Sitting of 10 April 1962

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

    Historic Monuments and Buildings
    Mr. Fletcherasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether the working party set up under his chairmanship over a year ago to reassess the nature, scope and organisation of Exchequer-financed work throughout Britain on identifying, recording and research into historic monuments and buildings has now completed its investigations; and when he will announce its conclusions.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Edward Boyle): The group's investigations are completed and I hope to make an early statement of the Government's intentions.
    Mr. Fletcher: While welcoming that reply, may I ask whether we can have an assurance from the hon. Gentleman that he hopes that the statement which he will make will introduce some considerable improvement in the present arrangements?
    Sir E. Boyle: I am very hopeful that the hon. Member will think so when the statement is made.

    London and Guildhall Museums (Amalgamation)
    Mr. Fletcherasked the Secretary to the Treasury what is the present position regarding the proposal for an amalgamation of the London Museum with the Guildhall Museum.
    Sir E. Boyle: We have made good progress in discussion with the other
    1108
    authorities concerned and I hope to be able to make a full statement before very long.
    Mr. Fletcher: Is the hon. Gentleman yet in a position to say where the new museum will be situated?
    Sir E. Boyle: I must ask the hon. Member to await the full statement. As he knows, I am grateful for his interest in this matter. I hope that it will be possible to make a statement quite soon after the Easter Recess.

    Dog Licences
    Mr. Ridleyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the equivalent today of 7s. 6d. dog licences, in view of the fall in the value of money since they were introduced.
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Anthony Barber): Dog licensing was first introduced in 1796 but the present charge dates from 1878. The equivalent today of 7s. 6d. then would be about 32s. 6d.
    Mr. Ridley: May I sow the idea in my hon. Friend's mind that this would be a convenient way of raising some revenue? May I ask him to bear in mind that it would be possible for him to exempt old-age pensioners from such a charge but that it is ridiculous to leave it at its present low level?
    Mr. Barber: Obviously we will bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said, but this tax was originally introduced, I am told, for quite a special purpose in 1796, to pay for the war with France. While I see my hon. Friend's point about exempting old-age pensioners, they are not the only people who might find it a hardship if the tax were increased. We will certainly bear in mind what he has said.
    Mr. Peyton: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that, in the first place, there is no war with France to pay for now? Will he also consider the cost of collecting this fatuous tax and whether the game is worth the candle?
    Mr. Barber: I note that one of my hon. Friends wishes the tax to be increased and the other wishes it to be abolished.

    Toll Bridges
    Mr. W. Hamiltonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been drawn to the fact that many private owners of toll bridges are receiving susbtantial incomes from the collection of such tolls; and what steps he intends to take to ensure that all such incomes shall be taxable in the future.
    Mr. Barber: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the speech made by my right hon. and learned Friend yesterday afternoon.
    Mr. Hamilton: Did the hon. Gentleman read the debate on 16th March on this issue? Is he aware that it was then pointed out by at least two of his hon. Friends that in one instance at Selby Bridge in Yorkshire there was a tax-free income of £20,000 a year? Is he also aware that the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) quoted the case of the Earl of Abingdon receiving a tax-free income, and an unearned income at that, of £6,000 a year? Can the hon. Gentleman tell me, with reference to the Answer which I think the Financial Scretary gave to a Question on 3rd April, in how many cases there are special exemptions from taxation and what is the estimated loss to the Revenue of those exempted cases?
    Mr. Barber: I cannot, without notice, answer the second part of that supplementary question, but I can tell the hon. Member that the number of toll bridges which enjoy exemption under longstanding enactments is five. I am having the matter examined.

    Capital Gains
    Mr. Warbeyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in preparing his proposed legislation regarding a capital gains tax, he will have regard to the capital gains that can accrue to share holders when companies make bonus issues in the form of redeemable and negotiable loan stock.
    Mr. Barber: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the speech made by my right hon. and learned Friend yesterday afternoon.
    Mr. Warbey: Does not this mean that the recent issue by Courtaulds of £40 million of its capital profits to shareholders,
    1110
    as part of its bribe to shareholders to resist the L.C.I. take-over bid, will go entirely scot-free and that if it were repeated by another company tomorrow it would go virtually scot-free? Does not this show that the speculative gains tax is a farce and that the Chancellor and his party have no real sense of either equity or social justice?
    Mr. Barber: I think that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made the position perfectly clear, as reported in col. 982 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of yesterday's Budget statement. The new charge is to be made on certain realised gains and it is not intended that tax should be levied on an appreciation in value which has not been and may not be realised.

    Medical Schools
    Mr. Greyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what expansion he now expects in medical schools during the next five years; and where such expansion will be.
    Sir E. Boyle: This matter is under discussion between the University Grants Committee and the universities with medical schools.
    Mr. Grey: May we take it that, when the University Grants Committee reports, the Government will accept its report in full? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a great shortage of medical schools? Can he say whether or not the Government have come to a conclusion about the possibility of Durham University having its own separate medical faculty when separated from Newcastle?
    Sir E. Boyle: I cannot answer about Durham University. There are already twenty-six medical schools and the foundation of further schools is a matter which would, in the first instance, be for the University Grants Committee to consider. But perhaps at a later stage the hon. Gentleman and I can meet and discuss this matter.
    Mr. Grey: May we be assured that the Government will accept the report of the University Grants Committee, in view of what has happened in the past?
    Sir E. Boyle: I would ask the hon. Gentleman to read again the statement

    1111
    made by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury last week, when he made it clear, in his statement on recurrent grants, that the cost to universities of the Government's recent request for an increased intake of medical students will be additional to the current grants made by the Government.

    Nash Terraces, Regent's Park
    Sir T. Mooreasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the reconstruction of the Nash houses in Park Crescent between Portland Place and Regent's Park; and if he will now state whether the same methods can be adopted in regard to the other Nash terraces in the Park threatened with destruction.
    Sir E. Boyle: The methods adopted in Park Crescent are the same as those approved by the Crown Estate Commissioners for the reconstruction of the Nash houses in Sussex Place, York Terrace West, York Gate West and Clarence Terrace, but they have not been accepted by the London County Council for these Terraces.
    Sir T. Moore: Apart from the fact that the reconstruction I have mentioned was perfectly carried out, does my hon. Friend realise that the chief adviser to the London County Council, who opposed these destructive proposals, is a very distinguished architect? Has my hon. Friend approached the Royal Institute of British Architects so as to get the best professional opinion on this proposed alteration?
    Sir E. Boyle: I cannot answer the latter part of that supplementary question without notice, but I am sure that both my right hon. and learned Friend and the Commissioners will take note of the point my hon. Friend has just made.

    University Teachers (Salaries)
    Sir B. Jannerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the fact that he was kept fully informed by the University Grants Committee of the progress of salary negotiations for university teachers from November, 1960, onwards, and that this constituted a commitment entered into prior to 25th July, Why he is not prepared to consider
    1112
    the question of the salaries of university teachers apart from the major effects of the pay pause.
    Sir E. Boyle: There was no Government commitment prior to 25th July.
    Sir B. Janner: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that is not the view held by the university teachers? It is obvious that their claim should not have come within the pay pause regulations. Is the hon. Gentleman further aware that, apart from the folly of not granting this claim, the idea of the Government straining all they can in order to prevent the payment of additional salaries to the teachers is really a very serious matter for the country, and that unless something is done the country will suffer considerably?
    Sir E. Boyle: This is not a matter which we can debate at Question Time, but it is important. I will try to answer the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question seriously. The pay pause policy, which was accepted as a disagreeable necessity, would have been impossible if all cases in which salary negotiations were in progress had been exempted. The fact that negotiations were in progress does not, of necessity, constitute a prior commitment. I repeat that there was no prior commitment in this case.

    Dividends
    Sir C. Osborneasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many companies have increased, reduced, or paid the same dividend since his pay pause policy was announced; and how much money was involved in each of the three classifications.
    Sir E. Boyle: Out of 1,247 dividend declarations by public companies since 25th July last year listed in the Financial Times, 357 represented increased dividends and 890 the same or reduced dividends. I regret that the rest of the information requested could not be extracted without disproportionate work.
    Sir C. Osborne: On balance, is it not fair to say that the directors of companies have acceded to the Chancellor's request for a dividend pause?
    Sir E. Boyle: Yes. I agree with my hon. Friend. I think that the figures I have announced show that that is so.
    Mr. Jay: Is it the Chancellor's policy that dividends paid in 1962 should not increase by more than 2½ per cent. over the previous year?
    Sir E. Boyle: My right hon. and learned Friend has made it perfectly plain that we are now moving to a new phase of the incomes policy. Neither in the case of incomes nor of dividends could it be right to say that we should go right back to where we were before 25th July last. The proportion of companies announcing increased dividends, as listed in the Financial Times, has been diminishing steadily each month from an average of 56·4 per cent. over the first three months after 25th July to 22·6 per cent. in the last three months. This is not a matter on which right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have any political points they could usefully make.
    Sir C. Osborne: Surely it would be unfair—to follow up the question asked by the right hon. Member for Batter-sea, North (Mr. Jay)—to limit dividends increase to 2½ per cent. to those companies which have had to reduce dividends because of reduced profits in the last year?
    Sir E. Boyle: Again, this is too big a question to debate now, but the point I made was that neither with regard to incomes nor to dividends, nor to incomes of any kind, do the Government believe that we could go back to the position as it was before 25th July. But there can be no doubt that to an increasing extent the trend of dividend has been in full accord with my right hon. and learned Friend's policy. That should be fully recognised by the House and the country.
    Mr. Jay: Will the hon. Gentleman answer my question? Will the Government allow only a 2½ per cent. increase in dividends in 1962?
    Sir E. Boyle: It would be very unreasonable to answer that question in isolation. The right hon. Gentleman should look at the White Paper and take note of the answers I have given. I think that that is a completely satisfactory reply on this matter.
    Mr. Warbey: As dividends increased by 25 per cent. last year, is the hon. Gentleman prepared to maintain that increase during the present year? As a large number of companies—including Courtaulds, banks and insurance companies—have increased dividends, when will the Treasury take action in this matter?
    Sir E. Boyle: The hon. Gentleman must try to get Courtaulds off his brain. His figures are inaccurate. He has taken no notice of the trend, which is fully in accord with the Chancellor's policy.

    £1 Banknotes
    Mr. Fernyhoughasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to give wider publicity to the fact that the old type of pound note will not be legal tender after May.
    Mr. Barber: Responsibility for this matter lies with the Bank of England. I know, however, that it would be glad if holders of these notes would exchange them through their own banks as soon as possible.
    Mr. Fernyhough: Will these notes be acceptable by the banks after the date specified? Does not the hon. Member appreciate that there may be some old people who are very unlikely to trust either the banks or the Government? Would it not be a hardship—assuming that the banks will not accept these notes after May—if these people, whose sums may not be very big, lost whatever savings they had because of this?
    Mr. Barber: The Bank of England took pains to try to ensure the maximum publicity in this matter. Indeed, its Press release was taken up by most of the national newspapers and by the B.B.C. These notes will remain legal tender up to the 28th May. After then, although they will no longer be legal tender, they will be exchangeable at the head office of the Bank of England.

    African Territories (Servicing of Loans)
    Sir W. Teelingasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if Her Majesty's Government will give a guarantee that the servicing of loans of territories about to be handed over to Africans, or already handed over, will be maintained.
    Mr. Barber: No, Sir. I have no reason to believe that the Governments of territories which will become independent in the future will not keep faith with existing stockholders by observing the conditions upon which stocks were issued, as have other Commonwealth Governments which have attained independence since the war.
    Sir W. Teeling: Certain sums will be paid over the coming years to the newly independent countries. Would it be wrong to hope that the British Government will keep an eye, during all that time, on this matter to make sure at least that these sums will be paid only after whatever guaranteed servicing of loans has been paid?
    Mr. Barber: I am sure that the Ministers principally concerned will take note of what my hon. Friend has said, but I would remind him that there have so far been no defaults by Commonwealth Governments which have attained independence since the war.

    National Economic Development Council
    Mr. Godman Irvineasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what reply he has sent to the representations made to him by the Conference of Professional and Public Service Organisations about the composition of the National Economic Development Council.
    Sir E. Boyle: My right hon. Friend is writing to Sir Ronald Gould, who approached him on behalf of the Conference, to say that he sees no reason to change the present composition of the N.E.D.C., the members of which are not chosen to represent particular organisations or sections of the community.

    Purchase Tax (Band Instruments)
    Mr. Wainwrightasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will abolish the Purchase Tax on all band instruments manufactured in this country.
    Mr. Barber: No, Sir.
    Mr. Wainwright: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his Answer will bring dismay to all bandsmen and their supporters? Is he further aware that the music we got yesterday from the windpipe of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was rather sordid and very insipid? Does
    1116
    not he realise that these instruments, to the professional bandsmen, are just like the tools of the workmen and are necessary to them? Is he also aware that many bandsmen give their services voluntarily and are essential to the social life of our community, especially in the villages? Will the hon. Gentleman therefore do something about removing the 25 per cent. tax on all instruments?
    Mr. Barber: I can reply very briefly by saying that it would be quite impossible to differentiate between bandsmen and other musicians in the way suggested by the hon. Gentleman.

    University Entrants
    Mr. Wainwrightasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the proportion of the relevant age-group who have entered universities for the years 1959, 1960 and 1961, and the expected proportion of the age-group for 1962, 1963, 1964 and 1965.
    Sir E. Boyle: As the reply contains a table of figures I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Wainwright: I appreciate the fact that the hon. Gentleman is to circulate the figures. Is he aware that good educationists think that the Government are not doing sufficient to increase the number of places in our universities? What are the Government to do for the many thousands of qualified students who are knocking at the doors of our universities but unable to enter because there are not enough places for them? Will the Government do more in this matter?
    Sir E. Boyle: I advise the hon. Gentleman to look at the speceh of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury last Thursday. I congratulate the hon. Member on asking two such different Questions in succession on one afternoon.
    Mr. Wainwright: That does not alter the fact that good educationists are very worried about the number of places available to young students. What do the Government intend to do? What hope have students when, because they cannot enter a university, they miss their chance in life?
    Sir E. Boyle: The form of the hon. Member's supplementary questions shows that this is not a subject which can be debated at Question Time. If he looks at the speeches which the Chief Secretary and I made last Thursday, he will see that we are not complacent about the present situation. In answer to his present question I can point out that within a few years from now there will be a sharp and substantial improvement in the proportion of the age groups going to the universities.
    Following are the figures:

    Academic Year

    University Entrants as a percentage of the relevant age-groups*

    1959–60

    …

    …

    4·5

    1960–61

    …

    …

    4·8

    1961–62

    …

    …

    4·6

    1962–63

    …

    …

    4·6†

    1963–64

    …

    …

    4·6†

    1964–65

    …

    …

    5·3†

    1965–66

    …

    …

    4·6†

    * Men and women—

    (i) in England and Wales aged 17 on 1st January of the previous year;

    (ii) in Scotland aged 17 on 1st January of the same year.

    † Estimates.

    NOTE: The percentages given are for all students entering English, Scottish, and Welsh universities, including students coming from overseas, but exclude British students going to universities overseas, including Ireland.

    Chancellor of the Exchequer (Television Appearances)
    Mr. Liptonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why he has arranged to appear both on British Broadcasting Corporation and Independent Television programmes to explain his Budget proposals.
    Mr. Barber: It has been customary for a number of years for the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day to accept this invitation.
    Mr. Lipton: Was the Chancellor aware that in using both channels last night for statements of wide public interest he was setting a very good example which, in his forthcoming report to the nation, could well be followed by the Duke of Edinburgh?
    Mr. Speaker: That question is out of order.
    Mr. Lipton: On a point of order. It would be of interest to the House, Mr. Speaker, if you could say why my supplementary question was out of order?
    Mr. Speaker: It infringed our rule about criticism of certain persons in Questions. I also thought that there was probably not sufficient Ministerial responsibility. Either ground is sufficient to rule it out of order.

    TRADE AND COMMERCE

      Monopolies Commission (References)
      Mr. Carrasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) how many classes of goods he is aware of for which the conditions of supply make them liable to reference to the Monopolies Commission but which have not yet been so referred;
      (2) what steps he takes to identify classes of goods which would be liable for reference to the Monopolies Commission.
      The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Niall Macpherson): The supply of any particular description of goods is liable to reference to the Monopolies Commission whenever it appears to my right hon. Friend that at least one-third of such supply either in the United Kingdom as a whole or in any substantial part of the country is made by or to one person or combine. Clearly it is not practicable to compile and keep up to date a list of all such goods for all parts of the country. When my right hon. Friend receives information suggesting that a monopoly exists and that it may be abusing its position, he considers whether a reference to the Monopolies Commission would be in the public interest.
      Mr. Carr: While appreciating that my right hon. Friend cannot be expected to have a comprehensive list at any given moment, may I ask my hon. Friend to tell us of how many matters he is aware at the moment? Can he tell the House what steps he takes to make himself as fully informed as it is possible to be?
      Mr. Macpherson: As I indicated in the last part of my Answer, these approaches generally come to my right hon. Friend from outside. As I told

      1119
      the hon. Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Oram) on 16th March last year, there were then seventy matters which had been suggested for reference. Since then, a further eleven suggestions have been made But, of course, my right hon. Friend is not obliged to refer any matters which are suggested to him in this way.
      Mr. Carr: In view of the many matters which he has mentioned, does not my hon. Friend feel that it is highly necessary to expand the scale of activities of the Monopolies Commission so that it can make many more inquiries in a given time?
      Mr. Macpherson: The nature of the suggestions varies considerably and there is not equal substance in all of them by any means.
      Mr. Mitchison: Does not the hon. Gentleman consider that the Board of Trade has some public responsibility, without waiting for a competitor or consumer to complain, to consider whether it is proper for these goods to be referred?
      Mr Macpherson: Certainly we have a public responsibility: nor do we necessarily wait for matters to be suggested to us. What we attempt to do is to keep an eye on the whole subject. When it appears to my right hon. Friend to be necessary, he makes a reference to the Monopolies Commission.

      West Cameroons (Commonwealth Preference)
      Mr. Tilneyasked the President of the Board of Trade whether Commonwealth Preference will be continued on the products of West Cameroons after 30th September, 1962.
      The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Sir Keith Joseph): This matter is being urgently considered. An announcement will be made as soon as a decision has been reached.
      Mr. Tilney: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the long friendship between this country and the people of the West Cameroons, and also that many British interests, including those of the Colonial Development Corporation, through the Cameroon Development Corporation, are involved?
      Sir K. Joseph: Yes, Sir.

      Office Building, London
      Mr. Boydenasked the President of the Board of Trade what effect new office building in London has had on his policy for distribution of industry.
      Mr. N. Macpherson: None, Sir.
      Mr. Boyden: Does not the Parliamentary Secretary agree that there has been excessive investment in prestige office building in London which has had an adverse effect on the encouragement of investment in the development districts? Should he not consider the introduction of controls of office development in congested areas so that there is more pressure to go to the development districts?
      Mr. Macpherson: The Board of Trade has no control over office building. Questions about the control of office building are for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government.
      Mr. Jay: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that he has given two extraordinary replies? Does he really not appreciate that the increase in office employment in London has had a major distorting effect on the whole of his distribution of industry policy? Is he telling us that he is not interested and does mot propose to do anything about it?
      Mr. Macpherson: I do not accept that increased office building in London has had an effect on the distribution of industry policy. Control of industry is a matter for my right hon. Friend, but control of office building is a matter for the Minister of Housing and Local Government.
      Sir P. Agnew: Is not the remedy for this situation the replacement of the present Socialist-controlled London County Council, which is the planning authority and which has given planning permission for all these buildings to be erected, by an authority which will give better and more sensible government to London?
      Mr. Jay: Even though the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir P. Agnew) obviously knows even less about it than does the Minister, will the Parliamentary Secretary agree that he

      1121
      has responsibility for the distribution of employment over the whole country and that it has been seriously affected by the expansion of office employment in London?
      Mr. Macpherson: Matters of employment are matters for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour.
      Mr. Hector Hughes: As the Board of Trade has jurisdiction over the trade, industry and commerce of not only London but north-east Scotland, why does it not set up a building in Aberdeen to deal with the trade, industry and commerce of north-east Scotland and staffed entirely by Scots who know the needs and potentialities of the area?
      Mr. Macpherson: If it did, it would not affect the new office building in London.

      Padstow
      Mr. Scott-Hopkinsasked the President of the Board of Trade how many new jobs have been forthcoming in the Padstow district since the passing of the Local Employment Act, 1960.
      Mr. Macpherson: As my hon. Friend was told in the Answer given him on 20th February, about 370 jobs are forthcoming from developments in the Bodmin group of employment exchange areas. I cannot say how many of these will be filled by workers from Padstow.
      Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Does not my hon. Friend appreciate that the Bodmin group of employment exchange areas is a long way from Padstow and involves a journey of at least an hour? Does he think that this fulfils the provisions of the Local Employment Act?
      Mr. Macpherson: The number of jobs in prospect in the Bodmin group of employment exchange areas is about double the present number of unemployed. Employers will certainly be anxious to find employees from wherever they can get them.

      Czechoslovak Trade Exhibition, Olympia
      Mr. Rankinasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will invite the Czechoslovak Minister of Foreign Trade to pay a visit to this country at the time of the Czechoslovak Trade Exhibition at Olympia in July.
      Sir K. Joseph: My right hon. Friend has invited the Minister to visit this country in July as the guest of Her Majesty's Government, and I am very glad to say that he has accepted.
      Mr. Rankin: To make the matter quite clear, do I understand from that reply that this enterprise is receiving official Government support? Does the hon. Gentleman realise that that will be most welcome, in view of all the Chancellor said yesterday about the need to increase exports?
      Sir K. Joseph: My right hon. Friend will try himself to attend the opening, if his engagements permit him.

      Imperial Chemical Industries (Courtaulds Stock)
      Mr. Tapsellasked the President of the Board of Trade if the acquisition by Imperial Chemical Industries Limited of 38½ per cent. of Courtaulds Limited Ordinary stock will lead him to require a similar assurance from Imperial Chemical Industries in regard to this investment to that which he obtained from Imperial Tobacco Company Limited in respect of their 37½ per cent. holding in Gallaher Limited.
      Mr. N. Macpherson: No, Sir. The two cases are not parallel. My right hon. Friend cannot accept that the mere fact that one firm holds a significant part of the equity of another, whether in the same, in an associated or in a quite different line of business, is in itself against the national interest.
      Mr. Tapsell: Is it not a fact that the Chairman of L.C.I. has said that this very large shareholding in Courtaulds could never be regarded merely as an investment? Will my hon. Friend recall that when a not very dissimilar situation in the tobacco industry was referred to the Monopolies Commission, its conclusion was that it was against the public interest, even when regarded merely as an investment? Will not my right hon. Friend have another very close look at this, bearing in mind the fact that Conservative supporters in the country are becoming increasingly concerned about the monopolies position?
      Mr. Macpherson: Yes, Sir, but my hon. Friend will recognise that the cases,

      1123
      as I have said, are not parallel. In the case of the Imperial Tobacco Company, that company held a monopoly position in the tobacco manufacturing industry, and in addition held a large shareholding in its principal competitor in that industry. In the case of the I.C.I. and Courtaulds, it was not I.C.I. who were monopolists in the field of man-made fibres, or in the narrower field of rayon.
      Mr. Jay: Is not the relevant fact that I.C.I. and Courtaulds together will hold very nearly a monopoly in a number of man-made fibres? What difference is there in substance between the two cases?
      Mr. Macpherson: There is a great difference in regard to these two questions. This is a question of one firm holding an equity in another and perhaps exercising some influence in that company through that holding. It matters a great deal whether the firm that holds the equity holds a monopoly position or not.
      Mr. Leather: Will my hon. Friend say how it is possible for a company to hold a monopoly position and at the same time to have a large shareholding in its principal competitor? Are not these two terms completely contradictory?
      Mr. Macpherson: Not within the meaning of the Act. The Act defines monopoly as the supply of goods amounting to one-third of the total supply.
      Mr. Leather: Does not this demonstrate that it is a silly definition?
      Mr. Mitchison: Within the meaning of the Act, do not I.C.I. and Courtaulds between them hold a very considerable monopoly in some very vital matters, and what do the Government propose to do about it?
      Mr. Ross: Have a look at it.
      Mr. Macpherson: With respect, that is another question.

      Exports to West Africa
      Mr. Dugdaleasked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to increase exports from the Midlands to West Africa.
      Sir K. Joseph: All the facilities which the Government provides to increase exports to West African and other markets are available to firms in the Midlands.
      Mr. Dugdale: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that although West Bromwich weighing machines are selling very successfully in Ghana, it is Japan, and not Birmingham, which is selling cheap jewellery in Sierre Leone, and, so far as West Africa generally is concerned, in spite of the fact that British motor-car manufacturers have a 10 per cent. preference, they are being driven out by the Germans and by other European manufacturers? If this happens now, how does the hon. Gentleman suppose that we shall ever succeed when we join the Common Market?
      Sir K. Joseph: We have to accept the fact that we are going to face more competition all over the world whether we go into the Common Market or not, and our businessmen are fighting back very well against this increase in competition in West Africa.

      Man-made Fibres Industry (Tariffs)
      Sir J. Vaughan-Morganasked the President of the Board of Trade what proposals he has by way of reducing tariffs to produce more competition in the man-made fibres industry.
      Sir K. Joseph: Tariffs are being progressively reduced within E.F.T.A. If we enter the European Economic Community our tariffs against the other members will be progressively dismantled. Negotiations for the reduction of tariffs are still proceeding in the G.A.T.T. All of these affect man-made fibres to a greater or lesser extent.
      The Board of Trade is also always ready to consider applications from representative bodies of users for reductions in the duties on these goods.
      Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: Is my hon. Friend aware that that is not the point, which is that there is a complete monopoly in most of these man-made fibres? Does he think that it is right that man-made fibres should be given this protection, vis-à-vis the natural fibres, most of which receive no protection?
      Sir K. Joseph: I can only repeat that whether we go into Europe or not, there is going to be an increasing amount of competition for these goods in the years to come.
      Sir C. Osborne: Since I.C.I. has a monopoly in this country of the supply of the basic raw materials for making man-made fibres, and that is the key to the whole position, will my hon. Friend look into the matter again to see that the protection which they now get is either justified or taken away?
      Sir K. Joseph: In all these cases to which I referred, we are now negotiating or discussing alterations in the tariff, and I think that my hon. Friend should await the results of these discussions.
      Mr. Holt: Will not the hon. Gentleman differentiate between industries which are monopolies and industries which are not? Will he accept as a matter of principle, at least, prima facie, that no industry which is a monopoly should have tariff protection?
      Sir K. Joseph: This does not exactly arise from the Question, but we have to face the fact that in this country the law is that a monopoly is objectionable only when it abuses its position. If representative users wish to make a case to my right hon. Friend that there has been an abuse of the position, the machinery is there for him to take some action.

      Imperial Tobacco Company Ltd., and Gallahers Ltd.
      Sir J. Vaughan-Morganasked the President of the Board of Trade, whether he will publish the text of the formal undertaking given to him by the Imperial Tobacco Company Limited not to interfere in the management of Gallahers Limited.
      Mr. N. Macpherson: It is the practice not to publish exchanges of letters between the Board of Trade and companies whose affairs have been investigated by the Monopolies Commission. My right hon. Friend sees no reason to depart from the practice in this case. The substance of the undertaking was given in my reply to the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) on 6th February.
      Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: With great respect, is my hon. Friend aware that that gives the impression that there is something to hide, whereas, in practice, I believe that there is nothing to hide? Surely, it would be a healthy precedent to see that there was always a formal statement of the undertaking given on these occasions?
      Mr. Macpherson: That has certainly not been the case so far. I shall certainly ask my right hon. Friend to consider what my right hon. Friend has just said, but so far he sees no reason to depart from the precedent.
      Mr. Gresham Cooke: Is my hon. Friend aware that I cannot see the logic of this differentiation between the Imperial Tobacco Company and I.C.I.? There is no evidence that the Imperial Tobacco Company was abusing its position, and yet it was instructed not to interfere in the affairs of the other company.
      Mr. Macpherson: That is not quite the position. The Imperial Tobacco Company had already given an undertaking not to interfere with the management of Gallahers and, at the request of my right hon. Friend, it repeated that undertaking.
      Mr. Jay: Is it not quite obvious that the whole House is dissatisfied with the Government's attitude on this question, and will not the Minister undertake to reconsider it?
      Mr. Macpherson: I could not accept what the right hon. Gentleman has said—that the whole House is dissatisfied with the Government's handling of this matter.
      Mr. Mitchison: As an undertaking given to the Restrictive Practices Court, like any other undertaking given to a court, would be public, what is the objection to giving similar publicity to the parallel case of the undertaking given to the Monopolies Commission?
      Mr. Macpherson: It is not a court, and it has not been the practice in the past to give such information.

      Cotton Industry
      Mr. S. Silvermanasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he

      1127
      is aware that Messrs. Daniel Walton and Sons Ltd., the proprietors of Bradley Mill, Nelson, have given public notice that they will shortly close the mill down because they are unable to compete with foreign importations; and how many other mills in Lancashire have closed down or given notice of their intention to do so within the last six months.
      Mr. N. Macpherson: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend is aware of seventeen spinning and weaving mills in Lancashire, including Daniel Walton and Sons Ltd., that have closed down, or announced their intention to close, in the last six months. Some of these closures are attributed to reorganisation and concentration of production or to shortage of labour.
      Mr. Silverman: Arising out of that Answer, for which I am grateful, may I ask the Minister if he will bear in mind that in the case of the firm mentioned, the result of closing it down will be to dismiss 160 of the most highly skilled operatives in this field, and that the firm itself is a progressive firm, fully equipped, fully modernised and one which, one would have thought, would be able to compete with all reasonable conditions? Does not the hon. Gentleman see that there is fast arising a situation of almost catastrophic proportions?
      Mr. Macpherson: It is not the case that all the workers who are released in this way will be lost to the cotton industry. They may be taken on by other firms.
      Mr. Silvermanasked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to deal with the developing crisis in the cotton industry and to prevent a serious loss of production and trade.
      Mr. N. Macpherson: The Government are providing substantial financial assistance to the industry under the 1959 Act. Disruptive imports are subject to various measures of restraint.
      Mr. Silverman: Is not the hon. Gentleman seriously aware of the grave and widespread anxiety all over Lancashire about the situation that is rapidly developing? Does not he know that this is not confined to one side of industry, or to one political party? Has not he had representations from the
      1128
      combined industry in which members of both sides have been interested and active? Has he really nothing more constructive to say than what he said in answer to this Question?
      Mr. Macpherson: My right hon. Friend is well aware of the anxiety at present existing in Lancashire.
      Mr. Silverman: What are the Government doing about it?
      Mr. Macpherson: The Government have repeatedly said that they consider that the restraint of imports of dutyfree Commonwealth cloth will undoubtedly be required for the whole period of the re-equipment and reorganisation of the Lancashire industry. The trouble is that the Lancashire industry has not yet fully digested those words.
      Mr. Silverman: Does not the hon. Gentleman know that a great many of the factories which he has said have closed have re-equipped themselves long ago, have used such assistance as the Government have given, and still find themselves in this calamitous situation? What is Lancashire to do? What are the Government going to do to secure some sort of revival of an industry that is almost the single industry in parts of Lancashire, and which has always been one of our vital export industries?
      Mr. Macpherson: The Government are going to proceed with the cotton reorganisation Act as fast as possible, and I take this opportunity of urging strongly that before the closing date for applications for re-equipment grant, which is 8th July, every cotton enterprise that is thinking of modernising and re-equipping should make its application now. They will not thereby be committed to expending the money, but they will at any rate have the opportunity of taking advantage of the Act, and I hope that they will do so.
      Mr. Silverman: On a point of order. I beg to give notice that, owing to the extremely unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I shall take an early opportunity, if I may, of debating it in the House.

      Arms (Export)
      Mrs. Butlerasked the President of the Board of Trade if his Department will examine the export and economic

      1129
      problems which would be involved in a discontinuation of arms exports from Great Britain.
      Sir K. Joseph: No, Sir.
      Mrs. Butler: In view of the political dangers and the fact that our stake in the arms trade must inevitably impair our will to disarm, is it not vitally important that we should undertake a study of possible alternatives to promoting exports by selling weapons of death?
      Sir K. Joseph: I cannot accept that our will to disarm would be weakened in any way. Exports of arms represent only a very small proportion of either our total output of these goods or of our total exports, and all the while we are facing changes just as big as or even bigger in normal commercial practice than would be represented if the export of arms were to stop altogether from this country.

      Exports to China
      Mr. Rankinasked the President of the Board of Trade to what extent exports to China of firms, wholly or partially owned by United States companies, which are manufacturing in Great Britain with British labour, are subject to United States as well as British export regulations.
      Sir K. Joseph: I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer to a related Question which he received on 27th March.
      Mr. Rankin: That was a most unsatisfactory Answer. Has the hon. Gentleman read the speech delivered yesterday by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in which he emphasised the need for increased exports? Will he now assure us that in this matter the whole world is our oyster and that we do not propose to exclude the nations in the Eastern bloc from our export drive?
      Sir K. Joseph: I certainly give that confirmation that we do not intend to exclude nations of the Eastern bloc from our export drive.

      Company Registrations
      Mr. Leatherasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will have statistics of company registrations
      1130
      broken down into geographical areas so that valuable information about industrial and commercial growth can be made available.
      Mr. N. Macpherson: No, Sir. The formation of a company in a particular geographical area affords no basis for conclusions about industrial and commercial growth in that area.
      Mr. Leather: Will my hon. Friend ask the President of the Board of Trade to be a little more enterprising in this matter? With respect, this forms a very important measurement as to whether or not industry is expanding in a particular area, and it would be useful for this House to have that information, and in particular for those concerned with the affairs of the City of London. It might give us some measurement for assessing whether certain eminent gentlemen are talking sense when they refer to being at the end of their tether.
      Mr. Macpherson: My hon. Friend will realise that a good deal of information about industrial and commercial growth by areas can be obtained from the Censuses of Production and Distribution and from the employment returns, but I join issue with him on the point that he made, because many companies operate away from their registered addresses, many companies change addresses after they have registered, and there are many other accidents that can happen.
      Mr. Leather: But, with respect, it is equally true that in relation to commercial companies the number of employees and so on gives no indication whether they are growing or not, and this is the only way in which one could assess it in districts like the City of London.
      Mr. Macpherson: I shall certainly give further consideration to what my hon. Friend said, but as at present advised I cannot see my way to agreeing to do as he says.
      Mr. Ross: Will the hon. Gentleman think about this again and bear in mind also that it might be as well to have statistics of liquidations, voluntary or otherwise, so that the Board of Trade can have a proper picture of what is happening in Lancashire and in Scotland?

    NUCLEAR TESTS, CHRISTMAS ISLAND
    Mr. Dribergasked the Prime Minister whether an estimate of the approximate number of new cases of leukaemia, bone cancer, and genetic damage likely to be caused by the impending atmospheric nuclear tests over Christmas Island formed part of the scientific basis for the decision to resume testing taken by the President of the United States of America in consultation with Her Majesty's Government; and if he will publish this estimate in HANSARD.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): The danger to health which might result from any atmospheric nuclear tests was taken carefully into account when the possibility of resuming tests was considered. As to the extent of the danger, President Kennedy has said that it is estimated that the exposure due to radioactivity from these tests will be less than one-fiftieth of the difference which can be experienced, due to variations in natural radioactivity, simply by living in different locations in the United States.
    Mr. Driberg: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in answering this Question himself, may I ask him if he will translate into ordinary terms the phrase about one-fiftieth? What does that actually mean in terms of damage, the approximate number of cases, and so on?
    The Prime Minister: I think that his point was that owing to the different heights, the different compositions of the soil, and various other reasons, there was this great variation in different parts of the world anyway between the amount of radioactivity to which people might be subject, and the effect of these tests would be minimal in comparison with that.
    With regard to the more precise information which the hon. Gentleman would like, he has no doubt read the United Nations Scientific Committee's first report, and the Medical Research Council's comments on it. They are very difficult to summarise, and perhaps I could call the hon. Gentleman's attention to them again. We are now expecting a second report from the United Nations Committee.
    Mr. Jeger: Has the right hon. Gentleman been able to get any estimate from the Russian Government of the incidence of these horrible diseases caused by their last series of tests?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

    COMMONWEALTH AND EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
    Mr. Healeyasked the Prime Minister what date he has suggested to other Commonwealth Prime Ministers for a meeting to discuss Great Britain's negotiations for entry to the Common Market.
    The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) on 5th April.
    Mr. Healey: Is the Prime Minister aware that that Answer does not bear in any way on the subject of my Question? Why is he so furtive about this? Cannot he tell the House what date Her Majesty's Government are proposing for this meeting? Can he assure the House that he is not proposing a date in September, in view of the fact that the Australian and Canadian Governments have already asked for an earlier meeting, and that it is highly desirable, as I think hon. Members on both sides of the House agree, that this House should have a chance of discussing the proceedings before we adjourn for the Summer Recess?
    The Prime Minister: The Australian and Canadian Governments have not made any such request. I have made that proposal, to which the great majority of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers have replied. One or two have not replied, but their difficulties have nothing to do with the timing of the Conference in relation to the negotiations, but simply with those that naturally arise from the many existing or prospective internal commitments. I think that it would be discourteous of me, when I have made a proposal to the twelve Prime Ministers, and one or two have not yet answered, to make a final announcement until I have had all their replies.
    Mr. H. Wilsonasked the Prime Minister if, in view of the further consultations he has now had about the forthcoming Commonwealth Conference, he will now give an assurance that no irrevocable decision will be made about the United Kingdom's entry into the European Economic Community until he has satisfied himself that the conditions negotiated are generally acceptable to a Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference.
    The Prime Minister: The Government have undertaken that no agreement with the European Economic Community affecting the special interests of the Commonwealth will be entered into until it has been approved by this House after full consultation with other Commonwealth countries. This undertaking was accepted by the House following the two-day debate last August.
    Mr. Wilson: That does not answer the Question. Will not the right hon. Gentleman at least give an assurance that he will not make a proposition to this House for entry into the European Economic Community until that proposition has been broadly agreed—we do not say that it should be agreed in every detail—by a Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference?
    The Prime Minister: I think that "broadly agreed" is a very vague term. I should think that the right hon. Gentleman has some experience of that. I have given the fullest undertakings about consultation with the Commonwealth, and about putting our proposals before the House. I do not think that it does service to the Commonwealth or to this House to give undertakings about what our proposals will be in hypothetical circumstances. We do not yet even know the result of the negotiations at Brussels, or what will be the Prime Ministers' reactions.
    Mr. Wilson: But cannot the Prime Minister say why, having given this promise to the E.F.T.A. countries—which we applaud—he will not give the same promise to the Commonwealth? Is he not aware that there is widespread feeling about these negotiations in the country, on both sides of the House, and in the Commonwealth? There is nothing hypothetical about the matter, after the
    1134
    Prime Minister's Stockton speech. Will not he, therefore, think again about it and give the same assurance to the Commonwealth as he has given to E.F.T.A.?
    The Prime Minister: The position is quite clear not only to the Commonwealth countries, with whose Prime Ministers I have been in communication, but to everybody here. The first thing to do is to see how these negotiations develop, and then what are the views of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers. It will then be the duty of the Government to make proposals to the House, and in the light of what we learn we shall make those proposals. It will then be the duty of the House to form its own opinion of them.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Does the Prime Minister seriously contemplate going into the European Economic Community on terms which are not broadly agreeable to the Prime Ministers of the Commonwealth? If this is not the case, why cannot he give the undertaking required?
    The Prime Minister: I am not prepared to be caught by a question which is so framed as not to correspond to realities.

    COMMONWEALTH PRIME MINISTERS' CONFERENCES
    Mr. Woodburnasked the Prime Minister whether he is proposing any change in the form and purpose of the proposed Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference; to what extent he proposes that it should be purely consultative; and to what extent he proposes to ask it to assume powers of approval or veto over the actions and decisions of the countries whose Prime Ministers are taking part.
    The Prime Minister: Any change in the traditional form and purpose of Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conferences would be a matter for the Prime Ministers to decide collectively. I do not myself intend to propose the changes referred to by the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Woodburn: Is there not a danger of building up the Prime Ministers' Conference in the same way as

    1135
    Summit Conferences were built up, and creating the impression that great decisions are to come from this Conference, and causing great disappointment when these decisions, whatever they may be, do not fit in with the expectations of those participating?
    The Prime Minister: I see the right hon. Gentleman's purpose, but of course there is not really an analogy. We have for many years had a meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers. It has always been our rule to exchange views, to hold discussions, but not to reach decisions binding on the sovereign Governments of the Commonwealth, and I think that has been on the whole a valuable and salutary system for Commonwealth Prime Ministers to pursue in their Conferences

    NUCLEAR TESTS
    Mr. H. Wilsonasked the Prime Minister if he is now in a position to make a statement about the prospects of holding a high-level conference with the President of the United States and the Chairman of the Praesidium of Ministers of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to discuss outstanding questions concerning nuclear and conventional disarmament.
    Mrs. Castleasked the Prime Minister whether he will now renew his offer to Mr. Khrushchev, made on 3rd September, 1961, that an agreement should be negotiated between the Governments of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom and the United States of America not to conduct any more nuclear tests in the atmosphere, such an agreement to be policed by exiting methods of detection without additional controls
    Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the impasse reached on the Geneva subcommittee of the Governments possessing nuclear weapons, he will propose to Mr. Khrushchev and President Kennedy that an international committee of scientists be appointed without delay to report on the most effective system of verification of tests in cases of doubt or dispute.
    The Prime Minister: I would ask right hon. and hon. Members to await the statement which I propose to make at the end of Questions.

    NUCLEAR WARFARE
    Mr. M. Footasked the Prime Minister if he will consult President Kennedy with a view to a joint Anglo-American declaration that neither Power will, jointly or independently, initiate nuclear warfare.
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. The purpose of the deterrent would be nullified if a potential aggressor were given prior notice of what he could do with impunity.
    Mr. Foot: Has the Prime Minister had an opportunity of studying the statement made just over a fortnight ago by the United States President, in an interview with a highly respectable journalist—Stewart Alsop—in which the President said that he must retain the right of the West to use nuclear weapons first in certain circumstances? Does not the Prime Minister think that that is a very grave statement? Do the British Government agree with it? Does not the Prime Minister's reply mean that he agrees with the President in that statement?
    The Prime Minister: I do not think that it is a very grave statement. It would be much graver if I said, "Oh, well, you can conquer Germany and take France. Italy you can have, and of course you can occupy Belgium and Holland. We might object to your having the south of England, but you can have all the rest." If we give prior notice to an aggressor of what he can get away with, we take away all the purpose of the deterrent.
    Mr. Foot: Can we therefore take it—if we translate those words—that the Prime Minister agrees with the proposition that the Western Powers must retain the right to use nuclear weapons first? Has he also studied the reactions of Germany to the statement by the American President? As reported in The Times a week ago, the Germans regard that statement as a matter of major importance. Was this statement by the American President made after consultation with the British Government, or

    1137
    did the President merely assume that anything he said the British Government would support?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. The President's statement is on the lines of others which have been made many times. Surely it is common sense to say that there must be a doubt. The aggressor must not be given am assurance in advance that he can do certain things with impunity.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Suicide is not common sense.
    Mr. Wilson: Despite the Prime Minister's vehemence, did not he, last autumn, applaud the reported statement by President Kennedy that the West would not use nuclear weapons first? Did not the Prime Minister say on that occasion how much he agreed with Mr. Kennedy?
    The Prime Minister: I have the President's words here, and they are very similar to the words we have used. He said that it has always been clear that in such a context as a massive conventional attack on Europe which would put Europe in danger of being overrun the West would have to prevent such an event by all available means. It is that statement which I think will prevent the over-running of Europe from taking place.
    Mr. Grimond: Will the Prime Minister confirm that, as part of the policy of the pause—which is the official policy of the West—it is the intention of the West to meet a conventional attack on the enforcement of the pause with conventional weapons only?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, but that is the difference between the enforcement of the pause and being over-run.
    Mr. Foot: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Prime Minister's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    HOSPITAL PLAN (STAFF REDUNDANCIES)
    Mr. C. Johnsonasked the Prime Minister if he will receive a deputation from the staff side of the Whitley Councils
    1138
    for the health services in connection with the new scheme for dealing with redundancy arising from the reorganisation of the hospital service on terms less favourable than those available for employees in comparable posts affected by reorganisation of local government or the water industry.
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. Measures to deal with any redundancy arising from the Hospital Plan have been discussed with staff representatives and a scheme was published on 8th March.
    Mr. Johnson: Is not the Prime Minister aware that his right hon. Friend has hitherto refused to discuss with the health staff associations their very serious objections to the present scheme? Is he further aware that there are about 30,000 public servants who could be affected by the reorganisation scheme, which will affect no less than 1,250 hospitals, and that their natural anxieties have been intensified by a sense of grievance that they are being treated less favourably in this case than other public servants?
    The Prime Minister: I understood that it was generally agreed with the staff that redundancies as a result of the Hospital Plan will be very small. Perhaps the hon. Member will be good enough to put any further questions on the details to my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. Awbery: Is the Prime Minister aware that there has been more interference with the Whitley Councils and with joint negotiating machinery in industry during the past six months than there has been since industrial councils started? Will he now set these councils free, and give them the liberty that they had previously to do their own business, so that these matters do not have to be referred to the Prime Minister in this House?
    The Prime Minister: I understand the hon. Member's point, but I do not think that it has anything to do with the redundancy question.
    Mr. K. Robinson: Is the Prime Minister aware not only that this redundancy agreement is quite unacceptable to the staff side but also that it has been the subject of Questions to the Minister of Health, in reply to which he has—inadvertently, no doubt—misled the House? In view of this fact, and if only

    1139
    to try to restore some of the morale of the Whitley Councils, which has been damaged by the Minister of Health, will the Prime Minister reconsider the request for him to receive a deputation?
    The Prime Minister: I have not been asked to receive a deputation.
    Mr. Johnson: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall take an opportunity to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

    U.S. STRATEGIC AIR COMMAND (COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM)
    Mr. Zilliacusasked the Prime Minister (1) whether, on his forthcoming visit to the United States of America, he will propose to the President that the practice of alerting the Strategic Air Command bases in this country on unilateral United States decisions, whether for technical reasons, as in the case of the moonrise over Ultima Thule or the break-down of communications last November, or for political reasons, as on the eve of the last Summit Conference, should now cease, and a code of conduct adopted consistent with the dual control system to which Great Britain and the United States of America are parties;
    (2) what information he received from the President before the United States Strategic Air Command at Omaha issued an all-stations alert last November which applied to United States bases in this country following upon a double failure of communications.
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Prime Minister, in view of the false alarm last November arising from a double failure of communications, if he will discuss with the President of the United States of America proposals covering all bases on British soil to end the system of instant readiness to use nuclear weapons because of the danger of a nuclear war by accident or miscalculation.
    The Prime Minister: The recently publicised incident to which the hon. Members' Questions clearly refer arose from some disruption of part of the communications system. United States strategic aircraft, including some
    1140
    stationed in this country, were brought to a more advanced state of readiness as part of a standard procedure. Checking very quickly revealed the cause of the disruption. This very minor incident in no way calls for any change in the satisfactory arrangements which exist between the President and myself and between Strategic Air Command and Bomber Command.
    It is of course an essential part of the policy of deterrence that strategic aircraft should be ready to take off at very short notice.
    Mr. Zilliacus: Is not it a fact that if there had been a triple instead of a double failure of communications none of us might have been alive today? Is not it a bad principle that military men should decide issues of war or peace on the spur of the moment on purely mechanical indications? Will not the right hon. Gentleman abandon that principle which makes unreal dual control and demand previous consultation before ever resorting to nuclear weapons?
    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman's premise were correct the dangers he points out might be there. But, of course, this merely brought a certain stage of preparation, and there is no question of going beyond that stage.
    Mr. Swingler: Is the Prime Minister attempting to deny the danger of the initiation of war by miscalculation or accident to which he himself has previously referred? In spite of his allegation that this was a minor incident, is not it a fact that this or other incidents might have led to the use, or the initiation of the use, of nuclear weapons without the political leaders having a chance to stop it?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. When I referred to war starting almost by accident I had more in mind a comparison which I sometimes draw between the First World War, which always seemed to me not the result of a definite plot but of the confusion which took place, and the Second World War, which I always think was unavoidable because it was the plot of a wicked man.
    Mr. Paget: Is not the alarming thing about this incident not that there was

    1141
    any risk of any intended attack—that did not arise at all—but the fact that the Americans got the warning and Bomber Command did not?
    The Prime Minister: Regarding the warning, or the false step, the point of time before it was corrected was so small—under a minute—that I do not think that any danger really arose.
    Mr. Paget: But if the allied system is to get a warning Bomber Command ought to have it at the same time as the Americans. It would be very worrying if it did not.
    The Prime Minister: I agree, but I think that communications on that part are satisfactory.

KENYA (NEW CONSTITUTION)
The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:
Mr. WALL: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will now make a statement about the decisions of the constitutional conference on Kenya.
The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Reginald Maudling): With permission, I will now answer Question No. 70.
The conference ended on 6th April. With a few exceptions, all delegates, including the leaders of the main political parties, signed a document setting out the framework of a new Constitution. The details are to be worked out by the new Coalition Government now being formed.
A report on the proceedings of the conference was approved on 6th April and will be published shortly as a White Paper. We have now begun the process of co-operation by which alone Kenya's urgent political and economic problems can be tackled. The problems have not been solved, but the way to their solution has been pointed out.
Mr. Wall: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the satisfactory conclusion of this conference, which is a great tribute to his patience and tact. May I ask him how and when the regions are to be delimited? Can he say what form of timetable he has in mind for the constitutional developments in Kenya?
Mr. Maudling: The regions are to be delimited by an independent commission shortly to be established. I am hoping that the details of the situation may be worked out by the Coalition Government by 31st July. After that the next step will be the outlining of the constituency boundaries and a General Election for a new Government of a self-governing, but not independent, Constitution.
Mr. Healey: May I, first, congratulate the Colonial Secretary, on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself, for the skill which he has shown in avoiding a breakdown in this conference and producing at least a possible framework for agreement? Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that his achievement will remain precarious unless the two great African parties succeed, in the course of co-operation in the Coalition Government, in developing more confidence in one another's intentions than they were able to show at Lancaster House?
Mr. Maudling: I entirely agree that the position remains very precarious. The primary responsibility remains with the African parties, but Her Majesty's Government also have a responsibility, from which they do not propose to resile in any way.
Mr. F. M. Bennett: As to the timetable, can my right hon. Friend say how soon the terms of reference will be reached for the various Commissions on which future progress largely depends?
Mr. Maudling: I cannot predict exactly. I do not think that it will take more than a very short time.
Mr. Brockway: May I also express appreciation of the result of the conference and the right hon. Gentleman's contribution to it? He spoke of the Government, after the election, being a Government of self-government. Can he tell the House what time he has in mind for the conclusion of independence following that?
Mr. Maudling: The question of a date for independence was not on the agenda of the recent conference. We made clear that it would be for the Government which was elected under the new Constitution to discuss the question of independence with Her Majesty's Government.
Mr. Torton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that notwithstanding the very great advantage, arrived at largely by his skill and patience, there is great danger of a breakdown in the economy of Kenya? Will he take what steps he can to help the economy of Kenya by encouraging further land settlement and by making a suitable basis for land values in Kenya?
Mr. Maudling: I agree that the economic dangers are extremely grave. I hope that the result of the conference and the foundation of the new Coalition Government, together with the help of Her Majesty's Government, will make progress in that direction.
Sir G. Nicholson: May I ask whether my right hon. Friend can say anything about the future of the northern frontiers district?
Mr. Maudling: I intend, first, to appoint an independent commission to visit the area and find out by the best possible methods what are the real desires of the people in that area.

NUCLEAR TESTS
The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will now make a statement.
President Kennedy and I are today issuing a joint statement about nuclear tests which was communicated to the Soviet Government yesterday evening. The text of the statement is as follows:
"Discussions among ourselves and the Soviet Union about a treaty to ban nuclear tests have been going on in Geneva for nearly a month. The Soviet representatives have rejected international inspection or verification inside the Soviet Union to determine the nature of unexplained seismic events which might be nuclear tests.
This is a point of cardinal importance to the United States and the United Kingdom. From the very beginning of the negotiations on a nuclear test ban treaty, they have made it clear that an essential element of such a treaty is an objective international system for assuring that a ban on nuclear tests is being observed by all parties. The need for such a system was clearly recognised in the report of the scientific experts which was the foundation of the Geneva negotiations. For nearly three years this need was accepted by the Soviet delegation at Geneva. There was disagreement about details, but the principle of objective international verification was accepted. It was embodied in the treaty tabled by the United
1144
States and the United Kingdom on 18th April, 1961, which provides for such a system. Since the current disarmament meetings began in Geneva, the United States and the United Kingdom have made further efforts to meet Soviet objections to the 18th April treaty. These efforts have met with no success as is clearly shown by the recent statements of the Foreign Minister of the Soviet Union and of their representative in Geneva, Mr. Zorin, who have repeatedly rejected the very concept of international verification. There has been no progress on this point in Geneva; the Soviet Union has refused to change its position.
The ground given seems to be that existing national detection systems can give adequate protection against clandestine tests. In the present state of scientific instrumentation, there are a great many cases in which we cannot distinguish between natural and artificial seismic disturbances—as opposed to recording the fact of a disturbance and locating its probable epicentre. A treaty therefore cannot be made effective unless adequate verification is included in it. For otherwise there would be no alternative, if an instrument reported an unexplained seismic occurrence on either side, between accepting the possibility of an evasion of the treaty or its immediate denunciation. The opportunity for adequate verification is of the very essence of mutual confidence.
This principle has so far been rejected by the Foreign Minister of the Soviet Union, and there is no indication that he has not spoken with the full approval of his Government. We continue to hope that the Soviet Government may reconsider the position and express their readiness to accept the principle of international verification. If they will do this, there is still time to reach agreement. But if there is no change in the present Soviet position, the Governments of the United States and the United Kingdom must conclude that their efforts to obtain a workable treaty to ban nuclear tests are not now successful, and the test series scheduled for the latter part of this month will have to go forward."
That in the joint statement. The House will observe that President Kennedy and I have both emphasised that the door is still open for an agreement. I therefore sent this morning a message to Mr. Khrushchev in the following terms:
"Dear Mr. Chairman,
You will have seen the joint statement about nuclear tests which the United States and British Chargés d'Affaires communicated to the Soviet Government yesterday and which President Kennedy and I are issuing today. You will remember that we first discussed this problem together as long ago as 1959 when I had the pleasure of visiting you in Russia.
I will not repeat the arguments in the statement but I feel that I must ask you to give the most earnest consideration to our proposal. After all, the object of verification is not to increase suspicion but to dispel it; to identify an event as a natural one so that confidence may not be threatened. I feel sure that once the principle of international verification is accepted there would be a real chance of

1145
reaching an early agreement as to its application. This would fill all the peoples of the world with a new sense of hope."
That is the message from me to Mr. Khrushchev. I know that the whole House will share my earnest hope that Mr. Khrushchev will respond to my appeal.
Mr. Gaitskell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on this side of the House we deeply regret the refusal so far of the Soviet Governemnt to accept even the principle of international verification and that we welcome this further effort by the President of the United States and the Prime Minister, supported by the Prime Minister's letter, to try to induce the Soviet Government to change their mind?
May I ask the Prime Minister two questions arising out of this? First, is it still the case that the reason given by the Soviet Government foe refusing international verification is the danger of espionage? Can he say whether there is, in fact, the slightest justification for that argument, and if there is any other argument which they put forward, will he say what it is?
Secondly, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he has ruled out all possibility of a Summit conference, which might perhaps even now lead to some change in the Soviet attitude?
The Prime Minister: The espionage argument is the one first put forward. To me, and to all of us really, it seems almost incomprehensible. One might understand that at certain stages of a great disarmament scheme where there would, perhaps, be people going all over a country, going into factories, or into built-up areas, that argument might be put forward. But what is here contemplated is not even Anglo-American inspection, but international inspection, probably at very distant and, no doubt, very isolated spots. It seems really impossible to believe in the sincerity—I hate to say this—of the argument, although I realise how sensitive the Soviet Government are on that question. Therefore, I find it very difficult—we have all found it very difficult—to follow the Soviet argument.
With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's second question, the President and I are in the closest touch, almost day
1146
by day, on this subject, and we share the great disappointment over this, which I had hoped would be some move forward. We have moved a long way. I think that perhaps the method that we have adopted is the best one for the moment.
Mr. Grimond: While everyone will share the Prime Minister's hope that there may be some response to his letter, may I question him a little further about the project for a Summit conference? Is it not the case that Mr. Khrushchev himself suggested this, and may it not be that if any concessions are to be made on the Russian side we are most likely to get them from Mr. Khrushchev personally? Would the Prime Minister not think it worth while to suggest to the President that they should, so to speak, go back to Mr. Khrushchev's offer and add to the letter a definite proposal that they should take up Mr. Khrushchev's own offer for a Summit conference?
The Prime Minister: Mr. Khrushchev's suggestion was that the 18 Heads of Government should meet at the opening of the Geneva Conference, and we did not think that very practical. But, of course, there have been the very intimate discussions at the conference and by the sub-committee on this matter, and there have been close discussions with the Foreign Ministers concerned.
I wish to take the House as much as possible into my confidence. The tests are a serious trouble to the world. It will be a great grief to all of us if they have to continue. But there are other dangers ahead of the world. Some of them which are at the moment dormant may easily become more dangerous. If there is any question of a Summit conference in the sense of three or four Heads of Government—not 20, 30 or 40—I want to be quite sure that it is timed in such a way as to be most likely to be fruitful and upon perhaps a fairly wide range.
Mr. A. Henderson: Even though Mr. Khrushchev's reply may not be entirely satisfactory, can we be assured by the Prime Minister that the proposed tests will not be held at the end of this month, but that the President and the Prime Minister will consider deferring the tests

1147
until at least after the General Assembly has met on 1st June and received the report of the Disarmament Commission?
The Prime Minister: No, Sir; I do not think I could press that. I must be frank with the House. The statement makes it quite clear what we must decide to do. We have a great responsibility. The President's responsibility is, of course, even greater than mine.
I do not think that I could ask for—I do not think that I could succeed, and I do not think that it would be right to press it upon the American Administration—the Americans to enter upon another long period of what we called last time a moratorium. For three years we continued it and made no preparations. The scientific experts and staffs in both our countries made no preparations for a test. Suddenly, the Russians, who had made the last one, were two ahead.
I cannot ask this of the President. I asked the previous President, and he responded. I feel that I cannot ask President Kennedy, even if I could succeed, to go on with a vague moratorium, in case we found that there was a third series of Russian tests which might put us in a very dangerously backward position. I cannot do that, though I would go on trying until the last possible moment, but this is at least a genuine and sincere effort.
On the point suggested by the Leader of the Opposition, it is almost inconceivable how anybody who really wants disarmament in any form can resist absolutely on principle any form of international—not even national—inspection.
Mr. H. Wilson: Would the right hon. Gentleman say, first, whether we are right in inferring from something he said a few minutes ago that the West have formally proposed that on-site international inspection could be conducted entirely by neutrals without any Anglo-American element?
Secondly, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he and the President have now quite definitely ruled out the idea of a rather more limited ban on atmospheric tests while continuing to negotiate on the question of underground tests?
The Prime Minister: As to the first of the right hon. Gentleman's questions, I must be careful. I know that that idea was put forward in one of the discussions, but we would insist on our own proposal. I am sure that it was put forward, and had it been grasped it would have been a very easy bridge.
With regard to the second question, we made this proposal on 3rd September, if I remember aright, when the Russians had just begun their series of tests. It was rejected with contumely by the Russians. I very much regretted it. They said that it was just a piece of trickery, and proceeded to make about another 40 explosions. Therefore, I do not think that it would be useful to revive it at this moment. We must somehow try to get a mood in which not only the means to disarmament—it is not so difficult to find the means for disarmament in this case—but the will, can be created.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the Prime Minister aware that there is a considerable body of opinion in the country which disagrees with both him and the Leader of the Opposition on this question? [HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] Have a vote and find out. Will the Prime Minister, in view of the seriousness of this question, put down an affirmative Motion in support of his policy so that he can have the opinion of the House of Commons on the matter and the people of the country will not be cheated by some agreement between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition?
The Prime Minister: Of course, I am aware of a very sincere body of opinion in the country which holds that view. I received a deputation on it only a few days ago, from a number of very distinguished ladies. They represented different points of view and were not in entire agreement as to the precise views they held. There are different variations and, of course, I am aware of them. No one could fail to be aware of them. No one who has lived through two world wars could fail to know that this opinion existed on the question of war itself. It was accepted in a very honourable way by Governments who were responsible during those wars that there were conscientious views on

1149
the other side. It is one of the honourable traditions. That, however, does not relieve me or the Leader of the Opposition from our responsibilities, and those we must perform.
Mr. Ross: Is the Prime Minister aware that most of us appreciate the responsibility, but that we have to balance our fears against hopes and that sooner or later, if we are to end our fears, we must get these tests banned? Does he not think that there would be greater hope of getting the tests banned if we had a meeting of Heads of Government before the proposed tests rather than after them? Does he not think, on reflection, that this time limit of April narrows our opportunities of manoeuvre far too much?
The Prime Minister: If I thought that, I would, of course, not hesitate to suggest it, but there are a number of reasons, into which I cannot go in detail, why I have not formed that view. Therefore, we have said in our statement, in the words to which I call attention, that we
"must conclude that their efforts to obtain a workable treaty … are not now successful."
We shall have to see, but I think that an attempt to meet it in the way in which we have tried to meet it by a great number of methods, culminating in this public one, seems to us the best at the moment.
Mr. Zilliacus: Is it not a fact that experts on both sides agreed even three years ago that all atmospheric tests and major underground tests could be detected by national monitoring systems? In the circumstances, would not the Prime Minister propose an agreement banning all atmospheric tests and major underground tests monitored by national systems, plus a moratorium on minor underground tests for one year, in order to try to work out an international system during that period?
The Prime Minister: The House must appreciate how the Americans and ourselves have kept moving point by point on these negotiations. We did not press the question of minor tests, but at every point we have moved and we have never succeeded in breaking this absolute wall against which we come at every point. That is what is depressing and distressing
1150
—not finally; we must try. That is the situation. It is no good pretending to ourselves that that situation has not been clearly revealed.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot debate this question now.
Mrs. Castle: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I had put down Question No. Q7 to the Prime Minister which he asked me to defer because he was to make this statement to the House.
Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Lady. She is quite right. My mind had passed away from that fact.
Mrs. Castle: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
May I ask the Prime Minister whether it is not a fact that last September, in their offer to Mr. Khrushchev, President Kennedy and the Prime Minister agreed that atmospheric tests could be detected by existing means without additional controls and offered to negotiate a ban on such tests on that basis? Why are we now insisting on the introduction of inspection which we did not consider necessary last September? Why do we not renew that offer in regard to the atmospheric tests and put the Russians at a propaganda disadvantage if they turn us down once again?
The Prime Minister: I thought I had answered the point in that supplementary question, but I am very glad that the hon. Lady has called my attention to it. We have tried it this way, that way, every way. In September we said. "All right, let us bar atmospheric tests and take a chance". We were told—and in this proposal I think that we gave fairly simple reasons—in the reply:
"Their eloquence"—
that is, the President's and mine—
"will not suffice to make an aggressive policy look like a peace-loving one or barbarism look like humanitarianism."
They rejected this on the ground that it gave unfair military advantage to the Western Powers and that it was a piece of trickery. They followed with 40 immediate tests. We then tried a complete system, atmosphere, sea, underground, everything, which must imply some degree of verification. We were prepared to argue about the kind of verification—how it was to be done, the

1151
numbers, and all that kind of thing. We were told over and over again that there was a complete bar to any form of verification. I think that we must bring that out to the public and make this last appeal which the President and I have jointly made, and to which I have added my letter, because I discussed this with Mr. Khrushchev and reached agreement in principle three years ago. That is where we stand. I do not think that we gain by obscuring, but we gain by revealing, the very generous and reasonable attitude which the allies have taken on this matter.

SUGAR (BUDGET RESOLUTION)
Mr. Brockway: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. I rise to put a point of order of which I have given you notice, which may raise an issue of Privilege.
Yesterday, this House, in Committee, carried a Resolution which the Chancellor of the Exchequer said would mean a reduction of ½d. per 1b. for sugar. This morning I found that instructions had been issued to multiple retail shops to increase the price of sugar by ½d. a 1b. from this morning. Subsequently, the price was reduced by ½d. in accordance with our Resolution, but the result is that the price of sugar remains the same despite our Resolution.
My point of order is whether that was due to an extraordinarily intelligent anticipation, or to a leakage of the intentions of the Budget. I suggest that these facts justify an inquiry by the Committee of Privileges.
Mr. Speaker: I do not quite follow why the hon. Gentleman thinks there may have been a leakage through the Officers of the House. They would not get the Resolution until it would be too late to have managed this. Unless it was suggested to be by them, I do not quite follow how this raises a point of order. Some other remedy may be open to the hon. Member, but he is not suggesting something of that kind, is he?
Mr. Brockway: I am, as always, asking your guidance, Mr. Speaker. I raised it as a point of order because it seemed to me that there was a case, as there has been, unfortunately, in previous Budgets, of a leakage of information to interested persons, and that that would be a matter for the Committee of Privileges.
Mr. Speaker: That is quite another point, but I do not think that it raises a point of order. I should like to consider what the hon. Member's remedy may be in the circumstances, but, clearly, it is not a point of order.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): Further to that, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member was courteous enough to tell me that this would be raised, although the message I got was that he was to raise it tomorrow.
On the issue of fact, I am told that there is no truth in this. I am told that the price of sugar has been reduced by Messrs. Tate and Lyle by ½d. a 1b.
Mr. Brockway: In view of that statement, may I say, first, that I was informed by a consumer that he had been charged an extra 1d. on 2 1b. of sugar this morning? I then went to the retail shop and was informed that information first came that the price should be raised by ½d. a 1b. today and only subsequently, because of the Budget, was it reduced. My point is this: why was the price raised by ½d. a 1b. early this morning so that the total effect is no reduction whatsoever in price?
Mr. Speaker: I think that the hon. Gentleman's point is well understood, but perhaps we cannot probe the matter further at the moment.

NEW MEMBER
William Thomas Rodgers, esquire, for Stockton-on-Tees, made Affirmation required by Law.

ROAD TRAFFIC ACT, 1960 (AMENDMENT)
4.2 p.m.
Mr. John Peyton: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Road Traffic Act, 1960.
The facts which have moved me to produce the Motion constitute a singular example of bumbledom at its most fatuous. Four ladies working for West-land Aircraft in Yeovil were in the habit of saving themselves about fifty minutes per working day by making an arrangement with a hire-car firm to take them to and from work. This very considerably helped them in the discharge of their family responsibilities. When news that these ladies had been so unwise as to consult their own personal convenience and comfort to this extent reached that strange shadowy underworld of bumbledom, the whole machine creaked into action. These ladies were trailed, stopped and warned, and the practice had to come to an end.
It is quite absurd that this extensive paraphernalia should be deployed to stop so small and innocent an occurrence. It is rather like the cook taking a pile driver to crack a peanut and then finding, as could happen, that the kitchen table breaks as well. Often enough such very minor breaches of the law, if they be breaches at all, are disregarded, though there are other cases—I will mention one of them only very briefly—where similar action has been taken.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Mr. Kirk) is aware of one of them. His constituents, whose children had about two miles to travel to school, were accustomed to send their children by taxi—organised by and paid for by the parents. This practice was stopped, despite the fact that the bus company
1154
does not provide an adequate service to cater for their needs. The children would be obliged to walk the last 600 yards. This involves three dangerous crossings, so the parent? are obliged to take the children to school themselves.
I do not want today, of all days, to detain the House for very long, but I suggest that organisation can be carried too far to a point where it reaches a tiresome surfeit. This point has been reached in this case, in my view.
My Bill would be a very modest and brief one. It would have the extraordinarily old-fashioned merit of being easily intelligible. If the Ministry of Transport, in its wisdom, would prefer to give me the principle of the Bill and follow its own hallowed practice of making legislation incomprehensible, this is a point on which I would personally be prepared to compromise.
I conclude my short speech to the House by suggesting that those who seek to make a living out of the public—I care not whether they be employers or employed—should have as their first aim the service of the public and should at all times avoid bullying. It seems to me that there has been bullying in this case.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Peyton, Mr. Birch, Mr. du Cann, Mr. Eden, Mr. Fisher, Mr. Hale, Sir A. Hurd, Mr. Holt, Mr. Kirk, Commander Maydon, Sir C. Mott-Radolyffe, and Sir G. Wills.

ROAD TRAFFIC ACT, 1960 (AMENDMENT)
  ROAD TRAFFIC ACT, 1960 (AMENDMENT)
  Bill to amend the Road Traffic Act, 1960, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 4th May, and to be printed. [Bill 92.]
  ORDERS OF THE DAY

    WAYS AND MEANS
    Considered in Committee [Progress 9th April].
    [Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

    WAYS AND MEANS

      AMENDMENT OF THE LAW
      Question again proposed,
      That it is expedient to amend the law with respect to the national debt and the public revenue and to make further provision in connection with finance, so, however, that this Resolution shall not extend to making amendments of the enactments relating to purchase tax so as to give relief from tax, other than amendments making the same provision for chargeable goods of whatever description or for all goods to which any of the several rates of tax at present applies.

  BUDGET RESOLUTIONS AND ECONOMIC SITUATION
  4.8 p.m.
  Mr. James Callaghan: I think that every hon. Member in the Committee can enter sufficiently into the feelings of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to realise that introducing a Budget is a great ordeal. I must say that the right hon. and learned Gentleman surmounted the ordeal yesterday with ease and poise. In the fashionable words of today, he was relaxed—or, at least, he appeared to be relaxed. I know enough about it to know that appearances can often be deceptive on matters like this, but I am sure that we all congratulate him on the appearance he gave at the Dispatch Box yesterday.
  We then go on customarily to say that, of course, the matter was very bad. And I customarily do so. I think that even hon. Members opposite will agree, whatever their public pronouncements, that in some senses this is a Budget of lost opportunities. Both sides of industry are looking to the Government today for leadership. Both sides of industry are anxious to know what are the future prospects at home. They are anxious to have guidance about investment plans for new machinery and new plant. They are anxious to know what are the prospects of a rise in home output. Above all, they want to know in what
  1156
  circumstances, and when, we can break away from an increase in national production which, last year, was only 1 per cent. and which, over the last decade, has risen at only 2 per cent. per annum—the lowest in Europe. They want to know the consequences to them of the present Common Market negotiations.
  Those are questions that I think many hon. Members came to the House yesterday hoping to hear discussed. This is the moment when we need economic leadership and statesmanship of a high order. I am sorry to say that yesterday afternoon the Chancellor missed that opportunity. Instead, he gave us a lecture on how to handle the petty cash. The ordinary citizen is seeking for signs that the drift in the country's affairs is coming to an end. He wants to feel confidence that Britain is on the move again; that there can be a surge forward in our industrial pattern and output. There is a general lack of confidence at present in the Government's handling of our economic affairs. I do not need to point to recent events in the country to demonstrate that. The Budget speech, and the Budget itself, both failed yesterday to restore that missing confidence.
  Let me sum up the main points in the Budget. The capital gains tax—to use the words of the Institute of Directors—is innocuous; the sweets tax is contemptible; the Schedule A tax proposal is electoral, and the whole Budget is trivial.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman has a policy to keep down wages even though prices go up; to keep down home production until exports have risen. He has advocated it since last July. So far, he has failed to convince scarcely anyone of the merits of that policy, and yesterday he hardly tried to do so. He missed what should have been the essential push in his speech by referring us to the National Economic Development Council and its activities.
  I think that we must all agree that there is nothing at all in the Budget that will overcome the fundamental weaknesses in Britain's trading position. There is nothing in it to stimulate our lagging exports. There is nothing in it that will step up productivity. There is nothing in it that will remove, or even

  1157
  begin to remove, the bogey of balance of payments. Yesterday, these fundamental questions were neither asked nor discussed. The Chancellor contented himself with what one newspaper calls a "Lollipop Budget".
  I come to the first of the Chancellor's proposals—because I suppose that we must discuss his proposals before going to the more serious issues—the capital gains tax. The right hon. and learned Gentleman told us that he did not propose to introduce a capital gains tax—he was quite frank about that—and he has not done so. This is a capital let-off tax. His reason for refusing to introduce a capital gains tax is that it would harm saving, investment and economic growth. If that is so, how does he explain why such a tax operates throughout most of the countries of Western Europe and the United States without harming—what is it?—saving, investment and economic growth?
  This is a voluntary tax. It will be largely ignored. Already, people are working out ways to avoid it. All that it proposes to do is to charge the taxpayer on gains he makes on stocks and shares within a period of six months, and three years in regard to land and the interest on land. Incidentally, if I might pop in a question now, does the three-year period apply to houses in regard to which there is also an element of land?
  To avoid the tax, as I am sure every hon. Member opposite has already found out, what one must do is to hang on to one's shares for six months and a day —
  Mr. Gerald Navarro: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Callaghan: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, who has made his fortune out of maintenance claims, is on to this one quickly.
  The taxpayer is to be entitled to set off his short-term losses against the six-months' profits. Most people who will be concerned with this tax will be capable of buying a bundle of shares. What will they do? They will keep for longer than six months those shares that have made a profit. They will sell off their loss leaders, if I may call them such; those shares that make a loss—slightly before the six-month period is up, in order that they may compensate
  1158
  themselves for any sales they may have made in the meantime, and then, if they do not want to make a legitimate, a real loss, they will buy back the shares they have sold at a loss one day after the six-months period is over. It is as easy as that. I quite agree that there will be double Stamp Duty, and that that may be a slight deterrent, but if, on the other hand, there is to be set off against that Income Tax and Surtax, I have little doubt where the balance is likely to lie.
  First, I want to ask the Chancellor: will there be some provisions in the Finance Bill that will make it difficult, if it does not prohibit, the repurchase of shares that have been sold to secure a six months' loss? I do not know whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman can do it, but he should certainly try to do it if the tax is to be something more than a mockery.
  Bonus shares—we have not had so much of them recently but I would expect to see a spate of them now—and rights issues will not attract taxes, although they are clearly uncovenanted capital gains. The only circumstance in which they will be chargeable will be when the original shares from which the bonus shares and rights spring were themselves bought within the six months immediately prior to the bonus share or rights issue.
  Can that in any way be construed as a tax, not merely on capital gains, but as a levy on any type of gain at all? It is monstrous to suggest, as I have seen in one newspaper this morning, that earned income relief will be allowed on these capital gains. Will the Chancellor give a clear assurance that no such intention will appear in the Finance Bill? I hope that he will refute it immediately, but I cannot really imagine what has caused Lord Ritchie to say that he is at the end of his tether in regard to this tax.
  I am glad that the Chancellor has exempted the owner-occupier—I think that he was right to do that—but, I repeat, this short-term capital gains tax is farcical. It will yield little revenue, as the Chancellor himself has said, and we have plenty of evidence to show that that is so. I do not know whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman has studied the American capital gains tax From 1938 to 1941, the period in which

  1159
  short-term capital gains were assessed was eighteen months. In 1941, net gains on assets held for eighteen months or less were only 15 per cent. of the total of realised capital gains—only 15 per cent. That was the amount that would have been brought in under a pure short-term tax, though, as the Committee knows, in America there is a long-term tax as well.
  In 1942 and 1943, America changed the basis of the short-term tax and reduced it to six months. As a result, net gains from assets held for six months or less amounted to 8 per cent. of the total net capital gains. Now I come up to date. From 1956 to 1958 short-term capital gains for less than six months represented 3 per cent. of the total capital gains.
  That was the experience of the United States and that is why I say that it is a voluntary tax. Under the Chancellor's proposals, if the American pattern is repeated, 97 per cent. of the capital gains accumulated on stocks and shares will be lost and will fail to be taxed. However, the details I have given do not represent the end of the American experience. In the same period—from 1956 to 1958—when short-term gains represented only 3 per cent., short-term losses were greater. There was a net loss of revenue to the United States Treasury on the basis of a short-term capital gains tax.
  That is why the Americans do not rely on it. They have a proper capital gains tax that brings into account un-covenanted benefits that have been secured over any length of time giving an abatement for the length of time during which the capital gain has been coming to fruition. That seems to be a much more sensible proposition for the Chancellor to have made.
  Mr. Peter Tapsell: Do not the figures which the hon. Gentleman has been quoting indicate that the speculative element of investment is, in fact, very small?
  Mr. Callaghan: They show that American investors in stocks and shares know well how to work the system to ensure that they do not pay any capital gains tax and I am sure that the best minds in the City are now hard at work to secure the same sort of result here.
  1160
  For land, the Chancellor is making it a longer period; three years and not six months. I am sorry to weary the Committee, but I must quote some practical cases to show what is happening now so that we can see how far it is caught. Some land just outside London, valued at £100 per acre five years ago, is now fetching £3,000 an acre and is not caught. That is one example. Land purchased seven years ago for £100 an acre was sold last year for nearly £10,000 an acre. Not caught. An half-an-acre plot with a five-bedroom house—and this follows the question I asked earlier, about whether this will be included because, as I understand the proposals, it will not—was bought for £4,500 seven years ago and is now selling for £25,000. That is the asking price. What about £800 that was paid for eight acres of land four years ago and which has just been sold for £11,000?
  Then there is some land which was wanted by a county council in 1959 and which then cost £1,500. Similar land is today costing £36,500. Another piece of land cost a county council £9,000 in 1959 and the present cost for a similar piece of land is £28,000. A 64-acre estate was sold for £25,000 in 1958 and was recently resold, not for £25,000 this time, but for £210,000. A Victorian house in 2 acres of ground was sold in 1948 for £3,500 and was recently resold for £55,000. Another 2¼ acre piece of land was sold in 1958 for £5,000 and an adjoining site has been offered for sale at £40,000. And so it goes on.
  None of these will be caught by a short-term tax—not even by the three-year period. I am not surprised that the Chancellor emphasised that the yield is not his main purpose, but I am astonished that he should think, to use his own words, that he is achieving "a greater sense of fair treatment" between taxpayers. What sort of world is the Chancellor living in? Is he so incarcerated in the Treasury that he does not know what ordinary people are thinking about these sort of propositions that are going on day after day?
  How can the right hon. and learned Gentleman imagine that his announcement will convince the nation that there is fair treatment between man and man when everyone knows that the Stock Exchange speculator will pay practically

  1161
  nothing and that, while people operating in land will be caught to some extent, these fantastic examples will not be caught at all? My reply to the Chancellor is that if he wants to get a sense of fair play he will not get it unless he gets the yield of tax as well.
  People are not easily deceived these days by these games of make-believe. A proper capital gains tax must not only involve some measure of redistribution of income, which would be valuable, but it must introduce a sense of social justice which would also enable us to relieve some of the lower-paid taxpayers. From examining the figures there is no doubt that the Chancellor and the Conservative Party, as the Government, have been shovelling the tax burden from the shoulders of the wealthy on to those of the lower paid.[HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] It is no use hon. Gentlemen opposite disagreeing. I have been brushing up on my rusty Inland Revenue knowledge and have been working out the figures.
  Mr. Nabarro Mr. Nabarro rose—
  Mr. Callaghan: Since the Chancellor focussed attention on this matter he cannot but expect that my hon. Friends and people outside the House of Commons should turn their attention to this subject. They will turn their attention more and more to the ownership of wealth—in which, as we were shown at the weekend, 2 per cent. of the people own half the personal wealth of the country, a situation which, I understand, is hardly repeated in any other civilised country in the world.
  The Chancellor said that he intends to deal with Schedule A in the 1963 Finance Bill. The tax is to disappear after a century's existence and I do not suppose that there will be many house-owners who will mourn its passing. Certainly, those who have grappled with and have tried to understand the intricacies of a notional income will find themselves relieved of a headache.
  The earliest date on which the Chancellor will be able to give any relief is 1st January, 1964; that is, if he introduces it in the 1963 Finance Bill. But if the Chancellor takes more than one bite at the cherry—and we understand,
  1162
  from a meeting that he had in another part of the House last night, that he will—it will be 1965, 1966, or later before Schedule A disappears. Why did the right hon. and learned Gentleman make his announcement about this matter at this time? Was he frightened that people might appeal against their rating assessments, or because some party managers remember that there are a couple of crucial by-elections dawning on the horizon?
  As the Chancellor has, at long last, agreed to this concession, why does he delay? Why does he not do it now? He could have done it last year, when my hon. Friends moved an Amendment which would have excepted from tax the first £15 of the net annual value.
  Mr. Nabarro: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Callaghan: Why did he wait?
  Mr. Nabarro Mr. Nabarro rose—
  Mr. Callaghan: I will give way to the hon. Member, although I hope that he will realise that I have a long memory. I recall the last time I endeavoured to put a point to him, when he refused to give way. I can assure the hon. Member that he will never put me off my feet by rising and shouting.
  Mr. Nabarro: I will speak softly. I just want to correct the hon. Gentleman. In the Finance Bills of 1960 and 1961 the new Clause selected was in the name of myself and the names of some of my hon. Friends. That called for the total abolition of Schedule A tax. The hon. Gentleman's remarks were incorrect because it was in 1959 that partial abolition, up to £15 of the net annual value, was moved in an Amendment by his right hon. Friend.
  Mr. Callaghan: My right hon. Friend tells me that it was first moved in 1959 and again in 1960.
  But the point which I want to put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and to Conservative Members who are so pleased about this is that if they had accepted, instead of voting against, the Amendment moved by my right hon. Friend they would not just have exempted the first £15 of net annual value, but would have cut out of Schedule A tax altogether millions of

  1163
  small terraced houses and semidetached houses, because outside London —
  Mr. Nabarro Mr. Nabarro indicated dissent.
  Mr. Callaghan: It is no use the hon. Member shaking his head. In the Welsh valleys and in many other country areas there are plenty of houses with a net annual value of £18 or £20 or £16, and those houses would have been removed completely from the realms of Schedule A if the Chancellor had accepted in 1959 what he then refused and has accepted only now.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: In fact, he has not accepted it yet. It is only a promise.
  Mr. Callaghan: He has accepted it in principle. I agree that it is only a promise.
  Mr. A. Lewis: Is not my hon. Friend aware that the Chancellor also promised a capital gains tax last year? He has run away from that promise this year. What guarantee is there that he will not run away again?
  Mr. Callaghan: It may well be, as my hon. Friend says, that the Chancellor will not implement this promise. His approach is, "I will deal with it next year. It will end for owner-occupiers, although I do not know exactly what will happen". It reminds me of the old song, suitably adapted,
  "I'll pay it off,
  Don't know how, don't know when,
  But I'll pay it off some sunny day."
  If he is to do it, this is the time to benefit the Schedule A taxpayer, not in the future. If he is to get rid of it, let him do it now and not use this as a General Election bribe whenever it comes along.
  I turn to indirect taxes. The Chancellor has a great sense of fair play. He has used this argument in both Budgets. Last year his sense of fair play led him as an act of social justice, and in an attempt to restore some sense of equity, to relieve Surtax payers of £86 million of Surtax. This year his sense of fair play has led him to propose a new tax on sweets. It is with the same sense that most of the country will regard that tax as contemptible. If
  1164
  it is fair play and giving promises for the future which concerns the Chancellor, why could he not give some hope to the old-age pensioners for the future? If we are dealing in social equity and social justice, and he can give promises to Surtax payers and for the remission of Schedule A, are there not other groups in the country who might also have had something to look forward to?
  I am sorry that the Chancellor has done nothing to relieve the omnibus companies and municipal undertakings from some part of the fuel tax. In remote country districts, as is well known on both sides of the Committee, this tax may sway the balance between deciding to run a bus service and cutting off a country area completely. In some parts of the country it has already done so. But even in the urban areas it is important. This morning I received a letter from the Town Clerk of Cardiff, in which he told me that in 1945 fuel tax cost the city roughly £17,000 whereas today it is costing the city £80,000, which is approximately equivalent, he told me, to the cost of a wage award of 18s. a week. I am sure that the Committee agrees that something should be done to remit fuel tax in this respect.
  Turning to Purchase Tax generally, the Chancellor is on a logical point when he draws attention to the different rates of Purchase Tax on jewellery, 27½ per cent., and cosmetics, 55 per cent. but he should beware of too much logic. Cannot he draw the distinction between, for example, a mink coat and a boiler suit? It was the late Hugh Dalton who invented the distinction, without making any moral judgments; he regarded Purchase Tax purely as a revenue raiser in which he would assess some items more heavily or less heavily than others on a basis of judgment which might be moral or might not. On the other hand, he decided, and I think that he was right, that there was a case for raising revenue by this means on certain items.
  We are suspicious that the Chancellor is preparing the way for a sales tax. If he is doing that, it would be a regressive tax, and we should most certainly oppose it from this side of the Committee, because we do not know where it would stop. It would bring in many items which are today exempt, such as coal,

  1165
  oil, books, building materials and, above all, perhaps foodstuffs. If we are to have a general sales tax, the effect on the cost of living and the retail price index and on the general economy of many people will be most serious.
  In any case, in my view the Chancellor is pitching the yield of indirect tax far too high, and there is a case for a reduction, to which I will come. He could have got rid of all taxation on articles taxed at 5½ per cent. and 12½ per cent.—clothing, footwear, scarves, gloves, cushions, pillows, furnture, ironmongery, and so on. For £100 million, a little more than he gave to the Surtax payers last year, he could have got rid of that tax, and it would have been a worth-while reduction.
  Indirect taxation, together with National Insurance contributions, is bearing too hardly upon the family man at present, and there is a case for transferring the burden. It is not only a question of indirect taxation. Part of the eleven-year operation of the Conservatives has been not only to alter the burden of indirect taxation so that the small man is bearing more than his fair share; they have also altered the burden of direct taxation, and the Leader of the House need not look very far to know the reason why electors are deserting him.
  Let the right hon. and learned Gentleman listen to some of the figures. I am sorry that I shall have to give the Committee rather a lot of figures, but it is important that we should have this on the record. The average weekly earnings of men over 21 last October was £15 6s. 10d.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: That is earnings.
  Mr. Callaghan: I would point out to my hon. Friend that 60 per cent. of all male workers earned less than this figure. There are always many people in the lower income groups who find it difficult to understand that the average is as high as £15 6s. 10d.
  But it is equivalent to £798 per annum. I want the Committee to note these figures. In 1955, when the Government formed their new Administration, the total tax and National Insurance contributions, adding the two together, borne on a salary of £800 was £53. The total
  1166
  tax and National Insurance contributions paid on a salary of £800 today is £72. This is the liability which I have worked out for a married man with two children under the age of 11. The result of the last seven years of Tory administration has been to put an extra burden of £20 per annum on the average weekly earnings of men.
  What is interesting is that the average weekly earnings of administrative, technical and clerical workers, the so-called white collar workers, which has recently been the subject of inquiry by the Ministry of Labour, are almost exactly the same—£15 9s. 11d. compared with the figure of £15 6s. 10d. for manual workers. Their tax liability is, therefore, the same, and they, too, are £20 a year worse off on the same income.
  Let us consider the monthly-paid white-collar workers. According to the Ministry of Labour, their earnings were £1,280 per annum on average, or £106 per month. I have taken the tax tables at £1,250. Under the Tory administration in 1955, the tax payable by a married man with two children was £166 on earnings of £1,250 per annum. That is the average for all the white-collar workers who are paid monthly. This year the tax liability is £150. They are £16 a year better off in tax, but that is more than wiped out by the increase in the graduated contribution which has been exacted from them since last July.
  There are roughly 20 million P.A.Y.E. employees. Do the Conservative Government realise that 19 million of them are paying more in lax and National Insurance contributions on the same level of income than they were seven years ago—19 million out of 20 million? Seven years ago over 4 million people were wholly relieved from paying tax because of the personal allowances. Today, that figure is less than 2 million. Incomes have risen, but the level of exemptions has not risen with them. In fact, the Chancellor today is taking £350 million a year more in P.A.Y.E. than in 1955. In 1955, P.A.Y.E. taxpayers earning less than £1,500 per annum paid £550 million in tax. I am referring to those earning below £1,500, the high levels. Today, they are paying £870 million in tax.
  As a proportion of the total amount paid in Income Tax, Surtax and Profits Tax, the P.A.Y.E. earner has been

  1167
  milked. Seven years ago he used to pay £1 in every £4 of the total taxation. Today, he is paying £1 in every £3. The proportion of his total tax burden has increased from 24 per cent. to 33 per cent. During this period—and this is the indictment against hon. Members opposite—the standard rate of tax has twice been reduced—from 9s. to 8s. 6d. and from 8s. 6d. to 7s. 9d. In addition, Surtax has been reduced.
  The total of those reliefs at the top end of the scale is £430 million. But what successive Chancellors have failed to do is to increase the allowances at the bottom end of the scale, which cover not just the main groups but the great mass of the nation of whom I am speaking. Earned income relief has not been changed since 1952. Personal allowances were last increased in 1955. The allowance for wife's earnings was last increased in the same year. The child allowance was last increased in 1957. The income of a dependent relative qualifying for dependent relative relief was last increased in 1955. The maximum income qualifying for reduced rate relief has gone down since 1954. How many hon. Members opposite realise that fact?
  The truth is that if we neglect the averages and take the ordinary men and women who now Work a bare week, we find that they are having a tough time today. I refer to such people as the railway porter in London whose bare weekly wage is £8 14s.; the provincial bus driver whose maximum on a bare week is £10 3s. 6d.—for not ail of them work overtime, not all of them get the opportunity; the provincial postman Whose bare weekly wage is £11 1s. 6d. or the "M" rate people who are confined to no increase at all and are later to be paid up to 2½ per cent., whose bare weekly wage is £8 19s.; the first hand in a bakery, in regard to whom the recommendation by the wages council has been sent back by the Minister of Labour for reconsideration, £9 1s. 2d.; and the milk roundsman £9 8s.
  These are the people we are talking about. If the Chancellor and successive Governments have pulled the wool over their eyes during the last few years, the scales are now rapidly falling and people are beginning to see what the Government have done. I have not mentioned
  1168
  the position of women workers. Sixty per cent. of women workers earn less than £8 a week, whether employed in factories or in clerical or typing occupations.
  I come to the next point. Is there any social justice in the relative rewards of capital and labour? Let us consider how wages and dividends have moved during the last ten years. From the beginning of 1951 to the end of 1955 the index of wage rates rose by 27½ per cent. The amount distributed in ordinary dividends rose in the same period by 73 per cent.—three times as much. So the amount distributed in the first half of the 1950s was very heavily disproportionate in favour of those drawing ordinary dividends. In the second half of the 1950s the disproportion was even greater. From the beginning of 1956, when the new index was introduced, the index of wage rates has risen by 25 per cent. The amount distributed in ordinary dividends has risen by 82 per cent.
  Let me give the figures for the index of wage rates for every year since 1956. Here is the increase in wage rates: 5 per cent., 5 per cent., 4 per cent., 3 per cent., 3 per cent., 5 per cent. Let us now look at the increase in the amount distributed in ordinary dividends in the same period: 8 per cent., 7 per cent., 5 per cent.—and here come the lush years—17 per cent., 35 per cent., 10 per cent. The Chancellor turns to wages and says, "We can have no more of these indiscriminate wage increases." If the Chancellor really believes that he has introduced any sense of fairness or of even-handed dealing, he fails to understand the facts or else he is attempting to deceive the ordinary wage earner about what the facts are.
  The Government's analysis of our economic problems is based on the assumption that wages especially are rising too fast, faster than production and faster than incomes in other countries, so causing our costs to rise faster than those in other countries and making our exports less competitive. I am dealing in facts, and one fact is that the increases in wages, both rates and earnings, have not been out of line with our competitors in the Common Market and have been far less than in the most important ones, France and Germany.

  1169
  Let us look at the hourly wage earnings in manufacturing as a percentage increase from 1953 to I960. The attack is on wages, remember. Britain's increase in hourly wage earnings has been 155 per cent. Let us look at the others: Belgium, 138; Italy, 137; West Germany, 158; Netherlands, 167; and France, 182. Is it the case that the increases in hourly earnings in this country are so out of line with other countries that wages are responsible for our lamentable failure in the export field? The real difference is not that our wages have been rising faster, but that our production has been rising more slowly.
  Between 1955 and 1960 industrial production in this country rose by 14 per cent. In the E.E.C. countries it rose by 40 per cent.—three times as fast. Our slower growth has not been due just to wages. Nor has it been due to a slower increase in employment or a shortening of working hours. Productivity per man has been growing more slowly here than elsewhere. The United Kingdom increase in the last five years was 16 per cent. The increase in the Common Market countries was 37 per cent. Productivity has been rising too slowly. It is not the case that wages have been rising too quickly. I beg the Chancellor to put less emphasis on the negative aspect of keeping wages down and more emphasis on the aspect of increasing productivity. This is the secret and the solution to Britain's problems.
  We have had from the Government an Economic Survey that was as trivial as the Budget itself—hardly worth publishing, for the information contained in it has already been produced somewhere else. We have had another economic survey, and this is the one that I recommend the Committee to read, because this contains a better assessment than any assessment to be found in our own White Paper. I refer to "Economic Surveys by the O.E.C.D." I am sure that the Financial Secretary has read it and I expect that he agrees with it.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Edward Boyle): It answers one or two of the points that the hon. Gentleman has been making.
  Mr. Callaghan: I am sure it does, and that is why I shall refer to it.
  1170
  First, let us deal with this question of higher investment. What does this Survey say about that? It says:
  "The share of 'productive' investment … was considerably lower… than in most industrialised European countries … it was still substantially lower at the end of the period than in the United Kingdom's main continental competitors. … This had two effects. First, the increase in capital per worker has been lower"—
  in this country Chan in most of the continental countries—
  "Second, … the average quality"—
  that is, of the capital investment, the plant and machinery—
  "tends to be inferior both on account of wear and tear and of technical obsolescence"
  In other words, we are supplying our own workers with inferior, second-rate tools by comparison with what is happening in other European countries. Let us turn our attention to this as a way of getting a higher rate of growth and turn our eyes away from wages for a moment or two.
  Why is there this low share? It deals with that, too. It suggests that the share is low in this increased capital because of lack of confidence on the part of business. We have had eleven years of Tory rule, unchallenged, with larger majorities each time, and business still has lack of confidence. This is the businessman's Government, I understand, but their own supporters have so little confidence in them that they cannot invest as much in their new plant and machinery as is invested in continental countries. This is a striking reflection on the Government.
  Why is there this lack of confidence? It says that the lack of confidence is due mainly to our stop-go economy. We cannot run our economy full out, except in short bursts, because, if we do, we get into balance of payments difficulties. As the Survey says, slow growth and modesty in investment decisions react upon one another progressively. Expansion is irregular. There are bottlenecks when it does take place. It also says that the share of productive investment in the E.E.C. countries and in the United Kingdom has gone like this—and by productive investment, I understand, is meant factories and plant: from 1950 to 1960 in Britain it has been 11 per cent. and in the E.E.C. countries 15 per cent.

  1171
  Therefore, the first thing that we have to do is to get a higher rate of investment in industries which should be selected, that we should know are capable of growth, and that we can analyse and select in order to get some purpose into our national planning. The Survey asks: Is it due to demand pressure? This was the reason given by the Chancellor for bringing forward his "little Budget" last July. Demand pressure in this country was to such an extent that he had to curtail it. The consequences we have seen.
  This is what the Survey says:
  "… it seems unlikely that the British problem of costs and prices can mainly be explained in terms of demand pressures; costs and prices seem to have increased almost equally during periods of restraint and periods of expansion."
  So the Chancellor, if this analysis is correct, is at the moment enforcing upon us a period of restraint in which costs, taking the period as a whole, are likely to increase, as we know they are increasing, as much as they did in the period of expansion, and we are grinding ourselves continually into the mud. Higher money incomes—this is what the Financial Secretary referred to—play a part.
  It says so in paragraph 29 of the Survey, which makes quite clear that that is its view:
  "In short, pressure for higher money incomes has been permanent in the United Kingdom over the period and has resulted in increases which could not be absorbed without increases in unit costs. Restrictions upon demand, given the limits placed on such a policy, have not provided a satisfactory solution."
  We say to the Government, revise your restrictive policies.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): Read the next sentence.
  Mr. Callaghan: I am coming to that. I will not read it now. The Chancellor should not assume that I am arguing unfairly. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am ready to meet these problems and to deal with and answer them. I only wish that the Chancellor and his supporters were sometimes more ready to grapple with them, too. But I will let that go. I have been speaking for rather a long time and I apologise. I hasten over the last part.
  1172
  The target for growth which the Chancellor has selected, which last year was 1 per cent. and which the Chancellor this year tells us may be 2 per cent., is lower than that of any other major country in Europe. He should set out to double that target. He should aim at 4 per cent. as the target for growing expansion in Britain. I have indicated the first steps he should take to secure that growth.
  The next step that the Chancellor should take is to co-ordinate plans for investment. Forecasts of needs and resources should be brought to the point where the total picture can be seen. This should be done by the Treasury and by the Chancellor. It is his responsibility. If he has really become converted to planning, which I very much doubt, this is what he should do. Inquiries should be made whether funds are available for capital expansion required in particular industries where it is decided there is to be expansion.
  I believe that we should need a working party for each one of the main industries if we are to do such a job and such working parties would at least have the advantage of associating both sides of industry, the industrialists, the workers and trade unionists, with the general conception of planning for expansion and seeing that the resources and means are there to achieve it. I believe that to identify those who are to carry out these tasks with the fulfilment of the tasks is the first step to getting their agreement on what is possible and what is not. Then we should work out the priorities for raising new capital. There should be selective depreciation allowances. If we can be selective about taxing or not taxing bounties for Service men, we can be selective about depreciation allowances. There is nothing in the Income Tax philosophy to prevent that.
  We should allocate Government contracts and create new Government companies where they are required. [HON. MEMBERS "Oh."]. I see that all this represents a fundamental difference between us I regret that it does. I am quite certain that unless we get away from this flaccid approach by the Government at present we shall achieve none of the aims to which we set our hands. Eleven years of Tory rule have

  1173
  reduced us to the state set out in this document and we want to escape from it. It is easy to sneer when people put up propositions about what should be done, but let us hear what the Government intend to do to escape from this situation. We heard nothing about this yesterday when the Chancellor had his opportunity to say it.
  I would also give export incentives. The Chancellor is wrong about this. There should be financial export incentives, which, I am certain, could be devised to coincide with our international obligations. We should encourage co-operative marketing by firms exporting and encourage joint publicity and the setting up of trading corporations for overseas for industries which cannot do so. This is horrible, is it not?—I am sure that the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) is finding this almost unbearable.
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: It all sounds very like Dr. Schacht.
  Mr. Callaghan: It may sound like Dr. Schacht, though it was not intended to, but at least it was an attempt at something which I should have liked the Chancellor to try, that is to say, to give some idea of the way in which Britain could tackle its problems if we really believe in planning in order to get expansion and do not just pay lip-service to it.
  As regards the distribution of industry, I believe that we must take a national view of the economy as a whole and of the social consequences of the placing of new industry. The provinces, Wales and Scotland have a steady and vigorous life Which is being drained away at the present time while London and the south-east of England are becoming an overcrowded wen. The distribution of industry must be brought back to the centre of our economic picture.
  We should, of course, encourage mobility of labour. [HON. MEMBERS "Hear, hear."] I am glad to have at least a feeble cheer. Of course, we must have mobility of labour. We cannot expect to embark upon a great national plan of the sort which I have barely begun to outline unless we have movement of labour. This means proper redundancy agreements. It means retraining
  1174
  labour which becomes surplus in its particular industry.
  I hope that I shall have more hon. Members to agree with me not merely about that part but about the other parts, because I am trying to approach this matter from The point of view of getting Britain going again. If we can do that, we shall all have to give up some of the things which, perhaps, we hold rather dear, but it is more important to try to achieve the industrial expansion we want rather than stagnate, clinging to our out-worn prejudices as the Government have been doing during the last eleven years.
  The plain truth is that we have a four-year plan, a four-year financial cycle. In the first year after the General Election, the Government give away all the benefits they can. They ease up on hire purchase and credit restrictions. In the second year of the four-year cycle, they grab it all back again and stop everything. At present, we are in the third of the four years, or, rather, the second and third years of the cycle.
  Sir Douglas Glover: Make up your mind.
  Mr. Callaghan: It may be a five-year cycle; it depends on when the election takes place, and I do not know when the next election will be. These are the years of stagnation. We are playing out the same drama as we played out before 1959. The Government are not doing much this year. They will do it next year when they try to buy their way back to power by dishing out a few concessions immediately before the General Election.
  I wish that the Government would turn their attention towards the ideal of greater productivity and greater production and stop being mesmerised by wages, trying to keep things down, cutting and squeezing the whole time. Let us grow. Let us expand. Let it be a planned expansion and a planned growth. I do not believe that we can expand or grow in the proper direction unless we plan our growth and expansion. If only the Government could for a moment forget their electoral fortunes and think of Britain's future, we might be on our way to recovery. As it is, I fear that the speech we had yesterday is illustrative of their

  1175
  altogether narrow and pedantic approach to Britain's problems, which is unlikely to solve the problems which we shall have to tackle when we come back to power.
  5.3 p.m.
  The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. F. J. Erroll): We have had a lively speech from the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), which I very much enjoyed listening to. I am particularly glad that he referred extensively to the O.E.C.D. Report. I think that this Report will be a positive quarry for selective quotation in the weeks to come. Although copies are not generally available, I did arrange to make sure that a copy was available in the Library today for any hon. Members who might not have been able to obtain a copy in any other way. It is, perhaps, a little unfair to select a lot more quotations in reply to the hon. Gentleman, but I recommend to the Committee the conclusions of the Report, because I feel that they answer briefly and succinctly many of the points the hon. Gentleman made. In paragraph 48, the Report refers to the apparent impasse which the hon. Member described and says:
  "Escape from this apparent impasse lies in the achievement of a steady and significant export rise as the major dynamic element in new economic growth. The United Kingdom will not achieve this without improving its international competitive position. Hence the importance, under present circumstances, of keeping production costs steady and, indeed, of reducing them wherever possible. And this requires, in the first place"—
  and note the words "in the first place"—
  "that money incomes should henceforth rise no more than the growth of productivity over the economy as a whole—and that the benefits of rising productivity should be absorbed to a smaller extent than previously by rising money incomes and to a rather greater extent by a lowering of prices."
  The hon. Gentleman said that my right hon. and learned Friend was mesmerised by wages and by money policy. He is not. He realises the crucial part which money incomes have to play in our economy, and he has taken steps, last July and subsequently, to give effect to what is recommended in the Report.
  I turn now to several points concerning my right hon. and learned Friend's Budget, which the hon. Gentleman himself mentioned. The Budget has been
  1176
  described as a "standstill Budget". It has been described as a "trivial Budget". I think that one hon. Gentleman has called it a "lollipop" Budget.
  Mr. Cyril Bence: A humbug Budget.
  Mr. Erroll: Certainly not a humbug Budget. As Budget time approaches each year, the country always has a combination of hopeful expectation and gloomy fears. When the Budget does not meet either of those, this does not mean that it is the wrong sort of Budget. In this case, it means that the Budget is addressed to the country's present needs.
  The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East spoke of businessmen wanting to know of some of the prospects for the year. He said that they wanted to know about prospects for home output. What businessmen really want to know is what are the prospects for home demand. It is no good producing things unless there is a demand for them. My right hon. and learned Friend was very clear in what he said about home demand prospects. I commend to the hon. Gentleman and to the Committee his words because they show that we expect that during next year total personal incomes
  "may well be up by 4 per cent. in real terms—a very large rise in relation to the average experience of recent years.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th April, 1962; Vol. 657, c. 965.]
  In a year in which, as the Chancellor himself said, there was not room for any substantial changes, he has nevertheless managed to bring to the Committee some valuable and imaginative proposals. I did not expect the hon. Gentleman to like them, and he made quite plain that he did not. Part of the trouble, as so often happens in this Committee and on many occasions in the House, is that the party opposite does not like the form of society in which we on this side believe. The hon. Gentleman wants people to be enterprising, as we do, but he is not prepared to accept the system of rewards, the forms of taxation and the restraints which go with a system which encourages enterprise, a system which we must have if Britain is to be successful in the 1960s.
  Mr. Archie Manuel: Of course, we disagree with a system that gives the largest rewards to those who produce least.
  Mr. Erroll: I turn now to that part of the hon. Gentleman's speech in which he spoke about capital gains. We have not said that we shall tax capital gains. My right hon. and learned Friend said that he would tax speculative gains. We believe in a steady growth in the values of personal property and that the right time to tax these values is on the death of the owner. The hon. Gentleman did not refer to existing taxes on property of one kind and another, whether moveable or immoveable estate, but, of course, property does already attract substantial taxation at the right time, namely, at the time of death or on transfer through the operation of a very substantial rate of stamp Duty.
  Hon. Members opposite were quite pleased to hear about relief being given to small estates by the raising of the limit of exemption from Estate Duty from £3,000 to £4,000 which was announced yesterday. They are prepared to believe in some private property, but they do not seem to believe that it should be in more than small amounts.
  The hon. Gentleman referred in what I might call a characteristic way to attacks on wealth. He half touched on the subject but never really revealed his own intention. Is he really advocating a steady, regular tax on wealth? If so, what form should it take? Is he going to come back to this Committee with the old idea of the capital levy such as that which Sir Stafford Cripps introduced in 1948 and which the Labour Government never brought back again after they tried it for one year? We do not believe that there should be this continual taking away of the natural growth in values in this country.
  The hon. Gentleman produced some very striking examples of spectacular rises in property values which have occurred. Does he propose that we should introduce retrospective legislation to catch these rises? In many cases, the rises have occurred because the earlier value was not high enough. We live in a changing country in which there is a limit on the amount of land available. As the pressure on it increases, so the value of what is available grows and grows. That is what we
  1178
  should expect in a progressive country such as ours.
  Mr. Charles Loughlin: Does not the same argument apply equally to labour? If there is a shortage of land and land prices go up, that is reasonable, according to the right hon. Gentleman. If there is a shortage of labour and wages go up, is not that reasonable, too?
  Mr. Erroll: That is exactly what has been happening over the years, particularly in sectors where skills are most in demand. I shall be coming to that point in a moment. The increases have been the greatest in those sectors, which is as it should be.
  On the other hand, short-term speculative gains are another matter, because here the object is a quick income profit and not a steady growth of capital. My right hon. and learned Friend has properly brought these into charge as income, attracting Income Tax and Surtax where appropriate, and I think that he has received the congratulation of the country for so doing. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East, asked me whether "land" included the buildings on it. I can give him the assurance for which he asks, namely, that land includes the buildings on it. I cannot answer the point on earned income relief yet. I have, however, taken note of it.
  Mr. Douglas Jay: Does that mean that for the purpose of buildings the period is three years and not six months?
  Mr. Erroll: Yes, certainly.
  Mr. Callaghan: Surely the right hon. Gentleman can say now that these capital gains will not secure the earned income relief?
  Mr. Erroll: They will definitely be treated as unearned income.
  I now turn to Schedule A. I found it hard to tell whether the hon. Gentleman was in favour of the abolition of Schedule A. He went on to say that it ought to be done now.
  Mr. Callaghan: That sounds as though I was in favour of it.
  Mr. Erroll: It does not. The hon. Member took a long time coming round to the point, having suggested that it was

  1179
  only an electoral stunt. He spoke of the intricacies of a notional income. The hon. Gentleman knows why it cannot be done this year, namely, because it would cost £50 million and there is not £50 million to give away in this Budget. It is clearly understood that it will be abolished when my right hon. and learned Friend is able to abolish it, but that it was necessary to make the announcement now because of the valuations which are being made, and which might be appealed against, in respect of re-rating. It was therefore important that it should be made clear that these new valuations would not be used as a basis for a change in the method of assessing Schedule A tax.
  I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman insists on trying to make this out as an electoral or by-electoral stunt. It is nothing of the sort. It was a very reasonable announcement made for the benefit of many millions of home owners.
  Mr. Callaghan: If it is not an electoral stunt, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us why he so consistently voted against this in past years and why it has taken Orpington, Stockton, Pontefract, Lincoln and Middlesbrough to bring him round to this view?
  Mr. Erroll: We may have voted against it in the past for very good reasons of income policy and other policies, but we are coming to the stage when we have these new valuations, and this is obviously the time to deal with the matter.
  If the hon. Gentleman wishes to quote a few by-election results, I should like to point out to him that in all the by-elections this year the Labour candidate did very much worse than the candidate in the General Election. The average loss of Labour votes at each by-election was no less than 5,485. Therefore, the Labour Party has not very much popular appeal at the moment. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can take much comfort from any majorities which his party may have achieved.
  Mr. William Ross: If the right hon. Gentleman thinks it right to do this in view of the coming revaluation, why was it not done when revaluation was mooted in Scotland? Is he aware that this is the first year in which
  1180
  revaluation is not mooted but is actually in operation? If this is the principle, why was not this statement made earlier?
  Mr. Erroll: I am glad to answer that intervention. The reason is that we wanted to look at Schedule A as a whole throughout Great Britain and not only in respect of Scotland.
  I want to put the new tax on sweets and confectionery in proper perspective. It is surely good sense to reduce some of the distorting effects of the Purchase Tax system by broadening its base. These new goods are just as suitable for taxation as those already included, and so they ought to carry a small part of the tax burden. Teenagers, with their high level of earnings, can certainly afford to pay the little extra which the tax represents; and they are the ones who will benefit most from the increasing provision for sport and athletics which my right hon. and learned Friend announced yesterday. As for grown-ups, I would only say, as a cigarette smoker myself, that a switch from tobacco to sweets should not mean a complete escape from the Chancellor of the Exchequer's tax net.
  My right hon. and learned Friend's proposals will help British industry. They will make Purchase Tax more sensible and less discriminatory. This will be of real value to important sectors of British industry whose goods, when sold on the home market, attract Purchase Tax.
  The cut in fuel tax is not as big as those who have to pay it would have liked, but, nevertheless, it is a reduction which will be of help. So will the new provision for computing traders' losses. These new provisions will relieve industry of about £10 million of tax in the next two years, and about half or more of that will go towards relieving and helping the shipping industry.
  All too often I am told—and I was reminded of it again this afternoon—that the Government should do more to help. But what we need is more self-help. In a free society such as ours the Government create the right conditions and it is individuals and firms who expand our prosperity. There is no other way of bringing this about—none which has been devised. As an example of how much is going on, investment in manufacturing industry is running at a very

  1181
  high level and it has been increasing. It went up 20 per cent. in 1960 compared with 1959 and another 20 per cent. in 1961 compared with 1960.
  Mr. H. Rhodes: The question which arises in everyone's mind is why, if investment is so high, the yields are so low.
  Mr. Erroll: I will deal with one or two industries and show what they are trying to achieve and how much change is involved in their activities year by year.
  There may be a slight falling off in this very high level of investment this year, but I wish to reassure the Committee that a slight falling off is nothing to worry about because this type of heavy manufacturing investment tends to be cyclical. There is a period when certain particularly big projects are coming to fruition and then there is a lesser degree of investment in that industry. But, over industry as a whole, investment this year will continue at a very high level, and a number of important industries will be spending more on investment this year than they spent last year. This year will be a year of opportunities. The opportunities are good, and my right hon. and learned Friend's proposals will put British industry in the best possible position to grasp them.
  One of the criticisms of the Budget has been that it does not provide any incentive to exports. There is a good deal of confusion of thought on this subject. I should like to join my right hon. and learned Friend in commending the Forbes Report, published by the Federation of British Industries. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East came out strongly in favour of export incentives. I urge him, if he can spare the time, to read the Forbes Report, which is a thorough examination of the issues. It particularly includes a thorough examination of the policies and practices of other countries.
  The Forbes Report recommends that the British Government should continue to work for the widest measure of agreement against the use of artificial export incentives. It is essential to the success of this policy that the Government should continue to be vigorous in
  1182
  seeking to secure that other Governments live up to their international obligations. Criticisms have often been made of other Governments in what might be called cheating and breaking the rules. The interesting thing about the Forbes Report is that it shows that the international rules accepted by Her Majesty's Government are also observed by almost all the other Governments and that there are few exceptions of significance.
  The two main examples of departures are some Italian tax provisions and the Japanese incentive arrangements. In our bilateral economic discussions with the Italians, we have raised with them their tax practices which seem to us to be at variance with the G.A.T.T. declaration on artificial aids to exports. We have also made clear to the Japanese Government our dislike of their incentive schemes. Although we recognise that these schemes of the Japanese are not contrary to any obligations to us, we hope that the Japanese will find it possible to get rid of them even before 1964, when they are due to expire. This is a matter on which I shall certainly have something to say when I visit Japan after Easter.
  Some people will continue to urge that the answer to our need for additional exports lies in an incentive scheme and I expect that we shall hear this theme repeated during the remainder of this week's debates. One can call in aid the National Association of British Manufacturers, who have pressed this view as their conclusion from the same facts as those published by the F.B.I. The Government remain convinced, however, that an export incentive scheme financed from Government funds would be a step backwards, that it would undo the valuable benefits secured internationally by the policies which we have followed in the past ten years and that it is not by such means that we shall secure the expansion of the economy on the basis of a thriving export trade.
  Some people in recent weeks have thought that we were, perhaps, over-optimistic about exports and they have been asking for figures to justify all the talk of better prospects. Indeed, in the debate on exports last month, in which

  1183
  both the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East and I joined, I reminded hon. Members how difficult it is to spot a turning point at the moment when it occurs. I said, however, that when we looked back over the figures in some months' time, we might well see that a period of expansion in our exports was beginning just at about that time.
  At lunchtime today, I received the March export figures. I am glad to say that they give me some modest encouragement. Seasonally adjusted, United Kingdom exports totalled £312 million for the month of March. This means that exports have increased in each of the past three months.
  Mr. Callaghan: What about the figures for twelve months?
  Mr. Erroll: Just a moment. On a seasonally adjusted basis, in January the figure was £300 million; in February, £307 million; and, now, £312 million in March. Imports, seasonally adjusted, for March were £359 million, which means a trade gap in March of £36 million. I do not want to make too much of these figures, but we may reasonably take encouragement from them.
  If we want to grow—and we all want economic growth—we have to take into account one other factor, and a very important one it is for us. We have to be prepared to change as well as to grow—to change what we make, to change to new markets and, very often, to find new buyers as well. We have to do this in a highly competitive world in which we must and, I believe, can succeed.
  In a competitive economy, no company can afford to remain static, because at any given time it is either on the way up or on the way down. Therefore, in a modern industrial society progress and growth mean change. It is because British industry must be able to change that sometimes growth may not be as rapid as it could otherwise be. Nevertheless, change of product, change of method, change of market and often change of size are essential if British firms and industries are to remain competitive in world markets.
  The essential need for change to accompany growth is true whether we
  1184
  join the Common Market or not. I noticed this morning that some sections of the Press seem to be rather surprised that my right hon. and learned Friend did not say more about the Common Market in his Budget speech. As he said, however, the basic need is the same whether we join the Common Market or not. We have to be competitive and adaptable. In international trade, it is only the adaptable that will be able to survive.
  This process can be painful both to the individual and for the community. It may mean discarding long-established attitudes which have become sanctified by tradition. It means labour, both managers and workers, being willing to move from one place to another, from one industry to another, and, indeed, from one job to another, from a known and liked activity to a novel and, perhaps, less comfortable one.
  Where resources are limited, as they are for us in Britain, growth in one sector may mean a decline in another, because our scarcest resource in Britain is skilled labour. Unlike some of our Continental competitors, we cannot look to any substantial number of new recruits to the working population to swell the volume of industrial production. If we are to grow faster, it can only be by deploying our existing labour force more effectively. Indeed, the general movements are much bigger than most people realise and certainly much greater than is suggested by those who assert without looking into the facts that labour is immobile and incapable of moving.
  I should like to give a few figures to indicate the broad trend. In the last ten years, employment in manufacturing industry has gone up by 10 per cent. In agriculture and allied industries, it has gone down by about one-sixth. There has been an increase of nearly 20 per cent. in the distributive trades and a fall of 15 per cent. in mining and quarrying. Construction is up by 9 per cent. and transport and communications down by 4 per cent. Metals, engineering and vehicles are up by no less than 20 per cent. and textiles and clothing are down by 14 per cent. These figures show the changes which have been taking place in the economy as a whole, but they mask

  1185
  the even greater changes which are going on within individual industries and firms. We talk of growth, but change is just as important and often as necessary.
  I want to get away from generalisations and to give one or two examples of specific British industries to show what a great deal of change and adaptation is going on within industry, which is essential for an industry's future and which may inhibit pure, what I call straight-line, growth of the same product dished out to the same customers year after year. This would be an easy course, but it is not for us.
  I start with the example of electrical engineering, because today it is one of our largest export industries. It employs over three-quarters of a million people. Its output is now about £1,500 million a year, of which over £300 million goes directly to exports. With the demand at home for electricity doubling every ten years, the industry has spent over £400 million in the last decade on new or enlarged manufacturing and research facilities and the renewal of capital assets. At the end of the period, its annual investment was three times what it was at the beginning. The industry is outstanding for the opportunities that it offers to technical and professional skills. It employs over one-fifth of the qualified scientists and engineers in manufacturing industry.
  As an example of what has taken place over the last few years, hon. Members who were in the House in 1947, may remember the passing of an Order which standardised generating sets for the home market at 30 megawatts and 60 megawatts. Now, only fifteen years later, we are making sets of 500 megawatts for use in what will be the biggest steam power stations in Europe. The cost of installing these sets will be about £35 per kilowatt compared with £58 for the smaller sets built in 1956. That is the measure of the adaptability and rate of change of one of our leading industries.
  These developments have called for a massive process of adjustment and change by the industry. It has not only had to cope with the problems arising from rapid technical advance, but it has had to face acute commercial problems too. It is not a matter only of rapid adaptation but of finding customers and selling the exports to them. In certain
  1186
  branches of electrical engineering there is now a world-wide excess of capacity. Competition for the available business is intense. Despite this, 1961 was one of the best years ever for British electrical exports.
  In the motor vehicle industry between 1951 and 1961 the output of motor cars, commercial vehicles and agricultural tractors doubled in value, and over the same period exports went up by 50 per cent. Competition in the export markets is becoming more intense every month. More and more countries are establishing their own assembly plants and all too often our manufacturers are faced with high tariff barriers and in some cases quota restrictions. But there are good opportunities for exports. Car ownership in Western Europe is expected to double in the next ten years. Our manufacturers have devoted a tremendous effort to the markets of the Six where in the last three years they have increased their sales by 150 per cent. In January their exports to the Six were double what they were a year previously. I have no doubt that if our negotiations to join the Six succeed, car manufacturers will do even better, and I am sure that they will find encouragement in the change which my right hon. and learned Friend has made in the level of Purchase Tax.
  Another industry which is a very different but a very progressive one is the wool textile industry, one of our oldest manufacturing activities which consists largely of quite small firms. It has had to meet competition from a bewildering variety of synthetic and other fibres but it is a good example of successful adaptation to change, as evidenced in its warping machinery which is now electronically controlled. This industry has a fine and continuing export record. Some of the small firms export a very large proportion of their production. Although demand in some of the traditional markets has fallen off, the industry has sought out new markets, notably in Germany, France and Japan, and its successes there have offset the decline in markets elsewhere.
  We must realise that in a changing Britain some of our industries face a permanent contraction in the demand for their products which no amount of managerial efficiency can reverse. This

  1187
  can arise from any one of a variety of causes well outside the control of the management—for example, the development of substitute materials, the growth of manufacture overseas, or a permanent change in social habits.
  The British railway equipment industry is one of these. It is now going through a period of considerable difficulty and I know that many hon. Members are anxious about the prospects. The industry has long been one of our most determined exporters. But exports have declined from £45 million a year in 1956–58 to £14 million last year, despite the great efforts made by manufacturers, both individually and with the help of the United Kingdom Railway Advisory Service. The British industry is not the only one which has felt these changes. Japanese and German exports have also been falling.
  One of the factors is the growth of manufacture abroad. Australia and South Africa are not only manufacturing the equipment they need but they are also seeking export markets for their newly established industries. This is a trend which we cannot influence but it is leading to a decline and contraction in the industry. There is no question of the Government writing off this or indeed any other industry. We shall continue to give it all the support we can in export markets, but we cannot create export markets where they do not exist nor provide orders which can be obtained only by soft long-term loans which Britain cannot afford.
  Equally, we must recognise that however much we regret the disappearance of an old, once-famous name, it does no good to prop up by artificial means an activity which world demand is passing by. We have to recognise this change and adapt ourselves to it. To try and prop it up would be the way to industrial stagnation in the true sense of the word. If we want a faster rate of growth—and I have given examples of three growing and one unfortunately contracting industry—we must be prepared to move resources from the declining sectors to the expanding ones and to do it more quickly and more efficiently than our competitors.
  The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East referred to the distribution of
  1188
  industry policy. While I did not intend to say anything about that this afternoon, I might say a few words in passing. It is a subject of great importance. We have used our powers with the greatest vigour to persuade and induce existing and expanding industry to go to places where it is needed. In South Wales practically all localities have been removed from the list because of the success of our policy. Liverpool and the adjacent area is on the stop list and we are able to concentrate our energies mainly on Scotland and the North-East coast.
  Government spending is running at many millions of pounds to provide factories and loans and other forms of assistance to enable progressive industries to go to areas where labour can be more effectively used. I challenge the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East to suggest how we can do better than we are doing at present. I should be glad to hear him on the subject, because I am sure that apart from minor details and changes in emphasis he cannot suggest how we can do better than we are doing. The Government are very proud of their achievement in this respect.
  Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: I notice that my right hon. Friend has not mentioned Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Erroll: I apologise to my hon. Friend. The arrangements there are different in that the Northern Ireland Government are themselves responsible for making many of the arrangements. I did not mention the Isle of Wight either, but I did not intend to be disrespectful to Northern Ireland in any way.
  The Government do not intend to bring about the growth or decline of particular industries. Our aim is to produce conditions which favour more efficient methods and more effective deployment of our resources. It is on these that the growth of exports, and so of the economy as a whole, really depends. A rise in output generated by expanding exports leads to higher productivity and lower unit costs. These in turn encourage further exports. The growth of the economy is thus soundly based and self-sustaining.

  1189
  On the other hand, a growth which depends wholly on an artificial stimulus to home demand, which the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East seemed to suggest we ought to have, and which is not accompanied by a rise in exports, contributes nothing to the sound growth of the economy. It only creates inflation, and there is no greater impediment to efficiency and exports than inflation at home.
  This is why my right hon. and learned Friend's Budget strikes the right balance for our present needs. But growth is not something which can be left to Governments alone to contrive. I hope that my earlier remarks have made plain that industries must do it and our industries are in the main doing a fine job of adaptation and growth to meet the new circumstances of today.
  Mr. Jay: So there is nothing wrong at all.
  Mr. Erroll: There is nothing much wrong, except in the eyes of hon. Members opposite.
  Mr. Ross Mr. Ross rose—
  Mr. Erroll: I am sorry, but I must come to an end now.
  I welcome particularly the independent initiative being taken by both sides of industry to inaugurate a National Productivity Year in the coming autumn. They are going in for a series of individual efforts in local centres rather than concentrating on one centralised affair. The National Productivity Year should yield good results during the period in which it is operating.
  There is no simple short cut to growth such as hon. Members on both sides of the Committee would like. It requires unremitting, patient and often unspectacular work at all levels. The Government are confident that we can look forward to a period of steady and healthy expansion, in which the growth of exports will take the lead.
  5.40 p.m.
  Mr. J. Grimond: The President of the Board of Trade has expressed some excellent sentiments and has stated some aims with which I am sure most of us will agree. But I was not quite sure to whom he was addressing his remarks. It is not for this side of the Committee to be blamed for any sluggishness which there
  1190
  may be in changing people from one job to another in industry. Permeating his speech was too much complacency about the part the Government have played in achieving these desirable aims. The right hon. Gentleman said that the locomotive industry was passing through a period of uncertainty in some places. That was an understatement of the position—at least for the North British Locomotive Co., which has dosed down for ever.
  I have two main criticisms of the Budget, and they are simple. The Budget will do nothing to cure the underlying faults of the economy, and it will do nothing to make the taxation system more fair or more intelligible. As these Budget debates go on from year to year, it becomes obvious that the real division in the Committee is not between those who believe in laissez-faire and those who believe in Socialism, as it was twenty or twenty-five years ago.
  On the one side are those, of whom the Chancellor of the Exchequer is an example, who think that, on the whole, the performance of this country during the last ten years has been, broadly speaking, satisfactory, and who think that he is pursuing the methods which can ensure that that—to him—satisfactory state continues. Those people are, I think, very much influenced by the need to protect sterling, and I dare say that the best thing that can be said about the Budget is that, given the presupposition that things on the whole have not been too bad in the last ten years, it may do something—temporarily, in my view—to restore to some extent faith in sterling, although at great cost in other ways.
  On this side of the Committee are those of us who think that the situation in the last ten years has not been satisfactory and that the progress of this country has been inadequate, and who therefore feel that the time has long since arrived when some much more radical changes should be made in our methods of running our economic and financial affairs. I think that this difference came out in the speech of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan). I hope that I do not embarrass him or get him into trouble via Bosworth by suggesting that with much of his speech I found myself in sympathy.

  1191
  The first thing that we want to see is the Government saying that they have taken a political decision to make growth the first object in the economy, that they are going to give us a policy for wages, salaries and profits, that they are going to give us an economic Budget—for a longer term than the usual Budget—that they are going to reform the system of taxation and make it more intelligible, that they are going to take some steps to break down the suspicion and antipathy between management and labour in industry and to share out the ownership of industry more widely, and that they are really going to face up to the kind of sentiment which was expressed by the President of the Board of Trade towards enterprise.
  The striking feature of this country is not that it rewards enterprise. On the contrary, over the last ten years, the greatest asset anyone could have had has been to accumulate, by one means or another, some capital. The people who have appeared to disadvantage are those who have been trained, who have learned skills. They have found it extremely difficult in these circumstances, unless they have been able to make capital gains or live on expenses, to keep up with people who have inherited capital or who have been able to make it in other ways.
  When we come to the question of the capital gains tax which is not a capital gains tax, why do not the Government look at the question of taxation of land values? Land is in a totally different position from other forms of wealth, and Liberals have said so for a long time.
  Again, the Government have admirable sentiments about the need for skilled labour, but are they really satisfied that their policies for education will give us the maximum amount of skilled labour which the country needs and could afford? Are they satisfied with the apprenticeships scheme? They are not a new Government. They have been in office for ten or eleven years. They have had plenty of time to consider any long-term measures they want brought in.
  Lord Ritchie has been referred to. It has been suggested that when he expressed acute dissatisfaction with the Government he was referring to a capital gains tax. Perhaps he was. I do not
  1192
  know. But I do not rule out the possibility that he may have been referring to something quite different. In the City, it is realised that we are not going to achieve the necessary rate of growth or bring down costs under this Government—and here the City is looking rather beyond its own self-interest.
  We know what has gone on. Production has lagged behind that of every other major industrial country, except for one. Costs have risen, and have led to difficulties over exports. I do not want to quote at length again figures given in the O.E.C.D. Report. I want to mention only two sets, however. First there are the simple figures of industrial production between 1955 and 1960. The increase in the United Kingdom was 14 per cent. and in the E.E.C. 40 per cent.
  Some people say that this is due to the aftermath of war, that these countries were destroyed and had to rebuild themselves. But these figures relate to between 1955 and 1960, and it is generally agreed that, as is pointed out in the Report, this excuse is not valid. Then we are told also that Europe has had a great inflow of refugees and extra labour. But the gross national product per head of the employed population has risen in the E.E.C. by 6·1 per cent. and by only 1·7 per cent. in the United Kingdom.
  The Report blows sky-high the view that the way to improve productivity in this country and to benefit exports and the overall balance of payments is to restrict imports, for it shows that in the E.E.C. imports have risen by 66 per cent. as against our 26 per cent. But the striking figures are for exports. The E.E.C.'s have risen by 63 per cent. and the United Kingdom's by only 13 per cent. This is not only due to economic measures, but also to a political determination in those countries to ensure growth, to tackle their problems and not to be afraid of more radical solutions than we have ever attempted.
  In this situation, those of us who are dissatisfied not only with the economic performance of this country but with the methods which we are forced to use looked to the Chancellor to give us some sort of lead. We got none. We got no indication of what his economic strategy may be. We have no indication even of the rate of expansion at which he is aiming. The nearest he came to

  1193
  giving that was in his passages about the National Economic Development Council when he said:
  "The collective target agreed in Paris by the O.E.C.D. for this decade is one of just over 4 per cent. a year. It will be for the Council to decide whether its study should be based on that figure, or a larger one, and what period of years should be taken for this."—[OFFICIAL REPORT,9th April, 1962; Vol. 657, c. 968.]
  If hon. Members examine that passage, they will find that among the tasks of the Council were, first, the examination of economic performance; secondly, the consideration of what were the obstacles to growth; and, thirdly, seeking agreement about ways of improving economic performance. There is no indication that the Government will do anything themselves. Apparently, they are to sit by and leave it to the National Economic Development Council.
  I do not believe that that is what the nation expected from the Government when it heard of this Council, and I do not believe that it can have any confidence that the Tory Government are seized of the need to give a lead to the economy, or that this Council is a suitable instrument for tackling these tasks, which are the tasks of the Government and which can be tackled by no one else. It appears to me that the Council will be made another excuse for doing nothing, that the Chancellor will sit back believing that the economy of itself will expand, and that his only preparation for action in case of that expansion will be preparations to restrain it.
  At the moment there is unused capacity in the country. Certainly in Scotland there are plenty of unemployed and there are plenty of machines in the country which are not being fully used. There are many manufacturers who are not happy that we should assume that everything will get much better this year. It will be a most serious setback if once again manufacturers find that having increased their capacity, through Government policies they are unable to use it. In those circumstances I wonder whether they will ever do it again.
  Further, this year we have to prepare to go into the Common Market. I give the Chancellor credit for the capital gains tax and for some of his changes in Purchase Tax which move in the direction of Europe, but I strongly
  1194
  dissent from the view that the Government's economic difficulties will be solved when we go into Europe. They have to be solved before we go into Europe. Before we go into Europe we must bring down costs. Indeed we have to bring down costs, as the Chancellor said, whether we go into Europe or not.
  As a first step, why does he not reduce some tariffs? Germany did that before joining the E.E.C. If the Chancellor says that that would give away a bargaining asset, I should like to know what bargaining assets it will give away and why Germany and other countries took just this step before joining E.E.C. I am not suggesting that every tariff should be reduced, but why should not the Chancellor reduce tariffs which protect monopolies or semi-monopolies in this country? Then, why did he not completely remove the tax on fuel oil which is a drag on costs?
  The President of the Board of Trade spoke a great deal about mobility. Which bits of the Budget does he think will encourage mobility? I agree that we should be looking for new schemes for redundancy and for new training, but are there any such schemes in the Budget or in other current Government policies?
  I should have liked the depreciation allowances to be increased. The President of the Board of Trade turned down the idea of any tax incentives to exports. I do not dissent from that if he is to take other steps to make our exports more efficient. He said that he was to make representations to Japan and Italy because they had been cheating. Can he assure us that the steps taken by the Germans to encourage their exports are according to the rules, because I hear many complaints from manufacturers who think that the Germans go further than the international rules of fair trade allow. I think that it is generally agreed that if other countries subsidise or help their exports, then this is a matter which eventually we too shall have to tackle.
  I should like to refer to the price of British exports. It is sometimes said that our costs cannot be too high because we sell goods abroad. Ex hypothesi, they cannot be too high in relation to those goods which we sell; but we have to consider the goods which we do not sell. It is the dogs which do not bark

  1195
  in the night which are interesting, and we ought not to be complacent about export costs.
  This is the moment for tackling many of the structural weaknesses in our economy. These weaknesses are most easily tackled when there is some slack in the economy. The lesson of the Amory era is that when things begin to go better, the Government should not sit back and let them take their course but should try to eliminate the structural weaknesses which are sure to recur.
  I turn now to the fiscal proposals in the Budget and I start with Schedule A. I cannot help smiling about what the Chancellor said about Schedule A. Year after year the Liberal Party has asked the Government to abolish Schedule A. We have been met with the most adament arguments and year after year we have been voted down. This goes back for many years, possibly even before the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) entered Parliament. We are now told that the abolition of Schedule A is to do with the rating revaluation. There has been a revaluation in Scotland, as one hon. Member pointed out. With a certain charm, the President of the Board of Trade laughed that off and said that he had either forgotten about it, or that Scotland could not be treated alone. But if the Chancellor is to tell us one or two or three years ahead, I do not see why our fears should not have been set at rest one or two or three years ago when the Scottish revaluation took place. The Government could then have announced that they were to abolish Schedule A. But are they really to abolish it and, if so, why have they not done so at once?
  The same criticism applies to the corporation tax, which I welcome, but I do not believe that the chances of getting a succesful company tax are enhanced by peddling the idea around the City of London. That is certain to increase the amount of criticism. If the Chancellor is convinced that it is sensible, let him have consultation by all means, but let him remember that this is the tenth year of Tory Government and that if they have not made up their mind about it now, it is high time they did.
  1196
  I am not against the Government having economic regulators, but I am against their being regularly built into the system of taxation with a new regulator put on top of that. We all know that all taxes in this country start as temporary taxes for one purpose and become permanent taxes for another. I am afraid that that is the fate of the regulator and I cannot welcome it.
  We have had the refusal to discriminate between tobacco used for pipes and cigars and that used fox cigarettes. The reason we were given was that some people would roll their own cigarettes. In this matter I am on the side of Lord Hailsham and not of the Chancellor. I think that the House ought to take steps to make smoking, which is clearly very dangerous, less attractive and more expensive, and even if there were large-scale evasion, I still believe that there should be some discrimination between tobacco used for pipes and cigars and that used for cigarettes. When I consider what the Government have done with Schedule A, the tobacco tax and the regulator, I ask whether this is an example of consistent Tory policy in economic affairs.
  Then in the year when everybody is trying to stop people smoking, especially young people, the Government elect to put a tax on sweets.
  There is no sign in the Budget of a move towards a simplification of the tax system. There are trinkets in plenty, enough to please even the Leader of the House. But as for any sign of a consistent policy to tackle the sluggishness of our economy and to get rid of the stops and starts, which everybody agrees have bedevilled the country since the war, and of any radical consistent policy to tackle the real needs of the economy, in this Budget there is none.
  6.0 p.m.
  Sir Alexander Spearman: I do not on this occasion find myself in any great measure of agreement with the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), but I will not try to follow him today, because I was so provoked by the speech of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), who opened the debate, that I should like to spend all the time that the Committee can bear with me on his speech.

  1197
  The hon. Gentleman made the assertion that this country had progressed very badly economically compared with other countries in Europe, and he went on to claim that under a Socialist Government that would be remedied. I want to examine that assertion and that claim. Of course, I quite agree with him that growth of capacity to produce is all important, and that our rate of growth is not sufficiently high today, but the picture which he gave us was, I believe, an entirely false one. If he will refer to the O.E.C.D. Report about which he spoke, he will see that the annual rate of growth between 1950 and 1960 in Belgium and the United Kingdom was just under 3 per cent., in the United States it was just 3 per cent., and in Sweden, Norway and Denmark it was just over 3 per cent. Therefore, there is not more than a half per cent. difference. It was only in France, with 4½ per cent., and in Germany, with 7½ per cent., that there was a very marked difference.
  Comparisons with these countries is quite unfair. It seems to be forgotten that this country led the world in new industrial processes and in redeployment of labour. Now, other countries, long afterwards, are doing what we did long ago, and they are now getting the advantages which we achieved a long time ago. They have today a vast pool of labour to draw upon, and again, to quote paragraph 21 of the O.E.C.D. Report:
  "But, unlike many of the European countries, industry and services in the United Kingdom have had no large pool of under-employed workers in agriculture to draw upon."
  I believe that in Germany 30 per cent. of the population work on the land, most of them on very small inefficient farms, whereas here the proportion is under 5 per cent., and therefore there is nothing like the same reserve to draw upon. Secondly, countries which have been industrialised for a long time have built up their services far more, and it is not possible to increase production in services to anything like the same scale as in manufacturing industry. Also we must remember that we are bearing quite a disproportionate burden of defence.
  Actually, "stagnant Britain," as the hon. Gentleman described it, is still providing a higher standard of living than
  1198
  anywhere in Europe, and the remarkable thing, when we consider the resources of other countries compared with our own, is not that our standard is so low, but that it is higher than others. Actually, the rate of growth in this country is about double what it was before the war, or just about the same as it has been in the United States throughout the last fifty years.
  Now, I should like to come to the hon. Gentleman's remedies.
  Mr. Douglas Houghton: My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) has gone out for a few minutes. The hon. Gentleman was kind enough to tell him that he would make reference to his speech, and a message has gone out to my hon. Friend, and I hope he will be here in a moment or two.
  Sir A. Spearman: Perhaps tomorrow the hon. Gentleman will read what I have said and he can discuss it with me later on.
  He started off by saying that the first remedy was that investment should be far bigger and better. Actually, investment has a much smaller effect on growth than is always realised. If the hon. Gentleman will look at the Blue Book for 1960, he will see that industrial investment other than housing doubled in the last ten years, but the rate of growth of capacity only grew from 2½ to 3¼ per cent., and I would estimate that if, by some miracle, we were able to push up industrial investment by 50 per cent. next year, it would still only push up the rate of growth by less than a half per cent., because this new investment is such a very small proportion of existing investment.
  As a matter of fact, as my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade said today, the record is not anything of which we should be ashamed. Investment in private manufacturing industry last year was 20 per cent. over 1960, and 42 per cent. over 1959. The hon. Gentleman implied that there was more and better investment in Germany, and I think that that may be true, but in Germany they are not handicapped by having huge nationalised industries in which investment takes place at a very low rate of interest. In that country, the criterion is profitability, and, of course, they do better.
  Mr. Nabarro: Very wise.
  Sir A. Spearman: In that country also, there are far more savings, and after all, how much we save must be a limiting factor on investment. In Germany today, they are consuming 57 per cent. of the national income, compared with 66 per cent. in this country. Why is that? The reason is that there is quite a different distribution of wealth. I am not regretting our distribution in any way, but I am saying that it is quite clear that those with small incomes do not save at the rate of those with big incomes. In this country, four-fifths of the spending is done by people with £20 a week or under, and I would ask the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East, if he were here, what he would do about this. Would he propose to cut investment in the nationalised industries so as to get a better rate elsewhere, or does he propose to cut taxation on the rich and put it on the poor in order to get more savings? The conclusion I draw is that investment, though it is am important one, is not the main obstacle to expansion, and that we should do a great deal worse under Labour.
  The hon. Gentleman also wanted planned expansion. In so far as he means that we should have a greater exchange of information, and co-ordination of projects, of course, I agree with him, and that is why my right hon. Friend has set up the N.E.D.C. If he means a precise ordering by the Government of what should be produced and where it should be produced, I emphatically say "No". I believe that only an authoritarian Government can do that, because it has to have the control to be able to force people to consume that which is produced, instead of what they want. It means going back to the rationing we had during the war—unless, of course they are absolutely infallible in their judgment, and I do not think that anybody would accuse hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite of that.
  Judgment is a very elusive quality. In this country, we are singularly blessed with senior civil servants who are men of immense industry and intelligence, who are entirely disinterested, and who advise the Government very well on general policy, but when it comes to particular projects, it seems to me that
  1200
  the businessman, with his pocket at stake, somehow or other has the faculty of judging better what the public want.
  That much respected trade union leader, Mr. George Woodcock, in a recent article in the Statist, said:
  "The Government rely too much on general remedies. What the trade unions want—"
  and I suggest that he was speaking for the Labour Party in this—
  "—are specific solutions for particular problems."
  I believe that attempting piecemeal solutions always creates more problems than they cure. I think that that was what the late Sir Stafford Cripps was saying when, towards the end of the time that he was Chancellor, he said that they had been trying to deal with the situation by a series of temporary expedients, which led to a series of crises as each expedient became exhausted.
  Then, the hon. Gentleman, like the Leader of the Opposition last night, wanted to create more demand in order to get more production. It is only possible to push up production by the amount of the growth in capacity, plus the slack on the economy. In 1959 production went up by 9 per cent. and the slack in the economy came down from 7 per cent to 1½ per cent. In 1951 production was pushed up until there was no slack at all. There was a sharp rise in prices, and a balance of payments crisis. In 1955 the same thing happened. In 1960 nearly the same thing happened.
  In 1958, we had between 5 and 7 per cent. surplus capacity. Then we had stable prices, and no mass unemployment. It is, I think, generally accepted—indeed, the Leader of the Opposition repeated it last night—that if incomes rise more than production—and incomes means wages because wages and salaries comprise 93 per cent. of incomes—then inflation is certain. I think that inflation is certain if there is no slack in the economy, because production cannot go on rising at that rate when the slack is taken up, but incomes do go on rising.
  When every industrialist can sell everything he produces there is not sufficient competition. As a result, these things happen. First, wages go up, because the industrialist knows that with no competition he can put the cost on to the price of the article he sells. I

  1201
  do not believe that wages go up excessively because of the militancy of trade unionists at all. Wages have gone up in domestic service, and there are no unions there. Pay has gone up in the Services, and there are no unions there. I believe that wages go up because employers prefer to give more rather than have trouble—when they can put the increased cost on to the price of what they sell—and they are particularly likely to give more when they want more men. Therefore, if there is no competition, wages are bound to go up.
  Secondly, we get a hoarding of labour, because when employers see excessive demand they keep labour which others want to insure their future requirements. Thirdly, in their investments they aim much more at the sort of investment that maximises the amount of production rather than the sort of investment that minimises the cost, and I believe that it is the cost that is the more important. Fourthly, in conditions of excessive demand, there is tremendous encouragement for the inefficient to stay in industry. I am sure that industry in this country is efficient in many places, but there are many inefficient units which, if there had not been excessive demand in the last ten years, would have been forced out of business. Inflation is rather like other stimulants. It is exceedingly agreeable when it is first imbibed. Profits and wages go up, and so does production for a time, but I would not recommend any hon. Member however pleasant it may be for an hour or two, to drink three bottles of champagne, and I think that the same applies to inflation in industry.
  I have tried to make some comments on the hon. Gentleman's remedy for our present situation, and now I should like to suggest some more realistic remedies. The Government sometimes have to take measures which have the result of checking production for a time, but they do not have to take measures—and are not doing so—to check the expansion of the growth of capacity. I think that hon. Gentlemen opposite often get confused between production and the growth of capacity to produce.
  The one has to be checked and the other we must push on all we can. I believe that we shall get growth at a
  1202
  higher rate if we can get rid of some of these restrictive practices that cost so much. I recognise that this is only partly the Government's job. I believe that we should get a quicker rate of growth if only we could get the men to work more shifts—as they do on the Continent—and so make more use of existing investment; and, above all, if we could get more mobility of skilled labour.
  The National Institute in a recent article suggested that to get full capacity in the engineering industry 300,000 more men were required. Here I think that the Government could do more than they do in the way of training. Paragraph 57 of the O.E.C.D. Report says:
  "There is a wide field over which official action can be intensified to increase the mobility of labour. These must include better training facilities, the modification of certain apprenticeship arrangements and other restrictive practices and the provision of financial incentives and special housing facilities to workers changing jobs."
  I hope that my right hon. Friends will study that part of the Report very carefully.
  Above all, the real responsibility of the Government is to keep the economy going at the right speed. It is not the motorist who goes flat out at 100 m.p.h. and then has to jam on the brakes who gets there quickest. Being a democracy, the Government cannot command employers where and what to produce. They cannot command workers what they should receive and where they should work, and being mortal they cannot command universal altruism—that is why I never have much faith in all these exhortations, whether they are to management or workers. But what the Government can do is to create conditions where it pays the citizen to do what is in the interests of the State, and particularly they can create sufficient competition.
  What are the prospects of an equilibrium which will produce competition? On the demand side, if my right hon. and learned Friend is right in anticipating that spending will go up by 4 per cent.—and I think that it may well do—and if he gets an increase in exports of £200 million—and I must warn my right hon. and leaned Friend that, tremendously vital as it is that we should increase exports, they push up demand just as much as anything else and we

  1203
  could have a situation where exports went up splendidly and brought about no solution if this were not countered by other measures—and if we get the increase in Government expenditure that we have been told to expect, and we get an increase on balance in investment, I calculate that demand at the end of the year will be up by £800 million to £900 million. On the supply side I think that there is a good prospect of production going up by about £800 million, or 3½ per cent., but I do not think that it can go up much more. That is why I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend is right both in having a standstill Budget this time and in giving himself the reserve of the regulator, which I rather think he will have to use.
  My right hon. and learned Friend is often criticised, and not only by hon. Gentlemen opposite, for not doing more for exports. I have not much faith in these fancy incentives. I realise that in an emergency they may be necessary, but the things that one does in an emergency are not generally good for health. The real way to help exports is to keep down costs and stop having an easy home market to absorb too much, and this is what my right hon. and learned Friend is doing. If there is excessive demand in this country, a balance of payments crisis is certain, and I can think of no industrial country in recent years which has had a balance of payments crisis except when it has had inflation at home.
  Mr. McMaster: Does not my hon. Friend think that a balance of payments crisis might be caused by a lack of reserves rather than by the reasons he gave?
  Sir A. Spearman: As in private life, reserves will help for only a limited time. If one spends more than one earns, no amount of reserves will see one out for ever.
  I conclude by commenting on the tough policy which I support, and which I know my right hon. and learned Friend has the courage to carry out. It will mean that some people will lose profits. It may mean that some businesses will have to close down if they have not been able to put their houses in order—and instead of subsidising declining industries
  1204
  surely it is much better to spend money retraining and planning transfers to the expanding industries. It may mean that some people will have to change their jobs, and some unofficial strikers may well find themselves without a job. In the case of those people who, through not fault of their own, have to look for other jobs, I ask the Chancellor to consider whether it would not be worth while to increase their unemployment pay for the period during which they are looking for other work.
  Those are the costs. I now come to the rewards. There will be great opportunities to earn more in wages and in profits; there will be price stability, and room for exports. Above all, I believe this to be the way in which we could maximise the rate of growth of capacity. I believe that the success of the Government's economic policy will depend largely upon their ability to judge the speed at which they ought to drive the economy, and upon their determination to persevere in those measures which will maintain that speed.
  6.20 p.m.
  Mr. Joseph Slater: The House always listens with great interest to the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Sir A. Spearman) in these debates, and I was very interested in his speech today. He said that he would attempt to answer the questions posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan). Although my hon. Friend is absent at the moment, I have no doubt that he will give consideration to the hon. Member's speech.
  During the course of his remarks, it passed through my mind that the people who come from the North-East are well aware of the fact that at least part of his constituency of Scarborough and Whitby has been seriously affected by unemployment. In spite of that fact, only one sentence in the whole of his speech referred to this fact—when he asked the Chancellor to consider increasing unemployment benefit.
  Sir A. Spearman: Few constituencies depend more than mine does upon the prosperity of the whole country, and it is that desirability which I must always advocate.
  Mr. Slater: I am always prepared to accept that from the hon. Member, but

  1205
  I should have thought that he would give support to Members representing North-East constituencies who have been agitating for the direction of industry to the North-East, in order to ease the unemployment there.
  I was also interested in the speech of the President of the Board of Trade. In his opening remarks he drew attention to the Press publicity given to the Budget. He told us that the Press had referred to it, first, as a standstill Budget and, secondly, as a "lollipop" Budget. When the Labour Government were in office I well remember hon. Members opposite, who were then in Opposition, directing their attacks upon the Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer and referring to him as "Austerity" Cripps. The present Tory Chancellor will go down in history as the "Lollipop" Chancellor.
  The President of the Board of Trade also said that hon. Members on this side of the Committee did not like the form of society in which hon. Members opposite believed. How true that is! The policy of the party opposite has always been, "For he that hath, to him shall be given: and he that hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he hath and given to him that hath." Hon. Members on this side of the Committee seek to raise the standards of the ordinary people and give them a greater opportunity for the development of their personalities and their qualifications within society.
  We listened very patiently to the Chancellor's speech. I, together with many other hon. Members, hoped that he would put forward a set of proposals designed to assist this country to get out of its present serious position. If the Chancellor believes that by easing Purchase Tax on certain goods and placing a 15 per cent. tax on confectionery he will find favour with the country he is in for a shock. We have become accustomed to the Government's changing their mind and their tactics from one Budget to another, and from one year to the next, in relation to investment, credit, the Bank Rate, income and even taxation. In February last year there was an increase in contributions but in April concessions were announced for Surtax payers. Three months later, in July, we had a higher Bank Rate, with higher prices,
  1206
  a slow-down in our investments, and a clamp-down on wage increases.
  I ask the Chancellor and the Government how we can expect industry to plan ahead with any assurance when the signs and forecasts put out by the Chancellor are no more reliable than those of his predecessor. The effect of the Government's policies on the workers is merely to cause a lot more irritation. They regard it as a positive punishment. Last year industry was asked to limit its dividends, and the workers were asked to do without wage increases. What justice was there in this? Dividends can be put into cold storage and paid out later, but wage increases which are denied are lost for ever; they are not merely deferred. If the Chancellor wants to convince the nation that we are in such a serious position that every effort must be directed towards attaining solvency he must abandon his scheme for giving free gifts to the Surtax payers.
  As was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East, those who earn about £20 a week have had transferred to their shoulders a much heavier burden than those who have higher incomes. It must be understood that the reason for so much criticism being directed against the Government on this occasion is their lack of consideration for the less fortunate sections of our society.
  Another factor which has aroused criticism is the capital gains tax. When hon. Members visit their constituencies workers rightly ask how it comes about that overtime continues to be taxed while capital gains are not. Why cannot such gains be taxed over a long period? Why does the Chancellor not take his courage in both hands and do this? If the country is in such a bad state we cannot be allowed to run away from our responsibilities.
  I have always held the view that if the necessity for taxation was properly presented to the people, and if each section was called upon to bear a proper share of responsibility, everybody would agree with the measures that were taken. I have always taken great pride in the attitude adopted by the Labour Government from 1945 to 1951. I was not in the House from 1945 to 1950, but I know that during that

  1207
  period it was because the Labour Government took the people into their confidence that they were able to get the increase in productivity for which they asked. Quite apart from all the assistance and the aid which was given us from various channels, if we had not had that increased productivity we might not have been able to carry on. I believe that if we do not take the people into our confidence regarding the position, and the reason why we find ourselves in such a position, we shall not get the support which we ought to have.
  If we are to be realistic, in view of the great changes taking place in the world, the economy of the country must be planned and regulated; otherwise, in my opinion, it cannot work satisfactorily. We must realise that "John Citizen" is tired of hearing such slogans as "Double your standard of living in twenty-five years" or of being told that within a period of time workers will be receiving wages of up to £1,000 a year. We have listened to such platitudes for too long. They have become stale and today we require action. The burden on the workers has not been eased by the policies adopted during the last eleven years. If production is to increase and industry expand, the workers must be given an opportunity to counsel their own opinions to a greater extent than in the past. There are many able scientists and technologists in industry who could make a great contribution were they given the opportunity.
  Let us not forget that too many men have been out of work for too long. In certain areas the figure of unemployment is high and it persists. People are never free from the fear of redundancy and of becoming unemployed. Many people in the North-East have this fear. Undoubtedly that state of affairs will continue for longer than we desire. Surely it is better social and economic sense to draft new industries to areas where jobs are scarce than to transfer them to areas which are congested and where homes are scarce and rents are high.
  Today we require energy and imagination to be used in industry as much as at any time in history. If we are to
  1208
  boost our standard of living in a competitive world, we must also boost our exports. As an industrial nation we cannot live on the achievements of the past. We need new incentives and a more dynamic approach. The greatness of the past will not attract orders in the present, or bolster up our economy. Today an impressive transformation is taking place in the economic structure of Europe and we can play an important part in that without detriment to our wider obligations.
  It is known that the Federation of British Industries was not happy about the export position. It was less happy about the business situation in the country than it was four months previous to its report being made. For the first time since October, 1958, more firms reported a fall in output rather than a rise, and more firms reported that they were working below full capacity.
  What have the Government done about this? Surely they ought to know what is happening. They cannot shelve the responsibility. How can we achieve expansion in industry under such circumstances? Within the last eighteen months the Government have, as it were, torn up the agreements on service and wage rates without considering the result of such an action. Whatever may be said to the contrary, the action of the Government towards the machinery and procedure of negotiations built up over the last forty years has resulted in the whole set-up being shattered.
  How often have we spoken about the rule of law. What sort of rule of law is it which justifies a Government, as the employer, suspending the operation of procedures to which by signature, honour and long practice they are bound? If ever Governments made blunders, the Tory Governments which have been elected since 1959 have done so. And what was it with which those Governments were attempting to deal? It was a recession, something which time and again we have been told did not exist. The facts reveal the sickness in our economy. During eleven years of Tory Government we have seen Chancellor after Chancellor confronted with a crisis. One Tory Chancellor resigned from office but drifted back again into the Government. Faced with a position

  1209
  of their own creation they told us that they had taken steps to stabilise the economy.
  First there was the restraint on wages, coupled with the rejection of pay awards to which I have referred already. If the wheels of industry are to keep turning and men are to be retained in employment, there must be a proper balance in industry and this can be achieved only by planning. I know that the expression has not been favoured in the past especially by the supporters of a Tory Government. But now they are bending over backwards to establish a planned position. The operation of the steel industry has been reported to be down to 77 per cent. of capacity and the number of cars exported has fallen during the last few years. But we are told that there is no recession.
  I ask any hon. Member to examine any of the durable trades and it will be found that redundancy is rampant and this is spreading to the consumer trades. I know that hon. Members opposite take pride in advocating Tory freedom and the way in which it is said to work. But never have we been faced with such a degree of complacency as has existed during the last eleven years and particularly since the last General Election.
  Whenever we have reached a position where there were no longer too many men pursuing too few jobs we have been confronted with a foreign exchange crisis. The Chancellor ought to take note that this Budget will not result in the provision of more jobs on Tees-side or in Scotland or elsewhere in the North-East, because more men are being thrown out of work. More men have received their notices at Dorman Long in the Middlesbrough area. Unemployment is running at 6 per cent. in the Hartlepools up to Middlesbrough and down to Stockton, where there was a by-election last week. The electorate there gave their answer to the Tory Government. If this high rate of unemployment persists on Tees-side, I have great fear for our people there.
  We have had an attitude displayed to us over the last two years by the present Tory Chancellor of no easement or advantages being meted out to the ordinary people of society. That has not been granted to them, but assistance
  1210
  and support can be directed and given in aid to those who are in a better position than the ordinary members of society. To them Tory Chancellors have directed aid. I sincerely hope that, irrespective of what might happen in the next Tory Chancellor's statement before the next General Election, the people will remember what the attitude of the Government has been for the last two or three years.
  6.41 p.m.
  Mr. Frank Taylor: I crave the indulgence which the House and this Committee so generously bestow on an hon. Member making his first speech. In optimistic anticipation of receiving that preferential treatment, I wish to thank hon. Members very much indeed. I am as grateful as they themselves were on the day when they made their maiden speeches.
  I thank you, Sir James, for giving me the opportunity to take part in this debate. I wish to respect the precedents of the House and, in consequence, so far as possible my speech will be politically non-contentious. I do not intend, except in passing, to refer to the various details of the proposals in the Budget. Otherwise I should be led into contentious matters. I wish to get back to basic principles which should be kept in mind in relation to direct taxation in which I am interested at the moment.
  In considering fiscal policy, I am sure the Committee will be with me in agreeing that it should be efficient, economic and effective, I have no doubt that every hon. Member will agree that it is a good thing to promote enthusiasm for earning money. There is also an equal or even a greater need to encourage the promotion of a prosperous community, but these two needs do not necessarily ride together for the simple reason that some ways of making money may not help the economy. It is perhaps appropriate to ask just how far do the economic circumstances in which we live and present-day taxation go towards encouraging these two important national needs—to earn more and to prosper the community.
  Direct taxation is considered by many taxpayers to be penal, and I think that myself. The burden has been considerably reduced since the war, nevertheless the present rates are still considered by

  1211
  many to be quite unwarranted and to provide a brake on both enthusiasm and initiative. When taxation is considered to be too high, one of the certain outcomes is that far more effort is put into the procuring of tax-free income because of the enormous inroads which taxation makes into tax income. That is one of the problems we are running into today. The greater an income the greater the proportion of tax payable on it. This can still rise to as much as 17s. 9d. in the £ on part of that income. As incomes rise there is an increasing proportionate difference between the net income after tax and the gross income if the source is tax-free.
  Where, then, lies the inducement for man to devote all his energies voluntarily and full time to his basic employment when the harder he works and the more he earns the greater the impact of taxation upon every extra £ he earns? A compelling natural inclination is generated to search for tax-free revenue in all classes of society. I wish to consider three instances. The first is a very comfortably-off single business owner or high executive who earns perhaps £10,000 a year. Even with the new Surtax benefits, which he will not recover until next year, he will suffer direct taxation of approximately £4,000. He is left with less than £6,000. We are putting him in the position in which he seeks to find income outside which is not taxable. Which hon. Members of this House would prefer £6,000 to £10,000? The inference is obvious. This class of citizen includes a proportion who spend one or two days a week on other pursuits, studying form either on the Stock Exchange, on the race course, or elsewhere. In doing so they are neglecting their own basic business in which they are specially trained and in which they are expert. There is a diminution in the personal productivity of the business in which they are trained and in which they could be most productive. They personally gain, and few can blame them, but the country suffers.
  Another class to whom I refer are craftsmen, that section of workmen of which the country is so desperately in need and so desperately short. This type of workman fights, and often strikes, for shorter working hours. The reason often is not so much that he
  1212
  wants to work fewer hours but that with a five-day week and an earlier knocking-off time he is able to find part-time jobs outside his normal business, and very often outside his trade. He is not interested if that part-time work is on a P.A.Y.E. basis. The part-time remuneration must be tax-free.
  The third class is the class of the community who one might say have not joined the Income Tax club and have no intention of joining. A man with three children can earn nearly £14 a week without paying Income Tax. Some of these men feel they do not want to pay Income Tax, which they think unfair.
  In all these three classes we have a reduction of productivity in the business in which they are most expert. We should carefully consider the root cause of this restriction of labour and output in these classes. Basically, it is because direct taxation is too high. The average man thinks this. When such a situation is found to exist a breach of the law is not looked upon as serious, and evasion is even considered by many to be clever, especially if it is legal evasion.
  A law must not only be good and sound, but must also be seen to be good and acknowledged to be sound in order to be fully effective. Clearly what is needed is a fiscal system which will lead, not drive, away from the pursuit of tax-free sources and towards encouraging a full week's work in basic employment. This will be achieved only by making it advantageous and attractive to the worker and not by compulsion. Taxing some speculative gains is a welcome and interesting provision in the Budget and will go some way towards what we want to achieve. This is making tax-free gains less attractive, but I believe this, although sound and equitable in principle, is tackling things rather the wrong way round.
  We need to make direct taxation less oppressive, to lighten its impact upon the Friday's pay packet or the monthly cheque, to allow the worker or the executive to take home more of what he earns. In this way he will be much more likely to be enthused to work harder and discouraged from seeking tax-free earnings to the detriment of his own business. This is what the country and our economy need as a spur to extra productivity.

  1213
  I appreciate that the immediate riposte to be expected from the Treasury is that we cannot afford the loss of revenue resulting from reduced direct taxation, but I think it possible that a loss of revenue would not necessarily result. At present, on personal earnings of about £23,000 million tax amounts to £2,100 million, and on company profits of £3,300 million tax amounts to £1,100 million. If direct taxation is cut by 5 per cent. the immediate and initial cost to the revenue will be about £160 million, but it is certain that there will immediately be a trend towards additional productivity which must provide additional taxable income which will result overnight because tax is reduced.
  We know the law of diminishing returns which the Chancellor risks bringing into operation every time he increases the duty on such things as beer, tobacco and fur coats, but there is also the law of increasing returns which is likely to come into force if we reduce direct taxation and which is likely to produce revenue which will offset the amount of the reduction. If, for instance, a 5 per cent. reduction in direct taxation encouraged a 5 per cent. increase in productivity, as I think it would, earnings throughout the country would increase by £1,300 million, which is an enormous achievement. I am sure that it is easily within the capacity of the people of this country to uplift their productivity by 5 per cent. We should earn another £1,300 million, and the extra tax on that would be about £170 million at present rates. It would more than cover the cost of reducing taxation by 5 per cent. If one had a 10 per cent. tax reduction and achieved 10 per cent. extra productivity, the position would be the same in that savings would outweigh the cost of the tax reduction.
  This suggestion, if implemented, could mean that personal and company incomes could be uplifted considerably without any extra tax being payable on it at all. The extra earnings would be tax-free, in effect. In one single act and without any loss of revenue, we might well be able to put this country's productivity back on its feet, which is the overriding need, to bring back a much-overdue desire of willingness to do a day's work for a day's pay and at the
  1214
  same time to clamp down upon the unhealthy scramble for tax-free earnings.
  I do not suggest a hazardous slash in direct taxation as a highly speculative venture. What I suggest is a modest excursion into taking the people into our confidence. We could say to them, "Here is a 5 per cent. tax reduction as an experiment. We expect extra productivity, but if we do not get it we may have to reimpose that tax. If we get it, you may keep the tax reduction and we shall go further with the experiment."
  Surely this is worth trying. Surely with proper presentation and efficient salesmanship it could succeed. It could well provide the means by which the taxpayer is encouraged into a partnership with the Chancellor—an extraordinary situation, but it could happen —a partnership in which the taxpayer has every encouragement to earn more, all to his own personal gain, and a partnership which would be of clear benefit to the national economy. A very honourable Member of the House once said, "Trust the people". I believe that if we went out to the country with a proposal on the lines of my thoughts, the people would respond. I believe that it might well set the spark to the imagination and begin what we all need—the rejuvenation of the idea of making money and putting the economy on its feet.
  We shall, of course, never have taxpayers elbowing one another aside in a scramble to pay their taxes quickly, but we could well move a step or two in the direction of achieving a state of painless extraction and at the same time bring about an uplift in productivity. It is with these reasons in mind, but with considerable diffidence, that I have put my views before the House.
  6.53 p.m.
  Mr. A. Woodburn: It is always an honour and a pleasure to have the duty of conveying the compliments and congratulations of hon. and right hon. Members to an hon. Member who speaks for the first time in this Chamber. It is an additional pleasure in this case, because the hon. Member for Manchester, Moss Side (Mr. F. Taylor) has contributed quite a number of new ideas and has brought a freshness of outlook which sometimes is not present. Listening to him, I felt quite sure that when he speaks

  1215
  in other circumstances he will find that this kind of speech provokes all sorts of responses and thinking on the part of other hon. Members. No doubt they will want to debate the matters with him. But today he is free from any danger of controversy. Nevertheless, it is a good thing when the House receives a new Member who is prepared to contribute new thoughts, even though other hon. Members may wish to dispute them.
  I was interested in quite a number of the things which he said and I hope that the Government will take note of them and will give them consideration. I am sorry that the Chancellor has no faith in standard economics, because he does not believe in diminishing returns. For example, he does not believe that penal taxation on cigarettes or even the cancer threat in respect of cigarettes will reduce their consumption, for I notice that he expects exactly the same income next year from cigarette taxation as he received this year. That seems to me in some ways to be a tragedy, but it shows that the Chancellor is contemptuous of all medical opinion on the subject and that he knows quite well that people will continue to smoke as before, even though they may stop for a couple of weeks. That seems a terrible thing in view of all the medical opinion which has been offered to the Government.
  I am sure that the Chancellor feels grateful that his colleagues are so satisfied with what he has done. The President of the Board of Trade, who is in charge of our economic health, is the most soothing physician I have ever met. Even though the patient is dying, even while Scotland is having limbs cut off—the North British Locomotive Company is an example—according to the President of the Board of Trade it is all for the patient's good. The right hon. Gentleman nearly convinced me. I have never heard such a sweet, soothing doctor treating a patient in my life. Everything was satisfactory with the patient's health, he said. He was calm and he was soothing, and he said that the patient need not bother at all. I think that that was a little too much even from the right hon. Gentleman, who naturally was satisfied with the wonderful efforts which he feels that he has made.
  1216
  I turn to the Chancellor's speech yesterday. Seldom have I heard anyone speak for so long while saying so little in respect of contributing any solution to our problems. He spoke long enough and gave very little away. In effect he said, "Do not work hard for anything this year. Wait until the election year, and then you will have all the bonuses. There will be bonuses next year, just before the election."
  Mr. G. R. Mitchison: It will be too late.
  Mr. Woodburn: This is one of the things which is hindering the economy. It is driven with the foot either violently on the brake or violently on the accelerator. This type of driving is very bad for the economy. The Chancellor said that what we needed was steady progress, but we cannot have steady progress if the brakes are being put on hard one minute and the accelerator is being pushed down hard the next minute. That gives nobody an opportunity to plan. In spite of all those who have objected to planning, how anybody can run a business without planning is more than I can understand. How a Government can expect to run a country without planning is beyond my comprehension.
  The Chancellor promised next year to abolish certain things, including Schedule A, and this seems to me to be holding out a carrot to keep people living in hopes. In this respect he may have misjudged the type of animal which the British public is, because I dc not believe that the British public will fall for this kind of trickery—which is what it amounts to—every time. The people have fallen for it once or twice, but there is a saying that they will not be misled all the time.
  While I am talking about zoological matters, I should like to inquire into some Budget effects on other animals. One of the most interesting proposals is the tax on speculation. We have been assured that it is not a capital gains tax but that it will deal with speculators. I want to ask the President of the Board of Trade how it affects three kinds of speculator who seemed to me to get away with the profits—bulls, bears, and stags. Does this tax on speculators apply to each of that type? First we have the person who is not using any

  1217
  money but is buying shares, never transferring them to anybody and selling them the next day or the next week; he gets away with a handsome profit without spending a penny of his money and without even transferring the shares.
  The next category is the bear. Bears do not make a profit by selling shares. They make a profit by buying shares. They sell shares when they have not got them, and they buy them back in order to deliver them on the settling date. Does the Chancellor's announcement apply to the bears? What about the stags? When companies issue stock, and that stock is bought up by people who do not want the stock but wish to sell on a rising market, they get away with the profit. I am not sure if they need to transfer the shares or whether they come through the normal channels. These three categories seem to me to make quick ready profits and if the speculative tax deals with them, whatever else it does, it seems to me to be a tax which is justified and to be applied to the proper people.
  Mr. Erroll: Bulls and bears art caught.
  Mr. Woodburn: What about stags?
  Mr. Erroll: I understand that in appropriate circumstances stags are also caught.
  Mr. Woodburn: I shall be very interested to watch this tax as it develops. My predecessor Joe Westwood used to say that a man who bet and did not know the winner was a fool but the man who bet and knew the winner was a rogue. There are many people who operate in this sort of market, who know the result and who are not speculating. They are betting on certainties, and some are even capable of rigging the market in order to make a profit. As a matter of fact, if I may refer to another country for a moment, it is said that one of the invasions during the Russian Revolution was financed by spreading different rumours every day on the Stock Exchange, thus enabling enough shares to be sold in order to pay the whole cost of the invasion.
  If the Chancellor intends to deal with some of the people who manipulate the market I support him, even though it is only the thin end of the wedge. It has been said that history is full of thin ends
  1218
  of wedges that are never driven home. This may be the thin end of a wedge that may never be driven home. In fact, if it fails it will be an excuse for doing away with it. On the other hand, if it succeeds it will be a thin end of the wedge and it may be that the City is crowing too soon and too much over what is likely to happen in the future, because if the Treasury finds a tax that works, it has a tendency to work on it and improve it. I can see that we are in for another twenty years of legal juggling to see how it is possible to avoid being caught by this tax while the Treasury does its best to catch people.
  However, this tax will catch the small fish only. The people who get away with millions seem to be free from any tax at all. The Chancellor says that he depends upon taxing them in the form of death duties, but they are clever in avoiding the payment of death duties. I can think of the head of a great banking concern and historical house who must have made a lot of money in his day, and yet when he died he left £450. I can think of another similar person who left nothing at all.
  I am glad that the Chancellor is going to do something to catch some of the people who avoid death duties. I think it is rather mean of people to go abroad in order to avoid paying their share towards the defence of this country, but who preach to us about our duty. After all, there are millions of people in this country who cannot avoid paying tax even if they wanted to. P.A.Y.E. ensures that there is no avoidance of tax, and it is mean of a person to whom this country has been rather more generous if he goes abroad to avoid paying his proper share of taxation so that he may leave a large fortune.
  Sir E. Cyril Osborne: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a distinguished member of his own party, who used to lecture us a great deal some years ago, did that same thing? He married a rich American lady and went to Jive on one of the Channel Islands.
  Mr. Woodburn: That does not make it right. I am not saying that all the angels are on this side of the Committee and that all the devils are on the other side.
  The Chancellor was rather amusing yesterday when he said that he was

  1219
  going to take off the 10 per cent. regulator but that he was going to reserve power to impose another regulator next year. He was making the 10 per cent. tax permanent so far as I could gather, and was not taking it off. He was making a permanent tax. I may have been mistaken, but that is how I understood him. I thought it was rather a curious way of removing a tax.
  I think that we all welcome the proposed abolition of Schedule A tax, even though it is going to be in the "never never". I do not think there is any justification for it from the Treasury point of view, and it is certainly an irritating tax which people hate. They dislike filling up the form. Nothing annoys them more than Schedule A tax. Lots of people do not undertand it. Very often they think they have finished with their Income Tax for the year, and then they get a Schedule A demand. It may be all right for accountants, but it is an awful nuisance to ordinary people.
  However, the Chancellor will agree that the removal of Schedule A tax will give owner-occupiers, of whom I am one, a slight advantage because part of our income, the annual value of our houses, will not be taxed. The person who pays rent for a house owned by a private landlord or a local authority will still have his annual value taxed. I am sure that the Chancellor wants to be just, and therefore his next step must be to allow all who pay rent to set their rent as a deduction against tax in order to put them on the same basis as owner-occupiers. That is one thing that the right hon. and learned Gentleman can do if he wants to be fair. Otherwise, he will create a distinction between two groups of the population, which would be undesirable.
  Mr. Nabarro: Would the right hon. Gentleman add to that dissertation on tenants what it would cost the Revenue to give that concession? As, no doubt, he will not know the answer, I will give him the figure—£150 million in a full year.
  Mr. Woodburn: The hon. Gentleman need not get too excited about it. The Government have given away many hundreds of millions a year to people who do not need it, so it would be no disadvantage if we could relieve some of
  1220
  the people who need it. Apart from that, all that this taxation business does is to decide who is going to pay the cost of running the country, and if one person does not pay, somebody else has got to pay. When we talk about reducing Income Tax there always arises the question, who is going to pay? Obviously somebody has got to pay, and all I am saying is that if one set of people is relieved, in justice it is only fair that another set should receive equal relief.
  Mr. F. M. Bennett: Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that owner-occupiers should also have their rates set against Income Tax? Otherwise, unfairness would be created in the opposite direction.
  Mr. Woodburn: The hon. Gentleman is mixing rates and rents. It is the rent on which the net annual value is based and on which Schedule A tax is paid. Net annual value is not based on rates.
  Mr. Bennett: I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was talking about rates.
  Mr. Woodburn: No, rent.
  The hon. Member for Moss Side made some critical suggestions to the Government and I hope that the Chancellor will consider some of the points that the hon. Member raised. This is an occasion on which we appear to have started electioneering two years before the General Election. Apart from that, there is the fundamental need that if this country is to be run successfully, it must be run on an even keel.
  The hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Sir A. Spearman) gave us a very interesting dissertation on all the laws of economics. I agree with him that it is very difficult to interfere with things that are known to work without running the danger of putting other things wrong. It upsets the pattern. I am not disputing that at all. But I think that he is wrong in that he left far too much to the laws of chance—the suggestion that things can be left to private enterprise to develop, and, if they do not then so much the worst. "Create the atmosphere", said the President of the Board of Trade.
  There are some places where that does not work. It does not work in Northern Ireland, in South Wales and in Scotland. A large part of Scotland which he knows very well is likely

  1221
  to become a desert if some Government do not take deliberate action to see that life is made possible in the area where I think he himself has an estate. From there northwards every year there is a procession of the population from the outer islands to the mainland and the towns. This has been going on for thirty or forty years. Before the war, Glasgow had all the unemployed from the highlands and islands inside the City of Glasgow because people preferred to live in a town.
  It is possible to have an interesting life in Scotland. The hon. Member goes there because he can afford to live there. He finds it an interesting place in which to live and there are beautiful places in which to spend his time. There is no reason why industry of some kind should not go there. But it will not go there of its own volition. Industry has to depend on private enterprise. Private enterprise cannot make a profit in the highlands of Scotland, in Ireland, or in some parts of Wales. If industry is to go there it will only be because of some direction or inducement by the Government.
  The Government have accepted this policy. They are spending money in directing the British Motor Corporation to one part of Scotland and Rootes to another part of Scotland and they have also done something to preserve Colvilles. They have been willing to subsidise it in that way, but it is all rather accidental and not part of a comprehensive plan. The need arises and the Government go in to fill it. So far so good, but the Government are not seeing far enough. What will happen if this tendency goes on? Each year 25,000 skilled men leave Scotland to go south. What is the good of cluttering up London and Birmingham with more and more industry? It means increased costs in building great flats and choking up the roads with transport when there is plenty of room in other parts of the country for the development of industry.
  One hon. Member said that this was as easy problem for a dictatorship. That is true. Russia has done a great deal of planning in this way. I have had occasion to visit Spain. Spain has done a great deal of development in this way. It has created a great national company. Spain believes in private enterprise. It has decided to develop a steel works
  1222
  in one place, and an irrigation works in another, and the population should be kept there. It develops works and if they are a success it hands them over to private enterprise to continue to run them. In Spain there is a combination of Government enterprise and private enterprise which is certainly providing industries in many parts of the country.
  France is not a dictatorship in that sense. People may not be aware of what France has done. France has taken the area, from the Camargue near Marseilles and right up the Rhone Valley and has established a great comprehensive scheme of development. I agree that France has sun to a degree that we have not in Scotland, but they have turned land which is not very different from land in Scotland into a veritable garden, and people have moved from the north to the south. When people come from Algeria there will be many farms available for them. It is a completely comprehensive plan, and the children are educated to work in this great scheme. The French planners have broken up the bigger estates into smaller estates and are combining smaller farms to make larger farms.
  They are carrying fertilisers on to the land by irrigation and are developing the whole area in a way which is imaginative and striking. I should like the Government to have someone whose business it is to strike out for an imaginative plan. The Tennessee Valley scheme was based on experience in developing the Rhone Valley. Our country seems to be the only one that does not have an imaginative way of seeing that the country is populated and that people have something to work at instead of being driven from their homes to go into the cluttered up towns in the South and the Midlands. This was the vision that my hon. Friend was trying to put to the Government, that there should be some kind of planning. I believe that it is possible even under the capitalist system and even with a Conservative Government, if they have the will, to provide quite a lot of these things with less resistance than we would have. If they would think out a plan and see that it is carried out they could make a change in the country which would be quite wonderful.
  We in Scotland are not afraid of the Common Market. We can produce

  1223
  quality beef, quality wool, and quality agriculture. There may be some farmers who would suffer, but we have lived off exports all our life and our country will be prepared for it. But we must have assistance from the Government if these parts of the country are to remain alive. I hope that the Government will get down to some sort of comprehensive plan to see what can be done not only to develop London and Birmingham and the industrial parts of the country but to give their assistance so that Wales, Durham, Newcastle, Northern Ireland and other places get a share of the industry of the country as well as a share of the taxation.
  7.9 p.m.
  Mr. Gerald Nabarro: My assessment of my right hon. and learned Friend's Budget speech yesterday must depend on the progress that I think he will make in the forthcoming year towards three indispensable objectives in our national economy. I state these objectives at the outset because I believe that they are of major and fundamental importance. The first is the maintenance and further strengthening of sterling overseas. The second is the enlargement of our national export trade. The third is a further increase in the rate of industrial investment, mostly in the private sector, soundly based on increases in personal savings. I shall deal with these three objectives in turn.
  First, the strength of sterling. Possibly, the most sensational outcome of my right hon. and learned Friend's proposals in his statement to the House on 25th July last has been the fashion in which sterling recovered in a matter of a few weeks. The recovery has been sustained, and, when I compare the strength of sterling with the strength—perhaps, to be more accurate, I should say weakness—of the American dollar and of the principal West European countries, I think that my right hon. and learned Friend has a great deal to congratulate himself upon. The continued strength of sterling must be the most important single factor among economic considerations during the coming year.
  In that connection, I refer to the present level of Bank Rate and the two
  1224
  recent reductions, each of ½ per cent. The present level of 5 per cent. is continuing to attract funds, many of them short-term funds, to the City of London. Having regard to the very large inflow of short-term funds—or hot money, as it is popularly called—during the period between last August and Christmas, and at a diminishing rate since then, I think that the Chancellor's objective should be to endeavour to secure further reductions in Bank Rate and the achievement of a 4 per cent. rate by the end of 1962.
  Sir E. C. Osborne: Much sooner.
  Mr. Nabarro: My hon. Friend says "Much sooner". I do not think so. I consider that these processes should be gradual. I do not believe in large reductions in Bank Rate in a single move any more than I believe in large changes in taxation in a single move, because too much dislocation is caused, thereby. I think that it is better to set the objective as a 4 per cent. Bank Rate by the end of 1962.
  I turn onw to exports. It is true that there has been a marginal increase in the level of our export trade during the past eight months. Similarly, there has been a marginal decline in the value of imports in the same period, and thus a consequential improvement in our balance of payments. But the improvement in exports is not nearly large enough. I confess that, after eight or nine months of earnest study away from the House—this is where the information is really to be derived, in industry and commerce outside the House—I quite recently arrived at the conclusion that we should be forced, before we are much older, to offer some form of fiscal incentive to British exporters.
  The arguments against this have been paraded on innumerable occasions in the House of Commons. Twelve months ago, I declared myself as being, on balance, against a fiscal incentive to exporters. I referred on that occasion to the views of the Federation of British Industries which was said to be against it, of the National Association of British Manufacturers which was said to be against it, of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce which was then said to be against it, and of the Trades Union Congress which was then said to be against it.

  1225
  Opinion has very largely moved in the last twelve months. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, to whose speech I listened intently this afternoon, referred to the practices of the Japanese in tax subsidies for their direct exports. He referred to the practices of the Italians. Deliberately, I think, he omitted a reference to the practices of the West Germans. There is no doubt in my mind that the West Germans are manipulating their turnover tax in a fashion which gives a direct benefit to exporters. I am in no doubt, likewise, that, if we were prepared to change our tax system here and consolidate company taxation and replace various forms of indirect taxation in this country by a turnover tax, we could do the same.
  Mr. Erroll Mr. Erroll indicated assent.
  Mr. Nabarro: I am glad to see that my right hon. Friend nods in agreement. Generally, I am in favour of such a change. If we were prepared to make widespread changes in our tax system, we could give fiscal incentives to exporters.
  However, what I am extremely anxious about is that, if we did pursue a course of this kind—I know that we are still considering the matter—it would lead to a tax relief race among the principal exporters of the world to secure additional markets overseas. All the industrial nations of the world—the United States, West Germany, Italy, France and Japan—are seeking to expand their exports. If we manipulate our tax system in that way, we invite reciprocal tax relief measures for exporters in these other principal competing countries overseas, and, although I wish the matter to be examined further in the period ahead, I believe that we should, before jumping to a quick conclusion that fiscal incentives for exporters are desirable, have regard to the possible consequences following such a policy.
  I make these comments from this side of the Committee in support of the Chancellor because the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) said quite unequivocally, "I believe that there should be a fiscal incentive for exporters." When he reads tomorrow what I have said about it, in which, I believe, I have the concurrence of my
  1226
  Treasury colleagues—[Interruption.]—I want to be on the side of the angels this evening, and I support the Budget, not oppose it—I hope that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East will concede that here is something in my argument.
  I come now to investment. As the Chancellor admitted yesterday, investment in the public sector is high. It is high, of course, because our Conservative Minister control the level of investment year by year in the nationalised industries, and the great bulk of it is being covered this year by the Chancellor's above-the-line surplus. But investment in private manufacturing industry has been retarded in the period since last July, not, I believe, owing to any shortage of funds but, rather, owing to a shortage of confidence in the future about the condition of order books.
  Nothing gives a private manufacturer more confidence to expand his output and invest money in more modern plant and machinery, better buildings and so on than a full order book with the prospect of a fuller order book. That is the dynamic behind investment in the private sector of industry and commerce. But order books are generally not well filled today and productive capacity in British industry is very far from filled. I say to my right hon. and learned Friend in this context that it gives me little joy that the British steel industry today is operating at only 78 per cent. of capacity. I do not want it to be operating at 98 per cent. capacity.
  Mr. E. Fernyhough: Why not?
  Mr. Nabarro: It is too close to the bone. Steel firms cannot maintain good deliveries ranging over a wide diversity of types and specifications of steel if the whole steel industry is operating at 98 per cent. capacity. The optimum, I believe, is 90 per cent. to 92 per cent. of capacity. Today, we are operating the steel industry and many of our basic industries at far below optimum capacity.
  In saying that, I want to impress upon the Chancellor that, though not a critic of what he proposed in his Budget statement yesterday, I believe that the deflationary measures—and they were deflationary—of last July have now gone too far and that, unless measures are taken as a result of this Budget to inject

  1227
  reflationary tendencies into the economy, we may well find ourselves continuing to operate in the next few months at too far below the level of optimum capacity.
  A word now about savings. The Opposition talk endlessly about investment. They very rarely talk about the stable base for new investment, which is savings. I was not particularly impressed by the Chancellor's figures of National Savings during the last twelve months. This is in no way a criticism of the National Savings Movement. It is a criticism of economic conditions which have caused a substantial drop in the level of National Savings from £170 million remaining invested last year to a net figure of new National Savings of £78 million.
  I believe those amounts are not large enough. There is a great reservoir of personal savings still untapped. If the Chancellor wishes to impart stability and combat inflation during the next twelve months, in addition to his fiscal measures which contribute towards that end he should give further and early incentives to a quickening of personal savings not only through the National Savings Movement by an eleventh issue of National Savings certificates, since the tenth issue has now been on sale for nearly six years, but also by giving under the Finance Bill direct incentives through larger Income Tax rebates on premiums for insurance life polices. So much for savings.
  I turn briefly to the Chancellor's fiscal proposals. I have quite a lot to say about various aspects of those. First, I deal with the capital gains tax. It seemed to me that there was a direct contradiction in the speech of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East. On the one hand, he complained that there was insufficient investment. He followed that statement by complaining that a capital gains tax was innocuous, and that the net was not spread wide enough or that the gains were not to be taxed over a long enough period. He cannot have it both ways. Where does the money for new investment come from in this country? It comes only from the stable base to which I referred of genuine personal savings and the investment of those savings generally in the form of risk capital in equities. It is
  1228
  nearly all risk capital. There can be no investment in the Stock Exchange which does not carry with it an element of risk. People invest their savings on the Stock Exchange, rightly and properly, to earn a substantial profit over the years from their investments.
  I am a very bad investor on the Stock Exchange. I am a very bad client of my stockbroker because I very rarely sell. I almost invariably buy. Therefore, I do not operate as frequently as my broker would like, and I am not a very profitable client. But I am a perfect investor. [Laughter.] I am sorry that that should cause mirth. Of course I am the perfect investor. I invest for long-term gain in the bluest of blue chips in British industry. I hold myself out as a model to the investing community. That is the sort of investor we should encourage to put his money into risk capital formation and to finance the expansion of industry. That is why I believe that the statement of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East to the effect that, on the one hand, this capital gains tax is innocuous and, on the other, we have not sufficient investment represents a complete contradiction and ought to be rejected by the Committee.
  For my part, I said to the Chancellor of the Exchequer several weeks ago that I did not necessarily dissent from any move in the Budget to catch the speculative investor who was only investing money very short-term and then selling and seeking to cash in on a substantial profit on stocks and shares or in land or in commodities. I said to my right hon. and learned Friend that if he sought to catch this kind of speculator the legislation should be restricted to three things—stocks and shares, commodities and land—and that it should not be retrospective. It should allow an offset of losses against gains and should be essentially short-term. [Interruption.] He has done the lot. I am delighted with him. He could not have done better. I could not have done better. We are, therefore, at one.
  I believe that the important and serious point about what my right hon. and learned Friend has done is that nothing in his speculative gains tax is likely to dissuade the genuine investor in British industry. That is surely the important point from our point of view.

  1229
  I reject at once what the Institute of Directors had to say about this. I am a member of the Institute of Directors.
  Sir Henry d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: Resign.
  Mr. Nabarro: My hon. Friend says that. I should resign. I am on the Midlands Committee of the Institute in Birmingham.
  Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: Resign from both.
  Mr. Nabarro: I will not consider that.
  I was about to quote from what was said in The Times, which was this:
  "A spokesman for the Institute of Directors said last night: 'Although the speculative gains tax appears innocuous, it constitutes a major breach of the principle of our taxation in that, since Income Tax was introduced over 150 years ago, it has only been levied on income. The new measure opens the door to extensions until no form of investment will be safe'."
  I suggest that statement is utter nonsense.
  What has happened in the past is that personal income has been disguised as a tax-free capital gain. What we are doing now is, properly, bringing within the ambit of Schedule D, calling it a new Case, namely, Case VII, such profits as should have previously been taxable but which had largely escaped. That is my interpretation of the position. I commend what the Chancellor has done to the Committee and I hope that he will succeed in this context.
  Mr. Arthur Holt: If that is the hon. Gentleman's argument, why does he support the limit of six months? Surely what he has said is an argument for taxing the kind of gains which he says he is making?
  Mr. Nabarro: It is not an argument to that end. I thought that I made myself clear. We do not yet know whether the period will be six months. It may be less than six months. I listened to the Chancellor say very deliberately—I hope that he will correct me if I am wrong—that the period will be six months or less for stocks and shares. Surely the point is this. The longer the period, the more we dissuade the genuine investor on the stock market. That is why I want the period to be short.
  1230
  There is nothing contradictory in what I have said compared with what I said earlier.
  Mr. John McKay Mr. John McKay (Wallsend) rose—
  Mr. Dudley Williams Mr. Dudley Williams (Exeter) rose—
  Mr. Nabarro: An hon. Member opposite wishes to interrupt. I do not know who he is. I hope that he is a Member.
  Mr. Dudley Williams: While I agree with my hon. Friend, I do not think that he is dealing with the point made by the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt), who was speaking for the Liberal Party. He is obviously in favour of taxing long-term gains.
  Mr. Nabarro: We never know what the Liberal Party favours or does not favour.
  Mr. Holt: The hon. Gentleman's argument was that great gains were made out of capital and that these should be taxed. It did not seem a logical extension of his argument that the tax should be limited to short-term gains. That was my point.
  Mr. Nabarro: My reply was given in relation to genuine investment. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will catch your eye, Sir James, before the Budget debate is over. I want a pronouncement of Liberal policy in regard to capital gains. We do not know where the Liberal Party stands—whether it is for or against them. Like agricultural support and many other aspects of national economic policy, it has one story for the countryman and another story for the townsman. On this occasion, we hope that there will be some consistency of Liberal policy in these important matters.
  I turn to a second aspect of the Chancellor's fiscal proposals, namely, Purchase Tax. I want to exonerate my right hon. and learned Friend at once from all blame for initiating the new taxes on confectionery, sweets and soft drinks. Here, I quote from HANSARD of 15th May, 1961:
  "There are three great sectors of consumer expenditure which have, so far, escaped taxation. They are, firstly, soft drinks, secondly, sweets and confectionery, and, thirdly, advertising. I hope that they will all be brought within the general ambit of reformed indirect taxation in the next two of my right hon. and

  1231
  learned Friend's Budget statements."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th May, 1961; Vol. 640, cc. 1021–2.]
  In my judgment, my right hon. and learned Friend is proceeding quite properly. That is a quotation from my own speech on the reform of Purchase Tax on 15th May, 1961. I deliberately included the words
  "in the next two of my right hon. and learned Friend's Budget statements."
  This year he has applied himself properly, to the important considerations of soft drinks, sweets and confectionery. Next year he will no doubt apply himself to the third proposition, namely, the application of Purchase Tax to general advertising.
  On 3rd July, 1961, I used these words:—
  "I would bring the whole of general advertising, the whole of soft drinks and the whole of confectionery and sweets into the ambit of Purchase Tax on one of the lower scales."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd July, 1961; Vol. 643, c. 1146.]
  Let me say why in my own words. Five years ago, when we started on the reform of the Purchase Tax, the top level was 90 per cent. and the bottom level 5 per cent. It was violently discriminatory. After the conclusion of my first one hundred Parliamentary Questions, the rates became compressed between 60 per cent. at the top level and 5 per cent. at the bottom level. That was at the conclusion of my first hundred Questions. Then, after my second hundred Questions, in 1959 the rates had become compressed to between 50 per cent. at the top level and 5 per cent. at the bottom level.
  Then, we had my third century of Parliamenary Questions with a sterile result, and a fourth century of Parliamentary Questions with an equally sterile result. It had to await the arrival of my right hon. and leaned Friend at the Treasury to see the enlightenment of the cause for ridding our Purchase Tax system of violent discrimination and compressing the rates, notably in the interest of our national export trade.
  In my judgment, it is manifest nonsense to claim that there is any article today which is a luxury. All manufactured goods contribute to two things. They contribute, first, to the employment of our people, and secondly, to the export of British goods. [AN HON. MEMBER:
  1232
  "A mink coat?"] I am delighted that somebody has said that. I will at once take a mink coat as an example. Before the Budget, a mink coat was taxed at 27½ per cent., but a little transistor radio of the type which finds its way into almost every home in this country was taxed at 55 per cent.: yet a 400 guinea cocktail cabinet was taxed at 5½ per cent.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: What are the badges on the hon. Member's car taxed at?
  Mr. Nabarro: Is that meant to be a sensible interruption?
  Mr. Ellis Smith: I merely asked at what rate the badges on the hon. Member's car are taxed.
  Mr. Nabarro: The answer is 13¾ per cent. before my right hon. and learned Friend's Budget, but I am delighted to say that they will now be reduced to 10 per cent. should any further replacements be necessary as a result of the predatory habits of memento collectors stealing my badges.
  It is manifest nonsense to tax mink coats at 27½ per cent., 400 guinea cocktail cabinets at 5½ per cent. and transistor radio sets at 55 per cent. This affects and afflicts the export trade, as the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders has made clear over and over again. I believe in a system which would have the effect, first, of compressing these highly discriminatory rates and making progress towards a single flat-rate tax over a wide field of consumer expenditure.
  I am not in the least afraid to defend Purchase Tax being put on soft drinks and confectionery and sweets, and I regard as quite contemptuous those persons outside the House of Commons and Opposition Members who have said that this represents taxing the kiddies' sweets. That is manifest nonsense. If anybody cares to do a little researching on where the bulk of expenditure on confectionery and sweets is made, they will find that it is not on the 2d. lollipop that the child buys. It is on the more expensive brands of chocolates and on the huge consumption of candy and other sweetmeats. The consumption of confectionery and sweets per thousand head of the population has trebled since pre-war and the consumption of soft

  1233
  drinks of all kinds of a non-alcoholic description has been multiplied by two and a half times per thousand head of population as compared with pre-war. [AN HON. MEMBER: "What is wrong with that?"] Nothing at all, but they should not escape taxation. They are part of consumer expenditure and it is quite wrong that British manufactures such as motor vehicles which contribute so largely to our export trade should be taxed at penal levels while items of consumer expenditure such as soft drinks, sweets and confectionery formerly escaped.
  I support that policy, but it is only the first step. This year, the Chancellor has reformed Purchase Tax again. It is the fourth reform in six years, each one a marginal reform. I agree with gradual reform, because if the reform made is too dramatic or too drastic in any one year, it involves many traders in heavy losses. We now have a system whereby the rates are 45 per cent. at the top, then 25 per cent., then 15 per cent. and then 10 per cent. The spread is between 45 per cent. at the top and 10 per cent. at the bottom. That compares with 90 per cent. at the top and 5 per cent. at the bottom five years ago.
  Next year, however, I hope that the Chancellor will make further progress. I wish to tell him now that a 16⅔ per cent. level of Purchase Tax as a uniform rate applied over the whole field of articles currently taxed, including those brought into the ambit of Purchase Tax for the first time this year and including the application of 16⅔ per cent. Purchase Tax to general advertising, would bring him the same revenue of £576 million which he seeks to raise from the Purchase Tax this year. That is now my ultimate goal for reform of Purchase Tax.
  Sir C. Osborne: My hon. Friend has asked an important question of the Chancellor, who, I am sure, would not wish the Committee to be misled or under a misapprehension. My hon. Friend has suggested that the capital gains tax would apply to stocks and shares for six months or less. As I read it, the Chancellor said yesterday that
  "For all … stocks, shares and securities, the charge will apply if the period from
  1234
  acquisition to disposal is six months or less."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th April, 1962; Vol. 657, c. 980–1.]
  He did not suggest that the period of six months would be less. The Chancellor should clear this point, which is extremely important to the country. It is the most important point that my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) has brought out.
  The Temporary Chairman (Sir James Duncan): Order. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was interrupting the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro).
  Sir C. Osborne: The point should be cleared up, Sir James.
  Mr. Nabarro: I confess to a certain amount of dubiety in this. I listened intently to the Chancellor and would be grateful if he would clear up the point.
  Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Certainly. The period is six months.
  Mr. Nabarro: I apologise to my right hon. and learned Friend. I understood him yesterday to say "six months or less".
  Sir C. Osborne: The period is six months.
  Mr. Nabarro: Yes. It does not in any way vitiate my argument with regard to genuine industrial investment.
  Finally, I want to say a few words about Income Tax Schedule A. I am glad to see a solitary representative of the Liberal Party present.
  Mr. Richard Marsh: The hon. Member is lucky.
  Mr. Nabarro: Yes, I am lucky to find just one here. The Leader of the Liberal Party, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), seemed rather contemptuous of my right hon. and learned Friend and said that it was an electoral measure to try to attract a further Tory support in dormitory constituencies where there are a large number of owner occupiers. That is not true. [Laughter.] I am sorry to cause hon. Members opposite a laugh. They should go away and read the Report of the Royal Commission, which came down against the abolition of Income Tax Schedule A on owner-occupied houses.

  1235
  I have divided the House against the Government, against my own side, on the last two Finance Bills, in 1961 and—
  Mr. Holt: The hon. Member voted against the abolition of Schedule A on a previous occasion.
  Mr. Nabarro: May I be allowed to continue? In 1961, I divided the House against the Government on this issue. In 1960, I divided the House against the Government upon it. Last year—incidentally, at 2.7 a.m., on 20th June—when I forced the Division there were fourteen Tories voting with me and only three Liberals—50 per cent. of the Liberal Party. The other three were missing.
  Mr. Holt: A rather higher percentage of Liberals were present than Members of the hon. Member's party.
  Mr. Nabarro: The Conservatives voting with the Government numbered 110. In the previous year, I divided on a similar basis.
  In 1959, I made my position perfectly clear. It was just before the 1959 General Election, and I said on that occasion that the Chancellor had reduced the duty on beer by 2d. per pint, that he had applied to the reduction in beer duty the money I wanted him to apply to the abolition of Income Tax Schedule A on owner-occupied houses, but that having spent the money on the reduction in the beer duty I could not then support a further reduction of taxes in the form of a cancellation of Income Tax Schedule A on owner-occupied houses. But in the ensuing two years, in 1960, and 1961, I and my hon. Friends have voted for abolition of Schedule A. Perhaps the hon. Member will go away and put that in the Liberal News and distribute it to the Tories—
  Mr. Holt Mr. Holt rose—
  Mr. Nabarro: Let me finish my sentence. Let the hon. Member distribute it to the Tories in his own constituency, who will not be supporting him at the next General Election.
  Mr. Holt: And also put in that the Liberals supported this in the House and on an occasion before the hon. Member
  1236
  for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) put it up he voted against abolition of Schedule A.
  Mr. Nabarro: I have explained all those circumstances. I have no doubt that the electorate will reject the hon. Member as being the image of a parrot.
  But the Labour Party is also very much in favour of the abolition of Income Tax on Schedule A. I cannot understand why the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East was so begruding in his approval of what the Chancellor has done.
  I quote the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh) from the Daily Express of 4th April, when he said:
  "Should I choose to spend my hard-earned and incidentally heavily taxed savings on a luxury yacht, the Chancellor will give me his blessing, but if I attempt to spend the same money on a two-bedroomed house I must pay tax on it, not once but each year for ever more. … Even more galling is the knowledge that about 600,000 people who do live in houses don't pay Schedule A. As Gerald Nabarro, a sort of rich man's Michael Foot insists on pointing out to the obvious embarrassment of successive Tory Chancellors …"
  I have been called "a poor man's Bob Boothby" but never "a rich man's Michael Foot", and I am sorry that the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) is not present. Of course the Labour Party should support the abolition of Income Tax, Schedule A, and of course my right hon. and learned Friend is doing the right thing. [Interruption.] Let me finish on this point before I am interrupted again.
  Mr. Ross: Will the hon. Member finish?
  Mr. Nabarro: Yes.
  I were Chancellor I would give notice that I intended to abolish the tax, because if a Chancellor did otherwise it would be manifestly unfair to a large number of Income Tax payers who base their maintenance relief claims on a five-year average, and many of them have substantial money in hand to off-set against future notional expenditure of a maintenance character on their homes. Arbitrary cancellation now would deprive them of a benefit tantamount to depriving owner-occupiers of the proceeds of their thrift. The Chancellor has, of course, given notice of the termination of Income Tax, Schedule A,

  1237
  and in my judgment he should bring it to a final end on 5th April, 1964, being the end of the tax year, 1963–64, in order that the maximum benefit may accrue to those persons who have already submitted their maintenance relief claims based on a five-year average.
  There is no question of my claiming anything. I have enough money in hand to cover any notional liability until 1964–65. Therefore there is no question of my being affected. There is no question of myself. I am pleading for several thousands of owner-occupiers who make claims of this sort.
  I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on an imaginative and well-balanced Budget. Last year I voted against the Government during the Finance Bill, four times. The year before I voted against the Government on the Finance Bill, three times. This year I shall vote against the Government on the Finance Bill, no times.
  7.55 p.m.
  Mr. David Ginsburg: It is a very unusual experience for me to follow a poacher turned gamekeeper. The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) has at least this in common with me, that we in Dewsbury spin the yarn and in Kidderminster they make the carpets, but it is a bit rough that the only sector of our local industry that obtains any relief should be the sector that serves Kidderminster. The wool textile industry as a whole will have good reason to regard this as a thoroughly unsatisfactory Budget.
  The hon. Member for Kidderminster used to be a strong expansionist, and whatever difference we had with him we had a slight fellow-feeling there. He used to say that if some life was pumped into the home market it would increase productivity and exports would benefit. We have heard none of that tonight. The hon. Member has become for us a member of the Establishment. The Chancellor on reading the Press today on his Budget, apart from the conversion of the hon. Member for Kidderminster, would have drawn little comfort. The authorities were unanimously agreed that, firstly, this was a standstill Budget and, secondly, that an economically neutral Budget is not what Britain requires at present.
  1238
  It is also crystal clear from listening to him yesterday that, like the Bourbons, the Chancellor in the course of the last year has learned nothing and also has forgotten nothing. It is obvious from everything that was said in the 1961 Economic Survey, in debates on last year's Budget, and in debates in the House in the summer crisis that supervened, that the Chancellor was obsessed by the effect of internal demand on balance of payments. He is still obsessed by that phenomenon today.
  The Chancellor's speech last July was revealing. I have taken the trouble to re-read it. He proposed measures last July on two main accounts: firstly, that there was a structural deterioration in Britain's balance of payments, and, secondly, that there were internal pressures in the economy which in the light of the first count could not be afforded. But to do the Chancellor justice, he threw in confidence, and especially confidence in the £, but it was an aside and was not, as he told the House, the main reason for his action.
  Last summer we on this side of the Committee told the Chancellor that the crisis was purely a crisis of confidence in the £ and in the British Government as well, and that harsh measures internally to damp down demand in this country ware not justified. The Chancellor persisted in his actions, but it is now crystal clear—and I am now drawing not on my figures but on the Government's own figures in the revised balance of payments statistics which the Treasury published a fortnight ago—that the position was far healthier last summer when we had these impositions than the Government admitted at that time.
  There is every evidence that our current account on the balance of payments, even in July when there was a run on sterling, was improving and coming right. Although we had a deficit of £215 million in the second half of 1960, in the first half of 1961 that deficit had closed to £60 million. That was an extremely important fact. There is also evidence from the Government's revised figures that our performance on capital account—indeed, the Government have taken credit for this—was also improving.
  It follows that the July cuts were not necessary. If the balance of payments

  1239
  figures, on the basis of the revised statistics, were much more secure than we were led to believe, it follows that the cuts were not necessary and were exercises in economic masochism.
  If right hon. and hon. Members on this side of the Committee, whose sources of information are far more slender and less comprehensive than those available to the Treasury, were right in July, why was it that the Chancellor was wrong? We must endeavour to examine that question. It is not enough for the Government now to plead the alibi that they were let down by statistics. That is an important matter, and I shall probe it, but the blame for what happened in July must be placed fairly and squarely on the Chancellor's shoulders, because he—and there is ample evidence of this—starts out with the predisposition that growth is dangerous. It pervades his entire thinking.
  The statistical problem has not been touched upon in this debate so far. The White Paper on our balance of payments is not just a minor revision carried out by the Treasury. One would even go so far as to say that it is a complete rewriting of history. I hope that we shall be told why this happened, what kind of investigations are going on and whether the Government will publish the results. In particular, can we be told about page 8 of the White Paper where it says:
  "Investigations are continuing which it is hoped will lead to a more nearly complete recording of transactions."
  There may be more subjectivity in Government statistics—and I am a great advocate of the production of statistics—than people realise. One is tempted from these benches to say that Chancellors get the figures they deserve. Perhaps that is putting it too high, however. But they tend to get the figures they ask for. A jittery Chancellor, biassed against growth, misconceiving the balance of payments problem, so influences his officials that eventually he is given the figures which enable him to see the picture exactly as he wants to see it.
  I am sorry that the Chancellor is not here at the moment. He may say that I have been unfair to him, that after all he is a pioneering Chancellor and has tried
  1240
  to make improvements in the balance of payments figures produced. But the point is that the balance of payments statistics were criticised as long ago as 1956, by the present Prime Minister, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his famous "Bradshaw" speech. The Prime Minister said then that if this were not put right there would be trouble. The Radcliffe Committee made the same point. It has taken two economic crises and a serious loss of wealth by ordinary people, to enforce action.
  If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is thinking about economic statistics, there are other areas where better figures are required. We need far better figures about the employment situation. The statistics published by the Ministry of Labour on manpower and the degree of under-employment and hidden unemployment are lamentable and inadequate. There has also been pressure in the House for some time for the publication of more detailed information about invisible earnings. We have pressed this time and time again on the Chancellor, and on the Prime Minister.
  It is ridiculous that invisible earnings are given in so little detail and that we still do not know what the earnings of the oil industry are. If that industry has, as it claims, an extremely creditable record, it seems the height of idleness on the Government's part that the figures are not made available. If we are to avoid running into crisis after crisis, the Government must have much better information available than at present.
  The Chancellor may also say that the criticism that he is anti-growth is unfair. But if one reads his speeches and the White Papers published in the last year, one finds ample evidence for saying that his outlook, which is also that of the Government, is anti-growth. Take, for example the Economic Survey, 1961. In paragraph 24, this said:
  "The Government do not believe that running the economy with greater pressure of demand than at present would in fact increase a sustainable rate of growth. Such a policy could not be continued without affecting the stability of sterling …".
  And so on. In his speech last July, when he imposed these cuts, the Chancellor was even more vehement. He said:
  "… I now have later forecasts about our situation for the first half of 1962. It is true

  1241
  that they are only forecasts, but they show an increasing pressure of demand upon our resources greater than expected and likely to affect exports and the balance of payments."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th July, 1961; Vol. 645, c. 433.]
  What utter nonsense. Where was this pressure that was to be "greater than expected"? In the outcome, production was stagnant, even negative. The rise was so trivial that it gave only a very slight lift to the economy last year, which the Government damped down. Yet the Government have the same fear of growth in 1962 as they did in 1961. Paragraph 16 of the Economic Survey, 1962, says:
  "Opportunities for … exports are … good; but they will be missed, if export goods are not competitive"—
  and I emphasise the following words—
  "and if the pressure of home demand becomes too great."
  Paragraph 28 says:
  "Provided the pressure of home demand is kept in check … the country will be able to take advantage of the favourable opportunities for exports in 1962."
  All along we have this emphasis against demand and against growth, and I want to deal now with what results from this emphasis, which is, indeed, an obsession with the Government. We have the failure of the country's economy to grow and a serious under-employment situation. We have under-employment both of labour and of capital, and all this leads to higher costs which are eventually utterly self-defeating for the Government's own export objectives.
  Unemployment has not been mentioned in the debate so far, except in reference to regional problems. It stands at 2 per cent., which is the highest consistent level of unemployment since the General Election. The Government might say that it is not an intolerable level, but it is interesting to note that the vacancy position is already deteriorating. Last month, vacancies in the economy declined at a time when they should be seasonally up. Therefore, we say—and I think that this is a respectable view with which most experts would agree—that the labour position is already much easier. Indeed, labour is being hoarded to some extent. I will quote evidence of the hoarding of labour, because the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade seems a little surprised,
  1242
  from paragraph 42 of the Economic Survey itself:
  "Conversely, it may be that in the second half of 1961, many firms were slow to reduce their labour forces after the sharp change in the trend of production after the middle of the year."
  What does that paragraph mean? Do the Government want these people to be sacked? Do they want the squeeze to be even tighten so that labour is released? If so, why do they not pursue—I am not saying that they should— the logic of their policy, and if they do not want that to happen, why do they not ease up, because the British economy is now getting the worst of all worlds?
  Apart from that, we have a growing labour force. More young people are coming on to the labour market and this year will see a record number of young people coming on to the labour market. If we are to seek to measure the ratio of employment and unemployment, we are hampered by the fact that Government statistics for the labour force and total employment are out of date and are always a year behind When we get to the middle of the summer and the Government's policies are subjected to the test, we may not know how the take-up of that labour is going because the figures on which we will be working will be a year old.
  In British industry we also have the problem of married women and old-age pensioners, all whom are finding it difficult to get employment. Once again the statistics do not give the answer, because these people do not register at the employment exchanges and are therefore not considered available for employment. In 1958, Mr. Turner of Manchester University published a treatise on the problem and estimated that this type of hidden unemployment accounted for 400,000 in 1958, and it is possible that the position is worse today.
  There is also the problem of decline in hours worked. There is much more short time in industry today. Short-time working and the decline in overtime are serious for in many areas overtime is vital to living standards. For instance, in the heavy woollen district, in my constituency, keeping workers on the books and off the dole is a humane and necessary policy, but, on the other hand, the fact that workers do not appear in the unemployment statistics obscures the

  1243
  decline in family living standards which is occurring because of economic stagnation.
  In the present state of the British economy, under-employment of capital may be even more serious than underemployment of labour. Of course we have the doctrine, associated with Professor Paish, of a surplus capacity of capital of 5 per cent., but even Professor Paish would dissent from the degree to which the Government have pushed the doctrine—that in order not to have inflation, we must have this safety margin of capacity. Let us look at the figures. At the turn of the year, the motor industry was working to 70 per cent. capacity, the engineering industries to 80 to 85 per cent., and the steel industry to 75 per cent. In the textile industry output was stationary to falling, with a declining labour force, and in wool as in cotton, I regret to say, there was some evidence of excess capacity. As a result of this, we have an atmosphere which is not conducive to achieving the degree of modernisation in industry which we should like.
  Last year's experience, grim as it was, is not the full story. Let us consider what will happen this year. Investment is increasing and, on the Chancellor's own admission, is higher than last year. What will the consequences be? The National Institute's review reckons that production will go up by some 2 to 3 per cent. by the end of the year. We hope that that happens, but even if all goes well, this expansion of production will be well within the new plant capacity of the British economy. Indeed, at the end of 1962 we are likely to have as much, if not more, unused plant capacity in Britain than we now have, and that is a very serious outlook.
  The Chancellor keeps saying that he wants higher productivity, but he will not get it without new investment, and he will not get it without new investment which is utilised. To pursue a policy whereby labour is idle and capital is not used is not merely a policy which is morally wrong, but is a policy which is economically self-defeating.
  I turn to the fiscal remedies for this serious stagnant situation. We say that the Budget is insufficiently expansionist. Every Member of the Opposition and even some hon. Members opposite agree
  1244
  with that. To start with, there is not enough for exports and the Budget provides only exhortations and a negative climate for exports. There are to be no direct tax incentives and precious few indirect incentives. What I find most fantastic in the Government's attitude to this problem is that they have taken no steps to support co-operative export ventures. They are willing to make ambitious proposals for co-operation in agriculture and are willing, quite justifiably, to pay subsidies in order to secure greater co-operation in the processes of agricultural marketing. But they have done nothing to improve the structural machinery and to create the necessary co-operatives which could handle the promotional working required for exports.
  We all agree that there must be higher productivity, but no decisive steps have been taken in the Budget to foster it, for example, in the restoration of investment allowances. But the obvious big divide in our deliberations on how to get expansion lies in the problem of consumer spending. I cannot understand where the Government get the idea and why they are so sure that during this year there will be an expansion of consumer spending of 4 per cent.—which is the reason why they are doing nothing to help the home market. The Chancellor said that yesterday, but from my own scrutiny of the Economic Survey and my study of the figures I cannot follow the basis of the reasoning which leads to that belief.
  We say that if the Government want expansion and greater consumer spending they have to review the ways in which consumer spending can be effectively helped. My own preference is for relieving the lower income groups from Income Tax. We had some interesting figures on the topic from my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) this afternoon and I should like to give one more, which might be slightly dated but the moral of which is correct. On my figures, if the Chancellor had been determined to relieve the 5 million lowest Income Tax payers, which would have been a great incentive and administratively convenient for the Government, that would have cost £84 million, which is well within the capacity of the present British economy.

  1245
  The National Health Service charges could have been cut, and there could have been a rise—long overdue—in old-age pensions. Another method by which the Chancellor could have helped consumer expenditure would have been by a substantial cut in indirect taxation.
  I suppose that I shall be asked by hon. Gentlemen opposite whether we can afford concessions of this kind. My answer is simply that if we have economic growth on the scale in which we on these benches believe, I think that some of these concessions could be taken in its stride by the British economy, and if it is that we are overloading it rather too much then, simply, if we had a revenue-raising—I stress that—capital gains tax, that kind of exercise would easily be accomplished.
  Therefore, I wish to say a few brief words on the capital gains tax, because yesterday the Chancellor missed a very valuable opportunity. The support on these benches for a capital gains tax is not based purely on the psychology of the exercise. We believe, and I hope that perhaps some hon. Members opposite believe—indeed, the hon. Member whose maiden speech we heard this afternoon, the hon. Member for Manchester, Moss Side (Mr. F. Taylor), implied this—that the Income Tax burden could be reduced if this country had a wider tax base; in other words, if we had a proper capital gains tax covering long-term as well as short-term capital gains. It is natural to remember that, in 1955, at the time of the Report of the Royal Commission on the Taxation of Profits and Income, the Minority Report estimated that the yield of such a tax—and it might in some ways be a much fairer tax than the present one—would be from £250 million to £300 million. Of course, it would be a very much bigger yield today.
  With regard to speculation, we have never envisaged the tax as an anti-speculation measure. There may be some significance in speculation in the economy, but for tackling speculation, we do not need this tax. There are other ways and other methods that can be adopted, for instance, compelling people to pay cash for the securities which they bought, which would have the effect of cutting down speculation substantially. Therefore, our criticism of the Chancellor is that he has launched, with in-
  1246
  adequate administrative preparation, a tax that was likely to be an administratively difficult tax, and which will cause him a lot of political headaches with his hon. Friends, while the revenue, at the end of the day, will be very small. Perhaps the best that can be said of it is that it is a modest, but only a very modest, step in the right direction.
  I want to conclude with a few words on indirect taxation. There are many arguments against what the Chancellor did yesterday. I think that there is a very powerful case to be made for generally reducing the level of indirect taxation at the moment in order to stimulate the economy, but let us for a moment accept the logic of the Chancellor's argument. I would say, in the first place, that the pattern of the change in indirect taxation is an unfair pattern. It is socially unfair, and it is unfair between people. If the Chancellor thought that he could not economically reduce taxation, why did he not save everybody a lot of trouble and make no change in this particular year? There are other things that have to be said. The changes which the Chancellor outlined in the Purchase Tax will lead to serious discrimination between one industry and another, and these changes, in my opinion, make very little sense indeed.
  We must also ask the Government whether the Chancellor is seeking to alter the pattern of spending. The Chancellor said yesterday that he was against value judgments in this field. I should like to pursue his logic further. Is he trying to make the home market easier for certain commodities, and at the same time trying to make it more difficult for other commodities? If so, one must ask why he wants to make the home market easier for motor cars and consumer durables and more difficult for textile manufacturers, because, given the Chancellor's own philosophy that he does not want to change consumer demand in order to help exports, he is asking the already depressed textile industry, because of the increases in the Purchase Tax Which will fall upon textiles, to spearhead exports over the products of light engineering and consumer durables, and this is complete and utter economic nonsense.
  I know what the Government's reply will be to this argument. They will say that they are making the tax cuts on

  1247
  the home market for consumer durables and motor cars so that there will be an increase in consumer demand which will become more buoyant and costs of production in these industries will fall. I almost detected a nod from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, and I agree with that argument. If that is the argument, it makes nonsense of the Government's argument generally that helping the home market is bad for exports.
  This is indeed a bad Budget. It is a timid Budget. There are no incentives for exporters or manufacturers. It will, for the most part, make life a little bit more difficult for the industries in my own constituency. It contains next to no concessions, and it adds to the burdens of many of my constituents. It is equally oppressive to millions of our people, and it is a Budget which is totally out of tune with the requirements of the times.
  8.25 p.m.
  Mr. F. M. Bennett: If I am not tempted to comment on the speech of the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Ginsburg), it should not be taken as an indication that I agree with anything he said, but simply that I have more concern than he apparently had for the wishes of others wanting to speak in this debate. I would remind the Committee that were I, too, to speak for half an hour it would mean that the hon. Member sitting opposite would not have the opportunity of speaking today, but I propose to be a little less selfish than that.
  There has been so far one obvious lack of understanding between the two sides of the Committee about the so-called capital gains tax, or, as I prefer to call it, the speculators' trading tax. This lack of understanding, which leads the Opposition to say that we have not gone far enough, springs from the fact that this is not a capital gains tax at all, and we on this side of the Committee never have favoured a capital gains tax on investment and savings in the sense that Opposition spokesmen have. Therefore, it is not a matter of how far we go. There is on this matter a fundamental difference of approach on the question of what such a tax ought to do. For our part, and I think I am speaking for my
  1248
  hon. Friends, what we have been trying to find is a method of bringing within the Income Tax and Surtax range individuals who have been trading in the same way as a trading institution. If it did the same thing it would have before this Budget to pay Income Tax and Profits Tax. It is this sort of abuse which the population of this country has been wanting to have removed. For a long time people have been wanting to avoid what appeared to be glaring unfairnesses whereby a professional man, or a salary earner or a wage earner, has paid his tax as he properly should on his earnings but someone who made a living out of a success of so-called capital transactions has escaped all forms of Income Tax.
  I am no new convert to this cause because, as the records will reveal, I have in three or four successive Budgets made a plea for something like this to be done. It has been my belief, and still is, that we ought to have done it some time ago. It is also my belief that we should have done it within the ambit of the existing law. I am glad, in this context, to have read in The Times the other day a letter from one of the leading tax counsel of this country supporting this view.
  I am glad that the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) is here, because I am sure that he agrees with this. There is plenty of legal evidence that people who make a living out of trading in stocks or shares or property could, before now, by a directive of the Government of the day, have been brought within the ambit of paying Income Tax and Surtax, without the need for any new legislation.
  Mr. Douglas Houghton: I think that the weakness of the law at the moment is that the badge of trade which has to be fixed on a taxpayer before income from this source can be taxed as income can be fixed only by the local commissioner of taxes, and frequently he takes a lenient view of these activities.
  Mr. Bennett: I was coming to that point. I do not differ from the hon. Gentleman on that point of view. The structure has been there, and if successive Governments had urged a stricter view to be taken of these activities over the years there would not now have been the necessity to bring in a complicated

  1249
  new set of proposals. As I say, the public have wanted to get rid of this sense of unfairness, and it is for this reason that, perhaps more modestly than did my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), I warmly commend the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what he has proposed.
  I think that the period of six months for securities is about right, and that the period of three years with regard to property is also right. I have no doubt that clever men are already thinking out methods of getting over these difficulties, but there has never yet been a tax which clever men somewhere or other have not tried to defeat. All that we can do is to make the best structure we can to prevent evasions and unlawful avoidance in the future, and it may well be that some aspects of this will have to be altered in future years. But, whether we are Conservative or Labour, and even though the Labour Party takes a different view from mine about the necessity for a capital gains tax in the real meaning of the word, I think we are at one that what the public have been wanting—and I am repeating myself—is an end to what they felt was an unfair form of escape from tax liability.
  I make one small plea. Although the Chancellor is not here, I hope that this will be noted. As we are bringing in these proposals, I think that we might properly make provision for relief from this tax in respect of very small transactions. My reason for saying this is that we have not here attempted to capture tax from the person who goes in for an occasional flutter on a horse, or at the dogs, or on the football pools. There are a number of quite poor people, too, in this country who from time to time prefer to have a small flutter through the Stock Exchange. I would be only too pleased to see the Chancellor concede that transactions below a very small sum should be permitted without the full burden of this tax falling on them.
  I was deeply disappointed yesterday that the Chancellor did nothing to remove Stamp Duty on share transactions. I hasten to say that this is not out of any consideration on my part for the investor or the trader. It is simply that at the moment, as I know well from
  1250
  professional experience, we are losing a great deal of the traditional business of the City of London to continental stock exchanges, and as the moment for joining or not joining the Common Market comes nearer we are again and again coming up against this point.
  Yesterday was the time to do it, when we were introducing a general tax on trading, and I am confident that it will not be long before the Chancellor will have to do this, because, as this competition grows and the City of London gets more and more thrust out of its traditional rôle, this form of competition will have to be met by removing something which at present discriminates against the City of London which, of all the metropolitan centres in Europe, has the best capacity and experience to take the lead, in or out of a completely united economic Europe, as the leader in providing an international financial centre.
  It is rather foolish of us to put unnecessary obstacles in the way of this. It is even more paradoxical than that, because the real in-and-out man who gets in and out within the accounting period of two or three weeks does not pay this Stamp Duty. It is an almost ludicrous position in which the shortest in-and-out man will pay the least. That cannot have any moral or sensible justification. I do not know whether it is too late this year to do anything—and I realise that it will cost money—but if we do not do it now we shall lose more business during the next twelve months and will have to do it then any way.
  Finally, I want to make two general points. I was not very surprised at all the hoo-ha that arose from the Benches opposite yesterday about the sweets tax. An Opposition always tries to pin its opposition on some gambit in the Budget; and while I was sitting here I watched the faces of hon. Members opposite while they were waiting for the announcement about which they could make most fuss. A tax on sweets for the kiddies was an obvious one. I submit that this will not be a long-term criticism; when all the froth has been blown away the suggestion that a tax of 15 per cent. on the wholesale value of sweets will inflict a very crushing burden upon children and other people will be seen to be nonsensical. Hon.

  1251
  Members opposite know that as well as I do.
  If there is to be a long-term criticism of the Budget, it will be a much graver one than that. It will be that at a very critical moment for this country—whether or not we succeed in our negotiations to enter the Common Market—when we are having to face considerable new challenges and when there is an urgent need to modify our traditional patterns of trade and our economic way of life, the Budget does not answer the challenge of the times, at least psychologically.
  If I am asked what I think should be done to introduce such a note of challenge or inspiration, I shall not be able to give an answer; but that fact does not alter the need for such an inspiration. I therefore plead with the Chancellor, in otherwise supporting his Budget proposals in toto, to realise the need not merely to introduce a standstill Budget, however economically justifiable it is, but to take the opportunity in the coming months, whenever he can, to stress to our people the need for a new look, a new energy and a new enthusiasm in facing the undoubted problems that lie ahead.
  8.38 p.m.
  Mr. E. Fernyhough: There is a quotation which will be very familiar to hon. Members: "Everything comes to him who waits". I waited for many hours yesterday and today before catching your eye, Mr. Royle.
  I quite agree with the peroration to the speech of the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. F. M. Bennett). That is something that he should put down in his notebook, because it is seldom that I am able to accept a single word he says. I refrained from interrupting him in his speech because I thought Chat he would be staying on to listen to me. He said that he hoped that small capital gains—the modest ones; I do not know what figure he has in mind—would not be taxed, because we did not tax pools winners, or those who backed horses or dogs. But we do; we tax the pools very heavily. About one-third of all that the punter puts on is taken away in taxation. The difference between the punter and those who will be affected by the proposed capital gains legislation
  1252
  is that the punter will not be allowed to off-set his losses against his gains. I understand that privilege will be extended to those who may be caught in the net of the capital gains tax. There is not a punter in the world who would not be delighted to be in the position to be able to off-set his losses against his gains.
  This Budget has been received with approbation by hon. Members opposite. There has been little or no criticism of it. Apparently the Budget is to be the salvation of the country, and in that respect it is identical with the previous Budget, which was to save Britain, restore our greatness, increase exports and make us more economically viable. Three or four months later the Chancellor had to say that all his prophecies of April had been wrong. He had to shove up the Bank Rate, put a curb on public expenditure and introduce a wages pause.
  The hon. Member for Torquay said there was something lacking in this Budget although he did not know what. It did not provide the drive, energy and vision which the hon. Member thought was needed. Everyone knows why that is so. The Government have no ideas. During the debate on last year's Budget I said that the Chancellor was like a man who had lost his way. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was looking for signposts and none was available. That prophecy has turned out to be true. Between last year's Budget and this one the Chancellor has said, "Our country is sick. We are not getting the exports we ought to have, nor are we increasing production. But, as a Government, we do not know how to tackle this job and so we shall set up a special body, the National Economic Development Council, which, after due deliberation, will tell the Government what is wrong with the country." This body is to tell the Government what is the cause of the sickness in the country and what medicine is required by the nation to make it healthy.
  The very fact that the N.E.D.C. has had to be set up after almost eleven years of Tory rule is a condemnation of the present Administration. Had the Government done what they said at the time of the last election that they would do, there would be no need for the N.E.D.C. I wish to assure hon.

  1253
  Members opposite that the N.E.D.C. will have difficulties to face which will be of the Chancellor's making, because the Council will have to try to work within rules laid down by the Chancellor. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has ruled that increases in personal incomes during the next twelve months shall be limited to 2½ per cent. and that thereafter they shall be granted according to the increase in the size of the national cake.
  There are 79 wages councils in this country which affect 3½ million people who do not get anything approaching the average wage reported monthly by the Minister of Labour. They are the lowest paid people in the country. Their wages are so low and, generally speaking, they are so unorganised that the Government have to protect them by stautory legislation. A number of these councils decided recently to grant increases of between 3½ per cent. and 8 per cent. The largest amount which will result from that is 12s. 3d. a week. Let us take, for example, the rate of pay received by women, some of whom earn less than £5 a week. If the Chancellor has his way, such workers will receive an increase of 2s. 6d. a week. Most of the men workers are paid less than £10, and on the basis of a 2½ per cent. increase they would perhaps receive 5s. There are many people who are paid ten times more than that weekly wage and if they have a 2½ per cent. increase, they will get a large amount. If a man receives £40, £50, £60 or £100 a week, he will get a large increase.
  If this is to be the Government's policy, does it apply to old-age pensioners, the sick and the unemployed? Are their benefits in the future to rise only by this modest 2½ per cent.? Are we to tell the old-age pensioners on £4 12s. 6d. a week that when they get their next increase, on the basis of an increase of 2½ per cent. in personal incomes, they will be entitled to about 2s. 4d? The Government are assuming that we are prepared to accept the present distribution of the national cake, that we think it fair and reasonable and that therefore in future, whatever the increment in the size of the national cake, it should be distributed on the basis of what people are now receiving. But this, far from giving us the more
  1254
  egalitarian society which some of us seek, will tend to widen the gap between those right at the bottom and those right at the top.
  For this Government to tell tens of thousands of people working in the industries covered by the wages councils that they can have only a 2½ per cent. increase when last year they gave an average weekly increase of £6 to everybody who is paying Surtax is completely indefensible. They must have seen that whatever the trade unions said collectively about the N.E.D.C., individually they could not accept a position of this kind. My own trade union executive decided to give provisional support to the N.E.D.C., but I know full well that they are being compelled, because of price increases and rent increases which people have to pay, to seek wage increases much in excess of 2½ per cent. in order to compensate their members.
  The N.E.D.C. is to go into the whole problem of the planning of the nation's resources. My goodness, what a need there is to plan the nation's resources! I wonder whether the Minister of Housing and Local Government knows the extent of the capital investment in private house building during the last eighteen months on houses which have still not been sold and which are still untenanted. In all parts of the country there are new houses being built by speculative builders and no buyers to be found for them. Some have been standing empty for six months and some have been standing empty for twelve months. At the other end of the scale, hundreds of thousands of decent citizens are living in indescribable conditions. Is this planning the nation's resources? Would it not have been far better for the Government to say to the local authorities, "You know the housing needs of your community. Go ahead with your housing programme"? Instead of that, they cut down the local authority programmes, and we have the spectacle of new houses, for which there are no prospective buyers, remaining empty while hundreds of thousands of decent citizens are denied reasonable houses.
  There is a need for planning, particularly when the Government are cutting back the school-building programme. While they are holding back all kinds

  1255
  of desirable social projects, new garages and new filling stations are still springing up like mushrooms. Nobody had any difficulty in getting petrol even five years ago, but we are still allowing the nation's resources in bricks, timber, cement and building workers to be wasted unnecessarily in building petrol stations at a time when the Government are doing all that they can to reduce investment in what I call social projects.
  The President of the Board of Trade, who opened the debate, defended the Budget. He said that we must have mobility of labour and a readiness to change jobs and that we must be much more ready to move than in the past. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater), he likened the question of labour to the question of land; both, he said, were entitled to get what he called the market price. But land is limited; the amount of land cannot be increased. We can bring in labour and increase the labour force, as we are doing by bringing in all kinds of people. We can extend our labour force as much as we like, but we cannot extend the land available. Every year every acre becomes more precious, and every year the pressure upon it becomes greater, and every year it becomes more costly to acquire it for the people who need it.
  After millions of pounds have been made in land speculation, the Government intend to try to stop the activities of these get-rich-quick gentlemen, but because I know the pressure from the 1922 Committee against any idea of introducing a capital gains tax, I do not believe that the Government's proposals will be as strong as they ought to be if they are to do justice to our people.
  I want to say a word about the favourite item in this Budget—Schedule A relief. True, the benefit will not apply this year. The Chancellor has promised that it will apply next year. Of course, if it should not apply next year it would not be the first promise that a Tory Government have broken, and it certainly will not be the last. The Chancellor is assuming that this Budget is going to work where the last one has not. The last Budget was going to work wonders. The £82 million of Surtax relief was going to produce remarkable results.
  1256
  In his concluding remarks in last year's Budget the Chancellor said:
  "I believe that my proposals with regard to Surtax will have a dynamic effect upon the initiative and effort of individuals, including those engaged in exporting, whose work is of vital importance to the community."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th April, 1961; Vol. 638, c. 822–3.]
  It has had a remarkable effect. It has cost us £82 million in relief to the Surtax payers in order to increase exports by one per cent. If we are going to have to pay such a price in aid of exports it will be a very costly proposition.
  There is no certainty yet that this Schedule A relief will ever come under the present Administration. In any case, it is not for hon. Members opposite to pretend that by giving this relief they are the benefactors of those who are buying their own houses. This relief is chicken feed in relation to the cost of a substantial reduction in interst rates to which people who are buying their own houses are entitled. I invite hon. Members to work it out. If a house is assessed at £30 a year, the owner-occupier is probably paying just over £10 a year in Schedule A tax. Those who have had to take up a mortgage of £1,000 or £1,500, because of the Government's financial policy and the Treasury interest rates are having to pay many times £10 which they would not have had to pay if the Treasury had acted as we on this side of the Committee did when we were in power. Schedule A relief will be very welcome, but it will not bring half as much benefit to those who are now buying their own houses and are having to take up mortgages of £1,500 and more as they would get if they were charged reasonable rates of interest.
  When the Chancellor brings in his legislation next year to effect this relief, I hope he will not forget those who live in rented houses. Whilst the cost to those who pay Schedule A tax may be heavy, it is nothing compared with the cost which some who live in rented houses are having to pay. Every year 400,000 houses are becoming decontrolled. We all know that once a house becomes decontrolled, the landlord is free to demand what rent he likes. Everyone knows that the scarcity of houses is still such that thousands of landlords are taking advantage of the basic elementary civilised needs of men

  1257
  and women. Some of these tenants not only have to pay a much higher price for a rented house than some people pay for buying one; some of the tenants are spending out of their own pockets many pounds a year on their landlord's property to make it more habitable. I hope that when the Chancellor brings in legislation to give this relief to Schedule A taxpayers he will not forget those tenants who have been the victims of the Tory Government's 1957 Rent Act. They are now being exploited beyond measure by having to pay for repairs, which landlords have refused to do, so that they can keep their houses in habitable condition, and they should be entitled to look forward to some assistance in the way of tax relief.
  It seems to me that we discuss our economic problems too much in isolation. If we look at Germany, France, Belgium or Italy we find that not one has carried since 1950–1951 the same defence burden that this country has catrried. If there is anything that is inflationary it is a big defence programme because we are paying men to produce what they cannot consume. When the pattern of Europe is held up to us, never let us forget that over the last 12 years we had poured out thousands of millions of pounds for defence purposes, which has been far in excess of the expenditure and the burden carried by those other Governments.
  There is another factor, because of the monkeying about with the Bank Rate, which goes up and then comes down. We know full well what the cost of the national debt is this year. The cost of administering the national debt is now about £300 million more than it was when we were in power. Each time the Bank Rate goes up, the nation has to face a bigger liability. The two biggest items are the interest on the national debt and defence expenditure. No one ever mentions either of these when talking about cutting down Government expenditure. Yet those are the two items where the biggest cut could be made to produce the best result.
  I have listened to most of the speeches that have been made in the Committee during the last two days. I listened intently to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. After all his proposals have
  1258
  been put into operation, what will the effect be on constituencies such as mine on the North-East Coast? What will happen to shipping, to the railways and to the coal mining industry, basic industries around which whole communities were built? This Budget does not offer them much hope.
  It is easy to say that the workpeople can move to where jobs are available for them, but can those who say that assure them that there will be houses for them? Can they assure them of school places for their children, that there will be adequate travelling facilities, and that the pressure on the hospital system will not be so much increased that they will have to wait much longer for beds?
  Is it not time, if "Neddy" is to do the job which the Government cannot do, that we began to plan our industries in order to meet the needs of the people rather than make the needs of the people meet the plans of industry? Should not human beings, ordinary men and women, still count? Ought not we to accept that it would be much cheaper socially and much more desirable sociologically that people should be allowed to remain where their roots are, if they wish, rather than be uprooted and bidden to go to, as it were, foreign territories merely for economic reasons?
  These are some of (he questions which have still to be faced in the North-East, in Scotland and in several other parts of the country. The present Administration are not facing them. Of course, they will promise to face them the nearer the General Election comes.
  Before I came into the Chamber I went to the Library and referred to the Conservative Party's last election manifesto. At one point it said:
  "We have shown that Conservative freedom works. Life is better under the Conservatives.
  We are going to double the standard of living in this generation and ensure all sections of society a share in the expansion of wealth ".
  They are doing it by giving to those on less than £5 a week whose wages are determined by wages councils less than half a crown a week increase. They are doing it by leaving the pensioners where they are. They are doing it by easing the burden on the Surtax payers, forgetting that, important though they may

  1259
  be, the future of Britain, its export trade, its production and its prosperity still depend fundamentally upon the millions of ordinary people.
  It is not the few extraordinary people who can save Britain but the tens of millions of ordinary people. This Budget is no inspiration to them. It is no inspiration to a country which is sick, to a country which, to some extent, because of Conservative propaganda and policy has lost its basic qualities and values. It is hon. and right hon. Members opposite who are responsible for breeding the cynicism which comes from saying, "You have never had it so good". It is hon. and right hon. Members opposite who say, "If you look after yourselves, it will be good in the long run for the community". We are now beginning to realise that that sort of philosophy cannot lead to a great Britain. It can lead only to a dying Britain.
  I do not believe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer or those who support him can solve the economic and social problems facing us. The best thing they can do is to get out as quickly as possible before they do more damage to both the economy and to people in general.
  9.10 p.m.
  Mr. R. M. Bingham: I must curtail my remarks in order to keep in touch with the timetable.
  One matter which the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) touched on was the mobility of labour. He pointed out—and this found an echo in my heart—that undue emphasis on the mobility of labour undoubtedly tends to create almost as many social problems as the economic problems which it attempts to solve. Personally, I support the Government's policy which is concentrated, by the direction of industries, on taking industries to those areas where, for one reason or another, there is a high rate of unemployment. Merseyside is one area which has benefited considerably from this.
  My first impression of the Budget was that here was the golden chance, for which I have listened in vain in a number of economic debates recently, to find
  1260
  out from the Opposition and from the Liberal Party what were their exact recipes for economic growth. It is easy enough to say that our rate of economic growth, sound expansion or increased production is not sufficient. It is not so easy to produce recipes or remedies which would be more satisfactory than those proposed by the Government.
  Speaking for myself, I must admit that, as a result of the debate so far, I find myself in a state of some disappointment. I think that I have listened to all the Opposition speeches bar one. I have heard a certain amount of agreement with planning in principle, but I have not heard one wholehearted declaration of support for the best planning proposal which has been made in this sphere, and that is the National Economic Development Council. I do not understand why the Opposition do not give this Council their wholehearted support.
  The Opposition's plans for economic development were listed by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) under a number of heads. I did not find them easy to understand. Nor was it easy to see how they would have much effect on the economic situation. Co-ordinating plans for investment and priorities for raising new capital were two of the recipes for economic growth which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. That is really the language of controls of the immediate post-war period. He said that new Government companies, where required, should be created—not that I would think that any were required—and then he said that there should be export incentives. If an export incentive could be formulated which did not contravene G.A.T.T. and O.E.E.C. rules, I feel sure that it would have been devised by the Government by now. To be fair to the hon. Member, he mentioned certain other matters as part of the Opposition's recipe for economic growth. The distribution of industry and, I am sorry to tell the hon. Member for Jarrow, mobility of labour figured among them.
  The Leader of the Liberal Party said that the Government had no plans for economic growth. Surely that is incorrect. I do not know what the National Economic Development Council has been set up for if it was not for that

  1261
  purpose. What seemed to me to be the obvious fact is that the Liberal Party does not have—or if it has, it has not announced—plans for economic growth. I shall have to read the right hon. Member's speech carefully, but I did not detect anything definite, concrete or specific there in the plans of the Liberal Party for that purpose.
  I found myself, not surprisingly, perhaps, thrown back upon a speaker from my own side who seemed to my not very economic brain to be saying what was the obvious truth. I refer to my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Sir A. Spearman), who said that it is the growth of capacity to produce that we must have and that we must create conditions in which it pays the citizen to do what is in the interests of the State.
  I judge that the measures being taken by the Government are calculated to do that, but I ask my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, when he is having his review of business taxation, he would not at the same time refer to the review the question of whether, into a system of business taxation, some form of taxation relief which is deliberately designed to stimulate productivity could not be incorporated.
  One is well aware of the enormous difficulties in working out a formula, but, as has been said throughout the debate, productivity is the keynote of our economic position. If a formula for taxation relief granted for increased productivity achieved by a business, comparing one year with another, could be found, surely that would be a fiscal remedy applied where it was most needed.
  To turn to slightly less general subjects, I should like to know whether my right hon. and learned Friend could not seize this opportunity to set in train with his review of business taxation a parallel review of personal taxation, with the object of trying to get for persons what he is already trying to achieve for corporations, so that the individual taxpayer pays one single tax—Income Tax.
  It would be an ideal opportunity if those two objectives were put into train concurrently. It would be an ideal moment if we could follow the recommendation
  1262
  of the last Royal Commission and move our whole basis of taxation on to an actual year basis. For example, company Profits Tax is already on an actual year basis, whereas Schedule D Income Tax for companies is on the preceding year basis. If a corporate tax is to be devised, it would seem that some reconciliation in that position must be achieved, and if it is to be achieved there, can it not be achieved at the same time over the whole field of taxation?
  I ask my right hon. and learned Friend also whether, in this move towards simplification, he could not go on and abolish those relics from the time of Addington—the Schedules, which seem to serve only to confuse the average man in the street and which make necessary the interposition of professional help in the shape of accountants at a much simpler stage than probably would be necessary if the Schedules did not exist. All that is necessary is one comprehensive definition of income, which, admittedly, might be a fairly long one, and on charge to income.
  The abolition of Schedule A for owner-occupiers is clearly a step in the right direction here, but I should like to know whether my right hon. and learned Friend is sure that he is right about the loss of yield that would follow. Fifty-two million pounds seems at a glance a very large loss of yield. My right hon. and learned Frend's argument, as I apprehend it, is that Schedule A valuations will have to follow rating assessments in time. The result for owner-occupiers on the new valuations would be insupportable. Therefore, once one admits that fact, any logic for the tax disappears and so it should be abolished, even at a cost of £50 million—and a very good thing, too.
  One should consider this position, taking the argument further, with regard to industry and commerce. If the same logic is applied there, the Schedule A valuations would have to follow the rating assessments and one would imagine that they would show an increase of threefold or fourfold. If the logic of the case for abolishing Schedule A for owner-occupiers is followed here, one would think that it would be equally insupportable to industry. If that logic is not followed, the yield from industry and commerce on the new valuations

  1263
  surely must be set against the loss of yield which would result from the abolition in the case of owner-occupiers. I should have thought that those two matters might well have cancelled themselves out, but this is not an argument for limiting the abolition of Schedule A to owner-occupiers. Rather, if it is logical to deal with owner-occupiers on the basis of the arguments upon which Schedule A is now to be abolished, it is equally logical to do so in the case of all payers of Schedule A.
  If industry and commerce do pay Schedule A on such a scale that the loss of yield would be too great, then clearly the result of the abolition could be conveniently referred to the review of business taxation, so that the corporate tax could be appropriately adjusted. That would yield a much more just result than an arbitrary levy of tax, as it is at the moment, on land. If one did that, only landlords of rented property, apart from some minor cases, would be assessed under Schedule A and they could be quite easily assessed for the whole of their rents in respect of excess rents under Schedule D, so that without much alteration the whole administrative paraphernalia of Schedule A could well be scrapped at this juncture. If one could do that, the whole administrative machinery of Schedule A could also go, with all the inspectors and staffs scattered over the country, and that would result in much greater administrative efficiency. I end, where I began, when I say that it would improve productivity within the Inland Revenue.
  9.19 p.m.
  Mr. J. Hill: Tonight's evening papers give the answer as to who will benefit from the Budget. They bear headlines to the effect that the City welcomes the Chancellor's statement with open arms and that shares are rising by 2s. 6d. and more. I, like my hon. and right hon. Friends, feel sorry for the old people. They, again, have been forgotten. All they have from the Budget is an increase in Purchase Tax on clothing and other things they use.
  Sir D. Glover: And reductions.
  Mr. Ross: A reduction in motor car prices for old-age pensioners.
  Mr. Hill: Two or three speeches seem to be being made at the same time.
  1264
  The Chancellor is to tax the pleasures of children—their sweets, ice-creams and soft drinks. The estimate is, I believe, that he will get about £50 million from this. It is a shocking way of getting money to run the country. Why does he not reverse his decision to give the Surtax payers £80 million? That would be a better way of raising money than by putting a tax on children's pleasures. It may be said that children should not eat so many sweets and so much ice-cream so that their teeth would not deteriorate so much, but that is a matter of teaching, not of taxing.
  I am not satisfied with the Chancellor's capital gains tax, but much has been said about that, and I shall not develop the point further. I wish to devote what I have to say to his statement that this is a Budget of growth. I want to apply that statement to Scotland in particular, because it seems to be forgotten that Scotland is still part of Great Britain, and there is little evidence in Scotland of how he proposes to stimulate growth in the economy. He seems to be relying purely on negative measures and on exhortation.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman's faith will be measured by his reluctance to fix a target for industrial growth. The Budget will not be received very warmly in Scotland, because we expected some steps to bring about the industrial growth that everyone so desires. We want to help to get that industrial growth.
  In Scotland we have the skilled labour and the sites readily available—all waiting for the promised industries. What do we get? Instead of expanding, our major industries are being run down. There have been closures of pits—and more are to follow. Men will shortly be paid off at John Brown's. There is the run down of the railways and of the manufacture of locomotives. All these industries employ experienced, skilled labour.
  In my constituency there has been the hurried closure of the shale oil industry. We are tired of the same old answers from Ministers when we ask about jobs for Scotland. We are tired of being told how many jobs are in the pipeline. Surely by this time there should have been at least a trickle of jobs from the pipeline. So far, there is no evidence of it.

  1265
  We were told that the B.M.C. factory would be the salvation of the centre of Scotland. I remind the Financial Secretary that when, after the last Budget, the late John Taylor and I approached him on the question of the preference tax on the shale oil industry, we were given a promise that the Government would take steps to try to assist the industry other than by keeping a preference tax on. We have had the answer in the hurried closure of the industry which is to take place not in 1964, as the Minister said last week, but within the next six weeks. A thousand men will lose their jobs and there is no other work for them. That is the sort of thing which we want to prevent when we say that we want to assist the Chancellor in his claim that he is planning for an expansion in industry.
  Under the Local Employment Act, 1960, the then President of the Board of Trade scheduled the Calders area as a development area, but when we got the B.M.C. factory in West Lothian he de-scheduled the Calders area. With the closure of the shale oil industry, I wonder whether he will now schedule the area again as a development area which would be only fair. When the B.M.C. factory came to Bathgate we were told that ancillary industry would follow, but it is practically non-existent, although in Midlothian we have sites not five miles from the B.M.C. factory and a local authority bending over backwards to build factories for any industries prepared to come to the area. None has yet come.
  Closures are also occurring in the coal industry in my constituency and miners in Fife have been told that if they want a job in coal mining, they must go to England. We believe that we have already lost too many of our young men to England and I hope that jobs will be found in Midlothian for the miners who are made unemployed because of the continued closures and the contraction of the coal industry. I do not think that the Budget will help much in that direction.
  The shale oil industry has been a source of fuel for many public transport undertakings in Scotland and I am sure that one day the Government will regret the closure of that industry. For a long time we have been trying to bring new industry to the area and time after time
  1266
  I have been told in reply to questions that so many jobs are in the pipeline. I had an Answer to a Written Question from the Minister of Labour yesterday saying that 6,000 jobs were to be available. We want to know when they will be available, because people Who lose their jobs cannot afford to wait two or three years before getting another. With the way in which industry is developing in Scotland at present, I am beginning to wonder if they ever will get another job.
  Another excuse put forward by the Secretary of State when we discuss the state of industry in Scotland is that we are to have the new town of Livingston which will take an expected overspill of 40,000 from Glasgow, an overspill which will be followed by industry. Are we to assume that the people coming from Glasgow will get jobs in the B.M.C. factory, or is the industry to precede the overspill population?
  These are the questions we want answered in order to find out why the people of Midlothian cannot get jobs. I noticed that the Prime Minister went to Stockton during the by-election to assist the Tory candidate there, though not very successfully. I want to remind the Committee that a by-election is due in West Lothian, and to say that we should welcome either the Prime Minister or the Chancellor of the Exchequer coming to West Lothian to meet the people who are concerned with the closure of the shale oil industry and to explain to the men why it is necessary to close down this industry. We will receive them with open arms.
  What industry in Scotland requires is a transfusion, and that can only come from one place—from the Government. We have been trying for some time to get the Government to take action, and we are now asking them again, because the position in Scotland is rapidly deteriorating. If the Minister of Labour cares to check up, he will find that Rolls-Royce are about to pay off 6,000 men, that in the shipbuilding industry people are to become unemployed, that there is a rundown in the coal industry and a rundown on the railways, and that no alternative employment has been brought forward for these people. At the locomotive works, 1,500 men are to become

  1267
  redundant. At the risk of offending some of my hon. Friends in England, I suggest again, as we have done in the past, that the Government should take steps to channel some of the excessive industries of England to the midlands of Scotland, because if they do not do something quickly, the centre of Scotland will be like the Highlands, and will become depopulated. The Government would probably then require to bring in a Crofters Bill to cover the midlands of Scotland.
  I would ask again that the Chancellor should try to do something for Scotland and its economy before it is too late. Time is running out, and it may well be that within the next year or eighteen months, unless something is done, unemployment in Scotland will be gravely aggravated. I appeal to the Chancellor to help us to get our expansion, and we will give him all the help he wants.
  9.38 p.m.
  Sir E. Henry d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: The hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. J. Hill) put a number of questions about Scotland, to which he will not expect any reply from me, but I would remind him of the fact, which he has overlooked, that every consumer of sugar in this country, including children and old-age pensioners, will benefit from the fact that the price of sugar has been reduced by ½d. per 1b. as a result of my right hon. and learned Friend's Budget, including, of course, people in Scotland.
  The hour is late, but I should not like to close the debate today without offering to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Moss Side (Mr. F. Taylor) our congratulations on his maiden speech, particularly because his predecessor here was so much esteemed by us, and we are very pleased to see that his former division is now so adequately represented.
  When I listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), and also that of the leader of the Liberal Party, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond)—
  Hon. Members: Where are they?
  Mr. Ross: They are looking for the Prime Minister.
  Mr. Houghton: Questions are being asked about my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan). He is doing a television programme at this moment.
  Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: For the sake of his fans outside, I hope very much that his television programme is more successful than his performance here.
  I was reminded very much of that critical point in the serial story of the boy's magazine when the hero was at the bottom of the pit with the water closing over him and the villian was clutching at the edge of the well. At that point the writer of the serial story handed in his notice and said that he required a rise. The staff cudgelled their brains for a solution, but, finding it impossible to find one, they gave the writer a rise so that the next instalment could go to press. The next instalment began:
  "At one bound our hero was free."
  That story is parallel to the remedies for our present state which were propounded by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East and by the Leader of the Liberal Party. They begged every question.
  When I heard the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East saying that he would be in favour of export incentives which did not conflict with our obligations under G.A.T.T., I thought that he might have done his homework more carefully, and when the Leader of the Liberal Party said that our present situation could be improved by taxing land values, I thought that he had overlooked the fact that there is no register of land valuation in existence, and if he had studied the report on land valuation he would have discovered that it would take five or six years to get the necessary information. This seems an extremely long-term solution to our present troubles.
  When my right hon. and learned Friend let it be known that he was going to propound a capital gains tax, my heart went out to him. I feared that he might follow those who had followed the lead of that eminent economist Mr. Nicholas Kaldor, and most of those who took his advice have landed in disaster. In Ceylon, in Ghana, and in British Guiana the tally has been the same, and

  1269
  very few Finance Ministers who have taken Mr. Kaldor's advice have survived. I was glad to note that my right hon. and learned Friend did not take Mr. Kaldor's advice, and has not given us a capital gains tax. He has produced a speculative gains tax which will surely be effective in the limited field in which it is to operate.
  One result it will have will be the elimination of that fabulous animal referred to by the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn)—the stag. This harmless creature takes his name from those ornaments outside Albert Gate where there used to live the famous railway promoter Mr. Hudson, and people who waited outside his house to subscribe to his issues got the name of stags. Undoubtedly their transactions will not survive this measure, because the essence of the transaction is that they apply for shares that they do not intend to keep, and my right hon. and learned Friend has pursued the stags with the energy of the Devon and Somerset hounds and perhaps even with a vindictiveness one would normally associate with the League against Cruel Sports.
  Nevertheless, I do not think that the stag will be missed. I think that in recent years he has added enormously to the work of the City issuing houses. Great trouble has been caused by the posting of cheques which could not be met, and the elimination of the stag from the system will probably not make the City's task in dealing with new issues any more difficult.
  I think, too, that there is another special value to it. I have noticed, and perhaps other hon. Members have also noted, that certain promoters have suggested to the depositors in their companies that they could benefit from being allowed to subscribe to new issues on specially preferential terms. This has induced them to deposit their funds in this way.
  This is an inducement to which we should no give special sanction. For that reason I am glad that this tax has been imposed, so that the stag may become a legendary animal.
  Mr. Mitchison: Has the hon. Member read in one of this evening's news-
  1270
  papers the selection of schemes for avoiding the tax? He will find it quite interesting.
  Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: I am obliged. Unlike the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), I have spent most of today in this House. I have not had an opportunity of reading the evening newspapers. Nevertheless, I expect that there is plenty of expertise on the hon. and learned Member's side of the House to advise him on this matter should the occasion arise.
  I remember when a good many years ago my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister referred to the problems of the Chancellor as having to look up trains in an out-of-date Bradshaw. Since then Bradshaw has become defunct.
  Mr. Ross: So have the trains.
  Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: In the bundle of literature that we have received during the last few weeks we have surely found some very interesting trains. Some, like the trains in Bradshaw, come to a stop almost as soon as they have started. Others have an ever-wider margin of error—even more than Bradshaw allowed for. But there is one table which my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor cannot escape, and it should be on his desk opposite to that famous picture of Gladstone of which we used to hear so much. I refer to Table No. 13 in Cmnd. No. 1671—the list of sterling holdings.
  It is a very simple table, which shows that, as on 31st December, 1961, we had a liability of £4,515 million, of which £2,631 was owed to sterling area countries and the balance to other countries and the International Monetary Fund. Against that liability of £4,515 million we had exactly £1,185 million in gold and convertible currency reserves. In other words, our reserves were only one-quarter of our sight liabilities. Nobody holding the onerous position of Chancellor can escape the implications of that table in all his doings.
  Last year, in the face of that situation, we achieved a fair result. If we take out transactions on current account the position may be summarised as follows: on visible trade we had a deficit of £135

  1271
  million; on Government military expenditure abroad we spent £227 million, and on what are called net payments for overseas development we spent £162 million—making a total of £524 million that had to be found to balance the account. Against that, we have received £257 million net in interest on our investments abroad and £50 million on private investment from abroad, and there has been a reduction of roughly £300 million in the value of stocks.
  I am sorry to hurry over these figures, because they are vital to an examination of our present position. Unless we are going to repudiate on our military expenditure abroad, and renege our treaty engagements; unless we are going to turn our backs on the necessary payments for overseas developments—which hon. Members on both sides have agreed that we have a moral obligation to maintain—we have this large amount of money to find. It is clear that we can find it only if we run the economy in the only way in which this money can be generated.
  In the Three Banks Review there is a very interesting comparison between Western Germany and this country showing the reason for the so-called West German economic miracle. The facts of it were that in the ten years from 1950 to 1960, out of the gross national product in West Germany, wages and salaries took 47 per cent. In the United Kingdom the figure was 58 per cent. That is the key to the difference between ourselves and Germany. We have consistently consumed a very large proportion of what we were producing. Therefore, we have not been able to invest productively at anything like the proportion which Germany has done.
  Germany had the advantage of the currency reform and to my mind that is a point which should be insisted upon. At one stroke of the pen Germany wiped out 90 per cent. of her cash liabilities and debts. When we are told how much more quick has been the economic growth in France and Germany we must no forget that Germany to the extent of 90 per cent. and France to the extent of 95 per cent. have written off their debts. I remember when 1,000 francs cost £14. Today they would be called 10 New Francs and would cost 14s. In other
  1272
  words, 95 per cent. of the French debt and 90 per cent. of the German debt has been extinguished and if we had taken the same action how happy the Chancellor would have been.
  Mr. Woodburn Mr. Woodburn rose—
  Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: I am sorry, I cannot give way. The time is very short.
  Instead of paying £600 million interest on our National Debt we should have to pay only £60 million. There would be a saving of £540 million. The companies listed on the Stock Exchange have a loan capital of £2,700 million. If that were cut down to £135 million, think how very much better off they would be, and how easy they would find it to increase their production—
  Mr. Holt: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the Committee for whom he is explaining?
  Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: I am explaining for those who are pressing productivity at all costs.
  Mr. Nigel Birch: I should have thought that the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt) was bright enough to see that.
  Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: The countries which have achieved this method of productivity are held up to us as examples of those who have taken the preliminary step to writing off their debts.
  The question of productivity is one which we have to settle. In my opinion we are producing goods which other people want and for which they can pay. To my mind, pouring surplus milk down a disused coal mine is an obvious example of waste. Another obvious case of waste, or perhaps it is one which is not quite so obvious, is selling cars on hire-purchase terms to people who cannot afford to pay for them. The waste is longer term but exactly the same and that is one problem that people who urge productivity upon us at all costs must bear in mind—that production must be directed to the areas where there is an effective demand.
  We have had a great number of Budgets since the war and I think that now we can appreciate our position.

  1273
  First, we have to do what is in our power to expand exports. Secondly, it is no use doing that by expanding internal demand which will provoke an exchange crisis. It is the same thing as the motto on the sun-dial:
  "Each hour leaves a wound, the last is fatal."
  If we cultivate the habit of exchange crises, we shall quickly run into one which is fatal.
  While we have ample resources to deal with any temporary situation, we cannot stand against what looks like a permanent imbalance; and those who demand an increase in domestic demand are implicitly demanding that we should go back on our obligations to the rest of the world and run the risk of devaluation. We should not forget this. I think that my right hon. and learned Friend has produced the Budget that we needed to give our exporters a chance to take advantage of the increasing demand abroad for our goods, and so stimulate home production.
  If further encouragement is needed the Chancellor has the regulator. I wonder why nobody has made the point that the regulator works both ways and that it could just as well be used this summer to reduce taxation as it was used last summer to increase it. Secondly, my right hon. and learned Friend, if he wishes, can stimulate the economy. He could release some of the special deposits in the banking system and he could reduce the Bank Rate. He would seem to be most admirably poised to deal with the requirements of the economy, and the real question is whether our manufacturing industry is up to the task which it has to perform. I hope that it is. I would say that the record of my right hon. and learned Friend is unassailable. He saved the £ and he has won the respect of the world by his fortitude.
  Whereupon Motion made, and Question, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. Peel]—put and agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

  PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS
  9.57 p.m.
  Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Pedestrian Crossings (Push Button Control) Regulations, 1962 (S.I., 1962, No. 425), dated 26th February, 1962, a copy of which was laid before this House on 6th March, be annulled.
  These Regulations are perhaps better known as the panda crossing Regulations. I want to make it clear at once that this Prayer is no condemnation of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport for introducing this experiment in pedestrian safety. I am as anxious as I am sure is the Minister that this experiment should be given a full trial and that as much public explanation of it as is possible should be given, and unless my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary says something outrageous I shall not invite the House to divide on this Motion. But I think that I am justified in using this form of Parliamentary procedure to extract more explanation than has been given so far of these panda crossings. The newspapers have gone as far as to call the introduction of these crossings "Panda-monium," and the House will agree that the public ought to be a little better informed of the nature of the experiment and of the operation of the Regulations.
  The background to the Regulations is that although pedestrians are involved in only one-fifth of the personal injury accidents which occur on the roads, they comprise two-fifths of those killed in such accidents. In figures referring to those of 1961, that means that no fewer than 54 pedestrians are killed every week on the roads, which is about seven or eight a day. The great majority of those pedestrians who are killed on the roads every day are killed while crossing the roads, and my right hon. Friend was right when he said recently that there was a growing need for the provision of safe crossing places for pedestrians. The question before the House on these Regulations is whether these panda crossings are safe crossing places or at least are safer than the present type of crossing.
  I do not think that we can claim that crossings of the present type are really safe. No fewer than 30 people a week

  1275
  are killed or injured on the existing crossings. As between the different types of existing crossing, excluding those which axe police controlled, on which the casualties are quite insignificant, it can be said that it is 150 per cent. safer on a press-button light-controlled crossing than it is on an ordinary zebra crossing. The reason for the greater safety on the light-controlled crossing is obvious; it gives a warning that the pedestrian intends to exercise his rights, whereas on the zebra crossing the pedestrian has no rights whatever until he takes the plunge and steps on to the crossing.
  The panda crossing under these Regulations is something of a combination of the two. It gets one safely on to the crossing by stopping the traffic, and then, by releasing the traffic, it allows the zebra rules to apply, if I may so call them—that is to say, the motorist must give the pedestrian precedence.
  In case any hon. Members have not tried the panda crossings, I will endeavour to explain how they work, and as you say on other occasions, Mr. Speaker, for the sake of greater accuracy I have provided myself with a stop watch. Perhaps I should offer acknowledgement to Messrs. H. Samuel Ltd. on the other side of Bridge Street who loaned me this stop watch this afternoon, entirely free of charge.
  With the aid of this stop watch I will explain to the House how the panda crossings work. The pedestrian who wishes to cross, presses the button—and for the period of time which I will show on the stop watch the sign "Wait" lights up on the beacon which is on the pole by the crossing. The House may be a little shaken by the fact that that period of time which I indicated on the stop watch is so short. During that short period of time an amber light is pulsating towards the motorist approaching the crossing. When the motorist sees the amber light start to pulsate like that he has the period of time which I will now demonstrate on the stop watch in which to draw up at the crossing. Hon. Members will observe that five seconds, which is the period involved, is a very short period of time.
  The next phase in the crossing is that the pedestrian sees in front of him the
  1276
  sign, as it were on the opposite bank. "Cross". At the same moment to the motorist a red light pulsates. The pedestrian, having seen the sign "Cross" light up in front of him, then has the period of time which I will now demonstrate on the stop watch during which the motorist is held up—merely five seconds on a 32 ft. road.
  Up to that stage everything is fairly orderly. First, the pedestrian has the sign "Wait". He then sees the sign to cross, and he starts to cross. At the same time the motorist has an amber light which he understands to be a cautionary light, and he then has the red light which he understands to be "Stop". Up to that stage everything is fairly orderly—but then everything goes crazy. To the pedestrian this comfortingly illuminated invitation to cross, having fiendishly induced him on to the crossing, suddenly turns into a morse signaller with St. Vitus Dance getting wilder and wilder as he endeavours to finish his crossing. The motorist, too, is similarly presented with a bewitched light which flashes at him. I think it is enough to strike panic into the stoutest of hearts. Then, with frightening suddenness, all is dark. All this is extremely confusing both to the pedestrian and to the motorist.
  I ask my hon. Friend: Why not have words instead of these flickering flashes? Let me give the process which I think would be reasonably understood by both the motorist and the pedestrian. The button is pressed and the pedestrian sees the sign "Wait" in front of him for five seconds. Then he sees the sign "Cross" showing from the other side of the road. I should have thought that ought to last for at least ten seconds to enable the pedestrian to get fairly well across the crossing. Then let it change to the word "Caution". Perhaps there could be another light there. At the same time, behind him on the pavement which he has left the "Wait" sign should light up again on the beacon pole to prevent other pedestrians getting on to the crossing at the last moment when there is insufficient time to cross. There is a series of words easily understood—"Wait", "Cross", and "Caution".
  To the motorist the same phases would be pulsating. If one wishes, an amber light for five seconds would tell the motorist to pull up, a red light for

  1277
  ten seconds would tell him that he must not proceed across the crossing, and an amber light for some ten to fifteen seconds would allow him to proceed even though there may be a pedestrian on the crossing.
  I ask my hon. Friend to ask the Minister to consider these three things. First, the timing of these lights under these Regulations, and particularly the timing of the all-red period. That does not need any alteration of the Regulations. Secondly—and this might need an amending Regulation—to use words rather than the flashing lights. It is really confusing to the ordinary road crosser on foot to have these lights flashing at him.
  The third point I would ask him to consider is one that I have not mentioned yet. It is this. As I understand it, the principle of these panda crossings is that the pedestrian first stops the traffic and then starts to cross. While the pedestrian is still on the crossing, the traffic is then allowed to proceed—of course, giving precedence to the pedestrian. The traffic which is then allowed to proceed is not only the traffic which has been stationary but is also the traffic which is approaching the crossing and may be approaching at no slow speed The pedestrian on a panda crossing is put in jeopardy from overtaking traffic far more than on any other crossing.
  If it were an offence for a car to overtake on approaching a pedestrian crossing, and if this law were enforced, I think the present danger which I see inherent in these Regulations would be greatly reduced. But in the absence of a prohibition against overtaking on approaching pedestrian crossings, I am very apprehensive about the effect of these panda crossings.
  I ask my hon. Friend to ensure that when the Minister undertakes the critical examination of this panda experiment he will not be governed by any over-sensitive regard for what is called the flow of traffic, what I understand is something calculated to terrorise those on foot, but will have a very real regard—and here I think I can use the Minister's words—to the provision of safe crossing places for pedestrians.
  10.10 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay): I am much obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) for tabling this Prayer tonight and my sense of obligation to him extended even further when he said in his opening remarks that he did not intend, unless I said something quite startling, to divide the House against us.
  I welcome the opportunity of saying something about this new type of pedestrian crossing, which has not had a completely unanimous welcome, but which will—I hope that I shall carry the House with me by the time I have finished my remarks—have a great part to play in improving road safety.
  I should like to begin by explaining why we have instituted the panda type crossing. Road safety is probably the most baffling, and certainly the most difficult, of all the jobs which fall to a Minister of Transport, and no aspect of road safety is more difficult than what the experts call the vehicle-pedestrian conflict. The House is probably aware that my right hon. Friend has set up a long-term study group to look into the whole question, among other things, of the physical separation of pedestrians from vehicles, but this, of course, could not easily be undertaken without a complete rebuilding of our cities.
  In the meantime, and until that sort of solution can be implemented, we have to arrange that the carriageway of our roads has to be shared between vehicles and pedestrians on the same level, and the whole purpose of the pedestrian crossing is to assist the orderly sharing of road space at certain times.
  I hope that, without getting too wildly out of order, the House will permit me to say a word about the other types of crossings that we have in this country, because it is impossible to understand why we have chosen the panda type crossing without understanding also the advantages and drawbacks of the other types.
  Briefly, there are four other types of pedestrian crossings. The first is the police controlled crossing where there is a policeman on duty to hold up the traffic and then to hold up the pedestrians. This type of crossing is suitable where there is very heavy vehicle

  1279
  and pedestrian traffic, but it results in very substantial delay to the traffic. The second type is signal control at a junction. Here a stream of traffic is held up in the interests of another stream of traffic, but when it is held up pedestrians are enabled to cross. In some places, we have an all-red phase where all the traffic lights on the arms of the junction are showing red and that enables pedestrians to cross without difficulty. This again creates a substantial delay for traffic and is not universally suitable for every junction.
  The third type of crossing is where we have installed traffic lights on a pedestrian crossing without there being a junction at that point. This, as my hon. Friend said, creates much greater safety for pedestrians but it has a number of disadvantages. The fact that traffic is stopped for a period often means that if only one person or very few people want to cross a lot of traffic may be held up for a substantial time. Often traffic is quite unnecessarily held up. Most of us who are motorists have had the experience at these crossings of the small boy who takes a fiendish delight in pressing the button and running away after bringing all the traffic to a halt. This is one of the disadvantages.
  Finally, there is what we call in the Ministry the uncontrolled crossing, which lie public generally knows as the zebra crossing. The uncontrolled crossing was first instituted in 1935, and the zebra markings with illuminated flashing globes were brought in as recently as 1951. At the same time, the number of these crossings was reduced considerably. We have managed to maintain the number fairly constant ever since. We now have about 10,000 zebra crossings throughout the country. The essential feature of the zebra crossing as hon. Members know, is that on a crossing of this kind the pedestrian has priority. If he is on the crossing, he is entitled to precedence.
  We install zebra crossings only where there is a reasonably continuous flow of traffic both vehicular and pedestrian throughout the day. We are often pressed to have more of them and we have to be rather brutal about saying "No", as hon. Members may know from their own experience, perhaps to
  1280
  their cost. The reason is simply that, if we allowed pedestrian crossings to proliferate to a large extent throughout the country, the standard of observance of the rules by drivers would undoubtedly fall dramatically.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby said, the accident rate for pedestrians on pedestrian crossings is rising. In 1959, there were i6£ per cent. more fatal and serious pedestrian accidents than in 1953, but the accident rate on zebra crossings alone rose in that period by no less than 42 per cent. It was in the light of this situation that we came to the conclusion that something fresh was needed.
  The object of the panda crossing is to deal with that situation. First, we seek by this type of crossing to give the pedestrian a degree of protection by traffic lights, but to do that with the minimum of delay to traffic. As I have said, when there is a pedestrian crossing controlled by the orthodox three-colour traffic light, we find that in practice the traffic is held up for long periods, often quite unnecessarily. The first object of the panda crossing is to overcome that difficulty but, nevertheless, to control vehicles by a light.
  The second object is to provide a crossing for two types of site. The first type is where pedestrian demand for a crossing is light or limited to certain comparatively short periods of the day. The second type is where the pedestrian demand is heavy but where vehicular traffic is light. That zebra crossing is not appropriate for these circumstances. It is in those two types of case that we are installing the panda crossing. As my hon. Friend said, this is being done on an experimental basis. The experiment will run for a year. We are monitoring and watching what is happening, and we shall modify the experiment as we go along.
  The essential features of the panda crossing are those of a signal-controlled crossing with special aspects. The period during which vehicles must be halted in answer to the lights is kept as short as possible. As my hon. Friend said, this can be as short as five seconds. The object behind this comparatively short space of time is not simply to enable pedestrians to get across the crossing but to enable them to start to

  1281
  cross because the moment that they start to cross they obtain their right of precedence over the vehicular traffic. I do not know what HANSARD will have made of my hon. Friend's demonstrations with the stop watch. I wish to impress upon the House that these timings are flexible and we can and will alter them if experience shows that to be necessary.
  Once the amber lights have started to operate, a vehicle may continue to go over the crossing provided that it is clear of pedestrians. If it is not clear of pedestrians, then a vehicle may proceed only if by so doing it does not hinder a pedestrian. The effect, therefore, is that there is greater flexibility for the vehicles. The vehicles are not brought to a stop for a long time as with the ordinary type of traffic light. A degree of flexibility is given to the driver so that he can proceed if the circumstances on the crossing in front of him are such as to enable him to do so in safety.
  I shall not weary the House with a long description of how the crossings work because my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby has done that very graphically, and I could not find many, if any, faults in what he said. I should, however, like to say a word or two about the timing problem. My hon. Friend was somewhat critical of the comparatively short time we have instituted with the panda crossings, but it is important to understand that the whole of the panda installation is completely flexible with the object of meeting local circumstances. For instance, the length of the preliminary amber signal is varied according to the speed of the traffic on each road. If the traffic is restricted to 30 miles an hour that is, if the panda crossing is in a built-up area, the length will be four seconds. If the speed limit is 40 miles an hour, it will be five seconds. I repeat that the object is to enable the pedestrians to get on to the crossing and to claim precedence.
  The length of time which the red light is shown to vehicles will also vary according to the width of the road. If the road is narrow, the red period for cars will be four seconds. If it is a wider road, it will be five or six seconds. The length of time of the flashing amber signal will depend on the intensity of pedestrian traffic at its peak. If this period is too long, there is a danger of
  1282
  a second wave of pedestrians being built up and attempting to cross too late, a point which my hon. Friend made and which I will look into because I have noticed this myself.
  Finally, the vehicle period when no lights are on is varied in accordance with the maximum vehicle traffic. If this period is too long, pedestrians will become impatient and will not wait. Again, this is something which I have seen. The pedestrian presses the button and the "Wait" sign goes on, but the pedestrian does not wait. He or she plunges forward across the crossing imagining that all will be well.
  A particular example is the crossing which no doubt hon. Members have seen at York Road, opposite Waterloo Station. At this site, where there is a very large amount of pedestrian traffic, the division of time between pedestrian and vehicles is more or less 50–50. At installations elsewhere, the division of time is nearly three to one in favour of vehicles. The time of the complete cycle from the beginning to the end varies at different sites from about 35 to 55 seconds. The more intense the competition between vehicles and pedestrians, the greater the need to keep the total cycle time as short as possible.
  I should like to say something about our experience to date with these crossings. I emphasise that we have had little experience of them so far, and I hope that we shall not come to premature conclusions after what is in fact only eight days of panda crossings, because they were started, as the House will remember, on only Monday of last week. Undoubtedly the installation is more complicated than the zebra crossings, but we do not see any reason why it should not be understood in time. When it is, I think that it will pay us good dividends in terms of road safety.
  Incidentally, panda crossings should not be judged solely or even mainly by the one in York Road. As I said, there is there an exceptional density of both pedestrian and vehicular traffic. However, the experiment which we are conducting covers a very wide range of sites and traffic conditions throughout the country and we need evidence about how the crossing works at all of them.
  We have installed panda crossings at 45 sites in England and Wales. Five

  1283
  have been installed in Scotland, in Glasgow. Twenty-three of the sites in England and Wales are spread evenly to cover all sorts of traffic conditions. The other 22 are at Guildford, which has 12 of them, and at Lincoln, which has 10. In these two towns, all the zebra crossings have been converted to panda crossings.
  Already, interesting results are appearing. At Lincoln, for example, it was formerly necessary for the police to control zebra crossings at peak times and on Fridays and Saturdays. As a result of the institution of the panda crossings, the police control has been withdrawn because it is unnecessary. Again, at Guildford, on a Saturday police control was needed on several crossings. It has been withdrawn because it has been found that the panda crossing renders this type of protection for the pedestrian unnecessary. Similarly, police control has been withdrawn from the crossing outside the Royal Grammar School at Guildford, where it was formerly necessary and is now considered to be quite unnecessary.
  I spent a little time last weekend in Reading, which is near to my constituency, where three panda crossings are in operation. I noticed the tremendous difference compared with what one sees in York Road, Waterloo, because in Reading I found it extremely difficult to observe pedestrians and vehicles together at the crossing. Pedestrians had no trouble in crossing because there was not much traffic. The traffic had little difficulty in getting through the crossing because there were not many pedestrians. On the whole, the scheme is working there, too.
  I should like next to say something about the observations that we are making. We are already starting to make detailed observations of the panda crossings and some rather interesting evidence has come forward. We have found, for instance, that about one driver out of every four does not seem to realise that he can move forward on the flashing amber signal if no pedestrians are crossing. We have also found that a very few pedestrians—less than 5 per cent.—still apparently think of the panda crossing as a zebra crossing and they try to cross when vehicles have precedence. Very often, we find that
  1284
  they simply do not observe the illuminated "Wait" sign. They press the button and walk straight forward.
  We find that drivers are observing the panda crossings very much better than they do the zebra crossings. We did some interesting observations at Waterloo. I have already mentioned the panda crossing at York Road. Just round the corner, in Waterloo Bridge Road, there is a zebra crossing. We had both of these crossings watched and we found that there was a great diference between the number of violations of the regulations at the panda crossing and the number of violations at the zebra crossing just round the corner. During one peak hour, there were no less than 153 violations of the zebra regulations by motorists while, at the same time, the violations of the panda regulations round the corner were only sixteen. These are startling figures.
  The maximum delay to drivers since the crossing at Waterloo Station became a panda crossing has been reduced from 120 seconds to only 30 seconds. The maximum delay to pedestrians at that crossing has been cut from 34 to 24 seconds. These are the maximum delays. The average delays do not at present show a great deal of difference.
  If I may conclude this part of my remarks, as soon as the initial shakedown period is over—and I urge the House to give us a period in which the "bugs" can be ironed out and the scheme can get into proper working order—we shall bring into operation a comprehensive and systematic monitoring of all the panda crossings. At the same time, we shall get the views of local authorities, of the police and of other interested bodies. We shall hold a major review in five months' time to consider the results of all these studies so that, if necessary, new Regulations can be made at the end of half the year's experimental period.
  We do not claim that the panda crossing is perfect. It is still essentially an experimental apparatus. We shall take into consideration with a completely open mind all the criticisms which we receive, some of which have been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby, and we shall certainly be prepared to make changes if we consider these necessary.

  1285
  There are a number of things that, in particular, we will want to examine. First, there is already doubt whether the amount of flicker in the pulsating signals needs to be reduced to distinguished them more clearly from the flashing signals. Again, should we, perhaps, change the red signal to motorists so that it becomes a steadier light or has a lower rate of pulse than the present signal? Should the striped globes be taken off the standards or should they remain? Do we need, and would it be practicable, to provide a "wait" signal or even a "caution" signal as well as a "cross" signal at the far side of the road facing the pedestrian? Does the fact that the crossing is striped lead pedestrians to suppose, quite thoughtlessly, that they have permanent rights over vehicles regardless of the lights, as they do on zebra crossings? Are the relative times given to pedestrians and vehicles right? Do they need modification to suit actual traffic and pedestrian flows at each site? These are questions which have occurred to us. No doubt there will be others as time goes on.
  However, we have today made one modification at the crossing at Waterloo, and it will be made throughout the country as quickly as we can. We are trying to make the distinction between the flashing and pulsating signals much clearer. The modification we are making to the apparatus reduces the amount of flicker both for the red and the amber signal. The effect is that the light will appear much more constant and much less distracting. The Waterloo crossing is the only one we have modified so far, but modification will be made progressively to all the crossings installed.
  Mr. Arthur Holt: The hon. Gentleman has been very good in giving us a great deal of detail. I am sure that we are all in favour of the experiment and will follow it with great interest. But is there not a danger that if these panda crossings are successful there will be a down-grading in the eyes of the motorist of the ordinary zebra crossing?
  Mr. Hay: That is one of the things which we shall, have to think about rather carefully. I do not think that
  1286
  it is likely to happen, for a reason which I will explain. We shall have to make it as clear as we possibly can—and we are doing a great deal of propaganda and publicity at the moment—that the circumstances in which the zebra crossings are installed are entirely different, as I have tried to show, from those in which panda crossings are installed. Both crossings give pedestrians equivalent rights when the pedestrians are on the crossing and in the case of the panda crossing have pressed the button and started the light signals working.
  I do not think that there is any reason for the motorist in future to regard the zebra crossing as a poor relation of the panda crossing. Motorists will come to realise that the panda crossing is installed in circumstances where the zebra crossing is not necessary. If anything, I would expect motorists to look at the matter the other way round, namely to realise that the panda crossing is installed where pedestrian traffic is likely to be less heavy than where the zebra crossing is installed. But these are speculations and we shall have to see how matters work out.
  I ask the House and the public generally not to come to immediate final conclusions about the panda crossings. They are an experiment, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport has made it perfectly clear that he is willing to consider any modifications and changes that may be necessary in the light of the experience we have over the next few months. If the thing proves a complete failure and a washout, my right hon. Friend will be only too willing to drop it. On the contrary, I think that these crossings will work out all right when the public are used to them. We shall not hesitate to make changes when necessary. With this explanation and those assurances I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby will think fit to withdraw his well intentioned Prayer.
  Mr. Graham Page: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his explanation. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  EDUCATION (TETBURY PRIMARY SCHOOL)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Finlay.]
  10.35 p.m.
  Mr. Anthony Kershaw: I welcome this opportunity to raise a matter of importance to many of my constituents, namely, the rebuilding or repair of Tetbury Primary School. There are in my constituency probably some 700 parents whose children go to this school—and they are the very youngest children, to whom the parents have a special responsibility to see that their education is started in the best possible way. This touches a personal and private part of the lives of these parents, so the condition of the school is of major importance to them.
  The school is a Church of England establishment, built in 1850. It cannot be said to be of remarkable architectural importance. Indeed, some of the windows and part of the premises could possibly have been designed in a different way without any criticism being levelled at them. It houses the junior and infant classes. It was built for perhaps 300 children, but today there are 423.
  The classrooms are too small. All except three have to be divided up by temporary partitions. Temporary partitioning is not a sound-proof method of division, so it is easy for the children to hear what is going on next door and to be diverted from their studies by what seem to be the more entrancing studies of their neighbours on the other side of the screens.
  One of the classrooms measures 8 ft. by 11 ft., and in that a teacher and thirty-three children pursue their studies to the accompaniment of noise from six basins and a boiler adjacent. The dining room has to serve approximately 250-odd meals, which have to be served in two shifts because of the lack of accommodation. As this room is also used as a classroom, two-and-a-half hours of instruction are lost each week.
  The two cloakrooms are much too small, one of them being merely a passage. One of the rooms used for
  1288
  the infants measures 12 ft. by 18 ft., and is used as a cloakroom, washroom, sick room, staff room, interview room and, if my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary goes there, it will be used as a Minister's room as well.
  As one can imagine to be the case in such a building, the toilets are completely inadequate. The 168 infants at the school have only five toilets—all outdoors—and one urinal. There is no hall—no place for physical instruction or drama or other such functions. The original hall, which would perhaps be adequate for these things, is constantly in use, divided into classrooms, and is not available for other purposes.
  The staff, who do not expect to be treated any better than their students in this matter, nevertheless have a rather hard time of it. The headmaster and the secretary have a small hut, such as builders erect on sites in order temporarily to home their workers, measuring lift, by 7 ft., in which they carry out their business. There are four masters at the school, as well as several mistresses of course. The masters have no toilets in the school and have to depend on what I can only call local hospitality in that regard.
  There does not seem to be any prospect of any improvement. The population of the Tetbury area is rising, albeit slowly for the past few years, but there are projects which have recently been put on foot for building other houses in the area. There is a seven-acre site in the centre of the town which is being developed as a private housing enterprise and the Tetbury Council has recently found it possible to restart council housing—it has already completed important projects and others are coming to fruition.
  The population of Tetbury will increase, and in the neighbourhood, within motoring distance, there are many projects and modern industrial enterprises. We have a nuclear reactor at Berkeley and many small, medium and even large engineering business in the area. It is an area which attracts the young married couple with scientific or expect qualifications, people who may attach even greater importance than ordinary parents to educational facilities in the area to which they are moving. I have not the

  1289
  slightest doubt that if the educational facilities in the Tetbury area for primary school children were more elaborate and more adequate, the population of Tetbury would increase, especially with people particularly keen about the education of their children.
  What I have said can leave my hon. Friend in no doubt that the standard of education has suffered because of the lack of facilities for primary school children in Tetbury. I know that I do not need to convince him, because I am sure that he has acquainted himself with the lamentable facts in connection with this school and I know that he will do whatever he can. But while we hope that he will be able to do something, events cannot be allowed entirely to take command and rule themselves.
  Local people who are interested in this school have played their part well. Moneys have been collected and a site for a new school has been bought. My hon. Friend may know that in February, 1938—before the war—moneys were collected and a site acquired and for all that time the people of Tetbury have expected that the new school would shortly be begun. Plans have been agreed between the local education authority and the diocesan committee. At the moment there is a plan for a new junior school, leaving the present school as a school for infants. There is a project for an entirely new school, but that is by the way and does not prejudice the present position.
  The local education authority included this new school in its 1963 projects at a cost of £61,000. It was twelfth in a list of thirteen, but it was top of the Church of England list for the diocese. It was, therefore, with the greatest dismay that it was ascertained that it was not to be in the 1963 programme, nor, we understand—although we have not received it yet—is it likely to be in the 1964 programme.
  In addition, there is a new anxiety because there is a new secondary school projected for Tetbury alongside the new site of the primary school. Although it may be unlikely, and we cannot be sure about it, we have a dark suspicion that the two schools will simultaneously start to be built next door to each other in one town, and we fear that if the
  1290
  secondary school, which is needed as well, is started, the primary school will be put back further still.
  It has been suggested that this site should be tinkered with and improved; that we might put up a few more nissen huts and things like that on the site, but it is very difficult because the site is restricted partly by a road, and partly by a steep slope. It is proposed that the road should be extended, and therefore the site is not suitable for extension or improvement. It is felt that the money spent on improving this site would really be money wasted, and that it would be very much better to start afresh elsewhere.
  It is said that this is a replacement programme only, and of course we realise that there are parts of the country, and indeed parts of Gloucestershire, where there are no schools whatever and that if population went to those areas, no instruction at all could be provided unless money were spent on providing new schools. But, as I have tried to argue, this is not entirely a replacement programme. The population is rising. Housing projects are before the bodies concerned and before private enterprise, and I suggest that the population would rise faster if the educational facilities were available, which they are not at the moment. It is not entirely a replacement programme.
  The parents of these children are not unreasonable about this matter. We realise that there are areas not far away, in Bristol and Cheltenham and elsewhere, where new schools have to be provided, but these proposals have been before us for more than twenty years. The parents of children attending this school were promised that there would be a new school whilst they were at school, and now they see their children going to the same building to which they went. It is very disheartening and I ask my hon. Friend to give us, if not a promise, at least the hope of some definite date when something can be done about it.
  As I have said, it is not in the 1963 programme. We fear that it may not be in the 1964 programme. Can it be in the 1965 programme? It is not so much for the sake of the parents, who after all are forced to send their children there because there is no other school,

  1291
  but for the sake of the staff who are devoted to their work in this school. They know how much they are needed because the buildings are so bad, and because the conditions are so difficult they feel an added sense of responsibility to the children they teach and to the parents whose children they have in their charge. If they are given no idea when these conditions will come to an end, they might lose heart and consider that, from a professional point of view, it might be worth while teaching in a school where they can teach adequately.
  One knows the difficulty of teaching large classes in inadequate premises, and as professional people they rather despair at times, but if they could be given some idea when this will come to an end I am sure that they would redouble their efforts over the next two years to have the satisfaction of saying that they had seen it through and seen a very much better situation by the time they left.
  If my hon. Friend is not able to say exactly what year it will be put in—and I know that the Treasury accounting system is a difficult one even for so powerful a Minister as my hon. Friend to get over—if he could give some definite edge to his remarks, it would be extremely well received and it would be a measure of hope to the people who have for more than a generation been putting up with conditions which militate against the object which my hon. Friend has in mind, namely, the better education of the children of our country.
  10.50 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Kenneth Thompson): My hon. Friend has fought a prolonged and earnest battle over the conditions at the Tetbury Church of England aided primary school, and has made repeated representations to my Department and to my right hon. Friend for a new building to be provided in an early building programme. A deputation of which he was a member was received at the Ministry in November of last year. I think I can assure my hon. Friend—both on the strength of the representations that he has made, and from the inquiries that I have caused to be conducted—that all the facts of this school are very well known within the Department, and it will not be for lack
  1292
  of any information about the desirability or otherwise of a new building that I may have to fail my hon. Friend in allowing him to extract from me the kind of promise or assurance which he seeks tonight.
  We know that this school falls short of the modern standard for a school building serving the purpose that this one does. We know that it requires to be replaced at the earliest opportunity, and the best assurance I can give my hon. Friend is that on the strength of that knowledge we will try to see that this is done at the earliest opportunity. But when that will be is difficult to forecast.
  I will not dispute any of the conditions which my hon. Friend has described, for they are precisely as we know them to be. I have some mild disagreement with him about the figures, but not sufficient to quarrel with him. I am informed that there were 136 infants and 231 juniors in January of this year, and I am advised that the figures show a slight tendency to decline rather than to rise. But the movement is so slight that we need pay no real attention to it. Apart from that, I accept all that my hon. Friend has said about the school.
  Having said that, my hon. Friend and his friends in the neighbourhood may say, "If that is so, why cannot we have our new school?" I join him in praise and admiration for the efforts that parents have made to raise money, acquire a site, set their target and plan and conduct a campaign for twenty-five years. It is a very praiseworthy example of parental interest in the well-being of the children, and I am happy to see it happen in a case like this. But, as my hon. Friend has said, this is not the only school in the country—nor is it the only school in Gloucestershire—that requires to be replaced with new buildings. It will be a long time before we shall be able to claim that all our schools measure up to the modern standards that we have set ourselves in our post-war school building.
  My hon. Friend will be aware that we are at present carrying out the programme set out in the White Paper published in 1958, called "Secondary Education For All. A New Drive," and our main building effort is directed at

  1293
  present to securing the objectives set out in that White Paper. In the building of secondary schools we provide improved conditions for some of the neighbouring primary schools when older children move away into new buildings. We are required also, at the same time and as part of the same effort, to make sure that wherever there is a new population, a new town, a new housing estate, or growing areas, to provide accommodation to make sure that there is a school place for every child who seeks it.
  If it were to happen that Tetbury became a growing, developing area, with a great influx of new population, producing new school children in large numbers, we would have to make sure that there was school accommodation in the area suitable for the needs of those children; and some of our financial resources would have to be diverted in order to ensure that that was done. This is going on all over the country, and these two objectives—the improvement of our secondary school accommodation and the provision of what we call "roofs over heads" for the children appearing in the new areas—require the greater part of the available resources. Very little of our resources remain for purely replacement projects. Such as they are they must go at present to replacements in those areas where the secondary schools are so much below the standards which are required today that they are not capable of providing the conditions under which modern secondary education can be provided.
  This work is going on at a great pace. Today the educational building programme is bigger than ever in our history. But much remains to be done and I hope that as our economic circumstances improve we shall be able to add to the impetus and the "steam"
  1294
  behind the building programme, and deal as early as possible with cases like the Tetbury Church of England aided primary school.
  The most that I can promise my hon. Friend—I hope that he will not think that it is too little—is that we are, as I have said, aware of the circumstances of the school and we should like to see them improved and the present school replaced. I agree that this is not a case for tinkering with the present premises. The site is hemmed in and there is no room for physical expansion. I hope that we can provide a school in the not too distant future. Meanwhile, I hope that the constituents of my hon. Friend will not feel that the education provided in the school is bad. My investigations revealed that the school has a good record and a skilled and devoted staff are working under difficult conditions and achieving splendid results. I pay tribute to their work and to the work of many other teachers who are in similar conditions. It is true that a good teacher will teach better in a good school, but the important thing is to have a good teacher. Even in poor premises a good teacher will do a good job.
  I hope that my hon. Friend will allow me to escape without giving the firm promise about the date by which it would be possible to provide new premises for which he seeks. I should like him to assure his constituents that we are aware of the problem. We are filled with admiration of the efforts of the parents and we hope that they will bear with us for a little longer while we tackle the even more urgent problems connected with the provision of educational facilities in other parts of the country.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Eleven o'clock.

NATIONAL FINANCE
  Parliamentary Questions (Cost)
  Parliamentary Questions (Cost)
  Cost of Living, Earnings and Output
  Cost of Living, Earnings and Output
  Public Service Pensions
  Public Service Pensions
  Bank Rate
  Bank Rate
  African Countries (Trade and Expenditure)
  African Countries (Trade and Expenditure)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Korea
  Korea
  Potatoes
  Potatoes
  Canada, Australia and New Zealand
  Canada, Australia and New Zealand
  Eggs
  Eggs
  Umbrella Industry
  Umbrella Industry
  Lanarkshire (Coalburn District)
  Lanarkshire (Coalburn District)
  Western Isles
  Western Isles
  Outer Isles
  Outer Isles
  Scotland
  Scotland
HOUSING
  Improvement Grants
  Improvement Grants
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Road Charges (Carlisle Appeal)
  Road Charges (Carlisle Appeal)
  Thames-side Cement Works (Dust-Precipitators)
  Thames-side Cement Works (Dust-Precipitators)
  London Rail Services (Commuters)
  London Rail Services (Commuters)
  Greater London Boroughs (Town Clerks Conference)
  Greater London Boroughs (Town Clerks Conference)
  Worcestershire Green Belt
  Worcestershire Green Belt
  Slum Clearance, Cardiff (Riverside)
  Slum Clearance, Cardiff (Riverside)
  Fradley Airport
  Fradley Airport
  Greater London Council (Metropolitan Water Board)
  Greater London Council (Metropolitan Water Board)
  Privately-owned Water Undertakings (Greater London Area)
  Privately-owned Water Undertakings (Greater London Area)
  Development Applications, Rugeley
  Development Applications, Rugeley
  Protection of Children (Old Industrial Workings)
  Protection of Children (Old Industrial Workings)
  Building Regulations Advisory Committee
  Building Regulations Advisory Committee
  Joint Public Bodies, London
  Joint Public Bodies, London
UGANDA
  Rulers (Discussions)
  Rulers (Discussions)
  Overseas Officers (Compensation Scheme)
  Overseas Officers (Compensation Scheme)
KENYA
  Civil Service (Inducement Pay)
  Civil Service (Inducement Pay)
MINISTRY OF WORKS
  Palaces and Properties (Expenditure)
  Palaces and Properties (Expenditure)
  Kismul Castle, Isle of Barra
  Kismul Castle, Isle of Barra
  Ancient Monuments, Outer Hebrides
  Ancient Monuments, Outer Hebrides
  Departmental Staff, Scotland
  Departmental Staff, Scotland
POST OFFICE
  Smoking (Lung Cancer)
  Smoking (Lung Cancer)
  BERLIN
  BERLIN
  CANADA (MARINE ENGINES TENDER)
  CANADA (MARINE ENGINES TENDER)
ROYAL NAVY
  Ocean Surveys
  Ocean Surveys
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Poultry
  Poultry
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease
  World Food Programme
  World Food Programme
  Small Farmer's Scheme (Milk)
  Small Farmer's Scheme (Milk)
  COUNCIL ON TRIBUNALS (REPORT)
  COUNCIL ON TRIBUNALS (REPORT)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Parliament Square Demonstration (Police Expenditure)
  Parliament Square Demonstration (Police Expenditure)
  Police Recruitment
  Police Recruitment
MINISTRY OF POWER
  Electricity and Gas Boards (Financial Objectives)
  Electricity and Gas Boards (Financial Objectives)
TECHNICAL CO-OPERATION
  Swaziland (Training Facilities)
  Swaziland (Training Facilities)
  Overseas Students
  Overseas Students
EMPLOYMENT
  Western Isles
  Western Isles
  Unemployment
  Unemployment

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock. The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Coventry
The Viscount St. Davids—Took the Oath.

EFFECTS OF ABOL-X
2.35 p m.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what are the constituents of the systemic insecticide sold under the name Abol-X, and what research has been done concerning its effects on human beings.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL WALDEGRAVE): My Lords, the active ingredients of the garden insecticide sold under the name "Abol-X" are gamma-BHC, D.D.T. and menazon. The names of these ingredients are printed on the label of every container. This product has been given clearance under the Notification of Pesticides Scheme, on the recommendation of the Advisory Committee on Poisonous Substances. The three active ingredients have been individually tested for mammalian toxicity, and they are all of low toxicity.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, is it not the case that these poisons are cumulative poisons and can have a cumulative effect in course of time? Secondly, although this information may be upon the label, what information is given to the consumer of the contents of the vegetables he eats?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I think that these ingredients are probably slightly cumulative. There are no recommendations on the tin of Abol-X as to
358
how you should eat the vegetables. If this insecticide is used by gardeners in a sensible way according to the directions on the tin, there is no appreciable risk.
BARONESS SUMMER SKILL: My Lords, as the noble Earl has said that it has been tested for mammalian toxicity, may I ask him whether that includes homo sapiens?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I believe in certain cases. yes: but I am not perfectly certain of that without notice. But these ingredients have all been tested for mammalian toxicity.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in the United States there is legislation limiting the amount of residues of these poisons which may be left in any food, and that in New Zealand the use of D.D.T. has been prohibited in order to prevent butter and other substances from being contaminated by it?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I believe that there are regulations in the United States for permitted tolerances of residues in food substances, and I believe that in New Zealand certain regulations have been made with regard to D.D.T. But, without notice, I do not know the exact regulations.

CORTISONE IN BROILER CHICKENS
2.38 p.m.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether there is any restriction upon the sale of broiler chickens which have been injected with a preparation of cortisone.]
EARL WALDEGRAVE: No, my Lords, cortisone is not used in the rearing of broiler chickens for market. The noble Lord may be referring to the experimental use of cortisone in studying a condition known as "breast blisters" in chickens, an account of which was given in Nature on March 31, 1962.

359
This was purely research work; cortisone is not available to the commercial poultry farmer, except under veterinary prescription, and its cost would rule out its use for therapeutic purposes in broiler production.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, I am delighted to hear it.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, can my noble friend tell me what regulations exist to prevent various deleterious chemical substances from being fed to broiler chickens and other animals which are kept in an unnatural state in order to force their growth artificially?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, the Question was one about the use of a preparation of cortisone. I could not "off the cuff" give a complete answer to this supplementary question. The control of cortisone is exercised under the Therapeutic Substances Act, and. subject to certain exceptions, its distribution and administration for treatment are permitted only by or under the direction of a duly qualified medical practitioner, a registered dental practitioner, or a registered veterinary surgeon or practitioner.

RESALE PRICE MAINTENANCE INQUIRY
2.40 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is intended to publish the report of the findings and conclusions of the inquiry held by the Board of Trade into resale price maintenance, and, is so, when.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD MILLS): My Lords, I understand that the inquiry to which the noble Lord refers was carried out by officials of the Board of Trade, and that, in accordance with long-established practice on reports by officials to Ministers, my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade does not intend to publish their report. A statement will, however, be made about the Government's
360
conclusions on this matter as soon as my right honourable friend has completed his study of the results of his Department's inquiry.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, in asking the noble Lord to accept my thanks for his reply, may I also ask him to accept that I have knowledge of the qualifications he has made in it? But would he not agree with me that it would be advantageous if that statement by his right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade were made as soon as possible, as those in the distribution industry who wish to pass on the benefits of their efficiency in distribution to the consuming public are suffering under grave disadvantage through the uneven application of Section 25 of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act?
LORD MILLS: My Lords, the Government realise that there is a desire on the part of both supporters and opponents of resale price maintenance for an early statement about the conclusions which they have reached as the result of this inquiry. But it is a complicated matter, and it is not yet possible to say whether the statement can be made at an early date.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, recognising what the noble Lord has said, may I ask whether he could give the House any rough idea when the Government will be in a position to make a statement?
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I think that my reply to the first supplementary indicated that that is not possible at this stage, but I realise the necessity for having a statement made as early as possible.

QUARANTINE FOR DOGS AND CATS
2.43 p.m.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will consider revising the Dogs and Cats Order, 1928, so as to exempt such dogs and cats as have been vaccinated against rabies before leaving the United Kingdom from quarantine on their return.]
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, this country has been free of rabies for over 40 years, and it is in the interests of both the human and the canine population that this happy state should continue. With a disease of this horrible nature no risk is too small to be ignored, and the noble Earl's proposal has definite risks inherent in it. No form of vaccination for any disease is completely effective; rabies vaccination is no exception. There would be a very real difficulty in identifying individual dogs, particularly since there would be an increased traffic in dogs with infected countries; this would make possible the evasion of any regulations.
In countries where rabies exists in the animal population, or which are not in a position to enforce quarantine, vaccination is an invaluable protective measure. Quarantine, which is the only sure protection apart from prohibition of entry, is the method recommended by the Expert Committee on Rabies of the World Health Organisation for countries such as Britain which are free of the disease and are well placed to enforce quarantine regulations.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, are the Government aware that, out of 27,398 dogs and cats quarantined in this country over the last twelve years, no single one developed rabies? Are they further aware that in the United States, where no quarantine restrictions exist, there were only two cases of human rabies last year out of a population of 180 million and that in Western Europe, with a population of over 300 million, there was only one case? Finally, will the Government not admit that the human anti-rabies vaccine gives virtually 100 per cent. immunitv?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, there are many difficult figures here. First of all, I think that one case of rabies in a human being is one case too many. Secondly, the noble Earl may not be aware that there were over 3,500 cases of animal rabies identified in the United States in 1960 and over 2,200 cases of animal rabies identified in Western Germany in 1960. I do not believe that we should be well advised to take any risk with this horrible disease. I think that it is worth remembering that Australia and New Zealand do not allow the importation of dogs except from one another and from this
362
country, because of our quarantine regulations. In Jamaica they accept dogs only from this country. It would be a retrograde step if we, who are perhaps leading the world in this matter, should go back.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: My Lords, the Minister mentioned the difficulty of identification. Could this not be done by marks on the ear?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, most certainly it could be, but this also could be evaded. Pet lovers are apt to be enthusiastic. I am afraid that it would be very difficult to mark all dogs on the way out of this country and to ensure that the customs officer was marrying the certificate to the same dog on its way back through a crowded customs barrier on an August Bank Holiday afternoon.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, the noble Earl's figure of the cases of rabies in Western Germany and that of the noble Earl, Lord Arran, indicating that there have been no cases of human rabies in Western Germany, show that possibly there are two sides of this question. If the noble Earl who asked the Question put down an Unstarred Question, would the Government give time for it to be debated?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords. I have no doubt that that could be arranged through the usual channels. I do not want to mislead the House. The figures I gave were of rabies in animals, but there have been cases of rabies in human beings. The last outbreak of animal rabies in this country ended in 1922. This was the end of an outbreak of over 300 cases which we had when dogs were smuggled into this country after the First World War.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, while thanking the noble Earl for his most courteous answer and for his intention to be helpful, will the Government please understand that there are many objectively-minded people who regard this as a triumph for Blimpishness and bureaucracy? Would they please take a fresh look at this whole problem, bearing in mind that because the system has worked well for 50 years, that does not mean that it cannot necessarily be scrapped or improved? When I come to raise the subject again under a different

363
heading, perhaps the Government will be able to give us a really informed and really unprejudiced opinion.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, would the noble Earl not agree that anybody who has seen a person suffering from rabies would never contemplate opening any opportunity for this disease to come to this country?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I am glad to say that I have never seen anybody suffering from rabies, but from what I have heard I very much agree with what the noble Lord has said. I think that when discussing this problem we should remember that dogs get hysteria frequently. In a country which has rabies, when one finds a dog with hysteria one ought immediately to be inoculated, because one cannot be sure whether or not the dog has rabies. This is a very painful inoculation and can have bad side effects. The World Health Organisation reports that in 1960 over 400,000 people received treatment for rabies or suspected rabies and 81 people died during or after treatment. In addition, there were what are, I believe, described as paralytic accidents attributable to vaccine treatment in a large number of other cases. It is a very horrible treatment.

THE KENYA CONFERENCE
2.50 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I wish to ask a Question of Her Majesty's Government, of which I have given Private Notice: whether they are able to make a statement on the result of the Kenya Constitution Conference.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COLONIAL AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF PERTH): Yes, my Lords. I propose, if it is convenient to your Lordships, at a little after half-past three to make a statement similar to that which is being made in another place.

NUCLEAR TESTS
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I should like to inform the House that my noble friend the Leader of the House will be making a statement on nuclear tests at some suitable moment after 3.30.

MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT AND PIPE-LINES BILL
2.51 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I should like to raise another matter which I promised to raise last night. We felt some concern in the Opposition as to what happened on the moving of the adjournment of the House yesterday afternoon. With the extraordinary margin which was cast for the defeat of the Government's position, it is always customary for some sort of statement to be made, as well as for the adjournment of the House Ito be moved; but my noble friend Lord Silkin was just rising to ask specific questions on what was the result on Business of that defeat of the Government when the Motion to adjourn was moved, and before anybody could hear anything from the occupant of the Woolsack the Mace was lifted and my noble friend was unable to speak. That is an extraordinary position. First of all, we ought to be quite sure, in such a contingency as we had yesterday, that every Member of your Lordships' House is free to speak on the Motion to adjourn. It seemed to be assumed yesterday that we should have to give notice to speak on the Motion to adjourn. I repudiate that. If the Motion to adjourn is put to the House and we do not wish to adjourn for the time being, any Member should have the right to say all that he wants to.
I am glad that the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor is on the Woolsack to-day. He very courteously sent me notice that he would probably be late in arriving yesterday, and the matter that arose was too early for him to deal with. But I cannot imagine that if the noble and learned Viscount had been on the Woolsack there would have happened quite what did happen. I am not complaining about the Deputy Speaker who was acting, because he is a very popular figure in your Lordships' House, but I think perhaps he did not attach sufficient importance to the occasion and allowed the operation to happen at such speed. It was not quite so bad as a precedent about which I have heard, of one case where the acting Speaker on the Woolsack for the time being actually got up and rushed away in front of the Mace, which had to chase

365
to get in front of him; but I think the speed of the operation yesterday could be compared to the speed on that occasion. I hope it is not likely to happen again.
I should like to hear the Leader of the House upon this matter now, and I hope that, when that is done, we shall then be given an opportunity on "Business" to raise the points we wished to raise yesterday with regard to the future of the Bill in respect of which this defeat of the Government occurred.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, I am not sure how far this is a question for me as Leader. I was, as the noble Viscount will remember, actually present at the Division yesterday, although I did not play any part in the earlier proceedings. It seemed to me that my noble friend Lord Mills acted perfectly properly in moving the adjournment of the House. That, I should have thought, was a natural and proper thing to do in the circumstances. The actual practice in this matter, as I understand it—I have made inquiries as to what the practice is—is that the Question is put in full—that is to say, the voices are collected—on the adjournment of the House only in the exceptional circumstances where a Peer has given notice that he wishes to raise some matter on the Motion. Since 1937 there have been ten occasions on which debates have occurred on the adjournment. That does not mean that where the voices are not formlly collected noble Lords have not an absolute right to discuss the Motion for the adjournment. It is plain to me, at any rate, and I think it will be agreed by the House, that the Motion for the adjournment is essentially one that is debatable, and, therefore, any noble Lord, who chooses to rise when the Motion is moved will ordinarily be heard by the House.
I cannot answer for the noble Lord, Lord Ailwyn, who actually pursued the ordinary course where no previous notice has been given, but I did myself see the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, rise and was expecting him to say something; but, in fact, no audible sound emerged from his lips, and by the time I realised that he had none the less intended to utter, the
366
noble Lord, Lord Ailwyn, was half way down the Chamber, and it seemed to me far too late for the Leader of the House to intervene. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that the last thing which was present in my mind—and, although I have no right to speak for him, I am sure it was the last thing present in the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Ailwyn—was to deprive him of a right which undoubtedly is his, and certainly at some stage he must make the comments, with such additions and amendments as on reflection have occurred to which he desired to make yesterday.
If the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition wants to alter the practice with regard to the collection of voices I think the matter should be put through the Procedure Committee, because the practice of the House in not collecting the voices formally is now a well-established one and I think should only be changed—in fact, I do not think it could be changed otherwise—after consideration in the usual way. I do not know what would be the view of the Committee or of the House if that were done. At any rate, so far as we are concerned, we are sorry we did not have the opportunity of hearing the noble Lord. Lord Silkin, and I am sure that whatever happened was the result of misunderstanding.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, that may well be; but there is this one point. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Ailwyn, is certain that he put the Question in such a manner as to collect the voices, but it would now appear that that particular side of the issue has fallen by the wayside in the course of years. I want to establish that the voices should be collected. Certainly we heard no Question put to the House and, if it was uttered, it must have been very sotto voce. But the speed of the operation was the amazing thing, and it seemed to me to be entirely in accordance with the desire that the Government did not want to go on too long discussing the matter.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I can assure the noble Viscount that there is no point there. The Government were perfectly willing to hear any remarks which fell from the noble Viscount or

367
anyone else. So far as the actual position is concerned, the noble Lord, Lord Ailwyn, acted in accordance with the existing practice of the House. If the noble Viscount wants to alter that practice, which may well be desirable—I do not know—he will no doubt take the proper steps to secure discussion of it, which I certainly would not resist. But it is fair to say that if noble Lords want to debate the Motion for the adjournment, which. of course. it is well within their right to do—it is, to my mind, an absolutely established right that it is a debatable Motion—they should make it plain; and if the noble Lord. Lord Silkin, could have brought himself to utter the words "My Lords" in an audible tone, I am sure that all of us would have returned to our places.
3.0 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, I want to say only one word, from the point of view of the occupant of the Chair. I have now had the honour of occupying the Woolsack for nearly eight years, when I took over from my noble and learned friend Lord Simonds. I was told when I came here that on the Motion "That the House do now adjourn", one simply put "That the House do now adjourn and that was the end of the matter. One did not collect the voices. That is the procedure I have followed, and my researches agree with the view expressed by my noble friend the Leader of the House, that this is a procedure which has been followed for a very long time indeed. My noble friend Lord Ailwyn followed the same procedure, and up to now either myself or my Deputies would have expected notice, or a very quick jump up "by somebody, to make us alter the practice. I should like to say, on behalf of my noble friend, that he followed the practice that was communicated to me, and has always been followed since.
VISCOUNT SIMONDS: My Lords, may I say that that was also the procedure communicated to me by my predecessor Lord Jowitt, and no doubt handed down to him by his predecessor?
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, this is the first time I have been accused of being not sufficiently agile and lacking in the powers of utterance. I do not think it
368
is profitable to pursue this particular point. It might be useful if this matter were discussed by the Procedure Committee at some time, so that if a noble Lord wants to say something on the adjournment he will feel that he is able to do so. However, that aspect can be left.
May I now say what I intended to say last night?—and I hope that I can say it very briefly. I think the decision of the House yesterday afternoon was a significant one. The vote was, I think, almost unprecedented, and it represented noble Lords from all parts of the House. As I understood it, what it meant was that we felt we were being unduly rushed in the Report stage; that not sufficient time had elapsed between the Committee stage and the Report stage to enable noble Lords to give proper consideration to the Amendments that were put down, or to Amendments which they wished to put down; that, although in the course of the Committee stage a number of undertakings had been given by the Government that matters would be considered, they had had inadequate time to deal with these undertakings, and it was felt that, in view of the speed with which the Report stage followed the Committee stage, we were not enabled properly to do our duty by this House. I think that was the general feeling of the House, and it expressed itself. There was no hostility to the Government, but we felt that this was a very important measure and that this House would not be doing its duty if it did not consider the Bill in all its aspects and with the greatest care.
Having regard to this vote, I was very surprised to find that, nevertheless, the Government are proceeding as if nothing had happened, and have put the Report stage down for next Thursday with none of the Amendments which would flow from the undertakings given during the Committee stage. To my mind, it would not meet the views of the House as a whole just to give us two more days before the Report stage and to treat the House as if this vote meant nothing. I would respectfully suggest to the Government that if they were enabled to put down the Amendments with which they have given an undertaking to deal before the Report stage, it might then be possible to have the Report stage on Monday

369
next. Otherwise, if we cannot do that, if we cannot see what the Government are proposing to do in view of the undertakings they gave, then I would submit that the Report stage is going to be a farce.
In those circumstances, what I ask of the Government is that they should not have the Report stage on Thursday; that they should do everything they can to put down the Amendments which they propose to put down in time to enable noble Lords to study them; that where they do not propose to put down Amendments as a result of the undertakings they have given they should notify noble Lords responsible for the original Amendments in time to enable them to put down Amendments on the Report stage, and that we proceed in an orderly way. I can assure the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, and the noble Lord, Lord Mills, that there is no desire on the part of anybody to hold up this Bill or to frustrate the policy of the Government. Our only desire is to do our duty and make this Bill as good a Bill as we possibly can, so that when it comes to be considered in another place there is the feeling that we have done our job.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, the noble Viscount who leads the Opposition raised the question of the way in which the Motion for the adjournment was put at the termination of yesterday's proceedings. Of course, he was quite right to do so as a point of Order. But I think we should probably be getting ourselves into deep water if we were to debate what was to be the future of the Pipe-lines Bill. I was glad to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said. I was not myself present at the proceedings yesterday, although I have read everything that happened. I will certainly consider very carefully, on behalf of the Government, all that the noble Lord has said. But I do not think we could debate the question unless a Motion is moved, because the matter arises, not on the question of what is to be done about the Pipe-lines Bill, but upon the point which the noble Viscount raised, which affects the proceedings of the House and the way in which Motions are put. I myself feel that these things are far better discussed in an amicable way through the usual channels than raised
370
on the Floor of the House, certainly without notice to me except upon the narrower procedural point. I will certainly consider everything the noble Lord has said in the spirit in which he has said it.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, on this question of procedure, may I say that I rose originally at a time which is usually given to the Opposition to raise a matter of Business if they wish to do so, and I referred to the fact that what happened last night had an important relation to what was to be the Business on this Bill. I then, I think quite properly, handed over to my noble friend the Deputy Leader of my Party, who had been in charge of this Bill, to raise the question of Business which arose directly out of it. We are really dealing, therefore, with a question of Business: whether it is right for us to be faced with the Report stage of the Pipe-lines Bill on the Order Paper for Thursday next.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, technically, if I may say so, I think the Leader of the House is quite right in saying that we should be out of Order so far as we can ever be out of Order, in discussing a matter—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: Wait a moment—that is not before the House on a Motion. On the other hand, we are in the great difficulty that ordinarily, after what happened, the Government, on the Motion to adjourn, would have made a statement as regards Business. The noble Viscount the Leader of the House has quite rightly said that if anybody in the House had wanted to debate it—a debatable matter—no doubt a good deal would have been said about future conduct.
I only wish to say this, if I may. I am sure the Leader of the House will most carefully consider what has been said and also what has taken place, but I do not think the House will be satisfied merely to be presented on Thursday with a Motion which they rejected so overwhelmingly yesterday. If the noble Lord was proposing to do that, then I am afraid that what happened yesterday would be repeated more emphatically.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, all I was saying was that these matters present very considerable difficulty and that I would very carefully consider what has been said. Naturally, we are all anxious to meet the convenience of the House in the matter, but it is not always easy to say what that convenience will be until suitable discussions have taken place through the usual channels.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I take it that the House could be informed before the adjournment tonight whether or not this matter is to remain on the Order Paper for Thursday, because really we must have a settlement of this. I am quite prepared to take part in any discussions through the usual channels, but we have stated our view and the House knows the extreme importance of this Bill and of the many Amendments which have been made from all parts of the House, and their expression upon procedure was pretty emphatic yesterday.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, the noble Viscount has very kindly promised to take part in discussions—I realise the importance of what he has been saying—and he will realise that I have to get in touch with various sources. He will not, I hope, expect me just at the moment to give an absolutely emphatic answer to what he has been saying. But I realise the importance and value of what he has been putting to us.
LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, could the noble Leader say whether this question will be dealt with before the end of the day?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I was hoping that I should be able to fall in with the noble Viscount's suggestion that the House would in some way be told this evening, but I did not want to promise to do that until I knew that I could perform what I had promised.

SAINT PAUL, COVENT GARDEN, BILL
Read 3ª, with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
WHITEHAVEN HARBOUR BILL
Read 3ª, and passed.
SAINT THOMAS APOSTLE (QUEEN STREET) CHURCHYARD BILL
Read 2ª, and committed to a Select Committee.

HOUSE OF LORDS REFORM
3.14 p.m.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of the Commons Message in regard to House of Lords Reform.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM VISCOUNT HAILSHAM rose to move, That this House do concur in the Resolution communicated by the Commons, namely,
" That it is expedient that a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament be appointed to consider whether any, and if so what, changes should be made in the rights of Peers of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain or of the United Kingdom, and of Peeresses in their own right, to sit in either House of Parliament, or to vote at Parliamentary elections, and whether, and if so under what conditions, a Peer should be enabled to surrender a peerage permanently or for his lifetime or for any less period having regard to the effects and consequences thereof."
The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, I rise to move the Motion which stands in my name. I could not help being slightly amused the other day when I discovered, by chance, among my father's papers the actual letter and telegram I had sent him some time ago, in 1928, when he accepted Mr. Baldwin's invitation to accede to the office now held by my noble friend upon the Woolsack. The telegram read:
" Melancholy congratulations. Reform Lords. Quintin."
My Lords, my melancholy on that occasion was occasioned by a number of considerations, not least of which was the filial respect and affection in which I held my father, who had explained to me that if he was not going to take that step he might have been considered in the line of succession to the leadership of his Party. As the son of an American mother, too, I have always had a certain doubt about the magic of male primogeniture as a principle of human genetics, a doubt about which your Lordships have always been extraordinarily generouse in dealing with me. It was also in my heart that I was already sufficiently interested in public affairs to desire to try my hand in the normal way on the hustings and in the House of Commons,

373
as it was, and is, the birthright of any other free Englishman to do without the added complication of a peerage, be it privilege or responsibility. And for the young it is not, oddly enough, the glittering prizes which attract the generous heart of youth; it is, on the contrary, the gleaming sword and the lust for battle.
But, my Lords, my prescription to my father to reform the Lords proved rather more difficult to achieve than I had then supposed. I feel perhaps that at that time I was insufficiently apprised of the important differences between traditional and contrived political institutions. There is, of course, virtue in both types. But there is this distinction. Being contrived, the latter must satisfy some rational pattern of logical design. But of the traditional, its very nature is such that no one would have thought of it had he been starting afresh. If it is to be retained at all, it must be judged, like other human things, by its performance rather than by the rational perfection of its design. If it is to be reformed, it is more likely to be done acceptably if it is altered in detail to circumvent some anomaly or to cancel some injustice.
Nevertheless, my Lords, I should wish to begin to-day by considering the virtues of a traditional system, and surely these are too solid to be denied. For 700 years, more or less, the Legislature of this country has consisted of Sovereign, Lords and Commons. During that time the relative power and attributes of the parts have changed, but the tradition of the whole has remained continuous. Other monarchies have risen and fallen. Other Parliaments have died, often in their infancy. Ours has become not merely the pride of our own country but the pattern of others. It is not vain glory but fact that almost every representative institution active in the world to-day has been modelled, directly or indirectly, upon the Parliaments of Edward I: if they had not existed, probably none of the others would have come into being. It was the success of representative government in England which led to its imitation throughout much of the world.
My Lords, it is surely only the superficial who would mock at the mediæval framework of our institutions. The
374
exquisite beauty of the ceremony with which our proceedings are opened by the Sovereign in November is more than a medieval pageant. Let him who smiles cast his eyes upon the events of the recent past across the Channel. The French are a nation not less proud, sensitive or civilised than ourselves, hut, as General de Gaulle told us, in that extraordinary tour de force he accomplished in Westminster Hall, it is a matter of infinite thankfulness to the British people that it has inherited traditional institutions whose inherent authority is beyond dispute. Since the French destroyed or lost their feudal inheritance they have never enjoyed a moment when the authority of the State was beyond question or in which the institutions of society were invulnerable to insurrection or violence.
Yet it is with the practical advantages, rather than with the decorative and the impressive and the traditional, that we are concerned to-day. All over the world Parliaments and the politicians who compose them come in for criticism. Many have fallen, but the fall has been due to the inveterate defect of government by discussion, that discussion breeds delay and becomes notorious for procrastination.
Our own Parliamentary system, however, has survived, equally powerful as an instrument in war and in peace. In the main, its two Houses have developed side by side, in peace and amity, each conscious of a separate function, each the proud heir to a different tradition. Some privileged individuals have been proud to serve in both. Indeed, from the days of the Tudors there have been few Houses of Lords which have not owed much to those who served their first apprenticeship in the House of Commons. And by the like token there have been few Houses of Commons which have not been remarkable for Members, of all Parties, who were members of noble families, and often heirs to hereditary titles. Open breaches have, in fact, been few, and the events of 1911 were almost, although not quite, unique in Parliamentary history. In my opinion, at least, they could, and should, have been avoided. To-day no one challenges the superiority in authority of the elected Chamber. Yet it would be surely a mistake to regard our own House as no more than a decorative

375
appendage. To destroy the House of Lords would, of course, be to mutilate the venerable pattern which, as I have tried to show, is the talisman of Parliament's continuous authority. My purpose here is also to vindicate its usefulness as a working part of our Constitution.
For, my Lords, the truth is that our method of legislation is geared into the existence of two Houses. Let no one suppose for an instant that the House of Lords could go without catastrophic effects upon the procedure and efficiency of the House of Commons, which, even after the Gladstonian reforms following the Irish Obstruction, is less and less able to bear the 'burden of the weight of business thrust upon it. No one who has served in Government, or in either House, is unaware that the Teal struggle for power to-day between the Parties is the struggle for time. The procedure for passing, Bills through the House of Commons presupposes the existence of an efficient House of Lords in which a further detailed discussion and revision of legislation can take place. No one who loves the House of Commons, as, my Lords, I have always loved it, can fail to desire an alert and efficient House of Lords to complement its labours and to provide time for general debates on subjects meriting public discussion but for which the Commons have no leisure to provide an opportunity.
My Lords, there is no need to-day, in view particularly of the terms of our Motion, to question the exact legal extent of our powers. Enough there must be to give us dignity, to make it to be seen to be worth while for us to attend, to make us a veritable partner in debate and in the legislative process. But no one to-day questions the superiority of the elected House. The factors which give the House of Commons superiority are not legal but social and political, and though this is reflected in our respective powers the Commons would, in fact, effectively exercise superiority did they not possess it already in legal theory, and in substance the House of Commons exercises an influence vastly in excess of the actual legal powers it possesses. Despite six years of Socialist Government there has been no overt challenge under the leadership of this House by my noble
376
friend who sits below the Gangway, and since the powers of the House were reduced by the Government composed of noble Lords opposite to their own prescription I think I could challenge anybody to produce a single instance of abuse justifying or suggesting the desirability of further change.
But, my Lords, with all these merits, the composition of your Lordships' House has never during this century been capable of theoretical justification. As long ago as 1908 this House resolved that the mere succession to a United Kingdom title was insufficient ground by itself to merit the right to sit and vote, and this has been the consistent view of both Conservatives and others who have thought and spoken upon this subject from that time to the discussions of 1948 and in the successive Parliaments thereafter. In 1911 the Liberal Government declared that the subject brooked no delay. Successive Socialist speakers have been at pains to assert that they themselves do not justify the status quo, although some of us believe that it is a matter of history that some of them may have been a powerful means of perpetuating it.
After consultation with the Opposition, Her Majesty's Government have decided that it is no longer practicable to continue without taking active steps to reduce some of the anomalies. There are some of us, I must say including myself, who have thought so for quite a lone time. Only the difficulty of Parliamentary time led me to support the limited nature of reform at the time of the Life Peerages Act, and this limited character came in for some fairly hostile criticism in both Houses and in the Press. I myself regret that the course I now commend to the House has not been undertaken long since. However, I will now rehearse the reasons which lead me to say that it ought no longer to be delayed.
My Lords, I personally regret that the occasion for this Motion, the first cause as I might say, was the occurrence of a grievance affecting a single subject—sympathise, as I do, with that subject, disapprove, as I do no less, of the particular methods employed to brine the grievance to public notice. Neither the justice of the grievance nor the unsuitability of the method should, however,

377
in my submission, deter your Lordships from taking the correct course if I can so persuade your Lordships that the course suggested in the Motion is the correct one. The grievance of the reluctant heirs is, I would submit, only one among a number of connected anomalies which cannot indefinitely be continued. All in their way may cause inconvenience; some certainly cause injustice. The national advantage should, after all, be our main criterion. I cannot at this juncture refrain from observing that if Sir Winston Churchill's uncle had died without issue, under our present convention he would never have been available to lead the nation in 1940. Indeed, Sir Winston Churchill would never have served in the House of Commons at all.
But, my Lords, this is only one instance. The position of the Scottish peerages, unchanged since 1717, may require attention. Out of the Scots Peerage, only fifteen do not sit in your Lordships' House either as Representatives or under substantitve titles. Surely in the history of representative institutions never have so few been represented by so many. It is at least arguable that we should either be like them or they should be like us. The Irish Peerage has clearly become something of an anomaly since the Treaty. If they are commoners, why are they not allowed to vote? If they are Peers, why do they sit in the House of Commons? The dilemma in the case of Peeresses in their own right has been answered by preventing them from sitting in either place—a sort of floating kidney in the body politic. Their absence here can be justified only on the grounds of eligibility elsewhere. Their exclusion elsewhere can only be justified on the grounds of their presence here. Yet neither argument is allowed to prevail. Your Lordships will remember the Report, and the debates we held on the Report of the Swinton Committee when we established the Rules relating to Leave of Absence. It was then recognised that only legislation could alter the underlying scandal of the disregarded Writ. It is not for me to suggest what remedy should be proposed. But it is germane to this Motion to establish that only in this way can a remedy be founded.
My Lords, I return for a moment to the grievance of the so-called reluctant heirs. As Leader of the House I cannot disabuse myself of the conviction that it is bad for the prestige of this House to be repeatedly projected in the public image as a place which can recruit its Members only by recourse to conscription. This is far from the truth. Most heirs go willingly and with a mingled sense of pride and duty. But a minority do not. This has been so since at least 1895, when three heirs including the future Lords Selborne, Curzon and Middleton protested. I protested in 1950. Lord Altrincham in 1953 stated his unwillingness to attend and he has not attended. I do not approve of his action, and I am not sure how much we have lost by it. Now Lord Stansgate has taken the, to me, objectionable course of standing for the House of Commons when he has been declared disqualified to sit.
It is not for me to speculate how many others will act, or to justify whatever action they take. It may well be true—I think it is—that it is a matter of criticism of ourselves that we have allowed matters to progress so far that we have waited until these somewhat unedifying events have pressed themselves on the public attention. It is enough to say that they have happened, and your Lordships may be quite certain that in one form or another they will be repeated at irregular but possibly diminishing intervals over the years, and that each lime they do happen, both Lords and Commons, both Government and Opposition will be made to look ridiculous—and, what is worse, distract their attention from problems more weighty, injustices more grave, and perils more instant. If there were public advantage in that course it might be seemingly to acquiesce in inactivity. But the balance of advantage is surely on the other side. In general the right of the people is to elect whom they please to represent them in the Assembly; their interest is that the most suitable should be promoted to the highest place notwithstanding that their uncles do die sine prole. The right of the individual is to pursue the public service in equality with his neighbours, not seeking advantage but not submitted to injustice. No constituency that I know of willingly undergoes a by-election. I believe that I was reasonably popular in Oxford. I have

379
no doubt that Lord Stansgate is beloved in Bristol. No doubt all Constitutions have anomalies; but there is no purpose in adding to them out of sheer perversity.
Add to this that it is surely not to your Lordships' advantage to be thrust into the maelstrom of Party controversy. We perform our functions best when we do so unobtrusively. Our House is at its most valuable when politics disturb it least. One cannot ignore the fact that the Party opposite has embraced Lord Stansgate's cause and even, what I regret, underwritten his method of pressing it. They may have been wrong to do so, but at least we must give them the credit for some depth of feeling before they surrendered a Parliamentary seat. I cannot but notice, somewhat ruefully, that their indignation was enhanced and their zeal for reform was increased when the reluctant heir was not a member of the Conservative Party.
These questions cannot be viewed separately; nor, as a matter of fact, should they be considered hurriedly. Hence the need for a Joint Select Committee before legislation. If United Kingdom Peers are to renounce, Scottish Peers also must be given an opportunity of arguing before a Select Committee their right to do so; so must Peeresses in their own right. It is argued with force that we must be on our guard lest, in limiting the hereditary character of our own composition, we undermine the Monarchy. That is an argument which has been presented, and it must be considered.
Many of us are aware that there are many duties and rights inherent in a title which are not attached to Parliamentary duties. To some, ancient seats are attached and entailed; to many, local responsibilities. With a few, hereditary offices are closely allied, like the Earl Marshal or the Lord Great Chamberlain; or, in the case of my noble friend Lord Dundee, the Standard Bearer for Scotland. Surrender raises the question of extinction or succession issues between a Peer and possibly his infant children, unprotected by a guardian, or, more delicate still, between him and relatively remote relatives who may be his heirs presumptive. These things need argument and discussion. I say no more than that.
Of the instrument required, the Joint Select Committee, I have no doubt of the suitability of that proposed. I think that the Commons, and I am persuaded also this House, would not brook the intervention of an outside Committee. The discreet and, on the whole, friendly conversation between the Parties in 1948, on an alternative procedure, the renewal of which was unfortunately rejected in 1953, has, I am persuaded, yielded all the advantage of which it was capable until a full elucidation of the problems has taken place. What is needed is a calm and dispassionate look by a body capable of detailed study. Before we legislate, if ever we do, in the light of the Report of the Select Committee, there will still be, if it is desired, ample opportunity of renewed consultation, which I personally should welcome, as I always have done. A Joint Select Committee of both Houses is the appropriate body to inquire and hear the evidence. Only such a body will contain the necessary Parliamentary experience to hear and discuss the issues which must be considered.
The terms of reference have been agreed between the Parties. They do not include powers. The general issue of composition is not specifically included. But included in the terms of reference are at any rate some, and perhaps most, of the matters to which I have alluded with the exceptions, as such, of the disregarded writ, except in so far as this is accentuated by the non-attendance of reluctant heirs.
I should like to add, if I may, a personal note. In all the discussion regarding reluctant heirs there are some, I think, who have inadequately understood the peculiarly painful nature of the predicament in which they are placed. This was stressed by my noble friend Lord Hinchingbrooke in another place. It would be difficult, I think, to find four men who differed more completely in temperament or opinion than Lord Hinchinabrooke, Lord Altrincham, Lord Stansgate and myself. Yet I doubt not that we have one thing in common, which indeed we share with the great majority of mankind: we all loved our fathers and are proud of the stock from which we came. My Lords, this is no snobbery; it is shared by all classes in every age. It is not foolish pride. It is

381
common piety that we honour our fathers and our mothers, that we praise famous men, and the fathers who begat us.
It has fallen, or will fall to us all in a moment of bereavement—and, believe me, the pain of parting is as great for rich and poor alike, and neither age nor long service, nor a lifetime full of honours really blunt the edge of the axe when it falls—to have to leave or else forswear a life we loved, the ordinary healthy normal business of democratic politics as it is lived to-day in the Commons or on the hustings, and if we have protested to have to seem in so doing to dishonour our heritage and the families which gave us birth.
I have promised not to suggest answers in the terms in which I move this Motion, and I shall not do so. Those who wish to suggest answers must do so by their evidence to the Select Committee. But I should like to say just three things before I sit down. It is said, and said rightly, that some limit must be placed to the choice of a man who, by the accident of succession, finds himself in a position to succeed to a seat in a hereditary Legislature. He cannot, it is said, have it both ways. He cannot be in and out.
This may be so. But the public advantage is not, I believe, served by the perpetuation of injustice, nor would it be served by the presentation of a choice which, by its very nature, is invidious or dishonourable to those who have to make it. If Sir Winston Churchill had succeeded to the Dukedom of Marlborough at the age of twenty-one when his uncle died, does anyone who knows him, his family pride, his sense of tradition and of the greatness of England, his feeling for what is worthy and appropriate in human conduct, suppose that he would have been grateful for the choice of surrendering his due part forever in that splendid patrimony, even for the right to take part, however honourably, in the hustings of 1900 or 1906, with the distant prospect, which must at that time have seemed impossibly remote to all the world, that, in the inscrutable wisdom of Providence, he would have been preserved forty years later to save his country on a field and in a cause greater than Blenheim, Ramillies or Malplaquet?
My Lords, it is for the Select Committee to answer that question. My humble prayer to your Lordships is that it be allowed to do so, and that when the Answer comes it will be just, and in the public interest, and honourable to us all. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved. That this House do concur in the Resolution communicated by the Commons. viz.:—
" That it is expedient that a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament be appointed to consider whether any, and if so what, changes should be made in the rights of Peers of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain or of the United Kingdom, and of Peeresses in their own right, to sit in either House of Parliament, or to vote at Parliamentary elections, and whether, and if so under what conditions, a Peer should be enabled to surrender a peerage permanently or for his lifetime or for any less period having, regard to the effects and consequences thereof."—(Viscount Hailsham.)

THE KENYA CONFERENCE
3.45 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Before the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, rises, I wonder whether it will be convenient to him or to the House if the two statements are taken now. I think we should like to hear him without those statements in our minds.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COLONIAL AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF PERTH): My Lords, the Kenya Conference ended on April 6. With a few exceptions, all delegates, including the leaders of the main political Parties, signed a document setting out the framework of a new Constitution. The details are to be worked out by the new Coalition Government now being formed. A report on the proceedings of the Conference was approved on April 6 and will be published shortly as a White Paper. We have now begun the process of co-operation by which alone Kenya's urgent political and economic problems can be tackled. The problems have not been solved but the way to their solution has been pointed out.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friends on this side I should like to thank the noble Earl for his statement. I should like to say how satisfactory we find it that the main political Parties have been able to agree on a future Constitution and the formation of a Coalition Government. We hope they will continue to work together in the same spirit for the good of Kenya.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I am sure we all agree with the point made by the noble Earl, that it is now up to the people and the leaders of Kenya. We hope that, having found unity, they will carry on and work out their own problems.

HOUSE OF LORDS REFORM
3.46 p.m.
Debate resumed.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I think the whole House will agree that we have just listened to one of the most remarkable orations of which the noble and learned Viscount has delivered himself during the time, he has been Leader of the House. I would pay a tribute to him for the care and attention which he has given to the history of this matter. He has dwelt on the traditions of English life, political and administrative, and I do not think it would have been possible for any other person to achieve quite the phraseology of his oration to-day. But let me say at once that I had not imagined for a moment, having very carefully studied the procedure on this particular Motion in another place, that we would cover quite the ground traversed by the noble and learned Viscount's statement.
I dare say he will have observed from looking at the list of those intending to speak that nobody is going to speak on this side except myself and Lord Longford, because this was an agreed Motion, one which has been hanging fire ever since the original Motion, with different terms of reference, was laid before another place on April 26 last year. The particular Motion we have now—except for same slight alterations towards the end of the wording—is in accordance with the middle phrase of the three-pronged Motion that was laid before the House of Commons last year. In those
384
circumstances we determined that we would regard this matter as having reached a point of consultation, which expressed itself in the setting up of a Joint Select Committee of both Houses for which there was general agreement as to the basis of discussion.
We have gone rather more widely in the survey, as I think it was intended to be, made by the noble and learned Viscount this afternoon. But he is not only an orator who carefully prepares his ground; he is also a speaker who, from time to time in the course of his addresses—to the Commons, to the House of Lords, or to any other audience—cannot refrain from saying exactly what is in his mind. He let forth one or two things this afternoon that I cannot possibly ignore. There was his reference, for example, to the manner in which there had been few grave breaches in the understanding between the Parties since the unfortunate breach of 1911. When we come to these amended terms of reference, on which both Houses have agreed to join in a Joint Select Committee, the reason why the three-pronged Resolution was submitted in 1961, as was clearly present in the noble and learned Viscount's mind, was that it would have brought under discussion the powers of this House.
Enough has been said on the subject from time to time since the amendments to the powers of the House of Lords were first made by a Liberal Government years ago and the additional amendment in the time of the post-war Labour Government. Many persons in this House have desired to see your Lordships' powers increased. If you want general agreement on that, you can count the Labour Party out. We could not discuss any amendment to the constitution and the powers of the House of Lords on that basis. I make that clear right away. The noble and learned Viscount has stated quite fairly the obvious feelings of a member of a noble family who may be engaged in another place; when the parent finally hands over to his heir he does not want to move but wishes to stay in the elected-representative Chamber.
The noble and learned Viscount made some reference to my friend Anthony Wedgwood Benn, who is, of course, unable for the moment to shed himself

385
of the legal title of Viscount Stansgate; and to what he engaged in so as to get his felt injustice removed. What he did was to go back to the electors, who had elected him to Parliament, for reelection. That was referred to by the noble and learned Viscount as being possibly—he did not say it too firmly—perverse. Certainly, it was not something with which he agreed. Whether that came from a natural reaction that, perhaps, sufficient response was not made by a Labour Prime Minister to his own representations in 1950 I do not know, but perhaps there was some reaction in that direction. However let me say this: that there would be no joint agreement and no proposal of this amended character for a Joint Select Committee had it not been for the courage and the expression of sacrifice of Anthony Wedgwood Benn in taking the course he did, a course which was not illegal—a returning officer would not refuse his nomination—to bring his case before Parliament and the nation in such a way as to create an opinion which might lead to organised attempts for a reform, which would give justice not only to himself but to any others who might find themselves placed in the same position. Therefore, I disagree with the approach that the noble and learned Viscount makes in describing the position of Viscount Stansgate, Anthony Wedgwood Benn.
Now we shall have to discuss certain things, in relation to the necessary amendments which will come, in accordance with the constitutional practice of the House of Lords; and it is no use burking the fact that some people will surely not agree with whatever the findings of the Joint Select Committee may be. But of all the things that the noble and learned Viscount has mentioned, the first thing we have to remember is the ruling which was kept for nearly the whole of the proceedings on this Motion in another place, until the Attorney-General wound up the debate: that we shall have to leave these things very largely to what the Joint Select Committee decide to recommend, and it will then be for both Houses of Parliament to debate and discuss them, for there to be the usual conversation between those who are chosen by their Parties to discuss matters in detail, and see what the outcome of it is.
386
Nevertheless, there are certain things that I should like to say myself. The first is that one cannot very well split oneself into two entirely different beings. I agree with what the noble and learned Viscount said in his approach to that matter. I did not agree with every word he said upon it, but I am quite certain of this: that the nation as a whole would not understand it if people wanted to be in a position where they could go into the Lords or into the Commons, or to go from the Lords into the Commons by a renunciation of a peerage for a period of one life only, with no renunciation of the hereditary principle in the family of a man who wished to give up the peerage which he had inherited. Certainly, that is not what we should desire from our point of view.
I want to make it quite clear that discussion upon that point is perfectly open to the Joint Select Committee, under the terms of reference, and I think that that must be admitted—that that can be discussed. But as to whether you would be likely to get agreement afterwards on the findings of the Committee that went in a particular direction, that would be another matter altogether. So I hope we shall, naturally, bear those things in mind. Moreover, I hope that we shall not, by the early part of the opening of the noble and learned Viscount this afternoon, in which he spoke about tradition and the like, sour a little the mind of the public in certain directions, as to whether we do not count tradition too highly over what has grown, in the last two centuries, to be an established democratic idea: that of the full power that is now given to the elected Chamber in the House of Commons to manage the affairs of the country. It has a Revising Chamber up here, certainly; but if it were suggested, as I seemed to detect in the mind of the noble and learned Viscount, that if there were not two Chambers, or perhaps a Second Chamber quite of the character of this one, it would mean a threat to this practice or this idea, or even a danger to the Sovereign herself, then I surely could not accept that. In New Zealand, there is never any question of challenge to the authority of, and the tremendous affection and admiration for, Her Gracious Majesty and the constitutional

387
Throne of this country, but New Zealand has a single Chamber, and a single Chamber established by a Conservative Government.
I think we must look at this matter with a little more freedom of thought than seems to have been establishing itself in the minds of some of your Lordships, and I do not think we need pay too much attention to that. Certainly, we need to bring justice to any person who, having an hereditary peerage, feels he wishes to be relieved from the incubus which is placed upon him; an incubus very often applying to his right to be heard, if elected by the electors, in the representative Chamber. In many cases you will find, if you discuss general matters with a man who has succeeded to a peerage from the death of his father, that the actual use of the name is a handicap in his particular vocation, or in his special 'business or profession. I do not say that these instances are very frequent, but I have come across them several times myself. The great thing there is to have complete justice lot those persons, so that if they wish to be free they can be free. But there is no shadow of logical reason why that should mean that, afterwards, their children can be re-enacted as passing on to the possession of the Peerage which their parent has rejected.
I do not wish to detain the House too long, but I have read very carefully the speech of Mr. Macleod in introducing the Motion in the other place. He was not quite sure about some things. I have also read very carefully the speech of the Attorney General in another place. There is some question as to whether the aim of the terms of reference has been drawn tightly enough to keep to the position to which we wish to adhere. Mr. Gaitskell, in dealing with the matter in debate, said that if there was any blame to be spread upon that matter he must share in it with the others who were concerned in agreeing to the terms of reference. But I am quite sure of this: that I can accept—and I am sure my colleagues can accept—the terms of reference, as they are submitted in the Motion moved by the noble and learned Viscount to-day, because they are capable of being discussed in general, upon the basis that we want them to be
388
discussed; and we can afterwards decide upon the actual recommendations of the Joint Select Committee.
I hope very much that this Motion will be accepted without opposition. It has taken nine years to come to a position in which we could make some beginning to discussions on these matters upon a joint and agreed basis. When we come to deal with a matter of such constitutional importance as will be dealt with by the Joint Select Committee, then I, for one, like my Leader in another place, think it is a good thing that we should be able to proceed at the outset on the greatest possible measure of agreement. If we do not get agreement on matters of this constitutional character, then it leads either to complete frustration, further delays or a question of going to the nation upon an issue which ought not to have to be put to them and which would bring such divisions as would then come. I hope, therefore, that we shall continue in that spirit in which the Leaders of the Parties in another place have acted in this matter, and that we shall pass this Motion without a Division.

NUCLEAR TESTS
4.2 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, there was another statement which is certainly now ready for delivery, and if it is convenient I should like to repeat it to the House now. I did not want to interrupt the noble Viscount, who had already embarked upon his speech before I realised that he had intended to do so. If I may, I will now repeat a statement by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in another place, which he will have made now about half an hour ago. The statement is as follows:
" President Kennedy and I are to-day issuing a joint statement about nuclear tests which was communicated to the Soviet Government yesterday evening. The text of the statement is as follows: "—
and the quotation follows:
" ' Discussions among ourselves and the Soviet Union about a treaty to ban nuclear tests have been going on in Geneva for nearly

389
month. The Soviet representatives have rejected international inspection or verification inside the Soviet Union to determine the nature of unexplained seismic events which might be nuclear tests.
' This is a point of cardinal importance to the United States and the United Kingdom. From the very beginning of the negotiations on a nuclear test ban treaty, they have made it clear that an essential element of such a treaty is an objective international system for assuring that a ban on nuclear tests is being observed by all parties. The need for such a system was clearly recognised in the report of the scientific experts which was the foundation of the Geneva negotiations. For nearly three years this need was accepted by the Soviet delegation at Geneva. There was disagreement about details, but the principle of objective international verification was accepted. It was embodied in the treaty tabled by the United States and the United Kingdom on April 18, 1961, which provides for such a system. Since the current disarmament meetings began in Geneva, the United States and the United Kingdom have made further efforts to meet Soviet objections to the April 18 treaty. These efforts have met with no success as is clearly shown by the recent statements of the Foreign Minister of the Soviet Union and of their representative in Geneva, Mr. Zorin, who have repeatedly rejected the very concept of international verification. There has been no progress on this point in Geneva; the Soviet Union has refused to change its position.
' The ground given seems to be that existing national detection systems can give adequate protection against clandestine tests. In the present state of scientific instrumentation, there are a great many cases in which we cannot distinguish between natural and artificial seismic disturbances—as opposed to recording the fact of a disturbance and locating its probable epicentre. A treaty therefore cannot be made effective unless adequate verification
390
is included in it. For otherwise there would be no alternative, if an instrument reported an unexplained seismic occurrence on either side, between accepting the possibility of an evasion of the treaty or its immediate denunciation. The opportunity for adequate verification is of the very essence of mutual confidence.
' This principle has so far been rejected by the Foreign Minister of the Soviet Union, and there is no indication that he has not spoken with the full approval of his Government. We continue to hope that the Soviet Government may reconsider the position and express their readiness to accept the principle of international verification. If they will do this, there is still time to reach agreement. But if there is no change in the present Soviet position, the Governments of the United States and the United Kingdom must conclude that their efforts to obtain a workable treaty to ban nuclear tests are not now successful, and the test series scheduled for the latter part of this month will have to go forward '."
My right honourable friend's statement now continues in his own words:
" That is the joint statement. The House will observe that President Kennedy and I have both emphasised that the door is still open for an agreement. I therefore sent this morning a message to Mr. Khrushohev in the following terms:
' Dear Mr. Chairman,
' You will have seen the joint statement about nuclear tests which the United States and British Chargés d'Affaires communicated to the Soviet Government yesterday and which President Kennedy and I are issuing to-day. You will remember that we first discussed this problem together as long ago as 1959 when I had the pleasure of visiting you in Russia.
' I will not repeat the arguments in the statement but I feel that I must ask you to give the most earnest consideration to our proposal. After all, the object of verification is not to increase suspicion

391
but to dispel it; to identify an event as a natural one so that confidence may not be threatened. I feel sure that once the principle of international verification is accepted there would be a real chance of reaching an early agreement as to its application. This would fill all the peoples of the world with a new sense of hope.'
" That is the message from me to Mr. Khrushohev. I know that the whole House will share my earnest hope that Mr. Khrushchev will respond to my appeal."
My Lords, that is my right honourable friend's statement.
4.7 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for the message which he has repeated to us and which has already been given to the House of Commons. I must say that I feel a certain feeling of relief that the direct decision to go right ahead with the nuclear tests has been delayed until this joint statement has been sent from the United States and ourselves to Mr. Khrushchev. Therefore I should like to support the idea which has been put forward in this joint statement, and I hope very much that Mr. Khrushchev will give special attention to it.
I have been rather concerned about the manner in which the reports of speeches by the Russian representatives have come over, and how they have repeatedly stated that the reason why we want to have this proper, scheduled series of inspections is because we want to spy. I am just wondering, in view of what I call that outrageous kind of statement. whether the British Government have themselves taken any special steps to try to dispel from the minds of the responsible Russians in this matter that this is from no point of view whatsoever a question of spying. It is, as is stated in the last part of the statement which the noble Viscount has just given us, a question of retaining confidence by the kind of checking up to which the Prime Minister refers. But what have we, or the British Government, been doing to make this really clear, and how far have we informed the public in this country as to what our statements to the Russians on that matter have been?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for the support which he has given to this statement, which I think adds to its chance of proving fruitful. I can tell him sincerely that I think he has contributed a great deal to the force which this appeal will have, when it is known that it commands his support, too. As regards his specific question, I know that my noble friend the Foreign Secretary has been in constant and, I believe, very friendly touch with the Russian Foreign Secretary. I know that this has been very much uppermost in my noble friend's mind, and that he will have done everything in his power to dispel any fear that there might be an intelligence background to this request on the part of the West for verification. I am hoping that the actual terms of the Prime Minister's letter to Mr. Khrushchev will reinforce that point. Anything that we can do to dispel that belief will certainly be done, and any suggestion that could be made for the dispelling of that belief will be welcomed.
LORD REA: My Lords, I should like to associate noble Lords on these Benches with what has been said by the noble Viscount. Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, and again to assure the Government that we hope, of course, that this matter will go forward in the way that they suggest. I was particularly struck by the phrase that
" the object of verification is not to increase suspicion but to dispel it":
and I would agree with the last words of the noble Viscount the Leader of the House when he said that the impression on the world given by this letter should be very great, and we are at least a united nation behind the Government on that point.

HOUSE OF LORDS REFORM
Debate resumed.
4.11 p.m.
LORD REA: My Lords, may I now turn back to the matter immediately in front of your Lordships this afternoon—a very much narrower matter? My noble colleagues on these Benches and I, of course, support this Motion, as it has been supported in another place, and I gather will probably be supported on all sides in your Lordships' House.

393
But I must admit that at one point some of us felt some doubt about it; that the manner in which we are discussing the Commons Resolution is in rather limited terms, and is only tinkering with this great problem, which has been before us for so many years; and that we might be getting the worst of both worlds by going into the matter on a scale which is inadequate to the problem which the subject really presents.
The problems posed in the Commons Resolution have the merit of being, as a matter convenience, limited in number and in scope; of being topical and of some urgency in present Parliamentary practice. Therefore, it is particularly appropriate that the matter should be dealt with by a Committee who will consider the matter; and that that Committee should be a Joint Committee is, of course, only right and proper. I rather wish that the noble Viscount the Leader of the House could have given us a little indication of the size and constitution of the Committee. I do not expect him, nor do I ask him, to give any detail. but I suppose we can assume that it will be largely composed of the parties who, for one reason or another, have not been able to support for some years the reform of the House of Lords.
I am not quite convinced that this matter is very well described under the heading of "House of Lords Reform". The narrow issue appears to me to be far more closely connected with certain disqualifications and obstacles, both in regard to, and imposed by, the other place; and I see no particular reform in either the power or the constitution of this Chamber if, as a result of action taken by the Committee, noble Lords may be allowed to vote in Parliamentary Elections, or may include membership of another place as a legitimate extra-mural occupation. The word "reform" can mean either "improving" or "reshaping"; and because the potential outcome of this Motion may well be primarily the reshaping of the machinery of election and of the elected Chamber—I do riot presume to say whether or not it will be an improvement—I should have considered the words "Reform of the House of Commons", or "Reform of Parliament", to be rather more appropriate than "Reform of the House of Lords". Indeed, if I may say so without impropriety,
394
I think it is to be hoped that the other Chamber may, in the result, look to the anomaly and dangers of an elected but unrepresentative House, if there should ever be such a thing. But that is a matter which I certainly would not propose to develop now.
I think it is accepted that the position of the noble Viscount. Lord Stansgate, the second son of a much-loved Member of this House, has in general, but of course in considerable measure, as the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition said, led to this Resolution now formulated in another place. My Lords, there is a not altogether dissimilar position in the case of the gentleman whose name is Mr. Eric Lubbock, the newly-elected Member for Orpington, who will also have to vacate his seat if anything untoward should happen to our colleague. Lord Avebury, to whom, of course, we wish safety, long-life, and freedom from all the perils of land, sea, air, disease, traffic, and legislation.
In the former case, the Stansgate case, a constituency is deprived of being represented as it would wish to be represented; and in the latter case (should it arise), a strenuously-fought by-election would count for nothing, and the electors of Orpington would once again, through no fault of their own, be without a Member. In such matters (leaving aside, for the moment, the question of Scottish and Irish Peers, and Peeresses in their own right), I think the initiative properly rests with the Commons; and as it has been properly taken by the Commons in sending us this Resolution to appoint a Joint Select Committee, in that case it would seem best, in one way, that to-day we should really merely assent to the Commons' proposals, without taking up individual or Party positions before the Joint Committee has done its work and before we have heard what the Committee has to say on the one aspect which is urgent—the Stansgate-Lubbock type of situation.
That we should merely assent would be a counsel of perfection; but I happen to know that that view is held by my noble friend Lord Samuel, who much regrets he is unable to be in his place to-day. But, in the words of to-day's Motion, we are invited to give consideration to the matter, and I think your Lordships will agree that consideration in this Chamber is not habitually silent.

395
The only time when accord—real accord, I think—on the reform of your Lordships' House was nearly reached was, as your Lordships will recall and as was mentioned by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, at the Party Leaders' Conference of 1948, whose proceedings are recorded in Command 7380. That was fourteen years ago, and yet I think it remains by far the most important milestone in this context. The Party leaders were acting only ad referendum to their respective Parties; they had not absolute powers of decision. If I may just recall to your Lordships who they were, I think your Lordships will agree that it was a meeting of some authority. Meeting during the Labour Administration, the Government were represented by the Prime Minister, the Lord President of the Council, the Lord Privy Seal, the Lord Chancellor, and the Chief Whip. The Official Opposition were represented by Mr. Anthony Eden, the Marquess of Salisbury, Viscount Swinton, and Sir David Maxwell Fyfe (as he then was). The Liberals were represented by Viscount Samuel and Mr. Clement Davies. I think your Lordships will agree that that meeting was extremely representative of the Parties concerned. Nevertheless, this Conference came to a general agreement over certain proposals for the new composition of your Lordships' House. But your Lordships know that, because of a narrow margin of disagreement between the Conservative and the Labour Parties, in respect, I think, only to powers of delaying legislation, the whole outcome of the Conference was abortive. Although this particular disagreement has never been resolved, it would seem that neither the Conservative nor the Labour Party has really felt able to follow up the virtually agreed proposals on the composition of your Lordships' House.
My Lords, the Liberal Party alone, I think, has adopted the nine conclusions in toto as its official policy in regard to the reform of the House of Lords, and it is because we are to-day in sight of tackling some of these points that I consider it relevant, and very desirable, to have them clearly before us once again after this lapse of fourteen years. Therefore, with your Lordships' indulgence, I should like for the sake of the record to recapitulate these nine points,
396
which are quite short points, and three or four of which are particularly germane to to-day's Motion. They will not take me long to recite.
The first point was this. The Second Chamber—your Lordships' Chamber—should be complementary to, and not a rival to, the Lower House; and, with this end in view, the reform of the House of Lords should be based on a modification of its existing constitution, as opposed to the establishment of a Second Chamber of a completely new type based on some system of election. I think it is notable that both the Labour Party and the Liberal Party want to avoid some system of election, in order that this House may not be a rival to the Lower House, and, further than that, that they use its present constitution to develop it.
The second point is that the revised constitution of the House of Lords should be such as to secure, so far as practicable, that a permanent majority is not assured for any one political Party. This point has been made clearly and very sincerely by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, on several occasions and I am sure is accepted by everybody. The third point is probably the most important to noble Lords who sit on these Benches. The present right to attend and vote in the Chamber based solely on heredity should not by itself constitute a qualification for admission to a reformed Second Chamber. This is an absolutely key-point to noble Lords who sit with me on these Benches.
The fourth point is that Members of the Second Chamber should be styled "Lords of Parliament" and should be appointed on grounds of personal distinction or public service. They might be drawn either from hereditary Peers or from commoners who would be created Life Peers. My main ground here is that if we try to make a House composed entirely of Life Peers, it will obviously be a rather elderly House, and we shall miss tremendously the younger element whose contribution to the debates would be so valuable.
The fifth point is that women should be capable of being appointed Lords of Parliament in like manner as men. That view has been largely overtaken by the Life Peerages Act, which has given us

397
the pleasure of seeing noble Baronesses sitting among us. Since that has happened, I cannot see any logical reason for refusing to allow Peeresses in their own right to sit in this Chamber. We owe a great deal to the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, who started an interesting debate on this subject, but I believe that the whole situation has changed since then and from both logicality and fairness we should reverse the decision then arrived at.
The sixth point is that provision should be made for the inclusion in a Second Chamber of certain descendants of the Sovereign, certain Lords Spiritual and the Law Lords. The seventh is that, in order that persons without private means should not be excluded, some remuneration should be payable to members of the Second Chamber. I am not going to debate this point now, but it seems to me that the new Select Committee will have great difficulty in avoiding discussion of this particular point, which I should have thought is bound to come into their general deliberations in some way.
The eighth point is that Peers who are not Lords of Parliament should be entitled to stand for election to the House of Commons, and also to vote at elections in the same manner as other citizens. That point was agreed by the Conservative Party, Labour Party and Liberal Party, through their representatives at that: Conference, so it is nothing new. Finally, some provision should be made for the disqualification of a member of the Second Chamber who neglects, or becomes no longer able or fitted, to perform his duties as such.
My Lords, those are the nine points which we on these Benches support, and I hope that I shall be excused for reciting them again, because it is desirable that they should appear on the Record of this debate on the subject to-day.
Since the Conference of 1948, we have had the Life Peerages Act, implementing points 4 and 5. I do not know whether I am expected to be particularly enthusiastic over that rather grudging little reform, which is about the only one we have had since the Liberal Party made its famous remark about "Brooks". Neither of the other Parties seemed particularly enthusiastic about it, any more than we on these Benches are.
398
I cannot help recalling that the Life Peerage Act was brought in by the Leader of the Conservative Party in each Chamber with the avowed and clear intention of increasing the strength of the Opposition in your Lordships' House. I do not want to go into details, but I think that your Lordships will know that approximately 20 life peerages have been given to the Labour Opposition and approximately 20 to those who do not support the Opposition. I think that I had better say nothing about the complete neglect to give any life peerages to the only Party which I think is gaining, not losing, support throughout the country. The only epithet which can apply is an asterisk, and possibly a note of exclamation.
The Commons Resolution which we are discussing to-day does not directly apply to life peerages as such, but I think that in the scope of the Committee's deliberations the question of life peerages is bound to arise; and in that connection I, for one, consider that if a Peer is permitted to surrender his hereditary peerage in order to go into another place, he should certainly not he debarred from later accepting, as a reward, for good work in that place, a life peerage and so returning to your Lordships' House. If he were refused that right, he would be placed in a position worse than that of any other commoner.
As regards the surrender of an hereditary peerage, of course, this is a matter for individual consideration. The levelling out of equality of opportunity over the last 40 years has produced its good and its bad side-effects—mostly, I think, good ones. But on the debit side there can be no question that a philosophy of equality by force, if I may so call it, rather than of equality by emancipation, has arisen, and has brought with it a fashion for sheer iconoclasm which even our Left-wing Parties find a little embarrassing when it is no longer restricted to the very young or very inexperienced or stupid.
On these Benches we oppose the principle of the hereditary principle constituting by itself a right to attend and vote in this Chamber. But until we decide how the present system is to be replaced, as it should quickly be replaced, I should be rather chary of

399
taking a virtually irrevocable step, which might have extremely difficult repercussions in regard to future action when we come to the remodelling of this House on the lines suggested at the 1948 Conference. I should feel particularly worried if such a step were basically founded upon the fashion of discontent which to-day shows itself rather too clearly, sadly and unproductively in many ways.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he could amplify or elucidate that dark saying about "the fashion of discontent"?
LORD REA: My Lords, my answer to that is that the reform of this House should not be done purely in an iconoclastic, damaging and destructive way, because I believe very much in the existence of a Second Chamber; and it should be reformed in a constructive and, at the same time, democratic way.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: What about Lloyd George?
LORD REA: My Lords, Lloyd George went a long way from the Liberal Party before he finished up.
While I should oppose the conditional sort of surrender of a peerage for a period of less than a lifetime, for reasons which I think are too obvious to need analysis, I should support the right of any Peer to divest himself during his own lifetime of a circumstance which he found intolerable, and therefore I would approve the renunciation of a peerage for the lifetime of the holder of that peerage. Nevertheless, speaking for myself, I think that we should be unwise if we were suddenly to enact, without, of course, the thought and consideration of any generation other than our own, that a man who held the passing honour of a hereditary peerage should speak for all his ancestors, none of whom he can consult, and for all his heirs, only one or two of whom he can consult.
An hereditary peerage is a mantle of Royal honour, whether it temporarily clothes a sage or a saint, a mountebank or a moron—I am glad to think that the former category is the more usual in
400
your Lordships' House. But the man himself is not his peerage; nor should the actual word, "Peer", equal Member of Parliament or Lord of Parliament. Therefore I should be inclined to support the complete extinction of a peerage only after a long period of consideration by both interested and disinterested parties. I would suggest that, in the same way as a Bill in dispute between the two Houses of Parliament must pass the other place in three successive Sessions before it can succeed, the extinction of a peerage should require the approval of Parliament over three successive Parliaments. The procedure, of course, would be slow, but the evolution of the peerage has been even slower. Perhaps courtesy alone might demand that what has been evolved over a thousand years needs more than a couple of afternoons for its destruction at the hands of one passing generation, which is tempted to think it knows all and is even prepared, by the H-bomb, to blot out mankind for ever on its own responsibility in this decade.
As a Liberal, I cannot support the hereditary system as a yardstick of right to rule over others; but as a Liberal I cherish the culture, the statesmanship and the learning which the democratic environment of heredity has often produced among the liberal arts. Such qualities can come, and often do, from sources other than likely sources. But although we draw much of our benefit from ridiculous traditions and dear anomalies, I would hesitate to do away completely with this unjustifiable situation so long as democratic safeguards are jealously upheld.
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN: My Lords, the noble Lord will forgive me for interrupting. Is it not a fact that in 1910 the Liberal Government said that they would make 400 Liberal Peers? Is he, therefore, opposed to the hereditary system?
LORD REA: I have been trying to explain that I am not opposed to the hereditary system in the sense that the Speaker's Conference of 1948 wished to build a new House of Lords drawn upon that system. Nor am I immediately concerned about what was decided in 1910. I believe, though with feelings of considerable frustration about what is being done and how little is being done, that I

401
should support this Resolution. I do so in the conviction that the Joint Select Committee will, nevertheless, have support and help from all quarters of your Lordships' House.
4.32 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, cannot, I think, but create a measure of bewilderment in the minds of some of us as to what is to be the exact scope of the inquiries of the Committee that your Lordships are asked to-day to set up. According to the Leader of the House, as I understood him, it would be within the terms of reference of the Committee to range fairly wide; but according to the Leader of the Opposition, on the contrary, the discussion would have to be strictly confined within very narrow limits. I hope that we shall know a little more about this when we hear the winding-up speech from the noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the House, so that we may be able to understand in what we are involving ourselves by our decision to-day. But in the meantime, I hope the House will forgive me if I follow the Leader of the House on the rather wider issues he raised in the brilliant speech that he delivered to us this afternoon. For these wider issues must, in my view, affect the deliberations of the Joint Select Committee, even if the conclusions to which they come are confined to the more limited aspects of the problem.
In rising to support this Motion, I would, if I may, approach the question of the reform of your Lordships' House from a rather different angle from that of most of those who have addressed themselves to the subject in another place, and from that from which I think, in his heart of hearts, the Leader of the House himself approaches it. In nearly all the speeches to which I have referred, this question has been looked at from the point of view of the individual Peer, or mainly so. What is fair to the individual Peer?—that is the first question that speakers seem to ask themselves. Ought he, by the accident that he has succeeded to a hereditary peerage, be denied the chance of a possibly brilliant career in the House of Commons? Should he have the right to repudiate the right of a peerage for himself during
402
his own lifetime; or should reform go even further and open up for him the possibility permanently to divest himself—and not only himself but his descendants as well—of obligations which were undertaken by his forbears, but which he personally finds a distinct encumbrance? That is the kind of question that has been asked; and one cannot help feeling sorry for young men who, whether for reasons of personal and very natural ambition or for other causes, find a hereditary peerage a burden and wish to rid themselves of it, and so save themselves from the dreadful fate of permanent incarceration in your Lordships' House.
But I feel, perhaps because I have had the privilege of membership of this House now for a great number of years, and have a steadily increasing respect for it, that there is something more important even than the hardships of these individual Peers, however acutely they may feel them; and that is: what is the right course for all of us to pursue, from the point of view of your Lordships' House as a whole? What is likely to make it the best body that can be devised for the performance of the functions that lie upon it under the Constitution? That, and not the position of these individual Peers is to me what really matters. We may, indeed, be able to find reforms which will help the Peers to whom I have referred what the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Hailsham, called the "reluctant Peers"—and which will not impair, and may even benefit, the efficiency of the House. No doubt we shall all be delighted if that is so. But the most important thing, I repeat, for us to consider is the House and not the individuals who compose it.
That brings me directly to the question: what are the essential requirements of the House of Lords in an unrestricted democracy? First, as I see it, it must be capable, as the noble Viscount has already said, of revising legislation that comes to it from another place. It must be competent to act as a second sieve through which such legislation has to pass. For that purpose, I would suggest, with great diffidence (and this is what I may call my second requirement), that it must contain some younger men. For distinguished men of retiring age—soldiers, diplomats,

403
trade union leaders, whoever they may be, who have been made Peers not so much for their future work as for their past services—will be reluctant to concern themselves, in the evening of their lives, with what I may call the donkey work of the House, the making of Amendments on Committee stages and so on. The House of Lords, I believe, just like the House of Commons, must have younger members. That, I suggest, Is one essential feature that we ought to keep in mind.
Thirdly, I think the House must be well equipped, by the quality of its membership, to discuss in the spirit of a Council of State the great topics of the day. That, I hope it will be agreed, the present House of Lords, especially, if I may say so, since the inclusion of Life Peers, most certainly is. And, then, fourthly, there is a function which the House fortunately is only rarely called upon to perform, but which could be the most important of all. It is this. In the event of extremely controversial legislation being sent up from another place by a Government either of the Left or of the Right—legislation which has never been before the electorate at a General Election—the House of Lords ought to enjoy sufficient authority to impose the brief delay which the Constitution allows to enable the views of the British people to crystallise, in one direction or another, on such legislation, before it actually passes into law. And that, of course, connotes that this House must not, in a political or any other sense, be just a replica of the House of Commons. My grandfather once said, when discussing this topic, that if you put two locks on a door, you do not want so to construct them that they can both be opened by the same key. The House of Lords, in fact, must be an independent entity, with an identity and character of its own.
Finally (and this I suggest, though the last, is the most important requirement of all) the House of Lords must not be a rival of the House of Commons; I was delighted to hear the noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the House make that point with great force.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I put something to the noble Marquess?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Yes, certainly.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: The noble Marquess is making a most interesting speech, but I should like to get the facts right. I would gather, for example, that when the Conservative Opposition made it impossible for us to carry without another Election the Iron and Steel Bill, they overlooked the fact that we had put the iron and steel nationalisation project before the country at a General Election in 1945. At any rate, the present Government have not hesitated to bring in the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill without any submission to the country at all.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: If the noble Viscount will remember, the reason why we put our Amendment into the Iron and Steel Bill at that time was because the legislation introduced by the Labour Government went beyond what was on their programme at the General Election. Not only that, but the Labour Government accepted the Amendment. If I remember rightly, it was not voted on; it was accepted by the Labour Party. I do not therefore honestly think there is much validity in the point the noble Viscount made.
May I go on? In this country the House of Commons, which is elected, as we all know, by the suffrages of practically the whole adult population, must always be the senior partner; and in the event of a conflict between the two Houses, the will of the House of Commons, after the delay prescribed by the Constitution—and nowadays it is a very short delay—must always prevail. About that there will not, I imagine, be any dispute in any quarter of this House.
Such, I suggest, are some of the main requirements of a Second Chamber—which is what our House is—in a Constitution based on an unrestricted democracy, such as we have in this country to-day. To what conclusions does that lead us? I suggest, very diffidently, one, which may seem extremely odd to some of your Lordships. It is this. In spite of the introduction of Life Peers, which has increased, as we all know, so greatly the value and vitality of this House, there are good reasons, I believe, why

405
it should continue to be based predominantly on the hereditary principle.
I will give your Lordships two reasons for that view. The first is this. It is only in this way, short of an elected House—which I would dismiss for other reasons which I will mention later—that we can hope to obtain the services of the young men who, I believe, are so essential to the successful working of the House. Broadly speaking, even Life Peers tend to be elderly. They are men and women, usually, who have already succeeded in some other walk of life or in another place. But hereditary Peers can be, and frequently are, quite young. There is, too, a second reason which makes the retention of the hereditary principle, I believe, so important. It is only in this way that one can ensure that the House of Lords will always be the junior partner of the House of Commons. If, for instance, we were to replace the hereditary principle by any system of election, by whatever form of electorate, by the very fact that it was elected to represent certain views and interests it would always tend to become a rival of the House of Commons.
There are those, indeed, who still feel that the very fact that your Lordships' House has a suspensory veto, however short that may be, in a sense makes this House a rival to another place. But if that were ever true—and I suppose it was many years ago—I do not believe it is true to-day. For though the suspensory veto is nominally for a period of one year from the first introduction of a Bill in the House of Commons, yet, in practice, we all know—those of us who have been in both Houses—hotly contested Bills take upwards of nine months to pass through both Houses. Therefore, there is likely to be only three months between the arising of a conflict between the two Houses and the end of our suspensory veto. You cannot have anything very much shorter than that. Moreover, with the introduction of life peerages, it will always be possible for any Government with a majority in the House of Commons to ask the Crown to create a sufficient number of such Peers to give it a majority in both Houses. For that reason, I believe that the fear which is still sometimes expressed that your Lordships' House could, if it wished,
406
clog the wheels of progress, is nowadays completely unfounded. On the contrary, I believe that the retention of the hereditary system is by far the best method of ensuring that the House of Commons shall remain the stronger Chamber of the two. And that, in an unrestricted democracy, is surely right.
The composition of your Lordships' House, resting mainly on the hereditary principle, is indeed difficult, if not impossible, to defend logically in the modern world in which we live. It owes its hereditary basis, as we all know, to circumstances which have long passed away. But, like so many British institutions, though illogical, it works. And that, after all, is the most important thing. I suggest, therefore, that however hardly the hereditary system may appear to press upon individual Peers such as Mr. Wedgwood Benn, we ought to think twice before, in our anxiety to avoid hardship to individuals, we do anything likely to impair it, much less to strike at the roots of it.
Having said this, however, and though hereditary Peers have had, as we know, ever since the seventeenth century, the right to a writ of summons if they want it, I believe there is no reason why the Crown should not, on the advice of both Houses of Parliament, take steps to limit the number of Peers who take an active legislative part in your Lordships' House, if that is in the interests of the House itself and if this House approves such action. I make just those two provisos. After all, we really must take account of the changed position that exists to-day; and the position is changing further with every year that passes. It is only within comparatively recent times that the numerical membership of this House has reached the stupendous level at which it stands to-day.
In the Middle Ages, the Great Council of the Realm, which was the ancestor of this House, was a small executive body of powerful, territorial magnates; and those who received writs of summons to it were very few. But, since then, peerages, as we know, have been granted more and more, for honorific rather than functional reasons and with this change the number of hereditary Peers has steadily grown. Indeed, it is not at all impossible that with the

407
advent of Life Peers the membership of this House will soon exceed the figure of 1,000. Of these, only a comparatively small proportion normally come, and quite a number never come at all. That, clearly, as has been recognised now for many years, is not a satisfactory position and is, I think, damaging to the reputation of your Lordships' House.
I understand that this particular aspect may well come within the purview of the Committee the setting up of which the Government are asking your Lordships to approve to-day. If I may say so, I am personally very glad to hear this, for, as some of your Lordships know, I have long hoped that something could be done to bring the active membership of this House within reasonable proportions. I believe, moreover, that such action would be welcomed by numbers of Peers who cannot, for various reasons—many of them extremely good—attend to their duties here, and to whom the inability to fulfil their constitutional obligations is the cause of serious embarrassment.
There is also another reason—a very practical one—which has not been mentioned to-day, why I believe a limitation of the active membership of this House to those who actually mean to attend would be desirable. The time, I am certain, will come, must come, although it is certainly not within the terms of reference of this Committee—and here I entirely agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough—when Peers will have to be paid. At present, as we all know, they receive no salary. They get only £3 3s. a day in repayment of expenses incurred in attending your Lordships' House. That is a maximum of £300 a year if a Peer attends every single meeting of the House. It is less than the minimum wage which is paid to almost any manual worker to-day, and no younger Peer could hope to keep a wife and growing family on such a pittance as that. Moreover, my Lords, even this maximum figure of £300 a year which I have mentioned is not an additional income. It is merely repayment of expenses which have already been incurred.
I am sure that, in these days of crippling taxation, this absence of any salary is one of the factors which prevents many noble Lords on both sides
408
of the House from attending fully to their duties. They have to earn their own living elsewhere. There seems to be an old fashioned idea, which is still prevalent, that all Peers are rich. I only wish it were true, but it is not. At the same time, the country clearly cannot pay a salary to Peers unless there can be some certainty that they will be able and willing to attend to their Parliamentary duties. For that reason I believe it will be desirable and, indeed, essential, to limit the number of Peers to those who really intend to be active Members of this House. I do not propose to-day to discuss how that should be done. There have, as your Lordships know, been various schemes put forward in recent years, all of which, no doubt, have their advantages and disadvantages. I saw that yet another was advanced by the noble Viscount, Lord Hinchingbrooke, in another place last week. It was a new proposal which seems to have obtained some support. It will be the task of the Committee to examine all these proposals—if its terms of reference permit—and I do not propose to prejudge its conclusions to-day.
It will also, I understand—though perhaps the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, would not agree with this—be within the terms of reference of the Committee to define the status of those who, under any scheme of reform, are not selected as Members of this House. Will they rank as commoners and be eligible to be elected to the House of Commons; or, once Peers, must they always be Peers, whether they sit or not? I must leave that also to the Committee.
One thing, however, I should like to stress yet once more. In my opinion, for what it is worth, what ought to influence us most in the final decision we take is not the situation of those individual Peers—who have received so much publicity—and their grievances, however acutely these may be felt; it is the prestige, the authority and the efficient working of this House. If the Committee makes, if we all make that our guiding principle in considering these matters, we shall not go far wrong.
4.52 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I would echo what the noble Marquess has just said, that we should concern

409
ourselves in this debate with the authority, the prestige and efficient working of this House, and I would also say of Parliament itself. My noble Leader, I hope inadvertently, indicated during his speech that he was unaware of the fact that I was going to take part in the debate. The noble Marquess, on the other hand, made it perfectly clear that in his view I should not even have come to your Lordships' House at all, because he said the qualifications of a Life Peer or Peeress were that he or she should be both distinguished and of retiring age and, of course, I am neither. Indeed, I would remind the noble Marquess that although all my colleagues who are Life Peers are distinguished, most of them have not yet reached retiring age. To that extent, although I agree with a very great deal—in fact, a surprising amount—of what he said, I do not think that his arguments in favour of a predominantly hereditary House of Lords are valid in so far as the qualifications which he suggested for Life Peers are invalid.
I was somewhat surprised, but by no means dismayed, to find when I looked at the list of speakers that, of the sixteen, I was apparently the only Life Peer on this side who had decided to speak. However, I am very glad to notice that there is one on the other side; and no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, is mainly intervening for the same reason as I am myself, namely, that I, at least, feel it may be possible for us who are not hereditary Peers—and, so far as I am concerned, have no wish to be so—to say things in this debate which those who are hereditary Peers might have some difficulty in saying. My other reason for intervening is that, like the noble and learned Viscount who opened this debate. I, too, love the Commons. I would put it rather broader than that, and say that I love Westminster; I love Parliament.
Indeed, I have now spent about an equal time in this Chamber as I did in the other Chamber, and I never imagined when I was a Member of the Commons that I would ever agree to go to another place, or ever be happy in a place other than the Commons. I had not reached retiring age; I had a seat about a fourpenny bus ride from the House, which I could not possibly lose, and I think your Lordships
410
will realise I came here with some reluctance and only out of what I was convinced, or became over-persuaded, was a sense of duty. It is for all those reasons and because of my love for Parliament and my service in both Houses that I feel I can speak on these matters with reasonable freedom from bias. I now propose to destroy the illusion which I hope I have created of freedom from bias by saying that after four years in your Lordships' House, I cannot imagine any set of circumstances which would ever make me desire to go back to another place.
I, like the noble Lord, Lord Rea, support this Motion, but very much regret that the issue we are discussing is so narrow; that the mountain of talk, as it were, has brought forth such a comparative mouse of a Motion. But if now the Select Committee feel that they are free to discuss all the matters which the noble Marquess has mentioned, it may well be that we shall have a most exciting and, indeed, revolutionary report. But I think, in any case, it would have been much more to the credit of the great political Parties if they had got down to the job of deciding whether or not they want a Second Chamber, and, if so, the method of selecting those who are to sit in it. I would submit that until that is done there is no possibility of giving, as the noble Marquess suggested, a Second Chamber any powers to defer the passage of legislation. If and when a Second Chamber is selected on a different basis, then it might be a very necessary part of its powers, but it would seem to me impossible to justify that on the present position. I would say also that, until the two great Parties get together and decide about the future of your Lordships' House, we are entitled to demand the end of the unworthy sniping and sneering at this House which comes from those who are willing to wound but afraid to strike.
Meanwhile, I would submit that there surely can be no question but that a Peer should have the right to surrender his peerage in his lifetime, and, if elected, to sit in the Commons. I hope that the Joint Committee will take that view and that my—I was going to say my honourable friend, but I am probably more correct in saying my noble friend, Anthony Wedgwood Benn, will soon be

411
back in the place in which he has already rendered such outstanding service. Indeed, once there, I hope he will perhaps modify the descriptions of your Lordships' House, which have been attributed to him, as "a haven for the worn out" and "the outer Mongolia for retired politicians."
I do not agree—and here, perhaps, I am expressing a view contrary to that of a majority on these Benches—that Mr. Benn or any other Peer should have the right to decide this matter for his heirs. Every peerage, as I see it—and this is implicit in the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham—with the rights and duties pertaining to it, was created for what appeared to be a good and sufficient reason at the time, and if the hereditary right of Peers to sit in Parliament is to be abolished, then it should be abolished by Parliament and not by individuals. If we support, as I do, the freedom of an individual to decide for himself, we must surely oppose granting to that individual the right to deny freedom of choice to others. It seems to me that the two things must go together and I cannot honestly see how it can be argued otherwise. I believe that Peers who wish to become commoners should do so completely for their lifetime, but that their peerages and titles should remain in abeyance and that their heirs should have the right to revive them or remain commoners.
In my view, this would in no way affect subsequent consideration of the reform of the House of Lords or the method of selection of those who are to sit here. The continuance of a peerage—and here I think this entirely agrees with the view put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Rea—ought not to be directly related to the right to sit in the House of Lords. I am bound to confess, however, that although the present right to sit, whether by inheritance or appointment, is indefensible, paradoxically the thing does work; In fact, once you have got over the indefensible method of selection for your Lordships' House, it is, in my view, in its operation, the most democratic assembly of which I have any knowledge. There is no place, no assembly, where speech, and indeed to a large extent action, are more truly free than here. We had a
412
most welcome example of that only yesterday.
The other point about the present system (and I attach great value to this) is that it retains for your Lordships' House the services of those with specialised knowledge of certain subjects who come here perhaps only two, three or four times a year, but every time make a contribution of great value. Some, I know, sit on the Cross Benches; most of those indeed who sit on the Cross Benches are of that kind; and there are many on both sides of the House, who cannot come and do not wish to come even every week, certainly not every day of every week; but it would be a great loss not only to this House but to the country if they had no opportunity of speaking in this Assembly again.
In my opinion, if the right of surrender is granted, very few Peers will exercise it, and I think that the number would be smaller still if this House did not suffer from the false image created by selective Press reporting. It is understandable, of course, that in their domestic occasions Peers, like parsons should be fair game. If they get drunk, divorced, or do foolish things it is very properly headlined, but the publicity inevitably colours the public image of the whole Peerage. This, of course, cannot be helped, but it is deplorable that a large section of the Press should pursue the same selective reporting of the proceedings of this House, with the result that people who read only the mass circulation dailies could be forgiven if they thought that most of our time was spent on discussions concerned with sex, sadism, sensation or stupidity. Quite sober adults are often surprised to learn that all Bills have to pass through the House of Lords and through all stages. I would submit that this false image has a very considerable effect on the views of those who may be called upon to take a seat in your Lordships' House. I confess that it had a very great effect on my own views before I came here.
Let me quote a typical example of the kind of thing I have in mind. Last month the periodical Time and Tide published a so-called work study of the House of Lords by a Mr. Kaufman. It was called, "Lazy Lords", and was

413
described as a piece of research. It was one of those researches where you first decide the answer and then work backwards. Mr. Kaufman's final answer was this, that:
" instead of attempting every few years to reform the Lords we should abolish it outright and start again."
Here are some of the instances of the objective way in which this researcher reached his final conclusion. He says, for example, that last year the Lords asked only 398 Questions and added:
" The Commons ask that number almost every five days."
This ignored the not unimportant fact that we have a maximum of four Questions per day in your Lordships' House, whereas in the Commons the only limit is the number which can be answered in an hour. It also ignores the fact that on any given day in the Commons one Minister may answer all the Questions and that, apart from constituency points, it is rare for more than four basically different Questions to be asked in the afternoon.
This researcher also declares that our day-to-day proceedings would be impossible without the hard core of Members who, he says, number only 62. But, by his reckoning, to qualify for the hard core one must have made at least ten speeches in a Session. Well, by this test the Lords hard core is a very much larger hard core than the Commons hard core.
But then Mr. Kaufman generously concedes that:
" A wholly subjective analysis of Lords proceedings would lead to an unfair verdict."
So he examined Press coverage to see what was felt to be generally interesting. But first he eliminated from our work all the work on Bills, and then he excluded the reports of the three quality newspapers, The Times, the Guardian and the Daily Telegraph for the somewhat odd reason that they do report our proceedings. Your Lordships can read it all here: this is not exaggeration; this is what this distinguished researcher did.
Then, declaring that the five popular dailies are competent judges of what their readers regard as important, he revealed that, out of our 63 debates, only 41 were reported on their merits. The other day we had a Foreign Affairs
414
debate, and the Foreign Secretary made a very important speech. Earlier that same afternoon my noble friend Lady Summerskill asked a Question relative to the brutality, as she alleged, of boxing. These competent judges of what their readers regard as important, these five daily newspapers, gave more space to my noble friend's Question than they did to the Foreign Secretary.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: Wise men!
LORD STONHAM: I should prefer at the moment not to comment. I would say only that if my noble friend Lady Summerskill ever became Foreign Secretary she would expect that her speeches would be given more space and prominence than would my Question if I asked something about patent medicine or something of that kind.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he does not realise that my Question was fundamentally important, that if we abolished aggression from the world, Foreign Secretaries would not be necessary?
LORD STONHAM: I heard the Foreign Secretary's speech, and I thought, and other noble Lords in the House seemed to agree, that that, too, was fundamentally to do with the abolition of aggression and methods to achieve that. And it did just seem to me (I admit that I may be biased in this) that the Foreign Secretary was dealing momentarily with a larger and more important canvas than that dealt with by my noble friend. Obviously, my noble friend does not agree with me; she is quite sure that the popular papers are night. But I would point out that it is on such objective criteria that this researcher reached the conclusion that we should be abolished. Unfortunately, by applying exactly the same criteria one could make out a much stronger case for the abolition of the House of Commons. The name of the author escapes me, but I think the appropriate doggerel for this, as I remember it, is:
" One cannot hope to bribe or twist,
Thank God! The British journalist,
But, seeing what the man will do
Unbribed, There's no occasion to."

415
As I have said before, my personal views are of small import, but for the benefit of those who will have to make a decision about their political future, I would say that in my experience your Lordships' House is unique. I love Parliament. I love the Commons and I love this place. But having been to both, and having had a reasonable experience of both, I would say, first, that anyone now here who has had experience of both Houses and wants to go back to the other place—unless, of course, he has ambitions to be, and has the qualifications for, Prime Minister—should see a psychiatrist. Secondly, that any Peer with no Commons experience who yearns to go there should first spend two solid weeks in the Peers' Gallery of the Commons, and if that does not make him think twice about his decision he should be given every encouragement to leave us: he obviously lacks the mental equipment required in your Lordships' House. My Lords, I support the Resolution.
5.13 p.m.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, I think that anyone who has listened to this debate would say that it has been of the highest order. May I say to my noble friend who introduced it that, after a great many years in this House, I do not think I ever heard a better speech delivered from any quarter than that of the Leader of the House this afternoon? But anybody who has heard this debate without having read the Motion would, I think, be under the impression that the Motion was of the widest possible character, inviting us to consider whether the House of Lords should be abolished, whether it should be reformed; how it should be reformed, and what its powers should be. As a matter of fact, if your Lordships will come back to the terms of the Motion you will see that it really is a narrow Motion. It is not whether we should exist, or how we should be constituted; it is a narrow Motion as to whether we should agree to appoint a Joint Select Committee, and whether we are satisfied with the terms of reference which are set out.
I would also add that, as we have experienced already to-day, while in this House nothing is out of Order, except gross abuse (and that can be dealt with
416
only by moving that the noble Lord concerned "be not heard") I should venture to think that it is perhaps inappropriate that we should tell the Committee today exactly what they are to do and how they are to report. The noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition began, I thought, most effectively, by saying that, and then proceeded to tell the Committee what they should do. My noble friend and colleague the former Leader, Lord Salisbury, did much the same thing.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: No, I did not. If I may say so, I went out of my way to say that there were many schemes that would be before the Committee, but that I did not propose to go into any of them.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, I think my noble friend did himself less than justice. Of course, the art which conceals art is the highest art of all. When you have eliminated a large number of alternatives as being wrong, immoral, or unconscionable, and there remains only one, you may not in terms commend that one, but you are left with a certain impression, whether or not it was my noble friend's intention to convey it.
I shall be quite brief. I hope that the House will concur in this Resolution. If changes are to be made, certainly any changes requiring legislation, it is most desirable that they should be agreed to by Parliament as a whole, and the best way of getting that done is to appoint a Joint Select Committee. I venture to think that the questions which are submitted to the Committee are important, but they are limited in scope. Of those questions, the second, the surrender of a peerage, is certainly the most important. Of course this is not at all a new question, as more than one speaker has reminded the House. The attempt to surrender a peerage has been made on a number of occasions. Sixty or seventy years ago the fathers of various Members now sitting in this House did their best to get out of coming here.
Going on through the years, the attempt has been constantly made. But on every single occasion when that was done it was always said in this House, and I think in another place—certainly

417
it was said by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. to my noble friend the Leader of the House: "You cannot decide these things on a personal case. This is a great question of principle, and whatever is decided about it must be decided as a question of principle, and it must be the subject of general legislation." This has been said over the past sixty or seventy years, but we have not had any general legislation. I suppose that, like other matters, it was one of those questions which "brooked no delay ". However, it is right and proper that it should now be considered, and in the first instance by a Joint Select Committee. I think it is also right that the various alternatives in regard to surrender should be put: whether there should be an absolute surrender, if at all; whether there should be a surrender for life; or whether there should be a surrender for a lesser period.
The Motion rightly adds that the Committee will have to consider all the consequences which might flow from any one of those solutions. If that is being done, then obviously it is right and convenient that we should consider the anomalies of the Irish and Scottish Peers. I once had a delightful Parliamentary Private Secretary who sat in the House of Commons and was an Irish Peer. I have never been able to see why, if an Irish Peer could do that, a Scottish Peer who did not get himself elected, or did not want to be elected by his fellow Peers, should not have the same right.
Perhaps I am transgressing in saying what the Committee should find. It is very hard not to do so. I am also going to transgress a little further. I am glad that Peeresses in their own right are not to be excluded from this consideration. Quite frankly, I have always had a sneaking regard for Peeresses in their own right—these poor ladies who victoriously surmounted a Select Committee of this House, who thought that the portals had been thrown open to them and that they were going to line the Benches on both sides of the House, only to find that another Select Committee incontinently liquidated them and banged the door in their faces. I do not suppose I shall sit on the Committee, and far be it from me to say, if I did sit upon it, how I should vote on that one, but I really would feel bound to
418
give the Peeresses in their own right an unbiased consideration.
My Lords, I would add only one thing. I think we have it on the authority of the Attorney General—and I am not sure the Leader of the House did not confirm it to-day; but I expect he will agree with it and I think from my own experience of this House that it is inherent in the rights of a Select Committee—that it would be for the Joint Select Committee, if we agree to it, to interpret its own terms of reference. Presumably, they would interpret those terms of reference with some regard to the normal meaning of the language employed. After hearing some of the speeches in both Houses, I am not quite sure I am right about that, but I would think so. Of course, they would not interpret in the same way that the Court of Chancery has to interpret a deed, simply by looking at the language of the instrument and nothing else. On the contrary, they would have the right, and indeed the duty, to consider all the circumstances; to consider what lawyers would call the intention of the parties; to consider the past history of this matter.
We must remember that there was another Resolution which sat on the Order Paper of another place for quite a while, and it surely will be relevant for the Committee, in interpreting their terms of reference, to look at the Resolution which was put down in the other place and then to look at the Resolution before us to-day in order to see where they differ. Just to take one example, it is particularly noticeable on the question of composition, which has been mentioned positively and certainly frequently to-day by inference, that in the Resolution that was tabled in the other place last year composition was included. The Resolution read:
" To consider, having regard among other things to the need to maintain an efficient Second Chamber (a) the composition of the House of Lords …".
I imagine that considerable exception was taken to that in some quarters and that it has been deliberately struck out—it cannot be just a slip—of the Resolution which is before us to-day.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Obviously, because you could not discuss the composition with-

419
out discussing the powers of this Chamber. That was the opinion at least of my Party, the Labour Party.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: I take it that the noble Viscount means that he would regard it as undesirable to do so separately. It certainly would be possible to discuss composition apart from powers; it would be quite possible to discuss powers apart from composition. But what in fact has happened is that the question of composition was in the original Resolution in the other place, whereas it is not before us to-day.
That is all I have to say. I hope that the House will agree—I feel sure it will—to support unanimously this proposal for a Joint Select Committee, and I am sure that any Committee which is appointed in the spirit in which the debates have been conducted will do its very best to arrive at the right solution. And here I must agree with my noble friend Lord Salisbury when he says that what must be considered is not only what is right for the individual, but also—which is more important—what is right for the country.
5.25 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, has made a very interesting speech to your Lordships and he has reminded us that some 70 years ago another attempt was made to renounce a peerage. I cannot help feeling that the real issue which lies behind this Motion is the so-called "Stansgate" case, and that the rest are just minor frills, although, of course, they are very important. I agree that there are certain obvious anomalies referred to in this Motion which should certainly be examined by the proposed Joint Select Committee. But it is, of course, another effort to reform this House by piecemeal legislation, and the various difficulties could be much more easily surmounted if the intention was to reform the composition of the House on the lines of the proposals put forward by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, some time ago—I think in 1948. I really cannot see, in spite of what has been said by the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, why composition and powers cannot be discussed separately. This Motion is in fact pro-
420
posing to alter the composition of the House to a very limited extent, and I regret that the Motion is not drawn more widely.
I would suggest to your Lordships that any recommendations of the proposed Joint Select Committee, when they become known, should be examined as to whether they would strengthen or weaken your Lordships' House. It is true to say that there are some Members of another place (I do not think there are many in your Lordships' House) who do not like a Second Chamber and would like to remove it at the earliest possible moment. In many parts of the world we are witnessing too great a concentration of executive power at the centre, and surely the lesson is that the need for the checks and balances of a Second Chamber is now greater than ever. On the other hand, my Lords, there are some who would not like to go so far as the extinction of the Second Chamber, but who are always ready gradually to erode and weaken this Chamber as much as possible. The noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, has said that we should be only a revising Chamber. We still have the power to hold up a Bill for a short time to enable the nation to have second thoughts on the matter, especially on a very controversial Bill. I would say that this is a very necessary power for us to have.
I cannot help feeling that the possible recommendations which may be made by the proposed Joint Select Committee would have the effect of gradually weakening this House. In the first place, vigorous young Peers with Parliamentary and ministerial ambitions would be tempted to leave this House for another place if they were permitted to renounce their seats in this House, and would perhaps never even take their seats before they go to another place. Also, we should, of course, lose those of another place who wished to stay in that Chamber and not to take up their inheritance in this House. On the other hand, a reform of the composition of this House on a much more extensive scale would undoubtedly strengthen the House and would remove the gibes which are constantly thrown at it. I agree that we must move with the times, and I suggest that we should put our House in order on a proper basis rather than tinker with

421
it as is envisaged by the Motion before your Lordships to-day. For this reason, I do not feel that I can support this Motion unless our noble Leader can assure me that the Joint Select Committee will be able to put forward recommendations for the proper reform of the composition of your Lordships' House and for the proper payment of Lords of Parliament.
5.31 p.m.
LORD RATHCAVAN: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend Lord Teynham that it is unfortunate that these terms of reference were not more widely drawn, and that in a sense this is really only tinkering with the problem. I also agree with the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, who, in a very remarkable speech, told us what he thought would eventually be the composition of this House—namely, a much smaller body composed of Members who attended practically the whole time.
But, my Lords, my reason for intervening to-day is to deal with a matter which I think is clearly within the terms of reference, and that is the question of the Irish Peers. The Act of Union of England and Ireland in 1800 provided for the election by the Irish Peers of 28 of their number as Representative Peers to sit in your Lordships' House for life; and whenever one of those Representative Peers died another was elected in his place, thus keeping the number at 28. This system continued from 1801 till 1921—that is to say, for 120 years—but no election of Irish Representative Peers has been held since the Irish Treaty of 1921, under which what was then the Irish Free State ceased to be part of the United Kingdom—and, of course, it is now the Republic of Ireland.
The reason why no Irish Representative Peers were elected after 1921 has always been given, rather absurdly in my view, to be because a particular official in Dublin, who was known as the Clerk of Crown and Hanaper, ceased to function. As a result, it was said, no machinery existed and it was impossible to elect Representative Peers. But that, of course, is a ridiculous excuse. The real reason, obviously, was that after 1921 it was illogical that a territory which had left the United Kingdom should continue to be represented as before in the Second Chamber of the United Kingdom.
422
It is now 40 years since the Irish Treaty was signed, and in that period of time every single one of the Irish Representative Peers has died. The last one who died was Lord Kilmorey, and about a year ago he was a Northern Ireland Peer. I think the one who died before that—and, of course, his successor cannot sit in this House—was a very greatly respected Chairman of Committees in this House, Lord Drogheda. After the death of Lord Drogheda and Lord Kilmorey there remained no more Irish Representative Peers.
My Lords, so far as I can make out, there are now 70 Irish Peers who have no United Kingdom peerage, and consequently no seat in this House. Most of these, of course, are creations before the Union of 1800, but when I was looking up the dates the other day I was astonished to find that quite a number of the Irish Peers were created after 1800—I should think about a fifth of them. Your Lordships will no doubt remember the case of Lord Curzon. When Lord Curzon was going to be made Viceroy of India, and was to be made a Peer, he wanted to be able to come back to the House of Commons, so he wanted to be given an Irish peerage. I am afraid that I cannot remember whether or not he was given one—I think not.
A NOBLE LORD: Yes: he was an Irish Peer.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: He then inherited the English Barony of Scarsdale.
LORD RATHCAVAN: That was a case of an Irish Peer being created since 1800; and, as I say, I was astonished to find, on looking up the dates, that there are quite a number of Irish Peers who have been created since 1800.
As regards the Scottish Peers, I think I am right in saying that there are 31 of them, and there I find that every single one of the Scottish Peers holds a title created before the Union of Scotland and England in 1707. When I say that, I mean Scottish Peers Who do not hold United Kingdom peerages, and, when I was refer ing to Irish Peers, I meant Irish Peers who do not hold United Kingdom peerages. There are any number of Irish Peers in this House, but they sit under another name—namely, that of their United Kingdom peerage. But I

423
am not referring to them; I am referring to those who do not sit in this House, because they have no United Kingdom peerage.
My Lords, the Irish Peers have both a privilege and a disability. Their privilege is that they can stand as candidates for the British House of Commons, and can sit in the British House of Commons. When I was in the House of Commons I knew several, including my noble friend Lord Winterton, who has since received a United Kingdom peerage and sits in this House. Their disability is that they cannot vote for a candidate in an election to the House of Commons. Perhaps some Scottish Peer when he comes to speak—possibly my noble friend Lord Forbes—can answer this question about Scottish Peers. They are not, I understand, entitled to sit in the House of Commons. If not, why not? Why can an Irish Peer sit in the House of Commons and not a Scottish Peer? Can the Scottish Peers vote in a Parliamentary election? I am not sure.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No.
LORD RATHCAVAN: I gather that they cannot. Then the Scottish Peers are worse off than the Irish Peers. It has always seemed to me that the complete elimination of the Irish Peers from your Lordships' House has been most unfair and quite unjustifiable—for this reason. A part of Ireland—that is to say Northern Ireland—still remains an integral part of the United Kingdom and sends twelve Members to the House of Commons at Westminster. Yet Northern Ireland is not allowed to send a single Representative Peer to this House. I would therefore suggest that it is obvious that a small number of Irish Representative Peers should be elected to represent Northern Ireland in this House. What the actual number should be I would not suggest—I really do not know; but obviously it should be something considerably less than the 28 who came here when the whole of Ireland was in the United Kingdom.
If the principle of Representative Peers is retained for Scotland, as I imagine it will be, then in my submission it cannot be denied to Northern Ireland, which, like Scotland, is in the United Kingdom. Whether the election of this smaller number of Irish Representative
424
Peers should be by the whole body of Irish Peers or by a smaller number who could be classed as Peers of Northern Ireland origin, I should not care at present to say. So far as I can make out, there are now eleven Irish Peers of what might be called Northern Ireland origin. My Lords, I hope that the appointment of this Select Committee, whose terms of reference we are debating to-day, will be the means of correcting an injustice and an anomaly which has now been in existence for 40 years.
5.42 p.m.
LORD FORBES: My Lords, any discussion affecting the future of your Lordships' House must be regarded as one of extreme importance. I am certain that this House can continue to play a great part in the legislative machinery of this country; and, having made up our minds to have a Second Chamber. I am sure that it is essential to see that this House serves a useful purpose. This House must be renowned for the part it plays in the government of our country rather than for its coronets and its ermine.
We have just heard of the plight of the Irish Peers. I can only say that the plight of the Scottish Peers is even worse, because they cannot even sit in another place. There is also the complex problem of Peeresses in their own right. When it was suggested that Peeresses should enter your Lordships' House, I voted against the proposal for the female sex to be allowed to sit here.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: Shame!
LORD FORBES: I suffered a defeat, my Lords; I hope I suffered it gracefully. However, having done so, it is quite illogical to me that Peeresses in their own right should not have a seat in your Lordships' House.
The really complex problem is this: should a Peer be able to renounce his peerage, and, if so, for how long? I think what we have to ask ourselves is, why does any Peer wish to renounce his peerage? And, so far as I can see, there are two reasons for it, at absolutely opposite ends of the pole. The first one is to obtain a better chance of becoming Prime Minister, and the second one is a desire to be relieved of responsibility. Regarding the question of becoming Prime Minister, I would say that

425
if any Peer is the most suitable person to become Prime Minister, then nothing should stand in his way. But this applies only to the post of Prime Minister. Other senior Cabinet posts can quite easily be filled by Members of your Lordships' House, such as that of Foreign Secretary. Then there is the other category, the Peer who wants to relinquish his peerage—in other words, he wants to abdicate rather than face responsibility. This is possibly understandable, because a peerage carries little other than the privilege of sitting in your Lordships' House and considerable, increased responsibility.
If there is to be any renunciation of peerages, what is to be the period of renunciation? For it to be for all time would not, I am quite certain, be right. A young Peer, or even one of more advanced age, could, in a moment of irresponsibility, renounce his peerage, a peerage which had been safely guarded by his ancestors for many generations. I could not lightly renounce my peerage responsibilities, which have been shouldered by my ancestors for over 500 years. I am equally certain that to give up a peerage for a short time, such as the duration of a Parliament, would also be utterly wrong. If a Peer could give up his peerage for the duration of a Parliament, one could conjure up a wonderful picture of, say, a Peer who had won his coronet and moved to your Lordships' House from another place being asked by the Prime Minister to go back to the other place to take up a high Cabinet post; then, having served his country diligently for a considerable time, Mr. X again being given a peerage and returning to your Lordships' House. That would make two terms in each House. No, my Lords: the leopard can change his spots only once at the very most. Ships may sail under flags of convenience, but hereditary spots are not spots of convenience: they are birth marks which cannot be lightly changed.
A strong, virile Second Chamber is necessary. This House will not decay because Peers cannot move freely from this place to another place: rather it will tend to decay through lack of opportunities for its Members. At this moment a number of Her Majesty's Ministers are in this House. In my
426
opinion, there should be more Ministers in this House. It is not humanly possible for a Minister in another place to get around the country or to spend sufficient time in the Commonwealth, as the case may be. The beauty of this House, my Lords, is that a Minister is not tied to its Benches; he can get out and about. I am cetrain that my noble friend the Foreign Secretary could not have achieved what he has achieved had he been in another place. The task of a Minister in another place has increased very greatly of late. And I believe it is now necessary to have at least one Minister for each Ministry or Office in each House. More Ministers in your Lordships' House would not only assist the legislative machinery by helping the Government of the day, but add strength to this House by giving opportunities to its Members. Therefore, my Lords, let us agree to this Motion and see that any reform that may be carried out is designed to strengthen this House and so strengthen the whole legislative machinery.
5.48 p.m.
LORD MILNE: My Lords, it is said of matrimony that it is like a hen-run: those who are inside want to get out; those who are outside want to get in. Somewhat the same applies, or seems to apply, to your Lordships' House. We have come to regard a debate such as this, variously introduced, as a regular fixture; and, like its more sporting counterparts, it is always assured of a large and expert following. But, my Lords, this Motion, although charmingly introduced by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, is, in my opinion, something quite different. It is an invitation to concur in the formation of a Committee for a certain purpose. It leaves very little room for manœuvre: either one concurs or one does not concur; and if one does not, one appears reactionary.
Since the recommendations of that Committee could be so sponsored as to command a majority in both Houses, and since "change of rights" could well mean "loss of rights", it could be a "blank cheque". Those of you who play bridge—and Mr. Macleod, I believe, is a master—will no doubt recognise a squeeze play. It is an effective instrument when your hand is not particularly

427
strong. Rightly or wrongly, it may be resented by those who are squeezed.
I should like to make three observations, two on the substance of the Motion, and one general. If one reads carefully the wording of the Motion as it appears on the Order Paper with particular reference to "or" and "and", there appears to be some subtlety in the word "or" at the beginning of line 5. What, in my opinion, is required is that a Peer should receive the normal franchise of an adult now. If an M.P. can sit and vote, why not a Peer? On money matters he is virtually disenfranchised. In this context, it seems to me quite irrelevant in which House he sits; even a Peer cannot be in two places at the same time. If, as I suspect, the word "or" at the beginning of line 5 is alternative, then I consider that is unfair.
My second point, my Lords, is an analogous one. The Peeresses in their own right are once more to be considered. They were considered at the time of the second Life Peerages Bill, when some of the noble Ladies were entered. But, once more, nothing happened. I was among those who thought that the Peeresses in their own right were most shabbily treated at that time. If there really was a difficulty over their title, or over the extension of the hereditary principle, they could, I should have thought, so easily have been summoned as Life Peeresses. If we are determined to do what we think is right, then I think we should go on strike until justice is done. At least this time we should fight for the noble Ladies.
The last point I have to make is a general one. With terms of reference thus drawn, the Committee can range far and wide. Clearly, they will discuss Representative Peers, and I trust that they will also consider the separation of the right to speak and vote from the right to speak only. The longer one sits in your Lordships' House, the more one realises the standard and quality of the debates. Vitality of debate depends on variety of viewpoint. The real failing in your Lordships' House (if such there is) is that there are too many potential Conservative votes. Government, Opposition and Liberal Peers may be nicely labelled, and generally may be expected
428
to do as they are asked. Peers who sit regularly on these Benches are, by definition, not so amenable; and they thereby perform a certain service, especially as in another place independence is a creed unknown.
The independent Peers and the vitality of debate would, I feel, suffer by an application of a purely representative principle. But the greatest sufferers of all will be those who, for no fault of their own, cannot attend regularly, although their knowledge of their own subject may be considerable and up to date. While some might view the loss of vote with equanimity, they would, I feel, consider that loss a reasonable compromise if the right and privilege to attend and speak were preserved. I trust, my Lords, that due consideration will be given to this in the deliberations of the Committee; if not, for many it might be: "Speak now, or forever hold your peace."
5.55 p.m.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, in rising to support this Motion, which has been moved by the most brilliant speech that I have ever heard, either here or anywhere else, I have three points to make. They are not particularly novel—indeed, they are less novel now than they were when I drafted these notes—but they are made by a Peer who, as a Life Peer, is not intimately concerned with one important aspect of the matter, and is consequently in that measure disinterested.
But more than that, as the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said when he spoke (though, unlike him, I never had any political aspirations or ambitions, and therefore came to this place nearly four years ago with a fairly open mind), I have had the inclination and the opportunity to study Parliament from within with wide-open eyes. I find myself, in consequence, in a position to take a view of the situation from a rather independent angle; and in this respect I agree with Lord Stonham—and I thank him for the "lead in", as it were, that he has given me in several respects. I greatly enjoyed his references to the article in Time and Tide, which I also enjoyed. And might I ask him to glance at it again, through the eyes, so to speak, of a Scotsman, with a 400-mile overnight journey each way when he comes to attend?

429
With regard to my three points, my Lords, the first is that I regard the provisions of the Act of Union between Scotland and England (this has been mentioned by several noble Lords), so far as they cover Representative Peers, to be unfair, especially after the two and a half centuries that have gone by. I refer, of course, to the fact that Scottish Peers who are not elected as Representative Peers are not eligible either to vote or to stand for Parliament. I would not go so far as some noble Lords have gone in saying that the Scottish Peers are worse off than the Irish Peers, because they do have representation in terms of sixteen of their number. On the other hand, when noble Lords refer to the question of Peeresses in their own rights, they are treading on delicate ground when it comes to Scottish Peeresses, who might then have to face some sort of election at the beginning of each Parliament. I believe that any legislation arising from the proceedings of the proposed Select Committee should put this position right, certainly as regards the disenfranchisement of Scottish Peers who are not elected as Representative Peers.
My second point, my Lords, concerns the hereditary principle. I came to your Lordships' House inclined to the view that heredity, as a stepping-stone to Parliament, was an anachronism. Speaking, like the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, with the feeling that I can possibly say things which other people who are not Life Peers cannot say, I do not mind saying that it did not take me long to revise that view. I am now persuaded that Parliament should do nothing to interfere with the hereditary process. I say this because, whatever the impact of the Life Peerages Act has been, I do not see how it can ever introduce Peers who are not above middle age. In this view perhaps the noble Lord will agree with me, if he does not agree with the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, who, I think, used the word "retired".
In my view, my Lords, the younger Members of this House contribute very much more to its proceedings than Parliament or the people appreciate. I do not refer to words alone, but in vigour, if that is the right word. I think this point was also made by the noble Mar-
430
quess. It does not make sense, to my mind, to belittle the fact of heredity. It applies to a noble Lord exactly in the same way as to a commoner. Pride, or the reverse, in one's forbears, whether as encouragement or warning, permeates, or should permeate, every walk of life. As the noble Viscount the Leader of the House has said, this is no snobbery. That a few healthy and well-educated young men, some of them with independent means—and all who attend here willing and able to take part in the proceedings of this House—instinct with a tradition of public service, and probably brought up in an atmosphere of public duty, can take part in the affairs of State, as they do here, is something which Parliament should not lightly cast aside. It is curious to me that these views, reached through a short period of a life peerage, as it were, should accord so closely with that of the noble Marquess, the scion of an ancient house.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, the noble Lord will forgive me for not being present when he began to speak. He talks of a few well-educated hereditary gentlemen. But in fact there are more than 700 of these hereditary gentlemen, the vast majority of them Conservatives. Can he justify that as a feature of a democratic constitution?
LORD FERRIER: Yes, my Lords, what I meant was that many of these young noblemen long to attend this House, but they are prevented from doing so by the fact that they have to earn their own living or are otherwise engaged. Therefore, only a few of those who are available can appear here and take a full part in the work of the House. But they are few—that is my point. I hope that I have made that clear.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: The noble Lord has certainly been most courteous in dealing with my interruption at all.
LORD FERRIER: I have made myself clear, I hope. Without linking what I have said with what some other noble Lords have said—namely, that it is a pity that more do not take part in our proceedings—the fact is that more cannot.

431
I do not propose to enter into the question of remuneration, which is very difficult. But this reference to reaching this House by virtue of an hereditary system brings me to my third point—namely, that this principle brings to your Lordships' House young men who have not served an apprenticeship in another place. With all due respect to that place, and accepting its paramount authority in the conduct of the nation's affairs, my studies (and they included the treatment recommended by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham: I did not take such a heavy dose, but I spent many a weary hour in the Peers' Gallery when I first came to Parliament) do not convince me that responsibility for and dependence on a constituency, with all the inhibitions and possible exhibitionism this entails, is necessarily to the advantage of the State. Is it possible that a sense of looking over one's shoulder sometimes clings to people who are skilled in the transactions of another place? Such disadvantages, of course, are mitigated by a revisory Chamber, such as your Lordships' House as at present constituted. I would go further and suggest that respect for Parliament in the eyes of the people would suffer if ripe years or experience in the lower House were to be regarded as essential prerequisites for membership of the Second Chamber.
Before I close, may I add that my mind goes again to the curious similarity between some of what I have said and what the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, said. I should like to express my full agreement with him, again as a Life Peer, in his emphasis that it is this House, its prestige, its authority and its effectiveness (I think those were his words), not the need of individuals, which we must hold first in our consideration. I am in favour of the Resolution in the circumstances, but, subject to what I have said about Scottish Peers, I should be happy at the moment if the outcome were that matters are left as they are.
6.6 p.m.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords,s may I make the briefest of interventions? I have been away for much of the afternoon, part of it sitting on a Select Committee, and maybe the two
432
points I have to make have already been made. In fact, I am fairly sure that they have been, but I think that they are important and perhaps your Lordships will bear with me if I make them again briefly. The first concerns attendance in your Lordships' House. I think that I am right in saying that the average number of Peers sitting on any one day is about 140—more than I thought—but the number of Peers entitled to sit is 918. In other words, the average daily attendance is one-eighth of the membership. I find this quite wrong. I am not suggesting, of course, that every Peer should attend every day. There would not be room and in the case of quite a number of them there are excellent reasons for staying away. They may be ill or old or abroad or working a full week in the Provinces.
However, the rest of those who never or rarely attend—and I am afraid they are mostly on our side—make a complete mockery of the House. They let down the side. They destroy whatever small justification there is for an hereditary system, and continue to call themselves Lords. I would ask those professional absentees this question: if there were a rule that you are not allowed to keep your title unless you attend the House, say, twice a month, is it just possible you might come?
My other point, which I know has been made by the noble Marquess and by my noble friend, concerns the average age of regular attenders. As has been said, this is an old House. It must of necessity be an old House, for the hereditary system means waiting until papa dies and in these days papa takes an unconscionable time to die. Instead of swilling port, he swallows antibiotics. One of my chief pleasures in coming here is that I am made to feel so young. Old as I am, by contrast with most noble Lords I am a mere stripling, a boy. There are not so many faces under 40 in your Lordships' House. I find this a great pity. Age may mean wisdom, but youth means enthusiasm and, as my noble friend said, vigour—and that is what I think this House lacks.
It so happens, however, that through the tragedy of war there are quite a few Peers who have had a premature succession. Of course, many of them come and at this moment I can think of three

433
hereditary Peers in their early twenties who might, with profit to us and to themselves, come here to speak from time to time. All three happen to be at Oxford and all three happen to be quite outstanding young men, by any standards. I hope the noble Lords concerned—the noble Marquess, Lord Dufferin and Ava, my kinsman, Lord Gowrie and Lord Sudeley—will not think me presumptuous if I suggest that they might join our deliberations, and that at an early date. Knowing your Lordships' House, I am sure that they would be warmly received. We need young men to tell us what is going on. With regard to the greater issues, which sooner or later have to be discussed, I am not going to hazard a view. Frankly, I am not experienced enough and do not know where the answer lies. I am going to say, however, quite simply, that whatever is done finally, I hone the heart will not he ripped out of this most anomalous, most inconsequent, most indefensible and most democratic of assemblies.
6.10 p.m.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, the Motion which has been so very ably moved by my noble Leader Lord Hailsham to-day will he seen in its importance not only in the Houses of Parliament but in the country at large. There have been a great many scurrilous comments made about the House of Lords by certain journalists in such magazines as Time and Tide, who, one presumes, make a solitary trip to your Lordships' House and then come forward with some fantastic account of it. Much has been said to-day about the importance of youth in your Lordships' House, and in studying the list of speakers in the debate I have come to the conclusion that I am the youngest Member of the House taking part. I hope it will not be considered vain of me to say that, in my belief, the future of this House is going to depend largely on the contributions of the younger Members of it.
I have always been unconvinced by the argument that the younger people in this country care little or nothing about the House of Lords. I have in a purely non-Party spirit addressed young members of my own Party and other organisations on the House of Lords, and I have
434
been impressed by the number of questions put to me about both the constitution and the procedure of this House. Therefore, on this ground alone I think the future of this House as an administrative body is of great importance. The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, in a most admirable speech, dwelt at some length on the rôle of young people in this House, and he mentioned the financial allowances. I do not think this would come within the terms of preference of this particular Committee, but I agree that the amount that is paid is the deterrent to attendance by a great many young Peers. For my own part, my place of business gives me very generous time off to attend here, but inevitably and understandably at some financial loss.
I do not think that we should have a salaried House of Lords, except for Ministers. I think that would be wrong, because one of the most important functions of this House, as I understand it, is that it can, and frequently does, discuss a matter of importance in a non-Party spirit. In the House of Commons the Whips are used with some severity, and I do not dispute the justification of that. In these days, especially, a Member of the House of Commons has to pay great attention to the views of his or her constituents, whether they be sound views or otherwise. In this House we do not have constituents whose views we have to heed and, therefore, I think it is fair to say that we can interpret what is being thought by the country at large in a much more candid manner. I must confess, for my part, that I am sorry I have not had the opportunity of fighting a Parliamentary seat. Whether I had won or lost is of little importance; I should have liked to have the experience.
I regard it as an honour to be an active Member of this House. But I hope that the Select Committee will pay particular attention to the relationship between the Peerage and the House of Commons. I do not think that in the country at large any proposal would be countenanced for a kind of shuttle service to be run between seats in this House and in another place. If a Peer is allowed to fight a seat in the House of Commons and he loses that seat, then in my view, he should not be allowed, except possibly in exceptional circumstances, to revert to this House. On the

435
other hand, I do not think it is right that the successor of a Peer should be prevented from taking a seat in this House. I think it is wrong that, just because one member of the family may wish either not to take his seat here or to remain in another place, his heir should be prevented from taking his seat here. There is a certain amount of feeling in the country that renunciation should be for all time and should apply to one's heirs as well, but I think that would be wrong.
I should like to say a word or two on the question of hereditary Peers. As has been said, there are several hundred of these Peers and, for a number of reasons, some of them attend only infrequently. It might be possible for the Select Committee to look into the question of a quota of attendances of Peers, and noble Lords who do not fulfil the quota could be prevented from attending. I agree whole-heartedly with the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, that the hereditary Peers have a vital role to play in this House. Not only do they in many cases maintain a tradition of service, but the younger ones, particularly, can gain much experience. We can gain experience from listening to our elder statesmen on all sides of the House, because possibly one day we may be elder statesmen ourselves. I think this has been a valuable debate, and I hope that the Select Committee will pay particular attention to the question of getting the younger element to attend more frequently because, as I said earlier, the future of this very valuable House depends so much on the contributions from all its Members, and very much, too, on those from its younger Members.
6.20 p.m.
LORD SOM̃ERS: My Lords, one cannot speak in a debate at this point without repeating a good deal that has already been said. I therefore hope that your Lordships will bear with me if I say several things that have been said already. and said probably a good deal more ably by former speakers. I think the first point we must consider is whether or not a two-Chamber Parliament is desirable. When I say, "we must consider", I meant the Joint Committee, of which I am entirely in favour.
436
I rather gathered from the noble Viscount who leads the Opposition that he did not think that this was altogether necessary, but I am afraid I cannot agree with him. I feel that any legislation which is passed by a single Chamber lacks a certain amount by not having been looked through by an entirely unbiased and independent body.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. We are in the recollection of the House, and I do not think my noble Leader said that he was in favour of single Chamber government. I should be much surprised if he intended to create that impression.
LORD SOM̃ERS: I do not think he actually said he was in favour of it, but he quoted an example where it worked very efficiently.
LORD SHEPHERD: I think my noble friend was speaking of one Chamber government in New Zealand, in regard to the support of the Monarchy; the fact that there was no hereditary system or Second Chamber in New Zealand did not stop them giving their very loyal support to the Monarchy.
LORD SOM̃ERS: Naturally, I entirely agree with the noble Viscount there. I none the less feel that a Second Chamber is very desirable. I also agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Rea, when he said that a Second Chamber should not be a rival to the first. I feel that it should have greater power than it has at present, but power of a different kind. The two Houses should not be rivals at all; their functions should be entirely different. But if the Second Chamber is to be efficient, I agree with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, yesterday [col. 351]:
" I think it is very important, if this House is to be continued, preserved, that it should have the opportunity of doing its job properly. If this House is not in a position to do its job, then let it be abolished."
He said later on [col. 352]:
" … I am a great admirer of this House and am very keen that we should do our job in the most effective way …"
I could not agree more wholeheartedly than I do with those words.
If that is to be the case, we must examine the House, see what its constitution is, and see whether or not it

437
really needs reforming. There are three main ways of making a Second Chamber: first, by an elected membership; secondly, by an appointed membership, and thirdly, by the way we have at the moment, chiefly an hereditary membership. To have an elected membership would merely be to make this House a rival or duplicate—a lesser duplicate, perhaps—of another place, which would be entirely undesirable. If we are to have an appointed membership the problem arises: appointed by whom? By the Government of the day? If so shall we then get the really unbiased membership which is essential for the nature of this House? I very much doubt it. I am convinced, like the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, that the hereditary system really works, but, unlike him, I do not think it is quite so illogical as it appears on the surface. After all, it is not unusual for people in all professions to have gained a great deal from their fathers' having been in the same profession, and their having been interested in it and instructed in it from their boyhood. It certainly has proved so in my own profession, and I am sure it has in many others.
Therefore, I think the hereditary principle, illogical though at first glance it may seem, has really a great deal to be said for it. For one thing, the heir to a title has the privilege of coming here and sitting on the steps of the Throne and listening to debates. He becomes familiar with the procedure of the House. Incidentally, if he wishes he can also stand as a Member of another place and gain political experience there, as many of your Lordships have done. Therefore I think that the hereditary principle is not to be scoffed at, but is to be defended. I am by no means saying that this House has not gained a great deal since the introduction of Life Peers in 1958. I have listened to some extremely interesting and brilliant speeches, particularly from the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, who I see is sitting opposite, and the noble Lord, Lord Taylor. I think they are great additions to this House. May I say also that, although I was slightly doubtful about the introduction of Life Peeresses, my doubts were within a few weeks swept away completely. We heard only last week an extremely brilliant and convincing
438
speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Swanborough. As to Peeresses in their own right, I think this matter should be given due consideration.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: Is the noble Lord under the impression that Lord Stonham is an hereditary Peer?
LORD SOM̃ERS: No, I was not.
LORD AIREDALE: The noble Lord referred to Lady Swanborough, not Lord Stonham.
LORD SOM̃ERS: I am referring to Peeresses in their own right. After all, we already have one in this House, and I think all your Lordships would agree that this House has been greatly enriched by her presence. She sits as a Life Peeress, of course. I think that as we retain the hereditary system that can be proved. Since the Life Peerages Act was introduced in 1958, 35 Life Peers, including the 6 Baronesses, and 33 hereditary peerages have been created, so I do not think any shadow has been case on the hereditary system. Since we have abolished the sex bar and still retain the hereditary system, I cannot see any logical reason why Peeresses in their own right should not sit in your Lordships' House.
We come now to the question of the right of Peers to surrender their peerages. I agree with everything that has been said by other noble Lords on the question of surrender for life or permanently. It certainly should be for life only; but I think it should be for life and not for a shorter period. I do not think that any man should have the right to switch from one House to another and sit in whichever one he chooses. It is easy to imagine the case of a man standing for a by-election, perhaps losing it and, because he could not get into the other place, coming back and resuming his seat here. I think that would be all wrong. It should be for life, but I do not think it should be for longer, because, after all, one's heirs have to be considered and one must remember that one's heirs are not always one's sons. One's heirs may be, as in my case, a distant cousin. I should have to get his permission and the permission of his sons before I renounced my peerage—which, incidentally, I have no intention of doing—and therefore it would make it a very complicated procedure.

439
In any case, I wonder really whether the surrender of a peerage should be allowed. Other noble Lords have mentioned the fact that if this House is to be an efficient House of Parliament, it should have equal attraction and an equal status, if a different status, with the other place. I cannot see why equality of opportunity should not exist in this House as much as in the other place, and this could be enlarged if we were to have more Ministers in this House. That would be an extremely esirable thing, because when one has the responsibility of a Ministry on one's shoulders, one does not want to be shackled by the necessity of having periodically to visit one's constituency, which may be in a distant part of the country. A Minister has all that he can be expected to do in his work at the Ministry. So I should say that the ideal place for Ministers, with the exception, possibly, of the Prime Minister, is in this House rather than in the other place.
There was a good deal of outcry at the time when my noble friend the Foreign Secretary was appointed, but I think there is no single one of your Lordships who would deny that he has lived that down to the greatest degree. He has proved, as was said by another Member of your Lordships' House, that we have never had a better Foreign Secretary, and I heartily concur with that statement. But he could not give the time to his task and get through the immense amount of work that he does if he had to consider a constituency at the same time, and also had to answer the innumerable questions during Question Time in the other place. I may say that I, too, have followed Lord Stonham's advice and have sat in the Peers' Gallery in the other place, and it has not inspired me with any desire to go there. I am sorry for any member of the Government who has to face the barrage of sometimes really rather—to put it mildly—not very intelligent questions which are fired at him.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord and ask him if it is in order, quite apart from being good taste, to criticise the other place?
LORD SOM̃ERS: I was not criticising the other place at all. Possibly I was criticising some Members of it, whom
440
I do not even know by name, but in any case merely hypothetically. I should not dream of criticising the other place. I think it is of the greatest possible value.
I think, then, that we really come to the conclusion that what this House wants is strengthening rather than weakening, but very much on the lines which it is at present. I believe that the hereditary system works but that we can strengthen it by more Life Peers. I think it certainly is a pity that the Opposition Benches have not been strengthened by the addition of more Life Peers. I consider also that it is important that the anomalies between the Scottish Peers who are not Representatives, and the Irish Peers, should be cleared up.
I hope that the Select Committee will realise that this House is of very great value. I may say that when I first arrived here nine years ago I had little knowledge indeed of what went on, but I was tremendously impressed; and during my time here I have heard so many brilliant speeches and met so many fascinatingly interesting people in all walks of life, such as one could never have the opportunity of meeting outside this House, that I am convinced that it is of the greatest value.
6.38 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I am very late in the batting order, but it is my fault because I am a surprise bat. Fortunately, I was always a very bad bat, so I shall be out extremely quickly. The more I have heard in this debate the more convinced I am that it is a great pity we did not have life peerages earlier. I am sure that the late Lord Stansgate, a most loved Member of this House, if he had been able to accept a life peerage, would have been a far happier person. It has always seemed rather inane to me that some individuals whose professed principles are against the hereditary system have had, out of a sense of duty to the nation, to accept hereditary peerages. They have had no option, of course; but now, my Lords, owing to the creation of life peerages that situation has been rectified. I should like here to pay a tribute to the Life Peers; I think they have been a great success. It has been a really good move.

441
It is rather confusing to decide how wide or how narrow are the terms of reference of this Joint Committee to be appointed, if this House agrees, as presumably it will. Of course the chief thing is to be the renunciation. If we are going to have renunciation of a peerage, of course that is going to affect the whole composition of this House. One could, if one had the time, range very far and wide on this question. As I promised your Lordships that I shall soon be out, I will forbear to do that; but it is an extremely tempting subject to speak on, because it is a subject in which I have always been interested.
Of one thing I am quite sure: that if this House ever became truly democratic—and by democratic I mean dependent on the popular vote—there would be no point in having it. Because the object of this House, as I see it, is to ensure that the nation, the public, do not get just that little bit of extra rope by which they could hang themselves. We have instances yin history where unbridled political freedom generally ends in the destruction of that freedom. I hope that this House will always retain its independent character, because I think it is extremely important for the Constitution.
Of course, logically a King is able to abdicate; therefore presumably a Peer ought to be able to abdicate for his life. But when a King abdicates he must have very good reasons. Though I am in favour of renunciation for life, I think that a Peer, before he renounces his peerage for life, ought to go before a very high-powered committee of Law Lords and Privy Counsellors. If a Peer is able to say "I opt out", that will, I think, lead to a considerable number of abuses. I am quite against "scrubbing out" a peerage, extinction, because, of course, there may be a Peer who, out of spite perhaps to his heir, a cousin, will just "scrub out" the peerage. I think that cannot be allowed. If you are going to argue on grounds of logic (always a dangerous thing in politics), a Prime Minister, when he retires, is made an Earl, if he wishes it—and I think with the exception of Sir Winston Churchill most Prime Ministers have accepted that honour—and it does seem extraordinary that, by his so doing, his son and grandson and all his heirs are
442
practically for ever debarred from being Prime Minister or Chancellor of the Exchequer. Though I quite agree they are not debarred by the Constitution, they are debarred in practice.
As several noble Lords have said, it would be very unfair if a Peer was able to scuttle in and out of this House and into another House. If you were to have renunciation for life, that ought, of course, to apply to a Peer whether he is in this House or has just inherited a peerage and has not accepted a Writ of Summons. It has to be the same rule for all Peers. I do see a danger here—I think the noble Marquess mentioned it: that of course in time renunciation is bound to weaken the calibre of the hereditary element in this House. I personally cannot see it weakening the House immediately, because after Orpington I can hardly see a large number of Tory Peers rushing to stand as candidates, and even after Stockton the same will probably apply to noble Lords on the Liberal Benches opposite. But in time it is bound to weaken the hereditary element as regards young Peers. How are you going to make up that weakness? You cannot very well make it up with Life Peers, because, as we have heard, all Life Peers have at least half of their careers behind them. It would be very difficult to find Life Peers of 25 or 30 years of age. I have heard people suggest all sorts of solutions. For instance, some defeated Parliamentary candidates, drawn from all Parties, young candidates, in proportion to the state of their Parties at the General Election could be made Members of this House for the life of the Parliament. But of course the constitutional difficulties in that idea are immense, and I should imagine that it is quite impracticable. I cannot answer that one; but of course, I am not supposed to do so—that is up to the Committee.
Before I conclude, I should like to back up my noble friend Lord Rathcavan in his remarks on Irish Peers. It is quite extraordinary that Irish Peers can stand for election to another place, for English constituencies, but cannot stand for election there for Northern Ireland constituencies. That seems really odd. I should like to support the noble Lord's suggestion that a small number of Northern Irish Peers should be elected

443
by their own Peers for membership of this House, as is done by Scottish Peers.
As one of the Members of this House who voted against the admission of Life Peeresses, I should like to say that, having had the privilege of being in the House with Life Peeresses and of hearing the contributions that they have made to our deliberations, I feel that it is an absolute and absurd anomaly not to have in this House hereditary Peeresses in their own right. After all, they are only few in number—you can count them on your hand. It seems rather an injustice that they should be excluded. Probably there is some legal reason which can be argued against their admittance, but from the fair play point of view the situation is absurd. I hope, too, that Scottish Peers who are not elected to this House by their own Peers will be allowed to stand for another place. Obviously, it is a great injustice that they cannot do so.
I also think that all Peers ought to be allowed to vote if they are not Members of this House. They can hardly expect to vote if they are Members of this House, because presumably they are permanent Members of Parliament. But if at any time this House, by its own Members, is to elect its own Members, I hope that all Peers (perhaps this is not practical, but I do not see why it should not be so) who are Members of this House, Peers of England, the United Kingdom and Great Brtain, will be able to come here and take part in debates, although not voting. I think that the average Peer is not so much worried about voting; but we have so many experts in this House who come here only occasionally, that I think it would be a great pity if they were debarred from taking part.
I should like to make a plea that as the result of their deliberations the Committee will not suggest that this House should be turned into an entirely professional place, because politics to-day appear to be becoming more and more of a rat-race and a matter of place-seeking. I think that this House has a great contribution to make in its independent character. We are always being told that it is a highly illogical House. It probably is. But, after all, our electoral system is highly illogical, and
444
there are a great many things in politics that are highly illogical. And, of course, as the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, has said, it does work. Therefore, I support this Motion, and I wish the Joint Select Committee every success in their deliberations.
6.56 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, so many friendly things have been said about Life Peers that I should like to reciprocate and say to some of your hereditary Lordships that you do all right, too. I would address this remark particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Som̃ers, who was kind enough to pick on some of us. I intervene only briefly to say that I find the existence of the House of Lords wholly indefensible; but then so, in logic, do I find the democratic system. The great justification for the House of Lords is the same as the justification for having the deterrent, the atom bomb. It is simply that we have it and, since we have got it, we may as well make the best of it, especially when we consider what might be the alternative. I should be appalled to think of somebody really trying to produce a powerful, logical and effective Second Chamber. The case for a Second Chamber is a doubtful one in theory, but in practice I think, certainly in this country and in most democratic nations, it seems to be a desirable and useful thing. The fact that ours is an hereditary one is a rather peculiar state of affairs, all the more so since it is rather a nouveau hereditary one. After all, 90 per cent. of all peerages have been created since the beginning of the nineteenth century. But its great merit is that it does work in a friendly and, on the whole, rather modest way.
One or two unkind things have been said about another place. Those of us who have been there—I am sure the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, will feel the same—acquire a tremendous affection for it. When I lost my seat in the House of Commons, one of the few matters about which I dreamed was that I was back there. Then, one day my dream brought me back, not into the House of Commons but into the House of Lords. It was most strange; it was like moving into a sort of parallel existence. In fact, I made my maiden speech as a Peer from the same Bench as I did when I was in the Commons and

445
the Commons were here. I regret to say that all your Lordships' privileges of which I once disapproved the most, I found I enjoyed the most. I found also that the relative lack of power and the overwhelming Tory domination of this House led to results of a most unexpected kind. It was a fact that, on many occasions, on matters which were of no primary Party political interest, one could put on foot debates which would never take place in another place—matters in which occasionally we have been able to influence that most "uninfluenceable" of institutions, namely, Governments.
I hope that, seeing that we have this indefensible system, we shall not try to tamper with it too much, but make the minimum changes that are necessary to undo what I think is an injustice—namely, the inability of those hereditary Peers who wish to remain in another place to do so. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Forbes: I should relate it merely to that particular Peer, and would make it for life. If in due course he wants to come here, we can always give him a life peerage—that would seem a simple solution—but he would have to earn it.
I should be very sorry to see English Peers electing their representatives here. It would seem to me that that would be delivering the whole system into the hands of the Party machines. There would be the usual balancing of powers and deals of the kind that go on between Whips—and, admirable and honourable men though Whips are, they have a different job to do front those of us who are not Whips.
I hope, therefore, that when the Committee report they will report in a way that will allow Mr. Wedgwood Benn, if he wishes, to remain in another place. I am doubtful whether I want to see the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Hailsham, go. He used to make the Benches shake in the House of Commons, arid I think the discipline of the House of Lords has been rather good for him. It may be he would do better if he went back there, but I should be sorry to see him go. If a change is to be made, I think it must be made for the benefit of those who at the moment have lost the opportunity, and would
446
give the right to the noble and learned Viscount to go elsewhere.
That is all I have to say. It is quite clear, I think, that we shall support this Motion, and I hope that the Committee will report as most of us wish it to do, but that it will keep its recommendations for change to an absolute minimum.
7.3 p.m.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I apologise if I repeat any earlier arguments, but I have been unable to attend the whole debate. I hope that I shall compensate for it by being very brief. As a younger hereditary Member of this House, I should like to stress again, at this late stage, the position of the younger members. It would seem that the most vital decision to be taken by the Select Committee when considering the reform of the House is in regard to its composition. Hereditary Peers at present fill the useful function in the Second Chamber of Parliament of being inert, unbiased and unpaid—a unique position, and I defy anyone to replace this body on similar terms. However, this situation is not exactly attractive to any young, politically ambitious hereditary Peer, and it cannot be of great benefit to the country. It would be very difficult to find young, able Members who would be willing to sit in the House of Lords on such terms.
I would suggest, my Lords, that should hereditary Peers remain as Members after the reform of the House, they should do so willingly. Further, that should they wish to be allowed to submit themselves for membership of the House of Commons, they should be allowed to do so. As tenants of their respective titles, these Peers should not be allowed to renounce for ever their family title, but only during their lifetime. I am sure that most noble Lords here will agree with that.
Finally, I should like to support the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, when he stated that a useful Second Chamber must be both youthful and wise. Some payments must be introduced to active serving Members of the future House of Lords, and with this injection I trust that this House will continue to fulfil the vital rôle which it has held in the past with such distinction. I support the Motion.
7.7 p.m.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I am very pleased to follow the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and so many other speakers who represent the younger elements in this House. The noble Earl, Lord Arran, has temporarily left us, but he was looking very hard at me when he said that he found it very depressing because he could hardly see anybody who had ever been young, or anybody under forty—or words to that effect. I do not know what the age of the noble Earl is—he certainly looks under forty, but I very much doubt whether he is. I came here when I was under forty; delivered, so to speak, to your Lordships by the all too-successful tactics of the noble Viscount opposite. I suppose that I was one of the youngest people to be made a Peer for many years. Looking rather hastily through the lists I could not find anyone who had been made a Peer younger Oran I since the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook—I may be mistaken: I was 39 and I think he was 37. However, there may be others who have escaped me. I say this to show the younger Peers that I, too, have lived in Arcadia; I know what it is to be a younger Peer looking round at all the older Peers.
In those days no one paid any tribute to youth. This is quite a new thing. I do not know what it portends. It is rather sinister, I think. When I first arrived Peers used to boast of their age—upwards, so to speak. Now, the argument is all the other way. At least one noble Lord said that he thought he was the youngest Peer, but other Peers have leapt into the fray to prove that they are even younger. No doubt the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, is younger. I thought that unless I got to my feet there might be no end to it, and that younger and yet younger Peers would decide to impose themselves on the House. All this accent on youth is very welcome. Youth must be served, of course. But I hope the noble Earl, Lord Arran, will not go past a certain point and offer congratulations to noble Lords upon maiden speeches which they have yet to deliver! I think it is going a bit far, in the case of noble Lords who have not yet shown themselves here, to say that their contributions have been very valuable; that they have been listened to with interest, and that
448
it is much appreciated they have been able to tear themselves away from other duties to instruct your revered Lordships. That is all very agreeable, though I am sorry that the noble Earl, Lord Arran, is not here.
My Lords, the debate has ranged wider than was to be expected from the rather modest Motion on the Paper. It was initiated by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Hailsham, in a speech which was admired by all. I am sure that it will always be remembered as one of the finest speeches delivered in this House for a long time. My noble Leader, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, followed with an authoritative statement of our point of view. I have no doubt that the Committee will interpret their terms of reference in the way they think right, but, if I may repeat the opinion of the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, it was certainly not in the minds of the Leaders of our own Party that this inquiry was going to involve a fundamental reconsideration of the whole structure of the House of Lords. I think I must say that at this point. I will not pursue some of the particular topics that came up, though I should have liked to say something about the Irish Peers. I am an Irish Peer. I have inherited an English title, and I have also been given an English title. So I suppose that I can do battle on most of the relevant fronts.
I was interested to hear from the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, about the great work done by his Parliamentary Private Secretary. I was not sure whether or not he was referring to the noble Earl, Lord Winterton.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: No; I had another one.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: The noble Earl obviously specialised in Irish Peers.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: I am half Irish myself.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: It does him great credit that he should have been so wisely selective. There have been other Irish Peers who have not been allowed to come and sit here. Among them was Lord Dunsany. Lord Hailsham talked about floating kidneys. If we had had Lord Dunsany among us he would have floated to some purpose! I

449
regret that that was not possible. I am sure their problems will be given very careful consideration.
I do not want to say much about the, horrors of those whose whole Parliamentary life has been confined to the House of Lords. I know no other Parliamentary existence except the one that has fallen to my lot here, but I do resist the suggestion that nobody would wish to leave this House except in the hope of becoming Prime Minister. That was a suggestion that fell from somebody, and I do resist it. When, all is said and done, we here are part-time politicians. That is surely the obvious point. That is the strength of the House: that we have so many occupations which involve us in the affairs of the nation in so many different ways, and we come here and pool our knowledge. Leaving out the Ministers, and the top leaders on this side, participation in the affairs of this House is not the primary occupation of most of those who contribute to it. That, I think, is our strength. But it does, of course, distinguish us from the House of Commons.
I can well understand the attitude of somebody who feels that his main life's vocation lies in active politics. I could well understand that such a man, finding himself here, might decide to offer himself, if he were allowed, for election to the House of Commons. I feel that one should not disparage any noble Lord who decided that his duty carried him in that direction, although in this House it is much more popular to say that this is the most wonderful place in the world, and that the only people nearly as marvellous as the hereditary Peers are the Life Peers. That has been said, in one way or another, by many noble Lords this afternoon.
My Lords, this House is a peculiar institution. There was some doubt in one of our earlier debates as to whether the Nigerian House of Notables, or whatever it might be called, was simply your Lordships' House on its hereditary basis. I believe that that idea was disposed of, so I take it that we are the only Chamber in the world where the hereditary element is, in the last resort, dominant. It is true that in most of the debates the leading parts are not taken by the hereditary Peers, although there are, of course, some hereditary Peers,
450
like the noble Viscount opposite, the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, and the noble Earl, Lord Home, who are at the very summit of our life. But, by and large, most of the speaking on the biggest occasions during my time here has been done by those who have been created, which does not in any way under-value the contributions of the hereditary Peers, the people who have inherited peerages.
Perhaps what I am saying is rather stale, or will be stale to old battlers in this controversy, but I would respectfully say to some of the younger Peers, who have not so much political background, that they are making a great mistake if they suppose that in any circumstances the radical half of England would ever accept the hereditary basis of this House as satisfactory. I am now speaking as an individual whose views may or may not be of interest; but that fact, I think, must be recognised.
I would think (though I am bound to say that the noble Lord, Lord Rea, was a little ambiguous on the point), as I have understood the views of the Liberal Party, as expressed by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel—which I thought were the views held by the noble Lord, Lord Rea—the Liberal Party was also opposed to the hereditary element in the House having any power to exercise its dominant influence. If one is asked, therefore, why in England we cannot agree, and why we cannot even make any headway with any fundamental plans for reform, the answer lies simply there: that one half of the country certainly must reject any hereditary element of the kind that we see at present. Of the other half, it is not for me to speak. It may be that the Conservatives as a whole feel that there would be some grave dereliction of duty if they abandoned altogether the hereditary principle. But, as I say, it is not for me to try to offer views on their behalf. But here is a total clash of opinion in the country, as to whether hereditary Peers as such, simply through the fact of their heredity, should have any right to vote at all in a House of Parliament in a democratic age.
LORD REA: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will forgive me for interrupting, but let me make my position quite clear. I did quote from the third

451
conclusion of this Conference, which says that the right to attend and vote based solely on heredity should not by itself constitute a right and qualification for admission to a reformed Second Chamber. I have given my colours to that.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I have followed the noble Lord, and I was able to do so because he read things which were printed some years ago, and which I have in front of me. So I was not under any great disadvantage while I was following his remarks. The noble Lord went on to say that he did not want to get rid of the hereditary element altogether, because of the position of the younger Peers. That is what I understood him to say, but if I misunderstood him, then of course I withdraw.
Long REA: My Lords, I said that I thought we should consider some new system before abolishing the old one. But I still maintain that heredity is not in itself a sufficient right to vote and sit in this House.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, in that harmless form I think anyone will accept the proposition. I think that few of us would want to abolish the existing system before considering a new one. So I think I am entirely with the noble Lord.
It seems to me that there is here, on the face of it, a total conflict which leaves us where we are, with a Chamber which is, in the last resort, dominated by the hereditary Peers. There are over 900 Peers, as we have heard, and I think about 200 of those are first creations. So that in the last resort the Conservative leaders—that is how it happens to be, but I am taking my stand on principle that it does happen to be so—can obtain any majority they require on an important matter. To take only one example, the Bill dealing with the abolition of capital punishment was a matter where the Parties were not entirely arrayed against each other. There the Conservative leaders took a certain view and, in the result, there were many speeches in that two-day debate which in numbers, and I should have thought in quality, were very well
452
balanced. When it came to the vote, of course, the supporters of the abolition of capital punishment were simply swept away. And so it always is, when it comes to the point.
One noble Lord said earlier that in this House one does not need to bother too much about the vote. If he had been voted down for fifteen years as I have been, he would bother more about the vote than if he was able to look at it, so to speak, from the other end of the barrel. I think one must therefore accept the fact that no Labour person in this House, whether or not he likes this House and thinks it is the finest debating Chamber in the world, could ever accept the view that the vote did not matter, whether the Labour Party was in Government or Opposition.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a question about the capital punishment debate? He referred to the abolition of capital punishment, I thought, as the official policy of the Labour Party. But it was not the official policy of the Labour Party; it was never backed by the Labour Party of the day, so far as I know. It was put in as an Amendment from the Back Benches of the House of Commons.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I remember the circumstances very well. I take leave to doubt whether I said it, but I can easily see in Hansard. But if I said that it was the official policy of the Labour Party, it was a slip of the tongue.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, the noble Lord quoted it as an example of where the Conservative view predominated over the Labour view; but it was, in fact, a Division in which, so far as I remember, the Labour Party never expressed an official view on the subject.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, if I said that it was the official policy of the Labour Party, I should not have said what I did not mean to say, and what I know in fact to be untrue, because I have been involved in that controversy. But I am almost certain that I did not say it.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords. I did not say that the noble Lord

453
did say it. All I said was that he quoted that debate as a case where Conservative policy dominated over the Labour policy, where numbers of noble Lords on this side of the House took the view that capital punishment should be retained, and noble Lords on the opposite side of the House took the view that capital punishment should not be retained; and that this was a good example of the domination of the Conservatives over the Labour Party.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, it may or may not be a good example—it must be, for the noble Marquess to pounce on. But I think most people are aware that the great majority of Conservatives are in favour of capital punishment, and the overwhelming majority of Labour people are against capital punishment. There was a classic example of two days of long debate, at the end of which the vote was overwhelmingly against one side as a result of the intervention of large numbers of hereditary Peers. However, I must leave it to the House and to the noble Marquess to say whether it is a well-chosen example. But that is the history which is in the minds of both of us. It was an example of a triumph of the hereditary principle, if you like, in your Lordships' House.
My Lords, I value as much as anybody the character of our debates. It is not for me, never having served elsewhere, to know whether they are better or worse than debates elsewhere; but it as certainly true that many subjects have been raised in this House (quite a number by my noble friend Lord Stonham, by my noble friend Lord Shackleton and, if I may say so, by myself) Which have been debated at great length here and which, I am sure, would not have been debated in another place—at any rate, they had not been debated in another place. I could mention several subjects which I myself have initiated here which have not been debated in the other place for years. Everybody knows what a tremendous interest is aroused by a debate of the kind initiated recently by the noble Earl, Lord Arran, who I am glad to see has returned, and about whom I spoke at some length just now in what we all feared was his permanent absence this evening. He has initiated
454
at least four debates of widespread interest, and I doubt if those subjects could have been raised in another place or could have been debated by such experts. So I hope that no one will suppose that I am in any way underestimating the value of the debates, the quality of the discussions.
But then one comes to the vote—the total unfairness of this system, under which the Conservative Party have this huge majority whenever they want to exert it. The only suggestion I can make—I doubt whether it is within the province of the Committee because, as I understand it, their province is closely defined—is that I believe that one day it will be found that the best solution is the solution which I think may have been touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Milne, whose speech I unfortunately missed; and that is the two-writ plan.
Under the two-writ plan, at any rate in its simplest form, the hereditary Peers as such would be able to come here as now and speak, and they would be allowed to record their addresses, if they wished, in a book for that purpose, but they would not be able to vote. The vote would be confined, in the simplest form of the plan, at any rate, to those who had received peerages. That would be the plan in its simplest form, though no doubt it could be worked out in other ways. But even if looked at in only a crude form like that, it would have the supreme advantage that you could retain—and in the long run, through, I think, the reality of the debates, you could enhance—the quality of the debates which we value so highly, and at the same time remove this extraordinary injustice under which the Parties of the Left suffer at present, and will suffer so long as the hereditary Peers have the vote.
If I am asked about the young people, I would say that, under any plans that one can imagine for renunciation, I should hope that these young Peers would be able to stand for the House of Commons, but that if they did not wish to do so they could of course come here and take part in the debates. If they were hereditary Peers they would not, as such, be able to cast votes, though if they were of outstanding ability, under the two-writ plan they would be able to

455
vote. The noble Earl, Lord Arran, mentioned the son of an old friend of his and mine, the present Marquess of Dufferin and Ava, whose father, if I remember rightly, was a Minister in this House before he was 30. It is obvious that if you had the two-writ plan, he could receive a voting right. Then, someone who has given long service to this House, such as the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, or my noble friend Lord Faringdon, or, of course, the noble Earl, Lord Listowel—
LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, would the noble Earl allow me to interrupt him for one moment? Does he think that it would be in the interests of the House if a noble Lord were allowed to come here only to speak and not to vote? Let us take as an example the important decision the House made upon the Ullswater debate. Surely, if a noble Lord felt strongly on that matter one way or the other but was allowed only to speak and not to vote, he would not be so interested in coming to this House. That is what I feel; that it would be to the detriment of the House.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: If noble Lords felt that way, I am afraid that, unless they had served sufficiently eminently to he accorded the voting right, we should lose them. But, if I may say so to the noble Lord, having come here myself for fifteen years and cast so many hopeless votes, I am afraid I do not find the voting process as interesting or as valuable as the noble Lord might imagine. Frankly, many of us regard voting in this House as a total farce (I must say that) in view of the fact that the Government can whistle up a majority whenever they wish to—at least, except on very rare instances, as apparently occurred yesterday, they can whistle up a majority. In any case, they can soon put that right, and next time, probably, in order to rub it in, they will get a majority of ten to one in order to show that they can still do their tricks. But the voting here is a total farce, and the only way to obtain equality of votes and of putting the voting right would be by something on the lines of the two-writ plan.
In conclusion, I simply go back to where my noble Leader, the noble Vis-
456
count, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, started. This is a limited scheme for some kind of renunciation, and I hope that its purpose will be achieved. I back up what has fallen from the noble Viscount; and I certainly wish all success to the Committee, and all success, if I may say so, here, there or anywhere, to the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham.
7.26 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, the noble Earl who has just resumed his seat always speaks with exquisite charm and often with great generosity and charity, even towards his oldest friends. I therefore think it would be churlish on my part to criticise his speech, which, however, was in some ways a somewhat strange utterance because he complained bitterly—and, indeed, to a point at which he said there was, I think, a complete head-on clash, or something of that kind, between two halves of the country—about the composition of your Lordships' House. The one thing which is quite certain is that the composition, as such, of your Lordships' House is outwith the terms of reference of the Joint Select Committee which is proposed. The reason it is out-with the terms of reference of the Joint Select Committee which is proposed is because his Party insisted on its exclusion.
It is therefore somewhat odd, to say the least of it, that the noble Earl should have made such a point about it; and he followed it up with a suggestion about the so-called two-writ plan which again could easily have been put within the terms of reference of the Joint Select Committee which is proposed if his Party had asked for it. But owing to their more rigid view of what is desirable—insisted upon with great force by the noble Viscount who leads the Opposition —that plan, too, will have to go unconsidered, without discussion, whether it is desirable or whether it is undesirable. Because the truth is that, as my noble friend Lord Swinton (who explained to me that he was unable to remain to the end of the debate), said in the course of his very welcome speech, there has been a great contrast between the width of the debate which we have had and the relative narrowness of the proposal which is before the

457
House—that is to say, the terms of reference of the Joint Select Committee. This is so much the case that some speakers—I think the noble Lord, Lord Rea, in particular—described the proposal as "tinkering with the constitution", and my noble friend Lord Teynham, pursuing the same line, even went so far as to say that he could not, unless he received certain assurances, support the proposal at all.
It is true, of course, that the proposal before the House is narrower, to give only one example, than the Motion which was earlier before another place and which was not ultimately debated. The reason for that, as the noble Viscount rightly said, was that the terms of this Motion have been negotiated between the Parties. I myself think with him that the advantages gained by agreement are probably greater than the advantages which have been lost by the narrower terms of reference. That, however, is something about which the House must judge. But I would repeat what I ventured to say in opening—namely, that where you have a traditional constitution, the method of reform by means of cancelling particular anomalies or injustices is one which has, in practice over a number of years, proved more capable of execution than more ambitious, and possibly more logically attractive, schemes. Therefore, I do not apologise for the terms of reference of the Joint Select Committee, although I think the narrowness of them has quite legitimately come in for a certain amount of comment and criticism.
However, I would not go quite so far as at one moment I thought the noble Viscount who leads the Opposition seemed disposed to go. In dealing in particular with one aspect of the subject matter for the Committee to discuss, he seemed almost to go as far as saying, "Agreement between the Parties is such a desirable thing that you "—he was speaking to the Benches opposite, which is to us—" must agree to what I say, otherwise you will get nothing at all ".
My Lords, I sincerely hope that within the terms of reference, such as they are, there will be a free discussion between the members of the Joint Select Committee. It was for that reason that I was very careful not to commit myself in any way to a conclusive view about any of the subjects open to discussion, and I
458
should hope very much that, when the Joint Select Committee comes to be appointed, members of the noble Viscount's Party will not, at any rate before considering some of the arguments, a few of which I have deployed this afternoon, commit themselves to a particular proposal simply in order to remedy what they conceive to be, and what has generally been conceded to be, an injustice to a member of their own Party who seeks election to another place. I should hope that the discussion would be open, and that minds would be kept uncommitted until they had found the advantage of consultation with others who serve on the Committee.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, as I said this afternoon, the point is that we have agreed to the terms which are on the Paper. They are agreed terms. I really only pointed out that the opening speech this afternoon from the noble and learned Viscount went much wider than had been the case in the other place, or in the speeches of those who opened the debate for each of the Parties in the other place. I should have thought that was a warning that we had not intended to go as widely as that. Of course, what is possible—and only the Joint Select Committee can decide what is possible within the terms of reference on the Paper—to he discussed within those terms of reference can be very freely discussed.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I am very relieved to hear the noble Viscount say so, because at one time I understood him almost to be asserting that either a peerage must be extinguished completely or his Party would agree to nothing at all; and that certainly was a conclusive view which I personally would have deplored had he committed himself to it.
The noble Lord, Lord Rea, asked about the size of the Joint Select Committee. What we had in mind was something of the order of 24; its exact composition as between Parties and Members of the Cross Benches, and as between the two Houses, is still, I understand, under negotiation through the usual channels.
The House had the privilege of listening to a notable speech from my noble friend Lord Salisbury, who sits below the Gangway and to whom the House,

459
if I may say so, owes so much, both for his tenure of the leadership in the earlier days of this Government and for his tenure of the leadership of the Opposition during the period of Socialist Administration, and to whom in particular the House owes a great deal in respect of the Life Peerages Act, whose results have been favourably commented upon, I think, by almost every speaker this afternoon. In particular, he asked me a little more about the way in which the terms of reference ought to be construed. In answering this debate—I do not want to take up a great deal of the time of the House—I think I ought really to try to confine myself as closely as possible to the question of those terms of reference in so far as it is proper for me to do so.
The first point I would make is that, as I think my noble friend Lord Swinton said, it is quite certainly the business of the Select Committee to construe those terms of reference, which they will do in the ordinary way, presumably receiving some guidance from their Chairman, but ultimately voting upon them if they disagree. In so doing they will, again as I think my noble friend Lord Swinton said, bring ordinary common sense to bear. They will apply the ordinary meaning of words. But they will also be entitled, I would think—although it is for them, and not for me, to decide—to take into account such matters as that to which my noble friend Lord Swinton referred: for instance, that there had been on the Order Paper of the House of Commons some months before another Motion, with an obviously wider context, containing in its first limb the proposed reference of the whole question of the composition of the House of Lords, and in its third limb the whole question of the remuneration for Members of the House of Lords.
I think that probably the Select Committee would be entitled to infer from the fact that the terms of reference, obviously advisedly and after negotiation, omit that first and that third limb that it was the intention of those who devised the terms of reference that those general subjects should be excluded from them. However, again, as I say, it is primarily the duty of the Select Committee to construe its terms of reference.
460
Then, again, I think it would be entitled to take into account what a court of law certainly could not—that is to say, statements made in another place between some of the principal participants in the negotiations prior to the drafting of these particular terms, as to what was in their minds when they did so. Such an argument might not necessarily be conclusive, but at any rate it would, I think, be something which the Select Committee might well wish to take into account in determining how far it should go within the general ambit of the terms of reference. And, of course, this would have some bearing on the question whether one could, for instance, include the possibility of Representative Peers for the United Kingdom, which has been referred to in more than one speech this afternoon. My Lords, so much for that aspect of the terms of reference.
I fundamentally agree with the general approach of my noble friend Lord Salisbury, that, in determining what one does about such questions as renunciation or surrender, one is not primarily concerned (although one must, among other things, be concerned, but not primarily concerned) with the grievance to the individual. That, I think, is profoundly true, and it was—if I may say so in parenthesis to the noble Viscount opposite—precisely because I thought so at the time that I did not think it right to pursue my own protest eleven years ago to the point to which some other so-called "reluctant heirs" have in fact done. Although the injustice to the individual may be acute, I think one should never lose sight of wider issues: amongst others, the simple fact that there are other more important things for Parliament to consider, other more important injustices to be righted, and other more instant dangers to be averted.
I would also agree that more important than the rights of the individual are the interests and authority of this House, although I would add to that something which I regard as more important still—namely, the ultimate public interest in the matter. For the public interest cannot disregard either the public utility of male primogeniture or its reverse, in excluding from a large part of public life those who do not wish to be excluded, or indeed the simple question of justice or

461
injustice which, as I agree, is not the largest matter in the issue.
I would associate myself with the noble Earl, Lord Longford, in saying to my noble friend Lord Forbes that it simply is not true that those who at any period of their lives did not wish to come to your Lordships' House were consciously actuated either by a desire to evade a responsibility or a conscious desire to become Prime Minister. I once committed myself on television to saying that a man who wished to become Prime Minister was a fool. Perhaps that was going too far. At all events, as I tried to say in opening, what attracts young men to the House of Commons and the ordinary processes of democracy is not the glittering prizes—nobody but an ass would think at the age of 21 that he is likely to become Prime Minister—but the lust for political battle; the gleaming sword rather than the glittering prize. It is their wish to play a full part in the democratic processes of the House of Commons and not necessarily the desire to achieve the top. I think that this is true throughout public life.
The Prime Ministership is not the only office from which your Lordships are debarred. I have never heard of a Chancellor of the Exchequer coming from this House and I do not think that I ever shall. I doubt whether the President of the Board of Trade has ever been in this Chamber and certainly neither the Attorney General nor the Solicitor General, who are of some interest to lawyers, has ever been in your Lordships' House. Indeed, in going through the list of offices which can or cannot be held by Members of this House, quite distinct from the question of desirability, one would find a large number of Government offices excluded by tradition, by custom or by convenience for Members of this House. Therefore, I would say that one cannot altogether disregard or despise those who wish to play a full part in public life in another place.
It will be for the Committee, of course, to determine what penalty, if any, is to be attached to those who renounce, or desire to renounce. This is not something for me to pronounce upon. Some, like the noble Viscount opposite, have pronounced in favour of extinction. In my opening speech, I ventured to say
462
that I saw great difficulty in that, especially for the holders of peerages rather older than my own. Others have spoken of surrender for life. Others have said that the choice is between life peerages and no peerages at all—a sort of shuttle service between the House of Lords and the House of Commons.
I should have thought that there were a considerable number of alternative views that the Committee might conceivably take between a marriage terminable at will and a marriage "till death us do part." I should have thought that it was possible to devise a penalty not so extreme as either. However, this again is a matter for discussion. Both Irish and Scottish Peers will clearly come within the terms of reference of the proposed Select Committee and therefore I will not say anything more about that. Nor will I do more than say that the question of the hereditary principle as such, or of a two Chamber Legislature as such, is equally outside the terms of reference.
I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, for what I thought was an amusing and vigorous defence of the proceedings of this House, which came particularly well, if he will allow me to say so, from a Life Peer and a member of the Labour Party. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate and for the generally favourable reception that this proposal has had. I will not say more, except that I think that we shall have done the right thing in agreeing to the terms of reference, and that I hope, within those terms of reference, the whole discussion is open.
On Question, Motion agreed to and a Message ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

GRIMSBY CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.

FUTURE BUSINESS
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, in rising to propose that the House do now adjourn, I should like to answer the Question which was put to me earlier

463
to-day regarding the Business of the House. Whilst we were debating this important subject, my noble friend beside me has been very busy, and I am happy now to tell the House that it has been agreed through the usual channels that the Report stage of the Pipe-lines Bill will be taken on Monday next, April 16. It will be continued on Tuesday next, April 17, and if not then finished, will be concluded on Thursday, April 19. It will probably be necessary to sit late both on Monday and Tuesday next. The Third Reading will be taken on Tuesday, May 1.
The Second Reading of the Housing (Scotland) Bill and of the Grangemouth Burghs Bill, which were to be taken on Monday next, April 16, will now be taken after Easter, on Monday, May 7.
464
I beg to move that the House do now adjourn.
Moved, That the House do now adjourn.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I will not be caught to-night. I rise only to thank the noble Viscount the Leader of the House for the arrangement which has been made, which is much more satisfactory to us and to noble Lords opposite who supported our position in the Lobby yesterday. I will try to be at the debate on Monday to give all the help I can, because we shall greatly miss my noble friend Lord Silkin, who, unfortunately, has had to go abroad.
On Question, Motion agreed to and House adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes before eight o'clock.