by the parent immediately after the offence without all the paraphernalia of the whole formality of police court proceedings and long delay, he did not approve—and the Government support him here—of the return of corporal punishment as part of the judicial system as opposed to the ordinary methods of discipline.
  Mr. S. Silverman: Is the Prime Minister aware that what the Home Secretary was saying on this occasion went far beyond the policy which he rejected when the hon. Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore) pressed it upon him, in that even the hon. Member for Ayr has never asked for corporal punishment for peccadilloes, but only for crimes of violence? Will the Prime Minister explain the inconsistency?
  The Prime Minister: I do not think there was any inconsistency in what my right hon. Friend said. I think that his position is clearly understood and that it commands general support in this House and in the country.

  KENYA
  Mr. Grimondasked the Prime Minister if he will visit Kenya in the near future.
  The Prime Minister: I have no plans at present to visit Kenya, much as I
  622
  should like to do so when opportunity occurs.
  Mr. Grimond: Would not the formation of a new Government in Kenya offer such an opportunity? Is the Prime Minister aware that many of us have been receiving reports of white settlers in Kenya who are deeply perturbed because they feel they have been misled by Government statements in the past? Would it not be a good idea if he went and talked to them at first-hand and tried to allay their suspicions?
  The Prime Minister: I have every confidence in the ability and experience of the Colonial Secretary.

  ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS AND ENQUIRIES
  Mr. MacCollasked the Prime Minister whether he will take steps to ensure that Ministers implement the recommendation of the Committee on Administrative Tribunals and Enquiries to the effect that they should submit to the parties at an inquiry for their observations any factual evidence, including expert evidence, obtained after the inquiry and influencing their final decision.
  The Prime Minister: The Government agree that the parties to an inquiry should be given an opportunity of commenting on any new factual evidence obtained after the inquiry and this was made clear in the circular issued by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government in February, 1958. But the Government have always taken the view that the term "factual evidence" does not cover technical or other advice given to a Minister by officials on the issues raised at the inquiry and on the weight to be attached to the evidence which was given there.
  Mr. MacColl: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that what the Government agreed was an interpretation of the words "factual evidence", which no one else accepts including the Council on Tribunals, and that that interpretation has apparently led to a headlong collision between that Council and the Lord Chancellor? Would the right hon. Gentleman direct his attention also to the case of the Saffron Walden inquiry, where the only issues were on questions of fact about whether chalk would do

  623
  damage to crops and livestock and whether there was a demand for chalk production, and on both these matters, on which the views of the inspector were rejected by the Minister, there must have been some other factual evidence on which the right hon. Gentleman could have based a decision?
  The Prime Minister: I think that in the debate it was made clear that the Government broadly accept the recommendations and in the circular I think it was also made clear. I quite admit that there is a rather difficult margin between the duty of a Minister to try to evaluate the evidence and production of new evidence. I have had the misfortune for three years to try to handle these kinds of cases. There are enormous volumes of evidence and very difficult decisions. They are broadly not juridical decisions, but the best basis we can give to the balance of public advantage. Since the Minister cannot be himself an expert, I think he is entitled when taking new evidence—that has always been clear—to rely on the advice of officials as to the weight which should be given to all kinds of evidence.
  Mr. Mitchison: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Council, which after all is a quasi-judicial body, held a long meeting about this and arrived at the conclusion that there had been a departure from the recommendations of the Franks Committee's Report? In those circumstances, is not the right thing to do in the general public interest to let the matter go before the Council on Tribunals and be properly and fully examined and reported on by that Council? I suggest that it is part of the Council's general duty.
  The Prime Minister: I have seen the statement issued by the Council on Tribunals in reply to a statement made by the Lord Chancellor and I understand that the Lord Chancellor has himself replied. No doubt the matter will be further discussed between them—that is on this particular case. On the general principle, I think that this is right. Any new factual evidence, of course, should be, and it was understood would be, put back for comment, but I say that in trying to reach these very difficult decisions, which are rather a balance of advantage than of fact, it is right that the Minister should have the assistance
  624
  of his technical officials in evaluating the weight to be given to this or that argument.
  Mr. Gaitskell: Is the Prime Minister aware that there is a great deal of dissatisfaction, both about the decision taken by the Minister in this case, and also about the refusal to discuss with other parties to the case the new evidence—we would say factual evidence—presented to him and on the basis of which he appears to have taken this decision? Will the Prime Minister look at this matter again and consider the suggestion of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) that the Council on Tribunals should be invited to look into the whole matter so that we can have a full report? Is he aware that the Lord Chancellor's statement has not by any means allayed public anxiety on the matter?
  The Prime Minister: I can understand that, of course, but as all these tribunals were set up by the Government in the hope of getting a more acceptable system, I think that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that it would be better to await the outcome of the discussions now going on between the Chairman of the Council and the Lord Chancellor and to see whether out of that some new formulation is necessary or not.
  Mr. Wade: As the case has raised some very important questions of principle, will the Prime Minister discuss with the Leader of the House the possibility of having a debate some time in the future?
  The Prime Minister: That is a matter to be discussed through the usual channels. I should point out that this whole system is a great amelioration in the benefit to the ordinary citizen on the old procedure. I must also point out—and I have some experience of this—that there is always the great battle between those who say that our procedures in these matters are intolerably slow, holding up all kinds of necessary public work, and those who say that they are too rapid. One has to make the best balance one can, but I think that after the discussion between the Lord Chancellor and the Chairman of the Council it ought to be possible to look at the matter again.
  Mr. Mitchison: If this is a great amelioration it ought to be assisted to work. If the Council on Tribunals is given this general duty to supervise this branch of the law lying between administration on the one hand and judicial proceeding on the other, it ought to be helped in doing it. In a case of this sort where the Tribunal thinks that there has been a breach of the recommendations of the Franks Report, surely it ought to be given the opportunity of examining and reporting on it and the matter ought not to be left to some secret solution between the Lord Chancellor and the Chairman?
  The Prime Minister: I did not understand that the consultations between the Lord Chancellor and the Chairman of the Council were secret. I understood that all the correspondence had been published.
  Mr. Lipton: Will the Prime Minister be good enough to explain this: when I sought to put a Question to the Attorney-General impugning the action of the Lord Chancellor in this matter, the Question was transferred to the Minister of Housing and Local Government, one of the people involved. Since when has it been the doctrine that the Minister of Housing is responsible for jurisdiction exercised by the Lord Chancellor in a matter of this kind when his own conduct as Minister is also impugned?
  The Prime Minister: I find that question somewhat obscure. It passes my comprehension.
  Mr. Gaitskell: Will the Prime Minister undertake to make a further statement on this matter after the discussions, to which he has referred, between the Council and the Lord Chancellor have taken place? Is he aware that we reserve the right to take steps to arrange, in the time available to us, for a debate of this matter, because we are by no means satisfied with what has been said so far?
  The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman asks whether I will make a statement. I will answer any Questions put down to me. The second part of the question, about a debate, is a separate request.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
Mr. Shinwell: On a point of order. May I ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker? Would you be good enough to inform the House, myself included, by what test you determine the importance of a Question which enables hon. Members to put a whole series of supplementary questions and prevents other hon. Members from putting their Questions?
Mr. Speaker: It is extremely difficult. I try to exercise my judgment and I find it shown apparently to be wrong by a large number of hon. Members desiring to ask supplementary questions about one topic. I regret that the House did not get further with Questions today and I accept my part of the blame. I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman or the House a better answer than that I try to exercise my judgment as best may be in the interests of the House.
Mr. S. Silverman: Further to that point of order. May I draw your attention to the fact that nearly seven minutes have been devoted to this Question so far and that in the course of those seven minutes we have had supplementary questions from three occupants of the Opposition Front Bench as well as supplementary questions from a variety of other people? With the greatest of respect, it looks to some of us as though this is nothing but an organised attempt to prevent other hon. Members from asking Questions.
Mr. Callaghan: Rubbish.
Mr. Speaker: If I thought that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) included the Chair in the organisation, I should have to rule his observations out of order. May I ask Mr. Macleod to answer Question No. 25.
Mr. Silverman: Further to that point of order. Is it not the case that the old tradition of the House, though there was never a rule about it, was that Members on the Front Bench did not compete with one another for supplementary questions on the same Question? It has mostly been regarded as sufficient for the hon. Member who is charged with the responsibility for a Department or set of circumstances to ask the supplementary

627
questions. He may conceivably be supported by the Leader of the Opposition. But to have a competition among Members on the Front Bench, competing with one another for supplementary questions on a not very important matter, is against all the traditions of the House.
Mr. Speaker: I do not think that I have sufficient experience in the way in which these matters are organised by the Opposition to make this into a question of Order for the Chair. I ask Mr. Macleod to answer Question No. 25.

COLONIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Iain Macleod): With permission, Sir, I will now answer Question No. 25.
I am now able to announce the changes which the Government have decided to introduce affecting the financial liabilities of the Colonial Development Corporation to the Exchequer. In framing these arrangements my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I have been greatly helped by the analysis and recommendations in the Report of the Committee under the chairmanship of Lord Sinclair of Cleeve, Cmnd. 786.
Our proposals are as follows. In the past, the true financial position of the Corporation has been greatly obscured by the arrangements whereby, in recognition of the fact that some of the Corporation's projects do not immediately become revenue-bearing, it does not have to service long-term Exchequer advances during the first seven years after they are made. The accumulation of unpaid interest which has thus arisen amounts to about £11 million.
In order to ease the financial position of the Corporation, it has been decided to release it from the obligation to meet this liability when it becomes due, and to place the sum into a special account, in a way similar to that proposed by the Sinclair Committee, where interest will not be payable. We shall also place in this account the Corporation's debt—about £9 million—arising from the Exchequer advances for projects which
628
have been wholly abandoned by the Corporation.
Towards payment of both liabilities in the special account—up to a total of £20 million in all—the Corporation will pay over to the Exchequer 60 per cent. of its net annual profits in excess of £250,000. These profit-sharing arrangements are designed to relate the Corporation's payments more closely to its financial capacities from time to time. These are, however, novel arrangements, and we propose to review them in three years' time in the light of experience gained.
The terms attaching to future advances by the Exchequer will depend on whether the Corporation requires them for making loans to third parties or for investment in equity-type holdings. In the case of loan transactions, the period over which repayments to the Exchequer will be made will be such as to conform generally to that of the capital repayments which the Corporation will be receiving from third parties. In the case of investments in shares, the Corporation will generally draw long-term advances for a 40-year period, and, for this type of investment only, the seven-year grace period will continue to be applicable.
I am satisfied that these arrangements will be of real assistance to the Corporation in the important and difficult task in which it is engaged. The Corporation, for its part, would have preferred the adoption of the Sinclair Committee's recommendations, whereby a part of the Exchequer advances would have been converted into equity capital. All the same, it considers that these changes will provide a sounder, stronger and more realistic basis for its future operations. To this result, the Corporation has made its contribution by accepting a restriction of the type of project to which the seven-year grace period will now apply. I should also like to acknowledge the help and co-operation it has given me over a prolonged period of consultation.
Mr. G. M. Thomson: While thanking the Secretary of State for making that statement, and while welcoming the proposals to relieve the Colonial Development Corporation of the unfair burden of interest which it has been carrying from past projects, may I ask him

629
whether he is aware that he has failed to use the very long time which he has had to consider this matter to produce proposals for the future of the Colonial Development Corporation on a sufficiently imaginative scale?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in particular, there is regret on three points: first, that he has failed to agree that enterprises of risk which are important in under-developed territories should be treated as equity investment; secondly, that he has made no announcement about expanding the amount of capital available to the C.D.C., since its capital is running out; and, thirdly, and most important, that he has not chosen this opportunity to announce that the C.D.C. will be able to go on initiating new projects in newly independent territories?
Mr. Macleod: As hon. Members will see when they have time to study my statement, in many matters we have followed the Sinclair Report. The main Sinclair recommendation which we have not been able to follow—converting part of the advances to an equity shareholding in the C.D.C.—would, in our view, have amounted to a subsidy over which there would not have been full Government or Parliamentary control. We therefore believe that our answer is the better answer.
I was asked about the amount of money available. As we explained in a debate on this matter, I very much hope that it will be possible to make this fund, in part at least, a revolving fund.
I know that hon. Members attach great importance to the third question which the hon. Member put. I believe that the Government's attitude in this respect is right. In time, it will, inevitably, have to be reviewed, but the needs of the Colonial Territories are such at this time that I believe it right that the efforts of C.D.C.—which, after all, was set up specifically for this purpose—should be devoted to and particularly pointed at those needs.
Mr. Thomson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that today is the day on which Sierra Leone is celebrating its independence? Is not this the kind of territory in which the C.D.C. should have the opportunity to carry out new projects in the future, as one of our
630
methods of giving help to that kind of new Commonwealth country?
Mr. Macleod: Today is Sierra Leone's independence day and we send her all possible best wishes. We have always taken the view that when countries become independent the best way of giving them aid is either through technical aid in one form or another, or through Commonwealth assistance loans or on a Government basis. While the C.D.C. can bring to fruition projects which it may have in newly independent countries, it should put its main effort into starting new projects in the Colonies, where there is very great need.
Mr. Grimond: Do I understand from the right hon. Gentleman's statement that the C.D.C. will have to pay over a higher proportion of its profits than used to be the case? I think that it is to be 60 per cent. in excess of £250,000. Is it likely to hamper the amount of capital which it can accumulate for new projects?
Mr. Macleod: No, I do not think that this will hamper the C.D.C. This is a matter on which we have managed to reach agreement with the Treasury and the C.D.C. This is towards the repayment of the funds, which may total £20 million. Towards that the C.D.C. will pay over 60 per cent. of the net annual profit, but only in excess of £250,000.
Sir G. Nicholson: Will not this require legislation? If it does—indeed, in any case—will not my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to review the whole position of the newly independent territories? When he says that most of the C.D.C. work will go to the Colonies, he will no doubt bear in mind that the Colonial Empire is undergoing metamorphosis and that many of its members are coming out of the jurisdiction of the Colonial Office. Is he satisfied in his heart of hearts that there is no gap or hiatus when a territory becomes independent?
Mr. Macleod: I am never satisfied that the arrangements are perfect. I would repeat a point made by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on the Department of Technical Cooperation Bill, two days ago: even after the independence of Sierra Leone today there are still more than 30 Colonial Territories. I am sure that it is right

631
that the C.D.C.'s effort should be directed first to them. I admit that in view of the shrinking in the number of Colonial Territories these arrangements, which may be, and I believe are, the right arrangements for the present, will have to be reviewed in the future. I think it likely that what I have said today may mean a comparatively small legislative amendment, but I am not yet advised whether that is so.
Mrs. White: On what basis is the Corporation expected to finance pilot and experimental schemes, which are particularly welcome?
Mr. Macleod: In general, these matters are left to the Corporation's commercial judgment and its arrangements will follow the lines which were outlined in a speech which I made to the House when we debated this matter a short time ago.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We must get on with business.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business of the House for next week?
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 1ST MAY—Second Reading of the North Atlantic Shipping Bill and Committee Stage of the necessary Money Resolution.
Committee and remaining stages of the Republic of South Africa (Temporary Provisions) Bill.
TUESDAY, 2ND MAY—Committee and remaining stages of the Army and Air Force Bill.
Report and Third Reading of the Local Authorities (Expenditure on Special Purposes) (Scotland) Bill.
Consideration of the Motions relating to the Fatstock (Guarantee Payments); and the Livestock Rearing Land Improvement Grants Orders.
632
WEDNESDAY, 3RD MAY—Report and Third Reading of the Rating and Valuation Bill.
THURSDAY, 4TH MAY—Second Reading of the Finance Bill.
FRIDAY, 5TH MAY—Consideration of Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY, 8TH MAY—The proposed business will be: Supply [13th Allotted Day]: Committee.
A debate will take place on Apprenticeship and Training for Industry.
Mr. Gaitskell: First, can the Leader of the House confirm that in Monday's debate it will be in order to discuss the general position of the shipping and shipbuilding industries? Secondly, will he arrange for a debate on foreign affairs before the Whitsun Recess—possibly a two-day debate?
Mr. Butler: The first matter referred to by the right hon. Gentleman is more a matter for the Chair than for me, although I would hope that references to the shipping and shipbuilding industries would be in order.
It is our intention, by agreement through the usual channels and on representations from various quarters of the House, to have a debate on foreign affairs before the Whitsun Recess.
Sir G. Nicholson: If my right hon. Friend is contemplating giving the House an opportunity of sending a message to the President of the French Republic, expressing its delight at the better state of affairs in France, will he also urge on the President that, in the British view, mercy is an act of strength, not of weakness?
Mr. Butler: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary expressed on Monday the general support that Her Majesty's Government give to the stability of the régime in France, and of our friendship for the French people. I do not think that I should enlarge on it today, but I have no doubt that my hon. Friend's observations will be noted.
Mr. Rankin: The Leader of the House has just said that references to shipbuilding will be permissible in the Second Reading debate on the North Atlantic Shipping Bill. How wide will the references be, and how far can they

633
go; and can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that this concession will not interfere with the prospect of a debate on the shipbuilding industry?
Mr. Butler: I said last week that a debate on the shipbuilding industry, as such, is not excluded, but I also said today that I hoped—and I think it natural on the Second Reading of a Bill like this—that references to shipping and shipbuilding might be brought in; but the exact scope of the references must be a matter for the Chair.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is grave disquiet in the country about the Government's attitude to the Cuban situation; and that there is a feeling in the House that this should not be obscured by a vague and rambling debate over two days on foreign affairs, when the issue cannot be directly challenged? Is the right hon. Gentleman not prepared to put down a Motion of confidence on the specific question of Cuba?
Mr. Butler: We must differentiate closely the extent of the responsibilities of Her Majesty's Government in relation to Cuba, and also avoid entrenching on the affairs of other countries, which is not a habit of this House. References to Cuba and, in particular, the United Nations and other places where British responsibility comes in, and to British citizens, and so on, could, I should have thought, be raised in the foreign affairs debate.
Sir M. Galpern: In view of the unprecedented unrest among Scottish teachers and the possibility of a strike of teachers in Glasgow on 8th May, can the Leader of the House find an opportunity for an early discussion next week on the Motion dealing with the critical situation in Scottish education?
[That this House deplores the attitude of the Secretary of State for Scotland towards the grave problems in Education, and in particular strongly protests against his attitude towards the present grievances of Scottish teachers in respect of dilution of the profession and the inadequacy of salaries and his refusal to accept the recommendation of the National Joint Council on the grounds that the Government is not prepared to meet the cost of an 18 per cent. increase in salaries; and
634
urges the Secretary of State to take immediate steps to remove these grievances in the interests of the education of children in Scotland]
Mr. Butler: It may be difficult to find time. I think that we had better see what the results of my right hon. Friend's latest suggestions are.
Mr. Marsh: Referring to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), is it not impossible to divorce the American Government's action over Cuba from the welfare of this country and its foreign policy? Is it not therefore essential that the House should have an opportunity, in the interests of Western unity and of the Atlantic Alliance, to discuss this matter, and clearly to state its opinion on this specific issue?
Mr. Butler: I cannot accept the exact situation as quoted by the hon. Member, because I think that it would be most unwise to do so. I think that the question of Cuba could be raised in the foreign affairs debate. I do not see any other very easy occasion for doing so.
Mr. S. Silverman: May I press the right hon. Gentleman a little further on the point about a debate on Cuba? Is he not aware that there is considerable anxiety in the country, and certainly in the House—not always represented by the usual channels—about the urgency of the Cuban question, and the desirability of the House being given an opportunity to express its own view as to whether the Government's action, and proposed action, is right or wrong?
May I direct his attention to a question asked of the Lord Privy Seal yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), who asked:
"If the right hon. Gentleman and the Government are not prepared to urge an inquiry into how the invasion last week took place, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether Her Majesty's Government are now making representations to the United States Government that the offence should not be repeated?"
Many hon. Members shouted: "Answer", and the Lord Privy Seal replied:
"There is no question of making representations to the United States Government on this matter."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th April, 1961; Vol. 639, c.413.]

635
While I appreciate that that may be the Government's view and that some people may agree with it, there are a great many people who do not agree with it, and who regard this as a grave emergency, and a grave threat to world peace. Will not the Leader of the House give the House an opportunity of expressing its opinion as to whether or not the Government's pusillanimity is justified?
Mr. Butler: Again, I cannot accept that this is a primary responsibility of Her Majesty's Government. I do accept that it is a grave situation in world politics. I also agree that it could be raised in the foreign affairs debate, and as I do not see any other easy opportunity, subject to any representations that may be made I must adhere to that decision.
Miss Herbison: Further to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern), is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that, according to this morning's Press, the reaction of the Scottish teachers to the suggestions made by the Secretary of State for Scotland is not at all favourable? Is he not also aware that the Motion on the Order Paper deals with the question of dilution, which is perturbing Scottish teachers even more than is the question of salaries? Would he not give consideration to a very early debate so that we might avoid a strike of Scottish teachers, with all the grave harm that might do to education?
Mr. Butler: I have read the references in the Press. I hope that the situation has not reached finality. In view of the seriousness of the situation, all I can do today is to undertake to discuss the subject with my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Gower: Following the many questions asked on the subject, can my right hon. Friend not say even more emphatically that the responsibility for what has happened in Cuba is in no way that of Her Majesty's Government—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We must keep this time for business questions.
Mr. Fernyhough: Referring to the right hon. Gentleman's answer on Cuba, he will be aware that this House rightfully
636
found time to discuss the Hungarian crisis. Is he aware that some of us feel that just as on that occasion we found time to express our remorse and disgust at what had happened in Hungary, so, on this occasion, time should be found for the House to express its opinion on Cuba?
Mr. Butler: We have not yet crystallised the arrangements for the foreign affairs debate, but I think that there will be ample opportunity then for hon. Members to express their opinion.
Mr. Swingler: Whatever form the foreign affairs debate may take, could not the Leader of the House be a little more specific about when it will take place? He only said that it would be some time before Whitsun, but that is more than three weeks ahead, which means that we may have to wait perhaps that long before we have a chance to debate the subject. Can he not say definitely that the debate will take place the week after next?
Mr. Butler: I cannot give a definite date. We only announce business up to the Monday after next. We are trying to find out, because that is the request of the House, how we can fit in a two-day debate. I cannot go further today.
Mr. S. Silverman: As the Leader of the House speaks of the intention of having a two-day debate on foreign affairs, could it not be so arranged that one day is devoted specifically to the Cuban position?
Mr. Butler: The Leader of the House has to pay attention to a general request. I should have thought that if there was a general request one could pay attention to the point put by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), but I am not yet satisfied that it would be the general view that a whole day should be devoted to this subject.
Mr. Shinwell: Is it the intention to have such a debate on the Adjournment, or do the Government propose to put down a Motion?
Mr. Butler: I think that it is more likely to be on the Adjournment, but we have not yet reached a decision.
Mr. Warbey: As the Leader of the House seems to be seeking additional

637
evidence of the desire of the House to have a day's debate devoted to Cuba alone, will he note that there are a considerable number of hon. Members who would like that to take place?
Mr. Butler: I think that most of the voices I have heard have come from a particular quarter.

BILL PRESENTED
  LEGAL PROFESSION (QUALIFICATION FOR OFFICE)
  Bill to make provision with respect to the qualification for office of barristers who have been solicitors, and for purposes connected therewith, presented by Mr. John Hobson; supported by Sir Frank Soskice, Mr. Graham Page, Mr. Eric Fletcher, and Mr. Donald Wade; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 5th May, and to be printed. [Bill 116.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUPPLY
  [12TH ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]

  CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1961–62
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That a further sum, not exceeding £30, be granted to Her Majesty, towards defraying the charges for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1962, for the following services connected with the operation of the Government's new pension scheme, namely:—

  Civil Estimates, 1961–62

  £

  Class X, Vote 2 (Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance)

  10

  Class X, Vote 4 (National Insurance and Family Allowances)

  10

  Class X, Vote 5 (National Assistance Board)

  10

  Total

  £30

  NEW PENSION SCHEME
  3.57 p.m.
  Mr. Douglas Houghton: The new graduated pensions scheme has now begun. It has taken two years to get all the elaborate machinery ready. We understand that new offices have been built at Newcastle-upon-Tyne and that extra staff have been taken on. There are cards, microfilms, forms, guides, leaflets, Statutory Instruments—and I understand that an outsize in electronic computers has been devised as part of the enormous apparatus to get this scheme working. I would very much like to know how much money has been wasted on printing expensive booklets twice over because the first were out of date before the scheme began.
  During the pensions debates in 1959 we warned the Minister that the contributions set up in the Bill could not conceivably stay as they were until April, 1961, because the Government would surely increase pensions before then. They did. The pensions increases were put into an amending Act last autumn, and the new rates came into operation

  639
  at the beginning of this month. With higher benefits came higher contributions. Two substantial booklets—the Employers' Guide, of 40 pages, and the General Guide, of 14 pages—had to be reprinted to bring all the figures up to date after last autumn's amending Act.
  There was, however, more to it than that. The Government led everyone to believe that part of the magic of their scheme was that the contributions of those getting under £9 a week would be reduced, and that those lower-paid workers were to be relieved to the extent of 1s. 7d. a week in the case of men, and 10d. a week in the case of women. The Government went through the General Election with this promise on their lips. Within twelve months, it had been falsified. The only reduction that anybody has had is 2d. a week, instead of 1s. 7d. a week, for men—and nothing at all for women. Another 10d. a week extra for National Health Service contribution for men, and 8d. a week extra for women, in two months' time, should surely complete the disillusionment of all those who were taken in by the Government.
  The Minister may say that the reason for the increased contributions was the increased pension, and that that is why the present contributions are higher than they were expected to be. That is exactly what we said would happen. We believed that it was plain that if the Government were to fulfil their pledge to give old-age pensioners a share in the increased prosperity of the nation, they could not, or would not, keep to the same contributions as they wrote into the Bill two years ago, yet the Government persisted with the myth that lower contributions would come about. The result is that the new scheme has begun with only a 2d. reduction in the flat-rate contribution for an employed man as the only remnant of the earlier promise.
  The mischief goes even further. In the Finance Act last year, a new scale of tax reliefs on National Insurance contributions was agreed to. These were decided upon last year so that all the P.A.Y.E. codings for the tax year beginning on 6th April could include the new flat-rate reliefs. All the coding for this tax year was completed before Christmas and the actual work was in progress knowing that the reliefs in the
  640
  Finance Act of last year were out of date.
  Now, in the Finance Bill, published today, there is a proposal to increase the relief on National Insurance contributions to take account of the fact that the expected reduction last year has not taken place. So the re-coding for P.A.Y.E. to give the new relief will cost the Inland Revenue 300,000 hours of overtime in the next few weeks—and this from a Government who talk about economies in administration.
  If the Minister's excuse is the difficulty which he had in providing for increased pensions two years ahead, he could have done what we urged him to do in 1959, namely, to increase the pensions a year ago, even though he would have to draw on the National Insurance Reserve Fund to tide him over until the new contributions began this year. There was nothing impossible about that. The Minister is sitting on a nest egg of £1,500 million in the National Insurance Reserve Fund, a large part of it profit which he made in the earlier years on the National Insurance Scheme because of the overloading of the contributions for an unemployment level that we happily never had. Before leaving administration, although what I have to say concerns the level of benefits also, it is as well that the Committee should appreciate that there will be an enormous amount of office work for small and, in many cases, trivial benefits and, in other cases, no benefits at all.
  One of the questions which people have been asking in recent weeks is about the position of those who are within a few weeks or months of retirement age. They are asking whether, in view of their imminent or early retirement, they have to pay graduated contributions if they are earning over £9 a week, and, if so, what benefit they will derive from them.
  The answer is that they will have to pay for every week before they retire when they earn more than £9 a week, men and women, married women and single women, and that they cannot get any benefits out of the graduated scheme unless they pay enough for at least half a unit of graduated contributions, £7 10s. for men and £9 for women. If their contributions total less than half a unit, they get nothing at all. If their contributions exceed half a unit, they will get

  641
  the benefit of a full unit, which will be 6d. a week extra on their pension.
  The Committee should, however, appreciate that it takes a man earning £15 a week or more 29 weeks, paying the maximum contribution of 5s. 1d. a week, to attain the half-unit mark and, therefore, to earn 6d. extra on his pension. A woman earning £15 a week paying the same amount of 5s. 1d. a week takes 36 weeks to reach half a unit and get 6d. extra on her pension. Those on lower earnings must obviously pay for a correspondingly longer period to qualify for the half-unit to give them any benefit at all. To many people, that will represent hardship. In any event, they will feel that they have been cheated out of benefit for contributions compulsorily paid from which, apparently, they will be unable to derive any advantage.
  The fact is that for the contributions under the graduated scheme that began several weeks ago, little, if anything, will be paid out this year in benefits under the graduated scheme. All the graduated contributions collected this year will be used to pay for flat-rate pensions and will not ever be used to pay graduated benefits, which is supposed to be their purpose.
  In some extreme cases in the scheme, one discovers almost unbelievable results. A man who earns less than £9 a week for 51 weeks in the year but who, in the fifty-second week, earns £15 for that week, will pay one contribution for that year at the maximum rate. If such a man was 21 years of age at the beginning of this month, he could continue to do that for forty-four years, one contribution a year at 5s. 1d. and his employer paying 5s. 1d., too, for only 6d. extra pension. If he were 51 instead of 21 at the beginning of this month, that same man could go on paying one maximum contribution per year for the next fourteen years and get nothing out of it at all.
  We have the case of the married woman who has given up work and pays no flat-rate contributions on her own option, but must pay graduated contribution if she takes a job and earns over £9 in any week. She may go back to her old job or take temporary employment for a short period. She may be required to pay a graduated contribution for this short period of employment out
  642
  of which she will get little or no benefit. She could do one week's work in every year for forty-two years and still not qualify for an extra 1s. on her pension.
  The Minister will be keeping hundreds of thousands of small accounts. Perhaps the best he can say of them is that the contribution will scarcely pay for the paper that he will use upon them. Leaving aside the trivial benefits, however, even the more tangible benefits are small enough. Many contributors under the graduated scheme are only just realising how meagre the pensions are. A man aged 40, earning £12 a week, will pay 2s. 8d. a week, and his employer another 2s. 8d., for twenty-five years to add 11s. 6d. to the pension. In the case of a married man, that would give on present figures a total of £5 3s. a week.
  A woman aged 45, earning £12 a week, will pay 2s. 8d. and her employer another 2s. 8d. for fifteen years to add 6s. a week to her pension, which, for a single woman, would give a total of £3 3s. 6d. a week, including the flat-rate pension. In both those cases, the people concerned would do better on National Assistance now. Indeed, on these scales, they will still need National Assistance, taking the existing National Assistance scale at 53s. 6d. a week plus rent in the case of a single person and 90s. a week plus rent in the case of a marked couple.
  As far as I can calculate, the maximum extra pension which can be earned over forty years of employment at the £15 rate would be 35s. a week, giving a total pension for a married couple of £6 7s. 6d. a week. In present conditions, even that is a bare living. It cannot be regarded as adequate subsistence for a married couple. This is not only the basic pension, but the graduated pension at the maximum rate added to it.
  Furthermore, there is no provision in the 1959 Act for an improvement in the graduated benefits. One may ask what 6d. extra a week on the pension will be worth in twenty years' time. Indeed, what will 11s. 6d. extra on the pension be worth in twenty years' time? These questions illustrate the inadequate scale upon which the graduated scheme has been based.
  We know the financial secret of all this. It is, perhaps, a coincidence that in 1959, when the Minister said that

  643
  taxation must be relieved of the emerging burden of the National Insurance Scheme, the Government found it possible to reduce Income Tax by £230 million a year and, in 1961, when that scheme comes into operation, the Government find it possible to reduce Surtax by £83 million a year. These are the two key dates and the two key events within which we must put the graduated pension scheme to appreciate the transfer from taxation to the contributor, from payment according to ability to pay to contributions which ignore ability to pay.
  What the Minister is doing in the scheme is to make a huge profit in the years to come on the graduated pension part of the scheme and to use it to meet the deficit on the flat-rate part of the scheme, the emerging cost of which, the Minister said, was getting too heavy for the taxpayer reasonably to bear. What the Exchequer was going to find out of taxation, the contributor will now pay in a somewhat bitter pill with a little graduated jam on it.
  Let us look for a moment at what this profit will amount to. This year, it is estimated that about £100 million will be collected in graduated contributions. The benefits paid out under the graduated scheme will to all intents and purposes be nil. In ten years' time—that is, in 1971–72—it is estimated that £295 million in contributions will be collected and the estimated payments out of the graduated part of the scheme will be only £16 million. In twenty years' time, in 1981–82, the contributions are estimated to reach £391 million and benefits under the graduated scheme £63 million. In forty years' time, if we can look as far ahead as that in present circumstances in the world, the contributions are estimated to yield £537 million and the benefits paid out in graduated contributions just less than £200 million. Therefore, if we look at the profit to be made on the graduated side of the scheme, we find that in ten years' time it will be £280 million a year, in twenty years' time, £330 million a year, and in forty years' time, £340 million a year.
  We know where the surplus will be going. It will go to pay for the flat-rate benefits. That is how the flat-rate pension scheme gets out of the "red".
  644
  Instead of taxing according to ability to pay, we shall find that a man on £10 a week will have 1s. 2d. a week stopped out of each £1 of his earnings, while a man on £25 a week will pay only 7d. in each £1 of his earnings, which seems to be graduation in reverse: the more one earns, the less in proportion one pays.
  The Minister, however, may say that we must consider the two schemes together, that we must bring them together to consider the finances and the value of the combined National Insurance Scheme. I agree that, up to a point, one has to look at the two schemes together although when the flat-rate scheme was already there and is still to remain there and for many people will be the only scheme there is, the new scheme, with its separate contributions and separate benefits, must be looked at separately as regards its purpose and its terms. Neither the purpose nor the terms of the combined scheme gain approval from this side of the Committee.
  We believe that the grievous fault of the graduated scheme is the concentration of contributions in the narrow wage band of £9 to £15 a week and the excessive use of graduated contributions to finance a deficit of the flat-rate scheme which should be met to a greater extent out of the Exchequer contribution.
  That brings me to the question of contracting out. We understand that over 4 million employees have been contracted out and that about half of them are public servants, which looks as though the Government have erected this elaborate apparatus of contracting out principally for their own use. I have always held the view—I expressed it during the Committee stage of the 1959 Bill—that, for a scheme of these modest proportions, it is extremely doubtful whether contracting out was justified. My belief is that universal compulsory insurance could be carried a stage further than the Minister has chosen to carry it, especially as those who are contracted out have to be taxed separately and specially by being required to pay more for their flat-rate benefits than those left in the scheme.
  Of those who are contracted out, men are paying 1s. 7d. a week more than those left in the combined scheme for the same flat-rate benefits. For women,

  645
  it is 10d. a week more. There is a good deal of confusion and misunderstanding about this and hon. Members, probably on both sides, have received letters from those who have been contracted out asking why they have to pay more for the same flat-rate benefit which those left in the scheme receive. The answer is that, since they are not paying a graduated contribution which can be milked, they must pay an extra contribution in the form of tribute for the privilege of being left out of the graduated scheme.
  Last December, I asked the Minister whether he would issue a statement explaining to people who are contracted out the reasons why they have to pay an extra contribution for the flat-rate benefit. Hon. Members will find the Minister's reply in cols. 109 and 110 of the Written Answers in the OFFICIAL REPORT of 19th December, 1960. I was obliged to the Minister for going to so much trouble, but I defy any hon. Member to discern in the Minister's official statement the real truth of the reason why the contracted-out contributor has to pay more than the person who is left in. His statement is wrapped up in obscure phraseology and it does not reveal the true facts of the situation.
  Concerning those who have been contracted out, it would be interesting if the Minister could supply the Committee, perhaps in answer to a Question, later, with an analysis of the type and numbers of employees who have been contracted out. I have referred to the fact that civil servants, teachers, local government officers, police, firemen and many others in the public sector have been contracted out. We also understand that some large industrial firms have decided to leave their employees in the graduated scheme, although they have an occupational scheme which might pass the test for contracting out. It would be interesting to know how the other half of those contracted out is made up.
  In conclusion, it cannot be too clearly understood by the country at large and those contributing to the graduated scheme that this is not a genuine pension scheme, but a gigantic reshuffling of the finances of social security. The motive behind the scheme was not to provide extra pensions. It was to solve the financial difficulties of the flat-rate scheme. People earning over £9 a week are to pay
  646
  through the nose for benefits quite inadequate for their needs and manifestly not value for money. By this means contributors are to pay more so that the Exchequer may pay less, which is like levying one's creditors to pay one's debtors.
  4.21 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Miss Patricia Hornsby-Smith): I have listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton). I hope to deal with most of the points that he raised and with the case set out in the recently published document of the Labour Party entitled, "The Pensions Fraud. A Guide to the Tory Scheme for Poverty in Old Age". [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Members opposite may not be quite so pleased when I have dealt with them. My right hon. Friend will deal with the points that I am not able to cover.
  Today, the Opposition have tried to prove that the new graduated pension scheme is a fraud and a swindle. This is an accusation which the Government wholeheartedly repudiate. We must recognise that this debate is a propaganda exercise to cover the shortcomings of the Opposition's national superannuation scheme which they are now in the process of rehashing. However, we have one meeting point, probably the only one.
  The hon. Gentleman admits that something had to be done to put the pension scheme on a sound financial basis. We cannot go on paying pensions with an actuarial value ten times higher than the maximum employer and employee's contributions without finding the money from somewhere. Last year, we paid out about £90 million more than we received from employers, employees and the Exchequer supplement to contributions of £126 million. If nothing had been done, that deficit, even on the former 50s. pension, would have reached about £425 million a year in twenty years' time, in addition to the statutory supplement from the Exchequer. It would be unrealistic for the Committee not to take these facts into consideration.
  Because of this, the 1959 Act and the graduated pension scheme were deliberately designed to meet future commitments for pensions on the pay-as-you-go

  647
  basis. Further—and I make no apology for it—the 1959 Act deliberately weighted the Government's subsidy in favour of the lower-paid workers and largely provided that the young and better-off people should aid the old and the retired. I cannot see that the Opposition can find fault with that. It also provided an opportunity for those earning more than £9 a week who were not contracted out to earn higher eventual pensions.
  The real difference between the hon. Member and myself is that the Socialists believe that pensions should be more heavily subsidised by the Government. It sounds so much nicer to say "subsidised by the Government" than to say, "put on the taxpayer". How much more honest it would be if they said, "We will not take it off your insurance, but slap it on your P.A.Y.E.".
  It has been a cardinal principle of national insurance that it should have a firm contributory basis and provide a pension as of right. As hon. Members know, this principle was overwhelmingly endorsed by the Beveridge Committee and it has been consistently upheld by the T.U.C. To load millions of pounds more on the Exchequer would inevitably jeopardise the pension-as-of-right principle and make what is now an independent pension fund much more a matter of direct budgetary policy.
  We have been told that the Exchequer is not paying its fair "whack". This year the Exchequer will find £189 million for the National Insurance Fund. How anyone can suggest that he is being swindled with a subsidy of that magnitude from the taxpayer I do not know. This is the largest annual payment yet made by the Exchequer to the Insurance Fund. Since the 1946 Act, the lowest payment made was when, under legislation for which the Leader of the Opposition was responsible, the Exchequer payment fell from £139 million to £65 million in two years.
  Mr. William Ross: We are here dealing with what people in employment pay today. Will the right hon. Lady tell us who received the money which was paid out last year—the people who are paying, or the people who have already retired?
  Miss Hornsby-Smith: It is a combination of both.
  Mr. Ross: The right hon. Lady knows quite well that the bulk of expenditure is on retirement pensions for people who have already retired.
  Miss Hornsby-Smith: Any payments from the fund for pensions will naturally go to retired people. Surely that is the subject of this debate. Nothing that hon. Members opposite do will alter the fact that any pensions expenditure goes to people already retired. They would not otherwise be drawing their pension.
  It is also interesting to note the proportion which has been paid by the contributor and by the Government. In 1951, under the Socialist Government, the contributors provided 89·9 per cent. of the total payout. This year, 1961–62, for higher benefits to more pensioners, contributors will pay only 81·5 per cent. Therefore, the proportion of the Exchequer contribution is higher than the contribution made by the Exchequer when hon. Members opposite were in office. The current Exchequer payment represents a quarter of the flat-rate contributions. In twenty years time the supplement will be £238 million from the taxpayer. It is, therefore, clear that the taxpayer will continue to make a substantial annual contribution to the Insurance Fund. This in itself destroys the idea that the contributor is being swindled.
  What hon. Members opposite now advocate contrasts strangely with what they advocated when they were in office. On the one hand, we have the plea of the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) at the Labour Party Conference, for an increase in pensions to be met by taxation. Hon. Members opposite now ask that the Exchequer should bear the main burden of pensions. Yet in their policy statement, "National Superannuation", they categorically reaffirm the insurance principle and make plain that the overwhelming body of opinion among trade unionists is that the fund should continue to be financed largely by the payment of contributions, as they feel that the worker then can receive the benefits as of right and that, therefore, no politician could take them away.
  Mr. Houghton: The right hon. Lady will recall that the basis of contribution was to be 5 per cent. from the

  649
  employer and 3 per cent. from the employee with the remaining 2 per cent. as an Exchequer contribution of the average earnings of the nation. That was to be applicable to the graduated scheme as well as to the other scheme. Under the Government scheme, no Exchequer contribution whatever is made to the graduated scheme.
  Miss Hornsby-Smith: With great respect, I do not think that that alters my argument. Hon. Members opposite are busy recasting the finance of that original proposal. I shall deal with certain aspects of it later and I hope to prove that their scheme would do considerable damage to very large areas of the field of occupational pensions were it brought into operation as they have outlined it.
  In concentrating their attack on the graduated part of the scheme, hon. Members opposite have deliberately divided the pension into two bits, yet, strangely enough, when they speak of their own pension scheme they refer to it as one. As they know very well, the only fair analysis is on the basis of the figure on a man's pension book when he draws it. I exonerate the hon. Member for Sowerby from this, because in one of his not infrequent flashes of objective rather than political thinking, he has admitted, in Socialist Commentary, that whether our scheme is a swindle
  "depends on whether we look at the scheme as a whole or whether we look at the graduated scheme by itself".
  The hon. Member for Sowerby, therefore, honestly admits that the pension which a man receives on retirement, on our joint scheme, is not a fraud and not a swindle. But even if we take the graduated part of the pension by itself the scheme gives the workers, the majority of whom have not enjoyed the benefits of an occupational scheme, a good return for what they have paid in.
  It will be seen that for every £7 10s. "brick" paid in by the male employee, with average expectation of life at pension age, the Government scheme gives a return of £15 12s., and the return is higher if he leaves a widow. For every £9 paid in by a woman, who may retire five years earlier and, on average, lives longer—and I always wonder why we are called the weaker sex—the average is £24. The total pension is a good bargain.
  I take the hon. Member for Sowerby to task for his calculations about people
  650
  who are in the scheme for only a short time. The hon. Member worked on a sum of £7 10s. But to earn an additional 6d. the employee would have to pay for only 15 weeks not 29 weeks, as the hon. Member said, and the sum he would have to pay is £3 15s. not £7 10s. We shall be paying some pensions increased in this way before the end of the year.
  The hon. Member referred to various examples. In the Labour Party document, which, presumably, will be widely circulated, and possibly widely read, the party takes what it considers to be the worst possible case it could find to prove that our scheme is a swindle. I do not blame hon. Members opposite for that. It is a fair debating point. To discredit our scheme, the document states that a lad of 18, earning £13 a week, who will retire eventually at 65 in the year 2008, will have a pension of only £6 a week.
  To get this figure hon. Members opposite assume that for forty-seven long years the lad never gets promotion and never gets a rise in pay. They assume that during forty-seven years wage-rates do not rise at all, and that for forty-seven years there is no rise in the basic flat rate pension—when, in fact, we have had five rises in the last ten years.
  Such a fantasy is really an insult to one's intelligence. If that is the best example that right hon. and hon. Members opposite can dream up against the Government scheme they must be very bankrupt of valid criticism. There is also the point that as the Labour Party is pledged to increase the flat-rate pension, right hon. and hon. Members opposite apparently assume that we shall not have a Labour Government for forty-seven years.
  The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): That is probably right.
  Miss Hornsby-Smith: Right hon. and hon. Members opposite complain that the £9-a-week worker is not affected by the graduated scheme, but he is. It has enabled him to get higher benefits for slightly lower contributions. It is a mean spirit that does not welcome that, and I again exonerate the hon. Member for Sowerby, because he has already acknowledged it in an article in Socialist Commentary and he has said that there is nothing wrong with it.

  651
  The basic flat-rate pension is and will remain the major part of the insurance pension and, therefore, it is relevant to consider it. We have been accused of abandoning the post-war aim of adequate pensions as of right. In fact, we have increased the pension four times, and on the last two occasions the greater part of the increase has given pensioners an increase in the real value of their pension as well. Over the years hon. Members opposite have argued that the pension should be tied to the cost of living. Had we tied it to the cost of living, the 26s. pension of 1946 would be 44s. 11d. today instead of 57s. 6d.
  Mr. James Dempsey: Ugh.
  Miss Hornsby-Smith: It is no use the hon. Member saying "Ugh". It is a fact. The married rate, on a cost-of-living basis, would be 72s. 7d. today as against the present 92s. 6d. These differences of 12s. 7d. and 19s. 11d. are a measure of the way in which we have kept our pledge to the old people and have done outstandingly better than a cost-of-living index increase would have provided.
  Nor do we forget that, when hon. Members opposite were in office, by their partial increase of the pension rate from 26s. to 30s., in 1951, they did not even keep pace with the cost of living. Hon. Members opposite have also mentioned, automatic increases, which they know very well are impracticable. One cannot bob pensions up and down every month in accordance with the cost-of-living index. But even assuming that they could find some method of changing the pensions far more frequently, the Labour Party speaks with two voices on this issue of an increase, whether on the basis of the Index of Retail Prices, or on the basis of the new "dynamism" to which they refer in their document entitled, "National Superannuation", and which is supposed to be linked with earnings or national wealth.
  In this document the party opposite provides for selective treatment. It claims that once a person was retired his pension would be made "inflation proof" only to the extent of keeping up with the cost-of-living. Thus, the so-called "dynamism" which links pensions to earnings and national wealth
  652
  would only apply during the pensioner's working life. Hon. Members opposite now claim, in another voice, that the existing pensioners, numbering 5½ million, would receive the dynamic treatment, too, which they were not to do according to "National Superannuation". But they give no explanation of how the money is to be raised. If it is to be raised by taxation, every 10s. extra on the pension represents roughly £200 million on the Exchequer.
  Mr. Houghton: Does the right hon. Lady not realise that in 1957 the Labour Party was pioneering in this field? It was blazing a trail which the Government took up twelve months later.
  Miss Hornsby-Smith: I am glad to acknowledge that we at least took up the trail to that extent. The hon. Member cannot complain about that. We have been anxious to maintain the insurance principle and also to ensure that we do not mislead people into thinking that what they avoided paying in contributions they would not have flung on to their P.A.Y.E.
  Then hon. Members opposite have complained about the smallness and niggardliness of our graduated scheme. We are criticised for its modest level. This was deliberate and we make no apology for it. We believe that private schemes are of infinite value to the employee and can be more easily tailored to his needs than a State scheme. A classic example is how the miners' scheme is tailored to the needs of the mining industry. I am sure that there is not an hon. Member opposite who would wish to see that scheme superseded.
  We do not seek to destroy private insurance schemes. Provided that they are at least as good as the State scheme, we hope that they will flourish. We do not seek to take so much of a man's income that he loses the right to dispose of a large part of it in the way that he thinks fit. If he wishes to dispose of his savings on wider family insurance, or on buying his house, we think that it is perfectly right for him to do so.
  Again, taking this document, "The Pensions Fraud", I do not think that any true comparison can be made between the State scheme, whether it is

  653
  our State scheme or that of hon. Members opposite, and a private scheme. The State scheme gives the advantage of every increase in the flat rate—and there have been five in the last ten years—without retrospectively increasing the contributions of the employee or his employer. Thus, on his own and his employer's contribution, the insured person gets a better total pension than he could reasonably expect to obtain by private insurance. The amount paid out in benefit today is, and always will be, greater than the amount paid by the contributors—employers and employees—because a very substantial payment is made by Exchequer subsidy. How, then, can it be a swindle, if these vast sums are coming from the Exchequer?
  The Opposition complain that very small sums will be paid out in the earlier years. The hon. Member for Sowerby made great play about it. He knows, as well as I do, that this was recognised in his own party's publication "National Superannuation":
  "In the nature of things, a superannuation scheme does not become fully operative until after a considerable number of years."
  An insured person pays contributions in his working life so that he may have a pension on retirement.
  Why there should be criticism of what is going into reserve and talk about the profits that we are building up? Has the hon. Member forgotten that according to his own party's calculations the Socialist scheme would pay out nothing at all in the first year? In ten years the Socialist scheme would have accumulated £4,000 million and in the tenth year would pay out £37 million. Who is the hon. Member to talk to us about building up profits?
  Mr. Houghton: The hon. Lady is pointing the finger of scorn at me. May I point out to her that the Labour Party scheme was to be financed on entirely different principles from the Government scheme? The accumulation of contributions was to be funded and the interest on investments was to provide benefits later on. The Government scheme is simply "pay as you go"—a straight transfer from graduated contributions to flat-rate benefit.
  Miss Hornsby-Smith: I always enjoy the hon. Member's eloquence, but with
  654
  great respect I say that he cannot criticise building up the Insurance Fund's reserve, on the one hand, and suddenly make that wholly reputable, on the other. The accumulated funds will not be paid out year by year for the excellent reason that the contributions are paid for many years of the insured person's working life and are subsequently drawn out on retirement. This cannot be derided if the Government do it and applauded as wonderful if the party opposite do it.
  We come to the individual. The party opposite has said that the Government scheme is a fraud and swindle. On page 11 of its document, "The pensions Fraud", it is bitterly complained that 9 million people are left out. How inconsistent can hon. Members opposite be? If the scheme is a fraud, hon. Members opposite ought to be rejoicing that these people are left out. They cannot have it both ways. If they say that it is a fraud because the under £9 per week worker is left out they are, by implication, suggesting that the people who contribute to the scheme are the lucky ones and, therefore, the scheme is a good one.
  In fact, over 6 million employed persons between 18 and 65 will at any one time not be paying graduated contributions. The latest figures are that just over 4 million of the 6 million will be women, many of whom work part time and many of whom have chosen not to pay contributions towards their flat-rate benefit. The figure will also include those sick or unemployed and temporarily not paying graduated contributions and a number of young people between 18 and 21 who can be expected to earn graduated pensions as they get on in their jobs. According to the Ministry of Labour Survey, published today, the number of men in full-time employment with average earnings of £9 a week or less is very small indeed.
  Again, I think that we are entitled to look at the Socialist alternative to our scheme. The hon. Member for Sowerby has endorsed, at any rate by implication, the claims made by his hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman.) The Labour Party continues to assume that the whole provision for old age must come from State schemes. Much of what the hon. Member said this afternoon, particularly when he said that the graduated pension scheme could

  655
  reasonably have been imposed on private schemes, endorses that view.
  This is the very foundation of the Opposition's scheme. It is important for us to consider it. It is not realistic, in an age when half the employed men are covered by occupational schemes, for the Government to make virtually compulsory contributions on salaries of up to £2,000 a year or more. Recently, in a broadcast, I think that I heard a Labour spokesman say that it should possibly be £2,500 a year.
  Let us get clear in our minds what this means. The whole finance of the Labour Party scheme is based on the very high contributions which it intends to get out of the higher paid workers, most of whom are already covered by occupational schemes. The Labour Party has been very coy about the extent to which it is prepared to allow the £2,000 a year man to contract out. I confess that it is in a very real dilemma. If it allows contracting out—and from recent pronouncements it does not appear to want to—it loses the subsidisers and is left with the subsidised, and the foundation of the whole scheme collapses.
  If, on the other hand, it intends to deny contracting out, or makes the conditions so stringent that it is virtually impossible to do so, the public and the 8 million people in these schemes are entitled to know. Would the Labour Party, for example, make civil servants, teachers, doctors, nurses, and local government officials come into the State scheme and abandon their own individual schemes? Would they tinker with the miners' pension fund? Or is its approach purely partisan and does it propose to attack only private industrial occupational schemes and make them impossible?
  In comparing the Government's scheme and the Labour Party's proposals, we have to bear in mind that if the figures upon which it makes its calculations are to be fulfilled this can only be done at the expense of a vast number of occupational schemes which are in operation today and which cover more than half the people in the State's employ, people employed by nationalised boards and in public services.
  We should look for a moment at the number of those who have contracted out of the graduated pension scheme. A
  656
  total of 4,270,439 have contracted out. Of these, 1,612,908 are in the public services, 1,052,846 are in the nationalised industries, and 1,604,685 are in private industry.
  The Socialist attack on the graduated scheme is part of a sordid campaign to make people believe that the Tory party is destroying the Welfare State. It is as "phoney" and ill-founded as the Socialist attacks on the Government's housing and education record. Yet the Socialists themselves have no workable alternative. When they were in office they watched the old-age pensioners get steadily worse off. It was they who slashed the Government subsidy and did nothing to meet approaching deficits in the National Insurance Fund.
  It ill befits them to condemn an admirable scheme which enables people with higher incomes to earn higher pensions and provides higher pensions at no greater cost for the lower paid workers and, of course, for all existing pensioners.
  Mr. Houghton: The right hon. Lady overlooks the fact that the Labour Government increased the 10s. pension to 26s., and the £1 pension to 42s. as the first measure of social security they introduced. Why do we have to have these tiresome references to the past without the whole truth being told? The Labour Party has not been in office for a decade. When we left office it was under conditions in the world and in this country quite different from those of today. These past ten years have made a difference. Yet the right hon. Lady harks back to failures of the Labour Government when she should be paying more attention to failures of her own Government.
  Miss Hornsby-Smith: The hon. Gentleman cannot get away from the fact that, despite all the Labour Party's protests about keeping up with the cost of living, and their new, grandiose schemes, during the six years of Labour administration the pension ran down in value from 26s. to roughly 21s. When they did make an increase, it was by only 4s., which did not even make up for the run down.
  Members opposite dislike this analogy, but in every case they have compared the Government's latest rate with the former one, and I am rightly comparing the rate which the Labour Government

  657
  thought, fit to introduce with the far greater rise in the cost of living and pointing out that they never even made up the loss.
  Mr. Ross: For long periods during the Conservative administration, the value of the pension, even after being raised, has been below what it was during the period of office of the Labour Government. The right hon. Lady said that the Government are providing a higher flat-rate pension at no greater cost to the lower-paid worker. How is this being done, and how was it done after the last increase?
  Miss Hornsby-Smith: The current stamp is 9s. 9d. A week or so ago it was 9s. 11d. Contributors earning under £9 a week have been paying 9s. 11d., and now they pay 9s. 9d. The basic benefits, either pensions or unemployment or sickness benefit, are 57s. 6d. single and 92s. 6d. double. Therefore, the contributors earning under £9 a week are getting higher benefits for no greater National Insurance contributions.
  Mr. Ross: Under the graduated scheme, which we are supposed to be discussing today, that contribution was to be reduced to 8s. 4d. but the last pensions increase was paid for by charging even the lower-paid workers an increase of 1s. 5d. in contributions, with the employers' contribution also being increased by this amount.
  If the Minister would wipe the smile off his face and look at the Second Quinquennial Report, published in 1960, he would see that it said quite clearly that future general increases would have to be followed by general increases in contributions. That is what was done to lower-paid workers when they had to pay an extra 1s. 5d.—the same amount paid by higher-paid workers.
  Miss Hornsby-Smith: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman may be able to convince a man who has been paying 9s. 11d. a week and now pays 9s. 9d. a week, for higher benefits, that he is paying 1s. 5d. more. I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman. He is a Scotsman, too.
  Mr. Dempsey: The party opposite promised a reduction at the last General Election.
  Miss Hornsby-Smith: Certainly, but the new rates of pension had not come
  658
  in then. The fact remains that higher basic benefits are being paid. I know that Members opposite do not like this and are trying to camouflage it, but the fact is that higher benefits are being paid while less is being taken from pay packets.
  I hope that I have uncovered some of the fallacies of the Labour Party's document, but my right hon. Friend will more than make up for my omissions when he replies to the debate. I repudiate the charges made against the graduated pension scheme and outlined in this unworthy publication by the Labour Party. I ask the Committee to endorse the sound policy followed by my right hon. Friend by giving him a resounding majority and rejecting forcibly the still only half baked and disastrously inflationary schemes of the Opposition.
  4.59 p.m.
  Mr. James Dempsey: One is tempted to intervene in this debate after listening to the speech by the right hon. Lady the Joint Parliamentary Secretary. I had understood that we were to discuss the management and working of the new graduated pension scheme. Instead, we have been treated to a dissertation about failures of the Labour Government. The right hon. Lady went so far as to juggle with figures in trying to convince us that under the Labour Government a pension increase was not really an increase at all.
  In the course of gyrations in relation to the value of the pension, the right hon. Lady completely forgot to mention that during the last ten years the value of the £ has fallen, even under this Government. She never mentioned it in her speech, but it further decreased the real value of the present pensions, and she should admit it.
  I must confess that I have always regarded ladies, whether in the House of Commons or elsewhere, as being the gentle sex but, after hearing the dissertation of scorn and the pouring out of abuse by the Parliamentary Secretary, I have reached the conclusion that there are exceptions to the general rule. I am not at all pleased about my conclusion, since the Parliamentary Secretary is a nice looking lady, well dressed, presentable and charming, and it is somewhat

  659
  alarming to find that she can be so wicked and vicious in her references to other hon. Members.
  Here we are, endeavouring to ascertain what is happening under this scheme, and all we have had from the Parliamentary Secretary is an address on the Labour Party's scheme. It therefore seems to rest with me to explain the implications of the Government scheme, which has been described as a swindle. Why has such a phraseology been applied to it? I can best explain my arguments by illustration.
  A man earning between £9 and £15 a week will be paying, say, about 2s. 6d. a week to the graduated scheme, or £6 10s. a year. If he is 45 and he continues to pay for the ensuing twenty years, he naturally pays twenty times £6 10s., which is £130. The result is that he receives 6d. for every £7 10s., if I am correct, or approximately 8s. 9d. a week as a superannuation pension—and that is after paying 2s. 6d. per week for twenty years. Can anyone suggest that this is a generous scheme and that that man will receive a reasonable degree of social equity? Naturally, the benefit at the end of the day will not be adequate to meet his needs. That is one of the arguments being put forward by the Opposition as to why the Exchequer should be making a contribution in addition to the employers and employees contribution. Only in that way will the individual be able to look forward to a reasonable pension during his period of retirement.
  May I use another illustration to support my argument? A man earning between £9 and £15 a week, if he is 40 years old, will have to meet his contributions for a period of twenty-five years to qualify for a pension. At the end of that period he will receive approximately 11s. 3d. a week. Taking the argument a stage further, a man who has to pay for thirty years on the same basis, and on the same wage, will receive a pension of about 13s. a week. These rates are obviously extremely inadequate to meet the needs of anyone in retirement. That is why it is a misnomer to call this a graduated pension scheme. It is misleading and misrepresenting the facts to talk about superannuity during the period of retirement.
  660
  After a man has made a lifetime's contribution to the economy of the country, by working in industry and service and by contributing towards his pension, it is unfair that he should receive miserable allowances such as I have described during his days of economic adversity. I have been giving, as an example, men earning between £9 and £15 a week, and to these individuals the pension benefits are so inadequate that they will require to be supplemented by National Assistance during the rainy days ahead.
  The Parliamentary Secretary referred to Exchequer payments into the scheme. It is true that the Exchequer contribution has increased considerably. But it is even more true to say that the employees' and the employers' contribution has increased much more. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to measure the increase in the Exchequer contribution not in the way she did, but from 1950 up to the present time.
  Miss Hornsby-Smith: The hon. Gentleman must be mistaken, because I gave the figures for which he is asking. I said that, in 1951, 89·9 per cent. was paid by contributors, employers and employees. At present, the figure is 81 per cent. The hon. Gentleman cannot, therefore, complain that the Exchequer has not maintained a fair contribution.
  Mr. Dempsey: I have already said that figures are made to lie. I will not, however, complete the quotation. I merely asked the Parliamentary Secretary to have another look at this matter from a statistically different point of view. She will find that the overall Exchequer contribution during the reign of the Tory Government has gone up by about 80 per cent.—and I admit that—but the Parliamentary Secretary must compare that with the global total increase paid by contributors. On doing that, she will find that the contributors' contribution has gone up during the same period from 4s. 11d. a week to its present level, and that that represents an increase of 260 per cent.
  The Exchequer contribution has not, therefore, marched hand in hand and does not correspond with the contributors' increase. That cannot be denied. In Scotland, we say, "Facts are chiels that winna ding "—but perhaps someone

  661
  will explain the meaning of that to the Parliamentary Secretary later.
  We must be fair in our attitude towards the principle of superannuation. I want to see superannuation working effectively and I am criticising the scheme because it does not fulfil the obligations of superannuation as we understand it. Many people are worried about this question. I belonged to a form of employment which has a trade union that introduced superannuation for the first time in the history of that employment. In introducing that scheme, provision was made whereby women who were likely to leave their employment to be married should have their contribution repaid, with interest. What I should like to know is: in circumstances where such employees who are now part of the graduated pension scheme leave to get married, will their contribution be refunded, with or without the interest those contributions have earned during the period the contributor has been in the superannuation fund?
  Miss Hornsby-Smith: In many ways, the Government scheme is better than the scheme the hon. Gentleman has described, because when they leave, the general rule in occupational schemes is that they get their own contribution back, plus interest. Under the graduated scheme, the pension that they have paid for will be frozen, and when they eventually come to retire it will be an addition to the amount of their husband's insurance or to that which they have earned on their own. In the long run, they retain the pension they have earned, rather than get back their own contribution and interest.
  Mr. Dempsey: May I take it that in the event of these ladies not being spared to reach retiral age, their contributions die and the interest rate dies with them? There is no return for the present arrangement whereby the contributions are refunded with interest at the time of marriage. This should be clearly understood—
  Mr. Raymond Gower: Does not the hon. Member appreciate that that is true in the case of practically every contributor? If any person contributing to a national scheme of this kind dies, his contributions die.
  Mr. Ross: There is no other national scheme of this kind. This is the first one.
  Mr. Gower: To this scheme.
  Mr. Ross: The hon. Member should be exact.
  Mr. Dempsey: What, in essence, the Parliamentary Secretary said is that thousands of employees who now treat their superannuation payments plus the interest which they bear as a marriage dowry will lose that right. I am not talking about local superannuation schemes. I am talking of the Scottish superannuation scheme, and if this can be accomplished in Scotland there is no reason why it should not be the practice in this country.
  The Parliamentary Secretary has made a startling and shameful admission to the effect that thousands of ladies can say goodbye to their marriage dowry as a result of the graduated pension scheme. The hon. Lady would have been better employed addressing herself to a solution of this problem than in making scurrilous attacks on right hon. and hon. Members on this side of the Committee.
  These are aspects of the scheme which we should like to see removed. I know that figures have been bandied about in the Committee and figures may be misrepresented in more ways than one. But the figures which I have quoted are accurate, because they are based on the 6d. per £7 10s. of contribution. For that reason, I say that the benefit is inadequate and because of that people have been driven to take out private insurance. The Co-operative movement offers an independent, individual, private insurance scheme which is far better than the one proposed by the Government.
  Now that the scheme is under way the Minister and the Government should review its working in the coming months and make it their business to see that it is a success, as it could be were it organised on better financial lines, with a contribution from the Exchequer and, as a consequence, more adequate benefits. If the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary would approach the problem of superannuation in that way, something worth while might be accomplished. At the moment, the word applied to this scheme is a misnomer. It is a complete fallacy as a superannuation scheme, because the element of benefit would be less than the level of National Assistance.

  663
  The aim and object of a perfect superannuation scheme should be to enable people to retire in receipt of a reasonable amount without regard to means test or needs test or any other interference with the private rights of a man and his family. This is a misrepresentation of the principle and that is why I criticise the scheme. We cannot allow the present state of affairs to continue. The scheme should be made to work. It could be made a success provided the benefits to be received in the twilight of a man's working life are more reasonable and more adequate to meet the needs of retired pensioners.
  It is my considered opinion that unless this is revitalised and made more generous, as a superannuation scheme it will not meet the needs of the recipients, or wishes and aspirations of the organised working people of the country, which is simply to enjoy a secure and contented eventide.
  5.15 p.m.
  Mr. Arthur Tiley: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey). Like all other hon. Members opposite, he wants a bigger pension for every man and woman in their happy old age. But when he looks at the way to pay for it, then, like the Labour Party he shirks the responsibility. The hon. Member said that he was afraid of inflation. So are we all in this matter. And that is why, when "National Superannuation" first came out—
  Mr. Dempsey: I never used the word "inflation".
  Mr. Tiley: I used the word "inflation" because it shortened the form of the sentences which the hon. Member used to explain the value of the pension coming down. I thought that I could save a bit of time for the Committee by so doing.
  The hon. Member said that the Government's scheme was a swindle and a fraud. I will deal with that later. But if it is, the whole of the proceeds are going to our present pensioners every week, every month and throughout the whole year. The whole proceeds of what we are collecting will go to the old folk now.
  664
  I do not wish to get into trouble with the female sex, but the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie made a point about pensions for the womenfolk. It is my experience that in these matters womenfolk are interested in marriage and not in old age. It has never been effectively pointed out to them, according to "National Superannuation", that they would retire at 65 years of age. After all the years of striving by our women and the efforts of Mrs. Florence White—a constituent of mine, who spent years in getting spinsters a pension five years earlier—in "National Superannuation" the age was put back to 65.
  The hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) enjoyed himself immensely by giving examples from the graduated scheme, and my right hon. Friend was correct to point out that there are not two pension schemes, but only one. There is a basic scheme. There are two methods of collecting the premiums and we ought to be glad that there are, because, by collecting the graduated pension in this way, for the first time we have been able to stop the working of what hon. Members opposite call a poll tax on the lower-paid workers. At long last, my right hon. Friend has found a way to get more contributions from those who can afford more.
  The hon. Member for Sowerby gave many examples from the graduated scheme. He must know that those of us who have studied this question of pensions could do exactly the same from "National Superannuation." He said that "National Superannuation" blazed a trail. Well, the fire went out a long time ago. Nobody believes it now. In all these years that we have had it on the market—the Socialist pension scheme blazing the trail—I have never seen a copy of it being read in a library or on a railway train. I have seen many people reading "Lady Chatterley's Lover," and other "classical" literature, but I have never seen anybody with a copy of "National Superannuation".
  I sometimes wonder whether I am the only hon. Member who has read it completely. I am not surprised that the Opposition have not read a good deal of it, because on the front page it says:
  "If the old are enabled to spend more, the rest of us will have that much less to spend."

  665
  They say that, but they never mean it, because it is in the payment of these contributions, with all the increases which we have to impose, that we make ourselves poorer for the benefit of our retired people. The Government have never shrunk, and neither has the Minister, from doing that in a State where salaries and wages have been increasing.
  We are told by the hon. Member for Sowerby that the expenses are high. There, again, in "National Superannuation" the sum estimated for launching the scheme was £16 million in the first year, growing to £50 million in twenty years. Therefore, of course, the same arguments can be levelled at both schemes. The Government's pension schemes, basic and graduated, are not puny schemes. They are a massive financial effort on the part of those who are working and earning to pay pensions which in these days we wish more appropriately to see our old people receive.
  We were also told by the hon. Member for Sowerby that those who are now almost 65 will not get any increase over the next few months for the first contributions which they will make to the graduated scheme. They will not, it is true, but in a short time when they retire they will get the benefit of the increased pension of £4 12s. 6d.—increased a fortnight ago—and for which increase they will not have contributed during their working lives.
  A few months ago my right hon. Friend gave figures of entitlement for contributions paid over the years from the commencement of the National Insurance Fund, and stated that for contributions from employer and employee they would have purchased a pension of 9s., whereas a pension of £4 12s. 6d. is being provided. I suppose that that is part of the fraud about which we hear so much—a pension of £4 12s. 6d. for contributions yielding a pension of 9s.
  I want to give one simple illustration from the National Insurance Fund in the same way that the hon. Member for Sowerby and the hon. Member for Coat-bridge and Airdrie have given examples of the smaller pensions in the Government scheme. It is, of course, possible to pick out the good and the bad from all pension schemes. We are assailed in
  666
  "The Pensions Fraud" because we have left out the self-employed man. I want to tell hon. Members something so that they may understand exactly what Labour's "National Superannuation" would have done for the self-employed man.
  Such a man with an income of £1,000 a year would have paid to my right hon. Friend 8 per cent. of his salary, that is, £80 per year. That is a long way removed from 6d. a week to the Prudential. If the man paid it from the age of 25 to the age of 65, he would pay £3,200. Here is a point which should interest the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie. If the man died at 64 and 11 months, his widow would receive just a small pension and his life savings would all be gone. Had he paid that £80 into a building society and received interest on it at the rate of 4 per cent. throughout the period, after forty years it would have produced him, at age 65, almost £8,000 in his own right. Under the Socialist superannuation scheme he would get a pension of £500 a year.
  The alternative is to take £8,000 in cash. He could go to the insurance market and get a pension of £800 a year, guaranteed for ten years, so that the whole £8,000 would be paid to his family whether he lived or not. Do we want to see these massive deductions by the State from the wage packets of those working? That is why "National Superannuation" when it blazed the trail, became a damp squib. As was evidenced at the General Election, people are not daft these days. Hon. Members opposite forget that we have had fifty years' experience of social welfare, and that has included education.
  People do not want the main part of their savings to be controlled by politicians, least of all by Socialist politicians. We do not expect pensions which are able to provide an investment yield. We do not get large profits for contributions made as members of a pension fund. One does not get large profits from the whole insurance market; one gets cover against death. The only investment yield to a member under the fund, whether Government or "National Superannuation", is simply the profit which comes because of the saving of tax, on the one hand, and the employers' contributions, on the other.

  667
  A pension fund, private, Socialist or Tory, is a long hard, laborious saving year by year for the happy old age of the workers. There are more profitable investments, as the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) once pointed out, open to all the families in our land than under a Government scheme.
  I apologise for not declaring, at the beginning of my speech, my interest in the insurance field. The reason was that I was carried away by the speech of the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie. I was extremely interested, because I like to hear his speeches, although it would be easier with an interpreter. However, I shall be able to understand more fully tomorrow what he said. As the Committee knows, I am engaged in the field of insurance, though not specifically with pensions. I am not a specialist in pensions at all. I am engaged rather more in the general field.
  In "National Superannuation", in debates on pensions, and in their speeches, hon. Members opposite always assert that the Government have introduced this graduated scheme to fit in with the desires of the private insurance market. Nothing could be further from the truth. It hates the scheme, I received more protests from my insurance colleagues all over the country when the Measure for the graduated scheme came into being than from any other source, because once we go beyond the basic scheme we are entering the field which has hitherto been that of private insurance companies. They opposed the whole graduated scheme. We ought not to gibe at them, as is sometimes done in Opposition speeches and as is done in the Labour Party's booklet, because private insurance is one of the biggest and brightest gems in the whole of our commercial life.
  Some years ago Sir Stafford Cripps paid a great tribute in the House to the insurance market for the way in which it administered, without profit, the whole war risk insurance scheme. He said that 70 per cent. of our premiums in the British market came from overseas. I think that the figure has now grown to 80 per cent. That means that 80 per cent. of me is paid for by the foreigners. As we provide only 50 per cent. of our own resources in raw materials for food
  668
  and clothes, I, as a member of the insurance business, am a very great profit to the country, especially as I came to this House for almost nothing into the bargain.
  Why should we try to destroy this market? Irrespective of our party affiliations, it should be in the interests of both sides of the Committee to see this business, on its world scale, extended. It creates employment for hundreds of thousands of people, it makes profits at home and abroad and 80 per cent. of its profits are from overseas. We shall never beat the Russians to the moon, we cannot kill as many people in a few seconds as the Americans can, but, because of our initiative and our enterprise, we can insure people all over the world, and we shall continue to do so unless we impair the security of these great institutions.
  It is a dreadful thing to make such a long speech in a short debate, but I now want to pay two tributes. One is to my right hon. Friend's permanent staff for the way in which they have issued about 15,000 certificates in a few months, which means that they have reviewed about 15,000 schemes. There have been no hitches, and it has been an interesting experience for me to take part in pensions debates in this House in helping to fashion the Bill, although I suppose that the hon. Member for Sowerby would say that I did not help very much in Committee.
  However, we helped with our presence to fashion the Bill in Committee, and I have seen in my commercial experience the effects of our legislation. There have been many tributes from all sides to the work which the Ministry has done, which has been of tremendous value. It has involved increases in the pensions, the setting up a completely new Department, and this has been done without a hitch. I think that the only certificate which we have not had in my office is due to clerical mistakes of our own, and we cannot complain to the Registrar about that.
  I want also to say how much the business community has helped, even if it has complained, and how much the life offices have helped to do this job, because it is a specialised field. Those of us who take part in these debates know how specialised and technical it is, and these people have rendered a

  669
  great service, much of which, I am glad to say—though we are in private business for profit—without thought of profit. We have been effecting changes to hundreds of schemes already in force, which has meant hundreds of meetings. I was at many meetings in canteens, and I can say that one can get a much better audience on pensions than one can on politics. All this great work has gone on.
  I hope that we shall review some of the points which the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie was questioning about, and also review the administrative side of the scheme. I hope that, since the rush is now over, it might be possible for the Minister to have prepared a standard form of application for election to contract out. It has meant a lot of work in business in preparing this form, and perhaps a standard form in the shape of a certificate in a standard fashion, prepared according to the specifications of the Minister, could be handed to all those workers who are contracting out.
  I think that my right hon. Friend has given figures of those contracting out. About half represent teachers, local government officers and civil servants. Nobody ever expected that this large group of 2 million people would go into any other pension scheme but their own. It is not because of criticism of the Government's scheme that these people have contracted out. After all, before this scheme started they were in the happy position of contributing themselves to a scheme which was to provide two-thirds of their working salaries on retirement, and I do not think that the teachers and all those involved in salary negotiations realise what a big advantage that is. When they come to retirement they find that their pension is based not on the contributions they have made throughout their years of service, but on the average salaries in the last three years, and that is why all these other schemes, without exception, prove to be insolvent.
  We have the best example the country can look at to warn us away from the national superannuation scheme which recommends the upgrading of pensions according to wage increases, and so on, in the National Health Service employees. Last year, after five years, a quinquennial valuation took place, and that small scheme, aflecting only 300,000
  670
  employees, was found to be £80 million "in the red". My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health has contributed £40 million to the deficit. There is a warning there. Imagine that state of affairs for 23 million workers, when there is an £80 million deficit in respect of only 300,000 workers. It is a dangerous thing, and it can lead in itself to inflation.
  I believe that the graduated scheme, for the first time in our pensions history, has at least attempted to cover all the problems with which my right hon. Friend was confronted. I am glad that the difficulties which everybody expected in regard to contracting out have not emerged. We were told that no other country in the world had been able to allow contracting out, and that we should fail. We have succeeeded, though almost 4½ million people have contracted out, which ought to give us great pleasure, because it means that 4½ million people are in schemes which are better than the Government scheme, and 2 million of them are in schemes which provide two-thirds of the salary on retirement, which is a very good thing. It also means that, from the figures we were given from the Government Actuary in an earlier debate, 6 million other people, mostly men, are in pensions schemes and have not contracted out, so that 6 million of our workers are in private schemes which are augmenting their Government pensions, which, again, is quite a good thing.
  It is also the case that the graduated contributions are collected, but are not paid back. They are, in effect, going to those in retirement now, and I see no reason why those contracting-out into private schemes, which are, admittedly, better, should not pay a little more for the privilege, and, indeed, they are doing that. The man who paid 9s. 11d. before April now pays 11s. 4d., his employer's contribution has gone up from 8s. 3d. to 9s. 8d., a total of £1 1s., instead of 18s. 2d.—a 3s. increase with no benefit whatever to the man, except that he has contracted out and is a member of a first-class scheme.
  Four million people are, therefore, paying 3s. per week more, which is 12 million shillings per week, or £600,000 per week collected by my right hon. Friend. In 52 weeks, that is over £31

  671
  million, and in ten years it is £310 million. That is why we cannot divide the graduated scheme from the basic scheme, and, therefore, I say that this £310 million is being taken out, as are the other contributions on the graduated scheme, to fulfil our obligations at this moment to our old people. We cannot separate the one from the other, and it is right, in my view, that the people who are contracted out should pay this extra.
  I believe that this bargain—and it is a bargain—of membership of this National Insurance Fund at all ages is a good thing for the country. The life offices have shown that from £12 per week at all ages, there is nothing in the private sector of insurance that can touch the Government pension scheme, and, even at £15 a week at 50 and over, there is nothing in the private sector to touch the Government scheme.
  This scheme is a bargain. There is no other country in which, for 9s. 9d. a week, a man can get a pension for both himself and his wife, children's allowances, a health scheme, maternity benefits for his wife, industrial injury benefits, sickness benefits, unemployment benefits, and so on. To assert that this scheme is a fraud can do only the gravest disservice to pensions generally and bring into disrepute those who make such statements.
  I am certain that the right step has been taken. The scheme can add only strength to our pension arrangements for the future. It can bring only greater happiness to old people, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend on what he has achieved in the last year, and also on what he has done during his term of office at the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance.
  5.41 p.m.
  Mr. Thomas Steele: I always listen with interest to the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Tiley). He brings to any meeting a sense of humour and a pleasant manner of speaking. His contribution this afternoon was much longer than his contribution during the Committee stage of the Bill, which lasted for a considerable time, although I recall one occasion when he did make a speech in the Committee. However, he is a Yorkshireman with a sense of humour, or whatever it
  672
  is called, and when he condescends to speak it is obvious that he has a good knowledge of his subject.
  The hon. Gentleman started by being enthusiastic about the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey). He then went on to say that he had omitted to tell us about his financial interest in the matter. Having declared his interest, he advertised the insurance companies and said how much they had been against the introduction of this scheme. Will he tell us whether they are still against it?
  Mr. Tiley: They are still opposed to it, largely because they fear a further encroachment on their activities. We, too, should fear that.
  Mr. Steele: They are afraid of losing their profits; but they have benefited largely by the introduction of, first, the family allowances scheme, and, secondly, by the other things which have been done. The insurance companies have carefully examined what the Government have been prepared to do under the new scheme, and as far as I can see they are taking advantage of the scheme to provide new business for themselves.
  The Parliamentary Secretary said nothing this afternoon about the operation of the new scheme. She failed to answer any of the questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton). I think that the hon. Member for Bradford, West should thank his hon. Friend for giving to the Labour Party document the publicity which he thinks it deserves. He complained that nobody reads it while travelling in a train. I am surprised at that, because the Conservative Party have given more publicity to this document than we have.
  The speech of the Parliamentary Secretary was shocking. During the Committee stage of the Bill we discussed the many administrative and other problems which might arise from the introduction of the new scheme, yet this afternoon the right hon. Lady said nothing about those problems. She said nothing about what has happened as offshoots to bringing in the scheme. Her speech was confined to trying to pour cold water on the scheme proposed by the Labour Party. We are not discussing that this afternoon, and I think that the right hon. Lady ought to have

  673
  told us something about the effects of this scheme.
  In Committee, we were told that it was expected that about 2 million people would be contracted out. We now learn that 4½ million people have been contracted out. Is that figure correct?
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The figure is 4¼ million.
  Mr. Ross: The figure is 4,275,000.
  Mr. Steele: The hon. Member for Bradford, West thought that because 4¼ million people had been contracted out it was a credit to the scheme. I take the opposite view. It shows clearly that what we said during the Committee stage of the Bill has been borne out by results.
  What has happened is that local authorities, nationalised industries, and public enterprise have recognised that if a person is earning £12 10s. a week and over it is better for him not be be in the Government scheme, but if he is earning less it is. Instead of a firm or company contracting out all its employees, it is contracting out those who earn £12 10s. a week and over, and keeping in those who earn less. That is what local authorities in Scotland have been doing, even with the salaried workers.
  What has all this meant? The new scheme has given rise to many administrative problems. When I have discussed this question with the financial staffs of local authorities, I have found them to be completely at sea about how the scheme will be worked. We will soon be discussing Regulations, which, I understand, will be prayed against, in connection with the modification of local authority superannuation schemes for teachers and other people. I believe that the complexities of the scheme are impossible to understand.
  Those are some of the offshoots of the introduction of the new scheme. It is easy to argue that we have to take the flat-rate scheme with the graduated scheme. It is also easy to argue that they should be taken separately. However, the Government have decided that they should be separate schemes. If there were only one scheme, it would be unnecessary to contract people out. The Government have separated the schemes by saying that one group of people can
  674
  be contracted in, whereas another group of people can be in the flat-rate scheme and be contracted out. It is nonsense to suggest that we are the only people who are arguing that there are two separate schemes. It is because the insurance companies and the local authorities have recognised that anyone earning £12 10s. a week or more can get a better bargain outside the scheme, that 4¼ million people have contracted out.
  I know of one firm which is giving its employees an individual option by which, with a small contribution per week, which is made up by the employer, the employee is able to make a better bargain. Throughout the proceedings on the Bill as it passed through the House we made it clear that those earning above £12 10s. a week would not be getting a good bargain from the Government's scheme and that their contributions would be used to subsidise not merely the pensions of those who would benefit under the scheme, but the increased pensions which the old people would be receiving.
  I am disappointed that the Parliamentary Secretary did not devote some time to the problems which are being encountered. We discussed the problems of contracting out, and the Act lays down conditions for contracting out. We would like to know what has happened and what kind of provisions have been made and how the various superannuation schemes are meeting their problems. Those people who pay superannuation are interested in these matters and we would have like some information about them.
  I know of no superannuation fund in the country which is quite like that of the miners, which is rather odd.
  Miss Hornsby-Smith: I quite agree.
  Mr. Steele: If the Parliamentary Secretary intends to use that as an example, and is to say that that is something that the Government should do in that form, she would meet the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie. The Government, through the National Coal Board, as the employers would be making a larger contribution and on that basis it would be a very good bargain for the miners indeed, although very odd.

  675
  I hope that the Minister himself will give us more information about what is happening administratively, what the staff have had to do, what differences the scheme has made, the actual administrative cost, the effect on industry, and problems connected with payrolls and with the method of collecting contributions. This is a new method of financing pensions and we would like to know exactly what has happened and how the scheme has worked out. If we could have information of that kind, we would be very grateful. We do not want to know about what happened ten or twenty years ago.
  5.55 p.m.
  Mr. Philip Holland: The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele) complained of attacks which were made on his party's scheme by my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary and my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Tiley). He will applaud my attitude when I tell him that I shall not refer to it, preferring to ignore it. He will not expect me to stand in for my right hon. Friend and answer his many questions, and I hope that he will forgive me if I address myself to the comments which I want to make.
  It is right and proper that each of us should accept a measure of responsibility for providing for our own retirement, so far as we can reasonably afford to do so. The true function of the Welfare State is to bridge the gap between what most ordinary people can afford and their minimum social welfare and personal retirement. Such a concept in no way lowers the nation's morale by weakening self-reliance and encouraging fecklessness. Quite the contrary. Emphasis on the need to recognise personal responsibilities is an important feature of our current National Insurance scheme. It has been underlined by the introduction of a system of graduated contributions.
  The State bears responsibility for the social needs of the community on a sliding scale which works in inverse ratio to that of Income Tax. In this context, possibly the most attractive feature of the whole scheme—basic and graduated combined—is that it allows the Exchequer grant to be concentrated on the people
  676
  with most need and, at the same time, as is equally important, it enables people spending the maximum period of time at the higher rate of income to provide virtually entirely for their own retirement.
  Nevertheless, having said that, those who earn more than £15 a week for the whole of their working lives, while paying nearly the amount which they would have to pay to a private insurance company to obtain the same sort of retirement benefit, are still getting a very good bargain with the cover for sickness and unemployment and the other benefits which my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West mentioned. Many of the additional benefits are far better than could be afforded in private schemes and far better than those which other countries provide in similar schemes. In West Germany, for example, the contributions for unemployment and sickness benefit alone cost 15s. a week for the £15-a-week man, and to that has to be added the contribution of 21s. which he has to pay towards his pension. It is a bigger pension than ours, but he has to pay a bigger contribution and in all if is not as good a bargain as our scheme.
  I want to turn from the general to one or two particular aspects of the scheme, those which appeal to me and those which I regret. I will deal, first, with those which appeal to me, because, like the scorpion, I like to keep the sting in the tail. For personal reasons which are already known to the Committee, I take a particular interest in welfare provisions for the bereaved—for the widows. When I first looked at the graduated part of the scheme, and on the emphasis placed on the fact that benefits are essentially personal to the contributor and not transferable, I foresaw serious disagreement between my right hon. Friend and myself.
  I now extend an apology to my right hon. Friend for my initial lack of confidence in his humanity. I soon discovered that the personal principle did not apply in the case of widows. It is a commendable feature of the graduated part of the scheme that, on reaching retirement age, a widow becomes entitled not only to half the graduated benefits which her husband was drawing at the time of his death, but, if he had died before reaching retirement age, when she reaches retirement age she becomes entitled to half the graduated benefits which

  677
  her late husband's contributions had earned, even though he had not survived to qualify for them himself. It is just that sort of provision, allied to the general principle which I have already postulated, which commends the scheme to me and assures my right hon. Friend of my support this evening, in spite of slight misgivings to which I now turn.
  While approving the scheme generally, I regret that in an average working week—and I am choosing my words carefully—the graduated part of the scheme applies to only about half of the working population. For the benefit of the mathematicians present, let me add that I have reached that conclusion by adding together the estimated 6 million people, who, in an average week, receive £9 a week or less; the 4¼ million people who, I am glad to note, unlike the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West, have already been contracted out, so that more than one-sixth of our working population, while not necessarily getting a better bargain, will receive a pension larger than that for which the new scheme provides; the 1,390,000 self-employed, and the 300,000 non-employed.
  I would like some provision to be made for some of those in the first category, the 6 million, so that they could participate a little more in the graduated part of the scheme, and, also, so that all those in the third category could do so rather more. In an average week, an estimated 6 million people earn less than £9 a week and, therefore, cannot contribute in that week to an increase in their basic pension. But it is by no means the same 6 million who are not eligible every week. The incomes of many of them are subject to variation and the variation may be due to a drop from normal earnings through sickness or unemployment for a few weeks, after which they may go back to normal earnings; or they may be earning a salary and commission or bonuses varying week by week.
  It is by no means rare for employees, whose incomes in some weeks may be below £9, in other weeks to earn more than £15. It is unfortunate that under the present collection arrangements such people are not allowed to balance a week in excess of £15 against a week below £9 for the purpose of calculating the graduated contributions. Clearly,
  678
  many such people could contribute for higher pensions if their weekly earnings were averaged out over the year, rather than taking each week in isolation, as under the present system.
  The other category who could be more favourably suited in the scheme are the self-employed. I say "more favourably" because they are included in the scheme to the extent that they pay slightly increased contributions as from the beginning of April, but they are not allowed to participate in the graduated part of the scheme, although they get an increased basic pension. It is only a very small number of the self-employed who are top-hatted and cigar smoking plutocrats. The vast majority are shopkeepers, manufacturers' agents, commercial travellers on commission only, and many other people of that kind.
  Large numbers of them are quite unable to afford to take on the commitment of providing privately for pension requirements in addition to the State scheme, because to take out an entirely new pension involves larger initial contributions added to the amount being paid into the State scheme. I should have thought it not impossible to arrange some method of averaging weekly or monthly earnings to enable such people to make graduated contributions for a graduated pension increase and so increase their provision for their old age. There is certainly no difficulty in doing so when it comes to a tax assessment.
  I am sure that my right hon. Friend has considered those possibilities, because I have great confidence in his thoroughness. I guess that he has probably decided that they are administratively impracticable. Nevertheless, I ask him to look at them again and, in doing so, to recall the attitude of the Navy during the Second World War—"The difficult we can do at once; the impossible may take a little longer."
  6.5 p.m.
  Mr. William Ross: This has been a very short debate owing to the time available. I regret very much that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, either through lack of judgment or calculation of some kind or other, completely misconstrued the purpose of the debate. I think she imagined that she was opening a Tory

  679
  sale of work somewhere. We got her usual rather aggressive, silly sort of speech, which we enjoy on the right occasion. But this was not the occasion for it.
  I shall require to address myself to some of the remarks she made nevertheless. It will be her fault, not mine, if the tone and temper of the debate suddenly change. I was glad to hear the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), to whom we always listen with considerable interest because he has knowledge. It was interesting to notice that in addressing himself to the graduated scheme he expressed some of the same fears about it as did the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Holland). I think he made a splendid speech in relation to what we are discussing.
  Let us appreciate the scheme which has started. We had long debates and discussions in Committee upstairs. I did not have the privilege of being a member of that Committee and my interest in this aspect of Parliamentary life began only a few months ago, but I have taken the trouble to read those debates. There followed Report and the eventual Third Reading. When we came to Third Reading, the Minister announced that we were starting a new and historic epoch-making scheme. I am sure that the speech of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary was not worthy of the occasion, embarking on the first Ministerial speech on the subject that her own Minister declared was "historic and epoch-making."
  If the right hon. Lady had addressed herself to some of the pledges made by the Minister on Third Reading, that he was determined to get the thing into operation as soon as possible and was going to do all in his power to ease the complexities and difficulties which would arise, it would have been better. Never has any scheme come into operation having to get over so many hurdles as this one. I thought that we might at least have got from the Joint Parliamentary Secretary some indication of the work which has been done by her Department and that she might pay a meed of tribute to that.
  What must it have been like for the Minister, in relation to a scheme prepared two years ago to come into force
  680
  in the month of April, to discover that as soon as the Department got out all the booklets, leaflets, pamphlets and explanations, something else happened on the Parliamentary scene which put them out of date. As my hon. Friend was speaking I was doing some scribbling. A couple of lines ran through my mind and, with the help of our Deputy Chief Whip, I wrote:
  "Leaflets by the million, booklets by the score,
  Pouring through the letter-box, littering the floor,
  Most of them were useless, some of them came late,
  All the first edition was already out of date.
  Not only is the first edition out of date, but within two or three weeks the second edition will be out of date.
  This sounds like the speech which the right hon. Gentleman delivered on Third Reading. Here was the man who was going to make things easy. He was the man who introduced new rules which further confused the issue. Before 1st April people were paying 9s. 11d. and the Tory Party, having proclaimed that it would be only 8s. 4d. when the scheme started, suddenly came with a new Bill putting it up to 9s. 9d. So we have three lots of figures. All the people were paying 9s. 11d. and were promised that they would pay 8s. 4d. Then, from 1st April, they found they had to pay 9s. 9d. It did not end there. They reckoned without the Minister of Health who, with the help of the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, put on another 10d. So the present amount of 9s. 9d. has to go up to 10s. 7d. in three or four weeks' time, at the beginning of July for those in the scheme.
  Even a booklet which I got this morning, which I presume is a new issue because it is dated April, contains tables which will be of service to anyone only for three or four weeks. Could we be told by the Minister exactly how much all this has cost? This question was asked by my hon. Friend and we are entitled to an answer. All this must have led to a considerable amount of waste, chaos and muddle.
  I can well appreciate the feelings of the right hon. Gentleman. We reckon him to be one of the most efficient Ministers, administratively, and I personally consider him one of the most efficient Parliamentarians. I can well appreciate how he felt when after all

  681
  this chaos the Chancellor of the Exchequer came along with the suggestion that there should be a pay-roll tax and that it was going to be carried on that overworked bit of paper, the National Insurance stamp. It was stated in the Sunday Express that the right hon. Gentleman kicked up his heels and said "No" to that one. Why did he not resign? The cold Parliamentary winds which have blown down on the Government from the North have killed the pay-roll tax.
  Mr. Tiley: Not from Yorkshire.
  Mr. Ross: The Government just saved their deposit in an industrial city and got 5,000 votes out of 40,000. That gets us to a point where the Government should stop and think. Does not the right hon. Gentleman see what is happening to his Department? It is a great social Department of State which is becoming purely and simply a tool of the Treasury. He is becoming a tax gatherer. Everyone is trying to get into the act, or on to the National Insurance stamp—the Minister of Health with his National Health Service contributions and the Chancellor with his pay-roll tax. I have no doubt that when the right hon. Gentleman protested he was told that it was a quid pro quo or a couple of hundred million quid pro quos because the Treasury is gathering the money for this graduated contribution.
  It is serious when we consider how this tremendously elaborate machinery has been built up. We used to have lectures from the right hon. Gentleman when he sat on this side of the Committee, not always at a quarter past six in the evening, but usually at about quarter past six in the morning. I can remember him talking of a vast flood of ill-digested delegated legislation which flowed from the Departments of State and menaced the whole principle of democracy.
  Look at the "vast flood". Look at the present list of Statutory Instruments issued on 22nd April. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is delighted to know that he has now become "Statutory Delegated Legislator No. 1" stemming from his National Insurance Bill. It is a proud position which, I am sure, he never thought that he would achieve or, having achieved it, that he would be proud of it. There are enough Statutory Instruments relating to what
  682
  we are discussing today with changes and modifications of superannuation schemes relating to firemen, teachers, local government servants and the rest—if we decided that we could discuss them all—to take every available day for the next five weeks. The poor Scots would not get a look in with the Statutory Instruments relating to betting and gaming.
  Although the right hon. Gentleman has become king of the Statutory Instruments, he is not alone. There are plenty of others. All this has been happening at a time when Parliament has been concerned with other Parliamentary interventions which have followed this scheme. There has been his National Insurance Bill and, following that, the National Health Service Bills. Parliament has been at full stretch. These complications arising directly from the graduated scheme have not received proper attention from the House.
  Then we have the kind of speech which we had from the Joint Parliamentary Secretary today. Such drivel. She shows me "The Pensions Fraud". She complained about having to scrape the bottom of the barrel to find the most difficult and unfair comparisons in relation to what someone was to pay and what someone would get. She did not need to look at "The Pensions Fraud" but only at a Ministry publication which came out last week. Look at page 31 giving examples of future retirements pensions. All that she said to my hon Friend about a man not getting any promotion and this, that and the other is the same here.
  Miss Hornsby-Smith: The hon. Member says it is a fraud.
  Mr. Ross: I have not mentioned the word "fraud" yet except when quoting the title of the pamphlet. I leave people to judge for themselves. A man who at the age of 25 in April, 1961, has forty years' working life at £10 a week will eventually achieve an increase in pension of 6s. 6d. I am not saying that it is a fraud. I am reading from page 31 of "Everybody's Guide to National Insurance", which is an official publication and well worth the 9d. asked for it. The only thing which is obscure about it is the foreword by the right hon. Gentleman. I shall come to that later.

  683
  Take another instance. People of 25 years of age are not terribly interested in retirement pensions, but people of 40 show a certain interest. A man of 40 on £12 a week is to pay 2s. 8d. for twenty-five years week after week and has already started to pay. He asks himself what he will get and the answer is, an additional pension of 11s. 6d. A man of 55 who has £14 a week is to pay at the rate of about 4s. 9d. or 4s. 10d., and his pension in ten years will be increased by 7s. 6d. I am not saying that it is a fraud. I am not saying that it is a swindle. I ask people to judge by what they are paying and what they will get. That is how people will judge it.
  Let us appreciate that this is not the end. The right hon. Lady made some play about people receiving a higher pension and paying less. With all due respect to her, that was a twist, and she knew it. She knows that the original scheme enacted in 1959 laid it down that a lower-paid worker paid 8s. 4d. a week for the then pension. She equally knows that the Government introduced an Act to increase contributions this year. The increased contributions were not related actuarially to what was required to meet the future cost. They were increased, as they have been increased since 1954—we have only to read the Report of the Government Actuary to prove it—so that the lower-paid worker paid exactly the same as the higher-paid worker; he paid 1s. 5d. a week more.
  In the same way, when we came to the increased National Health Service contribution the lower-paid worker paid 10d. more, as did the higher-paid worker. There was no differentiation. Indeed, the only differentiation is the 1s. 7d. written into the original scheme. That differentiation has been carried forward in the spring-heel increases which we will have over five-year periods. These increases, which are written into the Act, are related to existing pension and pension rates.
  I hope that the right hon. Gentleman remembers his speech on Third Reading, when he said,
  "there is to be a reduction…in the contribution of these people for at any rate twenty years."
  684
  He was referring to the lower-paid workers—those paying 8s. 4d. He continued,
  "and at the end of twenty years the increase would be only 1d."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th June, 1959; Vol. 606, c.936.]
  Let me tell him what happened in the first week of July, which is not twenty years after the scheme started.
  Mr. E. G. Willis: It is not twenty weeks.
  Mr. Ross: It is about three months. The contribution will then be 9s. 9d. plus 10d.—10s. 7d.; that is, 2s. 3d. more than the figure when the right hon. Gentleman made his speech. If he wants to work in the twist about which the right hon. Lady spoke, it will be 8d. more than the man was paying before the scheme started. It is about time the Minister started eating some of the words of his Third Reading speech both in relation to the ease of administration and in relation to the effect upon the lower-paid worker in the graduated scheme.
  It is obvious from what happened about the last increase and the increase in the National Health Service contribution that in future any increases in contributions to the flat-rate pension will be on the basis of a poll tax. I was surprised that the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Tiley) suggested that we had got away from the poll tax. He knows that we did not get away from it in the last pensions increase or in the increase in the National Health Service contributions. The only difference between the fiat-rate contribution in relation to the contracted-in and the contracted-out is that written into the Act. From the Government's actions it is clear that we are to continue with this process. I am surprised that hon. Members opposite, many of whom have been concerned about the poll tax aspect, have swallowed it.
  Mr. Tiley: The whole basis of the argument being used is that wages will be stationary for the next twenty years. They will not be stationary.
  Mr. Ross: That is quite irrelevant. The graduated tax will be stationary. The £9 and £15-a-week aspect of wages is written into the scheme. The figures which I have quoted and the calculations which I have made, and those which the Department have made, are

  685
  quite accurate. I hope that the hon. Member appreciates the point of his own remarks. If these pensions of 6s. 6d., 7s. 6d. and 2s. for people, at the ages which I gave, look pretty insignificant now, how will they look in relation to the wage increases which we hope will take place with the passing of the years? This scheme is trivial and will become more and more trivial as the years pass and more and more irrelevant as an attack on poverty and old age. That is the basis of our attack upon the scheme, and it was the basis throughout the debates in the House. We complain of its total inadequacy. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, and we all agree in the Labour Party, that people are prepared to pay for their pensions. It is a question of how they pay.
  The right hon. Lady also commented on how wonderful the Government had been about the deficit. She should appreciate that it was no surprise to anybody that there was a growing deficit in the National Insurance Fund and that it had to be met by supplements from the Exchequer. I do not know whether she was interested in pensions on 13th November, 1957, when the right hon. Gentleman, occupying the same office as he occupies now, talked at that Dispatch Box about the burden of £357 million which had to be met by the Exchequer in 1964–65. He said,
  "Though we think that it is right that the country should assume the burden, it is a profund mistake to under-rate the magnitude of the liabilities which the…taxpayers are assuming."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th Nov., 1957; Vol. 577, c.976.]
  This was a liability known and accepted by the Conservative Government. It was the emerging deficit. Does anyone suggest that, because it was met by general taxation, somehow or other that was wrong? Is it suggested that the State flat-rate pension scheme would collapse? Anyone who says that means that the credit of the country would collapse. Here we had a scheme which required, and is known to require, additional supplement from the national Exchequer. That has been accepted by the Government, and the contributions are tripartite—from the contributor, the employer and the Government.
  Then we have an Act of Parliament which divides the employees into two groups—contracted in and contracted out. One part of the Act reduces the
  686
  amount of money which will be levied from one of these groups—the contracted-in group. If that is all that we do, what will happen? The deficit will rise and there will be a greater call on the Exchequer.
  But of course the Government scheme did not end there. They introduced a new graduated contribution and, as a result of it, and as a result of the increases which are built into the Act in relation to existing rights, the Exchequer liability disappeared. What does that mean? It means that instead of it being borne by the general taxpayer this accepted liability is being borne by certain people who pay the graduated contribution. That is the simple point It is as simple as J.B.C.
  If we present this to the people of the country as a graduated pension scheme and tell them that it is an attack on poverty and old age, in face of the fact that what they are paying for this graduated scheme is out of all proportion to what they will get out of it, how will they regard it? Will they regard it as a sham, as a fraud, as a swindle? I leave the people to judge. When people appreciate this year that according to the Actuary's Report a sum of £202 million is to go to meet the deficit, what will they think? Of course, the Report will soon be out of date, because we now have the estimate of the number of people who have contracted out. I have shown that this amount of money is to go to pay for the deficit. It will be spent to meet the emerging liability.
  I congratulate whoever is responsible for the printing, lay-out and work of the Ministry's pamphlet to which I have referred, but I do not congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his foreword in which he said,
  "April, 1961 marks the introduction of two important changes in national insurance."
  It will be observed that it is no longer historic; it is just "important". He continues,
  "For the first time retirement pensions—and so contributions"—
  he mentions contributions as an afterthought—
  "will bear a relation to an employee's earnings".
  With all due respect to him, it is the contributions which bear the relationship to the earnings. The retirement pension

  687
  bears little or no relationship. It is a poor relationship—a very tenuous relationship. The right hon. Gentleman continues:
  "This system is inevitably a rather complicated one. It couldn't otherwise be fair as between people whose circumstances vary so much."
  The point is that it is not fair. It is not fair to take what has been accepted as a national responsibility, to place it upon a group of people and to leave them to bear it in this way. The Government have transferred a financial burden from one form of taxation to another, from a fair system of taxation to one which is relatively unjust. To pass this on to the public as graduated insurance is to deny the whole meaning of words.
  The right hon. Gentleman has been far too long at his present post. I think that he is becoming soured by political events. He has seen people less able than he, political nonentities and not very good brief-readers, edge him away from a seat in the Cabinet.
  If the right hon. Gentleman remembers his Third Reading speech, he will recall that he concluded with a Latin tag and gave his own version of it. There is another translation of that that I would venture to give. I do not seek to do it in the Latin, although I could do that with reasonable facility. My version would be "He whom the gods wish to destroy or frustrate politically, they first make Ministers of Pensions".
  6.35 p.m.
  The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): This debate has been an almost classic example of the desire of Her Majesty's Opposition to have it both ways. The first stage is to embark, with all the resources of the Labour Party, on a campaign launched by the Chairman of the Labour Party in person—who, only the other day, denounced this scheme as a fraud, as a swindle, and used all the adjectives with which a Winchester education furnishes a man.
  When we come to a place where these charges can be answered, there is an attempt to create a wholly different atmosphere. The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele)—to whom I hope I shall do no irreparable damage if I say that I thought he made much the best speech we have heard
  688
  from that side today—took my right hon. Friend to task, as did the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), for having ventured, among other things, to remind hon. Members opposite of their own very murky past in this matter.
  Says the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West, "Oh, we would have far preferred to have heard the details of the introduction of the scheme, the administrative arrangements and so on." Both hon. Members worked themselves up into a quite impressive state of synthetic indignation against my right hon. Friend. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock threatened me with a Latin tag; I shall give him another. It is Volenti non fit injuria, which, I think, can be roughly translated as "Provoke a redhead and you've had it."
  If the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West, really expects a right hon. Lady of such colour of hair as my right hon. Friend has the good fortune to have, to sit quietly by wishing to discuss the details of administration, the particular type of leaflets issued and the Orders made, when such terms as "scandal", and "fraud", and "cheating the public" are being used quite deliberately and calculatedly——
  Mr. Willis: And correctly.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: —I will deal with that—used deliberately, not only in speeches but in a special Labour Party document, I think that the hon. Gentleman mistakes the calibre and resiliency both of my right hon. Friend and of the Government as a whole.
  In replying to this debate, I have to deal both with the Dr. Jekyll on the back benches and the Mr. Hyde on the Front Bench—which seems to me, if I may follow up the agreeable personal preferences made by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock, the particular habit of the Labour Party. If I am to deal with both, I think I shall start with Dr. Jekyll. I fully understand that the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West who, I know, has Departmental knowledge of the subject, is concerned and interested in how this scheme is developing, but I certainly join issue with him when he says that the number of people contracting out amounts to something of a reflection on the scheme itself.

  689
  I believe that that remark springs from a very real difference of approach and philosophy between his side of the Committee and mine. It seems to those of my way of thinking that the right use of compulsive power of the State is not to compel people who are doing things perfectly satisfactorily now, to change over and do those things through State machinery, but rather to use the compulsive power of the State to bring along others to the standard of those who are doing it now.
  If we accept that philosophy, it is, as my right hon. Friend said, highly satisfactory that it has been demonstrated to an impartial Registrar—and I am grateful for the very proper compliments paid by both sides of the Committee to that officer for the way in which he has handled his extremely difficult job—that there are, at any rate, 4¼ million people in schemes that have come up to the quite austere standard required for the issue of the certificate of non-participation.
  That is a good thing. I can well see that from the point of view of hon. Members opposite, who really want to see provision for old age made a State monopoly, it is no doubt an unsatisfactory state of affairs. And I believe that the contracting-out arrangements went through a great deal better—thanks to the devoted work put in—than anybody could have dared to hope some months ago. Every applicant whose application had been made up to a few days before 3rd April and to whom it was possible to grant a certificate—that is, where due notice had been given and the application was in order—received a certificate in time. That is an extraordinarily satisfactory thing from the point of view of administration—leaving aside, for the moment, the difference there is between the hon. Gentleman and myself on the general question of contracting out.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Holland) made a most thoughtful and interesting speech, and asked for one or two comments from me. He said that he wanted to see more participation in the graduated scheme of the 6 million people who, in any one week, are not participating in it. My hon. Friend made it clear that he understood the significance of the term "in any one week". That total includes the sick, the unemployed—even
  690
  some on unpaid holiday—during that period.
  It is here that we come to the point that my right hon. Friend rightly stressed—though it evoked the ire of hon. Gentlemen opposite—that among the most conspicuous beneficiaries from this scheme are precisely those people on £9 a week or less. It is because, under this scheme, we are able to concentrate the subsidy from the Exchequer far more efficiently and effectively than is possible in a universal flat-rate scheme upon those on the lower earnings that it has been possible to reach what is—whatever hon. Members opposite may say—the not inconsiderable achievement of seeing to it that people who, at the end of March, were paying on these earnings the flat-rate contributions now find themselves, while paying no more—indeed, paying 2d. less—eligible to receive the increased rate of pension, and other benefits that came into operation on that date. It is because of that characteristic of the graduated scheme of concentrating the subsidy on those who need it most that it has been possible to help those 6 million people in that extremely valuable way.
  I take my hon. Friend's point about bonuses. I should like to be able to do more about it, but I think that he will agree with me, because I know that he has experience of these matters, that, at any rate in the earlier years of the scheme, it is essential, as far as one can, to try to simplify its administration. It is quite clear that a clear-cut principle of basing the contribution on the pay period—the week or the month, or whatever it may be—is really essential if we are to get this new departure from a flat-rate to a graduated basis properly under way. I give my hon. Friend the undertaking that I shall watch the scheme with his point very much in mind, and I assure him that it was not until after very careful consideration that I and those helping me decided that, at this stage at any rate, we could not meet the point.
  I return to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock. I am not grateful to him for much, but I am grateful to him for his compliment about the leaflet and I am grateful to him—and this may surprise him more—for his quotations from it. He referred to a number of cases in

  691
  order to suggest that the pension earned was derisory. I took down one of his examples. A man of 40 earning £12 a week—this is the hon. Gentleman's quotation from the leaflet—and paying 2s. 8d. a week graduated contribution will, by the time he reaches 65, have paid something like £174 in graduated contributions
  The average expectation of life of a man at 65 is 12 years. If he is a man with the average expectation of life he will enjoy for 12 years the additional pension of 11s. 6d. quoted by the hon. Gentleman. If the hon. Gentleman will tot that up, it amounts to £360. It is a little significant that the example which the hon. Gentleman, with all his ingenuity in debate, selected as a basis on which to condemn this scheme is that of a man putting in £174 and taking out £360—
  Mr. George Lawson Mr. George Lawson (Motherwell) rose—
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: For reasons that the hon. Gentleman knows, I cannot give way to him—
  Mr. Lawson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way—
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am afraid not. I have to reply—
  The Deputy-Chairman (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): Order. Only one hon. or right hon. Gentleman can have the floor.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have to reply, Sir William, to a number of speeches. I have undertaken to resume my seat by two minutes to seven, so the hon. Gentleman can, if he wishes, then seek to reduce my already exiguous salary—
  Mr. Ross: But does not the employer in this case pay a matching contribution?
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Of course the employer pays a matching contribution. The hon. Gentleman will not find the mathematics very difficult because, as he has already said, the matching contribution matches.
  The hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) chose another example. He asked, "What about the people retiring in the next few years?" He said that
  692
  those people would have to contribute £3 15s.—there is a matching contribution, if the hon. Gentleman wants it—in order to get 6d. addition to the pension. Very well—let us face that £3 15s. They will then get—
  Mr. Lawson: It is £15—£7 10s. matched.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If the hon. Gentleman, who has not taken part in the debate, will be good enough to let me develop my own argument he will appreciate that his hon. Friend knows, though he himself does not, that where—and this is where the £3 15s. came in—a person is half way to the value of a brick under the scheme he gets the full value of the brick, so that the figure of £3 15s. is right, and his own hon. Friend was right in quoting it. That person will therefore contribute £3 15s. and thereby earn 6d. a week additional pension. If he has an average expectation of life—that is, 12 years from age 65—he will get £15 12s., so, again, I do not think that the hon. Member for Sowerby was particularly happy in his choice of an example of what he thought was a bad part of the scheme.
  The hon. Gentleman then objected to what he called the small scale of the scheme. There, I think, we really come up against one of those fundamental differences in the Committee. It is not our view that the State should monopolise provision for old age. It is not our view that it is the function of the State to compel, through State machinery, more than a modest provision. We believe that the exercise of the rights of the individual to decide whether he shall provide further for his old age and take advantage of all the opportunities which are offered—the various schemes that are available to people—is the proper way of dealing with this matter beyond the basic pension. I cannot meet the hon. Member in that, because we are in a state of fundamental disagreement.
  Both the hon. Member for Sowerby and the hon. Member for Kilmarnock attacked the 1959 Act on the ground that, in their view, it transferred liability from the taxpayer to the contributor. My right hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary made it clear that the Exchequer contribution this year is the highest that the Exchequer has ever

  693
  made to National Insurance—£189 million. I will not quote the figures used by my right hon. Friend, but the proportion of benefit expenditure represented by the value of the contributions is considerably less than it was either at the beginning of the scheme, or in the last year of office of right hon. and hon. Members opposite. Therefore, it is not fair to suggest that what we are doing is pushing an unfair burden on to the contributor.
  All that was very well put by the hon. Member for Sowerby some time ago, when he said, on Third Reading of the Bill:
  "I am not complaining in the least that the Minister has felt it necessary, and has had the courage, to tackle what he believes to be, and what a great many other people have believed to be, a growing burden of taxation which might threaten the principle of benefits as of right, which would destroy the insurance principle to which a great many people attach importance."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th June, 1959; Vol. 606, c.863.]
  The hon. Member was talking extremely good sense.
  The question is—it is the only question when one analyses the matter—whether we have got the proportions quite right. I call in aid "National Superannuation", which states, on page 10:
  "Although the State should make its contribution towards financing them"—
  that is to say, the benefits—
  "the main burden must be borne in the future, as in the past, by contributions from the employer and the employee."
  Now, we come to the wild, exaggerated and ludicrous charges of swindle, fraud and so on, which hon. Members opposite have circulated outside but which they are not quite so keen to back up here in a place where they can be answered. They say that in the earlier years of the scheme, we shall collect large sums of money and pay out very little by way of graduated benefits. That is perfectly true. It is true always of any new scheme. It was true of "National Superannuation", which—my right hon. Friend quoted the figures—after 10 years would have collected over £4,000 million and be paying out £37 million a year.
  Hon. Members opposite must not be sensitive when I refer to "National Superannuation." I agree that one is probably discussing the dead and should
  694
  deal with it delicately, but when it is said that because one is doing things of this kind one is guilty of fraud, dishonesty and all the rest, it is relevant to note that something very similar was proposed by right hon. and hon. Members opposite. That does not establish that it is right; but it raises doubt as to the sincerity of the criticism. That is why my right hon. Friend was absolutely right to raise the question.
  The matter was summed up by the hon. Member for Sowerby in Socialist Commentary for April, in which he said:
  "Is it a 'swindle'? Quite honestly, it all depends upon whether we look at the scheme as a whole, or whether we look at the graduated scheme by itself."
  Of course, we must look at the scheme as a whole. There is nothing infamous, wrong or immoral about looking at what is, in the result, one pension as a whole. Looked at as a whole, there is no shadow of doubt that it give very good value for money to the contributor.
  I ask the Committee to accept one figure for the current year. We shall spend on National Insurance benefits this year £1,134 million; we shall take in in contributions, flat-rate and graduated together, £937 million and the balance, bringing this up to a modest surplus, will be produced by the Exchequer contribution of £189 million plus £50 million interest on the invested balances of the funds.
  It does not make sense to the ordinary man or to anybody else to suggest that an elaborate swindle is being perpetrated in a scheme which pays out—and this pattern will continue right through the future—something like £200 million a year more than is paid in. Therefore, it is quite wrong for hon. Members opposite to adopt this argument.
  It is possible for hon. Members opposite to take examples favourable to themselves, although some of those quoted have not always turned out to be quite as favourable as hon. Members thought when they used them. Our scheme, however, does give more proportionate aid to some people than to others. It concentrates the benefit from the Exchequer upon those with lower earnings and also in considerable measure upon those nearing retirement. I would have said that it was no criticism of a subsidised scheme that it

  695
  concentrated its biggest benefits upon the poor and upon the old. That is precisely what this scheme does.
  I am under no illusions—nobody introducing a complex scheme of this sort could be—that its introduction will other than involve difficulties. I do not pretend it is perfect. I undertake to watch its development and, if things go wrong, to put them right. But on the facts as they have been brought out in this debate and elsewhere, we can claim that by restoring the solvency of National Insurance, by so enabling a real advance to be made in the value of
  present benefits for present pensioners and by, at the same time, bringing into operation a scheme which enables help to be given most to those who most need it, we at least have done some service to the millions whom it is our duty to serve.
  Mr. Houghton: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I beg to move, That item Class X, Vote 2 (Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance), be reduced by £5.
  Question put:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 146, Noes 232.

  Division No. 150.]

  AYES

  [6.58 p.m.

  Ainsley, William

  Hamilton, William (West Fife)

  Probert, Arthur

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Hannan, William

  Proctor, W. T.

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Hart, Mrs. Judith

  Randall, Harry

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Healey, Denis

  Rankin, John

  Benson, Sir George

  Herbison, Miss Margaret

  Reid, William

  Blackburn, F.

  Holt, Arthur

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S. W.)

  Houghton, Douglas

  Robertson, J. (Paisley)

  Bowles, Frank

  Howell, Charles A. (B'ham, Perry Bar)

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

  Boyden, James

  Howell, Denis (B'ham, Small Heath)

  Ross, William

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

  Castle, Mrs. Barbara

  Hunter, A. E.

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Chapman, Donald

  Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

  Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

  Chetwynd, George

  Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Cliffe, Michael

  Jeger, George

  Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

  Collick, Percy

  Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

  Small, William

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Cronin, John

  Kelley, Richard

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Crosland, Anthony

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Steele, Thomas

  Darling, George

  Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

  Stonehouse, John

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

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

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Swain, Thomas

  Delargy, Hugh

  McCann, John

  Swingler, Stephen

  Dempsey, James

  MacColl, James

  Sylvester, George

  Diamond, John

  McInnes, James

  Taylor, John (West Lothian)

  Dodds, Norman

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)

  Donnelly, Desmond

  McLeavy, Frank

  Wade, Donald

  Driberg, Tom

  MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)

  Warbey, William

  Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Weitzman, David

  Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

  Manuel, A. C.

  Wells, Percy (Faversham)

  Edelman, Maurice

  Mason, Roy

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Mayhew, Christopher

  White, Mrs. Eirene

  Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

  Mellish, R. J.

  Whitlock, William

  Evans, Albert

  Mendelson, J. J.

  Wigg, George

  Fernyhough, E.

  Milne Edward J.

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Finch, Harold

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Willey, Frederlok

  Forman, J. C.

  Moody, A. S.

  Williams, Ll. (Abertillery)

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Moyle, Arthur

  Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

  Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Oliver, G. H.

  Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)

  George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn)

  Oswald, Thomas

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

  Ginsburg, David

  Padley, W. E.

  Woof, Robert

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

  Paget, R. T.

  Wyatt, Woodrow

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

  Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

  Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

  Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Zilliacus, K.

  Grimond, J.

  Parker, John

  Gunter, Ray

  Peart, Frederick

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

  Pentland, Norman

  Mr. Lawson and Mr Redhead

  Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

  Plummer, Sir Leslie

  NOES

  Agnew, Sir Peter

  Ashton, Sir Hubert

  Batsford, Brian

  Aitken, W. T.

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)

  Allason, James

  Barber, Anthony

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian (Preston, N.)

  Barlow, Sir John

  Bell, Ronald

  Arbuthnot, John

  Barter, John

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm)

  Berkeley, Humphry

  Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

  Nugent, Sir Richard

  Bidgood, John C.

  Hare, Rt. Hon. John

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

  Orr-Ewing, C. Ian

  Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Page, John (Harrow, West)

  Bishop, F. P.

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Bourne-Arton, A.

  Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

  Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

  Box, Donald

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

  Partridge, E.

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John

  Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

  Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

  Harvie, Anderson, Miss

  Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

  Brooman-White, R.

  Hastings, Stephen

  Pitt, Miss Edith

  Browne, Percy (Torrington)

  Hay, John

  Pott, Percivall

  Bryan, Paul

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

  Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

  Buck, Antony

  Henderson-Stewart, Sir James

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Bullard, Denys

  Hendry, Forbes

  Profumo, Rt. Hon. John

  Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

  Hiley, Joseph

  Pym, Francis

  Burden, F. A.

  Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

  Rawlinson, Peter

  Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)

  Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)

  Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

  Campbell, Cordon (Moray & Nairn)

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Rees, Hugh

  Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Rees-Davis, W. R.

  Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

  Hobson, John

  Rippon, Geoffrey

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Hocking, Philip N.

  Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

  Channon, H. P. G.

  Holland, Philip

  Robertson, Sir David

  Chataway, Christopher

  Hopkins, Alan

  Roots, William

  Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Clarke, Brig, Terence (Portsmth, W.)

  Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)

  Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)

  Cleaver, Leonard

  Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

  Seymour, Leslie

  Cole, Norman

  Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

  Sharpies, Richard

  Collard, Richard

  Hughes-Young, Michael

  Shaw, M.

  Cooke, Robert

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Cooper, A. E.

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd & Chiswick)

  Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Smithers, Peter

  Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

  Jackson, John

  Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

  Corfield, F. V.

  Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

  Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher

  Costain, A. P.

  Jennings, J. C.

  Spearman, Sir Alexander

  Coulson, J. M.

  Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

  Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

  Craddock, Sir Beresford

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Storey, Sir Samuel

  Crowder, F. P.

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Cunningham, Knox

  Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)

  Sumner, Donald (Orpington)

  Curran, Charles

  Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

  Tapsell, Peter

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Kimball, Marcus

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Kitson, Timothy

  Teeling, William

  Dance, James

  Leavey, J. A.

  Temple, John M.

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Leburn, Gilmour

  Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

  Deedes, W. F.

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter

  de Ferranti, Basil

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Litchfield, Capt. John

  Turner, Colin

  Doughty, Charles

  Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)

  Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

  Drayson, G. B.

  Longden, Gilbert

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  du Cann, Edward

  Loveys, Walter H.

  Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John

  Duncan, Sir James

  Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby

  Vickers, Miss Joan

  Duthie, Sir William

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn

  Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

  Emery, Peter

  McAdden, Stephen

  Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

  Farey-Jones, F. W.

  MacArthur, Ian

  Walder, David

  Farr, John

  McLaren, Martin

  Walker, Peter

  Fisher, Nigel

  Maclean, SirFitzroy (Bute&N.Ayrs.)

  Walker-Smith, Rt, Hon. Sir Derek

  Foster, John

  Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)

  Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

  Fraser. Hn. Hugh (Stafford & Stone)

  McMaster, Stanley R.

  Watts, James

  Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Maddan, Martin

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Freeth, Denzil

  Marlowe, Anthony

  Whitelaw, William

  Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

  Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest

  Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

  Gammans, Lady

  Marshall, Douglas

  Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

  Gardner, Edward

  Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R, J.

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Goodhart, Philip

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

  Wise, A. R.

  Goodhew, Victor

  Mills, Stratton

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Grant, Rt. Hon. William

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard

  Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R.

  Moore, Sir Thomas (Ayr)

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Green, Alan

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Woollam, John

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Morgan, William

  Worsley, Marcus

  Grimston, Sir Robert

  Morrison, John

  Yates, William (The Wrekin)

  Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Gurden, Harold

  Noble, Michael

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Mr. Finlay and Mr. Gibson-Watt.

  It being after Seven o'clock The CHAIRMAN left the Chair, further Proceeding standing postponed until after the consideration of Private Business set down by direction of The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS under Standing Order No. 7 (Time for taking Private Business).
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER resumed the Chair.

  TRUNK PIPELINES BILL (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  7.8 p.m.
  Mr. Grant-Ferris: I am grateful for having the opportunity to put the case for the promoters of the Bill. It has created a great deal of interest in the country, and I think on both sides of the House. It has aroused a certain amount of feeling one way and another about how these proposals should be developed to the best national advantage.
  The Bill seeks to achieve Parliamentary permission to lay a pipeline 70 miles long between Canvey Island in the Thames and Denham in Bucks. In the main, the route of the pipeline follows the property of the British Transport Commission. It runs 21 miles along the towpaths of canals and seventeen or eighteen miles along railway property. About twenty miles of it is within an easement of the North Thames Gas Board. The property of the various parties that would be asked to give way-leaves covers an insignificant mileage.
  I think that the House ought to be grateful to the promoters of the Bill for bringing it forward. It has galvanised the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power and of Parliament in general. It concerns a very important and urgent matter. I think that we can reasonably hope that when my right hon. Friend intervenes in the debate he will make a statement which will be reassuring to many people. It may be more reassuring to hon. Members on this side than to hon. Members opposite, but I do not think that even they will be too despondent about what he has to say. I feel that he is bound to say the sort of things that any Minister of the Crown must say about matters like this.
  700
  We are a little behind in this regard. America and the Continent already have in working order many hundreds of miles of pipelines such as those which we envisage. We shall have to take second place, but that may not be altogether a bad thing, because in planning our system we shall learn a great deal from them and we shall not, if I may borrow a phrase from one of my right hon. Friends which I thought was extremely apt, "land ourselves with a plate of spaghetti".
  The difference between this Bill and the Esso Bill of last year is that this Bill seeks to be a multi-user Bill. In other words, what the promoters wish to have is a pipeline through which will pass all manner of liquids. They envisage, in the first place, to pass along the pipeline the liquids produced by the oil companies, and later, as other ideas develop, other materials. It has been said that it is possible to pass even such things as coal along pipelines of the type that we are discussing. We can, therefore, look forward to wonderful things in the use of these pipelines.
  It would be as well to say a few words about the position of the British Transport Commission if the scheme which is envisaged should materialise. The promoters of the Bill have entered into negotiations with the British Transport Commission, as a result of which the Commission would get a share of the profits from the workings of the pipeline and, should leave be given later to extend the system a share of the profits resulting from the extension. I think that this is a much better idea than having a fixed royalty of so much for the right to use so many miles of railway, canal towpath or whatever it may be. It is obvious that these pipelines will be used a great deal and that there will, therefore, be a considerable and growing revenue for the railways and for the canals. Hon. Members know that I am not altogether disinterested in the last matter.
  A survey has been carried out along the length of canal from London to Liverpool. If the pipeline were built it would undoubtedly be very beneficial to the revenues of the canals. In designing the pipeline the greatest care must be taken to save the amenities. I visualise that there may have to be a number of pipes going along certain tracks, as it

  701
  were, and, therefore, it might well be necessary to make a container within the towpath of a canal which would take as many as three, four, five or perhaps six lines. If that were done the container would have to be buried. It would, therefore, not be an eyesore.
  The trouble about the Bill is that it is likely to cut across what might well be, and what ought to be, general Government policy. I believe that it is only right to say that the promoters of the Bill are well aware of this. I am authorised to say that if my right hon. Friend makes a statement which is acceptable to the House in general and to the pro moters, they are prepared to withdraw their Bill on the understanding that speedy Government action will be taken. Above all, we feel that whatever Govern-action is taken—
  Mr. Hugh Delargy: Is the hon. Gentleman saying, on behalf of the promoters of the Bill, that if the Government undertake this contract they will withdraw the Bill?
  Mr. Grant-Ferris: No. I have not finished explaining the position. If the Government undertake to study the matter quickly and to bring forward general legislation as quickly as possible—I mean legislation not for this particular pipeline but for the whole country—and provided there is within the format of that legislation a place for private enterprise to play its part, then the promoters would be willing cheerfully to withdraw the Bill.
  I think that we owe a great debt of gratitude to the firm which has brought forward these proposals. A great deal of money has been involved—I understand about £70,000. This seems to be a large sum of money in the promotion of a Bill, but I assure the House that it includes the cost of the very careful survey which was made over the whole route of the proposed pipeline and over the route from London to Liverpool. The promoters had to spend the money to see whether they could lay the pipeline. They have found that they could. If the Bill is withdrawn they will have to pay the costs of bringing it forward. It is only right, therefore, that we should be grateful to them for bringing it forward and for galvanising us into action. It would be a good thing also if the oil companies generally should see what is being done
  702
  for them, because it is very much in their interests that this pipeline should be built.
  Whether there will be pipelines devoted to a company's private use or whether there will be multi-user pipes such as is envisaged in the Bill are matters for debate in the future, but we should be grateful to the promoters of this Bill for what they have done. I feel that the debate will be a landmark in our history because we are about to embark upon something the application of which is bound to have far-reaching results in our national life. One of the small but, in my view, important things is that it will remove a great many lorries from our roads, with the resultant loss of all those dreadful fumes from which we suffer so much today. In addition, this development will be an important factor in contributing within the years remaining to the increasing, and indeed doubling, of our standard of life in twenty-five years of which the Leader of the House spoke some years ago.
  Mr. Speaker: I think that it will be for the general convenience if I indicate that in due course I shall call the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) and others—the "six months" Amendment—and that the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Gunter) and other hon. Members
  That this House declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which anticipates general public legislation and which makes no provision for the comprehensive and co-ordinated development of pipelines under public ownership and control.
  is not selected.
  7.22 p.m.
  Mr. Ray Gunter: I am sure that many of us have heard with some relief the statement made by the hon. Member for Nantwich (Mr. Grant-Ferris) that in all probability the Bill will be withdrawn, because I rise to oppose its Second Reading. But I must agree with the hon. Member that we should feel thankful that the Government have been galvanised into some sort of action as a result of the Bill being presented.
  It was on 6th March that the Minister announced that the Government had found it necessary to legislate to secure in the national interest the orderly development of privately-owned industrial

  703
  pipelines. I am surprised that the Government have waited this long before facing up to what may be a major development in the transport industry not only of this country but of the world. It appears that if we had not had the discussion on the Esso Petroleum Bill and the presentation of this Bill we should be still floundering about and lagging behind other countries in this respect.
  I should have thought that over the past few years the Government would have been grappling with the problems and the social and economic consequences that may flow from a development of this kind. Whatever we are able to do in this country, and I am not expert enough to prophesy how rapidly this project will develop or to predict its magnitude, there are bound to be various effects. It has been considered in the past that the comparatively short distance for which traffic has to be carried and the rarity of upsets by weather conditions of our normal transport did not necessitate this development to the degree that has taken place in other countries. But it is the duty of all people engaged in industry, and particularly in the transport world, and it is emphatically the duty of the Government, to watch closely and learn as rapidly as they can the lessons that can be derived from the experiments which are now being conducted on a broad pattern in other countries.
  It is interesting to read of the great development nowadays behind the Iron Curtain in this form of transport. I understand that there is in course of construction a great pipeline running from Baku on the Caspian right to Poland, Eastern Germany, Czechoslovakia and Hungary, and it is obvious from its length and the size of the refineries at the terminal points of this great pipeline that it is aimed at expansion westwards. Russian oil is already playing an important part in bilateral agreements. In the United States there is already a 110 miles long pipeline for the transport of coal. Experiments on a large scale have been conducted in the conveyance of such things as sugar, cement and flour, which are being increasingly carried in this country by tankers on the road but which we may yet see carried underground.
  704
  Although we are not quite sure, and I hope that the Minister will tell us more about the rate of development, I submit that there is urgency about ensuring that this form of transport is developed in an orderly and, I hope this time, an integrated fashion. There are obvious advantages about pipeline conveyance. It is cheap. I remember reading that to carry a 42-gallon drum of petrol from Philadelphia to New York costs 4s. and that it costs only 6d. by pipeline. We can therefore see the advantages that accrue in that respect, and such a development could do much to relieve congestion on our roads.
  There are these advantages, but every page of transport history in this country shows that when we have a new form of transport there are inevitably great economic and social consequences. It is, therefore, very necessary and proper that enlightened legislation should be produced quickly to deal with this new form of transport that may—I put it no higher—develop at a rapid rate.
  I beg the Minister to read and re-read the history and sometimes the tragedy of legislation affecting canals, railways and roads in the past in this country. I am not anxious to score any political point on this, but we all agree that the legislation that dealt with railways as they affected canals and the legislation that dealt with railways when they were hit by the roads was largely responsible for landing us in the mess and in the confused state that we find ourselves in the transport industry today. I do not want to be too harsh on our fathers, but at least let us produce legislation this time that will not repeat the mistakes of the past.
  Here I enter into the field of politics. I am convinced that if action of this kind is left in the hands of private enterprise to develop we shall have the same mistakes. We must reject the Private Bill system, therefore, as being completely inadequate for dealing with this kind of thing. On this point I can do no better than quote the paper of the top people. The Times, which in a leading article on 7th March dealing with pipelines said:
  "The inadequacy of the Private Bill system is by now well-recognised. One of its weaknesses is that in some cases it does not give enough protection to owners of property affected, and it may well be questioned in any case whether private property rights should be overridden in favour of an unregulated private

  705
  profit-making enterprise. Local authorities are not sufficiently protected against longer-term inconveniences that they may suffer. Another weakness is still more fundamental—that only those directly affected by the proposed route of the pipeline may enter objections, and in consequence the choice of alternative routes cannot be properly considered in the light of the wider public and private interests involved. Nor, it seems, is there any means whereby the continuing obligations of this new form of transport can be satisfactorily laid down. The question of the specific weaknesses of the Private Bills procedure merges, in fact, with the wider question whether oil pipelines are not a public utility—not necessarily to be publicly owned but at any rate regulated as regards their powers and obligations by statute."
  I think, therefore, that there can be no disagreement in the House that Private Bill procedure is not suitable for this purpose.
  What, then, should we be looking for in the general legislation which the Government have undertaken to produce? If we accept that pipeline transport is to be a major factor in considering transport problems, if we have to revise our previous judgment that Britain was too small a country and too well-equipped with other forms of transport, because of the cheapness and speed of pipelines and the relief of road congestion, and the fact that they may well become capable of carrying many other products, fluid or solid, then we have to face the consequences of this major change in transport and its influence upon economic and social life.
  We are deeply aware of the effects of railway and road development in this country. Let me repeat to the Minister that I would not be dogmatic or prophetic about the future of pipelines in this country, but I think that he should tell the House tonight what the opinions of the experts are about the trends, so far as they can be ascertained, in this direction over the next decade and their effects upon industry and upon our people.
  One thing about which I am quite clear—and I am sure that I shall take the Minister with me on this—is that if this new means of transport is found to have beneficial results for British industry, then, for heaven's sake, we should not allow any doctrines or party politics or conservative thinking to stop its development. The more effective and cheap we can make our industry, the better it is for us.
  706
  I should like to submit to the House certain of my and my party's thoughts on what the policy should be. First, I would say that when the Government are considering this matter they should evolve a coherent plan for the country as a whole, so that the history of the canals and railways is not repeated. The other thing that I would emphasise, and I think that it was conceded by the hon. Member for Nantwich, is that there should be a provision that the lines should be for common use and not restricted to the products of private concerns owning the lines. In other words, in this development we should seek to ensure common-user rights.
  I and my party believe that there should be public ownership of the lines from the start. They will be a source of revenue; their extent and location will effect the whole economy; their construction and management will require continual contact both with local and central government. Development of this kind is likely to affect railway revenues. It is likely to effect employment in that section of our industry, and to effect it adversely. There is an offset if the pipes are laid, as far as possible, along existing railway tracks or canals. In so far as the lines will diminish the value of one public asset, this, I submit, is an additional reason for their being publicly owned. As I have said, pipelines will affect our traffic on the roads, but, as we hope that the whole economy is expanding, there may be no threat to employment, and the mitigation of traffic congestion will be a tremendous advantage to us.
  Since the first and most obvious use of pipelines is for oil—and this is a point which is worrying our friends in the coal industry—they may, by making the distribution of oil easier, become a further threat to the coal industry. Therefore, there is an urgent need for the Government to press on their researches to make this modern means of transport available for the conveyance of coal. In our thinking on policy for the future we have to consider how we should handle this situation which may affect many in the field of local government in town and country planning. A pipeline terminal—it has already been proved on the Continent—may well become a centre from which road traffic radiates, and in this and

  707
  other ways a great nuisance to those living in its neighbourhood. We know that some pipelines—to a limited extent, I hope—will have to pass over or under commons, or traverse places of national beauty, and we want to be sure that there will be no desecration of our countryside.
  We also know the anxiety felt by many of our local authorities on this matter, because the construction and maintenance and repair of these lines will probably involve the taking up of highways. This aspect of the Bill has already alarmed certain local authorities and they have made representations to nearly all hon. Members. We must be quite sure that general legislation will lay it down that proper safety measures are enforced. I have no desire to detain the House longer, particularly in view of what has been said by the previous speaker, but I hope that the Minister will make as comprehensive a statement as he can upon the Government's intention and how they propose to deal with this emerging form of transport. I hope that we shall not be laggardly in using every means to learn from experiments abroad so that what we may contribute a great deal to the prosperity and well being of our people.
  7.38 p.m.
  Mr. John Arbuthnot: The number of hon. Members who are present in the Chamber this evening for a Private Bill shows the interest that is felt in this matter and reflects the interest felt throughout the country in the problem of how we should conduct our pipeline legislation. I do not think that there is any fundamental disagreement between any of us on this matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Nantwich (Mr. Grant-Ferris), in the attractive way in which he put the case for the promoters, made it quite clear that the promoters did not expect the Bill to receive a Second Reading tonight, and that what they want is an indication of what the Government have in mind regarding future legislation.
  Whether the Bill is withdrawn or is refused a Second Reading does not really matter. What does matter is that the Bill in its present form should not go a further stage. I say that, not because I have any views about the merits of
  708
  what the promoters seek to achieve in the Bill; they may well be unexceptionable. The reasons why I think that the Bill should not be allowed to go any further is that Private Bills are not suitable for dealing with pipeline authorisation. It is on this aspect of the matter that I would seek to enlist the support of the House.
  When the Esso Bill came before Parliament in the last Session, and it had much in common with this Bill, the House, instead of sending it to a Private Bill Committee, thought that the whole principle involved was of such importance that a Select Committee, on which I had the privilege of serving as Chairman, was set up to consider it. I should like to pay tribute to my colleagues on that Committee on both sides of the House, a number of whom are in the Chamber tonight, for their hard work and robust common sense.
  Our Committee on the Esso Bill reported unanimously that we were convinced that Private Bill procedure was not the best way of safeguarding the interests of owners, lessees or occupiers when a pipeline is to be constructed. We recommended that no further Private Bills for the construction of pipelines should be passed by this House. We went on to say—because we wanted to be constructive—that we were attracted by the idea that such measures should be authorised by Provisional Order, and commended to the House for consideration that a public enquiry should be held before the Order was made, and that the Order itself should be affirmed by a Provisional Order Bill.
  The reason for this is that not only are landowners and occupiers affected, but also people in the vicinity, whom we must not forget. It is not only those across whose land pipelines pass who may be affected, but others in the vicinity. Two objectors, for instance, to the Esso Bill, were brewery companies in the neighbourhood who drew water from the area for their beer. Some of those affected may wish the pipeline to take a different course.
  The weakness of private Bill procedure is that a Committee on a Private Bill has no power to alter the route beyond the "limits of deviation" on the plans deposited with the Bill, since this might involve affecting people who would not

  709
  have had notice and been given an opportunity of objecting. The Committee on the Esso Bill was, therefore, compelled to report that it
  "had been unable to give the full protection offered by the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act, 1946,"
  which involves a local inquiry, held by a Minister, at which objectors may make their case.
  If there is to be a local inquiry, together with some form of Parliamentary control, as the Committee envisaged, that means that there are three possible forms of procedure open to us—Provisional Orders, Orders subject to special Parliamentary Procedure under the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, 1945, or Orders subject to affirmative resolution only.
  The idea of local inquiries was supported by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power, and I should like to take this opportunity of thanking him for the way in which he has kept me in close touch with his thoughts in the matter. In answer to a question which I put to him, he said that the Government proposed to legislate, and added:
  "The legislation will provide that, where there are objections by public bodies or private individuals to a project, those objections may be heard at a public inquiry and that, in appropriate cases, the Minister's decision will be subject to the approval of Parliament."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th March, 1961; Vol. 636. c.2.]
  He subsequently defined "appropriate cases" as being
  "those where compulsory purchase orders are sought."
  My right hon. Friend went on to say that before he laid detailed proposals before Parliament he would consult the various interests that would be affected. From this it would appear that what he has in mind is not Provisional Orders, which the Esso Bill Select Committee recommended, but special Parliamentary procedure, since all Provisional Orders are subject to the approval of Parliament, and not merely "appropriate cases."
  It is because I feel that it is important that my right hon. Friend should get his legislation right in draft rather than, having drafted the legislation, find himself up against a number of us who are trying to protect the functions of Parliament and the rights of objectors,
  710
  that I am venturing to detain the House a little longer. I also want to alert the Association of Municipal Corporations, the Urban District Councils' Association and the Rural District Councils' Association, not to mention the Society of Parliamentary Agents, whom I have no doubt the Minister will be consulting. If their previous representations are anything to go by, I think that they will have views highly critical of special procedure.
  It seems to me wholly inappropriate that legislation which was designed specifically to deal with what was described in the White Paper, Cmd. 6515, as the "Reconstruction Period" when a flood of reconstruction Orders was apparently expected, and when it was felt that these should not be obstructed by private interests, should now be applied to an entirely new field—namely, pipelines.
  It is not as if Special Procedure Orders were generally acceptable. In April, 1959, on the Leicester (Amendment of Local Enactments) Order, 1959, debates took place in both Houses in which the working of the Act was adversely commented upon by Members on both sides. Special Procedure Orders have the effect, which I am sure my right hon. Friend does not intend, of avoiding the Parliamentary scrutiny of orders. I should be grateful if he would indicate what attracts him to Special Procedure Orders as against Provisional Order Bills, because there are some very serious defects in them. One of them is that, except for the handful of Special Procedure Orders where objection is raised, Parliamentary scrutiny is actually less than that given to Statutory Instruments subject to annulment.
  This is because, in the first place, Special Procedure Orders are not referred to the Statutory Instruments Committee of the Commons and, in the second place, the time for their anulment by a Resolution of either House is only fourteen days compared with forty days for a Statutory Instrument.
  My next objection to the use of the Special Procedure Order is that, unless a Petition is presented against the Order, it cannot be amended. Like a Statutory Instrument, it must either be approved or rejected as a whole. This means that settlements cannot be arrived at,

  711
  even when the promoters are agreeable and willing to make small alterations to meet people who would otherwise have to go to the expense of petitioning, unless the whole order is withdrawn.
  It also means that drafting Amendments cannot be made. These are often very necessary, as has been shown with Unopposed Provisional Order Bills which have had the benefit of Government drafting. In the Second Reading debate on the Special Procedure Order Bill in another place, it was pointed out by Lord Mersey, who was acting Chairman of Committees, that, in a year taken at random, out of thirty-four Provisional Order Bills, fourteen were amended in one or both Houses. The lack of possibility of amendment seems particularly inappropriate to a pipelines Bill, when there must inevitably be a mass of detailed and complicated provisions, and where a large number of individuals may well be affected.
  The place to consider matters of this kind is not on the Floor of the House but in a small Committee, assisted by counsel, maps, plans and witnesses as necessary. Yet if Special Order procedure is to be adopted, not only will this Order not come under detailed examination, but no officer or Committee of the House has the right—let alone the duty—to call for an explanation of any Clause.
  Now I come to when a Petition is presented against a Special Procedure Order. In this case, even a Joint Committee can only make Amendments "to give effect to the Petition" and not other amendments which might improve the Order. This applies even although, as has happened with some Special Procedure Orders, an error has been discovered by the Minister and he desires to make an Amendment.
  If someone wishes to object to the Order as a whole, as opposed to only a part of it, the position is even worse, since such a Petition "of general objection" can only reach a Committee after a Motion is agreed to by the House, referring it to a Joint Committee. The difficulties of organising this are almost insuperable.
  The petitioner must—all in the space of fourteen days—consider the effect of the Order on himself and his property;
  712
  take any necessary professional advice; draft and deposit his Petition in conformity with a complex list of rules and Standing Orders; contact two Members of Parliament or Peers, one to put down a motion to annul the Order, the other to put down an Amendment to refer his Petition to a joint committee, and finally, still within the fourteen days, obtain a majority of Peers or Members to stay late at night and vote for him on a complex local matter, outside their constituencies and almost certainly against the advice of the Government Whips.
  My final objection to the use of the Special Order procedure is its extreme rigidity. Firstly, petitioning time is only fourteen days from the laying of the Order, compared with two months in the case of Private Bills. Secondly, the time for moving Motions to annul is only fourteen days, compared with forty days for Statutory Instruments. These fourteen days may, in practice, be reduced to four or five working Parliamentary days. Thirdly, there is no procedure for relaxing the rules, for example, for late petitions, as is the case with Private Bills.
  Therefore, I come again to the Esso Bill Select Committee and its recommendation of Provisional Order Bills as the proper way to deal with this type of legislation. This conclusion was only reached after the most careful consideration. Provisional Order Bills are more satisfactory, since they ensure adequate Parliamentary control and opportunity for Amendments, settlements, and so on, to be arrived at.
  I have heard of only two objections to Provisional Order Bills. The first is that they are more expensive. That difficulty can be overcome if the Government legislation on pipelines includes provisions such as the waiving of House fees and printing requirements, and possibly requiring a hearing by a Joint Committee instead of Committees in each House.
  The other objection is that Provisional Orders take longer than Special Procedure Orders. This would strike me as not such a bad thing, although they need not take so long if a hearing before a Joint Committee took the place of a hearing by a Committee in each House. One of the most recent Provisional Orders took only twenty-three days in the Commons.

  713
  I apologise to the House for having taken up so much time, but I regard it as important that, in what may become a substantial new field of legislation, we should get off on the right foot and that we should get our procedure right from the beginning.
  7.53 p.m.
  Mr. William Warbey: The hon. Member for Nantwich (Mr. Grant-Ferris) began his speech by congratulating the promoters of the Bill for galvanising the Government into action. I would like to express my thanks to the promoters, but in a more limited way, because I shall have some harsh words to say about this matter.
  The promoters are to be thanked for providing us with an opportunity for a debate on an important matter of public policy. I also thank them for providing me with some information, and a useful folder in which to put my notes. But that is as far as I can go in my thanks.
  After all, it was not the promoters who galvanised the Government into action. It was partly, as the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Arbuthnot) said, the Select Committee on the Esso Bill, and also hon. Members who pressed on the Government during the Second Reading of the Esso Bill, the necessity for making a proper review of this whole and important developing new field of transport. Hon. Members must consider whether or not the promoters have acted rightly in pressing on with this Bill, first, in the face of the unanimous recommendation of the Select Committee on the Esso Bill, secondly, the acceptance of that recommendation by the Minister with the approval of the House, and, thirdly, the thrice repeated opposition of the Minister to the Bill.
  I do not take the view that the promoters were seeking to perform a public service in spending a good deal of money and time with going on with a Bill which, clearly, is doomed. I noted with some care the provisional proposal for the withdrawal of the Motion for the Second Reading of the Bill which was put forward by the hon. Member for Nantwich who said that withdrawal would be conditional on two things: first, an undertaking by the Government that there would be early legislation to deal with
  714
  this whole question; and, secondly, that the Minister would indicate that within the framework of public legislation, a way would be left for private enterprise. That, I should have thought, was the real motive of the promoters.
  What they are after is to find a way of making further profits. They would not otherwise have gone on with the Bill, nor would they have sought to stake a claim in whatever may happen in the future. The specific proposals made by the promoters, so far as I can judge by the information they have supplied to me, and by the inquiries I have made, do not really add up to a carefully considered scheme which is worthy of the consideration of the House and of the Government. Frankly, it looked to me as being a half-baked scheme, and I am not altered in that view after having heard what the hon. Member for Nantwich had to say.
  The promoters are suggesting the building of a pipeline running from the Thames Estuary, up to Denham, and, eventually, up to Merseyside, with various spurs. But we have not heard from the promoters, or from the hon. Member for Nantwich, what the requirements are. There has been no assessment of the likely traffic to be carried in this pipeline, no indication that any prospective users have said that they are prepared to make use of it, and no indication that the spur lines will serve a useful purpose or are even required. Neither is it explained where they should be.
  There has been a great deal of publicity in the Press about the wonderful things which could happen in the future when these pipelines are fully developed; that they are capable of being used to carry not only oil, but semi-solids as well as solids. If that is the case, and if that is what the promoters have in view, why are they proposing to lay down only a 10-inch pipeline? What use will a 10-inch pipeline be in the light of future developments?
  In America, where pipelines are used for these purposes, they use 24-inch pipelines. Thus, a 10-inch pipeline would be totally inadequate for the purposes envisaged in the future. Obviously, if the promoters were successful with this Measure, they would eventually have to seek new powers to lay down another pipeline along side the existing one, with

  715
  further disturbance to the properties over which they would have to pass. Altogether, one cannot regard this as a fully considered, rationally planned scheme which would be worthy of public approval.
  The promoters of the Bill—we should be frank about this; we cannot really blame them—are only doing what private interests have done in this country and will no doubt continue to do for a long time until they are curbed. They are staking out a claim in something which looks like being a good thing in the future. They wish to get powers to acquire a semi-monopoly position in an important, new and developing field of transport in order to make profits. That is the position.
  I say that it is altogether wrong that the Private Bill procedure, in particular, should be used to enable private persons to seek special claims and rights for the making of profits. It is perfectly true, as was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark (Mr. Gunter), that this happened in the nineteenth century in connection with canals and railways. In recent years we have witnessed the chaotic result of what was done then—the provision of a partly duplicated and partly inadequate system of transport.
  That was done largely by the promotion of Private Bills in a piecemeal fashion in which each promoter was seeking special advantages for himself and for his group of friends. That kind of thing may have been good enough for the buccaneering days of nineteenth century profitability. It is not good enough for the twentieth century, and we can not allow it to be repeated. I would go further—
  Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: If the hon. Member is proposing to make excursions into railway history, will he admit that the "buccaneers", as he called them, provided a railway system within the short period of ten years? We were provided with a complete railway system by private enterprise at its own cost in a very short time.
  Mr. Warbey: Without going into the whole of railway history, I would not suggest that they did not act without a great deal of speed and energy and that, in many directions, there were useful
  716
  and valuable results. But, nevertheless, the total result of these unco-ordinated private efforts was that, in the end, we had an unco-ordinated system which, as I say, was overlapping and duplicating in some places, and, in others, inadequate for the public purpose.
  We must see that in this new and developing field of transport that story is not repeated. We must certainly ensure, as a matter of principle, that we do not allow public and Parliamentary sanction to be given to private groups to enjoy statutory rights over a monopoly or semi-monopoly system of transport which would enable them to make profit for themselves.
  Mr. A. P. Costain: Will the hon. Member please explain why he says that there will be only a 10-inch pipeline which will not be big enough for the purpose, and then says that these people will have a monopoly and that no one else will have an opportunity to lay a pipeline?
  Mr. Warbey: I was careful to refer to a semi-monopoly. In fact, as we see in the case of the railways and canals, and as we have seen in the case of the pipelines already developed in this country, there is no question of an absolute monopoly. Nevertheless, whoever gets in first, and gets into an advantageous position, will have very definite advantages over his competitors and the community as a whole.
  We can see, that for example, in the case of a number of pipelines being developed, or which it is proposed shall be developed, toward London Airport. First, there was one, then two, then three, and now, in this Bill, a fourth is proposed. That is the way the thing goes on, without any consideration for the real needs of the community in respect of that form of development. At certain stages it confers a specific advantage on private individuals which ought not to happen. I would go further and say, as has been said by my hon. Friend, that this whole matter is so much a question of public interest and of sustaining the interest of the community in the co-ordinated development of transport that we cannot allow it to be subjected to any form of piecemeal private development, even within the framework of public legislation.

  717
  I hope that we shall have a much more explicit indication from the Minister of what the Government have in mind than we have so far been given. The hon. Member for Dover dealt with a question of particular forms of Parliamentary procedure which the Minister might have in mind. In particular, I think it important to know whether the Minister is thinking only of retaining parliamentary approval in those cases where compulsory powers are asked for. As I understand, if the promoters of the Bill were ever to get their way, and be able to put down a pipeline as far as Denham, it would be possible to extend it from Denham to Merseyside solely by agreement with the British Transport Commission regarding wayleaves and without seeking compulsory powers at all; and Parliament might be left out of the question altogether,
  I hope that the Minister will go further. This is not only a matter of specific forms of Parliamentary procedure, even if we set up a system of general legislation, public inquiry, Ministerial approval, Parliamentary approval, and so on. Does it mean that this whole matter of pipeline development will depend on the initiation of applications by private interests? Will the Government wait for applications to come in from private interests? Will they deal with those applications in a piecemeal fashion, as inevitably they must, if they rely on the initiative to come from private interests? Or are the Government proposing to work out a plan for pipeline development as a whole in accordance with an assessed estimate of national need?
  Will the Government set up a public body to ensure that whatever development takes place is in conformity with the national need and that there will be a continuing oversight over the development? That is the very least that can be asked of the Government by hon. Members on this side of the House and the very least that is asked by people who support right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  In the leading article to which my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark referred, The Times came to the conclusion very firmly that, sooner or later, public control over pipeline systems would have to be much more systematic and extensive. In a leading article on
  718
  the same day, 7th March, the Guardian definitely took the view that all this development would need to be closely co-ordinated and that public ownership under one authority might well be the solution.
  Anybody who did not adopt a doctrinaire approach to this question would be forced to that view. In a matter which is expected to be one of national interest, what kind of system, other than public ownership and control, will ensure that this important development of transport takes place in such a way that there is no conferring of special rights on private interests, and so that it is in accordance with a co-ordinated plan of development and with the total national need? I do not believe that there is any other method. This is not a doctrinaire question. I am forced to the conclusion that the only way in which this development can be controlled in future is through public ownership, and I hope that the Minister will say so.
  8.12 p.m.
  The Minister of Power (Mr. Richard Wood): There has been some talk in several speeches about galvanisation and whether the Government were galvanised and, if so, by whom. It is not necessarily proper for me to enter that argument tonight, but I tell the company responsible for our debate that it has so far been extremely useful and I have no doubt that it will continue to be so, because from both sides of the House I have heard views which will be extremely important in the Government's efforts to reach the best procedure for the future to deal with the pipeline development which is certain to take place.
  I want briefly to refer to one or two statements which I made on the Second Reading of the Esso Bill, and since. I apologise for quoting from my own speeches. I am reluctant to do so on the whole, and I occasionally find it rather embarrassing, but I have to do so this evening in order to put certain things on the record and to explain the attitude which the Government take to the present proposal.
  The first quotation is from my speech on 28th June, last year, on the Second Reading of the Esso Bill, when I said:
  "…the Government believe that it is most important that an examination should take

  719
  place on the general problem of pipeline development. In fact, they have already begun to examine this problem and to examine procedures which they think should be followed in future in regard to these matters."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th June, 1960; Vol. 625, c.1303.]
  After the Esso Bill was given a Second Reading that night, the next important step was the Special Report of the Select Committee to which my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Arbuthnot) referred, especially its recommendation that no further Private Bills for the construction of pipelines should be passed by the House. I shall refer later to the very interesting speech that my hon. Friend made about the relative merits of the Provisional Order procedure or special Parliamentary procedure.
  The noble Lord, Lord Mills, in a debate in another place in November, underlined what I had said and said that the Government were undertaking an examination of the general problem of pipeline development. In answer to the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey) in November, I repeated that undertaking and said that we hoped to make a statement before very long.
  On that occasion, the first occasion on which it was possible to express a view on the proposal which we are now discussing, I said:
  "I think it is impossible for the Government to give support to that Bill in the light of the recommendation of the Select Committee, and while we are also awaiting the results of the inquiry which I promised."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th November, 1960; Vol. 631, c.9.]
  Finally—and it will relieve the House to know that this is the last quotation—on 6th March I announced the Government's intention about future procedure and I said:
  "So far as the Trunk Pipelines Bill is concerned, I have said on two occasions that it is impossible for the Government to support the Bill. As the House will realise, it would not be subject to the new procedure which the Government have decided should be applied to projects of this kind. I think the House would agree that the Trunk Pipelines Bill deals with a very important project, and it therefore might be expected to need this new procedure."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th March, 1961; Vol. 636, c.2–3.]
  The speeches so far made in the debate make it clear that those sentiments command the acceptance of every hon. Member who has spoken so far, and perhaps also those who will take part in
  720
  the debate. Everyone feels that this project is very important and, the Government having reached the conclusion that there should be a new and general procedure to deal with these matters, I think that it is generally felt that the procedure ought to apply to a project of this kind.
  Since 6th March, we have been making preparations for consulting the fairly long list of interests concerned in order to get their views about what the best procedure for the future should be. The kind of procedure which the House and I have in mind is that proposals should be put forward—and I do not want to side-track the question raised by the hon. Member for Ashfield by suggesting that they need on all occasions be brought forward only by private enterprise—and that then there should be provision for a public inquiry—and this accords with the wishes of the House—where all the interests affected can make representations. The inquiry might be on the lines of those held when the Generating Board make proposals to build generating stations or place grid lines over the country, with anyone able to be heard and make representations, the subsequent procedure being to allow the House of Commons to express an opinion on the provisional decision reached as a result of the public inquiry.
  The hon. Member for Ashfield made the point that it was important for Parliament to be allowed to look at all the proposals that might be made. He was quite right. An important project which did not happen to require compulsory powers might escape the net. I feel that the procedure which is eventually agreed upon must be such that important projects of the kind he mentioned should be those on which Parliament should have the right to express a view.
  On the other hand, there may be small projects at the other end of the spectrum which, although involving compulsory rights, may merely involve the crossing of a small field between two parts of a works. Whether or not Parliament will necessarily want to concern itself with schemes of that kind, I do not know. Therefore the efforts I am making at the moment are to try, with the help of the interests concerned, to evolve a procedure which will not necessarily waste Parliament's time with the very small project, but which will give

  721
  Parliament an opportunity to express its view on the kind of projects Parliament obviously ought to have before it.
  Mr. Gunter: Could the right hon. Gentleman tell us, in respect of the consideration given to the project, how this will fit in with the intention of the Minister of Transport expressed in his White Paper on the reorganisation of the B.T.C. whereby it will be empowered to promote legislation?
  Mr. Wood: I very much bear in mind the White Paper, but I do not think that need conflict in any way with the procedure which might be adopted. The view was expressed in the White Paper that this kind of development along the property of the British Transport Commission would be a very valuable feature of the future. I hope that it will take place, but I do not think it need necessarily create any difficulties in the procedure we have in mind.
  Mr. Gunter: We did not quite understand that there were to be schemes on the Commission's own property, but we understood that the schemes would be mostly emerging from it.
  Mr. Wood: I do not think the details are in any way firm and certain. I believe that the particular scheme we are discussing tonight involves an extremely small incursion into private rights. It may be that if that small incursion had been avoided the need for a Private Bill would have been absent. It would be right for Parliament to have the ability to scrutinise projects of this magnitude and importance even if they did not involve compulsory rights.
  There is one thing more I wish to say on the question of public ownership. My belief is that the House and myself, in consultation with the interests concerned, can look forward to a procedure which on the whole will command general agreement. I am not suggesting that it will necessarily involve the public ownership of these lines. What I am striving for is that it should involve some measure of control over the lines. I could not help thinking when the hon. Member for Ashfield talked about a doctrinaire approach that my experience in the House since I arrived here has been that anyone whose doctrine is different from one's own happens to be doctrinaire.
  722
  My feeling is that there would be a great many difficulties in insisting on public ownership of these pipelines. One of the difficulties would be that the Government would be required to lay out a very considerable amount of capital expenditure largely at the behest of private companies. As we can see, it would be useless for Governments themselves to decide where pipelines should go if the private companies were not willing to co-operate and to put anything in them.
  There are many respectable precedents of this kind. It seems sensible that we should leave largely to the initiative of private enterprise the development of this pipeline system, provided—here I hope that I shall carry the hon. Member with me—that there is public control of a recognised plan and pattern, which I think all of us on both sides of the House think is most important.
  I hope, and this will be my endeavour, that as my discussions progress with the interests involved—and I shall be willing to discuss the matter with any hon. Member—we can reach a new procedure as quickly as possible to deal with this development, which may be very considerable in future, a procedure which will command the assent of the great majority of the House of Commons.
  Mr. Grant-Ferris: Does my right hon. Friend hope—I will put it no higher than that—that it will be possible for him to introduce legislation in the next Session?
  Mr. Wood: It is certainly my intention to hold discussions with interests in order to provide legislation as soon as it can possibly be done. I hope that, possibly, it will be practicable to introduce it in the next Session in order to provide a framework in which proposals of the kind which we are discussing can be dealt with.
  Mr. Grant-Ferris: I am obliged to my right hon. Friend.
  Mrs. Judith Hart: I wonder whether the Minister would amplify some of his remarks? I refer to his consideration of the procedure to be adopted, bearing in mind the need for a public inquiry and for further consideration by Parliament. If a public inquiry is held into a whole project, which presumably involves the delineation of a route from

  723
  point A to point B, that is one thing; but some of us were concerned in the Select Committee with the rights of the individual to have an inquiry into a proposal affecting his own piece of land. I envisage the possibility that a whole project would be approved following a public inquiry, as in the case of a new town, but that provision must still be made for the individual objector to be fully heard.
  Mr. Wood: This is a most important point. It has always been my view that the whole concept of a public inquiry into projects of this kind should facilitate a change in the direction of the route of the pipeline in order to accommodate any interests which might be affected. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dover mentioned, it should also take into account the breweries, who may be some way away from the route of the pipeline but who may be affected. I am only thinking aloud, but the best solution seems to be to make the public inquiry procedure pretty wide so that any interests concerned, whether directly in the route of the pipeline or away from it, could make their objections on that occasion.
  Mrs. Hart: This is a very important point, as the Minister agrees. Let us suppose that Mr. Brown, living in a suburb, knows nothing about a public local inquiry which is being held into a trunk pipeline which it is proposed to construct. Let us suppose that he knows nothing about it until, six months or a year later, he is suddenly presented with the fact that his back garden is to be dug up. His opportunity to make this objection will have gone. I am concerned with the basic right of the individual, which might be threatened, and indeed might still be threatened under the procedure which the Minister has outlined.
  Mr. Wood: It is very difficult to ensure that everyone who is affected knows about it except by widespread advertisement of the project, as in the case of electricity wayleaves. Any procedure should require the advertisement of a route in proper circumstances so that anyone who is reasonably wide awake has the chance of making his objections heard.
  8.30 p.m.
  Mr. Ede: The Minister has given his reply to the appeal made by the hon. Member for Nantwich (Mr. Grant-Ferris) and it is not for me to say whether the hon. Member regards it as satisfactory. I thought that it was a very reasonable approach to the very big problem which is before us.
  Let us not think that in dealing with this matter we are dealing with a purely temporary problem not of great significance to every part of the country. We must be very careful that we do not repeat the mistakes which our ancestors made over 100 years ago in framing the original way of dealing with railway development. We saw grow up all over the country small railways connecting towns eight or ten miles apart—a system, as it ultimately turned out, of such fragmentation that in the end much time had to be spent in trying to bring all these little bits together in a service which would serve the public adequately.
  The right hon. Gentleman said there might be two big stretches with one field between. It is important that a connection be made across that field in order to make a connected and wide system available. Let us be certain of that. The House must give very serious consideration to any schemes which the right hon. Gentleman is able to arrange between the limited vested interests to be quite sure that the overall national interest is served when all the smaller private groups have had settled the little pieces which they regard as being especially remunerative.
  Unless we are very careful we might create for ourselves the same kind of difficulty as was created in the railway world when Mr. Hudson and a few others were trying to pick out all the lucrative parts of this new service and to establish, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ash-field (Mr. Warbey) suggested, a vested interest with the aid of which they could resist a new proposal because it would interfere with the monopoly which Parliament had given them over a small area of the country. As a result, on some occasions necessary connections of a cross-country kind were prevented.
  I hope that the right hon. Gentleman and those who will advise him will bear in mind that it is almost certain that this will become a vital national service

  725
  within a very few years. We do not want to have the same kind of problems as arose about the railways and even about the electricity supply of the country, in respect of which, under a Measure passed in 1888, Orders were made in regard to separate parishes, and even to parts of parishes.
  When, in 1934, I was appointed chairman of the London and Home Counties Joint Electricity Authority, I had to deal with cases in which part of a parish was served by a municipal electricity service and the remainder of the parish by an electricity company, each under separate Orders which expired at different dates. That created very great difficulties in getting a co-ordinated system in comparatively small areas, and over wider areas it reduced the problem to something that was only finally solvable by nationalising the whole lot. The main justification for nationalising the electricity industry was that it had been established in such a fragmented form that, in the end, a national scheme was the only way out.
  I do not want to get involved in what has been called doctrinaire problems. I believe in what the right hon. Gentleman said; one's own doctrine is completely sound and every reasonable person should agree with it, but the fellow who differs from it is inspired by selfish, narrow, doctrinaire motives that make the reasonable solution of any problem almost impossible.
  I hope that the Minister will be able to proceed quickly with the negotiations so that in the next Session of Parliament a Measure may be brought forward. I imagine that it will have to be brought forward under some quite novel procedure. While I am quite sure that those hon. Members who heard him must be very grateful to the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Arbuthnot) for the way in which he went through the details of the existing systems that can be employed, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman at least to consider whether it might not be desirable in this case to have a special procedure to deal with this problem in the light of all the troubles we have inherited from the past in other similar systems, such as railways, electricity and gas, which, as those engaged in local government and in the promotion of those services know, very often led to inefficiency and needless expense necessary
  726
  because of the requirements laid down by this House.
  It is high time that we gave some consideration to this matter on a national basis, and that those—whether they be local authorities or private companies—who promote proposals should be expected to fit them into the national scheme that has been laid out. Otherwise, we shall have a repetition of some of the evils of the past.
  It is desirable that this should be done quickly, and that there should be a discussion in the House on the general scheme before we proceed with the promotion of any other Bill. I must say that when I hear of half a dozen 10-inch pipes running side by side we must be very careful how we deal with such a problem. We do not want to inflict on a good many parts of the country the hideous monstrosity of the London outfall sewer which goes through the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. A. Lewis), and other places on that line—curiously enough, almost the line proposed by the Bill for, at any rate, part of the way. An eyesore has there been created, and a hindrance to the reasonable development of the area which this kind of line bisects and makes it almost impossible to create an ordered community there.
  The right hon. Gentleman gave us every indication that he has the gigantic nature of these proposals in his mind, and I wish him well in the consideration that he gives to it. I hope that those who negotiate with him on behalf of the various interests will be inspired by the Minister's spirit of concern for the public interest, so that we can get a reasonable way of dealing with this problem. I hope, too, that, before he comes to us with any proposals, he will keep in mind the possible future development that may flow from this. I heartily support the views generally expressed by my hon. Friends the Members for Southwark (Mr. Gunter) and for Ashfield. As I say, while I wish the right hon. Gentleman well in the task that he is undertaking, I hope that those who meet him may be inspired by his own sense of public service in the negotiations into which they enter.
  8.40 p.m.
  Mr. F. V. Corfield: I oppose the Second Reading of the Bill for precisely the same reasons

  727
  as I expressed in the debate on the Esso Bill. I certainly do not want to weary the House by going into them again. My hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Arbuthnot) has reminded the House that the Esso Bill was sent to a Select Committee instead of to the ordinary Private Bill Committee and that it went there with an Instruction—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): Am I right in thinking that the hon. Member rises to move his Amendment?
  Mr. Corfield: That is so, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I thought that it would have the same effect as opposing the Second Reading.
  I beg to move, to leave out "now" and at the end of the Question to add "upon this day six months."
  I move this Amendment for the same reasons as I expressed on the Esso Bill. That Bill went to the Select Committee with an Instruction designed to incorporate the safeguards of the public inquiry system with the parliamentary control that we regard as necessary. It also went with an Instruction asking the Select Committee to consider the suitability of the Private Bill procedure generally and to report whether general legislation was desirable.
  I moved that Instruction at the time solely on the ground that I did not consider the procedure suitable for a Bill of this type. My right hon. Friend the Minister undertook to consider the question of legislation. He has advanced somewhat further in the meantime and he has made a statement today which I very much welcome. In the light, however, of the recommendation of the Select Committee and of my right hon. Friend's undertaking, I have difficulty in joining my hon. Friend the Member for Nantwich (Mr. Grant-Ferris) in his welcome and congratulation for all the galvanisation that has gone on. I would have thought that most of the galvanisation was caused by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover and those of us whose work in trying to draft these complicated matters, ably assisted by the servants of the House, has made it possible for the Committee to study the matter in the way that started the galvanisation.
  728
  In the light of the recommendation of the Select Committee, I am in doubt as to the propriety of any Private Bill promoter bringing forward a Bill into this House after that has been done. I am glad to say that I am not a shareholder in the company. If I were, I should want to ask several questions. I am not concerned with the merits of the Bill. I have no doubt that it may be a good Bill. I am not against pipelines, but I firmly believe that we have to bring this question under general legislation and I very much welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. I hope that his proposal will not be too long delayed.
  8.43 p.m.
  Sir Leslie Plummer: I understood from the hon. Member for Nantwich (Mr. Grant-Ferris), who introduced the Bill, that the promoters had spent £70,000 on the promotion of it by way of survey, printing, fees and the rest. I hope that they are satisfied with what they have got for their £70,000. While I applaud wholeheartedly what the Minister said from the Front Bench, I must put an additional burden upon him by quoting part of one of his speeches. On June 28th last year he said:
  "As to the future, the Government believe that it is most important that an examination should take place on the general problem of pipeline development. In fact, they have already begun to examine this problem…."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th June, 1960; Vol. 625, c.1303.]
  That was about ten months ago. Allowing that the Government had already begun to examine the problem, we can say that they have been at it for a year. I do not know how much longer they will be at it or to what extent they have been speeded up by the £70,000 expended by the promoters. I should have thought, however—I say this to the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield)—that there is an air of impropriety after the recommendation of the Select Committee on the Esso Bill when the present Bill is produced in this form.
  I sat as a member of the Select Committee on the Esso Bill under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Arbuthnot). I wish to take this opportunity—I speak, I am sure, on behalf of those of my colleagues on this

  729
  side of the House—of saying that we were impressed by the ability of the hon. Member for Dover, by the way in which he conducted the whole of the inquiry, by his patience, his good humour and his tolerance for the many questions that we were forced to ask those who were present and also we thank him for his guidance to the Committee. We can say without being immodest that we did our best to do a good job and that our recommendation, which was arrived at unanimously—there were five Conservatives and four Labour Members on the Select Committee—was forced upon us by the arguments that were presented during the twenty hours or so we sat.
  I come back to the question of what might be called impropriety, although I do not want to use too harsh a word. I am sure that the hon. Member for Nantwich will not misunderstand me in referring to the impropriety of the way in which the Bill has been presented. I say "impropriety" only in relation to the recommendation of the Select Committee on the Esso Bill. We knew who Esso and the Esso Company were. It is true that the promoters, the Esso people, roughly took Mr. Charles Wilson's line when he said that what was good for General Motors was good for the United States, for they were taking the line that their Bill was good for Esso and, therefore, it was good for the country. They claimed that the powers they sought under the Bill were right because they sold 10 million gallons of petrol a day, or whatever the astronomical figure was. But, as I say, we knew, roughly speaking, who the company was.
  I may be ignorant—perhaps other hon. Members have the information—but I do not know who the promoters of the present Bill are. I know the name and that it is a company of shareholders. I do not know how many shareholders there are, who they are, who the directors are or what the capital is. I know nothing about the firm. It is asking a a little too much of the House to suggest that a company that is a société anonyme should be given powers by this House to have such tremendous authority over people whom they regard as being in their power and to say, "It is expedient to us to go across your backyard and therefore we propose to do so." That is the impropriety of the proposition.
  730
  I was impressed during the proceedings of the Select Committee on which I served with one of the arguments which was put forward, although I do not think that it should be relevant to us here, whether we are sitting as a House or in Committee. The argument was that money had been spent by people with an interest in the matter and therefore it was proper that the Bill should go through. I remember the argument which was put forward on 28th June. I think that it was referred to by the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave). It was said that three years before June last year, I.C.I. had bought some land in Gloucester for the purpose of setting up a new factory to which the pipeline was to carry a certain product. This was adduced—the hon. Member complained about it—as a reason why Parliament should give the promoters of the Bill powers which it would be chary of giving even to a Government Department.
  I cannot understand why the Government have not listened carefully to us on the question of the Provisional Order. It is no fun being a member of a Select Committee. It takes up a lot of one's time. At the end of a morning's session one is exhausted. We were faced with an array of counsel who were getting more for one day's sitting than we get for a year's work in this House. They also receive refreshers, which we do not receive. They are clever to a degree. They are capable and they talk with the tongues of serpents. One has to be alert the whole time. One cannot sleep on these Committees. When at the end of a long period of consideration and a comparatively short but quite painful period of gestation we come to a unanimous decision, we expect the Government to listen to what we the representatives of the House have to say. The decisions are not arrived at lightly. They are not produced in a doctrinaire fashion. I assure the House that there was no doctrinaire difference between the five Conservative Members and the four Labour Members on the Select Committee. We were convinced intellectually that it was necessary that a Bill similar to this one should be produced under the Provisional Order procedure.
  I wish to make a suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman. When on the

  731
  Esso Bill Select Committee I had it borne in on me while listening to the evidence of the complainants, of the Petitioners and of the promoters at our five sittings that what we need in Britain is a Pipeline Authority. I do not think that we can deal with this matter piecemeal any more. What my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) said about the development of the railways is true. We do not want to produce new Hudsons in this country, people who get in and out quickly after they have made a profit. We do not want people to build these pipelines just to meet a temporary situation which enriches them. We want a national survey of the pipeline needs of this country. That can be done properly only by an authority composed of geophysicists, engineers and hydraulics people, an authority which can advise the Government from its experience, and as a result of conversations with all the interests concerned, on how the pipelines should develop.
  We have authorities for all sorts of things in this country. For instance, the Government delegates responsibility to the Independent Television Authority for commercial television. Heaven forbid that I should suggest that a similar organisation should be set up. We want an authority which is not controlled or influenced by other interests but is concerned only with the future of the economic development of this country, and one other thing.
  On the Select Committee we learnt that no one can build a pipeline here without its affecting the Ministry of Defence, for obvious reasons. But the Ministry of Defence should not be canvassed by interests. It ought to have a relationship with an overriding statutory authority which takes into consideration our national defence needs as well as our economic needs. I do not urge the Minister to be in a great hurry. It is very important that we should do the thing properly, and I suggest that he should take time over it. There is no harm in our going on a little longer with the present position.
  However, I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman in the spirit that he himself showed that he should give careful consideration to the establishment of a Pipeline Authority which will devote itself
  732
  to a study of the economic and defence needs of the country, which will consider the aesthetics and which will ensure that no private individual or association of individuals shall have the power of ingress, or taking over, or of compulsory acquisition, which, as I say, the House would not give to any Government Department except in a dire emergency, such as a war.
  8.55 p.m.
  Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: I agree that it is unfortunate that an expenditure of £70,000 has been already made on this line, but I think I should say that a dine of 10-inch diameter is not too small. A crude oil pipeline is of considerable dimensions but a product line such as Trapil is of that dimension.
  Coming to matters which are more fundamental, I was rather impressed by the remarks of the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Gunter) when he pleaded that we should stop making some of the errors of the past years. When, however, the hon. Member indicated that he was in favour of a common carrier I thought that that must lead inevitably to the nationalisation of the pipeline system. Surely we have learned from past experience over the years in th United States that one must approach the common carrier system with some trepidation.
  In America legislation governing oil pipelines is the Inter-State Commerce Act, 1887, and the Hepburn Act, 1906. This legislation has meant that America is now stuck with a common carrier system. Whether they like it or not, pipeline companies have to carry the obligations of common carriers. The traditions which are applicable in the United States are certainly not applicable in the United Kingdom. This should be borne in mind when we are on the threshold of installing product lines and crude-oil lines. In the conditions operating in the United States it has been found rather embarrassing to have such legislation perpetuating the practice of common carriers.
  It would be a great error if we in the United Kingdom fell into the same trap and provided that all lines established here should be common carriers. The adoption of a common carrier system means that if an adequate tender is presented at one end of the line the

  733
  load is bound to be carried. Hon. Members should think of all the complications that would follow if for example our pipelines had to deal with foreign suppliers. What would happen, for example, if a Russian supplier presented his products at one end of the line? They would be bound to be carried although such a course might be of great detriment to this country. Last year, the Italians made a contract with the Soviet Government for the purchase of 12 million tons of oil. If a common carrier pipeline were established in the United Kingdom, we might find Russian oil being imported into this country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I will come to that point. I thought that it was argued from that side of the House that we were having some difficulties in the coal-mining industry because of the competition from oil supplies.
  While it is a good argument that oil products supplied from our own refineries, or imported on balancing operations should be admitted, we should nevertheless be careful what additional supplies of products come from random sources abroad. We would be getting into great difficulties with the people of the Middle East if we took oil supplies from the Soviet Union and not from our traditional sources in the Persian Gulf. If we had the common carrier system which is envisaged in Clause 51 it would mean that as soon as a suitable tender was presented at the end of the line the operator would be bound to carry it, and, as I have said, there would be great difficulties with miners and others if we had Russian oil supplies coming into the country.
  Mrs. Hart: Would the hon. Member tell us how he would distinguish between carriage by road, with lorries conveying a product which has been imported into this country from Russia, and carriage by pipeline of products imported from Russia or any other country?
  Mr. Skeet: It would be very much better if we considered what has happened to the railway system. A common carrier system has been imposed on it, which has been a drag on the railways for years. That same obligation might be imposed on the pipeline system, and, if it were, similar difficulties would arise. Perhaps I could go a little further. We
  734
  should learn not to have the experiment of the Hepburn Act of 1906 applied in the United Kingdom. Let us start off in the year 1961—and have legislation that is most suitable to our requirements.
  I appreciate what my right hon. Friend has indicated, and I think that it is exactly the right idea, that there must be some residual control by the House of Commons. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Arbuthnot) for indicating the procedure that might possibly apply. It is the companies that know where the line should be laid, but I hope that it will be possible in certain cases for them to have wayleaves alongside the permanent ways of the British Transport Commission. It should not, however, be obligatory; it should be permissive. To go back to the point of the common carrier, we are thinking well ahead and possibly in the terms of moving coal. There the common carrier is quite out of the question because there is only one owner. If we are not to have a common carrier for the National Coal Board, I do not see why we should enforce on the oil companies a common carrier service.
  Would it not be better that there should be private owners of lines for integrated lines between the terminal and the refinery, or a joint venture by a number of companies operating together, or open-ended systems? In a certain minority of cases it might be suitable to have what is known as the common carrier system.
  I would emphasise that it may be possible in future years to have pipelines for the movement of china clay, possibly from Cornwall, or the movement of milk from our outlying districts to our great cities. For the movement of chemicals it would be quite unsuitable that the common carrier system should operate. I think that it is entirely wrong for hon. Members opposite to indicate that the common carrier system should be utilised in all circumstances. It might be very much better to adopt the procedure laid down by my right hon. Friend and to indicate that there should be a variety of methods of ownership. It is not necessary to have a proprietary interest in the State. All that we should have is a system of

  735
  general control or supervision to ensure that the pipelines are laid out in an orderly formation.
  Sir L. Plummer: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me which hon. Member from this side of the House advocated that there should be common carrier system? I do not mind the hon. Member knocking the Bill about at all; no one on this side of the House promoted the Bill.
  Mr. Skeet: The hon. Member for Southwark indicated it in the course of his speech. I think that he would acknowledge that that is exactly what he indicated.
  Mr. Gunter Mr. Gunter indicated assent.
  Mr. Skeet: That is why I have to address certain of my remarks to this rather important point. I think that it is a matter of very great importance that we should concern ourselves with the guarantee of private interests. In examining the Bill, I noted that only 0·6 miles are measured over private land but that there are 20 miles held by the North Thames Gas Board which would require to obtain further easements from property owners to carry pipes not owned by the Board.
  May I make one or two further suggestions on the merits of the Bill. Is it advisable that this line should come right through the heart of London? Even Trapil does not cross the heart of Paris or follow the course of the Seine. It might be advisable, if the Minister is going to consider this, to have a pipeline approaching the outskirts of London with depôts around it. I do not know. These are several matters for consideration, and they should be considered at higher level. Another point which needs clearing up is whether this line should come to the centre of London and out again to Merseyside. It might be more convenient to have a more direct route. These are matters which the Minister would ultimately have to consider in deciding which is the most economic route when a number of people are making proposals. Obviously, if we have an enabling Bill it may be necessary to make a number of regulations under it. I should like to read out a summary, by an eminent American lawyer, on the
  736
  question of safety regulations affecting the American lines:
  "In 1942 the I.C.C. after intensive investigation of the matter concluded that while the Commission had ample authority the safety record of the pipeline industry and its situation did not warrant the development of a safety code to apply to oil pipeline operations. This conclusion of the Commission still stands."
  While we have heard in the past a great deal about what happens when these pipelines are installed, they are safe in practice. We in this country are starting with a comparatively new system. Although there are one or two product and crude lines available, it may nevertheless be useful to start off with a satisfactory code.
  If we are to have pipeline systems could they be equitably rated? If the Minister is desirous of having a common carrier system to some extent, would he put into the Bill what he considers to be a reasonable tender? Will he also say whether he is to adopt the American procedure of limiting earnings on a common carrier system? I think that that is, possibly, the wrong approach, but he should nevertheless consider it. Will he also consider the other special procedures which apply to such a system in the United States?
  We are very grateful to the promoters of this Bill for giving us an opportunity to express our views on this important topic. A lot has been said about it on both sides of the House. We are generally in agreement that we are going ahead with a very important form of development, and we hope that my right hon. Friend will have it under his Ministry and that it will not, at a later stage, be transferred to the Ministry of Transport. This is an exceedingly technical matter.
  I want to make one point clear. It may appear to be a cheap form of transportation, but it is cheap only if it is used largely up to full capacity. If it is used in such a way that the operator pushes through the line products of another company to the exclusion of his own, the line might not prove economical. If a line has a certain amount of spare capacity then that could be made available to others. Full consideration must be given to this matter and safeguards written into whatever Bill is eventually presented.
  9.10 p.m.
  Mrs. Judith Hart: I am tempted to follow the hon. Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Skeet) with some further exploration into international problems, because it would seem that this subject has opened to us the whole question of Middle East oil supplies and many other topics, including the political reason which should govern our imports of oil. But this is not the appropriate occasion on which to do that.
  I support everything said by my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) and particularly his remarks about the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Arbuthnot) of the Select Committee on the Esso Bill. It was my first experience of a Select Committee and I was able to participate in the deliberations partly because of the excellence of the Chairman and the clarity with which he carried out his duties.
  Tonight we are discussing two issues in one; firstly, what should be the attitude of the House of Commons towards Private Bills—in this case the Trunk Pipelines Bill—and, secondly, the whole question of what we hope will be contained in the Government's recommendations about the pipeline system. With regard to the first point, I welcome everything the Minister has said tonight and I hope it will be clearly realised by every hon. Member that whatever a private company may seek to do by promoting a Private Bill, the duty of the House of Commons is to protect the people of this country from any evil effect that may result to them as a result of passing a Bill which may not be a good one.
  One of our main concerns on the Esso Committee was the protection of the individual, and it was extraordinary that as a Socialist I found myself being concerned with and associating myself with, the comments and remarks of, for example, the Association of Property Owners and other land-owning organisations, because they were the people during the consideration of the Esso Bill who represented the interests of the ordinary man occupying land. I am more interested in him than I am in the companies or even the local authorities, because they can look after themselves. Local authorities have town clerks and
  738
  lawyers to seek out any eventualities which may affect their interests.
  The same is true of large companies or organisations. It is when one considers the individual that the facts must be faced, and I do not consider myself to be doctrinaire in asserting that one of the main conceptions of any legislation must be to reconcile the needs of the nation with the freedom and the rights of the individual. It would be wrong for the House to permit this Bill to be passed, simply because the consequence would be that the Select Committee's recommendations about the best possible way of preserving the rights of the individual would be ignored.
  The Bill is concerned with only one mile of land in which a new set of easements would have to be achieved. But there is the whole question of the population from Denham to Merseyside to be considered. Although we are not being asked to consider that specific point at the moment, if the Bill is allowed through there is no doubt that the promoters will return to the House in a year or two and say, "You have allowed us to build a pipeline as far as Denham, surely you will now have no objection to our extending it to Merseyside"?
  In the pipeline to Merseyside, all the questions that arose when the Esso Bill was discussed will have to be debated anew. Occupiers of land, local authorities, firms and transport undertakings, will all be concerned about their rights even more than they were during the course of the Esso Bill, which proposed to construct a pipeline to Fawley and Severnside. I hope that when the Minister is considering what form an oil pipeline system should take, he will bear in mind a number of other factors. One is that responsibility should be placed firmly on the promoters of a Bill, whatever form it adopts, to ensure that individuals likely to be affected are made fully aware of all the possible effects on them before any public inquiry is held.
  In other words, in addition to the normal public inquiry procedure, it should not be the responsibility of the individual to make himself aware of what is happening from reading advertisements in the newspapers. It should be the duty of the promoters to

  739
  inform him and in that way the difficulties may be overcome. I confess that at the moment I cannot see how it could be done, but it might well be advisable, after the public inquiry, to allow minor local inquiries at various stages in order to give people opportunities to voice further objections. As I say, I do not see how that can be done, but something along those lines might be considered.
  On the technical side there are many questions which have not been touched on tonight. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford; I think that there is no hurry about this matter. Obviously it is such a new step to be taken by the nation that whether the project takes the form of a State-owned pipeline system or a private enterprise system controlled and planned by the State—which I gather the Minister has in mind—it seems clear that it should not be embarked upon without the most adequate consideration of all the factors involved. Of course, opinions among hon. Members will differ on this matter tremendously, according to the side of the House on which they sit. If consideration conflicts with the need for speed, then the need for speed must take second place.
  We ought to have technical advice on the possibilities of future use of pipe lines. Many things may be mentioned and then one talks to an expert on some subject—for example, an expert on coal—and he says, "That may be, but it will take many years. We are not yet beginning to do research on this matter". I think it necessary that we should gather together all the existing scientific evidence and even promote more new research—
  Mr. Skeet: There are pipelines all over the world at present, particularly in the United States and in the Middle East, and many technical papers are available to anyone who wishes to study them. Is it necessary, therefore, at this stage to ask for a particular inquiry into the matter?
  Mrs. Hart: Indeed, yes. I should say that it would be entirely wrong for the Government to rely on the practice of private enterprise abroad. I say that it is the duty of the State to inform itself on the evidence that there is in this country and even to carry out further research.
  740
  I know of no other subject about which the hon. Gentleman would even suggest such a thing or about which he would say that the Government do not need to do any work themselves but might go and ask how, for example, Shell operated in the Middle East.
  I ask the Minister to consider setting up a technical inquiry not only into the present-day possibilities of the use of pipelines but beyond the present evidence to future possibilities and to take account of factors which may form the subject of technical papers in two or three years' time. If there is need for more research to arrive at a decision on possible new future uses of pipelines, Government money should be spent on such research. This kind of technical consideration should be borne in mind. It would be wrong, just because we were in too much of a hurry to construct the kind of pipeline suggested by private enterprise, to construct something which would be out of date in ten years.
  There is a consideration which ought to be remembered when one is thinking of the relative advantages of private enterprise and State ownership of pipelines. It may well be that it would be found to be far more practical and, from the national point of view, more economic in the construction of pipelines to consider constructing them in conjunction with a national network of roads. In the course of the next twenty years, we shall be extending the country's road system, and it would be infinitely cheaper and more economic in engineering and surveying manpower generally to construct the two together, carving one great way from one major centre of industry to another, with a combined pipeline and new road system. It would be difficult to do that by a combination of private and State enterprise, but it may well be that, not for doctrinaire reasons which hon. Members opposite are bound to oppose on every possible occasion but on grounds of sheer national economy and because it is the sensible and practical thing to do, such a system would have to be arranged. Hon. Members opposite are always anxious to persuade the Government not to waste money, and that system would avoid the waste of money and manpower and national resources. It might be that the sensible thing to do would be for the State to construct a pipeline system which would

  741
  be integrated with the other main means of transport.
  Mr. Costain: The hon. Lady the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart) ought not to give the impression to the world that British engineers have not built pipelines. British engineers have now been building pipelines for two generations. The British Petroleum Company, which is half owned by the Government, has thousands of miles of pipelines. No doubt the hon. Lady has heard of Finart and Milford Haven. Lloyds of London have a special specification for pipelines which is accepted in every Continent. The hon. Lady ought not to give the impression from the House that we do not lead the world in this sort of work. We do not need inquiries to tell us that.
  Mrs. Hart: It is precisely because British scientists and technologists lead the world that I am anxious that they should do so in this case. I am not concerned with pipelines which have been built in the past but with those which are to be built in the future as a result of new engineering and scientific techniques. The hon. Member seems completely unaware of that. I want British scientists to show the value of their own work and not to rely on work based on what has been done far back in the past. I want to look to the future. Perhaps the hon. Member does not.
  Mr. Costain: From my own personal knowledge I can tell the hon. Lady that pipelines are now being built by British engineers. We lead the world in this respect and we do not need inquiries to show that that is the case.
  9.23 p.m.
  Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: It is very pleasant to welcome the hon. Lady the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart) as a defender of the rights of private property and as a defender of the rights of individuals, and to have such a charming recruit for that cause. If ever a Socialist Government come to power, we shall look forward to her support on this side of the House against any depredations by nationalisation.
  We need not get into a cold sweat about this question, for there is nothing revolutionary about pipelines. Many miles of pipelines were laid before the war. There were large gas grids, such as that at
  742
  Sheffield, which was laid over hundreds of miles of country before the war. The Government themselves laid a pipeline system in this country during the war, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) said, there is a great deal of British engineering experience in this matter. There were a certain number of private pipelines before the war.
  When I lived in Yorkshire, the United Steel Company laid a line of about 18 miles of gas pipe from one of its coke ovens to a steelworks North of Sheffield. That was regarded as one of the biggest pipelines of its kind in the world at the time. I believe that it was a 12 in. or 18 in. line over a distance of about 15 miles. There is plenty of experience in this country about the laying of pipelines, and we need have no fear that the job cannot be done properly.
  What appealed to me about the Bill was that it envisaged a multi-user type of pipeline which would be a great advantage to the transport system for the carriage of not only oil and petrol, but liquids like milk. The carriage of such liquids would not affect amenities, for the pipelines would be hidden under the ground. I understand that the promoters of the Bill would accept the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Nantwich (Mr. Grant-Ferris), which says:
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill to include a Clause to ensure that wherever the Transport Authority requires the promoters to bury or otherwise conceal the pipeline this shall be done."
  The Bill also appealed to me because the pipeline envisaged would be of assistance to the finances of the British Transport Commission. In Essex the line would be laid along the railway lines of the Transport Commission and the promoters would have to pay money for the wayleaves. If the line were carried on through Buckinghamshire up to the Merseyside, I understand that it would be laid along the Grand Union Canal, and again the promoters would pay money to the Commission. The Bill has many merits.
  Mrs. Hart: The British Transport Commission, I understand, has an option to take part in further construction as far as Merseyside. If it decided that it did not want to take that option, the

  743
  pipeline company would be involved in difficulty, and might have to work out a completely new route.
  Mr. Gresham Cooke: That is true. If the Transport Commission did not want it on its land another line would have to be found, but I think the Commission would think twice before refusing an offer of fairly easy money for the laying of this pipeline.
  In any event, as my hon. Friend said, the promoters are willing to withdraw the Bill after the assurance given by my right hon. Friend. I express the hope that general legislation will be proceeded with very quicky, if possible in the next Session. I do not think there should be great difficulty over this matter.
  I draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to the decree of the French Parliament, Decree 59/645 of 16th May, 1959, in which, over fourteen pages, the French Government have gone into great detail about the requirements of pipelines in France. The French have had considerable experience which we could imitate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Skeet) said, there is a pipeline from Havre to Paris of 150 miles with a capacity of over 2 million tons of oil and other products a year. If it would interest the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey), that pipeline, the Trapil pipeline, is only 10 ins. in diameter but, because it is carrying the finished products of the oil industry, it is quite capable of transporting over 2 million tons of oil a year from Havre to Paris.
  Mr. Warbey: I was referring to the suggestion that at some time in the future this pipeline should carry some other substance besides fluids. This is actually referred to in the Bill, apart from what the promoters have said about it. I suggest that a 10-in. pipeline would not be suitable for carrying solids or substantial volumes of traffic which are expected in future.
  Mr. Gresham Cooke: Solids would have to be carried along in the stream of liquids. I am not an expert, but I think it could be done in a 10-in. pipeline.
  With regard to the general legislation which I hope my right hon. Friend will be introducing in the autumn, it seems that the feeling of the House today is
  744
  that there should be a supervisory body which should control the routes of pipeline operators. There is plenty of precedent for that. The Air Registration Board tells airlines which routes they may follow and licensing authorities for road and bus transport, in particular for bus transport, lay down the best routes for companies.
  We ought to see in this legislation plenty of opportunity for public inquiries at which owners of pieces of land and others could make their objections heard before a pipeline was laid. It seems that it should not be difficult to produce legislation of a general character in which all sorts of operators, perhaps nationalised corporations such as the British Transport Commission and also private operators, could lay these lines. I hope that we shall see private operators laying lines about the country. Then I think we should get the full benefit of speed of operation.
  As has been pointed out in the debate, in the last century the railways did a wonderful job in building several hundred miles of railways a year. The backbone of the railway system was built in the ten years from 1840 to 1850. Likewise, we could see private enterprise companies laying a series of pipelines throughout the country to meet their needs and the needs of the public. I hope that my right hon. Friend will not fall into the trap of setting up any public corporation to build the pipelines because, as a member of the Estimates Committee which from time to time has to examine accounts, I should be horrified at the thought of having to examine the accounts of a public corporation and the possible losses which might follow.
  I throw out the idea to my right hon. Friend without in any way wishing to derogate powers from him or his Ministry. As I see it, these pipelines will develop to carry a large number of products, not only heavy oil, but petroleum products and other sorts of liquid such as milk. In the end they will to an extent take the place of road transport and railway transport. We ought to look on these pipelines of the future as part of the transport system of the country. I suppose that logically we should envisage them being supervised eventually by the Ministry of Transport. I do not want to take away from the powers of my right hon. Friend, although perhaps

  745
  he will find himself overloaded in the future, but the day will come when we ought to look upon these pipelines as part of the transport system which will relieve road congestion by carrying oil and other liquids about the country.
  I congratulate the promoters of the Bill on bringing it forward. I hope that they will not feel that their money has been wasted. I think that they have given us a good object lesson of what can be done. In my opinion we have plenty of experience in this country, from before, during and after the war, and experience overseas, in laying pipelines which can take care of public interest and benefit the country without doing harm to any individual.
  Mr. Gunter: I take it from his last remarks that when the hon. Member talks of this as part of the general transport system, he means that he is in favour of a co-ordinated integrated transport service?
  Mr. Gresham Cooke: I will not go so far as to say that, but I am certainly in favour of the supervision of the routes along which these pipelines should be laid.
  Mr. Grant-Ferris: On behalf of the promoters of the Bill, may I ask the leave of the House to make a short statement?
  Mr. Speaker: By the leave of the House.
  Mr. Grant-Ferris: The promoters are very well satisfied with the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Minister and feel that it gives them confidence to go ahead with planning for the future. Therefore, if the mover of the Amendment would see fit to withdraw his Amendment, I would then, if I may rise again, ask leave to withdraw the Bill.
  Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Member. I will now put the Question and then we shall see.
  The Question is that "now" stand part of the Question.
  Mr. Corfield: I am willing to withdraw the Amendment on the undertaking which my hon. Friend has given. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question again proposed.
  Mr. Grant-Ferris: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Bill withdrawn.

  SUPPLY
  Again considered in Committee.
  Original Question again proposed.
  Whereupon Motion made, and Question, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again [Mr. Gibson-Watt]—put and agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

  FARM, CAITHNESS (CATTLE SUBSIDY)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Gibson-Watt.]
  9.37 p.m.
  Sir David Robertson: The matter which I raise is of some importance. It concerns the integrity of the public service in the Scottish Office and the possible misuse of public funds.
  I raised this matter with the Secretary of State for Scotland by letter on 15th December, following a practice which I have always carried out in the House of never raising anything on the Floor of the House by Question or in other way before writing to the Minister and giving him the facts and asking him to make an investigation. Four months later, as there has been no adequate investigation, I am compelled to come here tonight and to give details of this matter.
  In November last, I received representations from my constituency about the wrongful payment of hill cattle subsidy to Borgie Mains Farm, Caithness. I caused inquiries to be made and I found that the whole of the agricultural community which is the biggest of all the populations in Caithness, knew all about this matter. All the farmers agreed that Borgie Mains Farm did not qualify for hill cattle subsidy; it was far above the

  747
  standard. They asked that I should raise the matter in the House. I explained that I should require of them proof of the statements which they made and the view which they held, for that is the responsibility imposed on every private Member, and I got it.
  Before I received it, I had a visit on 7th December from three Caithness farmers who came to London for the Smithfield Show. I asked them what they knew about it—and they all knew a great deal about it. In fact, one of them, Mr. Colin Campbell, of Stanstill Farm, told me that because Borgie Mains received hill cattle subsidy, he had demanded that the whole of his farm at Stanstill, part of which was awarded the hill cattle subsidy, should get the subsidy. He made his claim for it and supported his claim by stating that if he did not get it he would come to me.
  It was apparent from what I learned from these men that this was not only a rumour and that there was something sinister behind it. A few days later I received all the proof. I had better read part of the evidence which came to me. It was a report by a senior inspector who made the inspection. It began by stating that the application for subsidy was received by the Department of Agriculture on 9th June, 1952. This is a typical Government Departmental minute. Below that statement is written, "Refusal. The holding is considered above standard. Please see attached report." I have the report here. It states:
  "Hill cattle subsidy. Applicant Brigadier G. D. K. Murray, Borgie House, Castletown. The farm in question is Borgie Mains which is worked as a unit with Netherside…and the holding adjoins. An inspection was made on 15th September, 1953, accompanied by applicant and Mr. Rae. After going over the holding and having some considerable discussion, Brigadier Murray agreed that the hill cattle subsidy was never intended for farms such as his, although he feeds no cattle or sheep or sells milk. The holding is now well above standard to qualify as hill-farming land or livestock-rearing land. While applicant is quite reconciled to the fact that no subsidy will be forthcoming, some care should be taken in the wording of the notification to him to save repercussions. I suggest that it be worded as follows:—With reference to your application for hill cattle subsidy in respect of cattle at Borgie Mains and following an inspection made on 15th inst."—
  that was 15th September, 1953—
  "by two of the Department's livestock inspectors accompanied by yourself, the Department
  748
  have come to the decision that your holding is above standard and cannot therefore be classed as 'hill land' in terms of the scheme."
  It goes on:
  "No further explanation is necessary and I am sure it will be accepted but if further elaboration is added it is possible he may take exception to some of the remarks as has happened in other cases."
  That letter is signed "J. Dean" and was addressed to the Department of Agriculture for Scotland in Edinburgh.
  Nothing happened for eight months that is recorded in these papers, except that it is known that Brigadier Murray went to Edinburgh where, presumably, he interviewed the Permanent Under-Secretary of the Department of Agriculture for Scotland—
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gilmour Leburn): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir D. Robertson: So soon? I have to make this case, and it is not the easiest case to make.
  As I say, Brigadier Murray interviewed this man. I cannot prove that this visit took place—there is a hiatus of eight months—but I am told by men of standing, whose word I would take anywhere, that this visit was made. At any rate, if it was not made, something must have been made. Here is a man who agreed with two senior, well-qualified inspectors that his holding did not qualify yet, after eight months, the holding gets the full subsidy.
  I can only assume that this man, who is a man of importance—convenor of the county council, and duty-lieutenant of the county—must have some extraordinary influence that can over-ride the decisions of these inspectors. These inspectors are not men picked up off the street. They are men who have been making inspections for years all over the northern counties of Scotland. As I have said, they decided that his farm could not qualify. I do not think that the Secretary of State would make excuses, because there has been plenty of time in the four months during which I have been pressing him to make the investigation, but I would ask him to tell us what influence, what pull, this man has that caused this situation to be over-turned.

  749
  The letter that I read out was dated 15th September, 1953. The next bears the date 19th January, 1954. It is addressed to Brigadier Murray, and reads:
  "Dear Sir,
  Hill Cattle (Scotland) Scheme, 1951.
  I regret the delay that has taken place in reaching a decision on your application for hill cattle subsidy in 1952 and 1953. As you know the Department have been considering the question of the eligibility of your land, and in all the circumstances, they have now decided that it should continue to be regarded as qualifying under the above mentioned scheme.
  It is proposed to settle your claim as follows:
  1952 Hill cattle. £273—39 cattle at £7 per head (the number of eligible cattle as shown in your agricultural returns at 4th June, 1952).
  1952 Winter keep. £117—39 cattle at £3 per head (this payment is based on the number of cattle approved for hill cattle subsidy).
  1953 Hill cattle. £420—42 cattle at £10 a head.
  Payable orders for the amounts shown will be sent to you at an early date."
  On the following day, 20th January, 1954, Brigadier Murray acknowledged payment.
  These payments have been made annually ever since. If they are on the same scale as that shown in the letter it means that over £4,000 has been paid in respect of a farm that two well-qualified inspectors condemned out of hand as not qualifying under the scheme. Does the Joint Under-Secretary want to intervene in regard to what I have read out?
  Mr. Leburn: I only wanted to ask the hon. Gentleman for information about the dates of the eight-month period which he says elapsed between the time of the inspector's report in 1953 and the next inspection, but I shall not press him.
  Sir D. Robertson: I am most anxious to answer the hon. Gentleman's questions. The first report I read referred to an inspection made on 15th September. Presumably this letter was written a day or two days afterwards—I beg pardon. I was in error when I said eight months. I beg pardon of the House for that mistake. The period was September to January—four months, not eight. I regret the error.
  I come back to Mr. Colin Campbell, to whom I referred as one of three
  750
  farmers who saw me. He knew all about Borgie. It was because of the Borgie situation that he was determined to get a similar subsidy for his Standstill Farm, which is very near to Borgie. Mr. Campbell told me that his land was inferior to that at Borgie; that his calves got £15 less per head in the markets as compared with those from Borgie, and that his lambs got £3 less. Those are big differences to men who live by raising sheep and cattle. He also said that Borgie produces pedigree stocks—pedigree bulls that sell, sometimes, for £500 or more at Perth sales. That kind of farm is not entitled to the hill cattle subsidy.
  Mr. Campbell made his application, and a very lengthy correspondence ensued. At an early date in the correspondence he said that if he did not get the subsidy for which he asked he would refer the case to me. I have in this file a series of copies of letters and copies of minutes that passed between the applicant, Mr. Campbell, and various officials at St. Andrew's House. The first is the application. The second is a letter from Mr. Dean to a Mr. Macdonald saying that the case was taking quite a long time because of illness and that Mr. Rae, the inspector, was ill. It states that:
  "On 21st September, 1959. I examined the holding in the company of Mr. Morton, and Mr. MacKenzie, senior general inspector for the area, and the applicant. We did not disclose to the applicant our agreed opinion but we have decided that the unclassified part of the farm is well above standard for hill cattle subsidy and suitable for growing crops for sale to a material extent. A considerable amount of grain is used on the farm being fed to sheep and cattle and it is true to say that the place is well farmed compared to many Caithness farms but we still cannot agree to have the entire holding approved for hill cattle subsidy, or every Caithness farm would be eligible."
  So the original crime committed in respect of Borgie was that if this farm was admitted, all farms would need to be brought in. That is how serious the first crime was. Crime begets crime. That has happened in this case.
  On 26th November, the application was refused following the decision of these men that the farm did not qualify. Mr. Campbell, however, returned to the attack. He talked about his calves making less and he said that he was going to Edinburgh on the Friday and wanted to see the officials there and

  751
  would then come to London to see me and bring the matter to my notice. At one time, I was a civil servant occupying a senior position. Had any man said that to me, I would immediately have said, "Go to your M.P." I would have ordered him to do so. That is what I should expect of any official. I am referred to a dozen times in these letters, but nobody ever suggested that Mr. Campbell should come to me.
  All that happened was that a conspiracy was entered into to ensure that he did not come to me. That can only come about by buying him off. That is exactly what took place. I do not want to weary the House by reading all these documents, but I shall send them to a Scottish judge, because they are the most deplorable record of a conspiracy that I have ever read. Every move was an attempt to avoid this man coming to his Member of Parliament. People were much more concerned about hiding it, cloaking it up. They had to cloak the first crime. This was the second one.
  One of the worst features of the case is that the civil servants concerned knew all about this in St. Andrew's House and in the large office in Thurso. It must be a demoralising thing for them to be in the Government service and to feel that they are forced to agree to things like this and for the men writing these matters to be forced to enter into these subterfuges. I have never known a more shocking state of affairs.
  I am sorry that the Secretary of State for Scotland is not here tonight. He should have been here to deal with the matter. I wrote to him on 15th December, but I need not read the letter now. I clearly indicated that the evidence which I have given tonight was in my possession. I said that in view of these disquieting allegations, I presumed that he would think it proper to make immediate inquiries. All that happened was that I received a letter which, I am certain, the Secretary of State did not write. It may well be that the letter was written by the official who was the prime mover in this shabby business. I cannot imagine that it ever got to Ministerial level, either at the time or now.
  I am deeply grieved that the Secretary of State had to write me as he did. I
  752
  will not weary the House by reading the nonsense. I sent it to my farmer friends in Caithness. They said that they had never seen anything like it. I feel that way, too. Such action may, of course, have been deliberate. Perhaps some hon. Members would have accepted it, sent it on to the constituent and said, "I have done my best, but that is what the Minister says". I took a contrary view and on 20th March I wrote the Minister two letters, one in respect of Borgie and the other in respect of Stanstill, giving him further particulars, which he wanted. I gave chapter and verse.
  At the same time, I put down two Written Questions to avoid publicity. I had been trying all the time to avoid publicity. A case of this kind is distasteful to me, as, I imagine, it is to most hon. Members. I do not like to be concerned in it, but it is my duty. I did not run away from it, as the Secretary of State did. I accepted the responsibility. The Answers which I was given to my Questions were simply nonsense. They are on the record, if anybody wants to read them, in HANSARD of 24th March.
  Oddly enough, I came to you, Mr. Speaker, at that time when I got those Answers, because they were wholly wrong. I asked for an Adjournment debate, and I succeeded in getting it. Immediately I asked for an Adjournment debate, the whole attitude in the Scottish Office changed. Two officials were sent up to the office in Thurso. They thought that that was where all the trouble emanated from. It did not. It emanated because of the crime that was committed. The officers of the head office in Edinburgh are equally concerned.
  These officials for whom I am speaking are good citizens. They do not like to be tarnished with things like this happening, but they are doing it under orders from above. These two inspectors went up to Thurso. One of them spoke of having a high regard for me, but he was probing to discover where the leakage to me came from and how it got to me. How could it fail to get to me if the men are of the quality that I know them to be? If any attempt is made at victimisation of these men, this House will have an awful lot to say about it. That is the story and it is one that must be dealt with. At this

  753
  late hour, I can ask for nothing less than a public inquiry. I hope that it will come about.
  9.58 p.m.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gilmour Leburn): I have listened with great interest to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson) concerning the eligibility of Borgie Mains Farm for hill cattle subsidy. He has made some serious charges and I hope that before I sit down I can satisfy him and the House that they are completely unfounded.
  The hill cattle subsidy is intended to encourage hill and upland farmers to establish permanent breeding herds of cattle on their farms. It has been very successful in doing just that. In the majority of cases, there is no difficulty in assessing eligibility, but, as the House appreciates, there is no clearly defined demarcation line between eligible and ineligible farms—such as altitude or acreage—and at the borderline it becomes a matter of judgment. I make it clear that there is no clear yardstick in this matter and that there is the borderline case.
  In the past, my hon. Friend has pressed vigorously for the inclusion in the scheme of a number of Caithness farms which had been regarded as ineligible. As my hon. Friend will remember, on consideration we were able to admit one or two of these cases.
  Sir D. Robertson: On what date was that?
  Mr. Leburn: Some years ago.
  Sir D. Robertson: Ten years ago?
  Mr. Leburn: Some years ago.
  I make no attempt to conceal this. Borgie Mains is a borderline case. I need hardly tell the House that in administering any subsidy scheme a line must be drawn somewhere so that decisions may be contained within the limits of the requirements laid down by Parliament. Inevitably, difficult cases arise, and Borgie Mains is one of them. Caithness as an area produces many problems in this connection.
  It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Gibson-Watt.]
  Mr. Leburn: My hon. Friend and even people who, like myself, lack his intimate knowledge of the district know only too well the difficulties with which farmers in Caithness have to contend. In assessing eligibility we must take many factors into account. Caithness seems to produce more difficult cases than most other areas in Scotland.
  The subsidy for cattle kept on hills and uplands was introduced in 1941 and until 1947 various schemes were administered by the war-time county agricultural executive Committees. Borgie Mains was accepted in its entirety as eligible for subsidy under these schemes. This was the judgment of the committee of farmers, landowners and smallholders who formed the membership of the Caithness Agricultural Executive Committee. I make it clear that the tenant of Borgie Mains, who now farms Borgie Mains and who is chairman of the present agricultural executive committee for the area, was not a member of the committee at that time.
  With the passing of the Hill Farming Act, 1946, the subsidy was given permanent statutory basis by the Hill Cattle (Scotland) Scheme, 1947, and the direct administration of the scheme was undertaken by the Department of Agriculture. Having regard to the terms of the statutory scheme and the need for reasonable uniformity of standards over the country as a whole, the Department felt that it was its duty to review farms throughout the country which were receiving the subsidy. It was the intention in 1947 to vet all Caithness applications by inspecting the farms. However, shortage of inspectors precluded this and it was found necessary to base approvals for that year, 1947, on the recommendations made by the agricultural executive committees in 1946 under the old schemes.
  In 1948, however, all farms had been inspected and assessed. As a result, it was proposed that 64 farms in the County of Caithness should no longer get the subsidy. Borgie Mains was one of those 64 farms. As can be imagined, this view was not acceptable to Caithness farmers. Representations were received from a number of the farmers who had been

  755
  turned down and from the local branch of the National Farmers' Union of Scotland through their headquarters.
  A meeting between the N.F.U. and the Department of Agriculture, was held in August, 1949. As a result, the 64 cases were reviewed after a further inspection. Following the review, the Department decided that 33 of the 64 farms should once more be accepted as eligible. Borgie Mains was one of the 33. Of the 31 applicants in respect of whom refusal of subsidy was maintained after the 1949 review, the majority accepted the position, but eight of them continued to protest through the N.F.U. My hon. Friend also became active on their behalf.
  Sir D. Robertson: At their request.
  Mr. Leburn: Certainly.
  I understand that my hon. Friend, together with some of his constituents, had a meeting in July, 1950, with the then Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. Following that meeting, a further investigation of the eight farms was carried out by the Department's chief inspector. As a result, one of the eight was accepted as eligible. I emphasise that all this happened between 1941 and 1950.
  The pressure continued, however, and the position was again reviewed in 1953 by the then Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, and the previous decision was upheld. It was during the time of that review that the Borgie Mains payment of subsidy was held in abeyance pending the outcome of the review. In 1957, alter the making of the present scheme, one other of the eight was accepted as eligible.
  If I may recapitulate, the position therefore is that Borgie Mains was regarded as eligible during the wartime period, was considered as ineligible in 1948 along with 63 other farms, but was re-assessed following the first review of the Caithness position that was carried out following local protests. It is fair to say that although it is a borderline case it is by no means the most borderline case in Caithness.
  Sir D. Robertson: The Joint Under-Secretary is ranging way back to 1947, which has nothing whatever to do with this case. He has omitted to tell the
  756
  House that it is under the Hill Cattle (Scotland) Act, 1951, that this complaint is based. It was not anything that was just drifting along since 1947. Another Act of Parliament had come in—the 1951 Act which we are discussing.
  Mr. Leburn: But all the schemes have very largely been the same.
  In a case of this sort there is obvious room for differences of opinion and I would not pretend that such differences have not arisen within the Department of Agriculture. My hon. Friend quoted the opinions of the Department's technical officers and he has been at pains to show that these gave the view that Borgie Mains should not be included in the farms eligible for hill cattle subsidy. But I assure my hon. Friend that other senior technical officers, in the light of conditions both in Caithness and elsewhere in Scotland, have expressed a contrary opinion.
  It is very important to appreciate that recommendations and reports from inspectors on the spot are not automatically accepted, otherwise there would be no need for chief livestock inspectors and for decisions to be taken at the centre. It is also very important that we should have uniformity throughout the country and I assure the House that contrary opinions as to whether or not Borgie Mains was eligible were expressed, as opposed to those quoted by my hon. Friend. I need not stress to the House the necessity of doing all we can to achieve uniformity in the administration of these schemes throughout Scotland.
  My hon. Friend mentioned the question of pedigree cattle being carried on Borgie Mains Farm. He suggested that pedigree herds should not be accepted for subsidy. I find it difficult to see the relevance of this suggestion. There is nothing in the Statutory Instrument to suggest that such herds should not have the subsidy and it has never been our practice to discriminate against them. Indeed, it would be quite wrong for us to do so, since it is to such herds that we must look for our breeding stock and on which we must rely for the maintenance of the quality of our beef which means so much to the Scottish economy.
  In view of the raising of this matter by my hon. Friend, I have personally

  757
  gone into all the facts of the case and I assure the House that I am satisfied that the decision that Borgie Mains is eligible for the hill cattle subsidy is the correct one and is strictly in accordance with the standards applied both in Caithness and throughout the rest of Scotland.
  I should like to turn for a moment to the case of Stanstill Farm. It is not, strictly speaking, the subject of this debate, but my hon. Friend has raised it and I will try to deal with it. The facts are that in 1952 the occupier of this farm claimed hill cattle subsidy in respect of cattle kept on that portion of the farm which he then claimed to be eligible land under the scheme, namely, about 600 acres out of a total of 1,160 acres. His claim at that time was paid in full as were similar claims for the years 1953, 1954, 1955 and 1956. In other words, during those five years the farmer himself only sought subsidy for stock in respect of some 600 acres. In 1957, the occupier of Stanstill Farm claimed that the whole of his farm was eligible, but payment was restricted to the cattle carried on the hill area of some 600 acres.
  In 1958, the occupier again claimed in respect of the larger area and thereafter continued to press a claim to have the whole of his farm treated as eligible. As a result of this, the Department's chief livestock inspector made a special inspection of Stanstill Farm in the spring of 1960.
  I have to admit that I personally gave approval to the inspection taking place. Furthermore, in giving that approval, I also agreed—and I think I should admit this to the House—that during that inspection the farmer should not be attended by his Member of Parliament or a member of the N.F.U., because I felt it was right that the chief livestock inspector should be allowed to carry out his inspection in the best way he thought fit; but, of course, the farmer himself was given every opportunity to attend and to make what representations he wished.
  Following this inspection, it was decided that the whole of the farm could not be accepted as eligible land, but that under the terms of the scheme approval could be given to the cattle being wintered away from the eligible portion of the farm. Here again, we have a question
  758
  of judgment, a difficult question, as these questions of judgment often are, and I very much hope that my hon. Friend will not suggest that the decision was come to on any other grounds than grounds of merit, because, if he does, I should like to suggest to him that his logic is very wobbly. If bandying about the name of a Member of Parliament is to influence decisions in a matter such as this—to influence them in either a favourable or an unfavourable way—then every hon. Member and every Minister trying to administer a Government Department will find himself in a hopeless position.
  My hon. Friend has made certain suggestions about the question of information. Tonight I do not profess to know how my hon. Friend has obtained his information about official reports, but, as he said, he sent a letter to my right hon. Friend. We have already been aware that my hon. Friend had received such information and my right hon. Friend is investigating whether an official has acted improperly. I should like to suggest that it goes no further than that. It is just to see whether an official has acted improperly. I suggest that my right hon. Friend would have been gravely failing in his duty if he had not at least investigated the facts of the matter.
  I only want to say one other thing. I am a little shocked that my hon. Friend should attack one who is highly regarded in his county. I am sure that it should not have been done here, under the cloak of Parliament. I in no way resent my hon. Friend's attacking me, but I resent very much his attacking civil servants in a case of this kind. By all means put all the blame on me, and address the attack to me, but I am sure that this House does not sympathise with a Member who attacks civil servants.
  Finally, I wish to assure the House again that I have gone into both of these cases most thoroughly, and I am satisfied that the right decisions have been taken in both cases.
  Sir D. Robertson: Will my hon. Friend say who was the senior inspector who was called in to inspect this farm? We know that a Mr. Bean came up, and I am informed that he took the same decision about Borgie Mains as Mr. Rae and Mr. Dean. I do not know of any

  759
  other inspection that was made. It seems inconceivable that any chairborne official in St. Andrew's House should be in a position to override inspectors who took this decision.
  Mr. Leburn: That is the point of my case. There would be no need for chief livestock inspectors if no occasion arose to overrule other inspectors' decisions. We could have decisions taken by junior inspectors all over the country, but we must have uniformity. The chief inspector to whom I referred was the chief inspector of the Department of Agriculture at St. Andrew's House.
  10.16 p.m.
  Mr. Thomas Fraser: As the Joint Under-Secretary of State said, I have been personally concerned with these matters, particularly in the County of Caithness, in years gone by. He mentioned a meeting in St. Andrew's House in July, 1950, which was taken by the then Joint Under-Secretary of State. I was then Joint Under-Secretary of State.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State says that it is sometimes difficult to judge the eligibility or ineligibility of farms, or parts of farms, to qualify for the hill cattle subsidy under this scheme. He has made it clear that Borgie Mains has all along been a borderline case, although he says that there are other even more borderline cases. I do not know how one gets variations on borderline cases.
  The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson) has brought with him a file which shows what investigations and decisions and recommendations have been made from time to time. It pains me very much indeed that he should be able, on the basis of the information given to him in those files, to allege that the views of those who had inspected were rejected by someone who had not inspected. If this is so, then there is something here to inquire into.
  The hon. Gentleman showed me some of the documents which he has, and, according to the information contained in them, the chief inspector visited and recommended against. If that is so, then it seems to me to be wrong that the subsidy should be paid. If it is not so, then it is up to the Joint Under-Secretary of State to have a public inquiry to show that somebody has been telling lies.
  760
  We must consider what the criteria are in deciding whether or not a subsidy should be paid. The first is that the cows have to be mother cows, and they have to be on the hill for a substantial part of the year. They have to be on hill land as defined in the scheme. To explain this to the House, I will read the definition in the scheme, which says:
  "'hill land' means land which is livestock rearing land as defined in subsection (3) of section 1 of the Livestock Rearing Act, 1951, that is to say, land situated in an area consisting predominantly of mountains, hills or heath, being land which is, or by improvement could be made, suitable for use for the breeding, rearing and maintenance of sheep or cattle but not for the carrying on, to any material extent, of dairy farming, the production, to any material extent, of fat sheep or fat cattle, or the production of crops in quantity materially greater than that necessary to feed the number of sheep or cattle capable of being maintained on the land."
  One can only form a judgment as to whether this criterion is fulfilled by personally inspecting the land and being qualified to do so. This is not a matter on which even the Minister can rightly reach a conclusion, nor is it a matter on which someone else sitting in St. Andrew's House can reach a decision. It is something on which only someone who has visited the premises can form a view.
  When the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland came to see me on more than one occasion in 1950 and 1951, pleading for the admission of certain farms for subsidy, I invariably told him that I was incapable of judging whether a farm should or should not qualify. Being in office, I had to ensure that we had men in the employment of the Department who were capable of making this judgment. When I gave them a job to do it was my responsibility to take their advice. There is no other way of administering the scheme. I would not listen to any particular farmer who came to me to plead for subsidy because I had to tell him that I had been advised by my experts and that I could not sit down and negotiate further with him.
  Can the Under-Secretary of State inform the House whether the senior inspector recommended against the admission of this farm on the basis of a visit, or on the basis of a written submission? When I bad responsibility for this matter, I thought that it was wrong even for the N.F.U. to argue about

  761
  individual cases or the extent of the hill land on any farm. This is a highly technical business. If this is the kind of matter on which a decision can be reached after pressure being applied, then we should scrap the scheme altogether.
  In this case, there seems to be evidence to suggest that the farmer from Stanstill Farm was given a subsidy in respect of an area of land, and that he regarded this as being inadequate. As a result of pressing his claim—this may be incorrect, but the evidence seems to point to it—it was not a question of enlarging the acreage of land on his farm that would qualify. It was merely a matter of saying that, instead of having so many cattle, he would get the subsidy in respect of so many additional cattle. It is wrong to administer the scheme in that way. One or the other.
  The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland cannot be happy with things as they are. I am not happy. I cannot say how sad I am to think of the integrity of public servants being questioned in this way. I suppose I feel that even more keenly because they happen to be civil servants in the Scottish Office, with which I was associated for a number of years. I have nothing but respect and regard for the civil servants with whom I worked for several years. I never found any of them in whom I did not have the utmost trust. Because I have such regard, respect and trust for them and because I want to see our public service continuing to enjoy the respect of the whole nation, and regarded as a body of people entirely beyond suspicion, I do not want to see allegations such as those made by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland hanging about after they have been made publicly.
  762
  If the hon. Gentleman has ground for believing that things are wrong, he has a public duty—
  Sir D. Robertson: Certainly.
  Mr. Fraser: —to expose them. I am not saying that if, on the evidence these things are wrong, he should cover it up. Like any of us, the hon. Gentleman has a public duty to bring these things out into the open, after first giving the Minister an opportunity to put things right.
  Sir D. Robertson: Which I did.
  Mr. Fraser: The hon. Gentleman says that he did.
  If that is not done, he has no choice but to do it publicly. Having done it publicly, and if these criticisms are not fully rebutted, it seems to me that the only thing to do is for the Secretary of State to order a public inquiry into the whole business. It may seem that either the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland, or the people who informed him, will come badly out of the inquiry. That is a risk the hon. Gentleman takes in calling for a public inquiry. But if, on the other hand, as the hon. Gentleman has said tonight, people have taken certain decisions involving the expenditure of public money under pressure, it will come out in the public inquiry, and I think that the public service would be better for that happening.
  That is how I feel about it. It is the only way in which anyone can feel. The hon. Gentleman said that he was willing to give the whole file to a Scottish judge. I think that it would be better for the Secretary of State to select the Scottish judge to whom the hon. Gentleman should give the file.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes past Ten o'clock.

SOUTHERN RHODESIA
  Prohibited Immigrants
  Prohibited Immigrants
EDUCATION
  College of Further Education, Dagenham
  College of Further Education, Dagenham
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Hydrocarbon Oils (Duty)
  Hydrocarbon Oils (Duty)
  Customs and Excise Duties
  Customs and Excise Duties
  Television Advertisements (Duty)
  Television Advertisements (Duty)
SCOTLAND
  Rateable Valuations
  Rateable Valuations
  Forestry
  Forestry
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Fire Services
  Fire Services
  Victims of Crime (Compensation)
  Victims of Crime (Compensation)
  Crimes of Violence
  Crimes of Violence
  Bank Robberies
  Bank Robberies
  Visa Applications
  Visa Applications
  House of Lords
  House of Lords
  London Police Court Mission (Adventure Courses)
  London Police Court Mission (Adventure Courses)
TRANSPORT
  Motor Vehicles (Safety Belts and Harness)
  Motor Vehicles (Safety Belts and Harness)
RAILWAYS
  Hydrocarbon Oils (Duty)
  Hydrocarbon Oils (Duty)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Forestry
  Forestry
  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (BASE FACILITIES)
  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (BASE FACILITIES)
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Census Enumerators
  Census Enumerators

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chester

MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN
3.5 p.m.
THE EARL OF SCARBROUGH: My Lords, I have the honour to present to your Lordships a Message from Her Majesty The Queen signed by her own hand. It is as follows:
"I have received your Address praying that the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (Immunities and Privileges) Order, 1961, be made in the form of the draft aid before Parliament.
"I will comply with your request."

MENTAL HOSPITALS' PATIENTS
LORD TAYLOR: 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 the number of patients in mental hospitals at the end of 1958 and the end of 1960 (or the nearest date thereto) in each of the following categories:—certified and temporary; voluntary and informal.]
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, in designated mental hospitals in England and Wales there were 77,002 certified and temporary patients on the 31st December, 1958, and 51,432 on the 31st December, 1959. In the same hospitals there were 61,120 voluntary and informal patients at the end of 1958 and 81,722 at the end of 1959. During 1960, the categories of patients were being changed in accordance with the provisions of the Mental Health Act, 1959.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that encouraging Answer, and I hope that the process of
962
de-designation and re-allocation will be speeded up, so that we may have a further change. I think the improvement is about 25,000 in each case, and I hope that we may see a steady increase in de-certification in the months and years ahead.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, the decrease in the number of certified and temporary patients is 25,570, and the increase in voluntary and informal 20,602.

NEW DAIRY UNITS AND IMPROVEMENT GRANTS
2.40 p.m.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: 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 whether, in view of the recent Government White Paper on milk quotas in the Price Review they are taking steps to make the grants under the Farm Improvement Scheme unavailable to new dairy units on farms that hitherto were not producing milk.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL WALDEGRAVE): My Lords, Section 12 of the Agriculture Act, 1957, which provides the statutory basis for the Farm Improvement Scheme, lays down that these grants may be paid only for improvements such as a prudent landlord would be willing to make. When this Act was under consideration in another place the suggestion was made then that grant should not be allowed for converting into a dairy farm a holding which had not been accustomed to sell milk. Her Majesty's Government felt then that few prudent landlords would in fact be prepared to put up buildings for that purpose, but that if in some individual case there were compelling reasons for the change it was right that it should take place.
My Lords, the prudent landlord will no doubt be even more careful in present circumstances in considering proposals for dairy buildings; but Her Majesty's Government still consider it right that such proposals should be scrutinised for

963
grant purposes on the merits of the specific case. The object of the Farm Improvement Scheme is to make longterm improvements to agricultural land in the interests of efficiency. The test in this case must remain whether a prudent landlord, having taken into account all the circumstances including any possible two-tier price system for milk, would in fact make the improvement concerned.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, is the Minister aware that it appears that the Ministry have a conflict within themselves, with one arm being the "Dutch uncle" making grants for improvements to provide new dairies, and with the other arm tightening their grasp to prevent future production with, one suspects, an eye on a European trade pact or Commonwealth Agreements?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I cannot admit that there is conflict here. In the White Paper on the Annual Review, which was published last month, it was stated that the Farmers' Unions, with the Milk Boards, would attempt to work out before July 31 of this year a new method of payment for milk which would bring home to the individual producer the fact that additional output could find an outlet only at manufacturing prices. I do not think the objects of this proposal, as outlined in the White Paper, are inconsistent with some element of movement into and out of the industry, and Her Majesty's Government have as yet no indication of the recommendations that may come forward from the Unions and the Boards.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl how this very elusive character, the "prudent landlord" comes into the case of an applicant who feels that he can never make his small farm economic without its being partially dairy? Would the attitude of the applicant surmount that of this elusive customer, who may be a landlord in Northumberland dealing with an application in Cornwall?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, if I follow the noble Lord's question aright, the hypothetical "prudent landlord"—
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: Very hypothetical.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: —who is laid down in the Act, must consider each question on its specific merits, That is in the Statute, and we cannot depart from the Statute to control production policy on the side. The case put up by the hypothetical tenant to the hypothetical landlord would be examined and judged on is merits.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that the conflict which he was unable to see is between the highly praiseworthy decision to make grants available to facilitate increased production, and the fact that, when you have got the increased production you do not want it, and therefore reduce the price to the farmer? That is the inevitable conflict which arises out of the Government's price support policy.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I cannot wholly agree with the noble Lord that this conflict exists. As to the question that was asked, this Scheme will continue to be administered as it is laid down in the terms of the Act.
LORD WISE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl, arising from his first reply to the question of the "prudent landlord"; what is the position of the owner-occupier who wishes to go into milk and wishes to receive a grant for the erection of buildings?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, the owner-occupier becomes both a hypothetical prudent landlord and a hypothetical prudent tenant for the purposes of administering the Act.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, would the noble Earl agree that the prudence of the landlord, which is to-day going to prevent him from investing money in new equipment in the milk production field or from modernising his buildings in that field, will in fact prevent milk from being produced more cheaply in the future, and will continue to force us to produce milk in uneconomic buildings at a high cost?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: No, my Lords. I do not think that any proper administration of this Act—and I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Walston, that this Act will continue to be properly administered by this Government—will have the undesirable effects he suggests.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, this "prudent" insertion into statutory provisions—at least by regulation—is very interesting. As we have the learned Church here this afternoon, I wonder whether the Ministry would consider issuing an extract from Cicero extolling prudence and putting it above almost all the other virtues? Do you think landlords are generally made up of that stuff?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: Yes, my Lords.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether up to the present moment any grant has been refused because the applicant desired to become a dairy farmer?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I should imagine that on many occasions when specific proposals have been put forward, they have been refused. We know that there have been a large number of refusals. In some cases, the proposals put forward may have been related to milk and will have been refused. But they will not have been refused merely because they involved milk.

THE FARM IMPROVEMENT SCHEME
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: 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 whether they will state what sum has so far been used of the £100 million grant set aside under the Farm Improvement Scheme; and whether they will also forecast how long this grant will be available and whether they will be renewing it when it is exhausted.]
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, Part II of the Agriculture Act, 1957, makes provision for £50 million—not £100 million—to be paid in grants under the Farm Improvement Scheme. The Act also provides for a further £5 million to be made available by Order. Since September, 1957, approval has been given to proposals covering improve-
966
ments estimated to cost in total some £90 million, representing £30 million in terms of grant. Down to March 31, 1961, about £18 million had actually been paid out. These are all United Kingdom figures. At the Second Reading of the Act in another place, my noble friend Lord Amory (as he is now) said that if expenditure seemed likely to exceed the figures which had been written into the Act, Her Majesty's Government would have to look at the question afresh when the time came. If applications continue to be approved at the same rate as hitherto, this situation will arise before the end of the ten years to which the Act relates. Her Majesty's Government have this matter well in mind and will make an announcement about their further intentions rather nearer the time.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, if the present trend of forcing down prices of arable products—agricultural grain and the like—goes on, and the smaller farmer engaged in arable agriculture cannot continue to live on it, as happens very often in Essex and Norfolk, will they have a chance of getting farm improvement grants to go into the milk industry, to try to offset the losses being pressed upon them through lower prices for grain and, at the same time, gradually increased costs to them, year by year?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, perhaps that point arises more out of the first Question which my noble friend asked: The present Question asked what has been paid out under the scheme. But to answer the noble Viscount's question, proposals will continue to come forward and be judged on their merits, as I said previously.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I think it may be for the convenience of your Lordships if I say a word about the first day of the Committee stage of the Road Traffic Bill. It is the intention that, if possible, we should complete the Amendments to Clauses 1 and 2. If, perchance, we should finish Clause 2 fairly early, I suggest to your Lordships that we should not continue beyond Clause 2 to-day, so that those of your

967
Lordships who are not concerned with Clauses 1 and 2 but with later clauses may know that their business will not come on to-day.

ROAD TRAFFIC BILL [H.L.]
3.19 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Standard of unfitness to drive through drink etc.
1. For the purposes of section six of the principal Act (which imposes penalties for driving, attempting to drive or being in charge of a motor vehicle while unfit to drive through drink or drugs) a person shall be taken to be unfit to drive if his ability to drive properly is for the time being impaired.
LORD TAYLORmoved, after the second "being" to insert: "in any degree". The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment to Clause 1 standing in my name upon the Order Paper. Those of your Lordships who attended the Second Reading debate will remember that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, wished to have a clarification of what is a very important phrase in this Bill. The Bill states that drivers shall be found guilty of an offence if their ability to drive is impaired by alcohol or drugs. The noble and learned Lord suggested that the words "appreciably impaired" should be inserted. I disagreed with him, because I felt that if these words were inserted it would substantially weaken the Bill.
I have discussed this matter with the noble and learned Lord, and he has said that in his view courts will have some difficulty over interpreting the word "impaired" unless it is qualified; that Her Majesty's judges will find it difficult to advise juries as to precisely what interpretation to place on the word "impaired". I have therefore suggested in this Amendment the insertion of the words "in any degree". I do not myself feel that this necessarily clarifies the
968
Bill, because I believe that the Bill states in itself what it means: if a driver's capacity is at all impaired. That is what it means; but if it will help the courts then I think we should make clear precisely what is intended. There are two ways in which this could be done: either the Government could accept this Amendment in principle and perhaps modify it to make it clear that it is intended to cover any degree of impairment, or it could accept the Amendment about to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Teynliam, which would dilute the meaning of the word "impaired" practically back to the existing Statute. I move this Amendment only because I wish to find out which is the intention of the Government and to seek the advice of the Government on whether it is necessary to assist the courts in interpreting the meaning of the word "impaired". I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 10, after ("being") insert ("in any degree").—(Lord Taylor.)
LORD SOM̃ERS: Might I suggest that "appreciably" might be a better term. I I think the noble Lord would agree that "in any degree" includes even the most minute degree, whereas "appreciably" means just what it says—to the point where it is possible to recognise it.
LORD TAYLOR: May I have the leave of the House to reply to the point which has been raised. Manifestly, if a person's judgment is impaired it must be appreciably. But I understand from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, that this is the subject of endless argument by counsel in the courts, whenever they are defending a subject who is accused of dangerous driving under the influence of alcohol. They say, "He was certainly under the influence of alcohol, but it was not appreciable"; that is the defence which is always advanced. Therefore I hope the word "appreciably" will not be applied, but that if any qualification is to be made it will be "in any degree"—though admittedy degree must be appreciable.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORT-FOLIO (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, will not need to be reminded that he said on Second Reading that he was not in favour of amending this clause. He said that he

969
himself had written the words "has been impaired" before the clause was drafted; he thought that that was the right way to put it. He went on to say [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 230 (No. 64), col. 403]:
"… that is exactly what the clause says and what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, took exception to. It is simply an impairment of capacity which can be fairly safely assumed as a result of the demonstration of certain levels of blood or urine alcohol. Therefore, I personally hope for that reason that Clause 1 will not be modified. I believe that it is the safest, most sensible and a simple definition; and I think it is entirely right."
I still respectfully agree with the noble Lord about that.
It seems that the reason for putting forward the Amendment is that he is now afraid that the courts will interpret the Bill in the sense in which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, suggested it ought to be interpreted, and that they will not do anything about it unless they consider the impairment is appreciable. I think the noble Lord, Lord Taylor is entirely right in his view that the Bill means impairment in any degree, but I would suggest to him that to insert any qualification of this kind is entirely unnecessary. With great respect to what he has indirectly, at second-hand, told us he heard from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, I would still suggest the words are unnecessary and could do no good and might possibly do some harm. Either the man's ability to drive is impaired or it is not impaired, and if it is impaired it must be impaired to some degree. If you put in the words "in any degree", surely you will only raise in people's minds—magistrate or jury—the possibility as to whether it can be impaired to no degree, which does not make sense. Either it is impaired to some degree or it is not impaired at all.
The obvious possibilities of doubt in interpreting any provision of this kind, I would suggest to the noble Lord, do not arise out of the word "impaired" at all, but rather out of the phrase "to drive properly". It might well be a matter for consideration. Different people might have slightly varying views as to what is to constitute driving properly, and they might feel some hesitation in deciding whether a man's ability to drive properly had or had not been impaired. But the noble Lord will agree, I am sure, that you could not help matters by qualifying the word "properly". It would make a
970
mockery of the thing if you were to put in an Act of Parliament "his ability to drive properly in any degree". You will not make it easier for any court to apply this provision justly by so attempting to qualify the word "impaired".
I suggest to your Lordships that no amount of verbal exactitude can ever relieve magistrates and juries of the necessity of exercising common sense. They have to decide perhaps the degree to which ability to drive properly was impaired, and, according to the degree, whether it is a large degree or a small degree, they might decide on what is the appropriate sentence. But to decide whether the offence has been committed at all—that is to say, whether the person's ability to drive has or has not been impaired—would, I suggest, to the noble Lord, not be helped by the insertion of the words "in any degree". This endeavour to prescribe the way in which people shall exercise common sense might possibly have the effect of making their task slightly more difficult. It certainly would not make it any easier.
LORD TAYLOR: I thank the noble Earl for his explanation, and I am pleased that in fact the Government do mean "in any degree", as I hoped they did, in the actual phraseology of this clause. I accept the point very readily about driving properly and the possible misconceptions which might arise from that. I think I should perhaps say that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, would have been here himself but he is delayed on Judicial business; that was the only reason he could not come and say much better what I have tried inadequately to say. I should like to thank the Government for their reply, and with the assurance that the noble Earl has given, may I ask leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.30 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM LORD TEYNHAM moved to add to the clause.
"to such an extent as to be likely to cause danger to other road users".
The noble Lord said: This Amendment goes a little further than the last Amendment. Its object is to bring a little more sense into the word "impaired" in the clause. Ability to drive may be impaired through innumerable causes—fatigue, anger, annoyance, indigestion, worry, pain

971
and many others, and not only through drink. To know whether a person's ability to drive had been impaired I would say that it would be necessary to have some knowledge of how the person drove before he had a drink. He might be a bad driver anyway. To take an extreme case, a tired person might drive better rather than worse if he had revived or steadied himself with a single whisky. There is no indication in this clause as to what degree of impairment will be necessary to secure conviction. As I have already said, "impaired" is an extremely vague word. There can be various degrees of impairment, but I think the way in which the word "impaired" should be defined is in the words of my Amendment—namely, so as to cause danger to other road users. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 10 at end insert the said words.—(Lord Teynham.)
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHESTER: I rise to express the hope that your Lordships will not accept this Amendment; and I do so upon two grounds. First, it seems to me to be a tautology, for if a person's ability to drive properly on the road is impaired, then I cannot think that it is otherwise than impaired to the danger of those who might be on the roads. But there is also a more profound reason why I would oppose this Amendment. It is a dreadful reproach on all of us that it is necessary to have this legislation at all, and it is a particularly dreadful thing that there are people who are prepared to take motor cars on the roads when their faculties have been impaired for one reason or another. I do not think that the reproach has been sufficiently marked upon the outlook of the ordinary man and woman in the street, and I should regret anything which in any way minimised the seriousness of the situation with which we are faced.
It is a dreadful thing that in the last ten years three-quarters of a million people should have been killed or seriously injured as the result of road accidents. We know that a great many of them have been due to the lack of proper roads and so on; but we also know that, fundamentally, the cause has been a lack of individual responsibility
972
on the part of all who use the roads, both pedestrians and motorists. It seems to me that this Amendment would to a certain extent soften the impact of this Bill upon the consciences of ordinary people, and for that reason I hope that we shall not accept it.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: I should like to urge the Committee, as the right reverend Prelate has done, not to accept this Amendment. The noble Lord who moved it said that it went further than the last Amendment, but he did not say that it goes in the opposite direction—it goes in the direction of relaxing the powers of this Bill. As the right reverend Prelate said, the whole object of this Bill is to deal with those who have not sufficient discretion to know that when they drink their faculties are impaired and they should not drive. Anybody whose ability to drive is impaired is, being in charge of a lethal weapon, a danger to others on the roads. Therefore I hope that this Amendment will not be accepted.
LORD SOM̃ERS: I should like to support the Amendment, in spite of the remarks of the right reverend Prelate and of the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, because I feel that one has to consider this Bill as aiming at one thing—namely, producing more safety on the roads. If one has not drunk enough or consumed enough drugs to cause danger on the road, then surely there is no harm in it. Equally, and for another reason, as my noble friend said, who is to say whether or not a man's driving is impaired? How en earth can anybody say, seeing a man drive after he has had a few drinks, that his driving is impaired, if that person has not seen him drive before? That is something that nobody can ever prove. Therefore I feel that the clause as it stands is unworkable, and that this Amendment is the way in which to ensure safety to all.
LORD ELTON: Surely both noble Lords who are supporting this Amendment are suffering under an illusion when they say that "impaired" means driving worse than one did at some previous time. Surely "impaired" means prevented from driving properly. If a man has reached the stage where he cannot drive properly, for the life of me I fail to see how he can be anything other than a danger to other road users. To

973
add these words to the present wording seems to me a mere tautology, intended to weaken this clause.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: I should like to support this Amendment. So far as I know, we have no scientific evidence to indicate how drink affects various people. Some people are even advised by their doctors (I am told, to keep their blood pressure up), to have two or three double whiskies a day. We can prove that they have so much alcohol in their blood, but we cannot prove their impairment or lack of judgment in regard to driving. Therefore, I support the Amendment.
LORD AMWELL: I feel that the case against this Amendment has been fully made out. The niggardly attempt at perfectionism always seems to me to be dangerous. We found examples of that, for instance, in the Obscene Publications Bill. When I was training to be a journalist and to be able to write English, one of the first things I gathered was the danger of qualification—that nouns were usually stronger with adjectives, and that the adjectives always had to be fully justified. I think that that applies to this case. Surely the word that we are dealing with now is sufficiently strong by itself, and if you include a qualification of this character—the same point applied to Lord Taylor's Amendment—there is a weakness which often allows advantage to be taken, if people are inclined that way. I would oppose this Amendment.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): I do not think we can accept it. There are two basic fallacies in this Amendment. The first argument which my noble friend put forward in support of it was that people may be unfit to drive for reasons other than drink or drugs—they can be tired, they can be incompetent anyway, or they may be suffering from some other disease. The defect in that argument is that it fails to realise that this clause of the Bill is amending Section 6 of the principal Act which defines the offence as
"driving or attempting to drive when unfit to drive through drink or drugs";
and all the new Bill does is to define what is meant by "unfit to drive through
974
drink or drugs". It says that a man shall be taken to be unfit to drive if his ability to drive properly is, for the time being, impaired.
In passing, I would say that if a man is tired or ill he should take rest, and not more alcohol; and he is all the more likely to commit the offence if for other reasons his driving is already impaired. That is the only advice a lawyer could give any man who proposes to go on the road. Indeed, I have known many cases of people who have been trapped into this offence because they were tired and thought a whisky-and-soda would not make their driving any worse. But that is not the reason; the reason is that which I have given.
Secondly the Amendment proposes to insert the words:
"to such an extent as to be likely to cause danger to other road users".
The answer is that those words are unacceptable. I believe they are inserted only because of failure to read properly the wording in line 10 of page 1 of the Bill as drafted; because if that word "properly" is read, the only meaning which could be attached to the proposed Amendment is the suggestion that there may be a class of man whose ability to drive properly through drink is impaired but none the less cannot be guilty of being a danger. Our view is what I believe to be the view of the overwhelming mass of people in the country, that if a man cannot, by reason of drink or drugs, drive properly, he is a danger to people if he tries to drive. There is no third class of person. There are only those two classes: those who are fit to drive and those who are not; and those who are not fit to drive should not drive.
LORD TEYNHAM: I do not propose to weary your Lordships with some of the arguments I could use about points that have been raised. I appreciate that the word "properly" governs the clause to some extent; but as I believe the general feeling of the Committee is against my Amendment, I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Evidence on charge of unfitness to drive
2.—(1) In any proceedings for an offence under the said section six, the court shall have regard to any evidence which may be given of the proportion or quantity of alcohol or of any drug which was contained in the blood or present in the body of the accused, as ascertained by analysis or measurement of a specimen of blood taken from him with his consent, or of water or breath provided by him, at any material time; and if it is proved that the accused, when so requested at any such time, refused to consent to the taking of or to provide a specimen for analysis or measurement, his refusal may, unless reasonable cause therefor is shown, be treated as supporting any evidence given on behalf of the prosecution, or as rebutting any evidence given on behalf of the defence, with respect to his condition at that time.
(2) For the purposes of any such proceedings, a certificate purporting to be signed by an authorised analyst, and certifying the proportion of alcohol or any drug found in a specimen identified by the certificate and, in the case of a specimen not being a specimen of blood, the proportion of alcohol or of that drug in the blood which corresponds to the proportion found in the specimen, shall be evidence of the matters so certified and of the qualification of the analyst:
Provided that the foregoing provision shall not apply to a certificate tendered on behalf of the prosecution unless a copy has been served on the accused not less than seven days before the hearing or trial, nor if the accused, not less than three days before the hearing or trial, or within such further time as the court may in special circumstances allow, has served notice on the prosecutor requiring the attendance at the hearing or trial of the person by whom the certificate was signed.
(3) In any such proceedings in Scotland, a certificate complying with subsection (2) of this section and, where the person by whom such a certificate was signed is called as a witness, the evidence of that person, shall be sufficient evidence of the facts stated in the certificate.
(4) In this section "authorised analyst" means any person possessing the qualifications prescribed by regulations made under section eighty-nine of the Food and Drugs Act. 1955, or section twenty-seven of the Food and Drugs (Scotland) Act, 1956, as qualifying persons for appointment as public analysts under those Acts, and any other person authorised by the Secretary of State to make analyses for the purposes of this section.
3.44 p.m.
LORD ELTON LORD ELTON moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "have regard to any" and insert "be provided with". The noble Lord said: This is the first of a short series of Amendments, the collective effect of which, if they were adopted, would be to render the chemical tests which are described in Clause 2 compulsory. I am advised that it would be
976
for the convenience of your Lordships if I said what few words I have to say on the main point now; and I shall be as brief as I can because the Amendment which follows my three Amendments, that is, No. 6, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and the noble Baroness. Lady Wootton of Abinger, I believe would have the same effect of making tests of this kind compulsory. I hope, therefore, that there may be something to be said on that point from the Benches opposite.
It seems to me there are two fairly simple propositions on which one can base one's appeal for a compulsory rather than a voluntary test. We have to remember the tragic proportion of the annual aggregate of deaths and serious injury which is due to drunken drivers. Nobody knows exactly what that is, but we do know in respect of holiday deaths on the roads, which are the series of deaths which have been most carefully studied and in respect of which we have the latest figures—Christmas, 1959—that 56 per cent. of all deaths over that period were due to drunken drivers or drunken pedestrians, and that after 10 o'clock at night the percentage actually rose to 80.
Dr. Spriggs, who has devoted years of research to this question and was for many years police surgeon at Leicester, examined a series of deaths occurring over three years in Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland. I believe it was a series of 254 deaths. He came to the conclusion that 50 per cent. of those deaths occurring after 10 o'clock at night had been due to drunkenness and that over the whole period, day and night, all the year round, at least 10 per cent. of those deaths had been due to drunkenness—which would mean about 500 deaths in the whole country in the year.
Quite apart from statistics, it is, of course, a matter of common experience that the roads are more dangerous after closing time, and particularly shortly after closing time. We probably all know friends who would do almost anything to avoid driving on the roads at that period. In the Second Reading debate the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Carlisle told us that when he has to attend a meeting on a Saturday evening he always makes a point of explaining to his audience—at some risk, one might suppose, of being misunderstood—that he must go off early in order

977
to be home before closing time. Nobody would dream of a state of affairs in which a pilot was allowed to fly an aeroplane or a driver to drive a railway engine when in a state of partial intoxication, and I have little doubt that historians of the future will look back to our astonishing tardiness and reluctance about clearing the roads of the drunken driver as one of the more inexplicable scandals of the twentieth century.
Secondly, as to the reliability of tests, I think we must remind ourselves that there is a complete consensus of opinion among those best qualified to know. The experts assure us that these tests are 100 per cent. reliable. The Committee on Alcohol and Road Accidents, set up by the British Medical Association, the Road Research Laboratory and Dr. Drew's Committee, are all unanimously agreed that these chemical tests are reliable.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but not all experts agree on this, as I have endeavoured to point out.
LORD ELTON: We all know there is no subject on which all the experts are agreed, but, to the best of my belief, all the official committees which have studied this subject over a long period and with every facility—and the British Medical Association Committee have been studying it for ten years—are agreed on the reliability of this test. I am under that impression but I am subject to correction. And, as we were told in the debate last week, as long as a year ago The Times said there could be no further question but that these tests are reliable. It is no longer a question of a "hunch ".
Often these tests are talked about as if they were some startling new invention appropriately put forward in the age of space travel, but of course we do not depend only upon research. We have before our eyes the example of the successful use of these tests pretty well all over the world. They have been successfully employed in Norway for more than 30 years. They have been used in Glasgow for more than 20 years and they have been in use in 47 States of the United States of America for
978
varying periods, in most of them over considerable periods. This is not some fantastic new brain-child of Her Majesty's Government, but something which many other Governments have employed for years and thereby have saved countless lives and countless limbs.
If this form of test is not to be compulsory, then it seems to me it will be avoided too often and left unused; and where it is used it is bound to be regarded with less respect by the courts and by juries, on the assumption that if it were really reliable the Government would have had the courage to make it compulsory. Of course, the reason why the Government have refrained from doing so, as I suspect, is, as they would put it, that public opinion is not yet ready for this change. It all depends what is meant by "public opinion". It is quite true that there is no great popular campaign and obvious backing for such a change. But that is because, unfortunately, none of the political Parties has ever really interested itself in this, which I regard as perhaps the greatest social evil of our day. You could whip up far more enthusiasm and interest about far less important subjects.
Those of us who, for a generation now, have been trying to rouse interest on this subject believe that if the Government would take this step they would be surprised at the amount of support which they would find behind them. There is no question of the gratitude which they would earn when the saving in life which would result from compulsory use of this test began to accrue. In the Second Reading debate the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Carlisle, who asked that this test should be compulsory (and who is sorry that he cannot be here this afternoon owing to a very important engagement in the North), did not claim to be speaking on behalf of the Bench of Bishops; but I should be very surprised if there were not a majority for his view among his right reverend colleagues.
Similarly, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, who also asked that this test should be compulsory, did not claim to be speaking on behalf of Law Lords as a whole; but I suspect and hope that his opinion would be endorsed by his colleagues. I hope and believe that Law Lords in general would endorse the wise

979
words used by my old friend Lord Conesford in the Second Reading debate. He said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 230 (No. 65), cols. 439 and 440]:
"… these tests can substitute accuracy for inaccuracy and certainty for doubt. They can, indeed, provide the court with the best available evidence.… If the court is not to be allowed the benefit of chemical tests when available, then, in effect, the court is to be denied the best evidence."
He concluded by suggesting that, for that reason, the exclusion and not the admission of such tests would be contrary to the best principles of British justice.
So I hope that the Government will not be too doubtful about the reception of a more courageous second clause by public opinion. And I certainly hope they will not make the mistake of supposing that the opposition to it by the motoring organisations necessarily rep-presents the opinions of the members of those organisations; because, for some mysterious reason, whenever a proposal is advanced which seems likely to make motoring safer for the law-abiding, competent driver, who is in the vast majority of drivers, or to penalise or restrict the lawless and incompetent drivers, who are a very small minority, then we seem to have to count on the automatic opposition of motoring organisations—as they opposed the introduction of the speed limit without any sort of consultation of their own members. We know—at least it is my submission—that if this were made compulsory we should reduce deaths on the road largely by the deterrent effect of the knowledge that there was this sure method of detecting the drunken driver. And, if that be so, is there in the last resort any excuse for refraining from using an instrument which might vastly reduce the annual tragedy on the roads?
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 12, leave out ("have regard to any") and insert ("be provided with").—(Lord Elton.)
3.55 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: I should like to support this Amendment. I do not know whether or not the actual terms of the Amendment will stand up, but in this House we generally find that no Amendment that is moved from any part of the House, other than a Government one,
980
is completely satisfactory. Although I have an Amendment on the Paper, which is the next following the three Amendments with which the noble Lord, Lord Elton, is concerned, I do not suppose that my Amendment is any more satisfactory than the one which he is moving. But what we are discussing is the principle of compulsory tests as against the method set out in Clause 2. I should be quite satisfied, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Elton, would be, if the Government were to say that they accepted the principle.
On the occasion of the Second Reading I expressed some doubts as to how far these tests had been completely established as a safe means of testing the alcohol content in the blood; I was doubtful. But I am bound to say that, as the debate proceeded and I heard tile speeches both of the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, from the other side, and of my noble friend Lord Taylor, and the speeches of other noble Lords, I became satisfied that the tests as we know them to-day are a reasonable means of establishing what it is intended to inquire into, namely, the alcohol content, and whether the condition set out in Clause 1—to be unfit to drive through drink or drugs—is satisfactorily determined.
In passing, I had intended—but I overlooked it—to say a word on the Question that Clause 1 should stand part of the Bill and to ask about drugs. We have spoken almost entirely on the effect of drink and I do not know whether it is possible to test in the same accurate way for the effect of drugs as for drink. Perhaps when the noble Lord comes to reply he will deal with that point. Accepting for the moment that that is possible, I think that the case for a compulsory test has been made out.
Clause 2 was criticised on Second Reading by a good many noble Lords on the ground that a refusal to submit to the test would virtually cause the conviction of the person who refused, unless he had special grounds for refusal. It was assumed that a refusal was virtually evidence of admission of guilt. On the other hand, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, said he had never known a case where a person had refused to have a test; and, in fact, other noble Lords confirmed that. So the practical effect of making it compulsory, if that is

981
so, would be very slight. I think that none of us likes these words in the clause which suggest that a refusal is to be regarded as an admission of guilt unless there is evidence to the contrary, and there are a number of Amendments down on the Paper in respect of those particular words. I think that making the test compulsory would eliminate that difficulty.
I do not want to add much to what the noble Lord has said as to the merits of this proposal. As I say, my only hesitation hitherto had been due to some doubt as to whether these tests were sufficiently accurate to justify making them compulsory or to justify using them at all. Because I am bound to say that, if the tests were not satisfactory or there was some doubt about them, there would be equal objection to using them in the way that is provided in Clause 2—that is, by assuming the person is guilty if he refuses without good cause—as there would be to making them compulsory. The whole of the theory of Clause 2 is based on the assumption that we have reached the stage where these tests can be relied upon, and if they can be relied upon I am bound to say that I see no case for not making them compulsory. So I shall be interested to hear what the views of the Government are; and, if they are against making them compulsory, why they are against it when, as I say, in practice, they are virtually making them compulsory, and it has been stated on very high authority that there is, within the experience of noble and learned Lords who ought to know, no known case of a refusal. I therefore support this Amendment.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I do not know whether I might be allowed to say something at this stage, but I think we are in danger of getting into rather a muddle on this Amendment. I have been briefed by rather painstaking people about the effect of these Amendments, and so little does this Amendment, or anything like it, have the effect which the noble Lord clearly desires it to have, that those who are briefing me did not even define its purpose in briefing me about its defect. I must tell him exactly what the defect is. He is not by this Amendment proposing that the tests should be made compulsory at all: he is proposing that they should be
982
made universal, which is a very different thing. That is to say, the effect of passing his Amendment will be that you cannot get a conviction unless a test is applied.
I will deal on other Amendments with the issue of compulsion, but everybody knows that in practice there is no prospect of having these tests universally applied when suspects are taken in. There simply is not the apparatus available, at the different hours of the night and day at which suspects are taken in, to have the tests carried out in a satisfactory manner—for instance, in a country police station at three o'clock in the morning. All the noble Lord is providing by this particular Amendment is that the police cannot get a conviction in cases of this kind, even though the clinical evidence and the evidence of behaviour is absolutely overwhelming, unless one of these scientific tests is taken—and this is almost precisely the opposite of what he intends. I would suggest that we discuss the issue of compulsion, up to a point, on the next Amendment, because this one, so far as I am advised—I have been taken rather by surprise by this because, as I say, I was so little aware of what was in the mind of my noble friend that I was briefed to answer quite a different point—would have the opposite effect to what he intends. I think it would be more convenient to take the issue of compulsion on the next Amendment, which does raise it.
LORD BEVERIDGE: May we have an assurance that it will be possible to debate the issue of compulsion on the next Amendment if we do not pass this one?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Perhaps I may be allowed to answer the noble Lord. I am sorry that, like all other questions, it is not absolutely capable of a "Yes" or a "No". In relation to these tests, "compulsion" is a word which may mean a number of different things. The next Amendment raises the question in relation to blood tests but not in relation to urine or water, because in relation to urine or water the consent of the accused is not necessary at present for the purpose of the clause, but the Amendment omits the word "consent" in relation to blood. The effect of that, as we see it, will be to enable the

983
evidence to be given, irrespective of whether the accused had given his consent or not. Of course, to that extent it will be legitimate to raise the question of compulsion; but, as I shall have to say when we come to deal with it, that is not really the issue which the Committee would have to face if it had to face the question of compulsion. If you want to make a test compulsory, what you will ultimately have to do is to make it an offence to refuse. Neither of these Amendments does that.
I will go into this point in greater detail on the next Amendment, because I think it is more convenient then; but if you want to make a test compulsory you will not do it by either of these drafting devices. You will have to put in a new clause to make it an offence to refuse a test. That is the only way in which it can be done which is not objectionable on absolutely insuperable grounds which are intrinsic in the case. But I should like to discuss the question of compulsion more fully on the next Amendment, because this Amendment is based on the quite false assumption that you could introduce facilities for a test in every place at the moment, which you could not do. What you would do would be to tie the hands of the police in a number of cases where the evidence, apart from the test, was already overwhelming.
LORD ELTON: I understand that it would be more convenient to discuss the basic principle on the next Amendment, but, before we leave my Amendment, may I ask: has the noble Viscount said, in effect, that you cannot really introduce compulsion because there may be country police stations where you could not apply these tests, and where you could therefore not get a conviction because you could not apply the test? If that is what he says—I may have misunderstood—is that really the case? Would not a person who is apprehended for being drunk in charge of a car in fact be driven to a police station, as he is now, which has a police surgeon available?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: There are two different questions here. I think the noble Lord is taking a very rosy view of what there is available late at night in a country police station. It is a tri-
984
bute to the blamelessness of his life, but it is an unreal picture that in a country police station there is a police surgeon available. There may or may not be, and there usually is not. But the point is this: there cannot be a universal test if you are going to get convictions in guilty cases now. This Amendment would provide for a universal test, and it is administratively impossible. You could, of course, impose a compulsory test without imposing a universal one, because you can make it an offence for a man to refuse to have a test if it is offered him, and therefore the question of availability would not arise. But that is a separate issue which strictly does not arise on this Amendment, and would properly arise only if somebody put down a new clause to say that it was an offence to refuse a test if one was offered. I hope I have made that plain.
LORD TEYNHAM: I hope Her Majesty's Government will not consider making these tests compulsory, because there is at present in the police stations no difficulty at all about getting the urine test, and so on. I should like to take this opportunity of correcting one or two points raised by my noble friend Lord Elton on the question of accidents caused through drink. According to police statistics, only 0·9 per cent. of all casualties and 2·1 per cent. of fatalities in recent years were due (and, even then, only in part) to drink. There is some evidence to suggest that in some places the percentage figure may be somewhat heavier. For instance, I think the chief constable of Barrow, on February 6, 1960, put the figure for accidents caused by drunken drivers at about 3 per cent. This rate would be higher at certain times of the day or at certain periods of the year, but, in general, the evidence so far suggests that consumption of alcohol by drivers is responsible for only a remarkably small percentage of accidents.
LORD DERWENT: May I ask the advice of my noble friend the Leader of the House? I want to deal with this matter from the point of view that I think both this Amendment and the next Amendment are due to a misreading of Clauses 1 and 2. I do not know what would be the most convenient moment to discuss that.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I was hoping that, in the light of the general explanation I had given, by noble friend would withdraw this Amendment and we should then get on to the next, which raises different and much wider issues which are more germane to the type of subjects which the noble Lord wants to discuss.
LORD ELTON: In those circumstances, I will certainly withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.9 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: I am not going to make another speech on this Amendment because I have said what I wanted to say on the Amendment set down by the noble Lord, Lord Elton; but the noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the House has borne out exactly what I said: the difficulty of finding appropriate words, by way of an Amendment, to meet the point that we want to put before the Committee. But if we can discuss Amendment No. 6 on the basis that it is an attempt to eliminate the optional test and to make it compulsory, then the exact way in which we do it, whether by way of a new clause making it an offence not to submit to a test, or whether it can best be done by amendment of Clause 2, is, I think, irrelevant in this House. I think the material thing, is to discuss the principle. I should like to reserve any further comments until I have heard what other noble Lords have to say. In the meantime. I beg to move Amendment No. 6, and with it goes Amendment No. 10.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 16, leave out ("with his consent").—(Lord Silkin.)
LORD DERWENT: May I speak now? I think it is a suitable moment. It seems to me that the method in which the Government have so far indicated they wish to handle this matter is the best one. Clauses 1 and 2 deal with an offence which is that of being unable to drive properly due to drink or drugs. The Amendments seeking to make testing compulsory seem to me to be dealing with an entirely different offence which does not appear in the Bill at the present time. These tests are for the purpose of producing corroborative evidence of some quite different offence. The offence is not that of having a certain
986
alcoholic content in the blood or in the urine, but is as stated in Clause 1. I do not think these tests can be made compulsory, without creating an entirely new offence.
It seems to me that the way the Government are handling the matter is perfectly simple and adequate. First of all, before anyone is tested there must be a prima facie case that the person concerned is incapable of driving and that his driving is impaired. Then, when they want to, the police say: "We wish to have corroborative evidence in the form of tests", and the Bill says that the result may be produced as corroborative evidence. Clause 2 then goes on to say that when a person refuses to have those tests taken, that fact can be stated in court. Indeed it can. It is proper evidence, so far as I can see; indeed, I think that happens now, without this clause. I believe that to tinker about with this clause, on the basis of making these tests compulsory, is, as I say, to do something which the Government have shown no intention of doing; that is, to create a new offence, that of having a certain alcoholic content in the blood or urine. I do not believe that the noble Lords who were trying to make these tests compulsory meant that to be a separate offence.
LORD TAYLOR: As I understand it, there is a rather odd situation here. Apparently one does not have to give consent to have a specimen of urine taken. One does not have to give consent to provide a specimen of expired air for the breathalyser, although one would have to participate in such a test, and would, therefore, de facto, give consent. It is only in the case of blood, apparently, that one has to give consent. I find this a little confusing. I hope that I have read the clause aright, and have correctly understood what the Leader of the House has said. If a person refuses to operate the breathalyser, is that to be cited as evidence in court: that he refused to participate in that test?
LORD CONESFORD: Might I inter-rupt the noble Lord for a moment? I think the noble Lord has it slightly wrong. What I think my noble friend on the Front Bench was saying was that the effect of the deletion of the words "with his consent", where it is proposed

987
to delete those words, only concerned blood. If the noble Lord will look at the clause, he will see that it says:
"a specimen of blood taken from him with his consent, or of water or breath provided by him …"
Then it goes on:
"and if it is proved that the accused, when so requested at any such time, refused to consent to the taking of or to provide a specimen for analysis or measurement"—
—that refers not only to blood but to other things as well.
Lord TAYLOR: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, for his explanation. I am still a little confused as to why a man's consent is required for the taking of blood specifically, as opposed to air.
4.15 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I do not want to take too much time in these debates except to answer them, but I am wondering whether it would help the Committee if I tried to explain a little about what is the policy underlying this section, and then discussed the Amendment in relation to it. I do it only if it be of advantage to the Committee, but I think it would make things a little clearer than they are for this purpose. When dealing with the question of drink and driving we start with a number of options, if we are going to legislate. The present law says that if a man cannot drive properly—speaking in simple language—he is guilty of an offence. It does not lay down any definite level of alcohol in the blood, as being, of itself, an offence. There are a number of countries which do that, but that is a quite different option. There are, of course, a number of Amendments down, at least two that I can think of, which would have the effect, later on, of inserting such an offence in this Bill, or, alternatively, of making a certain level of alcohol presumptive evidence of the commission of this offence. That we can discuss when we come to it, When we look at this, we shall see that there are certain disadvantages in so doing; but that is one option. This section, however, keeps the present law, with the intention of clarifying it in various ways. But the basic conception is that if a man takes enough drink to impair his ability to drive properly, he is committing an
988
offence and will lose his licence; and other consequences follow.
Then comes the question of these tests. These tests are nothing like so accurate as my noble friend suggested. If he looks at Appendix A of the Drew Report, he will see that there is tremendous variation in the results, and even they have only 95 per cent, certainty. But leaving that difficulty aside (because we do think that the tests are valuable), the question is for what purpose we want to use them. The tests will not, in themselves, tell a man whether he is able to drive a car, for there are various personal idiosyncracies which come into play. I could quote the Drew Report in many ways. For example, there are different kinds of temperament, different kinds of body weight; different kinds of body health; the amount of food consumed; and personal experience of drinking may affect the individual subject a great deal. They are not, therefore, in themselves, tests of whether or not the man can drive a motor car. In practice, suspects in this country are not taken in at random, as in some countries where the level of alcohol is the test, and where people are stopped in the street and compulsorily made to blow into a tube, or are taken to a police station to provide a sample of some kind. Here, suspects are taken in because their behaviour, in one way or another, has given rise to the suspicion of clinical symptoms of drunkenness which are then corroborated, or otherwise, by the use of the test.
The value of these tests, as I see it, is primarily to find out the answer to the crucial question in every case of this kind: how much the man has had to drink. It will not show whether he is drunk; but if he says that he has had one small whisky and soda only in the last 24 hours, and the test shows 150 milligrams per 100 millilitres, then one can say he is "telling a whopper"!
THE EARL OF ARRAN: With all respect to the noble Viscount, I do not think one can say anything of the sort. The evidence seems to be that we all have a certain amount of alcohol in our systems to start off with.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Yes; some of us more than others. I can assure my noble friend that the scientists who have pursued these very long and deliberate

989
inquiries are fully alive to the various ways in which the tests can be inaccurate, and they have made allowance for that. I am only saying that if you do take one of these tests, after a man has given a totally inadequate account of the amount of alcohol he has had, you can check the truth, or otherwise, of what he is saying if he shows himself to have had a few more than he claims. Indeed, if you apply the tests properly on the "fail safe" method, you can say he has had at least x double whiskies and sodas, or their equivalent. This very often will determine the result of the case one way or the other.
In passing, I may say that they can also determine the result of the case in favour of the accused. I think it is a great pity that one should assume that these tests are entirely for the purpose of convicting people. They are for the purpose of ascertaining the facts about people who are suspected. Let me say to all concerned that there is no clinical symptom of alcohol which cannot be reproduced by some other condition of the body. The result is that if you take in these suspects who have shown clinical symptoms of alcohol, aberrations of behaviour, or aberrations of driving, and test them to see whether they have any alcohol in their blood, if he is a man who is like my noble friend—
THE EARL OF ARRAN: That is, 55 milligrams, not having consumed any alcohol at all.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I suspect that my noble friend must have had his skin sterilised with pure surgical spirit before taking the test. But the point is that if you have none in your blood, it helps you, not hinders you.
LORD SWAYTHLING: Might I ask whether, if these tests are taken, they will be produced in evidence, whether they support the prosecution or not? It should be compulsory, if the test is in favour of the accused, to produce the result as evidence.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: It is ordinarily the duty of prosecuting counsel to produce all relevant evidence before the court. It is the ethical duty of counsel to provide the court with the available material evidence, whether it helps the prosecution or whether it points in the opposite direction. That is the normal
990
course of action when prosecuting, and I think that the whole Bar would support me in this statement of legal ethics.
LORD SILKIN: Would that not stop the prosecution in proper cases?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I was going to say to the noble Lord, who has far more experience in one branch than I ever had, that normally if the test were found to be negative one would not prosecute. That is going to help the defence as much as the prosecution.
The point I must make is that these tests are not infallible. It is the case that, where suspects are asked to take a test, the doctor sterilises either the skin or the instruments with surgical spirit, and sometimes with acetone, which invalidates the whole procedure. Only a few people are sufficiently skilled to be relied upon to make a test. A blood test is at the moment likely to require a certain amount of blood from the veins. It can be painful. In my own case, as I suffered from jaundice, it is extremely painful because the veins cannot be seen and have to be probed for. Moreover, in some cases there is a danger of hæmophilia, and in some people there is religious prejudice (although the right reverend Prelate will not favour them), and the test involves a technical assault. One cannot obtain blood from anybody without doing that to his body which, done without his consent, constitutes an assault.
Of course it is possible to legalise assault. It is possible to say that, notwithstanding the refusal of the man, the police should be permitted to hold him down while he struggles and a surgeon inserts a pipette in his vein and takes a 2 c.c. sample of his blood. This will happen if you authorise it Personally I think it is going a deal too far: I think it is an undesirable thing to do. If we accept this particular Amendment, which is to omit the consent requirement in relation to blood tests, we should incite its being done without legal authority. It is also proposed that the result should be allowed to be taken in evidence after the test has been done. That, too, is most undesirable. This may be a purely drafting point, though I do not think so. But certainly in my view it is highly undesirable to allow the police, against a man's will, and therefore, presumably, against his resistance, forcibly to take samples of

991
blood from the veins of his body. I do not agree with it. If the Committee are against me here, there may be something to be said about it, but that is the matter that the Committee have to face.
There are precedents for doing this kind of thing in other countries, but there they always do it in conjunction with other procedures; and, secondly, they do it by making it an offence to refuse. They do not do what Lord Silkin's Amendment would do. They do not legalise assault, but say simply that certain consequences, other than compulsory submission to the test, will follow if you refuse. What we have sought to do in this connection is to say that it is reasonable for the police to ask you whether you will submit to such a test if they have a proper test available. The worst that can happen is that the court will learn the amount of alcohol in your blood. If you refuse, the consequence will not be punishment, but the jury or magistrate will be told that you have refused, and it may be that they will draw whatever sensible inference is to be drawn from your refusal; and unless there is some satisfactory excuse, such as a religious objection, the court may conclude that you did not want your blood to be examined because you knew full well that a damaging quantity of alcohol would be found within the blood. I think that is the right way to handle the question.
I should like to add a word about the other two tests—the urine and breath tests. The urine test is not a bad one. Your Lordships will find the details in an Appendix to the Drew Report. The results are not quite so accurate as those from the blood test, but the urine test is a fairly good one, although it suffers from certain disadvantages. In the first place, if a suspect refuses the test, he can always say that he is physically incapable of producing a sample, and in order to achieve a satisfactory degree of accuracy it is necessary and desirable to obtain two successive samples with an interval of not more than half an hour between. Thirdly, it is much more difficult and more objectionable to take it from a woman late at night, where there is not a policewoman available. So there are a number of reasons why the urine test, which is otherwise perhaps the best, has certain disadvantages attaching to it.
992
There is the breath test. There are three commercial instruments that I can think of, all with extraordinary names—the breathalyser, the drunkometer and the alcometer—all of which terms will cause my noble friend Lord Conesford's hair to turn white.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: Another one is the intoximeter.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: They are all discussed at length in the Drew Report. I should tell the Committee (because I think it may influence your Lordships' judgment), that we believe that we shall get a satisfactory instrument within a reasonable time, perhaps within eighteen months. We have asked the Medical Research Council to examine the matter as one of urgency. At the moment the instruments are not sufficiently accurate to make them entirely satisfactory for universal use. But in general—and everything one says about this is only generally, not universally, true—if these instruments are used, it will be for the purpose of establishing suspicion, and not guilt—that is to say, to establish the need for a more satisfactory test at the police station. It is not the original breath test which is used to establish guilt.
Although there is one other offence which arises on a later Amendment—namely, the desirability of creating a separate offence with a definite level of intoxication—I believe that the existing law that we have chosen is the right one; that is to say, we intend to provide these tests, and provide them on an increasing scale as they become more and more necessary, not to compel people to submit to force and accept them; not to make the refusal a criminal offence in itself; but to allow the court to draw the right inference from them, knowing that the right inference may be favourable to the accused. They will establish the truth about the condition of his body at the time of his alleged offence, which will show whether his clinical symptoms and eccentricities of conduct are due to personal idiosyncrasy or a pathological condition, or whether it is likely to be due to the presence in his blood of an undesirable quantity of alcohol. That is my general attitude. But on the particular Amendment moved by the noble Lord, I would ask him to agree, as I am

993
sure he will, that simply to remove the words "with his consent" from this clause would have the effect by implication of inciting the police to commit an assault, without legalising it.
EARL FERRERS: May I ask the noble and learned Viscount one question? He said that in other countries where the breathalyser is used it is used mostly to confirm suspicion, and a person is taken to the police station for a proper test. Does he mean that if the breathalyser is used in this country it will be used outside the police station? I understood from the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, when he replied to the Second Reading debate, that these tests would be conducted only inside the police station after the suspect is taken there.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I have been referring, I am afraid slightly inaccurately, but I think with general accuracy, to the practice in other countries. But it differs very widely. And we have to remember, to make it even more difficult, that for the purposes of this consideration every state in the United States of America—and there are 50 of them—counts as a separate country. What I said had no bearing on the practice in this country.
LORD MERRIVALE: Will the driver be given an option to chose whichever form of test he likes? For instance, he may refuse a blood test, but may accept a breath or a urine test. If he accepts a urine test and refuses a blood test, will it be considered that he has given his consent?
LORD TEYNHAM: In the use of the breathalyser, what happens to the man who cannot breathe at all?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I think it helps him, because his breath cannot be analysed for alcohol. But I would say respectfully to my noble friend that you cannot arrange in every case, late at night, or in some part of the country or some part of a town, that all three tests will be contemporaneously available. These are matters which will be given in evidence before the court. If, for instance, the blood test is tendered and the suspect says: "I am quite prepared to provide a sample of my urine", and the doctor is present in conditions which make it reasonable for that to be
994
taken as a sample and tested, obviously no jury would convict on a refusal to submit to a blood test, because there may be good reasons for the refusal. But I could not undertake on behalf of the Government, in the present state of knowledge or in the present state of available facilities, that in every case where a test of any kind was going to be tendered a test of all three kinds, with an option, must be tendered, because I think that would make the subsection unworkable.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: I am told that if we have this breathalyser it will be only a short time before some clever chemist introduces a powder which can fool the breathalyser, and which I am sure would sell like hot cakes.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I am sure that the Medical Research Council will not get a grant in that direction.
LORD HAWKE: I thank my noble Leader for a most remarkably clear exposition of this point, but I should like to ask him one question. The Bill says:
"unless reasonable cause thereof is shown."
Suppose that a man, who has perhaps read the literature that has been sent to me, has such doubt upon the accuracy of any of these tests that he says, "I refuse to submit to them," would the court consider that a reasonable cause for refusing to submit?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I am aware of the eyes of several noble and learned Lords looking at me with a basilisk stare, but I will say in their presence what I have no hesitation in saying is right: that what is reasonable is a question for the jury, where there is a jury, and not for the judge. What you have to do, if you refuse on those grounds, is to satisfy the jury, in the circumstances, or the court, if it is a court composed of magistrates, that your conduct has been reasonable. That will depend, to some extent, on the conviction you carry as a witness.
LORD SILKIN: The noble and learned Viscount has given a number of reasons why my Amendment is not acceptable, and the first puts me in great difficulty, because I had assumed, before suggesting that the test should be compulsory, that it was virtually infallible. I have

995
read the report, and my reading of it was that there was a considerable margin of error. Even a 5 per cent. margin of error would, I thought, be considerable in a case of this kind, especially if you are going to assume that the person refusing without good cause is guilty. There was also a certain amount of margin of error in the test itself which was conceded, although I was not in a position to say what it really amounted to. But I was assured by the noble Earl who replied to the debate, and my noble friend, that I need have no fear about these margins of error or about the fallibility of the test. It was on that assumption that I put down the Amendment.
If now there is a doubt as to the validity of the test, and a substantial margin of error, then I should be the first to say that it ought not to be compulsory. I would go further and say that it would be wrong to draw conclusions from the fact that a person refused to submit to the test. I think that the two go together. Can you really regard a person as guilty if he refuses to submit to a test which, on the admission of the noble and learned Viscount, is not necessarily a conclusive test? We can discuss that point later on, but it certainly weakens my case for pressing for this Amendment.
The second point the noble and learned Viscount makes is that the facilities will not even necessarily be available at all times; and especially that at those times when more people are liable to be driving under the influence of drink those facilities will not necessarily be available in a number of places. Therefore, to make the test compulsory when you are not in a position to impose it would be futile. Finally, the noble and learned Viscount tells me that my Amendment is wrongly worded, in any case; that it does not achieve what I want to achieve, and I should have to do it by providing a new clause making it an offence for a person to refuse to submit.
For all these reasons, I am not in a position to press this Amendment. But I should like to give the matter further thought, and I hope that the Government will, too: because we are really discussing a principle, and the means by which we achieve it—the exact wording and so on—are not important. It is a
996
question whether we should be right to say to people who prima facie are guilty of an offence, or are suspected of an offence, that they must accept the findings of the test. That is the issue which we have to consider. I am obliged to the noble and learned Viscount for the fair and reasonable way in which he explained the difficulties that confront me in pressing this Amendment. For those reasons, I do not propose to proceed with this, nor, of course, with the consequential Amendment No. 10. But I suggest that we might all think about this again. Certainly I will, and if necessary we can have another discussion at a later stage. There was one question I asked which has not been dealt with. We have talked all along about drink. What is the position about drugs? Is it possible to test for drugs in the body, and is it easier to do so? Do the noble and learned Viscount's remarks refer to drugs as well as to drink?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I would say, first of all, that I am sorry I did not deal with the point. I was, I am afraid, concentrating entirely on the subject of drink in what I said. But my remarks applied to drink. I cannot give an absolutely confident answer about drugs. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, would know more than I would. But, of course, drugs cover a very wide range of substances indeed, and I am sure it is easier to test for some drugs than others. I certainly should not think that the same tests which would be applicable to alcohol in the blood, urine and breath, would necessarily be valid for drugs, and I very much doubt whether their validity has been the subject of anything like extensive research.
LORD SILKIN: May I say that if the noble and learned Viscount will look at this clause, he will find that it contemplates testing the blood for drugs, and it assumes that a person who refuses unreasonably to permit the test may be regarded as guilty. It treats drugs and drink in exactly the same way.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I think I ought to find out what the true answer to this question is, but I am fairly sure that I am right in saying that there are drugs of very different kinds. Some

997
find their way into the blood, and some do not. Take, for instance, a substance like aspirin. If you take sufficient aspirin you will be guilty of this offence. If, like me, you suffer from hay fever and have too much of the anti-hystamine drugs, you will be committing this offence. It always has been so—this is no change in the law—ever since 1930. I could not say off-hand—perhaps I should have armed myself—whether there is a comprehensive test which can apply to drugs. I can only say, from some experience in the courts, that these cases are very rare in comparison with those of drink. I will cause an inquiry to be made, and try to give either the House or the noble Lord some fairly general answer about tests for drugs, because I think it is a perfectly fair point.
LORD TAYLOR: Might I intervene on two small points, first, on the question of the margin of error of these tests, to which the noble and learned Viscount has referred, and to which my noble friend, Lord Silkin, has referred with some anxiety? I think the margin of error varies with the different kinds of test. I think the blood test is, in fact, the most accurate. The degree of accuracy is about plus or minus 5 per cent., which is a good figure and certainly is enough to distinguish between one double whisky and three double whiskies absolutely conclusively. The accuracy of the urine test is second to this, and is of the order of plus or minus 10 per cent. I actually tested out the breathalyser machine on my son on the Saturday before last at the Forensic Science Society, where it was being demonstrated. I gave him the money to buy 21 pints of beer. We went there, and three hours later he registered 90 milligrams of blood alcohol per 100 millilitres. He was unfit to drive; his driving was impaired. He was full of himself, and thought he could drive extremely well. I did not let him and he admitted afterwards that he should not have been allowed to, anyway. It showed up beautifully.
I think it was Miss Long, a colleague of Professor Drew who wrote the report, who was operating this machine. I asked her: "What is the maximum error this machine has ever exhibited in your hands?", and she said, "It is very rarely we get any errors, but the maxi-
998
mum we have ever had is 30 milligrams per 100 millilitres." So if you have a reading of 80 milligrams it could, in five cases out of 100, really be 50 milligrams. That is the worst error the machine can make, and that is a very rare occurrence. It is usually within plus or minus 15 milligrams of the reading. So it is a pretty good machine. And in these very broad determinations, whether it is one double whisky or three double whiskies, it will be accurate, I think one could say virtually always, unless the machine has been improperly used, or unless, of course, as the noble and learned Viscount said, the test has been improperly taken.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: How would the noble Lord explain a blood alcohol content of 55 milligrams without any alcohol having been consumed?
LORD TAYLOR: I would say that the test has been wrongly done by an incompetent person.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: The noble Lord is referring to a biological chemist with a degree of science attached to a hospital.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD TEYNHAM: This is quite a simple Amendment. Its object is to ensure that a doctor is present when a blood test is taken. I suggest it is also necessary for a doctor to be present to decide whether a suspect at a police station is in good enough condition to give his consent for a sample of blood to be taken. The suspect might well be suffering from shock as a result of an accident. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 16, after ("consent") insert ("in the presence of a medical practitioner.")—(Lord Teynham.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: The noble Lord has made it quite clear that this Amendment applies only to blood tests, and not to urine or breath tests. It is the invariable practice of the police to make sure that the medical practitioner is always there when a blood test is taken. I am sure your Lordships will agree with me that it would be most undesirable that a blood test should be taken without a medical practitioner being present. In practically every case it is the medical practitioner who performs the

999
blood test himself and, of course, if he performs it, he will have to be present. There might be a case in which, for some special reason, some other individual would actually make the jab, but in any case it is essential, in my submission, that a medical practitioner should be there, supervising it. That being so, although I would not say that the Amendment is strictly necessary, in view of the invariable practice I see no harm in accepting it. I have also consulted a Parliamentary draftsman who thinks there is no reason why it should not be accepted in its present form, at least for the time being, and I therefore advise your Lordships to accept it.
LORD SILKIN: Before the noble Earl is so obliging, does this mean that even where there is a medical practitioner carrying out the test there would have to be another medical practitioner present?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Certainly not.
LORD SILKIN: It could mean that. The noble Earl will no doubt look at it again.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I will certainly look at it with that consideration in view. I pointed out in my remarks just now that if a medical practitioner took the test he would be bound to be present he could not perform the test in his absence; and that is one reason why one might not think the Amendment strictly necessary. But I think there is no possible objection to the inclusion of those words in the Bill. I do not think it could deceive or puzzle anybody, and I have taken advice before deciding to advise your Lordships that you can accept this Amendment. We will, of course, look at it again on Report.
LORD TEYNHAM: I am grateful to Her Majesty's Government for accepting this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.51 p.m.
LORD DERWENT LORD DERWENT moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "water" and insert "urine". The noble Lord said: In moving this Amendment I have very little to add to what I said on the Second Reading. This Bill may one
1000
day become an Act; if we are going to have Acts of Parliament, and if we know what we mean, we ought to say so. We know that here we mean urine; it has been referred to throughout. What the Bill says is water. Even in the Palace of Westminster, where odd things happen sometimes, I cannot imagine an occasion when water and urine are the same thing. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 16, leave out ("water") and insert ("urine").—(Lord Derwent.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: This phrase has come in for trouble on the Second Reading, and my noble friend has moved his Amendment. On the Second Reading he described the Bill as it stands as "how genteel can we get!", and the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, referred to it as "Grundyesque". The Parliamentary draftsman has hit back—Shakespeare: Henry IV, Part II, Act I, scene II:
"Falstaff: 'What says the doctor to my water?'"
"Page: 'He said, Sir, the water itself was a good healthy water: but for the party that ow'd it he might have more diseases than he knew for!'"
None the less I must not be pedantic. We must move with the times. We live in the age of the New English Bible, when charity is referred to as love. I therefore accept the Amendment.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: Would the noble Viscount guarantee that the word "breathalyser" will not be allowed on the Statute Book?
LORD CONESFORD: May I point out that in the passage from Shakespeare which my noble and learned friend quoted there could be no ambiguity, but, if the word stands in the present measure, it could be read as implying that a specimen of saliva could be taken. There are numerous States in the United States which do provide for taking a specimen of saliva. Therefore, there would be some cause of confusion, and, while I greatly admire the hitting back of the Parliamentary draftsman, I think the case for the Amendment is overwhelming.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD TEYNHAM LORD TEYNHAM moved, in subsection (1), after "material time" to insert:
"and in addition a clinical examination by a medical practitioner".

1001
The noble Lord said: It is, of course, right that there should be some check on the truthfulness of the defendant's account of what he has drunk. On the other hand, I suggest that it must be realised that there is no absolute scientific test to determine drunkenness. The whole clinical picture of the defendant must be taken into account. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, has given some details of tests by breathalyser, and I gather that the error may be as high as 30 milligrams either way. It must be remembered, however, that with the same levels of alcohol in the blood one man is drunk and another sober. We should also recognise that intoxication cannot with certainty be tested from the level of alcohol in the blood unless it is so high that clinical drunkenness would be obvious.
Another difficulty I find is what is meant by the words "material time", owing to the differing rates of ingestion of alcohol in different people. If the specimen is taken at the police station some time after arrest, the alcohol might not have got into the bloodstream to any appreciable extent so as to affect driving at the time of the arrest. I maintain that it is very important that the whole clinical picture of the defendant should be taken into account by the doctor. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 17, after ("time") insert the said words.—(Lord Teynham.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: This Amendment would make it necessary that before evidence could be produced in regard to urine and breath tests it should also be supported by the evidence of a clinical examination by a medical practitioner. I am afraid that the Government cannot accept this proposal. I should like to read to your Lordships two short sentences from the British Medical Association's conclusions about this matter. One of those sentences gives reasons for having a medical practitioner to make a clinical examination and the other a reason against it. Paragraph 5 of the conclusions says:
"Clinical examination in the absence of biochemical tests is neither sufficiently sensitive nor reliable enough to detect deterioration in driving performance to a degree specified in the Bill."
The clinical examination would not in itself add anything to the value of the
1002
evidence supplied from the tests. There is one respect, however, in which clinical examination might be of value, which is mentioned in the B.M.A.'s next paragraph. They say:
"Clinical examination is an essential part of the examination of persons suspected of driving vehicles under the influence of alcohol since it is the only way of detecting physical illness and the presence and extent of any injury."
That is to say, it is not necessary to establish the evidential value of blood or urine tests at all. It may be necessary if the accused person wishes to represent that his fault in driving is due to some illness or injury and is not at all, or not mainly, due to the fact of his having had anything to drink.
As the law stands, it is open to the accused to ask for examination by a doctor selected by himself if he is able to obtain the services of one. That doctor would, of course, be free to make such clinical or chemical examinations as he saw fit, and the accused would be able to set the evidence resulting from such examination against the evidence submitted by the police. This Bill will make no change in that respect. Any person who thinks there is any reason to plead illness or some other cause will be entitled to have, at the earliest possible moment, a clinical examination by any doctor. But to make it a condition of the validity of the evidence of tests in the event of a prosecution that there should also be in all cases a clinical examination by a doctor, would, in my submission to your Lordships, be unnecessary; and it would also create delays which would make it very difficult to apply the law at all. It might be that the doctor could not be obtained for a very long time, and that by the time he got there the tests would no longer he as valuable as they would have been if they had been taken earlier.
Therefore, while assuring your Lordships that there will be no derogation of a man's right to have a clinical examination for the purpose of establishing that whatever he may have done might have been due to some other cause such as illness, it would not, I think, aid justice to accept the Amendment which my noble friend has moved.
LORD TEYNHAM: In view of the fact that, as I understand from the noble Earl, the accused will still have the right

1003
to ask for a clinical examination if he so wishes, I do not propose to press this Amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD TEYNHAM: As the clause is drawn, I think it in no way restricts the circumstances in which a driver may be asked to consent to be tested. I suggest that it is desirable to provide that such a request should be made only at a police station and when there are reasonable grounds for thinking that a driver will be prosecuted. I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 18. after ("requested") insert ("by an authorised officer of police at a police station in connection with an intended charge under section six of the principal Act").(Lord Teynham.)
LORD SOM̃ERS: I should like to support this Amendment. Although I think it highly unlikely that any motorist would be requested by anybody other than a police officer to undergo one of these tests, that is not stated in the Bill; and I think it should be. As the Bill stands, I am perfectly in a position when the House rises, to insist that the noble Viscount the Leader of the House shall come and have a blood test before he drives off.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I am not going to drive off.
LORD SOM̃ERS: I think that that would not be a suitable position for anybody to be in, and I think that the Bill should make that plain.
5.2 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM): I have been interested to hear what is behind these two Amendments. I think it might be convenient to take them together, because the answer is the same. I would say that these Amendments are not really necessary. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Airedale raised this question on Second Reading and mentioned a hypothetical set of circumstances rather similar to those just mentioned by my noble friend Lord Somers, the implication being that if you are asked by some private individual in that
1004
extreme circumstance in the street, and you refuse, you may then have something of a job to defend yourself although you are perhaps perfectly sober and innocent. But it would be clearly a perfectly reasonable matter of defence, if my noble friend Lord Hailsham were so accosted by my noble friend Lord Som̃ers on leaving the House, to decline to do so except at a police station, because undoubtedly my noble friend would not be equipped with a breathalyser, even if he knew how to work one, and he would not have the suitable equipment with him to take other tests. Therefore, if there were any reason for my noble Leader to be attacked in this way, he could quite justifiably refuse to provide a specimen for a test, unless it was taken at a police station, which is exactly what both my noble friends want.
So far as a police officer is concerned, he will not ask for a test in the street; he will automatically do so at a police station. He may ask, request or require somebody to accompany him to a police station; but that is a different matter. The request will be made at the station, simply because the equipment is there. We have already had it brought out this afternoon that that is where the tests will take place, so that part of the Amendment is also unnecessary. In the case of Amendment No. 11, the police can demand that a specimen be provided for test only in connection with a possible charge under Section 6 of the principal Act. They have no other ground for doing so. Therefore, I think that these Amendments are superfluous.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: I do not know whether the proposers of these Amendments intend to withdraw them, but I personally am not very convinced by the noble Lord's argument. I was always brought up to think that the law should be as unambiguous as it can be, and that the last thing it should do, it it is possible to do otherwise, is to put the ordinary citizen in a position where he might be embarrassed in any way. I cannot see any harm in putting in here the words "by a police officer", or the other Amendment, because they represent what is intended.
LORD TEYNHAM: I should like to ask the Minister who is to reply for Her Majesty's Government, whether there is

1005
any reason why these words should not be written into the Bill. They will not harm the Bill in any way.
LORD CHESHAM: The way I feel is this. If my explanation has not found a great deal of favour, I have no strong feelings in the matter. I merely tried to show that, as I thought, both Amendments were unnecessary. But if your Lordships feel that it would be better to have something like this in the Bill I shall be quite prepared, if my noble friends can see their way to withdrawing Amendments now, to look at the matter again with a view to inserting an Amendment on Report stage. 'The reason for that is, that both Amendments, as drafted, leave something to be desired, principally in order not to make the thing too rigid. It might be quite reasonable and justifiable for the request to come from a doctor called in by the police and the police might then forget to repeat the request, as required for the sake of formality, in those circumstances the whole case might fall down, which I think would be ridiculous. In the case of a woman, the request might be made by a police matron who is not, by strict definition, a police officer. That would be done to save embarrassment. The request might even be made at a hospital. For these reasons, I should prefer not to accept the actual drafting of either Amendment, but to look at the clause again and try on Report to improve it in the way that noble Lords wish.
LORD TEYNHAM: I am grateful to my noble friend for his remarks. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.8 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM LORD TEYNHAM moved, in subsection (1) to leave out all words from and "treated as" and to substitute "given in evidence on behalf of the prosecution". The noble Lord said: As the clause is drafted at present, the refusal to provide a specimen can be presented as supporting evidence given by the prosecution or rebutting any evidence given by the defence unless reasonable cause is shown for such refusal. At the present time no one can be required to incriminate himself; no one is obliged to make a statement to the police about an alleged offence or to allow a urine test. But the intention of
1006
this clause appears to be that in future refusal to submit to a blood or a urine test is to be taken as presumptive of the defendant's guilt.
I have already endeavoured to point out that a full clinical picture is necessary for a real indication of a defendant's condition. But if, for some reason, he exercises his undoubted right to refuse to be medically examined, and thereby perhaps fails to disclose something that might be found in his favour, the court may inadvertently be given a misleading impression, if it is to act on the evidence of analysis, possibly coupled with evidence of driving. It is true that the police frequently take fingerprints, and they also take the clothes in the possession of a defendant for the purpose of scientific analysis in the course of investigating a criminal charge. But this clause as drawn appears to make the taking of a sample virtually obligatory, and I suggest that the acceptance of this Amendment would go a long way to meet this objection. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 21, leave out from ("be") to end of line 24 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Teynham.)
5.10 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: With respect, I do not think my noble friend is right, either in his criticism of the draft or in his defence of his own substitute for the draft. I believe his own substitute does the same thing as the draft but without doing it so clearly. What is the purpose? He is going to put in that the refusal can be given in evidence on behalf of the prosecution. What is the purpose of giving evidence for the prosecution except for establishing the guilt of an accused or rebutting the defence he has put up?
All we have done is to try to do in the clause, with an unambiguity which was pressed upon us, exactly what the noble Lord would do with a certain degree of reticence—which I cannot think would be an advantage. But this is not just a drafting point. We mean to do exactly what we have said. I will admit it is true that it is a fundamental rule of criminal procedure in our country that people are not bound to give evidence against themselves, except in certain circumstances which are fairly rare.

1007
But this is not a question of compelling them. Indeed, earlier this afternoon I was arguing the reasons, which may or may not have been convincing, as to why I thought the objections to compelling them to submit to the test possibly were greater than the advantages. But one must at least allow a jury to know that a test has been offered and refused, if one is to allow a jury, or, indeed, a magistrates' court to know the truth. One's duty, after all, is to put before them such facts as are logically capable of giving rise to an inference, and all the facts of that kind in one's possession, and ask them to draw such inference as they think proper.
Artificially to prevent a court from drawing the inference which otherwise would be proper is to make a game of what ought to be an attempt to find out the truth, and I would respectfully say that the draft is all right as it stands. It is a reasonable compromise between severity, which would involve the compulsory test of the kind I have resisted, and laxness, which would allow anybody to refuse a test without that fact being immediately in evidence in the trial. I believe we have hit it off about right, and I would ask my noble friend, on reflection, not to press his Amendment.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: I am not convinced by the argument of the noble and learned Viscount. It may be that the Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, has moved is not quite expressed in the way it ought to be, and may require re-drafting, but the effect of it, and its intention as I understand it, is simply to allow the fact of the man having been asked for a test, and his refusal to undergo it, to be given in evidence. Surely that is sufficient. It is conceivable that in certain circumstances an inference in favour of an accused might be drawn, but as the provision is drafted at the moment it appears that an inference of that kind is automatically precluded. I think it would be sufficient for the purpose which the Government have in mind if the clause were to say simply that the fact that a test has been asked for and has been refused shall be given in evidence, and it will then be for the court or a jury to draw what deduction they please from it; but it ought not to be pre-judged.
LORD AIREDALE: I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, on this Amendment. I would ask the noble and learned Viscount whether it is the function of Parliament to tell courts how they shall treat evidence—because that is what the clause says:
"refusal … may … be treated as supporting any evidence"
and it goes on to say how that shall be taken. Surely it is the function of Parliament in certain proper cases to say that certain evidence may be given before the court, but it is the province of the court to say how that evidence is to be treated. If the court of first instance falls into an error and treats evidence in the wrong manner, that should be corrected not by Parliament but by the appropriate Division of the High Court—either the Divisional Court, in the case of magistrates, or the Court of Criminal Appeal in the case of quarter sessions. Surely the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, is perfectly right about this. Parliament should restrict its decision in a case like this to saying that such a matter shall or may be given in evidence; and how that evidence is to be treated should be entirely a matter for the court of first instance and, if necessary, for the appropriate appellate court.
LORD HAWKE: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, for making my speech for me.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I am afraid I cannot altogether accept this reading of the case. My noble friend has proposed an Amendment which provides that for the formula contained after the word "be" in line 21, we should insert the words:
"given in evidence on behalf of the prosecution."
As far as I can judge, it is true that that is tantamount to inviting the court to draw from that an inference hostile to the accused, because that is the purpose of giving evidence on behalf of the prosecution. It is not correct to say that the Court of Appeal can necessarily rebut such evidence. If it was a jury trial, the Court of Criminal Appeal would never be able to consider that, because they would not know what went on inside the jury-room; and in a magistrates' court case, the Divisional Court could not consider it, on any procedure known to me, because that court

1009
does not exercise that type of supervision over the magistrates' court. Therefore, we can only leave the matter somewhat at large, but with a clear indication of what the Government wish to do, as they have spelled out here.
But there is, on reflection, one added disadvantage in what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, because I believe he has not read the formula in relation to the earlier part of the sentence. The point of putting in the formula as inserted in the draft is surely that we are providing (and it may be that we are doing it in a positive rather than a negative way) that the evidence of refusal can be treated in that way only if no reasonable cause for the refusal is shown. In other words, this is a provision for the protection of the accused, limiting the extent to which a hostile inference can be drawn, and is not a provision to his disadvantage.
The only effect of omitting the formula which is a means of limiting the extent to which a hostile inference can be drawn—since it arises only because a reasonable explanation is not given—is to say it can be given in evidence on behalf of the prosecution and then failing to say why. As a matter of fact, I have absolutely no doubt in my own mind, although I know other lawyers doubt, that in this particular clause, whichever of the two formula' we take is simply a repetition of the existing law. That is to say, it corresponds to what is done in every court of the land where the law is properly applied; and the purpose, of putting it in is simply to prevent misapprehension where misapprehension might exist. I was told before this Bill came before Parliament that that was certainly the law in Scotland. I believe it is the law of England. The purpose of the clause is to clarify it, so that there shall be no doubt about it.
LORD TEYNHAM: I am not very happy about that explanation of the noble and learned Viscount. I wonder whether he would consider looking at this matter again before the Report stage.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Yes, most certainly. Since the point has been raised, I will report back to my right honourable friend what has been said here. I am very conscious that the
1010
draftsmanship of this part of the clause is not absolute perfection. The only trouble is, I cannot for the moment see how it can be improved; but I will certainly do what my noble friend asks.
LORD TEYNHAM: I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount, and on that understanding I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.20 p.m.
LORD ELTON LORD ELTON moved, after subsection (1) to insert:
"Where evidence is provided that the blood-alcohol content exceeds 150 mg/100 ml. it shall be regarded as prima facie evidence that he was guilty of the said offence. If evidence is provided showing the blood-alcohol content to be less than 150 mg/100 ml., supporting clinical evidence shall be necessary to prove impairment of ability to drive properly"
The noble Lord said: I think. I shall have to withdraw this Amendment, which is really connected with the earlier Amendments already withdrawn, and is no doubt wrongly worded. Before withdrawing it, however, I should like to know whether this is the Amendment, or one of the Amendments, to which the noble Viscount referred when he spoke of the later Amendments that would create a new offence. That was not my understanding of these words. I thought the point was that a man was accused of the said offence—driving a car in an improper manner on the road—and if he had more than a certain blood alcohol content this particular content (and I am more familiar with it in the percentage form than in milligrams) is intended to be the level of which the B.M.A. Committee said:
"We cannot conceive of any circumstances in which it could be considered safe for any person to drive a motor vehicle on the public roads with this amount of alcohol in the blood."
That would mean that this amount would be accepted as prima facie evidence of his guilt of another offence—not of the offence of having consumed too much alcohol but of having driven dangerously on the road. No doubt there would be many people with smaller blood alcohol contents whose driving was impaired Some of us may remember from our undergraduate day, some undergraduates (possibly ourselves among them, for a time) who could be considerably intoxicated when a champagne cork went off in the next room. So if we had

1011
anything of this sort we should be leaving out of the net, so to speak, a very large number of people who were, in fact, dangerously impaired; but we should have the level at which, according to the B.M.A. Committee, nobody would be safe.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Before my noble friend makes up his mind on the question, may I say that there is no reason why he should treat this Amendment as consequential upon his other Amendments, unless he wants to do so. They are not logically or necessarily connected. I am not inciting him to move an Amendment, but I do not want him to feel that he must withdraw it.
LORD ELTON: I should like to hear the noble Viscount's views and I beg to move the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 24, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Elton.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I was going to say that it might be convenient to deal with this Amendment and the next one together. Although they raise slightly different points, I think they could conveniently be dealt with together. They have different bearings on the same theme.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: Your Lordships will have seen the next Amendment, which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Silkin and myself. Lord Silkin, I should say, has had to leave for another engagement. It will be seen that the Amendment is drafted differently, but it is aimed at ventilating the same principle, which is that the criteria of impairment of ability to drive should be the alcohol content of the blood as measured by these tests. The noble Viscount said that this is, of course, an alternative method. It is a method which is, I believe, adopted in some countries. It is founded on the phrase in the B.M.A. report quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Elton: that persons with more than a certain quantity of alcohol cannot be deemed able to drive properly. My noble friend and I have no strong feeling on this Amendment, but we think it is a matter that should be ventilated, admittedly fixing the level of alcohol.
Your Lordships will notice that we do not in, this Amendment suggest any
1012
particular figure to be written into the Bill. We think it more appropriate that it should be laid down from time to time by the Minister, as medical knowledge indicates. We think that this is worth consideration as a method of judging. It would have its disadvantages as much as its advantages. By any method, no doubt, some dangerous drivers would escape unconvicted. Nevertheless, we think that this should be considered and we should like to hear the view of Her Majesty's Government on this method.
LORD DERWENT: I hope that Her Majesty's Government will make no regulations as to the amount of alcohol at all. I believe that those who are putting down these Amendments are moving Amendments which will have exactly the opposite effect to what they desire. I would refer the Committee to a most interesting series of experiments carried out by Mr. Newman, in Chicago. They are particularly interesting because at certain stages and in certain circumstances, so far as I know, they are the only tests which combine clinical tests with road tests afterwards. In these tests, a certain number (I will go into the details in a minute) of people had gradually increased amounts of alcohol put into them and were tested for driving afterwards. A part of Chicago was cleared from all other traffic, and to make up for the lack of traffic they put narrow bollards and such things, which were rather difficult to see, at key points, and so on. He started off with 141 people being tested and his final tests were done with eight people. Those eight he got up to 150 milligrams; and, rather to his surprise, seven out of eight passed the tests with flying colours. The eighth failed. What Mr. Newman found during the test was that at a much earlier stage, particularly with the very young, an almost insignificant amount of drink made them incapable of driving properly. If we put a figure into the Bill, or lay one down by regulation, we should, I think (as they have found in certain States of America), require to have such a high figure, in order to be fair, that the person who reaches it is virtually paralytic and we shall only confirm what we can see with our own eyes.
I believe that this question of using these tests of the amount of alcohol content is a matter to be argued by doctors in evidence in the court. I believe that

1013
that is the proper way of handling it. I feel certain that, on balance, it would be far wiser if Her Majesty's Government did what they are doing at present, and did not issue such regulations and did not put figures of alcohol content Lao the Bill.
LORD TAYLOR: I hope that Her Majesty's Government will not accept the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, because that, in particular, would defeat the object of the Bill. For a person to have a blood alcohol of 150 milligrams per 100 millilitres will mean that he is manifestly intoxicated. Those are just the people for whom there is not much problem either way. In such cases these tests are not very necessary. It is the cases of minor impairment, those that are not obvious on clinical examination, where the blood test is so important. Therefore, I think that this Amendment would defeat the whole object of assessing minor degrees of impairment, which could be ascertained only by estimations of blood alcohol, which would usually be between 80 and 150 milligrams per 100 millilitres. So I think that his Amendment really is not a practicable one.
With regard to the question of regulations, I believe that we shall one day come to the laying down of regulations, when we have had a good deal of experience of the working of this Bill and it is possible to give practical guidance on the basis of such experience. I have no doubt that the Minister will issue some kind of guidance, or will have to issue something equivalent to the Drew Report, but in non-scientific language—because the Drew Report does give, in scientific language, this sort of guidance. I should hope that my noble friend's Amendment might be accepted, not with a view to putting it into operation immediately, but with a view to putting it into operation in due course, when experience has justified it. I think that courts may have a little difficulty at the start in knowing what levels they are to regard as indicating impairment, and that they will require some guidance as to the existing scientific findings.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: I also should like to urge Her Majesty's Government not to accept either of these Amend-
1014
ments, and I do so primarily on two grounds. The first ground is that, as I think was indicated by the noble Lord who has just spoken, there is a very great peril that, if a law is passed which indicates that a person is committing art offence if he has more than 150 milligrams of alcohol in his bloodstream, the courts, when they come to consider whether or not a person was driving under the influence of drink (as we used to say), will have to assume that if he had only 140 milligrams in his bloodstream then he was not drunk. There is that practical peril of fixing a hard and fast limit: that what is made a maximum automatically becomes a minimum, and vice versa. I would therefore urge, as we are all anxious to prevent the drunken driver from being on the road, that we do not encourage a person to feel that he is able to drive if he has not more than a certain amount of alcohol in his bloodstream.
The second ground upon which I urge that these Amendments should not be accepted is that, from all the evidence which has been collected, the method of testing is at present so much in its infancy that it is very uncertain and liable to a very wide margin of error. Particularly is it uncertain, not only as regards the efficiency of the machinery but also as regards the effect of alcohol upon the individual. The effect which alcohol has upon an individual varies, not only as between individuals themselves but as between the times and the circumstances in which the alcohol is taken; and it varies particularly according to what happened to the individual between the time he took the alcohol and the time when he was tested. All these things may well be resolved by the professions, particularly the medical profession, in the course of time, but they are by no means resolved as yet. And I cannot but feel that it would create consternation and confusion, and also a tremendous amount of between the motoring public and the Government, if they sought to impose a law which subjected the motoring public to the necessity for examination in such uncertain circumstances. I therefore hope that the Government will not accept these Amendments.
LORD WALSTON: I should like to oppose both these Amendments on the grounds raised by the noble Lord who

1015
has just spoken, and also on a further ground. We have heard a lot, quite rightly, about the Drew Report, but what people have not mentioned—no noble Lord who has spoken yet has made this point—is that the Drew Report, naturally, as any scientific report must be, is based upon average results. It is true that the average results shown here make it quite clear that, after the ingestion of a given amount of alcohol, on average a person is impaired in such a way that the chances are that he is not so good at driving. But the average reached obviously means that some people react more and others react less to that particular stimulus or that particular ingestion. The Drew Report makes that perfectly clear. On page 52 it is stated that in one particular case 10 subjects out of the 40 tested made less tracking error with alcohol than they did without. Then a little later on it is said that five subjects "improved" after alcohol.
I do not want to lay too much stress on that, but it is clear that the individual reaction to alcohol does vary enormously. For that reason, any of these tests which are designed to show how much alcohol has been taken are valuable, and are extremely valuable, as contributory evidence of the ability of a driver to drive his car properly; but, no matter what advance medical science or scientific research can make, until we produce a race of human beings where every single person reacts in exactly the same way to a given stimulus, we can never arrive at a stage where we can lay down a line and say that above that line a man is drunk, and below it sober. So I hope that the Government will make it quite plain in this Bill that alcohol tests of any kind that are introduced are merely another piece of evidence to be taken into account by the jury or by the magistrates, and are not in themselves infallible, black or white, "yes" or "no".
LORD HAWKE: I think that the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, abundantly shows up the imperfection of these tests. The scientific literature at my disposal—and I have no doubt there is more in the possession of the noble Lord, Lord Elton—leads me to believe that 150 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood means that the subject has had about eight glasses of light
1016
wine or four double whiskies. Now, though I would trust myself to the driving of many of my noble friends after they had had a consumption of that nature, there are remarkably few women to whose driving I would trust myself after the consumption of even one-third of that level. That, to my mind, shows that this attempt to provide any specific figure is a very foolish one, and is likely to stultify itself in the long run.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: We did, of course, consider very carefully at the time we were drafting the Bill, whether to make, in either of its forms, a certain level of alcohol, in effect, a penal offence. You can, of course, do it by making it a separate offence, or you can do it by making it a presumption of impairment for the purposes of the existing offence. The latter of the two Amendments—that is to say, that of the noble Earl—in effect makes it a separate offence; because, although it takes the form of saying that it "shall be deemed proof of impairment", this does not, as does the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Elton, leave it open to the defence, so far as I can see it, to rebut the presumption. It really makes it a separate offence, however one drafts it.
Now we considered both these possibilities very carefully, but, rather for the reasons which have been given in debate, we decided against it—and, personally, I think that the objections to it are insuperable. The first fact one starts from is this. I do not think it is entirely fair to these tests to refer to their margin of error in this connection. This could be overcome, of course, by the "fail safe" method, by taking the maximum margin of error permissible in favour of the defendent and so weighting the testimony. Therefore, although this is an objection, it is not, I think, a conclusive objection. But the inherent objection remains. The truth is that different people tolerate alcohol to different extents. Hardened drinkers usually tolerate it better than people who are unaccustomed to drink. It is not, I must say to my noble friend, conclusively established that women tolerate it worse than men.
LORD HAWKE: Perhaps I should explain myself. I am thankful to say that, on the whole, women drink much less than men, and therefore are not so accustomed to it. That was my point.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: That may be true on the whole, but some people have thought that in this matter there are sex differences. Others have established, by other experiments, that there are not. However that may be, people have established a certain relationship between temperament and tolerance of alcohol; and really the margin is very wide.
Assuming that to be the truth (and if if is true, it will remain true, however often we experiment with it, and however much we may learn about it) any legislator is faced with this dilemma. We cart take a level of alcohol at the lower level—that is to say, at which a sizeable number of people will be impaired and a sizeable number of people will not—and we can say, as they do in a number of countries, that this establishes the offence, because it is for the protection of the public not to take the risk of people drinking too much. That is a perfectly fair option. But we think, on the whole, that this would not have a satisfactory result.
My noble friend Lord Brentford said that it would lead to bad relations; that it would mean the loss of the co-operation of a great number of the public, who would rightly say that, if we impose this law, a great number of innocent people—that is to say, people not impaired—will, in fact, be convicted. We think, that, on the whole, the loss of the confidence of the public in this law would be worse than any marginal advantage that might be gained by imposing it. The present law allows a court to take into account all the circumstances of the case; and if these circumstances, including the test, prove conclusively that a driver has drunk more than he should, then he is to be convicted. An arbitrary level excludes every factor except one—namely, the alcohol level in the blood—and owing to reasonable idiosyncrasy it would convict a certain number of innocent people.
May I say frankly to the House—although it is a matter of judgment, about which anyone may be wrong—that my conviction is this? By creating this offence we should lose what is one of the best features of the present situation. By and large, people—not merely the courts: I will not say the courts do not matter, because they do; but what matters far more than the courts is what
1018
people, the ordinary public, think of this offence—regard this as a serious offence. They realise that it is something for which they not only can be, but in certain circumstances ought to be, sent to prison. They treat it as something which imposes on one who is convicted of the offence a moral slur; and in consequence, they do a great deal, I think, to avoid committing this offence. If we were to impose a separate offence making the lower level the test of guilt, it would mean losing the sense of moral condemnation with which the public views this offence; and I think that in the end that would be an overwhelming disadvantage.
May I deal with the other half of the dilemma?—that is, if you take one option, the lower option of the two, either the average or the bottom possible level of impairment. If you take the other level, which my noble friend Lord Elton has chosen to do in his presumptive offence, you get a level at which, as he nightly says, the British Medical Association say they could not conceive of any circumstances in which it would be safe for a person to drive a motor vehicle on a public road. In that respect, they again differed from my noble friend Lord Hawke, who said that he had friends he would gladly commit himself to if they drove in that condition. But the British Medical Association say, rightly or wrongly, that this higher level was one at which they could not conceive of any circumstances in which it was right to drive. That means, in effect, as the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, rightly pointed out, that a great number of guilty people who commit the offence would not match up to that level.
It is all very well to say, and I know it is perfectly legitimate to say, in the calm atmosphere of this House, that what my noble friend proposes is that there should be presumptive guilt; that it would not prevent prosecution from being brought at levels below that. That is perfectly true. It is a legitimate point, and it is a question of judgment, if you accept it. But what we thought, after discussing this matter, was chat in actual practice in the courts it would come to be treated as a threshold, and not as a guide—a ceiling—beyond which conviction was certain. People would say, "I was not up to 150 milligrams per

1019
100 millilitres", and, on that ground, would be acquitted. We thought that that would hamper the object we all have in mind, not help it. We cannot demonstrate that that is the case. My noble friend may be right and the Government may be wrong. It is the sort of argument one can go on having for a very long time without achieving palpable certainty. I can only tell the Committee what our judgment of it was, and we still think that. Therefore I ask the noble Earl not to press his Amendment, because we think, although we appreciate the purposes behind it—and we have thought about it very carefully—that on the whole we would rather not do this.
LORD ELTON: I think that technically we are discussing my Amendment. I have not been particularly convinced by the arguments of noble Lords other than that of the noble Viscount who has just spoken. It seemed to me that the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, was really arguing against tests at all at any time. Other noble Lords appeared to be saying that what was wrong with my Amendment, which I am going to withdraw in a moment, was that it would be dangerous to impose this level because there would be all sorts of levels lower than that at which drivers would be impaired, and it would be unreasonable and unfair that that should be so. But, of course, the purpose of the Amendment is to distinguish between those two categories. As the noble Viscount made clear, the level laid down in the Amendment is the level at which the B.M.A. Committee say that nobody could possibly be safe on the roads. Therefore, the Amendment would bring about the case that that state of alcohol in the blood would be regarded as prima facie evidence that an accused was guilty; whereas if one of my noble friend Lord Hawke's lady friends, or any of the other persons, was impaired at an earlier stage, there is no prima facie evidence, it is merely supporting evidence, and there has to be a clinical examination made as well. However, I see the force of the noble Viscount's argument. I think he treated my Amendment seriously and fairly, and in view of what he has said, I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.49 p.m.
THE EARL OF LUCAN THE EARL OF LUCAN moved, after subsection (3) to insert:
("() The Minister may by regulation prescribe proportions of alcohol in the blood, breath or urine, which, if exceeded, shall be deemed proof of impairment of the ability to drive.")
The noble Earl said: We had a full and interesting discussion on Lord Elton's Amendment. I will not reopen the subject, but I should like to move my Amendment in order to comment on a few of the speeches which have been made by noble Lords. I could not help regretting that the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, brought in the question of ill-will which arises among motorists. It is a pity when that sort of talk is brought in. Obviously there will be on the part of everybody who is going to suffer by this Act of Parliament. We believe that the great majority of motorists are law-abiding, sensible people and this Bill is directed only against a minority. Therefore, do not let us be afraid of giving the Bill some force because of a feeling that we must not antagonise the motoring public. I do not think that that is the case. The noble Viscount, I think, took an overoptimistic view of public opinion on drunken driving. He talked of a wide sense of condemnation of this offence and said that the public realise what a serious offence it is. I wish that I could think so. But is it not the case that the continuing increase in casualties caused by drunken drivers is the reason for the introduction of this Bill?
LORD HAWKE: Could the noble Earl give figures, because we are in the dark about this? We do not have positive figures as to whether there is an increase in casualties by drunken drivers.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: I have not the figures by me, but the figures that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, quoted, which I think were misunderstood by some noble Lords, were the figures of casualties at 'holiday times and on Saturday nights after closing time. I think it is the seriousness of these figures that has caused this Bill to be introduced. I say that we should not be too much deterred from making the provisions of this Bill strict by the fear of antagonising the public. Further, we have heard for years that juries will not convict their fellow men of this offence for fear they may go

1021
to prison. Surely that is the foundation of our present campaign towards road safety.
I see the difficulties about drawing any hard and fast line, but I would say to my noble friend Lord Walston that, in any conviction for drunken driving, somebody has to make the decision whether a man is drunk or sober. It is a matter of judgment, and the fact that a jury or magistrate draws a line as a result of figures obtained by scientific tests does not seem to me any more reprehensible. There will still be mistakes made. But the question does 'arise: what use will be made of the figures obtained from these tests? If a jury or bench of magistrates are not to be told that an alcohol content above a certain level is likely to be dangerous, how can a charge be brought under Clause 1? If a driver is accused under Clause 1 of being unfit to drive, the court that tries the case is now going to have a medical report involving a number of figures of alcohol content. If it is dangerous to have a level above which an offence will have been committed, instructions will be given to the court in the use of these figures. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 24, at end insert the said new subsection.—(The Earl of Lucan.)
LORD DENNING: In regard to the question raised by the noble Earl, the ordinary practice in the courts now, when urine tests are taken is that the accused has his test given to him, if he wants his little test to himself, and the percentages are actually given in evidence in court by the analyst. He will say, or counsel will ask him and he will reply, that this percentage represents so many glasses of whisky or so many glasses of beer, and often says that, according to the British Medical Association, this is the sort of percentage which shows a very high level of alcohol in the blood. Therefore juries are able to deduce from the evidence given at the moment, without any specific direction given by Parliament about percentages at all.
LORD ELTON: As the noble Earl referred to the figures I quoted, and as the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, has contraverted them, may I say that the figures which I quoted were from a careful examination of holiday deaths, showing
1022
that 56 per cent. of deaths during the 1959 Christmas period were due to drunkenness, and 80 per cent. after 10 o'clock. I also quoted Dr. Spriggs, who examined 254 motorists at Christmas and came to a conclusion that 50 per cent. of those after 10 o'clock and 10 per cent. over the whole period contained an element of drunkenness. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, referred to an official figure of 0·57 per cent., but I am under the impression that that has long been abandoned by official quarters. Certainly the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, said on Second Reading that alcohol contributed to a far larger number of accidents than the official figure of 0·57 per cent. would indicate.
LORD AMWELL: Once again I believe that this is the sort of legislation that we should avoid. I would draw the attention of your Lordships to the terms of the Amendment. I take it that they mean, if they mean anything at all, that the Minister shall not only prescribe the proportion of alcohol in the blood, breath or urine which, if exceeded, means that the driver is unable to drive without the possibility of an accident, but shall also prescribe the amount below which it is possible for driving to be undertaken with perfect safety to the general public. That is what it implies. I suggest that the Minister is not capable of doing anything of the kind and should not be asked to do it.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I do not want to add very much to what I said before. I think I made the position of the Government plain. I think that the dilemma is avoided by this Amendment. If the noble Earl opposite had not avoided it, I think he would have seen the difficulty in its top terms. If he had said what level, instead of just leaving it to the Minister, the Minister would have faced this dilemma: he could choose either the low level, in which case he would lose the confidence of the public, or the high, in which case a number of guilty people would get off. But the noble Earl never told us what the Minister should do. The difference between the noble Earl and the Government has been well pointed out by the noble and learned Lord on the Cross Benches.
The noble Earl asks me: what is the value of these tests? I would say that

1023
there are two points which make them almost indispensable, if we can get them. It gives us some indication as to what a suspect has actually been drinking. It gives us the objective level of alcohol in the blood. Like debtors, motorists seldom disclose the whole amount of their consumption, and some might genuinely have forgotten part of it, and it is better to find out what a motorist has had to drink, if he is going to be charged and tried fairly for this offence. Secondly, taken in conjunction with idiosyncrasies of behaviour and speech, the results of a test can build up an overwhelming case; but we shall not get idiosyncrasies of behaviour and speech corroborating at the right blood level so long as it is true, as it is, that the differences of individual intolerance of alcohol are very great.
The jury is told, or the magistrates direct themselves: "You have to look at the evidence as a whole, the blood level in conjunction with other things. If you come to the conclusion that this man should not have been on the road because his ability to drive properly had been impaired, then you convict him". That is what the test is for. Anything else brings in an element of artificiality in the interests of convictions which may or may not be justified.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: I am grateful to the noble Viscount for that explanation. We do not intend to press this Amendment, and I think it has been sufficiently discussed. I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.2 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM: The object of this Amendment is to ensure that blood tests or other tests alone simply support evidence for conviction under the clause and can be used only as corroborative evidence, and that no conviction should be secured because of the refusal to submit to these tests. I maintain that these important provisions should be written into the Bill, and I think this Amendment will so provide. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 24, at end insert—
("() No person shall be convicted of an offence solely upon the evidence referred to
1024
in subsection (1) of this section or on his refusal referred to therein.").—(Lord Teynham.)
LORD MOLSON: I think this may be a convenient point for me to ask for an explanation from my noble friend Lord Dundee of what he said on this subject in his winding up speech on Second Reading. As I understand the purpose of the Government in this Bill, it is to ensure by a slight alteration in the wording that persons should be held to have committed an offence by driving when their judgment was impaired, without in fact being drunk or intoxicated in the ordinary sense of the word. My noble friend, when replying to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, gave this explanation. He said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 230 (No. 65), col. 508]:
"I should like to make the answer perfectly plain: he cannot be convicted on the tests alone and, as has always been the case, if he is to be convicted of the offence he must have shown signs of intoxication, or of bad driving which seemed likely to be due to intoxication, before the test can be taken."
I think that those are two separate points. There is the case of having driven in a dangerous way, which may be evidence of the fact that his judgment has been impaired by the taking of alcohol. But I am rather troubled by this reference by my noble friend to the word "intoxication". This Bill is intended to amend Section 6 of the principal Act and, indeed, to tighten it up a little. Even in Section 6 of the principal Act there is no reference to intoxication; it merely refers to
"being unfit to drive through drink or drugs"
I hope, therefore, that it is not the view of the Government that this wording is going to mean that a person cannot be convicted of having been driving under the influence of drink—that is, when his judgment has been impaired—unless, as my noble friend said, in his behaviour there are unmistakable signs of intoxication. I can well imagine that a person might have been driving dangerously as a result of his judgment having been impaired by taking drink, and yet, when he got out of the car, there would be no sign that he was unable to walk perfectly straight or to talk without stumbling or slurring in his speech. Therefore I would ask the Government to explain what is really meant here, and to give an assurance that intoxication is not required in order to constitute the offence of driving under

1025
the influence of drink, but merely when the judgment for the purpose of driving has been impaired.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My noble friend Lord Teynham has not give any reasons in support of this Amendment, though I think I understand what is in his mind. The Government are opposed to the Amendment on the general principle that it is undesirable to put into an Act of Parliament unnecessary words which may sometimes be misleading. In this case I think they might possibly tend to give the impression that we are making some change of principle in the, existing law. We are not doing that at all. We are making no change in the existing law, but are merely clarifying it, for instance by the introduction of the word "impaired" instead of what was there before, and by encouraging the use of certain chemical tests, which were perfectly valid evidence before and are perfectly valid evidence now.
My noble friend Lord Molson has asked me to clarify the reply which I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, on Second Reading. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, who had another Amendment down, has taken it off the Marshall List and put his name to this Amendment instead. Perhaps the OFFICIAL REPORT, which I would correct in a small respect, might be slightly misleading here. What I was doing was quoting what had been said by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, and then replying to it at rather great length. What I said was [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 230 (No. 65), col. 508]:
"Lord Airedale asked a question … which I think was fundamental. He said, I think, that in the past it has always been a prerequisite of conviction for offences of this nature, driving when unfit through drink, that the person charged has shown unmistakable outwards signs of intoxication."
Then the Report goes on:
"If this Bill is passed as it stands"—
and there should be there inserted the words
"the noble Lord asked whether"
because I was still quoting from what the noble Lord said. These were not my words, but those of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, to which I was about to reply. Owing to the omission of the words, "the noble Lord asked whether", it is not quite clear in the Report.
1026
But my noble friend Lord Molson will see that we went on talking about this matter for two and a half columns, and signs of intoxication was only one of several alternatives which might be reasons for a man being prosecuted for the offence of being in charge of a car, as it will now be, not when drunk or under the influence of drink, but when his ability to drive properly is impaired. I should like to make it absolutely plain again to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, and to your Lordships, that I do not see how a prosecution could be undertaken or could be successful simply on the evidence of these chemical tests. I do not see how the medical test could ever be proposed or carried out unless there was some reason for it.
I have already made it olear—and the last two Amendments, I feel, will have duly impressed your Lordships—that we are not creating a new offence. The police cannot, as I understand they do in some Scandinavian countries, have a check point in the road, stop every car that comes through and request that every driver shall submit to a test to see whether he has more than a certain percentage of alcohol in his blood. The evidence which will be given as a result of these chemical tests being taken is not given to establish the offence that he had more than whatever it may be (·15 per cent.) of alcohol in his blood, because that is not going to be an offence any more than it is now. It is simply a means of trying to get all the evidence before the court which ought to be before it, in order to establish the truth in relation to some charge that he was in charge of a car or driving when his ability to do so properly was impaired.
I do not see how it is possible in practice that he could be convicted only on the evidence of these chemical tests of being in charge of a car while his ability to drive properly was impaired. If it is possible in theory that that should happen, then, of course, it is equally possible now, and this Bill would not make the slightest difference. In practice, however, the police would never have occasion to ask a driver to provide a specimen unless their attention had been drawn to the possibility that an offence had been committed, and not simply because there was evidence of intoxication.

1027
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, I think in the next column, interrupted and asked whether somebody who was observed to walk unsteadily towards his car without there being an accident could be asked to come and submit to a test. I said that I thought he could; but in that case there would be evidence that he had walked unsteadily towards his car. Of course, if there was evidence that he had been seen drinking ten whiskies and sodas in half an hour, even if he walked steadily to his car, that would be evidence that he might be driving or be in charge of a car while his ability to drive properly was impaired. In that case, he might be asked to take a test, and the test would add to the evidence either in his favour or against him, as the case might be.
The Bill does nothing to alter the present position, and it in no way affects the matters to be established by the prosecution. It only seeks, by redefining the offence with the use of the word "impaired", and by encouraging a wider use of chemical tests, to make it easier to establish the facts which are necessary to arrive at the truth.
As for the second part of the Amendment about refusal to give a specimen, of course it is difficult to see what this evidence could prove by itself, because there would not be any test and there would not be any specimen. You could not possibly prove that the man committed an offence simply because of his refusal to provide a specimen. There would have to be some other evidence. It is a matter of common sense. Therefore I would suggest to the noble Lord that it would be unnecessary, and probably undesirable, to insert these words in the Bill. I hope he will accept my assurance that we are not making any change in the principle of the law in regard to this matter.
LORD TEYNHAM: The noble Earl asked me why I put this Amendment down. On the Second Reading he made a point of saying that these tests would be used only as corroborative evidence. I did not quite understand why Her Majesty's Government were so averse to putting these things in the Bill. But I do not propose to press the matter this evening, although I should like to look at it again before the Report stage.
1028
Therefore, I beg to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.14 p.m.
LORD TAYLOR LORD TAYLOR moved, after subsection (3), to insert:
"() The Secretary of State shall make regulations prescribing—

(a) the methods of collection of specimens of breath, blood and urine, and the apparatus and methods of analysis to be used, and

(b) the training necessary for persons using and maintaining the apparatus used for the analysis of the breath."

The noble Lord said: I hope very much that the principle of the next three Amendments will commend itself to Her Majesty's Government, even though my wording of them may be inadequate. They are designed simply to improve the quality, and to make sure that the quality of the tests is as good as it possibly can be. In small countries—for example, Denmark—I think it is correct to say that all the testing work of this type is centralised at one central forensic laboratory for the whole country. It is practicable there. Here we have a great many different police forces doing this work, and it is almost inevitable, unless there is some strong guidance, that they will adopt different techniques. When the noble and learned Viscount was speaking about the carrying out of these tests, he pointed out some of the risks which may occur through not taking specimens in a proper way. He reminded us that if the arm is cleaned with alcohol it may vitiate the sample, and may raise the level of the blood alcohol.
A NOBLE LORD: On Second Reading the noble Lord said that it was not of great importance.
LORD TAYLOR: It is quite true that it is not; but it is a possibility. There are other possibilities that can occur through the imprecise use of techniques. Even though it is of small importance, it is nevertheless desirable to avoid it. It is desirable that the job should be done as well as it possibly can be. That means that standardised methods should be laid down, standardised techniques employed and standardised collecting apparatus used. This is particularly important in the case of blood and urine, where it may be desirable that half of each specimen should be made available to the accused

1029
and offered to him in case he wants to get check analyses made.
So the first of my Amendments suggests that the Secretary of State should make regulations prescribing the methods of collecting a specimen, whether of blood, breath or urine, and the apparatus and methods of analysis to be used. Indeed, the noble and learned Viscount pointed out the different kinds of breath analysis machine which are available in the United States. I think it is correct to say that the Drew Report shows that one of these, the breathalyser, is considerably more accurate than the others. I am told that the existing model can almost certainly be improved upon in several respects, and that we could get a model manufactured in this country which would be more accurate than existing machines, and might also be substantially cheaper, because at the moment they all have to be imported from the United States. I think it is most desirable that the machinery should be standardised.
The second part of the Amendment deals with the training of the persons using and maintaining the apparatus for the analysis of the breath. These people will be police officers in police stations, and it is essential that they should be taught how to use the machine. It is not very difficult to do. One could learn it perfectly well on a week-end course, given just ordinary mechanical competence, which most young men possess nowadays. However, it is essential that it should be properly learned. The machine must be maintained and serviced properly, and in particular the specimens of (I think it is), potassium dichromate have to be changed at regular intervals and checked to make sure that they are still capable of absorbing alcohol. I hope very much that the Government will accept the principle of this Amendment, even if my words are not exactly the way in which to achieve the objective I have in mind. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 16, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Taylor.)
THE EARL OF NORTHESK: Might I ask the noble Lord if the proposed tests are equally efficient in the case of drugs as in the case of alcohol, because Clause 2 speaks of ability to drive being impaired through the use of alcohol or drugs. Are these tests equally efficacious in the case of drugs?
LORD TAYLOR: The answer is that these particular tests would not detect drugs at all. Special tests have to be used, one for each particular kind of drug. The common one would be a barbiturate, which would require elaborate testing, and would not arise in the sort of test performed at the police station by the breathalyser. It would be quite useless for that purpose.
EARL HOWE: May I ask a question about the breathalyser? It was at one time used in Sweden, and I understand that it has now been given up. Can the noble Lord say whether that is so; and, if it is, can he say why?
LORD TAYLOR: I understand that this is not so. The situation is that a very simple modification of the breathalyser is used in Sweden. It is not the true breathalyser at all. It is a very simple machine which shows merely whether or not the body contains any substantial amount of alcohol. It does not do more than that. It does not give an accurate reading. If the subject is plus or positive for alcohol, then I believe he is given the option of having a blood test or a suspension of licence for a fortnight or a month. Needless to say, most of them opt for the suspension of licence for the short period; because if the blood test shows a high level of blood alcohol the person is liable to go to prison. I think that is the answer, but I am not absolutely certain about that.
LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL: I should have thought there was a good deal of substance in this Amendment. The idea of these tests is causing a certain amount of alarm, and anything which would make it absolutely clear that the tests are conducted in complete fairness and by really qualified people would not only set the public mind at rest but also be of great effect in preventing any talk of the police doing something which was not quite proper. I would support this Amendment.
LORD MERRIVALE: I should like to support the principle underlying this Amendment, and I would take this opportunity to ask the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, one question with regard to paragraph (b) in his Amendment. He

1031
said that the training necessary for persons using and maintaining the apparatus used for the analysis of breath would be given Ito police officers. But would that in fact be true? If I understood my noble Leader earlier on, he said the Government agreed that there should be in all cases a medical practitioner present; and that if he was present he would then carry out the test. If he carries out the test he would, I presume, have had adequate training for carrying out the test.
LORD TAYLOR: I do not know if I can speak for the Government here, but I think the noble and learned Viscount said that it is only with regard to the taking of blood that the medical practitioner should be present; in fact, I am pretty sure that was so. The breathalyser can be operated by anyone. It is a very simple mechanical device. One simply has to blow into it, turn a couple of knobs intelligently and take a reading intelligently. This sort of task is performed by hundreds of thousands of Servicemen, and millions of people in industry, every day. It really is a very easy machine to operate; it is already operated in Scotland by police officers, and will, I am sure, be operated by police officers in this country.
LORD HAWKE: None of us has seen this mysterious apparatus. Is it a thing like a chemical apparatus, or is it like a set of bagpipes? Is there any method by which the mouthpiece can be cleaned? Could a caste Hindu submit himself properly to this test or not?
LORD TAYLOR: It is a square box about half the size of the box here, and it has two dials on it, two holes into which liquids are inserted and a mouthpiece, with a tube to which is attached a fresh mouthpiece for every subject. The machines are properly washed and sterilised, and they contain a little track to make sure that no fluid from the mouth gets into the machine. It is a much more pleasant but far less portable machine than I had expected. It is something which could be used only in a police station, with a reasonable degree of quiet and order, if it is to be worked properly.
LORD HAWKE: How does one ensure that the last lot of alcohol vapour has
1032
been properly expelled before the next victim is tested?
LORD TAYLOR: The apparatus has to be re-set to zero every time.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: May I clarify my mind on a rather more serious vein? Is this meant to be entirely for Scotland only, and not applicable to England?
LORD TAYLOR: The term, "The Secretary of State", is used in this Bill a little earlier on, in connection, I think, with the public analysts. I imagine it would be the Home Secretary who would be doing this, because these regulations would be referring to police officers. That was why we used the term "Secretary of State".
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: The reason for my doubt was the juxtaposition to the previous subsection (3) which starts off "In any such proceedings in Scotland …"
6.25 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: We are always grateful for any advice on these matters which is put before us by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, and we are certainly anxious to consider any of his suggestions sympathetically. On the other hand, there is one general point that I should like to make about the effect of having too many regulations prescribed by the Home Secretary. We must remember that the conditions under which the law is carried out—the physical conditions in regard to police stations and so on—vary locally a great deal. I am not sure that it is a good principle to interfere too much with the ordinary common-sense processes of the law. At the present time, the prosecution are lawfully at liberty, without any express statutory provision, to use tests; and to attempt to prescribe by regulation the exact form of the tests would place restrictions on existing powers and would be, to that extent, inconsistent with the general purpose of the Bill, which is to make it easier, and not more difficult, to get the facts and to establish the truth so that the court may arrive at a just decision.
I do not think there is any reason why this particular kind of evidence should be singled out for such special treatment. The safeguard against unfair

1033
evidence lies in the ordinary process of criminal procedure, and under the Bill as it stands it is always perfectly open to a defendant to argue that any particular test is unfair and to produce expert evidence to support this argument. I am not sure that is not a better safeguard than some general regulation which might not exactly fit all the circumstances of every case.
As for paragraph (b) of the noble Lord's Amendment, dealing with the training necessary for persons who use these tests, of course we agree they must be properly trained. But since it is not our intention at present to prescribe the apparatus to be used it is obviously inappropriate to take power to prescribe the form of training to be provided in the use and maintenance of such apparatus. If breath tests, for example, should be introduced at some future time, adequate training would certainly be necessary, and would be provided. We will consider further what the noble Lord has said, but I do not feel that it would be right at this stage to make it obligatory on the Secretary of State to formulate regulations of the kind which are contemplated in the Amendment.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: Before the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, replies, may I seek to encourage him by saying that I think that is quite the most unsatisfactory reply we have had from the Government yet. I do not want to take up your Lordships' time, but it seems to me that this is a vital matter. There are a wide variety of even breathalysers which are available, and we are aware that there is only one breathalyser which claims to be reasonably satisfactory at the present time. Unless there is a prescription as to the type of breathalyser (to use only one instance by way of illustration), we might have police forces in different parts of the country using a variety of different instruments with different degrees of accuracy, and therefore with different degrees of weight to be attached to the evidence which they produce before different courts. The whole thing will end in a state of complete confusion. The unfortunate motorist may be tested in one police station by one method, and may be allowed to continue on his journey. Then he may be tested ten miles further on by another police officer, in another police station, by another
1034
method, and subject to different qualifications, different systems, different degrees of accuracy and all sorts of things. If the Government decide that they will impose this particular form of collecting evidence against the individual, they must prescribe accurately, and in detail, the way in which it is to be done and the method by which it is to be done.
LORD TAYLOR: Before the noble Viscount, Lord Brentwood, had spoken I, too, had reached the conclusion that this was a thoroughly unsatisfactory reply. I am a strong supporter of having these tests in the interests of road safety, but only if the tests are properly done. Here we are, faced with police officers being required to make chemical tests. It is a very different matter if chemical tests are performed by public analysts recognised under the Food and Drugs Act. There there is a safeguard; but here we are asking for an elementary safeguard. I must say that I am not prepared to withdraw my Amendment. If necessary, I must press it to a Division, not because I think the phraseology is necessarily perfect, but because here, I think, is a principle which we should maintain. If we are going to use science in the service of the law, then the science must be as good as we can make it. Therefore I hope that your Lordships will support me, even if I have not a great galaxy of supporters behind me when I challenge the Government.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I have offered to consider what the noble Lord has said, but if he prefers to have a Division now we must, of course, go to one and see what your Lordships think about the matter. I do not entirely agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, about the confusion which is likely to arise without specific regulations of this kind. It would seem to me that in the example which he gave, in order to encounter these successive misfortunes the driver must be behaving in a most suspicious manner. But I will consider what the noble Viscount has said. I think this is a pretty wide subject, but I am perfectly willing to undertake to look into the point again.
LORD TAYLOR: When the noble Earl spoke before I thought he was going to look into it without any hope of my being successful. I should like

1035
to feel certain that the Government were seriously perturbed about this matter. I am entirely in the hands of your Lordships in this matter. I want to make quite certain that regulations are prescribed, and I feel that probably most
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
6.40 p.m.
LORD TAYLOR: This Amendment is really consequential on the last Amendment which your Lordships have just passed, and I hope you will accept it in the same happy spirit. In fact, it does a little more than that; it makes sure that accused persons are offered specimens of blood and urine in containers which are suitable for their preservation, and therefore safeguards the position of defendants in a way which, I believe, is common practice at the present time. This provision would make it absolutely clear that they are to be offered these specimens in such a way that they shall not deteriorate and can be satisfactorily analysed. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
"() Specimens of blood and urine in prescribed containers shall be offered to the accused person."—(Lord Taylor.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I cannot agree that this Amendment is consequential on the last one, because I had intended to accept this one in principle. I believe it is the invariable practice of the police to offer an accused person a sample of urine—which is almost the only test which is taken now—so that he may have his own analysis made if
1036
of your Lordships feel as I do, and that we should insist upon this matter.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 28; Not-Contents, 13.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Goschen, V.

Peddie, L.

Allerton, L.

Gosford, E.

Strathcarron, L.

Ampthill, L.

Hampton, L.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Amulree, L.

Howe, E.

Swaythling, L.

Amwell, L.

Lucan, E.

Taylor, L. [Teller.]

Auckland, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Teynham, L.

Brentford, V. [Teller.]

Merrivale, L.

Torrington, V.

Colville of Culross, V.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Waleran, L.

Croft, L.

Northesk, E.

Williams, L.

Foley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Amory, V.

Hawke, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Chesham, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Soulbury, V.

Devonshire, D.

Newton, L. [Teller.]

Teviot, L.

Dundee, E.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Winterton, E.

Hailsham, V. (L. President.)

he so wishes. Blood samples are very rarely taken at present, but here again, I understand, if one was taken the accused would be offered a portion of the sample. If the procedure of offering a sample should be omitted in any particular case, it would be open to the accused to bring the fact to the attention of the court, and this might cause the prosecution to fail if the accused person might have been prejudiced by the omission to offer him a sample.
In practice, therefore, the accused is safeguarded, and the only objection to accepting the noble Lord's Amendment is that it is probably not necessary and might conceivably be misleading to the accused. He might think, when he got the sample which he was offered, that it was all right for him to keep it for three or four days and have it tested at his leisure, when in fact I believe it has to be tested within not more than two days. If the accused person failed to have a sample tested within that time, then the prosecution could disregard his case by pointing out that the test was valueless. The accused person might not have realised that.
I am willing to accept this Amendment in principle, however, I should like to look at it again. I am not sure that it would be necessarily a good thing to have a prescribed type of container, as types of containers change very

1037
quickly. A new type of container might be a great improvement on an older type, and it is always a little difficult to make legislation keep up with these changing practices. Therefore I am not sure that it would be a good thing to define the type of container too strictly. But I am willing to accept the Amendment in principle and to introduce a similar one on Report stage.
LORD TAYLOR: I thank the noble Earl for his kindness to this Amendment. It is, of course, the prescribed part of the container which follows so closely on the last Amendment, because I had in mind that regulations should be laid down about these containers, having regard to the poor keeping qualities of the blood and the urine in these circumstances. That was what I was worried about, and I think it is a reasonable concern. I am grateful to the noble Earl for undertaking to accept this Amendment—or is it to accept it in principle?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: In principle.
LORD TAYLOR: With that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD TAYLOR LORD TAYLOR moved in subsection (4.), after "Acts" to insert:
"and authorised by the Secretary of State to make analyses for the purposes of this section,"
The noble Lord said: My final Amendment concerns a rather obscure point: the question of whether all public analysts should undertake these tests. As the Bill stands, they would be entitled to do tests, in the belief that a public analyst is a competent and proper person—and, of course, he is. But there is a rather large variety of ways of doing these blood-alcohol estimation tests. I believe there are over 200 different methods of analysing blood for blood-alcohol, and the accuracy of the tests is largely determined by the frequency with which the worker is doing them. The more often a man does these tests, the better he does them; and if a public analyst is called upon to do them only once every six months or so his degree of accuracy will be much less that if he is doing them every day of the week, or even every week.
I am sure, therefore, that in the interests of everybody who is concerned
1038
with accuracy—that is to say, the public, the law and science and the law—as few places as possible should be engaged on doing these tests. The Bill lays down that any public analyst:
"and any other persons authorised by the Secretary of State"
shall be used for these tests. I imagine the second group of places are the forensic science laboratories run by the Home Office, which are very proper places to do them. I think we should have only a selected list of public analysts, among whom this work should be concentrated in order that it may be done well; and I am sure, again, that this is the proper answer if we are to have them done properly. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will accept the principle of this Amendment, or at least will look at it seriously. I realise that my drafting is not very happy, but it was the only way I could achieve my result in a fairly simple form. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 22, after "Acts", insert the said words.—(Lord Taylor.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: So far as the prosecution is concerned, I should like to assure the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, that it is not contemplated that evidence by certificate will be given by persons other than members of the Home Office forensic science laboratories—that is the intention of the Home Office—or in Scotland by the Glasgow city analyst. My objection to the noble Lord's Amendment is from the point of view of the defence, because it seems to limit the freedom and possibly the facility of an accused person to choose his own analyst. As it stands, the clause would permit evidence by certificate to be given on behalf of the defence; and the Amendment would limit the extent to which a defendant might select a qualified analyst of his own choice.
I think it is true that not all public analysts may be sufficiently familiar with the special techniques, or perhaps equipped with the apparatus required, to carry out analysis of urine or blood. But, on the other hand, a person who did not happen to have a certificate from the Home Secretary might be able to carry it out perfectly well, and it might be convenient to the accused person to have it done by him. If, on the other hand,

1039
he chose someone who did not know how to carry it out and would carry it out badly, that could easily be shown by the prosecution. I understand that it is not very difficult to show that a test has not been carried out in a manner which ought to be accepted as legal proof. Therefore, in order not to restrict unduly the facilities of an accused person, I hope that the noble Lord will not press the Amendment, although I quite see the reasons behind it.
LORD TAYLOR: That is a very satisfactory assurance. Indeed, I had based my Amendment on a misunderstanding. I imagined that our police forces were going to behave as the Glasgow City Police have behaved in the past, each using their own public analyst. If they all use the Forensic Science Laboratory I think there will be no trouble, and that is a highly satisfactory solution. With those assurances I certainly withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.53 p.m.
THE EARL OF ARRAN THE EARL OF ARRAN moved to leave out Clause 2. The noble Earl said: I have put down this Amendment for two reasons: first and foremost, because I have cause to believe that the tests referred to in the clause could be dangerously misleading; and, second, because, as the Drew Report itself says:
"There are known wide differences in response to alcohol and therefore"—
and this is my view—
"a universal standard of drunkenness must manifestly be unfair to the individual."
I do not believe in automatically accepting the findings of others. Where possible, I think that one should submit oneself to them. Accordingly, I have been having, tests for alcohol content in the blood and urine under the control of my medical practitioner, a biochemist and a Bachelor of Science, attached to the pathological laboratory of my local hospital. The results have been startling and such as to east grave doubts on the validity of these tests. Let me tell your Lordships what I did.
On two different, but not consecutive, mornings I drank, on a completely empty stomach, two different quantities of whisky: on the first morning two doubles; on the second a quarter of a
1040
bottle, the equivalent of four doubles. These were the results. On the first morning, with no alcohol consumed for ten hours, at 8.30 a.m., my blood was shown to contain 55 milligrams per 100 millilitres; at 9.50 a.m., with two doubles consumed between 9 and 9.15 a.m., the figure was 81 milligrams; at 11.15 a.m., 36 milligrams. That was the first day. On the second day, at 8.30 a.m., with no alcohol consumed for twelve hours, the figure was 49 milligrams; at 10.15 a.m., after the consumption of a quarter of a bottle of whisky, 122 milligrams. In other words, I started both tests with about 50 milligrams of alcohol (or a volatile substance indistinguishable from alcohol) in my blood. The Committee are taking this lightheartedly, but this was a serious test. On this showing, some people would maintain that I was not fit to drive, even after a good night's rest and having consumed no alcohol for a considerable period of time. Apparently I started the day quite drunk. You might think that this is because I am permanently in a slightly "pickled" condition; but this is not the case, I am glad to say. The biochemist who did the analysis had, unknown to me, previously done tests upon himself; and these showed that, although he had not had a drink for three or four days, he started off with a "load" of 25 milligrams.
What this seems to mean is that some people start with a handicap—a handicap which varies from person to person, and from day to day, and of which no account is taken in assessing whether or not a man should be charged. The Scotland Yard laboratory experts maintain, with great vehemence and obvious sincerity, that there can be no alcohol in the blood unless it is put there. But, to my mind, the weakness of this argument is that, so far as I know, the police never take tests of persons when they are sober. Thus, they can have no idea whether the blood or urine of the accused normally contains alcohol, or a substance indistinguishable from alcohol, and they make no allowances for this in assessing the degree of drunkenness, if any.
I should add, lest it be suggested that the findings of the biochemist are inaccurately arrived at, that he uses an almost identical method of testing to that

1041
used by the police. Further, I should also add that on the occasions when he has analysed specimens which have also been analysed by the police simultaneously, his findings and theirs have been very close together. These are serious matters. We -seem in danger of making a law on the basis of possible inaccuracies and thus of injustice. I would earnestly ask the Government to look at this matter of tests far more closely before forcing through legislation. I do not know who is right or who is wrong, but there seems some reasonable doubt.
Next, I come to the question of fitness or unfitness to drive. It is an accepted fact, I think, that people differ very much in their reactions to alcohol. With some, one glass of whisky is enough to set them reeling; with others more is required. I thought the Committee might like to know my own doctor's report on the tests which I underwent. This is it:
"8.30 a.m., his usual self. 9.50 a.m., cheerful, slightly euphoric; no objective evidence of intoxication. 11.15 a.m., feels less tiddly'."
For the second day:
"8.30 a.m., normal. 10.15 a.m."—
with 122 milligrams inside me—
"says he feels slightly drunk. On examination, slight suffusion of conjunctivae"—
which I think relates to the eyes—
"no nystagmus"—
flickering of the eyes—
"Speech normal and rational, but talkative. Able to walk on a straight line, Serial sevens completed correctly."
In this test I was given a number and had to subtract seven, right down to nought.
"Spelling good. Rode my son's tricycle, 11.15 a.m., feels normal."
The doctor added—and this is perhaps interesting—that on none of the occasions on which he saw me would he, if called in, have given it as his view that I was unfit to drive a motor vehicle. This view was taken by a civil servant who called that morning to collect my Census form and with whom I had a long talk. But, in fairness, I must record that an ex-policeman, who works for us, said that if I had been involved in an accident he would have taken me to the station because he did not like the look of my eyes.
Here is the evidence. To say the least, I find it confusing. And because, on the
1042
one hand, there is a dispute among the experts about the fairness and reliability of these tests, and because, on the other, any attempt to lay down standards of drunkenness for everyone will inevitably lead to injustice to individuals, I should like to move that this clause be entirely deleted from the Bill. We must be ready to pay a high price for greater road safety, but I think this price is too high.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 2.—(The Earl of Arran.)
LORD AMWELL: In the last Division I voted for the Amendment upon the principle of, "If this, then that". Now that the whole question of Clause 2 is raised by the noble Earl's Amendment, I feel very much inclined to support him for reasons that I have already indicated. I do not believe in the kind of legislation that justifies the term that the noble Earl used—"automatic". I do not think we can deal with these questions of human conditions and human tolerances by automatic machines, or upon the principle of the robot. As I was saying to a colleague only a little while ago, the New York Correspondent of the Daily Mail sends information about American robots that not only can think but can also breathe and sweat. I suppose that, before long, they will be performing other kinds of natural functions; I do not know. But I wonder why they should be thinking about sending men into space when robots can do it so much more accurately without any of the risks entailed.
Modern science seems to be denigrating humanity. It seems to be running after the materialistic idea that we are nothing more than levers and cogs and wheels. Now we do not want—and it seems to me that we should not want—legislation that is based upon anything of that kind. I should much prefer to leave it to the magistrate, or the jury, in cases of this kind, who will know the considerations involved and who will learn at first-hand all the details that are necessary to be known to form a judgment upon the matter. We should not talk about a machine determining what shall be done, even if it should come to a question of imprisonment, or anything else.
The machine, after all, is admittedly unreliable, because people differ in their toleration of alcohol, and all the rest

1043
of it; and we cannot get out of that machine what it is implied we can. I think I should support the Amendment of the noble Earl because surely we want to get a little bit of sanity in our conception of what the State should do with regard to the actions of private individuals. I do not mean that I tolerate drunkenness upon the roads—there are many things upon the roads that I do not tolerate; but I think we should deal with the question. Since the question, it seems to me, is purely one of the human factors concerned, we should not deal with it automatictlly, to use the expression of the noble Earl.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: If I may intervene to support this Amendment, I do so simply because, unfortunately for me, though perhaps fortunately for your Lordships, circumstances precluded my attending this debate from the outset, and I should not like it to be thought, because I had refrained from supporting some of the critical Amendments to this clause, that I was in any way in favour of the clause. I think that the clause is a bad one, for the reasons, among others, which I have already put before your Lordships, during the course of the Amendments to which I have spoken, and which I will not therefore repeat. But I am quite convinced that this is not the right method by which to try to bring to an end drunkenness upon our roads.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: There is one aspect of this clause which worries me very much: that if it should come into law it will act very unfairly against one type of road-user—the motorist. I refer now to the question of pedestrians and cyclists, or, to be more explicit, to drunken pedestrians and drunken cyclists. The sad fact is that they do cause, and are involved in, a great many accidents on our roads to-day. In fact, many of the Christmas casualties are caused just as much by people coming out of pubs on foot as by anything else. Whereas in general I support this clause, and should certainly not vote against it, I feel that, before it comes into law, serious consideration should be given to the fact that, if a pedestrian or a cyclist is involved in an accident with a motorist, he should be as liable to these tests for drink as anybody else.
1044
Let us consider for one moment the example of a perfectly sober motorist who may be driving along a road and become involved in an accident with a pedestrian or a cyclist. He would be hauled into the police station and would, possibly quite willingly, take a test; but the drunken pedestrian or the drunken cyclist—and, after all, they also are road-users—would be sitting back (we hope still alive) and would not be liable. When the case came to court, justice might not be done because of the fact that these tests had not been carried out and, therefore, had not produced the evidence which might cause the motorist to be acquitted. I think it is important that the good will of motorists should be gained for these tests. What is important is that all these people—pedestrians, cyclists and motorists—are all road-users. They all have to show responsibility and they all have to show care to each other on the roads; and if only one type of road-user is obliged to take these tests, that does not seem to be fair; and it will not, I feel, do this whole Act any good.
LORD FOLEY: I completely agree with the noble Lord who has just spoken. It seems to me incredible that motorists should have to pass a test while cyclists and pedestrians do not. A pedestrian who is drunk can cause just as much damage as a drunken motorist. He can cause a motorist to swerve and a number of motor cars to be involved in an accident; or a motor car may mount a pavement because of a drunken pedestrian. I think that the whole aspect of pedestrians and their behaviour needs to be gone into very thoroughly, and I am very sorry that this Bill does not legislate for them.
LORD TAYLOR: I want to say merely that I think the House owes a debt to the noble Earl, Lord Arran, because, despite having not a very satisfactory or very experienced analyst, he has shown the value of the tests. His analyst could not get a good zero reading, which shows how important it is to have experienced people doing this work. I suspect that an ordinary hospital biochemist seldom analyses for blood alcohol, and I imagine that he failed to get his apparatus adjusted at the start as he should have done. Nevertheless, the noble Earl's blood alcohol rose precisely as might be expected. After two doubles, he reached 81

1045
milligrams per 100 millitres, and he was described as "slightly euphoric". A little later he described himself as "feeling less tiddly".
THE EARL OF ARRAN: It was the doctor who said that.
LORD TAYLOR: Was the doctor feeling "loss tiddly "? The point is that after two doubles on an empty stomach the noble Earl's capacity to drive safely would, in my opinion, be very slightly impaired. He would be just in a condition not to drive a car. I think he would be wise not to drive a car after having had two doubles on an empty stomach, and his condition on having had two doubles would have been correctly revealed by these tests. It was exactly the same when he had four doubles on an empty stomach. He himself said that he then felt "slightly drunk", so he certainly should not have been driving a car. He then reached 122 milligrams per 100 millilitres. So, despite the deficiences of his analyst, the tests nevertheless worked extremely well, and I think his experience shows the validity and value of this clause.
7.10 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I am afraid this debate is getting a little euphoric but I should like to restore it, if I may, to some degree of clarity. I must say that I utterly fail to understand my noble friends Lord Montagu of Beaulieu and Lord Foley. We are not discussing whether motorists have to undergo tests as against pedestrians or as against cyclists. Everyone knows that drunken pedestrians can both cause accidents and become involved in accidents, and so can drunken cyclists. What we are discussing arises only in relation to Clause 1 of the Bill. It is an offence under the principal Act, which is the 1960 Act, and has been an offence since 1930, to drive a car when you have had too much to drink. That is what this clause is about.
Clause 2 simply deals with the question of how you find out that a driver of a car has had too much to drink. In the interests of pure science, if you find a man drunk on the street he may be committing other offences in connection with drunkenness; but it is usually not thought a sufficiently grave offence (although admittedly, in certain circumstances, it can cause an accident) to go
1046
through the rigmarole of a test, if he is merely going to be brought up before the police court and fined 5s. Of course, that may be unfair to the motorist or it may not, but I hardly think that this House would be assisting the process of legislation if it provided that every drunken pedestrian—and there are great numbers at Marlborough Street every morning—should have to go through this elaborate test.
LORD FOLEY: May I interrupt the noble Viscount? That may well apply to drunken pedestrians, but, surely not to drunken cyclists.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: Since I raised this point, may I say that I specified that it would happen only when they were involved in an accident with a motorist. I made that point very clear.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: This is where neither of my noble friends has applied his mind to the problem. There is no such offence known to the law, nor has either of my noble friends suggested such an offence known to the law, as that of being involved with a motorist when you are drunk on a cycle. It may be desirable that there should be, but you will not achieve that by doing anything to Clause 2. Clause 2 has nothing to do with a principal offence; it is Clause 1 which deals with the principal offence. It provides (and no one has so far suggested that it should not) that, if a motorist drives when he has had too much to drink, he commits an offence. Clause 2 is concerned only with the factual question how you discover whether or not he has had too much to drink. The offence is not of having had an accident with a cyclist; the offence is not of having had an accident with a pedestrian; the offence is of driving, or attempting to drive, a motor vehicle, which is, after all, a lethal weapon, when you have had too much to drink. All we are discussing is whether we are allowed to find out the truth, or try to find out the truth, by applying the best tests that scientists are able to discover, or whether we are to try to have a shot at it without using such tests of science.
In those circumstances, I must say I utterly fail to understand the purpose of the Amendment of my noble friend the Earl of Arran. He said that a universal test of drunkenness imposes an injustice

1047
on someone. I think I have seen the diligence of his attendance throughout all this afternoon, but unless I am mistaken this idea of a universal test is the very matter I have twice or three times refused the invitations of the enthusiasts to consider.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: I agree that that is not positively and actually laid down, but one could conceive the courts getting quite empirically the idea that a reading of 120, 130 or 140 means drunkenness, in which case they would be bound to regard anyone with that reading as drunk, and anyone who had a reading of 30 or 40 as sober.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I fail to understand what my noble friend is trying to say. The fact of the matter is that throughout this afternoon, rightly or wrongly (some noble Lords thought wrongly), I have refused to admit a universal test of drunkenness. I have rejected the Amendment proposed by the noble Earl on the Front Bench opposite, who proposed to move toward that. I rejected the blandishments of my noble friend Lord Elton; and now the Government is accused of doing exactly what it refused to do.
I do not often make claims in this House to personal knowledge about things, but I must say this. I began at the Bar twice and worked up the hard way. I had to begin again, with an absolutely ruined and destroyed practice, after the war, and so had to go up the line of the legal profession twice in my life, and it was harder the second time than the first, I suppose I have prosecuted or defended more people for this offence than any Member of either House of Parliament. I have a certain faith in juries and in justices. Personally, for this offence, I have a good deal more faith in justices than in juries, because juries acquit nearly half the people who plead not guilty. If my noble friend says that, because we try to find out, in a scientific way, what the truth of the matter is, juries are going to be less able to divine the truth than if we approach it in a non-scientific way, all I can say is that we might as well shut up our criminal courts and stop trying to do justice between man and man. That is to prefer obscurantism to science.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: But what if these facts are misleading, and if they vary from person to person?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Juries well know that one man can take drink more than another, and so do justices. Juries are just as well able to judge facts as any of the rest of us. That is why, after all, they are able to judge whether people have committed murders or not, which decision may very well depend upon scientific evidence of this kind. That is why this country has always insisted on keeping jury trials, and that is why it has often preferred lay magistrates. To suggest that they really cannot understand that some people can take more drink than others seems to me to suggest a degree of incompetence, from which the only inference to draw is that they should not be allowed to try cases at all, still less capital cases or cases involving long periods of imprisonment if a conviction is obtained.
The fact of the matter is that these tests are pretty reliable. I will not weary the House again, because the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, on an earlier Amendment, gave fairly accurate—I think entirely accurate—limits to the accuracy of these different tests. They are fairly accurate, and on the "fail safe" method—that is to say, allowing a margin of error in favour of an accused—you can make them very reliable indeed; and that is the way in which they should be employed. Everybody knows that they do not tell you for certainty whether or not a man is drunk. I have resisted any temptation to use them for that purpose. But at the risk of being tedious, I assert that they tell you that a certain level of alcohol means that a minimum quantity has been taken, and therefore enable you to check on the eccentricities of behaviour and clinical symptoms to discover whether they are likely to be due to alcohol or to some idiosyncrasy or pathological condition of the body—to check on the truth of the story (often given by suspects of this offence) that they have had only one small sherry, and that some hours ago in the course of an elaborate meal; a story often told, and sometimes successfully. When you find, for instance, that there are 122 milligrams per 100 millilitres in the blood of the accused, as happened to my noble

1049
friend after he had drunk a quarter of a bottle of whisky, a jury may be entitled to treat such art account by an accused with a considerable degree of scepticism.
The fact is that these tests are a valuable aid. Clause 2 is really the most cautious clause we could think out. It refuses to treat these tests as conclusive. It refuses to impose arbitrary limits upon the amount of alcohol which may be present in the blood. Because the evidence from these tests sheds a good deal of light on the facts of cases, and because that light will often operate as much in favour of the defendant as against him, if the truth be known, we think the jury should have it before them. If you once get it into your mind that you cannot trust judges to find out the truth, and that you cannot trust juries to find out the truth when they are given all the relevant evidence, then you had better shut up 'the courts of justice rather than try to invent a series of artificial rules to give the result you want to bring about.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: I am afraid that I am not very satisfied with the last two answers. First of all, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, seemed to cast contempt upon the evidence of an expert who is, I think, an accredited member of his profession. I am sorry that the noble Lord assumed that his figures are wrong. Personally I have no way of judging. But it strikes me as being serious.
LORD TAYLOR: I did not; I said that, in spite of not having the zero level right, he made quite a good series of estimations.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: The zero level is very important, and we may have difficulty in finding competent persons. With regard to what the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, said, I would still ask him this question. If he is a member of a jury and sees before him two men, each of whom has taken an equivalent amount of alcohol, is he able to say, by looking at; them, which can hold his liquor better than the other? If he is, then I think that he is a genius.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: If I were on a jury—fortunately, I am debarred by my profession from serving—I should
1050
want to know a little about how each behaved when driving a car and when brought to the police station. This would give me a very good indication of which one was innocent and of which one was guilty, or if both were guilty.
I took the trouble of reading my noble friend's article in the Evening News, in which he describes his experiences after having taken a quarter of a bottle of whisky, in the interests of science. I submitted certain questions to the Medical Research Council. They share the fears of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, about my noble friend's method of taking the test and gave a number of reasons for questioning it. The Council said that:
"one would expect a very high degree of accuracy in a forensic laboratory accustomed to carrying out many estimations daily. One would not expect the ordinary hospital biochemical laboratory to have more than a passing acquaintance with such tests."
It is only fair to add that the letter continued:
"Even so, a zero error of 50 milligrams is thought to be very high."
The standard methods of estimating blood alcohol in this country is the Widmark method, based on chromic oxidation. This technique is not completely specific for alcohol and may give a false positive result when substances such as acetone or aceto-acetic acid are present in the sample being analysed. These substances may accumulate in the blood of patients suffering from diabetes mellitus, and it is standard forensic practice to exclude the presence of this disease. It is also possible that other conditions, such as severe liver disease, may be associated with increased amounts of acetone and aceto-acetic acid in the bloodstream. Other well known sources of error in the estimation of blood alcohol are cleansing of the skin with alcohol prior to venepuncture, cleansing of glassware used in the analysis by means of alcohol or acetone, and an unsatisfactory technique in carrying out the analysis. But I am willing to arrange, if my noble friend is willing once more to make a martyr of himself and submit himself to a series of painful tests, that the results shall be published in some reputable journal.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: I will accept the noble Viscount's challenge, if, in addition, the cost of the alcohol is

1051
refunded to me. I found it a very expensive week. This has been a most interesting discussion, but I should nevertheless like to press my Amendment.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
House resumed.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past seven o'clock.