Sitting of 18 July 1961

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

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
Mr. Peart: On a point of order. I know, Mr. Speaker, that obviously you cannot interfere with the Table in the transference of Questions, but, as it concerns the Parliamentary Secretary for Science, I wonder if it could be explained why a Question on space research which was put down on the Order Paper has been transferred to another Department. I should have thought that the Minister for Science is the Minister responsible. I do not want him to be a post-box for another Department. I want him to be concerned with space research.
Mr. Speaker: I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman. As he knows, the Chair cannot accept responsibility for transfers, and at the moment we have to deal with Private Business.

PRIVATE BUSINESS
  RIVER WEAR WATCH (DISSOLUTION) BILL [Lords]
  Read the Third time and passed, without Amendment.
  SHAKESPEARE BIRTHPLACE, &C., TRUST BILL [Lords]
  As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
  DEVON COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Read a Second time and committed.
  BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION (No. 2) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Read the Third time and passed.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

  QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
  Mr. R. Harris: May I raise a short point of order, Mr. Speaker? Yesterday I put a Question to the Minister of Aviation—Question No. 36—which is recorded in the OFFICIAL REPORT with the words:
  "Mr. Harris asked the Minister of Aviation".
  Could I have it made clear which Mr. Harris it is? The House is fortunate, or perhaps unfortunate, in having two of us. Is it possible to put in "Mr. Reader Harris"?
  Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I will do my best to retain his name for him.

  SCIENCE

    Non-Ferrous Mineral Reserves, Cornwall
    Mr. Haymanasked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science when the last survey of the non-ferrous mineral reserves of Cornwall was carried out; what was its nature; and what were the results.
    The Parliamentary Secretary for Science (Mr. Denzil Freeth): The results of a comprehensive study were published in a Geological Survey memoir on the Metalliferous Mining Region of South-West England in 1956. Airborne geophysical surveys were undertaken in 1957, 1958 and 1959 and at present airborne magnetic surveys are being extended to the offshore areas.
    Mr. Hayman: Will the Minister take into account that the 1956 volume which he has mentioned has been described by a mining expert as a tiresome recital of past mining activities and, worse still, that it contains literally hundreds of gross errors of fact? Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the results of the aerial surveys have been published and where they can be found?
    Mr. Freeth: I think that I had better write to the hon. Gentleman in order to tell him exactly where, in fact, he can get them, because they have been published in a number of different ways.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: In view of what was sad in the Finance Bill debate in the House, will not my hon. Friend agree to look again to see if a further survey can now be carried out?
    Mr. Freeth: We are at the present time still continuing with the airborne magnetic surveys.

    International Co-operation
    Mr. J. H. Osbornasked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science if he will list those projects which, the, cost of which being too great to justify an entire independent programme in the United Kingdom, are considered by his Department to justify international cooperation specifying the nature of such projects and the other countries concerned.
    Mr. Denzil Freeth: The United Kingdom is participating in the European Organisation for Nuclear Research; and in the Dragon and Halden atomic reactor experiments of the European Nuclear Energy Agency. I will circulate with the OFFICIAL REPORT lists of the participating countries.
    The Anglo-United States Scout satellite programme is a further example. A project for European co-operation in space research is under consideration.
    High cost is an important, but not the only factor in deciding whether an international project is desirable.
    Mr. Osborn: While thanking my hon. Friend for his reply, may I ask him whether he would not agree that at present co-ordination is desirable, and whether he would say to what extent his Department is in touch with other departments in Europe about this matter?
    Mr. Freeth: We are, of course, pleased to work on a basis of international cooperation on scientific matters wherever it seems either possible or desirable.
    Mr. Peart: Would the hon. Gentleman give details of the Anglo-French-German programme on space research? I put a Question down about this and it has been transferred, but, perhaps, in view of the supplementary question of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn), the hon. Gentleman will be able to give the details.
    Mr. Freeth: If the hon. Member is referring to the European space research organisation project, there we are waiting for the two sub-committees to report back to the preparatory commission. If he is referring to the proposed launcher organisation, I have nothing further to add to what has already been said.
    Following are the lists:
    Dragon and Halden experiments.
    United Kingdom, Austria, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and the Euratom Commission.
    European Organisation for Nuclear Research.
    United Kingdom, France, Federal German Republic, Italy, Sweden, Belgium, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Norway, Greece and Yugoslavia.

    Civil Research
    Mr. J. H. Osbornasked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science if he will make a statement regarding methods for assisting the development of the results of research in the civil field.
    Mr. Harold Daviesasked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science whether he is satisfied that the existing administrative machinery for applying science to industry is adequate; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Denzil Freeth: The Government must necessarily play a more restricted part in civil than in defence research and development because they are not, in the main, the consumers of the products of civil industry. Nevertheless, in the novel and costly field of atomic energy, civil research and development is mainly conducted by a Government-financed organisation. The N.R.D.C., financed by the Government, supports research and development projects which it judges will, in the long term, give an economic return. The D.S.I.R. is currently working on a number of proposals for civil development contracts and is concerned in a variety of other ways to stimulate the dissemination of research results and their application to industry. Co-operative research associations are financed by industry with supporting grants from D.S.I.R.
    Mr. Osborn: Is the Parliamentary Secretary satisfied that this adequately follows up the recommendation of the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy in its Annual Report last year?
    Mr. Freeth: My noble Friend and I are never satisfied, but we are pressing on.

    Machine Tool Industry Research Association
    Mr. Cleaverasked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science how many companies have joined the Machine Tool Industry Research Association; and whether any companies have refused to take part.
    Mr. Denzil Freeth: Membership of the Machine Tool Industry Research Association, which was incorporated in November. 1960, amounts to sixty-four machine tool manufacturers, representing about half of the output of the industry, and twenty manufacturing firms in allied industries. Further efforts will be made to secure the membership of those firms which have not yet responded to invitations to support the research association.
    Mr. Cleaver: Can my right hon. Friend suggest any reason why other firms are not co-operating in this?
    Mr. Freeth: I think that possibly they do not as yet fully appreciate the benefits which co-operation in research can bring them, if they are small firms, by enabling them to get the benefits of research they could not finance by themselves; and if they are large firms, by getting research done in the research association and thereby relieving their own resources to be devoted to the more competitive aspects of the industry.
    Mr. John Hall: Is my hon. Friend aware that in Russia, to quote but one example, there are some 10,000 to 13,000 graduate designers in the machine tool industry as against some 130 or 150 in this country? Will my hon. Friend see, therefore, that the machine tool industry increases the effort it is now trying to put into research?
    Mr. Freeth: I fully accept my hon. Friend's desire to get more research and development in the machine tool industry, and it was, of course, with that in mind that the Machine Tool Industry Research Association has been but recently set up.

    Agricultural Research (Pigs)
    Mr. Ridleyasked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science whether the Agricultural Research Council is considering what is the best pig for the British bacon curing industry; and what are the results.
    Mr. Denzil Freeth: No, Sir. The Council organises and co-ordinates research with a view to acquiring scientific knowledge on such matter as the breeding, nutrition, housing and management of pigs, bearing in mind the problems of the pig industry. The results of experiments are published and are available to the farmer to help him in producing the most appropriate type of pig for his own particular circumstances, and also to the advisory services of the agricultural Departments.
    Mr. Ridley: Would not my hon. Friend agree that it is vitally important that we should in fact grow the right pig in this country, and that there is no point, in view of the extremely heavy competition in the pig industry, in not developing the best pigs for our particular needs? Will he get the Agricultural Research Council to look at this question again, because it is vitally important?
    Mr. Freeth: On the question of who should do research into what is in fact the right type of pig, my noble Friend and I take the view that this is primarily a matter for the pig producers. The Pig Industry Development Authority is actively engaged in research in trying to find the best type of pigs for the various sections of the pig-meat trade.

    Diesel-Engined Road Vehicles
    Mr. Nabarroasked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science what recent assessment he has made of injurious effects upon health and road safety of the increasing volumes of dark and black smoke from exhausts of diesel oil-powered road vehicles; and, in view of this continuing pubic nuisance, what remedial measures he proposes.
    Mr. Denzil Freeth: Repeated studies by the Medical Research Council have shown no evidence of a higher incidence of lung cancer or respiratory disease among persons exposed to greater amounts of diesel exhaust fumes than

    1037
    the general population. No figures are at present available to indicate the effect of diesel smoke on road safety. The Department of Scientific and Industrial Research is collaborating with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport in his efforts to ensure the correct maintenance and operation of vehicles which will satisfactorily eliminate the nuisance from this source.
    Mr. Nabarro: Will not my hon. Friend agree that, though there may be no evidence of lung cancer from these fumes, they are none the less asphyxiating, highly unpleasant, and a grave menace on our roads? As this is a scientific problem which has now engaged the attention of D.S.I.R. and other agencies for up to ten years within my knowledge, does not my hon. Friend agree that the efforts being made to provide a practical solution are evidently inadequate?
    Mr. Freeth: I would remind my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport made new Regulations on 10th July, which will be laid before the House within a few days, in order to prevent misuse of the excess fuel device to obtain extra power, thereby creating extra diesel smoke.
    Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: Apart from getting scientific information, would the hon. Gentleman use a little common sense about this? Does he not appreciate that these diesel fumes obscure the view on the roads and add to the slipperiness of the roads in wet weather, and that that is extremely dangerous? Will he not see that something is done to ensure that this nuisance on the roads is done away with?
    Mr. Freeth: The hon. and learned Gentleman's question is really for the Minister of Transport.
    Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: No.
    Mr. Nabarroasked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science what progress has been made by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, and other research institutions and agencies, in the filtration of exhaust fumes from diesel oil-powered road vehicles, with a view to de-colourisation and decontamination: and whether he will make a statement on the progress of
    1038
    tests by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research of American equipment for this purpose.
    Mr. Denzil Freeth: The Warren Spring Laboratory of the D.S.I.R. has examined methods for removing smoke from the exhausts of diesel powered road vehicles, but no device yet tested has proved satisfactory. A Swiss device is at present undergoing tests. No commercially-produced American device is yet available for tests.
    Mr. Nabarro: Following my supplementary question on Question No. 6, could my hon. Friend say whether research in this important field is confined only to D.S.I.R.? Are the motor industry research bodies co-operating? Are there any other agencies co-operating with D.S.I.R.? Can my hon. Friend take more purposive steps to get a coordinated and co-operative research effort in this very grave matter?
    Mr. Freeth: D.S.I.R. is, of course, working very closely with the Ministry of Transport in this matter, and, in addition, I am informed that the British Internal Combustion Engine Research Association is undertaking a programme of fundamental studies of the combustion process in diesel cylinders, and we hope that this may lead to remedial measures being possible.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that friends of mine who are experts in the manufacture of engines of this kind, namely, Gardner's of Eccles, Manchester, inform me that if these engines were decently maintained there would be no trouble? Would the hon. Gentleman consult the Minister of Transport rather than sidetrack the issue, so that a solution can be brought about to this serious matter?
    Sir L. Ungued-Thomas: Yes. Get something done.
    Mr. Freeth: I would accept the information which the hon. Member has been given by his constituents. It is a fact that correct setting of the injectors and their proper maintenance and operation provides a simple and effective remedy. I would point out to the hon. Member, however, that regulations are a matter for my right hon. Friend, not my noble Friend.
    Mr. P. Williams: Is my hon. Friend aware that it is no use blanketing this problem with a smoke-screen of words and that what is really needed is action which will make our highways livable on and drivable on?
    Mr. Freeth: That is also a question for my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. J. T. Price: Whatever scientific aspects this question may involve, is the hon. Gentleman aware that this infernal nuisance, of which hon. Members in all parts of the House are now complaining, is an actual, legal offence against the Clean Air Act and the Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations, and will he consult not only the Minister of Transport but also the Home Secretary to see if some power can be applied to this problem so that the police will take more forceful action in enforcing the laws which exist—
    Mr. Speaker: That is a long way away from the Question and from the questions which can properly be put to this Minister.

    Cancer
    Mrs. Hartasked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science if he is aware that an intensive survey is needed to prove or disprove the hypothesis that the incidence of cancer is associated with geological formation; and if Her Majesty's Government will increase the scale of their grants for cancer research to provide, inter alia, for such a survey.
    Mr. Denzil Freeth: Work on geographical variation in cancer incidence is already being supported by the Medical Research Council and will be extended if any promising new lead is found.
    Mrs. Hart: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the scale of grants is not enough for this purpose? Is he aware, for example, of the statement made at the annual meeting of the British Empire Cancer Campaign and does he appreciate that the remarks in the Press from Professor Alexander Haddow indicate that the hon. Gentleman was talking complete nonsense when he said a few weeks ago in the House that it was ideas and not money that were needed for research? Will the hon. Gentleman change his mind?
    Mr. Freeth: No, Sir. I said in answer to a Question in the House and in the debate on 10th July that I am informed by the Medical Research Council that when any promising lead on cancer and similar diseases arises this will not be held up through lack of Government funds. My noble Friend has not at any time refused the Medical Research Council money for which it has asked to promote promising leads of this nature.
    Mr. Pavittasked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science if he will state the amount of money spent by the Government on cancer research during the years 1955, 1956, 1957, 1958, 1959, and 1960; and what is the estimated expenditure for the next five-year period.
    Mr. Denzil Freeth: The Medical Research Council's expenditure from public funds on cancer research was approximately £327,000 in 1955–56; £400.000 in 1956–57; £486,000 in 1957–58; £499,000 in 1958–59; £583,000 in 1959–60; £650,000 in 1960–61, and it will amount to about £783,000 in 1961–62. No estimates can be made for periods beyond the current financial year.
    Research relevant to cancer is carried out in the universities and medical schools with funds provided by the University Grants Committee, as well as in the National Health Service during the normal course of the treatment of patients, but it is not possible to make a reliable estimate of the sums involved.
    Mr. Pavitt: While welcoming the increase over the years, may I ask whether the Parliamentary Secretary will assure the House that he will resist any possible inroads which might be attempted into this amount of money because of the economic stringency in the country?
    Mr. Freeth: I am certain that the Medical Research Council would never submit to any reductions in work on a vital subject such as this which was leading to exploration of lines which were definitely promising of a final result.
    Sir G. Nicholson: Can the Minister assure the House that in his opinion the discovery of a cure for cancer is not being held up by lack of funds?
    Mr. Freeth: That is the information which I have been given by the Medical Research Council, which is responsible

    1041
    over the whole field. The Council's grants are used to ensure that the total effort from all sources is adequate and balanced, not the other way round.

    Social Sciences (Research Council)
    Mrs. Hartasked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science what consideration he has given to the need for a social sciences research council.
    Mr. Denzil Freeth: The Council for Scientific and Industrial Research is reviewing the support given by the Department in this field. One aspect of the review is the desirability or otherwise of a separate human or social sciences research council. My noble Friend will consider carefully the views of the Research Council when he has received them.
    Mrs. Hart: Will the Parliamentary Secretary ask his noble Friend to seek the views of leading social scientists and sociologists in this country about the contribution which a continual search unit might be able to make to Government policy and Government research?
    Mr. FreethI hope that such experts in this field will either send their views to the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research or to my noble Friend, who will pass them on so that a full and proper survey of the desirability or not of having a social science research council can properly be made.
    Mr. Peart: Why wait? Surely the hon. Gentleman knows that there is a need for it. Everybody accepts that. Why not action now?
    Mr. Freeth: My noble Friend put his finger on it when he said in a previous Session in another place that it is possibly premature to have a research council for the social sciences and that if one wishes to encourage the social sciences there may well be other means of so doing, in the universities for example, without the need to set up a special research council.
    Mrs. Hart: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is not a question of encouraging the social sciences but of enabling them to make the contribution which they can make?
    Mr. Freeth: The hon. Lady has made up her mind. My noble Friend will
    1042
    await the report of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research on this problem.

    Radioactive Wastes
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslopasked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science what progress the Atomic Energy Authority has made in the conversion of radioactive wastes into glass for easier and safer disposal.
    Mr. Denzil Freeth: I am advised by the Atomic Energy Authority that its work on the fixation of highly radioactive wastes in solid glass-like materials is progressing satisfactorily. A pilot scale plant for the further development of the process is being constructed.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Would my hon. Friend indicate where it is proposed to dispose of this glass-like waste when the process has been completed?
    Mr. Freeth: The Atomic Energy Authority aims to bury the glass cylinders in concrete pits to eliminate any risk of contaminating local surface water. It will also be necessary for the storage caverns to be equipped with cooling devices to remove the heat caused by radioactive decay during the first years of storage.

    Graduate Scientists
    Mr. Stonesasked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science if he will state the annual output of graduate scientists in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Denzil Freeth: The annual output of qualified scientists, which was under 5,000 in 1956, will be approximately 6,900 in the present academic year. In the same period the annual output of qualified technologists has grown from 6,200 to over 9,600.
    Mr. Stones: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that in 1958, the last year for which I have figures, there was an output of 96,509 graduates in scientific and technical faculties in the United States and that in the same year in the U.S.S.R. there were 114,600 graduates in the same subjects, whilst in Brit tin in 1957 there were only 10,879 graduates? I understand from information provided by H.M. Stationery Office that the present aim of Her Majesty's Government is to

    1043
    increase the annual output from 10,000 to 20,000 in the next ten to fifteen years. [HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."] Is the hon. Gentleman aware that even if this aim is achieved we shall be still seriously lagging behind the two Powers mentioned? Will not he urge upon his noble Friend the need for co-ordination of all the powers available to make up this leeway?
    Mr. Freeth: I think that the hon. Member in his speech—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—slightly tended to compare like with unlike. It is not always fair to make a comparison with the United States and U.S.S.R., because standards differ. I would remind the hon. Member that the Statistics Committee of the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy is presenting a report—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."]—that is what I am meant to make—is presenting a report in the fairly near future estimating the output of graduate scientists over the next ten years, and the needs of the nation.

    Medical Research
    Mr. Pavittasked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science what proposals he now has for improving and increasing medical research.
    Mr. Denzil Freeth: The whole field of medical research is kept under review by the Medical Research Council which takes every opportunity of promoting new and promising lines of study. The Council's programme of research is continually expanding and its expenditure has more than trebled over the last ten years. There is every reason to believe that expenditure will continue to rise.
    Mr. Pavitt: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that that Answer is totally unsatisfactory and that the United States are now spending about 4,000 million dollars on medical research? Is he aware that this is costing this country quite a lot in its bill for imported pharmaceutical products? Would the hon. Gentleman do something a little more than is indicated in his Answer?
    Mr. Freeth: The hon. Member should recall that the Medical Research Council does not have a monopoly of medical research in this country. A great deal
    1044
    is carried out in the universities and the hospitals and by private organisations. Therefore, the expenditure by the Medical Research Council does not cover all the money that the nation spends on this research?
    Mr. Pavitt: In view of that, would not the hon. Gentleman arrange for some planning and co-ordination instead of having this ramshackle arrangement for research?
    Mr. Freeth: The duty of the Medical Research Council, which it carries out satisfactorily, is to review the nation's efforts in this field and make good the gaps which otherwise might be there.

    Farm Buildings
    Mr. Harold Daviesasked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science if he is aware that almost £20 millions a year is being paid for farm building subsidies; and if he will establish a research programme for farm building.
    Mr. Denzil Freeth: My information is that the annual total of grants towards the cost of farm buildings in the United Kingdom is about £7 million. With regard to the second part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) on 16th May last.
    Mr. Davies: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, according to the Report of the Farm Building Association, there is a dire need for some research? Is he aware that my information is that half of 1 per cent. of the subsidies given to agriculture, if devoted to this, would provide a first-class research organisation that might bring a great return to the country? I do not want to elaborate on it, but would the hon. Gentleman look into the problem?
    Mr. Freeth: I am grateful to the hon. Member far bringing the whole question to the notice of the House. The Agricultural Research Council is advised by the Farm Buildings Research Committee under the chairmanship of Sir Walter Drummond. The hon. Member no doubt will have noticed the report issued to the Press last week about progress in the first year of the experimental farm building scheme. We have great hopes of this.

    Research Results (Publication)
    Mr. Ainsleyasked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science what contribution the Government makes towards the cost of publication of the results of research undertaken at its own institutes.
    Mr. Denzil Freeth: The Government contribute in many ways, both directly and indirectly, to the cost of publication of such research, though full details are not readily available. The research councils for which my noble Friend is responsible have made provision for spending about £250,000 in the current year on printing, publication and other forms of publicity.
    Mr. Ainsley: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware of the great numbers of magazines which we are receiving from other countries, revealing the vast amount of research work going on there compared with the meagre allowance that his Department is making for the publication of students' papers, which is resulting in delay? Will he speed up the research work so that industry and all other Government Departments can take advantage of this scientific age?
    Mr. Freeth: A great many scientific publications are not the direct responsibility of my noble Friend, but the research councils for which he is responsible go out of their way to see that the results of their research are published in all the relevant leading journals.

    Mathematicians
    Mr. G. Elfed Daviesasked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science if he will make a statement upon the effect of the shortage of mathematicians upon the British scientific research effort.
    Mr. Denzil Freeth: Scientific research depends quite as much on quality as quantity. In quality, our mathematicians are second to none, and I do not, therefore, fear for our progress on this account. It is, however, difficult to obtain mathematicians for research and teaching. For the action Her Majesty's Government are taking to increase the number of mathematicians, I would refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education's speech in this House on 10th July.
    Mr. Davies: Will not the hon. Gentleman recognise that that reply is based upon a scientific research programme which hon. Members on both sides of the House consider is not good enough? Unless this programme is speeded up and increased, the position will become infinitely worse. Does not the hon. Gentleman think that it is his responsibility to have discussions with the Minister of Education and not merely to wait for Questions from this side of the House? Will not he accept his responsibility?
    Mr. Freeth: The hon. Gentleman knows that there is, naturally, very close contact at all levels between Government Departments, but the steps which can or should be taken, or which are being taken, to increase the number of mathematicians are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education and of the universities.
    Mr. Peart: Will the hon. Gentleman jerk the Minister of Education into action? It was obvious from the science debate last week and from the education debate yesterday that both sides of the House recognise that there is a crisis in the supply of mathematics teachers at all levels. When are we to have action?
    Mr. Freeth: The hon. Gentleman obviously missed the Answer which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education gave to one of my hon. Friends only a little while ago at the end of Question Time.

    Geophysics
    Mr. Owenasked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science what are his proposals for increasing research into geophysics.
    Mr. Denzil Freeth: The D.S.I.R. at present operates thirteen research grants with six different universities or colleges, and six further grants are contemplated. In addition, it is intended to extend the use of seismic methods by the Geological Survey. Geophysical (research is also carded out in other establishments for which my noble Friend is not directly responsible.
    Mr. Owen: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we are familiar with the annual report of the Geological Survey? To the best of my knowledge, however, there has never been a geophysical survey in Britain. Will he recognise that at this stage—again, this is to the best of my knowledge—there are singularly few chairs in our universities catering for this vital branch of research? Will he consider this more closely in the interests of our future development?
    Mr. Freeth: As I have said, there are a large number of other establishments, such as the Meteorological Office and the Astronomer-Royal at Hurstmonceaux, where geophysical research is undertaken. But, as I said in reply to a question last May, we are having difficulty in recruiting the necessary qualified manpower.

    Industry (Co-operative Research)
    Mr. Peartasked the Parliament Secretary for Science what are his proposals for encouraging more cooperative research in industry.
    Mr. Denzil Freeth: The Council for Scientific and Industrial Research will continue to give co-operative research associations full support. The Council plans to increase its overall annual grant contributions, provided that industry continues to give an increasing measure of support. My noble Friend and I lose no opportunities of explaining the benefits which industry can obtain from a greater use of co-operative research.

    Marine Nuclear Propulsion
    Mr. Rankinasked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science if he will make a statement on his Department's research into marine nuclear propulsion.
    Mr. Denzil Freeth: The Atomic Energy Authority collaborated fully with the Ministry of Transport Committee which assessed the suitability for marine propulsion of various reactors now in an advanced stage of development. Since the Committee reported, the Authority has begun a study of more advanced reactor systems.
    Mr. Rankin: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that Answer does not give
    1048
    anyone a clear idea of what is being done? Would he say whether or not basic research by his Department on the attempt to get a suitable reactor system has now been abandoned, or is being abandoned altogether, despite the fact that savings in operating costs by the use of nuclear propulsion, compared with present costs, would be about 80 per cent.? Would not that present a serious future for shipping?
    Mr. Freeth: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Atomic Energy Authority will continue to spend fairly large sums of money on the development of reactors which could have a sea-based application as opposed to a land-based application only.
    Mr. Chetwynd: Was it upon the advice of the hon. Gentleman's Department that the Minister of Transport took the lamentable decision not to proceed at the moment with any of the designs that we have already?
    Mr. Freeth: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport has not yet announced any decision to the House.

    Meat (Research)
    Sir L. Plummerasked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science what are his proposals for encouraging meat research.
    Mr. Denzil Freeth: The matter is still under consideration, but it is hoped to make a statement shortly.
    Sir L. Plummer: Can the hon. Gentleman prevail on his noble Friend to see that "shortly" really means "shortly"? Is he aware that we have a mission buying French cattle in France, that we have the growth of baby beef under the broiler system in this country, and that we have competition from chickens? Surely something should be done to instruct housewives and farmers about exactly what is needed in the country's interests?
    Mr. Freeth: I agree that it is desirable that the proposal to set up a meat research institute should have a final decision as soon as possible, but for some time a great deal of research on meat has been taking place at the Low Temperature Research Station at Cambridge, which I visited last Friday.

    Imperial College (Low-Power Nuclear Reactor)
    Mr. Wainwrightasked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science if he will now state when the London University Imperial College of Science and Technology will be allowed to commence building a low-power nuclear reactor.
    Mr. Denzil Freeth: The discussions to which I referred in my reply to the hon. Member on 9th May are not yet concluded and I am not yet in a position to make a further statement.
    Mr. Wainwright: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that this situation is rather deplorable? Are not we lagging further behind other countries in not having low-powered reactors at our universities? Will he do something to speed this matter up, so as to enable our undergraduates to study the building and use of a low-powered reactor?
    Mr. Freeth: It is only within the last few days that London University has made its final views known to the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, which is now awaiting the revised application for a grant, with full supporting details and up-to-date estimates of costs.

    Biology (Research)
    Mr. Wainwrightasked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science what are his proposals for improving biological research.
    Mr. Skeffingtonasked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science what are his proposals for implementing 'the recommendations contained in the Report of the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy, 1960, on taxonomy.
    Mr. Denzil Freeth: At the request of the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy, a Committee of the Royal Society is considering existing arrangements for supporting fundamental research in biology, and I am awaiting the outcome of its consideration.
    Mr. Wainwright: Are not the hon. Gentleman and his noble Friend delaying these matters instead of getting on with the job? The medical profession is doing excellent work in biological
    1050
    therapy, but is having to neglect certain research because of lack of finance. Will the hon. Gentleman again believe in the old adage that prevention is better than cure?
    Mr. Freeth: A very high standard of biological research is being carried on in a number of institutes and institutions, and it is not a bad thing to get a body of expert opinion such as the Royal Society to tell us where the gaps lie, if there are any.

    Private Industry (Research)
    Mr. Skeffingtonasked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science if he will give the percentages of research, and cost of work, carried out by private industry working partly on Government contract.
    Mr. Denzil Freeth: According to calculations published in last year's Report of the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy, private industry carried out research and development costing £266 million in 1958–59, of which £154 million or 58 per cent. was financed by Government.

    Food (Research)
    Mr. Kelleyasked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science if he will now announce Government proposals for encouraging food research.
    Mr. Denzil Freeth: A considerable amount of research on food is at present being undertaken at the research stations under the control of the A.R.C. and D.S.I.R., by research associations under the auspices of the D.S.I.R., and elsewhere. The possibility of extending this work is kept under review.
    Mr. Kelley: Does not the Parliamentary Secretary think, having regard to the large amount of work which he says is being done and, I presume, the enormous amount of money which is spent in this field, that it would be well to publish same findings of the organisations which are busy in this work?
    Mr. Freeth: When they reach a stage at which publication would be useful, all the findings are published in the appropriate journals. The research associations do their best to see that the

    1051
    firms which might benefit from the researches made are aware of what is being discovered.

    Computer Techniques
    Mr. D. Jonesasked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science if he is aware of the contribution the computer machine would make to the prosperity of British industry; and what research he is undertaking in order to secure the maximum benefits from an increase in the scale of its general use.
    Mr. Denzil Freeth: Yes, Sir, I am fully aware of the variety and importance of the contributions which computer techniques can make to the prosperity of British industry. Government agencies are supporting a great deal of research and development in this field and encouraging its application. Support is also being given to the British Conference on Automation and Computation, one of whose aims is to extend the use of these techniques throughout industry.
    Mr. Jones: I cannot say that these efforts are in any way successful, and I wish to add—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ask a question."] I am coming to my supplementary question. In the meantime, I hope that hon. Members who interrupt me appreciate the time that they are wasting. The point is that this makes a tremendous contribution—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ask a question."] I should like to ask the Minister, as a supplementary question, how many meetings he has had with British industry in order that the benefits of this machine may be made known, for the truth is—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Question Time is not the time for giving information, as I must remind the hon. Member.
    Mr. Jones: Is the Minister aware that this machine is under-employed?
    Mr. Freeth: The National Physical Laboratory, which is one of the stations of the D.S.I.R., provides an advisory service to industry and assists individual firms with programming problems and the application of computer techniques. In its research into the application of computers it has paid particular attention to a number of industries in which computer techniques, we believe, can be of benefit.

    Nuclear Explosions (Detection)
    Mr. Masonasked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science to what extent the Atomic Energy Authority is concerning itself with the development of instruments and systems to detect nuclear explosions both underground and in space; what form these developments are taking; and what prospects there are of a fully effective detection system being devised.
    Mr. Denzil Freeth: The Atomic Energy Authority is pursuing two main lines of approach: seismic studies for earth-based explosions, and studies of the ionic and optical changes in the upper atmosphere which would occur as a result of explosions in space. Progress towards a fully effective detection system would be faster if all three countries taking part in the Nuclear Tests Conference were pooling their efforts in a coordinated programme of research, as Her Majesty's Government and the United States Government have repeatedly urged.
    Mr. Mason: Is the Minister aware that the Atomic Energy Authority seems to have stepped up its research in this field? Is this due to Government optimism in expecting a test agreement soon or is it that they suspect that Russia has tested underground or in space and that we have to speed up our efforts to try to detect these tests?
    Mr. Freeth: Naturally, the Government still hope that it will still be possible to make progress in the Geneva talks, but research of this kind is equally essential if we are to have an adequate system of international inspection.

  QUESTIONS TO THE PRIME MINISTER
  Mr. Speaker: The House will have observed that the Order Paper today indicates that the Prime Minister will answer his Questions at 3.15 p.m. The Prime Minister has informed me that he is at the service of the House in this matter and is willing to try this experiment for the remainder of the Session, if that be the wish of the House, as I understand it is.

  AMBASSADOR TO SOUTH AFRICA
  Mr. Brockwayasked the Prime Minister to which Minister the United Kingdom Ambassador to the Republic of South Africa will be responsible.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): A decision will be made when the review of our relations with South Africa, now in progress, has been completed. Meanwhile the Ambassador will continue to be responsible to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations.
  Mr. Brockway: May I express our appreciation of this new arrangement for answering Questions and the hope that it will be convenient for the Prime Minister as well as useful to the House?
  How long does the Prime Minister expect it will be before a decision is reached on this matter of South Africa? Is he aware that very many of us take the view that, since the Union of South Africa has withdrawn from the Commonwealth, the Ambassador should be representative of the Foreign Office and not of the Commonwealth Relations Department?
  The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Member for what he said about the arrangement of Questions. I can assure him that this arrangement suits me much better because I know when to come here.
  Answering the second part of the supplementary question, under the standstill agreement there will be a considerable period before we can negotiate all the many problems which arise. I think that we had better wait to see what progress we make under the standstill arrangements.

  CYPRUS (COMMON MARKET)
  Mr. F. Noel-Bakerasked the Prime Minister which Minister will conduct discussions with the Government of the Republic of Cyprus regarding the effect on the Republic of an association between the United Kingdom and the European Common Market; and where and when these discussions will take place.
  The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal has visited
  1054
  Nicosia for this purpose, and had talks with Cyprus Ministers.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: Many of us are very grateful to the Prime Minister for the new arrangement of Questions. Can he add anything about the character of the talks and the outcome and whether they were satisfactory or unsatisfactory? Can he make any comment about them?
  The Prime Minister: A communiqué has been issued summarising the discussions.

  PRIME MINISTER (SPEECH)
  Mr. Donnellyasked the Prime Minister whether he will arrange for the full text of his speech about national policies at Calne, Wiltshire, on Saturday, 1st July, to be placed in the Library.
  The Prime Minister: It would be unusual to place in the Library a copy of a speech made on a party political occasion, but it would give the Conservative Central Office great pleasure to send the hon. Member a copy of the speech that I made at Calne on 1st July.
  Mr. Donnelly: Is the Prime Minister aware that while parts of that speech are unexceptionable, there was a section which referred to the fact, which the Prime Minister claims, that this country had never been more prosperous in its history? Is he aware that there is a growing feeling in this country that he has consistently, reverting to his Answer just now, put party interests before those of the nation? At what time in this century has there been a Prime Minister who has been more gorged by his own words?
  The Prime Minister: Answering the first part of the question, I think that the best thing would be to put the hon. Member on the permanent list of subscribers to Central Office publications. Answering the second part of the question, if he will search his heart, I will search mine. I remember no time when the people of this country have been better housed and better clothed and more fully employed.
  Mr. Jeger: Has the Prime Minister's attention been drawn to the very fair

  1055
  and objective examination of his policy in today's Daily Mirror?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, but I do not serve Mr. King.

  COMMON MARKET
  Mr. Warbeyasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the outcome of the discussions with the Commonwealth countries on the possibility of Great Britain entering the Common Market, and on the steps which he now proposes to take.
  Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Prime Minister whether he will make a further statement on the policy of Her Majesty's Government in relation to the Common Market following the visits of Cabinet Ministers to Commonwealth countries.
  Mr. Doughtyasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the views communicated to Her Majesty's Government by the other countries of the European Free Trade Association as to the desirability of Great Britain joining the European Common Market.
  Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on the Ministerial consultations with Commonwealth Governments about relations with the European Economic Community.
  Mr. Holtasked the Prime Minister, following the recent statements of Commonwealth leaders on the question of Great Britain's entry into the European Economic Community, if he will announce forthwith Her Majesty's Government's decision to open formal negotiations with the European Economic Community.
  Sir C. Osborneasked the Prime Minister, in view of the fact that the French President has officially refused to consider any of the concessions, in relation to the Rome Treaty regarding the European Free Trade Association, agriculture and the Commonwealth, which are necessary in order to enable the United Kingdom to join the Common Market, whether he will discontinue consultations with Commonwealth Governments on this matter; and if he will make a statement.
  Mr. Sorensenasked the Prime Minister if he will make available to the House the evidence advanced to his Ministerial colleagues by Commonwealth Governments concerning the immediate and ultimate economic consequences to the Commonwealth countries if the United Kingdom joined the Common Market; what assurances were given to those Governments in respect of this; and whether any Commonwealth Government made any proposal for the substantial improvement of trade and commerce between its own country and the United Kingdom.
  The Prime Minister: As I said in reply to a Question on 13th July, I hope to make a statement on these matters before the House rises. The House will understand that the Government must first hear the reports of the Ministers who visited the various Commonwealth countries, and discuss the whole question in the light of these reports.
  Mr. Speaker: There was so much noise that I did not hear. Might I ask the Prime Minister whether he was answering more than one Question?
  The Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I should have said that, with permission, I would answer Questions Nos. 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 13 with Question No. 4.
  Mr. Warbey: Is it not already manifest that the Government's travelling salesmen have returned with virtually empty order books? Will the Prime Minister say how many of the dozen or so Commonwealth countries visited have shown positive enthusiasm for Britain's entry into the Common Market?
  The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman has given a quite false account of these very valuable discussions. If the hon. Gentleman's comments came from any other quarter I would pay more attention to them.
  Mr. Doughty: Will the Prime Minister, when making his statement, deal in detail with the views of the individual Commonwealth nations, and not make a general statement? With regard to Question No. 8 which deals with the European Free Trade Association and not with the Commonwealth, will the Prime Minister remember that we owe a duty

  1057
  to those countries who have gone in with us to see that they come along with us into the Common Market? If we do not succeed in the Common Market, we can form a stronger association with them and possibly with the Commonwealth as well.
  The Prime Minister: On the first part of the supplementary question, perhaps my hon. and learned Friend will await my statement. With regard to the second part, we have all through been in the closest touch with the E.F.T.A. members, and indeed we had a meeting on this very subject only a few weeks ago.
  Mr. Biggs-DavisonWhile agreeing with what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) said about E.F.T.A., may I ask the Prime Minister whether he will respond to the challenge so forcibly issued to this colleagues by the Commonwealth Governments and give new priority to the expansion of Commonwealth trade, with the aim of a Commonwealth freer trade asociation able to associate with Continental Europe, and will he therefore keep in mind Mr. Diefenbaker's call, echoed from Pakistan and elsewhere, for a Commonwealth Prime Minister' s conference?
  The Prime Minister: These are all relevant questions. My hon. Friend will remember the offer that we made to Canada two or three years ago.
  Mr. Grimond: Can the Prime Minister clear up one point? As the Common Market has been growing for some years, can the Prime Minister tell us when the Commonwealth was first consulted about our relations with it?
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will remember that the first effort we made was a long negotiation—which at one time looked hopeful—for the formation of a European Free Trade Area. That very nearly succeeded. I do not regret that negotiation. I think that it was well worth undertaking. It was only when it broke down that we had to consider the situation resulting.
  Mr. M. Foot: Will the Prime Minister give a guarantee that there will be not merely a statement on this subject before the House rises for the Recess, but an opportunity for a full debate on it?
  1058
  Would not it be wrong to have a statement on which only questions could be put to the right hon. Gentleman?
  The Prime Minister: That is another matter.
  Mr. A. Henderson: In view of the statement made this morning by the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations that there was a likelihood of a high-powered Commonwealth conference being held, may I ask the Prime Minister whether that has been considered by the Government?
  The Prime Minister: I do not understand that the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations made any such statement.
  Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: Will the right hon. Gentleman admit what is obvious to everybody else, that the purpose of these visits to the Commonwealth was to sell the Common Market idea rather than to obtain the views of the Commonwealth? Will the Prime Minister do two things before he enters into any negotiations with the Common Market? First, will he have a meeting of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers so that they can all together, jointly, discuss the political as well as the economic implications of the Common Market? Secondly, will be enable this House to have a debate on the subject before he enters into any negotiations?
  The Prime Minister: With regard to the first part of the supplementary question, the object of these visits was to consult and to explain, and I think that it would have been a great mistake not to have done that. I think that they have been very valuable. In the light of them I will make a statement, and in the light of that statement the House must decide what it wishes.
  Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of my supplementary question?
  Mr. Gaitskell: Reverting to the question of a debate, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer is to make a very important statement next week, following which I imagine some opportunity for debate is bound to be provided, will the Prime Minister consider whether it would be

  1059
  convenient to incorporate the statement on the Common Market with the statement on the Commonwealth visits?
  The Prime Minister: It might be convenient to the Opposition, but I do not think that it would be at all a good thing to mix up two quite separate subjects.
  Mr. Gaitskell: Does the Prime Minister really regard the subjects as totally separate? If he refuses to deal with the matter in the way I have suggested, will he give a guarantee that there will be an opportunity for the House to discuss this matter before we rise?
  The Prime Minister: That is not a matter for me, but we will take into account the wishes of the House.
  Mr. H. Wilsonasked the Prime Minister if he will now publish a White Paper setting out the main paints raised in discussions between Commonwealth Governments and the Ministers who visited them to discuss the problems which would be raised by British entry into the Common Market.
  Mr. Doughtyasked the Prime Minister if, after the return of the Ministers now visiting Commonwealth countries, he will issue a White Paper giving the views expressed by those countries on the question as to whether Great Britain should join the European Common Market.
  Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Prime Minister if he will publish the detailed observations of the Commonwealth Governments visited by the various representatives of Her Majesty's Government on the question of the Common Market.
  The Prime Minister: I do not think that it would be right to publish a White Paper giving an account of private discussions between British Ministers and Commonwealth Ministers. I am, however, arranging for all agreed communiqués issued to be published together.
  Mr. Wilson: Is the Prime Minister not aware that in addition to the agreed communiqués a great deal has been put out in the various Commonwealth countries in newspapers? Is the right hon. Gentleman not yet aware that this is a vital decision one way or the other for the whole country, for the whole nation,
  1060
  and for the whole Commonwealth? Will he stop treating this as though it were a private thing to be decided at a country house party?
  The Prime Minister: The second part of the supplementary is quite worthy of the right hon. Gentleman. With regard to the first part, whatever newspapers may say, I still hold the view—perhaps it is old-fashioned—that one should not put out statements about private discussions with Commonwealth Prime Ministers.
  Mr. Doughty: Is the Prime Minister-aware that if he makes a statement to the House it will receive the same amount of publicity as the White Paper will receive?
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the Prime Minister aware that there has been considerable criticism in the Canadian Press and also in our Press that he has become entirely subservient to the strategic policy of Mr. Kennedy and the United States of America? Can the Prime Minister assure us that he has not succumbed to pressure from President Kennedy on the Common Market?
  The Prime Minister: Whatever may be the hon. Gentleman's views about that, and of course he is well-informed, it is certainly not the view of the American Press.
  Mr. P. Williams: Is my right hon. Friend aware that when the Conservative Party took office ten years ago 50 per cent. of our exports went to the Commonwealth, whereas today the figure is only 40 per cent.? This is an unfortunate situation, and it is not enough to cast away as an aside, as my right hon. Friend did a few minutes ago, a remark about an offer made to Canada a few, years ago. What is now needed is a Commonwealth Prime Ministers' conference to bring together Commonwealth trade interests and to promote them.
  The Prime Minister: That is another issue, but I think that the broad picture which we have to take into account is that for the maximisation of world trade the growth of the wealth and strength of Britain is of Commonwealth interest.
  Mr. Shinwell: In view of the criticism that comes from both sides of the House,

  1061
  the criticism in sections of the Press, and criticism from Commonwealth countries and elsewhere, does not the Prime Minister think that he might display a little common sense and abandon the whole idea?
  The Prime Minister: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman, with his natural courtesy, will be good enough to await the statement that I propose to make.
  Sir D. Walker-Smith: Will my right hon. Friend be good enough to see that one way or another the House is made aware not only of the reactions of the Commonwealth to the possibility of Britain joining the Common Market, but of their reactions to any proposals which Ministers may have put before them for the review and revision of the Ottawa Agreement and the Commonwealth trading arrangements so as to make them fully effective in the context and conditions of 1961?
  The Prime Minister: Of course, that is relevant to this issue.
  Mr. Speaker: Mr. Gourlay—Question No. 12.
  Sir C. Osborne: Mr. Speaker, may I ask Question No. 11?
  The Prime Minister: It has been answered.
  Sir C. Osborne: I was not aware that it had been answered. Unfortunately I was not called to ask a supplementary question to the Answer to a lot of Questions, and that is why I thought that my Question had not been answered. May I ask this supplementary question—[HON.MEMBERS: "No."]
  Mr. Speaker: Order: This is my fault. Might I ask the Prime Minister whether Question No. 11 was answered, and if so, with which Questions?
  The Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, it was answered with Questions Nos. 4, 6, 8, 9, 10 and 13.
  Mr. Speaker: Then I apologise. The mistake is mine. I cannot save the matter for the Hon Member. I am afraid.
  Sir C. Osborne: May I ask a supplementary question now?
  Mr. Speaker: I am afraid not.

  GERMAN FORCES (UNITED KINGDOM)
  Mr. Gourlayasked the Prime Minister when he received the letter from Kirkcaldy Town Council opposing the training of German troops in this country and the possible use of Rosyth Dockyard for German submarines; and what was the nature of his reply.
  The Prime Minister: I have sent the hon. Member a copy of the reply sent on my behalf to the letter to which he refers. I received the letter on 13th July.
  Mr. Gourlay: Is the Prime Minister aware that the contents,of the letter mentioned in the Question express clearly the sentiments of the majority of Scottish people? Will he give an assurance that he will consult local authorities before any further facilities are granted to German troops?
  The Prime Minister: I do not know about consulting local authorities. In my letter I tried to give a reply to the paint made to me, and I think that it was a fair and satisfactory one.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): With permission, I should like to make a short statement on business.
Tomorrow, Wednesday, to allow adequate time for the debate on the Visiting Forces (Application of Law) Order, it would seem to suit the convenience of the House for it to be taken as second item of business after the Lords Amendments to the Rating and Valuation Bill.
The Exchequer Advances (Limit) Order will, therefore, be deferred. It might be convenient for this Order to be debated in the context of the statement which my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will make next week.
If the Visiting Forces (Application of Law) Order is concluded at a reasonable hour tomorrow, we shall seek to complete the Second Reading of the Suicide Bill [Lords], which was adjourned last Friday. The Bill will then go to a Standing Committee.

1063
In regard to the business on Friday, of this week, as proceedings on the Bristol, South-East petition are still continuing, and it may well be that judgment will not be delivered this week, it is thought preferable to postpone consideration of the Motion to set up a Joint Select Committee on House of Lords Reform.
It is proposed, therefore, that the following business should be taken next Friday:
Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Covent Garden Market Bill, and to the Land Drainage Bill.
Afterwards, we propose to proceed with the Consideration of Motions to approve the Motor Vehicles (Variation of Speed Limit) Regulations, the Patents (Fees Amendment) Order, the Insurance Contracts (War Settlement) (Germany) Order, and five Cotton Industry Orders.
Mr. Gaitskell: Will the Leader of the House elucidate the Government's intentions and motives in deferring the debate on the Motion dealing with House of Lords reform? Was it always their intention that this debate should not be held until after the judgment had been delivered? If so, could not the right hon. Gentleman have foreseen that it was likely to take a little longer? Finally, if the judgment is delivered before the Summer Recess, is it the Government's intention to proceed to debate the Motion before then?
Mr. Butler: The right hon. Gentleman will remember that he made a special request that this business should not be taken on a Friday, and I undertook, across the Floor of the House, to pay
1064
attention to what he said. Now that I have paid attention to what he said, perhaps he will express his gratification.
We had not anticipated that the petition would take so long in the hearing, and that the judgment would take so long in being delivered. We cannot be certain, but we are under the impression that it is taking longer than we had anticipated. It would be unwise—in fact, improper—that a debate should take place when opinions expressed in it might have their effect upon the judgment. I am advised that it would, therefore, be wiser to postpone the debate, and to take, instead, the business that I have stated.
Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I appreciate that the Government are in a stickier spot than they thought they would be, but will the Leader of the House say that this matter will be taken, not on a Friday, before the House rises?
Mr. Butler: I cannot give any undertaking, as we have very important business next week. It remains our intention that this matter should remain on the Order Paper and be taken at the best possible opportunity.
Mr. C. Pannell: Is the object of deferment a kind gesture on behalf of the Leader of the House to allow Mr. Benn to take part in the debate?
Mr. Butler: As usual, the hon. Member has raised a substantive point. We cannot tell what the judgment will be in this case. I think that it would be unwise to hold this debate if there is any doubt about the judgment not being delivered this week—and as there is, I think it much better not to have the debate.

BURIAL OF OFFENDERS
3.35 p.m.
Mr. Charles Pannell: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend section six of the Capital Punishment Amendment Act. 1868.
I hope that it will not be thought presumptuous of me to seek leave to bring in this Bill at this stage, when we are about to debate the burial of the Government. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. In courtesy to the hon. Member who is asking leave of the House to bring the Bill, I hope that hon. Members will make less noise.
Mr. Pannell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Section 6 of the Capital Punishment Within Prisons Act, 1868, says:
"The Body of every Offender executed shall be buried within the Walls of the Prison within which Judgment of Death is executed on him; provided that if One of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State is satisfied on the Representation of the Visiting Justices of a Prison that there is not convenient Space within the Walls thereof for the Burial of Offenders executed therein, he may, by Writing under his Hand appoint some other fit Place for that Purpose, and the same shall be used accordingly."
Putting the matter briefly, I wish to amend that provision to allow the Home Secretary, where he thinks fit, and under such conditions as he considers desirable, to give back the body to the next of kin, where that is desired. Although I am not directing my remarks at the recent discussion of the Evans case, in that debate the Home Secretary left the House with the impression that he could not give back the body of Timothy John Evans to the next of kin, on the basis that there was no Royal pardon. That difficulty would go if my Bill were passed.
There are substantial reasons why we should do this. I am having a good deal of trouble owing to the oratory of hon. Members opposite. There was a time when one of your predecessors, Sir, said that he could not hear me, Mr. Speaker. I am sure hon. Members opposite cannot, at the moment. We have now altered the form of sentence of death. The judge now no longer delivers the old form of sentence of death, which is a rather long one, in which he says:
1066
"I will content myself now with passing upon you the sentence of the law, which is, that you be taken hence to the gaol …; and that you be taken thence to a place of execution and be there hanged by the neck until you be dead; and that your body be afterwards buried within the precincts of the prison in which you shall be last confined after your conviction; and may the Lord have mercy upon your soul."
That rather ghoulish form of words has gone out, as the Royal Commission recommended it should, and judges now say:
"You have been convicted of capital murder and by the law of this country the penalty is that you suffer death in the manner authorised by law."
In pronouncing sentence the judge now says nothing about a man's being buried within the confines of the prison. The 1868 Act was brought in to do away with public hanging, and when the House decided to do away with public hanging it thought that it would also do away with public burials.
The last public hanging in this country was the hanging of Barrett, the Fenian, in 1868. There was a demonstration by the Fenians at that time, and one can understand that. Reading through the old debates, it is curious to discover that people thought that both private execution and private burial, and certainly the ignominy of burial such as this, would be a great deterrent. Nobody would take that view today. We would look upon the burying of a body in quicklime within the precincts of a prison wall rather as something completely ghoulish and out of keeping with our time.
In many countries now such bodies are restored to the relatives when that is desired. I am not arguing that in this country it should be done in every case. I am asking that it be done only with the discretion of the Home Secretary and where the right hon Gentleman considers it convenient, and even under conditions which he could lay down. Obviously, one would not want a public exhibition of the body of a man who had been buried following his execution for murder.
My attention was called to this matter by Dr. Charles Brook, a medical historian well known to hon. Members on this side of the House. He is sure that there is something in the contention that

1067
it is a contradiction when, having changed the form of the sentence of death to a more civilised form, we should not change this matter with it. I referred to the case of Evans. It would not be appropriate for me to dwell on that now, but in so far as the Home Secretary appeared to think that the law was an impediment for him to perform even a half-hearted act of justice, my proposed Bill may serve to underline that.
I cannot say that it is with pleasure that I move this Motion relating to this comparatively small matter, but I think that this is one of those things which is more in tone with the state of civilisation in our time. I have said before that the degree of civilisation in a country is not determined by what is done about big things, but about the smaller things of life which sometimes affect those people who are friendless, alone or cast out. I cannot believe that, having executed a man, we should necessarily render such great harm and hurt to his relatives.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. C. Pannell, Miss Bacon, Sir Beverley Baxter, Mr. Dodds, Mr. Grimond, Mr. Cledwyn Hughes, Mr. Roy Jenkins, Mr. Mayhew, Dr. Barnett Stross, Mrs. Thatcher, Mr. Tiley, and Miss Joan Vickers.

BURIAL OF OFFENDERS
Bill to amend section six of the Capital Punishment Amendment Act, 1868, presented accordingly and read the First time: to be read a Second time upon Tuesday next and to be printed. [Bill 154.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUPPLY
  [23RD ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]

  CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1961–62
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That a further sum, not exceeding £45, 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 Economic Situation, namely:

  Civil Estimates and Supplementary Estimate, 1961–62

  £

  Class I, Vote 3, Treasury and Subordinate Departments

  10

  Class VI, Vote I, Board of Trade

  10

  Class II, Vote 1, Foreign Service

  10

  Class II, Vote 2, Foreign Office Grants and Services (Revised Estimate)

  10

  Class II, Vote 2, Foreign Office Grants and Services (Supplementary Estimate)

  5

  Total

  £45

ECONOMIC SITUATION
3.43 p.m.
Mr. Hugh Gaitskell: Next week we shall hear the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for dealing with the economic crisis. Today, we propose to examine the reasons for the crisis, 'both the short-term and the long-term one. The immediate reason is in no doubt. As in all such crises it is the run on sterling which has developed. Too much sterling is being offered in relation to the amount being purchased, and consequently, in the three months, April, May and June, there has been a loss of approximately £160 million from our gold reserves. This would have been very much higher but for the support of the European central banks. We do not know exactly how much sterling they have acquired in the last three months, but it is noticeable that in April alone, the first of those three months in which there was a decline in the gold reserves, the holdings of Western Europe in sterling balances rose by £85 million.

1069
Why is there a run on the £? Part of the answer, of course, is that our current balance of payments is in deficit. In the first quarter we were "in the red" to the extent of £56 million. We may be somewhat less "in the red" in the second quarter, but that there was also a deficit seems highly probable. This is not a very large figure. It would not matter so very much if it were something to be taken on its own. But it cannot be considered on its own, for it follows a long and substantial deterioration in our balance of payments.
In 1958, we had a substantial surplus of £291 million. This fell in the following year to £51 million and it developed into a deficit, on a massive scale, of £344 million in 1960. But there is more to it than these figures suggest, for normally we invest abroad substantial sums on long-term—on the average, say, about £200 million a year. We have to do this so long as we are providing capital for the Commonwealth and for other countries. So that, in any event, we need a surplus on our balance of payments of that amount in order to finance the overseas investment. If we have no surplus at all, we have to borrow not only to cover the deficit, but also to cover the long-term investment. Last year, we must have borrowed on short-term something like £600 million to cover both the deficit and the overseas investment which took place. It was not difficult that year because there happened to be a flight from the dollar. Indeed, we borrowed more than £600 million, because our gold reserves actually rose during the year.
We go on trying to maintain a world banking business on totally inadequate reserves. In such conditions I think that most bankers would say that it would be wise to reduce short-term liabilities and to increase short-term assets. In fact, we have done nothing of the kind. During the last six years, according to Mr. Barna, in his article in the Financial Times Revew, we have lent abroad on long-term about £1,000 million and borrowed short almost exactly the same amount. I can hardly feel that this is a very sensible way of conducting a banking business.
Even this increased vulnerability—it is increased vulnerability—would not perhaps be so serious if the prospect ahead of us were more favourable. But
1070
it is not. We must expect another balance of payments deficit on current account in 1961. It will not, I think, be as large as last year, but it will probably be about £150 million. This means that if we continue to lend abroad our normal £200 million, we shall once again, if we can get it, have to borrow another £350 million, or lose at least the equivalent from our gold reserves.
Finally, and most important of all, there is now conclusive evidence—which even the Government cannot ignore—that in comparison with other industrial nations we are doing exceedingly badly in the rate of expansion of our production and our exports. Continued failure in this field makes it impossible for us as a nation to enjoy the higher living standards which others have, and which we expect, and to pay our way at the same time. It is the widespread conviction that we are failing to compete in, productivity, design, salesmanship and, price, either at home with imported products or abroad with other countries' exports, which leads, and has led, and is leading, to a profound lack of confidence in the future of sterling; and, therefore, it is this which is the underlying cause of the crisis today.
The facts and figures have often been given. They should be blazoned in the country in place of those other posters which so conveniently lulled the British people into a false confidence and complacency.
These are the facts. Our exports in 1959 and 1960 rose by only half as much as our imports. Last year; France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, Sweden, Japan and the United States all increased their exports more than twice as fast as ours.
Between 1951 and 1960, we had the smallest increase in exports of any industrial nation; and if anybody says; "Ah, but there were other nations which had not recovered so far by 1951, and you should take a later date," I will do so. I will take the progress since 1955, and, again, the same story is true. We had the smallest increase in exports between 1955 and 1960 of any industrial nation. The United States increased her exports half as much again as ours. France, Holland and Sweden all increased their exports three times as fast as ours. Western Germany increased her exports five times as fast

1071
as ours, Japan six times and Italy eight times. These are the facts of our record between 1955 and 1960.
Our share in world markets of manufactures has fallen from 25½ per cent. in 1950 to 20 per cent. in 1955 and to 16 per cent. in 1960. Nor is this decline confined to European or non-Commonwealth markets. It is not a matter of the sterling area markets having expanded less rapidly than others. It is a matter of our having lost in the fight for sterling area markets, for there, in the last six years, our share has fallen by over a quarter. In Australia, Malaya, New Zealand, Pakistan, Ghana and Rhodesia—in evey single country—the share of our exports is falling.
Our invisible exports have dwindled from £400 million a few years ago to practically nothing today. Part of this, of course, is due to the failure of our shipping industry to achieve any net earnings at all. Part of it is due to the higher interest rates which we pay on the money we borrow, and it is estimated that this alone has cost us £50 million. Part of it must be due to the amount we pay out in dividends on foreign investment abroad. Here perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the President of the Board of Trade can tell us why it is that, despite the fact that we have invested so much abroad—£1,000 million in six years—we seem to get very little back from it. Can it have something to do with that change in tax law made by the present Minister of Aviation, when he positively encouraged business firms with subsidaries abroad not to remit dividends home? That is the story of our trading activity in these last few years.
It might be supposed that our problem of selling abroad had been made difficult—indeed, that the whole difficulty had been created—because we were trying to expand too fast at home. We are all familiar with the theoretical argument that if we expand too fast at home, imports go up, exports go down, we get into a balance of payments crisis and we must then clamp down. But this theoretical picture is also not borne out by the facts. Our record of growth in this country, as compared with others, is just as bad as our record of exports. Again, the figures speak for themselves. I take the period from 1955 to 1960
1072
again, because it might be said that an earlier period would not be a fair comparison. During this period, in Germany, France and Italy, production has risen three or four times as fast as it has in this country. It has risen twice as fast in Holland, and nine times as fast in Japan.
It might also have been supposed that, since we neither had an expansion in exports nor an expansion in production, we might have had stable prices in Britain, or at least, prices that rose less rapidly than those in other countries where production was rising faster, but, again, the exact opposite is the truth. Only one country—France—has a record of more rapidly rising prices in the last nine years than Britain.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer said on Saturday:
"The paramount need is that, as a country, we should face the facts."
I agree. And these are the facts, unpalatable as they may be. There is a run on the £. Our gold reserves are falling. For eighteen months, at least, our balance of payments has been in the red. We have been spending more than we are earning. We have the worst export record in the past ten years, or the past five years, of any industrial country in the world. We have a steadily declining share of world trade. We have almost the worst production record, and we have almost the highest rise in prices. These facts make some past statements look a little odd.
I have another quotation:
"The result of all these measures taken together is that today the British economy is sounder than at any time since the First World War. Sterling has been established as a strong and respected currency. Our balance of payments is strong."
The Prime Minister said that in September, 1959, when our balance of payments was already declining fast and we were moving over into deficit. But he said something much more recently than that. Only at the beginning of this year he was still blandly cheerful.
"Production should start moving again soon. Broadly speaking, you know, we are still in a big boom. … We have got it good; let's keep it good."
It also makes some posters look a little sailed, and I cannot help wondering what the new instructions to Messrs. Colman Prentis and Varley are to be.

1073
Perhaps they will be told to introduce a new slogan, "For service and sacrifice, vote Conservative", and combine it with a picture of the Home Secretary disdaining port and over-ripe pheasant, and, at the same time, saying,
"Good may yet come from our economic difficulties, especially if our party gives a lead to the country in asking for moral values to emerge instead of materialistic appetites."
Mr. W. A. Wilkins: It has destroyed all the moral values, anyway.
Mr. Gaitskell: I turn to remedies and fundamental causes. We shall hear the Chancellor's proposals next week. I suppose that there will be presented to us the dreary collection of expedients or, as the financial correspondent of the Guardian called them this morning, the "familiar stage properties"—a rise in Bank rate, an intensified credit squeeze, cuts in investment, particularly in public investment, a closer scrutiny of Government expenditure, the restoration of hire purchase restrictions.
These are the familiar short-run remedies introduced to save the £. Some of them may be inevitable in the circumstances in which we find ourselves today, but, let us also be clear, they have not—either singly or collectively—given us in the last ten years whenever they have been introduced, either growth or competitive power. They have given us, on the contrary, the record which I described to the Committee just now, a record which includes long periods of stagnation, a brief burst of expansion conveniently timed to fit in with General Election's, a crisis which comes fairly soon afterwards, then the cuts and then a long period of stagnation again, which leaves us where we are today.
This policy, in so far as it has not been simply determined by political considerations, is based on a theory that the Government do not need to take any positive initiative in the economic field. All they have to do, runs the theory, is to remove specific controls, to leave private enterprise to itself, bolstering it up, of course, every now and then with specific loans, and even grants, but otherwise letting it get on with the job.
In so far as any general controls have to be used these are to be principally of a monetary character and they are to operate over the economy as a whole.
1074
The doctrine, I suppose, was most clearly put by the present Minister of Aviation. He made no bones about it. The whole object was to put the soundness of sterling first on the assumption that if we had a sound currency we would get growth, stable prices and a favourable balance of payments. We have none of these things today and we have Dot sound currency, either.
What is even worse, is that all this is known. Precisely because these remedies have been tried so frequently and failed to prevent another crisis, fewer and fewer people believe in them today. Fewer and fewer people include foreigners, who are looking and wondering what is to happen here and whether or not they would be wise to hold sterling at present.
The Government may, perhaps, make same reference to wage restraint. Certainly, the Chancellor in his speeches in the last week or two, has mentioned it. Is it to be resuscitated? Does he really expect that he will get any response from the trade unions after his record as Chancellor of the Exchequer? Did it occur to him, and to the Government, when they decided to increase the Health Service contribution and the Health Service charges, when he decided—presumably with their support—to concentrate tax reliefs entirely on Surtax payers, that there might be same difficulty a little way ahead and that perhaps, in those circumstances, he might find it rather harder to get the co-operation of the trade unions and the workers? I do not know, but it seems that either he must be convicted of the most appalling lack of foresight, or he imagined that human beings are very different from what they really are.
After all, wage restraint means, by and large, accepting the distribution of income as it is. It means that one does not make changes, that one does not go out to get more for oneself or for one's group. Therefore, if there is to be any chance of succeeding in persuading people to follow policies of this kind you must at least convince them that if the present distribution of income is not fair, you are doing your best to make it so. You cannot get their co-operation if, on the contrary, both by what you do and by what you refrain from doing you are making it more unequal.

1075
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury, answering a Question the other day, gave these figures:
"Between 1958 and 1959 total wages are estimated to have risen by 3½ per cent, total salaries by nearly 7 per cent. and ordinary dividend payments before deduction of tax by 12½ per cent. Between 1959 and 1960 wages and salaries together … are estimated to have risen by 7½ per cent, and gross ordinary dividend payments by 24½ per cent."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th June, 1961; Vol. 643, c. 186.]
If we turn from the comparison of dividends and wage increases to the effect of Conservative policy on taxation it is the same story. If we take the effects of the period since 1956 of a series of different Budgets and combine both the Income Tax changes and the changes in insurance contributions, assuming that we are dealing with people who have contracted out so that they are not paying the higher graduated contributions, this is what emerges.
Below the level of £1,250 a year the actual effect on people's incomes is to worsen them. A married couple with two children on £600 a year lose nearly £13 a year. The £1,000 a year man loses nearly £5 a year. Then the improvement begins. It goes up slowly until we get to £3,000 a year—well over the Surtax level—when the net gain is £257 when we reach the £20,000 a year level the not gain is £3,000 a year. That is the way in which Conservative policies have quite deliberately made the distribution of income more unequal.
It has been suggested in some newspapers that the Chancellor is to freeze wages and salaries in the public sector. I hope that he will do nothing of the kind. In my view, such a policy would be both unfair and foolish. It would be unfair because it is precisely these wages and salaries which lag continuously behind others. It would be foolish because at least in some notable cases there is an acute shortage of personnel in these public services. If, for instance, it were determined to freeze teachers' salaries at a moment when we can all agree on the desperate need for more teachers in order to get the educational expansion going—which itself is a very necessary condition of our economic expansion—this surely would be the height of folly.
The third point is that we in this country should be able quite easily to
1076
afford the kind of wage increases we have had in recent years. We have had a rise in money wages which is broadly the same as it has been in Western Germany, but there is one big difference. Prices have not gone up nearly so much, because there, of course, there has been a greater rise in productivity. Admittedly, if we get no rise in productivity and a rise in wages we are heading for trouble. That is bound to be the case.
Sir William Robson Brown: That is the whole problem.
Mr. Gaitskell: That is the whole problem, but the question is whether the Government are to concentrate on trying to hold wages down, or to do something to increase productivity.
I turn to the long-term position. The Chancellor has rightly said—here I agree with him—that this is essentially a long-term rather than a short-term problem. But there are two different attitudes which one can adopt towards long-term policy. There are those who say—and there has been reference to this in the newspapers recently—that what is really needed for the long term is to create a permanently higher level of unemployment, to get away from the full employment which we have had to something less than that, on the assumption and in the belief that, starting as it were from this lower level, we will then be able to obtain a steady expansion.
I very much hope that the Chancellor will not follow that advice, because there is no evidence that it would, in fact, produce that result. It remains a fact, if it be an unfortunate fact, that the fall in production which is called for by such a policy itself causes costs to rise, and must do so. There is no reason to believe that when we have got down to that level we will have the necessary expansion, or will provide British industry with the necessary incentive to expand.
If we reject, as I hope we shall, those negative remedies, and all of them are based on the idea that there is nothing positive that the Government can or should do, we have to turn to the positive possibilities, the actions which the Government could take. I hope very much that next week the Chancellor of the Exchequer will concentrate upon these. This afternoon I shall mention four things which I believe should be done.

1077
The word "planning" for some years has been a dirty word in Conservative circles, something associated with the Labour Government and something connected in people's minds with austerity and controls. It is high time that the word was rehabilitated, and not only the word.
Perhaps it will be easier for the Government to do this now, because the Federation of British Industries is asking for planning. Perhaps it will be easier for them to do it because, if they look across the Channel, they will see an example of planning in France which, so far as one can see from the experience—and over here recently there was an interesting conference about it which was attended by business people and economists—has been of great importance in the drive for expansion which has been so successful in France.
What the French do, and what I am thinking of, is not laying down to each industry what it should do. What I am thinking of is the way the French do it. In effect, it is a co-operative effort, a planning commission with a staff of highly qualified experts, working out with the various major industries of France what their rate of expansion should be—
Sir Cyril Osborne: What about agriculture?
Mr. Gaitskell: —co-ordinating the plans for the different industries concerned and indicating to them what they should do.
Sir C. Osborne Sir C. Osborne rose—
Mr. Gaitskell: The hon. Member knows that I mean him no discourtesy when I do not give way, but I still have a great deal to say and I hope that he will allow me to continue my speech.
The reason why this has worked in France—and this is certainly the evidence given by the French themselves—is that it has given French industry a purpose and direction which it otherwise would not have had, and which is now badly called for here.
The second thing which should be done is to adopt a much more positive attitude towards individual industries. We have one or two very striking examples of things which should have
1078
been done and which have not been done. Last week, we had a debate on the shipbuilding industry and the gloomy story of the Minister of Transport shocked the whole country. But it was not a new thing. It is at least two years and perhaps more since a report on the shipbuilding industry was produced. It was hushed up by the Government in case it caused trouble. We have the same thing with the machine tool industry. When it is believed that an industry is clearly not doing its job properly, certainly let us have reports by the D.S.I.R., or whatever other expert body is most appropriate, but let us have them published so that the whole country can understand.
Another matter which should have been looked into long ago—and perhaps the President of the Board of Trade can tell us about it—is why we have had such a sharp rise in imports over the last years. It is not due, as the right hon. Gentleman knows very well, to an increase in imports of basic materials, or even food. It is principally an increase in manufactured goods. If one studies which these are, some remarkable facts emerge. I will not weary the House with this, because I am sure that the President of the Board of Trade knows of the article in the National Institute Economic Review for May, but there is one instance which I will mention.
Taking the cotton textile industry, both yarns and fabrics, and taking with that grey cloth and man-made fibres and clothing; if you add those items together, both on the export and import sides, it is a distressing and I would say astonishing figure that between 1957 and 1960 the balance of payments in these commodities alone—broadly speaking, the textile industry, including clothing, but leaving out wool, where there has been no big change—has deteriorated against us to the tune of no less than £130 million.
That is an extraordinary figure. It shows that a great deal of imported clothing is pouring into this country. I am not criticising the Government for allowing that to happen. It would be possible to argue that they should not have liberalised so soon, and so on, but the distressing thing is that somehow or other our own textile and clothing manufacturers do not appear to be able to produce the kind of articles which

1079
our people want to buy, and that, consequently, they buy Italian and French and American clothes.
Sir C. Osborne: At the right price.
Mr. Gaitskell: No doubt price is important, but I would say that design is equally important and, for women's clothing, far more important.
The third thing the Government must do is substantially to increase the degree of professionalism in business and in exporting. I feel that too many of our exporters treat the whole thing as an amateur's job. Comparing their record and their attitude with that of the Germans or even the Americans, we find that the Germans and Americans have a far higher degree of training. When all is said and done, we train engineers and we train miners and we train craftsmen of all kinds and we train doctors and we train lawyers. Is it not about time that we began to take rather more seriously the urgent need for more regular training for management and for selling? Is it not about time that the Government considered why we have never had anything comparable with the Harvard School of Business, for instance? That is a matter in which action by the Government is urgently needed.
The fourth thing that the Government must do is to abandon what I call the "sealed lips" policy. This is not only a matter of hushing up reports that should have been published and, therefore, of deliberately stimulating interest—and, if hon. Members like, controversy—about what has gone wrong but a question of a different attitude altogether in the Government's relationship with the public and with the House of Commons.
For a long time, the Prime Minister, in particular, has made it a virtue to evade Parliamentary Questions when giving his Answers. He positively prides himself upon his success in refusing to give the House information. He thinks that the clever answer which evokes the regular cheer from those behind him is a substitute for statesmanship. Well, it is not. This kind of thing has to stop, and a totally different attitude has to be adopted.
Incidentally, is it not rather surprising that the Prime Minister has made only one speech in the House of Commons
1080
since 1st November last, and that on South Africa? I should be surprised, indeed, if any Prime Minister in recent history had refrained from addressing the House of Commons for such a long time.
Finally, what has to be done—and this is the hardest thing of all—is to create a change in the whole climate of opinion in this country. A great attack has to be made on the soggy complacency of some managements, and the appalling indifference of some workers. People should feel it wrong, as they do not, that, for instance, it is not here but in Italy that motor scooters are developed; that it is Japan, not Britain, that developed transistor radios; that the better clothes are produced in France and Italy, and not here—
Sir C. Osborne: That is not true.
Mr. Gaitskell: Well, all I can say is that the women of this country appear to think so, judging by the import figures—that it is in America, and not here, that the big developments in jet aircraft have taken place.
People should feel ashamed when export orders are lost through bad delivery or high cost—
Mr. Gerald Nabarro: Or by unofficial strikes.
Mr. Gaitskell: Yes, or by unofficial strikes, but this is all part of the whole climate of opinion that hon. Members opposite have created.
The first thing that has to be done is to drop the positive encouragements to complacency which Conservative speakers and Conservative propaganda have laid on so thick. Incidentally, we had better also discourage "Operation Britain" from putting up posters such as the one it had a year or two ago bearing the phrase, "British Shipbuilding Leads The World." It looks a little sad today.
Something else is needed if we are to have co-operation between different people, between workers and management, between different sections, instead of their striving against one another all the time. There has to be, deep down, a feeling of fairness; a feeling that such differences in living standards as exist are justified and, plainly, they are not justified at present.

1081
This is not a matter of austerity; there is no need for any of us to become killjoys. It is not high living standards, or better conditions or more leisure that are wrong. It is that these things are wrong when they are not earned—and they are not all earned today. The most obvious example of these things not being earned today is provided by those who obtain them from capital gains. Despite the fall in Stock Exchange prices in the last few weeks, it is still true that a man who invested £10,000 in 1951 would find his investment worth about £22,000 today—
Mr. Nabarro: Not if he had put the money into "Daltons".
Mr. Gaitskell: That is on the basis of the average level of equity prices. I am talking about investment in equities—and I do not suppose that the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) ever invested in "Daltons"—
Mr. Nabarro: No, I did not.
Mr. Gaitskell: I would not expect him to. But the hon. Gentleman, when he explained to the House recently, and boasted so proudly of the way in which he persuaded the tax inspector to allow for tax purposes his subscription to the Carlton Club, was not only throwing some vivid light on his own personality and, perhaps, on that of other hon. Members opposite, but was showing us an example of exactly what is wrong with society today—
Mr. Nabarro: I am grateful to the Leader of the Opposition for giving way. Evidently, he has not read the OFFICIAL REPORT. Did he not observe the words that followed, addressed to his hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), during an intervention by me in his speech, that it is grossly unfair that I am allowed to do that, whereas a trade union member cannot charge his union subscriptions against his tax? I used that as a lurid example—[HON. MEMBER.S: "Oh."]—of the deficiencies in the present taxation system, and called on the Chancellor far reform.
Mr. Gaitskell: It is one of a number of things which, to quote the hon. Member's words, are "grossly unfair" today. I appreciate the hon. Member's help to us in this matter, but if he will take my advice he will not set himself up as a moralist.
1082
How can we expect ordinary people, who are not in a position to make these large capital gains, to be satisfied? How can they be satisfied that higher living standards must be earned when, in many cases, so patently they are not? How can they be satisfied when expense accounts are still so lavish? How can they be satisfied when with every day that goes by comes an example of a new "killing" made by a land speculator in this or that town?
I give the Chancellor of the Exchequer one or two suggestions. If he wants to create a different climate, if he wants to make people feel that things are to be fairer in future, he might start by announcing next week that a capital gains tax will be introduced in due course, with retrospective effect from today. He could also proceed to announce, as I suggested earlier he should do, that he will not proceed any further with—indeed, that he will introduce legislation to cancel—the Surtax concessions provided in the Finance Bill. If he wants a little help from another colleague, he could ask the Minister of Housing and Local Government, in the speech he is to make on Thursday of this week, at least to indicate that he means to stop the land value scandal.
We have reached a critical moment in the nation's affairs. It is, of course, possible to go on as we have been doing with the stop-go-stop procedure we have had; with the continual conflict between the living standards that we would like to have and the living standards that we can earn; with a devaluation every decade or so as we fail to resolve this conflict. It would still probably be true, if that were the course we followed, that the Prime Minister would be able again to say to everyone, "You never had it so good". He would still—
The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): I did not devalue the £.
Mr. Gaitskell: The right hon. Gentleman devalued something else—he devalued our moral standards.
If we follow that sort of policy our influence will decline. We shall become a backwater—an historical relic. People will look on us as sunk in complacency, dreaming of the past. We shall be despised, perhaps in an affectionate way, by other countries.

1083
Or we can accept the challenge of what has been up to now our failure and we can modernise ourselves and our institutions. But that will require a totally different attitude on the part of the Government and, a totally different set of measures which alone will evoke a totally different response from our people. In view of all that has happened, in view of the direct responsibility of the Government for our plight, in view of the way in which they have persistently mislead the people and clung to their doctrinaire policies when it was plain to all where they were leading us, we can have no confidence that they can provide the leadership which Britain now so desperately needs.
4.31 p.m.
The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Reginald Maudling): The Opposition chose to have an economic debate today in advance of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement next week. In those circumstances, I cannot anticipate, any more than could the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition what my right hon. and learned Friend's statement will contain.
The Leader of the Opposition, apart from a certain number of political "cracks", which I will not answer, divided his speech between an analysis of the situation and the difficulties and a number of suggestions to deal with these difficulties. I will, if I may, follow the right hon. Gentleman in both halves of his speech.
The right hon. Gentleman was certainly right in saying that it is pressure on sterling that creates the urgency of our present difficulties. I agree that he was also right in saying that sterling, as a currency, is uniquely exposed to world conditions. Being an international reserve and exchange currency and being the central currency of the sterling area it must, at all times, carry an immense weight, but since the war the ratio between reserves and short-term liabilities has been different in character. The right hon. Gentleman talked about carrying on a world banking business on totally inadequate reserves.
Our reserves are not as inadequate as that, especially when you add the increased facilities available from the
1084
International Monetary Fund. We must not give the impression that we cannot meet our commitments and position as world bankers. We have taken these monies on deposit and we owe them to our depositors. This is a handicap that is hanging about this country and will hang about this country for some time to come, whatever Government may be in power. Fundamentally, the strength of sterling depends on the United Kingdom economy, on our balance of payments, on our internal price level, and, I agree, now more in modern conditions, on the likely level of growth in our economy compared with other countries.
The present situation is that we have many international uncertainties which are bringing their normal consequences in the pressure on sterling at a time when our balance of payments position is weak, when we have a rise in prices internally and at a time when our capacity to grow as fast as our competitors is in doubt in many quarters.
I will, first, look at the balance of payments position. I think that the right hon. Gentleman was right in his estimates. Last year, we had a deficit on current account of about £340 million and I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that since then the current deficit has been about halved. But we have an annual capital outflow of about £200 million, and to cover that and the deficit we need about £350 million a year, in broad terms, on current balance.
I suggest that that figure should be compared, first, with our trade and reserve figures, and, secondly, with our gross national product, because £350 million a year, in terms of trade and exports or in terms of the size of the reserves, is a formidable figure. But in terms of the gross national product, which is over £20,000 million, it is marginal. It is, therefore, a great task and a difficult one to ensure adequate redistribution of our resources to meet this need for an improvement in our balance of payments—a great and difficult task in relation to our trade—but entirely within our capacity in relation to our industrial output and our industrial resources.
One of the great changes to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, in passing, has been the decline in the

1085
position of our invisible exports. This is of great significance. For decades now we have relied on our invisible exports for our surplus. It is a long time since we could rely on a visible trade surplus. Over the last two years our invisible surplus has declined from over £200 million to virtually nil. This is a very big change of the utmost significance for our balance of payments.
Analysing that decline of about £200 million, £65 million was on Government account and £140 million on other account. Of that figure of £65 million, military expenditure, no doubt, accounts for a very large part, possibly the largest. There is also still a very big increase in Government expenditure overseas on and to the developing countries. I think that the Committee as a whole would wish us to do all we could to maintain that outflow of money.
We have, in this connection, done magnificently recently. During the last four years Government aid to the developing countries has doubled. We do not begrudge one penny of this expenditure but, of course, there must be a limit to an expansion of that liability and we must insist, naturally, that other countries should bear their proper share of this burden.
Another reason for the deterioration in the invisible account is the shipping account, about £50 million, and the interest and dividends account, about £80 million. The shipping item is very disturbing. It would not be appropriate for me now to go into detail, because this matter was discussed the other day. The decline is from a net earning position of substantial significance in our shipping account to a time when we are losing money on it. This is a big change. There are factors, some of them outside our control, yet some of them within our control, which affect this position.
The change in interest of about £80 million mainly arises from the fall in our earnings from oil. It is important that we should always realise how significantly our balance of payments position is affected by the earnings of our oil industry, which makes a tremendous contribution to our invisible balance. They have fallen substantially, these earnings, because of the world oil supply position. They were exception-
1086
ally high in 1958, and, to some extent, they masked the decline in other items of interest and dividends.
The right hon. Gentleman asked some questions and I agree with much of what he said on this subject. I agree with what he said about the additional cost of higher interest rates in this country. I think that people investing in this country—investing in developed manufacturing industries—normally expect to get a quicker and more substantial return than we get from our outgoing investment often in developing countries, where profitability is lower and slower and where more of the profit in those countries must be ploughed back to develop the industries. This is the underlying reason for the shift, but I agree that it is a serious matter that deserves close attention.
That is the change in our investment position and I do not think, realistically speaking, that we can expect a marked and early improvement in the position of invisibles. However, there are some ways in which we can improve the position and, indeed, should improve it. But even if that be so, it still means that the burden on our visible exports is greater than it has ever been. No longer can we rely on invisibles. We must rely on visibles to earn us a current surplus.
I will look, first, at imports and, secondly, at exports, and, in doing so, answer some of the questions that the right hon. Gentleman asked. A strongly rising trend in imports is only to be expected. In 1960, the position was quite exceptional. The rate of stock building in 1960, at £560 million, was £400 million more than it was in 1958. The effect of that on our balance of payments in 1960 was serious. That exceptional rate of stock building will not continue and part of the improvement in the current balance of payments figures arises from the quietening down of the stock building programme.
I think that all experience shows that with rising consumption and a growing cross trade between countries in specialities such as machine tools, we must expect a growing import bill in this country. Although our import bill has grown fast, nevertheless the import bill of the continental countries has grown faster than ours, and, judging by their experience,

1087
we must expect to go on importing more as the years go by.
What is the analysis of the situation? The right hon. Gentleman referred to consumer goods and finished manufactures. The figures are that between 1958 and 1960 the increase in the import bill was £811 million. Of this, industrial materials were £485 million, much the biggest item, and finished manufactures were £224 million. But of those finished manufactures, two-thirds were capital equipment for British industry, badly needed and much desired. If we were not importing those tools for the expansion of British industry we should have had to divert some of our own tools from the export market.
Therefore, it is necessary, when looking at the figures of finished manufactures, to distinguish between tools and equipment for greater efficiency, and consumer goods, which represent only a third of British manufactured imports and only 10 per cent. of the total increase in our increased import bill in the last two years. It would be very unwise of us to try to cut back on imports of consumer goods. We, who sell fine china, leather goods, glassware, motor cars, hardware, whisky and many other consumer goods, must be prepared to buy other people's consumer goods. I am sure that quotas and import restrictions are wrong.
The right hon. Gentleman is right in saying that the way to deal with this situation is to make our own consumer industries more competitive. But I would suggest that he underestimates the performance of our clothing industries. He should not generalise in this way. Some of the products of the British clothing industry are magnificent. I recently saw at the Moscow Fair some outstanding examples of quality and cheapness among British garments. Equally, throughout the industry as a whole, a good deal more exporting could be done, and I should like to see more competition from imported clothes forcing manufacturers who are not yet efficient enough to increase their efficiency. That is the way to improve the situation, and not by imposing controls.
Mr. Gaitskell: These figures are quite astonishing. The clothing exports fell from £34 million in 1957—this is at an
1088
annual rate—to £30 million in 1961. Imports between the two periods were £18 million in 1957 and £40 million in 1961. This is a staggering increase and suggests that something ought to be looked at.
Mr. Maudling: It is a big increase in relative terms, but it is not a big increase in absolute terms when one looks at it against the background of a total increase in the import bill of £800 million The increase in imports of garments from America will, I hope, have a good effect in stimulating our industry to make itself more competitive. In that. I am at one with the right hon. Gentleman. The point that I was making is that we cannot find an easy solution to our balance of payments problems by imposing quotas and restrictions on imports, because, by and large, 90 per cent. of what we import is industrial materials, fuel, food, machinery and equipment for industry.
Now I must turn to our export prospects, because it is in the further expansion of our export trade that we must look for the greatest hope of solving our present difficulties.
Mr. Frederick Lee: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why we are unable to expand our own machine-tool industry, thus obviating the need for this vast increase of machine-tool imports? We are a great engineering nation.
Mr. Maudling: We are expanding very fast. There is a growing cross-trade in machine tools. But one of the best places to sell machine tools is where they are made. Some of our best customers are America, Germany, Poland and Japan. No one nowadays can carry the whole range. This is a very healthy development. Our industry is doing very well indeed.
I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman talked about my having suppressed the report of the machine tool industry. I did not do so. We had that excellent report of the committee by a distinguished civil servant, with trade unionists and employers, and it is accepted by the industry and is being acted on vigorously and effectively.
Turning to exports, the fact is that we are doing a good job in exporting, but just not enough by a noticeable margin.

1089
I wonder what the main reasons are. It is clear that there is not a single answer, but a number of answers. I do not believe that our prices are out of line with those of our competitors generally. If we look at our performance in the most competitive market of all, the United States, we have every reason to believe that we can stand up to competition from other countries, and I do not think the effective level of industrial costs of this country and of our continental competitors varies very much. But, clearly, if we want to export, more pressure downward on export prices is needed, and any upward pressure could be quite disastrous.
Then there is the question of delivery. I get more and more complaints about British deliveries, arising partly from delivery dates being too long and partly from them having been broken. The first arises from excessive pressure of the home market. People cannot quote export deliveries quickly because they want to supply the home market. Secondly, there is a failure to meet delivery dates partly because of failure on the part of management, again linked up with excessive demand, particularly for components, but also linked up with strikes, especially in the transport system. My experience is that it is impossible to exaggerate the lasting harm that can be done to British exports abroad by these constant hold-ups in delivery. It is very disturbing indeed how often one hears reports of overseas customers who say that our goods are of the right quality and the right price, but who turn to somebody else because they can be more certain of a fixed delivery date than from this country.
So far as credit facilities are concerned, with the recent improvements that we have made in the services of the Export Credits Guarantee Department, British exporters can offer facilities competitive with those of other countries.
There remains the question of sales effort, and particularly export sales effort, and this is where an improvement must be made. It is wrong to generalise. The best British businesses and the best British businessmen sell as hard, as well, and as effectively as those of any country in the world, but generally, one cannot help getting the impression from reports from overseas ports and visits to
1090
other countries that more consistent sales effort, more consistent follow-up, better after-sales service and more deliberate study of the needs of the customer are essential if we are to maximise our export effort.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman's remarks on training in salesmanship. We are, in consultation with industry, trying to make progress in improving this aspect. At the moment, there is not so much a lack of facilities as a lack of willingness to use those facilities. The more that can be said about that and the more it can be brought home to industry generally, the better it will be.
The other point about our export trade is how rapidly it is changing in pattern. It is changing in area and by composition. The Commonwealth market has fallen as a percentage largely because the high degree of protection that we had in the Common Market—[Laughter.] I beg pardon; that must have been a Freudian slip of the tongue. I should have said, because the high degree of protection we had in the Commonwealth market some years ago has been gradually eroded. On the other hand, there has been a big increase in the percentage of our goods which are sold in North America.
Equally, there has been a dramatic fall in the percentage of our exports represented by textiles, and an enormous increase represented by engineering goods, metal manufactures and chemicals of all kinds. This points to the fact that we must be able to switch our resources more quickly than we are at the moment, and that if we are to maintain momentum we must concentrate more on those industries which are of outstanding importance and spend less time bolstering up some industries which are of a declining nature.
I believe that our export performance is improving in general, but there are difficulties ahead. The American market is picking up, but, on the other hand, some of the primary producers in the Commonwealth are still suffering from the low prices of their products, and that will last for some months ahead. But I am sure that there is a new and growing spirit in industry generally and a determination to export. The new European Export Council has got off to a

1091
flying start, and so long as the demands of the home market can be kept within reasonable bounds I am sure that we can see an improvement in our export trade in the months ahead.
Mr. Frank Bowles: The right hon. Gentleman and I have had conversations recently on his refusal to grant an industrial development certificate to a constituent of mine, with the result that this constituent refused to go elsewhere in this country and is now developing his industry in Germany, which means that we shall lose £500,000 in exports in a few months' time. Could the right hon. Gentleman explain how much we have lost in exports as a result of the awkward conflict in his duties under the Local Employment Act and in connection with the granting of industrial development certificates to a developing industry such as the one that he has in mind?
Mr. Maudling: I know of no such loss of exports. If in the case concerned the firm goes ahead with what it says, no doubt it will arise. I have to carry out the duties imposed on me by the Local Employment Act, and if I am to do so I must not yield to threats of any kind like that.
To sum up on the current balance of payments, I am sure that we can look forward to an improvement in our general current balance. Equally, I think it is clear that we cannot hope for it to be rapid enough or drastic enough to deal, without such additional measures as my right hon. and learned Friend will produce, with the situation which we face.
I turn now to home demand, which is the other really important factor affecting the strength of sterling. Home demand is rising very fast. The shortage of labour, particularly skilled labour, is becoming more acute, and prices are beginning to rise. These are familiar symptoms which must not be ignored and which certainly will not be ignored abroad.
One of the reasons for the rise in home demand is increasing investment, particularly investment in manufacturing industry, which, I think, is welcomed. When we look for the big underlying factor, I think that it is the rise in personal incomes which has the main effect.
1092
Hourly wage rates in the first quarter of this year were over 7 per cent. up on the level a year ago. That is faster than can possibly be justified by the rise in productivity.
At the same time, dividends went up by 23 per cent. That is far too high by any reckoning whatever. I know that there is a difference between dividends and wages in that one is in absolute terms much greater than the other. There is also the point that it is important to encourage the go-ahead and successful firms to earn more money and distribute more in dividends. But when we look at the total of dividends and wages, I am sure that the same principle must apply to both. If one should not rise in total faster than productivity, neither should the other.
I believe that our general objective is that we should be more competitive and should restrain the pressure of demand If we want to have more competition, one of the best ways of doing it is to reduce tariff barriers. I do not believe that unilateral tariff reductions are sensible, and I hope that we shall be successful in the G.A.T.T. negotiations in making good progress. I have instructed our negotiators there to aim at getting for industry generally the maximum reduction in our protective tariffs that we can hope to be paid for by other people reciprocally in the course of negotiation. I am sure that that is a wise and forward-looking line to take on this matter.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about planning. He instanced France, but not Germany. It is interesting that, while France has expanded fast, Germany, the least planned country of the lot, has, I think, expanded faster than the lot. When the right hon. Gentleman referred to Surtax, for example, he did not mention the fact that one of the main discrepancies between our economy and the German economy, until this year's Budget, was the remarkable difference in the weight of taxation upon leading people in industry—executives, administrators and scientists—between one country and the other.
I do not withdraw anything from the view which I expressed at the time that the reductions in Surtax were an act of social justice. I believe that social justice embraces all classes. It is neither

1093
wise nor fair to penalise success in any activity in life. I am convinced that a more rapid rate of growth in this country will depend on giving the maximum encouragement and incentive to the go-ahead industry, the go-ahead firm and the go-ahead individual.
It is important to know exactly what is meant by planning. I do not regard "planning" as a dirty word. I regard planning as a necessary and inevitable function of both Government and industry, but I think that we should know what we are setting out to plan. In a Socialist economy remarkable results are achieved by total planning, including total planning of wage rates and of demand. I am sure that is not what is proposed by right hon. Members opposite. In a free-enterprise economy, there is a limit to what one can plan, because one cannot plan demand. One can estimate it. One can influence it. One cannot plan it.
I agree that it is very good for a Government to discuss and analyse with industries the prospect of demand for their products. In fact, we are already doing that. In the nationalised industries, iron and steel, machine tools, shipbuilding and motor cars, a great deal of planning in that sense is already going on, planning in the sense of mutual study between industry and Government of prospects and estimates of future demand for the product. We are doing more here than is generally realised. I agree that a good deal more could probably be done and might well be worth doing. On the other hand, I think that the right hon. Gentleman is wrong in assuming that there is a great change which can be made by introducing a centralised form of planning which is really not suitable or adaptable to our economy.
I was saying that we need more competition. Another thing which we need is more flexibility. It is really galling at the moment to see, side by side, industries with long export order books short of labour and other industries with more labour than they can fully employ. The failure of labour to move from one job to another or from one industry to another and the failure of industry as a whole to be adaptable in these matters seems to be one of the limiting factors in our expansion.
We have made considerable progress 'in tackling the problem of unemfploy-
1094
ment. That is true in England and Wales. There are great problems still in Scotland and Ulster—
Mr. Charles Grey: The Government have not done much about the North.
Mr. Maudling: —and the North, too—but in England and Wales generally we have made a great deal of progress in tackling the situation where there is pressure of labour in one area and idle hands in another. This we are doing in geographical terms. It will have to be done more and more in terms of industry, the movement of people out of industries where the order books are short into the industries where the order books are long.
We are often told that one of our failures is to achieve an adequate rate of growth. Some of the comparisons are unfair and misleading. It is wrong to compare figures as between this country and Germany, for example, without taking into account the enormous increase in the working population in industry which has taken place in recent years in Germany for which we have had no equivalent whatever. It is fair to say that our record in exports and in production is very much equivalent to that of America and Canada, the other English-speaking countries. There may well be a good deal of solid reason behind this.
It seems to me that P.E.P. was right in its recent report in saying—I forget the actual words, but the effect was roughly this—that the main reason why the British economy does not grow faster is that by and large, people do not want it to grow faster because, for it to do so, they must make the conscious decision that they want to become more efficient. Having a faster growing and more efficient economy calls for conscious decisions, many of which may be uncomfortable and unpleasant.
Mr. J. T. Price: If that is the philosophy and way of thought which animates the Government today, how can it be rational for this argument to be advanced now in face of the claim made by the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Prime Minister that he expected the standard of life in this country to be doubled in twenty-five years, in other words, that it would rise at the rate

1095
of 4 per cent. per year? We have nowhere reached even that modest figure yet.
Mr. Maudling: The calculation which the hon. Gentleman makes is wrong. It would not be 4 per cent.—
Mr. Price: Four per cent. Was—
The Temporary Chairman (Mr. James H. Hoy): Order. We cannot have more than one Member speaking at one time.
Mr. Price: I want to correct that, Mr. Hoy. The point is that the right hon. Gentleman seriously put to the House and the nation the expectation that the standard of living would be doubled in twenty-five years, which is 4 per cent. per annum. We have nowhere reached that state of affairs yet.
Mr. Maudling: The figure would not be 4 per cent. It is cumulative and the right figure is 2·8 per cent. In the second place, it was not the Prime Minister but my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. In the third place, ever since my right hon. Friend said it, we have been bang on target.
An ability to grow faster means a willingness to adapt and change. It means a willingness to abandon any unnecessary restraints on output on either side of industry, and it means also a willingness to abandon any unnecessary restraint on training within industry.
I think that one of the most depressing features that I have seen in industry in the last two years has been the failure, which is a failure all round, to train adequate apprentices and skilled men in industry. The blame for this can be widely distributed among all concerned. [HON. MEMBERS: "Including the Government."] No doubt the Government have a share in it. All concerned must make a vigorous effort to get away from outmoded ideas about industrial training in order to make a rapid advance. Growth means a willingness to provide more educational facilities for industry, to use more research intelligently and to study consumer needs. However, it also means a willingness to exercise restraint.
The Leader of the Opposition ended by saying a few words about the nature of the society in which we live. I should like to say one or two things in reply. I believe that we are still facing the fundamental problem of how a free
1096
society can work effectively in conditions of full employment. We have got away from the old, harsh and wrong disciplines of unemployment. Here, I share the right hon. Gentleman's view. It would be wrong to bring those disciplines back. However, if that old discipline of unemployment has gone, there must be something to put in its place if we are to have an ordered community consciously advancing.
Higher wages and higher profits should come from greater output and greater efficiency and service to the community, not from the exploitation of monopoly or semi-monopoly positions. It would be a tragedy if we abandoned the degree of social and economic freedom which we have achieved. Once we started back on that road, Government controls would become inevitable and all-pervasive and the progress that we have made would be lost. We can maintain our freedom and full employment only within a responsible society which recognises, accepts and acts on the need for restraint and self-discipline.
5.2 p.m.
Mr. Anthony Crosland: The last few minutes of the speech of the President of the Board of Trade at least showed that he has discovered the right road to promotion in the present Government. He used a succesion of platitudes which could not have been equalled except by the Home Secretary or the Prime Minister himself. The real trouble with his speech was that it was in exactly the same terms as speeches which he made six or seven years ago. I can remember hearing identical speeches from him in 1953 and 1954. He does not seem to realise that we are not discussing the situation that we had in those years.
In the early 'fifties, when we ran into a similar balance of payments crisis, it was often possible to put it down to temporary factors, ill luck, and so on. But that is not the situation today. Today we are discussing, and in the two days' economic debate next week shall be discussing, something very much more important and decisive than that, namely, the failure of a whole decade of Conservative policy. An occasion like this called for a much more searching, much less complacent and platitudinous speech than we have had from the right hon. Gentleman.

1097
For ten years we have stood condemned as a country in the management of our economic affairs by the three most searching tests that anyone could apply. We stand condemned as having almost the slowest rate of growth, almost the most unhealthy balance of payments position, and almost the fastest rate of price inflation of any advanced industrial country. On each of these points the President of the Board of Trade made one or two extremely complacent remarks, saying that there was always some external cause, some scapegoat or alibi For this state of affairs.
On the rate of growth, the right hon. Gentleman said that to take the gross figures may give a false impression because we must take into account population increases. This has occurred to others beside the right hon. Gentleman. The unfavourable picture still remains, even if we allow for the obvious fact that Germany, for example, has received a large number of refugees from the East. The right hon. Gentleman also said that not only Britain but the United States are going through a period of slow growth. That is true, and it explains the extreme degree of heart-searching which is going on in the United States on this subject at present. It also partly explains why Senator Kennedy was elected last November. I hope that there may be a lesson here for Great Britain.
The President of the Board of Trade then said with regard to our balance of payments that the sums involved are merely marginal and that it would require only a marginal change to turn the deficit into a surplus. Of course, it is only a marginal change, but the interesting question is why this marginal change has somehow evaded us for so long. This suggests that although it is only marginal, a deep-seated change of policy is needed if we are to put the matter right.
It is surely an extraordinary achievement over so many years to have combined these three elements of slow growth, an extremely weak balance of payments and a rapid rate of price inflation. In fact, of course, it is not an accident that the three have gone together, because fundamentally they have precisely the same cause, namely, our slow rate of increase in productivity.
1098
All three are related to some basic lack of industrial efficiency from which the country suffers.
The result is that ten years after the Conservative Party was first elected we find ourselves in a humiliating situation in which sterling is propped up largely by support from the European central banks, and in which German businessmen and politicians privately express nervousness as to what the effect on British public opinion will be in terms of re-creating anti-German feeling if they continue to out-compete us. To listen to such remarks has been one of the most humiliating experiences I have had.
Whatever may have been true in the past, neither the President of the Board of Trade nor the Chancellor of the Exchequer can now point to any outside factor as the cause of our difficulties so that they can avoid blame for the present situation. The terms of trade are highly favourable in this country, much more favourable than most of us a few years ago thought that they would be. Economic activity in the world is at a high level. One cannot find a reason there for lagging British exports. We cannot any longer say that our slower performance is due to the fact that Germany, Japan and Italy are recovering from the ravages of war. Their postwar recovery was more or less complete by 1955. The same unfavourable comparison in the first half of the 1950's has gone on in the second half. There is no external factor which can be used as a scapegoat or alibi for our poor performance.
However, the Government and most financial commentators have found no difficulty in finding a new scapegoat. It has been mentioned off and on in the last ten years, but a great deal more in the last few months, namely, the behaviour of wages. Although my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said something about this, I think that there are still things which should be made clear. One thing which is often forgotten when the Chancellor of the Exchequer and others talk about incomes and wages increasing at too fast a rate is that over the last few years middle-class income earners have been a great deal more successful than wage-earners in increasing their money incomes. The bargaining power of the industrial trade

1099
unions is a good deal less than that of many middle-class and salaried groups, such as the farmers, doctors and a number of others. It is clear that in the last five years or so the middle classes have been more successful in forcing up their money incomes than the trade unions.
Even if we concentrate on wages, the central point is one which was made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. If we compare what has been happening to wages in this country with what has been happening in other countries, we find that the British movement of wages is not substantially out of alignment. It is possible to find one or two countries where wages have gone up more slowly, but there are a number of countries in which wages have gone up a good deal faster than in this country. In Germany, to take the most obvious example, they have increased by almost an identical amount—in fact, at a slightly faster rate.
The difference between what has happened in Britain as against the rest of the world lies not in the behaviour of wages but in the behaviour of productivity. The fact is that productivity has gone up much more slowly in this country, and this causes us to have this exceptional degree of price inflation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is right when he says that one of our troubles is that incomes are moving out of line with productivity, but he is quite wrong to fasten attention entirely on what is happening to wages. He should be fastening his attention on what is happening to productivity and on the reasons for our slow rate of increased productivity.
Financial commentators have begun to talk about a possible wages policy in the sense of more Government co-ordination, regulation, supervision, or whatever it may be, of wages. This is an extremely difficult question. One can certainly imagine circumstances in which it might be desirable for the Government to have a policy for all incomes—not just for wages, but for salaries, dividends and so on.
But one must draw the Government's attention to the condition under which alone this could possibly work. There are only two countries in Europe where any kind of a wages policy has worked
1100
at all successfully. It has not worked spectacularly well in either of them, but the two in which it has worked best are Holland and Sweden. Both of these countries are conspicuously characterised by something which is certainly lacking in this country, namely, a high degree of social harmony and an absence of class tension. Both of these countries are characterised, on the whole, by an equal distribution of incomes, a tax system which most people in the country consider just, a much less stratified educational system than we have, and generally a much greater sense of social cohesion and harmony and of belonging to the same society. Nobody who knows either of those two countries could deny that.
It follows therefrom that if the Chancellor is thinking in terms of instituting, in co-operation with the trade unions, any kind of wages policy, no matter what it is, the absolute condition for this is that he must act in such a way as to create that kind of mood in this country. In the last few months, he has been acting in precisely the opposite direction. It will need a major change, not only in his actual policy but in his manner of looking at things, if he hopes to get this kind of co-operation from the trade unions.
It is not only hon. Members on these benches who say that. Even The Times in a leading article last week made precisely that point in language at least as strong as that ever used from this side of the Committee. It cannot be dismissed, therefore, merely as a political debating point.
Our object in this debate, I suppose, is to try to get some idea, which certainly did not emerge from the speech of the President of the Board of Trade, of the basic reasons for our failure and for the mismanagement of our economic affairs over an entire decade. It seems to me that the failure is twofold. First, the Government have never effectively had a long-term economic policy; and secondly, their short-term economic policies have consistently been wrong.
On the short-term economic policies, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition had something to say about the disastrous effect on our affairs over the last ten years of the way we react

1101
to every successive exchange or balance of payments crisis. It is always the same story of cuts in investment and in demand, with the consequence that we then have a year or more of stagnation of output, and with the further result that because investment does not go up as fast as it should our productivity also goes up less rapidly than it should.
That is a self-defeating policy, quite apart from the loss of output. Fundamentally, our balance of payments crises are due to the fact that productivity does not go up fast enough and we then cure the crises by a method which ensures that it goes up even more slowly. That is quite apart from the loss of output due to the periods of stagnation after each crisis. One sometimes wonders whether if we did not have the occasional carrot of a General Election we would have any economic growth at all. All the indications from the recent speeches of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and from the financial comment are that we shall go through this same appalling round again next week.
First, everybody supposes that the regulator will be used. We must examine this regulator. As I said in the Finance Bill debates, I do not oppose it in principle. I would welcome almost any regulator if it meant more fiscal planning than we have had in the last few years. Like hon. Members on all sides, I am extremely impressed by how much more rapid our rate of growth would be if we could simply make it steadier than it has been in recent years. To make it steady involves much more effective fiscal regulators than we have had in the past.
Mr. J. Grimond: Of which regulator is the hon. Member speaking?
Mr. Crosland: The first one of indirect taxation. Like everybody else, I am assuming that opposition to the second regulator was so overwhelming from all parts of the House, the country and everywhere else, that it will not be used.
The first regulator is suitable only in particular circumstances. It is only suitable, first, when one is not obsessed, as the Chancellor appears to be, by the threat of a wage and price inflation. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is desperately concerned with that, to
1102
choose such a moment to use a regulator which puts up prices is, to say the least, an extremely dangerous operation. The other criterion which must be satisfied for this regulator to be of any use is that there is a situation of general excess demand. This is a regulator which is supposed to influence demand over almost the whole economy and the whole pattern of spending.
Is there a situation of general excess demand in Britain today? If so, the implications are extraordinary. I asked the Treasury Ministers to explain their views on this point during the Finance Bill, but they have not done so. If there is a situation of general excess demand, we have got into it after a year in which industrial production has increased extraordinarily little. The conclusion to be drawn from that, if it is the case, is that there is hardly any natural growth, expansion or increase in efficiency in our economic system. I find this difficult to believe.
Goodness knows, we are growing slowly, but there is surely some capacity for growth in the system. This makes me sceptical about whether we can describe our situation today as one of excess demand. Once one looks at particular parts of industry, it is hard to take that view. We know that the steel industry, which is a barometer from which can be derived the situation of a good number of other industries, so far from suffering from excess demand, is suffering from heavy over-capacity. The motor industry and almost all the consumer durable industries have no excess demand. We read in yesterday's papers from the statistics of the President of the Board of Trade that retail trade in volume is actually lower than three months ago and lower than it was a year ago.
It is, therefore, difficult 'to say that our position can be described as one of excess demand in which a regulator of this sort would be relevant. It seems to me to be much more a situation of excess demand concentrated on particular sectors. The most obvious sector on which it has concentrated is building. This is where the real scarcity and bottleneck exists. That leads to the conclusion that what we now want is not a blanket measure like this regulator covering all spending, but measures which discriminate at the point where there is the strain.

1103
There have been suggestions in the newspapers that the Chancellor has accepted to some extent the idea of discrimination, because he proposes to cut down public investment to relieve this strain. That is an odd way of dealing with the strain in the building industry. Is it suggested that the strain on our building resources is due to all the marvellous new hospitals that we are building? Is it suggested by the people who are just back from the roads delegation to Europe that our over-ambitious roads programme is causing this excessive strain? Is it suggested that the fault lies with municipal housing, which is running at a lower rate than ten years ago? It is a fantastic idea that this strain has anything to do with public investment, which on the contrary is, if anything, too low relative to private investment. Plainly, the strain comes from the high level of commercial development that is now taking place.
I should be delighted if that commercial development were restricted. Apart from the economic argument, the social argument which I feel strongly is that until the Minister of Housing and Local Government has produced a plan to ensure comprehensive and not piecemeal redevelopment of our city centres, the more we postpone commercial development the better.
Mr. William Shepherd: Is the hon. Member seriously suggesting that action to deal with building at this moment of time could really be effective in doing anything of value to relieve the pressure? Does he not realise that such things are contracted for sometimes as much as two years ahead?
Mr. Crosland: I am simply taking what I assume the Chancellor is about to do and what he certainly has done in previous years of crisis—namely, cut the rate of public building—and I am saying that if that can be effective in the public sector, it can be equally effective in the private sector.
There have also been suggestions in the Press that the Chancellor might react to this situation by cutting our economic aid. This is a very disagreeable suggestion. The President of the Board of Trade prided himself on the fact that our aid has gone up a great deal in the
1104
last few years. In relation to the standard of living in this country, however, it is far from being excessive. To put it mildly, I would find it repulsive if, with a standard of living which is thirty times as high as that of India and most of the other under-developed countries, we were to cut off £50 million to ease some temporary balance of payments difficulties. I do not want to make too cynical a point, but if there is to be talk from the Government of a new sense of moral values, this is not the way to start off the new era.
I want to be brief on the question of long-term policy, because my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition spent most of his time on this aspect. Despite one or two of the gibes of the President of the Board of Trade, there probably is increasing agreement, except on the Government Front Bench, about what kind of long-term policy we want in order to get rapid growth, from which everything else springs. I am certain that we want more planning on the French model. Constant references were made to French agriculture by hon. Members opposite when my right hon. Friend was speaking about this. People cannot know France well if they do not see the disruption caused in French agriculture now by the insertion of new methods into it. A revolution is going on there at the present time at extraordinary speed, which is why the Breton farmers drive to the town hall in their tractors. I am certain that we need more planning on the French model. We also need higher investment as long as it is well directed and does not go into the building of new Cunard liners.
I agree with the President that we need more competition. We also need a much more positive policy for backward industries involving definite Government intervention in order to galvanise them into a more rapid growth. I believe that we need, although some of the Empire Loyalists opposite and the more recent ones on this side of the House do not agree, a certain redirection of our export markets from the Commonwealth markets, which are reclining, to the more expanding markets of the—
Mr. Michael Foot: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that it

1105
would be in accordance with the new moral values about which he has spoken that we should diminish our trade with the under-developed areas?
Mr. Crosland: Our trade with those areas is small compared with our trade with the white Commonwealth.
Mr. Foot: Would the hon. Gentleman argree that there is an argument against these areas having to push their goods into this country over a higher tariff? Does he really think, in his reference to this matter, that it is suggesting a moral course by injuring our trade with these areas?
Mr. Crosland: I do not wish to become involved in an argument about Europe. I am very far from unconcerned about the problem of India in finding markets for her manufactured exports, but it is not going to depend simply on this country's market whether she finds the markets she needs. It will depend on whether she can be aligned with the rapidly expanding markets of the industrial Western world.
There are all kinds of other things which we need, but the last point is this. I am certain that none of the planning, higher investment, greater competition or anything else will be at all effective unless the Government show a quite different quality of leadership from that which they have shown in the last ten years. This brings me to the point made by the President of the Board of Trade about Germany.
In answering my right hon. Friend, he said that the French perhaps need planning but that the Germans have a rapid growth without any planning. It might be the case, if we had in this country a business class as efficient, as dynamic and enterprising as the Germans have, that the Government could sit back and hold the ring and that rapid growth would occur by itself. But we do not have such a business class.
Everything which the President of the Board of Trade said about business attitudes to sales effort shows that we have not such a class and never have had since the early Victorian days. There is evidence to show that this did not even start when the Tory Government came in. It goes back in this country something like 100 years. We have not a business class of that kind, and, that being so, rapid
1106
growth will not occur unless the Government give a lead and show a definite will to growth—unless they engender a positive psychology of growth and give the impression that in the interests of rapid growth they are willing to break with their own ideology and indulge in much more purposive intervention than they have done in the last ten years.
Whether the present selection of Ministers is capable of doing that, I have the greatest doubt. I am certain that this lead cannot be given and that the policies that follow from it cannot be adopted unless the Government sacrifice a good deal of their present ideological commitments and are willing to take over a very substantial part of a social-democratic economic policy.
5.25 p.m.
Sir Henry d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: This debate is in the nature of a trailer for the big performance next week, and I think that it would be appropriate for me to congratulate those talented performers who have already shown their possibilities today in preparation for the bigger stuff. But I do not think that we can get down to any real discussion while my right hon. and learned Friend's proposals remain clouded in secrecy.
The hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland), at the beginning of his speech, described the present Government as presiding over a decade of Conservative policy failure. When one analyses that statement it is really most extraordinary. In fact, what was the condition of affairs at the beginning of the decade compared with what it is now? His right hon. Friend drew attention to the fact that we made the great mistake of investing £1,000 million long-term over the last decade. He also drew attention to the fact that we had had this vast import of ladies' clothes from the Continent. With the best will in the world, it cannot be said that it is the salaried classes whose standard of living has improved so much which have caused these imports. It is, in fact, the great rise in the standard of living of the working classes of the country.
I am bound to say on that point that there is only one real economy in the world that has gone really backwards in the last ten years, and that is the totally planned economy of Poland. So I think

1107
that the less we hear about the failure of this decade when it has so much achievement in it the better. Five weeks ago, on 15th June, the Financial Times industrial index reached its peak. I mention this fact because share prices are only one indicator. Even if the buyers who paid the highest prices of the year on 15th June were not particularly intelligent, at any rate the wise investors did not sell at that time. Therefore, it suggests that there was a general feeling of reasonable confidence in our industrial prospects. Then, of course, we all got nervous.
On 22nd June, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) wrote a letter to the Daily Telegraph headed, rather inaptly, "Woman the Worker" and finishing with the words:
"Is there no economic Churchill who will save the nation despite itself?"
This heart-cry was taken up by the Economist on 24th June. Then we had my hon. Friend the Member for Louth once more, on the Third Reading of the Finance Bill on 6th July, saying:
"In some respects, we face a graver economic crisis than at any time since 1931."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th July, 1961; Vol. 643, c. 1694.]
That is sheer nonsense. In 1931 our gold reserves were £134 million, and we had 2,800,000 unemployed. These figures bear no relation whatsoever to our condition today. There is, it seems to me, an overwhelming desire on the part of commentators to maximise the difficulties in which we find ourselves. My hon. Friend the Member for Louth, not content with his effort in the Third Reading debate of the Finance Bill—mainly out of order, as far as I remember—reverted to the Daily Telegraph of 14th July. The cry there was "Backs to the wall". Then, of course, the warnings came fast and shrill. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has not been backward, but I would remind him of something which took place many years ago, in 1931. In 1931 one of the responsible officers of the Republican Party in the United States was a gentleman called Mr. Simeon Fess, and Mr. Simeon Fess made a dramatic statement. He said:
"There seems to be a conspiracy in the market against the Government. Every time an Administration leader outs out an optimistic statement the market falls five points."
1108
We have not reached that point yet, because when my right hon. and learned Friend puts out a pessimistic statement the market goes down. It evidently considers that he is on the ball.
Mr. A. E. Cooper: Let me sympathise with my hon. Friend. Yorkshire won by two wickets.
Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: I am sure that the Committee is much obliged for that information.
The utterances of my right hon. and learned Friend are watched with considerable interest and in fact the market seems to behave very much as he indicates our prospects to be.
But what in fact is our situation? We face a deteriorating balance of payments Which was very bad last year, and only slightly better this, and the whole urgency was triggered off by what I call the German revaluation of last February, because that action by the German Government of altering their exchange rate without consultation with any other nation caused a tremendous currency upheaval. There is a morbid attraction, I think, in currency speculation, especially as it is always carried on by the most respectable people such as banks, and because of that morbid attraction there was an immediate run on sterling for which there was no justification in the economic facts of the time but which was simply based on the principle, "The mark has gone up, sterling is likely to go down. It is the next one to go." As a result the figures have got worse, and there has been a considerable genuine run on the pound and we are in the situation in which we see ourselves today.
I am very glad that the President of the Board of Trade did draw attention to the dimension's of the problem because with a gross domestic product of over £22,000 million we are facing now a deficit in the balance of payments of £200 million, or 1 per cent. This 1 per cent., as he pointed out, is something which can unquestionably be remedied without much difficulty. The real basis of our unease is, to my mind, that the short-term remedies of our situation are likely to aggravate the long-term maladies. It is perfectly clear that in the short-term we can by deflation restore confidence. The money will return here,

1109
the exchanges will flow freely, and we shall obtain a period of respite, but I think there is a growing realisation that this short-term remedy is not going to remedy the long-term position.
As far as the short-term goes, we shall hear about that next week, but I have no doubt that as either we shall be seeking to borrow money or, at least, be seeking to retain money which is already here, we shall have to do two things. We shall have to pull in our belts in some disagreeable way so as to suffer, so as to satisfy our creditors that we are suffering and we shall probably have to pay them a higher rate of interest and I have no doubt that a series of actions of a masochistic nature are to be called for next week. I am quite certain that we shall respond to them, but I would say to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) and to other hon. and right hon. Members on the other side of the Committee that these remedies will not be effective in restoring confidence in sterling unless they make the maximum protest against them. Only if they make the maximum protest against them will our creditors feel that our Government are determined to save the pound.
Mr. Harold Wilson: A further condition, clearly, on the basis of past experience, must be—not only a protest against them—that they are totally irrelevant to improving the economic situation of this country.
Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: I do not think that our creditors are quite as dumb as all that.
The real question is not the short term but the long term, and the long term is the one which we have to face. Frankly, I was rather taken by a suggestion in one of the Sunday papers that we should have an autumn Budget for expansion, because I do not think that we can in the course of my right hon. and learned Friend's statement next week, however lengthy, deal with both the short term, which is disagreeable, and the need for expansion in the long term.
I have tried to cudgel my brains for a few things which could be helpful to both. One suggestion I would give my right hon. and learned Friend is the question of the exporting industries. It is a matter of real importance, for sup-
1110
plies to the home market are paid for with a delay varying from two to four-and-a-half months and there is no real reason why exports should not be paid for the day they are shipped. I really believe, although the Government have gone a long way to meeting credit needs of exporters through the export credit guarantees, that there is still a requirement for immediate cash. At the present moment all these export credit guarantees and bank charges of various sorts and interest add to the cost of exporting. I believe that it would not be considered as a subsidy to exporters if the Government were willing to take action so that exporters delivering their shipping documents should receive cash and should receive cash on the nail.
I was talking about it to a rather prominent manufacturer today and he said, "Ah, this would distort our pattern, and we could be lured away by ready cash and ignore some of our customers in the home market." My feeling is that that might not be such a bad thing after all.
However, I would urge on my right hon. and learned Friend—through the medium of the printed page—that he does not indulge in the sort of gimmicks which are being freely canvassed at this moment, and above all, that he divests himself of the illusion that entering into the Common Market is going to solve any of the problems we are up against at the present moment.
Of course, the theory can certainly be well and clearly expounded that we can enter the Common Market and that we can compensate the home agriculturist in some way for any loss of his support prices. We can tell our friends who joined with us in the European Free Trade Association, like allies in war, that we have had a reverse and that they must now make the best of their way home. We had to do that to some of our allies in war. I should be sorry to think that we should adopt that same policy in peace time. Of course, we could take the view that the Commonwealth is an institution of narrow-minded farmers for whom we need no longer take responsibility. All this is a tenable theory.
In this connection there was a very pregnant statement which Lord Beaver, brook denied having made, and I think that sometimes what Lord Beaverbrook

1111
denies having said leaves us with as much food for thought as his reported utterances. What he is reported to have said and has denied saying is that the Common Market represents an economic Munich which will surely lead to an economic Dunkirk.
I should like to elaborate that a little. I notice that in 1958–60 in our transactions with the E.E.C. both our imports and exports have gone up by 24 per cent. There has been no significant change in the balance. On the contrary with the E.F.T.A. countries, our exports in the same years 1958–60 are up by 20 per cent. and our imports are up by 27 per cent. I feel that that is pretty convincing proof that if we found ourselves in the Common Market we might find the same swing in our bill for imports without any corresponding improvement in our exports.
If we enter the Rome Treaty it will certainly involve devaluation and whether we do it voluntarily, as the French did, before joining and therefore gain some benefit from it in their way, or whether we do it later because it is forced upon us, the result will be the same. Many of the people, and particularly those abroad, who are so clamorous with the suggestion that we should go into the Common Market are making that suggestion because they want to see us devalue.
An advantage of this debate to the back bencher is that at least one can have the privilege of saying to my right hon. and learned Friend what he ought to do. After all, next week I shall know what he is doing and I shall be here to support it. First, I would say to him, as his commander, Field Marshal Montgomery would no doubt agree, that no general ever won a battle by arriving on the pillion of a motor cycle to deliver his orders. I urge my right hon. and learned Friend to give the appearance at least of greater equanimity. Confidence is what we want from him, not the ability to hop a lift. Even reaction against the majestic shadow of Mr. Gladstone, which no doubt made an appearance at Hawarden at the time, could not justify that act.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Edward Boyle): I have heard, as others have heard in the Treasury, a
1112
full account of that episode. It was perfectly rational, and I cannot see any particular virtue in a Chancellor arriving late for meetings when it is possible by taking ad hoc action to arrive on time.
Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: I am not in favour of Chancellors who arrive late for meetings either.
Mr. John Page: I never had the opportunity of carrying Field Marshal Montgomery on the back of a motor cycle, but I took one of his corps commanders rather urgently to deliver orders on one occasion.
Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: I hope that episode ended victoriously.
I recall reading an account of a conversation between the Duke of Wellington and Lord Uxbridge on the eve of Waterloo in which Wellington said:
"What the future holds is unknown—what we do know is that each of us will do his duty."
Let my right hon. and learned Friend take the nation into his confidence and the nation will do its duty. There is no doubt in any of our minds, however we discuss this matter across the Floor of this Chamber, that a modicum of restraint now will save us in future from the humiliating sequence of boom and bust which we have known for a great number of years. Let us be adults about our responsibilities. If we meet our responsibilities, we shall do our duty not only to ourselves and to the nation but to the whole free world.
5.45 p.m.
Mr. H. Rhodes: Whatever may be the merits of the advice offered to the Chancellor of the Exchequer about accepting a lift on the back of a motor-cycle, all I know is that if the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid) had given the advice which he quoted from the Duke of Wellington to the party opposite when we were preparing for the last General Election it would have been more to the point. The number of times that we have heard about the groundnuts scheme will be nothing to the number of times we shall hear about the country never having had it so good. I would now supplant that slogan of our never having had it so good with "It was good while it lasted."

1113
Let us consider some of the factual history. There were three resignations from the Treasury Bench a few years ago over a matter of £50 million. It was only a "small amount", it was only "marginal". The Bank Rate was raised in September, 1957, from 5 per cent. to 7 per cent., and the following spring there were the three resignations. Why? It was because a General Election was pending and their policies did not suit.
On 3rd July, 1958, restrictions on hire purchase were removed. In the same month the banks started taking over the hire-purchase houses and personal loans began to be made. In October of that year the Prime Minister went to Harrogate to talk to the Cotton Board conference, to sense the feeling and to see whether there was any question of the Tory Party losing seats in Lancashire.
The right hon. Gentleman was very astute. Had he not been clever enough to interpose himself to take the place of a Prime Minister who had failed? He got away with Suez, and he got away with the last election as well. When the right hon. Gentleman went to Harrogate he found that there was grave doubt whether the Tory Party would hold the seats in Lancashire unless something was done. And something was done—the very thing that the President of the Board of Trade talked about today—by bolstering up old industries with £30 million.
This is how things went. In September, 1957, the Bank Rate was increased from 5 per cent. to 7 per cent. On 22nd May, 1958, the Bank Rate was 5½ per cent. In June, 1958, it was 5 per cent. On 14th August, coinciding with the free-for-all, the personal loans, the banks taking over hire purchase and all the rest, the Bank Rate came down to 4½ per cent., and in November of that year it came down to 4 per cent. The Bank Rate never altered again until the election was safely over. It is significant that on 2nd June, 1960, it went up to 5 per cent.
I say to the Government that politics of that description are over and done with. It is time that we had more honesty from our political parties, who should say what they mean. It is no use putting out a bogus prospectus, because the country is bound to reap some of the returns. If the advice which
1114
is being given to the Government about how to put their house in order is known now, it was known in those days. The Government and the Tory Party should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves for having misled the country as they did. Laughing the matter off will not do.
Mr. John Arbuthnot: Would the hon. Gentleman feel that he could afford to make this sort of remark had his party gone to the country on a platform of austerity?
Mr. Rhodes: We know very well what the response was when Sir Stafford Cripps made the kind of appeal to the country that is to be made next Tuesday. Whenever he made such an appeal the capitalist newspapers described it as "Austerity Cripps at it again". But that will not be the reaction next Tuesday. It will be pointed out then that here is a brave Chancellor doing his duty by his party for his country. That is the difference between the two sides of the House.
There has been glib talk in the past about production and productivity. My hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) has reminded the Government of their statement that the standard of living could be doubled in 25 years. I certainly do not take exception to a claim doubling our standard of living in 25 years, and I do not see why it should not be done if we have the right policies. But will the Government tell the country what is enough, in terms of productivity over one year or two years, or ten years, in order to achieve this target?
This target cannot merely be achieved in six or twelve months. Productivity has to grow, and the aim must be commonly accepted by both sides of the Committee if we are to do anything about it. Will the Government tell us what they think is a reasonable increase in productivity to meet the needs of the times? Is it 2·8 per cent. or 3 per cent., or 3½ per cent. or 4 per cent.? Once we know the figure we can then get down to the job of achieving that productivity.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer does not really know what our productivity is because there is no real measure of it. The way we try to measure it at the

1115
moment is by output per man year. The Index of Industrial Production is divided by an index of employment in industry. I shall not bore the Committee by recalling what the Council on Prices, Productivity and Incomes said about this, because I do not want to be too long.
The other indicator is that of net output per person employed, as shown in the census of production. There is another alternative—to attempt to get figures of output per operative in terms of physical units of the product; but this cannot be done because it is too detailed. I have wondered whether it was possible to break down manufacturing industries into their particular sections—up to, say, 14 divisions. The measures which we have at the moment are not accurate, because the criteria have been altered so often. The 1948 figures formed the basis of the gross national product until 1954. Prices have gone up in the interim, and the productivity figure which emerges, after the employment figure has been divided into the gross national product, is wrong.
I ask the Government to get down to the question of assessment of productivity and of how much productivity is needed. This will have to be done in the end, either by the present Government or by a Government from this side of the Committee. If the Government want their policy to be effective, they must face the people with a challenge—the challenge of being able to do as well as or better than anybody else abroad. In my belief, this can be done if the facts are brought home to industry, but industry by industry.
During the last ten or fifteen years there has been a big increase in the application of work study. If the Chancellor cannot give his views on this tonight, I ask him at any rate to think seriously about whether our industries should take the responsibility for the compilation of their own productivity figures. If they could bring them forward every twelve months, then, instead of our having that abortive debate on the state of the economy every November, we would be able to pinpoint the industries which, from the productivity point of view, are doing well or badly.
Mr. Ellis Smith: Work study for the workers while everybody else goes at leisured speed.
Mr. Rhodes: Yes, but that is not all. I want to tackle the problem of how to assess productivity.
The Government betrayed the confidence of the people by their approach to the last election. They will never live that down. Confidence must be given to the people on the shop floor that they are having a fair crack of the whip and that two societies are not evolving—one getting its money in capital through the Stock Exchange and the other having to earn it. Platitudes and sermons are no use. We must finish with them and get down to setting an example to those whom we are trying to influence.
6.0 p.m.
Mr. John Arbuthnot: The speech of the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) showed some sound common sense when he got away from politics. He was absolutely right when he said that if we present an industry with a challenge and show what is the target which it is expected to reach, it will meet that challenge. It will help us enormously in improving productivity if we can show industry by industry what is expected. The hon. Member himself is a distinguished pillar of his own industry and knows what he is talking about.
There has been general agreement in the debate about one or two things. We all agree that productivity is not as high as it should be. We all agree that home demand is too high, that our exports are insufficient and that it may well be that only by diverting from the home demand to exports a larger proportion of what we produce and by increasing productivity shall we solve our problems.
Recently, we have read in the newspapers articles suggesting that our present plight is due to our selfishness in one form or another, that we are trying to take too much out of the world pot. I do not think that that is so. I do not believe that it is because we demand too much as a nation that we find ourselves in economic difficulties. There is no doubt that much of what we demand goes to help under-developed

1117
countries. Some goes to the defence of countries which are unable to defend themselves. There is the defence of Hong Kong, for example. There is the money which we have spent in defending the Cameroons, the money spent in Germany, to say nothing of Kuwait. It has not been an entirely selfish exercise which has brought about our present position.
What we blame or whom we blame for our economic plight may depend on the part of the political spectrum to which we belong. Some people blame the Government for failing to take the lead given when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer by my right hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Thorneycroft) and for allowing my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education to make a speech in this House in which he said that our expenditure on education was now £700 million and would be £1,400 million by 1970, without anybody saying him nay. Some will say that it was the Government's fault for not resisting wage demands more firmly.
On the other hand, others blame the leaders of industry for allowing wage increases without resistance, knowing that they could carry those higher wages by increasing prices to consumers who had money to spend. This it has been said has set the pace for increases in salaries in Government services, thus increasing the cost of government. Others would say that one of the causes was high profits, while others still would say that the trade unions are abusing their power and holding the country to ransom.
I am not concerned with allocating blame. Probably none of us is blameless and, if we are honest, most of us will agree that we have our own particular Achilles heel on which we want greater expenditure. I am concerned with what we ought to try to do to put matters right.
Let us for a moment direct our attention to our own system of estimating here in Parliament. Not long ago, the word went out that expenditure for the current year should not exceed last year's expenditure. I believe that it was only the Ministry of Defence which achieved that objective. It is not only the original Estimates which are at fault. They are added to each year by Supple-
1118
mentary Estimates to take account of matters not foreseen when the original Estimates were prepared.
No business could run on those lines, or it would soon go bankrupt. A household budget cannot run on those lines. At least, I do not imagine that there is any hon. Member who is prepared to allow his expenses to go rip-roaring up in one direction without economising in another. As a nation we ought to copy what we do in our family budget, or in our business.
We know what our national income is, and when the Estimates are being prepared, we ought to agree what proportion should be spent by the Government and what proportion left in the pockets of the people. The proportion to be spent by the Government should be allocated to the various Departments. If during a year a Department says that it wants to spend more on a particular item, permission to do so should be made conditional on its making a corresponding saving elsewhere so that its total allocation is not exceeded. It is a tragedy that the success of a Minister should be judged, and I fear that it is, by the amount of money which he succeeds in extracting for his Department from the Treasury.
Next Tuesday, my right hon. and learned Friend will be telling us of his proposals for correcting the country's financial plight. The country is prepared for him to be thorough. We want on half-measures. We want him to lay a firm basis on which our industrial production can go ahead in the certainty that there will be no need for further checks. I very much endorse the words of the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, that one of the important things is that our increase in production should be steady and should not go by fits and starts.
We may be entering negotiations about the possibility of our joining the Common Market. I am not taking a view whether we should or should not, but there is the possibility of our entering those negotiations. We shall be in no position to bargain successfully if our economy is weak. The nation looks to my right hon. and learned Friend on Tuesday to take such measures as are necessary and for the lead to strengthen it.
6.9 p.m.
Mr. John Hynd: I do not propose to follow the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Arbuthnot), although I should have liked to have had time to take up some of his arguments about private business not being able to run on the basis of giving estimates which it subsequently had to increase. That is not an unusual experience. I should have liked also to discuss his theory about Government Departments having to plan exactly for the year and meeting extra expenditure by cuts elsewhere. I do not know what the War Office would have done about Kuwait, for instance. Presumably, it would have had to sell 2,000 or 3,000 tanks, or something of that kind, to balance the account after an incident like Kuwait or Suez. I do not think that those matters are relevant to the question about which we are concerned.
I begin by commenting on the general approach of the President of the Board of Trade to this question. The Committee, and the country, will be struck by the fact that the Government, who have for so long been trying to claim credit for the relatively satisfactory position at which we arrived in the years after 1951, are now trying to reject any portion of the blame for the situation in which we find ourselves after ten years of Tory Government.
As one of my hon. Friends said, the President of the Board of Trade was trying to find scapegoats in every direction—not only the trade unions but the employers as well. Here we have a Conservative Minister trying to tell private industry how to run a business. Apparently, the man in Whitehall knows best. The President of the Board of Trade was telling it that it should not be so concerned about selling on the easy home market, but that it should sell more abroad. What is private business for? The whole purpose of it—which the Tory Party claims to support—is to sell in the easiest market at the biggest profit. Private businesses are not concerned about the long-term interests of the Tory Party or of the country. They are concerned only about selling in the easiest market at the biggest profit, and that is what they have been doing.
The President of the Board of Trade also lectured some of the bigger firms
1120
who apparently have been retaining workers and not keeping them fully employed for every hour of every day and every day of the week, and suggested that these firms should dismiss some of these workers so that they can go to other industries. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the bigger firms keep these workers on as a form of charity? Does he not give employers credit for their industrial and economic intelligence? They retain the workers because they feel that it is necessary and desirable for their business to do so. These are some of the considerations which apply in private industry and which the Tories will have to accept if they want to stick to the idea of leaving private industry to run our affairs.
As has been said over and over again during the debate—although it was not apparent from the speech of the President of the Board of Trade—we are not facing the kind of routine crisis to which we have become accustomed during ten years of Tory Government. The situation today is very much more serious than was evident from the statement of the President of the Board of Trade. The Daily Mail, and other papers, made this clear the other day when, in anticipation of the statement which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is apparently to make next week, it said:
"The measures he will announce next week will be unpopular and unexpected. The key word is 'unexpected.' If we were to get the same old crisis routine we should despair."
The Daily Mail went on to say that the old crisis routine which the Government over and over again had assured the country would cure the ills from which industry and the economy had been suffering had failed, and it took the view that if this routine was tried again we should despair completely.
It is true that wages and wage increases play an important part in this situation. Workers are asked to make sacrifices. They are asked to accept a policy of wage restraint, and they are even threatened that if they do not accept such a policy it will be imposed on them. How will such a policy be imposed? The workers of this country are not averse to making sacrifices for the good of the country, but in return for doing that they are entitled to ask a few questions.

1121
The first question is, who is responsible for the situation in which we find ourselves today? If the workers had been able to hear the President of the Board of Trade today, and if they were able to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer next week, I am sure that they would realise that the Government are responsible for it. The Daily Mail says, and Ministers have said, that the old remedies are not relevant to the situation today, but it is the old remedies upon which the Government have based their policy. The situation today is an admission of the failure of Government policy. The Government produced this situation, and they are now admitting it. This admission is not surprising to those of us on this side of the Committee who for ten years have been trying to persuade the Government that that kind of policy could have no long-term benefit for our economy.
The Government's method of trying to beat the kind of situation we are facing is to bring in the old remedies—restrictions followed by a free-for-all, inflation at home, and so on, with a resultant fall in exports. The admonition to export more and sell less lat home has no effect on an economy which is based on the will of the private individual who is concerned only with his immediate profits.
Another question which the workers will want to ask is why, when we get into a situation like this, it is the workers who have to make the sacrifices. I know that appeals have been made by Ministers to private industries and speculators to restrain dividends and profits, and we know what the Tory Press says about the response to that kind of appeal. During the war there were constant scandals about profiteering, black marketeering, and junketing in the big hotels and elsewhere while the rest of the country was engaged in a battle of blood, tears and sweat. Who was doing the black marketeering, the profiteering and the junketing? Who were the people who were making millions during the war? Were they steelworkers, railwaymen, miners, or who were they? The people who were making the money were the financiers, the speculators, the people in big business, the people who had plenty of money and were able to use it, as money can always be used, to obtain
1122
privileges which were not available to those who were busily engaged in the hard work of producing the goods.
After the war when there was still a grievous shortage of food and an urgent need for more houses to replace those which had been destroyed. Who were the people who were clamouring for the precipitate abandonment of rationing and building controls? They were not to be found among the steelworkers, the railwaymen or the miners. They were the people who could see opportunities for building up wealth for themselves by the abandonment of building controls. That was the prime consideration, and hon. Gentlemen opposite know that as well as we do.
Reference has been made to incentives in Germany and France. The President of the Board of Trade suggested that Germany was a wonderful example of how success had been achieved without Government planning. This is a great stronghold of free enterprise. Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman that Germany's post-war prosperity has been achieved primarily because as soon as they were able to do so after the war the German Government completely rebuilt the infrastructure of their economy and did not spare money or effort in doing so. Consider what has been done for the German railways. The stations are a wonder to anybody who sees them. The new trains and services are an amazing achievement. They are ultra-modern in most cases.
What has happened to our railways? We are still running on old dilapidated lines. We are still using old dilapidated stock. Year after year the Government have refused the railways the opportunity of rebuilding themselves. It is no wonder that the German economy has gone ahead, and the same can be said about many activities in Germany.
What about their export trade? Their greatest export has been the Volkswagen. That was a Government concern and a Government enterprise. One of their other big achievements since the war has been in shipbuilding and shipping, and many shipbuilding concerns belong to the Government. It is true that Dr. Erhardt has said that he will dismantle them, just as we tried to dismantle road haulage. He will probably achieve the

1123
same results. But progress in the German economy has been in great part due to the fact that the infrastructure was rebuilt, even by a German Government claiming to represent private enterprise as against State planning.
Another factor to bear in mind is that the incidence of strikes in Germany has been the lowest of any industrial country in the world in the last five or six years. It has been lower than this country, France, Italy, America or anywhere else. This cannot be separated from the fact that, seven or eight years ago, Germany established a system of workers' participation in the control of industry—
Mr. Shepherd Mr. Shepherd indicated dissent.
Mr. Hynd: The hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) shakes his head, but under the German law they have estalblished the so-called Mitbestimmungsrecht in which the workers in the great coal and steel concerns have a 50 per cent. representation on the boards of management, with equal access to the books and knowledge of every activity of the industry, and where even the workers in the small concerns have representation on the boards of management and full information about what is going on in their industry. Under that system the workers are not only fully apprised of events but have an equal share in the product of the industry.
Mr. Shepherd: I was not shaking my head to deny that this system exists, or that it has its effect, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows why there has been an absence of industrial strife in Germany. The first reason is the large amount of labour which has come from the East and the second is the fear every German has of inflation, which has damned German lives on two occasions.
Mr. Hynd: I do not accept that for a moment. In spite of the 7 million refugees now in Germany, the 2 million or 3 million foreign workers—Italians, Spaniards and the rest—and the continuing flow of refugees from the East, Germany still has over-full employment. There is no pool of unemployed to force the unions to accept lower wages. The trade unions have a direct say in the distribution not only of wages but of profits in the industry, and in investment policies and the rest.
1124
This country, however, finds itself today in the same position as it has been in year after year under the present Government. There is a crisis, inflation, and therefore the need for sacrifice, so the Government put up the Health Service charges; they raise the contributions to the National Health Service which are paid by the ordinary workers. For what purpose? In order to be able to distribute more largesse to the people who do not need it. They make Surtax concessions. They give money to one class and put an extra charge upon another.
Do the Government and the party which supports them expect the workers to swallow this for ever? There has been much talk in the newspapers about sticks and carrots. I read in one newspaper that industrialists respond better to carrots than to sticks. Why should not that apply to the workers? Why should it be carrots for the industrialists and sticks for the workers? We hear about the incentives which are necessary for the boards of directors—for the people who are presumably responsible for whether or not we produce or export. In a recent issue of the Sunday Express there was a reference to "the mighty Guardian Assurance." The members of the board of that company are aged 72, 77, 76 and 73, respectively, and of the other thirteen directors one is 74, another 76 and a third 72. Are these the sort of people who need to be given more incentives to build up productivity? Will they thus be inspired to produce more for export and build up the country's economy?
Are the workers to be expected to swallow appointments such as that of Dr. Beeching to British Railways, with an immediate increase of £230 a week above the salary paid to his predecessor, plus what he gains from the recent Surtax concession? Having had an increase of £230 a week in his salary, his first job is to persuade the railwaymen that it would be disastrous to the economy of the country and of the railways if they received a few shillings extra in their wages. We cannot expect railwaymen to accept that. I know that in bulk the total amount of those few shillings amounts to more than the £230 a week extra for Dr. Beeching, but there is the appearance of justice to be considered.

1125
Dr. Beeching has made a statement to the effect that he is not averse to an increase in wages for railwaymen, but it cannot be given unless it is matched by an increase in production or productivity. What can that mean to a railway signalman, a driver, or a fireman, or to many other grades in British Railways? Must a signalman drop his signals oftener, whether a train is coming or not? Must a gatekeeper open and shut his gate more often, whether a train is coming or not? What does it mean? If wage increases are not justified until there has been an increase in productivity, why should not Dr. Beeching's increased salary have waited until he had shown that he was making some contribution to increased productivity?
If incentives are necessary for directors in order to get more effort out of them, why are they not necessary for the workers? If we believe in this theory, why do not we try offering an immediate all-round increase in wages to the workers, and then wait to see if it results in increased productivity? The truth is that the Government do not believe that these incentives mean increased productivity from directors aged 74 or 76, or from the Dr. Beechings; they are concerned to redistribute the wealth of this country, and put more into the hands of the people they support and who support them.
Our workers are not unpatriotic. We have only to read the speeches of any Tory Minister during the war to realise that when the country is in need the workers are prepared to react. But they are not stupid. We can fool all of them some of the time, and some of them all the time, but we cannot fool all of them all the time. The other day the Daily Express printed something of a kind which one can read almost every day in its gossip columns. It quoted a certain person as saying:
"I am used to meeting lavish spenders. But yesterday I met one who is a rather more colourful personality than most—who spends about £60 a week on drinks, and a large part of his life in West End clubs. This was a Mr. John William Goodburn-Nelson who was knocked unconscious in a fight after appearing in court with Arthur Mason, husband of actress Vera Day."
1126
Apparently Mr. Goodburn-Nelson, who is 31, began his day
"with a breakfast of tea, whisky, coffee and brandy."
Our newspapers are full of this kind of thing, every day of every week. How can we ask the workers to agree to our giving Surtax concessions to this kind of person—to increase his incentives to productivity and exports—while, at the same time, we ask the same workers to forgo any demand for increased wages because the country cannot afford it?
Where the money goes under a Tory Government, everybody knows. I remember that following the Budget of 1954 there was a series of company reports in the newspapers. One of them said:
"Back in the chair of Associated Electrical Industries Limited, Viscount Chandos celebrates by reporting record trading profits of £11,736,000, a rise of nearly £1 million on the year … the total tax bill at £7,224,000 is £588.000 down, thanks to the abolition of E.P.L."—
the Excess Profits Levy. Viscount Chandos was a member of the Government up to the time when the Excess Profits Levy was absolished. Another Conservative hon. Member, chairman of a company, reported that:
"The net profit totalled £306,505 against £145,175 in 1953".
and there is a full description of what is available for distribution, after which it is reported:
"This increase is almost wholly due to the cessation of Excess Profits Levy …".
That Conservative was supporting the Government for the abolition of E.P.L. These people did not do so badly. That is the way in which the redistribution of the nation's income has gone on.
I have a whole series of these:
"Courtaulds exceed £20 million in profit. Thanks to a cut in the tax bill from nearly £11 million to £8,500,000"—
etc. This is what the Government policy has been—the handing out of largesse in the form of hundreds of millions of pounds to people who do not need it, and, at the same time, urging economy and sacrifices on the workers.
One could go on in this way about our old friend Mr. Gibson Jarvie, chairman of United Dominions Trust Limited—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Perhaps hon. Members opposite do not like to hear

1127
this, but it may do them good to listen. In the annual report there is a complaint about the crippling burden of taxation, but the report also refers to excess profits for the year, which is a record year. At the same time it talks about
"the burden of grandiose social services which, pandering to the shirker and the lazy by shouldering responsibilities which properly belong to the individual, are destroying our very character."
There is also a reference to the necessity for
"encouragement and incentive to the wealth-producers … Unions must be put in their place … The Welfare State is a failure: there can be no social quality … the big earner is entitled to his reward. Without him those lower in the scale could not exist."
This is the kind of thing which the workers know about. They are conscious of these things. In the Investors Chronicle City column, and in the newspapers day after day, there are references to the vast profits made out of land speculation and the rest of it. One is left to imagine how this can be reconciled with demands to the workers that there should be a restriction in their wages.
It is interesting to recall the sneers of the Tory Party over and over again in 1951. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) referred to the comparison between 1951 and 1960. He was generous enough to say that perhaps 1951 was a little too near the war years and he referred to 1955 to give a basis, but the picture was not very much better. The fact is that 1951 was only a few years after the war and things were still extremely difficult. Then, according to the war-time Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill), the country was nearly bankrupt. It had sold practically all its foreign assets. Yet in 1951 the Observer was referring to a recent White Paper which had contained some striking facts. It stated:
"The first is that our deficit on current account with the outside world as a whole has been reduced during the last two years from £630 million in 1946 to £10 million in the first half of 1949. Secondly, and even more surprising, far from living on our capital, we have again become large-scale investors in the outside world. During the 30 months from January 1, 1947, to July 1, 1949, we invested overseas no less than £468 million …"
and so on. In the City news in The Times there was this reference:
1128
"But the most momentous change in recorded figures has been a cut of well over 1,000 million dollars a year in the sterling area's dollar imports—and this, since a cut of about 800 million dollars a year would have fully satisfied the undertakings mutually given by the Commonwealth Finance Ministers 14 months ago, must properly be counted to the credit of devaluation."
Lloyds Bank Review told a similar story. This was the situation only a few years after the devastation of war. What is the situation now—how many years after the war? Certainly ten years after a Tory Government were elected.
I wish to make one suggestion. I have already referred to the demand made that there should be no increase in wages without an increase in production, and I think that everyone would agree with that in principle. But the question immediately arises, on what basis do we begin? Who decides that basis? Who, in fact, decides what shall be the wages of the workers? On what formula is it decided that a railway worker should be paid so much, a miner should be paid so much and an engineer so much? Evidently it is not based on the total productivity of industry because that assessment could not apply, for example, to teachers.
If the employer alone—this is the basis on which wages have been decided in the past—decides not to divulge to the employees what is the company's income, and if the test is to be left to the workers, to accept what the employer says or to test what he says by collective bargaining which involves the right to strike—otherwise collective bargaining does not mean anything at all—then strikes are inevitable. So long as we leave the employer to make the decision about what a worker is to be paid it is no use asking the worker not to strike, because he has no other way of testing the ability or the willingness of the employer to pay a reasonable wage.
How, then, are the workers to know what is fair, unless all the cards are placed on the table and an agreement is reached about what is the fairness of the amount to be offered both for wages and salaries and for profits, and so on? It seems to me that there is only one way to ensure that. It is by the establishment of joint wages and profits boards in every industry and in every factory. The boards would consist of representatives of the workers and the employers who would have complete access to all information

1129
regarding the activities of the company and the financial result of its activities, and would agree not only on what should be made available for wages but on the amount to be devoted to profits, to investments, to appreciation and the rest. Unless that is done, we may as well resign ourselves to the fact that there is no alternative to the present system of what is called joint negotiation or collective bargaining, which ends in the possibility of a strike.
This may be regarded as a somewhat revolutionary idea and Liberals may think that it is profit-sharing. But it is something very much more than that. This is not a case of the employer saying to a worker, "We have done well this year so we will give you £10, or a few shares." This is a demand that the workers should have full participation in deciding not the policy of the industry but how the results of its activities should be distributed among all concerned.
I referred earlier to the German experiment which goes very much further. There the workers have an equal right to decide on the form of investment policy. I do not mean the allocation of money to investment but the development of the trading policy, the sales policy and all the rest of it. This idea which I am suggesting does not ask so much. It merely asks that, in order to ensure that the workers have a fair share of what is produced by the common effort within an industry, they should be taken into full consultation and have an equal share in deciding how the profits of the industry should be allocated. It is not quite so revolutionary as all that, because in 1921, as hon. Members may remember, when it was proposed that the railways should be organised on a geographical instead of a longitudinal basis, the Scottish railway companies found that they could not afford to pay national rates if they were left isolated on the basis of a Scottish group. So they approached the unions and an agreement was arrived at that, should this new basis become operative, there would be a reduction in wages of 5 per cent. Fortunately, it did not come about and such a reduction was not necessary. But this idea could be developed and, in fact, replace the present situation and system, or lack of system, under which
1130
the products of industry are distributed to one side only.
It would, of course, mean legislation by the Government. It might be met with resistance from the employers or from the unions. But if they wish to try something effective, something new, in order to solve this problem of wages and profits and to effect a reconciliation of workers in industry with the share they are obtaining from the common effort, I suggest that the Government might try consulting the unions and employers. If they can get agreement they should consider introducing legislation. If not, as I said earlier, they must reconcile themselves to the fact that the distribution of largesse to the wealthy in the population while appealing to the unions to refrain from applications for wage increases, or, if they do make such applications, asking them to refrain from strikes, will continue to be ineffective. In fact, the strike is the only argument, in the last resort, which the trade unions have. Therefore, I ask the Government to look at this kind of proposal, or any others, whatever they are, and not to rely on appeals to industry or to the wealthy people of this country and on threats to the workers, who will not accept them.
6.40 p.m.
Mr. Martin Lindsay: Like other speakers before me, I want to analyse, in a very short speech, the reasons why I think we are in the position in which we are today. I suggest that one of the principal reasons for our being in our present mess is that we do not try to work to any consistent, overriding plan and stick to it—a plan to make the best possible use of our resources. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, who opened the debate, that planning has a bad name, but what he did not say was that it was precisely because he and his right hon. and hon. Friends were so bad at it. That is the reason, but it is rather a long time ago.
Every great industry or business and, indeed, all the small ones, has a plan on which it is run, and when any important decision has to be taken, the management ask themselves whether what they are about to do conforms or does not conform to their plan. I suggest that our national plan should be to

1131
improve productivity, to reduce costs, to encourage growth and expand exports. I can put it more simply and say that our plan should be to strengthen our economy, and that no economic decision should be taken without being submitted to this acid test as to whether it would strengthen or weaken our economy.
It is quite obvious that we have not been conducting our affairs in this way. The motor industry has been forced against its better judgment to expand where it is not economic to do so, in spite of the overriding necessity of keeping its costs low in order to remain competitive. This was a clear case of social reasons being given precedence over economic reasons. I think that my right hon. Friend was just a little bit disingenuous when tackled about I.D.C.s by the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles), when he said that he had a duty under the Act. But who brought in the Bill? It was the Bill that he himself brought in; it was the Bill of his right hon. Friends in the Cabinet. What he has done to the Rover Motor Company in my constituency is to force the firm to run a machine shop in Cardiff to feed a factory on the edge of Birmingham, which no one thinks is economic and which will add, even if only marginally, to the company's difficulties in keeping prices low in order to be able to export. The same criticism applies to the Cunard subsidy, and, for my part, it was only with considerable heart-searching that I did not vote against that Measure, and I am sure that this also applies to many of my hon. Friends. We made our criticisms in private, but we have a right to ask the Government not to strain our loyalties too far.
Exactly the same kind of considerations apply to the way in which we run our fuel and power industries. Surely, it is elementary that we should give industry the cheapest fuel we can, and that when pits are uneconomic, we should close them down. It is not our job to run the coal industry as a kind of welfare organisation, and we should not subsidise those pits that are too expensive to be economic by the low-cost coal from the more efficient pits in the Midlands, giving an old domestic industry the benefit which should be passed on to our exporting industries.
Mr. James Griffiths: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman protested at the time when coal was brought from abroad and sold to industries in this country, including the motor car industry, at a lower cost than it could be produced here, resulting in a burden being placed on the mining industry. Did the hon. Member protest then?
Mr. Lindsay: The right hon. Gentleman knows just as well as I do what the circumstances were at the time those imports were made.
Again, another matter which is causing me a great deal of anxiety is the very great burden which is to be placed on industry by the new valuation and derating proposals. I wonder whether any estimate has been made of the precise size of this burden. I asked my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government a Question only a few days ago, and the Answer was that it was not possible to compute it. I am very glad that my right hon. Friend is here. I should like to give him an example of this immense burden which we are to put on industry because, as I have said, of social reasons rather than economic ones. He and I visited the steel industry in about 1947, and I myself a fortnight ago visited the same steel company which we visited together then. The management told me that in 1960–61 they paid £474,000 in rates, that in the coming year, because of the new valuation, they will pay £1,058,000. But in 1963, if we still stick to our proposals for the abolition of industrial derating, their rates will rise to £2 million. That is a rise from under £1½ million to over £2 million and, of course, this will become a very big factor in the company's costs.
If we do such foolish things as this, it is very naïve of us to be shocked and surprised when our industrialists, one after the other, tell us that the main reason why they cannot export more is because their costs are too high. One of the biggest factors in costs is wages, and it is well known that, at the present time, industry is facing a number of wage claims which are completely unrealistic. It is very difficult to expect industrialists to hold a firm front against unrealistic wage claims when there is a history of the Government

1133
asking industry to give way in order to avoid a strike, as happened in the case of the engineering industry not so very long ago.
To give another example of the way in which social considerations are put in front of economic ones, there is the repair of rolling stock. There are large companies in this country which have for generations made very substantial contributions to our export earnings by selling rolling stock all round the world. In order to remain competitive in price, they must have at least some of the bread-and-butter business of the repair of rolling stock of British Railways, but, here again, political considerations intervene, and the work is given to the British Railways yards.
Mr. J. Hynd: Nonsense.
Mr. Lindsay: I do not expect everyone to agree with me, but that is what is happening,
My right hon. and learned Friend is to introduce what one imagines will be very stern measures next week. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid), I can assure him that he will have the loyal support of hon. Members on this side of the Committee. I think that the Government can be particularly heartened by the staunchness of hon. Members on this side who in the short run have the most to lose by unpopular measures—that is those hon. Members with very small majorities. We all of us look to the Chancellor to introduce—not so much temporary measures to restrict consumption, necessary though these may be—but long-term measures to eradicate our fundamental weaknesses.
One of the reasons why, unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South, I am so anxious that we should enter the Common Market is that I want to break open and shake up this cosy little industrial world of ours in which management and labour have for long thought that they have a prescriptive right to make much the same things in much the same way with whatever restrictive practices they please for the very same customers for ever and ever. The sort of industrial world in which I want to live is one in which the great majority of companies will double their
1134
production and profits and the minority, which cannot go the pace, will go bankrupt and release their brains and labour for the others. The nation will greatly gain on balance.
One thing is certain. We cannot go on reinforcing the old, failing industries of coal, shipbuilding, horticulture and so on and cossetting the weaker industries instead of strengthening the strong. Nor can we go on increasing wages, salaries and dividends while productivity remains almost the same.
One of the most agreeable things about being in this place is the pleasure one can take in watching the success of one's hon. Friends. No one has taken a greater pleasure in the last ten years than I have in watching the success of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor. He has said some pretty tough things recently with which I am sure few of us would disagree. I think that he is strongly supported by all hon. Members on this side of the Committee. I feel sure that if any individual Chancellor, given time—and time is important—can pull things round, my right hon. and learned Friend will do so. I ask him to address himself to these long-term weaknesses so that, once and for all, we can get away from this continual situation of alternate booms and slumps. If he succeeds in doing that, he will have the gratitude of us all.
6.55 p.m.
Sir Leslie Plummer: First, I would tell the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Lindsay) that I do not think he is in any immediate danger. I think that the possibility of there being an election in the next year or so, if we study the practices this Government have followed in the past, is very remote indeed. The possibility of an election will be delayed until such time as the Prime Minister takes the view that we are climbing out of the slump and he is able to open up a little and to say to the electors once again that they have never had it so good, delying on the short memory of the electorate. So I do not think that the hon. Member should be concerned about his immediate future.
I think that he made a valuable speech, for it was important that at the beginning he should pay regard to the necessity for planning. It was also valuable in that he expressed what I believe to

1135
be what the Tories mean when they talk of "stern and realistic measures" which have to be taken. On of those is to close down uneconomic pits and, to follow what the President of the Board of Trade said earlier, to let the workers go to some other industry. How the miners are to go to another industry and how they are to be housed if they do so, has not been answered either by the hon. Member of the President of the Board of Trade. Nor do I think it has received any attention from the Minister of Housing and Local Government.
I do not propose to follow that line. On the invitation of the President of the Board of Trade, who said that he was always interested to hear from people who were trying to export abroad what their experiences were, I propose to relate some of the experiences I had when I went to Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland and Roumania with an ex-Member of this House, Lord Boothby. One of the things I noticed about those countries—I am not now criticising or applauding their social system—was a sense of purpose, a sense of determination and a planned effort being made by their Governments and their Ministers which was in sharp contrast to the vague stuff we had from the President of the Board of Trade today.
Those countries at least faced their mistakes—indeed, they buried some of their mistakes—but the President of the Board of Trade was giving us an indication this afternoon that, in his view, things were not so bad and at any rate we would climb out of our difficulties. The trouble with us today is that, unlike the countries I visited, we are bothered by a great number of irrelevancies which are impeding our proper application to the problems which face us. Our record of industrial production compared with those countries is a poor one.
The industrial growth in Czechoslovakia last year was 10·8 per cent.—five times that of this country. Last year Czechoslovakian trade with this country was £20 million in imports and exports as against £46 million with West Germany. We asked the people in those countries, "Do you like dealing with West Germany?" Most of those to whom we spoke made it quite clear that they did not love the Germans—for good reasons
1136
which it is not necessary for me to repeat today—but they said that the West Germans had certain advantages of language, of proximity, of general familiarity and of credit, although they said that the French with their planned economy were now offering credit terms to them which were the best they could find. They said that they were dealing with the Germans to this extent because the Germans were showing immense sales aggression. I shall come back to that problem.
Hungary's trade with Britain in 1960 was £8½ million while with Western Germany it was £34½ million. We should remember that we are constantly told—I think the President of the Board of Trade repeated the argument this afternoon—that when we are dealing with these countries it is important to have a favourable balance of trade, or at least that our trade should balance. Last year West Germany imported £15 million worth of goods from Hungary and sold £19 million worth of goods to Hungary. The West Germans do not take the view that their trade necessarily must balance. If I may borrow a phrase from my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson), the trade league table for Hungary is in this order: Germany, Italy, France, Benelux and Great Britain.
There is a similar situation in Roumania—£8 million of trade with Great Britain and £28 million with West Germany. The new trade agreements for Roumania for 1961 are as follows: West Germany, 98 million dollars; Italy, 88 million dollars; France, 50 million dollars; Austria, 40 million dollars; and Great Britain, 23 million dollars.
Why are we content that our industrial competitors should have these advantages over us in those countries? Everything that those countries buy from West Germany can be bought from this country. They want many of the things which we make. In Roumania they told us that what they wanted, in particular, was Leyland trucks. They do not want to buy trucks from Krupp or from the Fiat works, and they do not even want to buy French trucks, although the credit terms are attractive. They want heavy-duty Leyland lorries to work in the oilfields, but they say

1137
that the trading conditions laid down by the Board of Trade, on the basis of barter, which seems to be so popular with the Board of Trade, make it impossible for them to get those trucks. They want technical assistance and "know-show".
With Poland, with whom our trade is slightly less than that of Western Germany, we have an adverse balance of £22 million a year while the Germans have a favourable balance of £1 million a year. I understand the reasons. We import a lot of foodstuffs from Poland and, as a result, the Poles spend money on our manufactured goods. We might do the same for the Hungarians. They want their quota of bacon, now about 2,000 tons a year, doubled to 4,000 tons a year. As a pig producer I do not like to see any foreign bacon being imported into Britain, but all they are asking is to provide another day's supply for this country. It would give them £500,000 a year more to spend on manufactured goods. If it is all right for us to trade with the Danes, and if it is reasonable out of a market of 600,000 tons a year—which is the size of the bacon market—for us to give 48,500 tons to the Poles, surely it is reasonable in the interests of increasing East-West trade to meet the Hungarians' request.
I wish that a Minister from the Ministry of Agriculture were present to deal with the next point. I was interested in the demand in those countries for British livestock. I went with the chairman of the British Friesian Society and the secretary of the Aberdeen Angus Society to Leipzig, and we saw the animals at the Leipzig agricultural fair. We were asked what we would do with them, and we said that we should shoot the lot. They are no good. These countries want British livestock. We are the producers of the best livestock to be found in the world. They need beef cattle, they need pigs, and they need sheep. They need a whole variety of the goods which we could supply to them, but they need them on fairly long credit terms. It is important that this potentially great industry should be encouraged.
We are still suffering from the nonsense of the embargoes which have been placed on our trade. I notice that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury laughs when I say that Perhaps he will laugh at my next remark. We decided
1138
that we would not sell ball-bearings to Czechoslovakia and Hungary; we would sell them goods which contained ball-bearings but we were not permitted to sell them ball-bearings separately, so they set up their own ball-bearings factory. There are now two such factories, one in Czechoslovakia and one in Hungary, competing with our ball-bearings manufacturers on the world market. This was a piece of nonsense. We do not want as many ball-bearing factories as there are in the world today, and because of this embargo we threw away a golden opportunity of establishing for ourselves an export market.
Hon. Members will recall that in 1954 we could have been supplying the Soviet Union with ships but for the fact that we said that we could not supply them with ships which went faster than 10½ knots and which had a greater capacity than that which we laid down as being reasonable. These mistakes are being repeated today.
I ask the Minister to confirm or deny a statement made to me that one of the inhibiting factors in trade is that there are 300 items still on the embargo list, many of them on a security embargo list which is known neither to manufacturers here nor to the people abroad who want to buy goods from us. We were told in Czechoslovakia that over and over again contracts are signed for goods which are then the subject of an embargo before they can even be sent from this country.
The Committee should make no mistake about this: the Germans understand it. The German intelligence is first-class. Not a British businessman goes into one of those countries who is not followed around or does not find a West German rival on the spot with him almost as soon as he arrives or the very next day. The Germans have a brilliant intelligence service, and they are trying to get business away from us. Last year there were 4,000 German businessmen in Hungary trying to sell German goods and there were 270 British businessmen—270 British against 4,000 Germans.
I was given an example of the experience which they have in Hungary. They told me that they telephoned a Dusseldorf factory, said that they were interested in some pumps and asked for a catalogue giving price and delivery

1139
dates. The next morning an aeroplane landed at Budapest and out of it stepped three or four pump experts, with catalogues printed so that the Hungarians could read them, and accompanied by a young lady who had been busy on the flight typing out draft contracts. The details and the offers were provided.
The Hungarians telephoned England and asked a firm, "Are you interested? Can you send a catalogue?" They were told, "I am sorry, but our catalogues are out of print and will not be ready until November". This was a specific case. The English firm added, "We cannot send anybody out to Hungary because we do not have a board meeting until the end of the month. In any case, our Mr. Black who deals with Hungary is fishing in Scotland".
Mr. Harold Davies: Or having dinners.
Sir L. Plummer: This is not salesmanship. It is waiting for the customer to knock on the door. When Lord Boothby was in Poznan a representative arrived from Krupps in his own private aeroplane. He had conversations with Mr. Cuchin, the Minister for Foreign Trade, privately, and within an hour or so he had signed a contract for £2 million of goods. He said, "I know you will be worried about the fact that prices have altered as a result of the revaluation of the mark. Do not worry. We will do business with you on the basis of the old mark." This is the aggressiveness in selling that the Germans have, and this is the ability of their people to do business.
I think that the opportunity that presents itself to this country is in the supply of intermediate goods. There is in my constituency a famous engineering firm called Stones, of Deptford, which among other things makes air-conditioning plants. It is supplying Hungary with air-conditioning plants which the Hungarians are putting into the trains that they are building, and selling to India. The Hungarians say, "We are able to sell these trains for rupees. We can convert that money into sterling, and are thereby able to buy more than the intrinsic value of the thing we import from Britain truly represents."
The Soviet bloc countries are eager for British diesels. At the Brussels Motor
1140
Show there was a six-seater Volga, a Russian car, with a British diesel engine made by Perkins, and it was the success of the show. Soon, either Marconi or General Electric will get a contract for the supply of television control boards for the package-deal television stations which the Roumanians are selling all over the Eastern countries.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition referred to professionalism in selling. First of all, we have to learn that exporting is not fun. The Minister who perpetrated that bromide—[HON. MEMBERS: "The Prime Minister."]—has done a great deal of harm to industry. I hear that it was the Prime Minister, but I am told that it was in the hand-out of his speech but that he did not actually utter the words.
Exporting is not fun; it is very hard work. One has to leave one's home, travel to and in a foreign country, and stay, as often as not, in indifferent hotels. One has endless frustration, and appallingly boring waits, and great argument. Exporting is very hard work, and to treat it as though it were a day out—as though a man goes exporting as another man goes shooting, hunting and fishing, drinking old port and eating over-ripe pheasant—is nonsense. Exporting is hard work. That is what the Germans understand. It is what our salesmen understand, too, but it is not so much understood by our boards of directors. In fact, I sometimes think that we should be better off to destroy our boards of directors and let the sales managers take over on their own.
It was a member of the Government who said a little while ago, when we were arguing about the exporting difficulties, "You don't have to go out and sell. You can always sell through the post." That has done almost as much damage as has the other statement that exporting is fun.
I.C.I. is a shining example of what can be done, and Mr. Chambers, the chairman of that organisation who so proudly referred the other day to the firm's considerable sales to the Eastern countries, shows the smaller and medium-sized firms what can be done by vigorous salesmanship.
We also need to wind up the Allied Travel Permit Bureau in Berlin, which decides whether or not East German

1141
business men can come to this country. It is not good enough that our people should give a visa for an East German business man to come to this country, and for the Americans or the French then to decide that he cannot have a visa, upon which the man then goes to Western Germany or to France and places his orders.
Let us make no mistake about it. There is a rising standard of living in the Socialist countries, and a rising demand for the things we make—capital goods as well as consumer goods. We must not plan our exports just from year to year—although I would even enjoy the prospect if we did as much as that. Sometimes I think that we do it just from day to day.
We ought to be planning our exports over a four-year period—a four-year plan. We should match the four-year plans of the Socialist countries with our own. We should say, "These are the goods we want exported over the next four years." It is very important, too, that those countries should understand what it is that we want to export, because when they are drawing up their plans for importing our goods they want to co-ordinate their own plans and desires with the things we want to sell. We should indicate to our manufacturers what we regard as the priority exports. We should encourage our exporters, we should encourage our young men to sell on the basis that they are doing great things for their firms and for their country.
We should be encouraging the consortia. A consortium is at present building an £8 million tyre factory in Roumania. There are possibilities of countries behind the Iron Curtain getting together to employ consortia from this country. These are the ways in which exports can be achieved. They cannot be achieved by exhortation. This job can be done only by planning and by applying ourselves intelligently to this problem, which looks as though it is defeating this Government.
7.16 p.m.
Mr. Maurice Macmillan: I hope that the hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) will forgive me if I do not follow him behind the Iron Curtain; nor will I take up with the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe
1142
(Mr. J. Hynd) his mention of the war, though if I remember rightly there was during the war an ingenious method by which staff officers who were engaged in planning the invasion could communicate with one another about the extent of their secret knowledge without necessarily repeating it to all and sundry by the specialist use of the word "Bigoted", which indicated their possession of secrets of the invasion of Europe.
This debate is suffering through being bigoted in both senses of the word. The Government alone are in possession of the knowledge that makes it relevant, but they cannot use it. And rather too many hon. Gentlemen opposite are following the predictable and rather unprofitable line of their own prejudices.
I should like, with respect, to congratulate the Leader of the Opposition on what was, I thought, an admirable and quite uncontradictable analysis of the economic difficulties in which we find ourselves today. I only wish that I could congratulate him on the remedies he hinted at rather than proposed. It is, perhaps, a melancholy reflection that if the fortunes of the two parties had gone in the opposite direction at the last election we should be attacking a Socialist Government for the failure of the old Socialist ideas to restore the same sort of situation; but one must admit that the old Conservative ideas have not been 100 per cent. successful.
The attack that has developed from the benches opposite is, perhaps, not really consistent. Some hon. Members are very opposed to private enterprise; others appear to favour its operation, at least in France and Germany. I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that France is still living on the last of a series of devaluations—an example that I do not think he would recommend us to follow—and that the German balance of payments surplus—I speak here from memory—is this year very roughly the same amount as Anglo-American expenditure in that country.
If we are to talk about the effect these economies have had socially, as the hon. Member for Attercliffe did, it is surely one of the stronger arguments of those trade unionists who are opposed to our entering the Common Market that they are frightened that the Franco-German

1143
attitude of the "patronat" to the work-people will be exported to our employers. Surely we should look at some of the countries which have been so praised today: Italy, with its successful clothing competition with this country, its 53 per cent. growth since 1953, and its average unemployment from 1954 to 1960 of 9·2 per cent. Hon Members may also wish to look again at the German figures—the average unemployment for that period was 3·8 per cent.
It is a pity that so much of the criticism from hon. Gentlemen opposite—not all, but so much of it—is wasted because it is irrelevant to today's situation. In fact, comparing, for example, the speeches of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Attercliffe and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland), I would have said that their relevance was an inverse ratio to their political content. That is clearly demonstrated in the attitude both of some hon. Members opposite and some of my hon. Friends to the Common Market. They are dealing with a world which no longer exists except in their imaginations.
The past to which the extreme Right is harking back is not the same past to that which the extreme Left is returning. They are both equally irrelevant today, and I am only sorry that so many of my colleagues on both sides of the Committee have so little confidence in the future of this country and its capacity to compete that they are frightened of entry on suitable terms into the Common Market. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch) has said, the scale has changed. It is no good trying to maintain the old illusion by peering down the wrong end of an economic telescope. We must change, too, and it is not enough in any operation merely to put the right tool to the machine; the work too must be set right in the machine.
It is time that we stopped using such words as "planning", "regulators" and "anti-cyclic devices" as sort of incantations—thinking that they themselves will solve the problem. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Deptford referred to the four-year planning of exports. How can we plan markets to that extent without adopting the same sort of control
1144
over our industry as those to whom we are planning' to sell? What about the opinions of the experts? Are they always right? Were they right when they universally and unanimously forecast a world shortage of oil not so long ago?
I do not think that we can really do any good until industry, the Government and the people as a whole seek the reality that underlies all these phrases. I do not think that in the short-term is the real danger or the true reality. This is not a crisis in the sense that the Berlin issue could be said to be a crisis; nor is it a crisis reached in an illness which can and must be overcome. It is rather a recurring symptom, and successive Socialist and Conservative Governments have not yet found the right method of curing the disease itself. They have tried, and they are still trying, to deal with the symptoms, but I hope that next week they will deal with the disease itself.
The extent to which our overseas commitments depend on borrowing has already been mentioned, which is one of the reasons why we in this country tend partly to talk ourselves into economic difficulties. It means that if our measures are to be effective they must be seen and seem to be effective to those through whom we are seeking to overcome the short-term difficulties by borrowing in the short run. That obvious effectiveness inevitably involves restriction, and it is no good hon. Gentlemen opposite trying to pretend that their proposals are less restrictive than those which they are trying to put into the mouth or mind of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Certainly import quotas are as protectionist and restrictive of competition as any other measure. Planning can be effective if properly done, but it can also mean planning the protection of inefficient industry. Co-ordination helps, but it can also be wrong if it means that a section of a nationalised industry is organised to carry the losses which should not be carried by any part of the nationalised system but should be eliminated.
I do not think the hon. Gentleman the Member for Grimsby is right in saying that we shall have to sacrifice any principles on this side of the Committee in order to return to the sort of planning that I think the hon. Gentleman wants.

1145
It is more a question of returning to the principles that were, perhaps, exemplified in some of the Prime Minister's earlier writing and thinking.
We all know the answer to this problem, but the difficulty is to achieve it. We all know that we must improve exports, carry out our overseas commitments, pay the import bill at home, and so on. That is a problem which has not really yet been solved, and a "moderate" solution is genuinely difficult. The Socialists ideas do not have any chance of succeeding because they involve being too extreme politically in order to be effective economically.
The economic success of the sort of measures proposed by hon. Gentlemen opposite requires greater control and unfairness to individual liberty for people to tolerate. On this side we have rejected—and rightly—the more extreme discipline of laissez faire liberalism, despite some muttered charges to that effect from below the Gangway when one of my hon. Friends was speaking earlier. The difficulty is similar to one we are facing in another field, that of crime, where if punishment is to be an effective deterrent it must be more savage than our society will tolerate. In order to make effective such economic sanctions there is a danger of risking economically measures and disciplines which we are not willing to tolerate socially.
No appeal for discipline will be effective, nor for self-restraint. Even in the public sector the Chancellor's measures will not be effective unless they are compltely comprehensive. It is no good thinking that one can put a wage freeze on the public sector and do nothing about the private one. That will merely lead to a movement of labour into the private sector. We must be prepared to take other measures and face, if necessary, a high Bank Rate and a credit squeeze, but at the same time, I beg the Chancellor to watch the position of the exporter who is in the process of expanding his concern at the express wish of the Chancellor.
Mr. Harold Lever: On the question of credit squeezes and higher Bank Rates, which have been shown with use to have had a singular lack of success, what will be their advantage in the present difficulties?
Mr. Macmillan: The point I was trying to make is that if the Chancellor directly freezes wages in the public sector and does not take steps to prevent the private sector being able to pay higher wages, the private sector will entice labour away from the public sector and my right hon. and learned Friend will have achieved nothing.
There a-re several other measures which must be taken together, but I do not think that any of them will by themselves be successful. One of the things which I hope can be achieved is an increase in competition by the lowering of tariffs, for I do not believe that merely the threat to do that is adequate. Exhortation is useless. It is no good appealing for wage restraint. It has nothing to do with the social policies of the Chancellor, and hon. Gentlemen opposite had no greater success in appealing for wage restraint either. It is not a question of comparing what goes on in Germany or elsewhere. Employers will continue to pay higher wages so long as they are able to sell their goods successfully; and so long as employers are selling their goods successfully and at a profit the unions and the employees will rightly continue to press for a higher share of these profits. The function of the Chancellor is to create a situation in which it is impossible for private persons to achieve either a higher profit margin or a higher wage rate than can be tolerated by the national economy; a situation where the true effects of economic conditions are spread not equally but equitably throughout the country.
Any measures which restrict demand may well tend to cause more wage claims. That is why they must be coupled with measures which make such a rise in money incomes impossible. Of course, they must include measures for improving production. The permanency of any improvement depends on our willingness in the end to stop the protection of inefficient industry and the tolerance of restrictive practices on all sides of industry, from management and men alike, and to stop also any hidden subsidies which may be contained in the methods of running our nationalised industries.
It is necessary that the Government should stop trying to protect the whole of our industrial complex and all our

1147
economy, and should try instead to foster the successful, protect the weak individual where necessary and help in the adjustment of all to the real economic situation. This principle seems to have been accepted by the Government in the Cotton Act. Whether we think it was successful or not is another matter, but it was an attempt to help the cotton industry adjust itself to the situation which was created by the Government's refusal to limit imports from Hong Kong and impose protective tariffs. It is on these lines that permanent action in the future must be taken. To do this successfully requires a more detailed examination of each industry one at a time. I still think that it requires the co-operation of all concerned, and perhaps if the Chancellor's medicine next week is nasty enough we shall get a greater degree of co-operation than before. It is now not so much a question of blame for the past, but how quickly we can adjust a rather complex mechanism to a rapidly changing situation.
Personally, I think the situation requires a much more radical approach to many other methods which we now take for granted, including taxation and the financing of the Welfare State. Certainly it cannot be done immediately, or by the Government alone. If there is any blame to be attached, it is surely to be attached to all of us alike, but it is to the Chancellor that we look next week to bring this fact home to the nation. I believe that whatever criticisms there may have been in the past from these benches, if his action is strong and looks like being effective, he can rely on our support next week.
7.34 p.m.
Mr. Charles Grey: I hope that the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) will forgive me if I do not follow him in what he said, though I cannot help commenting that when the Prime Minister reads the hon. Gentleman's speech I do not think he will be very pleased by the compliments which the hon. Gentleman paid to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition.
I should like to reduce the tone of the debate and talk about affairs as they affect the north-east region. I do so because, time and again, hon. Members
1148
on both sides of the Committee who represent north-east constituencies have been trying to get information from the President of the Board of Trade about unemployment, migration and establishing industry in that area. Despite the fact that the President of the Board of Trade has been questioned on numerous occasions, he has failed to give any satisfaction. For that reason, I am glad to be able to state these local points.
This matter of migration is one of great concern to us all, because of iris great shift of population and industry during the past ten years from the North-East to the southern parts of the country. I should be the first to agree that this problem is not new. Indeed, a friend of mine reminded me the other day that about 350 years ago King James I was concerned at the growth of London at the expense of other places, and he issued a Proclamation, from which I will quote an extract.
"The other good Townes and Borrowes of his kingdom, by reason of so great receit for people in and about the said City, are much unpeopled and in their trading and otherwise decayed."
I am not suggesting that the circumstances of today are anything like what they were then, but the words in the Proclamation have a familiar ring, and I believe that the difference between the two periods is only one of degree.
Today there is this drift of population from the North-East on a scale which, if unchecked, will create problems that it will be impossible to solve. Our anxiety is that the Minister does not appreciate the gravity of the situation. Obviously he will tell us that he does, but what he has to do is to prove that he is trying to come to grips with the situation, because so far he seems to have done nothing at all. Therefore, he will get no peace from this side of the Committee until he strikes at the core of the problem instead of dishing out one or two palliatives in the hope that we shall be satisfied. The only thing for which we in the North-East ask is to be put on level terms with the rest of the country instead of having to carry a burden of unemployment which is always twice the national average.
I wish to refer to something that I said to the President of the Board of Trade last week in a supplementary question. My condemnation is not that

1149
the Government have done nothing, but that I do not believe—and neither do my hon. Friends—that the President of the Board of Trade has done sufficient. How he can be complacent about the present situation is beyond understanding. I have come to the conclusion that he is so out of touch that it is my duty to enlighten him and the Committee about our present state of affairs.
I take, first, migration and the President of the Board of Trade's responsibility in that matter. The preliminary report on the 1961 Census revealed a shift of population and industry away from the North to the southern counties. Many northern cities, including Newcastle, Darlington, Gateshead and York, have lost population. For instance, Newcastle had a population of 291,724 ten years ago. It has fallen to 269,389 today, a reduction of 22,335 in ten years. Gateshead has been losing population ever since 1931. In the last ten years, it lost another 12,000. I could give more facts, and they cannot be refuted.
I am convinced that this migration has been caused by a lack of suitable jobs in the area, and it is in that sense that I say that the President of the Board of Trade is responsible. Hon. Members on both sides know of the continuing contraction in the coal-mining, shipbuilding and ship-repairing industries. This is a matter of great concern, all the more so when we realise that sufficient is not being done by the President the the Board of Trade to bring the right kind of industries into the area to offset the full effects of the contraction.
The President of the Board of Trade has given us some assurances. He told me on 4th July that there were 21,000 jobs in prospect. That sounds all right when it is said quickly, but I heave some questions to put. I hope that my questions will be conveyed to the right hon. Gentleman. I want him to be more precise and definite. The more definite he is, the more content shall we feel with his reply.
May we be told how certain the right hon. Gentleman is about these 21,000 jobs? Nothing would be of greater benefit to the North-East than certainty about future jobs. Nothing could do more to remove from the minds of people there their persistent doubts and fears about future employment. Secondly,
1150
what sort of time has the President of the Board of Trade in mind for these 21,000 jobs? How long will they take to materialise—one year, two years, three years or what number of years? Thirdly, may we be given a breakdown of the occupational groups represented by the 21,000 jobs?
I asked this question last week, but did not receive a reply. I hope that the President of the Board of Trade has done a little homework and is now prepared to give a reply. If he cannot reply now, perhaps he will send me a letter giving the information. I should be quite satisfied with that. We want to know definitely the kind of jobs he has in mind.
I believe that the type of job available has a very great influence in people's minds when they consider whether they are prepared to live their lives in certain areas. The widening of what I call job opportunity would give the North-East the confidence it needs and would demonstrate to all that it is as good a place as, if not a better place than, anywhere in the world in which to work and live, and that it can play a very important part in strengthening our country's economy.
Perhaps the Minister will agree with what I have just said, and perhaps he will go on to say that his Department has been successful during the past three-and-a-half years. Perhaps he will say that unemployment is lower now than it has been since 1957. That is quite true, but, if he tells me that, I will give him my reply at once. The simple fact is that unemployment in our area is still twice the national average. At any rate, how big is his success when we take into account that unemployment in the North-East is only what it is because people have moved away in order to seek jobs elsewhere? The Government can claim no credit whatever for the position as it is now. The drift of population continues, and that is one of the reasons why the level of unemployment is what it is.
A very significant feature of the drift is that, while it has continued during the last ten years at the rate I have indicated, half the people who have gone have been under 35 years of age. This is extremely serious, and the Government collectively stand condemned for it.

1151
The President of the Board of Trade told us that migration was not his problem. That may be so. I concede it. But, even though the right hon. Gentleman may have no responsibility for migration, he definitely holds the key to the solution of the problem. We want the right kind of jobs. We want industries in which our people can use and develop their skills. Only the President of the Board of Trade is responsible for that kind of activity.
I know that it is entirely out of line with the rest of the debate to raise this next point, but I feel that I must put it because this is the only chance I have to bring it to the attention of right hon. and hon. Members in this context. I refer to the possibility of our having a Government Department in Durham. I have been concerned about this for some time and I have asked many questions about it. I have raised it on three occasions in previous debates, and I have met the Financial Secretary to the Treasury about it. Will the President of the Board of Trade do his best to get the promised Government Department? The right hon. Gentleman must realise how important this is for him, because it would help to cure some of our unemployment. The Committee will know that we were promised a Department in 1948. It is now 1961, and we have not gat it yet. That is a long time to wait.
The President of the Board of Trade could do a good job for us and for himself. He and the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary could have a conference about it. I am sure that the President of the Board of Trade has the charm, persuasive demeanour and all the characteristics necessary to put across to the Chancellor of the Exchequer how valuable a Government Department would be for Durham. It would help to cure a great deal of unemployment among our young people and it would provide jobs of a kind suitable for them. I repeat my request that the President of the Board of Trade should press the matter upon his Treasury colleagues in the knowledge that, in bringing a Government Department to Durham, he would make a tremendous contribution towards solving the unemployment problems of the area.
1152
It is quite obvious to everyone that this debate would not have taken place were it not for the fact that we are about to have another dose of Tory austerity. For ten consecutive years now, we have had many a dose of Tory austerity dished out. What the Chancellor of the Exchequer will announce next week I do not know, but he will, no doubt, rap the knuckles of industrialists, trade unionists and ordinary people. At least, that is what we are led to expect.
Increased Purchase Tax, a credit squeeze or even a payroll tax would be bad for any area, but for the North-East and Northern Ireland any one of them would be disastrous. While the President of the Board of Trade is discussing the question of the Government Department which I have suggested, he might also have discussions about insulating the North-East and Northern Ireland from the full effect of these deadly economic instruments. The implementation of any of them would mean further unemployment and hardship.
As I have said, the Government have been in power for ten consecutive years. All the austerity plans which they have dished out have come at convenient times for them. Do not let us say that the Tories cannot plan. We are told that they are the best planners in the world. This is the best plan of all. All the restrictions which they callously impose after elections are taken off at a convenient time when another election is on the horizon. I wonder when the Tories will stop doing everything for Tory Party political ends and will think for a change about the nation's well-being. I do not believe that it is right for the people of this country to be used as pawns in the political game and as an instrument for getting the Tory Party back to power. To give something before an election and to take it away just after is wrong in principle. It is also immoral. I believe that, if the Tories acknowledged the truth of what I have said, they would realise that Tory freedom does not work.
7.52 p.m.
Mr. Charles Curran: I congratulate the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Grey) on making a very persuasive plea for the North-East Coast. He has given the Government a good deal of advice about Durham. I also wish to give the Government a good deal of

1153
advice, not about Durham but about other parts of the country.
I agree with every hon. Member who has spoken that this is no time for exhortations. Whatever else the Chancellor of the Exchequer may do next week, I hope that he will not make any appeals. This country is saturated with appeals. It has gone punch-drunk from appeals. We have been having them for the best part of twenty years. I do not think there have ever been so many appeals in this country as there have been in the last twenty years since the days of Dr. Barnardo. I do not believe that Barnardo-type policies in this crisis are any good.
Equally, I do not believe that it is the smallest use for the Government to make any appeal for wage restraint unless they face the present facts about England. I invite the Government to face what I believe are the facts of public opinion. I do not say that I necessarily approve of these facts. We may like or dislike them, but facts I believe they are with which we have to reckon.
We are all familiar with the argument that in comparing wages with dividends we are comparing things which are not really comparable. For instance, we are familiar with the argument that to advocate a tax on capital gains is to ignore the facts about capital gains. We are familiar with the argument—the Chancellor and all of us on this side of the Committee have used it—that to urge a tax on capital gains does not make sense because the Radcliffe Commission investigated the matter, and the majority Report of that Commission demonstrated that a capital gains tax is probably not worth powder and shot.
Mr. William Hamilton: A Royal Commission also referred to the incentives or otherwise of eliminating or reducing taxation on Surtax payers.
Mr. Curran: I agree. I do not believe that we can usefully discuss the question of a capital gains tax or of similar legislation against the minority simply by reference to the measured facts. We must take into account not only the facts but the climate of public opinion about them.
I invite the Committee to agree with me that, when the ordinary worker is invited to believe that a capital gains
1154
tax is not worth powder and shot because of the demonstration given in the Radcliffe Report, rightly or wrongly, he says, "I am not interested in that. What I am interested in is the fact that a small number of rich people are getting away with it. You can prove to me as conclusively as you like that to put a tax on the small number of people who engage in capital transactions will cause a great deal of trouble and will not produce anything like enough money to make it worth while in quantitative terms." Rightly or wrongly, he scouts that argument and any similar argument as irrelevant.
When the Chancellor of the Exchequer comes to consider a tax on capital gains, cracking down on expense accounts and the small number of people in this country who make money out of speculation, he is in much the same position as the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary is faced with a demand for the restoration of corporal punishment. I am completely and flatly opposed to the restoration of flogging. Nothing will ever lead me to vote in the House of Commons in favour of bringing back the lash. But, in saying that, I recognise that I belong to a small and eccentric minority. I believe that the great majority of people in this country—this has certainly been my experience when I have become controversial about this matter—brush aside as irrelevant any argument that to bring back the lash would diminish the quantity of violent crime. They are not interested in that. They wish to bring back the lash in order not to diminish violent crime but to punish the thugs. They want to take the hide off the thugs.
When people in this country—and there are many of them—want penal legislation to be imposed on the small minority which makes money out of speculation and capital gains, they are not to be shaken by any argument that such legislation would be more trouble than it was worth. They are in exactly the same position as those who want the restoration of flogging: they want to take the hide off the speculators. It does not matter to them one scrap whether the process will produce a sizeable sum of money or not.
I believe that for the last few years the Tory Party has been in the grip of what has been called the intellectualist fallacy.

1155
It tends to argue that if we can show that the arguments in favour of one course are not as good as the arguments against it in quantitative terms, then that is the end of the matter. I believe that the Tory Party has dismissed proposals for a capital gains tax by saying that the facts show that such a tax would not be worth while. Similarly we have tended to dismiss the argument that we should penalise people who wassail on expense accounts and people who make money out of speculation on the ground that, in order to catch such people, we should have to set up a great deal of very complicated administrative machinery, that that would be a very difficult thing to do and that, when we had done it, the net yield would be trifling in quantitative terms.
That approach takes no account of the state of mass opinion in this country. As far as I can measure it, what mass opinion in this country wants, independent of any quantitative arguments, is to impose penal sacrifices on the wicked rich. It will not be shaken by any assertions, however convincing they may be in a logical sense, that such legislation would not be worth while in terms of cash.
I believe that this is a fact about this country. I shall not speculate at length about why it is that in this country, unlike the United States, there should be, as undoubtedly there is, this fierce popular hatred of people who make money out of speculation, who make money out of being smarter than other people. Nobody can dispute that in this country there is this hostility, with which the Government must reckon.
Mr. John Hall: Do I understand my hon. Friend to be saying that if a majority demands a certain course of action, even though the Government—and, indeed, my hon. Friend himself—think that that demand is wrongly based, the Government should give way to it? Does he, for example, believe that if the majority demanded the reintroduction of the birch or of flogging, the Government should give way because that is a majority demand?
Mr. Curran: I cannot answer except for myself. If I believed that a certain policy did not make sense, I would decline to vote for it, whether it was a question of flogging or of taxing capital
1156
gains. The Government, however, must consider not simply what individuals think but the climate of opinion.
Sir W. Robson Brown: They should consider not merely what they think but how they act.
Mr. Curran: It is no use disputing that mass opinion today is not prepared to accept wage restraint unless it sees comparable sacrifices imposed upon the minority. To tell the masses that the imposition of these sacrifices will not be in measurable terms of any importance is to say something Which, however true it may be, is entirely irrelevant.
I suggest that this is a fact about this country with which we must reckon. It is one of the ways in Which this country is very different from the English-speaking communities on the other side of the Atlantic. Across the Atlantic, there is nothing like the same sort of envy of the small number of people who become rich as there is in this country. It is not relevant to this debate to go at any length into the reasons for that, although I was interested in part of the speech of he hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland). He quoted the cases of Holland and Sweden and talked about the difference in the social climate of those countries. It was an interesting speculation. I wish that the hon. Member had developed it. I suggest that it can be developed when England is contrasted not with Holland or Sweden but with the United States.
In the United States there is nothing like the same mass hostility to a small number of people having a lot of money that there is in this country. Part of the answer is that, to a great extent, mass opinion here has never accepted the values of capitalism. It has never accepted the values of the commercial society or the notion that in a good society people strive off their own bat to improve their lot. Masses of people believe that the process of lifting their standard of living should be not an individual but a collective effort. It is a process which was summed up very well not by an Englishman but by an American, Gene Debs, the American labour leader, who said, "I do not want to rise from the masses. I want to rise with the masses."
That point of view is characteristic of great numbers of our working-class

1157
people. They look with hostility upon the commercial values and upon a society where some people make money by being cleverer, quicker or better speculators than ethers. We have this climate of hostility among the organised workers that the Government must reckon with.
Without developing any further the contrast between England and America, the contrast could be illuminated by one example only, and that is a verbal example. In the United States, it is a compliment to say about a man that he is a smart man. In this country it is the very reverse of a compliment. Here we do not regard smartness or commercial skill in money making as something which is socially commendable. By "we", I refer to the mass of the population. In the United States it is quite different. Only last week the biggest trade union of America, the Teamsters, held its annual convention at Miami in gaudy luxury. When I read the accounts of the teamsters' convention in Miami and compared it with trade union conferences which I have seen in this country, I was dazzled by the difference. I dare say that a good many Labour Members of Parliament were equally dazzled.
That union, which is roughly the equivalent of the Transport and General Workers' Union in this country, met last week and voted its general secretary, who is the equivalent of Mr. Cousins, an increase in salary which now gives him 75,000 dollars a year—£25,000 a year for running this union, plus what was described in the reports as an unlimited expense account.
Mr. Harold Davies: For God's sake, do not compare American unions with ours.
Mr. Curran: On the contrary, I was pointing out the contrast between one of our unions and organised labour in America, if the Teamsters' Union is a fair sample, as I think it is. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am not arguing that it is necessarily an admirable body. I am saying that it is a good, powerful and rich trade union. The climate of opinion in that union, so far from being hostile to money making, is entirely in favour of it. I use that simply as an illustration to show the difference, as I think there is, between the climate of
1158
opinion among the organised workers in this country and on the other side of the Atlantic.
I believe also—and this, again, the Government must take into account—that a deep mark has been left on the British people by the fact that from 1940 to 1950 we lived under what was really a siege economy. For a whole decade we lived in a society where goods and services were distributed roughly without much regard to individual effort. They were distributed roughly on the basis not of personal striving but of personal needs. That siege economy has left us its enduring mark upon the climate of opinion in England. It is something which will shape our politics in the 1960s and later still.
For these reasons, I suggest that when the Government are considering the economic decisions which they have to announce next week they must take into account, whether they like it or not, the fact that mass opinion will not accept limitations upon wages unless it observes penal sacrifices being imposed on the minority at the same time. It is demanding the equivalent of human sacrifices.
Let me illustrate this further. I believe that if the Chancellor wants to get mass assent to wage restraint he must crack down upon the plutocracy. Whether he does it by means of a capital gains tax, by tackling expense accounts or by tackling the speculators in some other way, I do not know; but he must do this not in the least for economic reasons. He must do it for psychological reasons.
Mr. Harold Davies: For moral reasons.
Mr. Curran: No. I prefer to use the word "psychological". This is a matter not of economics but of morbid psychology. I do not share this disapproval of the rich any more than I share the clamour for the restoration of flogging. I put myself against what I know to (be the main stream on both these matters. Although I put myself against it, however, I recognise very well that it exists.
The Chancellor has to take into account what I prefer to call the politics of envy. Without any question of whether it pays him to do it, he must penalise the expense account plutocracy.

1159
He must do something to gibbet the gossip-column plutocrats, not because it will pay him to do it—I do not believe that it will—but because it will give the greatest pleasure to the masses to see it being done. [Interruption.] I am describing without commenting. I will comment in a moment.
If the Chancellor wants to increase production, I can tell him one way which would be more effective than any other. Let him so contrive matters that it is possible to put up in every factory a poster showing Mr. Charles Clore applying for National Assistance. I use Mr. Clore not as a person but as a symbol. When the workers can see the Clores and Cottons and speculators being ill treated by the Treasury, then the satisfaction which they feel will make them accept wage restraint. Until they see this ill-treatent, however, it will be idle to exhort them to accept wage restraint.
I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to liberate himself from logic, to forget about the Radcliffe Report. The time has come to bury Radcliffe and not to quote him. My right hon. and learned Friend must put aside any arguments that may be used to show that it is not worth his while, in quantitive terms, to put a tax upon capital gains or to deal with expense accounts or with speculators. He must consider not the economic consequences of doing so but the psychological consequences. I believe that that is the price which he and the Tory Party must pay in order to gain the assent of the masses to wage restrictions. Unless this is done, wage restraint will not succeed.
I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to accept—little as he and I may like it—the existence in our country of a wide and powerful streak of envy and jealousy. That is a fact about England, like it or not, and I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend, when considering the proposals he intends to put before us next week, will remember Tallyrand.
Tallyrand survived all the ups and downs of his day, and, at the end of it, it was said of him that he had done so mainly because of one reason—that he treated public opinion very much as he treate weather. One does not
1160
approve of the wind and the rain—one may dislike them heartily—but one recognises that they are there. One does not argue with them—they are not to be argued with—so one must adjust oneself to their existence, whether one likes it or not.
Whether we like it or not, the Chancellor must adjust himself to the fact that England has this deep streak of envy and jealousy which must be placated. I believe that he will not get his policy of wage restraint through unless he offers human sacrifices to that feeling. I therefore urge him, in making his new proposals, formally and unconditionally to surrender to the "floggers lobby" in the Labour Party.
8.13 p.m.
Mr. William Hamilton: I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Curran) urge the Government not to preach in this context. I might say to him, in that same spirit, that it is no good pursuing the profession of a prostitute on six days a week and then going to St. Paul's to preach on Sunday, hoping to convert the congregation to Christian morality. But that is the sort of thing that has been happening in this country in the past ten years.
I was surprised by the hon. Member's speech in view of the article which he wrote in the Evening News last week. I have that article with me. He has just said that the Chancellor must not ask for wage restraint unless, at the same time, he asks for proportional sacrifices from the minority at the top. But he did not say that in the Budget debate, when we were discussing the 300,000 Surtax payers, nor in his article last week, when he was working for his corn. In the article he said:
"If the Government wants us to work harder, and spend less, it must stop making appeals to us."
That is consistent with what he said tonight, but he went on:
"It must create the conditions in which we have got to work harder and spend less. There is only one way to make people spend less. That is to give them less money to spend. In other words, to make them pay higher taxes."
Yet the hon. Member supported the Government in the Budget and in the Surtax proposals. The article went on:
"But will they agree to do that? They will—provided they are told, in language they can

1161
understand, why it is necessary to make them spend less."
Continuing to talk about wage restraint, the hon. Member went on:
"To put the matter brutally: if we want to stop inflationary wage increases, then we must refuse to pay them."
There is no talk there about asking for proportional sacrifices from the rich minority. According to that article, one simply says to industrialists—as the Government are seeking to do now—that they must not pay wage increases. That is what the hon. Member was saying in the Evening News last week. He did not say so tonight, but in the article he added that we must be ready to put up with strikes if necessary rather than pay wage increases. He said:
"I say 'if necessary'. It may be that people will refuse to believe in the reality of crisis until they see the Government ready to face a strike rather than accept an inflationary wage demand."
Those are the sentiments which the hon. Member expressed last week.
Mr. Curran: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's courtesy in giving way to me, and also the compliment he pays me in studying me so carefully. He could not be better employed than in doing that.
He will appreciate that there was a sentence in that article—which, to be fair, he quoted at the beginning of his speech—in which I said that there had to be sacrifices by the minority as well. The rest of the article is not in the least bit inconsistent with that. I am not receding one syllable from what I wrote. What I have done tonight is to elaborate one phrase which I used in the article—the phrase which he has quoted. I elaborated it tonight because I could not do so in that article, as I had other points to make—and this is the best place to do so.
Mr. Hamilton: Now that the hon. Member has made a second speech, I challenge him to produce a single sentence in the article to refute what I have said. There is not a single mention of the minority at the top from whom he wants sacrifices. Of course, I appreciate that he now wants to match his speech tonight with the article, but it is impossible to do so.
Mr. Curran Mr. Curran rose—
Mr. Hamilton: I shall not give way again, for I must get on. The fact is that this Government for ten years have been pursuing a policy of moral decadence. I have very little time for the people who bandy statistics about. We can prove whatever case we want to prove by selecting statistics.
If one examines the Government's record since 1951 one finds the steady erosion of moral standards in this country. Now, after ten years of this, the Prime Minister—who was preaching the base materialism of "You've never had it so good" before the General Election—comes along in the middle of a crisis after the election to make a great moralistic appeal and expects it to be understood and appreciated by the ordinary people. We will get a spate of these fine words in the days to come.
The Prime Minister's son, the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) said, "Let us forget the past". I am not surprised.
Mr. Maurice Macmillan: I never said, "Let us forget the past". I merely said that the attempt by hon. Members opposite and some hon. Members on this side of the Committee to apply the lessons of the past precisely to the future and to imagine that those conditions still existed would lead to disaster, because, although we could learn from the past, those were not the conditions which we were now facing.
Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Member can wriggle as much as he likes, but the words are on the record and tomorrow we will be able to read what he said.
Mr. Macmillan: I am about to see the record.
Mr. Hamilton: We will leave the record.
I want now to refer to the best moralist we have got—the Home Secretary. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition quoted him this afternoon. So did Mr. Shonfield in the Observer last Sunday—"The Nanny Approach to Economics" was the very appropriate title of the article. In the course of his week-end homily, the Home Secretary quoted these sentiments:
"'Nations gain their right to rise
By service and by sacrifice.'
Thus out of our economic difficulties good may come, especially if our party gives a lead

1163
to the country in calling for moral values to emerge instead of materialist appetites."
Those were the words. In that context, Let us examine the Government's record for the past ten years and see whether they were giving a moral lead, or whether they were whetting materialistic appetites.
Let us consider I.T.V., commerical television. Was that a call to moral values, or was it to satisfy the Tory materialists? A book recently published about pressure groups and reviewed by my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew), again in the Observer an Sunday, showed this to be one of the grossest campaigns of greed and deceit that this country has ever known. Its leaders were and still are sitting on that side of the Committee. We saw evidence of the pressure groups in the Budget debates. On the Order Paper there is a Motion, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) and other hon. Members, on this theme that the pressure groups are increasingly coming into this place for their pickings.
Was the introduction of Premium Bonds by the present Prime Minister an appeal to moral uplift, or to materialistic appetite, to getting something for nothing? That is the test by which the Government stand or fall.
In the last few months, the legislation we have considered has included the Betting and Gaming Bill and the Licensing Bill, and we are now getting the bingo halls and the betting shops and the "pubs" open for extended hours. Those are the things on which the Government have been spending the time of the House of Commons. They then come and make their high-falutin moral appeals and expect the workers to react. They are expecting the impossible.
Then we got the clarion call which the Prime Minister gave at the 1922 Committee meeting last week. His clarion call was, "I am worried, but I am not frightened". He said the same at Suez, until the bills started coming in at a time when he was at the Exchequer. He was worried then, and he was frightened when he saw what bills he had to pay.
The same Government were responsible for the Bank Rate leak episode, when we had that never-to-be-forgotten phrase, "It might not be British, but it
1164
makes sense to me". That was said by a supporter not of my party, but of the party opposite, the party which has governed the country for ten years. The brief answer is that the Government have sought to lull the people with bread and circuses instead of giving them the wherewithal to maintain our competitive position overseas and to maintain our moral fibre.
The continuing emphasis has been on getting something for nothing. The prizes in our society today go not to the teacher, not to the nurse, not to the social worker, but to the Mr. Clores, the land speculators, about whom we will be talking later this week, the share pushers, the takeover bidders. Our priorities are as wrong as they possibly can be.
Russia and the United States each put a man into space. What is our response? We put a stripe in our toothpaste. Russia and the United States produce the best rockets and the best satellites. The other day we had a boast from a Minister that we produced the best football referee whistles.
Mr. Denis Howell: It was typical of the decadence of this Conservative Government that, when the Minister said that, he failed to add that we also produced the best referees.
Mr. Hamilton: It is common knowledge that the Russians and Americans are producing enormously greater numbers of scientists and engineers than we are. What are we doing? In the last Ministry of Labour Gazette, there is a now category of apprentices—apprentice bookmaker's clerks.
They are the comparisons which we have to make in this competitive world. I could give examples all night. The other night the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) proudly boasted that his 30-guinea fee to the Carlton Club was tax free. A school teacher earning £10 a week who buys a text book is not allowed to put down its cost as an Income Tax expense. What kind of priority is that? We spend millions of pounds producing cars, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has to get to his meeting on a motor bike. That was because he does not provide the money to build the roads to put the cars on. He then said:
"For my sins"—

1165
and by God, they are big enough—
"I am Chancellor of the Exchequer."
Appropriately enough this happened in Flintshire. The right hon. and learned Gentleman went on:
"For some time past"—
not just now, but for some time past—
"incomes—wages, salaries, dividends and profits—have been increasing faster than national productivity."
The right hon. and learned Gentleman did not add that some of these things had been increasing faster than others. According to the figures we were given a short while ago, in the last two years dividends have increased very much faster than wages.
This is the context in which this debate is taking place, and we all know that the Government are looking for scapegoats. The time was when they could blame the Labour Government—"Six years of Socialist Government", I think the bad man from Portsmouth used to say.
An appeal is made for wage restraint. The trade unions are the scapegoats—the irresponsible trade unions. Does the right hon. Gentleman regard the current wage claims of the miners, the railway workers, the agricultural workers and the teachers as irresponsible? Does any hon. Gentleman opposite contend that any one of those claims is irresponsible? Is the claim put in by the firemen in Scotland irresponsible?
We have been trying to find out what the Chancellor of the Exchequer will say next week. I was never very good at mathematics while I was at school. When I was learning mathematics, the teacher very thoughtfully provided me with a text book with the answers at the back. I used to look at the answer first, then look at the problem, and try to work out the middle bit. We all know the answers. We want increased productivity. We want increased exports. We want stable prices. The problem is how to get the bit in between.
The Government's medicine over the last ten years has clearly not been the right medicine, and there has not been the right doctor either. If there is a combination of the wrong doctor and the wrong medicine, we will never get the right solution.
1166
Let me put one possible solution which has not been touched on. A great proportion of our national wealth is allocated to defence expenditure. I should be the last person in the world to say that we ought to abrogate our defence responsibilities, but I believe that we are carrying far too great a burden in the Western Alliance.
Last Thursday I was present at the tiring of the Thunderbird missile in Anglesey. I saw this thing go up and hit its target right enough. It should do; it cost £30,000 a shot. I understand that the original estimate for that missile was £2½ million. As far as I know, the cost is now £40 million.
The £1,650 million that we are now spending on defence is nearly twice the expenditure in 1950. Since 1950 the United Kingdom has spent more on defence than any other country in Western Europe. Per head of population the expenditure is about the same as in France. In Western Germany—and we are supposed to be in the same alliance as Western Germany, and we have had figures put to us from both sides of the Committee to show how Western Germany is outstripping our economy on any test—defence expenditure per head of population is two-fifths of our figure. In Denmark it is half what we pay. In Belgium it is three-fifths. In Norway and the Netherlands it is three-quarters.
But that is not the whole story. The number in the Forces now is about 500,000, plus about 1 million in civil employment directly supplying them. Those employed on production and research for defence purposes number about 950.000. Taking them all together, about 7 per cent. of our total working population is engaged in defence work.
The share of defence production in total output varies from industry to industry. In aircraft it accounts for 54 per cent.; in shipbuilding for 22 per cent.; in metals, engineering and vehicles, for 8 per cent., and in construction, for 5 per cent. Clearly the increased burden of defence could not be shifted on to the consumer goods industries, and exports and investments have therefore had to take the strain. As the burden has increased so our investments and exports have suffered. Not only that; it has made an enormous

1167
demand on our research and development resources. The D.S.I.R. report on industrial research and development expenditure in 1958 showed that nearly two-thirds of the research done by private industry was no defence contracts. In 1956, two-fifths of all professionally qualified scientists and engineers were employed on defence projects, although that proportion fell in 1959.
These are facts which bear some examination. I hope that on Tuesday the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give us some indication of what he will do to get our friends in the Western Alliance to take on a much greater proportion of the Alliance's defence expenditure than they have done hitherto. I rather suspect that he will concentrate his activities in other directions. If the medicine is to be anything like it has been before I fear that we shall get the usual bromides—hire-purchase restrictions, those confounded regulators that plagued us for weeks, interest charges, the homilies about morals and sacrifices, and all that kind of nonsense. The people will not respond to that, for reasons which I gave earlier.
The Government have been too immoral in the last ten years for the people readily to accept that kind of talk any longer. The newspapers this morning contained a terrible indictment of the kind of society in which we live. Girls in one of our schools are now putting yellow golliwogs on their tunics to show that they have lost their virginity. This should be the emblem of the Tory Government.
8.39 p.m.
Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: The hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton) and most Opposition speakers today have been having a real heyday. They have been crying "Woe, woe, woe!" The Leader of the Opposition gave an expert analysis of the situation today. He listed all the troubles that beset this country. But will he agree to any wage restraint? No. He put forward no remedy which could properly cure the position that we are in today.
If one examines the figures one finds that there is no doubt that our economy is buoyant. We have full employment
1168
in Great Britain though not in Northern Ireland, but even in Ulster we feel particular gratitude to the President of the Board of Trade. There are signs of expansion in Northern Ireland, with new industries being set up and a fall in the unemployment figures in the last few months. Even in Northern Ireland there are signs of growing prosperity and expansion.
However, these figures of an expanding economy at home and greater prosperity do not match the balance of payments crisis which has been the basis of this debate. There have been gloomy forecasts in the financial Press of what will happen in the autumn and what is to happen if sterling comes under increasing pressure. This is the fruit of borrowing short and lending long. The root of the trouble, as I think is accepted by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, is the fact that we are importing more than we can pay for with our exports. A particularly regrettable feature is the fall in our invisible exports.
There was last year a deficit in our balance of payments of £344 million and the trend over the last few years has been one of increasing deficit and greater difficulty. In other words, this country is living beyond its means and on credit. This situation cannot, of course, continue. If an individual found himself in such a situation he would face bankruptcy, and for a country in such a position the final solution is the undesirable one of devaluing the currency.
Is this state of affairs a sufficient cause for the degree of alarm which has been expressed by hon. Members opposite? Is it the solution to our problems to decry British industry? The gross national product, as was said by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, amounts to £20,000 million. Our deficit is £200 million—1 per cent. of the gross national product. If productivity throughout the economy could be increased by 1 per cent. or 2 per cent., which means a little more work from every person, we should not need to use these new regulators which the Chancellor has introduced.
The regulators are blunt weapons. They have been used frequently during the past ten years. First we use the accelerator, and then the brake. Now we have a better brake, perhaps a disc

1169
brake. I urge the Chancellor to be careful how he uses such a fierce brake lest the driver himself go through the windscreen. [Laughter.] Perhaps it is as well that we are not discussing motorcycles.
I should like my right hon. and learned Friend, before the announcement to be made next week, to consider how to protect areas where there is a high rate of unemployment, such as the north of Scotland, Wales, the North-East Coast and Northern Ireland. I was most grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for accepting an Amendment to the Finance Bill relating to the payroll regulator. But it is unlikely that this regulator will be used and I am more concerned about the use of the other regulators which the Chancellor has; the Purchase Tax regulator and the money regulators, Bank Rate, special deposits and hire-purchase controls. All these regulators are blunt weapons and temporary expedients. It would be very much better if the Chancellor could find some fundamental remedy for the problems which face the country. This need applies not only to the Government but to hon. Members opposite.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite have admitted freely in their speeches in the debate that we are facing a severe crisis, and if they admit that and agree with it they must be prepared to join with the Government in taking the steps which will put it right. There is a task here for all classes in the economy which not only concerns employees but also employers—[HON. MEMBERS: "Surtax payers?"]—and Surtax payers as much as anyone else. I agree with what has been said already about profits being limited. Profits cannot be allowed to rise by 24 per cent. and wages by only 7 per cent. but I should like to see them transferring their attention from these regulators, which are so easy to put on but so difficult to take off, and very often, when we take them off, leave us in exactly the same state as when we started.
I should like to see the emphasis placed mainly on increased productivity and increased encouragement for exports. It has been said very often that it is impossible to encourage exports by giving direct inducements to the exporter. I should like my right hon. and learned Friend to consider whether there
1170
is not some way in which he could encourage exports directly by giving some inducement to the exporting industries and to the people who go out to find new markets for our goods. As one of my hon. Friends said in an earlier speech, one has to face facts, and exhortation is not sufficient to encourage the ordinary person, for the pure love of it, to work harder, increase his productivity and increase the amount he is doing in the export trade.
What we need now is some inducement of the same class as we know is being given in European exporting countries. They have very skilfully worked out devices in Italy, Germany and France for remitting part of the taxation to encourage exports. Unless we are prepared to take similar steps ourselves, we cannot right this balance of payments crisis as quickly, effectively and fundamentally as is required.
One other point. I ask the Chancellor, in considering the proposals which he is bringing forward next week, to see whether it would not be possible to use the labour resources of this country to better effect. I ask him whether it would not be possible to channel the defence expenditure, which has just been referred to by the hon. Member for Fife, West, into the development areas, and whether it is not possible to build some of the ships that we need for the Navy in the shipyards which, at the moment, are going through a very depressed time in order that those shipyards may be protected and the employees retained in them until the industry as a whole recovers from its present depression.
Mr. John Mackie: Will the hon. Member say how his compliments to the Government Front Bench tie up with these words that he said:
"In my constituency there is more unemployment in the shipbuilding industry … than in any other part of the United Kingdom."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th July. 1961; Vol. 644, c. 694.]
How do those statements tie up?
Mr. McMaster: The hon. Member has been so busy searching out the correct reference to what I said that he has missed the last two or three minutes of my remarks. Perhaps if he peruses HANSARD tomorrow he will find that I gave the answer in the last two minutes of my speech.

1171
I ask the Government Front Bench whether (it is not possible to channel more of 'the munitions work to areas which have high unemployment and where it is difficult to encourage exporting industries to go. All that we require in order to meet the problem facing the country today and to balance our exports and imports is a little extra effort. The Government must lead the way. They must show a fighting spirit, which this country is capable of showing. I believe it quite possible to engender the correct spirit in the working people and employers. Given the lead and given the incentive, I think that they will pull together to make the effort which is necessary to balance our payments.
8.52 p.m.
Mr. Harold Wilson: This has been a remarkable debate. I do not think that in the sixteen years that I have been in this House I have ever heard a more one-sided debate. The right hon. Gentlemen opposite have been right up against the ropes the whole day. It might have 'been a little more dignified if they had thrown in the towel round about half-past four.
We have had some remarkable speeches. The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) wants the Government to show more fighting spirit. So do we, but we want to be quite sure against whom they are fighting. The hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Maurice Macmillan), in one of the more notable understatements of the debate, went so far as to admit that old-fashioned Conservative ideas have not been 100 per cent. successful. The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Curran) came out in favour of a capital gains tax for rather odd reasons of a somewhat masochistic character, but nevertheless he supported our proposals in that direction.
The President of the Board of Trade, who is not with us at the moment, nobly carried out the instructions he had from the Treasury to fill in time for half-anhour without saying anything. I think that he did it very well and entertainingly. He agreed with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition about the need for dedicated and professionalised overseas salesmanship. What we must ask him is how we can get that dedicated over-
1172
seas salesmanship when all the prizes, all the perks, all the plums and all the status go to those who sell things on the home market, particularly with television advertising.
When hon. Members opposite sold out to the pressures of the advertising industry a few years ago—we have just had a chance of reading what went on behind the scenes in all that manoeuvring—they made an important decision, whether they knew it or not, which has had a most serious effect on our sales efforts in the export market.
As a nation we are spending £80 million on television advertising for the home market. The President of the Board of Trade did not tell us today how much we are spending on advertising for export markets, but from some of the speeches which have been made from both sides of the Committee it is clear that we are not making one-tenth of the effort to advertise for the export market that we are making for the home market.
I welcomed the speech of the President of the Board of Trade, because I thought I detected—we may know more about this next week—perhaps a glimmering of an appreciation of the need for more purposive planning in this country, for expanding production, for growth and for the production of the things which we most need. That is what makes all the more extraordinary the fact that he should choose this moment of time in his Departmental capacity to sell off the Government-owned factories on one of our oldest-established industrial estates. It is extraordinary that he should do that, and it fills many of my hon. Friends in other unemployment areas and development districts with very great anxieties about what the Government will do as they de-schedule one area after another.
Nevertheless, I think that the right hon. Gentleman gave a very good performance. I sympathise with him. He has so many speeches on the record in these economic debates that it is simply a question of going through them for a moment or two to find which are the best to quote. Perhaps I should offer his speech, filled with bounding enthusiasm, immediately after the last election, when he ended a very rumbustious speech at the Despatch Box by saying:
"The fact is that our policy is one which has been working, is working and will continue

1173
to work."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th October, 1959; Vol. 612, c. 281.]
How it is continuing to work was shown devastatingly by my right hon. Friend this afternoon when he showed that the gold figures had fallen by £150 million in nearly four months and that, as estimated by The Times last week, but for the emergency aid, rather humiliating aid, which we are receiving from the European Central Banks, as they voluntarily hold sterling, our reserves would have fallen by £300 million in four months—almost a third of our total reserves. Even disregarding this special aid from the European Central Banks our gold reserves today, after ten years of Tory Government, are materially below the figure at which they stood in October, 1951.
On the balance of payments, my right hon. Friend gave the figures both for the export-import balance and for the invisible balance, and there can be no doubt that we are doing very badly in the relation between our exports and our imports. I will not weary the Committee with all the figures. My right hon. Friend drew attention to the fact that in so many of our industries we are no longer as competitive as we were and that we are importing more and exporting less—and these are industries producing manufactured goods. We are always told that with this fresh wind of competition blowing through British industry it will become more dynamic and we shall export more. But that is not happening. In 1957, the Minister of Aviation—whom we welcome back from his travels—gave us a 7 per cent. Bank Rate and a whole host of measures designed to slow down the economy with one purpose—to drive more goods out into the export markets, to make us more competitive, to strengthen the currency so that we should export more goods abroad. At the same time we had a substantial measure of liberalisation of imports which has continued ever since.
What has happened? Our imports of manufactured goods since 1957 have risen in volume by 55 per cent. Our exports of manufactured goods—the things which we ought to be exporting—have risen by only 10 per cent. The increase in imports is five and a half times as great as the increase in our exports of manufactured goods, which means that the cold draught of competition has not done very much good there.
1174
There are reasons for this. There was the pull of the home market arising out of the election boom which is partly responsible, but is it not clear—my right hon. Friend took one or two examples this afternoon—that in one industry after another our manufacturers are becoming less competitive than their overseas rivals? In one industry after another where we had a substantial export performance we now have imports in increasing volume. Some of the industries which were net exporters have been turned into net importers, and the gap between our exports and our imports in very many industries has narrowed.
When asked about manufactured goods this afternoon the President of the Board of Trade said, "We are importing machine tools and machinery for British industry and if we import these, we shall have more to export". But the one thing that neither he nor any other member of the Government has ever appreciated in the ten years of these debates is that, of course, what is wrong is that we have failed to expand the industries that could produce the goods the world needs.
If, four years ago, the Minister of Aviation, facing the particular crisis that he then had on his hands, instead of going in for an orgy of deflation—with brilliant timing, at the very moment when the very world itself was plunging into deflation—had applied the resources of the Government purposively to expand some of the key industries—not to restrict them, not to reduce them, but to expand them—we should not have this dilemma about which the President of the Board of Trade was whining this afternoon. We should be able to export more, and supply the needs of the home market without racing into serious economic difficulties.
My right hon. Friend referred this afternoon to the "invisibles", and I am glad that the President of the Board of Trade spent some time on this question, because in three successive economic debates I have raised the subject, but we have not had a single word from any Minister. It is only recently, when correspondence started in The Times and the Chancellor made a few speeches, that this has become a fashionable subject for anxiety.

1175
For example, it was eight months ago that I got figures from the Government, about our net overseas military expenditure, which is rising rapidly every year—£80 million in the first half of the last year. The worst feature in the Government's expenditure is the military expenditure. I hope that the Chancellor will this evening tell us what the Government have in mind to reduce this very heavy drain on our resources.
I have said before that every new Minister of Defence is more expensive than the last. One of them "blues" £100 million on Blue Streak at home, while another spends £85 million in net military expenditure abroad. I hope that the Chancellor, who has vast experience both as Minister of Defence and as Foreign Secretary, will tell us that he is putting that experience to good use in saving some of these millions of pounds.
Then there is oil. For some reason which I can only surmise, the Government are secretive about the oil statistics to an extent which gives real grounds for suspicion. They have never given us figures of the net oil earnings, or even any figures that would enable us to estimate them. There is no doubt that we poured very heavy resources into the oil industry a few years ago, and it is now clear that the yield in terms of foreign exchange is a great deal lower than anybody ever thought that it would be.
Then there is the figure called "interest, profits and dividends." Here, again, there is a serious worsening. That, as my right hon. Friend says, is due to the high interest rates that we have to pay on our borrowed money, but the other big fact—as we have said on many previous occasions—is that British firms are not bringing back the profits they earn overseas.
We warned the Government that this would happen when, in 1957, the Minister of Aviation introduced a system of overseas trade corporations. We then said that it was one of the most glorious tax "fiddles" ever invented by a Chancellor. If hon. Members care to look at the debates in 1957 they will see the warnings we gave, and if the Government are serious in their view of the worsening of that overseas situation they will repeal the relevant Sections of the 1957 Finance Act.
1176
Turning to the home situation, we have the fact that, as one after another of my hon. Friends have pointed out, production has been virtually at a standstill for fifteen months. Today, since my right hon. Friend has spoken, we have the figure for the latest month—still no change. Here we are, with what we all welcome, a big increase in industrial investment, and with a shortage of labour—we keep hearing from Ministers that our labour resources are strained to the utmost—yet production remains stagnant. Does it not strike the Government as something very strange that in a time when we have all this new investment and additional employment, production is stagnant and productivity is actually falling?
But this, of course, was deliberate policy. Last year, the Government used every weapon at their command to hold down production, so what do they expect? They believe that if we hold production down, wages and prices will remain stable, but the events of the last three years have proved the exact opposite. As we have told them in debate after debate, it is when production is held down and productivity is battened down that costs and prices rise. In 1959, when production and productivity was rising, costs and prices were kept steady. If the Chancellor wants to stop this present, sudden, sharp increase in costs and prices—5 per cent. increase in the last ten months—and if he wants to hold it, the way is not by restricting production but by expanding it.
Surely the Government have learned by now that when one restricts production, whether by hire-purchase restrictions, interest rate policy or any of the other techniques which they have used over the years, the result is not a fall in prices but an increase in unit costs—and that means higher prices. Surely they have learned that lesson by now. Yet here we have a sharp rise in the cost of living. Prices, costs, fear of the wage spiral, all at a time when, by common consent—and hon. Members have agreed with this—export markets are becoming more competitive every day.
Another sign of an economic system out of hand is the price of gilt-edged. It is going down and down. There is no confidence in the future of the gilt-edged market, and that means hardship—in some cases, as hon. Members know, great

1177
hardship for those who invested their savings in gilt-edged. The price of gilt-edged used to be regarded as the measure of the national credit. That was the phrase used in classical times. "The national credit stands at such-and-such a figure," was the phrase. Our national credit, by that test, is today at a practically all-time low, because consols are practically lower than at any time in our history.
Are hon. Gentlemen opposite proud of that? Are they proud of this decline in the gilt-edged market? War Loan is just over 50 Let me remind hon. Gentlemen opposite that under the Labour Government, despite our immediate post-war problems, War Loan fell by less than 16 per cent. during the lifetime of the Labour Government. Under the Conservatives, War Loan has fallen by over 40 per cent. Are they proud of that? This afternoon my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) was referring to investment when, of course, hon. Gentlemen opposite started bawling out something about Daltons. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are, of course, as predictable as Pavlov's dogs. One has only to mention gilt-edged and they start drooling at the mouth about Daltons. But let me inform them of this; Daltons have fallen more under the Conservatives than they did under the Labour Government. They have fallen from 64.7/8ths in October, 1951 to 38.3/8ths today—a fall of 41 per cent.
Surely these are the outward measures of the crisis; gold reserves running at a dangerously low level, sterling at its lowest for three years, the worst balance of payments figure since the Korean war, production stagnant, productivity falling, prices and costs rising sharply and gilt-edged aground. What about the phrase "Life is better under the Conservative system"? And "Do not let Labour ruin it". With these figures I have just quoted, perhaps the Chancellor will tell us who has ruined it in the last two years?
This debate is the moment of truth, not only for the Tory Party but for the nation. Today we have the consummation of ten years of Tory policy—the fruits of ten years. This is not one more in the series of ups and downs we have had since the war. This is a secular crisis and a long-term trend, the payoff for ten years of Conservative policy.
1178
We have had the lowest rate of expansion in Europe. Only one country has had a bigger increase in prices, as my right hon. Friend said. This represents an utter failure to increase exports, which have gone up by only 23 per cent. since 1951. Not another country in the world has done as badly. Are hon. Gentlemen opposite proud of that? Can they name one country? The silence is deafening. A disastrous balance of payments position, the worst record of any advanced country in its balance of payments—all this despite the remarkable conditions that the Government have had.
Since 1951 the terms of trade have moved in our favour by no less than 23 per cent. But granting even that for every £100 that we exported in 1951 we get the same volume of imports by exporting only £77 today, we have this deficit. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is capable of calculating that this windfall gain in the terms of trade in the last ten years is worth £1,400 million a year to our balance of payments; or if we take the cumulative total over the whole ten years, something between a £6,000 million and £7,000 million windfall. Yet our balance of payments situation now is almost worse than at any time in our past history. Internally and externally our economic policies have broken down. Even The Times recognised it in its leading article last Thursday, and when The Times recognises a truth we can be pretty sure that it is something that has been self-evident for years.
I am not going to weary the Committee by quoting all the warnings that we have issued year after year in economic and Budget debates. They are all on the record and I challenge hon. Members to look them up. If they do, they will find that we would have to withdraw precious few of the warnings that we have uttered. Compare that with the complacent outpourings of right hon. Gentlemen at the Dispatch Box year after year.
Basically their fault is three-fold. First, in their mad rush for freedom to make profits, freedom to speculate and make more out of capital gains and more out of rents, the country has lost its dynamic, its sense of purpose—its economic, social and moral purpose. It has rejected the planning measures

1179
needed to strengthen the foundations of our economic base.
Secondly, when the call has been for expansion, more production, more investment and more export the Government have met every crisis with panic measures and restrictions which hold down production and hold back investment, so that when the next crisis came the nation's economic base was too narrow and thin to sustain the burdens and strains which were put on it. The main measure which one can take in a crisis is to build up the basic industries and, above all, the export industries so that when the next crisis comes we can meet it. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite have panicked into further restrictions.
Thirdly, when the need of the country has been for sacrifice, discipline and leadership so as to build up investment in export industries, they have gone in for the lush and easy profits of the home market. Above all, when the call to the hustings has come they have twice, in 1955 and 1959, sacrificed the prerequisites of our economic survival to a vote-winning consumption boom for which we are still paying the price. This crisis is, at the same time, the pay-off for ten wasted years and for their "never had it so good" election boom.
Some of my hon. Friends have been calling for a four-year plan. We should make no mistake—right hon. Gentlemen opposite have got a four-year plan. They have been working to it. They have followed it religiously in two Parliaments. The plan is this: in the first year—that is, in 1955 and 1959—they win an election on a home market boom. In the next year—in 1956 and 1960—one cannot get tough too quickly, so they have a standstill Budget and restrictions on production. In the next year—in 1957 and 1961—they begin on a vast handout to their friends the Surtax payers, financed in 1957 and 1961 by increases in insurance contributions. The pattern is very regular.
Then in the summer we get a major crisis. We get a high Bank Rate, emergency measures bringing expansion to a stop and deflationary measures directed to producing that necessary little margin of unemployment that we keep being told about. All this time our production is failing to increase. It is falling below
1180
that of other countries. Then we come to 1958 and 1962—another "standstill, wait for it" Budget. They know that memories are rather short, so they do not want to give it away too long before the election. Then, while production and investment are still languishing, with unemployment growing, we are all ready for election year when we have to take up slack in the economy, with a magnificent tax handout for everybody. There is more for the rich even so, but something for everybody, plus 2d. off beer. That is a special dodge of the Prime Minister's. So it really is a libel on right hon. Gentlemen opposite to say that they have no plan. They have a plan, but it is not directed towards our national economic strength. It is directed to keeping the Conservatives in power.
Tonight, again, the Prime Minister is not with us. It is really becoming a scandal that the First Lord of the Treasury is not here to answer. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] I suppose he has some sense of shame. We do not mind that. He should take it a little further and get out altogether. But, so long as he is Prime Minister, he ought to be here.
The Prime Minister is a great student of Disraeli. I commend to him—perhaps the Patronage Secretary will pass this on—Disraeli's description of a Tory predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman, someone with strong resemblances to him, Lord Liverpool. Disraeli described him as
"The Arch-Mediocrity who presided, rather than ruled, over a Cabinet of Mediocrities … not a statesman, a statemonger, Peremptory in little questions, the great ones he left open."
That is the right hon. Gentleman.
Now, we read in the Conservative Press—
Mr. Frederic Harris: A bit of a flop.
Mr. Wilson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the phrase I was trying to work towards. Yes, he is.
Now, we read in the Conservative Press the ominous news that the Prime Minister has decided to intervene in the economic crisis. This is no idle threat. No one bears more responsibility than he for our economic crises. He was the first to propound the doctrine that the

1181
right way to fight inflation was to hold production down. On becoming Chancellor, he was panicked into abolishing the investment allowance, and this caused a stagnation in our industrial investment which lasted for three vital years. As we all know, the Prime Minister is more responsible than anyone else for the smug complacency which has pervaded the nation as a result of successive speeches he has made. While his own Chancellor has been telling us how serious the economic situation has been, the right hon. Gentleman has been travelling the country saying that we have never been so well off, and all the rest. [An HON. MEMBER: "He said it today."] He said it again today in the House.
One of the most serious features of the Prime Minister's leadership—if that is the right word to use in speaking of the right hon. Gentleman—is that he has been speaking all over the country, degrading, debasing and debauching our national life by preaching the gospel of the free-for-all, the gospel of grabbing all one can. His is the gospel of the self-regarding affluent society where, as I heard a distinguished churchman say the other day, the verb "to have" means so much more than the verb "to be". That is the affluent society which hon. Members opposite have preached, and many of them are here now only because of their success in preaching that doctrine at the last General Election.
Now, safely in mid-term, counting on the short memories which throughout history have always been the Conservative Party's greatest asset, right hon. Gentlemen opposite tell us that we must stress the moral aspects of our national life. The Home Secretary is another notable absentee tonight. I do not blame him.
What did the Home Secretary say:
"Nations gain their right to rise.
By service and by sacrifice."
This from a Tory Minister!—
"The devil was sick, the devil a monk wou'd be".
This from the Home Secretary, the architect of the 1955 election Budget, who fought the 1955 election on the claim—what was the proud claim of the party opposite in its manifesto?—
"We have broken away at long last from the regular cycle of crises."
1182
It was six years ago when the party opposite made that claim.
What has the Leader of the House and Chairman of the Conservative Party contributed, or indeed what have any of them contributed, in the name of service and sacrifice to the solution of our economic problems? One thing which the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary has created for us is the betting shop. Is that a contribution to service and sacrifice? What service and sacrifice do we get in an economy where the genuine hardworking business men, executives, scientists and salesmen are subordinated under a system which exalts the take-over bidder, the tycoon, the financier, share-pusher, speculator and property racketeer and in which some of our staple industries have so declined—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—I am delighted to welcome the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary.
I commend this thought to the Home Secretary:
"Nations gain their right to rise, by service and by sacrifice;
So Britain aims to reach the top with capital gains and the betting shop!"
I ask the right hon. Gentleman: what service and sacrifice does he see in a situation in which industries, like the shipyard industry on Clydeside, cannot offer security to their workers who are emigrating to Hamburg where things ate better?
Some workers are coming to this country. The Ministry of Labour has just issued labour permits for some very important key workers who have been lured here by the Home Secretary—croupiers to run the gambling dens! This is a great society in which millions of decent, hardworking people pay their taxes with no tax dodging, yet an organisation exists to persuade rich men to invest their capital in tax havens abroad in order to dodge Estate Duty.
As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said, we have land racketeering going on affecting not only housing and town redevelopment. I ask the President of the Board of Trade: with present land prices, how will we build the new factories which we shah need for our export trade? Has the right hon. Gentleman been into that?

1183
I now turn to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. No Chancellor has ever had a bigger build up in the Tory Press. This is—and here I quote the Sunday Times—"the economic master mind", the man who, we were told last December was going "to break the cycle of squeeze and ease." Three months ago we had his Budget. Tonight, while we are all itching to know what he will say, he will be silent. He will talk for twenty minutes, but will say nothing. We sympathise with him. He will say nothing because he is already in a condition of pre-Budget secrecy before the Finance Bill which covers his last Budget receives the Royal Assent. We are facing an Autumn Budget in mid-July. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has out-Butlered the Home Secretary.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer is going round the country by various unconventional means of transport—a fine commentary on the Government's road building programme—making frightening noises about what he is going to do—a twentieth century King Lear:
"I will do such things—
What they are yet I know not; but they shall be
The terrors of the earth".
Tonight, the Chancellor does not have much to say, so I will ask him specifically to answer two questions. First, does he still think that he was right to make this vast Surtax hand-out in April? Secondly, does he feel after this hand-out that he has any moral night or standing to appeal to the nation for sacrifice and, as my right hon. Friend said, to the workers for wage restraint? We shall expect answers from the Chancellor about that.
Last week, the Home Secretary said, after he got from poetry back to prose:
"Out of our economic difficulties good may come, especially if our party gives a lead to the country in calling for moral values to emerge instead of materialist appetities."
That was after materialist appetities were sated to the tune of £83 million last April for the Surtax payers only. Is it the argument of the Government that their friends can gorge themselves to the full while they themselves now preach the virtues of fasting and restraint to the rest of the community, with one-fifth of
1184
the manual workers getting less than £11 a week? It is they who have to exercise restraint.
We were told that this hand-out, indefensible as it is on grounds of social justice, was done in the sacred name of incentives and that production would bound and exports expand. Is there any evidence that this is happening? We have not seen it in the figures yet. During the Committee stage, we found that a substantial amount was being given to Schedule D Surtax payers on their last year's earnings, the first case known to fiscal history of incentives being retrospective. We found that £19 million was going in Surtax relief on unearned income. Where is the incentive there?
When the Chancellor commended his Budget to the Committee at the end of the Budget debate, he said:
"I think that the proposals I have put forward will strengthen our economy, encourage our exporters and gain confidence in sterling at home and abroad, and I ask the Committee to accept them."—(OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th April, 1961; Vol. 638, c. 1518.]
Is that still the Chancellor's view?
The reason for the right hon. and learned Gentleman's silence tonight, while still awaiting for the Royal Assent to the Finance Bill, is that he has already decided that he needs more taxation and that to his April Budget he now needs to add 3d. on petrol, 4d. on cigarettes, 5d. an ounce on tobacco, 10 per cent. more on Purchase Tax, ½d. on beer, more on pools, television advertising, wine, spirits and vehicle duties, because that will be the effect of a 10 per cent. surcharge on indirect taxation.
Did the Chancellor think in April that he would want all this additional taxation? If so, why did he not put it in his Budget and his Finance Bill? I do not believe that he had any idea then. I acquit him of bad faith, but he is guilty of the most prodigius miscalculation. On the Report stage two weeks ago we challenged the Chancellor to put his tax demands in the Finance Bill. He refused. This is muddle and miscalculation beyond all the precedents even of this Government.
When the right hon. and learned Gentleman has finally broken his silence, what will he do? The surcharge on indirect taxation will fight inflation by putting up prices. The Chancellor

1185
should not think that the prices will go down again when the surcharge goes, because the one thing we have found when prices have gone up for one reason or excuse or another is that they stay up. Does the Chancellor think that this increase in the cost of living will help his appeal for wage restraint, or is the aim simply to cause the consumer durable industries, cars and the rest, to lurch once more into unemployment?
To me, it is almost beyond belief that the Chancellor can increase commodity taxation, which is the most regressive taxation, bearing on all the ordinary families, with no surcharge on direct taxation. If he does this, would not the corollary have been not to reduce Surtax but to have increased it? To reduce Surtax in April and to increase indirect taxation in July is about as regressive as the Chancellor can get, and that is saying a lot.
I do not think that many of us expect him to introduce his other regulator, the payroll tax. This has been universally condemned for all the points on which we attacked it in April—unfairness between industries and between areas, its anti-social penalties on apprenticeships and industrial training, and its effect on local authorities, hospitals and other essential services. It has been so universally condemned by industry, and, indeed, by his own party, that the Chancellor has, no doubt, been told to take it out and drown it like an unwanted kitten.
While the Chancellor is still pondering his announcement for next Tuesday—assuming that it is not already drafted—let me give him these warnings. First, I appeal to him not to cut aid to the under-developed areas, whether inside or outside the Commonwealth. It would be a standing reproach to this country if we were to cut supplies necessary for fighting the war on want and poverty all over the world just because we have failed to control our own economy and our own greed.
Secondly, I appeal to him not to follow other Tory Chancellors by thinking that the right way to fight the crisis is by placing burdens on those least able to bear them—the old, the sick, the disabled, the children who take school meals, and the rest. During the weekend, a newspaper said that to do this would be comparable to a board of
1186
directors, which had steered its company on the rocks, trying to get out of the difficulties by increasing the price of meals in the factory canteen.
Thirdly, I urge him not to cut essential investment. In crisis after crisis we have had crippling cuts in essential investment by publicly-owned industry and the local authorities, while far less essential building and other investment have been going ahead. To cut local authority housing and allow the office blocks to continue to go on would be doctrinaire, anti-social and inhuman.
Fourthly, I appeal to him, as did my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, not to have a wage squeeze in the public sector. Nothing would do more harm to the country than the Government's taking it out—as they have done before—on the National Health Service employees, probation officers, firemen, teachers and others, just because they are in public service—where they may be worth a great deal more to the community than many in the private sector.
Above all, he must remember the warnings of the experience of past crises—do not impose restrictions which will make the next crisis more certain and worse when it occurs. I hope that the Chancellor will take heed of these warnings.
We are not now debating the Common Market, but I say to him that the decision has to be taken on its merits, and should not be taken as an act of escapism from our present economic ills. Whatever the long-term case for going in, whatever the problems of safeguarding entry for Commonwealth goods, the decision to enter is bound to place immediate additional strains on sterling. Imports are likely to exceed exports; there will be freedom of capital movement; and even though it may be considered anti-British to do so, to many people it will make sense to transfer their money to Western Europe as a devaluation hedge.
The condemnation of ten years' rule by Members opposite is that they have left this country in a position of desperate economic weakness when the decision on whether or not to enter the Common Market has to be taken. It is not much use posturing about whether one is to go into the Market or not when one has

1187
been driven to one's knees by the Government's economic policy.
Unless we take the steps necessary to refashion our economic policy and recapture the lost dynamic drive then, as we say in our policy statement, whether we enter the Common Market or stay out will only settle the question of whether we are to be a backwater inside Europe or outside it.
The Chancellor will make his announcements next week. I hope that they will include the things suggested by my right hon. Friend—repeal of the overseas trade corporation provisions and of the Surtax concessions. I hope that they will include some measure for holding back less essential building, a capital gains tax and a tax on land racketeering. I hope that the Chancellor will also do something about dividends and revert to the two-tier system of Profits Tax which we had until 1958.
In the long run, however, the problem will not be solved unless—and here I again use the Home Secretary's words—we can get back to a spirit of service and sacrifice in our national life. Members opposite, after ten years, are now beginning to wish again for the voice and leadership of a Cripps.
Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Never.
Mr. Wilson: The noble Lord should realise that most of the economic gains from which the Government have profited were the fruits of the trees which Stafford Cripps planted against their criticism.
Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Never.
Mr. Wilson: In 1947, winding up a debate on the economic crisis at that time, Sir Stafford Cripps said:
"But when we have considered broadly and in detail, as we have during the course of this debate, the actual steps that we must take, we came back to the most important consideration of all: our failure or success will depend in the last resort upon the spirit of our people. The quality of effort that is needed in the next few years is not such that it can be evoked by mere material considerations"—
Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Devaluation after nine times denying it.
Mr. Wilson: "or by the intensification of self-interest or competitive self-seeking."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th August, 1947 Vol. 441. c. 1764.]
Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Be yourself.
Mr. Wilson: The noble Lord is certainly being himself. It is all right for him to shout "devaluation", but devaluation was forced on this country four years after a great war, and the Chancellor himself knows that he dare not go into the Common Market without offering devaluation first. Hon. Members opposite had better pipe down about devaluation.
The words I have just read are as apposite and as relevant to this economic crisis now as they were to that crisis which hit this country only two years after a great war—and this is sixteen years after that great war. Hon. Members who want to speak in those accents had better recognise that they must first bring to the conduct of our national affairs the same sense of social justice and moral purpose that Cripps brought. Words alone are fiduciary. They need the gold backing of action. Let hon. Members opposite who recognise this be seized with the courage that this crisis should call forth and march with us into the Division Lobby tonight.
9.37 p.m.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) both made a straight political point when they said that the country had been lulled into a false sense of security in the last election. As I have said before, that would have come better from them if the Labour Party had fought the election on a programme of austerity.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to short memories in politics. The programme of the party opposite was that there was to be more expenditure in almost every public activity. Purchase Tax was to be reduced and Income Tax was not to be increased. In his final broadcast, the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition said:
"We certainly can have more prosperity".
For hon. Members opposite now to take a high moral line and to pretend that they did not make an almost purely materialistic approach is nonsense. To talk about a vote-winning consumption boom when, if they had got in, there would have been an inflation which it would have been impossible to measure, is nonsense.

1189
In the very entertaining speech of the right hon. Member for Huyton, I thought I detected a slight note of envy when he described the election strategy. Without acknowledgment to Vicky, he referred to King Lear. The right hon. Gentleman was kind enough to tell me beforehand that there might be a reference to King Lear, so a little speedy research enabled me to discover these lines:
"Have more than thou showest,
Speak less than thou knowest,
Lend less than thou owest."
That is a very good precept for right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and I hope that they will ponder those lines and their implications carefully.
I study the Press carefully, and I read the article which the right hon. Gentleman wrote called, "Ten Wasted Years". Have they really been wasted? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] Civil employment is up by 1½ million. [Interruption.] I am surprised that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite regard the retention of full employment as a matter of such small significance. Average weekly earnings in real terms have gone up by a third. The purchasing power of the National Insurance pension has gone up 40 per cent. in real terms—17s. a week more. [HON. MEMBERS: "Contributions."] In addition, 2¾ million new houses have been built,—[HON. MEMBERS: "Not enough."]—4,500 new schools have been built and 2½ million new school places have been provided. There has been—and hon. Gentlemen opposite know this—a great expansion in the social services. Net capital investment has been nearly twice as much as it was ten years ago. Personal savings have gone up from £200 million in 1951 to nearly £1,500 million at present. These are what are described as the wasted years.
As the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton) pointed out, throughout that period we have sustained a defence programme and an aid effort overseas which has made very heavy demands on our economy. I point out to right hon. Gentlemen opposite that we have done this without the aid of £300 million to £400 million of American aid each year. [Interruption.] Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen have made their party points today and they must not resent it if they
1190
get a little back in the same theme. They are always very ready to talk but very reluctant to listen.
Having said that, I do not think that on any considered view these could be regarded as the wasted years. Nevertheless, I do not believe that the country can be complacent or satisfied, and since my first speech as Chancellor of the Exchequer in October, 1960, I have been warning people that we have to do much better. I agree that it would be an intolerable burden to ask hon. Gentlemen opposite to read my speeches, but if they do so they will find that I have made the same point in every speech, that we have to do much better if we are to improve our situation.
This is not just a party point. It is a national one. If we carry our national habit of self-depreciation to an excessive length, it may do us positive harm in the world. I do not minimise for a moment our difficulties or the efforts which will be needed to deal with them, but I think that we should not approach them in a spirit of gloom, pessimism, and defeatism.
I thought that the Leader of the Opposition dealt at rather greater length with the destructive elements than with the constructive elements when he attempted to survey the situation. With respect, I do not think that he did it completely. I want to put before the Committee what I regard as four sets of circumstances with which we are now faced. First, there are certain matters for which this country has no responsibility, such as what happened in the Congo, Cuba and South-East Asia, and what has recently been happening in the Middle East. Those matters affect world stability, however, and as a trading nation we are bound to be affected adversely by any instability in the world.
Then there are some long-term trends—and hon. Members opposite had better begin to be aware of this fact—which are against us. It is no good saying that our invisibles ought to be better, and that there has been a great failure in them. Of course, they are not as good as we should like them to be, but we have to face the fact that there are certain trends which are against us. The emerging countries want their own shipping lines. Further, a strongly nationalist feeling has developed on the subject of insurance, which has brought a great deal

1191
of indirect income to us in the past. In oil, the situation is not what it has been. We must accept these facts, not with a view to bemoaning them but as an added incentive to effort. We must accept that certain long-term world trends are against us.
Then there are certain matters which we cannot control alone, but in respect of which we have a contribution to make. They are matters of which we should take cognizance, For instance, there is the problem of the imbalance of payments. There we are pressing as hard as we can, through the International Monetary Fund—and it is not quite as simple as some hon. Members opposite seem to think—to get this problem of the imbalance of payments recognised and remedied by some expansion of effort of the Fund, or a similar method.
Then there is the fact to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, namely, that in some of our main Commonwealth markets, owing to the changed terms of trade, there has been a substantial falling off in purchasing power which might well have bought some of our exports.
Those are three matters over which we have no control, and only a partial contribution to make. But there is a field within which action is under our control, namely, our competitiveness. The financial performance of certain industries, both in the public and the private sector, must be improved. I am not in favour of a sealed lips policy. These matters should be brought out into the open, if need be, industry by industry.
Since I have been Chancellor I have tried to put the facts before the people. I have probably put forward a greater range of White Papers than my predecessors. I have tried to set before the House the facts, for instance, concerning public investment, Exchequer issues below the line, and Government assistance in the private field. The right hon. Gentleman invited me to begin to disclose what I may say this day week. I will consider carefully what has been said in this debate. As for productivity, I thought that the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) made a very thoughtful and useful contribution. I will take into account what has been said by him today.
1192
Reference has been made to creating the right sort of atmosphere. I agree with what has been said about a sense of national purpose. It has been said that I have ruined any chance of creating the right sort of atmosphere by my tax changes in the Budget. All the time I am being told that West Germany is an example, with its dynamic economy, which we should follow. There is not always the same reference to the point made by the hon. Member for Fife, West about defence production. I am always being told that West Germany's is a dynamic economy. I would point out that the managerial class in Germany has been much less heavily taxed than our managerial class. But that is by no means the whole story.
In Western Germany the poorer sections of the population, those earning up to £1,000 a year, are much more heavily taxed than in this country, and that figure includes the National Insurance contribution. That is particularly true of the earnings groups up to £600 a year. They are much more heavily taxed in their lower income groups and they are less heavily taxed in the higher income groups. I have brought the higher income groups into closer relationship regarding taxation. I do not think that I have been unfair. I believe that what I have done will have a direct influence on production and productivity. That is of interest to all sections of the community.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the question of taxation of consumer expenditure. As I said during the Third Reading debate on the Finance Bill, in fact, contrary to general belief, the contribution of direct taxation, the proportion contributed by direct taxation, has increased rather than decreased over the last year. The idea that we put the whole burden on to the consumer is just not true. Reference has been made to a capital gains tax. I say to the Committee quite frankly that from my point of view it is a practical matter as to whether it is to the advantage of the country to have a capital gains tax.
In America they think it is and they have a schedule about a foot high of all the rules and regulations. It would involve a new and complicated system and a considerable drain on the administrative resources available. We should

1193
find that all the best brains in the country would be concentrating at once on how legally to get round it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Of course we should, and right hon. and hon. Members opposite would be in the lead.
Hon. Members: Resign.
The Deputy-Chairman (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): Order. I hope that the Committee will allow the right hon. Gentleman to deliver his speech.
Hon. Members: Resign.
Mr. Lloyd: If night hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite really think that they would not like paying as few taxes as posible they are deceiving themselves. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I said "legally", and we should have everybody seeing whether within the law they could get round the procedure. We should have to have a limit and we should have exceptions. We should have to have a sliding scale and in my view—I look at this purely from the practical point of view—I do not think that it would be worth-while. I can see the psychological advantage, but I think, as I indicated in my Budget speech, the better approach is to see whether certain tax-free profits can be brought within the existing system of taxation. That is the better approach.
With regard to exports the right hon. Gentleman referred to salesmanship. In the first speech which I made to the National Production Advisory Council on Industry I dealt with the matter and I said very much what he has repeated today about the need to increase professionalism in exporting and to raise the standard of salesmanship. But I think that we have to face the fact that we cannot achieve stability, let alone speed up our economic growth, until we have made an improvement in our export performance far beyond anything which we have yet achieved. We need a tougher and more competitive spirit in industry. We need a much more critical
attitude towards costs whatever the origin, and a relentless rooting out of inefficiency—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—and of restrictive practices by management and labour.
Things have been too easy in the home market, and export costs must be reduced. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition talked about the old, dreary collection of familiar expedients. He listed them and said that some may be necessary. I do not comment today, except on what I regard as a national weakness. When we have averted a short-term crisis, we rather tend to sit back and 'congratulate our selves. [Interruption.] Really, the memories of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are very short, because during their period of administration we had considerable experience of this. On at least two occasions, when short-term crises were averted, there was this feeling that there was nothing really to worry about.
Hon. Members: Resign.
Mr. Lloyd: I have tried throughout the speeches I have made to stress the point that this is not just a short-term problem. It is the long-term trends that matter, and I would fail in my purpose next Tuesday if what I put forward is regarded as just a short-term measure. I am determined, and I believe that it is the wish of the whole Committee, that we should improve our prospects in the long term, and to meet that challenge I shall not be afraid to ask for the necessary burdens and disciplines to be accepted.
Mr. H. Wilson: Despite the remarkable admissions of the Chancellor, and because of his entire failure to meet the points put forward in the debate, I beg to move,
That Item Class I, Vote 3, Treasury and Subordinate Departments, be reduced by £5.
Question put:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 243, Noes 329.

Division No. 253.]

AYES

[9.58 p.m.

Abse, Leo

Bacon, Miss Alice

Blyton, William

Ainsley, William

Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, w.)

Boardman, H.

Albu, Austen

Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

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

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Bence, Cyril

Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Benson, Sir George

Bowles, Frank

Awbery, Stan

Blackburn, F.

Boyden, James

Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Popplewell, Ernest

Brockway, A. Fenner

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Prentice, R. E.

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

Hunter, A. E.

Probert, Arthur

Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

Hynd, H. (Accrington)

Proctor, W. T.

Brown, Thomas (Ince)

Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

Randall, Harry

Butter, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

Rankin, John

Callaghan, James

Redhead, E. C.

Castle, Mrs. Barbara

Janner, Sir Barnett

Reid, William

Chapman, Donald

Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

Reynolds, G. W.

Chetwynd, George

Jeger, George

Rhodes, H.

Cliffe, Michael

Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Collick, Percy

Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

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

Robertson, John (Paisley)

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

Cronin, John

Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

Ross, William

Crosland, Anthony

Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

Royle, Charles (Salford, West)

Crossman, R. H. S.

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

Cullen, Mrs. Alice

Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

Short, Edward

Darling, George

Kelley, Richard

Silverman, Jullus (Aston)

Dairies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

Kenyon, Clifford

Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Skeffington, Arthur

Davies, Harold (Leek)

King, Dr. Horace

Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Lawson, George

Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

Ledger, Ron

Small, William

Deer, George

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

Delargy, Hugh

Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

Snow, Julian

Dempsey, James

Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

Sorensen, R. W.

Diamond, John

Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

Dodds, Norman

Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

Spriggs, Leslie

Donnelly, Desmond

Lipton, Marcus

Steele, Thomas

Driberg, Tom

Logan, David

Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John

Loughlin, Charles

Stonehouse, John

Ede, Rt. Hon. C

Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

Stones, William

Edelman, Maurice

McCann, John

Strachey, Rt. Hn. John

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

MacColl, James

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

Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

Mclnnes, James

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

Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

McKay, John (Wallsend)

Swain, Thomas

Evans, Albert

Mackie, John (Enfield, East)

Swingler, Stephen

finch, Harold

McLeavy, Frank

Sylvester, George

Fitch, Alan

MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

Fletcher, Eric

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)

Mallalieu, J. P. w. (Huddersfield, E.)

Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

Manuel, A. c.

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

Forman, J. C.

Mapp, Charles

Thornton, Ernest

Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

Thorpe, Jeremy

Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh

Marsh, Richard

Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

Galpern, Sir Myer

Mason, Roy

Wade, Donald

George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn)

Mayhew, Christopher

Wainwright, Edwin

Ginsburg, David

Mellish, R. J.

Warbey, William

Gooch, E. G.

Mendelson, J. J.

Watkins, Tudor

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

Milne, Edward J.

Weitzman, David

Gourlay, Harry

Mitchison, G. R.

Wells, Percy (Faversham)

Greenwood, Anthony

Monslow, Walter

Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

Grey, Charles

Moody, A. S.

White, Mrs. Eirene

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

Morris, John

Whitlock, William

Grimond, J.

Mort, D. L.

Wigg, George

Gunter, Ray

Moyle, Arthur

Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

Mulley, Frederick

Wilkins, W. A.

Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

Neal, Harold

Willey, Frederick

Hamilton William (West Fife)

Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

Williams, D. J. (Neath)

Hannan, William

Oliver, G. H.

Williams, Li. (Abertillery)

Mart Mrs. Judith

Oram, A. E.

Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

Hayman, F. H.

Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

Oswald, Thomas

Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

Healey, Denis

Owen, Will

Winterbottom, R. E.

Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)

Padley, W. E.

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

Herbison, Miss Margaret

Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

Woof, Robert

Hewitson, Capt. M.

Pargiter, G. A.

Wyatt, Woodrow

Hill, J. (Midlothian)

Parker, John

Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

Hilton, A. V.

Parkin, B. T.

Zillacus, K.

Holman, Percy

Pavitt, Laurence

Holt, Arthur

Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Houghton, Douglas

Peart, Frederick

Mr. John Taylor and

Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)

Pentland, Norman

Mr. G. H. R. Rogers.

Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

Plummer, Sir Leslie

NOES

Agnew, Sir Peter

Arbuthnot, John

Barlow, Sir John

Aitken, W. T.

Ashton, Sir Hubert

Barter, John

Allan, Robert (Paddington, s.)

Atkins, Humphrey

Batsford, Brian

Allason, James

Balniet, Lord

Baxter, sir Beverley (Southgate)

Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian

Barber, Anthony

Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

1196

1197

Bell, Ronald

Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)

McLaren, Martin

Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm)

Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)

McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia

Berkeley, Humphry

Godber, J. B.

Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Goodhart, Philip

Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute&N, Ayrs.)

Bidgood, John C.

Goodhew, Victor

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

Biggs-Davison, John

Gough, Frederick

McMaster, Stanley R.

Bingham, R. M.

Gower, Raymond

Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)

Bishop, F. P.

Grant, Rt. Hon. William

Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

Black, Sir Cyril

Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R.

Maddan, Martin

Bossom, Clive

Green, Alan

Maginnis, John E.

Bourne-Arton, A.

Gresham Cooke, R.

Maitland, Sir John

Box, Donald

Grimston, Sir Robert

Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John

Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

Markham, Major Sir Frank

Boyle, Sir Edward

Gurden, Harold

Marlowe, Anthony

Brewis, John

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest

Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

Marshall, Douglas

Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

Hare, Rt. Hon. John

Marten, Neil

Brooman-White, R.

Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

Mathew, Robert (Honiton)

Browne, Percy (Torrington)

Harris, Reader (Heston)

Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

Bryan, Paul

Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Buck, Antony

Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

Mawby, Ray

Bullard, Denys

Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Bullus, Wing-Commander Eric

Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

Mills, Stratton

Burden, F. A.

Harvie Anderson, Miss

Montgomery, Fergus

Butcher, Sir Herbert

Hastings, Stephen

Moore, Sir Thomas (Ayr)

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

Hay, John

More, Jasper (Ludlow)

Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)

Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

Morgan, William

Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

Hendry, Forbes

Morrison, John

Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

Hiley, Joseph

Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

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

Nabarro, Gerald

Cary, Sir Robert

Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

Nicholls, Sir Harmar

Channon, H. P. G.

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

Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

Chataway, Christopher

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Noble, Michael

Chichester-Clark, R.

Hirst, Geoffrey

Nugent, Sir Richard

Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

Hobson, John

Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

Hocking, Philip N.

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Clarke, Brig, Terence (Portsmth, W.)

Holland, Philip

Orr-Ewing, C. Ian

Cleaver, Leonard

Hollingworth, John

Osborn, John (Haslam)

Cole, Norman

Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John

Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

Cooke, Robert

Hopkins, Alan

Page, John (Harrow, West)

Cooper, A. E.

Hornby, R. P.

Page, Graham (Crosby)

Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia

Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

Cordie, John

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

Partridge, E.

Corfield, F. V.

Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

Costain, A. P.

Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

Peet, John

Coulson, J. M.

Hughes-Young, Michael

Percival, Ian

Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

Hurd, Sir Anthony

Peyton, John

Craddock, Sir Beresford

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

Critchley, Julian

Iremonger, T. L.

Pike, Miss Mervyn

Crowder, F. P.

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Pilkington, Sir Richard

Cunningham, Knox

Jackson, John

Pitman, Sir James

Curran, Charles

Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

Pitt, Miss Edith

Currie, G. B. H.

Jennings, J. C.

Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

Dalkeith, Earl of

Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Dance, James

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Price, H. A. (Lewisham, w.)

d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

Prior, J. M. L.

Deedes, W. F.

Jones Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)

Profumo, Rt. Hon. John

de Ferranti, Basil

Joseph, Sir Keith

Proudfoot, Wilfred

Digby, Simon Wingfield

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Pym, Frances,

Doughty, Charles

Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

Quennell, Miss J. M.

Drayson, G. B.

Kerby, Capt. Henry

Ramsden, James

du Cann, Edward

Kerr, Sir Hamilton

Rawlinson, Peter

Duncan, Sir James

Kershaw, Anthony

Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

Duthie, Sir William

Kimball, Marcus

Rees, Hugh

Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David

Kirk, Peter

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Eden, John

Kitson, Timothy

Renton, David

Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

Lagden, Godfrey

Ridsdale, Julian

Elliott, R. W.(Nwcstle-upon-Tyne, N.)

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Rippon, Geoffrey

Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

Langford-Holt, J.

Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

Errington, Sir Eric

Leather, E. H. C.

Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.

Leavey, J. A.

Robson Brown, Sir William

Farey-Jones, F. W.

Leburn, Gilmour

Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

Farr, John

Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

Roots, William

Fell, Anthony

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

Fisher, Nigel

Lilley, F. J. P.

Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Lindsay, Martin

Russell, Ronald

Forrest, George

Linstead, Sir Hugh

Scott-Hopkins, James

Foster, John

Litchfield, Capt. John

Seymour, Leslie

Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford & Stone)

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

Sharples, Richard

Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

Shaw, M.

Freeth, Denzil

Longbottom, Charles

Shepherd, William

Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

Longden, Gilbert

Simon, Rt Hon. Sir Jocelyn

Gammans, Lady

Loveys, Walter H.

Skeet, T. H. H.

Gardner, Edward

Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby

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

George, J. C. (Pollok)

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Smithers, Peter

Glover, Sir Douglas

McAdden, Stephen

Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

1198

1199

Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher

Thomas, Peter (Conway)

Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

Spearman, Sir Alexander

Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

Webster, David

Speir, Rupert

Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)

wells, John (Maidstone)

Stanley, Hon. Richard

Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter

Whitelaw, William

Stevens, Geoffrey

Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

Stodart, J. A.

Turner, Colin

Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Storey, Sir Samuel

Tweedsmuir, Lady

Wise, A. R.

Studholme, Sir Henry

van Straubernzee, w. R.

Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

Summers, sir Spencer (Aylesbury)

Vane, W. M. F.

Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard

Sumner, Donald (Orpington)

Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Woodhouse, C. M.

Talbot, John E.

Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

Woodnutt, Mark

Tapsell, Peter

Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

Woollam, John

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

Worsley, Marcus

Taylor, w. J. (Bradford, N.)

Walder, David

Yates, William (The Wrekin)

Teeting, William

Walker, Peter

Temple, John M.

Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

Wall, Patrick

Mr. Finlay and Mr. Gibson-Watt.

Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

Ward, Dame Irene

Original Question again proposed.
Mr. Ray Mawby Mr. Ray Mawby (Totnes) rose—
It being after Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

NATIONAL ASSISTANCE (MR. KENYON)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Chichester-Clark.]
10.10 p.m.
Mr. Leslie Spriggs: I gave notice on 3rd July that I intended at the earliest possible moment to raise the case of Claud Kenyon because of the Parliamentary Secretary's unsatisfactory reply to a Question. The House should first be told something of the case history of this man. It is a history of serious sickness since infancy and a long struggle to obtain National Assistance from the Board.
Claud Kenyon's record from 1946 to 1949 was one of continuous unemployment. From 1949 to 1953, National Assistance was granted. Since 1953, when a tribunal decided that assistance should cease unless the man went to a rehabilitation centre, which he refused to do, no assistance has been received. From 1953 to 1960, his older brother, a registered disabled person, maintained him completely, providing shelter, food and clothing. There was an exception for nine weeks, when the National Assistance Board provided sickness grants amounting to 46s. a week. In December, 1959, Claud Kenyon also received a
1200
footwear grant of £3. With the exception of those amounts, he received nothing for seven years.
In the early part of 1960, I advised this man to apply again for assistance. He did so, but was refused because of his continued refusal to enter a rehabilitation centre. I advised him to appeal. He did so in April, 1960, and the appeal was allowed. Previous decisions were reversed on appeal because of evidence that I put before the tribunal as Kenyon's spokesman. I had travelled overnight to take his case 'because there was no one else to assist him, and I appreciated that this young man was then badly in need of support.
He had Fart-time employment as a caretaker from July, 1954, to December, 1954, earning 20s. a week for 18 weeks. He again applied for National Assistance, but this was refused as it was considered that my constituent was out of full-time employment of his own volition. In 1960, Mr. Kenyon again commenced part-time work as a caretaker. He again applied for assistance, but was again refused. As I have said, he appealed against the decision, and the appeal was allowed. He later applied for a boat allowance, but this was refused because he was receiving 15s. above the subsistence standard.
For several years this young man was maintained by an older brother who, without doubt, was really unable to maintain himself. He is a registered disabled person suffering from stomach ulcers, but because of his knowledge of his younger brother's ill health from infancy he was determined that the boy would not be taken to a rehabilitation centre in his condition. It was because of this determination that he and the

1201
rest of the family did what they could. There are three in the family—two brothers and one sister. The sister is an epileptic, the older brother has ulcers, and the young brother, of whom I am now speaking, has suffered ill health from infancy.
When one looks at this case, one sees that this young man owes hundreds of £s to his elder brother for maintenance alone, Financial crises have been the order of the day in this small family for many years. Can an authority come down to earth in such exceptional cases as these of sickness and poverty? Surely one has a right to expect a more common-sense attitude to be shown in this young man's case. A grant would be welcome to my constituent and his brother would go a long way towards clearing the good name of Claud Kenyon and would see that justice is done in this most worthy case.
It may be that the Parliamentary Secretary does not know the actual circumstances surrounding this young man. This has been going on for so many years before I went to St. Helens that I was determined to get to the bottom of this case. It was, therefore, essential to have a medical report about him.
The following is a letter concerning Claud Kenyon which was written by one of our top specialists in the National Health Service:
"Re: Claude Kenyon, 139, Gladston Street, St. Helens. Thank you for referring Mr. Kenyon, whom I well recall seeing previously in 1953. At that time I considered he had a personality defect, and which reflected itself in many mental and physical symptoms, These are more or less unchanged with the passage of years, and take the form nowadays of restlessness, agitation, defective concentration, palpitations, 'black-outs', sweating attacks, etc. Perhaps most important of all is a deep dread that his heart action will fail entirely. In addition he has a moderate defect of locomotion, due to congenital abnormality of his feet. I think his disability is considerable, and that he is unlikely ever to be able to compete on equal terms with his fellows, either in employment or socially. He is probably fit to perform light work of a non-competitive character, but it is doubtful whether he could maintain reasonable continuity of effort. In my view he is now a sick person, but his disability is unlikely to be materially benefited either by medication or by industrial training and rehabilitation. I think his present part-time work of caretaker at the Society of Friends is appropriate, and more ambitious employment is unlikely to succeed."
1202
It is essential to cast one's mind over that letter and to remember exactly what the specialist says. This matter goes back for years, yet this young man has been struggling to prove his case. He failed year after year until I was able to advise him on the action he should take.
With the help of this specialist—and I am given to understand that the National Assistance Board have accepted this medical report—I wish tonight to appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to do all that she can to alleviate the distress for this family and to remove anything that may be said or inferred against it because this young man has not worked for so many years. I can assure the Parliamentary Secretary that from the first time I saw this man, in early 1959, I was able to see for myself that he was a very sick person. Here is an opportunity without, I am sure, upsetting any previous decisions of tribunals, for the Parliamentary Secretary to help this young man and his family.
10.20 p.m.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Miss Patricia Hornsby-Smith): The hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Spriggs) has spoken very movingly about this case, and I am sorry that I cannot go all the way with him in his argument. He will appreciate that whilst my right hon. Friend has a responsibility for answering Questions in this House concerning the National Assistance Board, that statutory body is a separate and independent entity entirely responsible for its own administrative decisions, in which my right hon. Friend has no power to intervene.
I think in fairness to the normal procedure that we follow in this matter I should say that, as the hon. Member will be aware, in cases such as this we normally endeavour to maintain the anonymity of the applicant. In this case—and it is entirely up to him—the hon. Member has given quite wide publicity to the identity of the applicant, but I am afraid that does not relieve me of my duty to produce the evidence as I know it in support of the Board's action.
The case of Mr. Claude Kenyon has been the subject of interest and sympathetic investigation over very many years. I have read vast files on this

1203
case, and from the records I can say without qualification that the fullest medical advice has been sought at all times by the officers of the National Assistance Board who have made their decisions in the light of that medical evidence.
Mr. Kenyon is 33 years old. For four years, from 1949 to 1953, he was unemployed and, as the hon. Member rightly said, in receipt of a grant from the National Assistance Board. Then the Board's Advisory Committee recommended that he should be refused assistance as he was unemployed of his own volition. At that time the man's own practitioner reported, in a certificate dated 31st July, 1953, that he thought Mr. Kenyon was able to follow a light occupation. The local authority offered him a job which he refused.
The hon. Member will know that, by and large, local authorities are understanding and fair-minded employers. They habitually employ a quota of disabled or partially disabled men, and I am sure they would have been reasonable and understanding had Mr. Kenyon made even an endeavour to accept this employment. Nevertheless he refused. He exercised his right, quite properly, to take his case to appeal, and the appeal tribunal confirmed the Board's decision.
During the period from then till April, 1960, some six years in all, he twice received assistance for about a month, but was otherwise subject to what is known as a direction order under Section 10 of the National Assistance Act, 1948, which covered the periods from May to November, 1954, October, 1956, to April, 1957, October, 1957, to October, 1958, and June, 1959, to April, 1960.
Section 10 empowers the Board to make a report to the local National Assistance appeal tribunal where it appears that an applicant for assistance is refusing or neglecting to maintain himself, and the tribunal may then make a direction enabling the Board's officer to decide that assistance shall be given only in the form of maintenance at a re-establishment centre. The practical effect is that if an applicant without dependants refuses to go to a re-establishment centre, he ceases to receive any form of assistance.
1204
May I say a word about the re-establishment centres? I have spent some hours on more than one occasion visiting our re-establishment centres. I know they are run by enlightened and most sincere men whose only desire is to help these unfortunate men to repair their confidence, skill and physique so that if possible they can stand on their own feet again. I accept that to send a man who has been out of work for many years straight into an ordinary competitive job is asking for trouble. His muscles have gone slack, he has lost the habit of getting up early in the morning or working to a timetable. He may even be physically incapable of plunging into an eight-hour day. Thus, after long illness or unemployment, it is entirely in the interests of the man, if he genuinely desires to strive to maintain himself, that he should at least try to make the experiment of going to a re-establishment centre.
I have myself seen cases of men after long illness, having lost all their confidence, being most sympathetically eased into the routine of employment again. I have seen them in the centres allowed to do, perhaps, only two hours' work on the first day because of their physical weakness and their slack muscles, and thereafter gradually eased into the routine of employment. There may be three hours of work, and gradually the work is extended as they obtain confidence in themselves and their ability returns.
I readily admit that the Board is not successful in every case. There are folk too simple-minded to be regularly employed. There are people whom severe illness or advancing age have put beyond the stage of full rehabilitation. But if that is proven—and it is in the interests of the general body of the community and of the taxpayers in particular that it should be proven—the Board accepts it and such men are thereafter accepted an unemployable. The Board's efforts in rehabilitation are highly successful in a very large number of cases, as its recently published Annual Report demonstrates.
Thus, in his own interests, Mr. Kenyon had everything to gain and nothing to lose by co-operating with the Board and agreeing to go to a re-establishment centre. As it was, he persistently refused over the years. During the periods not

1205
covered by the Section 10 direction, he made several applications for assistance, but, apart from those which resulted in payment for two months, all these applications were refused. They were refused because, although several examinations by the regional medical officers of the Ministry of Health had shown that he was not incapable of some form of work, it appeared that Mr. Kenyon had no intention of seeking employment. Apart from a few months of part-time work as a caretaker in 1955, he did no work at all from 1954 onwards.
The hon. Member has misjudged the result of the recent appeal tribunal. The present assistance grant was put into payment in April, 1960, as a result of an application by Mr. Kenyon to the appeal tribunal, as the hon. Member rightly said, which led to the revocation of the then current Section 10 direction on the ground that, by taking his present part-time job, he had shown evidence of willingness to work, which had not previously been apparent.
The hon. Member's case appears to be that, throughout the period when Mr. Kenyon was without assistance from the Board, he was incapable of work or capable at the very most of limited work, and he had to be supported by his brother. His argument is that, having now recognised and accepted his need of assistance by issuing the present grant, the Board ought to make a lump sum payment of arrears for the period from 1953 to 1960.
With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, this is wrongly to equate two very different sets of circumstances. The Board did not reverse any of their previous decisions. During the earlier period when Mr. Kenyon came under a Section 10 direction, he refused to work and he refused to go to a re-establishment centre. His present part-time job showed his willingness to work, which, therefore, made it reasonable and proper to remove the Section 10 direction.
One of the offers of attendance at a re-establishment centre was made after a special medical examination. Furthermore, Mr. Kenyon was told that there was a doctor at the centre who could arrange for any necessary medical treatment and who could from day to day assess whether he was in fact capable of light employment or not. The fact that
1206
he could be helped by going to the centre where all his requirements would be met was repeatedly made clear by the Board's officer to him and to his brother, but he chose not to take advantage of the offer. The Board cannot be held responsible for his failure to do so.
I believe that the decisions on the other applications made by Mr. Kenyon were appropriate in the light of the knowledge the Board's officer then had of Mr. Kenyon's attitude to work and of the results of examinations by the regional officers of the Ministry of Health. The current grant, which was put into operation in April, 1960, was the result of a decision of the tribunal, but the decision was not retrospective, and the Board itself has no power to revise the earlier decisions of its officer, even if it wished to do so. Again, I say that the current grant is the direct result of Mr. Kenyon, after thirteen years of almost continuous unemployment, at last agreeing to take some light work. It in no way upsets or, in my view, alters the validity of the previous decisions, which is what the hon. Member is seeking to prove.
The consultant physician's letter of 20th December, 1960, which was produced by the hon. Member, in spite of its qualifications, says that Mr. Kenyon is probably fit to perform light work of a non-competitive character. In his letter, the consultant physician refers to his recollection of seeing Mr. Kenyon in 1953. Mr. Kenyon's own doctor gave a certificate at this time, as I have said, that he was fit for light work and also recorded that the consultant physician had certified him as fit.
Mr. Kenyon has also been referred to the divisional medical officer seven times since 1953 for an opinion on incapacity, and on each of the six occasions on which he was examined—once he did not attend—he was found fit to undertake light work. The examinations were carried out by five different doctors so there is no question of only one opinion. Mr. Kenyon has had five separate, authoritative and independent opinions during this period on his medical status. On only two occasions out of the six was the examining doctor the same person.
In September, 1958, the examining doctor said that not only was Mr. Kenyon capable of work but that he would be all the better for it. I know that after many

1207
years one loses confidence and gets slackness of muscle and it seems more and more difficult to go to work, but that is where the value of the re-establishment centre comes in. At these centres, with all the medical advice available, we can genuinely seek to help people who, I quite accept, might, if they plunged back into an ordinary industrial job, be a very bad bet for an employer until they had had the opportunity of re-establishment and of gradually working themselves back into the routine of employment.
In September, 1958, the examining doctor, as I have said, gave it as his opinion that Mr. Kenyon would be all the better for being in some form of employment. Neither the medical report which the hon. Member has produced nor any of the earlier examinations cast doubt on the past treatment of the case, nor do they support the view that Mr. Kenyon has throughout, as the hon. Member seeks to establish, been incapable of work.
The Board has all along sought medical opinion. This has not been the case of an official making a decision on his own. At every stage over the years this man has been medically examined, and the Board has had the advice of highly skilled and competent medical officers of the Ministry of Health. Officials of the Board have shown their willingness to be guided by medical advice through their readiness to accept the consultant physician's opinion in December, 1960, that Mr. Kenyon is now capable only of his present part-time job. They cannot, however, accept, as the hon. Member invites them to do, that Mr. Kenyon has throughout been incapable of work.
All the evidence available between 1953 and 1960 shows that although he was fit for some kind of work he had no intention of taking a job. Nor would he take re-establishment and rehabilitation. During the period under dispute he refused a job with a local hospital on the flimsy excuse that he was too intelligent for it. In 1959, a member of the National Assistance Appeal Tribunal made a special personal effort to get him a light job in an industrial concern. This he refused.
This man's case has been fully and exhaustively considered, not only by the
1208
Board's officers but, on appeal, by the independent tribunal and by numerous competent medical authorities. The decision of the tribunal was, of course, binding on the Board. Every endeavour has been made to help him, without success. He has refused work and reestablishment training, and has been wholly unto-operative with those who have genuinely sought to help him.
I can only confirm that, in my view, the Board has acted with great patience and understanding of this most difficult case, and that there are no grounds whatever for its taking—nor has it power to take—action other than that which it has done.
10.35 p.m.
Mr. Eric Fletcher: I can only say, having listened to this debate, that I regard the Minister's reply as wholly unsatisfactory. Why the right hon. Lady should think it her duty always on occasions of this kind to whitewash the National Assistance Board I cannot understand. I listened to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens (Mr. Spriggs) and to her reply, and it seemed obvious after listening to those speeches that this man has made every effort to do some work.
Miss Hornsby-Smith: With great respect, this man has not been employed for eleven years. I cannot accept the the statement of the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher).
Mr. Fletcher: He has taken a job as a part-time caretaker. When my hon. Friend takes the trouble to investigate a case of this kind where there has been manifest hardship, a man has obviously tried to do something and his own family has been put to great expense—and they are persons who are epileptic—why the Minister should adopt this bureaucratic attitude and always try to defend the National Assistance Board I do not know. Why she cannot exercise a little humanity and investigate the case I cannot understand. I have no doubt that generally the National Assistance Board does a great job, but on occasion it can make mistakes, and hon. Members do not take the trouble to investigate individual cases as my hon. Friend has done unless there is some real substance and justification for doing so.

1209
What disappoints me is that over and over again when hon. Members take the pains to investigate cases of real hardship—we do not bring them to the House otherwise—we always get this bureaucratic attitude from the Minister saying that everything the Board has done is right. This man has appealed against decisions over and over again and on occasion appeals have been upheld. I hope the Minister will reconsider what I regard as a most unworthy speech which has shown no indication of sympathy for this man. There may be psychological and other factors which have quite justified him in refusing to go to a rehabilitation centre. We cannot put all these people into one category and generalise about them as the Minister has done. We have to treat them as human beings.
When we bring these cases to the House we are entitled to have a more sympathetic and humane reply than we have had tonight. I am most disappointed. I hope that, in view of what my hon. Friend hats said, the matter will not be allowed to rest there, but that the Minister will take the trouble to lead what my hon. Friend said and investigate it to see if something cannot be done to relieve this man and his family from the great hardship they have suffered.
Miss Hornsby-Smith: With great respect, I really cannot allow the hon. Member to get away—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Lady cannot speak again except with the leave of the House as she has already spoken once.
Miss Hornsby-Smith: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and the leave of the House, I should like to reply to what I consider to be a most unwarranted accusation against the National Assistance Board. This case has gone to an independent tribunal time and time again, and the decisions of those independent statutory authorities the Board has to accept. This man has been repeatedly examined by independent medical officers who are not members of the staff of the National Assistance Board.
I regret very much that the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher), with the experience he has, should have made such an unwarranted attack on the Board, which throughout has done its best to help this man and has carried out it statutory duties and the findings of independent statutory authorities which have investigated this case.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes to Eleven o'clock.

SCIENCE
  Civil Engineering
  Civil Engineering
  International Research Organisation (U.K. Participation)
  International Research Organisation (U.K. Participation)
  Staff
  Staff
  Science Graduates
  Science Graduates
  Inter-Departmental Scientific Panel
  Inter-Departmental Scientific Panel
  Mathematics (Teaching)
  Mathematics (Teaching)
  Cancer
  Cancer
  Atomic Energy
  Atomic Energy
  Road Injuries Research Group
  Road Injuries Research Group
  Research Council (Natural Resources)
  Research Council (Natural Resources)
  High Temperature Materials
  High Temperature Materials
MINISTRY OF WORKS
  Industrial Monuments
  Industrial Monuments
  Empress State Building
  Empress State Building
  Battle Abbey
  Battle Abbey
  Tourists (Guide Books)
  Tourists (Guide Books)
  Horse Guards Parade (Car Parking)
  Horse Guards Parade (Car Parking)
  Regent's Park (Pavilion)
  Regent's Park (Pavilion)
  Government Expenditure
  Government Expenditure
  Roman Wall (Black Carts and Great Chesters)
  Roman Wall (Black Carts and Great Chesters)
  Ancient Monuments
  Ancient Monuments
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Advertisements (Motor Vehicles)
  Advertisements (Motor Vehicles)
  Local Taxation
  Local Taxation
  Planning Scheme, Easington
  Planning Scheme, Easington
  Splott, Cardiff (Dust Nuisance)
  Splott, Cardiff (Dust Nuisance)
  Oxford Roads Inquiry
  Oxford Roads Inquiry
HOUSING
  Knottingley
  Knottingley
SCOTLAND
  Scottish Fishing Vessel (Claim)
  Scottish Fishing Vessel (Claim)
  Foreign Trawlers
  Foreign Trawlers
  Rating Valuation
  Rating Valuation
  Medical Laboratory Technicians
  Medical Laboratory Technicians
  New Hospital, Dundee
  New Hospital, Dundee
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Nationalised Industries (Exchequer Advances)
  Nationalised Industries (Exchequer Advances)
  £ Sterling (Value)
  £ Sterling (Value)
  Provincial Theatres (Assistance)
  Provincial Theatres (Assistance)
  Civil Service (Scientific Officers)
  Civil Service (Scientific Officers)
  Sociologists
  Sociologists
  Duties (Surcharge)
  Duties (Surcharge)
  Development Commission
  Development Commission
  School Building Programme
  School Building Programme
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Tourist Trade
  Tourist Trade
  Computing Machines
  Computing Machines
  Vending Machines
  Vending Machines
  Industrial Development Certificates
  Industrial Development Certificates
  Common Market (Films)
  Common Market (Films)
HOSPITALS
  Dressings
  Dressings
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Prescriptions
  Prescriptions
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Fire Service (Whitley Council Award)
  Fire Service (Whitley Council Award)
  Prison Service (Governors and Commissioners)
  Prison Service (Governors and Commissioners)
POST OFFICE
  Satellite Communications
  Satellite Communications
COAL
  Coal Technology
  Coal Technology
  Imports (United States)
  Imports (United States)
EDUCATION
  Technical Education
  Technical Education
  Nursery Schools, Wales
  Nursery Schools, Wales
  Somerset
  Somerset
MINISTRY OF AVIATION
  Space Research
  Space Research
  Satellite Launching Ranges
  Satellite Launching Ranges
ROYAL NAVY
  Oceanography
  Oceanography
KENYA
  Kikuyu (Land)
  Kikuyu (Land)
BRITISH ARMY
  Releases by Purchase
  Releases by Purchase
EMPLOYMENT
  Ionising Radiations (Sealed Sources) Regulations
  Ionising Radiations (Sealed Sources) Regulations

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

LEGAL EDUCATION
2.35 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask Her Majesty's Government the 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 criticism of the Inns of Court made by the Attorney General, they will take steps to establish a common system of legal education that would facilitate interchange between barristers and solicitors.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have no responsibility for legal education in England but I know that considerable work has been done by the Bar Council, the Law Society and the Council of Legal Education on the subject of a common system of legal education and I hope that that work will soon come to fruition. I am sure that this matter is better left to the two branches of the legal profession to deal with.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, while being moderately thankful for that Answer, may I ask the noble and learned Viscount whether his attention has been drawn to the recent Presidential address of the President of the Law Society, in which he advocated a common system of legal education, and whether he has also considered the criticisms of his right honourable and learned friend in another place, who has stated that the Inns of Court will not get on with the necessary work in this sphere and that nothing is being done by them? In these circumstances, is it not time that the Government took some action in this field?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the answer to the first part of the noble Lord's question is, yes; and I have considered the suggestions with great interest. Secondly, I am sure that the Inns will carefully consider the remarks made by my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney General, but I should point out to the noble Lord that my right honourable and learned friend was speaking as head of the Bar and not in his ministerial capacity. The answer to the third point is, as I said, that I still have great hopes of progress being made, and although, as I said further, it is no business of mine, if anyone wishes my help, it is at his service.

CONTROL OF PAKISTANI IMMIGRANTS
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: 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 what steps they propose to take to prevent the agreement with Pakistan on immigrants from being circumvented by Pakistani nationals, who leave Pakistan—without complying with the terms of the agreement—by declaring themselves pilgrims to Mecca and who arrange with Pakistanis, already living in Britain, to book air tickets for them from airports in the Near East—outside Pakistan—onwards to London.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, no formal agreement exists. The controls on the movement of migrants from Pakistan to this country were imposed by the Pakistan Government, and any evasions are therefore entirely a matter for them. Where circumventions of these controls come to our notice we bring them to the attention of the Pakistan authorities.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Duke for his reply, the last sentence of which has already, I am afraid, answered the supplementary question I intended to ask.
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE: My Lords, in view of the great shortage of

513
housing which was disclosed on the Second Reading of the Housing Bill last week, will Her Majesty's Government give preference to the comfort of the overcrowded 'ratepayers of this country; and will they now come to a decision to impose a temporary quota on migrants which, from India and Pakistan, number 6,000 in each case for the first five months of this year?
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, with respect to my noble friend, I think I am justified in saying that that is an entirely different subject. I can, however, say that the matter of immigration is under consideration by Her Majesty's Government.

PRICES OF FAT CATTLE
2.40 p.m.
LORD ALLERTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the reason for the low market price of fat cattle which results in a subsidy of over £3 per cwt., and whether they are satisfied that imports of meat have not been excessive.]
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, present low prices are the result of a combination of factors. For several weeks now, substantially more cattle have been marketed than is usual at this time of year. Some came forward unusually early because of the forward grass season, but more recently shortage of keep has also brought unusual numbers to the market. It is also possible that some farmers may have been misguidedly attracted by the high rate of guarantee payment to market their stock prematurely. As might be expected in these conditions, quality has not always been of the best. Coinciding with all this, the spells of tine weather we have been enjoying seem to have turned interest away from beef, particularly from the least choice cuts, towards other meats and poultry, supplies of which are plentiful. Imports of meat so far this year are lower than last and cannot be regarded as excessive.
LORD ALLERTON: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer, but may I ask him what proportion of
514
the subsidy now paid is being passed on to the consumer?
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I am not quite sure that I am clear as to the point my noble friend is trying to make. Is he referring to the retail prices?
LORD ALLERTON: Yes.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, there are no precise figures of retail prices, but I understand that there have been reductions over recent weeks, particularly in the prices of the cheaper cuts. We hope that butchers will keep in mind the desirability of stimulating demand for beef, and this is one of the points that my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food raised when he met representatives of this trade a few days ago.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, does this not seem to point to the fact that, if you want to continue what was intended to be not only the maintenance of beef production but also a cushion for the consumer, there should be a proper control of prices right through?—because it is quite certain that the difference between, say, 180s. and 115s. in the market is not being passed on in that proportion to the consumer.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, it is true that the low market price has not been reflected in a similar reduction in the retail price but, as I am sure the noble Viscount knows, these things do not always follow at the same time. Of course, the butchers continue to have their overheads, and they average out prices over their various products. As for the other suggestion the noble Viscount made about control (I think he was suggesting that one should control retail prices as well) that, of course, is a matter of Government policy, on which he will not expect me to comment.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, arising out of the previous questions, would it not be possible for the noble Lord to recommend that consideration be given to the possibility of some supplementary publicity or information which would give some greater reassurance to the public that the high cost of subsidy to the Exchequer now really does in some way get tied in with prices to consumers? Some of us who are farmers are much

515
alarmed at the high subsidy that we obtain for cattle which does not seem to be coming through to the retailer. It would be helpful if the noble Lord could give consideration to some kind of supplementary publicity.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his supplementary. Of course, there is anxiety among some farmers that the subsidy seems to be running too high—that is to say, it represents too large a proportion of the total price—but I think it is too early to say at this stage how the total subsidy will work out at the end of the year. This is generally believed to be an exceptional case, due, as I pointed out in my original Answer, to the flush of grass, in the first place, followed by a prolonged drought, resulting suddenly in a shortage of keep in the second place, with the added influx of cattle to the market which would not normally have been expected. It is thought that this condition is purely temporary.
As for the noble Lord's suggestion, I am sure that my right honourable friend the Minister will pay special attention to his remarks. I have no doubt that they will be read by the organisations which represent the butchers and the retail trade, and I have no doubt that the purport of his remarks will not fall on deaf ears.

HISTORIC HOUSES
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: 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 what progress they have made in compiling or approving lists of buildings 'of special architectural or historic interest, and when they expect that 'this work will be completed.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, in England and Wales the Minister of Housing and Local Government had by June 30, 1961, issued statutory lists for 978 out of the 1,474 local authority areas. A further 256 local authority areas had been partly listed. If the present rate of progress is maintained the work of survey for
516
listing will take a further five years, and it will be some time thereafter before the issue of the statutory lists is completed. In Scotland, only limited progress has been possible with statutory listing because of the very considerable search work in connection with titles for purposes of the necessary recording in the Register of Sasines, but about two-thirds of the country has been covered by provisional lists. I am sending my noble friend a copy of a recent circular which sets out the position in Scotland.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, are the Government aware that, in the 'opinion of many official bodies, the present staff coping with the provisional lists appears to be far too inadequate? Would the Government consider increasing the staff for this purpose?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I would certainly agree with my noble friend that one of the reasons for the delay in this matter has been the shortage of clerical and other staff, in particular clerical staff. But, of course, there is a global shortage of clerical staff, and there are many other competing priorities. However, I will, of course, take note of what my noble friend has said.
THE EARL OF HADDINGTON: My Lords, is it not a fact that there are several bodies responsible for carrying out this work? There are the Ancient Monuments Board, the Royal Commission and, I think, the local authorities. Is the noble Earl satisfied that the work is more expeditiously carried out in this way than it would be if it were carried out by one authority?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I think the question of trying to centralise this whole process is under study within the Government at the present time, and I do not think I can go further than that in my answer to my noble friend.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, it has been arranged through the usual channels that if we have not completed the Committee stage of the Licensing Bill by 10 o'clock, it will be adjourned until Thursday evening. It will also be necessary to adjourn for dinner this evening, and I suggest that the time of the adjournment be fixed nearer to the dinner hour.
BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed and returned to the Commons.
MIDDLESEX COUNTY COUNCIL BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed and returned to the Commons.
EYEMOUTH HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered on Report (according to Order).
ARMY AND AIR FORCE BILL
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

BARRISTERS (QUALIFICATION FOR OFFICE) BILL
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 13), Bill read 3a and passed.

NORTH ATLANTIC SHIPPING BILL
2.51 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 [Power to make advances for construction of vessel]:
(3) If interest on any sums advanced by way of loan under this section is at a rate exceeding four and a half per cent. Per annum, the Minister and the Company may, notwithstanding subsection (2) of this section, agree on terms which provide for a part of any sums advanced under subsection (1) of this section being by way of grant (instead of by way of loan) but which in the opinion of the Minister do no more for the Company than place them in a position which is, within a reasonable degree of approximation, equivalent to the position in
518
which the Company would have been if every part of the sums advanced under subsection (1) of this section had been by way of loan, but had carried interest at the rate of four and a half per cent per annum.
(5) A copy of any agreement between the Minister and the Company regarding the making of advances for the purposes mentioned in subsection (1) of this section shall be laid before each House of Parliament.
LORD LATHAM LORD LATHAM moved to add to subsection (1):
"Provided that no part of any advance or grant made under this section shall be used for any purpose other than the construction of a large vessel for the North Atlantic shipping trade."
The noble Lord said: The Amendment which I rise to move does not concern the unwisdom of replacing the "Queen Mary," a view which is held, as is known, by a very significant number of informed parsons; and, according to reports in the Press, it would seem that there is a very significant number of shareholders of the Cunard Company who are equally opposed to this proposal. The purpose of the Bill is to authorise the advance of money to the Cunard Company; in short, to subsidise what is mistakenly called free enterprise. The purpose of this Amendment is to ensure that none of the Government money is used to undermine Government enterprise—namely, to undermine and to compete with B.O.A.C.
The Chandos Committee, whose Report we have not been permitted to see, stated that the Cunard Company could not find the £30 million out of its own resources; that it could find only £12 million; and that is why the Bill proposes that the Government should advance £18 million. The statement of the Chandos Committee may have been correct at the time when it was written, but subsequent events have disclosed that it is not wholly accurate, because the Cunard Company could find an extra £6 million, which they have diverted, or propose to divert, to the Cunard Eagle Airways Company, a company which proposes to compete with B.O.A.C. In short, this subsidiary company of the Cunard Company proposes to purloin a large share, or a large element, of the goodwill of B.O.A.C. and to pay nothing for it, a goodwill which has been built up by State money, State assistance and State guidance. Really this is something in the nature of plundering the nation's

519
patrimony. Even in the worst kind of take-over goodwill is wholly or partially paid for, whereas this proposed competition with B.O.A.C. is to be free. My Lords, this is the fine flower of Tory free enterprise: the handing over of State assets free to private enterprise as soon as they become profitable, rather than competition by free enterprise, is regarded as a virtue, whereas it is nothing of the kind; it is an operation and an exercise in purloining.
The company which is formed or is to be formed, to be known as the Q 3 Company, will be a subsidiary, wholly owned, as I gather, of the Cunard-White Star Company, and Eagle Airways will also be a subsidiary. Whether it will be a wholly-owned subsidiary I do not know, but it is not material for my point. However, it is the case that the Cunard Company, who are to be the guarantors of this advance of £18 million, could divert, temporarily or otherwise, some of the money put up by the Government to purposes which would really be giving assistance to the Eagle Airways enterprise. It would really be a Gilbertian situation that the Government's money should be used, directly or indirectly, in order to damage a Government undertaking, namely, B.O.A.C., and this Amendment is put down in order to make doubly sure that none of this money is in any way used to assist, bolster up or sharpen, the competition or the activities of the Eagle Airways. It seems to me that if, in good faith, this money is to be used only for the purposes provided in the Bill, the Minister will find himself able, indeed may well be a little anxious, to accept my Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 11, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Latham.)
3.0 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM): When I first saw the Amendment which the noble Lord has put down and which he has just moved, I thought it was a rather innocuous one. Then I thought a little more, and I concluded, from its somewhat strange drafting and its content, that he must have intended it as some kind of peg upon which to hang a hat;
520
and indeed it has proved to be so. May I, for a moment, deal with the Amendment itself as such? It is, of course, completely redundant. What the noble Lord wants is already stated in the Bill, and if your Lordships would refer to Clause 1, subsection (1), you will see that the last few lines make that quite clear.
Therefore, I think I must turn for a moment to the noble Lord and the hat which he has hung on this peg, and deal with the first point regarding aviation. I dealt, I thought at some length and I hoped with some degree of clarity, with this matter on Second Reading. I cannot recall off-hand whether the noble Lord opposite heard it or not, or perhaps he subsequently read it in Hansard, but I am quite happy, since he has brought the point up, to deal with the matter again. I said at the time that I thought his argument was quite misconceived, and I went to some further length to explain that there was really no connection between the aviation enterprise and the purchase of Boeing Aircraft to use in connection with it, because, so far as raising the funds was concerned, it was quite separate. I said at the time that Cunard had raised this money on the security of some of their property in the United States. I said at the time that your Lordships could ask why this could not be used for the building of the new "Queen", and I answered that it was a totally different proposition. I drew your Lordships' attention to the fact, as the noble Lord has done to-day, that the Chandos Committee had accepted that £12 million was the maximum amount that Cunard could be expected to find, and the Government had accepted it, too.
LORD LATHAM: Would the noble Lord say whether at that time Cunard had decided to enter into the aviation field and needed the £6 million?
LORD CHESHAM: Yes, I can say that quite easily. They had, at the time, revealed the fact quite openly and honestly to the Chandos Committee, and the Government also knew of it at the time they decided to accept this recommendation. I was going to come to that.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS BOROUGH: Could I ask what the properties were in America upon which the

521
money was raised for Cunard's own purposes? Was it on the shipping properties of the Cunard Company?
LORD CHESHAM: I have been informed that it was land property which they owned in America.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Held by a shipping company. It was obtained on the shipping properties. I thought that if they wanted to develop the shipping line they would do it, like the P. & O., out of their own resources, instead of coming, for public money.
LORD CHESHAM: I do not think I want to go over all my Second Reading argument again, but I would say this: the point is that raising money for these aircraft is a totally different operation from raising it for a ship They have applied those assets they have in America.
LORD LATHAM: That means, the noble Earl will admit, that there will be £6 million less assets available to support the guarantee of the Cunard Company.
LORD CHESHAM: No, I do not mean that. May I go on to make my point? I had already explained on Second Reading—I am sorry to go over this again, but I must do it in view of the arguments that have been put forward—that nobody has ever said that Cunard were unable to raise £30 million. What has been said, to the satisfaction of the Chandos Committee and of the Government, was that £ million was the most they could raise for the purpose of replacing a "Queen"— a slightly different matter. I will go on to make the point, if I may, and that is that raising money for aircraft is a very different matter from raising it for a "Queen". The reason for that is that the aircraft pay for themselves very much more quickly, and that in the event of their not proving successful it is possible to sell them, because they are widely used on services all over the world. Therefore, to raise the equivalent amount of money for a ship would require much wider collateral and there would be no scope for selling the ship if the need arose.
LORD LATHAM: Is it not a fact that in the summary of the Chandos Committee's Report, published on June 1, 1960, in the OFFICIAL REPORT of the other place Vol. 624, column 1441, it says:
"Since Cunard have available only £12 million from their own resources to invest in the project, the Government would have to provide the remainder of the capital cost."
That is precisely 'what I said.
LORD CHESHAM: And it is precisely what I say. The operative words are: "to invest in the project". Nobody has ever tried to hide that it has been said right from the word go that that was the amount they had to invest in the project. This aircraft project has arisen purely and simply on the strength of Cunard's property in America.
The noble Lord said that it was wrong that they should invest this money in aircraft and compete with B.O.A.C. I can say nothing about that. Developments have gone further than on Second Reading, when I spoke. It is known that Cunards have applied for rights on this traffic route. I said then that I could not say much because it was still subject to a possible appeal by B.O.A.C. Today I can say even less, because B.O.A.C. have appealed, and therefore the matter becomes, so far as I am concerned at any rate, sub judice, and I can say no more than that. It seems to me that 'the noble Lord has rather missed the point of this, in that if this ship is not built, Cunard, far from getting large presents from the Government with which to acquire aircraft, will not build the ship and will therefore presumably have, if they wish to employ it in that way, £12 million to put into their aircraft. I should have thought that was a point the noble Lord should have taken with some force. Therefore, these things, as I have tried to show, cannot be connected together.
I would refer to paragraph 6 of the White Paper, which is to re-emerge as a formal agreement with the company, where it says that Cunard are not to call for contributions from Her Majesty's Government except as required to meet the commitments of the Q.3 Company in connection with the building of the ship. I do not think that that leaves me with any other option than to hope that

523
the noble Lord will not press this Amendment, and that if he does your Lordships will reject it.
3.10 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: I find this matter more and more curious to understand as it unfolds. We are now told that the Cunard Company could, if they had wished, have provided this sum of £18 million from their own resources. No doubt that is the case. We do not dispute that. What we are disputing is that the Government should produce £18 million out of their resources. The noble Lord, Lord Chesham, has told us that the company were able to provide a large sum for the purchase of aircraft by mortgaging their assets in America. They could have mortgaged them just the same for the purchase, or to go towards the building, of a steamship or a large vessel of this kind. A person who lends money on mortgage is not particularly interested in whether the person who borrows it is going to build a ship. Why should he be? If a person has a piece of Fifth Avenue and he goes to a mortgage company, all the person at the mortgage company looks at is the value of it—it is the land and the security that he is looking at.
I think there is a good deal in what the noble Lord, Lord Latham says. We have built up these two Corporations at enormous expense to the taxpayer, with an enormous amount of trouble and work on the part of those who have served in the two Corporations throughout the years. Unlike most nationalised industries, they are subject to fierce competition because, in the main, certainly so far as B.O.A.C. are concerned, their operations are outside the country. They have to face competition from other operators. Quite frankly, if any substantial inroad is made into the cream of the traffic they will not be able to make their operations pay. We have to face that fact.
I do not care whether the matter is sub judice or not. We use the phrase "sub judice" for all sorts of things that are not sub judice at all. But whether it is or not, I do not care. But, having been into this carefully throughout the years, and knowing the history of civil aviation, I warn your Lordships that the Corporations will not be able to make ends meet if the cream of the traffic is taken away from them, either on the Atlantic route
524
or on the other routes. That is the only part of the operations that most of these independent transport operators want. They do not want the parts that do not pay; they want the parts that do pay—and they only want them, as a rule, at the peak of the season. The two Corporations have to run their operations all through the year; they have to run on low load factors at certain times of the year. They provide a service.
Whilst I am all in favour of competition—I am very much for competition, and I wish that we had more competition, both in the nationalised industries and also in the private sector, where there seems to be far less competition than even we thought—one must remember that when you are dealing with these airlines you are dealing with a special case, and that up to now the history of civil aviation has been that Britain has never been able to put more than one major line on any route. When more has been attempted it has soon proved to be not profitable, and one or other of those particular airlines has had to cease business.
Those are the facts and, as the subject has been raised on this Amendment, I think it ought to be known that those are the facts. What we are doing in this Bill, it seems to me, is to deal a crippling blow to B.O.A.C.; and by enabling the Cunard Company to have the taxpayers' money to finance their ship, as the noble Lord, Lord Latham, so rightly said, we are freeing their assets in the United States for them to buy aircraft. I would suggest a quite simple way out of this. In view of Mr. Selwyn Lloyd's speech at Hawarden Castle on Saturday, and the serious economic position that he states the country to be in—and we have no reason to believe that he is not absolutely right—I am going to suggest a way in which the Government can help Mr. Selwyn Lloyd to save £18 million of the taxpayers' money. It will help him to the extent that he will have to find £18 million less than he would otherwise. I suggest that the Government withdraw this Bill.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: I should like to point out that we have been talking about £18 million. In actual fact it is only £,3¼ million. The other money is on loan at an extremely high rate of interest. It is completely guaranteed by Cunard's

525
assets; there is no danger of any loss by the Government. It is inaccurate to talk about a subsidy of £18 million; it is a subsidy of £3¼ million. As we heard in the Second Reading debate, the North Atlantic express sea service has always been a subsidised service. We hear how the American Government have subsidised the cost of building their new ship at 58 per cent. and are giving a 28 per cent. subsidy towards operating cost; the Dutch with a 40 per cent. subsidy of the capital cost, and the French with 20 per cent. subsidy. Are we, the greatest maritime Power in the world, going to be driven off the North Atlantic? We also heard in the Second Reading debate of the dollars that these "Queens" earn—20 million dollars a year, in hard currency. Is that not something? If this country is coming to economic difficulties, as it appears to be, I feel that this is the kind of endeavour we ought to support. We want to support something that is going to redress our balance of payments. I honestly cannot support this Amendment. I think it is nonsense. It is, as my noble friend said, completely redundant.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
3.18 p.m.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "four and a half" and insert "five and three-quarters". The noble Lord said: I think it might be convenient, if your Lordships agree, that Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 should be spoken to as one, because they are linked. I should like to say that, although I was not present during the Second Reading of this Bill, I have read the Report of the debate. It is quite obvious that the Bill had a somewhat lukewarm reception in this House—a fate no worse than it had in another place, because it did not appear there to be welcomed by many people with open arms. Since it was introduced in another place, circumstances, economic and financial, have changed. At least, our attention is being drawn to a circumstance which is now claimed to have changed, though many people have thought it was there all along. What has been said in another place to-day, and what is to be said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer next Tuesday, will surely emphasise that position.
But, as I have said, I read what the Ministers had to say on Second Reading, and there appears to be a certain inconsistency between the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, and those made by the noble Lord, Lord Mills. I apologise for drawing attention to something so ordinary as Government inconsistency. In the debate last Monday, July 10, the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 233 (No. 106), col. 7]:
"From the depth of their own very long experience, the Cunard Company believe that the service would continue to be a commercial proposition even after the retirement of these ships, but they could not find themselves able to provide enough capital from their own resources to replace them with new ships of the same class at current high shipbuilding costs."
Later (col. 11) he said:
"The split between loan and grant will be so calculated as to be equal in value to a loan of the same total sum at 4½ per cent. The only purpose of this change is to make clear the amount of subsidy involved, because we think it right for this to be seen clearly for what it is. It has been provisionally calculated at £3¼ million."
But then in column 46 we see that the noble Lord, Lord Mills, stated:
" But the Committee under Lord Chandos who looked into this matter said it would be unwise for the company … to attempt to commit themselves to paying more than 4½ per cent. for the large sum of money which had to be borrowed."
The first statement of Lord Chesham indicates that the only difficulty was the need to raise the capital from the company's own resources; that some of it had to come from outside. The second indicates an expectation of profitability great enough to pay a 7½ per cent. dividend, if a dividend were to be disbursed, but at least a 7½ per cent. profit, and to repay a 25-year loan in something like 10 to 15 years. The third indicates an inability to pay, rather than an inability to raise capital. Fortunately for Lord Chesham, the noble Lord, Lord Mills, proceeded in the next part of that statement to agree with him, because he went on to say (col. 46):
"The Chandos Committee said that they thought the company would get through all right if they could borrow this very large sum of money at 4½ per cent."
I must say that I agree with that statement of the Chandos Committee and its quotation by the noble Lord, Lord Mills. I think the company will be all right if

527
it gets the equivalent of £18 million at 4½ per cent. Who would not be in these days?
But what of the general public, the taxpayers? The Government propose to charge the current Public Works Loan Board rate for a 25-year loan. In the White Paper that is referred to as 6¼ per cent., but the Government have moved in these matters since then. The current rate, as from last week, is 6½ per cent. But they further propose that the sum lent should be limited to the amount which, at current rates, would require the same annual repayment as £18 million lent at 4½ per cent. Eighteen million pounds at 6½ per cent. requires £1,475,000. In the figures I am going to quote there are a number of odd hundreds of pounds, but for simplicity I will ignore them. But these figures have been calculated and checked. Eighteen million pounds at 6½ per cent. requires £1,475,000; at 4½ per cent. It requires £1,213,000. The sum which would be serviced at 6½ per cent. By this lower annual payment is £14,867,000. The difference between these two capital sums is £3,192,000, which would be the amount of the cash grant stated in the Paper at approximately £3¼ million. In explaining that policy the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, said (col. 11)—and I am repeating the remarks he made because I think it is worth while repeating them:
"The only purpose of this change is to make clear the amount of subsidy involved."
I venture to suggest that the method proposed by the Government, far from making it clear, most effectively conceals how much of the public resources are being handed over to the Cunard Company.
The difference between a loan of £18 million at 6½ per cent. and at 4½ per cent. requires an annual charge of £261,000. Over 25 years this totals £6½ million, and that is the real, effective subsidy which is being given to Cunard from public funds—an interest-free grant of £3¼ million which would have required, at current rates, £61 million to repay. It does not need much of a calculation to see what that is, represented as a percentage of the capital cost of the ship.
But the Government go further than that. They propose, in the agreement which was tabled as a White Paper, to
528
allow the Cunard Company to earn 7½ per cent. of their equity, and to provide, in addition, for depreciation of the ship before there can be any accelerated repayment of the public loan. Twelve million pounds at 7½ per cent. over a 25-year annuity requires £1,076,000 a year. When this is added to the sum the Government require to service their £18 million loan at 4½ per cent., the total amount is £2,290,000. This is the sum which, on the Government statement, the new ship can be expected to carry; and in the first ten to fifteen years, if we are to believe the Government, it will carry a great deal more, because it is going to repay the whole of the loan in that period.
In passing, it is interesting to note that the shareholders will receive more, a greater cash sum, each year of their £12 million than the taxpayers will receive of their £18 million. It seems to me that this is a proposal which would be difficult to justify if the national position were in every way sound.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, the shareholders are the taxpayers. A great deal of that goes back to the Government from the shareholders.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, the noble Viscount speaks more correctly than he knows. The public are shareholders in the Cunard Company to a limited extent. The Government hold one £20 share in the Company. That is the only extent to which the public are shareholders in Cunard. If the suggestion the noble Viscount is making is that it is good policy to hand over 100 per cent. in the expectation that you will get back 7s. 9d. in the pound, that seems to me to be even more of the economics of the madhouse than is customarily expressed in these times of so-called crisis. It would be difficult to justify this proposal if times were good; but to continue to put it forward in present circumstances seems to me to be nothing short of iniquitous.
A capital sum of £30 million requires for servicing over 30 years at 5¾ per cent. (which is the figure suggested in the Amendments) a sum of £2,291,000, which is the same to within £1,000 as the aggregate amount required under the Government's proposals. It is for that reason, and that reason alone, that the figure of 5¾ per cent. is put in to replace the figure of 4½ per cent. It is put in because it

529
does not increase the total financial burden which the ship is required to carry. If it is a proper total under the Government's proposals, it remains the same proper total under the Amendments. What is done is that the burden is shared 'proportionately between the contributions of the shareholders and those of the taxpayers.
This is still a generous deal for the Cunard Company—more, perhaps, than many people would say is justified. But the Amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Latham and myself are deliberately restricted to keep the matter within the financial structure of the framework of the Bill. We do not wish the Government to hide off, as they did on another occasion quite recently, by arguing that to pass this Amendment would be to make the Bill unworkable. The Bill, boy the Government's own financial reasoning, would be as workable with the Amendments as in its original state.
But my noble friend Lord Latham and I are not seeking in these Amendments to commit your Lordships to the principle that there should be no subsidy to the Cunard Company. We are even prepared to keep within the framework of the Bill to that extent. Because, after all, the loan at the rate we suggest, 5¾ per cent., would require an annual servicing charge of £1,374,000, which is almost £101,000 less than the 61 per cent. rate would require; and it would be sufficient to servlice a sum of £1,230,000 for 25 years at 6½ per cent. It is for that reason, and that reason alone, that Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 propose to substitute the figure of £1½ million for the figure of £3¾ million. The cash grant is equal, with interest, to a real subsidy to the Cunard Company of £101,000 a year for 25 years—a total sum of £2,521,000 being paid to them from the public pocket. If I might repeat what the noble Lord, Lord Mills, quoted from the Chandos Report, the company will still be doing all right.
The present dividend on Cunard's shares is 6 per cent. per annum. Their £1 shares were quoted last night at a middle price of 15s. I can see in these figures no justification Whatever for guaranteeing to the shareholders of Cunard for the next 25 years a dividend of 7½ per cent. on the £12 million which they propose to invest in this new Q.3.
530
It is even more difficult to justify in present circumstances, because he would be a bold man who would predict that the outcome of the events through which we are going just now will be to guarantee that over the next quarter of a century the money policies which animate the present Government will be perpetuated—and it is only a continuation of these circumstances which could begin to justify what is the equivalent of a guaranteed 7½ per cent. dividend for the shareholders.
I have one final proposal to put forward, and this has nothing to do with what is in the Amendments, other than by direct consequence. We appreciate that if the Amendments are carried the agreement with the Cunard Company will have to be rewritten. The present agreement allows the Company to keep earnings up to 7½ per cent. on their equity, and it is only after they have received that, plus various other sums—depreciation and the like, including the nice little titbit thrown in, that the money is not to be compounded until the ship actually sails: and I may say here that some of the nationalised undertakings would be very appreciative of getting their interest not compounded until a scheme was completed—and after the 7½ per cent. had been retained, that the accelerated repayment of the loan may take place. I think it would be equitable if, in the proposed agreement, the figure of 5¾ per cent. were substituted for the figure of 7½ per cent. presently in the agreement. I should not be averse, and I do not think my colleagues would be averse, to any surplus that existed after that being divided proportionately between the taxpayers and the shareholders: three-fifths of anything after 5¾ per cent., shall we say, going towards the accelerated repayment of the loan, and two-fifths being permitted to remain with the company to do with as they please, either to retain within their resources to buy more aeroplanes to compete with B.O.A.C. or to distribute in dividends to their shareholders.
To sum up, the effects of the Amendments will be that the shareholders, like the taxpayers, will receive an initial rate of interest of 5¾ per cent., requiring, as I have said, the same total annual sum as the Bill requires at present. The cash grant, the gift, will be £1¼ million,

531
with an ultimate value of £2½ million, instead of a gift of £3¼ million with an ultimate value of £6½ million. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 18, leave out ("four and a half") and insert ("five and three-quarters"). —(Lord Hughes.)
3.38 p.m.
LORD CHESHAM: I am naturally delighted to join with the noble Lord opposite in dealing with all these Amendments together. I am sure he will not mind my saying that his argument has been a little on the intricate side to follow, and I hope that neither he nor the Committee will think I am being in any way unco-operative if I do not follow him in quite the intricacy and length to which he has gone in moving the Amendment that he has put before your Lordships. However, there are three quick points that I should make, and make as clearly as I can, because it seemed to me that there existed some slight misunderstanding in the mind of the noble Lord—or some misconception, perhaps—as to the actual position.
The first thing is that, as I understood him to put the case, it seemed to me that he was quite determined that the 7½ per cent. which is mentioned was in same way some kind of guaranteed return to Cunard.
LORD HUGHES: No.
LORD CHESHAM: That was the impression the noble Lord gave me, whether or not he gave it to the House.
LORD HUGHES: I am sorry; the fault must be mine, but I thought it was quite clear that what I was putting before was what the noble Lord had stated, what the Government had stated: that there is no acceleration until the company have earned 7½ per cent.—and I repeated the word "earnings". That is not to say have distributed as dividends. They could make a nest-egg of it if they wanted; but they are allowed to earn 7½ per cent. before there is any acceleration of payment.
LORD CHESHAM: That is exactly what I said. I did not take the noble Lord's words down, and I shall be quite prepared to withdraw later if I am
532
wrong, but I certainly understood the noble Lord to refer on more than one occasion to a guaranteed return of 7½ per cent. I willingly apologise to the noble Lord if I am wrong, but that is how I understood him to put the matter.
LORD HUGHES: May I repeat what I said, because I have my note here? I said the Government proposed to allow Cunard to earn 7½ per cent. on their equity, and to provide for depreciation, before accelerated payments will take place.
LORD CHESHAM: That is what the noble Lord said on that occasion. I do not want to argue with him, because it is rather important that we get on to the substance of the Amendment, but I still have that impression, although I am prepared to stand corrected. If the noble Lord had said up to 7½ per cent., it would have made the matter very much clearer, but they have to earn that. That is the point of the accelerated payments. But the noble Lord implied that that was a lot of money to allow Cunard to earn. I would have put it rather as limiting the amount they could earn in this regard. That is the point I wanted to get straight.
The second point is this. Cunard's contribution of £12 million is equity capital. It is completely at risk; whereas the Government's loan, in the form of a debenture, is not. The Government's interest in this matter which they receive from Cunard, the repayments, and so on—because I think we have driven a very hard bargain with Cunard on this—are, as near as anything can be, assured. Cunard's £12 million return by way of equity interest is not assured at all. That, I think, is the position.
I ask the noble Lord to forgive me if I do not follow him, as I said, very intricately into what he said, but the point I must make is this. I rather hesitate to use this term, because it sometimes has a slightly offensive connotation, and I certainly do not mean it in that way; but, either consciously, or probably much more likely unconsciously, this Amendment which the noble Lord has put forward is tantamount to a wrecking Amendment. That I am bound to say.
LORD HUGHES: Why?
LORD CHESHAM: The reason I say that is because the essential point is that 4½ per cent. on this loan is the most at which Cunard can do the job. I must ask your Lordships to remember that the Chandos Committee, expert as they were, worked very hard, almost exhaustively, on all these matters.
LORD OGMORE: May I interrupt the noble Lord? How can we possibly remember that when they have not produced the Chandos Committee's report? The noble Lord is imputing to us knowledge we cannot have, because they will not give us the report.
LORD CHESHAM: It appeared to me the other day that the noble Lord had not become acquainted with the summary of their report which has been published, but I hope he has now. I thought perhaps he would have done.
LORD LATHAM: Would the noble Lord say that, if serious Amendments are moved in Committee stage, we are then to be told that they cannot be dealt with because they would wreck? What is the good of a Committee stage if that be the case?
LORD CHESHAM: If I had an opportunity to develop my argument, I should be able to inform the noble Lord just exactly what I meant. I have been interrupted twice consecutively, and it is rather difficult to give these answers, which I am trying to do. Perhaps I may go on.
The essential point is that the Chandos Committee had exhaustive evidence presented to them which, as your Lordships know, was given under a pledge of confidence by the Chairman of that Committee, as otherwise it would not have been obtained. I explained that at some length the other day. The Government have accepted the recommendation of the Committee that 4½ per cent. is the maximum at which Cunard can do this job. There has been an alteration, as I told your Lordships the other day, of form: to a higher rate of interest on a lesser sum of capital, plus a grant, to make things (as the noble Lord pointed out) crystal clear. The sense in which this is a wrecking Amendment is that, if this Amendment were accepted by your Lordships, this venture would collapse.
534
Cunard would not go on with it, and the ship would not be built. In that sense, I must say, without wishing to give offence to the noble Lord (because it is quite probably not meant like that at all), that that is the effect of the Amendment; and therefore I must ask your Lordships to reject it.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I must say that I do not accept that this is a wrecking Amendment at all. It is fixing a different rate of interest. The only point on which the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, thinks it is wrecking is because he considers that 4½ per cent. is the maximum that the Cunard can pay in respect of the loan. I do not Think that is at ell the case, especially if you wait for a few weeks to see whether they lose their application for a licence. I am quite certain that this is not a wrecking Amendment. This is an Amendment to do justice by the British taxpayer in relation to the loaning of public money for, in the end, private profit. Therefore, should think it is quite proper, in the interests of the protection of the general public, to go to Division.
LORD CHESHAM: If I might add a point to that, I tried to point out (perhaps was too hasty) that I used the word "wrecking" in a technical sense, and not in any way a personal sense. I hope noble Lords opposite will accept that. But, as I have tried to explain, we are convinced that this is the maximum rate of interest at which this ship can be built. Perhaps I should have added that since the Chandos Committee reported and their recommendations were accepted by the Government there have been two wage awards which affect the Cunard Company in their operations and which were not anticipated beforehand. These will make a considerable difference to this operation, or so I am told.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I must say at once that the noble Lord must not talk of wage awards in this connection. Otherwise any time there is a wage award in the country you will be getting an application for a special grant of public money.
LORD CHESHAM: That has nothing to do with it. I was merely saying that if at that time 4½ per cent. was the most

535
that Cunard could carry, and was the maximum burden they could face, it has now become a little more difficult. That is all I am saying. I am merely adding that fact to the weight of my argument. But if an Amendment is moved which, as clearly as I can foretell, would, if carried, result in this ship not being built—which is the sole purpose of the Bill— then I think I am justified in saying that I cannot think of any other term to apply to it than that of a wrecking Amendment.
LORD HUGHES: I cannot possibly accept that as a fair interpretation of what will happen under the Bill. The noble Lord referred to the circumstances which exist and to changes which have taken place. Four-and-a-half per cent. was apparently stated by the Chandos Committee, according to the Summary of its Report, as the most that the Cunard Company could pay. That was conditioned by another set of circumstances: provided they were to be left with sufficient resources to leave them with earnings of 7½ per cent. on their equity. That might have been appropriate when the Chandos Committee was considering the situation, because over the previous two years the Cunard Company had paid a dividend of 8 per cent. Therefore, 7½ per cent. might be regarded as a fair comparison with the current dividend. But the report presented a month ago shows that in the last year the Cunard dividend was only 6 per cent.; so it would be fair to relate what they might earn in the immediate future with what they are earning at the present time, bearing in mind the fact that the 6 per cent. is not covered in the year's operations. A reference to today's Financial Times will make that perfectly clear; you do not have to take my word for it.
THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (LORD MILLS): Could I just say, in reply to the noble Lord, that he is talking about the Cunard Company and its earnings, whereas 'this venture is a separate one? It is a separate company with a separate balance sheet and it will have to stand on its own earnings for this new venture. The noble Lord is trying all the time to make us think that this is the Cunard Company's whole operations. It is nothing of the sort.
VISCOUNT SIMON: May I ask one question, because it strikes me as extraordinary that either the noble Lord or the Chandos Committee can be so categorical as to say that 4½ per cent. is the most that the Cunard-White Star Company can pay for this loan? I have not the report with me, but I think I am right in saying that the Chandos Committee estimated that the ship would not cost as much as £30 million. Surely what matters is the amount of money that has to be paid out in capital charges against the earnings of the ship. How can anybody say that 4½ per cent. is the absolutely God-given maximum they can pay on £30 million? If they get the ship for £28 million, then the rate would be different from 4½ per cent. It seems to me difficult to accept the statement that there is a line drawn and they would pay up to that amount and could not possibly pay any more.
LORD CHESHAM: I think the answer to my noble friend's question is that they went into every foreseeable and fore-tellable facet of this matter, including future trends of every kind, and on that examination it was decided on Government aid to the extent of a loan of £18 million at 4½ per cent. It so proved that, if they had to borrow that money at a larger interest rate, the operation would not succeed. The anticipation for the future, as best they could work it out, indicated that if the company had to pay more, the operation would not be possible.
The last point which my noble friend made, about what would happen should the ship in fact cost less, was one of the points of divergence between the split (so to speak) that was set out in the summary produced by the Chandos Committee and published in the OFFICIAL REPORT on June 1. The point was that the Government negotiated with the Cunard Company that should the ship cost less than £30 million, the Government contribution should go down pro rata. That was not the original recommendation, but from our point of view we regard it as a slightly improved arrangement. It is to be found in the White Paper. I think that that takes care of the second point that my noble friend raised.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
4.0 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON VISCOUNT SIMON had given Notice of two Amendments, the first of which was, in subsection (5), to leave out "copy" and insert "draft". The noble Viscount said: I think the Committee will readily see what is the object of these Amendments; it is simply that whatever agreement is eventually made between the Government and the Cunard Company in this matter should be brought before Parliament for approval. It seems to me to be a grave fault in this Bill that that is not provided for, and I cannot for the life of me see why that is so. The ancillary agreement in regard to insurance, as your Lordships will see by referring to Clause 2 (2), will be placed before both Houses of Parliament in draft, and the Minister is bound not to enter into the agreement until the draft has been approved by Resolution
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 30: Not-Contents, 71.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Hughes, L.

Pethick-Lawrence, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, V.

Latham, L.

Rea, L.

Amulree, L.

Listowel, E.

Rusholme, L.

Amwell, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Silkin, L.

Attlee, E.

Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, L.

Simon, V.

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Sinha, L.

Chorley, L.

Meston, L.

Summerskill, B.

Colwyn, L.

Morrison of Lambeth, L.

Walston, L.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Ogmore, L.

Williams, L.

Henderson, L.

Peddie, L.

Wise, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailwyn, L.

Elliot of Hardwood, B.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Airlie, E.

Ferrier, L.

Merrivale, L.

Allerton, L.

Foley, L.

Mills, L.

Ampthill, L.

Fraser of North Cape, L.

Milverton, L.

Atholl, D.

Freyberg, L.

Monson, L.

Baden-Powell, L.

Furness, V.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Goschen, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Gosford, E.

Newall, L.

Bird wood, L.

Grenfell, L.

Newton, L. [Teller.]

Brecon, L.

Haddington, E.

Northesk, E.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Hailsham, V. (L. President.)

Onslow, E.

Carrington, L.

Hastings, L.

Rathcavan, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Horsbrugh, B.

Robins, L.

Chesham, L.

Howe, E.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Congleton. L.

Jellicoe, E.

St. Oswald, L.

Craigton, L.

Jessel, L.

Salisbury, M.

Crathorne, L.

Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Soulbury, V.

Denham, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Spens, L.

Deramore, L.

Lothian, M.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Digby, L.

Luke, L.

Swinton, E.

Dundee, E.

Lyle of Westbourne, L.

Tenby, V.

Dunleath, L.

Mac Andrew, L.

Teviot, L.

Dynevor, L.

Macclesfield, E.

Twining, L.

Effingham, E.

Margesson, V.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

of each House. Why should not a similar procedure be laid down in regard to the main Agreement.
I imagine that what I shall be told is that the Government have published a White Paper, which we have here, called The Memorandum of Points of Agreement, but, as I took occasion to point out on Second Reading, all that it says in this Memorandum is that it is intended to enter into an agreement based upon the Memorandum. The actual words are:
"This Memorandum is being used as the basis on which the Agreements have been prepared."
It seems to me that "basis" is a fairly general word, that an Agreement substantially different from this one could quite correctly be brought forward and that the Minister could tell us, with perfect truth, that it was on the basis of this Memorandum.
Furthermore, I would call attention to the fact that although this Memorandum has been circulated with the preamble to it, there is no connection between the Memorandum and the Bill. The White Paper is not referred to in the Bill; it does not appear as a Schedule or anything. If the Minister were to come at a later date with a completely different agreement, although no doubt he would very properly be subjected to some fairly severe criticism, he could say, turning to Clause 1 (5), that what he was doing was perfectly legal, and there was nothing in the Bill to prevent him from bringing in any agreement, subject only to the limitation on the amount of the subsidy contained in subsection (4). It seems to me that this is a bad principle.
If an agreement is being made with a private company it is right that the terms of that agreement should be placed before Parliament for scrutiny and discussion. Fortunately, in this House we have fairly broad Rules of Order, otherwise I suppose it would not be in order to discuss the terms of the agreement at all unless somebody put down a Motion to discuss the White Paper, because it is not in the Bill; and presumably when considering the Bill we can discuss only what is in the Bill. For that very reason, I do not want to talk about the terms of agreement, but surely they are so important a part of this matter that they ought to be in the Bill; or if the fact is, as we assume, that agreement has not been reached, then there should be some provision that when agreement is reached the matter should be brought before Parliament for approval.
I was a little disturbed during the Second Reading debate when the noble Lord, Lord Mills, in reply to a question of mine, said that he understood the position to be that the Government were so far committed that certain alterations could not be made. That seems to me a curious position, too. Here are the Government entering into negotiations, and, it appears, committing themselves so far that they can honestly say, behind their staunch umbrella, that they are not susceptible to any criticism about it at all. I realise, from my own experience, that when you enter into negotiations you have to get a certain distance before you can produce anything like
540
this Bill, and I make no complaint about the Government's having negotiated with the Cunard Company to find out what measure of agreement could be reached; that is quite proper and necessary. But I should have thought that the Cunard Company, in the position in which they stand, would be perfectly willing to understand that any agreement they might reach with the Government would be subject to Parliamentary approval. If that had been put to them, I cannot imagine that they could have raised the slightest objection to it.
This and the following Amendment (and with your Lordships' permission I am speaking to both of them) are aimed at getting the agreement brought before Parliament. If I can put the matter quite distinctly, it is that if an agreement is already negotiated, why cannot it be brought before Parliament and put in the Bill? And if it is not already negotiated, then I ask the noble Lord who represents the Government to tell us that they will accept this Amendment, so that we shall have a subsequent opportunity of discussing the terms of the Agreement. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 16, leave out ("copy") and insert ("draft").—(Viscount Simon.)
LORD CHESHAM: My noble friend is perfectly right about one thing—namely, that he is going to be told from this Box about the existence of the White Paper; and because of that, I am bound to say that I find the two Amendments in my noble friend's name (quite correctly discussed by him together) are unnecessary. The substance of the agreement has been set out fully in the White Paper, which has now been before your Lordships and everyone else for quite a long time. It has been perfectly possible during the passage of this Bill, both in another place and here—and what we are doing is to give effect to the provisional agreement with the Company—to discuss any part of the White Paper and any provision in it by proposing Amendments to the Bill. That is really what we have just been doing, in a sense, in discussing the Amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes.
The purpose of the formal agreement is to do no more (however much one may argue about the meaning of the word "basis") than put the provisions

541
in the White Paper into legal form. One could hardly ask the Cunard Company to sign on the bottom of that. Those provisions would have to be put into legal form, and that is what the formal agreement is for. No new points of substance, or anything of that kind, will be included in it. On the other hand, my noble friend referred to the insurance agreement which is to be subject to the approval of both Houses, and he drew a parallel from that. But it is not a parallel, because Parliament has not yet had the opportunity to see the substance of the insurance agreement, and, therefore, it is perfectly proper and reasonable that that should be subject to approval.
There is another objection to this Amendment, and that is the effect it would have on the timetable to which everyone is trying to work in this matter. We shall not know for certain until the tenders come in at the end of this month, but it is certainly hoped that some at least of the tenderers will be able to offer completion by the spring of 1965. That is important and no doubt will be a significant factor. Obviously, you want to start a ship of this kind at the beginning of the summer tourist season, and not in the autumn. Therefore, the only practical alternative to the spring of 1965 is the spring of 1966. Not only would that year's delay be the loss of what would quite likely be a very valuable earning year for the ship, but there is the fact that to keep the "Queen Mary" running for another season at that stage would be extremely expensive in terms of repair bills and of lower earning power. In fact, I am told that it might not be possible to keep her running; in which case we should have to abandon the weekly service, at any rate on a temporary basis, for a year, with all the loss of goodwill that would be entailed.
The timetable to which we are working requires that the Government should be in a position to sign the formal agreement with the Cunard Company during the summer so that no time will be lost—and I think your Lordships would agree as to the importance of this aspect—in giving a firm decision to the successful tenderer. If it were necessary to await the affirmative approval of Parliament, which could not be given before the beginning of next Session, obviously and inevitably that would
542
mean delay which in turn would make it very unlikely indeed that the ship could be put into service in the spring of 1965. In view of that explanation, I hope my noble friend will not press his Amendment.
4.15 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I confess that I do not feel too happy about that reply. I recognise, of course, that there is an important time element, and that if this scheme is to be proceeded with it is right that it should be done quickly. But it seems to me that the Government, if I may say so, have brought this upon themselves. This is in fact an agreement, and it could have been put into the Bill, or something could have been put into the Bill. It seems to me such a bad principle to bring forward a Bill of this kind and not to have the substance of the agreement in the Bill itself, not even as a Schedule. Of course, the noble Lord 'has much greater knowledge of the timetable than I have. If the agreement is ready, I do not know why it cannot be tabled immediately. If the agreement is not ready, then clearly it is impossible to go ahead with the timetable. I do not find this very convincing. I still feel strongly that this is an issue on which we ought to press the Government, either to accept this Amendment, or to meet it in another way by adding a Schedule to the Bill containing the terms of agreement.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: May I say a word about this matter? I am very interested in it, and I have been from the time I saw the Amendment on the Paper. But I am afraid that I should find some difficulty in going into the Lobby in support of the Amendment, for reasons of Parliamentary procedure to which we have been accustomed. In this case, there is in the Bill a provision that will mean that the agreement is laid before Parliament. The only process we have adopted in the past is that, where it is necessary to move specifically through a Minister proceeding with a statutory order procedure, we have an order laid in draft so that we can debate it. But I think that, with a Bill of this kind, if you are going to lay an order to show what the agreement is, the House should have before it, during the discussion of the Bill, the actual terms of the agreement. The

543
Government say that they are trying to do that in the form of a summary. I must say that, when large sums of money are involved, I think we ought to have the actual agreement that has been entered into. But I do not think I could press for this form of Amendment which would upset, in my rather ordered Parliamentary mind, the procedure for this kind of thing. It is going to be laid. I think you could make quite a nice opening for debate on the agreement when it is laid.
LORD CHESHAM: Might I add something, for the sake of complete clarity, because I would not wish in any way to appear to be concealing anything from my noble friend, the noble Viscount or the House. I am grateful to the noble Viscount for what he has said, but, of course, the agreement at to-day's date is not ready. It will be ready during the Recess. As the noble Viscount who leads the Opposition has pointed out, when completed it will be laid. In view of the delay that will be caused, which might be serious to the ship and in getting the service going, I hope my noble friend may think again about pressing his Amendment.
LORD LATHAM: It is the case that the agreement could be modified. It is not yet concluded?
LORD CHESHAM: I have just said the opposite to that, if the noble Lord recalls. I said that we had produced this White Paper. The reason for producing it was so that the substance and the points that would be in the agreement could be looked at and debated in the course of the passage of the Bill in either House—as, indeed, they have been to a certain extent—and that the formal agreement would only be the legal form, as it were, of the agreement and will no doubt contain a great many more words than the White Paper does, That was the object of the White Paper, to disclose what were the provisional terms of agreement; and the formal agreement will only be the legal engrossment—is that the right word?—of what is in the White Paper.
LORD LATHAM: I am sorry to press this but the noble Lord's reply does not
544
accord with what is stated in the White Paper. The first paragraph says
"This Memorandum is intended to record the main items on which"—
and then comes the important word"—
"provisional agreement has been reached".
"Provisional agreement" means that it is provisional. So surely it is susceptible to modification.
LORD CHESHAM: Obviously it must say provisional, because the Government were not in a position, before the Bill was passed, of having Parliamentary authority.
LORD LATHAM: That was not the case. You really must read the sentence as a whole:
"…to record the main items on which provisional agreement has been reached".
Not agreement as a whole, but the main items on which provisional agreement has been reached.
LORD FERRIER: In supporting the principles enunciated by my noble friend Lord Simon, I feel, like the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition, that if It is a matter in which, if 'the Amendment were carried, it would mean delays, I should not be prepared to go into the Lobby, but in my short experience in your Lordships' House this is the second time I have felt bound to take this position: that I feel it is the duty of Parliament to watch every word, to provide against the possibility of decisions being taken and being laid before Parliament as a fait accompli. To that end I would repeat my support for Lord Simon's Amendment. However, if the noble Lord at the Despatch Box can convince us that it would mean delay, I should not necessarily go into the Lobby.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I think it is clear that I should accept the advice of the noble Viscount, the Leader of the Opposition, who along with nearly all noble Lords in this House has far greater experience of the Parliamentary world than I have. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed.
Bill reported without amendment.

HUMAN TISSUE BILL
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

TRUSTS (SCOTLAND) BILL
4.25 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD CRAIGTON): My Lords, after the decision in your Lordships' House in the ease of Chapman v. Chapman, the Variation of Trusts Act, 1958, which your Lordships considered three years ago, restored the law in England to what it had been thought to be—namely, that the English courts had power to sanction an alteration of trust purposes on behalf of potential beneficiaries or of persons under age. In Scotland, however, such power is an innovation, which this Bill seeks to enact in Clause 1, subsection (1). This and all the other proposals in this Bill except Clause 5 are based on the Ninth Report of the Law Reform Committee for Scotland, sitting under the chairmanship of Lord Walker.
Circumstances often arise in which it would be greatly to the advantage of the beneficiaries of a trust to alter the purpose of the trust or to enlarge the powers of the trustees. If all the beneficiaries are capable of agreeing, and do, in fact, agree, the trust can usually be altered in the desired way. If, on the other hand, some of the beneficiaries object, that ends the matter, and rightly so, since at least some of the people concerned feel that the proposed variation is against their interest. The Committee pointed out, however, that variations to which there is no objection at all and which would clearly be advantageous will be prevented if some of the beneficiaries are for one reason or another unable to give legally effective consent. They accordingly recommended that the court should be empowered, as it is now in England, to approve variations of trust purposes on behalf of potential beneficiaries and on behalf of beneficiaries who cannot approve for themselves. This, then, is the justification for subsection (1) of Clause 1 of the Bill. It does not, of course, empower the court to give effect to any variation of trust purposes; nor does it enable the court
546
to step in if some of the persons whose consent is required cannot be found or if someone competent refuses to give consent.
Subsection (2) of Clause 1 deals with a subject which is, I understand, peculiar to the law of Scotland. This is the alimentary provision: that is to say, a provision of income under a will or other settlement which cannot be varied under the existing law, even with the consent of the beneficiary. The subsection empowers the court to authorise an arrangement varying or revoking an alimentary provision if the beneficiary has consented or if the court itself consents on behalf of a beneficiary who suffers from legal incapacity.
Clause 2 clears up a difficulty which has arisen under subsection (1) of Section 4 of the Trusts (Scotland) Act, 1921. Under that subsection it is not clear whether some classes of trustees have power to undertake certain transactions, including the sale of land. In order to get a completely unquestionable title to land sold by such trustees, it has been the practice for the purchasers to require the trustees to obtain the express authority of the court for their entering into the transaction. The result of this is that the trust estate is involved in an expense which is often burdensome. Subsection (1) removes this difficulty and provides that the validity of the transaction in such cases, and of any title acquired thereby, shall not be challengeable on the ground that the transaction in question was at variance with the terms or purposes of the trust.
Clause 3 provides a new definition of judicial factor for the purposes of the Trusts (Scotland) Act, 1921, thereby putting right a difficulty to which attention was drawn many years ago by the father of the present Lord President of the Court of Session. Clause 4 adds to the general powers of trustees a power to acquire heritable property in order to provide a suitable residence for occupation by any of the beneficiaries.
Clause 6 deals with a point of difficulty arising from the interpretation in Scotland of the Accumulations Act, 1800. This is an Act intended to check the mischief which it was anticipated might arise from directions for the accumulation of income for prolonged periods. There is some doubt about the period of accumulation that is allowed in the

547
case of a trust which provides for an accumulation of income for a minor beginning during the life of the settlor. It would seem from the wording of the Act that the settlor could choose either the balance of his own life or the minority of the beneficiary. In Scotland, however, it has been observed by certain judges, though never absolutely decided, that accumulation must cease on the death of the settlor, should that occur before the end of the minority, notwithstanding a direction by the settlor that it should continue during the minority of the beneficiary. This view is thought to be contrary to the intention of the Act and it has not been so interpreted in England. Clearly there should be uniformity here, especially as liability to death duty is often involved. Opportunity has been taken not only to clear up the difficulty but to re-enact in Clause 5 the substance of the Act of 1800.
My Lords, this is a useful Bill which corrects the uncertainties and defects in the law of trusts in Scotland to which I have referred. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Craigton.)
LORD GUEST: My Lords, I am not one to claim superiority for the Scots system of law, because it appears to me that both systems are complementary and each can borrow from the other. This is not the occasion to suggest to your Lordships how England could, with advantage, borrow from Scotland, although I may have a later occasion to do so in another connection. The aim of this Bill is a laudable one, in my humble submission, because it will be of great benefit to many people in Scotland. It has a very respectable ancestry, because it is based not only on the English Variation of Trusts Act, 1958, but also upon the unanimous Report of the Law Reform Committee which went into this matter in Scotland.
As the noble Lord who moved the Second Reading has told your Lordships, the old-fashioned trusts, where the aim of the settlor was to preserve the estate, are unsuited to modern conditions. When money values were constant it was all very well to tie up the estate against the spendthrift son or the woman who got hold of the son and spent his fortune, but in these days different considerations apply, and there is no doubt that the fact
548
that Scots courts could never vary trusts in the same way that English courts could has resulted in great hardship to many people in Scotland, and the result is that during the lifetime of the life rentor the income was very often swallowed up in income tax and at the death of the settlor the estate was swallowed up in estate duty. This Bill will make it possible to do what has never been done in Scotland before, namely, to get the court's approval in place of the consent of beneficiaries who, due to their incapacity, were unable to consent.
It also deals with the special problem of the alimentary life rent which has been a vexed question in Scots law for some time, because, strange though it may seem to your Lordships, an alimentary life rentor or rentrix cannot renounce their life rent. The presumption was that it was put in the deed for their own protection and, therefore, although everybody was anxious that the trust should be wound up, the court decided they had no power to allow the alimentary life rentor to renounce the life rent; so the trust had to go on with the results I have described. The Bill provides that the alimentary bar will no longer operate.
I understand that the Variation of Trusts Act, 1958, has been of great benefit in England and is widely used, and I am certain, from my own limited contacts in Scotland, that there are many in Scotland who will be ready to use this Bill as soon as it becomes law. Indeed it would be unreasonable that a benefit which was already in operation in England should be denied to the people of Scotland. Therefore, I have no hesitation in commending the principles of this Bill and its provisions to your Lordships as being something which will be of great benefit to many people in Scotland.
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, I am grateful for the welcome given to the Bill by my noble and learned friend, Lord Guest, and I only wish that he, with his greater experience, had moved the Second Reading. Clearly he finds the Bill easier to understand than I have done. Also, I would tell your Lordships that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has expressed his regret at being unable to be here, and said that he, too, supports the Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

LICENSING BILL
4.38 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be again in Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR)THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR) moved, after Clause 8 to insert the following new clause:
Extended hours in restaurants, etc., providing entertainment
.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, in any licensed premises to which section one hundred and four of the Licensing Act, 1953, applies and which are structurally adapted and bona fide used, or intended to be used, for the purpose of habitually providing, for the accommodation of persons frequenting the premises, musical or other entertainment in addition to substantial refreshment as required by that section (the sale and supply of intoxicating liquor being ancillary to that refreshment and entertainment), the time added by that section to the permitted hours on weekdays shall extend until one o'clock in the morning, and during that time the sale, supply and consumption of intoxicating liquor shall not be restricted in accordance with paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (4) of section seven of this Act:
Provided that this subsection—

(a) shall not apply to any part of the premises not habitually set apart for the provision of the refreshment and entertainment, nor authorise the sale or supply of intoxicating liquor for consumption in any such part of the premises or for consumption off the premises; and

(b) shall not authorise any sale or supply of intoxicating liquor on a day on which no entertainment is provided, or at a time after the entertainment or the provision of substantial refreshment has ended, nor any sale or supply not in accordance with paragraph (a) of the said subsection (4) to a person admitted to the premises either after midnight or less than half an hour before the entertainment is due to end.

(2) Where subsection (1) above applies to any premises or part of premises, nothing in section one hundred of the Licensing Act. 1953, shall prohibit or restrict the consumption in the premises or part during the first half hour after the entertainment ends of intoxicating liquor supplied before it ends.
(3) In this section "entertainment" does not include any form of entertainment given otherwise than by persons actually present and performing; and, subject to the provisions of this Act, no premises or part shall be treated for
550
the purposes of this section as used or intended to be used for the purpose of habitually providing refreshment and entertainment, or as habitually set apart for that purpose, unless it is used or intended to be used, or is set apart, for the purpose of providing them after, and for a substantial period preceding, the end of the general licensing hours on every weekday or on particular weekdays in every week, subject to any break for a period or periods not exceeding two weeks in any twelve successive months or on any special occasion or by reason of any emergency.
(4) This section shall not authorise the sale or supply of intoxicating liquor except with the sanction of an order of the licensing justices made on the application of a person applying for or holding a justices' licence for the premises in question, and any such order shall lapse when the licence granted is superseded on renewal or transfer or otherwise ceases to be in force, but may be renewed or varied by a further order under this subsection or be revoked under subsection (8) below.
(5) Where the use of any premises or part of premises for the purpose specified in subsection (1) above is, or is intended to be, limited to a particular period or periods of the year, licensing justices may make an order under subsection (4) above to have effect for the whole or part of the period or periods in question, but excluding any period of less than four weeks.
(6) Licensing justices may refuse to make an order under subsection (4) above, or may in such an order limit the operation of this section to a particular part of the premises or to particular periods of the year or to particular weekdays or to a time earlier than one o'clock in the morning (and may impose different limitations in relation to different parts of the premises, different periods or different weekdays), if it appears to them reasonable so to do having regard to all the circumstances and in particular to the comfort and convenience of the occupiers and inmates of premises in the neighbourhood.
(7) Licensing justices shall not make an order under subsection (4) above unless it is shown that the condition of subsection (1) above as to the use or intended use of the premises is satisfied in relation to the premises or part of premises, to the periods, to the weekdays and to the times for which the order is to have effect, and that the premises or part in question is structurally adapted for the purpose:
Provided that licensing justices, in making an order by way of variation or renewal of a previous order, may assume unless they see reason to the contrary that the conditions for the making of the previous order were and still are satisfied.
(8) Licensing justices shall revoke an order under subsection (4) above if they are satisfied on an application made by or on behalf of the chief officer of police for the police area in which the premises are situated, either—

(a) that use has not been made for the purpose specified in subsection (1) above of the premises or part of premises for which the order has effect; or

551

(b) that it is expedient to revoke the order either by reason of the occurrence of disorderly or indecent conduct in the premises or part or by reason of the conduct of persons resorting to the premises and any annoyance resulting or likely to result from it to the occupiers or inmates of premises in the neighbourhood.

(9) Before making an application for an order under subsection (4) above to be made otherwise than by way of renewal of a previous order (without variation), a person shall give notice of the application to the persons, in the manner and at the times required by paragraph 2 of the Fourth Schedule to this Act on an application for a new justices' licence for the premises; but if through inadvertence or misadventure he fails so to do, subparagraph (7) of that paragraph shall apply.
(10) Where an order under subsection (4) above is made with respect to any premises or part of premises, the holder of the justices' licence shall within fourteen days give written notice of the making of the order to the chief officer of police, and shall send with the notice a copy of the order: and if he fails so to do he shall be liable to a fine not exceeding ten pounds.
(11) The provisions of subsection (6) of section ten of this Act as to the posting of a notice in licensed premises where section one hundred and four of the Licensing Act, 1953, applies shall have effect in relation to this section as they have effect in relation to section one hundred and four; and the reference to section one hundred and four in subsection (4) of section ten of this Act shall include a reference to this section.
(12) The powers of licensing justices under this section shall be exercised in accordance with such procedure as may be prescribed by rules made, by the Secretary of State.
(13) Where this section applies to any licensed premises or part of licensed premises on a Saturday, nothing in the Sunday Observance Act. 1780, shall apply by reason of the provision there of entertainment (in addition to substantial refreshment) before the time to which the permitted hours on that Saturday may extend by virtue of this section.
The noble and learned Viscount said: Your Lordships will remember that on the Second Reading I promised the House that I would invite your Lordships to consider a proposal under which suitable premises catering for people with more modest purses would be allowed a somewhat more limited extension of hours, at the discretion of the licensing justices. This is, as the first lines show, an extension for dealing with the licensed premises to which Section l04 of the Licensing Act, 1953, applies. This Amendment has a remarkable inspiration, in that when the subject was mooted in another place the suggestion received support not only from all quarters of the House but from those
552
who had been active in supporting the temperance point of view and also from those who had considerable ministerial experience. With that happy beginning, I want in a few sentences to make clear the safeguards that we have attached to the provision.
The new clause after Clause 8 deals with extended hours in restaurants, et cetera, providing entertainment; and the new clause after Clause 28, which is Amendment No. 58, deals with extended hours in premises of registered clubs. Amendment No. 62, to the Third Schedule, and Amendment No. 76, to the Ninth Schedule, are consequential. As all your Lordships who are interested in this subject know, it is not a question of extending a matter to clubs—they are already within the existing law.
Let me now summarise the substantial safeguards which have been introduced in regard to my proposal—,namely, the facilities for the sale or supply of drink up to one o'clock in the morning as an ancillary to substantial refreshment and entertainment. First, the facilities will not be available to all licensed premises or registered clubs which ask for them. The premises or club must have satisfied the licensing justices, in the case of the premises, or the magistrates, in the case of a club, that they are structurally adapted and bona fide used, or intended to be used, for the provision of, first, substantial refreshment, and secondly, entertainment to which the supply of liquor is ancillary. The second point is, that even then the premises will not qualify unless the refreshment and entertainment are habitually provided for a substantial period before the ordinary closing time. Those responsible cannot just lay it on after the public houses have closed. In addition, there are other safeguards against people using them merely for the purpose of a late drink.
The third point is that the licensing justices or the magistrates may refuse an application outright, or grant it only in limited terms—for example, until only midnight, instead of one in the morning, or only for certain days of the week—if they think it reasonable to refuse or restrict the order having regard, in particular, to the comfort and convenience of neighbouring residents or hospitals or the like. The neighbours and other people concerned will have power to object to the application. Finally, in

553
general an extension order, if granted, will come up for annual review. In addition, the police may at any time apply for revocation of the order on grounds of disorderly or indecent conduct, or annoyance to neighbours or the like. With these safeguards, the provisions can be recommended to the Committee as providing reasonable facilities for persons wishing to enjoy a modest evening's entertainment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 8 insert the said new clause.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: Just a sentence in support of the Amendment. I have no questions to ask. I am pleased with this Amendment. Many of my friends in another place are pleased, too. We like the safeguards in it, and also the fact that the justices have an honourable mention. They have been rather criticised—not for themselves, but in relation to the absence of their effect. We welcome the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clauses 9 to 15 agreed to.
4.45 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after Clause 15 to insert the following new clause:
Restriction on grant of justices' licence for premises on special roads
".—(1) Premises shall be disqualified for receiving a justices' licence if they are situated on land acquired or appropriated by a special road authority, and for the time being used, for the provision of facilities to be used in connection with the use of a special road provided for the use of traffic of class I (with or without other classes).
(2) For the purposes of this section—

(a) "special road" and "special road authority" have the same meanings as in the Highways Act, 1959, except that "special road" includes a trunk road to which by virtue of section nineteen of that Act the provisions of the Act apply as if the road were a special road; and

(b) "class I" means class I in the Fourth Schedule to that Act, as varied from time to time by any order under section twelve of the Act, but if that Schedule is amended by such an Order so as to add to it a further class of traffic, the order may adapt the reference in this section to traffic of class I so as to take account of the additional class."

The noble and learned Viscount said: This again is an Amendment of which I gave notice in my speech on Second
554
Reading. Your Lordships will remember that I said that we would propose a statutory ban on the establishment of licenced premises on motorways. This Amendment also implements an undertaking given on the Report stage in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. Subsection (1) of the Amendment has the effect of prohibiting the grant of a justices' licence, whether "on" or "off", and including a restaurant or residential licence under Part I of the Bill, in respect of premises on land acquired or appropriated by a special road authority and used for the provision of facilities in connection with a motorway. In practice, such land, which is known as "service area", is leased by the special road authority to persons who there provide petrol stations, restaurants and the like. Your Lordships will remember that a "special road authority" is the Minister or a local highway authority—in practice, generally a county council, which constructs a motorway in accordance with a scheme confirmed by the Minister.
Under subsection (2)(a) the ban on licensed premise's will also apply to certain trunk roads specified in the Fifth Schedule to the Highways Act, 1959, which, by Section 19 of that Act, are to be treated as special roads. These roads are in every respect similar to motorways—indeed, some of them will form part of projected motorways. That is, in short, how the clause will effectively prohibit the establishment of licensed premises on motorways. I have carefully considered the objection that the absence from motorways of restaurants that can sell drink will encourage people to fill themselves up with drink before they enter the motorway. That was an objection which was sent to me by correspondents. In answer I would say this: that a man who is determined to get a drink will go a long way for it. But it is, I believe, true of the majority of people that if drink is not available on the motorway then they are less likely to take it. We must remember, too, that people who go on the motorway may be driving their cars at 80 or 90 miles per hour, and if they meet with an accident it will probably be a fatal accident. Therefore, I ask your Lordships' support for this ban of which I gave notice on Second Reading. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 15, insert the said new clause. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: We desire to welcome wholeheartedly the new clause which is proposed by the noble and learned Viscount, because it fulfils a pledge, after debates in another place which revealed a weakness in the Bill, and in many other ways seeks to reduce accidents on the road. As to people who think that there still ought to be drink provided on, say, a motorway like the M.1, if I recall aright drivers are not supposed to stop on them at all. If you are going to have people going off and coming on again, that is exactly the way in which accidents will happen. The Government have made a most necessary Amendment in regard to this matter, and I hope that the clause will be passed.
LORD OGMORE: I, too, should like to support this new clause, and I am very glad that the noble and learned Viscount has moved it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 16 [Miscellaneous amendments as to grant of licences, proceedings and fees]:
LORD BURDEN: This Amendment really forms part of Amendment 24B, and it may be convenient if I deal with both Amendments now. This Amendment has been submitted to meet the views of the Association of Municipal Corporations. It is therefore my duty to declare an interest since, like some other noble Lords, I have the honour to be a Vice-President of the A.M.C. Subsection (3) of Clause 16 says:
"Licensing justices may grant an ordinary removal to any premises in their licensing district from any premises in the same county or county borough or in a county or county borough adjoining that county or county borough (and not only from premises in their licensing district or the county of which it forms part.…)."
That is the law as it stands to-day. But my submission is that, while it is a step in the right direction, it is still unnecessarily restrictive. May I illustrate the point by taking an actual example? A county borough may have to develop an overspill area beyond a Green Belt, and the new overspill area may not be in
556
the county which adjoins the county borough. That is a general statement.
The particular instance is the City of Manchester, which proposes to build in Glossop. By some accident of geography Lancashire does not adjoin Derbyshire; there is a small strip of Cheshire which separates the two counties. I would submit that there is no particular merit in restricting facilities to a county which adjoins. The case which I should like to ask the Committee to consider is this. Manchester City Council have in hand extensive slum clearance schemes. As part of comprehensive planning, licensed premises in these slum clearance areas are purchased, at approved and agreed figures, of course, by the authority, and the licences are then put in suspense, and there is no compensation payable to the brewers or anybody else in connection with the licence or licences put in suspense. But as a corollary to this, an agreement has been reached with the trade for a fair and equitable allocation of removal licences as and when sites become available in the council's overspill areas. This important and, I venture to think, valuable social experiment in regard to licences in slum clearance areas depends for its successful working on the good will and co-operation of all the parties concerned: the licensing planning authority, the trade, and the licensing justices responsible.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (EARL BATHURST): Now that the noble Lord has reached this point, it might be to your Lordships' convenience if I told the noble Lord now that I can accept his first Amendment, for many of the reasons he has mentioned. But the second, for doubts we have on the reasons which I think he is about to mention, I cannot accept.
LORD BURDEN: There is no point in continuing, then. If the noble Earl in charge of the Bill is prepared to accept the first Amendment, that substantially meets the case. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 42, leave out from ("premises") to ("(and") in line 44.—(Lord Burden.)
EARL BATHURST: The noble Lord has explained most clearly the purposes of his Amendment and I accept what he has been saying. As the noble Lord has kindly indicated that he will not move Amendment 24B, possibly it would not be worth talking about it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
4.58 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALE LORD MERRIVALE moved, after Clause 16 to insert the following new clause:
Public service vehicle excise licences
".—(1) An excise licence may be granted to the owner of any public service vehicle to which this section applies, authorising the sale by retail to passengers on the vehicle of any intoxicating liquor for consumption in the vehicle whilst operating on any specified service.
(2)(a) This section applies to a public service vehicle which is constructed or adapted for the supply of food to the passengers carried therein, and is certified by the Traffic Commissioners to be suitable or of a type suitable for the sale of intoxicating liquor to the passengers while the vehicle is operating on any specified service;
(b) in any certificate granted for the purposes of this section in respect of any public service vehicle the Traffic Commissioners shall specify the service or services whether of stage carriages or express carriages, upon which intoxicating liquor may be sold in the vehicle, and the Traffic Commissioners may from time to time vary the services so specified in any certificate;
(c) the Traffic Commissioners shall have power to revoke a certificate granted for the purposes of this section;
(d) any certificate granted for the purposes of this section shall unless previously revoked remain in force so long as the holder of the certificate is the holder of a public service vehicle licence in respect of the vehicle to which the certificate relates;
(e) the holder of a public service vehicle licence who is aggrieved by the refusal or failure of the Traffic Commissioners to grant a certificate in respect of the vehicle to which the licence relates or to specify any particular service in the certificate or by the revocation of a certificate granted in respect of the vehicle, may appeal to the Minister of Transport and subsections (6) and (7) of section one hundred and forty-three of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, shall apply to appeals under this subsection in like manner as those subsections apply to appeals under that section.
(3) A licence granted under this section in respect of a public service vehicle shall cease to have effect as respects that vehicle if the holder of the licence ceases to hold a public service vehicle licence in respect of that vehicle, but may be transferred, on the application of the holder of the licence, so as to attach to
558
some other public service vehicle to which this section applies, and of which the holder of the licence is the owner.
(4) Section one hundred and twenty of the Licensing Act, 1953 (which provides that no intoxicating liquor shall be sold by retail without a justices' licence) shall not apply to any person holding a licence under this section.
(5) Any licence granted under this section shall be carried in the public service vehicle.
(6) It shall be an offence for any person travelling on a vehicle licensed under this section to supply the driver thereof with alcoholic refreshment while the driver is in charge of the vehicle.
(7) In this section—
the expressions 'public service vehicle', 'stage carriage' and `express carriage' have the meanings assigned to them by the Road Traffic Act, 1960,
`specified service' means a service of stage carriages or express carriages specified in a certificate granted for the purposes of this section, and
'the Traffic Commissioners' in relation to any public service vehicle means the Traffic Commissioners by whom the public service vehicle licence in respect of that vehicle was granted."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Ampthill and myself. As your Lordships may be wondering whether this is the appropriate Bill for endeavouring to insert a new clause dealing with public service vehicle excise licences to authorise the sale by retail to passengers on the vehicle of intoxicating liquor, I would remind your Lordships that, according to Erskine May, in the sixteenth edition on page 503, it is said that:
"Amendments must be relevant to the subject matter of the Bill".
I would humbly submit to your Lordships that this Amendment is relevant if we consider the long Title of this Bill. We see that that reads as follows: this is
"An Act … to make further provision about the sale and supply of intoxicating liquor … and for purposes connected therewith."
Therefore, I humbly submit that it is in order for me to move this Amendment in this Bill.
The Committee will see on studying this Amendment which is a complete new clause, that it is the traffic commissioners who would be empowered to issue a certificate stating that the public service vehicle was constructed or adapted so as to be suitable for the sale of intoxicating liquor to the passengers while the vehicle is operating on any specified service. Not

559
only must the vehicle be approved as suitable for the purpose by the traffic commissioners, but they would also have power to determine on which services such a certificate could be granted or not. Here I would state that the two terms which are mentioned in the Amendment—that is, "express carriage" and "stage carriage"—are clearly defined in Section 117 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960. I would add that this Amendment does not cover contract carriages, because I feel that your Lordships may worry with regard to charabancs which call at pubs under contract licences. It has nothing to do with that form of public service vehicle operation. It deals purely with long-distance coaches—in other words, express carriages and stage carriages— although naturally one would not expect operators to wish to serve alcoholic drinks at Piccadilly Circus on such a type of stage carriage.
Since the traffic commissioners are already responsible for issuing public service vehicle licences I trust that your Lordships will agree that they would be the appropriate body to issue such certificates; and it would be the same traffic commissioners who issued the public service vehicle licence who would be issuing the required certificate. Therefore, they would have complete knowledge as to the services run, particulars of the vehicle, and so on. It would be only after the traffic commissioners had issued this certicate that the holder would be entitled to apply for an Excise licence.
When a similar Amendment was moved in another place in Standing Committee on April 25 of this year, I think it was rightly stressed that it was only on that form of long-distance transport that alcoholic beverages could not be served. They are already being served on aircraft, on board ships and on trains. During the debate on this Amendment concern was expressed, too, with regard to the question of alcoholic drink being given by anyone on board—whether it be the steward, stewardess or passenger —to the driver while in charge of the vehicle. That point has now been covered under subsection (6) of the Amendment, which says:
"It shall be an offence for any person travelling on a vehicle licensed under this section to supply the driver thereof with alcoholic refreshment while the driver is in charge of the vehicle."
560
Therefore, as I said, it would then be a statutory offence for anybody to serve such a drink. In fact, any driver who partakes of alcoholic refreshment while in charge of a public service vehicle is immediately discharged by the operator himself.
I think that it may be reasonably said that public service vehicle drivers are not prone to insobriety. It may interest your Lordships to have some figures with regard to the most important long-distance public service vehicle operator —that is, express and stage service operator—that we have in this country. During the last 42 years, during which time this company have carried 4,880 million passengers on their vehicles, there have been only eight passengers out of that large number who have suffered fatal injury while travelling on their vehicles. Taking the industry as a whole, the 1959–60 statistics of the Ministry of Transport show that during that year, for each fatally injured person there had been 188,350,000 passenger journeys made. That, I think, shows that, anyhow from the point of view of the effect of drink on drivers, it would definitely not appear that drivers of public service vehicles are likely to indulge too much in alcoholic beverages.
I should now like to refer to a passage in the OFFICIAL REPORT of Standing Committee E of April 25, and specifically to a statement made by the Minister, Mr. Dennis Vosper, in column 1249. The Minister's words read as follows:
"My hon. Friend makes no provision for an Excise licence in these passenger vehicles, whereas for other forms of transport—by sea, rail and air—an Excise licence must, of course, he obtained. That provision is made under the Customs and Excise Act, 1952, which also exempts those forms of transport from obtaining a justices' licence, Therefore, technically, the Clause is not acceptable because one would have to make some provision here for an Excise licence, in parallel with other forms of transport."
In this Amendment provision is made for an Excise licence, and the reason for wishing to insert this provision in this Bill is the fact that there is a great diversity of circumstances in which public service vehicles are operated. Your Lordships are no doubt well aware that, as has been stated by the Minister, although he did not mention the Act, the various Excise licences—that is, passenger aircraft, passenger vessel and railway vehicle Excise licences—are granted

561
under Sections 152, 153 and 154 of the 1952 Customs and Excise Act. There appears to me to be the greatest similarity between an aircraft carrying passengers and flying between two places in the United Kingdom and an express carriage public service vehicle also carrying passengers and operating between two places in this country.
I would say that this similarity extends, too, to the layout and equipment of the special vehicles themselves. Last Tuesday I was one of those Members of your Lordships' House who were taken round one of these specially-constructed vehicles, and I must say that it is a most luxuriously fitted-out, double-deck, long-distance coach. As in an aircraft (I do not wish to weary your Lordships with details, but I think they are important because they do show how the vehicle is fitted out, and that does have a bearing, I think, on this Amendment), it has a galley or servery, from which food and refreshments, but not at the moment alcoholic drinks, are served to the passengers of the vehicle by a steward or stewardess. There is a toilet; a washing basin; luggage storage; parcel racks; individual reading lamps; adjustable seats and small individual tables. So, from the point of view of equipment, it is very similar to a passenger-carrying aircraft. In spite of these adequate facilities, there is ample room for moving around in these vehicles, for they seat 50 passengers instead of the normal 76. I may say at this point that I have had a certain amount of experience with commercial and public service vehicles. They are extremely well-designed, well-built, and the workmanship is of the highest order.
At the moment there are only a certain number of these vehicles in service. There are 31 coaches, and they operate on six different long-distance routes. I understand that four more long-distance services are about to be initiated, but at the moment there are only six. The distances are quite considerable. If one considers only the Lancashire-Midlands-London service, that covers 253 miles; and if one considers the Keswick-London service, that is 302 miles. I mention these distances, and I will also mention the question of time, because I think that has a bearing as well on this Amendment. These services operate both during the day and during the night. If I may
562
take the service from London to Carlisle, I think it could reasonably be said that the time taken by train is approximately 5½ hours. By coach it is 12 hours.
The question of cost is also, I think, an important factor. A second-class return fare to Carlisle by train costs £5 10s., while a return coach fare from Carlisle to London costs £2 13s. Therefore, I feel that if one does not allow for similar facilities to be provided on these long-distance coaches, one is unfairly penalising the poorer section of the community. One section of the community which would also be affected is the elderly and retired people, who certainly have the time, but possibly not the money, and therefore cannot go by the faster route—that is by train—and have to go by the slower and cheaper way—by coach.
Your Lordships may feel at this juncture: Well, these vehicles can stop en route, so that passengers may partake of food or refreshment. But the fact is that there are wide variations in the standards and scope of refreshment facilities around the country. This fact is causing operators to extend the provision of food facilities to the vehicles themselves. I am advised that it is not uncommon for 20 coaches, carrying in all approximately 800 persons, to pull up at the same halt, and at a similar time. Your Lordships can appreciate the difficulty in obtaining any form of satisfactory service when there are hundreds of passengers to be served all at the same time. If your Lordships would like me to quote one place in particular where these conditions do appertain, I would mention Penrith.
I also think that there will be an increased demand for the facility for which I am endeavouring to obtain the approval of your Lordships and Her Majesty's Government, because there are in train at the present time regulations to extend the length of public service vehicles by 6 feet. I feel—and operators have told me this—that they would more than likely use that 6 feet extra length to provide on single-deck coaches the facilities I have mentioned which are already on these double-deck vehicles.
I am moving this Amendment for one other reason. At the moment it is perfectly legal for a passenger to board a public service vehicle carrying either a large number of beer bottles, a bottle of

563
whisky or gin, or a flask of brandy in his hip pocket. I should have thought that it would be a much neater method of serving alcoholic drinks if they could be served in specially—and I stress the word "specially"—fitted-out vehicles under the control of a qualified steward or stewardess. Here I would add that it sometimes happens that passengers board coaches after probably having (if I may use the expression) "one too many for the road". If that passenger makes a nuisance of himself and cannot (shall I say?) be amiably coerced by the steward or stewardess to adopt a more reasonable attitude on the vehicle, then in that case the driver halts the vehicle at a police station and the person is off-loaded. On speaking to one of these stewardesses last Tuesday, I felt that one of the factors that did influence operators in their choice of such personnel was that they should have a pleasant manner, and should be capable, particularly, of exhibiting the art of handling people. I feel that this is a reasonable facility for which I am asking the approval of Her Majesty's Government and your Lordships in order that drinks can be served on these long-distance coaches, because it would seem to me a much neater method than having people board a coach, as is done at the moment, carrying bottles of beer or alcohol. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 16, insert the said new clause. —(Lord Merrivale.)
5.18 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Every one of your Lordships will agree that everything that could have been said by my noble friend Lord Merrivale in favour of this Amendment has been said. But I ask not only your Lordships but also my noble friend not to press the Amendment, in favour of which he has so forcibly argued. I want my noble friend to know that I am always prepared to consider and respect a minority view; and he knows, as I am sure most of your Lordships know, that this Amendment was defeated by a narrow majority in Committee in another place. It was not called on the Report stage, and therefore it did not get into the Bill. The fact that it was defeated in that sort of Division shows that this is a matter of very great controversy indeed.
564
I need hardly assure my noble friend that those who opposed it in another place, and who felt strongly against it, are of varied background. It is opposed by temperance organisations. It certainly does not commend itself to all those who travel on coaches. My right honourable friend, who was then Minister of State, Home Office, pointed out that many letters had been received in the Home Office strongly opposing the proposal. He went on to state that the letters did not necessarily come from temperance organisations. They included passengers in the vehicle and, to quote his words:
"There has been very strong public representation against this proposal."
I cannot help thinking for a moment of those happy days when I was a boy and used to read adventure stories. It was almost an invariable incident, in historical adventure stories, that the boyish hero, aged about sixteen, had to ride in a stage coach and next to him was always an enormous lady who drank continuously from a bottle of gin throughout the journey. I cannot help feeling a sort of spiritual presence by my side, of the heroes of those old adventure books who objected so strongly to that position.
But I want to do justice to the arguments which my noble friend has advanced. I think there is certainly a great difference between trains and coaches in this regard. With regard to aeroplanes I think that my noble friend must admit that there is a stronger analogy. There are obvious difficulties which will occur to noble Lords who are accustomed to travel. Another point which will be of interest to the Committee, because the Committee have just had the advantage of hearing my noble and learned friend in quite another context, is that my noble and learned friend Lord Guest was Chairman of a Committee, which considered the Scottish licensing laws and which submitted its first Report last October. I concede at once to my noble friend Lord Merrivale that this had special relation to Sunday bus and coach parties. The Committee recommended that the consumption of drink should not be allowed in public service vehicles. As my right honourable friend the Minister of State said in another place:
"Always hearing in mind that we are considering much more limited and specialised conditions, I should have thought that if this matter were publicly examined, as it was in

565
Scotland, there would be a very strong body of opinion opposed to this provision, just as there was in Scotland."
LORD MERRIVALE: The operators concerned are perfectly willing to do anything that is required. The granting of a certificate is subject to the approval of the Traffic Commissioners, and if they felt that any service going to Scotland should not have a certificate they would not grant it. Secondly, I should like to mention that the operators are perfectly willing either not to carry alcohol on vehicles when going to Scotland or have it off-loaded at the Border, or to lock up the alcohol in the vehicle.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not think that my noble friend has appreciated the point I am making. My noble and learned friend Lord Guest and his Committee inquired into the matter in Scotland (I want to be perfectly fair) with special reference to Sunday coach parties, and found that there was a considerable and serious body of opinion against this provision and against the serving of drink on public service vehicles. I hope that my noble friend will understand that I am being studiously moderate in this matter. This is a very controversial proposal which, as I say, was defeated, though narrowly, in Committee in the House of Commons. A number of noble Lords may put it more strongly, but I am sure that others will agree with me when I put it in this way. Public opinion is not ready for this at the present time. This is not a case Where one can put the argument, which is often a very fair argument, that if people do not want the drink, they need not have it. If they do not want to drink on a public service vehicle, they cannot help being brought up against it, and the only alternative is not to make a journey by public service vehicle. So the classical argument against opposition does not apply.
My noble friend said that he had gone part of the way to meeting objection in providing in his Amendment that an excise licence may be granted to the owner of any public service vehicle to which the clause applies, but, of course, his Amendment does not say what the excise duty shall be. The Customs and Excise could not accept that an excise licence should be issued without any duty being payable, and there is no case for singling out public service vehicles
566
operators and allowing them to sell liquor without payment of an excise duty when all other people who sell liquor under the authority of an excise licence, including railways, aircraft and passenger vessel operators, are required to pay duty. I do not think it is right to put it to your Lordships that it should be without a duty. My noble friend is in this dilemma. Either he wants an excise licence without a duty or an excise licence with a duty. In the latter case, it would be necessary, if his Amendment were inserted in the Bill and it went back to another place, to seek a Ways and Means Resolution to cover the new excise or taxing charge imposed by the new clause.
I should be the last person to use the argument that your Lordships cannot introduce a new provision, but for this House to introduce a taxing provision, to disagree with another place, and send the Bill back to another place so that they would need to have a Ways and Means Resolution for it—I am trying to put it moderately—would be a very unusual exercise of our position.
LORD MERRIVALE: There have been a number of precedents for this, when the House of Commons have been willing to waive their privileges. Section 9 of the Finance Act, 1946, became, if I recall rightly, Section 152 of the Customs and Excise Act with regard to allowing alcoholic drinks to be served aboard aircraft. In that case, I understand, the Chancellor of the Exchequer moved a Ways and Means Resolution, and he said that
"an Excise duty of £1 shall be charged on licences, to be taken out annually by the owner of a passenger aircraft or his agent, authorising the sale of intoxicating liquor to passengers in the aircraft."
If the words "public service vehicle" were substituted for "aircraft", would it not be possible for a member of Her Majesty's Government to move a similar Ways and Means Resolution in another place?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: All things are possible, but some things are not expedient. My noble friend is asking the Government to go back to another place and there put down a Ways and Means Resolution to carry in another place, at the instance of your Lordships' House, a financial provision

567
which they have rejected. Of course it is possible, but one must keep a certain comity of relationship between the Houses, and to ask us to do that is, I think, an unreasonable request.
But it does not stop there. At the moment the Amendment is defective, and equally in subsection (6) it creates a new offence but does not specify the penalty which it to be imposed if a conviction takes place. As I have said, this is a matter of great controversy, and where there is such a division of opinion it would be wrong to force it on the members of the public. Secondly, I say that it would be far more suitably dealt with by a Bill which concentrated on this point rather than by a Bill which, on the whole, deals with entirely different subjects. I suggest to my noble friend and those who are interested with him that it is a matter in which they could test the opinion of both Houses of Parliament by a Private Member's Bill dealing with this special subject. This is such la controversial matter, as I have said, and is so bitterly opposed, that I would ask my noble friend not to press the Amendment; and if he does, I would ask your Lordships to reject it.
LORD BURDEN: A phrase used by the noble and learned Viscount has brought me to my feet. I do not see in this proposed new clause any protection for the travelling public using the vehicle. That brings to my mind one of the rules in the railway rule book which runs something like this: "In the event of any passenger being drunk or disorderly to the annoyance of others the guard must use all reasonable means to abate the nuisance, failing which he must have the passenger removed at the next station." Is it proposed that if anybody gets drunk or disorderly he will be dumped on the roadside?
LORD MERRIVALE: The noble Lord did not hear my argument. I mentioned that at the moment, should such circumstances arise, a steward or stewardess who could not take the action mentioned by the noble Lord would instruct the driver to stop at a police station.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
5.36 p.m.
LORD PEDDIE LORD PEDDIE moved, after Clause 16 to insert the following new clause:
Licensing justices
". A justice having an interest in the profits of any premises shall not be thereby disqualified under subsection (4) of section forty-eight of the Licensing Act, 1953, or otherwise from acting under that Act or this Act, if he would not fall to be treated as having such an interest but for the fact that he has a beneficial interest in shares of a company or other body having an interest in those profits, and if his beneficial interest in the shares of the company or body does not extend to shares of a total nominal value greater than twenty-five pounds, or to more than one-hundredth in nominal value of its issued share capital or of any class of its issued share capital.
In this subsection 'share' includes stock, and 'share capital' shall be construed accordingly."
The noble Lord said: In moving this Amendment I hope your Lordships will bear with me for a few moments while I endeavour as briefly as possible to state the background and circumstances which provide its justification and purpose. Section 48 of the Licensing Act, 1953, states that no justice of the peace shall act in any case that concerns premises in which he is financially interested. On the face of it, that is reasonable and justifiable, but practice has disclosed quite a number of anomalies and, indeed, some injustice in the strict interpretation of this section of the Act.
The Government have been aware of these difficulties for some time and have endeavoured to search for a remedy. In the original Bill that was presented in another place the Government sought to deal with this situation in Clause 13 (1), which allowed licensing justices to hold shares up to a value of £500 in any concern that may be involved in the application to the justices. That clause was withdrawn on the Committee stage in another place, but the Government spokesman indicated that, although it was appreciated by many that the amount suggested in the clause was rather too high, there certainly was need to deal with the intolerable situation that had been created by the Licensing Act, 1953.
This Amendment takes the place of the original clause, but brings the shareholding down to the almost trivial amount of £25, which I believe, judging from debates that have taken place in another place, would be acceptable to the Government. The operation of this clause has a bearing upon many organisations and many

569
individuals associated indirectly with firms and concerns of various kinds. But the difficulties of co-operative societies, in particular, have been highlighted in debates in another place, with especial reference to the Barnsley Co-operative Society. It is for that reason that I make mention of it, and would, in passing, indicate that I, too, have an interest in being a member of a co-operative society.
Special difficulties have arisen in the County Borough of Barnsley, although, as I shall endeavour to point out later in my speech, this does not apply solely to Barnsley, and the set of circumstances I shall describe apply to many other towns and citizens in Great Britain. The Barnsley Co-operative Society has a membership of 140,000 and it is an extraordinarily high proportion of the population: indeed it is greater than the total population. The figure is explained by the fact that the membership reaches outside the county borough, and 99 out of every 100 families in the county borough of Barnsley contain a cooperative member. That Society has a number of off-licences, and I would point out that with one exception every justice of the peace for the County Borough of Barnsley, is a member of the Barnsley Co-operative Society. Those are the circumstances in Barnsley.
Under Section 4 of the Licensing Act, the licensing justices in the county borough have the sole authority for the granting or renewal of licences. Therefore, the situation in Barnsley (and I must apologise for constantly using this place as an illustration of my argument) is that there is no tribunal that can adjudicate upon any application on behalf of the Society, not even for the renewal of an existing off-licence held by the Society. I know that the problem could probably be resolved by a number of these members resigning from the Society, adjudicating upon the Bench and, when the decision is made, rejoining the Society. But such a method would not he satisfactory—indeed, is not satisfactory—and, furthermore, would be a complete mockery of the law.
There is no suggestion of politics in this matter, for the chairman of the Conservative Party in Barnsley is a member of the Co-operative Society and also a magistrate. Barnsley, I might say, is a very enlightened community.
570
Some might suggest that one could find non-co-operators as justices of the peace. But I am quite confident that those responsible for the appointment of the justices would recognise my statement that that would mean the destruction of the fundamental principle that is employed in the selection of justices on the basis of merit and suitability. I have indicated to your Lordships that the Barnsley case is not an isolated one. There are many other cities and towns that are affected, but I will not trouble your Lordships with the exceedingly long list that I have in my possession.
The idea of this Amendment is not new: there is nothing new in it. It is copied from the Local Government Act, which provides that a member of a local authority who has indirectly a pecuniary interest in a firm not exceeding £200 in shares, or one-hundredth of the total nominal value, can consider and, indeed, vote on any contract relating to that particular firm in relation to the local authority upon which the councillor serves. Later that amount was increased to £500—I forget the precise date when the increase was made. Therefore, the principle is already accepted. There is nothing new in terms of principle in the Amendment that I put forward. The Amendment reduces the amount to the trivial figure of £25, and I am quite sure your Lordships will appreciate that such a small holding could not affect judgment.
Incidentally, I may say in passing, making reference once again to the question of co-operative justices, that in that regard the interest is a fixed one and, therefore, quite irrespective of the profitability of the venture. It has no bearing whatsoever on the remuneration that can be derived from the holding of those shares. I must say that this applies to many other organisations apart from co-operative societies. Persons who have investments in the increasingly popular unit trusts, and persons with very small investments in various companies, can hardly be aware of the implications when they sit upon the licensing bench. I am quite sure your Lordships will be appreciative of the serious difficulties that almost unconsciously arose out of the original Licensing Act. I would say that, unless we seize the opportunity to deal with

571
this situation now to provide the solution which is indicated, we cannot solve this problem for a matter of two or three years at the very least. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 16, insert the said new clause. —(Lord Peddie.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not think that anything lengthy is required after, if I may say so, the admirable speech of the noble Lord, Lord Peddie. As he said, we have considered this point, and we have tried to find the best way of meeting it. I think the noble Lord will agree that his suggestion today is very like the one put by my right honourable and learned friend the Solicitor-General in another place and, therefore, without more ado, I advise your Lordships to accept the Amendment.
LORD HAWKE: Before we accept this Amendment, does not the fact that a total nominal value of £25 is mentioned in this Amendment raise precisely the same difficulties the noble Lord has mentioned in regard to unit trusts? If the licensing justice had to calculate his holding in terms of one-thousandth of a unit to see that his share did not amount to as much as £25, is that not going to lead to great difficulties? Must there be a limit of some kind?
LORD PEDDIE: I do not think that involves any serious difficulty whatsoever. Originally, the suggestion was made for an amount of £500 nominal value, and then £250. There was a problem there in that while one may have £250 nominal value, the real value may be considerable. It could be argued that it could have some bearing upon the judgment of the person. In this regard £25 is so small a sum, that, even in the case of a holding in a unit trust, a person's share would have such a wide spread of investment that it is quite obvious that there would be no possibility of the holding of a few shares in a unit trust having any bearing upon the case. If you had a unit trust which confined itself exclusively to brewery or similar shares, and which was involved in an application, the man himself would have to calculate it. Personally, I can see no difficulty at all with regard to the £25.
572
That amount is purely nominal and should create no difficulty in that regard.
LORD HAWKE: In fact, a holding in a unit trust, even if on calculation it amounted to more than £25, would not disqualify the justice from acting in that way? Do I understand that aright?
LORD PEDDIE: Quite frankly, I do not follow the point. If any person has £25 in a unit trust, then there has to be some measure of calculation as to what amount may be invested in the particular concern that is making application to that bench. As the law now stands, irrespective of any interest whatsoever, no matter what it may be, if you have any interest at all you cannot adjudicate in a case before that bench. That is the principle which is challenged in this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.50 p.m.
LORD BURDEN LORD BURDEN moved, after Clause 16 to insert the following new clause:
Overspill areas
".—(1) Where in an overspill area the Minister of Housing and Local Government is satisfied that there has been a comprehensive allocation of sites for licensed premises and has so informed the licensing justices for the licensing district or districts within which that area lies, then, if the holder of a legal or equitable estate or interest in land within that area applies to the licensing justices for the licensing district in which the land is situated for the removal of a licence to premises comprised or to be comprised in that estate or interest, the justices shall grant him a licence unless they are not satisfied that—

(a) the premises are fit and convenient for the purpose;

(b) the applicant is not disqualified by the Licensing Act, 1953 or any other Act for holding a justices' licence and is in all other respects a fit and proper person to hold a justices' licence; and

(c) the existing provision of licensed premises within the licensing district is such that there is no need for the premises which are the subject of the application to be licensed.

(2) In this section "overspill area" means either—

(a) any land acquired by a local authority other than the local authority for the district in which the land is situated, under Part V of the Housing Act, 1957; or

(b) any land designated under section 5 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947 and acquired under sections 37 and 38 by a local authority other than the county borough or county district in which the land is situated; or

573

(c) any land authorised to be acquired by the receiving authority or by any other local authority under section 6 of the Town Development Act, 1952."

The noble Lord said: While I am appreciative of the noble Earl's acceptance of my former Amendment, I want briefly to run over the points in this Amendment in order that we may hear what Her Majesty's Government have to say in regard to it, and because I fear, as I will explain later, that the former Amendment alone may lead to difficulties between the licensing planning authority and the justices responsible for the licenses in the overspill areas. Subsection (1) of the new clause explains the circumstances in which the justices would be obliged to grant the removal of a licence to an applicant holding an interest in land in an overspill area, whose application derives from a comprehensive allocation of sites for premises agreed with the trade in the town from which the overspill area comes. That, of course, indicates what I have said previously, that the allocation of a removal licence depends upon the co-operation of the three parties—the licensing planning authority, the trade and the justices responsible for the allocation of licences in the overspill area. Therefore, I think it is very important that good will and co-operation should be maintained.
Before this obligation is placed upon the justices, the Minister of Housing has to be satisfied that the area complies with the definition of an overspill area, which is in subsection (2) of the clause. Now this is an important point, which I would ask the noble Earl to consider. Paragraphs (a) and (b) in subsection (1) are based upon the provisions of Section 58 (2) of the Licensing Act, 1953, which restricts the powers of the justices to refuse the removal of a licence in a licensing planning area, an area defined by the Secretary of State, which has suffered extensive war damage. Now my proposed new clause endeavours to apply the principle that was applied to areas which had suffered extensive war damage, to areas which are subjected to slum clearance, where the licences are put in suspense.
Paragraph (c) of subsection (1) maintains the discretion of the justices to the proper extent of considering whether there is a need for the licensed premises, having regard to the needs of the
574
licensing district as a whole. I would emphasise this point. It does not take away the power of the licensing justices in the overspill area to refuse a removal licence, if the needs of the district are already met by the existing licences. The licensing justices have still to consider the position as a whole in their licensing area. But where it would restrict their power is here; it would restrict their powers to give a licence, whether small, moderate or large, to a new applicant while there are these licences in suspense in an overspill area—licences in suspense which have been the subject, as I have previously said, of a comprehensive planning agreement which has been of considerable value.
While I have emphasised the case of Manchester, I am advised that it is not a problem only for Manchester. I am advised that, for example, Wolverhampton is likely to be confronted with the same problem, and I rather thought that my second Amendment was necessary in order to make for the amicable working of an arrangement which, I am sure, is well known in certain quarters. I hope the Minister will be able to help me in regard to this matter. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 16, insert the said new clause. —(Lord Burden.)
EARL BATHURST: In the noble Lord's last Amendment I accepted, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, that we grant that no geographical limitations are necessary for the removal of a licence from one set of premises to another, but, in spite of what the noble Lord has told us, we believe that his second Amendment would mean that, due to his complex juggling with the town and country planning laws and regulations as they exist, the receiving licensing justices and the populations, too, in those receiving areas, would be bound to accept the owner of a removal licence, with no chance of objection and with no chance of considering any local applicants or interests for that particular licence. We believe—in fact, there is no doubt—that the noble Lord's Amendment would remove the discretion of the receiving licensing justices. It would be most complicated to work, as I fancy your Lordships will appreciate from what the noble Lord has said, with re-

575
gard to the planning regulations, and we believe that there would probably be so few cases that such complicated regulations would not be needed.
I will certainly agree with the noble Lord that, if the removals are amicably settled in the new receiving areas under the existing legislation, with the Amendment that the noble Lord moved first, I do not think there wild be any difficulty. The difficulty arises when the removals may not be so amicable, and, if the noble Lord's Amendment were accepted, we believe unfairness would be caused in the receiving areas.
LORD BURDEN: I should be the last one to want any measure of unfairness, but I see the point made by the noble Earl. It all depends upon the good will of the receiving licensing justices, if I may put it in that way. I suppose it would be wrong to assume at the outset —and I take it that that is the Government's case—that the receiving justices would be obstructive and would not be willing to consider the case of a removal licence from the area from which the overspill population came. But after all, I think there is something to be said for those licences which have been operative in the slum clearance areas—a similar sort of licence for the population which has transferred itself to the new area. However, I see that the noble Earl is reluctant to put a measure of compulsion—that is what it comes to—upon the justices responsible for the overspill area, and I am afraid that I must, in those circumstances, leave it to both parties to negotiate their problems in a spirit of good will and co-operation, in order that the scheme which is working now, and will be working, may be successful. In those circumstances, thanking the noble Earl for his points and for his acceptance of the first Amendment, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17 agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after Clause 17 to insert the following new Clause.
New provisions for protection of young persons
".—(1) Subject to section twenty of this Act, in licensed premises the holder of the licence or his servant shall not knowingly sell
576
intoxicating liquor to a person under eighteen, or knowingly allow a person under eighteen to consume intoxicating liquor in a bar, nor shall the holder of the licence knowingly allow any person to sell intoxicating liquor to a person under eighteen.
(2) A person under eighteen shall not in Licensed premises buy or attempt to buy intoxicating liquor, nor consume intoxicating liquor in a bar.
(3) No person shall buy or attempt to buy intoxicating liquor for consumption in a bar in licensed premises by a person under eighteen.
(4) In the foregoing subsections, and in sections one hundred and twenty-six and one hundred and twenty-seven of the Licensing Act, 1953 (which contain other provisions for the protection of children and young persons), references to a bar shall not apply to a bar at any time when it is, as is usual in the premises in question, set apart for the service of table meals and not used for the sale or supply of intoxicating liquor otherwise than to persons having table meals there and for consumption by such a person having table meals there and for consumption by such a person as an ancillary to his meal; and nothing in subsection (1) or (2) above shall prohibit the sale to or purchase by a person who has attained the age of sixteen of beer, porter, cider or perry for consumption at a meal in a part of the premises usually set apart for the service of meals which is not a bar or in a bar at any such time as aforesaid.
(5) The holder of the licence or his servant shall not knowingly deliver, nor shall the holder of the licence knowingly allow any person to deliver, to a person under eighteen intoxicating liquor sold in licensed premises for consumption off the premises, except where the delivery is made at the residence or working place of the purchaser, nor shall any person knowingly send a person under eighteen for the purpose of obtaining intoxicating liquor sold or to be sold as aforesaid from the licensed premises or other premises from which the liquor is delivered in pursuance of the sale:
Provided that this subsection shall not apply where the person under eighteen is a member of the licence holder's family or his servant or apprentice and is employed as a messenger to deliver intoxicating liquor.
(6) A person guilty of an offence under this section (other than an offence under subsection (2)) shall be liable on a first conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty-five pounds and on a second or subsequent conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds; and on a person's second or subsequent conviction of such an offence the court may, if the offence was committed by him as the holder of a justices' licence, order that he shall forfeit the licence.
(7) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (2) of this section shall be liable to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds.
(8) Where a justices' licence is forfeited under subsection (6) above, justices of the peace shall have the like power to make a protection order under subsection (3) of section twenty-three of the Licensing Act. 1953, as they have in a case falling within that subsection, and the

577
provisions relating to transfers of licences shall apply accordingly.
(9) In subsection (1) of section one hundred and twenty-seven of the Licensing Act, 1953 (under which the holder of a justices' licence is guilty of an offence if a person under eighteen is employed in a bar of licensed premises when the bar is open for the sale or consumption of liquor), the word "justices'" shall be omitted.
(10) Subsections (1) to (3) and subsection (9) above (but not subsection (4)) shall apply in relation to any canteen (within the meaning of the Licensing (Seamen's Canteens) Act, 1954) in respect of which a licence is in force under that Act as if the canteen were licensed premises, but with the substitution for any reference to a bar of a reference to the canteen; and in subsection (6) above the references to a justices' licence shall accordingly include a licence under that Act.
(11) For the purposes of subsection (6) above a conviction of an offence under section one hundred and twenty-eight or subsection (1). (4) or (5) of section one hundred and twenty-nine of the Licensing Act, 1953 (or under any of those enactments as applied by the Licensing (Seamen's Canteens) Act, 1954, or by the Occasional Licences and Young Persons Act, 1956) shall be taken into account in the same way as a conviction of an offence under this section other than an offence under subsection (2)."
The noble and learned Viscount said: This Amendment is grouped with Amendments Nos. 26, 27, 28, 60, 77 and 78 and it deals with another point on which I gave notice at Second Reading, and that is to extend the present prohibition of sales of liquor to persons under 18 to cover sales for consumption of sales on the premises. The clause also has the effect, by the use of the words "licensed premies" in subsection (1) and elsewhere, of applying prohibition to premises which have a retail excise licence only, as well as those with a justices' licence. The practical effect is to extend the under-18 prohibition to the bars of theatres, where drink may be sold under excise licence only. This repairs a no doubt unintentional omission of the present law, for there can be no logical reason for prohibiting the sale of drink to a young person in the bar of licensed premises but allowing it in a theatre bar.
The other kind of excise licence affected is the occasional licence. The sale of drink to young persons under an occasional licence, at a race meeting or a dance or the like, is already prohibited by the Occasional Licences and Young Persons Act, 1956, which the last of the above Amendments consequentially
578
repeals since the prohibition is now embodied in the new clause. For the rest, the opportunity has been taken to consolidate in the new clause the provisions of the existing law and the Bill about the sale of drink to young persons. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 17, insert the said new clause. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 18 [Penalty for unauthorised sales of intoxicating liquor]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 36, leave out subsections (4) to (8)—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 19 [Miscellaneous relaxations of laws as to licensed premises]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 33, leave out subsection (1). —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 20 [Liqueur chocolates]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 31, after ("supply") insert ("purchase, delivery").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 21:
Conditions for supply of intoxicating liquor by clubs
21.—(l) No intoxicating liquor shall on any club premises be supplied by or on behalf of the club to a member or guest, unless the club is registered under this Act in respect of those premises or the liquor is supplied under the authority of a justices' licence held by the club for the premises.
A person supplying or authorising the supply of intoxicating liquor in contravention of this

579
subsection shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to a fine not exceeding two hundred pounds, or to both.
(2) No intoxicating liquor shall, on any club premises in respect of which the club is registered, be supplied by or on behalf of the club for consumption off the premises except to a member in person.
6.3 p.m.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR moved, in subsection (1), to add to the first paragraph:
"and no intoxicating liquor shall be supplied at any time to any person under eighteen years of age in any club to which this section applies."
The noble Lord said: I am sure your Lordships are rather surprised to find this Amendment on the Order Paper following the new clause we have just carried. This Bill shows a great interest in young people. It makes provisions in various ways to try to safeguard all those under 18. A young person under 18 may not be served in a public house and may not be served at off-licence premises; but here they may be served in a club. The temperance movement, —and on this issue I am speaking on their behalf, as well as on my own personal behalf—do not understand this differentiation.
I do not think it necessary to give many figures, but I ought to mention one or two which have been sent to me to show how important it is to have provision in all legislation to safeguard the youth of both sexes. I have here a paragraph headed "Increased drunkenness amongst young people". It states:
"Concern is expressed at the increase in convictions of males under 18 for drunkenness; 39 per cent. higher in 1960 than 1959, girls nearly 30 per cent.; a combined total of 38 per cent. Another disturbing feature is the increase in the number of convictions concerning purchase and attempted purchase of intoxicating liquor. Males under 18, increase of 44 per cent.; females under 18, an increase of 68 per cent.; combined increase of 48 per cent. This means that young people who have hardly left school are indulging more and more in the drinking habit."
Just one other quotation—it comes from the Chief of Police of the County Borough of Wallasey:
"A disturbing factor is that no fewer than four youths of 16 years and twelve of 17 years were before the courts on charges of drunkenness. I am conscious of the fact that some of these youngsters obtain their liquor from 'out-door' departments or off-licences; also from registered clubs, particularly those
580
organising dances, but I do ask every licensee to assist in preventing this type of offence by making sure that anyone served on his premises is at least 18 years of age."
There we are—different directions, but the same support; to take in every precaution to safeguard those under 18.
The only argument worth mentioning that I can find, which was used in another place, is that clubs are so like home; that clubs are home from home; they differ so much from pubs; that pubs are anything but that. That is the argument. I do not accept that. Clubs can be pleasant places over a period, but to suggest that what is right in the home is right in a club because a club is so much like a home is, to me, a wrong type of reasoning. In the home one has parental control. One of the Members of Parliament to intervene told us about a father giving a glass of sherry to his daughter of 19. Well, who could object to a father doing that in his home? Maybe the same father would do it in a club. He may not understand that the temperance movement is against this; and so is the Government, which has shown a real interest in those under 18.
The Lord Chancellor himself has just moved a comprehensive clause which satisfies the temperance movement in every sense. We are pleased with the provisions made in that clause for those under 18 with regard to "off-licence" and "on-licence" premises, but we are unable to understand why the Government are not prepared to do it in clubs, because we do not understand or accept the argument that a club is like a home—a home from home. We hope that after further consideration, this Amendment may be accepted. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 7, at end insert the said words. —(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
EARL BATHURST: I would ask the noble Lord and all your Lordships to bear in mind that we are dealing with two quite different types of clubs: on the one hand, the respectable bona fide club, which will receive a registration under this Bill; on the other, the undesirable, if not illegal, club, which will disappear as a result of Part III of this Bill. I do not believe that what the noble Lord has just been saying when moving his Amendment will apply in the cases of

581
young people. Her Majesty's Government are indeed concerned with the increased drinking by young people but what the noble Lord did not mention is that the Bill increases the penalties for selling drink to persons under 18 in the public houses. He did mention that under the Amendment which your Lordships have now passed it prohibits off-sales to persons under 18.
The noble Lord argues that it is logical as well as desirable to go on and deal with the supply of drinks to young persons in clubs—and I am now talking of bona fide clubs. The noble Lord says that some clubs already have in their rules a prohibition on the supply of drink to persons under eighteen. That is so. But the comparison between public houses, on the one hand, and the clubs, on the other, is not an apt comparison; and I think that the noble Lord himself has already given your Lordships good reasons why that is not an apt comparison. There is nothing to prevent any club which so wishes from continuing to prohibit or restrict the supply of drink to a young person. A club of this kind is perfectly capable of making and enforcing its own rules on this matter, without the need for legislative intervention. I have already said that respectable clubs only will survive in future. Is Parliament really to say what a parent or a friend shall do as regards a respectable club for a young person who is perfectly legally in that club?
The prohibition which the noble Lord would like to see would be very difficult to enforce in the absence of police right of entry into clubs. The police cannot enter a club at will, and Her Majesty's Government could not accept any suggestion that they should be able to do so. This being so, it would be almost impossible to prove the commission of an offence, and it is undesirable at any time to introduce into the law a provision which cannot be effectively enforced. This applies particularly in the present context which the noble Lord has mentioned, where the law is being strengthened and being made more enforceable in other respects. We do not believe that the absence of this provision will, in fact, increase drinking among young people. I would, above all, ask your Lordships to bear in mind that the undesirable, if not illegal, drinking clubs will no longer exist, due to the later
582
provisions in Part III of this Bill. I ask your Lordships to reject the noble Lord's Amendment—or it may be that I have assured the noble Lord that his Amendment is not necessary.
LORD DENNING: May I say a word upon this point? Certainly clubs can and should be divided into two, the bona fide club, the members' club, and the underhand proprietary club. They are of an entirely different nature. Although it may be that the Amendment is too wide in referring to all clubs, I would have suggested that certainly proprietary clubs, which are very much on the same level as an ordinary licensed house, could be made subject to the prohibition that there should be no sale of liquor to children under eighteen. Indeed, there is a later Amendment to suggest that the police should have a right of entry into proprietary clubs for that very reason. It is all very well to say that undesirable clubs will be blotted out by Part III. I venture to doubt whether that will be so. Proprietary clubs will remain; they will require strict supervision, and I suggest that it would be a very desirable Amendment to put them on the same footing as ordinary licensed houses in the other Parts of the Act to protect people under eighteen. Without going to the full extent of this Amendment, I should like to see some provision at a later stage to give some protection in respect of proprietary clubs.
EARL BATHURST: With great respect to the noble and learned Lord, I am sure the majority of those proprietary clubs will not be eligible for registration owing to their rules, and so forth. Those proprietary clubs which are decent and proper places will have to obtain a licence in exactly the same way as a public house obtains a licence, and will therefore have all the rules and regulations applicable to a public house, which will be enforceable by entry of the police. I assure the noble and learned Lord that when we get on to the club provisions he will see that in fact those provisions which he has just mentioned are all right.
BARONESS RAVENSDALE OF KEDLESTON: May I ask one question of the noble Earl? In all this effort to protect young men or women under eighteen, is it not extremely difficult at

583
times to determine who is a boy under eighteen?—because so many boys under eighteen may be putting themselves up as being twenty or 25. When a boy under eighteen comes in and calls for a drink I wonder whether anybody can decide whether he is under eighteen. I do not know whether that is relevant to the present discussion.
EARL BATHURST: The term "knowingly" is used as a safeguard for the public house keeper, or of course for the club proprietor in the case that I have just mentioned to the noble and learned Lord. That is a well-known term in licensing legislation. It is the public house keeper or barman's responsibility to make quite certain of the age of the person to whom he sells. If he is in doubt he must ask. If he is told a lie, the word "knowingly" is a defence, but it is the responsibility of that publican to know the age of the person to whom he sells.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: May I in the first place thank the noble Earl for his very kind, clear, cogent, convincing arguments. He has not quite taken me with him all the way. What the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, has already said was in my mind before he said it. I think I will not press this Amendment to-night, but I may reconsider and frame a different Amendment for Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 21 agreed to.
Clause 22:
Qualifications for registration
22.—
(3) Any renewal of a registration certificate shall be for one year from the expiration of the period for which the certificate was issued or last renewed, except that on the second or any subsequent renewal the certificate may, if the court thinks fit, be renewed for such number of years (not exceeding ten) from the expiration of that period as may be requested in the application for renewal or for any less number of years.
(7) A club shall be qualified to receive a registration certificate for any premises (whether in the first instance or by way of renewal), only if no arrangements are, or are intended to be, made—
584
(b) for any person directly or indirectly to derive any pecuniary benefit from the supply of intoxicating liquor by or on behalf of the club to members or guests, apart from any benefit accruing to the club as a whole and apart also from any benefit which a person derives indirectly by reason of the supply giving rise or contributing to a general gain from the carrying on of the club.
6.19 p.m.
BARONESS RAVENSDALE OF KEDLESTON: As the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has not arrived, may I venture to say this quite briefly to your Lordships? A great deal of trouble has been taken by Her Majesty's Government in this Bill in controlling the registration of clubs. A registration certificate now shall have effect for twelve months and a renewal shall be for one year. The Government now leap to such magnanimity that they propose, if the court thinks fit, to let that renewal run up to ten years. Surely we have jumped from the frying pan into the fire. Five years is bad enough, but in ten years what cannot happen? Your Lordships know perfectly well what goes on in these clubs. They may keep themselves clear from the police under these new licensing hours; but you know what occurs, how often they break the law, and I would beg your Lordships to consider reducing that term to five years instead of ten. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 19, leave out ("ten") and insert ("five").—(Baroness Ravensdale of Kedleston.)
EARL BATHURST: Again I must ask the noble Baroness and your Lordships to remember that there are two types of club—the bona fide club, which would be a club which will most likely receive a ten-year registration from the magistrates, and the other sort, the proprietary club which has a sporting chance of receiving no permission from the magistrate to exist at all.
I do not think I need go into this Amendment in great detail. It was gone into at great length in another place. I assure the noble Baroness that the club which she has in mind—the illegal club, as it will be under this Bill—will not be able to exist. Only the sort of club which is a right and proper place will receive a ten-year registration. Should there be any doubt at all, full discretion is left with the magistrates to decide

585
for how long the registration should be allowed. If that club does not conduct itself according to the most stringent regulations under this Bill, it can of course be closed down effectively, which has not been the case up till now.
BARONESS RAVENSDALE OF KEDLESTON: I thank the noble Earl. I personally still think that five years for any club, respectable or not, is safer than ten years. However, I will ask for permission to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: This is a small Amendment, which I hope puts into effect what is Her Majesty's Government's intention. The difficulty about the phrase "two days" is that I rather think there is judicial authority on this sort of expression, and that it would result in something like the following situation. Supposing one applied to become a member of one of these clubs on a Tuesday and the phrase "at least two days" remained in the Bill, it might be considered by the courts that two clear days should elapse before one could become a member. Therefore, having applied on Tuesday one would have to wait all Wednesday and all Thursday, until one could become a member on Friday. Heretofore, I do not think there has been any sanctity in the length of time of 48 hours, but none the less 48 hours has been the time. I would therefore suggest to your Lordships that this should be continued and that instead of "two days" there should be inserted "forty-eight hours", which would make quite clear the length of time which one would have to wait before becoming a member. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 34, leave out ("two days") and insert ("forty-eight hours").—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
EARL BATHURST: With the greatest respect to my noble friend, I hope that I shall convince him that the effect of his Amendment is exactly the opposite way round. I must admit that I was convinced by his Amendment at first, but I hope to show your Lordships that in fact our wording in the clause is the correct wording. Cause 22 (5) provides that the rules of a club must require an interval of two days between application for membership and admission
586
to any of the privileges of membership. This Amendment would make that interval 48 hours. The similar provision in the present law, which is Section 144, is in terms of 48 hours. The change to two days was made deliberately to make enforcement easier.
The effect of making the interval 48 hours rather than two days can best be seen by considering an example. Suppose a man applies for membership of a club at 7 p.m. on a Friday, the 48 hours' interval which the noble Viscount would like expires at 7 p.m. on Sunday and the two days interval (in effect two clear days) ends five hours later at midnight. If the man is found paying for a drink in the club at noon on Sunday the question of a breach of the club rules arises —action can be taken against the club under Clause 23. The club records will show that he applied for membership on Friday but are most unlikely to show the time of day at which he applied; and I think it would be difficult to see that club registrars or secretaries put down an accurate time for the application. It would be difficult to prove that that man applied later than noon on Friday, and that there was therefore a breach of the 48 hours' rule. The breach of the two days rule would, however, be completely clear, and much easier to enforce. Therefore, my objection to my noble friend's Amendment is that, in practice, it allows clubs to cut the interval to as little as 36 hours with impunity. I hope that I have made myself clear to my noble friend.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I thank my noble friend for that explanation. The fact is, however, that it appears that Her Majesty's Government's intention is to change this long-sanctioned 48 hours. If that is the case I ask for permission to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.27 p.m.
BARONESS RAVENSDALE OF KEDLESTON: I ask your Lordships to consider this Amendment standing in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham. Its effect is that a club shall not be qualified to receive a registration certificate in relation to any premises having more than one hostess for every

587
twenty tables. Your Lordships know perfectly well what goes on. I know what the noble Earl has said about these clubs, and of the definite desire to curtail and control them. If we bring in this proviso and thus prevent a hostess having fewer than twenty tables to look after, we might reduce the terrible evil that these women do in these clubs. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 6, at end insert—
("() A club shall not be qualified to receive a registration certificate for any premises if at those premises there are employed, at any time, more than one "hostess" for every twenty tables used for eating or drinking at those prenlises.")—(Baroness Ravensdale of Kedleston.)
EARL BATHURST: I must again ask the noble Baroness to bear in mind what I said about reputable and responsible clubs as opposed to those that are irreputable and will probaby be illegal when this Bill comes into force. The whole concept of "hostess" as the noble Baroness and her noble friends understand it seems quite incompatible with the type of club that will qualify for registration—namely, the club which is run by and for the members, with a proper constitutionally elected committee. Accordingly, this Amendment might, if anything, carry the implication that, notwithstanding the incompatibility of hostesses with a club being a genuine members' club, a club may nevertheless qualify for a registration certificate provided that the proportion of 'hostesses in that club does not exceed that of one to twenty tables as laid down in the Amendment. I am quite certain that that would not be the effect that the noble Baroness would wish. This would be unfortunate from the point of view of the general principles laid down in Part III of the Bill, as well as from the point of view of the noble Baroness on the matter. Secondly, if the object of the Amendment is to ensure that hostesses of an undesirable kind are not employed in clubs, this will not be achieved merely by the limitation of their number. In fact, there are already better safeguards in the Bill against hostesses of an undesirable kind.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Where?
EARL BATHURST: I have already mentioned to the noble Baroness and to the noble Lord that if such clubs carry on undesirable practices they will not qualify for registration. Therefore, they will be outside the law. Subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 23 have the effect that objection may be made to the issue or renewal of a registration certificate, or an application may be made for the cancellation of an existing certificate, on the ground, among others, that the club premises are habitually used as a resort of prostitutes. That is yet another safeguard which I was going to mention had the noble Viscount not intervened just at that moment.
To sum up, the night clubs which at present employ hostesses are unlikely to qualify for registration certificates in any case; and, in so far as the Amendment may suggest that hostesses are compatible with the usual kind of members' club, this would be mast unfortunate. A limitation on the number of hostesses is not in itself any guarantee that a club, or the hostesses, may be respectable. The Bill already contains safeguards, which I have described, against the undesirable practices that may arise. So I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her Amendment on the grounds that it would not be effective to meet the case which she requires it to meet. But I do assure her that there are safeguards in Part III of this Bill, which we believe will do so.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Before the noble Baroness is enticed into withdrawing this Amendment, perhaps some of us on this side might have a word about it. There is one thing for which we are very grateful, and that is that the noble Baroness has been putting down Amendments of her own, and in conjunction with my noble friend Lord Stonham, who unfortunately cannot be here tonight, for the purpose of getting a great improvement, if possible, in the standards of these clubs.
When one reverts to the discussions which have taken place, in another place and in your Lordships' House on the earlier Bill, when we were dealing with street offences, one knows how difficult this position.is in many of the clubs. I should thaw thought that a better answer would have been available as to what

589
the Government intended to do to improve the situation than merely what is in this Bill. I do not gather from what the noble Earl has said that anything very effective is going to be done to improve the present situation; and the growth of these undesirable types of club in the West End of London—a matter which was referred to, I think, on Second Reading by my noble friend Lord Stonham—is really rather frightening. It does not seem to me that the Government are taking sufficient steps in this Bill to meet that situation.
I am not saying, and I do not suppose the noble Baroness, Lady Ravensdale, would say, that we can guarantee that this particular Amendment is going to do everything that we want—not by any means. I have listened carefully to the noble Earl (he will forgive me if I have misunderstood him) but if there is anything in the argument that a different number of tables, 15 or 20, might do something to improve things, then all I can say is that I know quite well that in a club of any kind, whether it is registered or not, anything which increases the number of ladies who will act as hostesses—not as waitresses, but as hostesses: danding and ordering the drinks; and ordering them ad lib. pretty often—will have a great effect upon the partners who dance with them. I do not think that the Government are taking this matter quite seriously enough. I should like to say to the noble Baroness that I feel grateful to her for the stand she has taken in this matter. It always wants a great deal of courage to take up this kind of question: people look at you askance, and that kind of thing. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for taking it up, and I hope that the Government will be able to give a better answer than we have just had.
6.36 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I say this to the noble Viscount?—because I am very anxious to take him with us on our intentions. What I suggest is that when we have gone through the various club provisions he should examine this problem again. From what has been brought to my knowledge, I should myself consider that the night club that goes in for hostesses—and that is really the kind of club we have in mind—would have extraordinarily little chance of registration when this
590
Bill becomes law. One could quite imagine (the noble Viscount and I know of such gatherings all over the country) dance clubs which are the most harmless and admirable gatherings of young people; but they are real clubs. I should have thought that the appearance of hostesses was almost instantly concomitant with the fact that the club concerned was a proprietary club. You have someone in the background, as the noble Viscount has described, who puts the girls forward to attract men to order more drink. I should have thought—and I should like us all just to consider this again—that that is almost entirely the place where there is a proprietor and where the essentials of a club for our purposes, with the members controlling the liquor, and not somebody who is going to make a profit out of it, are entirely absent. My own view, therefore, is that it is as safe as it can ever be in a prognosis to say that this type of club, the club that puts forward hostesses, would not obtain a registration certificate under Clause 22. I believe that the night clubs will recognise that they will have to obtain a justices' licence if they are going to carry on.
I am always anxious to consider doubts from the noble Viscount who leads the Opposition—and, indeed, from my noble friend Lady Ravensdale—and I will consider the point he has made. But I would suggest that, when we have further considered the position, and any other doubts that may be expressed on the club part of the Bill, the noble Viscount should consider this special problem in the light of our examination of the Bill. It is certainly not our desire to make it easy for the kind of clubs that the noble Baroness and the noble Viscount have described. I believe we are right—I certainly hope we are right —in feeling that they will be driven out of the club field altogether. Having said that, I would add that I will willingly consider the problem, and I will ask Mr. Butler to consider it, too, in view of what the noble Viscount has said.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: May I just point out that even if you are going to restrict these dance hostesses, you cannot prevent a great increase in the number of waitresses in these clubs. What is to stop a waitress from doing the job of

591
a dance hostess? I rather think that you would probably have a great number of men waiters replaced by waitresses. This is an extremely hard thing for which to legislate, because if a club really wants to get round the law it can do so by employing waitresses who are not always waitresses—I mean, waitresses who behave as dance hostesses, and perhaps behave as they should not. It is an extremely difficult thing to legislate for.
LORD SILKIN: The noble Viscount has just mentioned one of the methods by which this can be evaded, and, of course, there are many others. But I notice that neither the noble Earl who answered, nor the noble and learned Viscount, said anything about the merits of this Amendment. If it is conceded that it is undesirable to have an unduly large number of hostesses at these clubs —and we know that the main purpose behind them might well be to induce clients to consume more liquor—and we are told that the matter will be looked at from that angle, then I think, by all means, the noble Lady will be glad to look at it again in relation to the whole of the provisions concerning clubs in the Bill. But if the Government would also look at it in relation to the question of the undesirability of having an unduly large number of hostesses, and of methods by which legislation can be evaded, as the noble Viscount pointed out, then I think we have gained something by this Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The only reason I did not deal with the point was that I was rather starting from the terminus a quo that, where you had hostesses, you probably had not a bôna fide club. That was the only reason I did not deal with the actual point, but I will consider it. Noble Lords know that I cannot give any commitment on the matter, but I will certainly consider it, because, as I say, we are most anxious that the Bill should deal with the problem.
LORD OGMORE: I wonder whether the noble and learned Viscount would consider this point too. I am not sure that, if any provision like this remains in the Bill, it would not do more harm than good, because I am very surprised
592
to learn that there might be hostesses in a club of this kind. If one reads the provisions of Clause 22 and sees the sort of club the clause envisages, one wonders what hostesses are doing there. That is what I cannot understand. Presumably the magistrates will have to decide this question; they will have to decide whether they are going to give a club a registration certificate or, in certain cases, whether they are going to remove one. The magistrates will see this provision; and what will the average magistrate think? He will probably say, "Parliament evidently believes that there should be some hostesses there, because it provides for a maximum number of hostesses". I think that is quite outside the whole idea of a club as envisaged in Clause 22. I should like the noble and learned Viscount—I am sure he has the point in mind, because he has indicated that he has—to feel that some of us, at any rate, are with him on this. I should have thought it was a rather dangerous Amendment to accept.
EARL BATHURST: With respect to the noble Lord, that is one of the reasons I pointed out earlier, and really the reason why my noble and learned friend and myself are not keen on this Amendment. I tried to point that out to the noble Lady without causing any offence to her, but that is the basic reason why we do not wish to accept this particular Amendment.
BARONESS RAVENSDALE OF KEDLESTON: I am not in the least convinced by the noble Earl's reply, but I am grateful for the support of the noble Viscount opposite. I will withdraw this Amendment provided only the noble and learned Viscount will reconsider it, and put this point to the Home Secretary in the other place, because I know the Government are trying to do their best. If I may hope for that, I will withdraw the Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will certainly do that. But I should like to point out again to my noble friend Lady Ravensdale of Kedleston that we are really asking for something higher than she is. We are asking that hostesses and a club should really be considered as incompatible; that is our approach. But, subject to that, I want to make clear to my noble friend that I was not seeking

593
anything lower in the scale than she wanted, but really something higher. Of course I will consider her point.
BARONESS RAVENSDALE OF KEDLESTON: I thank the noble Viscount.
LORD STONHAM: I apologise to the Committee for the fact that, through circumstances completely beyond my control, I was delayed, and I certainly do not wish to enter into the debate now. I understand that the noble and learned Viscount has given an assurance that he will write to my noble friend Lady Ravensdale of Kedleston on this point. As he will be aware, my name has also been mentioned, and I should be grateful if he would also write to me. I hope it will be possible for us to hear something of the Government's intentions before the Report stage, so that, if necessary, we may table this or another somewhat similar Amendment on Report stage.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Certainly I will do that.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.47 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: This is intended to be a drafting Amendment only: that is to say, the intention of this Amendment is to put into what I hope is clearer language what at present seems to me to be somewhat vague and unclear. In matters of language I do not think one needs a great deal of advocacy. I put it forward in good faith, in the hope that it will improve the language of the Bill and will make explicable what at present I find exceedingly difficult to understand. If the noble and learned Viscount, who I understand is going to deal with this Amendment, does not like it, I am perfectly willing to withdraw it; but I hope he will think that it is an improvement, or at any rate is worthy of consideration. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 16, leave out from ("guests") to ("from") in line 20 and to insert:
"provided that any profit derived from the sale of intoxicating liquor may form part of the general gain from the carrying on of the club and may form part of any pecuniary benefit accruing to the club as a whole and to any person deriving benefit").—(Lord Silkin.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am anxious to deal with this matter sympathetically, because I understand that it has the legal support not only of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, but also of some other lawyers; and individually and collectively I respect the noble Lord's opinion and the opinions of others. Paragraph (b) is concerned with the application of the bar receipts in a club. It provides, in effect, that, with two exceptions, no person shall derive any benefit from those receipts. The exceptions are, first, that the club as a whole may benefit; secondly, that where the receipts are paid into the general funds of the club, a person may derive a benefit from those funds even though that benefit is made possible only by the bar receipts. It was represented to us, first, that it was not clear that "general gain" might be made up in part or in whole of the bar profits; and secondly, that where without the bar profits a club would show a loss, a benefit derived from the general gain was derived directly from the bar profits, and so—although this was not the Government's intention—was prohibited by the paragraph.
In reply to the first of these points, it can be said that the words "apart from" make it clear that what follows is an exception to the general rule, and that the general rule is concerned with "any pecuniary benefit from the supply of liquor". The words "giving rise or contributing to a general gain" make it clear that both the case of the bar profits preventing a general deficit, and the case of the bar profits adding to a general surplus, are covered.
In reply to the other point that he made, I would say that any benefit derived from a general fund made up of two or more particular funds is derived indirectly from each of the funds. There is also this difficulty about the Amendment: it is not properly a proviso to the first part of the paragraph. The words
"any profit derived from the sale of intoxicating liquor may form part of the general gain"
appear to be a statement of an accountancy principle. "Sale" is the wrong word to use, as there may well be no sales at all in most clubs. The words
"any person deriving benefit"
appear to be left in the air.
I have stated this, not in any desire to be argumentative, but simply so that

595
the noble Lord can have a chance of considering the point, about which my colleagues and I were worried when we were considering it. I understand that neither the Law Society nor the noble Lord has any quarrel with the clause, but they doubt if it is effective to carry out our policy, I will gladly have another look at it and if any bright ideas strike me or those working with me, I will let the noble Lord know before the Report stage.
LORD SILKIN: The noble and learned Viscount has let the cat out of the bag. The Amendment has been suggested to me by the Law Society, a body which, unlike any other body interested in this Bill, has no axe to grind at all. It is wholly concerned that the wording in the Bill should be as clear as possible. This applies to the other Amendments which I am going to move. I gladly withdraw the Amendment in the light of what the noble and learned Viscount has said.
LORD HAWKE: Before the noble Lord withdraws his Amendment, would it be possible to construe the clause in such a way that any person engaged in the liquor trade selling liquor to a club would satisfy this definition, and thereby invalidate a club applying for a licence?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not think so, but I will consider the point. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his help.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD STONHAM: Subsection (7) of this clause provides that a club may be registered if no arrangements are made
"for any person directly or indirectly to derive any pecuniary benefit from the supply of intoxicating liquor by or on behalf of the club …".
The position with the proprietary club is that in many of them the proprietor, financially, is the club. The whole intention of the Bill, and particularly of Clause 22, is to ensure that the supply of liquor shall be completely under the control and for the benefit of club members. The word "club" in paragraph (b) makes it possible for a proprietor to benefit from the sale of liquor, because often he owns and runs the club, and the membership is fictitious, certainly purely nominal. There are many ways in which a proprietor can indirectly
596
benefit from the sale of drink—for instance, he can charge an abnormally high rent. I think that that kind of thing could be avoided if we substituted the word "members" for "club" in this paragraph, and once more make it clear that the supplying of intoxicating liquor can be only for the benefit of the members. It seems to me that this Amendment is in keeping with the general intentions of the Bill and I hope, therefore, that it will be acceptable to the Government. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 17, leave out ("club") and insert ("members").—(Lord Stonham.)
LORD DENNING: The word "club" is not defined in this Bill at all. In law there are two kinds of club, of entirely different natures. There is the members' club, in which the property belongs jointly to all the members, though it may be held by trustees for their benefit, and the proprietary club, in which the property belongs to the proprietor. This clause says that there should be no profit from the supply of intoxicating liquor except in so far as it goes to the club as a whole. If you are speaking of a proprietary club, that means the proprietor as a whole; in other words, the proprietor would get the benefit. If, as I gather from earlier discussions, members' clubs are to survive and proprietary clubs are to go away, it is not done by this Bill. Unless it is made clear that the proprietor does not get anything in the case of a proprietary club, apart from any benefit that accrues to the members, we are leaving a loophole whereby the proprietor can get a benefit. I support this Amendment, as it clears away any ambiguity.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I say at once that there is no difference between us at all about what we want to do. The last thing that the Government wish to do is to benefit the proprietor in the way the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, and my noble and learned friend Lord Denning have suggested. If it is Lord Stonham's purpose in substituting "members" for "club" to exclude any possibility that the words "benefit accruing to the club as a whole" at line 17 and the words "benefit of the club as a whole" at line 30 might otherwise be read as including any benefit which the proprietor derives in the case

597
of a proprietary club, my view is—and I ask your Lordships to consider it—that the answer is that it is perfectly clear from the context that the words "club as a whole" cannot be so construed. Any pecuniary benefit which the proprietor of such club derives from the supply of intoxicating liquor is either caught by the opening words of paragraph (b) of subsection (7) of Clause 22 as if it accrues to him as a benefit which he derives indirectly by reason of the supply contributing to a general gain from the carrying on of the club, or it is caught by the closing words of that paragraph. I have not been able to see any justification for saying that there is ambiguity about the words "club as a whole". The word "club" was carefully chosen in these provisions to express the required meaning and is used in the same sense as in other provisions of the Bill. To alter it in these two places would merely cause confusion and would be undesirable for the reasons that I have given.
If I may put these objections to changing the wording once again, I would point out that the term "club" is used extensively in Part III and in the Schedules, and if a change is to be made here, that will throw doubt on the meaning of the term elsewhere. Many members' clubs are incorporated—for example, the clubs registered with the Registrar of Friendly Societies under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1893—and in the case of incorporated clubs the term "club" is clearly more appropriate to members. I am sure that both noble Lords will give consideration to this matter. I do not know that I need trouble the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, with legal references, but I know that my noble and learned friend Lord Denning is never troubled by legal references and always adorns any legal reference that is sent to him by improving it. I would ask my noble and learned friend to consider the definition of Sir John Latham in Bennett v. Cooper, which is reported in 76 Commonwealth Law Reports at page 570. He defined a club as:
"a voluntary association of a number of persons meeting together for purposes mainly social, each contributing a certain sum either to a common fund for the benefit of the members or to a particular individual for his own benefit."
598
Then my noble and learned friend might have a passing glance at Lord Lindsay's judgment in Wise v. Perpetual Trustee Company, which he will remember is in 1903 Appeal Cases, page 149. If he will also look at Halsbury's Laws of England, the Third Edition, Volume 5, at page 52, he will find it gives this definition:
"A club may be defined as a society of persons associated together for social intercourse, for the promotion of politics, sport, arts and literature or for any purpose except the acquisition of gain. The association must be private and must have some clement of permanence. The purpose of social intercourse should be combined with any other purpose, subject to the exception named."
The sense in which "club" is used in both textbooks and authorities is generally the same, and I think we carry that general idea with us. But in view of the different kinds of clubs, all of which may be entirely respectable, it would be difficult to insert a definition in that sense into the Bill. What we are trying to do is to lay down clear and severe rules which will prevent what we have called the bogus club from existing. That is the purpose of Part III. I think it can be done without a definition. I quote these examples—and I think they are fair quotations—in order to show what we are talking about when we refer to a club.
As noble Lords will see, I do not share their difficulty as to "club" here possibly meaning the proprietor; and if I did, I would agree to Change it at once. But in view of the fact that both noble Lords are worried about it, I will have a look at it again and see whether, on reflection, I find a difficulty which I have not observed at the moment. I may say to the noble Viscount who leads the Opposition that I hope he will believe this is simply a matter of getting the best drafting. It is not a matter on my part of trying to prevent hitting exactly the same target as the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, and my noble and learned friend Lord Denning want to hit.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER of HILLSBOROUGH: I am obliged to the Lard Chancellor, and I hope that that satisfies the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and my noble friend Lord Stonham for the moment. My anxiety about it is this. It seems to me that the whole of this part of the Bill is to

599
provide machinery for registration of these clubs, many of which have not been registered before, under what conditions they will be carried on, and what complaints can be made against them in order to remove undesirable offences and to secure penalties. Therefore, it seems to me that the definition of a club in those circumstances is vital. While I pay great respect to the legal precedents that learned lawyers like the Lord Chancellor and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, can bring forward, I do not see why you should not make a precedent in order to secure a great moral advance in the State.
LORD DENNING: May I say that it was just because of the difficulty of these precedents, and because in Halsbury it refers to members, on the one hand, and to proprietary clubs of an entirely different nature, on the other—we are dealing with two different kinds of animals—that I thought the courts might find some difficulty and I considered it desirable to make the matter clear. However, in view of what the Lord Chancellor has said, perhaps it can be reconsidered.
LORD STONHAM: The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor was quite right to turn half right when he quoted the legal references. For my part, I am sure he would not have quoted any legal references which might have supported the other point of view, although no doubt there may be some. But in his careful explanation, for which I am grateful, he underlined the need for this Amendment, because if a club is not defined, and if, as it were, the definition has to be built up, as I agree it must be, with these various clauses, subsections and Schedules, then it would appear to me desirable that we should be quite explicit in this particular subsection. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, said that we are dealing with two different animals, and how right he is! Some of the gentlemen (I will not use the word "animals") who own these proprietary clubs are very wealthy people and can afford to pay for the most expensive legal advice. That has for years allowed them, as it were, to laugh at the law, which we know has been inadequate and which we are now amending in my view very well, with a most valuable Bill.
600
It is the case that a proprietor can own virtually everything about or in a club. If he is going to get registration for that club, then nominally, at least, the members must control the purchase, sale and benefits from any liquor consumed in the club. The law will work in that way only if it is adequately supervised and if any infringement will come to light. One of the weaknesses of the Bill as it now stands is that it will be difficult to get evidence of those infringements—a matter we shall deal with later. I believe that if we insert the word "members" here it will strengthen the Bill, and make it more difficult for it to be evaded. I am most grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for his assurance that he will have a look at it again. I know it goes no further than that, and on that understanding I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.11 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to add to the clause:
"(14) Where the rules of a club make provison for a class of members to have limited rights or no rights of voting in relation to the affairs of the club, any question whether the requirements of paragraph (c) of subsection (6) of this section are satisfied in relation to the club, or whether the rules of the club conform with the Fifth Schedule to this Act, shall if the court determining the question so directs be determined as if the exclusion of that class from voting to the extent provided for by the rules were authorised by the provisions of that Schedule as to voting at general meetings or elections; but the court shall not so direct unless satisfied that the provision so made by the rules is part of a bona fide arrangement made in the interest of the club as a whole and of that class of members for facilitating the membership of persons who are precluded by distance or other circumstances from making full use of the privileges of membership, and is not designed to secure for a minority of the members an unfair measure of control over the affairs of the club."
The noble and learned Viscount said: This Amendment goes with Amendment No. 67 to the Sixth Schedule. Your Lordships will remember that paragraph 2 (4) of the Fifth Schedule governs the voting at general meetings or elections and provides that all members must be entitled to vote with the exception of the classes of members listed in the proviso. These Amendments provide for the case of country membership. Many clubs have rules which provide that persons living

601
more than a specified distance from the club may become members of the club on payment of a reduced subscription but may not vote.
It is impossible to define country members in such a way that the Amendment could take the form of a simple addition to the classes already in the proviso to paragraph 2(4). The existing classes are such that the proviso does not allow a club so to arrange its affairs that a minority of members run the club for their own benefit. That is vitally important on this Part of the Bill. I ask your Lordships to allow me to repeat that we must not allow a club so to arrange its affairs that a minority of members run the club for their own benefit, because it would be easy to organise a club in London so that the control of the club was in the hands of a very few members, the large majority of the members being non-voting country members. The Amendments, therefore, give the magistrates' courts power to investigate the arrangement and to refuse to register the club unless they are satisfied that the non-voting country membership rule is
"part of a bona fide arrangement made in the interest of the club as a whole and of that class of members … and is not designed to secure for a minority of the members an unfair measure of control".
I do not think your Lordships are vastly interested in this at the moment. I want to say here that I think I am dealing with a point which is of vital importance from the aspect which the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, was mentioning. That is, it would be very unfortunate if we allowed clubs to be run by a minority with voting rights and to have a large membership of people without voting rights. That is why we have drafted the Amendment in this way, so that the court must be satisfied that it does not take place. There has been much pressure to add to the classes of non-voting members in the proviso to paragraph 2(4) of the Fifth Schedule; and, indeed, if I may anticipate my Lord Chairman, for the purposes of illustration, the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross, goes almost as wide as to say, "all members who do not pay their full annual subscription". Your Lordships see that one can get quite easily to the position that the noble
602
Lord, Lord Stonham, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, feared.
You collect a few people who pay an extra subscription—I mean the nominees of the proprietor—and then you say that no one who does not pay the full subscription shall have voting rights. This is something we must watch and here, perhaps, I am being more "anti-bogus club" than some of your Lordships. At any rate, that is why I attach importance to this Amendment, and I attach great importance to our not falling into that rule of allowing a minority to run the club with a majority of non-voting people. For the reason that these Amendments will help in that direction, I ask your Lordships to accept them as assisting our general purpose. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, line 47, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD STONHAM: I shall, of course, study what the Lord Chancellor has said. I am most grateful for the introduction of this Amendment in support of what I think is a sound principle, that a minority of members ought not to be allowed to get control and, therefore, vitiate the purposes of the Act. But I do not think there is any argument against the Amendment which we discussed a few moments ago. After all, if members did not pay their subscriptions they would not be members. And if, by some artificial means, the numbers were reduced, the club has to have a minimum of 25 members otherwise it cannot be registered at all. I am quite sure that it would be easy for a proprietor to get 25 cronies, particularly if the club was a successful and expensive one. Although I welcome this provision, I do not think it is a sound argument against the arguments we have previously adduced.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 23:
Objections to and cancellations of registration, and disqualification of premises
23.—
(2) An objection to the issue or renewal of a registration certificate may be made on any one or more of the following grounds, that is to say,—
(d) that the club is conducted in a disorderly manner or for an unlawful purpose,

603
or that the rules of the club are habitually disregarded as respects the admission of persons to membership or to the privileges of membership or in any other material respect;
7.18 p.m.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved, in subsection (2) (d), to leave out "habitually" and insert "frequently". The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Silkin, I beg to move this Amendment, and with it I hope it will suit the convenience of the Committee if we deal with Amendments Nos. 41 and 42, which are on precisely the same point. Paragraph (d) is one of the objections which can be made to the issue or renewal of a registration certificate, and it reads:
"that the club is conducted in a disorderly manner or for an unlawful purpose, or that the rules of the club are habitually disregarded as respects the admission of persons to membership or to the privileges of membership or in any other material respect."
In paragraph (e) the word "habitual" is attached to
"used for an unlawful purpose, or for indecent displays, or as a resort of criminals or prostitutes or …"
persons being habitually admitted and supplied with intoxicating liquor. My noble friend's Amendment proposes that in each of those three cases the word "frequently" should be substituted for "habitually".
I think this is a sound administrative point, because it must be much more difficult to get evidence that the premises are used in such a way as habitually to disregard the law, because one would assume that it means that the law is flouted virtually every night, and it is extremely difficult for the police or for other authorities to get evidence of that kind of thing. But it would be much easier if the word "frequently" were used and then, for example, it would be possible for a police officer to get evidence, perhaps, three times in a week, which I think would be regarded as a frequent breach of the conditions of the licence and would more nearly meet what we have in mind.
I say that because, in the cases which are brought to court now, one usually finds that the police officers who collected the evidence took observation, perhaps, on three or sometimes four occasions—not necessarily consecutive occasions, but three or four occasions
604
over a fairly short period, which of course would be regarded as a frequent breach of the law. There, again, it is one of those points which may be described as a lawyer's point, but I think it has the practical value that it would make a successful prosecution easier than if we adhered to the word "habitually". I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 35, line 27, leave out ("habitually") and insert ("frequently").—(Lord Stonham.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is a most interesting exercise in plumbing the well of English undefiled, because if you look at the definitions in the Oxford English Dictionary you will see that "habitually" is defined as:
"in the way of habit or settled practice, constantly, usually, customarily",
and "frequently" is defined as:
"at frequent or short intervals, often, repeatedly".
Therefore, the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, will at once see that a very serious and considerable—in the strict sense—argument could be put up that the Amendments are restrictive, rather than enlarging. A thing done regularly at fairly lengthy intervals—for example, a month—may be regarded as habitual before it can be regarded as frequent. That is the difficulty.
Now let me come to another point, which noble Lords will appreciate from their own vast experience, especially the noble Viscount who leads the Opposition. Habitual is the word used in Section 144, and there, noble Lords will remember, paragraph (b) says that the club can be struck off on the grounds that
"… the club is not conducted in good faith as a club, or is kept or habitually used for any unlawful purpose".
Of course, in the clause of the Bill the words that we have to look at are:
"habitually used for any unlawful purpose"
which are the same words as the words used in Clause 23 subsection 2 (e):
"or for indecent displays, or as a resort of criminals or prostitutes".
The practical position is that these words were critically examined in another place and they were strongly attacked in some quarters as being too restrictive, because, as you see, we have

605
gone a good deal beyond merely "any unlawful purpose" in order to try to meet the points of our discussion. The practical point, which I put to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, is this: that if it were clear that "frequently" were a better and more attacking word than "habitually", then there would be a great deal to be said for it. When, on the definition, it is, to say the least of it, doubtful whether it really helps you—I say it with all deference to those who have thought out this point, and I can make a shrewd guess who they are—then I hope that noble Lords will not throw the gain we have got by putting these words into the melting pot again. I put the position completely frankly. I have given the noble Lord the definitions both ways, and I do not think, really, that what we gain here is worth a candle for lighting up once again all these points which were argued in another place. If there were any real gain, I should take a very different view.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I do not want to prolong the discussion on this matter. I am much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount far the explanation he has given, and I am bound to say that, looking at subsection 2 (e), one sees there is a great need there to cover many of the offences which one would fear might occur. But what I am very interested in—and I am bound to ask the question—is why, in subsection 2 (e), you find it necessary to use the words
"habitually used for an unlawful purpose, or for indecent displays, or as a resort of criminals or prostitutes",
but for drunkenness you use the word "frequent". I should have thought, after that very learned exposition from the Oxford English Dictionary and other sources, which we had from the noble and learned Viscount, that he might explain what is the exact difference between "habitual" and "frequent" in subsection (2) (e).
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am sorry, I did not pick up the reference.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: It is the third line of Clause 23, subsection (2) (e), which says, "habitually used", and then "frequent drunkenness". Which is which? You think that you can pick up all the other breakers of the law and semi-criminals
606
by the use of that term, but when you come to drunkenness you refer, in that particular subsection, to "frequent".
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The answer to that, as the noble Viscount knows, is that the words "habitual drunkard" are used in another sense in law, and I think they have used the ward "frequent" so that there would not be any confusion on that point. It just goes to show that between "frequent" and "habitual" there is a very, very narrow line. That, I think, is the historic reason, and I congratulate the noble Viscount for putting this poser to me. Really, he is wasted in politics and the co-operative society. He ought to have been at the Bar. That is meant to be a compliment.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: The late Sir Norman Raeburn once said that to my Chairman, but he came down against me in the end.
LORD STONHAM: The noble and learned Viscount said that this was a nice exercise inquiring into the well of English. My particular trouble is that I am delving with my bucket into the well of my noble friend, Lord Silkin, and I may not have dredged up exactly those pearls of wisdom which would have come from him, had he been putting his own Amendment. Also, as I moved this Amendment at fairly short notice, I did not have the advantage of a brief or of looking up the Oxford English Dictionary; otherwise, I might have got another dictionary. But there is a very real problem here, and while giving full rating to what the Lord Chancellor has said, I am concerned with one thing and one thing only: will it make it easier for the police to get a conviction if the word "habitual" is used, or will it make it easier to get a conviction, if an offence is committed against this clause, if the word "frequent" is used? It seems to me that there are so many contradictory uses for these two words and, as my noble Leader has pointed out, we have both words used in the same subsection apparently meaning very much the same thing.
The noble and learned Viscount will be aware that if a man over 30 has two sentences of imprisonment, he is liable on a third conviction to sentence as an habitual criminal, though he may not

607
have offended very frequently. His number of offences may be only three sentences of imprisonment spread over his whole life. I am also thinking of offences which are, happily, no more—for example, street betting. The offence there normally was not that somebody was habitually street bookmaking but that the constable saw the man frequently taking bets; and he was convicted because he was frequently taking bets. I assure the noble and learned Viscount that I have not read a single word of any of the deliberations in another place. I have come to this Bill with a fresh mind, and I certainly come to this particular Amendment with a completely fresh mind; and I do not know that I could come to it better. But it certainly seems to me that on a matter of conviction, "frequently" would be better than "habitually". I wonder whether, in view of what has been said, and in view of the fact that the two words are in the same subsection, it would not be better in each case in this clause to use the word "frequently" than "habitually." Perhaps the noble and learned Viscount would look at it. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 23 agreed to.
Clauses 24 and 25 agreed to.
Clause 26 [Appeal to quarter sessions]:
7.33 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: In the absence of my noble friend Lord Silkin I should like to move this Amendment on his behalf, to make sure that provision is made in the Statute-to-be, for serving with notice of appeal. My noble friend thinks this Amendment makes it clear, and more just, and I hope very much that the noble and learned Viscount will be able to accept it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 8, after ("be") insert ("served with notice of the appeal and shall be entitled to be").—(Viscount Alexander of Hillsborough.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am very willing to consider this point, but I ask the noble Viscount not to press me for a commitment because we have
608
considerable difficulty about it. Clause 26 (3) provides that where a club appeals against the decision of the magistrates' court any objector shall be a party to the appeal; and the Law Society represented that it was wrong to make an objector a party to an appeal against his wishes, as it would make him liable to an order for costs even though he took no part in the proceedings. This Amendment is intended to allow the objector to elect whether to be a party to the appeal. Your Lordships see the position: someone objects; his objection is successful; the club appeals to quarter sessions; quarter sessions takes a view in favour of the club, and therefore if the objector is party to the appeal there is a risk of his being condemned in costs. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and the Law Society would say that although he had objected, he could himself choose whether or not he was a party to the club's appeal. They would leave it to him.
I hope that I have made the position clear, and that is what leads to the difficulty with us. It is true that under Clause 26 (3) the effect would be that on appeal an order as to costs may be made—I stress the words "may be made"—against an objector who has objected at the first stage and taken no part in the appeal. Now in one case it is clearly right that quarter sessions should have this discretion as to costs. If an objector is successful before the magistrates and the club is ordered to pay his costs (and the reference there is paragraph 3 (4) of the Seventh Schedule) it would be wrong to allow him to keep these costs if the club succeeded in its appeal. I think that is quite clear. He objects; the club loses and is ordered to pay his costs; the club then appeals to quarter sessions and wins. It is very hard that someone who has objected below and succeeded there, but is then found to be wrong on appeal, should retain the costs that have been allowed him through a mistaken decision of the first court. Yet this Amendment would allow the objector to keep his costs if he elected not to be party to the appeal. He could go home with the costs in his pocket.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Is that not reasonable in such a case, where an objection is largely

609
in the public interest, and the appeal to the quarter sessions is purely on a question of law?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: An appeal to quarter sessions would be on a question of fact. It is not an appeal to a Divisional Court; it is an appeal to quarter sessions, and it would be a re-hearing of the same issue. Since quarter sessions is a higher court its decision stands. The higher court having said that the club ought to win, it seems to me that the objector should not be allowed to go home with the costs which, in the view of quarter sessions, he does not deserve. It may be argued that in other cases the clause will bear hardly on objectors. That is, you might have (I am trying to put the other side) a neighbour who took a poor view and said, "I do not want this club here, I do not think it would have a good effect on the family," and so on. He might be a successful objector and he might not want to go to quarter sessions. That is the sort of person (I have over simplified it) that they have in mind. We think that the real answer to this difficult problem is to leave the costs in the discretion of quarter sessions. I have taken the case where quarter sessions has decided in one way. But, broadly, my forty years' experience teaches me that the more complete the discretion that is given to a court as to costs, the more likely justice is to be done in art infinite variety of different cases.
I have taken the two extremes. For example, I should be very surprised if any court of quarter sessions made an order for costs against the individual objector whom I have described. I think really the discretion can produce a fairer result than a rigid provision which would 'be written into the However, again. I will look into it, and perhaps the noble Viscount could say to his noble friend, Lord Silkin, that if when he has read the debate he has any further point that he would like to put before me, if he would care to come and see me I should be happy to discuss it with him. But at the moment I would ask the noble Viscount not to press for a decision, because I think he will see that I have said enough to show it is a very difficult point, and all we want to
610
do is approximate as closely as we can to justice.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I am much obliged. After what the noble and learned Viscount has said, I would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment and I will have a discussion with my noble friend.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 26 agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended at seventeen minutes before eight o'clock and resumed at half past eight]:
Clause 27 [Inspection of premises before first registration]:
EARL BATHURST EARL BATHURST moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "any constable authorised in writing by the chief officer of police", and to insert:
"an officer of the local authority authorised in writing by that authority".
The noble Earl said: Clause 27 of the Bill provides that, where a club applies for the issue of a registration certificate in respect of any premises, any constable authorised in writing by the chief officer of police may, on giving not less than 48 hours' notice, enter and inspect the premises at any reasonable time on such day, not being more than fourteen days after the making of the application, as may be specified in the notice. The clause gives a similar right of inspection where a club applies for the renewal of a registration certificate in respect of different, additional or enlarged premises. The clause gives the like rights of inspection to an officer of the local authority.
Clause 23 allows objection to be made by the chief officer of police—and also by the local authority, and by any person affected by reason of his occupation of or interest in other premises—to an application for the issue or renewal of a registration certificate on the grounds set oust in Clause 23 (2), including the ground that the premises are not suitable and convenient for the purpose in view of their character and condition and of the size and nature of the club. Provision is made for inspection of club premises by the police in order that they may be able to decide whether or not to make objection on this ground.
The provisions of Clause 27 authorising police inspection of club premises

611
have been much criticised by clubs and club organisations, and as a result of the Report stage fin another place my right honourable friend undertook to move Amendments in your Lordships' House on the lines of those put down by the honourable Member for Newport, which would allow inspection by the police only if the chief officer of police was satisfied that there existed special reasons making inspection necessary. These Amendments have been put down in pursuance of that undertaking. The effect of the Amendments is to allow inspection by the police on first application for a registration certificate or on an application for renewal of a registration certificate in respect of different, additional, or enlarged premises only if the chief officer of police is of the opinion that special reasons exist making it necessary that the premises should be inspected for the proper discharge of his functions in relation to the registration of clubs.
As I have said, Clause 23 allows objection to be made by the chief officer of police Ito en application for the issue or renewal of a registration certificate on the ground that the premises are not suitable and convenient for the purpose in view of their character. The police may not need in all cases to inspect club premises for the purpose of deciding whether or not to make an objection on this ground, butt in some cases they may need to do so, for example, whether the premises are a basement room which is intended to serve as a bar for a club with a large membership. In such a case the police should be able to inspect the premises to decide whether reasonable order could be maintained in the premises and whether objection should, or should not, be made to the application for a registration certificate. The Amendments would allow inspection in such a case, but not in any other cases where the chief officer of police was not of the opinion that special reasons existed making inspection necessary for the proper discharge of his functions in relation to the registration of clubs.
Paragraph 2 (4) of the Eighth Schedule has the effect that the police will not in any event be able to inspect the premises of a club on first application for a registration certificate under the new pro-
612
cedure if the club has for the three years preceding the coming into force of the new procedure been registered under the 1953 Act in respect of the premises. The right of inspection by the police which Clause 27 confers, as it may be amended by these Amendments which I am moving, will therefore be exercisable only in respect of a club which has not been in existence for three years or which, baying been in existence for that time, applies for renewal of a registration certificate in respect of different, additional or enlarged premises. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 18, leave out from ("premises") to ("may") in line 19, and insert ("an officer of the local authority authorised in writing by that authority").—(Earl Bathurst.)
LORD STONHAM: I understand that the noble Earl has been speaking to Amendments Nos. 49, 50 and 51. Amendments Nos. 49 and 50 merely amount to the transposition of the phrases concerning an officer of the local authority and a police officer, and there is no objection to that. The only Amendment of substance—and it is an Amendment of considerable substance—is Amendment No. 51, which says that
"a chief officer of police shall not … authorise a constable unless … special reasons exist making it necessary"
for him to do so. I think this is a very regrettable weakening of the Bill; a weakening of the powers of police officers. I should like to know how a chief officer of police is to know that special reasons exist unless he can make an inspection of the premises.
The noble Earl said they might be basement premises, and therefore obviously undesirable from that point of view. Of course, it may be that the particulars which have to be supplied in the registration application may indicate that they are basement premises; I do not know. But it would seem to me entirely necessary, if the intentions of the Bill are to be carried out, for the chief officer of police, if he thinks it necessary, to authorise one of his officers to go and make an inspection. I cannot see that the noble Earl has made out any case at all for this Amendment.
It is perfectly true, as he said, that this Amendment has been set down to honour a commitment made by his right honourable friend in respect of an

613
Amendment moved by the honourable Member for Newport in another place; but although, naturally, I am impressed by that fact, I am not sufficiently impressed to think there is any sense, rhyme or reason in it. To me, the important thing about the regulations we are considering regarding the registration of a club is that they should be policed. It is absolutely no earthly use putting regulations in a Bill, and clauses and subsections in a Bill, which look all very well on paper, if, in later sections, you tie the hands of the police so as to make it virtually impossible, except in exceptional circumstances, for them to carry them out. If you do that, we are really wasting our time.
Now it has been my misfortune to see some of the places in which clubs are run and in which clubs exist. They perhaps have been in fairly small-front-age buildings; tall buildings, with two or three floors. It is quite impossible, just looking at them from the outside, for a chief officer of police to say with any degree of certainty at all, as he must, that he cannot recommend that a certificate of registration should be granted in a particular case because the premises are unsuitable. And yet the particular Amendment which we are now asked to insert in the Bill makes it necessary for him to say that there are special reasons. They must be reasons within his knowledge why he should give one of his officers the authority to go and inspect the premises.
I really do not know—and, with respect, the noble Earl did not tell us—how a chief officer of police is expected to know that there are special reasons. I should have thought that in the case of an application for registration, if there are any police factors in it they should be known; that is, apart from things like character. I believe we are talking only about premises in Clause 27, and not about the character or antecedents of the applicant, or all those other reasons why the police should tell the magistrates that, in their view, registration should not be granted. We are talking about premises. I agree that there is no restriction on an officer of the local authority visiting the premises That is still in the clause. It has been shifted up a few lines, but it is still there. An officer of the local authority can go in.
614
Why is it that there is this fundamental objection to the police? I put it to noble Lords that it often falls to our lot to run a function, perhaps for charity, such as a dance or a ball, and an application is made by the organisers for a special licence to sell alcohol, which is usually granted if made in the proper form. A little certificate is given which the publican, or whoever is running the bar, pins up. An officer of the police always comes in during the evening—usually there are two—just to look at the licence and to see that the conditions are being observed. These officers are always in uniform, and they come into a happy party of people enjoying themselves. I have never known that to be resented; it is regarded as a matter of course, as the police doing their duty. I should like to know, first of all, how a chief officer of police is expected to know that there are special reasons, unless one of his people goes and has a look. Secondly, why is it that the Government are apparently so afraid, or have been so intimidated, into agreeing to these Amendments which weaken the power of the police, and are based on the belief, it seems, that honest people resent (which I do not believe is the case) inspection by the police?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I should like to point out to the noble Lord that this is only a question of whether or not the premises should be inspected; it is not a question of whether the chief officer of police should oppose. If he will look at the words of our Amendment he will see that it says:
"… unless in his opinion"—
and I stress "in his opinion"—
"special reasons exist…".
That is to say, it is a subjective matter, for the chief of police to decide whether there are "special reasons". I am not going to compete with the noble Lord about knowledge of the way the police work; but, of course, the chief of police will receive reports from his force, and they will receive information from many people, as to what conditions prevail in the club concerned, and it will be for the chief of police to decide whether the premises require inspection. My noble friend Earl Bathurst gave the example of a basement room which is intended to serve as a bar for a club with a large membership, because that is exactly the

615
sort of case as to which a chief constable would ask himself, "Can they in that room maintain reasonable order?" On the second point the noble Lord put, we have to face that he takes a very strong view that any decent club would not resent inspection. As a matter of fact that feeling is not, as he knows, universally shared. There are plenty of members of the most decent clubs who resent this. The noble Lord thinks that they are wrong, but that is a fact.
One is also bound to take into account the universality of feeling in another place. When the suggestion is put forward—I put this merely as background; I am not going to discuss whether it is right or wrong—by so senior a member of the Opposition, who has held such distinguished ministerial office, it is bound to be something that one must take into account. And if he suggests that there should be this minor limitation—in my view, it is minor, because it is entirely for the chief of police to decide—I think that the Government would have been regarded as ungracious had they not gone some way to meet this universally held opinion. From the practical point of view, I do not think that it will have the bad result which the noble Lord fears, because I am sure that every chief officer of police who has the slightest idea that there may be danger or difficulty in any premises will consider that a special reason. Therefore, I hone that the Committee will accept the Amendment, which is to meet a general consensus of opinion.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL BATHURST: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 25, leave out from ("and") to ("shall") in line 26, and insert ("a constable authorised in writing by the chief officer of police").—(Earl Bathurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL BATHURST: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 27, at end insert ("but a chief officer of police shall not so authorise a constable unless in his opinion special reasons exist making it necessary that the premises should he inspected for the proper discharge of his functions in relation to the registration of clubs.")—(Earl Bathurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 27, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 28 [Rights of fire authorities in connection with registration of clubs.]
8.46 p.m.
EARL BATHURST EARL BATHURST moved, in Clause 28, to insert as a new first subsection:
"(1) As regards any matter affecting fire risks the local authority if they are the fire authority, shall have the like rights in relation to the inspecion of premises under section twenty-seven of this Act on any application for the renewal of a registration certificate for the premises as they have in the case of an application for the issue of a certificate."
The noble Earl said: May I take Amendment No. 55 and its two consequential Amendments, Nos. 56 and 57, together? Clause 28 gives to fire authorities the same rights of inspection of club premises as are given to local authorities under Clause 27. Clause 27 gives a right of inspection on a first application for a registration certificate or on an application for renewal of registration certificate in respect of different, additional or enlarged premises. When Clause 28 was moved at Report stage in the House of Commons the honourable Member for Islington, East, suggested that the fire authority and the local authority should be given the same power to inspect club premises on every renewal. My right honourable and learned friend the Solicitor General conceded that it could be argued that fire is perhaps a special case, and said that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State would very carefully consider what had been said in the course of the proceedings. This point has been considered and it has been decided to give fire authorities a right of inspection on every renewal of a club's registration certificate.
The first Amendment provides that, as regards any matter affecting fire risks, the local authority, if they are the fire authority—for example, a county borough council—shall have the like rights in relation to the inspection of premises under Clause 27 on any application for the renewal of a registration certificate as they have in the case of an application for the issue of a certificate. Under subsection (2) of Clause 28, a fire authority which is not a local authority as defined in Clause 31 (3)—that is, a county council or a combined authority—will have, as regards any matter affecting fire risks, the same rights of inspection as it would have if it were the local authority and

617
thus will have the additional rights under the new subsection (1) added by the first Amendment.
The second and third Amendments modify the existing subsection (1) of Clause 28 to provide that a fire authority which is a county council or a combined authority shall be given notice by the clerk to the justices of the making of an application for the issue and every renewal of a registration certificate. A fire authority which is also a local authority will receive copies of the club's application for the issue or renewal of a registration certificate by virtue of paragraph 2 (5) of the Seventh Schedule.
As has been pointed out above, it was represented in the Commons that local authorities, as well as fire authorities, should be given the right to inspect club premises on every renewal. The Government do not accept that it is necessary to give local authorities a right of inspection on every renewal. Plainly the right to inspect club premises should be kept to the minimum necessary. It is proposed to give to fire authorities only the right to inspect on every renewal, because there may be such changes in the premises affecting fire risks (for example, in the means of escape from the premises, including the disposition of furniture, and so forth, which may affect means of escape from the premises) that the fire authority should have the opportunity to inspect the premises more frequently than other authorities. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 42, at beginning insert the said subsection.—(Earl Bathurst.)
LORD STONHAM: My noble friends and I warmly support this Amendment which we think is extremely necessary and welcome. I believe it is true to say that the right honourable gentleman the Home Secretary was moved to agree to Amendments of this kind because of the disaster at Bolton. For that reason, I should be grateful if the noble Earl could answer one or two questions on this point. In moving the Amendment be has referred only to clubs. I should like to know whether this provision will apply only to registered clubs, or whether it will also apply to licensed restaurants.
The reason I ask this is that, as he is well aware, in some licensed clubs, and
618
again in licensed restaurants, performances are given of the nature of theatrical performances, and sometimes to audiences of several hundred; in other words, on those occasions the premises are in fact a theatre. I have in my hand the rules and regulations with regard to theatres under the jurisdiction of the Lord Chamberlain, and they run to ten closely printed foolscap pages. Every conceivable danger which can arise, so far as I can see, is thought of and provided for in these rules and regulations, and I believe they are all highly necessary and essential for the protection of the public. They include exits, entrances, curtains, fire appliances and precautions, the number of attendants, and so on. So far as I am aware, these restaurants and clubs which are at present giving performances—where, as I say, there are hundreds of people quite close to the artistes, and sometimes close enough to touch them—have virtually no provisions of this kind at all in the way of regulations, either local authority or otherwise. The noble Earl will be aware that the London County Council, for example, has most stringent by-laws in respect of theatres.
Therefore my question is two-fold: first, will these precautions, which are most welcome, apply only to licensed registered clubs, or will they also apply, as I think they must—and if they do not, then we shall have to put in an Amendment at a later stage—to the licensed restaurants where performances are given? It will indeed be tragic if, merely because it is limited to clubs, this right of inspection by the fire authorities should miss out some of these other places which, in my belief, are extremely dangerous and where they are fortunate not to have had a tragic happening before this.
My second question is: do the Government have it in mind that, where the fire authorities have the right of inspection in this way, they will be able to recommend regulations and requirements similar to those required in theatres when the conditions are comparable? These regulations apply to very small theatres seating under 100 people, so it is a fair comparison. If the noble Earl could give the information on these two points, or say that it is provided for elsewhere in the Bill, I

619
should be extremely grateful. Otherwise, if he will write to me, we can consider it and see whether the point has to be raised again so that the cover, as it were, the right of inspection by fire authorities, can be enlarged to cover other registered establishments, and not only clubs.
EARL BATHURST: The noble Lord is quite right: this particular Amendment does not apply to ordinary licensed premises, whether restaurants of the type the noble Lord was describing, or any other type of restaurant. Premises of that sort are looked after in Part I of the Bill, and, as the noble Lord knows, there are very stringent regulations with regard to the music and dancing licences issued by the London County Council, or by the music and dancing licensing authorities elsewhere in the country. If there is any dissatisfaction with regard to the fire precautions in such a licensed restaurant, then a music and dancing certificate or licence will not be given. If, again, the magistrates or the licensing justices are not satisfied with regard to the fire precautions taken in such an establishment they, too, will refuse to allow a licence to sell alcohol.
The noble Lord appreciates that this Bill is concerned only with licensed restaurants, and I am quite certain that Part I of the Bill—and we moved an Amendment with regard to the issue of new licences and inspection by fire authorities—covers all the points for licensed restaurants and the premises the noble Lord has in mind where alcohol is served. But I will look at the point he has brought up with regard to theatre regulations and, should it appear that I am wrong, I will certainly let the noble Lord know, without, of course, committing my right honourable friend in any way. I think I can safely assure the noble Lord that the Part I provisions cover those places which serve alcohol that he has in mind.
LORD STONHAM: Does that mean that, so far as the restaurants are concerned, the fire authorities already, under Part I of the Bill, will have the right of inspection and of recommendation?
EARL BATHURST: And objection.
LORD STONHAM: That answers one of my questions extremely satisfactorily, and I am most grateful. But on the
620
other part, whatever the regulations may be, I can assure the noble Earl that there is absolutely no comparison whatever between the regulations in respect of a theatre—it may well be that the point has not yet been considered in respect of a theatre—and those which apply to these establishments which give a precisely comparable performance. For example, the Windmill Theatre is a theatre, and it is completely subject to the Lord Chamberlain's regulations. Raymond's, or any of the other places such as the Panama, which give a comparable performance and have hundreds of people there, have virtually no safety precautions at all. Therefore I am most grateful for the noble Earl's offer. If he will look into that point and communicate with me, it may be possible for us to extend this safety provision.
LORD AIREDALE: I would add just a word in support of this Amendment, and I should like to mention the Member in another place, the Member for Bolton, West, who was keenly interested in it, for it was in Bolton that the disaster occurred which I think the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, mentioned just now. It was a tragic disaster of a serious fire in club premises in which human life was lost. If this Amendment succeeds in ensuring that on club premises fire-fighting equipment is not only initially provided but is maintained at all times, which of course is as vitally important as providing it initially, then this Amendment may well prevent a recurrence of such a tragedy and will be, of course, of the greatest value.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I am very much in favour of this clause, like my noble friend: but will the noble Earl give me a reference to Part I of the Act, in which this matter is taken care of as regards other places like restaurants and so on? I cannot find a similar provision, myself. Of course, I know the difficulty that there is in tracing it. Reference is made to Acts of Parliament, and therefore, this is a sort of legislation by reference to legislation, and that is always a difficulty. It is rather a pity for that to happen. But if the noble Earl can tell us where the authority is, I shall be satisfied.
EARL BATHURST: Unfortunately, on our new Marshalled List we have not

621
got a reference, but it was in Amendment No. 3 which we moved. That is one of the Amendments. I think we can give an assurance to the noble Viscount that this provision will be looked into, and, if it is not as I have said, I will communicate with the noble Lord.
LORD STONHAM: I am most grateful for that. Amendment No. 3 was "Page 5, line 38, at end insert …" and it is, as the noble Earl said:
"that the authority or an officer designated in that behalf by the authority desired in connection with the application to have the premises inspected for purposes of paragraph (b) of subsection (1) above".
That is the authority he mentioned.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 44, after ("issue") insert ("or renewal").(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 45, leave out from ("premises") to end of line 3 on page 41.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 28, as amended, agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after Clause 28 to insert the following new clause:
Extended hours in premises of registered clubs
.—(1) Section (Extended hours in restaurants etc. providing entertainment) of this Act shall apply in relation to club premises in respect of which a club is registered as it applies in relation to licensed premises, subject to the following modifications:—

(a) for any reference to licensing justices there shall be substituted a reference to the magistrates' court; and

(b) an application for an order under subsection (4) shall be made by the club, and notice of the making of the order shall be given under subsection (10) by the secretary of the club; and

(c) an order under subsection (4) shall lapse on the club's registration certificate ceasing to be in force or on the date from which the certificate is next renewed after the date of the order or, where that certificate has been renewed for a period exceeding a year, on such earlier date (if any) as may be specified in the order; and

622

(d) subsections (9), (11), (12) and (13) shall not apply, except in so far as subsection (11) relates to subsection (4) of section ten of this Act.

(2) Section one hundred and four of the Licensing Act, 1953, shall have effect, in relation to club premises in respect of which a club is registered, with the substitution for the references to the licensing justices for the district in which the premises are situated of references to the magistrates' court; but where in the case of any such premises the magistrates' court has been satisfied as mentioned in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of that section (or at the time that this section comes into force licensing justices have been and remain so satisfied) the requirement of that section that the court shall be so satisfied shall be treated as fulfilled until the magistrates' court declares that it is no longer so satisfied.
(3) In the foregoing subsections "the magistrates' court" means, in relation to any club premises, a magistrates' court having jurisdiction in relation to the issue and renewal of the club's registration certificate for the premises; and in sections one hundred and thirteen to one hundred and eighteen of the Licensing Act, 1953 (which relate to special hours certificates), the expression "the magistrate" shall have the same meaning.
(4) An application made to a magistrates' court by virtue of subsection (3) above shall be made by way of complaint against the club where the application is for the revocation of a special hours certificate, or of an order under subsection (4) of section (Extended hours in restaurants etc. providing entertainment) of this Act, or for a declaration that as respects any premises the court is no longer satisfied as mentioned in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section one hundred and four of the Licensing Act, 1953; and, subject to paragraph 6 of the Seventh Schedule to this Act. subparagraphs (3) and (4) of paragraph 5 of that Schedule shall apply in relation to any such complaint as they apply in relation to a complaint for the cancellation or variation of a registration certificate.
(5) In relation to any application made to a magistrates' court by virtue of subsection (3) other than an application to which subsection (4) applies, subsection (1) of section twenty-eight of this Act and paragraphs 2 and 3, subparagraph (1) of paragraph 4 and sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 5 of the Seventh Schedule to this Act shall (subject to paragraph 6 of that Schedule) apply with any necessary modifications as they apply in relation to applications for the issue of a registration certificate:
Provided that paragraph 2 of the Seventh Schedule shall not require public notice to be given of an application for an order under subsection (4) of section (Extended hours in restaurants etc. providing entertainment) of this Act to be made by way of renewal of a previous order (without variation).
(6) Accordingly at the end of subsection (4) of section one hundred and nineteen of the

623
Licensing Act, 1953 (which enables the Secretary of State to make rules for the procedure on an application under sections one hundred and thirteen to one hundred and eighteen of that Act), there shall be added the words "other than an application to a magistrates' court."
The noble and learned Viscount said: I have already put before your Lordships the reasons for this new clause, and I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, who was good enough to say that the Opposition agreed with them. I do not think I need repeat myself, and I can say simply that I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 28 insert the said new clause.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD STONHAM: I believe that this clause means that clubs can get a special extension up to 2 o'clock in the morning in the provinces and to 3 a.m. in London, even when a club, under certain provisions of this Bill, lets the premises for the evening to another organisation. I am raising this question because this doubt exists in respect of a very ancient and honourable club which has this practice. The members have gained the impression that they may stay open under the extended hours business only until half past one in the morning. It is a question which really comes from the Back Benches opposite, and they have asked me, as an authority—quite wrongly—whether it is the case that under these extended hours, under the provision of this clause which the Lord Chancellor has moved, in the provinces a club may have its hours extended to 2 a.m. and in London to 3 a.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, was here when we discussed the series of Amendments after Clause 8—to insert the new clause Extended hours in restaurants, etc., providing entertainment—that was the first Amendment we dealt with to-day. That was the Amendment of which I gave notice on the Second Reading of the Bill; I gave notice of my intention to invite your Lordships to consider a proposal under which suitable premises catering for people with more modest purses would be allowed some more limited extension of hours; and we are dealing with a more limited extension of hours in that
624
series. The present clause makes a similar provision on the same line for clubs, and if the noble Lord would be good enough, as it is a special case, to write to me about it I shall be very pleased to look into it for him.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
9.7 p.m.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved, after Clause 28 to insert the following new clause:
Constable's powers of entry
".—(1) A constable may, for the purpose of preventing or detecting the commission of an offence against this Act, enter the premises of a proprietary club which is registered under this Part of this Act.
(2) If the proprietor of such a club or any person in his employ or acting on his behalf fails to admit a constable who demands entry to premises in pursuance of this section, he shall be liable on a first conviction to a fine not exceeding five pounds, and on a subsequent conviction to a fine not exceeding ten pounds."
The noble Lord said: I am hoping that this is the last contentious Amendment that we have to deal with, but certainly it is one which my noble friends and I feel quite strongly about, because we feel that the Government, by limiting the constable's power of entry, have gravely weakened the Bill. You will notice that this Amendment refers only to the premises of proprietary clubs, and therefore avoids the objection (to which the Lord Chancellor has already referred this evening) which some members of very respectable clubs feel to a constable having power of entry. I think that unless this Amendment is accepted we shall have reason within twelve months very much to regret the fact that a constable's power of entry is no stronger than it is at present.
I particularly welcome the reference which was made to this matter in the letter from the Temperance Council of the Christian Churches who, in fact, while welcoming the Bill's provisions with regard to clubs, strongly supported what I said on Second Reading in this matter and asked that the police should have fuller rights of entry. It is reasonable to assume that all the leaders and executive officers of the Temperance Council of Churches are members of well-conducted clubs, and it is therefore greatly to their credit, and a measure of the importance of their advice, that they should nevertheless press that the police be given fuller rights of entry. I was

625
particularly struck by something which the noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, said last evening. In replying to another Amendment he said that it would bring me great comfort because when there was a special hours certificate the police would have the same rights of entry as they would into ordinary licensed premises. I can see that that is so.
But here we have this anomaly, and I would submit it to the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor. An honest restaurateur or club proprietor applies for an extended hours certificate and thereby makes himself liable to immediate and automatic entry by the police for the purpose of inspection. That is because he has honestly said, "I am going to keep open till 2 o'clock or 3 o'clock. I want a special certificate to that effect." Therefore he is open to inspection. But the dishonest club proprietor who intends to go on serving drinks or carrying on until 3 o'clock in the morning, whatever he intends to do there, does not lay himself open to the right of automatic inspection by the police. He can say to the police, "You cannot come in here", and the only way the police can obtain evidence against the dishonest club proprietor who flouts the law is to wangle themselves in as members, in disguise as it were, pay a great deal of money for the so-called entertainment that they receive, illegal entertainment, and then bring a prosecution.
I do not know whether the Government have considered that point, but it seems to me quite unanswerable; you quite rightly make the honest people who apply properly for extended hours licence open to inspection, but you give immunity, under the Bill as it now stands, to the dishonest people who get up to all sorts of skulduggery. This Amendment is a very modest one, because it will confine the constable's power of entry to proprietary clubs, and the great majority of clubs would therefore be immune unless a justice issued a search warrant after receipt of information on oath, which is precisely the condition which rules at present. I cannot see why there should be any valid objection whatever to granting a police constable the right of entry to a proprietary club. It cannot or should not be offensive to the members.
I would point to this. The proprietors or managers of public houses have to be persons of very good character; otherwise they would not get licences. Indeed their applications for licences going back over a period of years are investigated most stringently before they are granted a licence. But the manager of a public house is not only liable to automatic inspection of his premises by the police, but his own private rooms where he lives are open to automatic inspection and he cannot make any objection. It is, to my mind, quite impossible for the proprietors of licensed clubs to argue that in so far as their premises are concerned they should be given an immunity which is denied to the managers or proprietors of licensed premises.
I believe that unless the Government accept this Amendment they will, despite this Bill, give the green light to some of the worst and most undesirable establishments in the country. The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor is aware that I am president of the Association for Moral and Social Hygiene, and in January of this year my Association addressed a very strong latter on this subject to his right honourable friend the Home Secretary. We strongly welcome the provisions of this Bill in relation to clubs, but we are of opinion that there must be an extension of police powers to cover the right of entry. Of course, I shall listen with great care to the Government's reply on this point; but I hope that the reply will cover the point which I made about this apparent anomaly.
I would emphasise that not only am I thinking of the comparatively small number of West End places, which are in fact nothing more than expensive houses of procurement; I am thinking of the many smaller places which are, often enough, not only horrible little drinking dens but purveyors of every form of nastiness imaginable. I know that in such places the proprietor is supposed to give the so-called members the right to enjoy the profits made from drink. But he can do that quite properly and easily, because under this Bill he will make enormous profits from other activities. Some of them run special late, unadvertised shows for which people pay up to £5 as an entrance fee.
I am informed that these shows are so disgraceful that even the ordinary

627
strip-tease girls will not perform in them. I know many of these places. But the police know them far better than I do. The point is, however, that the police are at present virtually powerless to deal with them. I submit that unless this Amendment is accepted, because they are proprietary places the police will still be powerless to deal with them. I would ask: are we, therefore, to continue to give immunity to some of the most miserable wretches on earth? I hope the Government will be true and firm to their first intentions in this matter, and have the courage to do what is necessary, to take the advice of the Churches and to accept this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 28 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Stonham.)
9.17 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, and the great attention he has paid to this subject matter, he is under a complete misapprehension as to the effect of this Bill on proprietary clubs. The Bill does not make it impossible for a proprietary club to become a registered club, but it would not be possible for a proprietary club in which the liquor was under the control of 'a proprietor to register. That is clear from Clause 22 (6) (c).
As the noble Lord made clear—indeed, it was the burden of his complaint—it is from the supply of liquor that the proprietor of an undesirable proprietary club obtains his profit, and it may be expected that no such club will be able to register when the provisions of the Bill come pinto effect. So there is no case for singling out proprietary clubs in the way suggested by the new clause, because they have either got to put themselves right on the question of the control of the liquor by their members or they will not get registration. Otherwise—if they do not get registration—they Will have to apply for a justices' licence under Clause 30 instead of seeking registration; the justices have unfettered discretion whether or not to grant a licence, and such clubs would, as licensed premises, be open to police inspection at all times.
628
One comes to the point that if we had dealt with the question of proprietary clubs by that means—that they must put themselves right and under the control of their members or not be registered—is there still a case for the police inspecting without warrant? I would remind your Lordships that Clause 29 of the Bill provides for entry by the police into club premises on the authority of a warrant
"If a justice of the peace is satisfied by information on oath that there is reasonable ground for believing"—
not that it exists, but that there is reasonable ground for believing it to exist—first,
"that there is ground for cancelling (in whole or in part) a registration certificate held by a club, and that evidence of it is to be obtained at the club premises or any of them;…"
The second ground is,
"that intoxicating liquor is sold or supplied by or on behalf of a club in club premises for which the club does not hold a registration certificate or a justices' licence, or is kept in any club premises for sale or supply in contravention of"
Part III of the Bill.
Now we believe that, in the circumstances and conditions, and with the effect which we think this Bill will have, this is surely a sufficient power; and the Government could not accept the principle of entry by the police without warrant into club premises at any time, which is inherent in the proposal made by the new clause. The vast majority of opinion of all Parties accepts that to allow the police to enter club premises without warrant at any time, except for the limited purpose covered by Clause 27 of the Bill, would be an unjustifiable interference with private liberties. There is a real difference between the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, and myself and my friends on this point, and I can only say that on that he must select whether he divides the House or not.
LORD STONHAM: Could I ask the Lord Chancellor to deal with the point I made: that a proprietary club which applies for an extended hours certificate is subject to automatic entry by the police, whereas if it does not apply for an extended hours certificate it can carry on into illegal hours but can bar the police from entry? That seems to me an injustice and an anomaly, and I should like him to deal with that point before we leave this matter.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The position is that it is the existing law that all those who ask for extended hours must subject themselves to this police investigation. If the club does it illegally, then they will be liable to the procedure of warrant which I have described.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I must say that I do not feel very happy about this. I understand the line of argument that the noble and learned Viscount has taken, but I do not think he is meeting the views of the Temperance Council of Christian Churches, which is what we have been anxious to secure. I think my noble friend Lord Stonham has really put the point in question to the noble and learned Viscount, and it is the important issue. However, he says to-night that it is impossible to concede what we want. It is also impossible for me to look for any support of any size in the Division Lobby. The Business has been of such extraordinary arrangement in the current Session that it is very difficult to get a House on Bills like this so late at night.
However, I should like to say to my noble friend that, while we cannot press this Amendment to-night, we will have to take further counsel with the Temperance Council of Christian Churches, and we may have to make further representations to the noble and learned Viscount, because on that two-pronged question which my noble friend put to the noble and learned Viscount I feel we have not had an adequate answer. If the position that I have put appeals to my noble friend, I think he may agree to withdraw the Amendment now, knowing that it is probable we shall raise it again on Report.
LORD STONHAM: I am going to accept my noble friend's advice and withdraw the Amendment, but since I feel that certainly on one point the Lord Chancellor was unable to give me an answer—at least not a satisfying answer—we shall have to return to this matter on the Report stage, when we hope that there will be a larger number of noble Lords present. With that I ask leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 29 and 30 agreed to.
Clause 31 [Interpretation, and transitional and consequential provisions]:
EARL BATHURST: This is purely a short technical Amendment which does exactly what it says. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 43, line 24, at end insert—
("() Any power to make orders conferred by this Act on the Secretary of State includes power to vary or revoke an order made in the exercise of that power.").—(Earl Bathurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 32 [Short title, citation, repeal, extent and commencement]:
EARL BATHURST: This Amendment is consequential on No. 25. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 44, line 13, leave out ("the Occasional Licences and Young Persons Act, 1956").—(Earl Bathurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 32, as amended, agreed to.
First Schedule agreed to.
Second Schedule [Supplementary Provision for Polls in Wales and Monmouth-shire]:
9.28 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR WELSH AFFAIRS (LORD BRECON)THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR WELSH AFFAIRS (LORD BRECON) moved, in paragraph 7, after sub-paragraph (2) to insert:
"() Where on any poll a greater number of persons claim to attend the counting as observers than is allowed under sub-paragraph (2) above, the county returning officer or mayor in choosing between them shall have regard to their opinions about Sunday opening (if known to him) with the aim of designating, as far as he can, those for and those against Sunday opening in equal numbers."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment gives effect to an undertaking given by the Government in another place. Its effect is that where a number of persons applying to attend as observers of a local poll is greater than the number of counting clerks, the returning officer and the mayor (who I am sure will have sufficient local knowledge) will be able to see that there are among the observers equal numbers of those who support and those who oppose Sunday opening. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 48, line 6, at the end, insert the said sub-paragraph.—(Lord Brecon.)
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I should like to know a little more about this Amendment, because I am somewhat like my noble friend Lord Stonham: I have not been a deep student of the OFFICIAL REPORTS of the debates in another place on this matter. Apparently the Minister, Lord Brecon, seems to think that a pledge was given. This is extraordinary wording to me, and seems as if somebody is going to try to find out the opinions of those who are to be observers at the poll, and come to a decision whether or not there are too many on one side or too many on the other. Is that what this really means? Who asked for this particular concession in the other place? I do not quite understand.
LORD BRECON: It was the Member for the constituency of Caernarvon, who I believe is a great supporter of not opening on Sundays, and this really meets his wishes that the observers shall be drawn, if possible, and if it is known, equally from those who support and those who do not support.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I suppose that, if it is to meet his wishes, it is all right. But it seems an extraordinary thing to have a sort of local inquiry as to what this one or that one agrees to, and what his opinions are. So far as I can remember, I have never seen such a thing before in legislation.
LORD BRECON: I said at the beginning that I thought the returning officer and the mayor had sufficient local knowledge of this matter to see that fair play was done.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: In a village station?
LORD BRECON: The returning officer is the clerk to the county council, in the one place, and the mayor of the county borough in the other.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Third Schedule [Adaptations of Licensing Act, 1953, Sections 113 to 119 (Special Hours Certificates) for Areas outside Metropolis]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment is consequential on the new clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 51, line 12, leave out paragraph 3.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Third Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Fourth Schedule [Licensing procedure and appeals]:
EARL BATHURST: This Amendment requires the clerk to the licensing justices to make available for inspection by the public during the fourteen days preceding each licensing sessions (general annual licensing meeting or transfer sessions) a list of applications which have been made for the grant of a new justices' licence or for the transfer or removal of an existing licence. The fee, if any, for inspection will be prescribed by the Secretary of State under Clause 16 (1). There is a somewhat similar provision in Scottish licensing law. These applications must in any case be advertised in the local Press, under the Fourth Schedule, paragraph 2 (1) (c) (ii), but it was represented in the House of Commons that it would further assist the public if a list were available for inspection at the office of the clerk, and that it would be little burden on the latter, since he would have to draw up a list in any case for his own purposes, and Her Majesty's Government undertook to introduce an Amendment in your Lordships' House accordingly. This Amendment is generally welcomed by all concerned. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 54, line 6, at end insert—
("(7) The clerk to the licensing justices shall for each licensing sessions keep a list of the persons giving notice under this paragraph of their intention to apply for the grant of a justices' licence; and the list shall show the name and address of the applicant, the nature of the application and the situation of the premises to be licensed, and for the fourteen days preceding the sessions shall at all reasonable times be open to inspection by any person

633
on payment of the appropriate fee (if any).")—(Earl Bathurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Fourth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Fifth Schedule:

PROVISIONS AS TO CLUB RULES
Management of Club
General meetings
(4) At a general meeting the voting must be confined to members, and all members entitled to use the club premises must be entitled to vote, and must have equal voting rights:
Provided that—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is another of the Amendments in which I am trying to deal with the point that we do not want a club to be run by a small minority of the members. We are trying to deal with all foreseeable circumstances. Your Lordships will have noticed that paragraph 2 (4) of the Fifth Schedule governs voting at general meetings or elections and provides that all members must be entitled to vote, with the exception of the classes of members listed in the proviso. This Amendment provides for the case of family membership. Many clubs have rules that provide that the husband or wife of a member may become a member on payment of a reduced subscription but may not vote. Sometimes this concession is extended to the children of members. This Amendment adds this family class of non-voting members to those classes already in the proviso. I think that your Lordships will realise that this is a sensible proposal to meet a situation which often arises. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 60, line 5, at end insert—
("and
(c) if the rules make special provision for family membership or family subscriptions or any similar provision, the rules may exclude from voting either generally or on particular matters, all or any of the persons taking the benefit of that provision as being members of a person's family, other than that person.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I think that this is a good addition to the Schedule, and welcome it. In the interval between now and Report stage, I am going to pay a little
634
attention to see whether the Government have carried into effect all that they said would be carried into effect in these provisions. For example, I want to be satisfied that there is not a sort of proprietor's place; that he is not going to hand out special rights to members of his family or maybe have a consortium of a limited number of members with shares or voting qualifications upon the number of shares held, whether they are fictitious shares or not, in order to get complete power centred in the proprietor. But as regards dealing with the possible misuse of family voting rights, to the exclusion of the rights of the rest of the members, I think that this is good and we accept it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
9.35 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved, in paragraph 4 (4) to add to the proviso:
"(c) the rules may exclude from voting members who are temporary, country, overseas or service members or who do not pay the full annual subscription."
The noble Viscount said: This Amendment has the intention of adding yet another sub-paragraph to the provisos in paragraph 2 of the Schedule in circumstances in which my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has just set out for your Lordships. It would have the advantage, if it is accepted by your Lordships, of allowing sporting clubs such as golf clubs and other varieties to have a provision in their rules which would not allow certain classes of members, such as country and part-time members, to have full voting rights, but such clubs would still get the benefit when they came up for registration or for renewal of licence which is given to them by Clause 22 (9) of the Bill. It seems that there are many clubs in this country of the golf club type which at the moment have some such provision in their rules, and this provision is not in any way operated to the detriment either of the club or the public. It would therefore seem right that some such provision as I suggest should be included in the Schedule, so that these clubs with this particular variety of rule should not lose the privilege given to them under the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 60, line 5, at end insert the said subparagraph.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My noble friend Lord Colville of Culross always moves his Amendments in a very attractive way, but I feel that this one goes too far. If your Lordships will be good enough to look at page 59 of the Bill, you will see that the general rule in sub-paragraph (4) is:
"At a general meeting the voting must be confined to members, and all members entitled to use the club premises must be entitled to vote, and must have equal voting rights."
That is the central point on which I am afraid I have been rather harping tonight. There are two provisos. The first is:
"the rules may exclude from voting, either generally or on particular matters, members below a specified age … women if the club is primarily a men's club …"
The second proviso is:
"If the club is primarily a club for persons qualified by service or past service, or by any particular service or past service, in Her Majesty's forces, the rules may exclude persons not qualified."
That refers to a sort of British Legion club, where it is confined to people who have been in the Services and they may have other members who have not been in the Services and are not entitled to vote. Then, with the approval of the noble Viscount who leads the Opposition, we added the provision that if they had a female membership the wife and children would not necessarily vote.
But now my noble friend wants to go far beyond that. He wants to exclude from the voting
"temporary, country, overseas or Service members or"—
and this is his last class—
"who do not pay the full annual subscription."
With great respect to my noble friend, that Amendment would have the effect of allowing a club so to arrange its affairs that a minority of members could run the club for their own benefit. To take an extreme example, the proprietor of a club could choose rules under which he and a relatively few friends (the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, reminded me that it was 25, but that is still, I think, relatively few) paid a larger subscription than was to be paid by any other member, in this way ensuring that he retained control of the club, however large its membership became.
I was worried about the earlier part, because I have great sympathy with my
636
noble friend's idea about Service members. I have not so much sympathy about "temporary", because that is a well-known method of getting round the true position of a club. But with regard to "service", I take it that what my noble friend has in mind is that "service members" may be intended to refer to Servicemen who are allowed to pay a reduced subscription because they are stationed at a distance from the club, and so can use the premises only infrequently. If this is so, the Government Amendment on country members would cover that, so they are all right.
But then there is the other case—and I think this is more likely—to cover the case of a club which offers Servicemen stationed nearby non-voting membership at a reduced subscription. That is what worried me, but it has not proved possible to relax the requirements of the Bill to allow this practice to continue. The club will still be able to offer hospitality to the Serviceman, either by making him a voting member or by making provision in the rules for sales to Servicemen stationed in the neighbourhood. It is true that sales are subject to the veto of the court, but this is a necessary safeguard and there is no reason to think that it will be used unreasonably. I feel there is a real danger here, against which I am trying to provide, and I think my noble friend's Amendment would not only breach the walls but undermine them. Therefore, I must tell him that I am sorry I cannot accept his Amendment.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I thank my noble and learned friend for his explanation. I see that it may weld be that this Amendment goes too far. I wonder, however, whether my noble and learned friend could tell me what sort of effect the inclusion of some such rules as I have outlined in this Amendment in the case of a perfectly bona fide golf club would have when they come to registration or renewal. Would the provisions of Clause 22 make it much more difficult for them if they put in this sort of rule?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: As I understand it, they would be acting contrary to paragraph 2 (4) of the Schedule, and by doing so they would be in danger. But on the question which I think my noble friend has in mind, about visiting members to golf clubs, perhaps he would

637
consider putting that down on Report and we might have a discussion on that. I do not want to be unreasonable in the matter, and I know that instead of paying a green fee, at certain golf clubs they make you a member for the day. I think that is a practical point of life which we should like to consider from a practical point of view. If my noble friend would put down an Amendment on Report I would consider it. I am always anxious to be reasonable in the matter without breaching fundamental rules. Perhaps that would suit him.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I thank my noble and learned friend.
LORD AIREDALE: I wonder whether the noble and learned Viscount would consider again the Amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, so far as it relates to overseas members? It seems that in paragraph (4) of the Schedule voting is to be in the hands of members who are entitled to use the club premises. I believe it to be the case that in many clubs members who are overseas, and who pay a reduced subscription, are not entitled to use the club premises. I think that is a rule in the case of the club to which I have the honour to belong, and I have no doubt that it applies in many other cases, too. If the overseas member returns home and wants to use the club premises, he has to pay an increased subscription before he may use the premises. I really do not see why an overseas member who is not paying the full subscription, and who is not entitled to use the club premises, should be entitled to vote, because that would seem to run counter to the principles stated in paragraph (4) of the Schedule.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think that would broadly be covered by the provision as to country members. May I look into it again? I think I have got it right, but I will certainly look through it again.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I thank my noble and learned friend for his undertaking to look at this again, and I will try to make some further Amendments in the Report stage in rather narrower terms, in order to cover
638
this subject. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Fifth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Sixth Schedule [Requirements to be complied with by club's application for registration certificate]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to add to paragraph 2:
"or will be so qualified if, as regards any provision of the rules specified in the application, the court sees fit to give a direction under subsection (14) of that section."
The noble and learned Viscount said: This Amendment is really consequential on Amendment 38, but may I just spend a moment on it, in answer to a question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale? These Amendments, Nos. 38 and 67, provide for the country membership. Many clubs have rules which provide that persons living more than a specified distance from the club may become members of the club at a reduced subscription—the same principle as he put to me—and it is impossible to define country members in such a way that the Amendment would take the form of a simple addition to the classes mentioned in the proviso to paragraph 2, sub-paragraph (4); and there is the difficulty which I mentioned. But these Amendments, Nos. 38 and 67, give the magistrates' court the power to investigate the arrangements and to refuse to register a club unless they are satisfied that the non-voting country membership rule is part of a bona fide arrangement made in the interests of the club as a whole and by that class of members, and is not designed to receive for a minority of the members an unfair measure of control. Clearly, the case which the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, put to me would fall within that definition. It is a perfectly honest and honourable idea providing for people who see the club only occasionally. Therefore, I think it will help him, but it does not mean that I will not look at his point again carefully.
Amendment moved—
Page 61, line 20, at end insert the said words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD AIREDALE: I am much obliged. I still think that there is a distinction here. The country member usually pays a lower subscription

639
because he can use the club premises less often; but he may use the club premises and I suppose that he would be entitled to vote under paragraph 4. The overseas member cannot use the club premises: there is, therefore, that distinction. I think it still applies.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move Amendment No. 68.
Amendment moved—
Page 62, line 29, at end insert ("annexed").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I must have been misinterpreting this, because I understood that the noble Lord's questions were on the previous Amendment. If that was not so then they were quite foreign to my intelligence. But do I take it that we have now passed No. 67?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: It seems to me that we are all not so well qualified. If you have passed it, I do not want you to look at it again, but at any rate I am not satisfied.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think the noble Viscount will see, when he has considered it, that this is permissible only if the court says that it is part of a genuine scheme. The club cannot do it itself. It must be approved by the court. I am sorry if I took it a little shortly, because I was really trying to get to the point which the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, raised. But I really do not think that the noble Viscount will find there is anything to worry him. If he does, perhaps he will have a word with me, because I can genuinely assure him that, in my view, this does not break into the general rule which I am trying to clear.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I would just add a note that I was trying to connect the place it would go into paragraph 2 of the Schedule, and I was taking the two together. I shall not be satisfied until I have had that word with the noble and learned Viscount.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Sixth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Seventh Schedule:
Procedure for Registartion of Clubs, and related matters
(2) On any application or complaint made to a magistrates' court by or against a club under Part III of this Act, and on any appeal by a club under section twenty-six of this Act, the club if not represented by counsel or a solicitor shall be heard by the chairman or secretary.
LORD BURDEN LORD BURDEN moved, in paragraph 3 (1), to leave out "twenty-one" and insert "twenty-eight" [days]. The noble Lord said: Paragraph (2) of the Seventh Schedule deals with application for the registration of a club which is to be made to the clerk to the justices and the clerk is required to submit copies forthwith Ito the police and local authority. Any objection must be made within 21 days, and Those of your Lordships who have had experience of local authorities will know that, bearing in mind the meeting of the appropriate committee of the council, 21 days is not a long period and should there be any delay on the part of the clerk to the justices in transmitting copies to the local authorities there may be difficulties regarding the making of an objection.
I am sure it is not the desire of the noble and learned Viscount that local authorities should be put to the inconvenience of calling a special meeting of the appropriate committee of the council to deal with any objections which it is felt necessary to make. Therefore my Amendment seeks to substitute a period of 28 days for 21, and even 28 is running the thing rather tight for many local authorities. I believe I am correct in saying that 21 days follows the Scottish precedent, but there does not seem to be any particular reason for saying that because there are 21 days for Scotland there should be 21 days in this country. Very strong representations have been made by the people concerned, and I would ask the Lord Chancellor to look favourably on this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 64, line 9, leave out ("twenty-one") and insert ("twenty-eight").—(Lord Burden.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Plainly, local authorities must be given reasonable time in which to decide whether or not to lodge an objection. I accept that. It is rather difficult, as the noble Lord

641
shows that he appreciates, that an applicant for a justices' licence is required to give no more than 21 days' notice to a local authority of his intention—that is in the Fourth Schedule, paragraph 1 (2). As the noble Lord said, Scottish licence law requires an objection to the granting of a renewal of a club's registration certificate to be lodged with the local authority within 21 days of receipt of notice of the application. Of course, as a Scot I appreciate the compliment of the noble Lord, Lord Burden, that in Scotland we get up very early in the morning and may not require as much time as the nation that lies some 200 miles to the South. Still it is a precedent; and, of course, the 21 days' notice only is required in the case of an application for a new licence for a hotel or restaurant or public house.
May I leave it this way? The noble Lord, Lord Burden, with his immense experience of these matters, tells me that it might be difficult to lodge objections within the 21 days. I should like to make some inquiries, because I want to hold the balance fairly between the parties who are affected. So may I leave it to-day that I will look sympathetically at the noble Lord's suggestion? I know the Association of Municipal Corporations very well and that they would not put it forward unless they were worried about some of their authorities. If I may give it sympathetic consideration, I will write to the noble Lord about it before Report stage.
LORD BURDEN: I am most grateful to the noble and learned Viscount. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL BATHURST: Amendments Nos. 70, 71 and 72 are technical Amendments which allow a fire authority to object if the local magistrates or licensing justices should extend the time of objection, rather on the same lines as the noble Lord, Lord Burden, mentioned with regard to local authorities. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 64, line 13, at end insert (",fire authority").—(Earl Bathurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL BATHURST: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 64, line 16, leave out ("local").—(Earl Bathurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL BATHURST: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 64, line 37, leave out from beginning to ("and").—(Earl Bathurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment provides that on the hearing of an application by a club for the issue, variation or renewal of a registration certificate, a magistrates' court shall have power to compel the attendance of witnesses. I think your Lordships agree that is a reasonable power. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 65, line 22, at end insert ("and in relation to any such application subsections (1) and (3) of section seventy-seven of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952 (which provide for compelling the attendance of witnesses), shall apply as they apply in relation to a complaint.").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Seventh Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Eighth Schedule agreed to.
Ninth Schedule [Repeals]:
9.58 p.m.
EARL BATHURST: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 73, line 48, column 3, leave out ("subsections (2) and (3)"), and insert ("subsection (2) and, except as respects the regrant of licences granted before the coming into force of this repeal, subsection (3).")—(Earl Bathurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment is also consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 75, line 41, column 3, after ("nineteen") insert ("paragraph (a) of subsection (1) and").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL BATHURST: This is another consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 75, line 50, column 3, leave out from the beginning to end of line 51 and insert—
("In section one hundred and twenty-seven, in subsection (1), the word 'justices".
Sections one hundred and twenty-eight and one hundred and twenty-nine.").
—(Earl Bathurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is the last Amendment. It is consequential and would not merit further words, but I should like to thank noble Lords opposite, and everyone in the House, for their cooperation. I do not think that we have skimped or scamped our consideration tonight, yet noble Lords have co-operated in securing the end of the stage by an almost mathematical exactness which is hardly ever known in the annals of Parliament. But for that, and for all their kindness, I should like to thank them very much. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 76, line 41, at end insert—

("4 & 5 Eliz. 2. c. 42.

The Occasional Licences and Young Persons Act, 1956.

The whole Act.")

—(The Lord Chancellor.)

LORD STONHAM: May I be allowed to thank the Lord Chancellor very much for his kind words, and also to thank
644
him, together with his noble friends Lord Bathurst and Lord Brecon, for their kind consideration of all our Amendments and for their courtesy. I think that noble Lords on both sides may congratulate ourselves in that we have finished much earlier than we thought might be the case.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Remaining Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed.

GREAT OUSE WATER BILL
The Queen's consent signified and Bill reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
STATIONERS' AND NEWSPAPER MAKERS' COMPANY BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.

RIVER WEAR WATCH (DISSOLUTION) BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
House adjourned at two minutes past ten o'clock.