Sitting of 5 December 1962

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

    North Circular Road, Edmonton
    Mr. Albuasked the Minister of Transport what steps he is taking to improve the intersections of the North Circular Road with the Great Cambridge Road. A.10, and Fore Street, Edmonton, A.1010.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay): Ultimately flyovers will be needed at both junctions. But I cannot say when it will be possible to include them in the road programme. In the meantime, certain improvements will be made at the junction with Fore Street, starting, I, hope, next year. At the junction with A.10 a pedestrian crossing is to be recited so as to reduce delays.
    Mr. Albu: Is not the Parliamentary Secretary aware that this is a main route through from the docks? It passes through a highly congested urban area where there have been no road improvements of any sort. Does he not think that this work ought to be carried out and the major improvements to these intersections made during the current five-year programme?
    Mr. Hay: No. I am sorry, but the advice I have is that, although this is a complicated junction, the fact is that traffic moves reasonably well. I am afraid that we cannot put the flyovers, which we accept are necessary, into the programme for some years to come.

    Road Improvements (Accidents)
    Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the Minister of Transport what information he has as to the proportion of cases
    1290
    where expenditure on road improvements and traffic signals, respectively, leads to an increase in accidents rather than a decrease.
    The Minister of Transport (Mr. Ernest Marples): In respect of road improvements the proportion is very small, but I cannot give an exact figure.
    Accidents have tended to increase after roads in rural areas have been resurfaced and where minor improvements have also been done. We do not yet know the precise reasons for this. A factor might be the relatively higher speeds that a good surface allows, in combination with difficulties at particular sites.
    I am not aware of any type of traffic signal improvements which has led to more accidents.
    Mr. Digby: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in some counties at least these figures are very interesting indeed and show increases where there ought to be decreases? Surely there are lessons to be learned, and his staff could learn them, from the point of view of road engineering. There is perhaps still a lack of co-ordination between the police and road engineers.
    Mr. Marples: I quite agree with my hon. Friend that there are lessons to be learned, but, for example, where we resurface a slippery road accidents decrease. Where we resurface a normal rural road and realign the bends, accidents increase. There are lessons to be learned. Quite what those lessons are I do not yet know.

    Marlow Bridge
    Mr. John Hallasked the Minister of Transport if he has decided the future of Marlow Bridge; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Marples: I have now received the views of the highway authorities on the proposals to which I referred in my Reply of 1st August, 1962, to my hon. Friend. I will consider them as quickly as possible.
    Mr. Hall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, although the Marlow Council and indeed the local authorities welcome the proposal that the by-pass for Marlow should be brought forward in the programme, there is nevertheless a very serious problem affecting the bridge

    1291
    itself. It is deteriorating rapidly and is getting into a very dangerous condition. Unless something is done very shortly there will be no passage across the Thames at that point.
    Mr. Marples: I am not too sure about that, but the reply of the Buckingham County Council to our proposals has just been received. It is dated 29th November. The reply from Berkshire was received a little earlier. Both replies are generally favourable to our proposals but with qualifications which we must examine urgently. I must say, in view of these replies, that it seems possible that the hitherto divided views of the local interests will now become reconciled. If we can reconcile the amenity and local interests with efficiency, we shall have done a good job.
    Mr. Ede: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult those who pass under the bridge as well as those who go over it? There is a serious hindrance to the proper navigation of the Thames.
    Mr. Marples: Yes. I will certainly do that.

    Road Signs
    Mr. Dugdaleasked the Minister of Transport if, in view of the confusion at present caused at a distance to motorists by "No Left Turn" and "No Right Turn" signs being of the same colour, he will make one of a different colour from the other.
    Mr. Marples: No, Sir. I am not aware that the present signs are causing confusion to drivers generally, and I do not think that different colour signs would help very much.
    Mr. Dugdale: As the Minister usually rides a bicycle he probably would not be aware that this causes confusion. Is he aware that a motorist going down in the right hand lane sees a sign that he thinks indicates no right turn? He continues down, only to find a blockage because people are, in fact, turning to the right. That causes a blockage of the fast lane to the right, which could easily be avoided if the signs were of different colours.
    Mr. Marples: I should like to look at the OFFICIAL REPORT for that supplementary question, as it is rather difficult
    1292
    to answer now. It rather confused me as to whether I was riding a bicycle or driving a motor car. But the Warboys Committee is examining signs, and if the right hon. Gentleman would be kind enough to let me have full details of what he has in mind, I will see that the Warboys Committee considers it.
    Sir J. Langford-Holt: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, despite what he says, there is a large body of opinion that these signs are confusing? Can he give any indication as to when the Committee will report?
    Mr. Marples: I hope that it will be early in the New Year but, again, I hope that the House will not hold me to that date. The Warboys Committee is working extremely fast. but as this will be a comprehensive review of all signs in the country it is essential that it should be done properly.
    Mr. Strauss: Will the Minister give the matter rather more sympathetic consideration than he appears to be doing at the moment, when he seems to reject the proposal out of hand? In particular, will he ask the Road Research Laboratory for its comments, because this seems to be a matter in which the Laboratory's views might be exceedingly valuable?
    Mr. Marples: Yes, Sir. The Road Research Laboratory is represented on the Warboys Committee.

    A.12 Road (Improvements)
    Mr. Priorasked the Minister of Transport whether he will state the basis for determining the priorities for road improvements on the A.12 between Ipswich and Great Yarmouth.
    Mr. Hay: In deciding what works are to be done on A.12, as on all other trunk roads, we have regard primarily to the volumes of traffic, especially heavy industrial traffic, and the extent of any overload; to road safety and to any special or local factors.
    Mr. Prior: Is my hon. Friend aware that, whilst I appreciate that those are the sort of conditions that have to operate, on the stretch between Ipswich and Great Yarmouth traffic does not alter very much but the road priorities do, and a lot of local people feel that the priorities given to some stretches of road are

    1293
    incorrect, while other stretches of road, which need improvement far more, are left in their present state?
    Mr. Hay: One of the difficulties in our work is that every local authority considers that its own road schemes should have priority over those of every one else. This makes life very complicated and difficult for us in the Ministry of Transport. Nevertheless, we try to judge all claims by as objective tests as we can provide, and those tests are referred to in my Answer.
    Mr. Fell: But this is not very positive —[Interruption.]—well, my hon. Friend's Answer did not seem to convey anything. Is my hon. Friend aware that Great Yarmouth is the most popular holiday resort on the East Coast? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It is not often that I make a constituency point. Is my hon. Friend aware that at certain times of the year there is an enormous volume of traffic on this very inadequate road? This is one of the things he mentioned in his original reply. Will he, therefore, give urgent consideration to the priorities mentioned in the Question of my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior)?
    Mr. Hay: My hon. Friend's supplementary question shows how difficult it is for us to agree on these things. His view as to which is the most popular seaside resort on the East Coast did not receive universal approval in the House —neither do the views of any local authority about road priorities and improvements receive universal approval. I have answered the Question, and I have set out what we take into account in these matters. It does not mean that because we take those things into account, we do not agree that some roads need improving, as, for example, the one that has been mentioned.

    M.1 Road (Maintenance Costs)
    Mr. Gresham Cookeasked the Minister of Transport how the cost of maintenance of a reinforced concrete road compares with that of a flexible road; and by how much the concrete section of M.1 has shown lower maintenance costs than those of other sections.
    Mr. Marples: A comparison between the maintenance costs of the flexible
    1294
    and concrete sections of M.1 can only be usefully made after many years of use. With the current motorway specification, however, the cost of maintenance of either form of construction will be small, and there should be little difference between them.
    The flexible carriageways on M.1 were constructed to a less stringent specification than experience now shows to be necessary. As a result. the slow lane has had to be strengthened, but the cost cannot be regarded as normal maintenance.
    Mr. Gresham-Cooke: Do not the extensive repairs on the M.1 in the last few months indicate that the bitumen-asphalt sections do not stand up to heavy lorries going at 40 miles or 50 miles an hour as well as do the concrete sections? Although concrete may not have quite such a perfect surface, would it not be better in future to have a concrete surface?
    Mr. Marples: The evidence does not support that view. It is very dangerous to over-simplify this question of the maintenance costs of concrete and black top. First of all, whichever material is used, the difference in maintenance cost is very small and, secondly, it takes many years to ascertain. What my hon. Friend must bear in mind is that road maintenance does not depend merely on the top dressing, but upon soil conditions, drainage and many other factors. I can assure my hon. Friend that what is really important in a road is the soil condition, the foundation and the drainage, rather than merely the top dressing.
    Mr. Gresham-Cooke: But would not my right hon. Friend agree that the concrete section of the M.1, which is of the same depth as the bitumen section, has really stood up to the traffic very much better?
    Mr. Marples: Yes, but it is on different soil.

    M.3 Road (Survey)
    Mr. Gresham Cookeasked the Minister of Transport by what date the M.3 motorway to Basingstoke will be completed.
    Sir E. Erringtonasked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the increasing congestion of traffic on the

    1295
    A.30 highway, he will accelerate the commencement of the M.3 motorway; and if he will state an approximate date for the start of works.
    Mr. Marples: I am aware of the congestion on A.30 and, with this in mind, I put in hand a survey of the route for M.3 earlier this year. The complex technical and statutory processes which must follow this will take several years to complete. The place of M.3 in my programme will be fixed when this preliminary work is further advanced.
    Mr. Gresham-Cooke: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the A.30 now carries just as much traffic as the A.1, and has a heavy commercial traffic to Southampton? Therefore, does he not think that the M.3 should have a higher priority than roads now being constructed in the Midlands?
    Mr. Marples: I will look at the assumption my hon. Friend makes, that the A.30 carries as much traffic as the A.1.

    Traffic Experiments, London
    Mr. Dribergasked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that the re-routing of traffic from the south-west end of Theobalds Road, Bloomsbury, has aggravated congestion in High Holborn, east of the Kingsway junction; and has created an entirely new traffic-jam on the west side of Red Lion Square; and if he will take steps to ensure that such re-routings, diversions, and other experiments will not have the effect of merely transferring, instead of reducing, traffic-jams.
    Mr. Marples: The present re-routing, which is not yet final, was designed to reduce traffic-jams and it has already improved traffic flow on most of the main routes through the area. The difficulties which remain in High Holborn and Red Lion Square will, I hope, be eased when the improvement scheme is completed early next year.
    Mr. Driberg: While welcoming the assurances which the right hon. Gentleman has given in reply to the first part of the Question, may I ask whether he will kindly address himself to the second part, which he has not answered? It is of a more general nature, not referring to the Holborn area alone but covering, for
    1296
    instance, the Hyde Park Corner scheme about which, as he knows, there has been much criticism to the effect that he has transferred the traffic-jam and not abolished it.
    Mr. Marples: This happens with every improvement that takes place. If there is a bottleneck at one intersection and it is dispensed with, it means that the traffic piles up on the next intersection, which has then to be dealt with. This problem has to be tackled in that order, The only alternative is to tackle every intersection simultaneously, which cannot be done by any Government.
    Mr. Driberg: Should it not be tackled within the framework of a general plan, which apparently the right hon. Gentleman does not have? Did he read Mr. Pakenham's article in the Observer last Sunday?
    Mr. Marples: I will send the hon. Gentleman a great number of Press notices which have been issued showing the benefits which have been derived from the schemes in operation. The curious thing is that in London as a whole it has proved of benefit.

    County of Durham
    Mr. Shinwellasked the Minister of Transport if he will state the total volume of road development proposed for the County of Durham and the expenditure involved for the years 1963–64 and 1965.
    Mr. Marples: The estimated total expenditure on new road construction and major improvement in County Durham is about £4·1 million in 1963–64 and £5·6 million in 1964–65.
    I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of the larger schemes expected to be in progress in 1963–64 and 1964–65.
    Mr. Shinwell: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. Could he not speed up road development to provide additional employment? If he encounters labour or material difficulties, would he make contact with the contractors and trade unions concerned to organise labour and material forces so that we might get ahead with this?
    Mr. Marples: This is being speeded up considerably in the North-East. I replied to my hon. Friend the Member

    1297
    for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams) on 27th November and said that the effect of the speeding up of the road programme will be to increase the total expenditure on major improvements and now construction schemes in the North-East from £6 million this year to almost double next year and in the succeeding years. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that there is great acceleration of the progress being made in that area.
    Following is the list:
    LIST OF SCHEMES COSTING OVER £100,000 EXPECTED TO BE IN PROGRESS IN 1963–64 AND 1964–65.
    Motorways.

    A.1 Darlington By-pass.

    Trunk Roads.

    A.19 Wolviston—Sheraton Improvement.

    A.184 Wardley—White Mare Pool Improvement.

    A.19 Shotton Diversion.

    A.19 Sheraton Diversion.

    Classified Roads.

    Tyne Tunnel (with Northumberland).

    Durham City Relief Road (Stage I).

    Darlington Inner Ring Road (East).

    Sunderland Inner Ring Road (Stage I).

    South Shields, John Reid Road, West.

    Stockton-on-Tees Ring Road (North-West).

    Gateshead, West High Street—Park Lane link.

    A. 177 Holdforth Diversion—Hare and Hounds.

    A.1055 Leam Lane Improvement.

    Scotswood Bridge with Newcastle.

    Trunk Road, Fremington (Lighting)
    Mr. Thorpeasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that the Fremington Parish Council wrote to the office of the divisional road engineer of the Ministry of Transport, in July 1961, raising the question of trunk road lighting at Fremington, and that a bill of quantities was prepared by his Department in January, 1962, but that, despite letters from the Devon County Council and the hon. Member for Devon, North, his Department has not reached a decision in this matter; and whether he will take action to prevent further delay.
    Mr. Hay: My right hon. Friend's Department gave formal approval to the Council's current proposals on 30th October, last. The delay, which I greatly regret, was due to quite exceptional circumstances which I have explained to the hon. Member, in a letter which I have sent him today.
    Mr. Thorpe: May I thank the hon. Gentleman for his reply and also for his courtesy in giving me a full explanation of the circumstances, which were due to a regrettable cause? Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that this matter has been hanging fire for two years? If the illness of one member of his Department is able to throw the rest of the whole Department out of gear, does it not suggest that the administrative arrangements could be improved? Could the hon. Gentleman assure us that this sort of thing will not happen again?
    Mr. Hay: I do not want to elaborate why this happened, as I have explained the matter already very fully. It is quite apparent to me from studying the facts of the matter, as I have now done at great length, that this sort of situation is unlikely to repeat itself as it was principally because of the disability of the official concerned. Normally this sort of thing would not happen at all.

    Ely Road-Western Avenue, Llandaff
    Mr. G. Thomasasked the Minister of Transport whether he will sanction the erection of traffic lights at the junction of Ely Road and Western Avenue, Llandaff; and what safety measures he proposes to take to protect children crossing Western Avenue to reach their school.
    Mr. Hay: We have received no request for signals at this junction. But my right hon. Friend is advised that neither on traffic nor safety grounds would the provision of signals be justified here.
    The best protection for school children is by a crossing patrol, but that is a matter for the city council.
    Mr. Thomas: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is a particularly dangerous spot where there has been a series of fatal accidents? It appears to me to be so from my own knowledge. Is he aware that nothing has been done, while the residents of the district are in great fear for children crossing this road which has very fast traffic on it? Will the hon. Gentleman stir up his local officials to take some safety measure in this respect?
    Mr. Hay: I am sorry to disagree with the hon. Member. The information I

    1299
    have is that it is not a particularly dangerous stretch of road. The accident rate since 1960, I am told, is one fatal accident, an aged pedestrian knocked down in October, two serious accidents and three slight. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Although deplorable, that does not form the sort of accident record we expect where pedestrian crossing facilities are asked for, but if the city council asks us to look into it we will, of course, do that.
    Mr. Thomas: How many accidents must there he before the hon. Gentleman regards conditions as dangerous? Is not the list he read out an unpleasant list? This is a most dangerous spot. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give further attention to matters I have raised today.

    Anti-Dazzle Fencing
    Mr. Danceasked the Minister of Transport how many miles of anti-dazzle fencing have been provided on dual-carriageway roads in the United Kingdom; and how many miles are still in use.
    Mr. Marples: About 6½ miles in England and Wales, including the 2 miles experimental length on M.1. All are in use.
    Mr. Dance: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, but will not he reconsider the question of putting this anti-dazzle barrier on M.1? Will not he listen to the users of this road who in the great majority believe that it is a safeguard? If it could be also embodied in some sort of crash barrier, so much the better.
    Mr. Marples: My hon. Friend has referred to what users say, but I am looking at the evidence of users scientifically with the help of the Road Research Laboratory rather than by hearsay. I do not think that I could do fairer than that. There are a number of lengths of dual carriageway road where a second carriageway has been provided behind the boundary hedge of the original carriageway. By allowing this hedge to remain, it forms an anti-dazzle screen without damaging amenities. I repeat that I am looking scientifically at the evidence of users.

    M.1 Road (Southern Extension)
    Mr. Hockingasked the Minister of Transport when he will approve a contract for the extension of the M.1 at its London end, from Berrygrove Roundabout to Page Street, Hendon; and how long it will be before construction commences.
    Mr. Marples: I hope to be able to invite tenders for the contracts to build the proposed southern extension of M.1 to Page Street, Hendon, in the second half of 1963; but this depends on the progress made with the remaining statutory processes. Approval of a contract would normally follow about four months after the invitations to tender and construction should begin almost immediately thereafter.
    Mr. Hocking: Will my right hon. Friend try to expedite this matter? Is he aware that the extension would replace a very nasty stretch of road on which there are many accidents?
    Mr. Marples: I shall try to expedite it as much as I possibly can, but it is a laborious job to complete the statutory processes. Parliament has enacted the Statutes and I must obey them. It is difficult for me to give a better forecast at this stage.

    Leamington Road, Coventry (Pedestrian Crossing)
    Mr. Hockingasked the Minister of Transport if he is aware of the need for a pedestrian crossing in Leamington Road, Coventry, between the junction of Daventry Road and Leamington Road and Stivichall Croft and Leamington Road; and what action he proposes to take in the matter.
    Mr. Hay: It seems doubtful, from a preliminary investigation, if there is sufficient justification for a crossing here. No formal application for one has been made to us by the city council.
    Mr. Hocking: Is my hon. Friend aware that the local ratepayers' association has been pressing for this crossing for several years? Es he aware that this road cuts through a neighbourhood unit and that many of my constituents have to cross the road to shop, to go to church or to go to school and that they have been told that, if there were a fatal accident

    1301
    there, the local authority would then do something about it? Could not something be done before a fatal accident occurs?
    Mr. Hay: If the city council makes a formal application for a crossing, the case will be considered on its merits, as is always done.
    Sir L. Plummer: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the considerable unease in London about the delay which takes place in the Ministry in the provision of pedestrian crossings? I refer particularly to the need for them in my own constituency. Can he do anything to speed up decisions in the Ministry?
    Mr. Hay: I am not aware of any complaints about delay in the consideration of these cases. If the hon. Gentleman has cases in mind and will let me have particulars, I shall investigate them. There is certainly no universal complaint, to my knowledge.

    Parking Meters (Small Change)
    Mr. Goughasked the Minister of Transport whether he will amend the parking meter regulations to provide facilities for motorists to obtain small change in neighbourhoods where parking meters are installed.
    Mr. Marples: No, Sir. I do not think it unreasonable to expect persons who intend to use parking meters to carry the appropriate change.
    Mr. Gough: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, but is he aware that there is a growing number of people who, when wanting to park their cars but finding that they have no sixpences, have, after going away for just three minutes to get change, returned to find themselves—to use a colloquial expression—"shopped"? This has happened to me. Is it really fair, because of the lack of elasticity in the regulations, for people to be fined 10s. because, on just one occasion, they forget to have a sixpence in their pockets?
    Mr. Marples: I am sure that the whole House agrees that my hon. Friend's is a most genuine case, but there are cases which are not genuine. If what my hon. Friend suggests were done, it would be harder to detect meter feeding, of which there is too much already, and it would
    1302
    provide a ready-made excuse for those who seek to avoid payment. I do not include my hon. Friend among those, of course. It would make the regulations difficult to interpret and to enforce.
    Perhaps I may tell my hon. Friend that there is on the market a device which can be attached to the ignition key and which conveniently holds sixpences. I will send him one free. I assure my hon. Friend that it is very efficient, unless one's wife happens to take the car out, in which case she will have used all the sixpences and forgotten to replace them.
    Mr. John Hall: Will my right hon. Friend include one for me as well? Also, will he consider stopping the continued spread of this very ugly form of street furniture and introduce instead the French carnet system?
    Mr. Marples: In London, for which I am responsible, the answer to that question is "No." In the rest of the country, any local authority, including any in my hon. Friend's constituency, may introduce the disc system if it wishes because there is a provision in the Road Traffic Act, 1960, for that purpose. As I have said, the answer in respect of London is "No," but, if we can find a better method for controlling street parking than the meter system or something more in conformity with decent amenity, I shall be very willing to consider it.
    Mr. Thorpe: Would it be possible for parking meter attendants to have a stock of change for the convenience of the public, so that larger coins could readily be changed for this purpose?
    Mr. Marples: No. I think that the parking attendant has a difficult enough job already and I should hesitate to impose further obligations on him.
    Mr. Gough: With the greatest respect to my right hon. Friend, I did put this case to the City of Westminster, which was good enough to tell me that mine was an innocent case. The point I put to my right hon. Friend is that there are many simple people who cannot put their case to the authority. Will he look at the matter again? It is very hard on people with small means if, when they have just parked their cars, they have to go away for three minutes, just as I did, and then come back with coins available

    1303
    only to find that they have a ticket. Moreover, the traffic warden has no right, as the one in my case wanted to do, to use his own common sense in the matter.

    Motorway Construction (Gradients)
    Mr. Boydenasked the Minister of Transport how much money would be saved each year in the motorway construction programme if gradients of 1 in 15 or of 1 in 12, respectively, were accepted instead of the normal 1 in 30.
    Mr. Marples: Little, if any, money would normally be saved by accepting such gradients and it would, in most cases, then be necessary to provide extra "crawler" lanes on the steeper gradients to enable traffic to flow freely. Such gradients would add seriously to the cost of operating commercial vehicles on the motorways.
    Mr. Boyden: Does not the performance of commercial vehicles in tackling gradients improve every year with advances in manufacturing techniques? Is not the cost of excavating and filling in one of the heavy costs of motorway construction? Has the Minister's Department really studied the matter as authoritatively as he seems to suggest?
    Mr. Marples: Yes, we have studied it authoritatively. We have even been to America to study experience there. The Americans have found that, if there is a gradient of 1 in 15 or 1 in 12, they have to provide a crawler lane which costs £37,000 a mile in one direction. This extra lane is required so that the heavy traffic which goes slowly on the inside lane may be overtaken by other traffic on the outside. Since the heavy traffic goes slowly on a steep gradient, it is necessary to provide this extra lane, and experience in America has shown that it is not worth while. We have studied the matter closely.

    M.1 Road (Accidents)
    Mr. Boydenasked the Minister of Transport how many accidents there have been on M.1 in the last four months; and how many of these have been attributed to road repairs on the southbound carriageway.
    Mr. Marples: The most up-to-date figures available relate to accidents in
    1304
    Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire and Northamptonshire since the end of August when the bulk of the road repairs started. During this period, there were 83 accidents on the M.1 in these counties, 49 of which involved injuries, including five fatalities. Twenty-two of these accidents, none of them fatal but nine of them involving injuries, may, on present information, be attributable to the road repairs on the south-bound carriageway.
    Mr. Boyden: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the lighting and road signs where these repairs were taking place were adequate? How many of the accidents can be traced to insufficient warning of the repairs both at night and during the day?
    Mr. Marples: Until inquest verdicts are given, we cannot say positively whether the accidents were in any way attributable to road works. I have sent an official along the M.1 several times since the works started in order to see that the lighting was adequate. I think that it is, but, if the hon. Gentleman has in mind a particular instance where it is defective, I will look into it again.
    Mr. Paget: Is not the inadequacy of the lighting here a result of the dazzle from the traffic coming the other way, there being no anti-dazzle barrier in the middle? That is the danger I find driving down this stretch of road.
    Mr. Marples: If the hon. and learned Gentleman will tell me of the particular place he has in mind, I will see that an official of the Road Research Laboratory goes there and makes scientific tests at that point.
    Mr. Hocking: Will my right hon. Friend pay particular attention to the lighting problem? Does he realise that, quite often at night, a string of red lamps placed alongside road works looks very much like the rear lights of heavy vehicles moving slowly along the road? Could some other form of lighting be put with them?
    Mr. Marples: I will consider that suggestion.

    Narborough Road South, Braunstone
    Mr. Farrasked the Minister of Transport whether he will construct

    1305
    Narborough Road South, Braunstone, Leicestershire, as a dual carriageway before it becomes the main artery for traffic using the proposed feed road to the Leicestershire section of M.1; and if he has given consideration to the views of Blaby Rural District Council in this respect, contained in their letter to him of 28th September.
    Mr. Hay: We have carefully considered the views of the Blaby Rural District Council but, as has been explained to it, it will not be possible, because of the statutory and other processes which must be followed, to complete the dualling of Narborough Road South before the M.1 extension to Mark-field is finished. We could not justify keeping the Enderby link from the motorway closed until the work on A.46 has been completed. The work will, however, be arranged to minimise any inconvenience caused.
    Mr. Farr: There has been real concern expressed by the police as well as the local council about the delay in construction of this feeder road. Will my hon. Friend confirm that it is the practice of his Department, so far as possible, when constructing new roads simultaneously to construct the necessary feeder roads, and if that is indeed the policy of the Department, will he be good enough to tell me what has happened on this occasion?
    Mr. Hay: Perhaps my hon. Friend will study the letter I wrote him on 22nd November in which I went into all this at some length. I do not think I can pronounce as a general policy that we do not construct roads unless we can at the same time provide feeder roads. Everything depends on the local traffic situation.

  SHIPPING

    Laid-up Ships
    Mr. Awberyasked the Minister of Transport what is the number and total tonnage of cargo ships, both oil and dry together, now lying up in British harbours and estuaries; how this compares with five years ago; and what plans he has in mind for enabling these ships to be put into commission again.
    Mr. Marples: There were 101 British vessels totalling 685,000 gross tons laid
    1306
    up for lack of employment in British harbours and estuaries at the end of October, 1962, compared with 38 vessels of 154,000 gross tons five years ago. The surplus of tonnage is world-wide and I welcome the present series of international discussions which are taking place about it among shipowners.
    Mr. Awbery: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these figures have been increasing annually? We have now reached the highest figures since the war. Does he not think that his Department is very complacent to allow these figures to rise and do nothing to prevent an increase in the total idle tonnage in our estuaries and ports?
    Mr. Marples: No I think that many people can blame my Department for doing some things, but not for complacency. This is an international problem. The United Kingdom has 3½ per cent. to 4 per cent. of her tonnage laid up. Liberia has 6 per cent. and Panama 8 per cent. Therefore, relatively speaking we have not done too badly. However, we want to make it better if we possibly can.
    Mr. P. Williams: I welcome the fact that the Ministry of Transport is taking action, but can my right hon. Friend say what the next move is in consultation with the genuine European maritime powers?
    Mr. Marples: My hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary concerned with shipping had a meeting this morning with the Dutch Minister for Transport and Shipping, and I am hoping that we shall be able to co-ordinate the whole of the genuine European maritime powers in this respect.

    Barry Docks
    Mr. Gowerasked the Minister of Transport (1) if he is aware that in recent years the British Transport Commission (Docks) have granted leases or otherwise disposed of sites to industrialists at Barry Docks involving future commitments by firms and companies for years ahead; and if he will give consideration to this in assessing the recommendations of the Rochdale Committee's Report;
    (2) whether he is aware of current development proposals of several industrialists at Barry Docks, some of which

    1307
    are indicated in recent correspondence to his Department from the Barry Borough Council and the hon. Member for Barry: and what action he intends to take in the light of the recommendations of the Rochdale Committee's Report.
    Mr. Marples: I will take the considerations my hon. Friend mentions into account in considering the recommendations of the Rochdale Committee about the South Wales ports. We have first to decide in principle on the major recommendations.
    Mr. Gower: Is my right hon. Friend aware that with the encouragement and help of the British Transport Commission many firms have entered into these commitments in recent years? They have thereby expressed their confidence in the future of Barry Docks. Is he also aware that in the last year there has been a most significant increase in dock traffic at Barry which has been promoted by companies engaged in such different activities as oil, fruit importing and grain importing? The confidence has been shared by Lord Robens of the National Coal Board, who has said that he sees a good future for Barry Docks. Will my right hon. Friend therefore prefer the inspired advice of industrialists and of a nationalised industry to the unimaginative proposals of the Rochdale Committee?
    Mr. Marples: I do not accept the latter part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question. I do not think that the Report of the Rochdale Committee is without imagination. In all this local interests will be fully consulted and what my hon. Friend has recorded in HANSARD will be taken into account.
    Mr. Mellish: As these Questions deal with the Rochdale Committee's Report, may we have an assurance that early in the new year the House will be given an opportunity to debate the whole Report?
    Mr. Marples: That is not a question for me, as the hon. Gentleman knows, but I certainly would not dodge the issue on a debate. I personally would be quite delighted to take part in it. I can assure the House in general that no time has been wasted either in setting up the Rochdale Committee, in the Committee
    1308
    making its Report, or in asking interested parties for their comments. No time will be wasted in the Government making their decision.
    Mr. Gower: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Rochdale Committee hardly visited Barry? It was there only an hour. How on earth can the Committee have formed a balanced assessment of a dock on such a short visit?
    Mr. Marples: It is not for me to say how the Committee did it. I shall look very carefully into what the Committee said. If my hon. Friend has any comments or any recommendations to make, I should like to have them so that they can be taken into account before the final decision is made.
    Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware that the publication of this Report has had a detrimental effect upon industrialists? Those who wished to come to the ports of South Wales have now deferred their decision. Those who have industries in South Wales ports cannot extend them because they are afraid that something will be done. It is absolutely necessary that the Minister should make a definite statement as to his intentions regarding the Rochdale Report. Will he make a statement as quickly as possible?
    Mr. Marples: I have already said that I will do that, but quite a number of interested bodies—for example, the National Coal Board, the petroleum industry and the T.U.C.—have not yet made their comments on the Report. It would be most discourteous of me to go ahead and make a Government announcement until I have received their comments and considered them most carefully.

    Nuclear-Powered Merchant Ship
    Mr. Benceasked the Minister of Transport if he will speed up plans to lay down a nuclear-powered merchant ship, and so enable unused resources to be employed.
    Mr. Marples: Any decision to build a nuclear merchant ship must depend on progress with the current research programme and this is already proceeding at a good pace.
    Mr. Bence: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this matter of the

    1309
    development of a nuclear-powered marine engine has been going on for many years now, having been started by the Galbraith Committee? Will he keep in mind the statements which are being made on the Clyde by directors of some of our leading shipbuilders that if the Government do not take action very quickly to increase shipbuilding, or the possibility of building new ships and expanding the industry, damage will be done on the Clyde to the teams of workers and the techniques and we shall lose men and capacity which we may not recover in years to come?
    Mr. Marples: The question of shipbuilding is distinct from the building of a nuclear ship. The first job is to find a suitable reactor for a ship. That is what we are working on hard and fast now, and with some hope. There is no point in building a ship with an unsuitable reactor merely for the sake of building a ship. As soon as we can get a suitable reactor we shall consider as a matter of urgency the building of a ship.
    Mr. Wingfield Digby: Will my right hon. Friend consult with his colleague the Minister of Power, who is constructing or has constructed seven nuclear power stations, all uneconomic, at a cost of over £500 million which shows that there is something to be said for pushing on before we have the right reactor?
    Mr. Marples: A great many consultations take place between the Minister for Science and myself on this matter. We are both convinced that, first, we have to find a nuclear reactor which will be economic and of some use to our shipping and shipbuilding.
    Mr. Bence: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that its economic capacity will never be demonstrated until it is actually put into a hull and the ship puts to sea?
    Mr. Marples: I quite agree, but a number of things are involved. First, we can decide whether it is hopelessly uneconomic or whether it is economic before we put it into the ship. The ship is the final test for the reactor.
    Dame Irene Ward: Is it not a fact that the decision has already been taken as to what reactor is most suitable? I certainly have information on that. Would it not
    1310
    be rather funny if I were to announce what reactor was the most suitable and not the Minister?
    Mr. Marples: My hon. Friend announces a lot of odd things from time to time and we all take notice of them, but the choice is between two reactors, and that is what we are considering now.

    Merchant Shipping Industry
    Mr. Benceasked the Minister of Transport what new steps he is taking to prevent a decline in the British merchant shipping industry.
    Mr. Marples: I have little to add to what was said by my hon. and gallant Friend on 28th November. But shipping will recover only when freight rates improve, and this depends either on international agreement or on expansion in world trade. Meanwhile, we keep in close touch with the industry and help wherever we can.
    Mr. Bence: We have been getting Answers like that for about nine years. We have heard about flags of convenience, the subsidising of ship construction, and all the rest. Cannot we have from the Minister some drastic new measures to help the British merchant marine? In the Indian Ocean, as a result of Indian Government policy, our coastal trade has been affected. In the North Atlantic, the Great Lakes and all over the world British merchant shipping is being hit very hard by the actions of other Governments. Will not the Minister do something to try to save the British merchant fleet?
    Mr. Marples: The hon. Gentleman must not exaggerate. Things are difficult, but in the last nine years our shipping and shipbuilding industries have had some quite prosperous times. He must remember that our Merchant Navy is now bigger, more modern, faster and more efficient than ever before. Also, we now have a Shipping Advisory Panel with a partnership between the Government and the industry which is closer than ever before. We have considered all those questions, including the matter of flag discrimination. The point is that we must be certain that whatever action we take will do us more good, on balance, than harm. It is quite possible to do ourselves a good deal of harm by

    1311
    taking precipitate action. If the hon. Gentleman has a specific point which he thinks we ought to consider, I shall be grateful if he will put it to me.

    Orders
    Mr. Willeyasked the Minister of Transport what was the amount of new orders booked by British shipyards in the last 12 months; and what this represents as a proportion of the average annual output of British shipyards in recent years.
    Mr. Marples: In the 12 months to 30th September, 1962, shipbuilders in the United Kingdom booked new orders totalling 563,000 gross tons. This represents 40 per cent. of the average tonnage completed annually in the last five years.
    Mr. Willey: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept this as a danger sign for British shipbuilding? What action is being taken internationally? What discussions have there been with our E.F.T.A. partners, and what discussions have there been, for that matter, with the Six about our sihipbuilding? Apart from that, what action is the right hon. Gentleman taking with other Ministers concerned about the provision of alternative work in the shipyards themselves?
    Mr. Marples: The question of alternative work is for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour. As regards discussions, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that my hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary was having discussions this morning with the Dutch Minister of Transport and Shipping. We discuss these matters with other Governments continually. I was in Paris last week where the subject was discussed. I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no lack of discussion. The point is that the facts of life are that there is too much shipyard capacity in the world, and this country cannot altogether escape the consequences. However, next Wednesday we are to meet the Shipping Advisory Panel, and any ideas which the Panel may have will be carefully considered. We have one or two ideas ourselves to discuss with it.
    Mr. Willey: The right hon. Gentleman has not mentioned E.F.T.A., with which we have a close association. Has the matter been discussed within E.F.T.A.?
    Mr. Marples: We do not discuss it with E.F.T.A. as a whole, but we discuss it with some of the individual Governments or representatives quite frequently when they come here. For example, one or two of the shipbuilders of Norway will be here on Friday of this week.
    Mr. P. Williams: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the latest copy of Lloyd's Register shows that there are 2,400,000 tons of Britisih shipping over 20 years' old? If the Government could apply their mind particularly to incentives to get British shipowners to replace their tonnage which is over 20 years' old, this might well provide about two years' work for British shipbuilders.
    Mr. Marples: I shall put that proposal before the Shipping Advisory Panel when it meets next Wednesday.

    Scottish Shipbuilding Industry
    Mr. Rankinasked the Minister of Transport whether he has any special proposals for dealing with the decline in the Scottish sihipbuilding industry.
    Mr. Marples: Shipyards throughout the country are facing difficulties, and I have no special proposals for those in Scotland.
    Mr. Rankin: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the shipbuilding industry in Scotland is in a very serious position indeed, particularly on Clydeside? Does he remember that, about a year ago, he said that the time to become serious about shipping and shipbuilding would be after the Recess and that that Recess is now some two or three Recesses away? Has he become sufficiently serious to tell Cunard to make the reassessment of the position in regard to the Q3 which he promised us nine months ago so that we may use the £18 million subsidy provided by the House to arrest the decline of British shipbuilding?
    Mr. Marples: The question of any new Cunard vessel is entirely one for the Cunard Company, not for the Government. We carried out our pledge, and the Cunard Company decided not to go ahead with the project.
    At least, Scotland secured one-quarter of the total orders placed in this country in the first nine months of this year and

    1313
    has really got more than the share that England has. Moreover, I think that Scotland as a whole has done rather well lately. Scottish shipbuilders have had the order from P. & O. for tankers to be built on Clydeside.
    Mr. Rankin: Does the decision with regard to the Q3 lie wholly with Cunard? Are we to understand, after Parliament has agreed to a sum of money being used, that a private company can hold up a decision of Parliament?
    Mr. Marples: The hon. Gentleman is misinterpreting the Act which the House passed.
    Mr. Rankin: No, I am not.

    Cuban Interception Area
    Mr. Rankinasked the Minister of Transport what instructions or advice are issued by the British Government to British ships sailing in the Cuban interception area.
    Mr. Marples: Navigational warnings were broadcast from Portishead Radio repeating special United States naval advice to ships in the Cuban area.
    Mr. Rankin: But is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are something like 2 million square miles involved in each of these two interception areas? Does he not think that the time has now arrived, in view of the duration of this blockade, when he might approach the American Government to see if, in times of peace, Great Britain could get freedom of the seas?
    Mr. Marples: I do not think that is the real difficulty. Only one British ship was involved in the search and that was very easy.

  TRANSPORT

    Pedestrian-Operated Milk Floats
    Mrs. Castleasked the Minister of Transport whether he will now make a statement about the modification of driving licence regulations for pedestrian-operated milk floats.
    Mr. Marples: Yes, Sir. I have come to the conclusion that the requirements of the Road Traffic Acts applying to pedestrian-controlled mechanically-pro-
    1314
    pelled milk floats are not justified by the needs of road safety. I therefore propose to lay before the House regulations made under Section 254 of the 1960 Act to provide that these vehicles shall no longer be treated as motor vehicles. One effect of this will be that their drivers will no longer need a driving licence.
    I shall watch the situation closely, and if road safety should suffer I will not hesitate to reimpose the appropriate control.
    Before I lay regulations, I am obliged to consult interested organisations on my proposals. Letters seeking their comments are going out today.
    Mrs. Castle: I very warmly thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, and for his co-operation in this matter. Is he aware, however, that it is now more than four months since I first raised the subject; and that, in the meantime, my constituent, Mr. David Crane, has been suspended from his job of pulling a milk float? Will the Minister therefore tell us when he will introduce the regulations? Will he live up to his claim to be a lightning conductor, put a real spurt on, and introduce these regulations before Christmas, as otherwise my unfortunate constituent will drag on in his dilemma indefinitely?
    Mr. Marples: For the hon. Lady, I will speed as fast as I can.

    Vehicles (Emission of Smoke)
    Mr. E. L. Mallalieuasked the Minister of Transport what further steps he has taken to ensure that smoke is not emitted from vehicles on the public highway; if he is satisfied with the present position; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Marples: I have nothing to add to the reply given to my hon. Friend, the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Hopkins) on 28th November.
    Mr. Mallalieu: But is not the Minister aware that almost every time we undertake a long journey we still see this black smoke being emitted? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Even if it is impossible to police all the miles of roads, is there not some other way in which action could be taken? There

    1315
    might be voluntary reports to chief constables, six such reports perhaps leading to prosecution—or something like that.
    Mr. Marples: This is a difficult problem, not because the will is not there but because it is scientifically difficult to invent a device to measure the smoke emitted, and so secure a successful prosecution in the courts. We have had very great difficulty. We have gone to court, and the lawyers—as the House will be surprised to know—have argued at length about it, and there have been very few successful prosecutions. The difficulty is to get a device that will scientifically measure the smoke emitted, but in my original reply I have said that, pending such a device being invented, a Regulation has been put into operation. Special spot road checks are being held this year, and the measures taken are having good results. The difficulty is that a spot road check catches a number of drivers in the first half hour, after which there is a system of signalling from those drivers to other drivers which means that we do not catch as many in the succeeding half hour.
    Mr. D. Smith: Can my right hon. Friend say whether there has been an increase in prosecutions since the Regulations were made?
    Mr. Marples: I could not say that without notice, but I know that we observed 83,000 lorries. Of those, 9,800 were emitting black smoke; 6,200 were stopped, of which 132 were taken out of service immediately. There were 3,900 vehicles threatened with prohibition from carrying goods unless they later satisfied a second test. In addition, 4,000 warning letters were sent. I agree that it is not a lot, but it is the best we can do without a measuring device. I only hope that we can get a measuring device, and then there will not be any lack of enforcement.
    Sir J. Langford-Holt: As all vehicles seem to emit smoke, and the big vehicles seem to emit more than the small ones, has my right hon. Friend considered the possibility of compelling public service and commercial vehicles to take their exhaust pipes out to the top, instead of to the rear?
    Mr. Marples: I have gone into that very carefully with the Road Research Laboratory. The difficulty is that diesel fumes are heavier than air, and if they go out at the top they fall to the road. What happens is that not the motorist or cyclist just behind but others further behind get it all. Therefore, on balance, it is better to have the exhaust pipe for diesel fumes lower down than higher up.

    West End (Christmas Decorations)
    Mr. Dribergasked the Minister of Transport what steps he is taking by advertising, public-service announcements on television, and other means, to dissuade motorists from driving to West-End shopping streets to inspect the pre-Christmas decorations.
    Mr. Marples: I have appealed to the public through the Press to make full use of public transport, and to avoid the rush hours.
    Mr. Driberg: But has the Minister had personal experience of the hellish chaos of the traffic-jams caused by these grossly premature celebrations, or does he just slip through the traffic-jams on his bicycle? In addition to the rather ineffective appeal he has so far made, would he for the future consider asking the shopkeepers and their associations not to start Christmas until, at any rate, half-way through Advent?
    Mr. Marples: I think that Christmas is not the time to be as gloomy as the hon. Gentleman is. It is a time for the children.. Quite honestly, this display in the West End is very expensive to mount and ought, therefore, to be spread over quite a period. I would very much regret it if, at this stage, it were necessary for a Minister to interfere, and I certainly regret that the Opposition—or the hon. Member—should say that these lights should not be installed in Oxford Street. Of course I have been in the traffic-jams caused thereby but, generally speaking, they are at night, and not during the day when business is being conducted.
    Mr. Lipton: Would it not be simpler, in order to allow as many people as possible to look at these illuminations without inconvenience on a large scale, to put up decorations in the Mall—and other places like that—which is near

    1317
    enough to the West End to make a night out worth while, without causing all this congestion, and people getting in the way of buses?
    Mr. Marples: I doubt very much whether the occupants of the various clubs in Pall Mall would like lights outside their premises; or would like to pay for them. These lights are paid for by the shopkeepers in Oxford Street to attract trade.

    Headlights (Yellow Bulbs)
    Mr. Shepherdasked the Minister of Transport if he is aware of the valuable anti-dazzle qualities of the yellow bulb in headlights; and whether he will recommend the adoption of this proven aid to safer night driving.
    Mr. Marples: No, Sir. Scientific investigation does not support the view that yellow headlamps which give the same seeing distance as white lamps cause less dazzle.
    Mr. Shepherd: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, whatever scientific opinion may decide, the users of yellow lights—in France, for example—find them of great benefit? Will he pay less regard to science in this matter than to hard, practical experience?
    Mr. Marples: This is a common fallacy. It is not possible to make straight comparison between the French yellow beam and the British white beam, for two reasons. The first is that the French yellow bulb has a lower intensity than the British bulb. It appears, therefore, less dazzling, but only because the light it gives is of a lower intensity and the lower intensity itself has disadvantages to drivers if they have the yellow bulbs they have in France. Secondly, the dipped beam of a European headlamp has a slightly sharper cut-off than the British lamp when dipped, but it is coupled with a reduction in seeing distance with the European lamp. For these reasons, it is not really possible to make a simple comparison, such as the hon. Member has made.
    Sir G. Nicholson: Yes, but has not the time arrived when my right hon. Friend should cease to shelter behind the so-called experts when everyone with common sense—and, after all, we are all experts on motoring—knows that
    1318
    yellow lights are more restful to the eyes? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I think everybody with common sense knows this. Cannot we arrange for yellow lights with the same sort of range beam as the white beam to be tried by ordinary people of common sense, not experts?
    Mr. Marples: All I can say is that it is true, as my hon. Friend says, that everybody is an expert on traffic, but, unfortunately, all their opinions differ from one another.
    Mr. J. T. Price: But seriously, if the Minister's scientific advisers reject the yellow lighting system for the reasons he has given us, what have they said of the whole development of polarised lighting? There has been a great deal of research done into polarised lighting. With what results, I should like to know?
    Sir G. Nicholson: It gives no light at all.
    Mr. Price: I am not asking the hon. Gentleman, I am asking the Minister. Is not polarised lighting a possible way of dealing with this dazzle problem and the fantastic anti-dazzle fencing referred to in another Question? What is really being done about this? It seems to me a scientific method of approach which ought to be considered.
    Mr. Marples: If the hon. Member will put a Question down about polarised lighting I will try to answer it, but I think most of the dazzle would be avoided if headlamps were properly adjusted.

  RAILWAYS

    Superannuitants
    Mr. Lubbockasked the Minister of Transport whether he has yet received detailed proposals for increases in the pensions of railway superannuitants.
    Mr. Hay: Yes, Sir, and we are now considering them.
    Mr. Lubbock: Will the Minister make sure when he receives the proposals, that the railway superannuitants get terms not less favourable than those given to Civil Service pensioners?
    Mr. Hay: As I have said, the proposals have now been received, and

    1319
    they are under consideration by my right hon. Friend. I think I prefer not to make any further statement at this stage.
    Mr. Gunter: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether any possibility exists that such a statement may be made very clearly before Christmas, with retrospective payments?
    Mr. Hay: As I have said, I prefer not to make any further statement at this stage, but I will certainly ask those concerned to take note of that suggestion.
    Dame Irene Ward: Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that the proposals which have been made by the British Transport Commission, which are very welcome, will not be whittled down by my right hon. Friend?
    Mr. Hay: I think the House knows the way in which my right hon. Friend approaches these matters. No one would call him heartless.
    Dame Irene Ward: I asked for an assurance.

TRAWLER "BOSTON HERON" (LOSS)
Mr. Donnelly(by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Transport whether he will make a statement regarding the loss of the Milford Haven trawler "Boston Heron" with the loss of seven lives the night before last.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Ernest Marples): The trawler "Boston Heron", with a crew of 12, ran ashore at Scalpay Island, which is near the entrance to East Loch Tarbert, Harris, at about 9.30 p.m. on 3rd December. There were five survivors. At the time, the visibility was poor, a heavy sea was running and the southerly wind was of gale force 8 to 9.
When radio distress signals were heard the Stornoway lifeboat was alerted and put to sea when the position of the trawler had been established.
1320
The Tarbert Life Saving Company were embarked in a local fishing vessel and succeeded in making contact with the stranded trawler. They were able to rescue two men by breeches buoy.
One survivor was picked up by a local fishing vessel and two more got ashore by their own efforts. The fishery cruiser "Brenda" and the Stcrnoway lifeboat searched the area and an air search was made the fallowing day.
I am informed that up to 11 a.m. this morning four bodies had been found and three of the crew were still missing.
I aim sure, Mr. Speaker, that the House will wish me to express its deepest sympathy with the families of those who lost their lives.
Mr. Donnelly: May I associate myself with the sympathy which the Minister has expressed, and ask him to thank all the rescue services in the area for the gallantry and determination with which they acted?
The Minister must hold at some stage an inquiry, public or otherwise, inquiry fore, may I ask him to ask the inquiry to give some consideration to the possibility of the safety facilities in these vessels? As the right hon. Gentleman has said, some of the crew came ashore under their own steam. It might be just passible that in the regulations about rafts, boats and lifebelts, there could be an additional regulation to provide for some form of simplified Mae West, such as we used to have in Bomber Command in the war, which might be a valuable asset in circumstances such as these.
Mr. Marples: I wild pass the first part of the hon. Gentleman's remarks on to those concerned.
I will, decide whether an inquiry should be held when I have received the detailed report on the stranding and the statements from the survivors. If an inquiry is held I will certainly take the second part of the hon. Gentleman's remarks into account.

CENSORSHIP OF PLAYS (ABOLITION)
Mr. Dingle Foot: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make it optional to submit a play to the Lord Chamberlain for licence, and legal to perform an unlicensed play whether it has been submitted or not.
In or about the month of May, 1737, a farce called "The Golden Rump" was brought to the Master of the Theatre in Lincoln's Inn Fields. The Master, on perusal, found that it was designed as a libel upon the Government, and, therefore, instead of having it acted, he carried it to a gentleman concerned in the Administration. This gentleman showed it to some other Members of the House of Commons—I think that they were probably all Government supporters—and it was resolved to bring in a Bill for preventing any such attempt in future, and accordingly, on 20th May, 1737, Sir Robert Walpole obtained leave to bring in a Bill, which, among other things, provided that
"No person shall, for hire, gain, or reward, act, perform, represent or cause to be acted, performed, or represented any new interlude, tragedy, comedy, opera, play, farce or other entertainment of the stage or any part or parts therein, or any new act, scene or other part added to any old interlude, tragedy, comedy, opera, play or any entertainment of the stage, or any new prologue or epilogue, unless the true copy thereof is sent to the Lord Chamberlain of the King's Household for the time being 14 days at least before the acting, representing or performing thereof".
So the Lord Chamberlain was given power to prohibit any such performance, and anybody defying the prohibition was liable to a fine of £50—and, indeed, still is—and, What was more serious, was liable to the forfeiture of the theatre licence.
That was the origin of the censorship of plays in this country by the Lord Chamberlain, and, in effect, although modified by another Act, that system has continued ever since, in spite of the angry and derisive protests of one generation after another of authors and dramatists.
I am now seeking to abolish this censorship which has continued for 225 years. In doing so, I feel that I have the support of a long line of eminent ghosts.
1322
I wish that our Standing Orders permitted me to put their names on the back of the Bill, for then, if the House gave me leave to bring it in, I would have the singular privilege of introducing a Measure sponsored by Lord Chesterfield, Dr. Johnson, Henrik Ibsen, George Bernard Shaw, John Galsworthy, Sir James Barrie, Arnold Bennett, H. G. Wells and Lawrence Housman. Since, however, that would possibly be ruled out of order, I content myself with the support of living hon. Members on both sides of the House.
Throughout these two centuries generally it has always been the actors, the authors and the dramatists who have protested against the censorship. Not so many years ago, in 1948, there was held the British Theatre Conference, which was attended by about 450 persons concerned in one way or another with the living theatre. A motion calling for the abolition of the censorship was proposed by Sir Lewis Casson, on behalf of British Equity, seconded by Mr. E. P. Smith, on behalf of the League of Dramatists, and it was carried with only seven dissentients.
The theatre managers, on the other hand, have been generally in favour of retaining the censorship, and their attitude towards the Lord Chamberlain can be summed up really in the advice to children contained in Mr. Belloc's "Cautionary Tale":
"And always keep tight hold of nurse For fear of finding something worse."
The case of the theatre managers—I do not wish to be in any way unfair to them—is that local authorities who license theatres are content to accept the decision of the Lord Chamberlain as to whether any play should be performed, but, if the Lord Chamberlain were removed, they might find themselves in difficulties with a great number of censorious watch committees. What they say, reasonably enough, is that they would rather deal with one censor than with a great number. It was for that reason that they were opposed to a Bill, introduced into this House in 1948, which would have abolished the Lord Chamberlain's jurisdiction altogether.
The Bill which I seek leave to introduce is quite different. I have adopted the proposal put forward by a Joint

1323
Select Committee of the two Houses of Parliament in 1909. If this Bill becomes law, it will still be possible for anyone who wants it to obtain the Lord Chancellor's approval of a play before it is performed, but it will no longer be compulsory. It means that, in future, anyone who wishes to produce an unlicensed play will be free to do so. The protection of the Lord Chamberlain, if protection it be, will continue, but censorship—that is, the compulsory element —will come to an end.
The present system is really impossible to defend. It is full of anomalies, and I should like to mention only three of them. First, the 1737 Act was not retrospective. It applied only to new plays. No one can prevent the production of any play written before 1737. Anyone can produce "Titus Andronicus", one of the most lurid plays ever written, or any of the plays of Wycherley or Congreve, and the law cannot touch him. It is safe to say that if any of those plays had been written after 1737 it would not have a chance of getting past the censor.
Secondly, and more astonishing still, the Lord Chancellor has no jurisdiction over sound broadcasting and television. Sometimes a play the performance of which is forbidden before a few hundred people in a theatre may be shown to millions of viewers on the television screen.
Thirdly, this form of censorship by a Court official is peculiar to this island. It is rather fantastic that playgoers should not be able to watch in London scenes which they could witness on the stage in Washington, New York or in most parts of the Commonwealth.
I make it clear that this is in no sense an attack on the present Lard Chamberlain, on his predecessors, or on their staff. Those producers with whom I have discussed the matter, even though they are all extremely critical, have spoken in the very highest terms of the courtesy and helpfulness of the Lord Chamberlain's office. It is not the fault of these officials that they are called upon to discharge a function which is inherently absurd.
That absurdity has been demonstrated during the last few weeks in the case
1324
of two shows which are now on the boards in London. One is a Canadian review. During the course of the show, the actors take the day's newspapers and proceed to comment on various news items, moire or less "off the cuff". Since the Lord Chamberlain normally requires seven days' notice, this has, of course, created a most frightful difficulty.
The producer concerned received a letter from the Lord Chamberlain's office from which I should like to read two extracts. The first reads:
"I am to say that in the sketch entitled The Living Newspapers', the Lord Chamberlain cannot allow real improvisation and that the script for this item must be submitted for licence".
The producer was then told that the cast could read anything from the newspapers
"provided … that you will nominate the journals which you wish to read and provided that you will let me have an undertaking that all comment upon the extracts will be dialogue allowed by the Lord Chamberlain."
Later, the letter says:
"Such authority will be revocable at any time for any reason that in the Lord Chamerlain's view was sufficient".
There is another case. A show being performed in London came from the United States. In it, the actors improvise on themes suggested to them by the audience. The producer is an American, Mr. Theodore Flicker. I have met Mr. Flicker during the last day or two and he vividly described to me his experience with the Lord Chamberlain's office. First, he sought to include in his show certain sketches satirising the Kennedy family, in the White House. These sketches have begin performed, without anyone objecting, for about six months in Washington. When objection was taken in this country, Mr. Flicker sent a cable to the President of the United States asking whether there was any objection to their being reproduced on the London stage. He received a cable in return from the White House saying that there was no possible objection. None the less, those scenes have come under the Lord Chamberlain's ban.
There was another scene of a different character. It was a scene in which the white racist Governor of a southern State in the deep south of the United States went to Heaven and when he got there found to his unutterable horror that God

1325
was a negro. That has been performed without any difficulty in the United States, but it was not allowed to be presented on the London stage. Above all, it was the improvisation to which the censors objected. Here, I quote Mr. Flicker's words:
… to explain to Army officers how improvisation takes place is one of the most humiliating experiences of my life".
Mr. Flicker pointed out to the officers of the censors' department that improvisation was one of the oldest forms of dramatic art. He reminded them, if "reminded" is the right word, that it was practised in Italy in the sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth centuries by the Comedia del Arte, which has made a very great contribution to the development of dramatic art. It consisted of strolling players who went from one town to another. They usually performed the same plot, but improvised their dialogue as they went along. This was the origin of the pantomime as we know it. When this was referred to by Mr. Flicker, it made no impression on the Lord Chamberlain's Department. It was made clear to him that what was permissible in Renaissance Italy could not be allowed under any circumstances in twentieth century Britain.
I do not rest my case on these particular instances. I suggest that it is wrong in principle that we should impose on this form of expression a statutory censorship that we would not otherwise dream of applying to any form of speech or publication. I know that we have the censorship of films, which is sometimes equally silly, but that, at any rate, is not imposed by statute and we shall be able to deal with it before long. It is, however, quite indefensible that dramatists for the living stage should be subjected to this form of tutelage.
I end by citing the very well-known words of Mr. Bernard Shaw, in his preface to "Mrs. Warren's Profession." He said:
"All censorship exists to prevent anyone from challenging current conceptions and existing institutions. All progress in initiated by challenging current conceptions and executed by supplanting current conceptions. Consequently, the first condition of progress is the removal of censorship. There is the whole case against censorship in a nutshell."
1326
It is astonishing that we have put up with this essentially silly form of restriction for two-and-a-quarter centuries. For all that time, the dramatist in this country has been subjected to a wholly arbitrary veto against which there is no appeal. This is a lot of nonsense which has been going on for far too long, and we should put a stop to it now.
Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. D. Foot) has raised a matter which he describes as having continued for only two and a half centuries, and has entertained the House for the past quarter of an hour, perhaps I may, for just a few minutes, give my reasons why I hope that the House will oppose leave to introduce the Bill.
As to the history, my friend is quite inaccurate.
Mr. Leslie Hale: "Friend"?
Mr. Rees-Davies: My friend at the Bar and my opponent in this debate. The position was that during his reign, Henry VIII appropriately decided that it was necessary to have a Master of the Revels. The Master of the Revels was the censor of those days and from that day to the present time there has been complete censorship. The Master of the Revels set up under Henry VIII permitted revelry without licence. We who are opposed to the introduction of the Bill are all in favour of revelry, but we do not want indecency or lack of licence.
Mr. Hugh Delargy: Who was Henry VIII to judge?
Mr. Rees-Davies: Therefore, through the days of the Star Chamber and of the Privy Council came the position as early as 1828, a hundred years before the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich said, in which the Lord Chamberlain in that year himself imposed through his Master of Revels, who was an officer of the Lord Chamberlain, an absolute veto under the then common law of England. I chide the hon. and learned Member for having his history quite so fallacious for the next hundred

1327
years. It is true that in 1737, on grounds of political expediency and because of the political satire of the day, a Statute to that effect was introduced. The matter progressed until 1843. In that year was passed the Theatres Act, which is the existing Statute under which this power derives.
The House of Commons has cognisance of the matter on a number of occasions. Following 1843, when the Lord Chamberlain took control over the basic 40 theatres of the London area, including, I am happy to say, that of Margate, Windsor and one or two others, the rest of the control was passed to the local authorities, who, as hon. Members know, exercise major control over plays throughout the country.
On three separate occasions, this House then set up Select Committees. On each of those occasions—in 1853, 1866 and 1892—the House, by its Select Committee, approved the position of the Lord Chancellor and the local authorities as the licenser of both all the theatres and the plays, with an absolute veto over them. In 1909, a Select Committee was again sat up. On that occasion, although it made certain alterations, the Select Committe stated emphatically why it considered that some form of licensed control was necessary.
I should like to read to the House a passage from the Report of the Select Committee, which I should like to adopt, because it sets out so well the Select Committee's moral and principle approach to the matter. This is what the Select Committee said in 1909:
"We consider that the law which prevents or punishes indecency, blasphemy and libel in printed publications would not be adequate for the control of drama. Ideas or situations which, when described in a printed page may work little mischief, when represented through the human personality of actors may have a more powerful and more deleterious effect. The existence of an audience, moved by the same emotions, its members conscious of one another's presence, intensifies the influence of what is done and spoken on the stage. Moreover, scenes in a play may stimulate to vice without falling within the legal definition of indecency; they may include personalities so offensive as to be clearly improper for presentation, which yet are not punishable or libellous; they may outrage feelings of religious reverence without corning within the scope of the Blasphemy Laws; and they may give occasion for demonstrations injurious to good relations between this country and Foreign
1328
Powers without coming within the purview of any law whatsoever. The performance, day after day "—
and—I stress this—night after night—
"in the presence of numbers of people, of plays containing one or other of these elements, would have cumulative effects to which the conveyance of similar ideas by print offers no analogy.
We conclude, therefore, that the public interest requires that theatrical performances should be regulated by special laws."
Therefore, it is quite erroneous of the hon. and learned Member to try to distort history into a suggestion that on repeated occasions this House has not voiced firm opinions against complete licence in this matter, and for good reason.
The hon. and learned Member failed to refer to the position generally as it obtains throughout the mass media of entertainment. In the case of television, we have the self-imposed censorship—and very severe it is—of the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Independent Television Authority—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—Yes —laying down their own standards, which the country accepts from men of impartiality and integrity.
In films, there is absolute control, first, over the licensing of all cinemas, and, secondly, over the content contained in them by the watch committee, who can withdraw those licences. They rely on a quite independent body, the British Board of Film Censors, which, although not a statutory body, offers them guidance and whose guidance they accept. In passing, hon. Members would, I think, wish well to the British Board of Film Censors, whose fiftieth anniversary occurs this week, and thank the Board for the good work that it has done. Long may it continue to do it.
If we were to give leave for the Bill to be introduced, and later to be passed, it would merely be the thin end of the wedge for breaking down the position which obtains for film censorship.
In the whole field, consequently, of mass media, we happen to have something which is traditional and dates back about 400 years—the position of the Lord Chamberlain. Could this House find anybody who was more impartial politically, more independent financially, a man of greater integrity,

1329
or whose endeavours in this matter could be more truly impartial—indeed, a person of intelligence and someone who, if I may now appeal to the baser instincts of hon. Members, does not cost the nation a penny piece?
Therefore, we would do well to be careful before making a change merely because it is said that something has no particularly democratic origin. It has an origin that has been upheld for centuries in the House of Commons. It has been accepted by Select Committees on no less than four occasions in the past century and it is set out, as the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich can read, in the Select Committee's Report of 1909.
It seems to me—and, I hope, to a great many hon. Members—that in these days it is necessary to do our best not to permit anything which would lower the national morals through commercial exploitation, or would lower the English language by permitting more obscenities into it. Any hon. Member who likes to go to the Lord Chamberlain's office will see the utter filth and muck which arrives on the desk there.
Thirdly, we should do our best to seek to prevent unwarrantable infringement in the private lives of defenceless individuals, often dead; the law permits libel of the dead, but it can be stopped by the Lord Chancellor. We need to prevent incitement to vice in what I call the brothel type of play, which is of a commercial type of exploitation, and, finally, we should assist those in the management of theatres to get guidance in advance, for one cannot commercially expect to operate a play without knowing beforehand whether it is acceptable.
In those circumstances, there is no warrant and no need for the Bill. There is no pressure for It at all, except from a few hon. Members opposite who always seem to feel that they represent the intellectual genius of the country, but who have neither the historical knowledge nor the intelligence to have the proper conduct of what might be called a play of this nature. I hope that the House will oppose the Motion.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 12 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Com-
1330
mittees at commencement of Public Business):
The House proceeded to a Division—
Mr. DINGLE FOOT and Mr. THORPE were appointed Tellers for the Ayes, and MT. REES-DAVIES and Mr. WILLIAM CLARK for the Noes.
Sir Lionel Heald(seated and covered): On a point of order. I am informed that those who are named as Tellers are not counting, and I ask that the Division be called again, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I think that that is fatal. The Division is off. I will put the Question again.
Question put:—
The House proceeded again to a Division—
Mr. Hale(seated and covered): On a point of order. May we be told why there is a second Division, Mr. Speaker? Those of us who walked through the Aye Lobby saw no irregularity at all. What we are told is that some Consea-vafives were dismayed because they had voted in the wrong Lobby by mistake.
Mr. Speaker: I expect that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) was outside the Chamber at the moment I dealt with it. The ground of objection was that hon. Members other than Tellers appointed by the Chair were telling.
Mr. Hale: Further to that point of order. I happened to be in the Chamber and I had the privilege of hearing the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) raise his point of order. What concerned me was that the statement of fact was accepted at once without investigation as to whether the statement, which I am sure was perfectly honourable and perfectly straightforward, had been verified. So far as the Ayes Lobby was concerned, and so far as my vote was concerned—and I am concerned to vote again, if I may—we saw no irregularity.
Mr. Speaker: I follow what the hon. Member is saying. Had there been any dispute about the facts, of course I would have had the matter investigated. However, there was complete silence about any dispute about the facts. In those

1331
circumstances, I treated the facts as not being in dispute. The hon. Member's opportunity of observation does not settle the matter, because presumably he

Division No. 13.]

AYES

[4.8 p.m

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Gunter, Ray

Owen, Will

Bacon, Miss Alice

Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

Panned, Charles (Leeds, W.)

Barnett, Guy

Hannan, William

Pavitt, Laurence

Beaney, Alan

Harper, Joseph

Plummer, Sir Leslie

Bence, Cyril

Healey, Denis

Rankin, John

Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

Hilton, A. V.

Robertson, John (Paisley)

Bowles, Frank

Houghton, Douglas

Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

Carmichael, N. G.

Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Short, Edward

Castle, Mrs. Barbara

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Silverman, Julius (Aston)

Channon, H. P. G.

Hynd, H. (Accrington)

Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Hynd, John (Atlercliffe)

Snow, Julian

Curran, Charles

Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

Spriggs, Leslie

Dalyell, Tam

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

Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

Lawson, George

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

Delargy, Hugh

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

Donnelly, Desmond

Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

Warbey, William

Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John

Lipton, Marcus

Wilkins, W. A.

Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

Lubbock, Eric

Williams, LI. (Abertillery)

Edelman, Maurice

Mackie, John (Enfield, East)

Winterbottom, R. E.

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Weodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

Fernyhough, E.

Mason, Roy

Worsley, Marcus

Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

Milne, Edward

Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

Ginsburg, David

Mitchison, G. R.

Zilliacus, K.

Gourlay, Harry

Morgan, William

Gower, Raymond

Morris, John

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

Oliver, G. H.

Mr. Dingle Foot and

Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.

Oram, A. E.

Mr. Thorpe.

NOES

Agnew, Sir Peter

Gresham Cooke, R.

Neave, Airey

Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)

Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

Nicholls, Sir Harmar

Barlow, Sir John

Gurden, Harold

Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

Biffen, John

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

Bingham, R. M.

Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

Osborn, John (Hallam)

Black, Sir Cyril

Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

Page, John (Harrow, West)

Bourne-Arton, A.

Hastings, Stephen

Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

Box, Donald

Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

Pitman, Sir James

Braine, Bernard

Henderson, John (Cathcart)

Pitt, Dame Edith

Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

Hiley, Joseph

Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

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

Pym, Francis

Browne, Percy (Torrington)

Hughes-Young, Michael

Quennell, Miss J. M.

Buck, Antony

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Rawlinson, Sir Peter

Bullard, Denys

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

Bullus, Wing-Commander Eric

James, David

Rees, Hugh

Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)

Jeger, George

Reynolds, G. W.

Campbell, Gordon (Noray & Nairn)

Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

Ridsdale, Julian

Chichester-Clark, R.

Jennings, J. C.

Robinson, Rt. Hn. Sir R. (B'pool, S.)

Cleaver, Leonard

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Russell, Ronald

Jones, Arthur (Northants, S)

Cooke, Robert

Scott-Hopkins, James

Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Sharples, Richard

Cordle, John

Kenyon, Clifford

Shepherd, William

Corfield, F. V.

Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

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

Costain, A. P.

Kimball, Marcus

Spearman, Sir Alexander

Craddock, Sir Beresford

King, Dr. Horace

Speir, Rupert

Cunningham, Knox

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Stevens, Geoffrey

Dance, James

Leavey, J. A.

Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

Stodart, J. A.

Doughty, Charles

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Studholme, Sir Henry

Drayson, G. B.

Litchfield, Capt. John

Summers, Sir Spencer

Duncan, Sir James

Loveys, Walter H.

Talbot, John E.

Eden, John

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Tapsell, Peter

Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

McArthur, Ian

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

Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.

MacColl, James

Temple, John M.

Farr, John

McLaren, Martin

Thomas, Peter (Conway)

Finlay, Graeme

Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.>

Fisher, Nigel

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

Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter

Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

McMaster, Stanley R.

Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

Gammans, Lady

Marshall, Douglas

Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

Gilmour, Sir John

Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

Vane, W. M. F.

Goodhew, Victor

Mawby, Ray

Vickers, Miss Joan

Grant-Ferris, R,

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Walder, David

Green, Alan

Morrison, John

Ward, Dame Irene

was not in the Lobby in which the irregularity was occurring. I must not detain him too long.
Mr. Hale: I am much obliged, Sir. Ayes 77, Noes 134.

Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

Wise, A. R.

Mr. Rees-Davies and

Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

Woollam, John

Mr. William Clark.

Mr. Michael Foot: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you to clarify the Ruling which you gave on the Division? You told the House that the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) said that the Division, for one reason or another, had been improperly taken and that view was not contested anywhere else in the House and, therefore, you accepted the view that he had given, and you called the second Division.
Do I understand from that that in future cases, if an hon. Member says for one reason or another that a Division has been improperly taken, and if that is not contested, then automatically there will be another Division?
Mr. Speaker: I did not give any general Ruling at all. All sorts of circumstances may arise. I thought it quite right and sensible on this occasion. I did not understand anybody to dispute the proposition of fact. We would be in difficulty if that were so. If not, the matter would appear to be academic.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. When I went to the Division Lobby in the first Division over 80 names were being called by the Tellers. When I went through on the second occasion there were, as you will have heard from the Division figures, only about 70. I heard hon. Members stating, after the first Division, that they had mistakenly gone into the Division Lobby. As I was standing there I heard them say, "What do we do?" One said, "We had better be quiet about it," and then someone went up to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) and there followed the point of order. I am wondering whether there was any connection in that.
Mr. Speaker: I am not certain what point of order the hon. Member is raising. If there is not a point of order, I think that we ought to move on to the next business.
Mr. M. Foot: Can you tell the House, Mr. Speaker, what it was that was
1334
alleged that had gone wrong with the first Division? I only wish to understand the situation, because it might apply in future cases. I heard the right hon. and learned Member make his point of order. I may have misheard, but I did not hear him state what he thought had gone wrong with the Division. If we were informed about that it would be of assistance to the House.
Mr. Speaker: What I thought the right hon. and learned Member told me—I would not quote his words—was that persons other than the Tellers appointed by the Chair were telling. That proposition of fact, if it be right, is fatal to the Division on the precedents.
Mr. Hale: On a point of order. On previous occasions, I think I am right in saying, the practice has been to call for a report from the Serjeant at Arms on the accuracy of the contention that a Division has been improperly conducted. Indeed, if there were hon. Members acting as Tellers who had not been appointed, whether by mistake or otherwise, surely it would be proper to ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the matter and report to the House on whether there was some impropriety of conduct by Members who assumed the function of Tellers, whether by mistake or otherwise?
Mr. John Rankin: Further to that point of order. Mr. Speaker, are you aware that it is being stated that those Tory Tellers who were appointed could not count beyond 60? In view of that, they would have lost the Division, and, therefore, they managed to get a second one to correct that error.
Mr. Speaker: I nominate the Tellers, if any, without making a close study of their standards of academic attainment. I do not propose to ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate this matter in any way. If there was the slightest risk of any substantial injustice, I would hurry to investigate the matter, but I do not believe that it exists, and I think that we ought to get on with the business of the House.

ANGLO-JAPANESE TREATY
Mr. Ellis Smith: Mr. Speaker, before you pronounce on the Amendments that you propose to call with regard to the next item of business, the discussion of the Anglo-Japanese Treaty, would you be good enough to consider whether you could accept a manuscript Amendment. at the end to add:
"and of the urgent need for the implementation of international fair labour standards suggested by the Trades Union Congress, the United States Trade Unions and the International Metalworkers' Federation"?
Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Member for allowing me an opportunity to look at his manuscript Amendment during previous proceedings this afternoon. I considered it with great care, as I do all matters submitted by him, but I would not think it right to select it.
At the same time, I had better say, because I think that it is for the convenience of the House, that I do not think it right to select either of the Amendments tabled to the Motion standing in the name of the Prime Minister and other right hon. Members.
4.23 p.m.
The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Alan Green): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the Treaty of Commerce, Establishment and Navigation between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Japan (Command Paper No. 1874).
The Treaty of Commerce, Establishment and Navigation between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Japan marks a constructive change in our commercial relations with a friendly Power. The signature of the Treaty is therefore an important event, of which it is right that the House should be asked to take note.
In their statement on the Treaty, published as Cmd. 1875, the Government have already summarised the provisions of the Treaty itself, explained the background to the negotiations, and described the arrangements which are associated with it. The Treaty has been widely commented on by industrial leaders and in the Press. It has been in general welcomed, though there are sections of industry which have some anxieties about the possible outcome. My
1336
right hon. Friend and I appreciate the way in which hon. Members have put forward their anxieties. They have helped towards a clearer understanding of those anxieties and of the points of view involved.
The Government are glad to have the opportunity of this debate to explain the arrangements further and to hear the views of the House, and in so far as those views reflect the anxieties to which I have referred my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will, I know, be ready to deal with them in his reply.
I would like to begin by emphasising the need for a treaty on the lines of that now concluded. The discrimination that we have practised against Japan has become increasingly undesirable on general grounds, and is no longer necessary on grounds of commercial policy. We have been willing to grant to almost every other country outside the Communist bloc firm guarantees of mostfavoured-nation treatment through the G.A.T.T. It would be wholly inconsistent with what we proclaim our general policy to be if we were to continue to discriminate in general terms against Japan and she against us. Our policy, as the House will recall, is to promote international trade and not unnecessarily to circumscribe it. This is a general interest in the pursuit of which all right hon. and hon. Members will, I am sure, actively join.
The special features which on commercial policy grounds may have justified discrimination in the past are no longer present to anything like the same degree. Japan's wage levels have risen rapidly over recent years and in many production units are comparable with those ruling in some of the countries of Europe. The Japanese Government and the leaders of Japanese industry have made persistent and successful efforts to raise the trading standards of Japanese exporters.
In the cotton textiles and pottery industries, for instance, both of which were once notorious for the copying of foreign designs, there has been co-operation with British industry and control organisations have been set up which have virtually disposed of this nuisance. Japanese

1337
manufacturers co-operating with important British firms in joint ventures have won the firm respect and, indeed, admiration of their British partners.
The policy of discrimination has, in fact, become out of date. But there has also been a positive reason why we should get rid of it in our own economic interest. The growth of the Japanese economy over recent years has been phenomenal. Apart from occasional short-lived set-backs and pauses perhaps for regaining equilibrium, the expansion has gone steadily forward and has brought with it a great upsurge in the demand for industrial plant and for a constantly widening range of imports. With import liberalisation also progressing rapidly according to plan this has opened up great opportunities for countries, such as ours, which can supply an immensely wide range of goods.
Public utilities and services in Japan are also expanding and have provided us with a market for a full-scale atomic power reactor built in conjunction with Japanese manufacturers, and for aeroplanes and aeroplane engines, which I hope we shall be supplying in increasing quantities over the years to come. As Japan develops her roads and her ports, both lagging at present behind the pace of development in other sectors, there should be more opportunity for us to supply equipment.
Finally, the standard of living in Japan is rising very rapidly indeed, and the demand for high-class consumer goods therefore increases from year to year. In this, we still come up against restrictions on imports, but they are being relaxed and we are already doing very well in some lines. We must seek to do much better in the future. The history of the last decade shows that it is trade between industrialised countries which expands most rapidly and there is every reason to expect that this will prove true of trade between this country and Japan.
With our exports to Japan already up by about two-thirds in the last two years, and with these opportunities to expand them in future, it has become urgently necessary to ensure that our exporters are in the best possible position to take advantage of the market. We have, therefore, needed a settlement which would normalise our relations with Japan and fulfil three requirements in particular.
1338
First, we required a permanent guarantee of most-favoured-nation treatment for our goods in the Japanese market. Our most active competitors, the Germans and Americans, have been for many years in G.A.T.T. relations with Japan and we have been under constant threat of discrimination against our own products in our negotiations with the Japanese in recent years.
Secondly, we had to do away with the system of annually negotiated trade agreements, which caused anxiety and inconvenience to all concerned in trade with Japan and was a quite unsuitable framework as hon. Members will appreciate for exporters planning to develop their share of the Japanese market.
Thirdly, Japan is much less well known to British industry as a whole than other industrial markets of comparable importance, and our competitors have cultivated it much more actively than we have. The conclusion of a longterm treaty covering establishment and all commercial matters might be expected to encourage British industrialists to commit themselves to this market by export, sale of "know-how" or establishment of joint ventures, whichever means might be the most profitable.
The need for a treaty has been appreciated for some time by British industrial leaders who have first-hand knowledge of Japan. Both the Director-General of the Federation of British Industries, who visited Japan last year, and the London and Birmingham Chambers of Commerce Trade Mission, which toured Japan this year, reported that it was essential to the full development of our export potential that the present trading arrangements should be superseded by a Commercial Treaty. Now that the Treaty has been concluded, it has, in general, been welcomed by the Press and industry, and will, I trust. be welcomed by the House.
The terms of the Treaty and the associated arrangements have been summarised in Cmnd. 1875, but it may be helpful to the House if I draw attention to the salient features. The Treaty is in the normal form of a treaty of commerce, establishment and navigation. It contains a number of provisions dealing with the activities of nationals and companies. Generally speaking, our aim has been to ensure that, in Japan,

1339
British nationals and companies are treated at least as well as those of any other foreign country. In some cases, such as access to and treatment in Japanese courts of law, and in the protection of industrial property, we have considered it appropriate to secure equality of treatment with Japanese nationals and companies; and in one or two important provisions, such as compensation for expropriation, absolute standards of treatment are laid down.
The principal provisions dealing with navigation are in Article 20 of the Treaty. Japan is an important maritime nation, whose approach to international shipping problems is much like our own. Article 20 provides for the exchange of national and most-favoured-nation rights in shipping matters and, in particular, provides freedom for ships of either country to compete for traffic. When so many countries are following discriminatory policies in shipping, we think that the inclusion in the Treaty of these liberal provisions is a matter for satisfaction.
The provisions of the Treaty which relate to goods cover Customs duties and anti-dumping and countervailing duties, quotas and internal taxes and charges, and are based on the most-favourednation principle. They are broadly similar to the provisions of the G.A.T.T., which will, of course, normally determine the treatment to be exchanged so far as goods are concerned, but in one or two respects they amplify the G.A.T.T. provision.
The Treaty includes the normal reservation to allow the continuance of Commonwealth preferences, and there is also a provision for preferential treatment to be given by either party to third countries by virtue of a customs union or free trade area such as, for instance, an enlarged European Economic Community.
The Treaty can be extended to United Kingdom dependent territories, subject to certain conditions. It comes into force 30 days after ratification and will remain in force thereafter for six years, after which it can be terminated on twelve months' notice being given by either party. Ratification by Japan is not expected before April of next year. When the Treaty comes into effect the two
1340
countries will enter into G.A.T.T. relations with each other.
Mr. Douglas Jay: Do we assume that the Treaty will have been ratified by the United Kingdom on or by that date?
Mr. Green: I have been careful to hazard a guess as to when the Japanese will ratify the Treaty, and I trust that we shall have ratified it by that date.
There are special safeguards against disruptive competition. These consist, first, in the maintenance of restrictions on certain products by one of two methods. Export control by the Japanese Government will be the method for textile and radio items and, as from 1st January, 1968, for domestic pottery. The details of these arrangements are shown in paragraphs 10 and 11 and in Appendix B of Cmd. 1875. Import control will apply to other items and, until 1st January, 1968, to domestic pottery also, since the Japanese Government are not at present able to regulate exports of these items.
Dr. Barnett Stross: The hon. Member mentioned domestic pottery when speaking of voluntary control by the Japanese. Would not that also include ceramic toys and parts thereof?
Mr. Green: I am glad to be asked that question. I need notice of the exact definition to cover the hon. Member's point, and I shall try to obtain it for him during the course of the debate.
The details are given in paragraph 12 and Annex C of Cmd. 1875. There is, in addition, a general safeguard applicable to any product. This is contained in the First Protocol concerning trade relations between the United Kingdom and Japan, which will be found on page 25 of Cmd. 1874. Its provisions are summarised in paragraphs 7 and 8 of Cmd. 1875.
The anxieties which I mentioned at the beginning of my speech have centred on the difference between these two forms of safeguard, and doubts about the effectiveness of the second. I do not wish to anticipate in detail what may be said by hon. Members on this point, or by my right hon. Friend in his reply, but there are two general considerations which should be borne in

1341
mind if a fair judgment is to be reached on this matter.
First, this is a Treaty to promote the expansion of trade between the two countries. That is our main purpose, and, while we have insisted on, and obtained, a very wide measure of protection against disruptive competition, there are limits to the exent to which it would be reasonable or desirable, in our own interests, to provide for the maintenance or reimposition of restrictions. If hon. Members will study the lists of products to be retained under restriction and the quota arrangements made for them I think that they will agree that we have obtained from the Japanese Government a real degree of understanding for our anxieties about disruption.
Hon. Members will also be aware of the firm promise of the Japanese Govern-to accept the G.A.T.T. declaration banning export subsidies on industrial goods and not to renew their present tax remission legislation which expires in March, 1964.
Secondly, the Government have been criticised because the exact method of operation of the general safeguard and the precise circumstances in which it might be invoked are not set out in black and white. I believe, however, that the Government should be congratulated on the broad terms in which the safeguard is drawn and on the freedom which, in consequence, this will give us to invoke it in case of real need.
In conclusion, I wish to say a word about the immediate advantages to be obtained from this settlement. As a result of the liberalisation measures undertaken by the Japanese Government on 1st October and on the conclusion of our negotiations, we shall have substantially increased opportunities for the sale to Japan of machinery—in particular, machine tools—and, in the consumer goods field, of motors cars, razor blades, carpets, whisky and wool cloth.
Everybody knows that industry and commerce in Japan tend to be organised in large units, each covering a very wide range of activities. This fact, I realise, raises apprehensions lest the sale of one product be promoted out of the profits secured at home on other products. Such a form of organising trade is not confined to Japan and the real answer to it
1342
lies in furthering the mutual liberalisation of trade. This Treaty takes a very good step towards that objective. The Government hope and believe that as time goes on an ever wider range of manufacturers, both of capital and of consumer goods, will benefit from the settled basis established for our future trade with Japan by the conclusion of this Treaty.
4.41 p.m.
Mr. Douglas Jay: Most hon. Members will agree with the Minister in welcoming the fact that this country and Japan are signing a trade Treaty which will put our trading relations on a more liberal, or at least a more normal peace-time, basis. We are both very great trading nations and Japan's population is, I think, now nearly 100 million. It is absurd, if one looks at this from a general world point of view, that we should not be trading rather freely together. I think that everyone will agree with that.
I believe that on the whole the best way to secure these aims is to make full use of the G.A.T.T. and its mostfavoured-nation clauses. The virtual recognition by ourselves of Japan now as a full member of G.A.T.T. may point the way to even wider progress in opening up world trade. It is worth noting, in passing, that under President Kennedy's Trade Expansion Act, which has now been passed into law, any tariff cuts made reciprocally by the United States with the European Economic Community would automatically be extended to the United Kingdom, the rest of E.F.T.A. and Japan as G.A.T.T. members. We would be expected to make similar reciprocal cuts and I think that we would be wise to do so. Along the road of reciprocal cuts by the great trading groups in the world there are immense possibilities for developing world trade, always provided that we secure reasonable expansion and credit policies on a world scale at the same time.
The Treaty, as the Minister conceded, is also important because Japan's economic problem is perhaps more like that of the United Kingdom than that of any other country and also because she has been infinitely more successful in dealing with it in the last ten years than we have. Therefore, I think that her experience has some lessons for us.
Mr. Arthur Tiley: That is also because Japan's wages have been much lower. I am sure that the right hon. Member would not wish for that here, or that our social services should have to be cut.
Mr. Jay: Wages in Japan are very much higher than they were.
Mr. Ellis Smith: Not relative to ours.
Mr. Jay: I agree, not relative to ours.
Japan also finds herself with a huge crowded population on a moderately small island with a deficiency of raw materials, and for that reason she has to import from abroad. Yet in the last ten years, as the Minister mentioned—although he did not give any figures, which are striking—the rise of production in Japan has far exceeded, not merely ours, but that of the United States, of Europe and even of the Soviet Union. If we look at the figures we find that from 1953 to 1961 the United Kingdom's production rose by 28 per cent. while Japan's rose by 217 per cent. The United Kingdom's exports rose by 42 per cent., and Japan's by 232 per cent.
It is a solemn thought for us that since the American bankers departed in 1951 and ceased preaching to the Japanese the horrors of inflation, and how to run their economy on Western lines, the Japanese decided to put expansion of production first. They increased Government expenditure and cut taxes every year, disregarding the tangles of inflation, vicious spirals and balance of payments which had hypnotised the old-fashioned West and their economy has gone forward at a rate which all well-informed people in the outside world had declared was physically impossible.
As a result, the Japanese are coming near to the achievement of a Western standard of living at present. I will not go into how far this astonishing success has been due to the fact that Japan started with all the advantages of a nation defeated in a great war—which are economically very considerable nowadays—but she has been successfully subsidising her exports during the last ten years. That has been more or less tolerated up to now by the rest of the World on the ground, I suppose, that as a defeated nation with a shattered economy Japan was bound to use emergency methods to build up
1344
her strength, but I do not see why she should be allowed to use those methods any longer.
If Japan's economic situation is now sufficiently normal for us in effect to accord her most-favoured-nation rights in the G.A.T.T. I do not see why Japan should not also, from the same date, conduct her export trade on normally accepted lines. It is my main criticism of the Government that in this Treaty they are, in effect making our economic concessions to Japan as from the date of ratification—which I take to be April, 1963, although the Minister was a little indefinite, perhaps the President of the Board of Trade can tell us definitely this evening—while Japan's concessions to us in ending these unfair trade practices are not to be made until at least a year later, if then.
Once again, I fear that the country may be about to suffer from the Government's predilection for unilateral disarmament in these economic trading matters. No one denies that the Japanese are subsidising their exports lavishly at present. Income Tax, I understand, is remitted as to 80 per cent. of the tax on profits earned by exporting. The curious mixture of feudal paternalism and highly efficient large-scale industry which prevails in Japan somehow allow profits earned in industry to be distinguished in a way in which we are told it is impossible to distinguish them here. By this somewhat mysterious method, special low interest rates, regardless of the level of the Bank Rate, are charged by the Japanese banks to exporters.
As the Minister virtually admitted, the system of dual prices prevails, particularly in the wool industry, with high prices for sales at home and much lower prices for exports. The President of the Board of Trade told us last week, and the Minister told us today, that the Japanese legislation which permits these export subsidies will lapse in March, 1964, and that Japan will renounce export subsidies not later than that date. Why should she not do so as from the same date on which we are making our trading concessions to Japan? If, for some reason bound up with the Japanese Constitution, she cannot do that, why should we not wait to make our concessions when she makes hers, some time in 1964?

1345
I cannot see the justification, and we have been given none today, for the differentiation in the dates. Does the President of the Board of Trade think that 1963 will be economically so good a year for British industry and employment that we should expose our industries, particularly the textile industry, to a special risk of unemployment at that time? With one voice the Government tell us that they are doing their utmost in every way to combat the unemployment situation, with which the country is faced, but then the right hon. Gentleman brings forward a Treaty framed in such a way as to maximise that risk in the twelve months ahead.
On dual prices, the President of the Board of Trade has held out no hope of anything being done even as far ahead as 1964. The right hon. Gentleman said in answer to Questions last week that he sees only a vague possibility of something being done in "the coming months and years". That sounds very remote. He says that dual pricing is not banned by G.A.T.T., but is a matter for the industries and firms, not for the Government. The right hon. Gentleman must know enough about Japanese industry and the methods of the Japanese Government—if not he had better get my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) to explain it to him —to realise that these matters are effectively under the control of the Government in Japan. Indeed, that is why the Japanese are building what they call "voluntary export control" in their country. I am convinced that the President of the Board of Trade could perfectly well have insisted that this practice should cease by the time the Treaty comes into force.
What does the right hon. Gentleman mean to do about export subsidies by way of specially low interest rates? I understand that these are not covered by the undertaking of the Japanese to desist from strict tax subsidies by March, 1964. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether that is right and whether we have any assurances that this form of subsidy will be terminated in 1964? If he says that subsidy by way of interest rates is not contrary to the G.A.T.T., and that nothing can be done about it, would it not be a good idea if we adopted the same practice?
1346
The President of the Board of Trade has maintained, and the Minister of State maintained today, that he has two other lines of defence of specially threatened industries from possible disruptive imports to our country. Those are the list of specially sensitive items and, secondly, the general power to insulate against disruptive competition. These, no doubt, are worth something, but they still do not seem to justify this unilateral disarmament on our part one year at least ahead of the Japanese.
The sensitive list on which the Government rely so heavily is a very odd one, particularly when we look at the textile items. I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will tell me if I am wrong, because it is rather crucial. I understand that in the case of cotton, man-made fibres, silk yarn, cloth and the majority of garments are all included on the list, but in the case of wool, tops and yarns are excluded, and also made-up garments, while only cloth is included. Why should there be this discrimination against wool? It does not appear to have been explained. Why should wool not be treated on the sensitive list in exactly the same way as cotton and man-made fibres?
It is not surprising that this discrimination against wool compared with other textiles should be arousing keen resentment, not simply in the Yorkshire wool industry proper, but also among the making-up firms, which are widely spread. I can assure the President of the Board of Trade that I have had letters of protest not merely from the Wool Textile Delegation, but one from a clothing firm on Tyneside. That is hardly an area where the President of the Board of Trade would wish to promote unemployment in the years ahead. He would not wish to add textile unemployment to unemployment in steel, shipbuilding and coal.
This letter from a clothing firm on Tyneside points out that by putting woollen cloth on the sensitive list and keeping made-up clothes off the President of the Board of Trade is encouraging the Japanese to export to the United Kingdom the wool cloth in the form of made-up garments. I think that this is a justifiable argument, and we have had no answer to it so far from either of the Ministers on the Treasury Bench. Even

1347
assuming the general safeguards, which I know stand behind all this, I do not see why woollen goods should not be included on the sensitive list in exactly the same terms as cotton and synthetic fibres.
When we come to the general safeguards, may I ask for more explanation from the President of the Board of Trade about how they will work? The anxiety in the woollen industry, naturally, is that there may be too long a delay and that by the time the emergency defences come into force, and there has been a period during which the Board of Trade has meditated on the Trade Returns, for example, a great deal of damage will already have been done. I am sure that the industry has put this point to the President of the Board of Trade already but it is still anxious about it, and it seems to me to be a point which, even if he has heard it, he has not yet met.
Mr. John Rankin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is illogical not to put woollen piece goods on the list when wool cloth is on?
Mr. Jay: That is the point which I have been making. Wool cloth is on the list, but garments and yarn are not. The point is now appreciated on both sides of the House.
But, altogether, the President of the Board of Trade seems to me to have spoiled a splendid opportunity for a great expansion in our trade with Japan, which we all want, first by discriminating in this Treaty against the wool industry and, secondly by dismantling our defences a year in advance of the time when Japan is to dismantle hers. However enthusiastic one may be about increased trade between this country and Japan, I do not see why the dice should be thus loaded against our traders and our workers in this unfair fashion.
5.3 p.m.
Mr. Geoffrey Hirst: I should like to say how much I agree with the greater part of the speech made by the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay). I have a few difficult things to say, probably a little more difficult for me than for him. Above everything else there should be no doubt—and I am
1348
sure that in due course my hon. Friend will confirm it—that there are no "jitters" in Bradford about this Treaty.
Mr. W. J. Taylor: Oh.
Mr. Hirst: I do not know what has gone wrong with my hon. Friend.
Mr. Taylor: That is precisely what there is in Bradford. I cannot understand my hon. Friend making a remark like that.
Mr. Hirst: My hon. Friend is very anxious to accept the assurances given by the President of the Board of Trade and I am not, but perhaps he will allow me to make my own speech and have a little patience. It requires patience to listen to him.
I said that there are no "jitters" in Bradford. There are not. It is a clear word, and I mean what I say. There is a strong fear and a very strong annoyance and considerable anger with the Government. Perhaps my hon. Friend will listen to what I am saying. I shall take all the longer for his interruptions.
I want to say straight away that I recognise that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is absolutely sincere in his belief in this matter. I do not question that. I have known him for many years and I think that I can say that we have been very good friends. I shall say some hard things, as he knows only too well from correspondence, but I respect his sincerity. This is a mater of judgment, mutual trust and confidence. He thinks one way and I think another.
Without a shadow of doubt, 14th November was a very nasty day for the wool textile industry. A month before that, the Yorkshire Post, in a leading article, said:
"British wool textile business men are justified in their fears. They do not believe that the situation is fully appreciated in Whitehall."
That is a serious statement. Years have gone by, over this long period of tentative negotiations, during which the Government have been left in no doubt whatever, time after time, of the views of the wool textile industry. My colleagues and myself have many times mentioned this in the West Riding. I recall the President of the Board of Trade, in his relatively early days as

1349
Minister of State, making a speech at Bradford more or less indicating the way in which the Board of Trade were then thinking in this matter, the way which has substantially been followed by the Treaty. I had a good deal to say about it on that occasion.
Detailed controversy in public necessarily began with the brief which the right hon. Gentleman produced about 23rd September, which was in effect, the first time that the negotiators on the part of the industry had their lips unsealed, as it were. The Gospel according to St Frederick, as it has been called, has been well thumbed since then. Minister after Minister has made a journey up to the north of England in various different causes and has thumbed through this brief. I expected another version of it today, and I want at once to say that, although my hon. Friend the Minister of State touched on one aspect of it, I was extremely grateful that he managed to make an interesting speech without thumbing through that miserable brief once again. But he could not avoid saying something—these are my words, not his—about continuing to treat Japan as an outcast.
Japan has only herself to blame if, by her trading malpractices, she has cut herself off from various multilateral benefits such as we are now conferring. While these unfair practices exist, the need for discrimination must remain. But so gilded has become the Japanese lily in the Government's eyes that they ignore the evidence. Only a Government quite blind to all normal reason could ignore it. One obvious factor which has been drummed in again today is that of the Japanese attitude over tax remissions. It is shocking that the British Government did not insist on Japan ending the remission of taxation as a condition for the Treaty, and, frankly, it is intolerable, even at this stage, that these remissions should remain after the Treaty, and substantially after that. If she refused to do this, then I suggest that she was unworthy as yet of the signing of this form of treaty. Her present action of continuing these powers in force into 1964 are the sort of actions that one expects from someone who is elected to a club, but who says, "I will join the club, but I will not obey the rules for a year".
1350
I want to turn to the discrimination between textiles. Cotton and man-made fibre products will have a "sensitive" classification and, thus, quantitative limitations of imports. But similar products, as the right hon. Member for Battersea, North said, made wholly or substantially from wool, will not have this protection. The painful inferences which can and are likely to arise from this should be made clear. They will be felt in production, marketing, selection and concentration, and above everything else there will be a strong inclination towards switching from quota to non-quota categories across the field, and that includes the clothing industry's fears, too.
This brings me to the general safeguards procedure. We are told by the President of the Board of Trade that under the first protocol, Her Majesty's Government, if they find that any Japanese product is being imported into the United Kingdom in such increased quantities and under such conditions as to cause or threaten serious injury to producers of like or competitive products in the United Kingdom, may invoke the safeguarding clauses of the Treaty. I should like to ask my right hon. Friend, when he winds hp the debate, to give an interpretation of this.
The governing phrase appears to be "increased quantities". Is that so? What about price differentials and what about concentration in particular categories? What about dumping, and what about subsidisation? Will these be material reasons for invoking the safeguard provisions?
Then we come, at any rate in words, to the phrase
"serious injury does not have to be caused."
But is this the whole truth? The Government say that the threat of injury is sufficient, but does not the threat have to arise from increased imports? Is that still the case under this Treaty? Does not this aspect show, if it is so, how hollow is their argument and how callous they are towards the wool textile industry? They deny this. Or am I wrong? I should like to be wrong, if it were for my own reasons, but I am unconvinced.
Moreover, there is another sentence in Cmind. 1875 which I do not like. It will be found in paragraph 7:
"Counteraction may be taken by the party whose goods are restricted in so far as the

1351
restricting Government has not been able to offer any compensation for its action."
As far as I am aware, the Minister of State did not touch on that, but it is an extremely important matter. It is very important to know what it means.
The main point is to clear up where precisely the threat exists and what elements the Government need to operate the safeguarding Clauses. In fact, the threat can be a loss of confidence. There is not exactly a very high confidence at the moment. There is already an implied threat. The threat undeniably takes place in a very substantial degree when the orders are placed, long before the goods are landed. I think very little of the Government's hand-out of this subject unless it takes account of these factors.
I should like to ask the Government to take this to heart. I hope that they will not think me too rude if I say that they clearly have not taken it into their heads. Because of the forward-buying system in the wool textile industry, serious injury can begin many months before imports can arrive in the United Kingdom. I am told that it is beginning now. This is a point which the Federation of British Industries made all too clear in its appreciation of the Treaty.
The greatest danger to the wool textile industry is clearly in yarn. Japan has huge stocks. What for? I know not. There are huge stocks on tap, convenient to unload while the Government are indulging in an all-time record argument with the Foreign Office whether to be unpleasant to the Japanese. I have had some experience of that in the past. The Board of Trade is not always master in its own house. We should bear that in mind.
I pray that the Government will look at the facts. The first is that the President of the Board of Trade advises us that
"in general the criterion which has been applied for deciding that an item is sensitive is that there should be a strong presumption…"
Why has yarn been left out of that clause? The Board of Trade will perhaps answer—I have read their brief very well—that exports have been relatively small. This has been substantially true in the past, but knowledge
1352
of present facts and a gleam of imagination should come into the Government's trading policies in this regard. Do they not know the vast stocks, to which I have referred, in Japan, amounting to about 50 million lb.?
Mr. H. Rhodes: It is about 52 million lb.
Mr. Hirst: That is good enough for me.
Of this, worsted yarn represents about four-fifths. What is all this for? To sustain a mere 7 million lb. per annum into the United Kingdom as in the last year? I say to the Government, "Not on your life!" What about the immense number of spindles immobilised? I understand that the figure is about 50 per cent.
Mr. Rhodes: No.
Mr. Hirst: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will correct me. The figure is quite high.
Mr. Rhodes: It is 40 per cent.
Mr. Hirst: I accept the correction. The figure is high enough for me.
Let the Government take a look at the potential in this country as a yarn consumer, add those facts together and use a little imagination. Lot them take a look at the existence of the very flexible system to subsidise exports out of the home trade. Does anyone really believe that this will all stop or that the dual price system will stop? No doubt, under Eastern ways, the dual price system will go and something else will take its place.
The mentality is there. The moral outlook there on this matter is totally different. What is unreasonable in this country, unforgivable, unclub-like, is not so regarded by the Eastern mind. The Eastern businessman does not think that he is doing wrong and taking advantage by getting round the agreement. If all this does not all add up to presumptions, I will eat my hat.
Do Her Majesty's Ministers really think that the Zaibatsu organisations of Japan will play the game according to the rules of the Eton playing fields? Do not the Government appreciate the perils from some of these Zaibatsu combines, which have a foot in a mass of Japanese industrial interests? They have power and

1353
they can switch the action from one thing to another according to what they want. They have powers of barter and they are prepared to use these powers to the maximum, and all sorts of methods of indirect subsidisation, perhaps not in the old pattern, can be achieved through this organisation.
Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: May I interrupt my hon. Friend? I have been, and am, connected with a company which has had an agreement with a Japanese company for twelve years. It has been perfectly carried out. The Japanese have been absolutely correct in everything that they have done, and the agreement has been of great benefit indeed.
Mr. Hirst: My hon. Friend has been extremely fortunate, and I hope that he will continue to be so.
Eastern ingenuity will make mincemeat of Western club-like rectitude. A flood of investigation and questionnaires has already been sent to various British firms from the Zaibatsu organisation, asking what material they are using, what colour it is, what is the price and how much reduction they want. Any hon. Member can, if he wishes, see the papers which I have in my hand.
I have said nothing like as much as I intended to say, but a lot of time in this debate has been taken up on this subject on other occasions. However, I have said enough to make my point clear, and I now wish only to sum up. I suggest that the Government should have a care regarding what they are doing. There is a danger now in uncertainty. There is loss of confidence—it may not be great, but it is there—among wool-combers, to mention only one section of the trade.
Does my right hon. Friend really think that firms will continue to spend heavy capital sums on plant, etc., and how can such a loss of investment do other than lower efficiency and close avenues for high and consistent levels of employment? The Government, having done their best to upset and create imbalance in the industry, now say that the industry should have conversations with the Japanese on trade quotas, etc. I know the industry fairly well. It will refuse nothing to help the Government whatever it thinks of them, and it will
1354
refuse nothing to help itself. But why should it be asked to pull the Government's miserable chestnuts out of the fire?
It is also a streak of bad luck, miscalculation or, more simply, "appeasement" to Japanese wishes that sections of the trade, where there is surplus productive capacity, are put at additional risk through being excluded from the sensitive list? The Board of Trade says, in effect, "Let any section ill-affected by the Treaty go along to the Japanese exporter and ask him voluntarily to reduce his imports into the United Kingdom." Let my right hon. Friend try and sell that in the Ridings of Yorkshire and to hard-headed Yorkshire business men. All such a person has to do, apparently, is to go to the Japanese businessman, and say, "I am being hurt. Will you cut down your imports"?
I feel I need make no apology for speaking so strongly about something which I feel so keenly and deeply. I am sorry that the nature of the Question before the House does not usefully permit me to add my vote to my voice, since, as I warned the Prime Minister in my long letter to him of last September on the wool textile case, I cannot support the Government in this treatment of an industry which, over the passage of years, has come to mean as much to me as to anyone who serves within it.
I want to do only one thing today and that is to speak up for an industry which has a fine export performance, splendid industrial relations, first-rate and forward-looking management and good performance at all levels. The industry does not ask for favour. It has faced, and always will face, fair competition from all parts of the globe, but unfair trading practices are another matter. It complains about that, but it complains no less that the united voice of the industry so long respected and valued has been seen to be of so little account in these transactions. For that, my right hon. Friend has much to answer for.
The Wool Record and Textile World, the leading trade paper, concluded an editorial on 16th November last with the following words:
"The Wool Textile Delegation has been abundantly right from the start in maintaining that the United Kingdom textile industry,

1355
despite the horizontal nature of its construction, is a complex structure of mutually dependent bricks. The British Government, in signing this cynical treaty, have knowingly knocked out some of the keystones."
I agree with this penetrating comment.
I pray that Her Majesty's Government will now, in the difficulties before us, turn once more and heed the advice and listen to the voice of the Wool Textile Delegation which, in the past, has served them, the industry and the country so well.
5.16 p.m.
Mr. Julian Snow: I hope that the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) will forgive me if I do not immediately comment on his speech, acid though it was at times, though probably well-informed.
I think that the House will agree with the general proposition that our job is to view this Treaty not only from the point of view of our constituency interests, but from the point of view of the national economy as a whole, which I propose to do. I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends, if they catch the eye of the Chair, who will be talking either on the wool, pottery or any other industry will be as well-informed as the hon. Gentleman to whose speech we have just listened and will put what they have to say not only from the manufacturers' point of view, but also from that of the workers in those industries.
I feel critical of the Government on several scores in the matter of this Treaty. First, why has it taken so long? Why has the Board of Trade been so slow in getting the Treaty? Why has Western Germany been allowed to get away with it for so long? At present, the United States of America does about fifteen times the amount of trade with Japan that we do. That, in a way, is understandable for historical reasons, but what is not easy to understand is why Western Germany is currently doing about 40 per cent. more trade with Japan than we are.
I suppose that the answer to that is because Western Germany anticipated the potential before we did, and also, I suppose, it is part of the price we now pay for the decision taken in 1955 by the present Government to invoke Article 35 against Japan. But there are, thank goodness, some forward-looking British industries. Many of my right hon. And
1356
hon. Friends will be speaking about their industries and their constituencies, about which they feel great concern. Similarly, I have the honour to represent a Midlands constituency. I feel that credit should be given to those Midland industries which have had such remarkable success in the last few years.
Take, for example, machine tools. This year, we have sold Japan over £2,300,000 worth of machine tools, an increase of 53 per cent. over previous years. Three major Coventry firms and one Halifax firm are amongst the industries which have achieved this remarkable success. Taking machinery as a whole, we have sold so far, in 1962, £10½ million worth, an increase over 1961 of 27 per cent. We are selling tractors, industrial furnaces and even shirts to Japan. We are supplying Japan with steering gear for the world's largest Japanese-built tanker—the Nissho Maru III. As the Minister of State said, we have built a nuclear generating plant in collaboration with a Japanese subsidiary company, and Staffordshire, my own constituency county, has just sold Japan automatic moulding systems, glass pipelines and other fittings for a distillery, and items like that.
I wish to say to the President of the Board of Trade that, although I think our intentions regarding the recent International Trade Fair at Osaka were good, they were not very happy in the result. I think that there was a record of a ship which was damaged and in which some of our exhibits were damaged and which never turned up. I hope that the Government will put their backs into seeing that our exhibition at the Tokyo International Trade Fair next year is properly mounted and efficiently put over. I am told that it is now that potential exhibitors should get their names in, because there is such a run on space at that fair.
I now want to say a few words on Germany. I was rather interested to read some months ago that no fewer than 1,500 Japanese miners are working now in the Ruhr. This may be rather uninteresting economic exercise to look into. I am told that they are probably there to examine German mining techniques, but there seem to me to be great advantages in our own mining machinery industry investigating why the Germans have been able to get in ahead of us.

1357
If we take the question of selling to Japan technical "know-how" agreements, in November, 1961, the President of the Board of Trade, in answer to a Question which I put down, stated that at that time the United States had completed 947 such agreements, Western Germany had 141, Switzerland 112 and the United Kingdom 51. Although I have not been able to obtain more recent figures, my information is that the position has hardly changed at all. This is very important, because whereas the Japanese Government have recently eased the restrictions on the repayment of the agreements, they are exercising a harsher scrutiny on new ones in order to estimate whether they are necessary from the point of view of the Japanese economy. I hope that we have mot "missed the bus" where these agreements are concerned.
I now want to digress for a moment on the subject of Japanese trade with China. This may not, at first sight, seem to be relevant to this debate, but I would point out that Japan is selling steel and whale oil to China and generally trying to solve certain problems with which she has to cope in increasing her trade with China. This may not necessarily be to the disadvantage of this country. To begin with, the pattern of trade in the Far East is becoming more apparent. The distribution of goods is becoming more rationalised, and we should do everything we can to encourage trade with China, for the reasons which I have explained. They are working under difficulties in that they are restricted by their understanding with the United States, and because of the political conditions imposed by the People's Republic of China.
It is not necessarily to our disadvantage to see this trade occurring. The trade between Japan and the United States of America is a subject of very real consideration by Japan at present. The recent visit of the Prime Minister of Japan lends colour to the general proposition that Japan is now looking more to Europe for her export trade. I do not see any chance ever of replacing the United States, but there is some reason to believe that we ought to get a far greater share. There are many of us who feel that the time has now come when the old alliance between this country and Japan, which was abrogated in
1358
1923, on the proposal of the United States for purely selfish reasons, should now be reconsidered.
The hon. Member for Shipley and his hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. W. J. Taylor) have made reference twice recently to malpractices governing design and trade marks by the Japanese. I read the speech of the hon. Member for Bradford, North recently, and I would have hoped that he would have had reason to modify the remarks he then made about the numerous cases of design stealing and pattern infringement. I think that we have to regard Japan—and I hope that I am not indulging in wishful thinking—as a country which has reformed itself in its international relations where trade is concerned since the war, and I will try to give some reasons why I think so.
It was on the advice of the Director-General of the Federation of British Industries that all manufacturers and designers in this country have been implored to register their designs and trade marks in Japan. Unless they do so, they have no protection under the law in Japan. Those companies which have taken that precaution have received equitable treatment in the courts of justice in Japan on terms with which we can have no quarrel. I am advised, for instance, that E.M.I. had a recent action against a Japanese electrical company, and that the judgment in that case awarded very substantial damages to E.M.I. I understand that there is another case affecting wool which is going on at the moment.
It seems logical to suppose that if the procedure of registration in Japan is carried out, the defence which is offered to companies exporting to Japan will be of an efficient nature. Apart from that, I cannot see that Japan is likely to jeopardise its export industries by malpractices of the serious nature which the hon. Member for Bradford, North mentioned the other day. I hope that he will be able to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and I believe that he may have reason to modify what he then said. The Japanese Ministry of International Trade and Industry is just as keen as the Government of this country to see that its export trade is not jeopardised.

1359
Reference was made by the Minister of State to Japanese labour costs, and it is very difficult, objectively, to consider Japanese costs, because they have certain social customs which seem rather illogical to our paint of view. Their pay rates are low by British standards but, when we come to earnings, including fringe benefits, there is a slightly different picture, for not only do they receive these fringe benefits, which I should have thought it should not be within the province of industry to provide—namely, housing, medical attention and things like that—but there is this all-important national practice of paying bonuses twice a year which has a considerable effect on the overall eranings of the Japanese workers.
As I think the Minister of State said in initiating the debate, it is not unfair to say that the overall earnings of a Japanese worker in the major exporting industries are now becoming more like those existing in certain European countries, for instance, Italy. I shall come back to the Japanese labour position in a few moments, because it is a matter on which we on this side feel very sensitive. In 1961, the summer benefits alone amounted to £61 per head on the average in the national context.
The success of this Treaty will depend upon the efficiency with which the Board of Trade can operate two main safeguards. In answer to a Question put to him the other day, the President of the Board of Trade said that he would depend on the Wool Delegation to provide him with market information, which would enable him to judge the importance of orders placed in Japan for importation into this country. I hope that that sort of machinery will be effective. However, it will not refer only to wool. It will refer just as much to pottery, made-up garments, etc. The threatened disruption of our industry can be prevented by these two safeguards only if the right hon. Gentleman has up-to-date information.
How will he obtain it? He will depend on information gleaned, I suppose, by the wool or other industrial exporting organisations from the importing organisations in this country. The other day one of my hon. Friends reminded me that this country has an extremely
1360
sophisticated importing organisation and market—not only the banks, not only the ordinary straight-forward traders operating between the countries, and not only the confirming houses, but the main principal retail stores. I cannot see how the United Kingdom exporting interests will substantially or effectively secure information regarding orders placed in Japan. If they do not obtain it, on what basis can the President of the Board of Trade exercise his powers under the two general safeguards?
Mr. Hirst: That is the whole point. It is very important.
Mr. Snow: I do not want to talk too much about wool, because my right hon. and hon. Friends know a great deal more about that industry than I do. I am thinking in particular, of my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford, East (Mr. McLeavy), Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes), and others. However, I feel justified in pointing out that even at present Japan is reputed to be the fourth largest customer of Bradford and the wool-producing areas of this country. We must realise that, just as those areas are worried about the effect of the Treaty, 30 are the Japanese merchants themselves worried. We simply must try to be objective about this and try to bring about a general increase in trade between the two countries.
I realise that this is a generalisation, but it might put the position in a better perspective if it were more generally appreciated, for instance, that Mr. Douglas Hood, who is about to go to Japan, I think—for all I know, he may be already on his way—to discuss the matter directly with the industry, is seized of this point and will come to some sort of understanding with the Japanese on this matter.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) said, what we do not understand is why the Japanese could not have found some way of introducing their dual price legislation amendments earlier than by March, 1964. This is a point which should be further probed.
I hope that the House will appreciate that Japan fundamentally is no longer a copyist nation. I believe that its desire is to export the best and maintain a prestige of honesty in the international

1361
market. I do not quite understand the fear of goods being dumped. I should have thought that goods will be delivered to this country only if there is a market proven to the satisfaction of importers.
Mr. J. T. Price: My hon. Friend would better understand what people's fears are based on concerning dumping if he had lived in Lancashire. Three-quarters of the Lancashire cotton textile industry has been destroyed by the practices that are now explained and amplified by the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst). It is a matter of experience, as distinct from vague theorising, that we are concerned about in this House.
Mr. Snow: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for that intervention. I hope that he will acquit me of not merely theorizing about this question. I myself have experience of this, though in another industry. What I am basing my case on is this. There are too many out-of-date ideas about Japan and we should give her the opportunity of proving her honesty in the international market.
Substantiating this point, I am reminded of a remark made by Sir Norman Kipping recently, that of the world's important markets we know the least about Japan. We cannot tolerate this position any longer. This country is dependent upon exports and has an economy which is jeopardised and in a bad state in certain respects. Therefore, we must review dispassionately every opportunity of increasing our trade. Our sister nations in the Commonwealth—Australia, New Zealand and Ghana—have already ceased to invoke their powers under Article 35 of the G.A.T.T. Australia does an extremely good trade with Japan, but so do we, and we can do better. The whole pattern of this international trade should be to increase our existing two-way trade of about £100 million a year to a trade each way of £100 million a year. I believe that this is absolutely possible.
I said earlier that I would refer again o the speech of the hon. Member for Shipley. He was on an inadequate point when he referred to our export trade. One of the great things about our export trade is not so much our exports to Japan as our exports to other countries—for instance, the Dominions
1362
—which are affected by their bilateral trade agreements with Japan.
Mr. Hirst: The hon. Member is quite right, but he is crediting me with something I did not say. I should have loved to have talked about third markets, but I did not get on to the subject. That is probably where our biggest danger lies, but the hon. Gentleman must not put words into my mouth.
Mr. Snow: I apologise to the hon, Member. I thought that it was implicit in what he said. However, there is the danger. I have reason to believe that my hon. Friends who represent Stoke-on-Trent will have something to say about the trade with Australia.
I strongly believe that the important thing is for industries to get in direct contact with their opposite numbers in Japan. I believe that Japan will not be slow in coming forward and arriving at a reasonable agreement.
Lastly, I want to refer to the labour situation in Japan. This may be considered to be essentially a domestic issue for the Japanese Government, but we cannot eradicate it from our consideration. During the post-war period the International Labour Office has examined the general conditions under which Japanese labour operates. As I said earlier, the social customs and traditions of Japan are in many ways so strange to us that we cannot apply our rules.
The hon. Member for Shipley said that the Japanese do not accept our rules. I think that the hon. Gentleman made a most introspective speech on the general proposition that the world should run according to our rules. The world just is not like that. Ideas of fairness are comparative. We should do much better to direct ourselves to trying to encourage Japan to organise its labour according to our own standards. However, that cannot be done by rude and acid speeches. I should have thought that it should be done by (the community of nations and by using existing agencies, such as the I.L.O.
I feel strongly about this matter. On my visit to Japan, two years ago, I did not like some of the things I saw. I frankly admit that. Some things I saw in modern well-organised industries I thought strange and, in many ways,

1363
did not like. I believe that the position of the people in the less organised small rural industries is something which, if it had an important effect on exports, which I do not think it has, we should encourage Japan to have another look at.
I hope that notwithstanding the anxieties in certain industries the House will give general agreement to the Treaty.
5.40 p.m.
Mr. Arthur Tiley: I am very glad to follow the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow), because he and I were together in Japan about two years ago. I remember standing with him at the entrance to our hotel —the Imperial Hotel, in Tokio—during the latter part of our delegation's business there and watching the rain pour down as it does in Manchester—not Bradford, but Manchester.
We were surprised, because opposite the hotel a new office block or a new hotel was being built. The work did not stop, as it does in our country. It went on. The men who worked on the site were provided with special capes and hats, from which the rain cascaded. Work went on irrespective of the weather, all day and all night, through the pelting rain.
I am not making a case against those employed in the building trade in this country. I am merely giving a small illustration of the different attitude that there has been during the last few years in Japan in the thrust to expand, the thrust to build, the thrust to trade, and the thrust to grow.
It is a very good thing that you invited me to address the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Others may speak for Bradford, but I am the only authentic voice of Bradford in the House. I was born there. There are smaller places alongside our great city which have benefited from the great textile trade which we have built up in Bradford. I never thought that I should be in London this afternoon, and longing for my lungs to be filled with Bradford air. When I think of the stuff being breathed outside, I think that we should be given danger money. My city has provided all these wonderful services to facilitate the growth of this great textile business at home and throughout the world.
1364
Another reason why I am glad to be asked to speak is that I should have been at the Western European Union meeting with my colleague my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) this week. He and I decided that I would represent him and his constituency of Halifax here and that he would look after my interests in Paris. It is right that the people of Halifax should know that their Member's thoughts are with us here today.
I am glad that the Treaty has been broadly welcomed on both sides of the House, because we are a great trading nation and our export problems match those which Japan has. As a great industrial Power, seeking to export, we cannot afford to neglect masses of population anywhere in the world, especially if it is thriving and expanding and in a position to pay. During the last few weeks I have been a little frightened sometimes when I have heard people say, "Keep out of Europe"—with 200 million people to sell to! Now they are saying, in effect, "Do not make a treaty with Japan. Keep out of Japan"—with 100 million people to sell to! Where are we to sell our goods if we are supposed to ignore the great, expanding masses of industrial populations who are waiting to buy from us?
There have been complaints in the past that the Board of Trade has not taken enough interest in our international agreements, and has not protected us sufficiently from the trade barriers raised against us, especially in textiles, but if my right hon. Friend had not pursued this plan, he would have been the President of the Board of no Trade, not the President of the Board of Trade—
Mr. W. J. Taylor: Will my hon. Friend agree that while he has been a Member of the House all his constituents' difficulties have arisen over quotas, monetary restrictions, exchange regulations, and the like, as they have done in my own constituency?
Mr. Tiley: I am glad to confirm what my hon. Friend says, and I shall touch on it later.
There is a lack of confidence in the negotiating machinery over which my right hon. Friend presides. This present Treaty could have grievous consequences

1365
for my city, and my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) was right to point to the great dangers to the textile trade inherent in its terms. The chief dangers are to wool combing and yarn spinning. Bradford is by far the largest centre in the world for those two processes. In this area of the West Riding, there are 42 wool-combing mills and 72 spinning mills, and they employ nearly 30,000 people.
Lest anyone should think that Bradford fears fair competition and that she is not equipped to deal with it, I would remind the House of the millions of pounds worth of exports which have been achieved by this great industry since the end of the war. At the moment, we are sixth in the "league table" of exporters. I believe that we have earned more hard currency—dollars —by our textiles than even whisky has. In spite of the manifold difficulties, with country after country raising barriers, and each of them creating its own textile industry, the initiative and enterprise of the West Riding, led by Bradford, has produced this great income from our export markets, which is now almost £170 million a year.
Lest anybody think that we are afraid of competition, and are either badly led or badly equipped, I can tell Members of a large plant in my constituency which is the most up to date in the world. It is at present spending £½ million on maintenance each year, and has spent £½million annually on new plant over the last five years.
I live in Bradford—I am not a foreigner, or an "offcomer", as they say in Lancashire. I have lived amongst these people all my life, so far, and no one in this House has a greater right to speak for the textile workers than I have. I have never seen those men, in their unions, at the benches in the mills, in the Wool Exchange or in the executive branches, so bitter as they now are about the effects this Treaty will have on certain of our textile products. It is a great pity that things should have been allowed to get to this stage, because too much time, thought and energy have been expended on it over the last few months by the very men who should have been seeking export orders instead of conducting acid negotiations with my right hon. Friend.
1366
My right hon. Friend appears to resent some of the opposition from the textile districts of the West Riding and Bradford to his methods, but it is not surprising that there is this lack of confidence. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. W. J. Taylor) pointed to some of the things about which we have complained in recent years, and I will give two examples. As my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley knows as well as I do, in every single negotiation with the United States over textiles in the last four or five years, we have come off worse than Japan. The figures prove that.
Further, I have here a wonderful publication dealing with British Wool Textile Exports in 1960–61. It refers to negotiations carried on by my right hon. Friend's officers. It states:
"During the negotiations we reported to the Board of Trade rumours that the Japanese authorities were intending to sub-divide the quota as between woollens and worsteds and to restrict the quantity of woollen cloth which could be taken. We were repeatedly assured by the Board of Trade that the Japanese negotiators were not intending to make this subdivision, therefore it came as somewhat of a shock to hear at the end of July that the Japanese authorities had indicated to the importers that the import of woollens was to be kept to about £1 million out of the £3·15 million. Representations through the British Embassy of Tokyo resulted in this instruction being quickly countermanded…"
That is another proof of the lack of confidence in the negotiating machinery.
No wonder businessmen are sensitive and bitter. This is not public money. There are vast businesses in the West Riding, but there are also scores of small businesses still in the hands of families. These men are not sitting in London shuffling money around—they are producing. It is on the wealth and production of industry in my city and in the West Riding that all that goes on in the city depends. These men have a stake in our country, not just books, records, desks and figures. They have buildings and plants, and supply work to thousands of operatives.
More than that, they have millions of pounds worth of wool in their own warehouses. I wonder whether the civil servants who negotiate these treaties, or my right hon. Friend, know what it means to have a £1 million worth of wool, bought in Australia today, knocked down

1367
by the hammer at the auction, and paid for in seven days, brought home at the buyer's risk, and processed. A period of six or nine months must elapse before a man gets back the money he has paid out at auctions in Australia during the last few days. No wonder people are sensitive, suspicious, and sometimes bad tempered. These are the men whom we have to support, because it is on the strength of these industries that our strength as a country depends.
We just want some proof of Japanese integrity, and some proof that she has put behind her the malpractices referred to by one of my hon. Friends in an Adjournment debate, and by the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow). The hon. Member for Ashton-under Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) will remember the moment in the textile trade a few years ago when the price of wool in Australia was 360d. a lb., but had dropped in a week to 180d. Every bale of wool, bought at the top price, was paid for and brought into our city—nobody welshed. These are the men who have built up a tradition, and have set an example—aye, to America also—and we want to know that the people who have signed this Treaty will observe the same high standards.
Throughout the whole of the textile industry there is a very fine trade union influence. Our textile unions have been ably led, and it is more than fifty years since the trade had a strike. With this record, all this work, all this honest sweat and toil, who are we to believe as to the future? Is it to be the politicians, or the civil servants, or the practical man who is getting the orders. There is need for more consultation. More and more great trading agreements are coming away from our industrial offices into the Ministry in London, and there is all the more need for more and more consultation, and more and more people will want to see my right hon. Friend.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley said, we are tending to destroy the balance in our textile industry by making some items sensitive and others not. We introduce a rivalry, because in our textile businesses we have more of the horizontal construction than the vertical. There should be an arrangement whereby, until the Japanese bring
1368
into operation the fair-trading rules that they have promised to bring in in March, 1964, a joint agreement is made as to the quota that might apply to the items now left outside the quota safeguard. It is not much to ask that we should defend the interests of our textile manufacturers and exporters in the period to March, 1964, during which Japan has asserted that she is not able to make the fair-trading rules effective.
I should like to comment on the wages position. It is all very well to point to the equalisation of wage rates, but I understand that 80 per cent. of the labour in the Japanese wool textile industry consists of girls under 20 years of age. The proportion is much less here, and that fact upsets the whole balance of comparisons between wage rates.
I should like my right hon. Friend to bear in mind, also, that in our textile industries the average wage for the men is about E2 10s. 0d. a week less than is earned in the rest of our manufacturing industries. Those figures come from the Board of Trade. There is, therefore, no slack to be taken in. Indeed, there is need for bringing all our great textile businesses up to the same wage levels as exist in other manufacturing industries.
Another point to be borne in mind is that Brad ford is giving happy employment to about 20,000 coloured people, nearly all of them in transport and in the wool-combing industry. One can imagine the problems that will arise if there is a threat of dislocation of our textile trade.
In my view, the Government have served the national interest by pursuing this Treaty, but their responsibility does not finish there. Our textile trade feels that it has been thrown into a rough sea without a lifebelt, and with its hands and feet tied. I hope that between now and April men of very great experience will be constructively considering the problems which the Treaty presents to Bradford, and that they, along with the trade unions, will be joined in consultation by the President of the Board of Trade.
I have before me the Wool Textile Delegation circular to all interested in the subject, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend has received a copy. The

1369
last paragraph makes several constructive suggestions as to how these matters can be resolved. I implore my right hon. Friend to consider those suggestions, and to assure us that we shall adopt the methods outlined. The circular contains no destructive criticism. Neither Bradford nor the West Riding has ever said that we must not pursue this Treaty. They accept it, as they will accept the competition from the Common Market.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will join the men who know best, and construct the future on the basis of the suggestions they have made in this circular, so that we shall be effectively safeguarded. The Treaty with its safeguards is of no value if those safeguards are not only made effective now, but can be used quickly enough to be effective in the event of a great upheaval taking place in this great exporting industry in the months ahead.
6.0 p.m.
Mr. George Craddock: I would prefer to follow the line taken by the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst), because I feel somewhat critical of this Treaty. I remember that in 1951 a treaty with the Japanese was signed at San Francisco and in the years following it we found that the cotton textile industry was suffering considerably. Although one should not carry this kind of thing over for too long, I have some fears of the risk that we shall be running with the Japanese under the present Treaty.
I thank the President of the Board of Trade for the interview he gave me a few weeks ago when I heard then, and the House has heard today, that the Treaty is an attempt to liberalise trade with the Japanese. I am sure that we all believe in the liberalisation of trade, but from our past experience with the Japanese I see no reason why we should liberalise trade with Japan in order to make Yorkshire a distressed area. I say that because of what happened in Lancashire.
Whatever is done, must be done with equality and justice for both sides. In my considered judgment there is little hope for this country unless we continue the process of international trade. It may be that the Treaty provides the beginnings of international trade, but in future I should like to see the prin-
1370
ciples of international trade established at international level in such a way that we shall be able to work and trade together not only for business purposes but in order to preserve peace. I am therefore not enthusiastic about the Treaty, just as I am not enthusiastic about the Common Market which creates barriers against the rest of the world. I should like to see greater freedom obtained by the extension of responsibilities under G.A.T.T. so that the whole world can get together.
I confess that to me there was something rather sinister about the speed with which this Treaty was concluded. When the House rose in July, none of us seemed to know anything about what was going on. In August the Treaty is mooted and we find all the business houses in Bradford and district, throughout the heavy woollen industry, concentrating upon Members of Parliament and asking why all this was going to happen. They had every right to make inquiries. They have done a very good job, and 150,000 employees in the area are involved. I think that the whole House wishes to see the guarantees under the Treaty carried out, and it is particularly in respect of these guarantees that I feel concern.
I understand that if there happens to be coming into the country certain material which becomes extremely competitive with similar material on the home market we are to write to the Japanese a nice letter and to expect a reply within seven days. If they do not reply within seven days then, at the end of 30 days, we can apply restrictions on them. It seems to me that that indicates that the door is open to allow a certain amount of dumping. The Protocol is not tight enough, because there seems to be a clear indication that dumping in the first place can take place and only then is there machinery to try to correct it.
I want to know precisely how this will work. It seems to me that two months would elapse before any figures would be available in the Trade and Navigation Returns. This would mean that, with the 30 days which will have already elapsed, it would be three months before any steps could be taken to deal with the situation. I hope that the Minister

1371
will be able to answer this point, because if we are going in for liberalisation there should not be this distinct possibility of a large amount of material being imported into the country in strong competition with the home trade.
In view of the steps which are being taken and the fact that international trade will grow and grow, I cannot understand why the Minister did not have a debate in the House in the first place. I see no reason why we should not have known what was in the Treaty before it was signed. It may be that these things have happened over the years, but I cannot see why the House of Commons should not have been notified in detail of a commercial treaty which it was hoped to sign in a matter of days or weeks. I trust, therefore, that we shall consider these matters and do what we can to protect our own trade.
We are bound to have an extension of treaties, but we in Bradford are concerned in particular about the business element in them, because some of the trading arrangements in past treaties have been very unsatisfactory. I hope that all this will now be changed and that the President of the Board of Trade, in reply to the debate, will say what can be done to reduce the period of time between the arrival in this country of a surplus of imports competing with the home market and the moment when that fact can be dealt with adequately.
6.9 p.m.
Mr. Joseph Hiley: I do not think that the President of the Board of Trade could have had any doubts at all about the feelings of those who are engaged in the wool textile industry, and particularly those in the West Riding of Yorkshire. What my right hon. Friend has heard tonight will merely confirm that the fears which were aroused in their minds when the Treaty was published are still there. We are all most anxious to have answers to the questions which have been asked, and particularly to the question just posed by the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. George Craddock).
I do not propose to go over the arguments which have been so well deployed during the debate. I take as my starting point the Preamble to the Treaty
1372
which says that it is intended to secure fair and equitable treatment between the nationals and the companies of the two countries. That is precisely what the wool textile delegation is asking for, nothing more than fair and equitable treatment. I hope that we shall have from my right hon. Friend tonight a little more assurance on the points which have been raised about export subsidies, dual pricing and malpractices.
I suppose that little good can be done by enumerating what the malpractices are, but, since the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow) seemed to suggest that they did not exist, I will mention one. I believe that there is still woven into the selvedges of cloth from Japan the words "Made as England", not "Made in England"". The word "as" is woven in such a way, imperfectly, I believe, as to be less obvious to the eye than the other two words "Made" and "England". The President of the Board of Trade and his Department still have a good deal to do to ensure that the Japanese are prepared to observe fair practices and cease the others.
Not only the trade and those employed in it but the textile Press is greatly concerned about the consequences of the Treaty. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) referred to the Wool Record, a journal which, I believe, enters the office of every firm engaged in the textile trade. The Wool Record has described the safeguarding procedures in the Treaty as "tenuous, even derisory" adding that the United Kingdom wool industry has been betrayed for political reasons in order to secure other advantages in the Japanese Treaty. Those are harsh words, but they express views widely held among people in trade.
What can we do now to ensure that our worst fears prove groundless? At what stage will my right hon. Friend's Department take the action provided for in the safeguards? Will it be when the order is taken? I cannot understand how that could be because I do not know at what stage the President of the Board of Trade or his Department will know when orders are being placed. Will action be taken when the goods are shipped in Japan? Here, too, there is doubt about whether my right hon. Friend or his

1373
Department will know when goods have, in fact, been shipped in Japan.
The third possibility—the most likely, I imagine—is that the Department will know only when the documents arrive in this country and are presented to the bank for settlement. Will that be the earliest moment at which the Department will know about what may well be very large shipments? At a time like this, when wool prices have been stable for a long time, or just tending to rise a little lately, the trade would be very likely to grasp the opportunity of buying large quantities of the cheap Japanese yarn which are being offered to us now.
Should that sort of thing happen, millions of pounds might be bought and absorbed by the weaving and knitting industry in this country. That is the moment when a tremendous amount of damage could be done to the wool combing and spinning industry here. My right hon. Friend will appreciate why we urge the Government to give us some satisfaction now to ensure that it does not happen.
It seems to me that it would probably be a good idea to set up at once a joint committee of those engaged in the textile industry consisting of representatives of the employers and trade unions together with officials of the Board of Trade. Let this committee operate in such a way that the general safeguards Protocol provided for in the Treaty will be able to operate. You should let it have under its concern everything which is relevant to Japanese competition as it can work under the Treaty. I urge you to heed the plea—
Mr. Speaker: I regret having to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he should not address his requests to me.
Mr. Hiley: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. You will realise that I am not a very experienced speaker here. I am so anxious that the President of the Board of Trade shall know the fears of the industry that I forgot the correct procedure.
My final plea is simply that the President of the Board of Trade should agree to continue to co-operate with the wool textile delegation and the unions so that the possibility of the disruption or destruction of the trade is never allowed to develop.
6.16 p.m.
Mr. Ellis Smith: I shall make a reasoned, constructive and analytical case against this trade Treaty. In my view, those of us who represent the organised industrial workers should have made our attitude quite clear in a more definite manner earlier. In support of my case I shall produce evidence from the trade union movement in Britain, America and other countries. I shall provide evidence from employers, the banks and the Press and from Parliamentary replies given by the President of the Board of Trade.
We who represent the North Staffordshire pottery industry, which is mainly situated in the City of Stoke-on-Trent, are bound to be concerned about a trade treaty of this kind, having regard to our past experience. One of my weaknesses as am individual is that I am apt to be too ready to forgive. Although I look upon that as a good quality in a person, I feel that, when we speak as representatives, we should adapt a stiffer attitude.
Our country has been through two world wars and our people have suffered. There have been times when they have been treated very badly as a result of the malpractices and unfair trading methods of competition which existed before the war and since the war, as I shall show. Although we may as individuals have qualities of the kind I have referred to, when we act in a representative capacity on behalf of our fellow countrymen, with so much at stake, we should speak as representatives, not as individuals. I speak tonight not only on behalf of the pottery industry but on behalf of all the industries which will be vitally affected by the Treaty.
Our concern is increased by a letter dated 29th November which was sent by the secretary of the British Pottery Manufacturers' Federation, Mr. Turner, to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I want to use my time to the best advantage and so I shall not take up time by reading the whole of this letter, but there is no doubt about it that anyone who reads it will see the uneasiness, which is expressing itself in an organised way, of the manufacturers and of the workpeople in the pottery industry in North Staffordshire.
Then the local newspaper of 15th November had an article which said that

1375
great concern exists over the Japanese pottery trade treaty. It went on to say:
"There were signs … that an 'unknown quantity' in the new Anglo-Japanese commercial treaty was becoming the subject of growing speculation, if not apprehension"
in the North Staffordshire pottery area. It went on to provide more evidence of the correctness of that statement, which, I should think, would be generally accepted.
My hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) and Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater) and for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) have been very active in this matter while I have not been here. My hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent, North and Stoke-on-Trent, Central had a number of Questions on 27th November to which I intend to direct the attention of the House. The Questions were answered by the present Minister of State, Board of Trade, who has had great experience in industry. I would remark here that, unlike some previous speakers, I have no doubt about his sincerity or capacity, or that of the President of the Board of Trade, in dealing with matters of this kind. What I am being critical of is the policy which is being applied. What I have said about the Minister of State and the President of the Board of Trade applies equally to their advisers who are responsible for carrying out their policy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North asked the President of the Board of Trade
"what consultation he had with the Pottery Manufacturers' Federation and the Society of Pottery Workers before or since the signing of the Japanese trade agreement."
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central followed that up with a similar Question. The answers established facts which I am bound to put on record in speaking in a debate of this kind. The Minister of State replied:
"There has been no direct consultation with the National Society of Pottery Workers."
Therefore, the facts are these: first, that no consultation with the trade union responsible for catering for pottery workers has taken place in connection with this trade Treaty; second, that frequent meetings have taken place with the pottery manufacturers; third, that the democratically elected Parliamen-
1376
tary representatives of the people representing the pottery industry area have known nothing about the meetings for the last eight months or the meetings which have been taking place during the last two years. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central asked a further Question of the President of the Board of Trade:
"whether he will state as fully as possible what are the articles of traditional Japanese design which it is proposed shall, under the terms of the Anglo-Japanese Commercial Treaty, be exempted from quota restriction."
The President of the Board of Trade replied as follows:
"It has been agreed between the two Governments that the British and Japanese industries should consult together in order to determine what articles may properly be regarded as of traditional Japanese design."
Does any hon. Member believe that that can be operated satisfactorily? Time after time the industry for which I am speaking in particular has been asked to maximise its exports. It has responded every time. Now this industry, with others in which I am vitally interested, has been asked to sit down with an unfair competitor and enter into legal quibbling about what are its traditional designs. Can we be told this afternoon, when the President of the Board of Trade replies to the debate, what consultations took place with the pottery manufacturers before that kind of reply was given? Did consultations take place at all on the procedure? If so, can we be told what was said and what kind of procedural machinery it is proposed to set up?
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central put a further Question, to which the Minister of State replied as follows:
"The arrangement is that on the 1st January, 1968, control of imports by H.M. Government will be changed for control of exports by the Japanese Government. operated in accordance with the understandings set out in paragraph 10 of Cmnd. 1875."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th November, 1962; Vol. 668. c. 24.]
If I have time I shall refer to that Command Paper later on. Our concern is expressed in the White Paper itself, in paragraph 9. So part of our case within these particular limits is already given to us by those who prepared the White Paper.

1377
How can there be satisfactory voluntary export controls between a country with relatively high standards and a country with relatively low standards? How can there be satisfactory controls when it is urgently necessary for us to maximise exports in order to keep things as good as they are, when we have to keep our eye on our balance of payments, and work towards even higher standards than we have at present? Therefore, if it were not so tragic this would be laughable. It may be that we shall be proved wrong, and ii we are, nobody will be more pleased than I, but I have no confidence in voluntary arrangements of this kind, judging by the past record of the people with whom we are dealing.
The Treaty specifies complete liberalisation of Japanese pottery exports to this country from 1st January, 1968. The Treaty includes the voluntary arrangements to which I have already referred. Even if hon. Members agree with the need for a treaty of this kind —and let me make it quite clear that, while I stand for expansion in world trade, I am an uncompromising opponent of doing it by this method—all should have been opposed to this Treaty, because there are too many uncertainties in it, too many qualifications, too many words within brackets and too many voluntary controls which will create quibbling and speculation about their interpretation. Had my late right hon. and learned Friend Sir Stafford Cripps been making the kind of speech I am now making he would have torn this document into shreds for the reasons I have already given.
After ratification of this Treaty, if I understand it correctly, the quota will allow imports of pottery from Japan to this country to the value of £400,000. In 1961 the figure was £162,000. When we consider figures of that description, after the way our industry has responded to appeal after appeal for increased productivity, for an increased volume of output, and for increased exports, we must say it is a tragedy that it should be faced with a situation of this kind.
I am not overstating but understating the case when I say that because of the Treaty the Japanese will be able to export to this country £400,000 of pottery, plus pottery of traditional Japanese design
1378
and ceramic toys. What is traditional Japanese design? What are the ceramic toys which are mentioned? Do they include the jugs of which we export thousands of £s worth? Do they include the musical jugs which form a large part of our exports and which are admired throughout the world? Do they include the pottery cigarette boxes and cases, or the hundreds of animals made in pottery which are admired in America and other countries? We should be told all this before we accept this Treaty, because this is an occasion when we exercise our Parliamentary rights and speak on behalf of the people and we must understand the Treaty before we agree to it. It must be explained so that the people outside the House can understand it.
What limits have been imposed on imports of Japanese pottery and ceramic toys and Japanese pottery of traditional designs? How can there be a satisfactory voluntary export control when Japanese prices are approximately one-third of ours? When I heard an hon. Member talking about men working in the pouring rain, it reminded me that we have not easily established our high standards in this country. We have come along a hard road and our people have had great struggles and have made great sacrifices to achieve these standards, which we should not now throw away as seems to be suggested.
Mr. Gresham Cooke: Is the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) seriously suggesting that Japanese pottery imported into this country is only one-third of the price of the home-made product? Is that typical? I have a certain experience of some other trades and although some products are a little cheaper, I cannot believe that the figure of one-third is typical of the whole range of products.
Mr. Ellis Smith: I thank the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) for that intervention. I have been very careful about these figures, which come from reliably informed sources. If the hon. Member has any doubts about them I hope he will pursue his doubts so that we can find who is right and who wrong.
In reply to Questions put by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent,

1379
North earlier this year, the Parliamentary Secretary gave an indication of the serious situation with which we shall be confronted. He set out the details for the years 1948 to 1961 showing that in 1948 £16,000 worth of manufactured pottery was imported from Japan, while in 1961 the figure was £162,000. He also gave details of American imports of Japanese pottery. After all this country has done in two world wars and after all they owe to this country, the Americans have permitted these pottery imports from Japan—£80,000 worth in 1950 and £384,000 in 1961.
The same situation is occurring in our colonial possessions. I have the facts and I could give them for each Colony. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary will understand my growing concern when I find that the Treaty might be applied to the Colonies, for that will intensify the seriousness of the situation. Quite rightly, this country has poured thousands if not millions of £s into the development of our Colonies which in many cases are now to give priority to Japanese pottery and other manufactured goods over ours. Those who support the Treaty must consider that.
Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: Has the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) seen Article 29 which deals with Colonial Territories?
Mr. Ellis Smith: I did not catch that.
Mr. Skeet: Has he seen Article 29 which deals with Colonial Territories, to which the Treaty can be extended, although not necessarily, and the number of Colonial Territories which have been itemised?
Mr. Ellis Smith: I will come to that later.
Is it the case that the Japanese impose more controls on foreign trade than most other countries? If so, is it logical that we should agree to a Treaty of this kind? Is it the case that the Japanese control imports more than any other industrial country? I have evidence that the Japanese have been producing an enormous amount of goods which they have sent in parts to Hong Kong where they have been made up and from where they have been exported as having been made in the Commonwealth.
1380
Is it the case that a company in Australia imports china blanks from Japan which are decorated and glazed in Australia and which are then admitted into Britain duty-free under Commonwealth Preference? For manufactured goods to qualify for that concession, a minimum of 50 per cent. of the factory value has to be added in the exporting Commonwealth country. Because of the low price of Japanese china blanks and the relatively high Australian wages, more than 50 per cent. of the factory price comes from the Australian part of the production, and so the goods qualify for duty-free entry to Britain. Are those the facts and has the President of the Board of Trade been informed about them? Why have not the Stoke-on-Trent Members been consulted? Is it the case that what is taking place is on a larger scale than with other industries? If so, should not our attention have been drawn to it long ago?
I asked if I could move a manuscript Amendment to the Motion, but Mr. Speaker ruled that no Amendments were to be called. However, included in the Treaty are some very serious statements on which we are bound to take cognisance. I want to quote from an article written by a research officer of the Trades Union Congress so that I can make my case as official as possible. It says:
"The United Kingdom's exports and imports each amount to nearly a quarter of its gross national product. British trade unionists are therefore vitally concerned not only that world trade should expand quickly but also that trade between nations should be conducted along fair lines.… We are also very conscious of the fact that sub-standard wages and associated conditions are inconsistent with the principle of fair competition in international trade, and can threaten standards that have been won by workers in home industries. To this end the T.U.C. is at present conducting a survey among its affiliated unions …".
At several recent international conferences of metal workers' trade unions, where some of the most highly skilled men in this country have been present and where others have been represented, there have been well informed discussions of what is at stake in this trade treaty. Informed people have been unanimous in their view of what action should be taken to protect us from the kind of low slave conditions existing in countries like Japan.

1381
Among the strongest supporters of this view are the trade unions of the United States. I will quote a few extracts from the 1961 minutes of the International Metalworkers Federation. Mr. Walter Reuther, whose political outlook is accepted by most hon. Members, was speaking for the United States trade unions. The minutes report:
"He thanked Brother Graedel for an excellent presentation of the problem of Fair Labour Standards … The IMF must recognise that while this is an old problem, its dimensions are new and compelling, because this is the first time in history when workers throughout the world have access to the same tools, are making the same basic products, competing for the same world markets and, in many cases, are working with the same international corporations. This problem will become increasingly difficult, because of the acceleration in technological development and the growing concentration of international capital."
Therefore, if I had not tried to get an Amendment of that kind down at the time I did—I am not complaining: I am very grateful for the way in which it was dealt with—or had not tried to speak in this way, I would not have been worthy to quote a man who knows the facts. Mr. Walter Reuther goes on:
"The Amalgamated Clothing Workers, one of the most advanced groups, whose early leadership had a Social Democratic philosophy, because most of it came from the European labour movement, a union which has historically had an international point of view, at its last congress passed a resolution that its members would not cut any more Japanese produced cloth. The reason is that the Americans are losing their jobs. The electrical unions passed a resolution to boycott electronic items made in Japanese industry, because the industry with which they have collective agreements shut down their factories in America, lay their workers off and built new factories in Japan, then use those factories, not to raise Japanese workers' living standards, but to dump those products in America."
Mr. Reuther goes on to say:
"The problem by which the clothing and textile workers are all worried is not a theoretical, but a real, practical, tangible human problem, because 6 per cent. of all American workers are unemployed, many of them because their industry shut down a plant in America, to build a new plant in a low-wage area, then use that plant to satisfy the American market."
I only wish that I had time to quote more of that kind of speech which was made at that conference.
An international industrial conference was held in San Francisco in 1961. It
1382
decided to make a study of comparative costs between the United States, the United Kingdom and the European Common Market. It has been found that this kind of situation which we are facing in Japan attracts investment like a magnet attracts pins on a table. The logic of that is that the lowest cost countries can eventually become the most modernised and mechanised on a three-Shift system with a serious effect on established standards of living in a country like ours.
If anyone doubts one word of what I have said, then I invite him to read the Sunday Times' latest publication on Japan and, in particular, to read pages 62 and 63, 68 and 69. I invite him to read reports of the kind that I have just quoted. Here let me reiterate that the strongest support of the line that I am taking this evening will be found among well-informed American trade unionists who are faced with an unemployment problem and lowering standards as the result of the dumping of low priced goods manufactured in Japan. It has been said by the plausible representatives of Japan that industrial productivity has risen.
I know where all this started. It started in Downing Street at a private reception between two previous Prime Ministers. I know exactly what was said, but I shall not repeat it because of the regard that I have for one of the previous Prime Ministers. This is the kind of thing that is taking place, this new evening dress plausibility diplomacy is seeking to undermine our standards by modern Japanese methods. The Japanese are trying to avoid the antagonism that existed between the two wars. I take second place to no one in my regard for working together with people of other countries, but before we do that we have to live ourselves, and our standards are already none too high. Therefore, rather than be a party to undermining them, we are bound to speak and take the kind of action that we are taking this evening.
It is true that Japanese industrial productivity rose by 55 per cent. between 1955 and 1960, but during that same period real wages rose by only 25 per cent. Gross investment amounts to 30

1383
per cent. of the gross national expenditure, and it is no wonder that the Japanese Government propose to double their national income by 1970, to carry out further economies in imports and to increase to a large extent the present figure of exports.
If anyone is in any doubt about any of those figures, I invite him to read the Three Banks Review of September, 1962, where he will find more evidence and figures to prove the correctness of what I have been saying. In addition, if he reads Barclay's Bank Review he will find set out very clearly in another form all that I have been saying this evening, and for those and other reasons my hon. Friends and I are bound to take the line that we have been taking this evening.
Our country is now one of the most vulnerable countries in the world from a military point of view. For generations we were saved because of our geographical position. We had a powerful Navy which protected us, and we owed a lot to it, but we also owed a great deal to our geographical position. We were in the field first in regard to industrial development and expansion. For many years the world was our market, but we have now reached the stage when economically also we are one of the most vulnerable countries in the world. It therefore behoves us all to adopt a constructive, positive, reasoned and responsible approach to these problems. This is why I support increased output, increased productivity and expansion of our markets, together with the demand for an expansion of world trade and the lessening of world tensions. But until this comes about we have to be on our guard and not support anything which might undermine our standards.
6.54 p.m.
Mr. James Dance: I hope that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) will forgive me if I do not follow his argument, but I was very interested to hear what he said.
I realise that this Treaty is fairly widespread in its coverage, but this evening I hope that the House will forgive me if for a short period I refer to the fishing tackle industry. This industry in this country is largely centred on the town of
1384
Redditch in my constituency, though there are factories all round the countryside. For some time this industry has been going through a not very happy time, through no fault of its own. There has been a large amount of imports into this country from various parts of the world, including a large amount, which they intensely dislike, from behind the Iron Curtain.
It would not be in order this evening to pursue that matter, but for some time fishing tackle makers have been extremely worried about imports of fishing tackle, and in particular fishing reels from Japan. In the past there have been restrictions on the amount of fishing tackle that could come into this country, but for some reason—I cannot think why—in 1957 fishing reels, which, let us face it, are possibly the most sophisticated piece of fishing tackle manufactured in this country, were enabled to come into this country under an agreement whereby spools, bobbins, and reels came in.
I do not understand why this was done. Was it a blunder, or was it done deliberately? If it was a blunder, surely it should be remedied, and the industry felt that this new Treaty provided the ideal opportunity to remedy the position, but I am afraid that the reverse is the case. It has now been put down in black and white that fishing reels, whether made of metal or wood, will not be protected under the safeguard clause.
I received a letter from the chairman of the Association of Fishing Tackle Makers. He said:
"I am sure you will have taken note that as far a; the new Anglo-Japanese Treaty is concerned, fishing tackle has been classed as a 'sensitive item', and a quota has been established for 1963 of £50,000 and 1964 £100,000, with liberalisation on 1st January, 1965, but again the Board of Trade have excluded fishing reels either of wood or metal from the quota and these are free from any import control under the new Treaty.
As by far the larger share of Japanese fishing tackle, imports consists of fishing reels, the effect of this is to completely negative the sensitivity which have been granted the Industry.
I was particularly interested to see from the Parliamentary answer by Mr. Green that he claims that it is an international definition, but as far as we are able to tell as an Association this is the only instance where fishing reels are not classed as part and parcel of fishing tackle."

1385
I think that that really sums up the whole question. Why was this done? Can it not be remedied? This is an extremely sensitive item to this industry.
The men who make these fishing reels are highly skilled. A great deal of labour goes into the manufacture of these reels, and, as we have heard on many occasions from hon. Members on both sides of the House, wages in Japan are much lower than they are here, though not as low as some people have put them, and these fishing reels are coming into this country at about half the cost that we can make them here.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State in his opening speech said that copying by the Japenese was rather dying out. I am sorry to say that it is practically impossible to distinguish one fishing reel from another until one has used them for some time. I am informed that the metal used in the manufacture of Japanese fishing reels is not as good as we produce in this country, but it is very tempting to the British public to see in the shops these cheap reels which look the same as those manufactured here, and I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to do something about this and see that they are included in the sensitive list.
I believe that even my hon. Friend agrees that there was some confusion in this definition, because in a letter he wrote to the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), and of which he had the courtesy to send me a copy, he said:
"We have not been able to trace the exact origin of the definition 'reels and spools' under which fishing reels were liberalised in 1957. But we know that it first appeared as an import licensing definition in 1951. We can safely assume that it was drawn up in conjunction with the Ministry of Supply at that time and that its intention was to cover reels and spools of all types."
Again I ask, is that really so? Surely the reels, spools and spindles concerned were for the textile industry? Surely they were not meant to include these highly specialised reels such as fishing reels?
I assure my hon. Friend that the industry is very worried and perturbed about this matter. I hope that when my right hon. Friend replies to this debate he will be able to give some help, some ray of sunshine, to this industry, which,
1386
though not a very large one, is highly skilled and employs fine men.
I am very much afraid that if something is not done these men will not send their children into this industry. They will send them elsewhere, and the industry will be undermanned. They are getting very down-hearted. They have gone through a bad time. I sincerely hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to provide a ray of hope and consolation for these very hard-working and efficient people, who are employed in an industry which in the past has carried on quite a large export trade and will continue to do so in the future if it is given the help and support that it deserves. If it is not, it may go under.
7.0 p.m.
Mr. Donald Wade: I should like to discuss this important Treaty in its widest aspects but, as time is limited, I shall confine my remarks to its t feet on the wool textile industry. I do not regard this as an issue between protectionists and those who favour more liberalisation of trade. The question is: how shall we achieve greater liberalisation without the disruption and the reaction that can so easily follow?
It is only fair to say that the wool textile industry is not always crying out for protection; it has a very good record in this respect. It has faced stiff competition both at home and abroad, and its export trade, which runs into £160 million a year, is of great value to the economy. But the Treaty creates a new situation. It raises the whole question of the methods of carrying on international trade. In this respect the fears expressed by representatives of the industry are justified. They are based on experience of Japanese trading practices. We have seen the massive dumping of wool yarns into Hong Kong. That dumping and the subsequent action can be presented in different ways. It can be regarded as an example of voluntary limitation by Japan. But it was only after strong protests from the Hong Kong spinners that the Japanese agreed to limit their exports.
In the years between 1956 and 1961 Japanese-subsidised exports to the United States market had a very adverse effect upon British sales to America. The

1387
representatives of the wool textile industry know what they are talking about when they criticise Japanese trading policy.
This is not primarily a case of a low-wage economy operating under very low production costs. Japanese wage rates have risen considerably, although there are still some major differences between Japan and this country. Because the industrial set-up in Japan is so different from that in Britain, her whole attitude towards what I call the mechanics of conducting international trade is also fundamentally different. The Japanese industry is largely dominated by a small group of powerful combines which are able to control importing and exporting, and dictate policy in practically the whole of Japanese industry. Dual pricing is therefore comparatively easy to operate, even without direct Government export subsidies.
As hon. Members acquainted with it will agree, the British wool textile industry, on the other hand, is carried on by a large number of independent firms, which are not in a position to subsidise exports at the expense of the home market even if they wished to do so. We know that at present Japanese exporters are being assisted in various ways. They enjoy a remission of taxes on the value of their export contracts, they are financed at specially low rates of interest, and the profit margins in the Japanese home market are kept artificially high in order to subsidise exports.
The first question to consider is to what exent these practices will continue, and what will be the effect of the assurances that have been given. We are told that the legislation providing tax incentives is to lapse—but not until March, 1964. We are also told that Japan will be expected to act in conformity with the provisions of the G.A.T.T. But it seems to me that dual pricing will still be able to continue. In other words, although there is no direct Government subsidising of exports, commercially-arranged subsidies may continue. This possibility is of major concern to the British textile industry.
The secretary of the Huddersfield Chamber of Commerce has written to me, and in one paragraph of his letter he says:
1388
"As regards subsidies, it seems we are even expected to help to bolster the means of providing them—one of our cloth exporters was only this week asked by his Japanese customer to invoice at 2s. 9d. per metre above the actual price he was charging."
The implication of that is that it would help the subsidisation of exports at the expense of the home market.
"Yet the Board of Trade apparently accepts no responsibility for influencing policy in respect of commercially-provided subsidies."
I raised this point when the President of the Board of Trade made his statement on 14th November. I said:
"May I press the right hon. Gentleman a little further on the subsidisation of exports? He will be aware of the concern felt by the wool textile industry over the dual pricing system by certain large trading concerns in Japan. Is there anything in the terms of this Treaty, or has any statement been made by the Japanese Government, which provides a firm assurance that the dual pricing system will cease, or are we to assume that the dual pricing system may continue?"
The President of the Board of Trade replied:
"Dual pricing is not one of the export arrangements banned by the G.A.T.T. declaration. It is a matter for individual industries and firms to decide their export prices, and there are price differentials in respect of British exporting industries too."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th Novemmer, 1962; Vol. 667, c. 381.]
It is true that some British exporting industries operate price differentials, but that does not make the danger from Japan any the less serious. It is all a matter of degree. If dual pricing continues, as I fear, it may amount to a contravention of Article VI of G.A.T.T., which deals with anti-dumping; but it is all a matter of degree, and it is not always easy to prove that this practice amounts to dumping.
As I understand it, the G.A.T.T. does not rule out dual pricing, and if it continues the British and Japanese industries will be operating under different rules of international trade. Other hon. Members have already made the point about different rules. It is not so much a question of our asking everyone to observe British rules; what we are striving for is that there shall be similar rules operating among different countries carrying on international trade.

1389
This may not be a good analogy, but if, in a game of football, the two sides were allowed to follow different sets of rules, it would not be much consolation to the home team to know that, in the last resort, the referee could blow his whistle and impose a "quantitative restriction", whereby the visiting team would not be allowed to score more than one goal every five minutes. But that will roughly be the position, and this is much more important than a game—even a game of football. The future of a great industry is affected, together with the livelihood of those engaged in it.
There may be overriding political reasons for entering into this Treaty, and serious embarrassment to the wool textile industry may be the price that we have to pay. But if that is so the Government would have been more frank if they had said so from the outset, and had admitted that the industry might be faced with serious consequences. It is unrealistic to suggest that there is nothing to worry about.
Coming to the safeguards, I think it is clear that there are two major points to be stressed. In regard to products not on the sensitive list it is obvious that the time factor in introducing any antidumping measures is vital. Owing to the forward-buying system in Britain, serious injury can begin many months before imports actually arrive in this country. The damage may be done as soon as offers are made, that is if the Japanese prices are substantially below United Kingdom prices. Perhaps the President of the Board of Trade will correct me when he is winding up the debate, but it would seem that the Protocol provides no safeguards against disruption of price levels. A great deal depends on the procedure which is eventually adopted.
The other main criticism—and perhaps the most serious of all—is the failure to deal with all wool products in the same way. Here I agree with some of the observations made by the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) and the two Bradford hon. Members, the hon. Members for Bradford, South (Mr. George Craddock), and Bradford, West (Mr. Tiley). This point is stressed in a memorandum from the Clothing Manufacturer's Federation which says:
"With regard to wool garments the position has been worsened by the proposal to include
1390
wool piece goods on the sensitive list. This is illogical as the free importation of garments would nullify the restrictions on piece goods by encouraging the Japanese to export to the U.K. their wool cloth in the form of made-up garments. This will be to the detriment of both the clothing and wool textile industries."
The distinction that has been made between sensitive and non-sensitive items may in itself have serious repercussions. Here I quote from the latest statement of the Wool Textile Delegation:
"The influences which can arise out of this discrimination so far as production, marketing, selection and concentration are concerned and the encouragement towards switching."
I emphasise that—
"from quota to non-quota items will be readily obvious, and this discriminatory treatment has the very serious effect not only of driving a division between the wool, cotton, man-made fibre and clothing industries but of disrupting the relationships between different sections of the wool textile industry."
For these reasons I think that the whole procedure should be reconsidered. It may be that we are faced with a fait accompli. Be that as it may, I understand that discussions are still going on. I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will consider the suggestion made by the Wool Textile Delegation already referred to, that:
"The Board of Trade may be requested to participate in a joint committee of employers, trade unionists and Board of Trade officials with the task of making further arrangements regarding the operation of the general safeguard Protocol and of keeping the position relative to Japanese competition under constant review."
That is a good idea, but in any case I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will pay very serious attention to the representations still being made, for there is no doubt that this industry is deeply concerned.
7.14 p.m.
Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade), but I do not think that he had a very clear view of the safeguards which have been provided by this Treaty.
The first protocol and general safeguard applies to all products, whether they are listed or not. That is followed by a second protocol which covers two categories, those which are checked out from Japan and certain items which are checked into the United Kingdom. I should have thought that these safeguards

1391
in their totality would provide the answer which we seek.
I appreciate, however, the argument put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst), that it is one thing to have a Treaty and another to have it implemented in the terms of the text. In the Treaty there is provision for disputes to be referred to the International Court of Justice. If there are any difficulties or defects in interpretation they could be considered in that Court.
Another matter which is dealt with, and which has been mentioned by several hon. Members is that of dumping. I refer to the protocol of signature, paragraph 10, which reads:
"The provisions of paragraph (1) of Article 16 shall not preclude either Contracting Party from imposing a countervailing or anti-dumping duty in the circumstances and subject to the conditions laid down in the provisions of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade which govern the imposition of such duty in relation to the trade of contracting parties to that agreement."
That, I should have thought, would be tight enough. It is making full use of the machinery of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade which has been invoked for the purpose of this Treaty. My only anxiety is that one has to produce evidence to the Board of Trade that dumping is going on. If I have a general criticism, it is about the type of machinery which has to be gone through to bring these matters into operation. If we could for a moment discard the question of the timing, I think that the provision in the Treaty is enough. This is a predicament in which I think my right hon. Friend was placed. Either he had to go ahead under the cover of Article 35 and the discrimination thereunder, or be prepared to regularise the trade between Britain and Japan by putting it on the basis of a treaty.
This agreement not merely covers trade, but a number of matters which range from navigation to safeguarding the rights of property, confiscation, and the like. None of those could have been dealt with in any other manner than by a bilateral arrangement. Further, the number of subscribers to Article 35 has rapidly dwindled and now we are left with Belgium, France and Austria in Western Europe.
Mr. Rankin: Is the hon. Member satisfied that the Treaty as it stands will govern the Japanese trade which comes to us through America?
Mr. Skeet: I think that the hon. Member will find that Japanese trade coming through America is an entirely different matter. It is exports from the United States from American resident companies which have been utilising what may be termed Japanese capital. I put forward the argument to the hon. Member that Americans in the United Kingdom have invested here and they produce £250 million worth of exports a year from resident companies. If we are to complain about Japanese exports from the United States, the argument can be put on the other foot and there could be legitimate complaints about American exports from the United Kingdom. One has to be careful about that argument.
I think the Japanese are treating this Treaty as putting their first foot forward in Europe. It was important to negotiate this Treaty with the United Kingdom preparatory to our entry into the Common Market.
Mr. Rankin: Are we going in?
Mr. Skeet: I think that we can be sanguine about these matters. It is perfectly right that we should be. Hon. Members, may refer to the protocol of signature 14, which reads:
"With reference to paragraph (3) of Article 29, a contracting party shall, before entering into any Customs Union, free trade area or agreement designed to lead thereto, inform the other of its plans in so far as they are relevent to the Treaty and give adequate opportunity for consultation about the effect of the terms of entry on the benefits which the other Contracting Party might expect to gain from the Treaty. The former Contracting Party shall also, after its entry, keep the latter informed of developments …"
Also, it is provided under Article 29 that any advantages secured in the Customs union or free trade area would not be extended under the Treaty in question. Maybe a calculation in the Japanese mind was that they might get an introduction to Europe through the United Kingdom. They have been extremely agile in approaching France and Italy.
Before the intervention by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) I wished to refer the hon.

1393
Member to the Financial Times of today, which says:
"The French Government today announced the removal of further quantative import restrictions for G.A.T.T. countries other than members of the O.E.C.D.
The new list includes 15 tariff headings and is designed to make concessions to third countries notably Japan.
Among items which will enter without restrictions into France are cork, certain artificial and synthetic textiles, steam generators and tractors."
It would appear that the French are also departing from Article 35 of the G.A.T.T. It may be that the lifting of certain restrictions in Western Germany and Italy will follow. My right hon. Friend must keep in line and regularise what has been proceeding.
There is another matter which we should consider carefully. The general structure of the industry in Japan which has been valuable in enabling that country to go ahead. The Mitsui, Mitsubishi and Sumitomo groups, which were well known before the war, have come to the fore again. They appear to have ready access to the banks or money which is needed. The right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) mentioned Japan's phenomenal record in exports. Between 1953 and 1961 exports advanced 232 per cent. compared with 42 per cent. in the United Kingdom. Production rose 217 per cent. compared with a much smaller figure here.
That does not put this country in a very good light. I underline, however, that while 40 per cent. of the gross national product in Japan was invested this occurred during a period of extremely high interest rates. During the summer the Bank Rate was 7·3 per cent. and the banks were lending to industry at something like 10 per cent.
Mr. Jay: I am sure the hon. Member knows that at the same time as these extremely high interest rates were being paid Japan had an extremely rapid expansion.
Mr. Skeet: Yes, it had an extremely rapid expansion and that has been facilitated in some way by having high interest rates and a very high rate of saving. Also, although Japan had a balance of payments problem, a lot of money was attracted to Japan by the high interest rate prevailing. We cannot discount the position of Japan and cannot afford to
1394
turn aside from such an important market. The Japanese seem to be altering the structure of their export trade. In 1959, the percentage of exports assignable to the light industrial products was 47 and to heavy industrial products and chemicals about 42. In Britain, the relative figures were 18 per cent. and 66 per cent., and in Western Germany, which is the best example of all, they were 15 per cent. and 74 per cent. The Japanese are following the British example. Being a very important industrial country, it will be suicidal for us to keep out of the Japanese market.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Govan is not now in his place, but I should say this in reference to his question. The Australians have made an advantageous contract with the Japanese covering the export of steel, coal and, I understand, iron ore. The New Zealanders have also made a rather satisfactory arrangement. This would lead eventually to the curtailment in some way of goods proceeding from the United Kingdom to Australasia. Another factor in reply to the intervention is that many Colonial Territories and separate sovereign States are safeguarded by Article 29, but when we consider the territories in Africa we find that there is no protection there for the United Kingdom because of the operation of the Congo Basin Treaties.
In other words, we should look at the situation well ahead in Europe. If we do, we see that we must deploy our resources successfully to get into this very important market. I do not know whether the right hon. Member for Battersea, North pointed this out, but production in Japan rose by 217 per cent. between 1953 and 1961, compared with a much lower figure in the United Kingdom. There is a possibility that it will not continue at that rate, but a growth rate between 9 per cent. and 10 per cent. per annum is very significant. It has been suggested by some economists that the standard of living in Japan may well be equal to our own in five or ten years.
The prospects have to be considered on a much broader front than was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. W. J. Taylor). Perhaps I should declare an interest in the matter. I am

1395
connected with the Machine Tools Trade Association, and I should be obscuring the issue if I did not point out that machine tools might do well out of a treaty of this nature. Chemical machinery and other engineering goods should also do remarkably *well. While textiles may come fourth, fifth or six in the United Kingdom export list today, in 1914 they were at the top. The heavy industries have taken pride of place in our exports. The Japanese are looking well ahead to the growth industries, and we must be very careful to see that we do not miss the opportunity of ensuring that our growth industries are helped.
7.27 p.m.
Mr. David Ginsburg: The hon. Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Skeet) asked us to take a broad view of the problem, and I am in general sympathy with him. I am not a protectionist, and I welcome any agreement which will have as a consequence the increase of international trade. I accept the fact, too, that this agreement though it contains features which I intensely dislike, should benefit wide sectors of British industry by providing them with a new and growing market in Japan—and I hope that that goes for the British wool textile industry, too.
I realise that there is a corollary to this. There will be growing Japanese imports into this country, which we must accept. I recognise, too, that this will mean some growth in Japanese wool textile imports into this country.
Having said that, I must declare that such a treaty creates problems in a constituency such as mine—perhaps even more than Bradford, which has been mentioned—where a third to 40 per cent. of the labour force are in the wool textile industry and where the Board of Trade, despite the travails through which we have passed in the wool textile industry and the heavy woollen industry locally—in 1952, again in 1958 and again at present—have steadfastly refused to undertake measures of industrial diversification. I should therefore be failing in my duty if I did not put this agreement under very careful scrutiny indeed. Here I am sure I am echoing the feelings of my colleague the hon. Member for Batley and Morley (Dr. Broughton), whose constituency
1396
reflects similar problems to those of my own.
This scrutiny is the more merited because the conduct of the Board of Trade in recent months towards the wool textile industry, and, I regret to say, towards hon. Members, has been far from admirable. I do want to pitch it too high, but there has been what I can only describe as an almost indecent haste to rush this Treaty through compared, say, with the Government's handling of the Common Market negotiations. The latter has been creditable compared with the rush which has taken place over the Anglo-Japanese Trade Treaty. Letters which I have in my possession from Ministers in the Board of Trade, even from the same Minister, give a divergent picture of what has been going on. The President made a helpful offer to discuss the problems of the wool textile industry with hon. Members. This offer, I regret to say, was conveniently forgotten in the hurry. I hope that it will be taken up at some point.
Because of this sorry chapter, I will only say that between now and the entry into force of the Treaty next year the President should take the opportunity of holding talks with people in the industry who understand the problem, and also with hon. Members who are intimately affected, to see what can be done to mitigate some of the hardships and anxieties whichh this treaty has occasioned.
In recent months I, and I imagine other hon. Members, advocated two courses of action to the President, which were rejected but which I think nevertheless should be placed on record. First, it was urged upon him—it is regrettable that he did net do this—that there could be a general global quota for all wool textile imports from Japan into this country. This global quota could have been extremely generous from the Japanese point of view. It could have been similar to the voluntary arrangements which the Board of Trade have entered into on cotton textiles with India, Pakistan and Hong Kong. The reason I urged a global quota is that a quota of this kind, stretching over a few years, would have given the industry some degree of certainty in which it could have planned its operations.
This brings me to the second course of action which was advocated to the Government and rejected. This quota need

1397
not have been an indefinite feature of our relations with Japan. The issue could have been reopened when the Common Market negotiations were concluded. Reference has been made today to the Common Market negotiations, and these affect not only the issue of Italian wool textile competition in this country, which is a very serious problem in my locality, but also the whole question of wool and cotton textiles from the Asian countries of the Commonwealth. I stress the prior obligation, which I believe everyone in the House would echo, which we have to India before Japan, and the fact that if certain Japanese discriminatory practices are not wholly abandoned—I say this in measured terms—there is already some evidence that India in the area of wool textiles could embark on a policy of artificially cheap wool textiles for export markets. This would be a very retrograde and undesirable development.
I want to say a few words about Japanese trade practices, which we think are undesirable. The general practice of remission of corporation tax on export profits applies to all Japanese industries. The Japanese say that this will lapse in 1964, but I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) in asking why the Japanese do not abandon this practice immediately on ratification of the treaty. It is not very much to ask, if the whole apparatus is to be dismantled anyway, and apparently dismantled not only in respect of this country but in respect of all countries concerned, even those with which Japan has not reached special trade agreements. Apart from that practice, with which the House is familiar, there is a whole range of other general and specific discriminatory Japanese trade practices, some of which have been mentioned today and some of which have not. The F.B.I. Report refers to discriminatory practices relating to credit and to interest rates and to depreciation.
I come to special measures affecting wool textiles. In correspondence which I have had with the President of the Board of Trade there was a specific denial in one of the letters which was sent about the existence of special discriminatory measures in Japan on wool textiles. I hope that when he replies the right hon. Gentleman will give us a frank explanation of these points. In
1398
particular, I should like him to comment on two things which I think are of great concern. The first is the high internal profit margins which exist in the Japanese wool textile industry, assisted by fantastically high import duties, and this enables Japan to export her products extremely cheaply.
Serious as that point I regard even more highly the immobilisation of Japanese capacity. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes), in an interjection, said that 40 per cent. of the Japanese productive textile capacity is immobilised by order of the Government, and this capacity may be put back into production in order to get profits on the home market on the basis of the export performance of the Japanese wool textile industry. Both these groups of discriminatory practices are serious, and before we part with this matter the House is entitled to some explanation of them.
I turn to the question of the sensitive list and of disruption. For better or worse the President rejected the proposal of a global quota. He created instead a limited list of sensitive items. It is worth quoting the World Wool Digest, which is produced by the International Wool Secretariat, which I assure hon. Members is impartial between various national industries. The Secretariat is as keen on the Japanese wool textile industry as on the British industry. Its article on the Treaty includes the phrase,
"The cotton and man-made fibre industries have fared better than the wool textile industry."
As my right hon. Friend said, only wool fabrics are on the sensitive list. All the rest, including the waste trades and blankets, an important feature from the point of view of my constituency —the blanket industry is centred in Dewsbury and the neighbourhood—must rely on the general safeguards against disruption if difficulties occur. I hope that I shall receive some approval—with apologies to my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton)—if I say that Dewsbury produces some of the best blankets in the world. The President knows of the anxiety about the possible import of Japanese blankets into this country, about which I have already written to him.
Despite the anxiety which we have about blankets—and I do not minimise

1399
it—the greatest anxiety is in the woollen cloth section, and particularly that section which supplies cloth for women's wear. In the area which I represent and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Morley, five major firms in the wool cloth industry have closed down in recent years. It may be—and I should like confirmation from the Minister on this—that ladies' woollen cloth is on the sensitive list, but garments, as the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) pointed out, are not. It is relevant to the discussion that Italian imports of woven woollen cloth have already increased very substantially in recent years.
That is not all. I expect that these Italian imports are bound to go up next year, should there be an upturn in the demand for wool textiles. This demand will increase even further if this country goes into the Common Market. As long as this competition with Italy is fair, we have, in the words of my constituents, to "take this on the chin".
When I wrote to the President of the Board of Trade, he said in reply:
"As regards your point about imports from Italy, in considering the composition of the sensitive list for the Japanese Treaty, we have taken into account the vulnerability of the various sections of the industries to competition from Japan, and, as explained in paragraph 6 of the note, it is the intention that the list should include those categories of wool goods where the risk of disruptive imports is greatest. There will, of course, be quotas for the products included in the sensitive list."
I have argued, as the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West has argued, that the restriction which has been imposed on the imports of woven woollen clothing is not adequate if garments are to come in unrestricted, because that, in itself, will disrupt the industry.
One other thing must be said about disruption. The industry has explained the difficulty which exists in detecting disruption quickly along the lines of the production chain. It takes a long time in manufacture before the lack of orders affects the intermediate stages of production. I hope the Minister will study this month's World Wool Digest of the International Wool Secretariat, because he will learn something which will bear this out. I refer him to page 205 to an article, not on the Anglo-Japanese Treaty but on the position today in wool textiles
1400
and the situation created owing to lack of demand.
This study refers to the possibility of an upturn in the industry at the present time, and it states that it is already statistically just visible in that section where the gap between the raw materials and the retailer is shortest—in other words, for example, in the knitwear section. It is pointed out that it is not yet visible where there is a long process of production. The extraordinary thing about the Government is that knitted fabrics, where the distance from the raw materials to the retailer is comparatively short, and where I should have thought disruption was quickly detectable, are on the sensitive list, whereas there are many other sections such as I have mentioned in the wool textile industry as a whole, where disruption takes far longer to detect, but which are not on the list.
What about the future? I have on previous occasions harried the President of the Board of Trade, and I shall on perhaps other and more suitable occasions continue to harry him, about his neglect of the heavy wollen district and its industrial problems. On the Anglo-Japanese Treaty, I conclude by saying, firstly, that the safeguards that we have are not good enough. Secondly, I urge the right hon. Gentleman to seek even now an extension of the sensitive list and to examine the possibilities of including in it the importation of woollen garments. Thirdly, I urge him to improve his technique for identifying disruption and unfair competition. Here, I think two points can be made. First, in regard to our Embassy in Tokyo, there is a need for fuller reports on Japanese commercial practices and the speedy evaluation of them. Perhaps the Minister could tell us when he replies the number of the staff in the Embassy in Tokyo to deal with this matter, and whether there are economists and statisticians who can report to the Board of Trade.
Mr. Maurice Edelman: May I tell my hon. Friend that When I was in Tokyo in connection with my own constituency, I had the greatest help from the Commercial Attaché, who, I think, was absolutely first-class?
Mr. Ginsburg: There is nothing in what I have said which is an attack on the British Embassy in Tokyo. What

1401
I was asking, and what I think it is legitimate to ask, is that we should be sure that there is an adequate staff to give the Board of Trade the sort of information about economic practices in the Japanese wool textile industry which will enable us here to judge whether unfair competition is taking place. That is essential, but it is essential to do another thing, which is necessary to assist the wool textile industry. It is that we require much quicker figures about the disruption that is taking place at home. The President of the Board of Trade may remember—and this goes for his predecessor, too—that on many occasions I have urged in Questions that the picture of the net new orders for clothing and textiles should be broken down separately as for cotton and wool. Cotton and wool and clothing should be shown separately. This has been rejected, now it is quite clear that this refusal was perfectly ridiculous.
Will the Government, if necessary, convene a meeting between the experts of the industry, the Board of Trade and Customs and Excise, which is intimately involved in this matter, to produce, at least for the next few years, a special series of figures which will reflect, to the satisfaction of hon. Members and their constituents, the sharp changes in the situation? It is not very much to ask. The President ignored the interests of our constituents in hurrying this Treaty through. Let him now at least burn some midnight oil in order to relieve unnecessary anxiety.
7.47 p.m.
Mr. Marcus Worsley: The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Ginsburg) started by saying, and in this he was echoing what many other speakers in the debate have said, that in general he supported this Treaty, and I am in agreement with him on that. I am sure that it would be disastrous if those of us with strong wool textile interests in our constituencies allowed the impression to get around that, at the expense of other industries, we want to put a spoke in the Treaty. We realise clearly enough that even in the West Riding, there are many other industries which will benefit enormously. For instance, my own constituency has machine tools and my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Skeet) has listed
1402
that industry as one that might particularly benefit.
It is not the general issue of the Treaty on which we are criticising the Government. Without doubt, the general economic case has been made. The hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) talked rather as if this was a political case and as if the economic effects would be bad. I do not believe there is anything in that. I think that the general economic case for a commercial Treaty with Japan, is made without any possibility of doubt, but on the details there are many of us in the West Riding who are still unconvinced that, in many cases, the problem has been fully understood. I hope that when my right hon. Friend winds up the debate, he will have more to say on quite a number of issues that concern us. I hope he will begin by explaining why in the whole field of textiles only wool yarns and wool tops are not on the sensitive list. Will he explain why these should be singled out from the general textile field for exceptional treatment? That is the justifiable way of looking at it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, East said that the proportion of our exports in textiles had fallen. Maybe he is right, but if he will break down the figures as between wool and other textiles, he will find there is a very wide difference. It seems to be very strange that the Government could single out that section of the wool industry with the best export record and should not give it, by putting it on the sensitive list, the treatment which it might reasonably expect.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will have much more to say about the working of the general safeguards. Paragraph 7 of the general safeguard contains everything which could possibly be expected or hoped for in a safeguard of this type. Within seven days action can be taken. In general terms, I do not think that I shall be challenged if I say that no treaty of this sort has ever had such a strong safeguard, but there are many questions as to its operation to which we have not yet had satisfactory answers.
The essence of the strength of this safeguard lies in the fact that a threat of serious injury is sufficient cause for

1403
action. There is no need to wait until injury has been caused. If this is the teeth of the safeguard, everything depends on realising when a threat is in the offing. We have heard nothing from the Government about how a threat is to be diagnosed before its happens. This is what we want to know about. Whatever else the Government say, I hope that they will not say that this is purely a matter for the industry itself to find out. The safeguard has been devised by the Government, and it is up to them to identify the means by which it is to be worked.
I want to refer to Japanese practices, to which the hon. Member for Dewsbury referred. It has been made clear by West Riding Members that the West Riding wool textile industry is ready for competition with the rest of the world, welcomes it, and knows that it can defeat it. What people in the West Riding are not satisfied about is that many of the practices which the Japanese used in the past, which are against either the spirit or the letter of G.A.T.T., will end. We do not understand why the greater part of a year has to elapse between the coming into force of the Treaty and the ending of this enormous tax concession from which the Japanese exporter benefits.
The hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow), in a most interesting speech, said that the Japanese were anxious to be thought of as a reformed trading nation. I am sure that he is right, but it is a very funny start to being a reformed trading nation, in the eyes at least of the West Riding of Yorkshire, that nine months must elapse between our accepting Japan as a member of the club and its adopting the club rules.
This I do not understand. Still less do I understand the apparent agreement of the Government to the proposition that the signature of the G.A.T.T. Declaration on Export Subsidies can also be delayed for nine months. There may be technical tax reasons which cannot be overcame in the case of the tax concession. I should very much like to know what they are. There can be no technical reasons for not insisting that the G.A.T.T. Declaration on Export Subsidies is signed by the day we ratify the Treaty.
Mr. Snow: I made the same point. I myself was surprised. However, it is fair to point out from the Japanese point of view that, just as we are raising this point at present, they could equally well raise with their Government the fact that they themselves are not demanding a sensitive list. They have not got one.
Mr. Worsley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I quite understand that there are two sides to the issue. However, the hon. Gentleman said—it is a perfectly valid point—that the Japanese are interested in being thought to be a nation trading by Western standards. My point is that the nine months gap, which can be of no read value, looks bad from our point of view. It would be such a useful step by the Japanese if they were to say that they would bring it forward to the date of the signing of the Treaty.
I am very concerned about the question raised by the hon. Member for Dewsbury of the sealing of machinery. It has not yet been made clear by the Government whether this proceeding is contrary to the letter of G.A.T.T. It is clearly absolutely contrary to its spirit. Have the Government taken steps to see whether the Japanese will stop this practice? This is a straight export incentive. These looms are sealed under Government control. They are released in keeping with export performance. This is so clearly against the whole idea behind the G.A.T.T. Declaration that the Government should take action to persuade the Japanese that we cannot accept this. I understand that it may be outside the letter, because this is a very peculiar method of export incentives which I do not suppose anybody else has ever thought of. If we are to be persuaded that Japan is a country which is working to international standards in trading, we must also be satisfied that the Japanese do not think up bright little ideas to get round the letter of the G.A.T.T. Declaration. We must be persuaded also that the Government appreciate the urgency and importance of a movement in this direction.
These are my main points. I repeat that we in the West Riding are not attacking the idea of a Treaty. We think that a Treaty is a good thing. However, at the moment we remain quite unconvinced about very many of the details and we expect in the winding up speech tonight

1405
much more flesh to add to the bare bones which we have so far heard of the working both of the safeguards and of the provisions about trading practices to which I have referred.
7.58 p.m.
Mr. Maurice Edelman: The debate has very much in common with the debates we have had on the Common Market and which no doubt we shall have in future. Time and time again, during the course of our discussion this afternoon, the question of safeguards has arisen. When dealing with the liberalisation of trade it is inevitable that the question of safeguards should arise. We ask ourselves how efficient they are likely to be and whether they will be adequate. I have very much sympathy with those hon. Gentlemen who have grave doubts and profound anxieties about the effect of the Anglo-Japanese Treaty on the interests of the woollen industry which they represent.
For my own part, if I speak only from the point of view of a constituency Member, I must declare straight away that Coventry will certainly benefit greatly from the Treaty. Our machine tool industry will benefit to a very great extent. Our motor car industry will benefit from the increased quota. Above all—we have great hopes for this, particularly in the difficult times through which we are passing—the aircraft industry hopes very much that Japan will buy British aircraft and will indeed become one of our leading customers.
I cannot help feeling that in considering the Treaty we have not only to rid ourselves of any parochial considerations but, even more, we must try to associate the commercial aspects of the Treaty with its political aspects. I do not think that those can be readily brushed aside.
One of the major questions is what place Japan is to have in the world of tomorrow. I was there only a month ago and I discussed some of these questions with Japanese politicians, industrialists and representatives of trade unions. I came away with the feeling that at this moment in history we have a great opportunity to establish relations with Japan which will, in fact, be of the greatest mutual benefit.
For many years after the war Japan was sustained by American investment and American interests generally. The
1406
phenomenal rise in Japanese production is not entirely due to Japanese talent. It has much to do with the fact that, like the Germans, the Japanese had no burden of defence. They were sustained to a great extent by foreign capital. Much of their industry had been demolished or destroyed by fire. The result was that the Japanese were able to re-equip their industry, in many cases from scratch, and so become one of the most advanced industrial countries not only in the East, but in the whole world.
After seventeen years or so the American interest is beginning to flag. The Americans, no longer regarding Japan as purely their own domain, are beginning to feel that the cost of supporting Japan is something which the Japanese must begin to bear on their own. For this reason, they have been encouraging the Japanese to look outwards in order to reinforce their economy.
For these reasons, Mr. Ikeda has visited both Britain and the Common Market countries. Japanese delegations have gone to China to see what trade can be done with China. These explorations by the Japanese must be associated with the tremendous pressure of population in Japan. One of the most striking things about any Japanese city is the tremendous build-up of population. During the course of the industrialisation of Japan, farmers and peasants have moved into the cities. The result is that today Japan has probably one of the highest densities of population in the world. Whereas Japan has an area only two thirds that of France, its population is about 93 million.
We must also recall one fact which I personally regard as tragic. In the last few years the Japanese have had their so-called eugenics law, which legalises abortion and which has kept down the rising population. One of the appalling things one notices on a visit to Japan is that this great, vigorous and dynamic nation is contained in a small island like we are. They are a people who, to preserve their place in the world, have to resort to such remarkable efforts as the introduction of an abortion law, with legalised abortion, plus the free issue of contraceptives, and so on. We must consider these facts in the context of the world as it is today. Countries around

1407
Japan will not admit Japanese immigrants. The moment has come when, if Japan is really to be kept within the area of Western influence and interests, something must be done to reaccept Japan as an equal partner in the comity of nations. One of the first things to be done to achieve that is to give the Japanese the opportunity of trade.
Very properly, reference has been made to the pre-war Japan which made itself notorious for copying, for imitating, and for unfair trade practices. I can well understand the anxieties of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith), who referred to that period and those practices and expressed his doubts about them. But we must consider whether the Japan with which we are dealing today is the identical Japan with the Japan of which we complained yesterday.
During my observation, limited though it was, I got the impression that the Japanese are making a tremendous effort to correct the errors and malpractices of the past. I think that they are conscious of it. I believe that in the discussions the Board of Trade has pointed out how public opinion here has been outraged by the fact that the Japanese have imitated and copied, have abused our patent law, and so on—
Dr. Stross: Certainly, in North Staffordshire we have found over the past eight years hardly any case at all of the copying of our designs.
Mr. Edelman: I welcome my hon. Friend's intervention, because it tends to confirm that there is a new mood in Japan, and that it is a mood that may well make the safeguards incorporated in the Treaty more effective than would be safeguards that had to be exercised, metaphorically, at the point of the pistol.
When I was in Japan, I was received by the Foreign Secretary, and I spoke to members of the Diet. All of them seemed absolutely conscious that if they were to renew their trade links with Europe—and, above all, with this country—it was absolutely necessary for them to do away with those practices of the past that caused so much justified resentment in this country; and that they would have to apply themselves to accepting
1408
the rules of the club incorporated in the Treaty.
That, alone, is not enough if we are to make this Treaty of mutual advantage. The question has always been whether it is possible for two highly-sophisticated industrial countries to engage in complementary trade. When we consider this Treaty entirely in the image of the past, we think of the sweated labour of young girls earning wages far below even the lowest paid in this country, and see a sort of nightmare of a mass entry of cheap Japanese goods, produced by unfair practices, which will damage our own legitimate interests. In fact, I believe that the whole pattern of Japanese trade—and certainly the intention in regard to exports—is changing. The whole pattern of Japanese industry is changing. The emphasis is now being put on much more highly developed products than were made in the past.
I was interested when my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South referred to Mr. Walther Reuther, quoting the case of the garment workers of America, who are concerned about unfair Japanese competition. Mr. Reuther, of course, made no reference to his own trade, the motor car industry, the reason being that in the metal-working trades in Japan the rates of pay are very much nearer those of Western Europe, although I would not say the same in relation to Coventry.
In many allied industries, where high skills are required, the average labour cost is much nearer that of Western Europe than, certainly, to the wages paid in the low-priced textile industries. That is already an advance, and if the emphasis of our trade with Japan is to be laid on the more highly sophisticated products, there is a good chance that we will expand our commerce in motor cars, machine tools and, as I have said, aviation—
Mr. Snow: In quoting, or requoting, what Mr. Reuther thinks on the subject, my hon. Friend will no doubt also remember that it was not so many years ago that certain American industrialists were complaining against British competition because of the allegedly lower wage rates here as compared with America. Surely the whole thing should

1409
be viewed in the perspective of the cost of living and social customs of each country.
Mr. Edelman: I think that if we are to trade, we cannot demand absolutely that every foreign country we trade with shall have a standard of living identical with our own.
That brings me to the Common Market. I found the Japanese greatly concerned with the possibility that they might be excluded from the benefits of the Common Market. I was constantly asked, "Will the Common Market be an inward-looking body? Will it exclude us from Europe? What are our chances?" I believe that, on balance, the British interest is against going into the Common Market, because the safeguards are inadequate. On the other hand, I believe that the balancing advantage is for accepting the Japanese Treaty, because it contains not only very powerful safeguards, but controls.
I do not want to talk at length about the Common Market, but it seems to me that some of the safeguards apparently written into the Treaty of Rome are safeguards to the extent that they may be safeguards which can be determined by bodies outside our own influence. With the Japanese Treaty, we have a completely different situation. We have a situation in which the safeguards are to a very great extent controlled by ourselves. They depend on a mutually smooth development out of the Treaty, as I hope will be the case, and I believe that the general result will be a wider extension of trade between the two countries than ever before.
I have just recently been reading the report of the London and Birmingham Chambers of Commerce. It is an excellent and comprehensive report, which I recommend to every business man who is concerned with trade with Japan. It sets out very fairly and accurately both the cost of production in Japan and the cost of production of the particular commodities in which there might be expansion. Above all, it seems to be a well-written and profound document, by which any one reading it would find himself convinced of the value of our prospective trade with the Japanese.
One thing that has not been mentioned today is the Japanese ten-year plan. That
1410
plan is of great interest, because it shows the relative increases in imports which the Japanese hope to undertake within the next ten years. It seems to me that these must inevitably be to our advantage. I shall not give a lot of statistics, but perhaps I may give one or two instances. It is intended to expand imports of finished products into Japan from £168 million worth in 1959 to £832 million worth in 1970. It is intended to raise the importation of semi-finished products from a value of £111 million in 1959 to £390 million in 1970.
These are substantial figures. It is never possible to be sure that the intention of doubling the standard of living, which is as much a Japanese intention as a British purpose, can be achieved, but if we consider the rate of expansion we have seen in Japan in the last ten years there is no reason to believe that it will not continue to develop in the coming ten years.
I believe that liberalisation can be highly dangerous if it leads to the cutthroat competition about which hon. Members on both sides have complained, but liberalisation, if accompanied by division of labour, can be something of the greatest value. While, at the outset, I referred to whether it was possible for two highly-industrialised nations to do mutual trade to their advantage, perhaps I can now say that it is possible, provided that there is some kind of consistent plan by which the two countries can decide what are the complementary aspects of their trade on which each can put emphasis.
In that connection, perhaps I can refer to a suggestion made by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade). I believe that this Treaty can be made to work really effectively only if there is constant supervision of the safeguards. It is not enough to incorporate safeguards in the Treaty and for the Board of Trade then to go to sleep. It is absolutely essential that there should be a joint standing committee, consisting of representatives of the trade unions, the British employers, the Japanese employers, the Board of Trade and the Ministry of foreign Trade in Japan.
The committee should not necessarily be in permanent residence, but should exercise a constant watching brief over the operations of the Treaty. I believe

1411
that any manufacturer here or in Japan should be able at any time to advance an objection in the event of the Treaty being abused, and if such an objection were able to receive immediate attention we would have a most effective safeguard.
I think that this Treaty will be of the greatest advantage to Britain, whether or not we go into the Common Market. I believe that, commercially, it will provide substantial advantages not only to the metal-working industries but, I hope, eventually even to the textile industries. It will be of great benefit to our economy as a whole, and it must also provide advantages to Japan which, both politically and commercially, will be of benefit. For these reasons, I warmly welcome the Treaty.
8.16 p.m.
Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: I was glad to hear further words of welcome for this Treaty from the other side of the House, because I think that it would be very improper if our friends in Japan, and we have many, got the impression from this House that the whole country was against the Treaty. I have the greatest respect for the West Riding of Yorkshire, having lived there for ten years, but we have heard half a dozen hon. Members representing West Riding divisions, as well as Stoke-on-Trent, expressing their fears and doubts about it. I would only say that the West Riding and Stoke-on-Trent do not represent England.
We have to throw over some old habits of thought, and some of the phrases that may have been used in the 'thirties. Today, it is no use passing resolutions about slave labour in Japan. The basic wage rate there may be low, but bonuses bring the general rate of pay to quite a high level. We must also remember that, on the whole, companies in Japan employ many more people than we do—I should say that, broadly, they are over-staffed. There has also been an amazing difference in the atmosphere between Australia and Japan. Two countries at daggers drawn only a few years ago now have the closest relations, and Australia has more trade with Japan than she has with this country. The patterns of trade in the Eastern Hemisphere have absolutely changed in the last ten years.
1412
I am a great enthusiast for Anglo-Japanese trade, and I think that it can be much improved in the future. My interest was aroused two years ago when I attended the Inter-Parliamentary Union Conference and spent a day or two after the Conference looking into the question of the import of British machine tools into Japan on behalf of a company which I represented. I was surprised to find that British machine tool prices were highly competitive with the Japanese, and, in some cases, under them. I also found that we could give better delivery than either Germany or Sweden, whose machine tools were also being imported. A great number of European countries are now sending machine tools to Japan, so there must be a market for them there. There is a great opportunity in Japan for this industry, and a company with which I am associated is only waiting for further liberalisation to get more Japanese orders for machine tools.
I am sorry that over the last ten or fifteen years the British nation, as a whole, has not entered into these technical agreements that could have been entered into had a little more initiative been shown. The U.S.A. has entered into 900 such agreements, and it is a great pity that we have taken up only about 50. I interrupted my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) to mention an agreement of which I knew something in a company with which I am connected. For the last twelve years, the Hillman Motor Company has had an agreement with the Izuzu Company for the manufacture of Hillman cars. Not only is the Izuzu Company making some 8,000 to 10,000 ears a year, but is making them very well—just as well as they are made in Coventry. They have been paying scrupulous attention to the specifications of the cars and have even made suggestions for their improvement, and they have paid their royalties on the dot, which has helped the Hillman Motor Company. The interesting point is that the Hillman car made in Tokyo is considerably more expensive than when it is made in Coventry. This therefore leads me to think that there is room for British motor cars to be exported to Japan if we have the opportunity so to do.
It is perfectly obvious that Japan is in for an era of great expansion. If

1413
the curves of our expansion and Japanese expansion are carried up the graph, I believe that by 1970 the Japanese will have as high a standard as we have, and presumably by 1971 a higher standard. It would be madness in our policy not to take pant in and share in this prosperity that is happening in the Pacific. We should play our part in it. None of us wants to see the wool textiles industry in this country hurt. The industry has had such a wonderful production and export record in the last few years that I believe in the end its fears will be dissipated. But if the industry Chas to take the rap to some extent, we must make up that hurt by more exports in engineering and machine tools. I believe that that can be done.
Just as in the last few years Lancashire has become predominantly an engineering county rather than a textile county, so I suppose engineering goods will have to take the place of woollens. But I have great hopes that the loudly voiced fears of the West Riding will not be justified and that the Government will be able to take action if required to safeguard our friends in the woollen industry. I am absolutely convinced that the Treaty is right and 'that we should share in the growing prosperity of Japan.
8.22 p.m.
Dr. Barnett Stross: It is natural for the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) to feel very optimistic about the working of and the ultimate benefits to be obtained from the Anglo-Japanese Commercial Treaty. The reason why he can feel optimistic and have little anxiety is that he speaks about machine tools, engineering and the motor car. These are the recent products of the modern part of our Industrial Revolution and the latest products associated with the second, electronics, revolution. But the hon. Member must understand why we who represent constituencies where the old industries are located, whether in the West Riding or parts of Lancashire or North Staffordshire, are naturally anxious at first sight.
I know that the President of the Board of Trade will take note that this does not mean that we are not anxious to see general world liberalisation of trade or
1414
that we are not anxious to trade with Japan and have reciprocal benefits as a result. But we cannot hide from ourselves that we must be anxious about what will happen in the immediate future. If we could replace certain old-fashioned factories in Stoke-on-Trent, see them closed down and our workers overnight retrained and used fully by the most modern forms of industry, my colleagues and I would be delighted. But when the hon. Member for Twicken-ham talks of this happening gradually in Lancashire he must remember that it is a painful process and does not happen overnight.
I am delighted to see the President of the Board of Trade in his place. I want to ask him a few questions. Could he give us any idea of what he would think would be a disruptive element by way of imports? Would it be 20 per cent. of our total manufacture in this country being displaced, or 30 per cent. or 10 per cent.? Or does the right hon. Gentleman feel that he has to wait and see and listen to the protests of the industrialists concerned and of hon. Members who represent them and the workers in the area?
I wonder why the right hon. Gentleman did not in any way directly have discussions with the trade union known as the National Society of Pottery Workers of Great Britain? I should have thought that it merited some consultation. It may be that the right hon. Gentleman, by using the word "indirectly", or assuming that there had been indirect consultation, knows something which I do not know. I am sure that my colleagues as well as myself would be glad to hear of it.
When the right hon. Gentleman looks at the quotas for the next few years, does he bear in mind that although they do not look significant in terms of cash, when it comes to terms of volume they must be multiplied by three? The hon. Member for Twickenham did not think it possible that the Japanese would be able to send into this country pottery at a third of the price at which we sell it here. But that is true, and therefore these quotas must be multiplied by three to appreciate their volume.
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, at present we are importing the equivalent of about 10 per cent. of the pottery

1415
manufactured and sold on the home market, that is about £2 million worth, in terms of volume. Are these quotas to be in addition to that? Does the phrase "ceramic toys" include the sort of fancy statuettes and other fancy goods which the Japanese tend to export, which we have been importing for quite a long time and against which we cannot compete on price? If they are included in what is already the quota, there will not be apparently a much greater addition, but if this is a fresh impost and another burden it would be most serious. If the right hon. Gentleman feels that he cannot answer me in this debate I should be happy if he would write to me and let me know what is the true situation.
These ornaments and figurines, as they are known in the trade, are very susceptible indeed to competition of this kind. It may be that some of our smaller factories will have to close as a result of this Treaty, and that is not a pleasant fact to face. If in 1965 there is to be a total quota of £400,000, which should be multiplied by three to get the volume in comparison with our own prices, it seems to me that an extra 10 per cent. at least will be imported of tea sets, dinner services and figurines, leaving us with at the most three-quarters of our former market at home in Britain.
Then there is the strange phrase that there is to be complete freedom for the importation of Japanese ware of traditional Japanese type. Could the President of the Board of Trade give us information about this tonight? Is he intending to ask the industry to find out by discussing the matter with the Japanese industry? That might be the best way, of course. Will our manufacturers go over to Japan to find out what the Japanese mean by voluntary control after 1968? What is the Japanese view today about how it will work? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman has a very clear picture of how it will work.
I know that the Japanese have machinery by which they can decisively control whatever they wish, and I know that our Government think that they use it quite fairly and that they keep their word about it. If that be true, and if regular agreements can be made between the two industries, I can see the possi-
1416
bility of avoiding absolute catastrophe in our own industry. If they were to fail, however, and there were not a rescue operation of the type envisaged in the White Paper, then, of course, we should be destroyed or sustain a most severe blow.
I accept at once that the way the safeguards are worded and the fact that pottery has been put on the sensitive list indicates that there is machinery for rescue, but when the Minister of State opened the debate he made clear, I thought, that the Government will not look at any representations unless we are being really hurt. That was the impression I gained when he spoke, and I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) will agree with me. We want to know what is the point at which something will be done. What have we to do? Will the Government themselves watch to see what is happening? Will there be machinery, apart from what is envisaged in the White Paper, by which they will have regular returns and know what is going on?
I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will forgive my asking him all these questions. He must understand, as his hon. Friend rightly said in opening, that there are industries which are extremely anxious. Any words of comfort which he can give we shall be very glad to have. The workers in North Staffordshire are extremely skilled and adaptable. If there is to be any contraction in our age-old industry, the President of the Board of Trade will expect us to urge him, as we shall with great vigour, to bring new industries of the most modern type to us so that we may take advantage of the skilled labour in our area.
8.33 p.m.
Mr. J. T. Price: I have listened to most of the debate, and, at this time of the evening, after we have had some very good speeches from both sides of the House, it would be an impertinence on my part if I were to detain the House for very long. Many things have been said which I should have wished to say, and, perhaps, they have been said in language more eloquent than I could command. The Government should be grateful to hon. Members on both sides of the House of

1417
Commons for the candour and forthrightness of some of the speeches which have been delivered expressing the anxieties and fears of hon. Members in all parts of the House about the Treaty.
Nothing could better illustrate the dilemma, which faces us than this debate. On the one hand, we agree in an abstract sort of way with the ideal of the unity of mankind and the desirability of creating a world in which trade barriers are swept away and national animosities melt into nothing. On the other hand, when we try to construct the machinery for bringing about those desirable aims, we immediately run into difficulty. This Treaty is a classic illustration of the dilemma.
When I first came to the House nearly 12 years ago, one of the first pieces of business which confronted me as a new Member was the Treaty with Japan which had then been signed in San Francisco, after all the dislocation of the world war which had ended not very long before. I confess now to my colleagues in the House that I committed then what has, I think, been the only act of insubordination during my period here to which I can plead guilty. Even in those days, 12 years ago, I had very serious doubts and inhibitions about the wisdom of that Treaty. I refused to vote for it.
I do not suppose that this Treaty will go to the vote tonight, so perhaps my embarrassment will thereby be somewhat relieved. Twelve years ago, I felt that it was a perilous step for a British Government to take, and I registered my objection to it in the only democratic way open to me as a Member of Parliament.
Dr. Stross: Was there not another democratic way open to my hon. Friend, namely, to move the rejection of the Treaty and vote against it, as I and my hon. Friepd the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) did?
Mr. Price: I accept what my hon. Friend says, but, of course, in those days I was just a novice who did not know the ropes. I have learned a good deal about the ropes since then, and I do not like some of them very much. Neverthelss, I feel that we have to take them into account.
1418
I regret having to say that, cherishing, as I always have, the ideals of the brotherhood of man and the need to promote a better society throughout the whole world, I found that the results of that other Treaty with the Japanese were not only oppressive but were, indeed, disastrous to the people I represented in Lancashire. During the intervening years, as the President of the Board of Trade knows, he and his predecessors have been good enough to receive me with various delegations which have gone to him to protest against what has been coming from Asiatic sources and what has been happening to our native textile industries in Lancashire which have been three-quarters annihilated by the unfair competition under the previous arrangements which we have had to face.
It is all very well to look at the matter in an abstract academic way and talk blandly of the liberalisation of trade. If anyone were to ask me whether I believed in the liberalisation of trade, I should reply that I definitely did. I regard it as a desirable end in itself. Nevertheless, when I see the results of the partial liberalisation of trade between a country with a low-wage economy which has not attained the standard of wages or conditions which we have here as the fruit of 200 years of struggle—and which have been not only disrupted but three-quarters destroyed ass a consequence—then I am critical of any further dose of that sort of medicine.
I am advised by my hon. Friends who have spoken in this debate, some on the technical aspects of the Treaty as it affects particular trades, that, taken by and large, if Britain ratifies this Treaty —and I assume it is the intention of the Government to ratify it—in 12 months' time we shall have freer access to this large market which undoubtedly exists in the Far East, and in a country with 100 million population, a country which has made immense progress, particularly in the post-war years, a country which up to 50 years ago had a closed door to the rest of the world. It is a strange irony of history that this Asiatic country, which has vastly increased its population, and has shown such tremendous industrial progress, by ingenuity, enterprise, and by sheer merit, I would admit, and which had a closed door to the world until only a few decades ago, today wants an open door to the world.

1419
Frankly, I do not like the results of that open door. The President of the Board of Trade knows my view on this, because I have expressed them to him on many occasions.
I wish to say a few words about my own part of Lancashire where we still have the remnants of a cotton textile industry, which is very much smaller, much more contracted, and very much less likely to provide a livelihood to many people. However, we also have a making-up industry. One or two hon. Members have drawn the attention of the President of the Board of Trade to what is a vital question, because this making-up industry is not situated only in the West Riding of Yorkshire, where some of the finest wool cloth in the world is fabricated and made up; it is diffused in various centres all over the country. In my part of Lancashire there are firms of the highest reputation and integrity, long-established firms, which are in the greatest state of anxiety about whether they will be able to carry on their making-up industry at all once the Treaty comes into operation. I do not think these anxieties are felt because of conclusions reached lightly, but I believe they have been arrived at after close, professional, scientific evaluation of the factors likely to apply.
Perhaps it would be as well if someone in this debate said—if it has not been said during my absence—that, for instance, if I make a contract with anybody, in any connection, whether it be a civil contract or a contract in public life or in any other connection, I want to be reasonably sure that the other party who makes the contract with me is going to keep the terms of that contract. All our experience in the past has shown that, however skilfully devised the treaties may have been, in treaty arrangements with Japan the Japanese have always found an ingenious way of getting round them.
I say quite frankly and without apology that my difficulty in this debate is not so much the difficulty of understanding the technical and the trade possibilities which may open to us in the future, but my difficulty is the feeling, how far I can trust the agreement, as at present arrived at, being kept by the Japanese, when the President
1420
of the Board of Trade's colleague in the Ministry has not given us any clear indication at all—I hope that he is going to improve on this—as to what is the intention of the Board of Trade in pulling down the trade defences of Britain. After all, we are British Members of Parliament representing British capital and British workers and British industry.
When I remember the ingenious devices which have been employed in the past by the Japanese to subsidise exports, such as by the double-pricing system, and by preferential rates of interest, and to give subsidies by way of tax remissions if export quotas reach more than a certain ceiling, and when I am told that all these devices have been discussed, no doubt by the officials in the Ministry, I wonder, where do we get to? We seem to keep having a sort of vague undertaking only, that after the end of 12 months it may be the intention of the Japanese Government to discontinue these practices. Why do they want 12 months? I Should imagine that this is in line with the usual Oriental approach to these questions.
After all, I heard one hon. Member say tonight, rather naively, that we did not think in the same terms as the Japanese, that they do not take the same view of treaties as we do. Of course they do not. The Oriental mind is something quite different from the Western mind. The codes of commercial probity and integrity and honesty which we try to respect here are not respected by everyone. I am not saying that is right or wrong. It merely happens to be so. Are we to rely on undertakings of that kind? They are about as legally binding and reliable as such undertakings as one Minister has been receiving in the negotiations during the past 12 months—and I refer to the Common Market.
Unless we can have a clearer picture of the likely effect of this Treaty on the textile industry in particular—what is left of it—it cannot be justifiable policy for any Government to enter into trade negotiations by which, in the name of liberalisation of trade, one section of the population in one part of the country already hard hit is asked to bear the main burden of that liberalisation.
I have said on many occasions that for 10 years the cotton textile industry

1421
has been regarded by the Government as an expendable factor in international trade. It has been sacrificed to the demands of the capital goods industries who have wanted to allow a flood of cheap Oriental imports into this country to pay for their exports. It is significant that although the process has gone to extreme limits in the case of cotton textiles, it as now being followed by exposing the whole textile industry to the same kind of unfair competition which ruined, frustrated and dislocated the cotton textile industry. The fears of hon. Members from the West Riding are fully justified, and I support them.
I have risen at this stage of the debate merely to give my support to those who have spoken of the Treaty critically and to say that anything which in the final result has the outcome of reducing the employment of our people or of threatening their standard of living is bad business for the British people. There may be compensating advantages, but I am by no means persuaded by anything which has been said from the Treasury Bench today that the final outcome will be to the advantage of the British people.
I must confess that I am sceptical and hostile. While I am liberal-minded enough to confess that certain things might be desirable in the long run, it is no doubt desirable to go to Heaven, but it is for those who are experts in theology to explain the route by which we go to Heaven. I am not sure what is the right way of getting complete liberalisation of trade throughout the world, and perhaps the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) can help me.
Mr. Hirst: We would not need lifebelts with false trade marks.
Mr. Price: I must not be dragged into that. I ask the President of the Board of Trade for some answers to the people who have raised the vital questions. How far can we trust the Japanese to keep the Treaty and what are likely to be the results in terms of employment and trade for our own people in our native industries?
8.48 p.m.
Mr. H. Rhodes: I have found it amusing today to know that I should be called whether I liked it or not, for tomorrow or next week
1422
I shall be bobbing up and down on the back benches and not being called at all. The opportunity now presents itself to patronise my right hon. and hon. Friends and to say that there have been many good speeches today, but I shall not start on that game because many of the speeches today have probably been a jolly sight better than that which I shall make.
To the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Ginsburg), who mentioned blankets being on the sensitive list—I notice that he is not in his place—I would say that as far as I am concerned blankets are top of the list for sensitivity. I spent last night in the Palace of Westminster lying on a bench having been dished out with two of the tattiest Army blankets which it has ever been my privilege to see, even when I was a private soldier. I recommend the hon. Member for Dewsbury to go in for a little home trade and get a few contracts for blankets from the House of Commons, so that when hon. Members are fogbound they can at least have a good blanket to cover them, even if they have to lie on a bench all night.
Mr. John McCann: A Lancashire blanket.
Mr. Rhodes: I would not say that.
Hon. Members opposite are keen on some aspects of trade, but I would advise them not to be too cock-a-hoop. Something is coming out of Japan which will cause them a little apprehension before the next Parliament is finished. I well remember hon. Members from cotton areas trying to elicit the support of other hon. Members when the cotton trade was going through a bad spell. We could not get it from the Coventry Members, who told us that they belonged to a very up-to-date industry. But two years later the Coventry Members were asking us for our support—as was the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke).
This Treaty is the logical outcome of six years of keen negotiation. It is not acceptable to everybody, as must be clear to anyone who has heard the debate. Members with constituency, trade union, or business interests have all expressed their apprehensions about the Treaty's possible consequences. In the main, the voices which have been heard today have

1423
been northern voices, the North which is so much in our minds today because of the growing unemployment in both old and new areas, the voices of those who have known the heart-aches of a generation ago, the voices expressing the fear of possible disruption, the voices of men who know these things only too well from bitter experience.
It has all been expressed to anyone who has cared to hear. What has been said has needed to be said—to put on record the honest, deep feeling which people all over the world respect, whether Japanese, Chinese, Russian, or anyone else. That has been expressed in the House today in no small measure. We put on record that deep feeling so that the Japanese nation may know that the signing of the Treaty and its ratification is not the end of this matter. It is as well, too, that the Government, whose Ministers have signed the Treaty, and the civil servants who will be called upon to implement it, should know what the House feels.
We believe that to negotiate a treaty with Japan was the right thing to do. It would be wrong to deny access to a country with the only consumer economy in the Far East, whose income per capita is still only two-fifths of ours, a country which is the pivotal centre of 100 million people whose standard of living is not more than one-fifth of ours. On my way to Japan, in August, I spent ten days in Malaya. I felt that this time I wanted to study the implications of Japan from as far away as Malaya, and I found them. The Malayan leaders told me that although they had been cruelly treated by Japan during the war, as they were, they looked upon Japan as the local boy making good.
Japan is blazing the industrial trail which will lead to more prosperity for them, too. They believe that wealthy industrial nations, by trading with other industrial nations, can increase their wealth still more. That has been the lesson of the world to such people as the Malays and those in the under-developed territories, and they want to join in. They believe that if Japan can help in achieving this it is a good thing to support Japan, and they in turn are getting the sympathy of the Japanese. These people in Malaya also believe that if Japan can loosen the economic and political ties
1424
which have tied Japan to the United States of America, it will be a good thing for them.
The first time I visited Japan she was down and out. Men, women, and children in burnt-out factories were polishing bits of rusty material with pumice-stone in the hope that these bits of machinery could be reassembled and that they would then be able to work. General MacArthur was in charge then, and when I asked how he would get the Japanese out of the mess they were in he said, characteristically, "I have sent James G. Killan back to America to consult with the best brains there. When he comes back I expect him to produce a plan which will create a perfect balance between labour, capital, and the consumer"—shades of Adam Smith and Karl Marx—but galloped on to say, "Who knows? We may have something here that will astonish the world."
I thought that he was being optimistic about the perfect balance between labour, capital, and the consumer, but he was prophetic about having something there which would astonish the world, when we consider the progress which the Japanese have made during the last fifteen years. I will not overwork this aspect of the matter, because it has been mentioned so often this afternoon. As a workshop near Korea, Japan gained a foothold and has made strides ever since. I will condense it like that.
Prime Minister Ikeda, when he came to power in 1961—and it is as well that the House should understand this—laid down a growth programme for Japan for ten years at a growth rate of 10 per cent. per annum. Exports at that time were running at £1,400 million per annum, so a simple arithmetical sum gives a figure of £3,300 million in 1970 if the plan succeeds. The Prime Minister was forced to do this by the political explosion that took place in Tokyo which forced the resignation of his predecessor. The riots in Tokyo were aimed at the removal of economic and political dependence on the U.S.A., so Japan looked round the world to see where she could sell her wares. Hence the pressure which has been applied on the Embassy, the Consulate, and the Government here during the last twelve months, resulting in the Treaty now before us. Japan believes that if we cease to discriminate and

1425
revoke Article 35 of the G.A.T.T. the rest of Europe may be persuaded to do the same.
Japan's position with the rest of the world is that fifteen countries including France, Belgium, and the Netherlands invoke Article 35 of the G.A.T.T. to avoid trading on equality with Japan. Although, up to now, I have never believed in Japan's capacity to reason about the effects of her behaviour on other pepole, I have come to the opinion that the strongest protocol is not in the Treaty but in the fact that if she slips up with this Treaty, and disruption in any trade occurs in this country, she will be unable to sign another treaty with any other country in Europe.
I want to say a word about liberalisation. The first page of the Government statement on the Japanese Treaty refers to the Japanese Government's declared intention to liberalise. What does this mean? It is a very vague phrase. The only definition that I have seen, either in Japan or at home, is to the effect that Japan is prepared to liberalise up to 90 per cent., at some time. I ask: 90 per cent. of what? I say categorically, with the knowledge in my possession, that this 90 per cent. is on the basis of trade in 1959. Since 1959, Japan's trade has increased by 30 per cent., and we can draw our own conclusion. My conclusion is that the 1959 value is decidedly unrealistic.
This subject of liberalisation, naturally, caused much anxiety and argument in Tokio when I was there. Industrialists were worried, and it so happened that during the first week of my stay in Japan there was a television broadcast of a discussion between Prime Minister Ikeda, some large-scale industrialists, and a critic. This discussion took place on the evening of Monday, 17th September, and was reported in the Japan Times of 18th September. I have obtained a copy of that newspaper for the purpose of greater accuracy.
The Prime Miinster was discussing the question of liberalisation with the industrialists, before a large and critical audience. The slant was, therefore, slightly different from what it would be in London, had there been the same discussion of liberalisation. That would happen with any Prime Minister faced with hostile critics in his own country,
1426
so we must make a few allowances. Nevertheless, there is enough in what he says. The newspaper report says:
"But Ikeda added the 90 per cent. liberalisation should be taken as a 'tentative target', indicating that chances of the oft-repeated transfer of the bulk of Japan's import items to a free list were now rather slim."
I tackled the Japanese on this. They were very worried, but they did not answer my questions. I did my best to get the matter cleared up in order that I could understand whether they were really in favour of this, that, or the other, but I failed to get an answer. Perhaps inquiries could be made by the Government about that.
There was another item in the Prime Minister's conversation with industrialists which was rather important. He pointed out that Japan has made it her trade policy to direct more energy to the development of the underdeveloped countries of South-East Asia, Latin America and Africa by means of engaging in more trade with them. To my colleagues who are highly critical of the Japanese I would point out that the belief is genuinely held in Japan that to encourage the under-developed countries is a good thing for international trade. It is a matter of degree all the way down.
Some hon. Members have spoken about competition with low-wage countries, but the Japanese are getting out of the cotton industry as fast as they can. They are doing that because they want to substitute new exports for the old type. Are we to hang on to some of our old ideas about this matter until we are too late to join in? When they enumerate such countries as Spain, Brazil, Taiwan, Hong Kong, they are doing no more than stating a fact. Instead of moaning about the disappearance of the cotton industry, the Japanese are getting as busy as they can with an automatic plant, which I saw—the most marvellous piece of engineering I have ever seen.
I leave the subject of liberalisation to turn to a question about paragraph 5 on page 4 of the Government statement. The paragraph says:
"there is provision for the Treaty to be extended to United Kingdom dependent territories subject to certain conditions."
What are the "certain conditions"? As the President of the Board of Trade is to

1427
answer the debate, can he tell us about the position of people in dependent countries such as Hong Kong and their ability to travel to Japan without visas, as that country is on their doorstep? More people travel as tourists to Japan from Hong Kong than even from the Americas or Australasia. The Japanese do more business with Hong Kong than is generally believed here. They do business which is building up Japan. I shall say something later about why it is being built up.
I want also to question the President of the Board of Trade about paragraph 7 of the Treaty. The terms of the general safeguard are there and I shall not bother to read them. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to say categorically whether there is anything in it or not. There was an article in the 22nd November issue of the Far Eastern Economic Review which was entitled, "Japan in the Club". It was by the editor, and it said this:
"Britain reserves a disruption clause allowing action to be taken if a British industry is threatened with injury, though there is a gentleman's agreement that this would never be used, as Australia has never used her similar safeguard."
That might appear to be ridiculous, but this is no light statement. These people are in touch with folks in the Far East and gossip gets around. If it is just a matter of gossip, and the President of the Board of Trade will categorically deny it, I shall be pleased, but it is most disturbing to think that it has even been suggested that there is that type of thing between Japan and Australia. I hope that it is not so.
Why has the woollen trade figured so prominently since the negotiations for the Treaty began? I should like to clear up one or two misconceptions about surplus spindles, and so on. The history of the prominence of the woollen trade goes back fifteen years to the time when General MacArthur decreed that the textile industry should be the spearhead of future exports, short-term. That meant cotton, and afterwards the woollen trade.
Technique in the cotton trade is simple, but the manipulation and manufacture of wool is not. Much of it is a craft which has been handed down from
1428
one generation to another. However much the industry is automised, skilled craftsmen are the most important factor in the finishing of woollen goods. The Japanese know this very well. It is a technique which is difficult to acquire. The Japanese have mastered this technique, and all congratulations to them. They are clever people. We used to say that about the Chinese.
The industry in Japan has been developed to play a large part in the export drive in the next ten years. The old textile plan which I have mentioned has been largely superseded, but the wool plan remains as important as ever it was. Now decisions are taken by the Japanese Economic Planning Agency on every industry in Japan. It knows exactly what it wants, from each industry where it wants each individual industry to go in future export drives.
We might compare that with some of the futile and stupid investment in capital equipment which takes place in this country during a boom—equipment which becomes surplus to capacity in the first recession afterwards. The Board of Trade should not be misled by the Japanese insistence that they have spare capacity and spindles sealed. The sealing of spindles in Japan is not a cutting back of production, but a protection to ensure that the home market is not flooded. This is the answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury, who put it the other way round. It is to ensure that the home market is not flooded through the use of spindles intended for future export production.
It must be noted, in this connection, that the take-off of wool from all over the world was higher in Japan than ever before, and yet they had 40 per cent. of their spindles stopped, which supports my argument that the export planning agency determined that the capacity should be put in so that when a time arrived which was propitious they would be able to export. Time and again I asked industrialists in the trade about this; I met them and went round their factories. They said that in a world subject to inflation one must be ready to take advantage of the next boom and then hope to hold the trade when the recession occurs. Owing to a cut in American imports and a recession elsewhere, the Japanese have accumulated

1429
stocks of 52 million lb. of yarn which, as the hon. Member for Shipley pointed out, is in itself a potential threat to markets overseas.
It is vital to understand the structure of their export-import organisation. Five very large firms and about ten of smaller size—although still large by world standards—control the whole of the import and export trade of Japan. The ramifications of these firms through banks, finance houses, the insurance world, industry and Government are immensely powerful. They are the modern version of Zabutsi. They have offices in every important commercial and industrial country throughout the world. Some of these firms handle as many as 5,000 commodities. They have no compunction whatever about selling a commodity very cheaply indeed if it means gaining entry to a new market. What they lose on the export roundabouts they make up on the other import or export swings.
Those in the woollen trade fear that large stocks of worsted yarns may be dumped at give-away prices, hence their disappointment that yarns are not in the sensitive list in the treaty. We cannot blame them. So tight is this arrangement that is exercised by the big firms that anybody thinking in terms, "It would be a nice little business if we could only get in touch with a company in Japan to supply a particular commodity which we could sell", should try it and see the result. There is one company which has broken loose of the shackles—the Cannon Camera company, which has some remarkable achievements. This company has an agency in Geneva, which distributes all over the world and an agent here.
The woollen trade does not oppose this Treaty. It is an industry with a record of £160 million exports every year. Its expert knowledge was cradled in medieval times and its wisdom has grown in an industry which the Board of Trade, the Treasury and everybody else may neglect at their peril. But it demands to be assured that the expansion of world trade through a treaty like this is on a fair basis. It would consider a fair basis to be the removal of all export incentives which operate in favour of the Japanese exporter.
First on the list is the 80 per cent. remission of tax on net export profits,
1430
which in itself is an incentive to dump, because one of the conditions for remission is that even if a loss is sustained on exports, the firm which sells 50 per cent. of its products at home and 50 per cent. for export is deemed to qualify for remission of tax on the export content of its trade. One would have difficulty in persuading anybody to recommend that type of export incentive, but it exists in Japan. I did not get this out of the newspaper, but went to a very reliable source—the biggest chartered accountant in Japan, who is handling this every day. I did this before I started my investigation.
Secondly, the Japanese exporter can discount his bills in Japan for subsequent rediscount by the Bank of Japan at the very low rate of 2·55 per cent. Thirdly, the Japanese exporter can obtain pre-shipment finance at rates very much below the normal market on producing evidence of export orders or continuing export performance. Fourthly, he can obtain long-term credit for six months, but that is not only insured but financed up to 70 per cent. Let hon. Members think about that when the next round of increases for the Export Credits Guarantee Department come along, and we are arguing the insurance side of it. Let them think what it would mean if we were backing the export trade of this country to the extent of 70 per cent.
These exporters are loaned this money —for a 70 per cent. advance—at 4 per cent. The hon. Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Skeet) mentioned in an interjection—I did not hear this speech—dear interest rates, but 4 per cent. is very cheap indeed, when we compare the rate of bank interest that has had to be paid over the last ten years, which is over 9 per cent. A further advantage which the Japanese importer has is that he is also the purchaser of goods for use in Japan, and can discriminate accordingly.
This fits in very well with the dual price system, mentioned by many speakers today, which operates in Japan, where prices are kept high on the home market, because of this control and the 20 per cent. ad valorem duty, plus 4s. 9d. per yard which was imposed on 1st June, 1961, at the time when the negotiations leading to this Treaty were hotting up.
This list seems very formidable, but I believe that the objections of our

1431
woollen trade would be met if, first, the export incentives outside the terms of the G.A.T.T. conditions could be removed by the time when we ratify the Treaty. That has been suggested many times today, and it is nothing new. Secondly, orders given by British firms to Japanese firms to be registered when these orders are placed, in the case of industries likely to be seriously affected, so that the Board of Trade will know, when the orders are placed what the impact is likely to be at the time of delivery. This is done with other elements of finance in the Treasury, though they sometimes go wrong, but all their assessments are made and on them they base their budget calculations. This is far simpler than any of that.
I suggest to the President of the Board of Trade that he should accept this idea, however it may work, but I would also suggest to him a way to do it. Seeing that Japanese firms are highly organised, and that no more than 15 firms are represented in this country, will he ask the Japanese Wool and Linen Exporters' Association if it will gather this information so that, at any rate, people in the Board of Trade and the Treasury will not be behind events when disruption takes place?
Thirdly, the safeguards must be diligently applied when required. The Board of Trade sent out a handout containing this interpretation of what happened in Hong Kong. I will give my interpretation in a few moments. This is the Board of Trade's interpretation:
"The Japanese Government are very conscious of the need to avoid charges of disruptive competition, and they have successfully exercised control in recent years over exports of many types of goods, particularly textiles, to many destinations. A recent example is the restriction which they imposed on the acceptance of fresh contracts for delivery of wool yarn to Hong Kong when there was a substantial increase in exports to that market."
This is absolutely wrong. When I was on my way to Japan I called in at Hong Kong. I was given all the information. The Board of Trade should not send lads out on errands. It should send men who are prepared to get down to things and find out the background. What happened was this without any question. The Hong Kong spinners have a capacity of
1432
700,000 lb. of worsted yarns. A knitting industry has been built up in Hong Kong which has exceeded the capacity of the spinners to supply it. The Japanese saw this, so they sent in their yarns in excess. Last year they sent them in at the rate of 1,600,000 lb. per annum. The spinners in Hong Kong objected.
The Japanese, with the consideration and understanding about which the Board of Trade has been "kidded", said, "Apparently, we must be very careful about this". Therefore, they cut it all off. This caused the knitters in Hong Kong to grumble. The Japanese then decided that they really wanted Japanese yarn, so instead of sending in 1,600,000 lb. in September they started delivering 3 million lb.
Some of the fears may be groundless. For instance, the fears that they are technically in front in Japan are just not true. One reason why I went to Japan was that I wanted to look for the technical advance. It is not there. They have a large number of technical people, more than we have, but their quality is not as good. There is no question that the woollen trade people have picked on the unfair aspect of this. If they can have this aspect resolved and if the safeguards are exercised, there is no question but that they will make their way and will not grumble as they have in a dozen similar situations in the past.
I must say this to my hon. Friends who have spoken about the low-wage competition from Japan. Japan will not be a low-cost country any more. There have been movements in Japan over the last two years which have surprised me. It was four years since I visited Japan with the Minister of State. There is a new demand on the part of the Japanese to go further in the process of Westernisation. They are making demands all the time now, and wage rates are rising all the time. The employers, the industrialists and the remnants of the old regime are worried stiff about this trend. Therefore, we must not talk any more as if the conditions which obtained twenty years ago still obtain. If we do, we shall be twenty years out of date.
Another reason why costs will not be low any more is the small amount of public expenditure going on in Japan.

1433
The people who will have to find the money in the future are very worried about this. There is no question but that at present they are making quite a show, especially in the main streets of Tokyo, because the politicians have decided that they must put on the best face they can for the Olympics next year. The Japanese people will demand these improvements. There are large cities with no sewers, libraries, etc. Public investment of a size Which the world has never seen before will take place in Japan before long.
I want to know what Her Majesty's Government are doing to improve facilities for exporters from this country to Japan. Can the Minister be more specific. I can in one respect. The present consular and information services are inadequate. This statement does not mean that there is any reflection on the personnel there. The reverse is the case. It is respect for the magnificent job they are doing in difficult circumstances which prompts me to raise the matter. Accommodation in back rooms in an upstairs office in Osaka, with a small branch office in Kobe, is not good enough to cover the Whole of the Kansai, the most thickly-populated and highly-industnialised area in the world.
The staff are rushed off their feet by domestic inquiries. They should be given help. If we are asked to sign a treaty of this sort because of Japan's increasing importance, we are entitled to expect that when British industrialists try to export to Japan they will receive proper service when they get there. We must build up the staff so that they can be on top of their job of selling Britain to Japan.
It is exactly sixty years since this country signed a famous treaty with Japan—the first. That treaty's object was to keep the open door, and respect the integrity of China. I actually remember it being signed, because my father used to keep us up to date with the news. The circle is now complete. Japan is coming to Europe, seeking a treaty with us, the object of which is the open door in Europe. Let us hope, as well, that they respect the integrity of Britain.
9.33 p.m.
The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. F. J. Erroll): I am sure that the whole House has enjoyed, amongst
1434
many other speeches, the particularly interesting, and at times extremely eloquent, speech of the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes). It was a very moving speech, practical and very realistic. If I may presume to say so, the hon. Gentleman speaks at his very best from the Dispatch Box and we therefore hope to see him there in future—as long as it is the Dispatch Box on the Opposition side of the House.
If I may record my general impression of the view of the House, I would say that there has been a general welcome for the Treaty but, as I fully expected, a number of my hon. Friends and hon. Gentlemen opposite have quite properly expressed anxieties on behalf of particular industries, or particular aspects of the Treaty as explained in the White Paper.
I was very much interested in the wholeheartedly favourable speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) and the particularly interesting speech of the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow), whose knowledge of up-to-date Japan was clearly expressed. Although I was not able to hear the whole of the speech of the hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman), I was told about its theme, and I found what I heard at the end most interesting.
I fully appreciate the anxieties expressed by the Yorkshire Members, and particularly those of my hon. Friends. It was suggested that I was, perhaps, a little tetchy at the representations made. That is quite untrue. I have been very glad indeed that they have taken the trouble to keep me acquainted with opinion and feeling in the Yorkshire constituencies they represent, and an hon. Member opposite, who is not now present, was also good enough to do me the same service. I feel that the Yorkshire Members of Parliament have been upholding the best traditions of the House in voicing the anxieties of their constituents, and making sure that the Government were fully aware of their problems.
I am grateful to them for all they have said to me, for all they have said at meetings and in letters, and for their speeches today, laced, as in many cases

1435
they were, by a generous appreciation of other aspects of the Treaty. I should particularly acknowledge what my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) said about my personal sincerity. I was also glad that on this side the speeches were not confined to Yorkshire Members, and I particularly liked the brief but effective intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Dance) on the subject of fishing reels, and the well-balanced speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Skeet).
I shall not spend time on the good points of the Treaty, because those have been well dealt with, particularly by my hon. Friend the Minister of State in opening the debate. I think that the House would prefer me to deal with some of the criticisms that have been made, and I will try to answer some of the queries about the way in which we intend to implement the safeguard provisions and other features of the Treaty. While, in doing so, I shall be dealing to a certain extent with general questions, I shall probably find myself dealing more with the examples drawn from the wool textile industry than from any other, so I shall be dealing with wool and general matters at the same time.
I have, of course, been in close touch with representatives of the wool textile industry directly, as well as through Members of Parliament, and I have been made well aware for some considerable time of their anxieties—and of the anxieties, too, of the clothing manufacturers who use wool cloth. A further meeting with the Wool Textile Delegation is being arranged at the Board of Trade, so I do not wish anything that I say tonight to be regarded as closing the door to further discussion with that industry—or, indeed, with any other industries which may wish to make representations. I hope that, as a result of such discussions with my officials at the Board of Trade, the fears of the wool industry will be allayed.
Before dealing with the situation in detail, I want to develop a point made by my hon. Friend the Minister of State towards the end of his speech. There is no doubt that a number of industries would feel happier if they knew that they would be able to continue to be
1436
indefinitely protected from Japanese competition by the maintenance of quotas. We all talk about vigorous and free competition, but we all like a soft, cosy life if we can get it. I do not blame any industry wanting to get protection if it can manage to pull it off, but in some industries from whose goods quota protection was removed during the annual trade reviews, it has been particularly interesting to see that, while they faced the prospect of liberalisation with complete misgiving, in most cases the misgivings were not justified in the event.
We must remember that this is a Treaty for the expansion of trade between the two countries and for the removal as fan as possible of discrimination. It was therefore only possible to justify the inclusion of a product in the sensitive list if there was a strong presumption that imports on a disruptive scale would follow immediately on liberalisation. How generously this criterion has been interpreted—and it has been interpreted generously—is clear from the number and variety of products included in the list of items on which control will be maintained either at the export end or at the import end.
The hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth said that we had taken a very long time to conclude the Treaty. One reason why it has taken such a long time has been that the negotiation of the sensitive list has been a very tough piece of negotiation and the final selection of the items and exact quantities was finally decided only a matter of a few days before signature.
Mr. Snow: Did Western Germany not have these anxieties?
Mr. Erroll: It may be. I am dealing with the Treaty with which we are concerned tonight, and it would be useful if the hon. Member could have a word with the hon. Member for Dewsbury who said that we had rushed the Treaty.
Mr. Snow: I have.
Mr. Erroll: If the two hon. Members get together they may decide in the end that we have taken perhaps just the right amount of time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley, and one or two others, suggested that all textiles except wool were on the

1437
sensitive list. If I may be allowed, I should like to correct that point, because there are a number of other textiles also not on the sensitive list. These include man-made fibres, continuous filament man-made fibre yarns, silk yarns, certain silk fabrics, flax yarns and linen fabrics. Each case has been judged on its merits. The test has been immediate risk of disruptive competition if restrictions were removed. As regards wool products, all wool woven cloth has been included The very damaging competition from the Japanese with our trade in certain types of cloth in North America was for us solid and firm evidence of our industry's acute vulnerability at those points.
Here I should like to pat myself on the back and say that we should be congratulated on getting agreement with the Japanese on the inclusion of the whole range of wool cloth on the sensitive list, because they effectively compete with us only in the lighter range and we still have very little to fear in respect of the heavier cloths. Nevertheless, we have secured that all woven wool cloth shall be on the sensitive list.
Certain hon. Members and some of my hon. Friends have complained that we have not also included tops and yarns and garments of woven wool cloth. The reason for this is simple. There has been no substantial evidence that our industry is vulnerable on these products. As regards tops and yarns, our industry is the world's biggest producer and exporter of tops. Japan's total exports of tops in 1961 were less than one-tenth of ours. Our production of yarn is game two-thirds greater than Japan's, and our exports in 1961 were no less than three times as much as hers.
It is true that Japan's exports of tops and yarns were pushed up in the earlier part of this year, but the increase appears to have been mainly in sales to neighbouring countries in the Far East. I admit that there have been occasional reports of under-cutting on tops, but there is no evidence that tops makers and yarn spinners have suffered on any significant scale from Japanese competition in third markets. They both do an excellent trade in Japan itself.
Our imports of tops from all sources are under 1 per cent. of our production.
1438
Imports of yarn are under 2 per cent. of production. Therefore there is no question of the combing and spinning industry being already under pressure from large quantities of low-cost imports or indeed from imports from any sources. The circumstances are entirely different from those obtaining in Lancashire and therefore there was no case for special treatment.
Mr. Jay: In speaking of Lancashire, the right hon. Gentleman was, presumably, referring to cotton. Could he say why he included synthetic fibre yarns on the sensitive list and not wool?
Mr. Erroll: Because there was a special case for including those items.
Mr. Rhodes: What was it?
Mr. Erroll: I do not wish to go into that in detail now because I have quite a number of other points to deal with in the few minutes which remain. The case in respect of those particular fibres was clearly justified.
Mr. Leslie Spriggs (St. Helens): Will the right hon. Gentleman say something about woollen garments?
Mr. Erroll: I was just coming to woollen garments, if I may be allowed to get on.
Mr. Rhodes: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way? There is plenty of time. Having regard to all the publicity which has been given to the argument between the wool trade and the Board of Trade, why cannot the right hon. Gentleman give the House of Commons some information about the discussions which took place between the manmade fibre industry and the Board of Trade before the decision he has just disclosed was reached?
Mr. Erroll: Because all the detailed discussions are confidential, as are the detailed discussions with the wool textile industry.
As regards woven wool clothing, we have been told that Japanese slacks, for example, are on sale in the United States at prices lower than those of similar articles made in this country, However, there is nothing to show that Japan has made any inroads into our trade in woven wool clothing in the United

1439
States. On the contrary, the value of Japan's sales to the United States appears to have dropped substantially more than ours between 1959 and 1961. We have no evidence of damaging Japanese competition in other markets, and our wool clothing industry is, of course, one of the most highly developed and efficient in the world. There is, therefore, no case for putting woven wool clothing on the sensitive list. For that industry, as for many others, the general safeguards Protocol is the proper measure of defence.
Mr. Spriggs: If employment in St. Helens and other areas in Lancashire is affected, will the right hon. Gentleman take the matter in hand and examine it and make a statement to the House?
Mr. Erroll: Of course, any industry which thinks that it has a case to present to the Board of Trade under the general safeguards provision will be entitled to make that case. As the Board of Trade will be the Department responsible, if the House so wishes, we shall be prepared to make a statement or answer Questions on the subject, provided that the confidential nature of discussions between the firm or the industry and the Board of Trade can be protected.
Mr. Ginsburg: Will the right hon. Gentleman, before he leaves the sensitive list, make a comment about blankets? He has mentioned everything else. What about Japanese blankets?
Mr. Erroll: I do not think that I can. I am aware that, in my temporary absence from the chamber, the hon. Gentleman referred to blankets. In view of what the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne said, I think that it is about time that we got a few new blankets in this building.
I have explained that there were no adequate grounds on which we could press for the inclusion in the sensitive list of tops, yarns and woven wool clothing. I know that some hon. Members have argued that we should have kept every wool textile product under control and that, by giving them different treatment, we have added to the complexities and risks of disruption. There is really no logic to that. Wool tops, worsted clothing and wool suits are all quite
1440
different products and each must be considered on its own merits. The fact that they all happen to contain wool does not mean that they must all necessarily receive the same treatment any more than all articles containing, say, steel must have exactly the same treatment.
As I have said, where it is clear, in the case of wool cloth, that Japanese competition might be immediately disruptive, the product has been kept on the sensitive list. Where this was not so, we have agreed to liberalise and rely on the safeguards procedure.
Now, a final word about yarn. We have heard a good deal today about huge stocks of yarn in Japan apparently just waiting to flood into the British market. I think that this is an unreal bogy to raise. The Japanese could have been sending us wool yarn into this country already. There was a quota for wool products to the value of £150,000 for the year ended 30th September, 1962, and although £150,000 worth could have been sent in from those great stocks overhanging the market the fact is the Japanese sent under £200 worth of yarn and £3,000 worth of tops—which just shows how dangerous this great stockpile is. Furthermore, in regard to the stockpile which they have got, why do not they sell more of it in other markets open to them, namely, the United States of America and Canada, which they are not in fact doing? I think it would be a great mistake to assume that they are holding it back in order to invade the United Kingdom market.
Mr. Rhodes: Would the right hon. Gentleman realise that the Japanese cannot possibly sell worsted yarn in this market in small lots? The amount they are allowed to send into this country under licence at the present moment is very small and would be token only. There would be big quantities.
Mr. Erroll: Well, I should have thought that £150,000 worth would have been quite a big quantity, but they did not take advantage of it. That I regard as a very specious argument indeed. If I were a keen Japanese seller I would take advantage of every opportunity I could.

1441
This is the great argument which I think has to be exploded, that the Japanese will look round to find an unprotected spot, switching from quota-ed to unquota-ed products, and then concentrate a flood of imports on to it. There is no 'evidence to show this is their trade practice in dealing with the United Kingdom or other Western European countries.
Of course, if the Japanese are going to increase their sales to us, as we hope to extend our sales to them, they may well develop a trade in liberalised items as well as those remaining under control, but where I do not agree with certain hon. Gentlemen who have spoken on this subject is that there is any strong presumption that trade in wool products will prove disruptive. I think that in the first place our industry is very strong in this field. Quite apart from this I believe with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth, who has gone now, that the Japanese will be extremely anxious to demonstrate their readiness to trade in an orderly way in the British market.
The Japanese Government are well aware of the views of the British Government about disruptive trading and of the Government's determination to protect British industry from it. I am sure that they would not readily allow a situation to develop in which we would be compelled to reimpose discriminatory restrictions on Japanese products.
In the few moments which are left to me I want to say a word about the effectiveness of the general safeguard. This can be a very powerful weapon if we need to use it. I was asked about the time which could be taken. One hon. Member for Bradford—nearly everybody from Bradford has spoken—suggested that the arrangements under the Protocol would be very slow to operate, but in actual fact, under paragraph 3 of the Protocol we can put on quota restrictions as soon as consultation has begun, that is to say, at the end of seven days after formal notice has been given and can act very quickly should the situation necessitate that.
The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. George Craddock) and also the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) expressed anxieties about the general safeguard. The situation is
1442
that we must be sure that serious injury is taking place or is threatened.
Of course, the best and surest evidence of all is evidence of actual imports. If at the time of certain imports taking place an industry considers that it is threatened, it will be alert to these imports. If there is also evidence of extensive ordering in the pipeline, we will take that into account as evidence of the threat of serious injury. I do not feel that it would be proper to try to lay down fixed criteria in advance, because there are so many factors which might differentiate one case from another. For example, an industry already suffering from under-employment or falling sales might be more easily injured than one whose markets were expanding, and price differentials could be more important in one industry than in another.
The same flexible approach must be adopted in regard to the evidence of serious injury. It would be a mistake to try to lay down absolutely firm and precise requirements in advance. It would, naturally, plainly be necessary for the Government to take account of the extent of the increase in imports and the sharpness of that increase and the question of whether prices were substantially below prevailing market prices. Equally, we could not rely just on rumours of intended orders. We should want evidence more positive than that, although we would not expect to be able to receive absolutely precise and factual evidence.
These and other matters we will discuss with the industries concerned. My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove mentioned the fishing-reel problem. I shall be glad to see discussions initiated with the industry concerned if that would be its wish.
While I have concentrated on the anxieties of certain industries and certain hon. Members, the fact is that the Treaty represents a fine deal for Britain. Dual pricing is a dangerous subject for us to raise, as we ourselves go in for a great deal of dual pricing. There was an article in the Financial Times only a few days ago quite openly listing some of the products in which Britain goes in for dual pricing.
As regards export subsidies, it is only a matter of a few months before the

1443
arrangements come to an end and the legislation lapses. The Japanese have undertaken to sign the G.A.T.T. arrangement before, or not later than, when the export subsidies come to an end. The important thing is that these export subsidies have not been such a very powerful incentive in securing an increase in Japanese exports of manufactured goods to this country.
Mr. Rhodes: They have for America.
Mr. Erroll: I am dealing with Britain and I want to make plain what matters to Britain.
The United Kingdom imports of manufactured good from Japan have not gone up. Manufactured goods have remained stationary at about £12 million per annum. The main increase has been in canned fish and fish products. The Japanese export drive with their export subsidies has not been nearly so successful as our export drive to Japan with no export subsidies. I did not consider it worth making this a breaking paint over the Treaty when there was only a matter of a few months of the export subsidies, which are not proving so very successful in Japan's own export drive to this country. The greater prizes of the Treaty should not be thrown away just because of a matter of a few months of an export subsidy arrangement which is not proving particularly effective and which in any case will be a dead letter within a few months of the Treaty being ratified. That is why it is so important that we should obtain the Treaty now so that it can be ratified in April or May and come into operation in June, for the export subsidy arrangements will be at an end by the following March.
Trading practices and designs and so on are matters for the industries themselves to take up, and the Board of Trade will be glad to give any assistance needed. In the moment that remains to me I commend the Treaty to the House and the opportunities thereby opened up to all British exporters.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of the Treaty of Commerce, Establishment and Navigation between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Japan (Command Paper No. 1874).

DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF (JAPAN)
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that on the ratification by the Government of Japan of the Convention set out in the Schedule to an Order entitled the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Japan) Order 1962, a draft of which was laid before this House on 15th November, an Order may be made in the form of that Draft.—[Mr. Barber.]
9.59 p.m.
Sir Frank Soskice: We ought to put some questions to the Financial Secretary before we agree to this proposal. I do not think that I am in any sense necessarily hostile to it, but it is a contention of some importance, and is one of a series of three which we have to discuss this evening. The questions which I want to put should not take long to answer, but they ought to be put, and the Minister ought to give attention to his answers.
First, there are many double-taxation agreements between this and many other countries all over the world. Is this agreement, broadly speaking, in common form? Does it contain any special or unusual features to which the attention of the House should be drawn, or is it one which follows the usual type of double-taxation agreement with such necessary changes as are involved because Japan is a party? I have done my best to scrutinise it and to make such comparisons as I can, and it seems to me to be of the ordinary type and not to possess any special features. However, I should be glad if the Minister would confirm that my impression is correct. If there are special features, no doubt the House will want to consider them before accepting the agreement.
I suppose that we do not have a great deal of knowledge of the exact Japanese tax structure, and I would welcome a word from the hon. Gentleman shortly describing the nature of the correlated Japanese taxes with which this Convention deals. Are they broadly analogous to those which we charge in this country, and is there any special feature about them about which the House should know?
The third question which I should like to ask the Minister, and this is a question which, I think, should be asked in

1445
relation to each of the double-taxation agreements which we have to consider, is what its effect will be on the United Kingdom revenue. It obviously means that the United Kingdom Treasury forgoes some tax revenue. Broadly speaking, the scheme of this double-taxation agreement is that the loss is, in effect, shared by the two countries concerned, hut, at the same time, I think that if the Minister could give us some idea as to the loss of revenue this country would sustain, it would be of help to the House.
It may be that the Minister will have to say that that must be purely approximate and can only be estimated in very broad terms. If he says that, I ask him this. Section 348 of the Income Tax Act, 1952 provides, as the Minister well knows, for unilateral relief. In the case of other than Commonwealth countries, the unilateral relief is up to 50 per cent. of the corresponding tax paid in the two countries. If the Minister can tell us what the unilateral relief provided for under Section 348 of the Income Tax Act, 1952, has cost in the last few years, that I should have thought would be a very good guide as to what the Convention will cost the United Kingdom Treasury. Presumably, as Section 348 allows only 50 per cent. relief and the Convention allows 100 per cent. relief, the loss can be measured by approximately doubling the loss which we sustained under Section 348 by way of unilateral relief.
There is one small point on Article VI (I, a) about which I should like to ask the Minister. I notice that the arrangement from the point of view of the United Kingdom is that dividends paid from the United Kingdom to Japanese shareholders in companies in the United Kingdom shall be exempt from Surtax. This, so far as I know, is a comparatively novel provision. It may be that I have missed it in other agreements, and I would be grateful if the Minister would say a word about it so that we may see whether this is something to which we should direct special attention, or whether it is one of the provisions which has generally been accepted as appropriate for this type of Convention.
Finally. I compared Article XII in the Japanese Convention with Article XII in the Israel Convention which we are to consider later this evening. The Article
1446
in the Japanese Convention is considerably narrower in its scope than the Israel one. Why the difference? Article XII in the Japanese Convention simply relates, I think, to visiting professors and students. Article XII in the Israel Convention relates to all professional persons. A wide range of professional persons might have an interest in this sort of provision. No doubt there is a good reason for the distinction, but I would be grateful if the Minister would tell us what it is.
Those are my questions. I am sure that the Minister will be able to give an answer which will satisfy me and the House as a whole, and, in principle, I do not want to be taken for a moment as being opposed to Conventions for the purpose for which these Conventions are prepared.
10.7 p.m.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Anthony Barber): The first question put to me by the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) was whether this agreement with Japan was more or less in common form, or had any special features which might distinguish it from the generality of double taxation agreements. It does, in fact, follow the general pattern of double taxation agreements which we have made with many other countries, and I think that there is only one special point which I might mention, because it is an unusual one.
Article V of the agreement, which deals with the
"profits which an enterprise of one of the Contracting States derives from the operation of ships or aircraft"
is wider than the corresponding Article in our other agreements, in that besides securing an exemption from Japanese national tax, it also secures an exemption from Japanese local tax on profits derived by our shipping and aircraft concerns. If one looks closely at Article V, in form it also gives Japanese shipping and aircraft concerns a corresponding exemption from local United Kingdom tax imposed on the basis of profits, but as there are no such taxes at present this is obviously a matter of advantage to the United Kingdom.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman's second question was about the

1447
nature of the Japanese taxes. He asked whether they were analogous to the relevant taxes in the United Kingdom. Two of the taxes are analogous. One is Japanese income tax, the other is Japanese corporation tax, although they vary in their incidence and the way they are applied. But there is a third form of taxation which is not analogous, and that is the one to which I have just referred in connection with shipping and aircraft, namely, local taxes. I understand that there are various types of local tax levied by prefectures and municipalities in Japan, but I think that the important point is that only those levied on profits and income are covered by the agreement.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked about the cost to the Revenue of this agreement, compared with the cost to the Revenue of the normal provisions for unilateral relief under Section 348 of the Income Tax Act. He mentioned that under the unilateral provision there was a limit of, I think he said, a 50 per cent. ceiling outside the Commonwealth. I think that he will find that for the last few years there has been no such ceiling.
I am told that it is not possible to give a realistic estimate of the additional cost to the Exchequer by virtue of the change from unilateral relief to the relief under the agreement, but it is likely to be small. When I pressed those advising me for something more specific, I was told that that meant probably under £1 million. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman realises, there will be a cost also to the Japanese Exchequer—although not a corresponding cost—in respect of the relief that it provides. In general, there is a mutual advantage in having a comprehensive double taxation agreement.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman also asked about Article VI (1, a) which provides that
"Dividends derived from sources within the United Kingdom by a resident of Japan who is subject to Japanese tax in respect thereof shall be exempt from United Kingdom surtax."
I understand that this is quite a normal provision. It sometimes appears in wording that is slightly different from this, but the provision for the exemption from Surtax on United Kingdom dividends paid to an overseas resident—in this case a Japanese resident—is normal.
1448
The right hon. and learned Member's final point concerned what he took to be the corresponding provisions of Article XII in this agreement and Article XII in the Israeli agreement, which we shall come to shortly. He thought that in the case of Japan the arrangement for rendering professional services and the profits of those services were narrower. I think that there is a misunderstanding here. If the right hon. and learned Member looks at Article X of the agreement with Japan he will see that paragraph (1) refers to
"Income derived by a resident of one of the Contracting States in respect of professional services or other independent activities of a similar character".
The wording is almost the same as that in Article XII of the agreement with Israel. The right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned this point to me earlier this evening, and I had hoped that I might have seen him, so that he would not have had the trouble of raising it. That is the answer to the point that was troubling him.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that on the ratification by the Government of Japan of the Convention set out in the Schedule to an Order entitled the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Japan) Order, 1962, a draft of which was laid before this House on 15th November, an Order may be made in the form of that Draft.
To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF (SOUTH-WEST AFRICA)
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (South West Africa) Order, 1962, be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 22nd November.—[Mr. Barber.]
10.12 p.m.
Sir Frank Soskice: I also want to put some questions to the Minister about this agreement. I have given him an opportunity of considering the matter, because it may involve a matter of principle which raises grave considerations. This is an extension to South-West Africa of a pre-existing South Africa Order. Hon. Members

1449
on both sides of the House would probably wish to be reassured by the Minister that in extending the provisions of the South Africa Order to South-West Africa we are not, by implication or explicitly, in any sense reinforcing or recognising the jurisdiction of South Africa over South-West Africa.
I have anxiously considered this point. It was the kind of point raised when the House was discussing the South Africa Bill. The Government spokesman at the time—the Lord Privy Seal —in answering questions on that score put by hon. Members on this side of the House, gave an answer in the following terms:
"There is nothing whatever to indicate that the Bill accepts the annexation of the mandated territory in any way. What I said in my speech was that the mandate for South-West Africa is held by South Africa and that it provides that South Africa shall have full power of administration over the territory as an integral portion of South Africa".[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th February, 1962; Vol. 654, c. 971.]
That answer, which was given in the debate, broadly speaking, is, I understand, to this effect. South Africa has a mandate in respect of South West Africa. That mandate—whether it has been carried out or not does not matter; it exists—places on South Africa certain administrative powers and duties in respect of South-West Africa. As I read the agreement we are now considering, it is entered into in the course of the exercise of that jurisdiction and not otherwise. If that is the correct view, it would seem that if we accept this agreement we are not in any way either expressly or impliedly giving our assent to, or recognising, or reinforcing, any claim South Africa may have—to put it as was stated in a speech by Dr. Malan—to annex South-West Africa as part of South Africa. He did not use the word "annex", but the effect was that the Union and South-West Africa had become one territory.
The principle is whether I have correctly understood the position I have indicated. Have I correctly understood the position to be that we are not giving any blessing to any process of annexation or coalescence of the two territories? All we are doing is to recognise an act of administrative jurisdiction by South Africa in South-West Africa in the exer-
1450
cise of the mandate which South Africa possesses in relation to South-West Africa. If my understanding is correct, I feel that my hon. Friends would have no objection to the Order. But I think that they want to be reassured by the Minister that I have correctly stated the position. It is one which raises an important question of principle. I am sure that my hon. Friends and hon and right hon. Members opposite would wish to have that assurance.
The next point is a tiresome legal point about which I gave the hon. Gentleman notice. It is one which has to be considered because it possibly affects the question of whether the agreement is intra vires or ultra vires Section 347 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1952, under which it purports to be made. That subsection gives power to enter into these double taxation agreements. It says:
"If Her Majesty by Order in Council declares that arrangements specified in Order have been made with the Government of any territory outside the United Kingdom…"
The ground of my uncertainty here is that when I look at the Schedule to the Order I see that it sets out the actual terms of the agreement and provides in effect that the existing South Africa Order shall read as if the Contracting Parties were the Government of the United Kingdom for the one part, and the Administration of the territory of South-West Africa for the other part.
I ask the Minister, as a matter of law, Whether he is satisfied that the declaration is in those circumstances one within the scope of section 347 (1)—whether, in other words, it can be properly said of this agreement that it is an agreement entered into by Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom with the Government of another country. It purports to be entered into in terms of the Schedule with the Administration of South-West Africa, not the Government of South Africa. That is a question which goes to the vires of the Order. I am sure that the Minister will be able to satisfy us that he has considered it and finds that it is within the scope of Section 347.
My final question is one which I asked in relation to the previous agreement: what will it cost? There was no pre-existing agreement in relation to South-West Africa, and the only way in

1451
which one can test it is to see what it cost under Section 348 of the Income Tax Act by way of unilateral relief. I am sorry that I was in error in thinking that there was a ceiling. That has been removed by the Section 16 of the 1961 Act.
10.20 p.m.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Anthony Barber): I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) for giving me notice of the constitutional point which he raised as well as of the somewhat technical legal point.
He referred to the passage through the House of the South Africa Bill, and it is clear from the extract which he quoted from my right hon. Friend's speech that much thought was given at that time to the constitutional position of South-West Africa. It was natural that when we were considering the present arrangements which are embodied in the draft Statutory Instrument we should devote our attention also to the constitutional issue.
As he gave me notice that he proposed to raise this point, I have looked at it again, and I can assure him categorically that the Government's views are the same as those which he assumed to be the case—that this agreement has no effect whatever on the constitutional position of South-West Africa and, moreover, that it implies no change whatever in the Government's attitude to the mandate. I do not think that I could be more categoric than that, and I hope that that has reassured the House.
No doubt through my own misunderstanding, I thought that the legal point was somewhat different from that which he raised, but I can reassure him on the point which he put to the House. It was ascertained by the British negotiators at the time of the exchange of notes that the Administrator of the territory of South-West Africa had made a formal request for the arrangement to be entered into on behalf of the Administration. I do not think that there is any special significance in the use of the term "Administration" as opposed to the word "Government" in Section 347 of the Income Tax Act.
The Chief Executive in a Colony or other dependent territory is often formally described as the Governor, in
1452
which case one speaks of the territories governed. The Chief Executive of the territory of South-West Africa is known as Administrator, and it is therefore more apt in the Statutory Instrument to speak of "the Administration of the territory" rather than the Government.
But I do not think that this makes the provisions of the Order ultra vires merely because the enabling Section 347 refers to the arrangements made with "the government of any territory." For all practical purposes the Administration of the territory in South-West Africa is a Government, although because it is a mandate certain functions which would otherwise be carried out by a completely independent Government with full powers are carried out by the Government of South Africa.
Although under paragraph 2 of the Order the arrangements are made between the United Kingdom and the Government of South Africa, it is very relevant that they are made with the Government of South Africa on behalf of the Administration of the territory of South-West Africa, and we take the view that in this respect the Government of South-West Africa or the Administration of South-West Africa are the principals and that the Republic of South Africa are merely acting as agents. I hope that I have satisfied the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the Order is infra vires.
He asked what was the cost to the Revenue. In general, there will be no additional cost if the House approves the Order. The reason is that, prior to the operative date of the agreement in the Order, South Africa being in the Commonwealth, South-West Africa was also treated as a member of the Commonwealth and on the same basis as though she were, as indeed she was, an actual member of the Commonwealth. Consequently, the provisions for unilateral relief applied to South-West Africa just as they would to any other Commonwealth territory and in particular, the special advantages under the unilateral provisions as they are most favourably applied to Commonwealth countries were operative in respect of underlying tax.
As the right hon. and learned Gentleman will know, the unilateral provisions relating to underlying tax, which is very

1453
important in connection with this agreement, are more favourable toward Commonwealth than towards other countries. If we had not entered into this agreement with South-West Africa, that favourable position, from the point of view of South-West Africa, would have gone by the board. What we are doing, broadly speaking, is replacing in this agreement the position which existed under the unilateral arrangements applicable to South-West Africa as to other members of the Commonwealth, so that the general position is that there will be no additional burden on the United Kingdom Exchequer.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (South West Africa) Order, 1962, be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 22nd November.
To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF (ISRAEL)
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that on the ratification by the Government of Israel of the Convention set out in the Schedule to the Draft of an Order entitled the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Israel) Order 1962, a copy of which was laid before this House on 22nd November, an Order may be made in the form of that draft.—[Mr. Barber.]
10.26 p.m.
Sir Frank Soskice: This agreement appears to me to be in common form and I do not think that I have any questions which I should like to ask except the usual one, namely, in what loss does this involve the Treasury? I should be grateful if we could be told.
10.27 p.m.
Sir Henry d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: This is not the time, and it is not the night, when an hon. Member who is conscious of the feelings of fellow Members would wish to detain them for more than a very short time, and that refers not only to those hon. Members who are present, but also to the devoted servants of the House who have to stay here as long as we do.
However, there is one point in connection with this agreement which, unlike
1454
the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice), I do not find in common form, because it embodies in Article XVIII a provision which, I think, is new in any double taxation agreement of which I am aware in that it gives effect under English law to certain tax sparing arrangements made by the Israeli Government to encourage investment. It puts into practice a pledge given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) in his Budget of 1961, and it is dated back to 6th April, 1961.
I should like to say a word of genuine gratitude for the fact that this principle, which is new in British taxation, should have been accepted by my right hon. and learned Friend and now incorporated in this agreement. The Israeli Government attach enormous importance to the encouragement of investment in approved enterprises which are granted tax exemptions for such investment. It is quite foreign to the British tax collector that any investment should be free of tax. However, the concession has been made that the tax-saving element in any dividend received from Israeli enterprises of this sort shall themselves be free of British taxation.
This is a very important concession and I sincerely thank my right hon. and learned Friend Who introduced it and my hon. Friend who negotiated the agreement.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Anthony Barber): I think that I can deal with the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid) at the same time as I answer the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice), who asked me the single question: what will the loss of revenue be as a result of the ratification of the Agreement? This is not a case like the last Order, where the Agreement replaces an arrangement for unilateral relief under Section 348 of the 1952 Act, because in this case there was an arrangement already operative with Palestine which was made in 1947 and which was also by various means with which I will not trouble the House made operative with Israel after 1950.
The main change from the point of view of the United Kingdom Exchequer

1455
is the provisions for giving relief in respect of taxes spared set out in Article XVIII, to which my hon. Friend referred. It is these provisions which account for the main additional cost to the Exchequer. Although it is difficult to be precise in these matters, the additional cost will amount to something in the region of £¼ million a year. I will not weary the House at this time of night with details, but one has to consider the agreement as a whole and there are other important items set out in the Agreement which will be of great benefit to the United Kingdom.
There is only one other point I would make to my hon. Friend, so that there shall be no misunderstanding. This is not the first occasion on which relief for taxes spared has been applied. It was applied also in the Agreement which we made with Pakistan and in the Agreement which we made with Malta.
Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: The cost of £¼ million to the Exchequer is in no sense the real cost. It represents taxes which the Israel Government are not charging themselves and which, if the Agreement had not come into force, the Exchequer would have levied from the British taxpayer, thus nullifying the encouragement to investment under the Israeli law. Is not this a correct statement?
Mr. Barber: Under the provisions of this Agreement relief from United Kingdom taxation will be given to the extent of about £¼ million which otherwise would not have been given if the Agreement had not be approved by the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that, on the ratification by the Government of Israel of the Convention set out in the Schedule to the Draft of an Order entitled the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Israel) Order 1962, a copy of which was laid before this House on 22nd November, an Order may be made in the form of that draft.
To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  PROTECTION OF DEPOSITORS [MONEY]
  Resolution reported,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to penalise fraudulent inducements to invest on deposit, to restrict and regulate the issue of advertisements for deposits and to make special provision with respect to the accounts to be delivered by and the supervision of companies which issue such advertisements, it is expedient to authorize—

  (a) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any administrative expenses incurred by the Board of Trade in conseqence of the provisions of that Act; and

  (b) the payment into the Exchequer of fees paid to the Registrar of Companies under that Act.

  Resolution agreed to.

CIVIL DEFENCE
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. I. Fraser.]
10.35 p.m.
Mr. Anthony Greenwood: At 6 p.m. on Saturday, 27th October, two of the Home Secretary's constituents decided to find out what the public could and should do in order to protect themselves against any nuclear attack. The first step they took was to consult the telephone directory, and they telephoned the Lambeth Civil Defence Division, from which they received advice to telephone another number. They telephoned the second number, and got no reply. They then telephoned Willesden Civil Defence; there was no reply. Their fourth call went to the London Civil Defence headquarters, from which there was no reply. They then telephoned the Home Office, where the night watchman suggested that perhaps they should telephone the police. At the Hampstead police station they were told to telephone the Hampstead Town Hall. They telephoned the Hampstead Town Hall; there was no reply. They then telephoned Hampstead Civil Defence, and from that office, too, there was no reply.
When I questioned the Home Secretary in this House on 15th November, the right hon. Gentleman told me that
"…civil defence measures can be put into operation at short notice, in case of necessity." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th November, 1962; Vol. 667, c. 540.]
It is, I think, difficult to conceive of a graver emergency, short of actual war, than the one we experienced at the time of the Cuba crisis, and other members of the Government certainly seem to have thought that we were within measurable distance of such a disaster.
It is also difficult to conceive the effect of the Home Secretary's apathy on the morale of the civil defence workers. I had a letter from a civil defence worker in North London, in which he said:
"We have all been trained to expect a period of tension prior to hostilities. In this period we have been told that we must inform and advise the public, set up posts and chains of communication and control, and do countless other tasks to give us even a fighting chance
1458
to save life and restore some order should attack come.… After 'Cuba', many of us are asking who is bluffing who? I feel that someone at the top took the gamble of a lifetime. Should there be a next time, another gamble may not come off."
I have had letters from many parts of the country—from Lancashire, Devonshire, Essex—and my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. George Craddock) showed me a letter from a civil defence worker in which this passage occurred:
"We give our time and money on many occasions in what some of us believe, perhaps now misguidedly"…
and I emphasise those three words:
"is a worth while cause, so that we might be able to help the public in case of nuclear attack."
Let us look at the danger with which we are faced. Peace News, in a most valuable report to the nation on "H-bomb War" which was compiled from responsible and authoritative sources, has said that our civil defence policy is based on the premise that a ten-megaton bomb would be dropped. That would produce a blast circle 16 miles across, and a fire circle 45 miles across. But 100 megaton bombs are now a practical proposition, meaning 10 miles the power of the biggest bomb envisaged in our civil defence plans; a bomb producing a blast circle 34 miles across, and a fire circle with a diameter of 140 miles.
Peace News has given the effects of a 100-megaton bomb. I can paraphrase it by saying that there would be a fire ball 8 miles across, that brick houses would be destroyed within a circle of 34 miles, that fires would be started, and the skin blistered, as far away as Oxford and Cambridge—if the bomb burst over London—that radiation from the explosion would cause death or serious sickness within a circle of 14 miles across, and that the fall-out over at least 1,000 square miles would be so bad that anyone unprotected for as long as an hour would die from the radioactivity. And the Government expect to get four minutes' warning of such a disaster once the Fylingdales early warning station is completed. They estimate that it will take them 20 seconds to transmit the warning throughout the country, leaving 3 minutes 40 seconds in which the public will have to take precautions.

1459
The position is still more alarming when we realise that Russia, for example, now claims to have a missile with a 12,000-mile range, which can fly round the world and come in behind the expensive early warning system which the Americans and ourselves have got. In the circumstances it is not surprising that a year ago London County Council faced the reality and admitted:
"There is no practical means of providing Londoners with effective defence against thermo-nuclear war."
With that conclusion I agree, and I deplore the way which the Government deceive the public by pretending that adequate defence is available.
To say that is in no way to disparage the work of devoted civil defence volunteers who, in my view, will always have an important task to discharge in areas on the fringe of explosions. But they will be able to do that only if the Home Secretary shows himself more aware of the gravity of the situation and of the need for urgent action than seems likely at the moment. Not the slightest progress has been made with the Government's plan for evacuating 12 million people. No headway has been made with the provision of deep shelters. According to the Home Office there are only seven deep shelters in London allegedly safe from radiation, and all of them are underground railway stations. According to Sanity, the journal of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, one of the 500 scheduled shelters in London is a men's lavatory in the middle of Fleet Street.
One of the most thorough surveys of our lack of preparedness and the fantastic state of muddle and sloth in the Home Office was published in the magazine Topic for 10th November, under the title "Where you go if the bomb drops". It is prefaced with the words:
"The article printed below is not a Goon Show script or a 'Private Eye' satire. It is the result of a serious investigation into the most serious question of the day: 'If there is a nuclear attack on Britain, what can we do?' No attempt was made at encouraging officials into making frivolous statements, and TOPIC has no reason to think they were joking. What emerges is a picture of unbelievable muddle and incredible fatuity in Britain's arrangements for civil defence—at a price of no less than £23,000,000 a year."
It tells how at the height of the Cuban crisis an official in a London civil defence district
1460
"decided there was no need to spoil the weekend of the men and women in his corps"
by calling on civil defence personnel to stand by. He explained his action in these words:
"Well, I read the papers pretty thoroughly that morning and thought things were not bad enough to keep a lot of people sitting around their telephones. It turned out I was right."
I hope that the Home Office intelligence system will inspire more confidence in future.
After spending a week of investigation in the Home Office and at civil defence headquarters throughout the country, Topic said that it had found what it called
"a series of contradictions about public warnings, an almost criminal lack of information, and an arrogance among certain officials…"
There was, for example, virtually no way of telling people of imminent nuclear attack. When the Home Office was asked how the public would be informed, it took three days to get an answer from it. The answer was
"The public would be informed."
A second attempt elicited the answer:
"The Press, radio and television services would be used."
A third question got the reply:
"The TIM talking clock is linked with the Fylingdales early warning system, and in the event of an alert sirens would be sounded."
No cognizance was taken of the fact that Fylingdales will not operate until the spring, or that in many parts of the country sirens are used to call firemen to fires.
One civil defence spokesman took the view that maroons would be used in the event of radioactive fall-out. Another complained that nobody had ever said when the maroons would be used. Another said that maroons would constitute the first warning—before the sirens.
Fortunately Mr. X of the Home Office came to the rescue. I do not want to pillory him for the fatuity of Home Office policy and it is only fair to refer to him as Mr. X. He announced that a warbling note on the sirens would give warning of imminent attack. Danger of fall-out would be announced by another siren accompanied by church bells and other noises. Imminent fall-out would be signified by maroons sounding the letter D in the Morse code—"bang, pause,

1461
bang, bang". The article in Topic says that Mr. X added reassuringly that, until maroons were manufactured, we should have to improvise by banging the letter D on dust-bin lids and so forth.
This is really too absurd even for the Home Office. If the Government are not hoodwinking the public and are not guilty of a giant and cruel confidence trick, what progress has been made, for instance, in the training of personnel, the preparation of shelters, the completion of evacuation plans, the manufacture of maroons and sirens, and, above all, in telling the public what is expected of them?
The rich advice of the City of London civil defence service was given in Topic as follows:
"It would be a good idea to whitewash your windows against radiation heat. And, if you have time, pull up the floorboards in your front room and dig a trench. It makes good cover".
What I hope are the more serious proposals of the Home Office are contained in a 31-page booklet, "The Hydrogen Bomb". When the Hampstead Borough Council decided to obtain copies, it announced that they could not be sold to anyone who wanted a copy to keep. The town clerk and borough civil defence controller made this comment:
"We have been told by the Home Office that we cannot sell the booklets or give them away. We understand that the Government do not want to get people worried about the H-bomb in peace time".
The Council is keeping the booklets on the shelves of the public library so that people may go and consult them.
It is not surprising that Mr. X, who, after all, is simply carrying out the right hon. Gentleman's inept, absurd and fumbling policy, should have replied, when asked what we should have suffered if the Cuba crisis had produced nuclear war, "I suppose that we should all of us have been wiped out".
It is a shocking story of muddle, fatuity, indifference and incompetence. It is time that the Home Office told the public the truth.
10.48 p.m.
Mr. W. R. van Straubenzee: I am glad that the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Greenwood) has been courteous enough to leave a few minutes before the time when it is appro-
1462
priate for my hon. Friend to reply because there may be one or two hon. Members who would like to make a brief contribution. On such a foggy night, I should have preferred, in other circumstances, to go home as soon as I could, but, on reading of what the hon. Member proposed to raise tonight, I suspected—and I find that I was right—that we should hear from him a long series of ingenuous extracts from various rather dubious sources, all put together to make what would appear to be a crushing indictment of the whole civil defence outfit.
In spite of certain specious words in the middle of his speech, the hon. Gentleman's remarks were designed to cause dismay and spread alarm and despondency among the gallant people working in civil defence. I am glad, therefore, that there are a few moments in which someone from the back benches on this side of the House—and on the opposite side too, I hope—may add some comments in a different sense.
There are in various parts of the country very fine men and women working in the civil defence organisation, people who, be it in limited or in total war, will have a very considerable part to play in reducing the ghastly hurt, harm and damage done by modern warfare to the civil population. In the recruitment, training and preparation of those people, no good whatever is done by the kind of speech to which the House has just had to listen. Those who make up the civil defence force are contributing long hours of their time and doing fine preparatory work in training themselves to help in the reduction of harm and hurt.
I believe that, when he reads what he has said tonight, the hon. Gentleman will not feel that it was a very honourable contribution to our debates. On behalf of a large number of persons, in whom I have the greatest personal interest and for whom I have the deepest regard, I express considerable resentment from the back benches at what the hon. Member has said.
10.50 p.m.
Mr. Frank Allaun: May I put a very short question to the Under-Secretary and ask him if he can answer it when he replies to the debate? In answer to a Question at Question

1463
Time the Home Secretary admitted for the first time that there will be protected regional headquarters for key personnel. Can the Under-Secretary say whether this means special underground shelters? Can the hon. Gentleman assure the House that V.I.P.s and others unconnected with civil defence will be provided with these facilities? If so, who are the gentlemen concerned and can the hon. Gentleman give us a little more information, because I am sure that if there is something in this, as some of us suspect, it will cause tremendous resentment among the whole population?
10.51 p.m.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. C. M. Woodhouse): I was slightly surprised at the solicitousness of the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Greenwood) for civil defence, but I hope in the limited time available to me that I shall be able to give him satisfaction on the points he has raised. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Woking-ham (Mr. van Straubenzee) for his intervention which I thought very helpful in putting the matter in perspective.
I wish to begin by replying quite simply and categorically to the question asked by the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun), if the hon. Member for Rossendale will forgive me for putting him at the back of the queue. As I understood the hon. Gentleman's question, I think there is no difficulty in giving him a perfectly categorical assurance in the sense he desired. The fact is that the Government plans which have been made clear in a number of White Papers involve controls sited wherever possible in existing premises in different parts of the country. These plans naturally provide for key personnel to be posted in those controls if an emergency should arise, but only those key personnel. I hope that with that reply I can go on to the main points raised.
I think that the hon. Member for Rossendale, both in his original Question to my right hon. Friend and in his speech tonight, was under a misapprehension or in a state of confusion about the difference between the state of readiness required of the Armed
1464
Forces and their contribution to our deterrent policy and the state of readiness which would be required of our civil defence services, which is quite a different matter.
We keep our deterrent forces at a high state of readiness the whole time because that is inherent in their concept and essential to the deterrent policy. But entirely different considerations apply to home defence preparations. They cover a very wide range of measures which would, if put into effect, touch the ordinary life of the people of this country at very many points as successive White Papers have shown, particularly those in the last few years.
These measures would include the life saving forces, the civil defence services, the emergency police, fire and ambulance services which would work with the regular peace-time services in those categories and, additionally, with the available manpowers of the Armed Forces which could be spared. There is on top of this an extensive organisation to give warning of attack and information about points of attack and the area of fall-out if this catastrophe came.
In addition, our home defence preparations comprise a great many measures for securing that central and local administration could continue to operate, such as the hon. Member for Salford, East mentioned, for preserving law and order and for restoring the conditions and marshalling the necessary supplies for continuing the life of the country in the event of the catastrophe which we are all determined to prevent.
To put this very wide range of measures into a state of immediate readiness, and to keep them thus, would interfere with normal peacetime life and would involve a vast diversion of manpower and resources. For this reason, we say that it is quite impracticable and would be quite intolerable to try to keep home defence preparations in a state of constant, or even continuing, readiness for any period of time. But the measures could be put into effect at short notice once the Government judged that the situation justified the upheaval in ordinary life, which would be entailed. Some of these measures, including the monitoring and warning system, can be put into operation in a matter of a few hours.
Mr. E. Fernyhough: But surely this was one of those situations. The British Prime Minister had assured the President of the United States that we were fully behind him, and the President of the United States had made it perfectly clear that they were prepared, if necessary, to attack Cuba. Everybody assumed an attack was to come because the Russian missiles were based in Cuba, and that there might be a nuclear war. This was one of those emergencies, surely?
Mr. Woodhouse: I, too, followed the course of events over that period, and I am coming on to just the point the hon. Member has raised.
As I have said, these measures could he put into operation, some of them in a few hours, some in a few days. The Government have the responsibility of deciding, on their assessment of the situation at any given time, at what stage to bring our preparations into a state of immediate readiness.
The Home Secretary has already explained that the Government decided—and this was a deliberate, specific decision of the Cabinet—that no such steps should be taken in the circumstances in October. The hon. Gentleman may have taken a different decision; other hon. Gentlemen may have taken a different decision. I am simply telling the House that this was the decision which the Government took, and I am bound to say that it appeared to me from the course of events that the decision was justified by the way the course of events worked out.
I do not deny that there was a crisis. I do not deny—indeed, the Prime Minister himself said—that we were very near the edge, but how near the edge is a matter of judgment, and the degree of proximity which would justify the mobilisation of this vast effort is also a matter of judgment, and there is no doubt that in this case the Government's judgment was right.
If the opposite decision had been taken then certainly the hon. Gentleman's friends who rang up all those different places trying to get information would not have received a negative response. They would have found all the posts manned. The manning of Government and local government offices round the clock is obviously something which cannot be
1466
done the whole time unless a state of emergency warrants putting the preparations into what I have called a state of immediate readiness. To put it into a state of immediate readiness is one of the measures which would have been taken immediately, if our home defence plans were put into operation. It is, indeed, one of the simpler measures to put into operation and could have been done, as I have said, in a matter of hours.
I should like to turn secondly to the point which the hon. Gentleman made about the Government deceiving the country on the nature of this catastrophe if it were to occur. I wish to say with all emphasis that the Government have never sought to conceal that a nuclear war would cause millions of casualties, and suffering and damage on a scale which runs to the extreme limit of human imagination. This cannot be denied. There have been many calculations of the effects, but all are speculative, and, however serious the effects were, it is impossible for any responsible Government to refuse to admit the possibility that there would be survivors, perhaps millions of survivors. This is borne out by all the scientific appreciations in this country and other countries and the numerous exercises which have been carried out with our Allies.
Civil defence could not prevent millions of casualties, but it could help many men, women and children to survive, and reduce their suffering. As it is impossible to say in what part of the country there would be, in the event of this terrible catastrophe, the greatest number of survivors and the greatest need for civil defence, it is obvious that our measures have to be carried out throughout the country. I do not think it necessary for me to argue this point further because this seems to me to be something which any responsible Government would have to recognise—even a Government of nuclear disarmers; because in the present state of the world, and till there is international control of nuclear weapons, it is impossible to say that such nuclear attack upon us is inconceivable.
What the hon. Member has also asked me is why we do not do more to inform the public about the possibilities of this kind of catastrophe. However much we did, it would always be possible to ask why we did not do more. A great deal

1467
is done by Government and other forms of publication. The Peace News article to which the hon. Member referred—I have studied it carefully—was compiled entirely from published information, much of it information published by the Government. We have put into circulation in recent years a number of manuals and pamphlets, to some of which the hon. Member referred. Some are given away free and those which are not given away free, because they are training pamphlets for the use of civil defence personnel in training, are all on sale to the public.
I do not say that they are on sale through borough libraries—no doubt that is not the function of borough libraries—but they are on sale to the public through bookshops if anyone wants to obtain them. I have with me "The Hydrogen Bomb", "Home Defence and the Farmer", "Nuclear Weapons", and two recruiting pamphlets published in the last two years.
Since reference has been made to it in public recently, I should like to tell the House that we have also decided to issue in the New Year a further handbook for training purposes, another in the series of civil defence manuals, under the title, "The Householder's Handbook". It will go to all members of the police, fire and civil defence services, including the industrial civil defence service and the National Hospital Service Reserve. In accordance with the practice which we have followed with all these pamphlets, it will also be put on sale so that anyone else who wants to study it can do so. The reason we are not circulating it on a vast scale free is that we are not asking any member of the
1468
public to take any action on the basis of this handbook.
This is a training manual for civil defence to teach the civil defence corps the kind of instruction which they will have to pass on, possibly at short notice, to the public in the event of an imminent emergency. The text deals with the risks as we now see them and the advice which would be given to householders if the Government decided that the time had come for them to take physical precautions against these risks. But we are not asking anybody to take these precautions now, and it would hopelessly dislocate their lives if they attempted to do so.
On the article in Topic to which the hon. Member referred, I ask him in all honesty to believe me when I say that this article was from beginning to end a travesty of the facts and of the conversation which the author of the article had with officials of the Home Office.
In conclusion, although it is our primary aim to prevent such a disastrous war from ever breaking out, it is impossible for any Government to rule out of consideration entirely the sort of dangers about which we have been talking tonight, although we hope that they will never come about. Civil defence is an insurance policy against them, and to say that such an insurance policy tends to promote the very dangers against which it is directed is similar to saying that a ship is more likely to be steered on to the rocks because it is carrying lifeboats. No responsible Government could accept such nonsense.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at four minutes past Eleven o'clock.

RAILWAYS
  Withdrawn Services, East Midlands Area
  Withdrawn Services, East Midlands Area
  Workshops
  Workshops
  Railway Board's Proposals
  Railway Board's Proposals
  Branch Railway Tracks
  Branch Railway Tracks
ROADS
  London-Yorkshire Motorway (Extension)
  London-Yorkshire Motorway (Extension)
  East-West Horsham Bypass
  East-West Horsham Bypass
  Islington (Proposed Lorry Route)
  Islington (Proposed Lorry Route)
  Clearways, Breconshire
  Clearways, Breconshire
  "Slow" Signs
  "Slow" Signs
  Accidents
  Accidents
  King's Lynn Bypass
  King's Lynn Bypass
  Cromwell Road, Kensington
  Cromwell Road, Kensington
  Trafford Park and Stretford (Schemes)
  Trafford Park and Stretford (Schemes)
  B.1062 Road (Classification)
  B.1062 Road (Classification)
  Lancashire-Yorkshire Motorway
  Lancashire-Yorkshire Motorway
  M.1 (Sheffield-Leeds Spur)
  M.1 (Sheffield-Leeds Spur)
  North-East England and Midlands
  North-East England and Midlands
  Pedestrian Crossing, Sheldon
  Pedestrian Crossing, Sheldon
  River Tyne (Bridge)
  River Tyne (Bridge)
  Lichfield (Goods Vehicles)
  Lichfield (Goods Vehicles)
  London Roads (Letter to Local Authorities)
  London Roads (Letter to Local Authorities)
  Off-Street Parking, London
  Off-Street Parking, London
  Outer London Tube Stations (Parking)
  Outer London Tube Stations (Parking)
  River Wear (Bridge)
  River Wear (Bridge)
  Bridge, Cardiff
  Bridge, Cardiff
  Gatwick Road
  Gatwick Road
  Flyovers, Hammersmith and Chiswick
  Flyovers, Hammersmith and Chiswick
SHIPPING
  Port Talbot (Rochdale Committee's Report)
  Port Talbot (Rochdale Committee's Report)
  Harbour, Brancaster (Wreck)
  Harbour, Brancaster (Wreck)
  Rochdale Report
  Rochdale Report
  Nuclear-Powered Merchant Ship
  Nuclear-Powered Merchant Ship
TRANSPORT
  Road Vehicles (Test Weighings)
  Road Vehicles (Test Weighings)
  Motor Vehicle Licences
  Motor Vehicle Licences
  Goods Vehicles
  Goods Vehicles
  Driving Licences
  Driving Licences
  Motor Vehicle Design (Safety)
  Motor Vehicle Design (Safety)
  British Transport Commission (Advertising Sites)
  British Transport Commission (Advertising Sites)
  Goods Vehicles (Brake Tests)
  Goods Vehicles (Brake Tests)
  Heavy Loads (Road and River Carriage)
  Heavy Loads (Road and River Carriage)
EMPLOYMENT
  Coatbridge and Airdrie
  Coatbridge and Airdrie
  Apprenticeships
  Apprenticeships
  Boys and Girls
  Boys and Girls
  Goole
  Goole
  County of Durham
  County of Durham
  Blyth, Bedlington Station and Seaton Delaval
  Blyth, Bedlington Station and Seaton Delaval
  Steel Erectors, Thurrock
  Steel Erectors, Thurrock
  Hull
  Hull
  Ship-Repairing Yards, Southampton
  Ship-Repairing Yards, Southampton
  Motherwell and Wishaw
  Motherwell and Wishaw
  Male Employees
  Male Employees
  Shipbuilding and Marine Engineering, Scotland
  Shipbuilding and Marine Engineering, Scotland
  Coal-Mining, Scotland
  Coal-Mining, Scotland
  Iron and Steel Industry, Scotland
  Iron and Steel Industry, Scotland
  Locomotive Manufacture and Repair, Glasgow
  Locomotive Manufacture and Repair, Glasgow
  Average Weekly Earnings
  Average Weekly Earnings
  Falmouth
  Falmouth
  Construction Industry (Large Sites)
  Construction Industry (Large Sites)
  Dearne Valley
  Dearne Valley
  Barry Docks
  Barry Docks
  Railway Carriage Manufacture and Repair, Scotland
  Railway Carriage Manufacture and Repair, Scotland
  SEA-BED (DEVELOPMENT)
  SEA-BED (DEVELOPMENT)
  YEMEN AND UNITED ARAB REPUBLIC
  YEMEN AND UNITED ARAB REPUBLIC
  ANGOLA (U.N. RESOLUTION)
  ANGOLA (U.N. RESOLUTION)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Germany (Defence Orders)
  Germany (Defence Orders)
  India and Pakistan
  India and Pakistan
  Chinese Language
  Chinese Language
  U.S.S.R.
  U.S.S.R.
ROYAL NAVY
  Aberdeen Shipyards
  Aberdeen Shipyards
  Shipbuilding Programme
  Shipbuilding Programme
SCOTLAND
  Tourist Industry
  Tourist Industry
  Equalisation Grant
  Equalisation Grant
  Croft No. 3, West Murkle
  Croft No. 3, West Murkle
  Geriatric Beds, East Fife
  Geriatric Beds, East Fife
  Hospital Revenue Allocations (Regions)
  Hospital Revenue Allocations (Regions)
  Victoria Infirmary, Glasgow
  Victoria Infirmary, Glasgow
  Out-Patient Departments (Appointments System)
  Out-Patient Departments (Appointments System)
  Universities (Reports)
  Universities (Reports)
  Out-Patients, Glasgow
  Out-Patients, Glasgow
  Cancer
  Cancer
  Teacher, Lindsay High School
  Teacher, Lindsay High School
  Approved Schools
  Approved Schools
  Darnley and Summerston (Housing)
  Darnley and Summerston (Housing)
  Hospital Boards of Management
  Hospital Boards of Management
MINISTRY OF AVIATION
  Helicopters (Noise)
  Helicopters (Noise)
  West London Air Terminal
  West London Air Terminal
  Printed Circuits
  Printed Circuits
  Defence Contracts (Radio and Telecommunication)
  Defence Contracts (Radio and Telecommunication)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Thorne
  Thorne
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Chalgrove Airfield
  Chalgrove Airfield
  Police, B.F.P.O. 43 (Christmas and New Year)
  Police, B.F.P.O. 43 (Christmas and New Year)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Fertiliser Subsidy
  Fertiliser Subsidy
  Farm Improvement Scheme
  Farm Improvement Scheme
  Chemicals
  Chemicals
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Sleeping Tablets, Tranquillisers
  Sleeping Tablets, Tranquillisers
PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Earnings Rule
  Earnings Rule
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Annuities (Assessment of Value)
  Annuities (Assessment of Value)
BRITISH ARMY
  11th Hussars (Letter)
  11th Hussars (Letter)
  Commanding Officers of Battalions (Correspondence)
  Commanding Officers of Battalions (Correspondence)

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

VISCOUNT DAVENTRY
Robert Oliver, Viscount Daventry, of Daventry in the County of Northampton, claiming by descent from his mother Muriel, created Viscountess Daventry by Patent, bearing date the third day of May one thousand nine hundred and forty-three—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

ROAD SIGNS AND SIGNALS
2.47 p.m.
LORD BOSSOM: 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, with the object of adding another safety element to road travel, require all road signs to be absolutely uniform in form, shape, size and colour; and require all sign replacements or new signs to conform to this standardisation: also require all hand and sound signals to be uniform throughout the British Isles and to be put under the control of one authority, or, if they are still to remain under the control of local authorities, require these to get approval of all signs from one controlling body.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM): My Lords, Traffic Signs Regulations already prescribe the form, shape, size and colour of signs. A number of variations have recently been authorised by way of experiment. As I informed the noble Lord on August 1 last, all aspects of traffic signs on roads other than motorways are at present under consideration by the Committee on Traffic Signs, under the chairmanship
234
of Sir Walter Worboys. I know that they have in mind the importance of uniformity and will be considering what administrative arrangements are necessary to achieve it. Her Majesty's Government would naturally wish to await this Committee's Report before making any changes in the present requirements.
The only official hand signals are those prescribed in the Highway Code. With sound signals, there is no evidence to suggest that the present diversity would justify the issue of further regulations.
LORD BOSSOM: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that Answer, I would ask: would it not be desirable, from the point of view of saving life, to try to see that uniformity exists all over the country as quickly as possible? We look in the paper every day and see reports of accidents, as I am sure my noble friend is aware. Look at yesterday's condition. Will my noble friend do his utmost to try to help in this matter?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, yes. As I have told your Lordships before, Her Majesty's Government are aware of the importance of uniformity. That is precisely why the present inquiry is being carried out, in order to make quite sure that we are proceeding in the best way and have the best type of signs, and that they will achieve precisely the object that my noble friend has in mind. Exactly what signs are desirable in conditions of practically nil visibility will, I think, need a little further thought.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether, at the same time as this Committee which he has mentioned are giving attention to the points which the noble Lord, Lord Bossom, has raised, he will ask them to take this further point into consideration? Under present conditions, when the dire necessity is for every driver of a motor vehicle to keep his eyes fixed firmly on the road in front of him, all signs should be at a height at which a driver of a motor car or motor vehicle can see them, without having to stop to look up and thereby endanger the traffic that is following.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I do not think there is the slightest need for

235
the Committee concerned to be reminded of that point. But if there turned out to be any need, I would certainly do so.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, if the noble Lord thinks that, would he object to my saying that he is not aware of the facts? Because quite recently I have measured direction signs and other signs giving information to drivers of motor vehicles, and they have been over 14 feet from the ground. That, in my view, is a dangerous height for any sign to be placed.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I was aware of that. It was that awareness which prompted my answer.
LORD BOSSOM: Will my noble friend use his own offices, and those of his Ministry, to try to get this urged on as quickly as possible? Yesterday was not the first day on which we had a fog; and on every other day you have the same trouble on the roads.
LORD CHESHAM: What I endeavoured to point out to my noble friend was that in a thick fog it is very difficult to see any signs at all. But this matter is going forward, and it is expected that the results of the Committee's work will be presented to my right honourable friend in March next year.

BRITISH SUBJECTS' EGYPTIAN CLAIMS
2.51 p.m.
LORD KILLEARN: 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—
(1) Whether they can give the latest figures in respect of the claims of British subjects for compensation for losses resulting from the Suez Affair for Egyptianised and sequestrated property respectively showing:—

(a) Number and total value of claims received in each category;

(b) Number and value of claims assessed in each category;

(c) Total value of payments made to each category.

(2) How much interest on the Fund of £27½ million has been received and how much deducted in tax.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, the reply to the first part of my noble friend's Question consists of a table of figures, and with your Lordships' indulgence I will read it. Under Part III of the Order, which covers Egyptianisation, the number of formulated applications received totalled 1,013, claiming a total of 64,154,887 Egyptian pounds. Of these 1,013 claims, 648 were established and assessed at £44,612,162. I must apologise that the first figure is in Egyptian pounds; the other figures which I shall quote are all sterling. Under Part IV of the Order, which includes sequestration, 2,380 formulated applications were received, claiming a total of £12,433,966; and, of these, 1,818 claims were established and assessed at £4,240,280. As to the payments made in each category, of the claims assessed under Part III—that is, Egyptianisation—614 payments have been made, totalling £12,207,673; and, of the sequestration damage claims, 1,601 claims assessed were paid a total of £1,884,022. So that the total payments under the two categories is about £14 million.
In reply to the second part of my noble friend's Question, up to November 30 of this year the gross amount of income received from that part of the Egyptian Compensation Fund available from time to time for investment was £3,026,007, and the tax on that which had been paid up to March 31 of this year was £959,619. So that the net total of the Fund has been increased thereby from £27½ million to about £29½ million.
LORD KILLEARN: I should like to thank the noble Earl for the very detailed information he has given in reply to the first part of my Question. It will obviously take a little digesting, but I am grateful to him for it—it is very helpful to all of us. As regards the second part of my Question, the noble Earl will remember that when his noble friend replied to a similar Question in this House there was expressed, I think, a general repugnance at this charging of tax on the interest on this Fund. I am not suggesting that it is not legal, but

237
it is not very nice. May I suggest to the noble Earl that the feeling of the House is probably the same to-day as it was the last time we discussed this matter—that is, one of some repugnance at the charging of tax on the interest on this Fund payable to these sufferers?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I am aware of my noble friend's views on this subject. I do not think I can add anything to what was said by my noble friend Lord Mills on the two occasions when your Lordships discussed it, on November 29 of last year and January 24 of this year.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I do not think that removes the feeling in the minds of so many of us that where a Fund of this kind has had to be dealt with—at very long intervals in the case of some of those concerned—it is unfair to tax the interest on the Fund which is being held before final distribution, instead of using it for meeting the expenses of the people concerned. I think that is very uncharitable.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, on the other hand, I know your Lordships are hoping that the Government may be able to provide a sum for what is called "topping up", which will be, I am sure your Lordships hope, rather greater than the amount which has been paid in tax. I do not know whether or not that will be taken into account in deciding the amount of "topping up", but I cannot anticipate the statement which I hope will be made on behalf of the Government at an early date.
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, may I again thank the noble Earl for his answer and express the hope once more—the vain hope—that this question of taxation will be in some manner reconsidered? Apparently £990,000 has been paid in tax, which amount would otherwise have accrued to the Fund. It may be law—it is law—but it does not seem to be moral.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, might I ask the noble Earl, with regard to the losses against Egyptianised property, whether I am correct in understanding that all likely claims have now been entered and that therefore, as against the sequestrated amount, it is likely that the total which will rank for dividend is now complete, so that when the total
238
amount of short-fall is assessed at least the Egyptianised part will be concluded?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I am not sure about that, because a large number of application forms received by the Commission are still unformulated, in the sense that they do not contain a statement of the amount or, in some cases, a description of the property concerned. In addition, the assessment of many of the outstanding fully-formulated claims is being held up for lack of evidence. But as a result of the exchange of Notes of August 7 of this year, we hope that many of these difficulties will soon be overcome.
LORD BARNBY: While thanking the noble Earl for his reply, may I ask whether it is to be understood that the amounts of the Egyptianised claims have not yet been formulated, though registered?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Some of them are not yet fully completed.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, is the word "Egyptianisation" a word from which there is no escape?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, there may be no escape, but I hope there may be a deliverance.

SOUTH OF SCOTLAND ELECTRICITY PRICES
2.59 p.m.
LORD FERRIER: 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 are aware of the widespread disappointment among domestic consumers which has been caused by the publication of the new off-peak tariffs by the South of Scotland Electricity Board and the resentment which has arisen from the wording of the publication.]
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, the prices to be charged for electricity in their district is a matter for the South of Scotland Electricity Board. Consumers may make representations about them to the Electricity Consultative Council for the South Board's Area.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, while thanking the noble Marquess for his Answer, with your Lordships' permission I should like to express a welcome to him on this his first appearance at the Dispatch Box at Question Time. Nevertheless, I must declare my interest because in terms of the off-peak tariffs published in March this year I have myself put in an off-peak circuit. Be that as it may, I think I am right in saying there has been great disappointment and resentment at the manner and production of these off-peak tariffs. May I ask the noble Marquess whether it might not he proper, in view of this situation, and aware as one is of his position vis-à-vis the local board, to suggest to them that at least some moratorium might he introduced, perhaps some delay, so that the possible injudicious nature of these increases might be reconsidered and certainly the manner of their presentation might in the interests of consumer relations be reconsidered also?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: May I first of all thank my noble friend for his kind remarks, and assure him I am also a fellow consumer of the Board to which he refers and I do have an appreciation of his problem. So far as this question is concerned, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has no power of direction in this matter: it is entirely one for the Board. Nevertheless, I am quite certain that the Board will take notice of what has been said in this House this afternoon and, indeed, of the many letters which have appeared in the Scottish Press in the last few days about this matter.

ANCOLOXIN
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL BARONESS SUMMERSKILL had given Notice of the following Question:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will direct the British Drug Houses to withdraw the drug Ancoloxin from the market following the statement by the College of General Practitioners, which draws the attention of doctors to an association it has found between the maternal use of this antiemetic drug and the birth of congenitally deformed babies.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I have to convey the apologies of my noble friend Lady Summerskill to the House
240
because she is unable to come to the House to-day. I do not propose to ask the next Question on her behalf.

COAL INDUSTRY BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1ª and to be printed.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES
Order of the Day read for the consideration of the First Report from the Select Committee.
The Committee reported as follows:
1.—APPOINTMENT OF SUB-COMMITTEES
(a)Library
The Sub-Committee on the Library was appointed as follows: E. Attlee, E. Home, V. Esher, V. Simonds (Chairman), V. Soulbury, L. Amulree, L. Burden, L. Chorley, L. Merthyr, L. Reid and the Lord Great Chamberlain, with the Clerk of the Parliaments.
(b) Refreshment Department
The Sub-Committee on the Refreshment Department was appointed as follows: E. St. Aldwyn, L. Amulree, L. Killearn, L. Macpherson of Drumochter, L. Shepherd, B. Swanborough, and the Lord Great Chamberlain, with the Clerk of the Parliaments, with power to co-opt further members and to appoint its own Chairman.
(c) House of Lords' Estimates
The Sub-Committee on the House of Lords' Estimates was appointed as follows: E. St. Aldwyn, E. Lucan, L. Amulree and L. Merthyr (Chairman).
2.—PARLIAMENT OFFICE
The Committee authorised revised salaries for the Clerk Assistant, Reading Clerk, Principal Clerks and Chief Clerks with effect from 1st October, 1962.
The Committee were informed that the Clerk of the Parliaments had appointed Mr. J. V. D. Webb and Mr. J. E. Grey as Senior Clerks in the Parliament Office from 1st October, 1962.
The Committee authorised the appointment of an additional Office Assistant on the staff of (the Department of the Clerk of the Parliaments.
3.—DOORKEEPERS
The Committee authorised an increase in the allowance to two doorkeepers for extra duties at judicial sittings and a daily allowance to any other doorkeeper required to attend a judicial sitting with effect from October 1, 1962.
4.—REVISED SCALES OF PAY
The Committee sanctioned the application of Establishments Circular No. 26/62 dated August 1, 1962, Chief and Senior Executive Officers etc., Revised scales of pay to analogous grades of the staff of the House of Lords.
The Committee also authorised revised scales of pay for the Assistant Clerks of the Records and the Assistant Librarian.
5.—PALACE OF WESTMINSTER CUSTODIAN STAFF
The Committee sanctioned revised rates of shift allowances to the Custodian staff with effect from July 1, 1962.
6.—RETIREMENT OF SENIOR CUSTODIAN
The Committee sanctioned the payment of a gratuity under the Superannuation Acts to Mr. Frank Austin Rideout on his retirement on January 27, 1963.
7.—VICTORIA TOWER
The Committee were informed of the progress of the work of reconstruction in the Victoria Tower and approved the appointment of an additional Housemaid from January 1, 1963.
8.—SUPERANNUATION
The Committee sanctioned the adoption of any statutory provisions in regard to Pensions which may become applicable to retired Officers and Officials of the House of Lords.
9.—ESTIMATES
The Estimates for the House of Lords for 1963–64 were laid before the Committee and approved.
10.—ELECTRICAL RECORDING
The Committee were informed of the result of the experiments carried out in assisting the official reporters by the electrical recording of debates in the House and approved the permanent installation of the necessary apparatus.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD AIREDALE): My Lords, on behalf of the Lord Chairman of Committees, I beg to move that this Report be now considered.
Moved, That the Report be now considered.—(Lord Airedale.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I beg to move this Report be now agreed to. I think that, in accordance with the normal custom, I should do this formally, but if noble Lords have any questions arising out of the Report. I will, of course, do my best to answer them.
Moved, That the Report be agreed to.—(Lord Airedale.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ROYAL COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS OF GLASGOW ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Read 3ª (according to Order), and passed.

STATUTORY ORDERS (SPECIAL PROCEDURE) (SUBSTITUTION) ORDER, 1962
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, the humble Address for which I move looks extremely complicated on the Order Paper, but I am glad to tell your Lordships that in fact it is not so. It is a quite simple matter and not a very large one. Last year, as some of your Lordships will recall, there was a case when the Tees-side Railless Traction Board, who operate trolley buses, had to obtain authority to divert one of their routes over a short distance for a few months because of a bridge under reconstruction. At the time my noble friend Lord Merrivale asked whether this cumbersome procedure which was necessary by means of a Provisional Order and a subsequent Confirmation Bill was really essential for so small and simple an operation. He suggested at the time that Special Parliamentary Procedure was a possible alternative, although, of course that would need to be applied to the local Act under which the undertaking operated, by another Act.
It seems a reasonable point to consider and my noble friend moved an Amendment on the Committee stage of the Road Traffic Bill in November, 1961 in general terms. That Amendment I accepted in principle, but he kindly agreed to withdraw it at my request so that further consideration could be given to the drafting of it. In that consideration it became apparent (I wrote to him about it) that what he wanted would be met by an Order in Council under the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, 1945. I promised at the time either to see that such an Order in Council was made or to revert to action during the course of the Road Traffic Bill. There was no reason not to make an Order in Council and to-day we are facing the final stage in this matter. That is the Order for which I am asking your Lordships' approval.
What it means is that a much simpler and easier and more convenient procedure will be available to trolley bus operators when they vary their route, but maintaining the safeguards for the interests of anyone affected by it. It will mean that 16 of the 22 authorities who operate trolley buses will be able to

243
use this simpler procedure. I should point out that the other six authorities already have applied this procedure to their undertakings by a local Act. Several Orders, seven to be exact, have been promoted under this procedure, and no difficulty whatever has arisen and certainly not at the Parliamentary stage. That is what this Order will do. I should tell your Lordships, I think, that the operators and the Association of Municipal Corporations have been consulted and agree to the Order. There are one or two variations in the offing which would certainly be helped and I think that this Order, if your Lordships will approve it, will be welcome to the operators and make life in a small way easier for everybody. I hope your Lordships will approve it. I beg to move.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the provisions of the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, 1945 be applied to the orders hereafter to be made under the enactments mentioned in Schedule 1 to the draft Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) (Substitution) Order, 1962 laid before this House by Command on the 7th of November last, in substitution for the provisions in those enactments providing that such Orders shall be provisional only and shall not have effect until confirmed by Parliament.—(Lord Chesham.)
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, as for the last five years, on and off, inside and outside of Parliament, I have been taking an interest in electric traction, I should like to thank most sincerely my noble friend and Her Majesty's Government for the action, although it might be a small one and not one of great importance to your Lordships, that has been taken and I am most appreciative of that fact. I should like to add a few words, my Lords. In the past in their ministerial capacity—and I say this with respect and regret—my noble friends Lord Mills and Lord Mancroft were not perhaps as forthcoming as the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, is to-day. Therefore, it gives me great pleasure to see him take an interest in this form of traction. Also, I would thank him for kindly contacting trolley bus or trolley vehicle operators on September 8, 1961, and on March 23, 1962, with a view to
244
obtaining their views on this simplified procedure which would be applicable to the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, 1945.
It is heartening to know also that no Petition has been presented against this Special Order, and that it will benefit sixteen local authorities and, I am glad to say, will give pleasure to the Association of Municipal Corporations, who are interested in this matter. It is interesting to recall that in February, 1957, Ben England, then general manager of Nottingham City Transport, wrote in Bus and Coach, an article headed, "If only Parliament had encouraged electric traction", which commented on what trolley buses might have been in this country.
I am wondering whether one can take this Order as a small realisation on the part of Her Majesty's Government that there are some benefits in trolley-vehicle operation. Last Wednesday, my noble friend Lord Molson, in his excellent opening speech, referred to the way trolley buses were being used in Philadelphia within the context of a balanced public transport system—and that is important. I had intended to refer to rapid transport, but I had a word beforehand with my noble friend who told me that that would be against the wishes of your Lordships, so I will not do so. In conclusion, whilst again thanking my noble friend for what he has personally done, and for what his Ministry have done, should like to ask him whether, in the context of this whole question, he will be willing to look at the editorial article in Passenger Transport of November of last year. The article was headed "Planning and Traffic", and I would ask him particularly to note the last words:
"Why is it so little progress is being made here in planning for future transport of urban passengers?"
I am sorry to have mentioned that at the end, but it is something which I have felt for many years. I would again say that I am most grateful to Her Majesty's Government.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for what he has said about this Order. So far as his further suggestion is concerned, I can only say that if the article is in the tone of what are apparently its concluding

245
words, I should disagree with it in advance.
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Address to be opresented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

CRIMES OF VIOLENCE: COMPENSATION FOR VICTIMS
3.13 p.m.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD THE EARL OF LONGFORD rose to call attention to the Report of the Working Party on Compensation for Victims of Crimes of Violence (Cmnd. 1406); and to move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I rise to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper and to call attention to the pressing need for a Government scheme of compensation for victims of violence. I am glad to notice a very distinguished list of speakers to follow me. I am particularly glad to think that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is to wind up the debate, and also that I am to be followed by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, whom we have missed so much in the world of crime since he took to business; but I am glad to think that, like myself, he has found no necessary conflict between these interests, and I welcome back to the crime club one of its most distinguished and ardent members.
In moving this Motion, I appear to be pushing at a door which is at any rate ajar. The days have gone by when the late Margery Fry, that wonderful woman, was ploughing her lonely heroic furrow, encouraged by a few sympathisers, such as the late Lord Drogheda in this House and also, as time passed by, several Members of the House of Commons, of whom Mr. Prentice and Mr. Carol Johnson have introduced Private Members' Bills. Even as recently as June, 1961, the Home Office Working Party, which was set up by Mr. Butler, could argue in their Report that
"there is little evidence beyond what has been said from time to time in articles in the Press of public opinion about the matter".
Even at that time, or by the time their Report came out in June of last year, they were already outdated, and I am sure that those excellent gentlemen would not deny today the degree of public interest and support if they
246
looked at the Press cuttings which arose, for example, from the recent report of Justice, which, as your Lordships know, is a non-Party society of jurists.
I had the honour to be titular chairman of the Justice Sub-committee, although much greater experts than I did the bulk of the work. The noble Lord, Lord Shawcross, who I am very pleased is going to speak later, as Chairman of Justice, commended our Report in a weighty foreword. Among the newspapers that I studied, perhaps the Daily Mirror spoke the most clearly and vehemently. It asked the question,
"Should innocent victims of cosh-thugs and gunmen be paid compensation for injuries which wreck their health and earning power?"
And they gave the answer,
"The Mirror says: Yes. So do all decent citizens".
It would be going hardly too far to add, "So, it appears, do all decent newspapers." The Times avoided, as is its wont, too ardent a commitment, but referred to
"the strength of public feeling that something should be done about the many melancholy cases that are known to occur"
and referred also to the edge this feeling gives to the clamour for penal revenge. The Times was good enough to refer to the proposals of our Justice Committee as "novel and well-considered", and that I think was the general tone of the Press.
The Observer is confident in claiming that the principle of State compensation for victims of crimes of violence has been by now generally accepted. The Observer suggests that all that the Government have questioned is the practicability of any scheme and this question, says the Observer, has now been met by the Report of the Justice Committee. Whatever may have been the case a year or two ago, we do indeed seem to have reached the point where the country and the Government are largely at one in agreeing that a scheme is not only desirable but practicable. We seem to have reached the point where the only question which remains is what kind of scheme it should be.
The present Home Secretary, Mr. Brooke, answered Questions on this

247
subject on November 8 in another place. He was asked whether he had studied the Report of the Justice Committee and replied [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 666 (No. 8), col. 1146]:
"I am studying this important question of compensation for victims of crimes of violence in the light of the report to which the hon. Member refers and also of reports by a Committee of the Conservative Party, by the Bow Group and by the Police Sub-committee of the Association of Municipal Corporations. I am not yet in a position to make a statement, but I hope to be able to before long."
After further questions, he concluded:
"I do treat it as a matter of urgency, and, as I have said in public, I hope that it may fall to me to introduce legislation on this subject, but we have first to decide which of these various different schemes which have been recommended by responsible bodies is the best solution as a whole."
So I think that we can fairly say that the principle is by now virtually accepted.
I would just add this further comment at this point on that aspect of the matter. I quote very strongly and respectfully what the noble Lord, Lord Shawcross, said in his foreward to our Justice Report.
"Justice does not claim … that its own scheme is sacrosanct.… We welcome this Report by the Committee of the Conservative Party.… The Council of Justice … has suggested that there should be consultations with the Committee established by the Conservative Party so as to present to the Government at an early date a short statement resolving as we think possible such differences as exist between the two Reports."
That seemed an eminently laudable suggestion, and I would only add, for the benefit of those who were not aware of it, that the Chairman of the Committee of Conservative Members of Parliament, until he became a Minister, was the present Attorney General, which no doubt gives the Report special significance.
I should now say a word or two about the principles involved. Why are we so sure by now that the State ought to accept special responsibility for the victims of violence? One answer, if there were time, would be to take a whole string of individual cases and challenge anyone to deny that in these cases the community ought to provide some compensation where it is not provided at all or, at any rate, to provide much more generous compensation. In view of the time factor,
248
I will take, if I may, only one story to help us focus our thoughts, though it is far from an extreme example of the cause I am submitting, because in this story the victim has a good employer, has received some industrial injury benefit and hopes to receive some disability benefit. No doubt his compensation will be much less than he would receive in a Common Law action, which in this case would be, as the House would appreciate in a moment, clearly futile. There are many cases of much greater material hardship, though I think few more poignant, in one sense, than the one I shall offer to the House.
The Home Office White Paper mentions, for example, children, widows and those past working age who do not qualify under any form of National Insurance, and it gives some illustrations. It mentions a nineteen-year old girl whose skull was fractured by a man with a hammer; a girl of eighteen who was brutally attacked by a man in a country lane, who lost her voice and the use of her right hand for several months; a man who kept a general store, whose skull was fractured by a youth with the butt of a revolver; a middle-aged woman who was attacked when returning from a Church Service on Christmas Eve, whose teeth and ribs were broken and who lost the sight of one eye; and it mentions a man who was knocked down and killed in a London street leaving his widow destitute.
Those are cases, admittedly picked out as extreme cases, in the Report of the Home Office officials. My own example, the one I want to mention briefly, can be studied at greater length in an article written by the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, in last Thursday's Guardian. It concerns a Mr. Kenneth Carew, a young West Indian, recently joined here by his wife, young children and widowed mother, who was employed as a London bus conductor on September 2. On that day, fourteen teenagers boarded his bus and soon made themselves objectionable. Some or them shouted, "Black man" and "rubber lips" at Mr. Carew. He found it difficult or impossible to collect their fares. The bus came to a stop. The teenagers gave the signal for the bus to restart. Mr. Carew, as was his duty, rebuked them, pointing out that it was his job to start the bus. Two of them

249
attacked him, kicking him ferociously. He backed down the stairs, but a final kick caught him full in the face. He was admitted to hospital, where one of his eyes had to be removed.
The week before last two youths, aged sixteen and twenty, were sentenced to five months detention for causing bodily harm to Mr. Carew. In evidence, passengers said that they heard one of the youths say, "We had a fight on the bus and we kicked the conductor's eye out. It was smashing." According to this passenger, one of the youths said the conductor ran screaming down the stairs. In fairness, I should say that counsel for the young man denied that this young aggressor knew that Mr. Carew had lost his eye. At any rate, that is the story. Lord Altrincham reports that he was deeply impressed by Mr. Carew's attitude in adversity. He is certainly not indulging in what used to be called "bellyaching". But I need not continue. I cannot believe there is a single Member of this House or the general public who would deny that we, the community, ought to do far more to compensate a young man like Mr. Carew—even where there is a good employer and the Industrial Injuries Act works—than there is any prospect of our doing. I am taking him as one human being whose afflictions and injustices are representative of a good many.
When we are faced with that case, or other cases of the same kind, we feel with every fibre of our being that the State ought to accept a much greater measure of responsibility for paying compensation. Yet I suppose it is not easy to point to a simple principle behind our moral convictions in this kind of case. How can we justify requiring the State to pay a higher compensation to the victim of an assault than to the victim of an accident, where there are the same physical consequences? Or, if we come on it from another angle, how can one justify State compensation for the victims of violence without State compensation for the victims of other crimes, such as stealing? In other words, how can we justify compensation for victims of crimes against the person, and not justify it for crimes against property?
Those questions are answered at length in our own Justice Report and also in the Report of the Conservative
250
Members of Parliament. If noble Lords will refer to those texts they will find, I think, in each case some arguments which appeal to them more than others. But I must leave noble Lords to make that study for themselves. I do not know whether my own Justice Committee would agree, but I am myself well satisfied with a summary of our reasoning which appeared in the Law Journal of November 9. It summarised our conclusions or our points in this way:
"The Justice Committee are of opinion that the State must accept some liability for the victims' injuries because it has a duty both to maintain peace and order and to provide effective civil remedies for wrongs."
A double duty, to maintain peace and order and to provide effective remedies for wrongs: that is how they summarised what seemed to them most important in our replies to the question I have put. I am not myself sure (perhaps the lawyers will tell us) what would be meant by asserting an absolute responsibility in either case. But surely no one will deny that there is on the State a double duty of some kind; to preserve effective peace and order, and to provide effective civil remedies. And where the State fails in both respects, the State cannot avoid an essential responsibility for the victim.
To-day, my Lords, we are most of us conscious of the two outstanding factors. The first is the large increase since prewar days in violent crime, though it is still, of course, a small proportion of the total crime. Secondly, we are aware of the fact (to quote paragraph 4 of the Home Office Working Party Report) that the right of the victim of assault against his assailant is seldom exercised—this seems to me a point of the first importance—because as a rude the assailant is either unknown or, if he is known, he has no means and is not worth suing. That, I aim sure, is a basic factor in the thoughts of all of us. We are aware that, at a time when other members of the community who are in need of help are increasingly cared for, this particular group of unfortunates are not only not being helped on a par with others, but are actually having a worse time with every year the crime wave continues. Their risks, in a sense, are becoming worse. If I am asked: "Is not this true, to some extent at least, of those Who suffer from crimes against property," I

251
do not think I can give what would be regarded as an intellectually coercive answer, though I am very confident about the practical answer which ought to be given. I would certainly reply that what we are now proposing has no necessary implications for victims generally; but we shall be making a start—if you like, an experimental start—in a sphere where the problem is limited in size, where private insurance is much less feasible than elsewhere, and where the public, by a true instinct, is sure that the need and distress are greatest.
The factors I have just touched on, including the recent growth of violent crime, have no doubt helped forward recently the cause of compensating victims of violence. But, mixed up with them, has been a feeling, perhaps as strong and growing stronger, that the criminal himself should make some reparation to his victim. May I say, in passing, that penal reformers (and I hope that I nay describe myself as one) have sometimes been rebuked, in this House and elsewhere, for showing too much concern for the criminal and not enough interest in the victim. On the whole, I do not think that is fair. The difficulties of taking an interest in a victim and his family are much greater than some might suppose. I found that out some time ago, when I was anxious to start a society called the Friends of the Victim and it was difficult to know how to get started.
But, my Lords, I am not insensitive to this kind of criticism; and I often ask myself whether there is any justification for it. I have, for example, down on the Order Paper of the House, for "No Date Named", a Motion seeking justice for one Michael Davies who was condemned to death, and who is now widely believed to be innocent, for the Clapham Common murder in 1953. He was subsequently reprieved and seven years later was released. I hope and believe that one day a free pardon will be secured; but I hope also that I never forget that the injustices and sufferings of Michael Davies and his family are not to be compared with those of the murdered boy and his family. I hope that no penal reformers are ever careless in recognising the far greater sufferings of the victims in a matter of that sort. I hope that the active support of penal reformers
252
for our cause to-day will finally nail the false allegation that it is the criminal alone who carries our sympathy.
In a small book on The Theory of Punishment which I published last year I looked forward to reparation by the criminal to the victim as occupying a much larger part in any constructive system of punishment in the future. But neither our own Justice Committee nor the Conservative Members of Parliament have shirked the disappointing truth that at the moment it is no good looking to the criminal for any substantial reparation. That will remain so while our penal system remains so backward and unimaginative and while the criminal in prison can still earn, in spite of the recent increase, no more than a few shillings.
Certainly, a really enlightened scheme of compensation for victims of violence would have two sides, the victim's side and the delinquent's side. But the delinquent's side of it cannot be introduced to any real effect—we say something about it in our Report—until there is a long overdue revolution in our penal system and in particular in our prison arrangements. But that must on no account be allowed to hold up the establishment of the first part of a full scheme—the compensation part—even if the State has to foot the bill in the first instance for nearly all of it. The Government White Paper concluded that the cost of a reasonable scheme was unlikely to exceed £1½R million; the Conservative Members of Parliament give a figure of £1 million; the Justice Committee of £1¼ million. All the figures are approximate. For once the Civil Service appear to be the most generous. But if any such scheme is worth introducing, as most of us feel very strongly it is, no one will regard the figures I have mentioned as in themselves prohibitive.
I come to the last section of my remarks, and inevitably I must summarise what is said. To be fully understood, it must be studied in the Report concerned. Granted that a scheme is desirable and that the State should largely pay for it, what should be its main features? The Justice Committee divides its conclusions under the main headings of "Scope of Compensation", "Nature of Compensation", "Position of the Offender",

253
"Administrative Machinery" and "Procedure". Under "Scope of Compensation" it abandons the attempt to provide an a priori definition of a crime of violence and defines it instead by reference to a schedule of offences rather more than thirty in number. The offences begin with murder, manslaughter, riot and unlawful assembly, and include grievous bodily harm and bodily harm, rape, unlawful sexual intercourse and incest; though on this last item of incest there were considerable differences of opinion. It also includes attempts to commit those offences.
The Conservative Committee also drew up a schedule of about the same length which is not widely dissimilar, though there are a number of differences. When it came to the nature of the compensation, the choice at first seemed to lie between two types of schemes. On the one hand, there might be something like the Industrial Injuries Scheme, under which periodical benefits are based on loss of faculty and what amounts to a flat-rate principle of subsistence; and, on the other hand, the lump sum awards of the Common Law based on reparation to the victim for his expenses and loss of earnings—which, of course, may differ greatly between two men suffering from the same injury—loss of the amenities of life and loss of life expectancy.
For reasons set out at length in the Report neither principle of benefit seems to the Committee quite satisfactory on its own. The Justice Committee therefore recommend what they call a hybrid scheme, based at once on the needs of the victim and the nature of his injuries. This means, in practice, under their scheme, that victims who are not earning—old people, widows and housewives, for instance—would receive lump sum awards. Those who are gainfully employed would receive reviewable weekly payments for loss of earnings based on the principle of reparation and not of subsistence. Therefore, presumably, as with Industrial Injury benefits, dependants of a victim should receive a weekly payment related to the income formerly received from the victim, or a lump sum award to cover the cost of resettlement.
The Conservative Committee appear to proceed on a different principle here, for they recommend that compensation should be assessed on the basis initially of Common Law damages. But in order
254
to meet the difficulty that a Common Law damages scheme might result in wide variations of compensation for similar injuries—the difficulty, shall we say, that a rich businessman, if he really lost earnings while away from his business, might get far more than a wage earner for the same injury—they set an upper limit to the amount of compensation payable. It does not appear likely that in practice their awards would differ much from the awards of our Committee, and that conclusion is reinforced by the very similar calculations about the cost of the respective scheme.
As regards the position of the offender, we actually say in our Report:
"Once the victim has received compensation from the State his right of action against the offender should be taken over by the State, which should seek to recover a contribution from the offender if it is economically practicable, and only to the extent that it does not impede the offender's rehabilitation."
The Conservatives, in their recommendations, which once again should be studied in the text, do not seem to see the problem with eyes very different from ours, but in neither case, as I warned the House earlier, is it expected that there will be, in the near future at any rate, much substantial return from the criminals.
Finally, I come to administrative machinery and procedure. Under our scheme a new tribunal would be created, to be known as the Crimes of Violence Compensation Board, to be composed of a legally qualified chairman, a doctor and a justice of the peace, of whom one should be a woman. The Board would be assisted by a full-time secretary and would move round the country if necessary. There should be, under our scheme, an unfettered right of appeal to the Court of Appeal on any question of fact or law. If there is thought to be any important difference—I do not know whether one would say there is or is not—between the Justice plan and the plan of the Conservative Committee, it lies here. Under the Conservative M.P.s' plan claims would have to be submitted in the first place to what they call "a specified official". This gentleman would appear to be a member of a Government Department, whereas our tribunal would be more independent and judicial, which, to us at any rate, seems in favour of our plan. If liability were denied or the

255
claimant were dissatisfied under the Conservative plan he could take the criminal either to the High Court or to the county court, so that in the last resort the victim would finish up in the Court of Appeal under their scheme as under ours.
The House must form its own opinion as to whether these differences are major or minor. I would not myself treat them as major. But surely there is no one who would claim that the difficulties can now be regarded as insuperable. Given the will, and that surely now exists all round, at least one sensible way exists to the goal; and possibly more than one. The present Home Secretary has said that he personally hoped that he would have a chance to bring in legislation on this subject, as I mentioned earlier. If he manages to do so, he will give special pleasure to an old room mate of his like myself—and, may I say, an old friend, which is not always quite the same thing. The pleasure would be added to if a decision could be announced or gently anticipated to-day by a still older friend in the form of the present Lord Chancellor. But time and political opportunity do not wait even for Home Secretaries and Lord Chancellors.
"The night cometh when no man can work."
I hope and pray that the Government and the Home Secretary will legislate while their sun is still high in the heavens, and will lead us in unison to this elementary piece of justice for the innocent and to the removal of a growing blot and burden on our social conscience. I beg to move for Papers.
3.45 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Longford, has introduced this difficult and interesting topic to your Lordships' House in just the sort of speech we might have expected of him, comprehensive, erudite, compassionate and very nearly right. I add this small qualification—and I ought perhaps to join him with his colleagues in Justice, who produced this admirable and interesting Report—that I think in the course of this Report they tend to underestimate the administrative difficulties. It is not, as the noble Earl says, impossible, but I think it is going to be more difficult to produce a workable
256
scheme than either he or his colleagues on Justice think. Therefore in my view no criticism attaches to Her Majesty's Government for not having taken action already upon this matter; it is a very difficult matter. If your Lordships read the three Reports to which the noble Earl referred earlier you will see that they conflict on quite a number of important points, and the Government were wise to wait until they had all the voices collected and could make certain that they were properly informed on a problem which I believe would be more difficult in practice and in principle than is generally realised.
Nevertheless, I feel that the time has come for Her Majesty's Government to act. I think it is no longer a question as to whether some scheme should be devised but merely how it should be devised, and when. What are my grounds for saying this? I think all of us who come to this problem with a fresh mind are brought up straight away against the difficulty of deciding whether we consider that the State has a duty to recompense the victim of violence. I have formed the opinion, for what it is worth, that the State has no absolute duty but has a qualified duty, land I say it for this reason. It is the duty of the State to preserve law and order. If the State fails to do that, then the State has a duty to repay for that failure. It is no good our getting up, as we do so frequently, and imploring the Government to have stricter rules, for instance, about obtaining a revolver, thereby drawing attention to the fact that it is not the duty of the citizen to take the law into his own hands, and then saying that if the State fails to preserve that law and order we have no rights against the State.
I also think there is an analogy to be drawn from the situation during the war, when the State took upon itself the duty to recompense all those whose property was damaged by enemy action. That was an almost absolute duty, although of course there was a contribution from insurance, as there is to a certain degree from all of us who subscribe to the Welfare State, the scope of which is increasing daily, and which I think would not be stretched beyond acceptance if it were to include the victims of violence. The National Insurance Scheme and the National Assistance Board, I think, are inadequate to fill this need.

257
We tend to be confused also by the hypothetical standard case. I will not take the terrible case of the bus conductor Mr. Carew, because that is an exceptional one, thank heavens! but the case we always take as an example is the case of Bill Sikes going to a little village shop and coshing an old lady over the head. That appeals to everybody's sentiments and sense of justice at once, but the difficulty is that it is a pretty rare type of case. It is also a straightforward one. The rest are much more difficult; and Bill Sikes's case represents only about 3 per cent, of the cases we shall have to deal with.
It is an unfortunate thing that nowadays such is one's fear of being cashed oneself or being involved in some uproar that the police have the greatest difficulty in getting anybody to come to their aid when there is an affray, or to give evidence afterwards. I well remember the late Lord Birkett, of affectionate memory, telling us in this House of a case when he was a young man at the Bar which arose out of an affray on licensed premises in the East End. He was cross-examining one of the witnesses of the affray and he said, "Why did you not come to the aid of the plaintiff?"; and the witness said, "Because I did not know he was going to be the plaintiff". That is the real situation which will have to be coped with by administrative action.
There are a few things which must be imponderables in any scheme. Let me for a moment rehearse one or two of the ponderables. First, any scheme we devise must not interfere with the work of the police or the courts. That is important. Second, its cost must be reasonable. We have been given by the noble Earl three sets of figures this afternoon, and perhaps the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack will be able to bring us up to date in his estimates of cost. We want to be careful here. We are always crying aloud for Government economies, and at the same time proposing new ways of spending money. We all say that Government expenditure must be cut to the bone, "but not my bone". We are all accustomed to hearing our elected representatives in another place saying that there must be a vast reduction in Government expenditure, "but not in my constituency".
258
Let us be quite clear that we are asking for a considerable sum of money to be expended upon this.
The noble Earl has also drawn attention to the need for differentiating carefully the types of crime to which such a scheme might apply, and the three appendices in these three Reports again show the difficulty of reaching a conclusion. What about the risk of fraud, which I think can be considerable? What about the crimes arising out of provocation—family rows, husband and wife squabbles? What about public house brawls and injuries arising out of things of that sort? The noble Earl touched also on the difficulty of coming to a decision in cases of sexual offences. I think this point was highlighted quite recently by the wise words of that wise Judge, Mr. Justice Stable, who observed in a case of rape at the Assizes that he wished that young ladies who got raped would stop getting raped earlier in the proceedings than they do.
We shall also have to consider this important question of reparation. I was glad to hear the noble Earl touch upon a subject which he and I have debated in your Lordships' House on many occasions. Of course we must do all we can to put Bill Sikes, to whom we of course give legal aid, in a position not only to support his wife and children whilst he is in prison, but also to give reparation to the little old lady whom he has coshed. How on earth can we do that if we give him no decent work to do in gaol and pay him a pittance for what little work he does? This is an important question of penal reform which we have discussed at length on many occasions. I only wish that the trade unions, who have given a little lead in these matters in the past, would do so more vigorously and try to abolish this old heresy that if you employ a main it gaol and give him a decent wage you are encouraging some form of slave labour. This just is not true. This is a vital point that I think the Government will have to tackle soon.
I returned two or three days ago from a fortnight's trip to South Africa. As the result of that trip to South Africa I am of course the leading authority on all South African affairs, and my book will be published shortly! I did notice, however, that they have a form of

259
punishment in South Africa, largely I think for traffic offences, though not wholly confined to them, which we might well consider here. They send a man to gaol, say for three years, but only at the week-ends. He works during the week to support his family. He earns enough money to make reparation to the man he has knocked down or injured, and yet he is also punished for his offence. This was news to me, and I earnestly commend the Lord Chancellor, when he is next tackling penal reform, to consider this South African example. It has the additional merit of combining the two worst features of those two deplorable institutions—the English week-end and the five-day week. I never discovered whether you are supposed to write a "bread and butter" letter to the Governor of the gaol every Monday morning when you come out.
There are certain considerations, therefore, which govern this subject; and the scheme which the noble Lord favours which may well be the right one. Whatever scheme we eventually devise not only must be fair but must be seen to be fair by everybody. That is why I, for my part, favour damages and the court scheme rather than the one that the noble Earl, Lord Longford, suggested, though I am not going to quarrel with him about that. I think that some pilot scheme should be launched in the same way as legal aid was launched by a pilot scheme.
What advice are we to give to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack? I think we can tell him that the Government have been quite right not to be rushed into hasty legislation. They have been quite right to emphasise the difficulty of finding a satisfactory solution. But we think that the voices have now been collected and the time has come for the Government to tell us how they would like to act on this matter. It is going to be difficult, but it is not going to be insuperable. We do not for one moment expect that the Government will be able to produce legislation to-morrow. I ask the Government to disregard the advice of those who say that "this is the thin end of the wedge". The British Constitution is stuck full of wedges which the common
260
sense of the public has never driven home.
I hope we shall not listen to those who suggest that this is a precedent, that no other country has done it. We in this country have always been pioneers in social reform and nearly every form of social reform was once one man's private idea. I hope we shall disregard the advice I saw put forward a few weeks ago in a letter in one of the legal papers—I am sorry I have forgotten which—which said that the scheme would be
"difficult to administer, inequitable in execution and illogical in scope."
All right; but "where there's a will, there's a way", or, to be more exact, where there is a political will the Treasury draftsmen will find a way. If we do not believe that, look at the confiscatory legislation that crops up so frequently, in the Finance Acts, the Income Tax law, capital levies, capital gains tax. This is all full of provisions which could perfectly well be described as "difficult to administer, inequitable in execution and illogical in scope". Where the politicians have the will, the Treasury draftsmen have jolly well found a way.
Is there a public demand for this? I do not know, but I think there is. I have conducted my own private Gallup Poll over the last few days, and I have found nearly unanimous support for this idea. Admittedly, most people have not studied it with much care. I admit that merely because there is a public demand for something it is not necessary for the Government immediately to do it—otherwise my Right of Privacy Bill would have been on the Statute Book a long time ago! Is it workable? Yes, I think that, with care and interest, such a scheme can be made to work. It need not be expensive and it can come to be understood by everybody as a fair scheme.
I hope that the note upon which I wish to end will not appear unduly cynical. I do not think I am guilty of wild or extravagant language or unnecessary hyperbole if I say that the popularity of the Government is not at the moment at its zenith. Fervent supporters of the Government such as myself frequently pray that the Government should be given more chances to do something which is both popular and right. My Lords, here is their chance.
3.58 p.m.
LORD SHAWCROSS: My Lords, at the outset of the observations with which I am going to burden your Lordships I should perhaps make a personal disclaimer. I shall speak not as a onetime lawyer but as the Chairman of the Society called "Justice", under whose auspices the Committee presided over by the noble Earl conducted its inquiries. I should like, if I may, to say how grateful all of us must be for the way in which the noble Earl led that inquiry, and for the fact that he has introduced this Motion in your Lordships' House to-day.
But Justice, incidentally, is not as the noble Earl suggested, an organisation of jurists. That word is quite foreign to the English legal vocabulary. I well remember a long time ago, when I was a student at the Bar, proposing the toast of the first Earl of Birkenhead, and thinking to flatter him I referred to him as "that great jurist". He took up the phrase and said that he had never been so insulted in his life. Justice is an organisation of practical lawyers, many of them eminent, most of them with a great deal of experience in the ordinary practice of the law. Many High Court Judges belong to it. The present Attorney General was a member of its Council. I can assure your Lordships that the Society, as well as the Committee presided over by the noble Earl, is a most down-to-earth body. Had I not been Chairman of Justice I doubt whether I should have thought that the fact that I am, or was, a lawyer entitled me in any special way to intrude my views upon your Lordships' House at this time. I am not at all sure that at this stage of this matter this is a problem for lawyers at all.
When it is a question of conducting an inquiry into matters which are obscure, and of producing some objective report about them, lawyers can, of course, be very useful. That service they have already discharged in this matter, both in the Report of the Committee presided over by the noble Earl and in the Report of the Conservative Policy Centre's Committee. When it is a question of drawing up the final details of the scheme, once the policy has been settled, lawyers are again very useful; and I have no doubt that Parliamentary draftsmen will be able to deal with this matter in a most
262
useful and not very protracted way when the Government settle the broad question of policy. That is the problem we now have to consider and decide: not a matter of detail; not, indeed, what the facts are, because these are clear; but what is the policy which we should adopt in regard to this matter? Do we provide some system of compensation for the victims of crimes of violence or do we not?
My Lords, lawyers—and I regret to say this—have not in general, perhaps (of course, there are many notable exceptions), taken a very conspicuous part in promoting reforms in our system of law and administration. A great many beneficent reforms have been accomplished since the days of that very great lawyer, Jeremy Bentham, but in general, apart from the notable exceptions to which I have referred, I think it is true to say that lawyers have not taken a leading part in securing them. I think that our training as lawyers is perhaps inclined to make us a little technical, sometimes tediously technical, and occasionally to make us also a little obstinately obscurantist. But at this present stage of the matter there is nothing which specially concerns a lawyer, except in so far as he may be connected with the administration of the criminal law and that he comes face to face with the sometimes extremely distressing cases more frequently than, fortunately, do ordinary people.
Some ten years has now passed since the late Miss Margery Fry first brought this matter to public notice. That very remarkable woman, in her great concern for the problem of the criminal, never forgot the problem of the criminal's victim. This was certainly not only because she realised, as she did, that the absence of any provision for compensation for the victim tended to accentuate the public's desire for vengeance against the criminal, and so stood in the way of a more efficient system of punishment, but because (as I well remember when I talked to her about this matter, when she was first considering it) she had, as we who knew her all realised, not only an intense sense of justice but also a regard for personal human suffering.
That was a long time ago, and whilst I do not for a moment deny the difficulties that exist in drawing up an appropriate scheme, there has been quite a

263
long time to consider what might be the details of such a scheme. I take it that at this time of day nobody really doubts that some scheme for compensating the victims of crimes of violence should be promulgated, and that these victims should no longer be thrown, as too often they now are, upon the Public Assistance Board: a body which, however human its administration may be—and I believe it to be entirely human—still retains for many respectable people a sort of stigma of the old Poor Law.
I do not think that it is necessary or useful to attempt to-day to justify the case for a reform of this kind by any elaborate theoretical or philosophical speculation as to why the State should intervene in a matter of this kind. Exactly the same kind of speculation might have been raised, and indeed many people did raise it, at the time when many of the provisions of the Welfare State which are now taken for granted were first introduced. The noble Earl has referred to public instinct in this matter, and I would venture to say that very often in a matter of this kind public instinct is sound, and should not be disregarded. There certainly is now a public instinct that the Welfare State ought to make provision for these cases. The public do feel, as the Conservative Party's Committee very well pointed out, that the State has a special kind of responsibility, and that they, as members of the public, have a very special kind of responsibility, for the victims of crimes of violence.
The noble Lord who has just spoken reminded the House that it is peculiarly the function of the State to maintain law and order, and that the private citizen is not allowed to take the law into his own hands; indeed, he is not allowed to use against the criminal the same sort of methods that the criminal may use against him. If, then, the State fails, as inevitably it sometimes must, in its duty of maintaining public order, it is right, so runs public feeling in this matter, that the State should see that the victim does not suffer too much.
Nor do I think that it is useful to take time in any over-nice reconciliation of the provisions of any particular scheme in this field with existing arrangements for different classes of case. If one attempted that kind of exercise it would
264
take time, although it would not be impossible to produce a completely logical unity between all the schemes that we have for insurance or compensation of one kind or another. That is, of course, not the way that we normally proceed in this country. There are many institutions which it would be exceedingly difficult to justify on any ground of logic or pure principle. If I may say so, the noble Lord on the Woolsack is one of them, being as he is a member of a political Cabinet, on the one hand, and the head of an objective Judiciary, on the other, and at the same time competing with the Attorney General for the thankless task of being the chief legal adviser to the Government. The Constitution of this country is full of anomalies, but the notable thing about it is that it works. I hope that we shall see how well it works later on this afternoon, when the noble Lord on the Woolsack announces the acceptance, at least in principle, by Her Majesty's Government of what is suggested in the Reports of these two Committees.
My Lords, I am always a little frightened when I hear it said that this proposal or that proposal will produce difficulties or anomalies. That is almost always the refuge of the little man who is too timid or too lazy to do something new. Of course a scheme of this kind will produce anomalies. What of it? It is an anomaly now that if I go home to-night and my house is destroyed by rioters I shall be able to obtain compensation for it. But if, at the same time, they knock me on the head and injure me for life, I shall not be able to secure a penny. Nor do anomalies of this kind, or practical difficulties in administration, assume any greater importance because somebody elevates them into the category of matters of principle. This again is, of course, a favourite device; but when it is said that something is a matter of principle, nine times out of ten it is nothing of the kind.
The noble Lord who preceded me in addressing your Lordships' House, referred to the possibilities of fraud, to the difficulties which might arise in cases where there has been provocation, to the undoubtedly difficult question of girls who have been assaulted and, in consequence, have babies. None of these difficulties is new; they arise every day

265
in the courts of this country. Actions can be brought in the ordinary course, for damages for personal injuries against a person who has committed them, if he is found and if he is worth firing at. When actions of that kind arise, questions of fraud come in at once; questions of provocation have to be taken into account. But the courts do not sit back in dismay: they find no difficulty in solving these questions in the ordinary course of their administration. All these difficulties might have been envisaged—and, indeed, they were—when the various schemes of social insurance, that have been introduced progressively into our social system, were first mooted. The difficulties that arise in regard to this little proposal are as nothing compared with those raised when it was first proposed that we should introduce a system of legal aid in this country. So I hope that your Lordships' House will not be dismayed by the difficulties—and there will be difficulties—which will arise in setting up a scheme of this kind and getting it into operation, or by the possible anomalies which it may create. The difficulties, the anomalies and the human suffering are to-day far greater; and this is what we seek to remedy.
My Lords, I take it that the question now is not so much whether as when a scheme should be introduced. Certainly there remains a choice of machinery, as the noble Earl has indicated. There are differences, though not, I think, differences of very great significance, between the various schemes which have been put forward. I myself am certainly not particularly wedded to any one of them. I think that a good and a practicable scheme could be based on either of the two major proposals which have been made in this field; and it certainly would not be beyond the wit of man, and that so exalted type of man, the Parliamentary draftsman to produce a better scheme by a combination of the proposals contained in these two main Reports. This is not, I apprehend, an occasion for attempting to draft the details. The important thing now, perhaps, is that the theoretically better should not become the enemy of the practicably good. Most of us, I feel, would feel satisfied with any of these schemes that have been canvassed in this matter.
266
For my own part, I would certainly wish to keep alive—although I appreciate the difficulties of it—the possibility of obtaining restitution or damages from the criminal. The difficulties are by no means, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, tended to suggest, on the part of the trade unions, although there are difficulties there. Perhaps a major difficulty is that the prisons contain a floating population and it is very difficult to organise that population into any useful and economic form of work. But certainly I agree, if I may say so, with the noble Lord. I should like to see a situation in which prisoners were organised, so far as possible, into doing economic work, for which they were paid reasonable earnings, and in which against the earnings credited to them in that way, there might be claims, perhaps in some order of priority; first, for the victims of their offences; secondly, for the support of their dependants; and, thirdly, for their own maintenance in prison. But no such possibility as this, of pursuing advantageously claims against those who had committed these crimes of violence, could possibly do away with the necessity for a State scheme. And in a State scheme, I should like to see some provision for compensation for pain and suffering, for physical injury, together with a standard weekly payment for loss of earning capacity, and a payment limited to an assumed earning capacity not too much in excess of that which is contemplated by our industrial injuries legislation.
My Lords, all this can be worked out—and I cannot believe that it would present them with any overwhelming difficulty—by those whose task it is to implement policy decisions. We ought perhaps to remember (and I am sure the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack will never forget it) the example of the very great Prime Minister who got things done, and got them done quickly, by the device of presenting a Minute to the head of the appropriate Department:
"Pray let me have within 24 hours, and on half a sheet of writing paper, a scheme to implement the policy decision indicated above."
That is the sort of spirit in which I hope the noble and learned Lord will approach these matters. This is the moment for the policy decision; and in

267
this, as in a number of other matters of Governmental activity, what is needed is courage. If I may say so with great respect to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack—the new incumbent of his very great Office—many of us in the law, and outside the law, look to him to start taking a firm step forward to the accomplishment of many needed reforms in our law and in our administration. I commend this scheme to the noble and learned Lord and to your Lordships' House, as a very modest first step in this direction.
4.18 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHESTER: My Lords, those of us who are concerned with this social problem owe a great debt of gratitude to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, both for the leadership which he has shown as head of the Committee of Justice which drew up that notable Report which set the issues so clearly before us in this matter, and also for the lucidity with which he has presented his Motion before the House to-day. I am only sorry, personally, that owing to the untoward climatic conditions prevailing outside this House this afternoon, it may not be possible for me to be in the House as long as I had intended. If, therefore, it is necessary for me to leave before the closing stages of the debate, I hope that the noble Earl, and the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, will not in any way construe that as an act of discourtesy.
I think that undoubtedly there has recently been a considerable change in the attitude of the general public towards this matter of compensation for victims of crimes of violence. Not long ago, in such a debate as this, I am confident that we should have heard some such argument as this: "The law cannot provide for every eventuality. In life, we all have to bear a certain amount of injustice. Cases in which injury are caused by acts of criminal violence are very rare, and if indeed one is one of the extraordinary victims of this kind of injustice, then that is just too bad and we have to carry on and bear it as best we can". Such argument has not been used this afternoon, and I think it is unlikely that it will be used, for the whole climate of opinion towards this problem has radically changed—and it has changed not only
268
among politicians but also, I think, among the general public.
There is some evidence of this in the fact that the two Convocations, of Canterbury and York, which are representative of a very wide area of public opinion, when they debated the matter of capital punishment not only demanded that it should be abolished but also added a resolution that suitable compensation for the relatives or dependants of the victims of homicide should be provided. I think there is no doubt that, in the general public opinion, this matter is urgent and necessary; and, therefore, as the noble Lord, Lord Shawcross, says in his preface to the pamphlet produced by Justice, the only question which remains is how it should be done, and when.
Nevertheless, there is first this matter of principle which must be established: is this indeed a legitimate claim upon society in general? I believe that the justification for the claim is to be found in the spirit which underlies the whole of the Welfare State. We are learning more and more that we are indeed each other's neighbour, and that neighbourliness imposes an obligation upon each to care for the welfare of the other. So we consider it right and proper that in society the more fortunate should care for the less fortunate; that the wealthy should have an obligation towards the poor and the privileged towards the under-privileged. I think that we are learning this lesson especially in the realm of the responsibility for crime in society.
When we have given full place to recognition of the exercise of free will and to the responsibility which each individual has for his own acts, there remains the fact, which has never been clearer than it is to-day, that much crime is the result of the social climate within which our young people are being brought up. So long as society complacently allows adolescents to feast their eyes and minds on glamourised acts of violence; to buy and read, as they can freely, salacious and pornographic literature and to be surrounded by an atmosphere of indifference to the claims of proper moral standards, then society must accept a large measure of responsibility for the crimes of its citizens, and their consequences. When we witness convictions for crime, it is not

269
merely a case of, "There, but for the grace of God, go I". In large measure, one is already involved, and is already partly responsible for the act of the criminal. And it follows, therefore, that if society, by its indifference to those things which inculcate proper behaviour, continues to make its contribution to the breeding of criminals, it must also accept a large measure of responsibility for the consequences of criminals' acts.
But if we once accept the principle that it is a legitimate claim upon society as a whole that it Should at least in some measure compensate those who are the victims of criminal violence, we are nevertheless faced with a situation which bristles with problems of every kind: putting into practice the principle which we have accepted and giving it legislative form. There are the problems of defining the cases of criminal violence which shall be the subject of compensation; the problem of defining those who shall be beneficiaries under a compensation scheme; the problem of devising a form of administering the scheme; the problem of deciding to what extent it is right and proper to require the criminal to make reparation; and, perhaps most difficult of all, the problem of constructing a system which will be incapable of being manipulated by dishonest and unscrupulous people for their own benefit. All these matters, as the noble Lord, Lord Shawcross, has pointed out, are by no means insuperable, but they will need most careful scrutiny and meticulous examination when the measure to put the principles into effect comes to be drawn up.
I would wish to comment only briefly upon one or two aspects of the many problems which will have to be solved. First, as regards the type of crime which is to be covered, it seems to me that there is a fairly reasonable yardstick in that the scheme should cover only those forms of violence which cannot normally be covered by ordinary insurance schemes. This would exclude crimes which involve the deprivation of property, and would also; exclude injury through motor accidents. It would, I believe, be unjust to exclude all injury from sexual violence; and I should hope that it would be possible to include those who suffer mentally as well as those who suffer physically from some act of
270
violence, even though that may be difficult to establish.
Secondly, as to the question of who should be the beneficiaries under a compensation scheme, this is recognised as a particular problem in the various reports that have been produced. The most acute, I suppose, concerns family disputes, for it is here that there is the greatest possibility of dishonest collusion. I should hope, however, that the scheme would make it possible for the children to benefit from its provisions, should they have been the victims of criminal assault by parents who attack their children or are guilty of criminal negligence towards them. The scheme should make it possible for children to receive such compensation as will enable them to establish themselves later in life and to recover from the initial crimes and handicaps to which they have been subjected.
With regard to the liability of the criminal himself, it is, I think, generally accepted that if it is possible to devise a scheme whereby the criminal is required to make some contribution to the compensation, this should be done. It is, however, not so easy as would at first sight appear, for, as has been pointed out, any considerable burden laid upon the criminal might well retard his rehabilitation in society after he has served his sentence. I agree, therefore, with the view of the noble Earl, Lord Longford; and, although it is desirable that a responsibility should be laid squarely upon the criminal himself, yet the implementation of this principle must await such reforms in the penal system as make it a viable proposition.
Finally, I would comment on the type of scheme which should be evolved. I do not believe that the comparison with an industrial injuries insurance scheme is a valid one in this case, since the compensation to be granted must, to some extent, be related to the particular circumstances of the nature and extent of the injury, and to the circumstances of the person injured. I believe, therefore, that the scheme must be based on Common Law damages.
I am impressed and attracted to the argument of Mr. Egerton in his note of dissent in the pamphlet produced by Justice. He points out that a legal

271
remedy for victims already exists in the form of an action for tort; and the reason why it can so seldom be invoked is the ineffectiveness of the remedy against criminals. He points out that all that the State need, therefore, to be asked to do is to see that the judgment which is obtained against a criminal is met from public funds, and therefore the State should underwrite the judgment. I hope that very careful investigation will be given to Mr. Egerton's point of view, for I share the layman's instinct, the legal layman's instinct, against a proliferation of special tribunals to deal with particular matters in judicial cases. If it is possible for the existing courts of the land to deal with this matter I believe that that would be more desirable. If, on further scrutiny, it appears that to work through the existing judicial system would be too slow and cumbrous, then I should support the main contention of the Justice Committee that a separate tribunal should be set up to determine claims for compensation from which there would be appeal to the High Court.
My Lords, in the further consideration that will be given to this important matter the argument will no doubt be put forward that this is not the only form of injustice which has to be borne by certain citizens; that there are other injustices equally pressing; and that we ought not to do anything about the one without remedying the other. I am not myself impressed by this form of argument. I believe that society must progress by dealing piecemeal with each occasion as it presents itself. We have here a clear case of injustice and we ought to do our best to remove it. In doing so, we ought to record our gratitude to those courageous reformers who have had the imagination to see the need and to stir the conscience of the public. Not for the first time has a woman been responsible for goading the conscience of society into facing a situation which it ought not to tolerate. As in the past Florence Nightingale, Octavia Hill, and Josephine Butler, so in our generation Margery Fry has uncovered an area where undeserved suffering is inflicted and has shown the way by which it may, to some extent at any rate, be relieved. I trust that we shall show our gratitude to her for her generous and courageous
272
imagination by making the necessary provisions to take this step towards a juster society.
4.35 p.m.
LORD DENNING: My Lords, we are to-day in search of a principle. I think we shall all agree that there are cases such as have been referred to already this afternoon, like that of the West Indian or the small shopkeeper who was hit on the head, where the State should compensate the victim. But upon what principle? My noble and learned friend, Lord Shawcross, in his introduction to the Report of Justice, pleads for an acceptance of the simple principle that the innocent victim of violent crime should be entitled to compensation from the State for his personal injuries. My Lords, the key word, as I see it, in the principle thus stated is the word "entitled": entitled to compensation from the State; entitled as of right, with all the machinery of tribunals or the courts for the enforcement of it.
Let me say at once that there are some victims of violent crime who should be entitled as of right against the State. I refer, of course, to the policeman who in the course of his duties is killed or injured. There was the case we heard judicially the other day, of a policeman who sprang on to the bonnet of a motor car in order to try to catch the offender and was thrust by the offender against oncoming cars and killed. Or there is the case of the gallant naval captain, Captain Binney, some years ago, who stepped into the path of escaping bandits and was run down by them. All those who are killed or injured in the line of duty are entitled to compensation, just like the soldier and sailor killed or injured in the course of war. To those we should all concede entitlement as of right. But once that is dealt with, let me say that it is very difficult to find a principle of entitlement.
It is indeed a misfortune to be a victim of violent crime—one of the greatest misfortunes that can befall any one of us in our path through life. Let us help the victim all we can, by ourselves, with our welfare services, and the State may do all it can of its good nature. But to cast upon the law the task of ascertaining entitlement for the victim of misfortune seems to me an almost impossible task.

273
Let me take a sentence out of the Report of Justice which refers perhaps to one of the most common crimes of all the violent type—that of the husband who kills his wife, the children being left destitute. This is what the Report says:
"We recommend that whenever a person dies as the result of violent crime compensation should be payable to his dependants. If a husband kilts his wife the children should not be left without provision for their own maintenance merely because the incident arose out of some domestic disagreement."
My Lords, where will this carry us? In this morning's Times newspaper we have such a case reported. Four small children were orphaned as a result of a shooting tragedy at Stockton-on-Tees yesterday. What happened? Husband and wife, a young couple, had separated and parted. As usual, the wife had gone with the four children to her mother. The husband had gone to his mother. I do not know whether the cause was jealousy or what it was, but a few weeks later the husband returned, shot his wife dead, then his mother-in-law and finally shot himself. The four children were orphaned. There are all the welfare services of the State, all the sympathy of neighbours and all the charity which we can afford for these children. But can we go further and say that there is a claim for entitlement, as under the Fatal Accidents Act, for large sums to be demanded as of right from the State? Are these children in any different position from that in which they would have found themselves had their mother and father been drowned in a bathing accident, or both been cut off in a motoring accident? Can we really give entitlement against the State for compensation in the one case and not in the other?
I can call to mind many cases I have tried which could rank as misfortunes. The husband, devoted to his wife kills her, being insane. The father who has a boy of ten to whom he is devoted takes a cerebral tumour; his brain is affected, and he picks his son up and throws him 25 feet into the river below and injures him. These are misfortunes indeed. But are they cases where there is to be entitlement for these misfortunes, as of right, against the State? Of course, if the State were at fault, the State should pay compensation. Miss Margery Fry, whom I had the privilege of meeting, thought that the obligation to the victim
274
of crime rests primarily on society, which has failed to protect him against crime and can alone effectively compensate him. And the report of Justice almost seems to put the blame on the State, because it says:
"The citizen is not normally allowed to carry and weapon which could be used to defend himself against violent attacks."
In the cases I have put, I would suggest that no fault or blame can be attached to the State. Can we really suggest that the State, which, as our State does, provides the best police force in the world —and they do their job very well—is to pay compensation to be assessed on the ground that the State itself is at fault?
I should like to suggest some difficulties that arise. I know that there are many cases (they are given in the Report of the Working Party) where compensation should be given, but I suggest that this is not a matter for lawyers and for legal entitlement. What should happen is that the Government themselves should provide a fund, maybe supported by charitable bodies, too, which can be allotted ex gratia for those deserving cases by sympathetic administrators, without all the paraphernalia to entitlement, rights at law and tribunals, as the right reverend prelate suggested.
Let me take a case which the Working Party gave and which they suggest, I think rightly, cries aloud for compensation. It is described in the Report as follows:
"A man who was walking with his wife in a London street was knocked down and killed by a drunken stranger, who was subsequently found guilty of manslaughter and sentenced to three years' imprisonment. The widow was left destitute."
Our heart goes out at once: she should receive compensation from the State. But not, I suggest, as a matter of legal right. This case is not distinguishable in principle from the rest, from the case, for example, of the wife whose husband is killed by a drunken motorist. If the one gets compensation from the State, why should not the other? The only reason, I suggest, that the Working Party or Justice did not recommend it, is because the motorist is insured and his insurance company will pay damages. Otherwise there is no difference between being knocked down by a drunken man on foot and being knocked down by a drunken man in a car.

275
Let me remind your Lordships that in all cases of violent crime the victim is already, by law, entitled to damages and full compensation from the criminal as of right, if he can find him and get him before the courts. He or she is just as much entitled in law to damages from the violent robber or violent rapist as from the violent motorist. And the violent motorist, with his dangerous driving and drunken driving, is just as guilty of a crime as the violent robber. Wherein lies the difference? The difference is that the State has provided a system of compulsory insurance for motorists, but has not yet provided it for criminals. This proposal at bottom means that the State is asked, as a matter of law, as a matter of entitlement, to underwrite the criminals in their obligation to pay damages. And if the State is to underwrite this as a matter of law, who is to pay the premiums? This is not like compulsory motor insurance, where there are thousands of motorists who pay premiums. The taxpayer must pay the premiums for this compulsory insurance, unless the Government choose to institute compulsory insurance for criminals and collect their weekly contributions.
Indeed, it is not easy to draw a parallel with motor insurance here—although it is drawn—because in the case of victims of crimes it is realised in all these Reports that the victim should recover compensation although the criminal is not found (and he is not found in more than half the cases) or is found and acquitted. But, after all, he may be acquitted on a legal technicality. In a case of rape, a man may be acquitted, though he is as guilty as could be, because his victim has not corroboration of her story. In all these cases, the Working Party and Justice argue that the victim must be entitled to compensation.
Compare that with motorist insurance. If you want to get damages from a motorist, you must obtain judgment against the other side, or show that you can get judgment. Even with an escaping bandit, who drives recklessly along the road and knocks you down, you have to get judgment against him. You must know the man. Even though he is not insured, the Motor Insurers' Bureau will pay you if you get a judgment. That is the agreement. But if you cannot find the man and cannot sue him, there is no right at
276
law for you to get compensation from the motorist's insurance. In the case of the escaping bandit which I have put—the man who is not found and escapes beyond trace—if the victim has a right to compensation, ought not the State to compensate him? At the moment the Motor Insurers' Bureau may pay ex gratia. That is where it comes in, and that is what I suggest should be the position here in cases where it is impossible really to formulate satisfactorily a legal basis of claim.
But even if it were possible, how difficult it is with justice to draw the line. The right reverend Prelate said, "Let us put aside all questions of violence resulting in loss of property, because they are mainly covered by insurance." But the heart-rending cases are not covered. There is the case of the little old couple who have their £500 or £1,000 saved in the house and which the bandit takes. They may be shocked and frightened to death by his entry, but under none of these schemes would that old couple be able to recover that £500 or £1,000.
If this scheme is given as of right, how can we logically stop at personal injuries? We must cover also the heartrending cases of loss of property which may ruin a person, or the heart-rending frauds. The right reverend Prelate will know how clergy or poor people have been defrauded and lost all their means. How can you stop at personal injuries? The Report of Justice says that we must allow rape with violent crime to be the subject of compensation, but that we must not give compensation for the psychological effects of rape. Those are the serious consequences in rape, the psychological consequences. Why not give the psychological—
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord quite accurate when he says that the Justice Report does not allow for psychological damages? I understood that it did allow for them in cases where physical injury—
LORD DENNING: Cases where there is physical injury, yes.
LORD CHORLEY: Rape cases are obviously cases where there is physical injury.
LORD DENNING: My noble and learned friend Lord Charley is quite right. The Justice Report confines their exclusion of damages for psychological injuries to where there is no physical injury. But I would suggest that there are many cases of rape where there are only psychological injuries. They are the principal injuries, anyway. The reason why they exclude that is the danger in deciding between the fraudulent claims and those that are not fraudulent. It would be quite impossible to decide. That is one case that they put.
Let me take another case. In the schedule of crimes the sexual crimes are included. For instance, supposing a man of 24 or 25 has sexual intercourse with a girl of 15½, and she has a baby. That is to be the subject of compensation towards the maintenance of the child, as I read the Report. In addition to all the welfare services, such a girl should have compensation to help her maintain the child. What is the difference between that and a girl with whom a man has sexual intercourse when she is 16 years and one month? I would suggest that there is tremendous difficulty in drawing any just and fair line between those victims who should be compensated and those who should not. It is yet another ground for saying, "It is not a case for legal entitlement." It is a case, I suggest, where there should be a fund, well administered, from which payments can be made ex gratia to deserving cases. That is the form the scheme should take and—mark you!—I would plead also, as has been done already, for some way in which the criminal can be made to pay his share.
Something has been mentioned about earnings in prison and the difficulty of obtaining it to pay compensation. When I was in Poland I went to one of the big prisons. They had inside the prison a printing works where the men were able to work and produce good printing work for firms outside. They were allocated full wages which were used partly for compensation for the dependants of victims and partly for the prisoners when they came out. It is a long way ahead. Cannot something of that kind be done? I would suggest an ex gratia scheme. Perhaps the Government can see their way to contributing enough so that the
278
really deserving cases could be compensated ex gratia. I would submit that what is suggested is, as a matter of principle, unworkable and perhaps not right as a matter of legal entitlement, with all the machinery of tribunals and courts.
4.57 p.m.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: My Lords, this is an anxious problem, and I think the remarkable and, if I may say so, rather wonderful speech that we have just heard from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, points to the difficulties of the problem. I may say that with the majority of the noble Lord's speech I entirely disagree, but I am anxious not to be side-tracked into referring in detail to the points which he has made and disputing with him, because I should detain your Lordships very much too long. There are certain aspects of what he said with which I most heartily concur.
The first thing I feel about the subject matter we are discussing is that if it is true, as my noble friend Lord Mancroft said, that there is no precedent for a scheme such as this in the social welfare of the world, then I think it is high time that this country set such a precedent. We should lead, and we generally have led, the world in matters of social reform, and if nobody else has yet embarked upon it I think we should seize our opportunity to do so. We have heard a good deal during the debate about the case of the little old lady who gets coshed. I think the reason why we so often connote her in our minds with the crime of human violence is because she has such a sentimental appeal that the Press invariably publicise her case. But I think, too, that it has been made clear that what we might call "the little old lady case" is a very small minority indeed of the total volume of cases in which victims occur as a result of crimes of violence.
I, for my part, have not the slightest doubt that the principle—and I believe it is a principle—is right that there should be compensation payable to such victims. But if, for the purpose of the argument, we accept that for a moment, we immediately begin to run into difficulties, and the first difficulty of course is, who pays? My answer to that would be the person pays who is responsible;

279
and we then get to the exceedingly difficult point of trying to decide who is responsible. I would suggest four categories of responsibility. The first is the State, which has already been referred to; but in mentioning the State as number one I would disassociate it from society and I would treat it purely as the executive of the will of the people in so far as it fails to provide an adequate safeguard to the public. We all know and are very proud of the excellent work and service which our police forces perform throughout the country, but no one could claim that they are or, indeed, could be perfect; and, therefore, to the measure of their imperfection I think they must be held to have some responsibility.
The second category, which has hardly been mentioned this afternoon except to some extent by the right reverend Prelate, I would put as the home, the Church and the teachers who have not succeeded in bringing up, through the educational system, the criminals of this country to a knowledge of the obligations which should be inherent in every citizen. The first responsibility in this category I put upon the home, and I believe that is one which must be lodged there, because clearly the responsibilities of those who bring up the young must extend a very considerable way. It is they who have the first opportunities, and who should not shirk those opportunities, of instilling into the human mind not only the principles of right and wrong but the obligations of right and wrong as well. So far as the Church is concerned, I feel that all of us who are concerned with the Church must admit some failure in our obligations, in so far as we have failed to reach such a large number of people in this country with the realisation of the obligations of sin.
My third category is the one which was so very well put by the right reverend Prelate, society itself; and that is why I sought to differentiate the State from society. I would add one extra reason to that given by the right reverend Prelate and that is the tendency of the present time for so many people in society to seek to cast their responsibility on to the State and so to avoid it themselves. The other reason, your Lordships will recall, is the way in
280
which society to-day panders to crime by positively enjoying crime at secondhand as a form of entertainment, in cinemas, on television, in theatres and in reading material, particularly in the popular Press. I consider that society carries very heavy responsibility in this matter.
In the last of my categories of responsibility I would put the criminal. He, of course, first and foremost, the primary person of responsibility, and I put him with a very heavy responsibility indeed because the number of criminals who really, genuinely, do not know that they are doing wrong is infinitely small. Practically every criminal knows full well that he is doing wrong; he does it deliberately and he does it for his own personal gain. Therefore I put his responsibility exceedingly high.
My Lords, if we do consider that compensation should be paid, I am in agreement with those noble Lords who have sought to limit the compensation to the effect of personal injuries. I feel that we cannot extend the scheme into compensation for material loss. Even in the case illustrated by the noble Lord, Lord Denning, a large part of the responsibility for the loss by the old couple of their life-savings lies entirely upon them for keeping £1,000 in their house; and I do not think that one can extend this scheme, with any possibility of effecting justice, to questions of compensation for material loss, which, as the noble Lord himself pointed out with great power, is easily and frequently covered by insurance.
There must, of course, be many borderline cases and all borderline cases create cases of hardship, but at the present time the cases to which we have been referring are all cases of hardship, and if we can succeed in eliminating hardship in the vast majority of those cases we shall be meeting the situation very considerably, even if we have to leave a small minority of cases of hardship on the borderline. There must, I think, also be many exemptions to the principle—and here I differ from several of the noble Lords who have already spoken. For my part, I would except from the principle all crimes committed in the home. One reason for this is because of the responsibility, to which I have already referred, which lies upon the home. Another reason is obviously

281
the difficulty of proof; another, that there would be much more difficulty in eliminating fraudulent claims, and, further, much more difficulty in avoiding passing any benefit to the criminal.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, indicated, in cases in which children are affected, while they can never be adequately compensated, they, nevertheless, are normally taken care of under the welfare sections of our State. Another group of cases which I, and I think moist of your Lordships, would exclude are the cases of sexual offences, excepting, I would suggest, any cases where a conviction has been obtained. That, the noble Lord, Lord Denninig, would say, is not logical. I agree with him that that is certainly not logical. But it is practical, and I believe that there again it would be a good thing to do, because it would make possible some form of reparation by the criminal. The other class to which reference has already been made is the case of motoring offences, but I believe that the principle is right and that it can be adequately limited to prevent abuse both on the part of the taxpayer and on the part of the State.
The next question which arises is what compensation should be paid. I have listened to the arguments which have been deployed, and I have studied the Reports which have been made, and I. for my part, reject, as the right reverend Prelate rejected and for the same reasons, the possibility of a scheme based on the analogy of the Industrial Injuries Scheme. I believe that that would be bureaucratic and indecisive, and it would not produce what is wanted. On the other hand, I believe a scheme based on what has been called the court scheme would be perfectly practicable; there is ample precedent for it. It would carry greater confidence in the minds of the public. It would be much more likely to defeat fraudulent claims. It would be much more flexible and it would be able to give awards which would meet the needs of the case.
Finally, we come to the perhaps most difficult question of all: who pays? My conclusion as to that is not unlike the conclusion which was reached by Justice. It is that the State should indemnify the victim. To those who are what I might call pure lawyers in this House that may
282
come somewhat as a shock; nevertheless, I believe it is a sensible shock and a sensible thing to do. The criminal, if found, should be the primary culprit; but, whether found or not, the State should indemnify the victim and should be put into a position to be able to extract from the criminal such damages as the State has to pay to the victim. As we have already said, the State and society are both involved in responsibility, and so it does not seem unreasonable that they should share the biggest part of the responsibility for payment.
Incidentally, such a system would be an excellent answer to the case quoted by the noble Earl who introduced this debate, the case of Mr. Carew. There damage has been done by two youths of sixteen and seventeen, who were sent to prison for short terms. No damages could be extracted from them at the present time. Therefore, under the scheme which I have suggested to your Lordships the State would compensate Mr. Carew; it would thereafter be continuously in touch with the two criminals, through the National Insurance and other schemes, and so when they came out and were earning what probably, in their case, would be very substantial wages, the State would be able to step into the shoes of the victim and recover from them such proper sums as a court would allow to recoup the compensation which had been paid to Mr. Carew.
I reject the principle, which I am glad to say I have not heard in this House this afternoon, that if a criminal is punished he should not also be expected to make reparation. To my mind there are two entirely separate things: first, the breaking of the law which he has committed and for which he is punished, and the second, the damage which he has caused and for which he should make reparation. If a person unintentionally commits damage as a result of his negligence—for instance, if I am walking down the Strand and suddenly feel the blood surging in my veins at the height of spring and start twirling my umbrella and poke somebody's eye out with the end of it—he is liable to compensate in damages for negligence. Why on earth should not a criminal be required to compensate a person in damages if he puts his eye out by hitting

283
him on the head with a pick handle? I can see no difference in it at all, and I am quite sure that reparation should, wherever possible, be extracted from the criminal.
I feel, therefore, very strongly that in the first instance if it is possible the victim should recover compensation from the criminal. If that is not possible then the State should step in and indemnify. The State should pay the compensation but should retain the right, and retain it for a very long period, if necessary, to recover a proper proportion, if not the whole, of the compensation which it has been required to pay from the criminal. On these lines I believe we could do some justice to a very large majority of the victims who at present do not receive compensation, and at the same time I believe that we should be taking a very serious step forward to take the profit out of crime and so reduce a considerable proportion of the crime that is committed in this country at the present time.
5.18 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I should like to begin by re-echoing the thanks which so many of your Lordships have extended to my noble friend Lord Longford for initiating this debate this afternoon, and still more for all the
284
work which he and his fellow members of the Justice Committee have put into the solution of this exceptionally intractable problem. Because I entirely agree with those who throughout the course of the debate have pointed out that although the scope of this particular social anomaly is not a very wide one its solution gives rise to very difficult problems indeed.
I hope that the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, will forgive my not following him in the very interesting analysis which he made of this problem in the earlier part of his speech. I think I ought to say that I hope that your Lordships will not agree with him that certain sections of this area of compensation should, as it were, be cut out. That would lead to a very lopsided scheme and would only accentuate the difficulties of working any scheme which the Government might introduce. It would be much better, I think, to cover the whole of the ground, rather than attempt to cut out injuries arising in connection with family disputes and matters of that kind. I entirely agree with him that very often in the family dispute the victim is a good deal to blame. But the Justice Report certainly, and I think also most of the other Reports which I have looked at on this matter, propose that the tribunal, whatever it is, which deals with these matters should take that into consideration and treat it in a sense in the way contributory negligence is treated when an action for negligence is heard in the courts.
With regard to my noble and learned friend Lord Denning, I was sorry to find that he was not on the side of the angels this afternoon. I usually find myself in agreement with him, but I sometimes think (I hope the noble and learned Lord will forgive my making this little "dig") that it is almost more important to him to be in a minority than to be on the side of the angels. And he has certainly been in the minority of one this afternoon. I think his arguments were well met in advance, if I may say so, by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Shawcross, and also by the right reverend Prelate. It is easy enough, in any scheme introducing a new social contribution, to point out that there are anomalies.

285
Lord Shawcross pointed out that in the legal defence arrangements, which have been such an outstanding feature of the administration of law in this country in the post-war period, numerous anomalies were found at the beginning; and, indeed, in the arrangements as originally made those anomalies were obvious. We have been spending the last ten or twelve years gradually getting rid of them, until now the scheme is much better than the one originally introduced.
Lord Denning's general views on questions of this sort, apparently, are views which we left behind at the turn of the century: that the ordinary misfortunes of life should, in effect, be put up with by the sufferer or dealt with on a charitable basis. The whole history of the last fifty years and more has been against that, and the noble and learned Lord is trying, like Mrs. Partington, to swoop back the tide of social progress which has been flowing so strongly over the last fifty years. This sort of argument was advanced from the time of the Employers' Liability Act, in 1880, in respect of almost every proposal which was brought forward, and eventually put on the Statute Book for relieving the difficulties which are bound to arise in a modern, complex society, and which undoubtedly arise in this connection. The noble and learned Lord worships at the shrine of the Common Law. But Common Law just did not provide remedies in all these cases. That is why we have had to have this social legislation and the proposals which are before your Lordships this afternoon, to give a new entitlement based on an Act of Parliament; in my submission on exactly the same lines as many entitlements which certainly did not exist at Common Law and were not dreamed of by the common lawyers, but which have been established by the social legislation which we have been so busy enacting over the last fifty years or more.
I said that this was an intractable problem—and so it is. It is not altogether surprising that the Home Office Working Party, whose useful Report has been referred to not too often this afternoon, and who no doubt approached this problem with great good will, appointed by the late Home Secretary, whose interest in this matter we all very well know, and whose work over the whole
286
field of criminal law we all appreciate so much, should have been rather worn down by these difficulties. And certainly in many ways the Report conveys the impression of a defeatist attitude. I myself (no doubt the noble and learned Lord would agree with many of the difficulties which they found) particularly disliked the way it lays down, in rather contentious terms, that the idea that the State has any responsibility in regard to this matter is a "fallacious and dangerous doctrine". That is just the sort of point that was continually made when insurance against unemployment, insurance against sickness, insurance against many of the other social problems and difficulties which arise in the modern world, were advanced by the reformer in the earlier years of the century, and continuously and particularly by the Party to which I have the honour to belong over the period immediately after the end of the last war.
Although this problem in this country has only recently received attention, it has quite a long history, and I have been a little disappointed to-day at the lack of appreciation of the fact that proposals of this kind were already being made as far back as the middle years of the last century. This proposal for restitution, as it has usually been called by the continental penologists, was particularly associated with the name of the great Belgian criminologist, Prins, who was active at the turn of the century; and, of course, in this country it is particularly associated with the name of Miss Margery Fry, to whom I would add my own tribute to those which have been paid this afternoon—a tribute of reverent affection.
Prior to his appointment of the Working Party the Home Secretary had himself asked a Hungarian refugee lawyer and criminologist, Dr. Schaeffer, to prepare a report on the experience of other countries. I was a little disappointed when the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, suggested that nothing had been done in other countries, because Dr. Schaeffer's report shows that quite a number of attempts have been made to handle this problem in other parts of world. To me it is rather strange that the Home Office Working Party, for whom Dr. Schaeffer's report was apparently prepared, do not seem to pay

287
any attention to it in their Report; nor, so far as I have been able to find out, did the Justice Committee. Yet there is a great deal of extraordinarily interesting work in it, because Dr. Schaeffer made an intensive survey of the arrangements in different countries in many different parts of the world.
I was interested to hear Lord Mancroft talking about his recent experiences in South Africa. He referred to the way arrangements are being made for handling this particular problem. On the whole, it must be confessed that in Europe not a great deal of success has been achieved in dealing with the problem. Few States have been prepared to provide the subsidy which the very character of this problem makes it necessary that the State should provide if victims of violent crime are to be indemnified. The main concentration has, of course, been on providing a more efficient method of getting at the criminal himself. That is the primitive reaction to this problem and one that goes back a long way: in fact, the earliest Anglo-Saxon criminal law was almost entirely concerned with how much the criminal paid to the person he had injured, or to the members of his family. It is only in comparatively recent times that this right of the victim to be compensated has been allowed to drop out.
Of course, if prisoners are able to earn wages, as has been pointed out several times this afternoon, either in prison or by being let out of prison to work in factories or workshops, there is a great deal to be said for this approach of putting the primary responsibility for compensation upon the prisoner himself. That has been done in a number of countries, particularly in France, where, as I expect your Lordships know, for many years now it has been part of the penal system that the prisoner should work and earn ordinary wages such as a man who is not a prisoner earns working in a factory or workshop outside. They have a rather elaborate scheme by which some of the money goes to pay for his upkeep in prison, some to his family, and some towards compensating the victim of the crime. On the whole, Dr. Shaeffer finds that this works with reasonable success. There are similar schemes in Finland and in Turkey; and in Cuba
288
there was a particularly interesting scheme in operation—whether it still exists under the new régime I do not know—by which a fund, as it were, was built up partly by State subsidy and partly by contributions from those criminals who were ordered by the adjudicating court to pay into the fund. The criminal did not directly compensate the victim of the particular crime, but paid into a central fund out of which a court might make an award to a particular victim of crime which would compensate him to that extent. So that there a fund was built up partly by contributions from the State and partly by contribution from the criminals themselves. There is another interesting scheme in Mexico, but I think I have said enough, in quoting from this distinctly interesting book, to show your Lordships that attempts have been made with more or less success in different parts of the world to handle this problem.
We certainly shall not be the first country to deal with it, if and when the Government decide to tackle the matter in the way the noble Earl has begged them to do this afternoon. And, of course, as the Justice Report points out, and as the noble Lord, Lord Shawcross, has emphasised this afternoon from many points of view the victim of crime in respect of property is already compensated, not only under the Riot Act but very frequently under probation orders. An order is made that the criminal who is placed on probation shall compensate the victim of his crime. These probation orders are more often made in relation to damage to property than in respect of injury to the person. That, of course, is very natural, because that type of crime is more satisfactorily dealt with by means of a probation order. It is not every court that wishes to put the violent criminal on probation, and more often, for the sake of the community, he must be shut up in gaol.
This foreign survey emphasises the difficulties and complications of this problem. Like most other noble Lords who have spoken this afternoon, I should be the last to try to skate over them. But we must remember, and remember all the time, that there is here a very real social problem in regard to the needs of these people; it is not just a sentimental matter, but a very real problem. Although some

289
of the cases which have been referred to by different speakers this afternoon are cases which wring the heart, I do not think one ought to allow oneself to feel that this is just a piece of sentiment. It is a very real social injustice that exists at the present time, and it is one which it is urgently necessary, I think, we should put right as quickly as possible.
My Lords, I do not want to take up a great deal more time, but there are one or two matters arising out of the Justice Report on which I should like to comment very briefly before I resume my seat. There is the question of the two types of scheme. I was very much attracted by the ingenious hybrid solution which was suggested by the noble Earl, Lord Longford. On the whole, I tend to agree with the right reverend Prelate and Lord Brentford, that, so far as possible, the matter should be left to the adjudication of the ordinary courts. I would suggest that where a man has committed a crime and has been brought before a court and been found guilty, the tribunal should be allowed to deal with the question of compensation there and then, while the material is before it. In this type of case it is very important to get the matter handled quickly. The main argument against using the ordinary court system is the delays of the law. I should think that this is a type of case that could be dealt with pretty quickly. The lengthy interlocutory proceedings necessary in ordinary litigation would seldom be called for here. Therefore, I think that as a rule this type of case could be got on with quite quickly. There is a difficult period just after the injuries are sustained, and it is important that the matter should be dealt with quickly. That is why I think that the hybrid scheme has a great deal to be said for it.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I do not want to quibble over differences between the schemes, but, as I think I pointed out, under the Conservative scheme—which in this respect is slightly nearer to what is called relying upon the ordinary law than ours is—the case in the first place would go before some special official, presumably a departmental officer. It would not start off in the law courts.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I am not advocating the Conservative scheme in any way. I think that it should be
290
possible to make some sort of arrangement under which payments could start quite quickly and be taken into the final adjustment of the situation which might be reached at a later stage by the judge who tried it.
The industrial injuries method was put forward by Miss Fry, and I remember that she consulted me about this on several occasions at the very beginning. She was not wedded to this scheme in any sort of way, but felt that it provided a possible practical solution. As has been emphasised by more than one speaker, Miss Fry was an exceptionally practical woman as well as being a tremendous idealist. When I said to her that I, as a lawyer, preferred the ordinary procedure of the courts, she said "I agree with you. I should, too—if the thing could be got going". It seems to me that we have now these different methods of industrial insurance, and that in this sort of way it may be much easier to get a favourable response from Parliament and from the Government. The great thing to do is to get something done and to get it done as quickly as possible. I am sure that Miss Fry herself was not in any way wedded to the "Industrial Injuries" method and would have welcomed any common sense way of handling this problem.
I entirely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Shawcross, said about the courts being qualified to handle difficult problems of this kind. They are not always handled quite so easily, perhaps, as he suggested. Some of these cases are very difficult for the judges to deal with. But the point is that they do deal with them, and, on the whole, deal with them in a satisfactory way. I imagine that the reason why straight psychological injury is excepted from the Justice Report is the difficulties which the courts have found in dealing with such injury in ordinary cases of tort. Many of us think that the courts ought to be more ready in a modern society to deal with such cases, because problems of psychological injury are likely to happen more and more. I was a little disappointed to find that the Justice Report in allowing compensation for psychological injury confined itself only to those cases where there had also been physical damage.
Finally, I entirely agree with what the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, said

291
about the importance of associating the criminal with the compensation. Even if he cannot actually pay, I think it is very important that it should be brought home to the criminal that he has in fact done injury to some fellow human being. I rather felt that the Justice Report dragged its feet a little on this particular side, and I was glad to hear the noble Earl in his opening remarks take a rather stronger line. Of course, I agree that if the rehabilitation of the prisoner were going to be interfered with by an order that he should pay compensation to the victim, we should not have the order, but I cannot imagine that there are many cases where the rehabilitation of the prisoner is going to be interfered with in that way. In fact, I myself would have said that the moral rehabilitation of a prisoner cannot take place unless he appreciates the injury which he has done to his victim. The prisoner will not in fact be morally rehabilitated unless he realises that he is culpable in that respect and faces up to the fact that every decent citizen will look to him to make some sort of compensation. Therefore I hope that this side of the matter will not be too easily dismissed, and that when the Government come to prepare their scheme they will make some sort of arrangement under which the criminal himself may have this particular aspect of his crime brought clearly home to him.
5.42 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I should like to say how very much I agree with the approach to this problem taken by my noble and learned friend Lord Denning. If in saying that I blacken myself irrevocably in the eyes of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Chorley, opposite, I am very sorry. But I would venture to doubt whether either my noble and learned friend Lord Denning or I myself will necessarily forfeit our angelic status merely by disagreeing with the noble Lord.
My Lords, my noble and learned friend Lord Denning drew a distinction in this case between the entitlement of any person who is the victim of a crime of violence to some form of compensation to be paid to him by the State, and an alternative method of meeting, I think, exactly the same social issue by means
292
of a fund, possibly on the lines of that which only recently may have existed in Cuba—which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley—for some form of ex gratia payment system not involving any necessary entitlement in law. If that is, as I believe it to be, the correct approach, many of the analogies which have been drawn in all these Reports seem to me to be not only inappropriate and unpractical but even misleading. First of all, they are inappropriate, I think, when talking of the imposition of any liability—to use a neutral word—on the State to pay compensation at all; and even more misleading when it comes to the actual working of any scheme that may be invented.
The Working Party from the Home Office asked two fundamental questions. They said, first of all, "Why should the State pay at all?"; and, secondly, "If it should pay, why should it pay only in the case of crimes of violence against the person?" I think that both of those questions can be very much more easily answered, and answered in favour of having some payment, if the analogies of tort, or fatal accidents, or some benefits under an industrial injuries scheme are removed altogether from the arena.
There have been many arguments put forward, both in the various Reports on this subject and in your Lordships' debate this afternoon, on why the State should in certain proper cases pay compensation. But none of those arguments seems to me to have gone so far as to make the State's liability analogous to that of an individual in tort, as the law now recognises this to be. That responsibility of an individual results from an act which he himself did and thereby damaged the person who is claiming the damages from him. Surely that, or the position under the Fatal Accidents Act, which is admittedly one stage removed, is nothing whatever like the situation which the State would have to be in if it were to be made responsible in any way for paying compensation to some of these victims. Then, in an industrial injuries scheme the person receives some sort of compensation because he has involved himself in a scheme expressly designed to cover the sort of situation which has arisen, and a scheme, moreover, to which he and his employer both, as I understand it, contribute. There is nothing of that nature whatever in any

293
of the suggestions that have been put forward in respect of compensation for victims of crimes of violence.
My Lords, I think that the State is not responsible for payment in the same sense as either in tort or under any of these industrial schemes, but in an entirely different sense altogether, if at all. I do not think there is any known concept that we have in this country—whether in the law or even in social reform—which approximates to the sort of responsibility that we are now seeking to put on the State. So, therefore, I hope that these analogies, which I believe to be false, will not be allowed to fog the issue, because I believe quite firmly, notwithstanding what I have said, that there may well be—and I think there are—proper cases where the State should bear some form of responsibility for payment. But I do not think that it should be based on any of the hard and fast rules which attempts have been made to impart into this concept. If we look at it this way, and avoid any entitlement on the part of the victim to compensation, it seems to me quite logical that the State should, at this stage at least, stop short and pay compensation only in the case of crimes of violence to the person. These will be ex-gratia grants and, if the State is making them out of grace, there is no reason why it should necessarily go further in the concept than it feels it can do at any one time.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, the noble Viscount says that in these cases where he thinks the State ought to pay—I gather he thinks there are quite a number of cases—the State has a duty, a social responsibility. He wants to avoid the word "entitlement", and maybe there is some lawyer's catch here, but it is what most people would understand as a social responsibility, a duty. In that case, surely the individual who is going to receive this benefit is entitled, as the word is used in any ordinary language, to look to the State which has this responsibility towards him.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: No, my Lords, I do not consider this to be purely a legal quibble at all. If the noble Earl will wait a little longer so that I may develop my speech, I think he will see that I have another aim, also, in avoiding the word "entitlement".
294
As I was saying, I do not think that there is anything necessarily objectionable in answering the second question raised by the Working Party, "Why should we stop short at crimes of violence against the person?" if we stick in this matter to this idea of an ex-gratia grant in compensation by the State. If that is so, then surely the key word which appears in all these Reports in this connection must be the word "discretion", because the State surely must have the widest possible discretion in deciding which are the proper cases in which to give its liberality to these victims.
I think that this necessarily must indicate the sort of tribunal which would be proper in this case. To start with, I think it must be quick and informal; and, secondly, I think it should be able to find out in the fullest detail all the facts, and some of the inferences, which it would need to take into account before it distributed public money in this way. I do not believe that the procedure of the courts of law in this country would be the right procedure for these problems.
My Lords, I think there should be, to start with, a basic limitation on the application of the doctrine which we are now discussing. I do not intend to go into the question of the list of offences which are appended to most of these Reports as being suitable starting grounds for the compensation of the victims, but I think that there should be some such limitation and that it will have to be laid down in whatever Statute introduces this new scheme. But once that background has been stated—and, of course, it could probably be extended or contracted if it was found to be wrong—thereafter I believe that, whatever tribunal it should be (and no doubt it would have to be one constituted somewhat on the lines suggested by Justice), it would have to be very flexible and it must have the widest possible discretion. It must have discretion, I suggest, my Lords, to deal with the facts of each individual case entirely on their merits, and this would contain a discretion to look at such things as the domestic situation which gave rise to any particular incident, at provocation or at some such matter of that kind which would qualify the effect and the favour with which they might look upon the particular claimant.

295
I think they should also go into the facts very fully from the point of view of revealing any fraudulent claims and be able, when in doubt, not to give any compensation on the ground that they suspect a claim of being fraudulent. I think they should also have full discretion to take account of other benefits which a claimant might be able to receive from other sources in the Welfare State, and so be able to avoid duplicating, by their jurisdiction, benefits received from elsewhere. I think they should have discretion—and this is a point which seems to have caused great difficulty as between the industrial injuries scheme system and the courts system—to be able to give different sorts of compensation in different cases without necessarily any statutory control whatever. In some cases, they should give a lump sum by way of compensation: in others, they should be prepared to make a weekly payment if that is the more suitable. It does not seem to me to be very difficult to give them the proper jurisdiction, to give them the discretion to do that.
Finally, I think the difficult matter of giving compensation even where the criminal himself has been acquitted, whether on a technicality or otherwise, or where no prosecution has been able to be brought, should also be able to be dealt with by the tribunal under its discretion. No doubt at the beginning this discretion would be hard to put into operation, and it might seem in some cases that fairness had not been altogether upheld; but I think that in the end, and probably before very long, some sort of code of practice would emerge, as so often does in the case of these tribunals, which would make it very much easier for them to deal with the cases that came before them.
But, my Lords—and this is where I should like to put one point to the noble Earl opposite—there are inevitably going to be some cases (and quite a lot of cases, too, for one reason or another, whether for domestic reasons, for provocation, for fraud or for some other reason) where a claimant would not get compensation, where it would not be thought proper that he should receive public money as a result of something which may unfortunately have occurred to him. What strikes me as being most
296
important in this field is that that person should, if possible, not fed a grudge against the system which has denied him the compensation that somebody else receives; and I believe that if you state this problem in terms of entitlement from the State of compensation for victims, you are much more likely to leave a grudge in the mind of the unsuccessful applicant than if you merely deal with it on the basis of an ex gratia payment, where it is thought proper by a wise tribunal that the claimant should have some money.
From those generalities I should like to put one specific point to my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack, and ask him whether he would be prepared to consider this question a little further, because it is a problem which has been dealt with both by the Conservative Political Centre document, by Justice and by the Working Party, and Justice disagrees with the other two upon the answer to the particular problem. The problem is that of children who are born as a result of crimes of sexual violence—for instance, the obvious crime would be that of rape, but many other crimes of this nature have been put in the Appendices of these Reports, and from all of them, or most of them, it would be possible for children to be born. The Working Party and the Conservative Political Centre have both come down on the side of denying any form of compensation under any scheme for the benefit of these children—and I think, for the most part, for the benefit of their mothers as well. The Justice report, however, has been more forthcoming.
Now, my Lords, leaving out of the question altogether the matter of physical or psychological injury to the mother in the commission of the crime of violence (because that seems to me to be no different from the injury in any other case of crime of violence), there is, I think, a very difficult consideration to be taken into account in respect of (the child. The Justice report has pointed out that the existing benefits under the National Insurance Scheme are not intended to cover the full costs and loss of earnings suffered by a mother during the time of her confinement and the birth of her child. This being so, there will no doubt be proper cases, at any rate in my view, where some additional sum might well be awarded to the mother to

297
cover her losses over that period if she, as a result of some hideous crime, has unfortunately had a baby.
Secondly, once the child is born there are further problems which will arise and face this unfortunate woman. She may, despite everything, desire to keep the child, and this may very well, as practice I think has shown, prove best for the child itself—and it will certainly be cheaper for the State than having it maintained at a local authority's expense. However, she clearly will not be able to work in a full-time occupation, and, therefore, in some way her earnings are bound to be smaller than they would otherwise have been. It may be said that she can have the child adopted, but this is not necessarily so, because if the putative father is known to be a violent criminal it may prove almost impossible to get anyone to adopt the child, and, willy-nilly, it may be left with its mother.
Finally, if that happens and she cannot, because of the circumstances of its birth, bear to keep it at all, she may attempt to get the local authority to look after it. But even in that case the local authority is entitled, although I hope that it would not, to demand from the mother a sum of money for the keep of the child. It seems to me that circumstances would clearly arise in some of these cases where a very good case for compensation could occur. I hope that some of the analogies that have been produced in these Reports would not stand in the way of my noble and learned friend in coming down rather more favourably on the side of the mother in this sort of situation than the Home Office Working Party did before; and possibly, also, in the case where the mother of a child conceived in this way has died in the course of childbirth.
My Lords, the discretion in these cases would certainly have to be used with the greatest care. No doubt there would be children born of young girls under the age of 16, and one knows well from experience at assizes how often they may be consenting parties or, at worst, instigating parties, and clearly the tribunal would have to go very carefully into the facts of the individual case. So, too, would it if incest were to be one of the crimes of violence which came within its ambit. I think
298
it would turn out that the number of cases falling into this category would be very small but, none the less, extremely deserving; and I hope, therefore, that my noble and learned friend will look carefully at this problem and at the points that have been made in the Justice Report on it.
I think the other problem that would arise in this field is the question of the length of time within which the victim of the crime should report the occurrence to the police in order to qualify himself or herself for the attention of the tribunal. In some sexual cases it would be much too short to say the qualifying time should be one week, as has been suggested. I think an extension would be needed if my thesis were to be adopted by Her Majesty's Government. I am sorry to have kept your Lordships so long, but I look forward very much to hearing the reply of my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack, and I hope he will be able to indicate to your Lordships that some scheme of the nature that has been discussed this afternoon will soon be introduced in some form.
6.2 p.m.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I should like to say just a word or two. I know that it is getting late, and I promise to be short. First of all, I was delighted to hear the noble and learned Viscount just now coming to the aid of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, who came in for some rough handling at Lord Chorley's hands. I, too, was going to venture to support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, in his plea for the ex gratia fund but I feel that I am something of a lightweight, if not physically, at any rate when it comes to giving support to the arguments of noble and learned Lords. But perhaps the support of two members of the junior Bar is at least better than the support of only one. For what it is worth, I thought the ex gratia payment fund scheme had great attraction, and if it should be thought that this might involve a large strain on the Exchequer it is perhaps worth mentioning that the Working Party, in paragraph 13 of their Report, say this on the question of the amount of money likely to be involved in these cases:
"If this were to become a compulsory contributions scheme, the contribution of even one

299
penny a week from all insured persons would raise far more than would be required for the purpose."
In the context of the sort of sums of money that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has to wrestle with in his annual Budget speeches it would appear that this would net be a very large sum. Furthermore, I suppose, the fund would be replenished to some extent by the reparations that would be received from criminals.
I would make one other point. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mancroft, in support of this afternoon's Motion, made the plea that the argument should not be used against it that it was the thin end of the wedge. My Lords, even the great eloquence of Lord Mancroft will not stop the use of that argument, and that fact has to be faced. I think the most recent plea for special treatment of people who are injured was mentioned in the Financial Times last Monday. It appears that quite a number of people living near London Airport were injured last year by particles of ice and other objects which fell from aircraft. In view of the fact that 160,000 aircraft a year take off or land at London Airport, this is perhaps not so surprising as it would seem at first sight. Of course those people have a legal right to claim damages from the aircraft operator. But in practice it has been found quite impossible in nearly every case to trace the particular aircraft concerned; and even if it were traced the unfortunate injured person would find himself suing somebody in a foreign country, and that would not be very easy for him. So the Association of Municipal Corporations, not surprisingly, put forward a plea for these people that they should receive compensation on some special basis. I do not suppose that they were surprised when their application was turned down.
I think the point is that when a crime of violence occurs it creates much greater abhorrence in people's minds than any accident, unless the accident is of huge proportions. One cannot help feeling that, as time goes on, in the case of a disabled person who has been injured some years previously he and his friends, and society generally, are going to come to take the view: "Does it matter so much how the injury was sustained? It did not happen from any
300
fault of his. Is it right that the amount or quesion of his compensation generally should depend upon how he sustained his injury? The important thing is that he sustained it through no fault of his own." That being so, I should have thought that where an interval elapses and the question of how the original injury was sustained ceases to matter, the position is reached when these particular victims are going to say: "If a victim of criminal violence is to be compensated, why not us?" As a result, the door is going to be opened wider (at any rate, it is going to be pushed very hard to be opened much wider), than purely on the question of compensating victims of crimes of violence.
It is no use the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, asking people not to talk about this being the thin edge of the wedge, because it is, in a sense, the thin edge of the wedge; and that argument is certainly going to be used. This is not intended to be an argument against the Motion of the noble Earl, Lord Longford. It may be a good thing that the door should be more widely opened, but let not the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, resent the pressure to open the door wider. That is all I want to say.
6.10 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, this has been a most valuable debate, and although at one time I thought it was going to be one-sided, in the end it turned out that there has been a good deal of difference of opinion, and I believe that that is most helpful. At this time of night, when we are all anxious to hear the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, I do not propose to inflict myself on your Lordships for very long.
Although I say that there has been a considerable conflict of views, I think that, in the long run, we shall all agree that every noble Lord who has spoken accepted the doctrine—I will not call it the principle—that compensation in some form should be paid to some victims of violence. I can go as far as that, though it has been suggested that these are merely people who suffer misfortunes like many others and therefore have no particular right to be compensated. Even the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, who was the most violent

301
exponent against the doctrine of entitlement as of right, came out with the view that there should be a sum of money set aside by the State for distribution—he called it ex gratia, and so did the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross—among people who are the victims of crime.
I cannot help feeling that the noble and learned Lord's bark is worse than his bite, because he has to face up to the implications of the State's providing ex gratia payments. The noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, said that they could be paid out at the discretion of the tribunal. Does he mean absolute and unlimited discretion? Would he then give the tribunal directions about how they should use that discretion? He would. Would he give them a maximum that they should pay out? Yes, he would. Would he define the crimes of violence which should lead to compensation?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I said that.
LORD SILKIN: I am bound to say that the discretion is gradually being whittled down more and more.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: If the noble Lord reads my speech to-morrow, he will see that I set out five distinct heads of discretion which I thought the tribunal should have; and before that point, I said that there should be a list of crimes.
LORD SILKIN: I do not think that there is any need for me to read the noble Lord's speech to-morrow, because I remember the heads of discretion he referred to. And they are all items which any tribunal, whether it be a court or the kind of tribunal, having discretion, which the noble Viscount wants to set up, or an informal tribunal, would inevitably have to take into account. Of course, they must take into account the degree of provocation. Of course, they must take into account various other matters. So, although we appear to be starting at different points, it seems to me that we have arrived at the same end: that there should be some body set up to use public monies for the purpose of compensating victims of crimes of violence.
Whether the crimes for which compensation should be paid should be all
302
those set out in the Reports of the various Committees is, to my mind, a Committee point. If the Government are disposed to introduce legislation upon the subject, presumably they will set out a list of crimes in respect of which persons will be able to go to some tribunal and ask for (I must not use the word entitlement) an ex gratia payment as compensation. At that stage, we can look at it and see whether or not the schedule of crimes is what we want. The noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, for example, has set out certain crimes for which he thought compensation should not be paid. But these are not big difficulties. What we expect, and what I hope the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack will be able to tell us, is that he accepts the principle and that he will give the Home Secretary the pleasure, to which he referred last November, of introducing legislation on the subject. Mr. Brooke then said:
"I hope that it may fall to me to introduce legislation on the subject, but we have first to decide which of these various different schemes which have been recommended by responsible bodies is the best solution as a whole."
No doubt the Government have considered the various schemes and will be able to-day to give us the benefit of their consideration. What I am hoping to hear from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack is that the Government have accepted the principle of compensation, or of ex gratia payments (I really do not think we are very far apart), and which of these schemes or which combination of schemes he proposes to introduce.
I do not want to bring the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, to his feet again, but I would ask him, if there is to be am absolute discretion in the tribunal, whether there would be any appeal. I think that that follows. The noble Viscount was anxious that people should not have a sense of grievance. I do not think that a sense of grievance would toe removed if they felt that discretion had not been properly exercised, or that, on the facts of their case, they ought to have been compensated because the facts were similar to those in another case where a person had received compensation, by telling them that they are not claiming as an entitlement as of right, but are merely claiming an

303
ex gratia payment. I think that it is almost unavoidable, if we set up some tribunal of this kind, with discretion, that there should be a right of appeal, if we are to give satisfaction to the general public and to those who are going to make claims.
My Lords, I said that I would not be long. I hope that I am keeping my promise. I felt that it might be useful if I pointed out that there is not all the difference between us that might be indicated by the language used by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, in trying to indicate that he was against entitlement as of right. The fact is that, like everybody else, he would like to see those unfortunate people who are the victims of crime compensated. Indeed, if I gather the tenor of his speech, probably he thinks that this does not go far enough, because some cases are not covered. Well, perhaps they can be covered by an ex gratia payment. At any rate, let us deal with those with whom we are definitely concerned to-day.
6.20 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD DILHORNE): My Lords, the noble Lord who has just resumed his seat has spent a good deal of his time in making some comments on the suggestion put forward by my noble and learned friend Lord Denning, and the noble Viscount, about a discretionary ex gratia scheme. I shall say something with regard to that at a later stage in my speech, if I may.
I should like to start by saying that I am sure your Lordships will agree with me that we have had a most interesting and valuable debate, and that we are all indebted to the noble Earl for spending his 57th birthday—and I should like to wish him many happy returns—An raising this subject on his Motion to call attention to the Report of the Working Party on Compensation for Victims of Crimes of Violence. I hope he will forgive my making the comment that I do not think we heard so much from him, or from other speakers in the debate, about the Report of the Working Party on Compensation for Victims of Crimes of Violence. Most of the debate has been taken up with discussing the Report of the Committee of Justice, over which the noble Earl presided, and perhaps, if I may say so, insufficient
304
attention has been paid to the Report of the Working Party which is the subject the noble Earl selected for debate to-day. This is, I think, the first occasion on which this subject has been fully discussed in your Lordships' House, although I understand that some time ago the Motion was tabled but circumstances intervened which prevented its discussion. In view of its importance and the wide range of this debate, I hope your Lordships will bear with me if I take up some time in my reply.
Since the Report of the Working Party was published this subject has been studied by a number of outside bodies: the Conservative Party Committee, presided over by Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth, a Committee of Justice presided over by the noble Earl, the Bow Group and the Association of Municipal Corporations, have all produced reports on this topic. The Government are grateful to them for the work they have done, and for their views. As might be expected, they differ to a considerable extent in their conclusions, but all these bodies agree that the innocent victims of crimes of violence should be compensated for the injuries they suffer, and that that compensation should be restricted to compenisation for personal injuries and not be given for loss or damage to property.
I have listened to nearly all of the debate to-day. I was unable, I am sorry to say, to hear the speech of my noble friend Lord Brentford and the whole of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Charley, but I think it is right to say that none of your Lordships has differed from these two propositions. There may be, of course, as my noble and learned friend Lord Denning has pointed out in what was, if I may say so with due respect, a very remarkable and interesting speech, cases where the injury received by the victim of violence is slight and where the victim of a cruel and heartless fraud suffers far more than a victim of violence. A widow reduced to penury by fraud, the loss of his life's earnings by an aged person mo longer able to earn, may lead to very considerable suffering: indeed, greater suffering than comes from just a broken bone. But it is, I think, the general view that if there is to be any compensation for the victims of crime, it should be limited

305
to the victims of crimes of violence. For the innocent victims of such crimes we all feel sympathy, but we feel that sympathy alone is not enough. I think that has been the view expressed throughout this debate from all parts of your Lordships' House, despite differences of approach and different attitudes as to how the matter should be dealt with.
I think there is also a general feeling in all sections of society outside this House that something should be done to aid them, and many different suggestions have been received by the Government on that subject. Among the bodies to which I have referred, and in your Lordships' House to-day, there is no unanimity of view as to What should be done. My Lords, if provision is to be made for the victims of violence I should prefer to justify it, if I had to justify it, on the ground that it is right to do it; on the ground, as the Conservative Party Committe has put it, that the public feel a special sense of responsibility for the victims of criminal violence—your Lordships will see that that is a sentence quoted from their Report. I should not seek to justify it on the ground that if a crime of violence is committed the State has failed in its duty to protect the citizens of this country and should on that account pay compensation.
As my noble and learned friend Lord Denning has pointed out, many crimes of violence can occur without the State being at all at fault. The Working Party commented on this proposition of basing liability on the ground that the State had failed in its duty, and said—and rightly said, in my belief—that such a proposition is both dangerous and fallacious. I must confess that I was surprised to see that, despite their well-founded observations, the Committee over which the noble Earl presided sought to suggest the existence of an obligation on the part of the State to compensate for crimes of violence. I do not propose to spend more time on this point. If we make provision for compensation in such cases, then at least let us do it, not on account of arguments based on any pseudo-legal principles, or on any alleged breach of obligation by the State, but because it is a right step forward to take in the development of our social policy.
306
If it is a right step to take, then regard must be had to the problems involved, The Conservative Party Committee in their pamphlet said:
"It would probably astonish most people to discover how many and what important questions must be answered if a workable solution to this problem is to be found."
My Lords, they were quite right. One simply cannot ignore the problems involved. The Working Party drew attention to them, and it is no use shutting one's eyes to them and pretending they do not exist, or have been solved, when in fact they have not.
In his preface to the Report of the Committee of Justice, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Shawcross, went so far as to say:
"There are no great, certainly no insurmountable, practical or administrative difficulties: there is no great involvement of public funds."
I will come to the involvement of public funds later, but to-day the noble Lord said that none of the difficulties is new. That may well be the case: they have been made known and brought to public notice by the publication of the Working Party's Report. But it does not mean that they are any the less difficult. I am not seeking to suggest that the difficulties involved to which attention has been drawn are insurmountable, but they are certainly very formidable. To say that there are not great difficulties is, in my belief, entirely wrong and totally unjustified. No one who has read the Report of the Working Party could fail to appreciate their reality and, my Lords, I feel it to be my duty to remind your Lordships of some of them.
This in itself creates a difficulty for me for I do not want anyone in your Lordships' House or outside to get the impression that the Government are unsympathetic to claims for compensation for such victims. That is not the case. What is the case is that there is no easy solution to these problems, and that is the reason for the time that has been taken and is being taken in considering them. I do not want it to be thought that the Government are against any form of compensation and it would be wrong to draw any such inference from what I am about to say.
While there are some victims of crimes of violence whom your Lordships

307
would unhesitatingly say should receive compensation, I venture to suggest that there are other victims of such crimes whose claims to compensation your Lordships would equally unhesitatingly reject. We have had instances in the course of the debate to-day of victims of the first category: the woman, the child, the aged person, who is brutally assaulted and suffers grievous injury. They not only command public sympathy but there is, as I have said, a very real and widepread feeling that they should receive compensation.
But there are other victims of crimes of violence. Take for instance a brawl in a public highway in which, say, half a dozen men are involved and two receive injuries, which may range from cuts and bruises to a fatal stab wound or a fractured skull, and the rest run away. The two who have been injured are victims of a crime of violence. They may, of course, have been two innocent persons set on by a gang. On the other hand, they may have instigated the fight or they may be members of a criminal gang who were attacked in retaliation for some similar injuries inflicted on members of a rival gang. If they instigated the fight, if they were members of a criminal gang, would it be right that they should receive compensation from the public purse, from the taxpayer, for the injuries they have received? Public opinion would, I am sure, react strongly against any suggestion that respectable citizens should, in a sense, subsidise gang warfare by compensating the casualities.
Take another case which may look simple at first sight. A husband beats his wife in their home and does her injury. There is no doubt at all that she is a victim of a crime of violence. She may be wholly innocent or she may have nagged him beyond all endurance. Should she have a claim for compensation? And if she is compensated, may not the offending husband benefit indirectly from his crime? The Committee of Justice suggests that in such a case there should be some procedure analogous to payment of money into court. But even if there were some such procedure, I think the court might find it very difficult to give the wife money without her husband benefiting from it
My Lords, I have given these two examples to illustrate the need to make
308
adequate and satisfactory provision for distinguishing between victims of violence. At the one end of the scale there will be victims who your Lordships may feel should certainly receive compensation for their injuries; at the other end, those who your Lordships, with equal certainty, would say should not. In between there may be a wide range of cases as to which opinions will differ. And I would just say this: that any scheme, any workable scheme, must provide for distinguishing between the two categories, for drawing a line between the victims of violence.
It is not so difficult to draw up a list of crimes of violence—both the Committee of Justice and the Conservative Party Committee have done that—but it does not follow that every victim of a crime in the list, however it is compiled, should receive money from the State, although I think it was indicated by the noble Earl when he opened this debate that it really was enough to produce a list of crimes of violence. That, in my submission, is not the case.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I cannot imagine what gave the noble Lord the impression that I thought that the whole job had been done by producing a list. I spoke for 31 minutes, which I hoped was long enough, but, of course, I could have gone on for ever.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, it may be that if the noble Earl had gone on for ever I should still have been left with the same impression. I based that observation on a passage which I thought he said, but we can no doubt correct it from Hansard, or I can correct my impression; at any rate, I am glad to hear from the noble Earl that this is not his view. But the Report of the Committee of Justice dealt very lightly with the procedure for distinguishing between victims of violence.
I want to turn now, if I may, to the size of the problem. The Working Party, in paragraph 26 of their Report, said that the total number of offences for murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, felonious wounding, malicious wounding, indictable assaults, rape and robbery in England and Wales (excluding murders of children under the age of one) in 1959 was 15,524, of which 10,760

309
were malicious woundings, the majority of which, in their view, would not warrant compensation. And they felt, if I might remind your Lordships, that the total number of successful claims in 1959 would not have exceeded 5,000, and in their opinion the number would in fact have been considerably less. I mention those figures to indicate the extent of the problem of distinguishing between those who should and those who should not receive compensation where the offences of violence are known to the police and where there is no doubt that an offence has been committed.
The Working Party thought that this was one of the main difficulties to be overcome in any scheme. But the scheme must not only do that. It must surely also provide adequate safeguards against fraud. There could be fraudulent claims alleging injuries to have been sustained as a result of a crime when in fact there had been no crime; and there could, of course, be fraudulent exaggeration of the injuries received in a crime. Your Lordships, I am sure, would be the first to criticise a scheme which, while it covered the innocent victims, enabled the victims who were not so innocent and the fraudulent to dip their fingers in the public purse. I must confess that I was disappointed to see that the Committee of Justice, over which the noble Earl presided, did not really deal at all thoroughly with this question of fraudulent claims. The Working Party stressed that any scheme for State compensation, if I may quote their words,
"must provide means of distinguishing the deserving claimant from the undeserving or fraudulent, means which would be effective in operation and manifestly just."
Where a crime of violence is followed by a prosecution, from the proceedings at the trial it may not be difficult to decide whether or not a victim should receive compensation. My Lords, I find it not possible to agree with the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, that the criminal court which has to deal with the criminal charge should, if I understood the noble Lord aright, then proceed to assess compensation. But in the case where there is a prosecution, where there is a conviction, it may not be so difficult to determine whether the victim is of a character to receive compensation. But it would not,
310
in my belief, be acceptable to your Lordships or to the public that only where there was a prosecution resulting in a conviction should a victim of a crime of violence receive compensation, for so to limit the scheme would debar some genuine, innocent victims from compensation through no fault of their own.
But to extend the scheme to cases where there is no prosecution at all does open the door to fraud. Suppose, for instance, someone falls downstairs and breaks a leg—many accidents occur in the home. It would be very easy for a dishonest person to claim that he had found an intruder in the house, who pushed him down the stairs and then made his escape. It would not be very easy to establish that the claim was fraudulent. It is easy to say that the police would soon find out if it was; but would they? There might be plenty of suspicion and yet not a shred of evidence that it was. And surely in these days we must be careful, as the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, said, about placing extra burdens upon the police. One would not want to find them spending time on investigating claims of alleged victims of violence at the expense of the prevention of crime.
Both the Committee of Justice and the Conservative Party Committee include rape among their list of crimes of violence. Indeed it would be difficult to exclude it. The Committee of Justice recognised that where the female had in fact consented she would be under a strong temptation to allege that she had been raped, and it is not unknown, as the Working Party point out, for a woman to do this to protect her reputation. But in view of this temptation the Committee of Justice think that a female should not be debarred from compensation just because she cannot prove rape. They think that she should still be able to secure it if the offence is unlawful sexual intercourse or indecent assault. That Committee in their Report say there should be compensation for pregnancy caused by a criminal offence and that the mother of the child should be entitled to some payment by way of contribution towards the child's maintenance.
To prevent fraud they suggest that the victims of crimes of violence should, as a condition precedent to obtaining

311
compensation, be required to report the criminal offence to the police within one week of its occurrence. The noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, drew attention to the shortness of the period. It was an important point. The one week period would mean this: that where there was an alleged rape or unlawful sexual intercourse or other sexual offence the woman would report the alleged offence to the police before she knew she was pregnant, and it was put forward, if I understand it rightly, by Justice as something that would militate against fraud.
I must say that I can see that great difficulty might in some cases arise on the question whether the pregnancy was in fact due to the criminal offence. Suppose, for instance, that shortly after reporting an alleged rape the woman voluntarily associates with a man and a child is conceived. No criminal offence is committed and it is impossible to say whether that pregnancy was the result of the alleged offence or of the subsequent association. The position then might perhaps arise that the State would be liable to pay, if the Committee of Justice's recommendation was accepted, not only compensation for the expense of pregnancy and childbirth but also a contribution towards the maintenance of the other man's child, although none of this resulted from a crime of any kind.
The object of the proposals that have been put forward is that the innocent victims of crimes of violence should be compensated. Yet under the recommendations of the Committee of Justice, if I understand them correctly, it will be open to any girl under 16 who has had intercourse quite willingly and who subsequently becomes pregnant to claim compensation for the expenses of pregnancy and childbirth and a contribution towards the maintenance of the child on the same terms as the victim of a violent rape, provided, and provided only, that she has reported the matter to the police within a week. Although the Committee of Justice contemplate that many claims would be excluded because of the fact of consent or encouragement, it might often be difficult to establish the fact of consent, and compensation might well be paid to a girl who was not an innocent victim of a crime of violence in any
312
natural sense of those words. I cannot believe that that would be right.
The requirement of a report to the police, while it might prevent some fraudulent claims, would not, I fear, be a very effective check against fraud. The noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, asked me to consider carefully the position with regard to the children who were born as a result of sexual offences. I can assure him that the most careful consideration is bound to be given to that problem, and I do not think he is right in concluding that the Working Party in any way expressed a concluded view upon the matter on behalf of the Government. I do not think that the Justice Committee's Report really provides an adequate check against fraud. The fraudulent claimant who could establish that he or she had suffered injuries might well be ready to go to the police and tell a false story of how his injuries were sustained, thinking, as might well be the case, that it would be impossible for the police to secure evidence to show the falsity of his claims.
My Lords, I hope I have convinced some of your Lordships that, whatever scheme of compensation is put forward, whether it be a scheme on the lines of the Conservative Party Committee, a scheme on the lines of the Committee of Justice or any other scheme, it must contain some satisfactory machinery for distinguishing between the deserving and the undeserving claimants and for the elimination of the fraudulent. I believe that these are the two main difficulties, and really they cannot be dismissed by the assertion that there are no great, certainly no insurmountable, difficulties, particularly when the Report of the Committee of Justice puts forward no satisfactory solution of them. Nor can they be dismissed just by saying, as the noble Lord, Lord Shawcross, said today, "All this can be worked out." If we are going to have a practicable scheme some machinery of that kind must be found, and it follows from what I have said that whatever scheme is proposed it will be necessary to provide some body, some tribunal or some count to distinguish between those who should receive compensation and those who should not.
Now, what is to be the position, or what should be the position, if entitlement—I use that word because it occurs

313
In the Reports but I use it, if I may say so to the noble Earl, in its ordinary meaning and with no particular legal quibble attached to it—to compensation is established? What form should that compensation take? You may have a hybrid scheme, but there are two clear cut issues, however you may blend it, in the end: one, a scheme based primarily on weekly payments related to the extent of the disability, payments of the character to which we are accustomed under the Industrial Injuries Scheme and under the War Pensions Warrant, or, alternatively, a lump sum payment putting a monetary value on the injuries sustained, as we are accustomed to in claims for personal injuries in the courts.
Of one thing I am sure: that it would not be possible to justify a higher weekly payment for a disability suffered by a victim of a crime of violence than can be secured for a similar disability, either by a war pensioner or by an injured person who is entitled to receive industrial injury benefit for which he has paid the necessary insurance contribution. The Committee of Justice recommend that the victim of violence should receive. a greater weekly payment. I must confess that I can see no valid reason why, if two persons suffer similar injuries, a victim of violence as a result of crime should receive more from the State in respect of the disability than the injured person or a war pensioner.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, may I ask the noble and learned Lord whether it is not the case that the Conservative Committee, presided over by the present Attorney General, would also have made a higher offer?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have not that detail of the Conservative Committee Report present to my mind. My recollection is that the Report came down in favour of the court scheme, quite different from that of Justice.
My Lords, I do not propose to state all the difficulties that any scheme for compensation must surmount. There are others that anyone who reads the Report of the Working Party will see. I think it is true to say (I can assure the noble Earl that these Reports have been most carefully considered) (that in regard to all these difficulties the Reports so far produced do not provide a satisfactory solution.
314
To-day the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, put forward a proposal which I hail not heard put forward in public before. He commented on, and drew attention to, the use of the word "entitlement". If I understood him correctly he, like the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Cuirass, and the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, was in favour of an ex-gratia discretionary scheme, because (if I heard Lord Denning, correctly) of the difficulties which would have to be surmounted in trying to devise any scheme, either on the lines of industrial injury benefit or on the lines of creating a quasi-tort committed by the State, or indeed a theoretical tort on the part of the State. To me it was a most interesting suggestion, and I can assure the noble Lords concerned that it will be given the most careful consideration.
I understood from the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, that he was suggesting that broad principles should be laid down upon which any tribunal or body which had to administer it would work, but that within those broad principles there should be wide areas of discretion. I listened carefully to the criticisms of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. I do not know whether it may be possible by some such scheme to overcome some of the difficulties to which the Working Party drew attention. I cannot go further than that to-day. But, quite clearly, any scheme which is to prove satisfactory must deal with those difficulties in one way or another.
There are two other points on which I should like just to touch. One is the question of the criminal contributing to the sum paid to the victim. That, as the noble Earl said in moving his Motion, raises a big question with regard to what happens in our penal institutions. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, reminded us, if the criminal can be traced, the victim can sue. Usually, of course, it is not worth doing, and unless big changes are made the question arises as to whether the criminal, having served his sentence, should be compelled, if he goes straight, to contribute part of his earnings to his victim. At first sight this seems quite attractive. But one must recognise that any such obligation might make it difficult to secure the rehabilitation of the offender, and might tend to make him revert to crime. It is a difficult

315
question, and I cannot suggest to your Lordships what is the correct answer to it.
There is also the further question which was touched upon in this debate and in the Reports: that it is inherent in the proposals put forward that the victim should be able to receive compensation even though there is no conviction. Arguments were advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, that the compensation should be paid promptly. I think it would scarcely be possible to try the claim for compensation before any pending criminal proceedings were disposed of, for a finding that there had been a criminal assault in proceedings for compensation might tend to prejudice a subsequent criminal trial. If proceedings for compensation were brought after the criminal trial, and the accused had been acquitted at that trial, it must be realised that the result of those proceedings for compensation might amount to a reversal of the verdict of "not guilty" at the criminal trial. This would not be satisfactory. I hope that I have said enough to indicate that there are real difficulties which must be dealt with before any scheme for compensation can be introduced.
I should like now to turn to the question of expense. The noble Lord, Lord Shawcross, has said that there would be no great involvement of public funds, and the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, to-day drew attention to that aspect. I do not know what, nowadays, is to be regarded as a "great involvement". The Committee of Justice thought that their scheme would involve over £1 million. Even in these days, it is surely wrong to describe that as no great involvement. The Committee based their estimate on the figures given in the Working Party's Report of the estimated cost in 1959. The Working Party described their figures as highly speculative. But, working on the same basis as they did, and taking into account the increases since 1959 in crimes of violence, in the rates of National Insurance benefit and in legal and administrative costs, I can tell your Lordships what would have been the estimated approximate cost to the taxpayer in 1961.
In the case of an industrial injuries type of scheme, compensation would amount to £1,166,000, with administrative
316
and other costs of £158,000—a total of £1,324,000. In the case of what I may call the court scheme, compensation would amount to £1,380,000, with administrative and other costs of £516,000—a total cost of £1,896,000. So I do not think that one can say that there would be no great involvement of public funds. What I think is disturbing is the relationship between the administrative costs and the total of compensation. In both cases it seems high, and one would like to find some satisfactory way of reducing it.
I hope that I have not exhausted your Lordships' considerable patience, but this has been an important debate and a valuable one. I have listened with the greatest interest to the views expressed by your Lordships, and I can assure you that they will be most carefully considered. My Lords, inevitably a great deal of my speech has been related to the difficulties involved. I have not referred to all of them. I hope that I have satisfied your Lordships that there are many important questions which must be answered if a workable solution to this problem is to be found. I hope that a satisfactory answer can be found to these questions, and work is being done upon them. I have drawn attention to some of the difficulties, but it should not be inferred that the Government are not sympathetic and are not doing their best to find a satisfactory answer, if one can be devised. May I finally, my Lords, once again express my thanks to the noble Earl for raising this subject?
7.2 p.m.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords. I should like to thank all those who have taken part in this debate perhaps those who are not present will forgive me if I do not mention them, but I would mention in particular the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, and the noble Lords, Lord Airedale, Lord Silkin, and of course the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor. I hesitate to go beyond that list, but I could hardly perhaps pass over the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Man-croft, for example, or those of the noble Lords, Lord Chorley and Lord Denning, without saying how deeply interesting they were. The noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, was kind enough, on behalf of the Government, to thank

317
all those who had taken part in these inquiries, and in so far as I am competent to do so, even regarding perhaps the Conservative Committee of Members of Parliament—though it is a long time since I would have been in any position to speak for them—I should like to tender my thanks to him for what he said about our work.
He was also twice good enough to thank me for raising this subject, and mentioned that I had now reached the advanced age of 57, which puts me on an age equality with him if I am equal in no other respects.
However, although exercising all the charity and imagination in the world, he did not feel able to say anything nice about my actual speech. He could not pay me, I noticed, even the mildest compliment in the course of his 40 minutes. Therefore, he will not expect me to go out of my way to say anything nice about his. But, trying hard for a compliment, and remembering what was said about lawyers being superior to jurists—though I had always thought it was the other way round—I should like to say that his speech struck me as that of an eminent lawyer rather than that of a great jurist. I hope I have put that in in a way which is entirely complimentary, or thought to be so in legal circles.
The Lord Chancellor felt it was his duty to labour the difficulties, and he certainly did his duty very thoroughly in that respect. I am reminded, of course, of the difficulties which confront all social reformers. I worked for a long time as a humble bottle-washer for the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, when we were drawing up his Report. There came a moment when Lord Beveridge, as Chairman of a Committee which included about a dozen civil servants, came to the conclusion that he would get on better without their services and he duly sacked them. We have had the Beveridge Report and I think most people agree that quite a lot of the Welfare State emerged as a result. I can only give the Lord Chancellor the humble suggestion that he should not pay too much attention, perhaps, to the views expressed in this Working Party's Report Compensation for Victims of Crimes of Violence. I felt his speech to-night was not offensive, but rather defensive, if I may say
318
so. He seemed to have some kind of brief to defend the authors of this Report; at any rate, he defended them very adequately and bravely. I will not go into the detailed points.
To be frank, I am sorry that the Government have not gone further forward with their thinking. Of course there are bound to be a lot of difficulties. I will leave the noble Lord, Lord Shawcross, to defend himself; he is fully capable of doing so, and I do not think—to adopt what Sir Winston Churchill once said—that he will feel himself "utterly extinguished" by the Lord Chancellor's censure. However, I am sorry the Government have not gone further forward. I would have hoped the Lord Chancellor should have been able to be more forthcoming. I gather he is not in any way going back upon what the Home Secretary said on November 8. He said then that he hoped to be in a position to make a statement before long, and hoped that it would fall to him to introduce legislation. I hope I can take it that those statements are not affected or damaged in any way by what has been said tonight.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I would not seek to qualify those statements in one degree.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: For that, at least, I am very grateful. I hesitate to argue further, partly because of the night outside and partly because those of us who care for these things here are so much in the hands of the Lord Chancellor, the Home Secretary and quite a number of officials—who may not like everything I have been saying.
I can only end by recalling a conversation which took place many years ago between the late Lord Birkenhead and an Oxford tutor who was teaching his son. Lord Birkenhead asked the tutor what it was he was teaching his son. The reply was "Political economy". Lord Birkenhead replied, "Political economy? That's a bastard science—neither politics nor economy. But I'll forgive you your bastard science if you will get my son through his preliminary examination." I think we shall all forgive the noble and learned Viscount his inevitably negative reply if he will give us the Bill which, in his heart, I feel sure he as anxious to give us.

319
My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

BETTING, GAMING AND LOTTERIES BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills with Amendments, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

BETTING DUTIES BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills without amendment, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

—

Trunk Roads

Classified Roads

Motorways

All-Purpose Roads

Class I

Class II

Class III

England and Wales

130

6,392

14,934

13,698

42,605

Scotland

—

1,946

4,813

3,922

6,322

Great Britain

130

8,338

19,747

17,620

48,927

An estimate of their capital value based on current replacement cost would be neither valid nor significant.

  COST AND MILEAGE OF ROADS
  COST AND MILEAGE OF ROADS