Sitting of 13 February 1962

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  LARGS BURGH ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Read the Third time and passed.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Diplomatic Missions (Motor Cars)
    Mr. B. Harrisonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what concessions are made to members of diplomatic missions in the United Kingdom to purchase, free of Purchase Tax or import duties, cars of British or foreign origin.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): A diplomat with full diplomatic privilege does not at any time bear revenue charges on a car, whether British or of foreign manufacture, bought for his personal use. Other members of missions import their cars free of such charges at their first arrival, on appointment here. The charges become payable on any cars which are disposed of in this country.
    Mr. Harrison: Does not my right hon. and learned Friend think that it is rather silly that members of the Diplomatic Corps should be able to import a car without Purchase Tax or other duties, whereas, if they buy one here, before taking it away they have to pay the tax and get a refund and so have an additional inconvenience?
    Mr. Lloyd: I will consider my hon. Friend's point, but I think that what has been the practice up to now is not really too bad a one.

    Shipbuilding (Finance)
    Sir L. Ropnerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the arrangements for financing export contracts as announced by him will enable foreign ship owners to obtain credit for building ships in this country on terms which entail preferential treatment to the disadvantage of British ship owners.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: No, Sir. The position of the British ship owner is not worsened by the new arrangements and I do not believe that foreign owners in general will be at an advantage.
    Sir L. Ropner: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the Governments of other countries are finding a large number of ways of financially assisting shipbuilders and ship owners? Will he make inquiries into this practice and try to follow the example of other nations?
    Mr. Lloyd: I certainly will do that, and I will also consider any evidence which my hon. and gallant Friend has to give me. The British owner enjoys the 40 per cent. investment allowance, which is a substantial assistance, but the scheme about which my hon. and gallant Friend is asking relates to exports.
    Mr. Shinwell: Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise by now that this 40 per cent. investment allowance applies only when profits are earned, and that shipping companies which do not make profits do not derive any advantage from it?
    Mr. Lloyd: That is true over a temporary period, but not over a term of years.
    Mr. Ridleyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether credit at 5½ per cent. fixed, in accordance with the scheme he announced on 23rd January, 1962, will be available for British ship owners building in British shipyards.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: No, Sir.
    Mr. Ridley: May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend whether he is aware that the setting up of this scheme is of great benefit to exports; that British ships also earn a very large amount of foreign currency which could be regarded as an export; and that what he

    1095
    is doing is discriminating against British shipping to the advantage of foreign-owned shipping? Will he go back to the City and try to arrange terms for our own ship owners as advantageous as those for foreign ship owners?
    Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend will have heard the reply I made earlier to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Sir L. Ropner) about this matter. This was a scheme for exports and I am glad that it has been accepted as being of benefit. I am very ready to examine any information about how foreign ship owners could be in a better position than British ship owners. I remind my hon. Friend of what I said about investment allowance.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the proposal made by his hon. Friend would stimulate British shipbuilding, because many ship owners would be very glad to scrap some old vessels and have new ones built, if they could find the necessary credit, and this proposal would assist them?
    Mr. Lloyd: I am aware of that fact, but the scheme about which I have been questioned was designed to encourage exports and was, I think, of benefit.

    Economic Policy
    Mr. Prenticeasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes he proposes to make in the Government's economic policies, in view of the rise in unemployment recently.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: None, Sir. The Government are taking active measures to assist industry to move to areas of high unemployment and will continue to do so.
    Mr. Prentice: Will not the right hon. and learned Gentleman at least acknowledge that an increase of over 71,000 in the number of registered unemployed in a month is a rather alarming figure? Will he also acknowlelge that this is due in the main to the policy that he himself has been following since last July?
    Mr. Lloyd: I think that it is also necessary to remember that on the last date for which the figures are available 154,000 more people were in employ
    1096
    ment than in the corresponding period last year. As regards trying to take industry to places where there are high levels of unemployment, we are spending in the current financial year about £34 million on that, and I shall be surprised if the bill next year is any less.
    Sir P. Agnew: Does my right hon. and learned Friend recollect that almost fifteen years ago, when the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) was a Minister, there were million unemployed?
    Mr. Lloyd: That is true, but I think that that was during a slightly abnormal period.
    Mr. Shinwell: In view of that statement, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman make inquiries to ascertain the truth of it and deny the contention if the Government documents in his possession indicate that there is no truth whatever in the statement?
    Mr. Lloyd: I did my best to help the right hon. Gentleman by saying that the period to which I thought my hon. Friend was referring was a rather abnormal one.

    Shipbuilding, Blyth
    Mr. Milneasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what Government order can now be expected by Blyth shipyard in view of the scheduling of the town as a development district under the Local Employment Act.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Edward Boyle): When tenders for Government contracts are of equal merit, preference is given to firms in areas listed as development districts. Firms at Blyth will thus qualify for preference under this scheme.
    Mr. Milne: Is not the Minister aware that, while it is important to direct new industries to a development district, it is equally important to keep the industries in the area going? While we are grateful to him for his Answer, my I point out that this is a shipyard that is adapting itself both in management and men to modern conditions?
    Sir E. Boyle: I hope that the hon. Gentleman has noticed that among the

    1097
    Supplementary Estimates recently presented to Parliament was one for nearly £4 million under the Local Employment Act.

    Industry and Agriculture (Consultation)
    Sir Richard Glynasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what bodies he has regular meetings with the worker and management representatives of industry, including the nationalised industries, and agriculture.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I have regular meetings with the representatives of employers and trade unions and the nationalised industries on the National Production Advisory Council on Industry.
    Sir Richard Glyn: Would not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, in the interests of efficiency and economy, all such meetings should be coordinated, and will he do his best, with the co-operation of his Ministerial colleagues, to see that in future all such meetings are convened by him and held under the aegis of the N.E.D.C.?
    Mr. Lloyd: I will consider the point which my hon. Friend has put. I am not sure that it will be acceptable to all my Ministerial colleagues. Nevertheless, I agree with him, and I hope that I shall very soon be able to make a statement on the position of some of these bodies when we have the N.E.D.C. set up.

    Wages, Salaries and Dividends
    Mr. Jayasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the percentage rise in wages, salaries and dividends, respectively, over the past ten years.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Between 1950 and 1960 it is estimated that total wages rose by 87 per cent., total salaries by 119 per cent. and gross ordinary dividends by 145 per cent. Total company profits rose by 70 per cent. in this period.
    Provisional figures for the first nine months of 1961 suggest that wages and salaries in that period were altogether about 8·1 per cent. higher than in the corresponding period of 1960, while the level of gross ordinary dividends rose by about 12 per cent. Company profits fell by 7 per cent. in this period.
    Mr. Jay: In view of the figures for the last ten years, which the Chancellor has given, is it not really absurd to suggest that rising wages have been the main cause of inflation? Is it not even more indefensible to try to hold down wage rises to 2½ per cent. while not effectively imposing any such restraint on a great many salaries and incomes?
    Mr. Lloyd: I think that the right hon. Gentleman has completely disregarded one very important fact, that between 1950 and 1960 £10,000 million of profits were ploughed back into industry and in addition £1,500 million of new capital was raised. In fact, gross dividends went up by £600 million. If that is considered in relation to the £10,000 million ploughed back and the £1,500 million of new capital raised, I think one gets the rise in dividends in much better proportion.
    Mr. Jay: It is just because I realise these facts that I put the Question in terms of dividends and not of profits.
    Mr. Lloyd: But surely dividends are relevant. Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that there should be savings without any return on the savings at all when these are company savings?
    Mr. Jay: If I am asked the question, I would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman if he is not aware that obviously the fairest comparison is between wages, salaries and dividends.
    Mr. Lloyd: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the size of the labour force comes into account? The labour force has gone up by 8 per cent. and it is a relevant factor. The amount of capital on which dividends are paid is also a relevant factor.
    Mr. Ridsdale: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that in 1960 wages and salaries totalled £13,690 million and dividends on ordinary shares only £986 million?
    Mr. Lloyd: Gross dividends were about 7 per cent. of wages and salaries.
    Mr. Lee: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman complaining that there are too many workers now?
    Mr. Lloyd: I was really complaining that hon. Members opposite, who are

    1099
    supposed to encourage savings and who want profits ploughed back, do not seem to be prepared to agree that these profits deserve some remuneration.

    Trustee Investments Act (Section 15)
    Mr. Stratton Millsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he proposes to take following the two recent judicial interpretations of Section 15 of the Trustee Investments Act, in the cases of in re Kolb's Will Trusts and in re Porritt's Will Trusts on the subject of investment, to clarify the position.
    Sir E. Boyle: I understand that an appeal is being made in one of these cases. It would, therefore, be premature for me to comment.
    Mr. Stratton Mills: Does not the Chancellor consider that the judgment of the judges in both these cases, in spite of what my right hon. and learned Friend has said, have taken a rather limited view of the Variation of Trusts Act, 1958, despite the assurance given in Committee on the Trustees Investment Bill by the former Solicitor-General?
    Sir E. Boyle: I know that a great deal of concern is felt about this matter. I think that at the present time it would be premature for me to comment, as I have said.
    Mr. Mitchison: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind when he considers this case that this is a point on which the Government twice asserted that the Chancery judges had been consulted and that it appeared in the final stages of the Committee proceedings they had not been consulted?
    Sir E. Boyle: I can assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that we shall take into account what was said by the Government during the debate and anything said on the judgments.

    Income Tax (Travelling Expenses)
    Mr. W. Baxterasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give tax relief to working and professional people who incur considerable cost in going to and from work.
    Sir E. Boyle: No, Sir.
    Mr. Baxter: Do I understand that the Chancellor will not give consideration to this very important question when in fact there are closures of pits in many areas throughout the land and people have to travel considerable distances to their work? I can assure him that in my constituency the majority of people have to incur expenses of up to and sometimes over £1 a week. If he seeks to be fair and equitable in taxation he must give serious consideration to expenses incurred by working people travelling to and from their work.
    Sir E. Boyle: The hon. Gentleman may recall that the Royal Commission on Taxation considered this question and came down decisively in favour of the view that such an allowance would not in general be justified, and the Government feel that that argument stands.
    Mr. Callaghan: Whatever dusty answer may be given on this, is the Financial Secretary aware that there is growing resentment at the treatment of P.A.Y.E. workers in matters of expenses in comparison with those assessed under Schedule D? Will he take steps to ask his right hon. and learned Friend to equalise conditions under which expenses are granted between Schedule D and P.A.Y.E. taxpayers?
    Sir E. Boyle: The hon. Gentleman is raising a matter of considerable importance which ranges rather wider than the Question on the Order Paper. We shall no doubt have an opportunity of discussing the point raised by the hon. Gentleman at an appropriate time.
    Mrs. Braddock: Is the Financial Secretary aware that this creates very great difficulty in industrial areas where there is new housing and people have to go seven or eight miles out of the centre of the city. In many instances, the cost of transport is 5s. or 6s. a week, and this makes it difficult to persuade people to go into the new houses. The Chancellor knows perfectly well that this is so on Merseyside. Would it not be wise to look at this position to see if means could not be found to ease the situation?
    Sir E. Boyle: The hon. Lady is perfectly right in saying that the tax system must be seen to be fair. It would be quite impracticable to devise a relief as

    1101
    suggested in the Question which would be both fair and workable.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Hamilton, Question No. 10.
    Mr. Baxter: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.
    Mr. Nabarro: On a point of order—
    Mr. Speaker: There can be no further point of order to a notice which was itself given late.
    Mr. Nabarro: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order to give notice that a matter is to be raised on the Adjournment which inescapably must involve new legislation?
    Mr. Speaker: It is perfectly in order to give notice. I will consider whether the matter is in order on the Adjournment when it arises and not now.

    Surtax
    Mr. W. Hamiltonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of his recently announced policy of seeking to restrain rises in personal incomes, he will now rescind the proposed concession to Surtax payers.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: No, Sir.
    Mr. Hamilton: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain how on earth he expects organised workers to understand either the logic or the justice of his appeal to them to restrain their incomes when at the same time he is giving out £83 million to the wealthiest section of the community?
    Mr. Lloyd: I have altered the basis of assessment. In that case there had been a pause of something like forty years since the time 'it was originally introduced. I did it for economic reasons, because I wanted to put a certain section of the community on a tax basis comparable with that of our competitors. I have seen the posters: "Wages and Salaries Frozen. £80 million for the Surtax payers." In fact, between April, 1961, and January, 1963, when this relief comes into effect, I think that wages and salaries will have gone up by about ten times that amount.
    Mr. Hamilton: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman recollect that this Surtax concession was given with the express hope that it would provide an incentive to exporters? Will he give an undertaking that if exports do not increase to the extent that he visualised when the concession was first introduced it will be withdrawn?
    Mr. Lloyd: Certainly not. The purpose of the concession was to put a certain important section of the community on a basis comparable with that of our competitors overseas.
    Mr. Jay: But as the right hon. and learned Gentleman also said that one purpose of the concession was to obtain an increase in production, and as production has since fallen, will not he reconsider the concession?
    Mr. Lloyd: Certainly not. I am absolutely convinced that, in the long term, what I have done is right.

    Landlords (Renewal of Leases)
    Mr. Awberyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware of the large sums demanded by ground landlords for the renewal of leases on dwelling houses; and, in view of the fact that these landlords have not contributed towards increases in the value of the land, if he will take steps to examine the sums as a source of revenue.
    Sir E. Boyle: I have noted the hon. Member's suggestion.
    Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware that two cases were brought to my attention recently, first, of a man who paid £3 a year ground rent, whose lease still has fourteen years to go, and who is being asked to pay £550 for its renewal, and, secondly, of a man who is being asked to pay £350 plus £20 a year for the renewal of the ground lease? If the Minister is prepared to impose this wage freeze for the workers, why should he not adopt a rent freeze for these landlords? Is not he aware that, in the eyes of the workers, whatever he may say in answer to my question will not justify the robbery that is going on in this respect?
    Sir E. Boyle: The hon. Member, who always expresses himself so felicitously, has not left me much to say in reply,

    1103
    but I will remind him that if these land lords are trading in real property these premiums constitute trade receipts, and enter into the computation of taxable profits.

    National Economic Development Council
    Mr. A. Lewisasked the Chancellor of the Exechequer whether he will arrange to have attendances and minutes of the National Economic Development Council published; and if he will ensure, in the interests of encouraging national productivity, that members shall only be paid for actual attendances on an expense basis for expenses actually incurred.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The National Economic Development Council has not yet met. It will be for the Council to decide to what extent it will make its proceedings and recommendations public.
    With regard to possible allowances for expenses, I will bear the hon. Member's suggestion in mind.
    Mr. Lewis: Is the Minister aware that I am not asking what the Council will decide to do? I am asking whether the Chancellor will take some action to encourage industry generally by suggesting that the minutes of attendance of this Council should be published. As all those people who have been announced as members of the Council are receiving good salaries and expenses, is it not right that they should claim only for the actual expenses incurred, and should not make money out of their service on the Council?
    Mr. Lloyd: I have said that I will consider the hon. Member's point. I have not the slightest reason to think that any member of this Council, whether he represents a trade union or otherwise, will want to make money out of his attendance.

    Goya Picture, National Gallery (Committee's Report)
    Mr. A. Royleasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what date the Committee set up to investigate the theft of the portrait by Goya will report.
    Mr. Liptonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Committee investigating the theft of the Goya portrait from the National Gallery has now reported; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I understand that the Committee has finished its inquiries, and that the Government may now expect to receive its Report this week.
    Mr. Royle: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that there is public concern about the administration of the National Gallery? Will he, therefore, publish this Report as a White Paper when he receives it?
    Mr. Lloyd: I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that from the nature of the matters investigated it will be necessary to consider what is in the Report before deciding whether or not to publish it.
    Mr. Mitchison: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us whether they have found the picture?
    Mr. Lipton: Security has apparently improved, and no further pictures have been stolen since the Goya disappeared, but can the Chancellor explain how it is that only the other day, in the House of Lords, a Government spokesman said that it would be a month or two before the Report would be published, or would reach the Government, whereas today the announcement is made that the Report is in the hands of the Government? There seems to be a lack of coordination somewhere, which probably reflects itself in the security arrangements generally.
    Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Member should be satisfied with my reply, anyway.

    Overseas Investment
    Sir Richard Pilkingtonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give figures to show how United Kingdom overseas investment compares with what it was before the last war.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: It is not possible to make this comparison, because the only available figures relating to pre-war investment overseas are certain unofficial and incomplete estimates prepared on a different basis from current official estimates.

    North-East
    Mr. Boydenasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the increase of unemployment in the North-East, he will ask the National Economic Development Council to consider as an urgent priority the inflationary influences of the labour drift southwards and the need for new measures to promote industrial growth where resources are under-employed.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I agree that the full use of our resources is the kind of issue which might very well engage the Council's attention.
    Mr. Boyden: I am thankful for that half-answer. When the right hon. and learned Gentleman answered Question No. 3 he stated that £34 million had been spent under the Local Employment Act. Will he state how much of that was spent in the North-East, and agree that this is far too little?
    Mr. Lloyd: I will certainly state the amount when I know it, if the hon. Member will give notice of that question.

    Exports
    Sir C. Osborneasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the fact that personal incomes for the first nine months in 1961 increased by 7 per cent. whereas output increases only by 11 per cent., what was the increase or decrease in exports; to what extent exports were held back by higher prices caused by higher incomes; if he will take further steps to publicise the dangers to exports caused by higher prices: and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Over the first nine months of 1961 exports rose by £99 million, or about 3½ per cent. I have no doubt that exports were to some extent held back by higher prices, but that is very difficult to quantify. A continuation of the rise in prices and costs, which is simply another aspect of the inflation of personal incomes, would be very damaging to our export prospects. I have frequently drawn attention to the importance of keeping down the cost of exports so as to allow exporters to take full advantage of the expanding markets open to them. This is indeed one of the principle objects of the Government's incomes policy.
    Sir C. Osborne: If exports increased by only 3½ per cent. whereas personal, incomes rose by 7 per cent., is not that going to make the position of exporters a great deal more difficult? What new steps will my right hon. and learned Friend take to convince the nation that unless we export more we may have 1 million people unemployed before long?
    Mr. Lloyd: What my hon. Friend says is true, and I hope that every hon. Member will co-operate in convincing public opinion in this country of the facts as my hon. Friend has stated them.

    Dividends
    Mr. Callaghanasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what appropriate corrective action he proposes to take in accordance with paragraph 14, dealing with profits and dividends, of the White Paper on Incomes Policy, in view of the excessive increase in dividends from 1958 to 1961, compared with increases in hourly wage rates.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: In view of the fall in profits, from which dividends are paid, in 1961, I do not think there is any need for corrective action at the present time.
    Mr. Callaghan: Has not the Chancellor looked up the figures, which show that dividends increased four times as quickly as wages during those years? Does not he regard that as excessive, whatever the rate of profits paid out? Does not he realise that until he takes some action along these lines his incomes policy will be regarded as a mockery by the ordinary people?
    Mr. Lloyd: People who say that should also point out the fact that I mentioned earlier, concerning the ploughing back of profits and the raising of new capital. It also depends on the period from which one takes the figures. Comparing 1938 with 1961 one finds an enormously greater increase in earnings than in dividends. Between 1946 and 1961 the figures are about the same. But the statistics that we have do not take into account the factor that I have mentioned, which is of great importance, and I hope that the hon. Member will help me in explaining it to the people.
    Mr. Callaghan: Is the Chancellor aware that I shall certainly assist to make the economic facts of this country known during the next few months? Whether he will agree with my analysis I am not so sure. It is that he has laid down, as a condition for increases in pay, that people must undertake more arduous or onerous work. What is it he is asking the shareholders to undertake in order to justify this excessive increase in dividends?
    Mr. Lloyd: It is quite clear from the fall in profits that the figures for dividends will correspond, because profits are the fount of dividends. As the statistics that I gave earlier show, the fall in profits has been very substantial.

    Mentally-handicapped Children (Occupation Centres)
    Mr. Owenasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will amend subsection (1) of Section 212 of the Income Tax Act, 1952, so as to bring the occupation centres for the training of mentally handicapped children within the meaning of educational establishment and thus remove the prevailing anomaly.
    Sir E. Boyle: I have noted the hon. Member's suggestion, but I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget statement.
    Mr. Owen: During his consideration of this and other matters, will the Minister bear in mind the fact that there is a challenge and an anomaly here that causes some concern to the Inland Revenue authorities, in that a centre for handicapped children functions in almost identically the same way as an educational institute? Is he, therefore, prepared to give this matter serious consideration?
    Sir E. Boyle: This, along with many other matters, will be considered. In general it is true that these training centres do not satisfy the statutory test, but this is one of many matters which my right hon. and learned Friend will be looking into.

    Pensions (Payment)
    Dame Irene Wardasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider a new system for the payment
    1108
    of pensions which are the direct financial liability of Her Majesty's Government, details of which have been sent to him by the hon. Member for Tynemouth; and if he will make a statement.
    Sir E. Boyle: I understand that the hon. Lady has in mind a suggestion that all public service pensions, no matter when awarded, should be raised to the level of those currently being awarded for similar service. Her Majesty's Government, like all previous Governments, are unable to accept such a fundamental and costly change in the principles governing public service pensions.
    Dame Irene Ward: Is my hon. Friend aware that I was referring to the creative plan of Air Marshal Sir Gerald Gibbs, who has written to my right hon. and learned Friend and had a very courteous, if non-committal, reply not embodying what my hon. Friend has said? When we are having new ideas about pay, salaries and production, may I ask my hon. Friend why, at some time or other, we should not examine the position of those who have already served their country well? Or do we always have to discard those who have served and look to those who may serve us? Can my hon. Friend answer that?
    Sir E. Boyle: Yes, certainly. In answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, I do not think that it would be very courteous were my right hon. and learned Friend to answer correspondence in the style of a Parliamentary Answer. Regarding the second part, one has to remember that it would cost as much as £70 million in the first year—
    Dame Irene Ward: That is not right.
    Sir E. Boyle: It is correct. We are here considering the possibility of a very big change in policy. I make no apology for saying that my right hon. and learned Friend, like all his predecessors, feels that this would be too fundamental and costly a change to make.
    Dame Irene Ward: They are all dyed-in-the-wool.
    Mr. H. Hynd: Could not the £70 million be found if the Chancellor cancelled the Surtax concession?
    Sir E. Boyle: Unless we have a thrusting and competitive economy I do not consider, that we shall be serving the interests of the pensioners themselves. I think it is great nonsense to suppose that we should have the level of pensions that we wish unless there is sufficient scope for initiative in the tax system.

    Salaries
    Mr. McKayasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many salaried persons are included in the category of those who received a total of £5,060 million in 1960; whether this number includes directors who receive yearly or part-time fees; what part of the total sum is comprised by such fees; and if he will in future publish in his monthly digest of statistics details showing the average number of people receiving salaries of up to £2,000 per annum, between £2,000 and £5,000 per annum, and between £5,000 and £10,000 per annum, respectively, together with the totals of annual salaries for each group.
    Sir E. Boyle: Precise figures of the division of the total labour force between wage earners and salary earners are not availably but it is estimated that the total number of salary earners in 1960 was about 6¾million, including directors. Directors' fees are in general included in the figures of earnings taxed under P.A.Y.E., from which the estimates of wages and salaries are derived, but are not separately identified. It is estimated, however, that the total of such fees included in the figure for salaries paid in 1960 was of the order of £200 million. So far as publication of numbers of salary earners in various ranges of income is concerned, I would draw the hon. Member's attention to table 67 in the 104th Report of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. This table shows total Schedule E incomes classified by sex and by range of remuneration, but separate figures for wages and salaries are not available. This information can only be obtained annually, with a considerable time lag, and would not be appropriate for publication in the Monthly Digest of Statistics.
    Mr. McKay: I am very thankful for the Minister's reply. At the same time I think the object of the Question itself should be taken notice of and implemented. We have all the possible in
    1110
    formation relative to wages. Why cannot we get the same information relative to other personal affairs?
    Sir E. Boyle: I ask the hon. Gentleman to study my original Answer again. I apologise for its length, but it was a long Question and one could not use the traditional remark—" as the Answer contains a number of figures…" I hope that the hon. Gentleman will find the Answer informative.
    Mr. McKayasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what particular factors resulted in a 61 per cent. rise in total salaries between 1954 and 1960 compared with a 40 per cent. rise in total wages over the same period.
    Sir E. Boyle: The faster rise in total salaries than in total wages can be attributed mainly to the simple fact that over this period the number of salary earners rose much faster than the number of wage earners.
    Mr. McKay: Does not the Minister think that, when we know the number of these people, it should not be difficult to obtain the number who get that money? Therefore, is not it necessary that we should have as much information on this subject as we have about wages? I hope we shall do something in this matter.
    Sir E. Boyle: I do not wish to be discourteous to the hon. Member, but I understood the original Question and Answer better than his supplementary question. If the hon. Member wishes further information on the whole subject, may I suggest that he looks at the very good analysis in the book by Butler and Rose on the last General Election?
    Mr. Jay: Can the Financial Secretary say what were the percentage rises in the number of salary earners and wage earners respectively?
    Sir E. Boyle: Between 1954 and 1960 the number of salary earners increased by about 22 per cent. and wage earners by about 1 per cent.

    University Teachers (Salaries)
    Mr. Longdenasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is yet able to publish the Government's proposals in the matter of the salaries of university teachers.
    Sir E. Boyle: I would refer my hon. Friend to previous replies on this matter to which I have at present nothing to add.
    Mr. Longden: I am sure my hon. Friend will realise that that is a very disappointing reply. Is he aware that a long time has now elapsed since a statement was first promised? May I ask, first, whether he would not agree that as soon as the pay pause permits, a major adjustment of these salaries is necessary so that the top rewards in the profession are more comparable to the top rewards in comparable professions? Secondly, will he say whether backdating will apply either initially or as a principle, and, thirdly, whether some kind of negotiating machinery comparable to Burnham can now be introduced?
    Sir E. Boyle: I cannot anticipate any announcement, but I can assure my hon. Friend that my right hon. and learned Friend is well aware of the need for an early announcement on this subject. Regarding the last part of the supplementary question, my information is that the arrangements, given the special circumstances of academic employment, are generally acceptable.
    Mr. Callaghan: What about backdating?
    Sir E. Boyle: I cannot answer any further.

    Non-Ferrous Metal Mining
    Mr. Boydenasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of Great Britain's continuing balance of trade difficulties he will take fiscal steps to encourage the long-term development of non-ferrous metal mining in Great Britain.
    Sir E. Boyle: My right hon. Friend has noted the hon. and learned Member's suggestion, but after full consideration last year he has reached the conclusion that he could not justify giving special tax reliefs for this purpose. I am afraid that our view on the matter remains unchanged.
    Mr. Boyden: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the fluctuation in the price of tin, for example, and the supply of tin, makes nonsense of the
    1112
    British policy. When we do not have a steady long-term policy with relation to this and other matters, would not it be better for the national interest if this were planned over a period?
    Sir E. Boyle: I know the sincere feelings held by hon. Members on both sides of the House about this. I ask the hon. Gentleman to look at the debates on the Finance Bill last year. My right hon. and learned Friend came to his conclusion after a great deal of thought, and he does not feel that he can change his mind now.

    Richard Thomas and Baldwins, Limited
    Mr. Nabarroasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the inventory value of Richard Thomas and Baldwins, Limited, at the latest convenient date; what steps the Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency has now taken to prepare for denationalisation; and, having regard to the undertaking of the Government to denationalise the rump of the State-owned steel industry before the next General Election and the decline in value of steel equities on the London Stock Exchange, whether he will now make a statement concerning early denationalisation of Richard Thomas and Baldwins, Limited.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The value of the company's net assets on 30th September, 1961, the date of the last balance sheet, was £154·7 million. The Government's policy on the remaining stages of steel denationalisation is well known; but it would be contrary to practice for me to enter into discussion about possible future sales by the Agency.
    Mr. Nabarro: Does not my right hon. and learned Friend realise that the date of the next General Election is now getting very close—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—and the time to complete this denationalisation operation is, therefore, quite short? Would not he feel with me very keenly if we were to face the electorate with a charge being made against us of a broken pledge?
    Hon. Members: Oh.
    Mr. Lloyd: I think the result of the next General Election will not greatly affect this issue. With regard to the

    1113
    question which my hon. Friend has asked, I have nothing to add to what has been said before.
    Mr. M. Foot: Would not the Chancellor accept the fact that any proposal for denationalising Richard Thomas and Baldwins, Limited, would be a wanton act of pillage? Would he not give a guarantee that he will act in this matter in the national interest and not in the interests of the private steel masters who subscribe to Conservative Party funds?
    Mr. Lloyd: I do not accept the first part of the hon. Member's supplementary question. I have every intention of acting is the national interest.
    Mr. Callaghan: As at least £70 million of new public money has been invested in Llanwern, surely the time has come for the Government to reconsider their policy and to repeal this Act? How can the Chancellor justify selling to private interests and private enterprise assets to which they have subscribed nothing and contributed nothing and from which, if the hon. Member has his way, they will draw all the benefit?
    Mr. Lloyd: I do not agree at all with what the hon. Member says.
    Mr. Morris: Will the Chancellor give an assurance to the House that there will be no announcement of the sale of R.T.B. while the House is in recess, as in the case of S. G. Brown & Company, Limited, Llanelly Steel and Staveley Iron?
    Mr. Lloyd: I will consider that point.
    Mr. Jay: If the Chancellor says that £70 million of public money has not been lent to Richard Thomas and Baldwins, will he say what the figure is because, according to our information, at least £70 million was lent over the last two years?
    Mr. Lloyd: If the hon. Member puts down a Question about the exact amount I will try to answer it

    Economic Growth
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the statement in Command Paper No. 1626, Incomes Policy: The Next Step.
    1114
    that Her Majesty's Government's policy is to secure faster economic growth, if he will study economic measures adopted towards this end by other industrial countries, including the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Certainly.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the Chancellor recollect that when we were fellow travellers with the Prime Minister in Moscow the Prime Minister made a remarkable speech in which he said that industrial progress in the U.S.S.R. was unparalleled in history? May we take it that he will not rule out a study of economic planning as it has been so successful in the U.S.S.R.?
    Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Member has slightly disappointed me in his supplementary question. I thought he wanted me to refer to Mr. Khrushchev's speech on 23rd November, in which he said:
    "The level of wages must correspond to the level of material production achieved by labour productivity. Labour productivity must always be one jump ahead of the growth of wages."
    Secondly—the hon. Member will remember this, no doubt—Mr. Khrushchev said:
    "Of course, the State is unable to allocate supplementary funds for wages, and consequently one should act within the limits of the wages funds available."
    The final question Mr. Khrushchev asked was:
    "If we raise wages and the wage funds are higher than the funds of goods what happens then?"
    He was talking to tractor drivers and advocating a wage pause.

    Capital Gains (Mergers and Take-over Bids)
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent his appeal for continued restraint in profits and dividends in paragraph 14 of the White Paper, Incomes Policy: The Next Step, includes restraint on the part of individuals and others in the matter of capital gains and increases in share values arising from mergers and takeover bids.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The White Paper deals with the question of restraint in

    1115
    the growth of all forms of incomes. The question of capital gains is a separate one. I have already expressed the intention to submit to the House proposals for taxing certain types of short-term gains now free of tax.
    Mr. Hughes: Does that Answer mean that the Chancellor is keeping a very careful eye on what is happening in the affairs of Courtaulds and I.C.I.? Is he keeping an eye on this sort of activity as a possible source of revenue?
    Mr. Lloyd: I am keeping a careful eye on all sorts of things at the present time.
    Mr. M. Foot: Since he has stated so carefully Mr. Khrushchev's policy, can the Chancellor tell us what Mr. Khruschchev does about capital gains?
    Mr. Lloyd: What he said in his speech was this:
    "If we raise wages and the wages funds are higher than the funds of goods, what happens then? You will have a lot of money, but you will not buy meat and milk in the shops, because the output of produce will fall still further behind the population's purchasing power. In such a situation the speculator is the only one to gain."
    Mr. Callaghan: Is the Chancellor aware that he could galvanise this nation into a similar effort to that being made in the U.S.S.R. if there were fair dealing among all sections of the population? Does he not realise that it is precisely because there is this discrimination in favour of shareholders and against those who earn their living that he is dividing the nation and failing to get the response he wants?
    Mr. Lloyd: I certainly agree that it is very necessary to convey to the people the sense of fair dealing. When hon. Members opposite talk about shareholders they never refer to cases where shareholders lose their money.
    Mr. H. Hynd: On a point of order. As you have frequently ruled that it is out of order to give quotations in supplementary questions, Mr. Speaker, are we to understand that it is in order to give quotations in supplementary answers?
    Mr. Speaker: Yes, it is.

  QUESTIONS TO THE PRIME MINISTER
  Mr. Brockway: On a point of order. I do not want to delay proceedings, but I wish to draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that I had a Question down to the Prime Minister today on the subject of the tests on Christmas Island. Only two hours ago was I informed that that Question had been transferred to another Minister. I submit that that is not good enough and it is time that the whole question of the method of transferring Questions was considered by you, Sir, or by representatives of the House.
  Mr. Speaker: What the hon. Member has said will have been heard, but I must adhere to the position, which he knows, that the Chair cannot undertake any responsibilities with regard to transfer. It is not practicable in the circumstances. I hope that, in view of what the hon. Member has said, notice will be taken of what happened in this particular case.

  EUROPEAN COMMON MARKET
  Mr. Healeyasked the Prime Minister whether he will propose a Commonwealth Prime Ministers' conference in October this year to consider the state of negotiations on Great Britain's entry into the Common Market.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): I would refer the hon. Member to my Answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Mal-ton (Mr. Turton), on 14th December, and my answers to supplementary questions by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition on 6th February.
  Mr. Healey: In view of the fact that the Prime Minister has been compelled to admit the desirability in principle of holding such a conference and that it would inevitably take several months to organise a conference of Commonwealth Prime Ministers, does he not agree that there is a lot to be said for fixing a date now for October, a time when either we shall know the general lines of the conditions on which the Commonwealth will

  1117
  be associated with us in our entry to the Common Market or—as seems increasingly likely—the negotiations for British entry will be bogged down, in which case it will be urgently necessary for us to consider with Commonwealth Prime Ministers alternative methods of international economic association to repair the damage done to the Commonwealth by the Government in the last eighteen months?
  The Prime Minister: I will bear in mind what the hon. Member has said.
  Sir C. Osborne: Since two years ago we offered to the Canadian Prime Minister a scheme for freer trade between ourselves and the Canadians which the Canadians turned down and refused to co-operate with us, have any of the other Prime Ministers shown willingness to offer credit facilities to bring about greater opportunities for more trade?
  The Prime Minister: These are all matters for negotiation, but in regard to the specific Question I think it better to see a little longer how the negotiations are likely to proceed.
  Mr. W. Baxter: Is it not time that the Prime Minister gave this House an opportunity to consider an interim report as to negotiations with the Common Market so that an expression of opinion of hon. Members can be made on the proceedings up to the moment?
  The Prime Minister: This House voted in favour of opening the negotiations and I think it better to let them proceed.
  Mr. Gaitskell: Will the Prime Minister, however, say that at the appropriate moment, and in any event before any decision is taken by Her Majesty's Government on this matter, he will take the initiative in proposing a Commonwealth Prime Ministers conference to consider the whole situation?
  The Prime Minister: I repeat what I said on 6th February. I will take the initiative at the appropriate moment in ascertaining whether it is the general wish of other Commonwealth Prime Ministers that a meeting should be held, but I do not think that that moment has yet arrived.

  INFORMATION SERVICES (MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY)
  Mr. Milneasked the Prime Minister what directions he gave, when assigning additional responsibilities in connection with Government Information to the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, as to the division of his time between his Treasury and other official duties.
  Mr. Mayhewasked the Prime Minister if, in view of the new duties he has recently allotted to the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, he will define the responsibilities of individual Ministers concerned with the home and overseas information services.
  The Prime Minister: Each Minister is responsible for the information and public relations work of his own Department. But there are frequently activities in which several Departments are involved and there is thus a need for co-ordination. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government, assisted by my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary, is responsible for the co-ordination of the home information services and my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Technical Co-operation is responsible for the co-ordination of the overseas information services.
  I am satisfied that my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary is able to apportion his time between his various activities himself.
  Mr. Milne: Is the Prime Minister aware that in some quarters this is regarded as the opening shot in the next General Election campaign? In the midst of an economic crisis, is it not deplorable that a Minister should be taken from an important Department in order to prop up the fortunes of a tottering Government? Is he also aware that this shows a lamentable lack of faith in the ability of Colman, Prentis and Varley to pull an election out of the bag? Finally, has Mr. Colin Hurry been consulted on this appointment?
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman has got off all his points, but none of them is worth answering.
  Mr. Mayhew: Is the Prime Minister aware that there are now far too many

  1119
  Ministers responsible in this field, including, according to the Answer he has just given, three Ministers responsible for the co-ordination of Government information? is he planning to have one Minister responsible for co-ordinating the co-ordinating Ministers? Has there been any occasion on which senior Ministers have been successfully co-ordinated by junior Ministers according to this arrangement?
  The Prime Minister: I think that this is a good arrangement. There is a very natural division between the foreign services and home problems.

  PUBLIC EXPENDITURE (PLOWDEN COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION)
  Sir G. Nicholsonasked the Prime Minister what steps he is taking to implement the recommendation of the Plowden Committee relating to the need to enable Departmental Ministers to discharge their collective responsibility in relation to public expenditure more effectively.
  The Prime Minister: We have strengthened the arrangements for ensuring that Ministers are kept regularly informed about the prospective development of expenditure as a whole and of resources.
  Sir G. Nicholson: Does this mean that my right hon. Friend accepts the criticisms of the Plowden Committee, which was disquieted by the fact that, although Ministers certainly had full individual responsibility in relation to their Departments, they were to some extent lacking in opportunities of expressing collective responsibility complementary to their individual responsibility?
  The Prime Minister: We are trying to act upon the recommendations of the Plowden Committee, which have been very valuable. I think that the appointment of my right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General as Chief Secretary to the Treasury is a help in this direction.
  Mr. Milne: In view of the Prime Minister's failure to answer my supplementary question, have we now to listen to certain voices in the Conservative Party indicating that it is a new Prime Minister this country requires?
  Mr. Speaker: I do not see how that arises out of the recommendations of the Plowden Committee.

  NUCLEAR TESTS
  Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Prime Minister whether he will now consult with President Kennedy with a view to ensuring that no atmospheric tests will be carried out prior to the proposed Foreign Ministers meeting in connection with the eighteen-Power disarmament conference on 14th March in Geneva.
  The Prime Minister: I told the House on 8th February that preparations for testing on Christmas Island had not yet begun. These preparations would take some time. The tests could certainly not be conducted before 14th March.
  Mr. Henderson: Does the Prime Minister agree that nothing should be done to jeopardise the achievement of the initial measures of disarmament to which he referred in his recent letter to Mr. Khrushchev? Will he not, therefore, consult President Kennedy with a view to seeking an agreement not to carry out any tests for at least a period of three months from now?
  The Prime Minister: That is another matter, but in point of fact I do not think that these preparations can be made very rapidly. Therefore, I do not think that the anxieties of the right hon. and learned Gentleman need be very great.
  Mr. Gaitskell: In view of what the Prime Minister has said, would it not be worth while to make it plain that no decision will be taken as to any tests at Christmas Island until after the Geneva talks have at least had a chance of getting under way and achieving some results? Further, is he aware that, on reading the full text of his and President Kennedy's message to Mr. Khrushchev and Mr. Khrushchev's reply, it seems absurd to many of us that it should not be possible for the three major nuclear Powers to agree on a very high level meeting on this vital issue? In particular, we hope that the proposal of Mr. Khrushchev will not be rejected out of hand, but that a real attempt will be made to come together with the Soviet Union on this matter.
  The Prime Minister: Yes. We welcome the broad spirit of Mr. Khrushchev's letter to us, which, as he explained quite frankly, was drafted, I think, separately from our own initiative. The problem is how to marry the practical proposals, which we are very anxious to make practical, with the more general ideas which the Chairman of the Soviet Union has in mind. We are considering our reply.
  Mr. Gaitskell: Will the Prime Minister bear in mind that Mr. Khrushchev made it plain in his letter that he was not proposing another Summit Conference, but simply that the Heads of State would be associated with these vitally important negotiations? Is not this fundamentally very much the same idea as President Kennedy and the Prime Minister himself proposed in their letter to Mr. Khrushchev?
  The Prime Minister: There are, of course, similarities; but we do feel that, although a formal meeting of eighteen Prime Ministers—to make, no doubt, eighteen speeches, which would take quite a time—may be valuable, what is important in our proposal is the practical meeting of the three nuclear Powers, which have rather special responsibilities. Our problem is how to try to make a workable plan which will get the best of both, and we are considering our reply.
  Mr. W. Yates: In any case, will not my right hon. Friend agree that we might postpone our own tests, as it is known that radioactive dust from tests in Nevada has been shown in Shropshire and elsewhere to be higher than when there have been explosions in the upper atmosphere? Should not we show our own initiative by delaying at least our underground tests in the meantime?
  The Prime Minister: That is another matter. The Question refers to atmospheric tests.
  Mr. Frank Allaun: When the last tests were held at Christmas Island four years ago, were there not protests from neighbouring countries which may have been affected by fall-out? Have these countries been consulted on this occasion?
  The Prime Minister: Of course, they have been informed but we have to take
  1122
  the broad question as a whole. I have no doubt that the House will at some time wish to express its views. I was gratified by the feeling—I hope I do not over-estimate it—that there was a broad understanding in the House when I spoke last week—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—or in a great part of the House, as to the problem which presented itself to us and some considerable degree of agreement with the solution I had proposed.
  Hon. Members: No.
  Mr. Manuel: With a view to getting the best possible atmosphere for the Geneva Conference, will the Prime Minister consider using his influence with President Kennedy so as to remove completely any reference to tests from the present arrangements? Will he agree that this should be done, with a view to getting on with disarmament at Geneva? If this were done, it would be much better and the Prime Minister would have very large support in the country for that point of view, rather than confusing the two issues.
  The Prime Minister: We must remember that this is exactly what we did for three years.
  Mr. Gaitskell: Would the Prime Minister agree that it is extremely important not to widen the differences between Mr. Khrushchev's approach and that of himself and President Kennedy? Is it not the case that, whereas President Kennedy and the Prime Minister suggested that the Foreign Ministers of the other countries in the eighteen-member committee would naturally wish or might wish to be associated, Mr. Khrushchev for his part suggested that not all the Heads of State of the eighteen nations would wish to be associated? Will the Prime Minister give the House an assurance that he will do his utmost to see if a compromise between the two proposals can be reached so that a meeting at any rate of those effectively in control of their Governments can take place?
  The Prime Minister: I said that we are considering our reply. What I am anxious about is that we should have practical results. The President and I discussed this at some length from Bermuda onwards. We thought that

  1123
  the proposal that there should be a meeting first before the opening of the conference of the nuclear Powers was a practical contribution, and I very much hope that this suggestion can be preserved in whatever is ultimately arranged.
  Mr. Brockway: The Prime Minister referred to America, Russia and Britain as having a special responsibility. Is that not a responsibility to the world, and would it not, therefore, be desirable that there should be representatives of other nations, and particularly of the uncommitted nations, to express their views on the matter?
  The Prime Minister: That is exactly why the eighteen-Power committee was arranged.

MEMBERS (SALARY AND EXPENSES)
The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:
Mr. CALLAGHAN: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if, under regulations, Members of Parliament are liable to tax on the full sum of £1,750 per annum received by them as salary and expenses; and to what extent, as regards deduction of expenses for Income Tax calculations, their position is comparable with the general body of salary and wage earners.
Mr. Callaghan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, about our domestic procedures concerning the salaries and expenses of Members of Parliament. There has been considerable misrepresentation in the Press about Members' expenses which are, as I think everyone in this House knows, treated for taxation purposes in the same way as the expenses of any other P.A.Y.E. payer. I put down Question No. 36 in order that the position should be made clear in the House. I wonder whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be willing to make that position clear, and whether, if he made such a request to you, you would allow him to answer the Question?
Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: With permission, Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether I may answer Question No. 36?
Mr. Speaker: The test is whether a Minister asks for leave to answer a Question. The right hon. and learned Gentleman apparently does, and I give it.
Mr. Lloyd: Members of Parliament are liable to tax on their remuneration of £1,750 per annum, but, like other Schedule E taxpayers, can claim a deduction for expenses incurred wholly, exclusively and necessarily in the performance of their duties.
Mr. Callaghan: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer for that reply. May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to make it trebly clear that Members of Parliament are in exactly the same position, no better and no worse, as any other Schedule E taxpayer; that they have no privileges, and have to prove every penny of their expenses in the same way as has any other citizen in the country?
Mr. Lloyd: That is precisely true. There is no privilege for Members of Parliament in this respect. They have to justify their expenses just as any other citizen has.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Iain Macleod): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to inform the House that the business proposed for:
MONDAY, 19TH FEBRUARY—is, as I announced on Thursday, the Committee and remaining stages of the Consolidated Fund Bill.
It is now proposed to take these stages formally to allow a debate to be opened on London Government.
This debate will arise on a Government Motion to take note of the White Paper, Command No. 1562, and will be concluded on Tuesday, 20th February.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  COMMONWEALTH IMMIGRANTS BILL
  [3RD ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee [Progress, 7th February].
  [Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

  COMMONWEALTH IMMIGRANTS BILL

    Clause 16.—(IMMIGRATION OFFICERS AND MEDICAL INSPECTORS.)
    3.33 p.m.
    The Chairman: The first Amendment selected is that in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown), It will be possible also to discuss with it the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), in page 11, line 22, to leave out subsection (1), but a vote may be taken only on the Amendment in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Belper.
    Mr. Eric Fletcher: I beg to move, in page 11, line 23, to leave out from the first "State" to the end of line 26.
    The effect of Clause 16 as it stands is that immigration officers should be appointed by the Secretary of State, and that, in addition, the Secretary of State may make arrangements with the Commissioners of Customs and Excise for the employment of Customs officers to act as immigration officers under the Bill. The Amendment seeks to delete the power to enable Customs officers to act as immigration officers.
    For the Committee to appreciate the significance of this Amendment it is, perhaps, necessary for me to say something about the duties that will fall upon immigration officers when the Bill is enacted. Unfortunately, as a result of the Guillotine, we have not yet had full clarification of what those duties will be, or how immigration officers will act. We shall not know precisely what their functions will be until we see the instructions which the Home Secretary has promised to make public as soon as the Committee stage has finished and before the Bill reaches its Report stage.
    1126
    On principle, I should have thought it unnecessary and undesirable to give to Customs officers the very wide and sweeping powers that will be given to immigration officers. We should, at least, know to what extent the Home Office intends to enrol Customs officers to supplement the work that will fall upon immigration officers.
    For example, is it contemplated that this will be merely a casual, an occasional, use of Customs officers, and that it will arise only if immigration officers are themselves overworked? Or is it intended that Customs officers should be generally available to do the work of immigration officers at the ports? Can we have an assurance that the instructions to be given to immigration officers will be made available also to Customs officers?
    The Committee will appreciate that I am not making any reflection on the admirable performance of their duties by Customs officers; any traveller returning from abroad can vouch for the fact that they perform their functions extraordinarily well. On the other hand, we must remember that Customs officers are primarily detectives; their primary duty is to stop smuggling, to stop contraband coming into the country. They are responsible to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    If they are to be enrolled as supplementary immigration officers, will they be responsible to the Home Secretary? Will they, in respect of their functions under the Bill, have the same opportunities, when doubt arises, of quick and free access to the Home Secretary? I should also like to know whether any consultation has been had with them as to their preparedness to undertake these additional duties, which are totally different in kind from those they have hitherto been used to perform?
    One reason why I think it objectionable that Customs officers should have this duty thrust upon them is that, as the Bill now stands, an immigration officer will have very sweeping powers. He will have the power to examine any immigrant. He will have the power to call for documents. He will have the power to search. There is a special provision that a woman immigrant cannot be searched except by a woman. Are there any women Customs officers? Are

    1127
    any women to be employed as Customs officers in order to deal with women immigrants?
    I would remind the Home Secretary that in our debates last week the Attorney-General stated that it was proposed to use the powers given to the Government by the Bill not so much for attaching conditions to immigrants with regard to the duration of their stay and the kind of work that they could take, but chiefly for the control of immigration. The Attorney-General recognises—as I am sure does the Home Secretary—that very great responsibilities will devolve on immigration officers in the large number of borderline cases that will arise as to whether a particular immigrant should or should not be admitted.
    One of the reasons given by the Attorney-General for rejecting the strong plea made by my hon. Friends that an immigrant should have the right of appeal either to a tribunal or an independent person was that immigration officers would have very wide experience in dealing with these matters and could be relied upon to reach the right conclusion in the case of every individual immigrant. But will the Customs officers have anything like the same experience? If the duties of deciding admission or rejection are to be devolved by the Home Secretary on Customs officers, how can it be said that they will have the wide experience which is required so that justice is done to Commonwealth citizens who want to come here?
    In a number of cases where admission is granted and conditions are imposed, the decision—as to what kind of conditions, what limit shall be placed on the man's stay, if any, and what conditions there shall be about his work—will obviously call not only for a great deal of experience and judgment, but also for a considerable amount of tact in handling these matters. How can it be argued that Customs officers will be able to discharge these duties, considering the great experience that is required of immigration officers?
    There is a further point I must put to the Home Secretary and which, I hope, he will clear up. As the Bill stands, certain categories of person under Clause 2 will have the right to come to this
    1128
    country provided that they satisfy the immigration officer—not the Customs officer—about their bona fides: first, those who have vouchers and can show that they have work to do; secondly, those who come here to study; and, thirdly, those who show that they can support themselves or can be supported by relatives. Any of those who can establish prima facie any of those three conditions have the right to come, subject only that they might be excluded on health grounds, because they have a criminal record or because they are a security risk. Such cases, I would imagine, would be very small in number.
    In addition to those classes who have the right to come here, I understand from the Home Secretary that it is also contemplated that many other immigrants will be admitted under what is broadly called a "quota system." The Home Secretary made it clear on Second Reading—as it is clear from the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill—that those who are to be admitted will not be limited to those who have a job to come to, to students or to those who can support themselves or can be supported by their relatives.
    Others will be able to come here to seek work, if they so desire, up to prescribed numbers which, one may assume, will vary from month to month and probably from country to country. It is important that the Home Secretary should say something further about this, for we must look at the operation of the Bill as it will affect immigrants who want to come here and who are in doubt whether, if they come, they will be admitted or rejected.
    I can appreciate that the mere passage of the Bill into law will have a deterrent effect. Whereas a great many people now come here knowing that they must be admitted as of right in future a large number of immigrants—not only from Canada and Australia, but, more particularly, from India, Pakistan and the West Indies—will be in doubt as to what their position will be if they get on a boat and arrive at Southampton.
    3.45 p.m.
    As the Bill stands, they are by no means certain about whether they will qualify because the decision to admit or reject them will, presumably, be taken on the spot, perhaps suddenly, by

    1129
    an immigration officer. Thus, great problems of human freedom and rights are involved in these questions and it seems chat unless some justification—which I cannot see at the moment—is given it will be difficult for the Home Office to delegate these responsible duties to anyone other than experienced immigration officers.
    Another matter arises out of an observation, which astonished me, which was made by the Attorney-General in our debates last week. We were then arguing that there should be an appeal tribunal so that anyone rejected and refused admission under Clause 2—and who claimed to be a bona fide student, or who had a job to come to or whose relatives would support him—would have the right, if rejected, to appeal to some appellant tribunal. The Attorney-General said, when resisting an Opposition Amendment:
    "In many cases admission may be refused"—
    and we were dealing only with people coming under Clause 2—
    "not on account of any personal idiosyncracies of the individual, but because sufficient numbers have already been admitted to the country for that particular time."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th February, 1962; Vol. 653, c. 354.]
    In other words, the Attorney-General seemed to be saying that even if people qualified under Clause 2 for admission to the United Kingdom, and should not be refused admission, nevertheless admission could be refused not on any personal ground relating to the applicant himself, but for a totally different reason for which the applicant could not be responsible, namely, that sufficient numbers had already been admitted to the country for that particular time.
    I hope that the Home Secretary will qualify that today. I am tempted to say that I hope he will repudiate it, because it seems to make nonsense of the whole basis on which we were examining Clause 2 last week. I hope that it can be established that anyone who satisfies the requirements of Clause 2 can come here and that, over and above that, others will be admitted up to a given number.
    There may be cases about which an immigration officer will have to decide. But how will he decide? How will the immigrant know from month to month
    1130
    whether sufficient numbers from a particular locality have or have not been admitted? There is another type of case for which it seems important that the discretion should be strictly confined to experienced immigration officers and should not be deputed to those who have no familiarity with immigration problems, but whose job it is to prevent contraband from being smuggled into the country. It was made clear last week that a large number of people will be coming to the United Kingdom in the hope of getting a job on the understanding that they are intending to do part-time work and act as part-time students.
    In recent years large numbers of people have been coming here—deserving immigrants—who could be termed part-time students. Perhaps such an immigrant wants to do some work during the day and spend his evenings at the Peckham Institute, or some other place. Would such a student have the same rights as a Rhodes scholar or another accredited student coming to a university? These sort of matters will call for decisions to be made on the spot by immigration officers unless a number of immigrants are to be turned away.
    It will be most important, if we pass the Bill, that it shall be administered as sympathetically as possible. The Home Secretary has more than once intimated that that is his intention. He could implement that intention if he made clear that in discharge of these responsibilities he will be served by experienced immigration officers only and that the duties will not be delegated to a wider class of person.
    Mr. Sydney Silverman: I support the Amendment, largely for the reasons which my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) gave. My own Amendment goes a little further. I should have preferred to see the whole of subsection (1) taken out rather than just this part of it. It may possibly be that, in practice, there is no difference because, if I were to hazard a guess, it would be that the Home Secretary's intention in taking power to appoint immigration officers for the purpose of the Bill was intended only, as it were, as a preliminary to the power to make the Customs officers those

    1131
    special immigration officers for the purposes of the Bill. But, of course, that is not what the Clause says and, even if it were, it would be subject to the devastating criticism which my hon. Friend has just made of it.
    The Clause as it stands is extremely odd. With or without the Customs officers, is it the Home Secretary's intention to appoint immigration officers with limited powers? The Clause says:
    "Immigration officers for the purposes of this Act".
    If he appoints an immigration officer under this Clause, will that officer be an immigration officer for all purposes, or will he be an immigration officer only "for the purposes of this Act", as the subsection appears to say?
    Not only does that seem to be the proper interpretation of the words, but it is reinforced by another consideration. If it were only a question of increasing the number of immigration officers because of the hordes of Commonwealth citizens who might try to scrape through, the Home Secretary already has power to appoint as many immigration officers as he likes. He would not need a Clause in the Bill to appoint more. I am driven to the conclusion that what he is seeking to do is appoint a new class of immigration officer who will have none of the ordinary powers of the immigration officer to control the immigration of aliens, but who will have powers only for the purposes of the Bill.
    If that be so, how is such an officer to be identified? Will he wear a special kind of uniform, wear a special badge, or produce a special kind of warrant? Moreover, if immigration officers of a special class are to be appointed for the purposes of the Bill, will they have exclusive powers under the Bill, or will the ordinary immigration officer act as well? None of this has been explained either on Second Reading or in any of our discussions in Committee so far. The Home Secretary will realise that the Clause as it stands requires a good deal of explanation.
    As my hon. Friend pointed out, among the extraordinary powers under the Bill which the immigration officer will have there is a power to arrest without warrant. For certain purposes under the Customs and Excise Acts, a Customs
    1132
    officer already has a fairly wide power to arrest without warrant, but, although it is a wide power, it is limited to offences under those Acts and he may not exercise it for anything else. Is it intended to give him a wide power of arrest without warrant for the purposes of the Bill added to the other purpose? Is the ordinary run-of-the-mill immigration officer to have a power of arrest without warrant under the Bill, or is it to be limited to this special kind of immigration officer who is neither a Customs officer nor an ordinary immigration officer but in a special class?
    I hesitate to use the expression "secret police", because they will operate in the open. But how will they be identified? How will an immigrant be able to ascertain whether the officer has power to arrest and detain him without warrant? This is unexplained, but it is important.
    There is another point, on the assumption that Customs officers are either to be all or some part of the special immigration officers appointed under the subsection. As my hon. Friend said, at some time or other, but not yet, we are to be told about the instructions which will be given to immigration officers. We know that there will be a great number of them. We know also, because the hon. and learned Gentleman the Minister of State intervened in an argument on another Amendment to make the point clear, that the instructions will not be exhaustive, that the officer will be able to act according to instructions but with some discretionary power reserved to him.
    The hon. and learned Gentleman pointed out how desirable it was that the immigration officer, Customs officer, or whoever it will be, should not be too circumscribed by the instructions. Thus, there will be the instructions and, over and above the instructions, there will be discretionary powers, undefined except that they must come in some way within the ambit of the Bill.
    If a Customs officer has to discharge these duties, he will add a great deal to what he has to do. His duties are fairly onerous as they are. He will be asked to read, learn and inwardly digest a volume of instructions, about which the Home Secretary, after he has these

    1133
    powers, will tell us. He will have to learn them and apply them and, somehow or other, he will have to acquaint himself with all the purposes of the Bill and the public policy behind it at any given moment, including, as my hon. Friend said, the number of immigrants who have already come in and the maximum number to be allowed. When is he to do this? Are we to set up special schools to instruct the officers charged with these duties how to keep British subjects out of Britain?
    I hope that the Home Secretary will reconsider this matter. Certainly, no such powers ought to be delegated to Customs officers, and there is no necessity for setting up a new class of special immigration officer without experience of any kind. If these powers have to be exercised, let them be exercised by the immigration officers who already have considerable experience. They will have enough added to their job as it is, but at least they will be able to co-ordinate it with and relate it to the powers they have been exercising in the past. If it is really necessary in order to make this Bill operate effectively and to do the things contemplated by this subsection, then it is merely one more formidable reason for saying that the Bill should never have been introduced.
    4.0 p.m.
    Mr. Donald Chapman: May I say without offence to anyone that I hope we shall be very brief today. It will be a tragedy if the Committee stage of the Bill finishes without the Schedules being discussed. That is a grave danger that we are in. I shall, therefore, try to keep my speech as brief as possible.
    Our general reputation as a country depends on the Bill as a whole, but our immediate reputation, the way in which the world looks at British immigration policy, will depend on how we arrange things under the Bill at the ports. For that reason, I wish to put three points to the Home Secretary.
    First, may we have an assurance that the immigration officers who will be appointed under this subsection will not be uniformed? One of the good things about our immigration system is this. If we pass through it at London Airport
    1134
    or at the docks, as we come in we are met by people in civilian clothes, who hand us our passports. I do not want Britain to follow other countries in having, as it were. a Gestapo-like ring round our ports and airports of uniformed people who appear to have a great deal of power, perhaps a great deal of power which they should not have, because they are wearing uniforms. I hope that we shall continue the strong tradition of having courteous men dressed in civilian clothes to meet us at the ports and to meet immigrants.
    Secondly, I should like an assurance that as soon as this system is operating there will be a check to make sure that there are enough such men. One of the tragedies in all countries is to see the queues of people at immigration desks at ports and airports. We as British citizens, when we land here, go through the Customs fairly quickly, because it is merely a matter of making sure that we are British citizens and that we are not on a stop list. But imagine the difficulty which will be created when all British passports have to be examined separately. It will be terrible if we have those long queues of people which sometimes pile up at ports and airports in many other countries.
    May we have a specific assurance that things will be worked out properly so that they go like clockwork when people from the Commonwealth come here? If only one entry permit or passport is in dispute, that may mean delaying 50 to 200 people. If, as I have often seen, only one man is dealing with one aeroplane-load of passengers—it is not the fault of the officials; it is merely the way in which things often work out at London Airport—then some people may have to wait for an hour before getting through. This sort of thing must not happen.
    My last point concerns Customs officers. Unless I am ill-informed, I am under the impression that the Customs service has not any spare men. I understand that it is not over-manned, like those highly-paid, lucrative positions in our society which are attracting an excess of labour. I do not want passengers and travellers other than immigrants to be delayed because Customs officers who can ill be spared

    1135
    are seconded to do the work of immigration officers. That will only give us a very bad reputation in the world.
    If we can have a general assurance that every attempt will be made to show humanity, speed and efficiency at the ports combined with assurances on the three points which I have raised, we may be able to feel a little happier that this system will work without too much difficulty
    Mr. Laurence Pavitt: I do not wish unduly to delay the Committee, but merely to follow a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). I do not wish to repeat the arguments which have been advanced for the exclusion of this provision, but I think that we should have same assurance about how the Customs officers will be selected.
    My hon. Friends have made it clear that the job of Customs and Excise officers is quite complicated, and one for which the men concerned have to have a considerable amount of training. If some of them are taken from their Customs work to become immigration officers, the Government must either alter their training so that every Customs and Excise officer is trained as an immigration officer as well, or there must be a different grade of Customs and Excise officer who is capable of doing immigration work. A change from the present procedure is proposed, and it seems unworkable.
    I should like an assurance from the Government Front Bench that they have considered the implications of retaining this part of the Clause and have some specific ways and means whereby, if the Home Secretary decides that he should have recourse to the Commissioners of Customs and Excise, he knows what he will ask for and that the men he asks for will be qualified to do the job for which he wants them.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Renton): The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) did a useful service by tabling his Amendment. It does not raise such momentous matters as he would have led the Committee to believe, but I am glad of this opportunity to explain how this matter of using
    1136
    Customs officers will work. The practice of using them to do this work has been tried for many years under the Aliens Order. It has been found satisfactory and helpful. May I say at once, to remove any misconception, that they will not be used generally. They will be used only casually and occasionally.
    Under existing arrangements, Customs officers act on behalf of immigration officers at some small seaports and at same airports which take mainly internal traffic, and they are employed at those seaports and airports because enough goods arrive from abroad to make it worth while having a Customs officer at them. But not a sufficient number of aliens arrive at those ports to make it worth while having an immigration officer there. We should not expect that enough Commonwealth citizens would arrive at those small ports to make it worthwhile having an immigration officer.
    May I give examples of the ports involved? I have two examples, Ramsgate, in Kent, and Par, in Cornwall. Valley, in Anglesey, is an example of a small internal airport at which there is an immigration officer. There are one or two other examples. When Customs officers are acting casually and occasionally in those places they receive the same administrative instructions from my right hon. Friend as the immigration officers receive. In future, they will receive instructions in the same way.
    With the aid of those instructions, they are able to deal with the straightforward cases, but they refer cases of doubt, by telephone in the first instance, to an immigration inspector. An immigration inspector is merely one of the grades above an immigration officer. An important point to remember is that we have a definite rule, which we shall continue to operate, that no Customs officer may refuse anyone leave to land in this country without consulting an immigration inspector.
    I now turn to one or two of the detailed points which have been raised. I was asked what consultations there have been with the Customs officers. Of course, we would not deal directly with them. We have had consultations with the Commissioners of Customs and Excise.

    1137
    I was also asked about searches of women. The hon. Member for Islington, East was quite right in saying that women should be searched only by women. In this respect, in a sense, the Customs Service has an advantage over the Immigration Service, because it employs women specially for searching women for Customs purposes. These women are also available for search for immigration purposes.
    Mr. S. Silverman: I am not quite clear on this point. The Customs authorities make their own arrangements, but under the Bill only the immigration officer is to have power to search. Presumably he will not be allowed to delegate that power. My hon. Friend's question has not been answered by the Minister.
    Mr. Renton: I know that there has been no difficulty about this in practice, because there has been authority under the Aliens Order for the immigration officer to employ women police or women officials for the purpose of searching women. I will make sure on this point in order to satisfy hon. Members that the arrangements are properly tied up in the same way for the purposes of the Bill.
    Mr. Charles Royle: I wish to be clear about this matter. Sub section (2) of the Clause deals with immigration officers and not with Customs, although it provides for Customs officers to be used as immigration officers. What are they to search for if they are Customs officers acting as immigration officers? What is the search about?
    Mr. Renton: If the hon. Gentleman refers to paragraph 1 (3) of the First Schedule, he will see that it contains a power to search for documents.
    Mr. Fletcher: Before we leave this question of search by women officers, is the hon. and learned Gentleman telling us that there are women Customs officers at Par and other outlying places in Anglesey and elsewhere?
    Mr. Renton: Yes. I understand that wherever the Customs has arrangements for examining goods coming into the country—wherever there is a Customs officer—there is a woman officer employed by the Commissioners of
    1138
    Customs and Excise to carry out any searches of women which may be necessary.
    Mr. Fletcher: The hon. and learned Gentleman refers to a "woman officer". Is she a Customs officer? Unless she is, she will not come within Clause 16, and there is the risk that women immigrants will be stripped and searched by men unless there is a woman Customs officer.
    Mr. Renton: She is not a Customs officer, but a woman employed by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise. It is a very fine distinction.
    Mr. S. Silverman: I do not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman has fully appreciated our point, or perhaps we are at fault. In the aliens law, there is no doubt that a search will be carried out by a woman officer employed or directed by an immigration officer to do it. It is conceded that it is the Government's intention that under the Bill a woman shall not be searched except by a woman. The doubt that arises is whether, in the Bill, there is any power to implement that intention, because it says that only a Customs officer can search. Unless there are women Customs officers, this cannot be carried out.
    Mr. Renton: This is quite a simple point and it is all in order. I must not anticipate too much, but if hon. Members will turn to the First Schedule they will see that paragraph 1 (5) deals with a number of matters concerning the powers of an immigration officer, including the question of search, and that it says that his powers
    "may be exercised also…in the case of the powers of search conferred by sub-paragraph (3), by an person acting under the directions of an immigration officer."
    I think that that clears the matters up.
    4.15 p.m.
    The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) asked how a Customs officer or an immigration officer was to be identified as a person who has the right to exercise the powers under the Bill. A warrant of authority to act in accordance with the Bill will be issued. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) asked a related question about the wearing of uniforms. He suggested that there is a

    1139
    tradition of courtesy on the part of officials wearing civilian clothes, but rather implied that it was different when officials were wearing uniforms.
    Mr. Chapman: No.
    Mr. Renton: I am sure that, on reflection, the hon. Member will agree that British officials are no less courteous when wearing uniform than when wearing civilian clothes.
    Mr. Chapman: Are these officials to wear uniforms?
    Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman also said—and I hope that he was in order—that he wanted these arrangements to go like clockwork. He has almost taken the words out of our mouths in saying that. We also want them to go like clockwork, but he gave London Airport as an example of a place where passengers coming in are examined by one official per plane. If that has been true in recent years, it is not true now. It is a long time since that happened. If he cares to come with me on any day he likes to name, and without warning, he will see that the arrangements are working like clockwork, handling an increased amount of traffic.
    Mr. Chapman: I agree.
    Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman also asked about staffing. He will see, from the description I gave earlier, the very limited amount of work under the Bill that Customs officers will have to do. They are the people who are at these small ports. Indeed, no additional Customs officers will be required, but more immigration officers will be needed.
    Mr. Chapman: What about uniforms? The hon. and learned Gentleman has not answered that question.
    Mr. Renton: Immigration officers have never worn uniforms and will not do so. Customs officers have worn uniforms and will continue to do so.
    We can summarise this interesting and useful discussion by saying that, if we were to accept the Amendment, we should be faced with a considerable dilemma. Either we would have to post immigration officers to places where there was not nearly enough work for them to do because there would not be enough
    1140
    passengers—in which case it would be wasteful to employ them there—or we would have to leave these places completely unmanned by anyone to carry out the power of examining immigrants. That might well become an attractive way of circumventing the control. It is best to let the Customs men have the power they have used so carefully and without trouble for so many years.
    Mr. S. Silverman: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that I was right in my interpretation that it is not the Home Secretary's intention to appoint a special class of immigration officers for the purposes of the Bill, except on those occasions when he appoints Customs officers to do the job?
    Mr. Renton: Yes, that is quite true.
    Mr. Fletcher: I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman's reply to mean that normally Customs officers will not act as immigration officers—in other words, at none of the great ports or airports will they ever have to act as immigration officers—and that the use of Customs officers will be limited to these out of the way places. That being so, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Pavitt: I beg to move, in page 11, in line 27, at the end to insert:
    being duly qualified medical practitioners."
    This is a small but an extremely vital Amendment, and I hope that the Government will accept it. The provisions of Part I of the Bill have made it quite clear that one of the most important aspects of the Bill is the ability, for health reasons, to stop Commonwealth citizens from coming into this country. This is an extremely vital thing for the person wishing to come here.
    We have discussed previously in Committee the effect which this could have on the whole livelihood and future of a man and his family by the fact that when he reaches our shores he finds that, for health reasons, he is excluded. Therefore, it is vitally important that every safeguard we can possibly insert into the Bill shall be made to make sure that, if a Commonwealth citizen is excluded for health reasons, those reasons are extremely valid ones. Although, in Clause 16, we use the term "medical

    1141
    inspectors" it is obvious that if a medical examination has to be made, and a medical decision has to be reached, it must be done by a qualified medical practitioner.
    It might be thought that this could be taken for granted, but I am surprised at the way in which, in other fields, some unqualified medical practice takes place. I was even surprised recently in the House to find that a medical service for hon. Members is the responsibility, in the first instance, of the Metropolitan Police, worthy though they are, being trained in first aid.
    In consequence, I am rather concerned lest we shall have a situation at ports or airports in which a State registered nurse—and, again, I defer to nobody in my appreciation of the work which State registered nurses can do—or people with these qualifications, shall have to decide whether or not a person is fit on medical grounds to enter this country under the provisions of the Bill.
    One of the provisions specifically mentioned in Part I deals with mental disorder, and it seems that, even if we have a qualified medical practitioner, it is extremely difficult, in the case of a person coming into this country, to diagnose within a short time whether mental disorder is present or absent. The question of normality has been discussed from time to time, and the question of how many of us are normal or abnormal. It has been suggested that any person who arrives at this place must be a little bit out of the ordinary; otherwise, he would never come here.
    People wishing to enter this country, if they are to be examined as to mental stability, need to be examined by people who are qualified to declare in that respect. Already, in other aspects of public life, we have very sure safeguards in legislation passed from time to time about due qualifications, and these are inserted to safeguard the individual from a wrongful decision.
    The other question that arises here is the fact that there is at present a shortage of doctors. It could be that, in the same way as we have learned from the discussion on the previous Clause that there may be a shortage of immigration officers, who will have to be buttressed by Customs and Excise
    1142
    officers, so there may be, whatever the intentions of the Government, a shortage of qualified doctors, who will have to be buttressed by medical orderlies of one description or another, who will be given charge in certain circumstances and be doing this specific job.
    It will be extremely unjust and unfair to immigrants coming to this country if it happens that, merely by chance or accident, at the place at which one arrives, he may get a fully qualified medical practitioner, while in another place it is a medical orderly, a State registered nurse, or somebody with some medical knowledge but who could not, in any sense of the term, be called a qualified medical practitioner.
    This is rather aggravated when, at the moment, we rely, in the National Health Service particularly, on doctors who are coming from the Commonwealth countries to serve in our hospitals, or in general practice, or with the local health authorities. It would be the height of folly to ask somebody from Pakistan or Jamaica to come here and accept a post as senior hospital officer or junior registrar, and, when he gets here, to find that he is excluded by a medical orderly or somebody who is not as qualified medically as he himself may be.
    For these and other cogent reasons, with which I do not want to weary the Committee—I do not want to go into the whole question of the General Medical Council and all the other aspects that can arise in connection with people described as fully qualified medical practitioners—I think that the case is sufficiently made for the Amendment. We should have the absolute assurance that in no circumstances shall a situation arise at any time or at any place in which an immigrant can be excluded from entering this country by somebody who is not a fully qualified medical practitioner.
    Mr. Renton: My advice to the Committee is to accept this Amendment. There is a very short point which I should put in advising the Committee to accept it. The Amendment refers only to "duly qualified medical practitioners". There is a precedent for using that expression in statutes, and

    1143
    we are not likely to go wrong in using it here. Strictly speaking, it would have been better to have referred to "registered medical practitioners", but, as there is precedent for both expressions, there can be no harm in accepting the one which the hon. Member chose.
    Amendment agreed to.
    4.30 p.m.
    Mr. C. Royle: I beg to move in page 11, line 36, at the end to insert:
    The power to give intructions under this subsection shall be exercisable by statutory instrument, and any statutory instrument setting out such instructions shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
    We have discussed two very important Amendment this afternoon, and I am grateful that the Home Secretary has seen fit to accept the one which has just been moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt). Here, I think it fair to say, we come to something a little more important than the two previous ones, because there is involved here a parliamentary principle which we on this side of the Committee desire to press.
    I personally have been so concerned about the Bill from the moment that it was mentioned in the Queen's Speech that I made up my mind that I would have a look at the situation in some of the countries from which our immigrants come. Accordingly, I spent the Christmas Recess in Jamaica and in the West Indies generally. I was amazed by the terrible confusion in that part of the Commonwealth about the terms of the Bill.
    Time after time the Home Secretary has spoken of a liberal application of the Bill. We take his word for it, but, at the same time, there is deep anxiety. The Amendment is designed to achieve another important safeguard. Parliament has been concerned about the new principle of erecting barriers against immigrants from the Commonwealth, and it is only right and proper that it should have an opportunity of saying something about the instructions which are to be given to imigration officers. Here we are dealing not with the actions of immigration officers, but with the instructions which the right hon. Gentleman will give to them.
    1144
    The right hon. Gentleman has said that before Report he will tell us what those instructions are to be, but that is hardly sufficient, for this is a very important matter on which Parliament should have an opportunity to express itself. While many of us trust the right hon. Gentleman implicitly, and hope that his instructions will be in accordance with the liberal application of which he has spoken, it is not unfair to ask that those instructions should be presented to Parliament. I know of our rush to get things through, and I do not want to talk too long, but a major principle is involved and I want Parliament to have an opportunity of being able fully to debate the instructions which the right hon. Gentleman will ultimately give to his immigration officers.
    Mr. Chapman: I support the Amendment by referring to Clause 17 (4)—from which the words of the Amendment under discussion are taken, so that there can be no misunderstanding about drafting—under which the Secretary of State's powers to grant exemptions are to be exercised by means of a Statutory Instrument. The power to give instructions to immigration officers, by which whole sections of people in borderline cases will be excluded, is on all fours with the sort of exemptions which the Home Secretary will be able to make under Clause 17 (4). If it is right for the power to make exemptions to be contained in Statutory Instruments, and thus subject to consideration by Parliament, these important instructions should also be the subject of a Statutory Instrument.
    It is not a bad thing to have every possible Parliamentary safeguard and opportunity to raise these matters. If, after a few months' operation, there are amendments to these instructions, as there may be, and an amending Statutory Instrument has to be laid, it is important that we should have the opportunity as well as the safeguard of raising the subject of the administration of the Bill in Parliament.
    We have already taken the Home Secretary with us a long way in that he has finally agreed to publish these instructions. I hope that he will now go a step further and agree that there would be no harm if we formalised them so

    1145
    that these important issues of British citizenship and Britain's reputation in the Commonwealth and the rest of the world could be discussed in the House, and so that the House could have the opportunity of annulling the Statutory Instrument containing the instructions.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): I have already undertaken that the general instructions to immigration officers about categories of persons to be admitted shall be published as a White Paper between the Committee and Report stages of the Bill. I take this opportunity to tell the Committee that I hope that that White Paper will be available on Friday. I think that that implements my undertaking.
    The Amendment would go further than that and would require all instructions to take the form of a Statutory Instrument, which would be subject to the negative Resolution procedure. The proposal is based on a misunderstanding of the nature of the instructions. They are, in the nature of things, working rules as to the actions which immigration officers should take in certain specified circumstances and, as hon. Members will see when they read these instructions before the weekend, they are not expressed in legal or formal language. They would be useless for their purpose if they were. It has been a considerable departure from precedent to publish them at all, although I have been only too glad to do so. But I think that some informality in the relationship between the Secretary of State and his officers should be preserved.
    It will also be necessary from time to time to adjust the instructions in the light of experience of working the Bill. Anybody who has held the office of Secretary of State must know of the particularly intimate relationship between the Secretary of State and his officers. It would not even be fair to Parliament to have to go through the formality of making a Statutory Instrument every time a minor change in the instructions was made. I recognise the interest of hon. Members in the instructions, and information about changes of any consequence which are to be made will always be made known to Parliament,
    1146
    but I think that the Statutory Instrument form is inappropriate.
    We are waiting until the end of the Committee stage to publish the instructions so as to be able to amend them up to the last minute in the light of points which arise in our debates. Final approval will be given by myself late tonight, or early tomorrow morning, when we have concluded the Committee stage of the Bill. The Amendment as drafted refers to all instructions, whether general or particular, but the instructions which we are publishing will not cover absolutely every case. The Committee will realise that we would not publish instructions in cases of security. Otherwise, however, they would generally cover all the points, in which hon. Members have shown interest, namely, those relating to students, wives, residents, and the way to handle all types and categories who come in.
    I hope that the instructions will be of value to the Committee. I recognise the legitimate interest in them which hon. Members have shown and I hope that the steps I have taken are appropriate for a discussion by the House, for, presumably, the instructions will be able to be discussed either on Report or, as I hope, if the Chair so rules, on Third Reading. It is a matter for the Chair, but I do not see why such discussion should not be in order on both occasions, if further discussion is desired.
    I consider that it would be wrong to take this action by Statutory Instrument and I hope that I have already met the wishes of the Committee by agreeing to publish the instructions.
    Mr. Fletcher: I regret that the Home Secretary has not accepted the Amendment, because, as our discussions on the Bill have shown, we attach the greatest importance to what is contained in these instructions, and we think that we should have the fullest measure of parliamentary control over them.
    We appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman has met us to some extent by saying that he will publish the instructions before the Report stage, but since they are not to be laid in a form that will be available for normal discussion, such as a Statutory Instrument, this is the only occasion before they are

    1147
    published to put certain points to the Home Secretary about them.
    The right hon. Gentleman said last week, and repeated today, that one of the reasons why he is holding up publication of the instructions to immigration officers is that he wants to take account of what is said during the Committee stage, and, therefore, I invite him to clear up a point I made a little while ago with regard to the highly ambiguous statement of the Attorney-General last week.
    The Attorney-General, in resisting our Amendment that there should be an appellate tribunal to decide finally whether an intending immigrant was eligible under Clause 2 (2), because he was student, or because he had a job to go to, or because he could prove that he had some means of supporting himself in this country, said:
    "In many cases, admission may be refused not on account of any personal idiosyncrasies of the individual, but because sufficient numbers have already been admitted to the country for that particular time."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th February, 1962; Vol. 653, c. 354.]
    Will the Home Secretary therefore please take this opportunity of saying whether he accepts or repudiates that statement?
    Are we to understand that some perfectly deserving eligible immigrants will be told that they will not be admitted for reasons which have no relation whatever to their personal claims, and, as I submit, their personal rights to admission, but will be rejected because, in the opinion of the Home Office, sufficient numbers have already been admitted? Will the Home Secretary please take this opportunity of telling us whether the number of immigrants who will be allowed in over and above those who are entitled to come in under Clause 2 will be announced in these instructions to the immigration officers and whether the number will be made public to the House, and how the immigrants will know whether they will be refused admission?
    As the Attorney-General said that they may be refused permission to enter not because of personal idiosyncrasies, but because of the totally adventituous fact that a certain number of people have already been admitted in the last month,
    1148
    or last quarter, or whatever period the Home Office may decide. This is something about which we must be informed.
    Mr. S. Silverman: With a great deal of reluctance I am constrained to admit that there is some force in the Home Secretary's argument about making these instructions subject to annulment in some kind of statutory form. I am not sure that it establishes the case anything like completely to the satisfaction of my hon. Friend, but I see some point in it.
    I cannot follow the right hon. Gentleman in what he said about the opportunity to discuss the instructions when he has published them in the form of a White Paper. He concedes by his argument the desirability that the House should have an opportunity of discussing them, and on that we are in agreement, and there is no need to take up the time of the Committee to argue it further. But having conceded the desirability that the House should have that opportunity, I find myself unable to follow the right hon. Gentleman in his prognostications of how the opportunity will arise.
    The right hon. Gentleman rightly said that it would be a matter for the Chair, and far be it from me to try to impose further limitations on our debate. I should like to think that the Home Secretary is right and that they will be so discussed, but for the moment I cannot see how. On Third Reading, we are limited to discussing matters which are in the Bill, and, as the Home Secretary has insisted throughout our discussions that these instructions cannot be in the Bill, it is difficult to follow his reasoning when he says that we will be able to discuss them on Third Reading. If the right hon. Gentleman carries his point that the instructions shall not be in the Bill, he is, by implication, saying that we cannot discuss them on Third Reading. I say no more about that, because at the moment I cannot see any reply to that argument.
    4.45 p.m.
    The other opportunity which the right hon. Gentleman suggested for discussion was on Report, On Report, we do not have the opportunity of any general discussion on the Clauses. We have only a set of Amendments on the Notice

    1149
    Paper, and even these are subject to selection by the Chair. Unless, on Report an Amendment designed to bring the instructions into the Bill is tabled—and this, ex hypothesi, is excluded already—there cannot be such a discussion. I am, therefore, at the moment at a loss to understand how on Report, or on Third Reading, the House will have the opportunity which the Home Secretary concedes that it ought to have to discuss the instructions when he has published them after the conclusion of the Committee stage.
    It seems to me that there is an incapacity in the House to do what everyone, including the Home Secretary, wants to do, namely, to have a general opportunity of debating as a whole and in detail the instructions that are to appear in the White Paper and which the Home Secretary is ultimately to give.
    I am ready to be satisfied that there will be an opportunity to discuss the instructions, but before expressing an opinion as to whether my hon. Friend should divide the Committee on his Amendment, I should like to hear a good deal more of how this opportunity for discussion will arise.
    Mr. Donald Wade: I hope that there will be adequate opportunity to discuss these instructions. I should have thought that it would have been possible to discuss them on Third Reading, or on Report if the appropriate Amendment were tabled, and I hope that the opportunity will arise.
    The question I want to put to the right hon. Gentleman arises out of the observations of the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher). Would not it be practicable to make same distinction between instructions dealing with the day-to-day duties of the immigration officers, and those involving important questions of policy? In the latter case, surely it is not sufficient merely to inform the House. I am thinking of an instruction involving quotas, to which the hon. Member for Islington, East referred. Surely the quotas should be decided by the House.
    There should be some procedure, perhaps by way of an affirmative Resolution, whereby the House could express an opinion, but I recognise that it would
    1150
    be difficult to deal with instructions relating to day-to-day duties by Statutory Instrument. Can some way be found of drawing a distinction between those two types of instruction?
    Mr. R. A. Butler: The hon. Member for Nelson and Come (Mr. S. Silverman) paid me the compliment, I think for the first time for some years, of agreeing with what I said. He went so far as to say that there was some force in my argument, and I therefore feel very much flattered.
    The hon. Gentleman raised a good point about the opportunity for debate. I hasten to repeat what I said about a debate on Third Reading, that it is entirely a matter for the Chair. My experience is not as great as that of the Chair, but I believe that it will be possible to discuss this; but it is, of course, a matter for the Chair.
    On Report, it will be possible for an hon. Member on either side of the House to table an Amendment which would bring the discussion of these instructions into order. I do not know whether the Opposition now intend to serve on the Business Committee which will consider the Report stage of the Bill. If their objections to the Bill are so strong that they cannot bring themselves to attend the Business Committee, I will make myself available for discussions with them on how this can be done.
    It is clearly in the interest of the Committee and, when we come to all the considerations, in the interests of the House that hon. Members' views on this document, which is not very long, should be taken, and they would be of great value to the Government and to myself. I shall make myself available for any discussions with hon. Members on both sides of the House in relation to an opportunity on Report, leaving the question of an opportunity on Third Reading to be decided by the Chair. I hope that hon. Members will regard that as a fair offer at this stage.
    I do not think that all the arguments of the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) were in order on this Amendment. I am perfectly ready to answer them as best I can, provided that we do not get into a general discussion of Clause 2, which I hope will be further discussed on Report stage. I hope that in arranging our business for the

    1151
    Report stage we will give more time to Clause 2. The hon. Gentleman referred to the remarks of the Attorney-General, and I can only say that, in column 354 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, if he will turn to the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum of the Bill, he will see the following words:
    "The intention is that vouchers for this purpose will be issued to persons who can show that they have a job to come to, to those who possess training, skill or educational qualifications likely to be useful to this country, and to applicants outside these categories subject to any limit which the Government may from time to time consider necessary."
    It is this last quota, as I understand it, to which my right hon. and learned Friend was referring. If that enlightens the hon. Gentleman in any way, that is the best answer that I can give at short notice on this point. I underline the words in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum:
    "…subject to any limit which the Government may from time to time consider necessary."
    We must reserve this as a Government decision, and that is the answer to the intervention of the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade).
    Mr. Fletcher: In order that the immigrants may know where they stand, will the Home Secretary tell us when he will announce what these numerical limits are to be? Will they also be made public so that we in the House of Commons and the intending immigrants may know what the quota is to be?
    Mr. Butler: I cannot take that further an this occasion, or indeed for a long time ahead, because it must be according to circumstances. As I said in an earlier speech in Committee, we wish to ensure for these people socially and economically a good position in these islands, and we can only decide these things when we take these matters into consideration at the time. I cannot give any particular figures at this stage.
    Mr. Fletcher: Surely these figures will be given to the immigration officers or they will not know when the limit has been reached which will entitle them to refuse admission. Are these instructions to immigration officers about the numbers to be contained in these instructions, and is this information to be made public?
    Mr. Butler: We cannot reach a decision about the exact total number of immigrants that may be desirable until we have seen the first operations of the Act and the workings of categories A and B, that is the person who can get a definite job, the person who is skilled and the person who is educationally qualified. We cannot say how the Bill will work and what the internal situation in the country will be until the Bill is in operation. We intend to operate it in a liberal way, but we cannot lay this down ahead.
    Mr. George Brown: In saying that, the Home Secretary is giving away the case for the Amendment. If he is allowed to do this administratively at any stage he may choose, or for any reasons he may choose and for any number he may choose, and there is no way by which the House of Commons may call him to book and ask him to explain or defend, we are handing over to the Executive an enormous power.
    The Home Secretary has not told us why he should be entitled to do this. It seems to me that he has done this deliberately because he could not possibly avoid, in any other way, the argument being put from this side. If the instructions to be given under the subsection have in some form to come before the House of Commons, then the Home Secretary, who may well think that he is being liberal, but may not quite appear in that guise to everybody else, has to prove his liberality. If the instructions do not have to come before the House of Commons, then there can be enormous room for hole-in-the-corner methods.
    It does not seem to me that the Home Secretary has made his case at all. It may be that there is a case for him having this power. I express no opinion on that, but if he thinks that there is surely he must be prepared to defend its exercise. He cannot be asked to defend it unless his exercise of it is made subject to a discussion in the House of Commons.
    The Amendment is not of a very revolutionary kind. It asks that any instruction given in this way shall be subject to annulment, that is, to the negative

    1153
    Resolution procedure. We were all very touched with the anxiety with which the right hon. Gentleman accepted the accolade from the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), but that I was not very clear from the way in which it was bestowed, that it was an accolade and I think that the anxiety of the right hon. Gentleman rather emphasised his isolation at this moment.
    There is not much in the Amendment. It merely asks that the Home Secretary shall be able to issue his instructions, shall be able to make his decisions and shall, if the House of Commons calls upon him to do so—this is what the annulment procedure means; it does not mean that he has to come here to do it—be ready to defend them.
    The Attorney-General, who is apt to lurch rather more bluntly into these things than the Home Secretary does in his more deliberate way, made it clear on 6th February that there will be many cases, not some, not the odd case but many cases, where admission may be refused on issues which have nothing to do with the individuals, but have to do with the Government's decision about the number of people who may be admitted. I should have thought that there was no issue which the Government could more properly be called upon to defend than an arbitrary decision that a certain number is the right one.
    I ask the Home Secretary to look at this matter again. So far, he has put forward no argument in its defence. He used the words "at this short notice", so I presume that he meant that he had not thought about it before. We are very sorry about that and we are prepared to give him more time to think about it. All that he has said is that at this short notice his decision is that this matter should not be challengeable in the House of Commons. I ask him, as a House of Commons man with a great feeling for this place, whether he can think of any other issues which ought to be as challengeable in the House of Commons as this. I ask him to think again about this and to give us an opportunity to challenge any decision which the Executive may make about numbers by allowing us to make this subject to the negative Resolution procedure.
    5.0 p.m.
    Mr. Ede: I hope that the Minister will feel able to accept the Amendment. If he cannot do so this afternoon, I hope that he will keep in mind the possibility of incorporating it in the Bill on Report. My right hon. Friend said that my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) conferred the accolade on the Home Secretary. I can only say that when the sword gets near him it will be moving horizontally and not vertically.
    I do not believe that the House will be without its resources, even if the Home Secretary is obstinate, because every one of these acts will be an administrative act, and it will always be possible on a Supply Day to raise the question of his salary and to devote some time to a consideration of any action he takes under this provision. Parliamentary Questions are nothing more than nuisances to a Minister; I want to be able to do something that will put him in jeopardy—the sword moving horizontally.
    Let us suppose that we have a quota system, and that we have reached the last two vacancies, and that one immigrant appears at Liverpool, another at Southampton, and a third at London Airport. A servant of the Minister will have to decide how to deal with that position. The possibilities of administrative difficulty are so great that it would obviously be wise if the Amendment were embodied in the Bill at some stage, so that we could have a proper discussion in a general way.
    Mr. S. Silverman: I am not sure that I follow all the geometrical arguments advanced by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). I know nothing about accolades. I do not want to add to anything that I have said, or to derogate from it. The difficulty about the Amendment, in relation to the argument put by my hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown), is that it would not meet his point.
    It is true that such an important matter as this should be subjected to the opinion of the House and, if possible, to a vote—and it ought to be possible to defeat the Government if they arrive at the wrong quota, or administer the provision in the wrong way. If we accept

    1155
    the Amendment we would certainly oblige the Government to put all their instructions into a Statutory Instrument and submit them to be discussed here, but a discussion is all that we would get, because under the procedure of a Motion to annul a Statutory Instrument we can cast out the lot or accept the lot, but we cannot amend. We should never succeed in getting a vote on the point which my hon. and right hon. Friends wail to be dealt with.
    There is a great deal of force in what the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) said about trying to find some way of distinguishing between one class of instruction and another, so that all the administrative points can be dealt with in the way the Government want, subject to the House's finding the opportunity of discussing them at some stage before we part with the Bill, while the other class of instructions, which go to the root of the matter and involve important questions of policy, will have to be introduced by way of Statutory Instrument, one by one, and separately.
    Mr. G. Brown: I am following my hon. Friend's argument with great interest. As I understand it, he is asking the Committee not to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. Silverman indicated dissent.
    Mr. Brown: As I understand it, he is saying that the Amendment would not do what we want it to, which I take it to be advice to the Committee not to accept it. Does not my hon. Friend agree that if the Amendment were accepted there would be a Parliamentary opportunity to discuss it, whereas if it is defeated there will be none?
    Mr. Silverman: My right hon. Friend was not here during the earlier part of the discussion or he would not have fallen into the error that he has made. I have never advised the Committee not to accept the Amendment. If it decides to divide upon it I shall support it, and vote with hon. Members on this side of the Committee. All I said was that over a wide area of these instructions the argument of the Home Secretary had some force in it.
    What I am now trying to do—and I am trying to be helpful—is to find some
    1156
    way in which we can distinguish between those instructions which ought to be discussed by the House but which nevertheless are administrative matters for the Minister, and those which involve important questions of policy, in connection with which the House rather than the Government should have an opportunity not merely of discussion but of decision.
    Mr. Chapman: The unfortunate thing is that under the guillotine procedure an Amendment which would have done precisely what my hon. Friend wanted was never discussed. It was an Amendment to Clause 2, which would have subjected to this Statutory Instrument procedure all decisions concerning the number of vouchers and the quota. I hope that my hon. Friend will now tell the Home Secretary that while he agrees with him about not being able to have detailed instructions in the form of Statutory Instruments, the right hon. Gentleman should nevertheless keep his mind open to the possibility of accepting an Amendment on Report concerning the Statutory Instrument procedure and the quota system under Clause 2.
    Mr. Silverman: My hon. Friend is quite right. I will go a little further than he is inviting me to go. If the Amendment it withdrawn the Home Secretary should undertake, on Report, to accept some such Amendment as that to which my hon. Friend has referred. Then everybody would be satisfied. We would have a general opportunity of discussing the broad field of all instructions, and an additional legislative opportunity to deal with these special matters which involve important questions of policy, as and when the Government make up their mind about what powers they want. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to accept that suggestion.
    Mr. C. Royle: I confess that I am very unhappy with the reply of the Home Secretary. He read his answer, which was most unusual for him. The impression I received was that he had got something in writing that he was going to say before he heard the arguments put forward by hon. Members on this side of the Committee. I very much regret that fact.
    I want, first, to deal with the quota question. When I was in Jamaica one of

    1157
    the right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends made a statement to the Press there saying that it was the Government's intention to have a quota of 40,000 immigrants. I do not know how this could possibly be worked, but I got the impression that a supporter of the Government had some knowledge of their intentions in the matter. If a Conservative back bencher can think of a set figure I have a feeling that the Government also have that figure in mind.
    My other point concerns procedure. I am a member of the Chairman's Panel, and I cannot think for a moment that Mr. Speaker would agree to our discussing something of this character in a Third Reading debate. It is not contained in the Bill, and it will not be
    contained in it when we reach the Third Reading.
    It is obvious that another Amendment will have to be moved on Report. What is the use of our arguing about it now? Why cannot the Amendment accepted, instead of our having to wait for the Report stage? We have had no assurance that the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to put down such an Amendment, even if the wording is changed. Unless we can have this assurance I must ask my hon. Friends to press the matter to a Division.
    Question put, That those words, be there inserted:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 191, Noes 256.

    Division No. 83.]

    AYES

    [5.10 p.m.

    Abse, Leo

    Gourlay, Harry

    Mayhew, Christopher.

    Alnsley, William

    Grey, Charles

    Meillsh, R. J.

    Albu, Austen

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Mendelson, J. J.

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.

    Millan, Bruce

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

    Milne, Edward J.

    Awbery, Stan

    Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)

    Hamilton, William (West Fife)

    Monslow, Walter

    Beaney, Alan

    Hannan, William

    Morris, John

    Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

    Hart, Mrs. Judith

    Moyle, Arthur

    Bence, Cyril

    Hayman, F. H.

    Neal, Harold

    Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Healey, Denis

    Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

    Benson, Sir George

    Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)

    Oliver, G. H.

    Blackburn, F.

    Herbison, Miss Margaret

    Oram, A. E.

    Blyton, William

    Hill, J. (Midlothian)

    Oswald, Thomas

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

    Hilton, A. V.

    Owen, Will

    Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)

    Holman, Percy

    Panned, Charles (Leeds, W.)

    Bowles, Frank

    Holt, Arthur

    Parker, John

    Boyden, James

    Houghton, Douglas

    Parkin, B. T.

    Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

    Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)

    Paton, John

    Brockway, A. Fenner

    Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

    Pavitt, Laurence

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Hoy, James H.

    Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Peart, Frederick

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Pentland, Norman

    Callaghan, James

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Popplewell, Ernest

    Castle, Mrs. Barbara

    Hunter, A. E.

    Prentice, R. E.

    Chapman, Donald

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Probert, Arthur

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Proctor, W. T.

    Cronin, John

    Janner, Sir Barnett

    Randall, Harry

    Crosland, Anthony

    Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

    Rankin, John

    Cullen, Mrs. Alice

    Jeger, George

    Redhead, E. C.

    Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

    Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

    Rhodes, H.

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

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

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Deer, George

    Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

    Ross, William

    Delargy, Hugh

    Kelley, Richard

    Royle, Charles (Salford, West)

    Dempsey, James

    Kenyon, Clifford

    Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

    Diamond, John

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Short, Edward

    Dodds, Norman

    Ledger, Ron

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Driberg, Tom

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

    Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

    Skeffington, Arthur

    Edelman, Maurice

    Lipton, Marcus

    Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Loughlin, Charles

    Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

    Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Small, William

    Evans, Albert

    McCann, John

    Snow, Julian

    Fletcher, Eric

    MacColl, James

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)

    McInnes, James

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

    Mackie, John (Enfield, East)

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Forman, J. C.

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Steele, Thomas

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Mahon, Simon

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

    Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh

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

    Stonehouse, John

    George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn)

    Manuel, A. C.

    Stones, William

    Ginsburg, David

    Mapp, Charles

    Strachey, Rt. Hon. John

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    Mason, Roy

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

    Symonds, J. B.

    Warbey, William

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

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Watkins, Tudor

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

    Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

    Weitzman, David

    Winter bottom, R. E.

    Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    Woof, Robert

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

    Whitlock, William

    Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

    Thorpe, Jeremy

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Zilliacus, K.

    Timmons, John

    Willey, Frederick

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    Williams, D. J. (Neath)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Wade, Donald

    Williams, LI. (Abertillery)

    Mr. Sydney Irving and

    Wainwright, Edwin

    Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

    Mr. Lawson,

    NOES

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    Litchfield, Capt. John

    W. T.

    Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

    Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

    Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Longbottom, Charles

    Allason, James

    Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.

    Longden, Gilbert

    Arbuthnot, John

    Farey-Jones, F. W.

    Loveys, Walter H.

    Atkins, Humphrey

    Farr, John

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn

    Barber, Anthony

    Finlay, Graeme

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Barlow, Sir John

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

    McAdden, Stephen

    Barter, John

    Forrest, George

    MacArthur, Ian

    Batsford, Brian

    Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

    McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia

    Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)

    Freeth, Denzil

    Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

    Beamish, Col, Sir Tufton

    Gammans, Lady

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

    Bell, Ronald

    Gibson-Watt, David

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

    Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

    Gilmour, Sir John

    MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

    Berkeley, Humphry

    Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)

    McMaster, Stanley R.

    Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Goodhew, Victor

    Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)

    Biffen, John

    Gough, Frederick

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Gower, Raymond

    Maddan, Martin

    Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

    Grant, Rt. Hon. William

    Maginnis, John E.

    Bishop, P. P.

    Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.

    Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

    Black, Sir Cyril

    Green, Alan

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    Bossom, Clive

    Gurden, Harold

    Marten, Nell

    Bourne-Arton, A.

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Mawby, Ray

    Box, Donald

    Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J-

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

    Mills, Stratton

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Braine, Bernard

    Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

    More, Jasper (Ludlow)

    Brewis, John

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

    Morgan, William

    Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

    Morrison, John

    Brooman-White, R.

    Hastings, Stephen

    Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

    Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

    Hay, John

    Nabarro, Gerald

    Browne, Percy (Torrington)

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

    Bryan, Paul

    Hendry, Forbes

    Nugent, Sir Richard

    Buck, Antony

    Hiley, Joseph

    Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

    Bullard, Denys

    Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

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

    Osborn, John (Hallam)

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

    Hocking, Philip N.

    Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

    Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

    Holland, Philip

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

    Hollingworth, John

    Page, John (Harrow, West)

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Hopkins, Alan

    Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

    Channon, H. P. G.

    Hornby, R. P.

    Pearson, Prank (Clitheroe)

    Chataway, Christopher

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

    Peel, John

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

    Percival, Ian

    Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

    Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

    Peyton, John

    Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

    Hughes-Young, Michael

    Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

    Clarke, Brig, Terence (Portsmth, W.)

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Pilkington, Sir Richard

    Cleaver, Leonard

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Pitman, Sir James

    Cole, Norman

    Irvine, Bryant Codman (Rye)

    Pitt, Miss Edith

    Collard, Richard

    Jackson, John

    Pott, Percivall

    Cooper, A. E.

    James, David

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Prior, J. M. L.

    Corfield, F. V.

    Jennings, J. C.

    Profumo, Rt. Hon. John

    Costain, A. P.

    Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carilsle)

    Proudfoot, Wilfred

    Coulson, Michael

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Pym, Francis

    Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

    Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

    Quennell, Miss J. M.

    Craddock, Sir Beresford

    Joseph, Sir Keith

    Rawlinson, Peter

    Critchley, Julian

    Kaberry, Sir Donald

    Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

    Crosthwalte-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver

    Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

    Rees, Hugh

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Kerby, Capt. Henry

    Renton, David

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Kerr, Sir Hamilton

    Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

    Dance, James

    Kitson, Timothy

    Ridsdale, Julian

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Lagden, Godfrey

    Robertson, Sir D. (C'thn's & S'th'ld)

    Deedes, W. F.

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Roots, William

    de Ferranti, Basil

    Leather, E. H. C.

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    Leavey, J. A.

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

    Leburn, Gilmour

    Seymour, Leslie

    Doughty, Charles

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

    Sharples, Richard

    Drayson, G. B.

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Shaw, M.

    du-Gann, Edward

    Lilley, F. J. P.

    Shepherd, William

    Duncan, Sir James

    Lindsay, Martin

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

    Eden, John

    Linstead, Sir Hugh

    Smithers, Peter

    1160

    1161

    Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Walder, David

    Spearman, Sir Alexander

    Thomas, Peter (Conway)

    Walker, Peter

    Speir, Rupert

    Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)

    Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek

    Stanley, Hon. Richard

    Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

    Wall, Patrick

    Stevens, Geoffrey

    Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

    Tilney, John (Wavertree)

    Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

    Stodart, J. A.

    Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

    Webster, David

    Storey, Sir Samuel

    Turner, Colin

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)

    Tweedsmuir, Lady

    Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

    Tapsell, Peter

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Wise, A. R.

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Woodhouse, C. M.

    Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)

    Vickers, Miss Joan

    Woodnutt, Mark

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

    Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

    Worsley, Marcus

    Temple, John M.

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

    Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Mr. Whitelaw and Mr. McLaren.

    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 17.—(EXEMPTIONS.)
    Mr. Wade: I beg to move, in page 12, line 24, at the end to insert:
    "or
    (d) being the spouse or child, stepchild or adopted child under the age of twenty-one years of a person of a description specified in paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) or paragraph (c) of this subsection".
    By now the Home Secretary will be becoming familiar with this wording, as I have moved similar Amendments to other Clauses. When discussing Clause 1, dealing with the general subject of immigration, I moved an Amendment the effect of which was to allow a wife and family of an immigrant to come into this country and not to be subject to control under Part I. The Government expressed a preference for that to be dealt with under Clause 2 and an Amendment was moved to Clause 2 by the Government. It did not go so far as I wished, but it dealt with this subject in principle. On Clause 6 I raised a similar question, but I was less successful.
    The purpose of subsection (2) of Clause 17 is to exempt from control three categories of person. I think a fair summary of these categories is: (1) a member of the home forces subject to the Naval Discipline Act, 1957; (2) a member of any Commonwealth force or any force raised under the law of any Colony, Protectorate or protected State, coming to this country to serve or to undergo training, and (3) a member of the forces of any country designated for the purpose of any provision of the Visiting Forces Act, 1952. The object of the Amendment is to ensure that the wife and family of such a person will also be admitted to this country if they so wish. I suggest that
    1162
    this is a reasonable Amendment. As the principle was accepted by the Government on Clause 2, I hope that a similar provision will be accepted on this Clause.
    This morning I was discussing defence with a defence expert. Obviously it would he very much out of order to discuss that now, but I asked him, "How is it that in the earlier days of this century when we had such very wide commitments we were able to man all those outposts of empire?" His answer was, "The Indian Army." Today, with lesser commitments, we have very great difficulty in finding the necessary manpower.
    We are having to recruit from various parts of the Commonwealth, including the West Indies. It may well be that we shall find this recruitment from the West Indies of increasing importance. As an aside, one may say that it is perhaps a little anomalous that as a result of this Bill we shall not recruit our forces from Southern Ireland but allow Southern Irish in free while, on the other hand, we recruit forces from the West Indies but impose immigration controls upon them.
    I am informed—if this is not correct I hope I shall be told so—that the practice is for West Indians to be called upon to pay their own passage to this country if they are to serve in our forces and that they come here for six months on trial. It seems a little unreasonable that they should have to pay their own fares, but I am told that that happens at present. We are relying on recruitment from the Commonwealth. If they are willing to help us in our defence, surely we should permit their wives and families to come here. If they have to pay their fares it is doubtful whether they can afford to bring their wives and families. I should have thought that we

    1163
    should establish the principle clearly in this Bill.
    It may be suggested by the Government that this matter can be covered by subsection (3), which gives the Secretary of State power to extend exemption by order, but throughout discussion of the Bill we have been told so often to rely on the discretion of the Home Secretary. I think we should ensure that principles such as this—which is a very reasonable one, providing for the wife and family of a man who is to serve in our forces—should be written into the Bill. I hope the Government will see fit to accept the Amendment.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State to the Home Department (Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke): Wives and dependent children up to the age of 16 of Service men coming here will be admitted under the Amendments made to Clause 2. The Amendments to Clause 2 embrace a wife or child under 16 years of age. They would be admitted.
    Clause 17 is rather different from Clause 2. Its purpose, in subsection (1), is to grant exemption from both Part I and Part II to those who have total immunity from process, not only for their official acts, but also for their personal acts—that is to say, ambassadors and people of that sort and, in the case of a Commonwealth country, High Commissioners as well. Subsection (2) deals with those who are to be exempt from the entry provisions which are contained in Part II. It does not exempt them from deportation under Part II. It is concerned with those on whom generally there are controls other than those provided by this Bill.
    I think the substance of the point made by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) is met by the Amendment made to Clause 2, subject, of course, to the difference for the dependent child up to 16 in one case and 21 in another case. As will be seen—subject to any Amendments made today—when the instructions we have been debating earlier today are published, a very large and ample discretion will be given to immigration officers for dependent children, certainly those up to the age of 18. Higher than that it might be rather dangerous to go, although if they
    1164
    are in fact dependants they will be admitted.
    If one reads the strict letter of this Liberal Amendment, one finds that it does not mean that the family need be here at all. It is possible, for example, for a child of someone not in this country but subject as a member of the home forces to the Naval Discipline Act and stationed at Singapore to come in absolutely free to the United Kingdom at the age of 20 without any of the tests to which under Clause 2 and other Clauses he would be liable. As the Amendment is drafted, that would be perfectly possible. Such a person is technically a member of the home Forces.
    Mr. Wade: Rightly so.
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Yes. The hon. Member may think that all people should be let in free of restriction.
    Mr. Wade: If someone from the West Indies came here, joined our Forces, was then sent overseas and wished for some good reason to have his family stationed in this country, would that position be covered by the Bill as at present drafted without the Amendment?
    5.30 p.m.
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Yes. His wife and his dependent children up to the age of 16, if he is stationed here so as to be resident here—
    Mr. Wade: But if he is not stationed here?
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: That raises a very nice point. If he is not stationed here but is stationed somewhere so that this is not his home base at all, his dependants and his wife would not be automatically admitted under Clause 2. If he is based here even though serving abroad, but in such a way as to be ordinarily resident here—in the case of the Navy, for example, if his home port is Portsmouth, Chatham or Devonport—even though he may be serving temporarily abroad, his wife and family would certainly be admissible under Clause 2.
    It he is a citizen from overseas who does not have that connection with the United Kingdom, it seems to us anomalous that his son, say aged 20, who may be simply coming here in an ordinary way to get a job, like many

    1165
    of his contemporaries, should not have to pass through the same controls as his contemporaries will have to pass through. It would be, as it were, adventitious that his father happened to be a member of the Forces who was not resident here.
    For children up to the age of 16 and for wives, the position is provided for already in the Bill. For children up to the age of 18, as I think the Committee will see, the position is provided for in the instructions. Beyond that age, if they are dependants and are coming as dependants, because they are dependent upon their father, and not independently, they will be admitted, because it is right that they should be.
    Mr. J. Grimond: I have a high regard for the Joint Under-Secretary, but in spite of that regard I was astonished by part of the argument he has just advanced. He appears to think it anomalous that this country should allow into Britain the wives or families, if they are over 16, of people whom it has conscripted to fight for it and for the Commonwealth, unless they are based in Britain.
    I submit that the Committee cannot accept this argument. It surely cannot accept the argument that it is all right to conscript people, or to induce people as mercenaries, from the West Indies to fight for the Commonwealth, but when it comes to having their wives or children in this country it is a very different matter. That is a matter which must be looked at very carefully—presumably to see if they are respectable. They are good enough to fight, but they are not good enough for us to allow their children or their wives to come here, unless they are based here. That, as I understood, was the Joint Under-Secretary's argument. He went on to say that if they are based here we may be good enough to extend some concession to them, but they will have no right to come to this country. I am astonished by that argument.
    I can understand the hon. and learned Gentleman's earlier point that children under 16 and other people may be covered by Clause 2, but the Committee must repudiate the latter part of his argument. It is clear that if we are at the end of the Bill to have any standing whatever in the eyes of the Common
    1166
    wealth we cannot go on record as saying, "We want you to come and fight for us, but unless you are based in this country do not expect to be able to bring your wives and children here, unless they are under 16 or unless they have satisfied an immigration officer."
    Mr. S. Silverman: Like the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), I am utterly astonished at the argument advanced by the Joint Under-Secretary. I am all the more astonished when I compare the argument he advanced to keep these people out, or at any rate not to give them a right to enter, with what he has already done in an earlier part of the Bill. My Amendment in page 12, line 19, to leave out paragraph (c), has not been called, and I cannot debate it, but the hon. and learned Gentleman should appreciate the absurd contrast between the argument which must have led him to leave this paragraph in and the argument which prevents him from accepting this Amendment.
    I will tell the Committee what it means. This Clause exempts some people from the operation of the Bill. Naturally, those of us who dislike the Bill altogether are reluctant to oppose any provision in it which exempts anybody from its operation, but paragraph (c) should be looked at closely in connection with the argument adduced by the hon. and learned Gentleman.
    Paragraph (c) offers a wonderful opportunity to a Commonwealth citizen from whom the Bill takes away the right enjoyed up to now to enter the United Kingdom and who wants to evade that prohibition and continue to exercise his right to enter, in spite of the Bill. All he has to do as a Commonwealth citizen who is prohibited from entering is to join a foreign Army. If he joins a foreign army and an Order in Council has been made, or comes to be made, giving that foreign Army the benefit of the Visiting Forces Act, he can no longer be excluded from his homeland. A person cannot come in if he is a member or a relative of a member of a Commonwealth Army. A person cannot come in if he is not a member of any Army. But if somebody joins the German Army and the German Army is allowed to send a contingent to which he belongs to be trained here,

    1167
    his right to enter his homeland is restored. He is exempt from prohibition.
    What an extraordinary provision! The more one looks at it the more extraordinary it becomes, because as I understand the Visiting Forces Act, once the Order in Council has been made and the—
    The Temporary Chairman (Sir Norman Hulbert): Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying from the Amendment on to the provisions of the Visiting Forces Act.
    Mr. Silverman: I fully understand that, Sir Norman. All I am doing is pointing to a reason why the Committee ought not to accept the argument which the hon. and learned Gentleman advanced for rejecting the Amendment. I am saying that it is so wholly inconsistent with other provisions that he has made and which we cannot challenge that it makes no sense at all and the Committee should reject the argument. As I understand the Visiting Forces Act, once the Order in Council has been made and the contingent from the foreign Army is here, they are no longer subject to our laws. They are exempted from them by the Visiting Forces Act.
    There is the odd position, in view of what the hon. and learned Gentleman said about the Amendment, that a Commonwealth citizen is excluded by the Bill from entering. If he joins a foreign Army and the foreign Army is allowed here, he is allowed to come here, although once he is here he is not subject to the laws of this country but to the laws only of the country of the Force of which he is a member.
    To make the thing more anomolous than ever, although one is exempt from the provisions of Part I which would otherwise keep one out, once one is in, exempted from Part I, Part II still applies, so one can be deported. They cannot prevent one from coming in but can deport one.
    Let hon. Members contrast that with the situation that this Amendment was designed to meet. I am sorry that the Home Secretary is not here—I am told that he is, and I am delighted. I hope that he will give us a reply, because the Under-Secretary was not member of the
    1168
    Government at the time when the Visiting Forces Act was passed, and I do not know whether he remembers our discussions then—in any case, I shall not repeat them. The Home Secretary knows about that Act, and I am sure that he appreciates the force of my argument.
    The right hon. Gentleman was good enough to accept very graciously the rather half-hearted compliment I paid him in a previous debate, and it is possible that he might now reciprocate. I then said that there was some force in his argument, and I am sure that he appreciates that there is some force in mine. If he intends to persist in the rejection of this Amendment, surely at some suitable opportunity, as we proceed with the Bill, he should look again at this reductio ad absurdum of the whole argument contained in subsection (2, c.)
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: I am sorry to have lost the esteem of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond). The origin of this desire to give wives and children special treatment in coming to this country was the very natural one of preserving the unity of the family. I remember one right hon. or hon. Member opposite saying, "Whom God has joined together, let not the Secretary of State put asunder". It was for that reason that my right hon. Friend obtained the Amendments to Clause 2; so that the family should be treated as a unit, and so that, if the head of the family is here, the wife and dependent children should be admitted pretty well without question because they depend upon him.
    If the head of the family is not here, which was a point that aroused the ire of the right hon. Gentleman, the argument about a family being torn asunder does not apply. That was why I said that if the head of the family is based on this country—not here temporarily, but based here—the rules relating to the preservation of the family will apply, but that if he is not here permanently, or based here, those rules do not apply. That is why, I drew the distinction, and for that reason I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not feel it is an unworthy, illogical or invalid distinction, however much he may dislike wives and children—and any one—being kept out at any time.

    1169
    The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), with great ingenuity, attached his argument to the Liberal Amendment, but it related to a totally different point. I do not suppose that he would be any more keen than others that the wives and children of members of visiting forces should be allowed to come here—the Germans going to South Wales, and that sort of thing. I do not know that he is particularly concerned with that. It is a quite different point, and I therefore hope that he will not think me discourteous if I do not answer his general commination of the Visiting Forces Act, and the steps taken under it.
    Mr. S. Silverman: There was no commination at all. We are not discussing the Visiting Forces Act, or any arrangement with foreign countries to allow foreign troops to come to this country. All I say is that we shall have an anomalous and ridiculous situation if we allow people who join foreign armies to come here without let or hindrance and yet reject this Amendment.
    5.45 p.m.
    Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: First, there is a purely drafting point which I believe to be of great importance, and which has been raised by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). Subsection (2, b) relates to "any Commonwealth force" and paragraph (c) relates to
    "…a member of the forces of any country designated for the purposes of any provision of the Visiting Forces Act, 1952, by Order in Council…"
    Is it not correct to say that that is not exclusively referable to Commonwealth forces but to foreign forces as well; that, therefore, as a matter of interpretation, the suggestion of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne is perfectly correct; and that, therefore, this is something that goes outside the ambit of the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill and relates to far wider issues and to foreign forces?
    Secondly, following on what my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) said, we might have a West Indian coming to this country. He is trained briefly here in transit, say, for Kenya or—one hopes not, but it is possible—Northern Rhodesia, or some other part of our
    1170
    Colonial Territories and, at the end of the year, knows that he is to be posted back here. Some three or four months before he is due to return—that is to say, before he becomes based—he wants his wife and children to come to this country to set up house. In those circumstances will he have the right for his relatives to come here, or is that still only a matter of special favours being granted by the Home Secretary?
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Paragraph (c) applies only to members of what I may call foreign armies who are also citizens either of independent Commonwealth countries or of the United Kingdom and Colonies. I use the phrase "United Kingdom and Colonies" as an omnibus term, because that is the technical expression, although the "United Kingdom" part of it may be somewhat misleading. It is therefore unlikely that the paragraph will deal with many people.
    On the other matter, I can give the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) an undertaking that in the situation he envisages, that is to say, if a Commonwealth citizen has come here, has enlisted, and has been sent somewhere to do a job for that sort of period but wants his family home in England on his return, they will be admitted.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. Chapman: I beg to move, in page 12, line 24, at the end to insert:
    "or,
    (d) is a bona fide servant of the government of any Commonwealth country or colony, visiting the United Kingdom on the business of his government".
    This is a simple Amendment, and I hope that it commends itself to the Under-Secretary. The point I am raising is a simple one: that many constituent parts of the Commonwealth have officials and servants who, monthly, if not weekly, journey between London and their home countries on matters concerning the Commonwealth, their countries' relations with Britain, and who represent part of the general traffic of officials between London and all parts of the Commonwealth.
    Many of these officials will not, as I understand it, fall under Clause 17 (1). In other words, many of them will not

    1171
    be of a sufficiently high rank of officialdom whereby they are entitled to immunity from suit and legal process. The point of the Amendment is that it is utterly humiliating for officials of minor rank on arrival at our ports to have to prove, every time they come here, the specific purposes for which they are coming and to ask for entry on each occasion. This would be completely outside the sort of thing I am sure all hon. Members would wish to have happen as a result of the Bill.
    I would much rather see the sort of system whereby an official of this kind would simply have stamped in his passport the fact that, for the time being, he is an official of whatever part of the Commonwealth it may be, journeying to London or various parts of the world—or however the constituent country would wish to phrase it—on the specific business of his country. In these circumstances, he would, on arrival at the port, simply have to produce this page in his passport and that would be a simple method of securing him immediate entry without all the humiliating business of having to go through the immigration officers who would have to go into the exact reasons for his coming here.
    One of the best examples of this is the sort of official who will be concerned with the operation of the Bill. The West Indies are now having to appoint more officers to help with the flow of migrants to this country. Officials of this kind are at the moment in monthly, if not weekly, consultation with Government Departments here to work out the operation of the Bill. They must come to the ports like anyone else, but, after the Bill becomes an Act, they will have to justify their entry every time they arrive, answer many questions and there will be no automatic process whereby they may be given immediate entry.
    It is essential that these people should be granted automatic and complete immunity from the operation of the Bill. This Amendment contains a straightforward principle and I hope that the Government will accept it without further question.
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: One of the things that this Amendment would not do if it were passed would be to give the people described by the hon. Gentleman the
    1172
    Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) complete exemption from the operation of the Bill, because he has attached it to subsection (2) which only exempts them from Part I and not from Part II.
    I take the hon. Gentleman's point, however, that it is wrong that such people should in any way be harrassed or held up at the ports if they are on important official business. It is for this reason that Clause 17 (3) was included in the Bill so that additional classes of persons may be added to those who either should have complete immunity, as the hon. Gentleman wants, or partial immunity, as subsection (2) envisages.
    There will be a long and fluctuating list of classes to cover these people, who are not the grand officials carrying full immunity and have it in their passports and who are, anyway, easily recognised. It was considered that it would be unwieldy to have such a list in the Bill, but that it should be made by Order which would have to be laid according to subsection (4). Thus, if the hon. Gentleman or any hon. Member think that there are too many or too few on the list there will be an opportunity for them to say so.
    Mr. Fletcher: If it only comes up by way of Statutory Instrument, what can hon. Members do about it?
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: I realise that it will not be possible to amend it, but great attention will be paid to any argument, if it is a good one, that either it is not comprehensive enough or that it extends immunity too far. This happens in other matters concerning governmental immunity. It is often said that it is extended too far and, as I say, it can be debated and the Government would take note of the comments made.
    It is for that reason, in general, that the point of the Amendment is substantially met by the Bill and by the Statutory Instrument which it envisages. The difficulty always exists that it cannot always be entirely comprehensive. I concede that to the hon. Gentleman at once. There is no intention to make the official prove his business, but should he not be included in the list of those who may be admitted freely then it is desirable that he should prove his identity. He will not be asked why

    1173
    he is coming here, or how long he proposes to stay, and so on. He will be asked to prove—if he says that he is here on a Government mission and he does not happen to be in the list included in the Statutory Instrument for the time being—his identity and show a document saying that he is the Mr. X concerned.
    That does not seem to be particularly humiliating. We frequently all have to prove our identities by the production of our passports, or some other document. If the man is not on the list that my right hon. Friend will append to the Statutory Instrument, there is no intention of subjecting him to any humiliation.
    I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman, who ha; a good point, to recognise that this is substantially met by subsection (3). If he is determined that these people should have all the advantages of those coming under subsection (1), I ask him to help us when we come to lay the Instrument.
    Mr. Fletcher: I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) will press his Amendment, in view of the disappointing and unsatisfactory reply from the Minister of State. It is not good enough to say that these people can rely on the Statutory Instrument. We cannot continually amend it to cover the different classes of people who will come here on Government missions from the various parts of the Commonwealth.
    Here is an opportunity for the Government to say clearly that bona fide servants of Commonwealth Governments can be exempted. We are continually
    being told that the Government intend to operate the Measure in a liberal way, yet when they are given an opportunity of doing something definite they make these kinds of excuses for resisting an Amendment which would make it perfectly clear that certain people are entitled to come here without being asked a lot of questions.
    The fact that the Government take it upon themselves to raise these flimsy excuses for refusing to accept a reasonable and modest Amendment of this kind belies all the assurances we keep receiving from them about the humane, sympathetic and generous way in which they intend to treat Commonwealth subjects. The very opposite seems to be their intention, judging by their attitude towards this reasoned Amendment and I hope that my hon. Friend will press it to a Division.
    Mr. Chapman: I am very disappointed by what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said. I know that he meant to be helpful. That is the strange part of it. But what he said was not really helpful. What will happen now is that in the hands of every immigration officer will be a list showing every kind of official who is to be admitted, all the undersecretaries or people up to a certain rank—
    It being Six o'clock, The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to Orders, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
    Question put, That those words be there inserted:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 198, Noes 262.

    Division No. 84.]

    AYES

    [6.0 p.m.

    Abse, Leo

    Brockway, A. Fenner

    Dodds, Norman

    Ainsley, William

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Driberg, Tom

    Albu, Austen

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Edelman, Maurice

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Callaghan, James

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Awbery, Stan

    Castle, Mrs. Barbara

    Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

    Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)

    Chapman, Donald

    Evans, Albert

    Beaney, Alan

    Cliffe, Michael

    Fletcher, Eric

    Bellenger, Rt, Hon. F. J.

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)

    Bence, Cyril

    Crosland, Anthony

    Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

    Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Cullen, Mrs. Alice

    Forman, J. C.

    Benson, Sir George

    Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Blackburn, F.

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Blyton, William

    Davies Ifor (Cower)

    George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn)

    Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics. S.W.)

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Ginsburg, David

    Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)

    Deer, George

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    Bowles, Frank

    Delargy, Hugh

    Gourlay, Harry

    Boyden, James

    Dempsey, James

    Grey, Charles

    Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

    Diamond, John

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    McInnes, James

    Skeffington, Arthur

    Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

    Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

    Mackie, John (Enfield, East)

    Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

    Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Small, William

    Hamilton, William (West Fife)

    Mahon, Simon

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Hannan, William

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

    Snow, Julian

    Hart, Mrs. Judith

    Manuel, A. C.

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Hayman, F. H.

    Mapp, Charles

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Healey, Denis

    Marsh, Richard

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur(Rwly Regis)

    Mason, Roy

    Steele, Thomas

    Herbison, Miss Margaret

    Mayhew, Christopher

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

    Hewitson, Capt. M.

    Mendelson, J. J,

    Storehouse, John

    Hill, J. (Midlothian)

    Millan, Bruce

    Stones, William

    Hilton, A. V.

    Milne, Edward

    Strachey, Rt. Hon. John

    Holman, Percy

    Mitchison, G. R.

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

    Holt, Arthur

    Monslow, Walter

    Symonds, J. B.

    Houghton, Douglas

    Morris, John

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Howell, Charles A. (Perry Birr)

    Moyle, Arthur

    Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

    Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

    Neal, Harold

    Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Hoy, James H.

    Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

    Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Oliver, G. H.

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

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Oram, A. E.

    Thorpe, Jeremy

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Oswald, Thomas

    Timmons, John

    Hunter, A. E.

    Padley, W. E.

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Parker, John

    Wade, Donald

    Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

    Parkin, B. T.

    Wainwright, Edwin

    Janner, Sir Barnett

    Paton, John

    Warbey, William

    Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

    Pavitt, Laurence

    Watkins, Tudor

    Jeger, George

    Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

    Weitzman, David

    Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

    Peart, Frederick

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

    Pentland, Norman

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

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

    Popplewell, Ernest

    White, Mrs. Eirene

    Jones, Dan (Bumley)

    Prentice, R. E.

    Whitlock, William

    Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

    Probert, Arthur

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Proctor, W. T.

    Willey, Frederick

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Randall, Harry

    Williams, D. J. (Neath)

    Kelley, Richard

    Rankin, John

    Williams, LI. (Abertillery)

    Kenyon, Clifford

    Rhodes, H.

    Williams, W. R (Openshaw)

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

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

    Ledger, Ron

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Winterbottom, R. E.

    Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

    Ross, William

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Lipton, Marcus

    Royle, Charles (Salford, West)

    Woof, Robert

    Loughlin, Charles

    Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

    Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Short, Edward

    Zilliacus, K.

    McCann, John

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    MacColl, James

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Mr. Redhead and Mr. Lawson.

    NOES

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    Bullard, Denys

    du Cann, Edward

    Aitken, W. T.

    Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

    Duncan, Sir James

    Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)

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

    Duthie, Sir William

    Allason, James

    Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

    Eden, John

    Arbuthnot, John

    Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    Ashton, Sir Hubert

    Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

    Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

    Atkins, Humphrey

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Barber, Anthony

    Channon, H. P. G.

    Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.

    Barlow, Sir John

    Chataway, Christopher

    Farey-Jones, F. W.

    Barter, John

    Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

    Farr, John

    Batsford, Brian

    Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

    Finlay, Graeme

    Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

    Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

    Cleaver, Leonard

    Forrest, George

    Bell, Ronald

    Cole, Norman

    Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

    Collard, Richard

    Freeth, Denzil

    Berkeley, Humphry

    Cooper, A. E.

    Gammans, Lady

    Biffen, John

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

    George, J. C. (Pollok)

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Corfield, F. V.

    Gibson-Watt, David

    Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

    Costain, A. P.

    Gilmour, Sir John

    Bishop, F. P.

    Coulson, Michael

    Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)

    Black, Sir Cyril

    Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

    Goodhew, Victor

    Bossom, Clive

    Craddock, Sir Beresford

    Gough, Frederick

    Bourne-Arton, A.

    Critchley, Julian

    Gower, Raymond

    Box, Donald

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver

    Grant, Rt. Hon. William

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J.

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Green, Alan

    Braine, Bernard

    Dance, James

    Gurden, Harold

    Brewis, John

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

    Deedes, W. F.

    Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

    Brooman-White, R.

    de Ferranti, Basil

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

    Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

    Browne, Percy (Torrington)

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

    Bryan, Paul

    Doughty, Charles

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

    Buck, Antony

    Drayson, G. B.

    Hastings, Stephen

    1176

    1177

    Hay, John

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

    Shaw, M.

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

    Shepherd, William

    Hendry, Forbes

    McMaster, Stanley R.

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

    Hiley, Joseph

    Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)

    Smithers, peter

    Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

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

    Maddan, Martin

    Spearman, Sir Alexander

    Hocking, Philip N.

    Maginnis, John E,

    Speir, Rupert

    Holland, Philip

    Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

    Stanley, Hon. Richard

    Hollingworth, John

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    Stevens, Geoffrey

    Hopkins, Alan

    Marten, Neil

    Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

    Hornby, R. P.

    Mawby, Ray

    Stodart, J. A.

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

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Storey, Sir Samuel

    Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

    Mills, Stratton

    Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)

    Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Tapsell, Peter

    Hughes-Young, Michael

    More, Jasper (Ludlow)

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Morgan, William

    Taylor, Frank(M'ch'st'r, MossSide)

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Morrison, John

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

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

    Temple, John M.

    Jackson, John

    Nabarro, Gerald

    Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

    James, David

    Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard

    Thomas, Peter (Conway)

    Jennings, J. C.

    Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Osborn, John (Hallam)

    Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

    Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

    Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

    Tilney, John (Wavertree)

    Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

    Joseph, Sir Keith

    Page, John (Harrow, West)

    Kaberry, Sir Donald

    Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

    Turner, Colin

    Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

    Partridge, E.

    Tweedsmuir, Lady

    Kerby, Capt. Henry

    Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Kerr, Sir Hamilton

    Peel, John

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Kitson, Timothy

    Percival, Ian

    Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Lagden, Godfrey

    Peyton, John

    Vickers, Miss Joan

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

    Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

    Leather, E. H. C.

    Pilkington, Sir Richard

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Leavey, J. A.

    Pitman, Sir James

    Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

    Leburn, Gilmour

    Pitt, Miss Edith

    Walker, David

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

    Pott, Percivall

    Walker, Peter

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek

    Lilley, F. J. P.

    Prior, J. M. L.

    Wall, Patrick

    Lindsay, Sir Martin

    Proudfoot, Wilfred

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Linstead, Sir Hugh

    Pym, Francis

    Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

    Litchfield, Capt. John

    Quennell, Miss J. M.

    Webster, David

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

    Rawlinson, Peter

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

    Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

    Whitelaw, William

    Longbottom, Charles

    Rees, Hugh

    Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

    Longden, Gilbert

    Renton, David

    Wise, A. R.

    Loveys, Walter H.

    Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Woodhouse, C. M.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Robertson, Sir D. (C'thn's & S'th'ld)

    Woodnutt, Mark

    McAdden, Stephen

    Roots, William

    Worsley, Marcus

    MacArthur, Ian

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

    Seymour, Leslie

    Mr. Chichester-Clark and

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

    Sharples, Richard

    Mr. McLaren.

    Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill, put and agreed to.

    The CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the Business to be concluded at Six o'clock.
    Clauses 18 to 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    New Clause.—(ADDITIONAL EXEMPTION ARISING FROM SERVICE IN SECOND WORLD WAR.)
    The provisions of this Act shall not apply to any Commonwealth citizen coloured or white who served or was wounded or maimed in the second world war or whose parents., brothers or sisters served were wounded maimed or killed in the said war.—[Mr. Lipton.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. Marcus Lipton: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
    I do not propose to take up the time of the Committee unduly, because there are other new Clauses which should be discussed before we part with the Bill. The new Clause with which I am concerned speaks for itself and I hope that it will meet with the acceptance of the Minister of State, who will, no doubt, tell us at an early stage the Government's reaction to it.
    Surely it would not be right, notwithstanding all the arguments that we have heard on other Clauses, that this class of citizens of the Commonwealth, white or coloured, who have demonstrated their loyalty to this country and have

    1179
    made sacrifices in demonstrating it, should come within the provisions of the Bill.
    Brigadier Sir John Smyth: I do not think that any hon. Member could accuse me of not being sympathetic towards the class of people who are dealt with in this new Clause, particularly since I have served with coloured troops for a great part of my life, but I think that we should consider the new Clause rather carefully and should realise what it means.
    It would apply not so much to West Indians, but particularly to Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders, Indians and Pakistanis and certainly to people in parts of Africa. The first question which strikes me is why we should confine the new Clause to people who served in the Second World War. What about the First World War? I cannot see how we could possibly exclude Far Eastern prisoners of war and internees. They might add up to a very large total, including parents, brothers and sisters, and, in any case, it would be very difficult to check on them. There is no question of barring these people any more than there is any question of barring Commonwealth immigrants of one class. The Bill merely seeks to impose a check on them.
    Let us consider the Far Eastern prisoners of war on whose behalf I moved a Motion in this Chamber ten years ago, as a result of which our own ex-prisoners received about £5 million. We realised then it would be impossible to cater for all the prisoners of war and internees of India and Pakistan. That would have stultified the whole scheme absolutely and entirely. I therefore insisted that, in particular, India, Pakistan, Australia and New Zealand should make their own claims in respect of their own Far Eastern prisoners of war and internees. If we had not done that, we should have been swamped and our own Far Eastern prisoners would have received nothing.
    6.15 p.m.
    I feel very strongly about this matter. If we accept the new Clause, it will mean that we are holding out a particular encouragement to the people with which it deals to come to this country outside the ordinary provisions of the Bill. If
    1180
    we are to encourage these people to come here, I feel that we should accept some responsibility for them. For instance, we could not have a lot of war disabled people in this country and not provide them with houses, pensions and some means of subsistence. It would be very wrong if we did.
    Mr. Fletcher: I am trying to follow the hon. and gallant Gentleman's argument, because I know of his interest in this matter. Am I not right in thinking that these people have been free to come here at any time since the end of the war? Is there any reason to think that if we exempt them from the provisions of the Bill it will stimulate them to come here? They could have come here at any time in the last sixteen years.
    Sir J. Smyth: I think it will, because, in a sense, it is proposed to make special provision for them in this new Clause. It is proposed to make a special exception of them. I am in sympathy with the idea behind the Clause and would like to help all those who have been maimed or wounded in the cause of the Commonwealth if we could. But if we extend the welcome to them which is proposed in the Clause, we should have to ensure that they were properly looked after. It is not as easy and simple a matter as the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) made out.
    Mr. C. Royle: I support the new Clause. I have been drawn to my feet by what the hon. and gallant Member for Norwood (Sir J. Smyth) said. Is not this an opportunity to show that we are sympathetic towards the people dealt with in the Clause? Our experience is that in many parts of the Commonwealth wounded ex-Service men are not receiving a pension and are relying completely on charity. I discovered that in the West Indies during the last few weeks. Surely we have some responsibility in this matter. If we have to carry the terms of the Clause to the extent envisaged by the hon. and gallant Member with regard to pensions, and so on, would not that be a good thing, and would not we be accepting a responsibility which is really ours?
    I agree completely with the hon. and gallant Member for Norwood when he asks why the Clause should be restricted to those who served in the Second World

    1181
    War? I quarrel with my hon. Friend the Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) for having specifically named a particular war. I, too, am long enough in the tooth to have been a First World War soldier, and I am concerned about ex-soldiers of that war just as much as about those wounded or maimed in the Second World War.
    Would you, Sir William, be prepared to accept a manuscript Amendment to delete the words "second world" in line 2 of the proposed new Clause, so that it might cover people maimed in any war on behalf of the Commonwealth?
    The Chairman: No. I am not prepared to accept a manuscript Amendment at this stage, but the point can be fully discussed.
    Mr. Royle: It seems to me that a manuscript Amendment might make this a better Clause.
    Mr. Lipton: I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. C. Royle) that, if it is the desire of the Committee to make this Clause apply to all wars of which there are survivors, I should be most happy to alter it.
    Mr. Michael Foot: I wish to add one or two points, particularly in view of what was said by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Norwood (Sir J. Smyth). I do not think that his arguments were persuasive. Even if this were a matter of encouraging more of these people to come here, I think that that would be a perfectly proper and reasonable thing to do. Surely, however, the main purpose of this Clause—it illustrates the squalid nature of the Bill that we should have to discuss such a proposal—is to avoid shocking scandals from damaging this country's good name. It would be a shocking scandal if persons from the Commonwealth, who had fought and been wounded in the cause of this country, were refused permission to enter. It would make them advertisements for the illiberality of the Bill.
    I would have thought that the Home Secretary would agree to accept the Clause so as to avoid, or, at any rate, mitigate, the bad feeling that the Bill is bound to arouse. I cannot see how any hon. Member could properly vote
    1182
    for the proposition that people, or the close relatives of people, who fought for this country in the Second World War or any other war should be excluded from the right to come to this country.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: I do not wish to make a speech, but I want to be clear, Sir William, about the answer you gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. C. Royle). Before I ask you my question, however, I want to admit my share of the responsibility in this matter. This Clause has stood on the Notice Paper for days, and we could have taken action before now to extend it to cover people who served in other wars. We are, therefore, all responsible. Would you be good enough to reconsider whether you could not accept a manuscript Amendment, so that we could vote on the two things together?
    The Chairman: My mind is never closed, but I have no intention so far of acceding to the hon. Gentleman's request. The Committee is well able to deal with the point in general. Amendments could be made at a later stage if that were desirable.
    Sir Barnett Janner: I think that the point that has been raised about a manuscript Amendment would be met if the Minister of State, in his reply, said that this Clause was a reasonable proposal and that he would take the opportunity at a later stage of amending it to include all wars. The whole point of our proposal is that anybody who has served in either of the major wars or in any other war in aid of our country should at least have the right to come here.
    At a time of stress and strain, such persons served the country in a substantial way. With the greatest respect to the hon. and gallant Member for Norwood (Sir J. Smyth), for whom I have the highest regard, I cannot understand the strength of the argument he has put forward. After all, if a person has been injured in the service of the Commonwealth as a member of the Armed Forces I can see no argument which can properly be used to deny him the right of receiving some kind of compensation, and proper compensation, for the injuries that he has sustained.

    1183
    When such a person was serving, he was doing so equally with everybody else in a certain cause, and in that cause, equally with everybody else, he was subject to the possibility of injury. How can we then say that we are not entitled to give, or that we should be prevented from giving, assistance to a man who has so served? I cannot see that the Government are, morally at least, justified in refusing to accept the Clause.
    This is not a party matter, but one which all who served in the Armed Forces feel is of vital importance, to which the fullest consideration should be given, and to which a concession—if it is a concession—should be made. Up to now, anyone injured in the war could come to this country and receive certain compensations. Why stop that now?
    Sir Jocelyn Lucas: The hon. Gentleman is forgetting that the Dominions paid their own men while we paid the Colonial Service men. The two cases are, therefore, different. I would support this Clause for the men themselves but not for the relatives. Again, the Dominions also provided pensions. The Canadian soldier was paid by the Canadian Government and the Australian soldier by the Australian Government, as was the case with other Dominions.
    Sir B. Janner: I know that, but it counteracts the argument that these people would flood into the country. The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Sir J. Lucas) is saying that some parts of the Commonwealth which were affected are already doing something equivalent to what we are doing here. That is all we are claiming in this Clause, and, consequently, it disposes to some extent of the argument of the hon. and gallant Member for Norwood, who was saying that we should not have this imposition placed upon us.
    We regard ourselves as one Commonwealth unit when it comes to fighting for a cause. Any of these men or women could come to this country to join units here, in the same way as any person from this country could join a Commonwealth unit. It was all in the interests of the Commonwealth as a whole. I do not think that we should be
    1184
    heard to say that the question of compensation or assistance to such a person to regain his health or to maintain his condition of health is not one for us. Here is a moral claim. Say what they will, the Government are trying, at the least, not to give the same rights as we did before when a person had done his share in the common enterprise. There is no moral reason for the Home Secretary to resist this appeal to allow these people to come here.
    6.30 p.m.
    Mr. Pavitt: I rise to make quite a brief point, but, before doing so, I should like to make a comment on the contribution of the hon. and gallant Member for Norwood (Brigadier Sir J. Smyth) to the debate. I felt that he had some sympathy with this new Clause, and I hope that he will find his way clear to give it his acceptance. I understand that the point he made is that he would like to see a provision enabling people to come to this country if they are adequately housed and have adequate facilities. This is the whole point of the Bill. If the Government had a housing policy which not only made provision for housing our own people adequately as well as Commonwealth immigrants, the Bill would probably be unnecessary. I think that the point that the hon. and gallant Member made about opening the floodgates is, after sixteen years, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) said, quite irrelevant.
    The small point that I wish to bring to the attention of the Committee is an extension of what I should like to see accepted in this Clause—a very liberal interpretation of the word "service" to include not only those who served in the Armed Forces, but also those people from British Honduras who came over here at a time when we were very short of manpower and were also particularly short of timber. Had it not been for the people from British Honduras being prepared to leave their own homes, go up to Scotland and live in very different climatic conditions, we might not have got the timber which was so vitally needed. I think that "services" should include not only service in the Armed Forces, but also those people who gave service in other parts of the economy at home which were very much needed.

    1185
    I do not wish to raise again the arguments used so effectively by my hon. Friends. I see no moral justification for the Government rejecting this Clause. This is an iniquitous and shocking Bill, but this Clause will put some little humanity into it if the Government accept it.
    Mr. Tom Brown: I have no desire to prolong the discussion on this very important Clause, but I am stirred by the argument advanced by the hon. and gallant Member for Norwood (Sir J. Smyth). We all know the hon. Member's interest in the British ex-Service man and those wounded in war, and he was only extending and expressing his practical sympathy with those who, unfortunately, have been wounded and who come from overseas.
    The consensus of opinion so far expressed in the Committee is that this Clause should be accepted, and your suggestion, Sir William, means that, perhaps on Report, if the Clause is now accepted, consideration will be given by the Home Office to extending its application to victims of the First World War. In this Clause we are asking for something that should be done without asking for it. From the Bill we are leaving out people who ought to be included.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) has just said, this is a bad Bill, but there is no reason why we should not put in here and there something that is good. The Clause is something that is good. It will affect not hundreds but thousands of coloured people who assisted this country by their great bravery and devotion in both the First World War and the Second World War. Surely we are not now to deny that right to them, because it is a right and they are entitled to it.
    I hope that the Government will respond to our request, because already the consensus of opinion of hon. Members of the Committee is such that it is proved conclusively that we are in favour of the Clause being inserted in the Bill, subject to consideration being given between now and the Report stage to its terms covering those who served in the First World War.
    Mr. Charles Loughlin: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot), I think that there is something shocking in this. I feel a sense of national humiliation that the Government will not accept this Clause.
    I should like to direct the attention of the Minister to the possibility of our having to rely upon Commonwealth personnel in the future to defend Britain. How can we ask them to defend this country, if that defence is necessary, when we are now saying to them that, irrespective of whether they were maimed in the last war or their fathers were killed in the last war, and irrespective of the consequences of that war, in which they were defending Britain, they are not allowed to come into this country?
    It is pertinent to ask what would be the message which the Government would send to Commonwealth nationals if, in future, we required them to make the same type of contribution to the defence of this country because of external danger.
    Mr. Renton: I cannot claim anything like the distinguished military service of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Sir J. Smyth). Nor have I ever, like the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. C. Royle), taken part, as I believe he did, in a cavalry charge in the First World War. Having served in the Second World War with men from at least four countries of the Commonwealth, I should like to endorse most sincerely the tributes which have been paid to them today by hon. Members of this Committee. The fighting men from the Commonwealth played a very valiant and vital part indeed in our war effort.
    The purpose of the new Clause is therefore one to which we are obviously sympathetic, and if it were feasible to devise a scheme which would give effect to it, we should be thankful to do so. Unfortunately, neither the provisions of this new Clause, to which I shall refer in detail in a moment, nor any of the other proposals which we have considered along the same sort of lines, forms a workable basis.
    The more one considers the matter, the more serious do the practical difficulties of interpretation become. They

    1187
    are difficulties which do not at first meet the eye. I ask hon. Members to look at the terms of the Clause. I am sorry that neither of the hon. Members who put it dawn on the Notice Paper has taken part in this debate, because they might have been able to explain, as others could not so well, exactly how they felt it might work out.
    There are various difficulties. In the first place, is it right to confine a right like this to members of the Armed Forces only, when, as the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) pointed out, there are civilians who did valuable work for the allied cause? One cannot help thinking of the civilian internees under the Japanese, who suffered very greatly. Then there is the question of length of service. Presumably, hon. Members who favour a proposal of this kind did not have in mind a period of a few days or weeks in a recruit training depot, but, as the Clause is drafted, of course, somebody with one day's service would qualify for complete exemption under the Bill.
    We should not overlook the fact that there were some Commonwealth countries which had conscription for a great part of the war, notably Australia and New Zealand. A high proportion of men aged between, say, 35 and 50 in those countries would gain exemption, whereas there are countries which are now independent countries of the Commonwealth, such as Nigeria, where there was no such conscription. It might be regarded as discrimination in favour of those countries which had conscription if we were to operate in this way.
    Then there is the question of wounding or maiming and what degree of injury constitutes a wound. How is an immigration officer to know whether an immigrant who claims to have been wounded in war was wounded on duty or on leave, for example? It is rather hard, as my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Sir J. Lucas) said, even with the most generous approach to this matter, to come to the conclusion that the brother or sister of a person who was wounded should gain complete exemption. We believe that any attempt to base exemption from control on past records rather than on present circumstances would inevitably
    1188
    produce anomalies, and anomalies in these circumstances tend to be injustices and it would lead to great difficulties of interpretation of any provision which might be drafted.
    I want to give the Committee one or two assurances, because we are sympathetic to the broad purposes of those who support the new Clause. It is easy to give the first assurance. It is that members of Commonwealth Forces, past, present, or future, will have no difficulty in gaining admittance as genuine visitors. That is not something to be overlooked, because there are many members of the Armed Forces who served in the war and who might wish to come here as visitors and who would be able to do so. Secondly, members of present Commonwealth Forces coming here on duty are exempted by Clause 17. My right hon. Friend has also asked me to say that immigration officers will be asked to deal sympathetically with any case in which it is claimed, and clearly appears, that the person concerned served our cause in either of the two great wars.
    Mr. C. Royle: Will that be in the White Paper?
    Mr. Renton: The hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown), who was making his first and very welcome intervention in our debates on this Bill—
    Mr. Dingle Foot Mr. Dingle Foot (Ipswich) rose—
    Mr. Renton: I would rather answer those who have been present throughout the debate, but I would be glad to answer the hon. and learned Member later—suggested that this was a sort of quasi-civil right which could be claimed. I wonder whether he has appreciated that if we wrote it into the Bill as a right it would have to be proved as a right to the satisfaction of the immigration officer.
    Might it not be much better, instead of putting people to strict and somewhat formal proof, that the immigration officer should hear what people have to say and then judge for himself the validity of their claim, bearing in mind the request that he should deal with such claims sympathetically? If we start writing specific rights into the Bill in the way suggested, we may be acting not so kindly and sympathetically as the hon. Member would wish.
    Mr. T. Brown: The hon. and learned Member has misunderstood me. He is meeting trouble half way. These people had the right to fight for us and they fought nobly and courageously and with a great deal of devotion. Nobody should underestimate the patriotism manifested by people from the Commonwealth. Having boasted of our sympathy, we now have an opportunity of legalising that sympathy, so to speak, and making it a right for these people to have this concession.
    6.45 p.m.
    Mr. Renton: If anything, the hon. Member's intervention has emphasised the point I was trying to make. If we make exemption a matter of right, and a somewhat legalistic matter, we shall have to devise methods of formal proof, and so on, as well as overcoming the various difficulties of definition and interpretation that I have mentioned. We felt that it would be as sympathetic and, in the sense I have explained, more sympathetic to allow these applications to be dealt with by immigration officers on the spot. I do not believe that there will be difficulty or injustice in dealing with the matter that way.
    Sir B. Janner: The hon. and learned Gentleman is usually logical and impressive, but I cannot understand his logic on this occasion. Surely he is not suggesting that if there is a right of this kind, a person who does not have documentary evidence to establish the claim is to be prevented from coming here.
    Mr. Renton: The hon. Member can have no idea of the complexities of definition and of proof which would be required if we formalised this too much. I have had to consider this matter very carefully and I assure the Committee that the difficulties of definition and of the arrangements which would have to be made have proved very complex and would be far more embarrassing than leaving the matter generously open.
    Mr. John Biggs-Davison: I do not mean to intervene for more than a few seconds between the two establishments. The situation to which the new Clause draws attention is one of the unfortunate effects of having departed from the general principle of
    1190
    free entry into the United Kingdom of Commonwealth citizens.
    Having said that, I appreciate the spirit of what my hon. and learned Friend has said and the assurances which he has given. I merely want to ask him whether he can extend the assurance he has given about the admission of Commonwealth citizens who have served in the two world wars to those who have served in any of the other wars. There may not be many such cases of other wars in which Commonwealth citizens have been engaged against the Sovereign's enemies, but there may be Commonwealth citizens who, for example, were engaged in the Anglo-Boer war, but were not subsequently engaged in either of the two world wars.
    Mr. Fletcher: I feel just this amount of sympathy with the Minister of State. He was obviously reading a prepared reply to the Motion. He was turning it down before he had heard a series of passionate speeches in its support. It is for this reason that I think he is probably deserving of some sympathy, but the Home Secretary, who is able to take positive decisions, has listened to the debate, and I make this appeal to him. He has heard speech after speech from this side of the Committee, and one from the opposite side, a fairly sympathetic speech from the hon. and gallant Member for Norwood (Sir J. Smyth). Does he not realise that there must be some limit to the depths of degradation and shame to which this country will be drawn by the Bill?
    Here is a perfectly simple, straightforward new Clause proposing not that ex-Service men who have served in any Commonwealth Army should be given any new rights, but merely that they should retain their existing ones. Nothing more than that. Any of them could have come here during the last sixteen years and would have been welcome.
    Sir J. Smyth: I do not think that it is nearly as simple as the hon. Gentleman is trying to make out. For instance, the new Clause caters for the sisters of people who have been killed in war. If someone says, "I am the sister of so-and-so, who was killed three years ago", how is anyone to know whether that is correct? I have the greatest admiration for the Commonwealth

    1191
    soldiers who served in both world wars, but I think that the provisions of this Clause would be very difficult to carry out.
    Mr. Fletcher: I am grateful to the hon. and gallant Gentleman. He has clarified his position, and it is right that we should deal with each category of case. There is the ex-Service man who has been wounded, and there is his relative. Let us, first, consider the ex-Service man. Surely he should have an unchallenged right to come here whenever he likes; and this should apply whether he is whole, or maimed, or incapacitated in any way. I hope that the Home Secretary will agree with this.
    I cannot think that we are dealing with a large class of persons. I do not know whether the Government have made any attempt to ascertain even the possible number to which this new Clause could apply, but it must be very limited. If, as has been said, the new Clause will lead to a flood of immigrants, they could have come here already, and would have had the right to come. Why should we deprive those who fought in a Commonwealth Army for this country of the right which they have had to come here? It is this kind of refusal by the Government to accept a new Clause such as this which exposes the hollowness of their case for this Bill.
    If anyone wants to know why the Bill is being supported in the country, he should read the speech which was made by the hon. and gallant Member for Buckingham (Sir F. Markham) in his constituency. Opinion is being stirred up in the country by back benchers opposite. Not all of them, of course, but this is what the hon. and gallant Gentleman said:
    "We have been attracting many, many thousands of people from other parts of the world who look upon England as an El Dorado.
    Now, none of us would mind if all these people were decent people."
    The people covered by the new Clause are decent people.
    "But many are diseased, others are criminals, and others have come here for the specific intention of working for a while so that they can then enjoy the benefits of unemployment pay."
    He went on to say:
    "England has always been the place for criminals fleeing from the law in other countries. Many of the people who come in from
    1192
    Pakistan and other countries are pimps—men who run brothels and organised vice."
    Those are the reasons being given by the Minister's supporters for the Bill. I do not say that they are the reasons given by the right hon. Gentleman, but he says that the Bill is necessary and that the Government intend to carry it out in a humane, liberal, generous and benevolent way. To 'test his sincerity we tabled Amendment after Amendment which would enable him to do what he professes he wants to do. The new Clause suggests a class of person who should be entitled to come in.
    All our Amendments have been rejected. On what grounds have they been rejected? On a lot of pettifogging bureaucratic grounds, that it will be difficult to distinguish between one person and another, and so on. But why attempt to make a distinction? The Minister of State said that someone may have fought in a Commonwealth Army for one day, and asked whether we should exclude him. What a pettifogging argument. If there is any doubt about the bona fides or eligibility of anybody who has fought for any length of time in any Commonwealth Army, give him the benefit of the doubt. Why argue about it?
    The Home Secretary says that in addition to those who will come in as of right under Clause 2—students, those who have vouchers to do a job, and those who can support themselves—large numbers will be admitted under a quota. The ex-Service men and their dependants should have preferential rights under the quota, and if a mistake is made and somebody who does not come within the precise terms of some provision is admitted, what does it matter? Why not give him the benefit of the doubt? Surely that can be done if the Home Secretary is sincere in saying that he wants to carry out the provisions of the Bill in a humane and Liberal way. The hon. and learned Gentleman's arguments were inconsistent with that professed sincerity.
    Sir J. Lucas: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman knows this, but after the last war the Civil Defence people who stayed in Malaya were to be given only three months pay, whereas those who were put into khaki received full

    1193
    pay. I had four interviews with Lord Attlee and eventually got these Civil Defence people an ex-gratia payment of up to £1,500, less 10 per cent. The point was that the money could not be paid to any Civil Defence worker who was Malayan or Chinese, because, although thousands of people might have said who he was, there was no proof. It was, therefore, an ex-gratia payment for the white planters who had not been allowed to leave the island, because there were no papers or anything to prove that the Malayans and others had served.
    Mr. Renton: I have listened with great attention to the strong words used by the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher). I think that he has entirely missed the point of my speech.
    Mr. Fletcher: That is a matter for the Committee to judge. I appreciate what the hon. and learned Gentleman said. I have no doubt that it is true, and I have no doubt that some hon. Gentlemen opposite have genuine and sincere feelings about the Bill. This has been evident in some of their speeches, but I ask the Home Secretary to realise that in this Clause there is a serious point of principle which goes to the root of the good name of this country.
    I ask him again whether he does not think that we have reached the limit of degradation and shame to which this Bill will bring us in the eyes not only of our own people but of the Commonwealth? If there is any doubt about the eligibility of some of these people to come here, give them the benefit of the doubt. We were told that the object of the Bill was only to control numbers. The argument now being put forward shows that the desire is to reject as many as possible. Is this the Government's intention?
    The hon. and learned Gentleman said that he would give certain assurances. I hope that the Home Secretary will concede our claim and accept the new Clause. Failing that, I should like two more assurances. Will specific directions be given in the instructions to immigration officers—which we are told will be published on Friday—that sympathetic treatment must be given to the class of person referred to in the new Clause? Will that be made expressly clear?
    1194
    Secondly, may we have an assurance that no wounded ex-soldier who has served in any Commonwealth Army will be refused admission to this country on medical grounds? If we get those two assurances, they will go some way towards redressing the harm which the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech has done.
    7.0 p.m.
    Mr. D. Foot: I intervene for only one moment, the more so as I have been reminded that I have not been present throughout the discussion.
    It seemed to me that, in his reply, the hon. and learned Gentleman really put his finger on one of the principal weaknesses in the Bill. He was dealing with what everyone agrees is an extremely deserving class of person. Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee feel that way and we all desire to help these people if we can. But the hon. and learned Gentleman could only say that instructions would be given to the immigration officers to deal sympathetically with this class of case.
    The point I make is that there is no kind of safeguard in the Bill as to how these instructions are to be carried out. The Government have turned down any suggestion of appeal, or review of a decision of the immigration officers. The matter is left entirely in the discretion of the officer himself. He does not need to give any reason; he does not need even to discuss the matter with the immigrant concerned; the decision is his and for whatever reason he gives.
    Whatever instructions may be given, there are bound to be very great discrepancies in practice between one immigration officer and another. We may well find that one immigration officer would give very great weight to the sort of considerations which are contemplated in the Clause and be disposed to admit any immigrant who had served in the Armed Forces during the war or a relative of any such immigrant. We may well find that another immigration officer will give less weight to these considerations. There are bound to be great discrepancies in practice between one offices and another and it may well be between one port and another. A great deal may depend on the part at which an immigrant presents himself. That is the fundamental weakness of

    1195
    the Bill as drafted. Although the Government may give all kinds of instructions, we shall never know how these apply and the way in which, or the extent to which, the instructions are carried out.
    Mr. Thorpe: I hope that the logic of the argument which the Minister used in rejecting the new Clause will not commend itself to the Committee. His arguments really are incredible. He began by considering the Clause in detail. There may well be a case for saying that it would be preferable to drop the dependants, sisters, and so forth, but he, as a lawyer, will know that whenever one has a weak case one always starts by attacking one's opponent's pleadings.
    What we are interested in is not whether the Government think that the Clause is perfectly drafted, but whether they agree with the principle that those who served in the Commonwealth Forces should have preferential rights in coming into this country. I am sure that he would not wish to press that as an argument for rejecting the Clause.
    Another of the hon. and learned Gentleman's arguments was that there would be discrimination between those who volunteered and those who served in the Army as a result of being conscripted. I cannot feel that was a powerful argument which would cause the Committee to feel that the Clause should be rejected on that ground. Then the hon. and learned Gentleman said, "It is difficult to get proof. How can we know whether or not a man served in a Commonwealth Army?" I ask the Government whether they are seriously suggesting to the Committee that it is beyond the wit of a Commonwealth Government to issue any form of certificate to show that one of their citizens served in the Armed Forces during the war. Is that really what they are saying, because that is what this argument comes to?
    Even the French, who are not noticeably adroit in dealing with some of their administrative problems, have issued to every person who served during the war a certificate entitling that person to certain preferential treatment in trains, buses, and so forth. What the hon. and learned Gentleman is really
    1196
    saying is that it would be quite impossible for the Canadian Government, or the Indian Government, to issue to those coming to this country a certificate to the effect that for a certain period of time they served in the Armed Forces. That is really what he is saying and that is really the reason why he is asking the Committee to reject the Clause. That is a specious and fantastic allegation which shows little confidence in the administration of fellow members of the Commonwealth.
    The Minister used another argument. He said that if formal proof had to be given this might make it more embarrassing. It might well be that the immigrant would have to go into much more detail. If a form of certificate were issued by Commonwealth Governments, which they all recognised and accepted, it seems to me that on presentation of such a certificate, entry would be merely a formality. Quite the reverse would obtain from the procedure which the hon. and learned Gentleman envisages.
    I therefore beg the Government not to base their argument on the theory that there is a difference between conscripts and volunteers. Possibly the Clause could have been better drafted. But the hon. and learned Gentleman should come out fairly and squarely and say that the Government accept the principle of preferential entry for those who have been in the Armed Forces and that when this wretched Bill comes back for Report and Third Reading they will move an Amendment to that effect.
    Mr. C. Royle: On a point of order, Sir Robert. Just before you occupied the Chair I raised with your predecessor in the Chair the question whether he could accept a manuscript Amendment to the new Clause. I had the impression that he was considering the matter while the debate was going on. I wonder whether a decision has yet been reached.
    The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Robert Grimston): The Chairman has spoken to me about that, and he has refused to accept a manuscript Amendment.
    Mr. Renton: This discussion has proceeded on a broad basis and I shall certainly not hold it against the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) that the Clause does not refer to the First World War.
    Mr. Lipton: I was hoping that we would have some further indication of the Government's view on the Clause before the debate ends. I am sorry that despite some of the arguments adduced in favour of the Clause the Government still seem to be adamant. The Home Secretary has, apparently, not seen fit to take part in the discussion or announce any progress beyond the completely negative attitude that has been displayed by his hon. and learned Friend, who attempted to give the Government's point of view on the Clause.
    I do not think that we have ever heard such a tissue of weak and unrelated arguments against a Clause as those produced by the hon. and learned Gentleman. Here is a straightforward and simple issue. He says, in reply to our demand, "We shall consider it with sympathy." My attitude is: to hell with sympathy; we want a definite recognition of an elementary principle of justice that if a man is considered good enough to fight for a country he should be allowed to come into that country. This is the short point that the Clause seeks to establish.
    I am quite willing to make whatever concession the Government may demand in respect of the relatives, whose relationship may be difficult to establish, but I must insist upon an assurance being given that a man who has served in the Armed Forces of the Crown in defence of this country—any Commonwealth citizen, white or coloured—shall not be subjected to whatever restrictions it may be considered desirable to impose in the case of other categories of Commonwealth citizen.
    Unless the Government are prepared to say that the Bill shall not apply to ex-Service men, whether they have survived whole or in part, I shall ask all my right hon. and hon. Friends, and anyone on the other side of the Committee who is prepared to translate into practice the fine-sounding words that so many of them have used from time to time on behalf of men in the Services, to vote for the Clause. I hope that
    every hon. Member to whom I make this last appeal will express his disgust with the Government's negative attitude to the Clause.
    Mr. Fletcher: I take it that the Home Secretary's studied silence is a measure of his acute embarrassment. If he leaves the debate unanswered, I hope that he will not continue to tell us that the provisions of the Bill will be administered in a humane and liberal manner.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: In response to the attractive invitation of the hon. Member I will only say that I have listened purposely to every minute of the debate, which, naturally, arouses great feelings of sentiment. I have nothing to add to what my hon. and learned Friend has said. He has undertaken to review the matter in the light of the instructions that we may give immigration officers. I am also quite ready to look into the question of wounds and medical fitness. That is a point of substance.
    The other points which have been raised are extremely difficult ones. There is great difficulty in making legal distinction. One hon. Member has agreed that it is extremely difficult to find a way to include dependants, because immigration officers will not be able to act in this matter. If the hon. Member wishes to take the matter to a Division he must do so. I can do no more than say that we will consider very carefully all that has been said.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Can consideration be given to extending the administrative leniency which is to be given to ex-Service men from those who have served in the two world wars to those who have served in any Commonwealth war?
    Mr. Butler: I would have to give consideration to that point. It is typical of the many difficult points that arise on the Clause.
    Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 183, Noes, 223.

    Division No. 85.]

    AYES

    [7.13 p.m.

    Abse, Leo

    Baird, John

    Blackburn, F.

    Alnsley, William

    Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)

    Blyton, William

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Beaney, Alan

    Boardman, H.

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics. S.W.)

    Awbery, Stan

    Benson, Sir George

    Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)

    Bowles, Frank

    Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

    Hoy, James H.

    Probert, Arthur

    Brockway, A. Fenner

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Proctor W. T.

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Randall, Harry

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Rankin, John

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Hunter, A. E.

    Rhodes, H.

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Callaghan, James

    Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

    Ross, William

    Cattle, Mrs. Barbara

    Janner, Sir Barnett

    Royle, Charles (Salford, West)

    Chapman, Donald

    Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

    Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

    Cliffs, Michael

    Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

    Short, Edward

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Cronin, John

    Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Crosland, Anthony

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Skeffington, Arthur

    Cullen, Mrs. Alice

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Kelley, Richard

    Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

    Deer, George

    Kenyon, Clifford

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Delargy, Hugh

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Snow, Julian

    Dempsey, James

    Lawson, George

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Diamond, John

    Ledger, Ron

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Dodds, Norman

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Donnelly, Desmond

    Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

    Steele, Thomas

    Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

    Lipton, Marcus

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

    Edelman, Maurice

    Loughlin, Charles

    Stonehouse, John

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Stones, William

    Evans, Albert

    MacColl, James

    Symonds, J. B.

    Fitch, Alan

    McInnes, James

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Fletcher, Eric

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

    Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)

    Mackle, John (Enfield, East)

    Thomas, lot-worth (Rhondda, w.)

    Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

    Mahon, Simon

    Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

    Forman, J. C.

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

    Thorpe, Jeremy

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Manuel, A. C.

    Timmons, John

    Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Mapp, Charles

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    Marsh, Richard

    Wade, Donald

    George, Lady Megan Lloyd(Crmrthn)

    Mason, Roy

    Wainwright, Edwin

    Ginsburg, David

    Mayhew, Christopher

    Warbey, William

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    Mendelson, J. J.

    Watkins, Tudor

    Gourlay, Harry

    Millan, Bruce

    Weitzman, David

    Milne, Edward

    Grey, Charles

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Monslow, Walter

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.

    Morris, John

    Whitlock, William

    Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

    Moyle, Arthur

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Neal, Harold

    Willey, Frederick

    Hamilton, William (West Fife)

    Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

    Williams, D. J. (Neath)

    Hnnan, William

    Oliver, G. H.

    Williams, LI. (Abertillery)

    Hart, Mrs. Judith

    Oram, A. E.

    Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

    Hayman, F. H.

    Oswald, Thomas

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

    Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur(Rwly Regis)

    Padley, W. E.

    Wilton, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

    Herbison, Miss Margaret

    Parker, John

    Winterbottom, R. E.

    Hewitson, Capt. M.

    Paton, John

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Hill, J. (Midlothian)

    Pavitt, Laurence

    Woof, Robert

    Hilton, A. V.

    Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

    Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

    Holman, Percy

    Peart, Frederick

    Holt, Arthur

    Pentland, Norman

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Houghton, Douglas

    Popplewell, Ernest

    Mr. Redbead and Mr. Ifor Davies.

    Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)

    Prentice, R. E.

    NOES

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    Buck, Antony

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver

    Aitken, W. T.

    Bullard, Denys

    Curran, Charles

    Arbuthnot, John

    Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Ashton, Sir Hubert

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

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Atkins, Humphrey

    Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

    Dance, James

    Barlow, Sir John

    Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

    Deedes, W. F.

    Barter, John

    Cary, Sir Robert

    de Ferranti, Basil

    Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)

    Channon, H. P. G.

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

    Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

    Chataway, Christopher

    Doughty, Charles

    Berkeley, Humphry

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Drayson, G. B.

    Biffen, John

    Clark, William (Nottingham, s.)

    Duncan, Sir James

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

    Eden, John

    Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

    Cleaver, Leonard

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    Bishop, F. P.

    Cole, Norman

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Black, Sir Cyril

    Collard, Richard

    Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.

    Bossom, Clive

    Cooke, Robert

    Farey-Jones, F. W.

    Bourne-Arton, A.

    Cooper, A. E.

    Fair, John

    Box, Donald

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

    Finlay, Graeme

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J.

    Corfield, F. V.

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Costain, A. P.

    Forrest, George

    Brewis, John

    Coulson, Michael

    Freeth, Denzil

    Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

    Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

    Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

    Brooman-White, R.

    Craddock, Sir Beresford

    Gammans, Lady

    Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

    Critchley, Julian

    George, J. C. (Pollok)

    1200

    1201

    Gibson-Watt, David

    Linstead, Sir Hugh

    Renton, David

    Gilmour, Sir John

    Litchfield, Capt. John

    Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

    Goodhew, Victor

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

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Gough, Frederick

    Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

    Roots, William

    Gower, Raymond

    Loveys, Walter H.

    Russell, Ronald

    Grant, Bt. Hon. William

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Gram-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Seymour, Leslie

    Green, Alan

    McAdden, Stephen

    Sharples, Richard

    Gurden, Harold

    McLaren, Martin

    Shaw, M.

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia

    Shepherd, William

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

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

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Harrison, Brian (Maiden)

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

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

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

    MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

    Smithers, Peter

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

    McMaster, Stanley R.

    Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

    Hastings, Stephen

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Stanley, Hon. Richard

    Hay, John

    Maginnis, John E.

    Stevens, Geoffrey

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

    Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

    Hendry, Forbes

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    Stodart, J. A.

    Hiley, Joseph

    Marlowe, Anthony

    Storey, Sir Samuel

    Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

    Marten, Neil

    Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)

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

    Mawby, Ray

    Tapsell, Peter

    Hocking, Philip N.

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Holland, Philip

    Mills, Stratton

    Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)

    Hollingworth, John

    Montgomery, Fergus

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

    Hopkins, Alan

    More, Jasper (Ludlow)

    Temple, John M.

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

    Morgan, William

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

    Morrison, John

    Thomas, Peter (Conway)

    Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

    Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Hughes-Young, Michael

    Nabarro, Gerald

    Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

    Tiley, Arthur (Bradord, W.)

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Osborn, John (Hallam)

    Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

    Turner, Colin

    James, David

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Page, John (Harrow, West)

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Jennings, J. C.

    Panned, Norman (Kirkdale)

    Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

    Partridge, E.

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Pearson, Frank (Ciltheroe)

    Walder, David

    Peel, John

    Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

    Percival, Ian

    Walker, Peter

    Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)

    Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

    Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek

    Joseph, Sir Keith

    Pilkington, Sir Richard

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

    Pitman, Sir James

    Webster, David

    Kerby, Capt. Henry

    Pitt, Miss Edith

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Kitson, Timothy

    Pott, Percivall

    Whitelaw, William

    Lagden, Godfrey

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

    Leather, E. H. C.

    Prior, J. M. L.

    Wise, A. R.

    Leavey, J. A.

    Proudfoot, Wilfred

    Woodhouse, C. M.

    Leburn, Gilmour

    Pym, Francis

    Woodnutt, Mark

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

    Quennell, Miss J. M.

    Worsley, Marcus

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Rawlinson, Peter

    Lilley, F. J. P.

    Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES

    Lindsay, Sir Martin

    Rees, Hugh

    Mr. Gordon Campbell and

    Mr. Michael Hamilton.

    New Clause.—(COMMONWEALTH IMMIGRATION ADVISORY COUNCIL.)
    (1) There shall be constituted a Council, to be called the Commonwealth Immigration Advisory Council, to give advice and assistance to the Home Secretary in connection with his duties under this Act and to give advice and assistance to other Ministers in connection with any duties which they may have in relation to the welfare and well-being of Commonwealth immigrants into this country.
    (2) The Home Secretary may from time to time refer to the said Council for consideration and advice such questions relating to the operation of this Act as he thinks fit (including questions as to the advisability of amending this Act).
    (3) The Home Secretary and the other Ministers shall furnish the Council with such information as they may reasonably require for the proper discharge of their functions under this Act.
    (4) The Council shall consist of not less than fifteen and not more than twenty members who shall be appointed by the Home Secretary.
    (5) The members of the Council shall include—

    (a) five persons recommended by the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations after consultation with the other Governments of the Commonwealth.

    (b) three persons recommended by the Minister of Housing and Local Government with special experience of the problems of settlement of immigrants in this country.

    (6) Members of Parliament shall be eligible for appointment to the Council.
    (7) There shall be a chairman appointed by the Home Secretary.
    (8) Members of the Council appointed under subsections (5) and (6) of this section shall not be eligible to be Chairman.
    (9) The terms of appointment of the Chairman and Members of the Council shall be such as the Home Secretary may determine.
    (10) The Home Secretary shall appoint a Secretary to the Council, and may appoint such other officers and such servants to the Council, and there shall be paid to them such salaries and allowances as the Minister may with the consent of the Treasury determine.
    (11) The Home Secretary may, out of moneys provided by Parliament, pay to the Chairman and Members of the Council and to persons attending meetings at the request of the Council, such allowances as he may, with the approval of the Treasury, determine in respect of travelling and subsistence expenses and in respect of other expenses (if any) necessarily incurred by them for the purpose of enabling them to discharge their duties as members of the Council.
    (12) The Council shall make an annual report to the Home Secretary on their proceedings and the Home Secretary shall lay that report before Parliament with such comments (if any) as he thinks fit.—[Mr. Deedes.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. W. F. Deedes: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
    I hope that this proposal will find a wider measure of agreement than have some other parts of the Bill. What is perhaps more important, I hope that it may appear to the Committee to be a constructive addition to what inevitably has had to be a rather restricted Measure.
    This Clause denies nobody anything. It offers a service which could be most valuable to the immigrants and to this country. I wish to stress the positive intentions which we have here in mind, and I feel sure that the Home Secretary will agree with them. Advisory councils or committees like this are used to meet all kinds of political difficulties, but that is not the idea here. I believe that this body, properly used, could materially assist in a most difficult job, and I will briefly tell the Committee why.
    From the time when a Measure such as this became probable, some of us had hoped that the occasion would be used to improve the somewhat haphazard arrangements governing the entry of people from the Commonwealth. There is a danger which arises from free entry, in that it implies that no problem exists at all, and some people are persuaded from taking sensible administrative steps in certain respects. The reception of immigrants up to now has been casual almost to a degree and has been left a great deal to voluntary bodies, which have been doing good work. I am sometimes surprised, not at the difficulties which have been engendered, but by the fact that some difficulties have not been greater.
    1204
    A council on the lines suggested acknowledges that difficulties exist. It would become the focal point for those willing and able—there are many admirable voluntary bodies which are most anxious and are able to do so—to lend a hand not merely to those who are still to come to this country but to those who are already here. It may be that the Ministries feel that between them they cover the front and that such a council would constitute a sort of fifth wheel. I cannot agree.
    The Ministry of Labour would have its problems over the voucher system. The Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance, the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Education and, of course, the Home Office, would all have problems in their own spheres. There is no intention here to interfere with any Ministerial functions. But it would be foolish to pretend that there is not a vast amount of welfare information, guidance, advice and care which falls between all those Departments and, as the Bill now stands, is not being met.
    My right hon. Friend will be aware that some time ago, before this new Clause was put down, the Home Office was being urged by the National Council of Social Service to establish a committee on these lines; that is, a body to bring the statutory Departments and voluntary organisations concerned with this work in different parts of the county into closer touch with each other. Some proposals on these lines were put forward by the National Council of Social Service group for the well-being of coloured workers, and the chairman, Sir John Wrigley, is not without experience of public administration. Indeed, a strong case was made out.
    I do not envisage that this council would sit in London simply receiving information and dispensing advice. I hope that a considerable part of its work would be to go to places where immigrants live in larger numbers; study the problems at first-hand and receive a great deal of evidence which voluntary bodies could bring and present in a proper form. As I see it, the Home Secretary ought to be able to refer to this council all the specific problems which might lie a little outside the range of his Department. He then would, or should, get answers not related to the

    1205
    policies of a particular Ministry but something nearer to a neutral answer. I think that that neutral role is important. There is value in having a body to act as referee, as a neutral umpire, in many of the social problems which will arise.
    I warn my right hon. Friend—I am sure that he is aware of it—that between now and the end of 1963 he will receive a great volume of information and counsel, much of it conflicting, about how this Measure is working out. Some of that advice will be excellent, some of it will be tittle-tattle. The council would help to sort the one from the other, with no sort of vested interest or representation from any particular Department to influence such advice.
    It is possible that some will declare that the very proposal to establish such a council admits or emphasises the colour problem, and I wish to touch on that, because it does. Were we dealing simply with Canadians, New Zealanders or White Rhodesians, such a council as this would at least be less necessary. I hope that no one will misinterpret that or make heavy weather of it. Had we admitted openly a little earlier that here there were social problems which ought to be and were to be met, it is conceivable that this Bill, at least in its present form, would have been less necessary. No one would level an accusation of colour prejudice against the British Council, which has been doing admirable work quietly for a long time on behalf of coloured students.
    The council might have valuable functions in the review of this Measure and its working which will have to take place in eighteen months' time. I am more concerned with the functions of this body than with its composition. I am quite willing to admit that we have probably got this wrong and will willingly accept any changes which might be offered, but the functions seem important.
    The Committee must surely recognise by now that as it stands the Bill will not solve the main problem on our hands. It may reduce the level of the flood of immigrants which we have experienced this last year to more manageable dimensions. The fact remains, however, that we already have a very large
    1206
    number of immigrants and in all probability the numbers will increase. The fundamental problem is not one of restriction at the ports, but of assimilation in our society.
    7.30 p.m.
    This Bill as it stands will not go a long way towards meeting that problem; it is not designed to do so. We are at grips here with a vast social and historical problem which elsewhere and at other times has had enormous repercussions. Those who for any reason blink at that fact are no real friends of the coloured people. Such a council would make only a tiny contribution to an immense problem, but I think it might be a practical and positive one not only for our own people but for immigrants themselves. I hope that the Committee may be persuaded to see it in that way.
    Mr. James MacColl: I wish very warmly to support what the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) has said. Both in the specific proposal for having an advisory council of some sort—I do not want to spend a lot of time arguing details of its composition—and also to one coming to this problem with a different point of view and very strongly opposed to the Bill root and branch, this emphasises an important question.
    The hon. Member was absolutely right in saying that unless we are to deport all immigrants we shall still have a difficult problem of assimilation. That problem is not substantially a problem of fact, or a problem of what are the acute physical difficulties, acute as they are. The problem is essentially and primarily a psychological one of getting people to realise the importance of living together. What is required far more than restrictions and regulations is the Government's identifying themselves more positively with the job of integrating communities.
    The hon. Member said that he thought one of the difficulties was that this might be criticised as being to some extent the acceptance of colour difference. I used to feel that very strongly. I have always resisted the tendency, which exists both among immigrants and natives, to drop too easily into the assumption that we are a society based on recognition of racial differences. It

    1207
    suggests that we ought to have a coloured representative in the citizens' advice bureau, a coloured welfare worker in a housing department, and so forth. That is wrong. We have to recognise that in this country we do not work on a basis of colour, but on the free rights of citizens to use services.
    Nevertheless, to bring home to people the importance of making an effort to understand each other it is necessary to have some kind of initiative from the Government. The hon. Member mentioned Sir John Wrigley's committee. I happen to be in a humble way, as it were, the "Sir John Wrigley" of London. I am chairman of the equivalent body, the London branch of the Council, dealing with problems of London. In going round the different areas and the Metropolitan boroughs trying to persuade people to have local community organisations and to look at these problems, we are again and again told that this is a job in which the Government ought to give a lead. We find that many local authorities are timid. Some have done great work in this field, but many are timid and are looking for a lead from the Government.
    I do not want in any way to underestimate what has been done by the Government, because we have worked in closest co-operation with officials of different Government Departments concerned with this problem. I could not pay too high a tribute to their keenness and the devotion to work which they have shown, but they do this mainly because they have a deep private and personal interest in the problem. What is required is for the Government to make it clear that they attach importance to the pooling of information about community problems and the acceptance locally of responsibility for those problems.
    There is a particular aspect I wish to mention. Earlier, we were talking about particular problems of students and the need for giving some advice and direction to people who are to administer this Measure about the part which education can play in training those from the Commonwealth. This is a field in which it seems that the Home Office will be groping—if I may be allowed to say so—rather blindly, in spite of the Secretary of State knowing a bit about education.
    1208
    It will be very difficult for them to see the picture of what kind of load of students can be taken in this country and what particular field needs students in the Commonwealth. We have to marry vacancies in this country with the demand for certain types of education and training in the Commonwealth.
    These are difficult problems which require the pooling of a great many different views. The views of people in the Commonwealth, the views of educationists here and the views of people who have to look at social problems created by bringing overseas students to this country all constitute a task requiring the focusing of very different viewpoints. That is work which an advisory council of this kind ought to do.
    I would welcome something on these lines, not that it would perform miracles, but because it would be a centre for pooling information. As the hon. Member said, it would be rather like the Central Housing Advisory Committee, which focuses the best opinion on problems connected with housing management. So, in the case of community living, this council could focus attention, pool it and spread it abroad. I think that that would be extremely valuable.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: I am sure that we are all obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) and the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) for the manner in which they have proposed and supported this new Clause. I have given considerable thought to it since it appeared on the Notice Paper and I have certain definite things to say about it.
    My attitude to the Clause has been adjusted slightly during the course of our discussions, especially in relation to the idea of a statutory council, because in certain respects the relationship of the Secretary of State to Parliament has been improved during the passage of the Bill through Committee. For example, the Bill is now to be reviewed at the end of next year after a comparatively short time in operation. Then it will be reviewable yearly in respect of Part I. That will bring the Secretary of State and other Ministers to Parliament more than was the case before.

    1209
    We have also written into the Bill a good many of the duties of the Secretary of State, notably in respect of residence, wives, children and students. That has improved the Bill in this respect. It would enable Parliament more easily to assess the way in which the Secretary of State carries out his duties. All this will be made clearer when, as I announced earlier this afternoon, we publish the instructions to the immigration officers on Friday of this week. Hon. Members can then read and study them.
    In the circumstances, the need for what I will describe as a statutory council seems to me to be less than when the Clause was originally put on the Notice Paper. There is also a basic difficulty, which is that when questions of policy arise in relation to the Bill they must be decided by the Government of the day. I am convinced that whatever body of right hon. or hon. Members formed the Government, they would take the same line and wish to be answerable to Parliament for questions on which they were responsible.
    It seems to me that, when my hon. Friend said that he did not wish the council he proposed to interfere with the functions of Ministers and referred rather more to welfare, he was really taking the same point as I am now taking. It would be wrong for an outside body to come to conclusions on broad issues such as I have mentioned—issues requiring the exercise of political judgment. It would be up to the Government to reach conclusions and then put them before the House.
    Further, we do not think that it is necessary for a council like this to be concerned with individual cases. Decisions on these must be taken by Ministers. They must be taken on the responsibility of the Minister concerned, who will be answerable for them to Parliament.
    But I should now like to go on to say, in answer to the two hon. Members who have so far intervened in the debate, that there may be particular problems in the operation of the Bill on which the Government would value advice from time to time. I do not have in mind broad issues of policy or individual cases, but rather such questions relating to the welfare of immigrants
    1210
    and, as my hon. Friend said, their assimilation into the community. For these and more limited purposes I do not think that we need what I will describe as a statutory body, with all the formality which that would involve.
    I suggest a plan on the following lines. First, I think that we can achieve what we really want by a small body of advisers being attached to the Secretary of State and appointed by him. Secondly, I contemplate that matters should be referred to this body by the Secretary of State ad referendum. I have in mind—this was mentioned by the hon. Member for Widnes; this shows that we are moving on the same lines—my Advisory Council on the Treatment of Offenders, which has examined the many difficult matters referred to it.
    I should like to say here that my hon. and learned Friend the new Solicitor-General, who had put his name to the Clause before his appointment, has been a most useful member of my Advisory Council and I should like to say how much we shall miss his services on the Council. I have every reason to believe that he is in sympathy with what I am now saying that something in the nature of an advisory council would meet the main objectives of the Clause.
    The third feature of the proposal I am making is that, for the reasons I have explained, this body should concern itself largely with questions of welfare. My hon. Friend said that such a body should go places and see for itself. That may be a very valuable feature of its activity. I believe that the sponsors of the Clause are animated by their desire to see immigrants assimilated properly into our society.
    I should like to acknowledge here the excellent work done for the welfare of immigrants, not only under our local authorities, but by organisations such as that of which the hon. Member for Widnes is chairman, the London Council of Social Services, and also the Standing Conference of Councils of Social Services. I especially recommend the work they do. I think, also, of the work done by the High Commissioners' offices, the work we attempt to do in Government offices, and the work done by voluntary societies.
    But what has impressed me, not only when I was Minister of Education but

    1211
    also when I was Minister of Labour and now more particularly at the Home Office, is that there is not a great deal of correlation or co-ordination between all the worthy bodies which work in this field. I cannot but feel that it would be helpful to have some small advisory body to whom the Secretary of State could turn when issues arise which cause him or the public concern.
    7.45 p.m.
    The hon. Member for Widnes mentioned students. The new Clause on students has not been called, but I dare say there will be an opportunity of discussing students more on Report. I would not exclude referring questions concerning the welfare of students to this body, although it would have to be careful not to cross the wires with the British Council, the Department of Technical Co-operation, which has worked for students in a very forward way since it has been appointed, and other agents at present working for the good welfare of students.
    I may be asked what is the body I have in mind and what its nature would be. First, it would be small. It would not consist of representative interests or countries, but would be independent and impartial. It would not deal with individual cases. It would deal with them only in so far as they came into the field of welfare. However, the body would be available for the Secretary of State to refer matters to, and, in particular, questions affecting the welfare of immigrants in the consideration of which Her Majesty's Government feel that impartial help would be of value.
    If my hon. Friends feel that something on these lines would be helpful, I would proceed to work something out on these lines. I think that that is the most efficient way to deal with this matter—in an informal, but yet practical, way. If we did this, it might give confidence to many who feel anxious about the operation of the Bill. It is because the Clause has been put forward in that spirit that I would endeavour to respond in as constructive a way as possible.
    Mr. Lipton: Before the Home Secretary concludes, will he clarify one point? He referred to the London Conference of Social Services, with which my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr.
    1212
    MacColl) is associated. He referred also to the High Commission for the West Indies in London, where, as he knows, there is a very excellent migrant services division which has been doing very good work for a number of years and which is to be expanded for the purpose of co-operating with the Government in the working out of the Bill. Can the Home Secretary tell us to what extent, if at all, these two bodies and any other appropriate bodies will be brought into the Advisory Council to which he has just referred, and which he asks us to accept in place of the body proposed in the Clause?
    Mr. R. A. Butler: I would not suggest that this body should take over the work of these agencies. We must be sure that the main work is devolved, because personal attention to the needs of immigrants will be assured only if this work is devolved and done humanely by the bodies which understand it. All I think the advisory council could do would be to bring certain matters to the attention of the Secretary of State and, if he had matters which concerned him, he would refer it to this body, which would put itself in touch with the other agencies.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: Before the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) rises to withdraw the Clause, as I believe he is about to do, may I say, on behalf of some of my hon. Friends, that we are very glad that the Home Secretary has seen his way to meet the suggestion underlying the Clause, at any rate partially. There is no doubt that some sort of Advisory Council would be helpful to whoever fills the office the right hon. Gentleman now occupies.
    On reading the Clause, I felt that it did not cover same of the points which I should like it to cover. For example, there is a reference to the three persons to be recommended for appointment to the council by the Minister of Housing and Local Government. I should have thought that the Minister of Labour would have had something to say and should have been included and have had the right to appoint members to the Advisory Council, if it had been set up and the Home Secretary had accepted the Clause.
    Therefore, perhaps the Clause as it stands is not entirely satisfactory.

    1213
    Nevertheless, something ought to be done and I am delighted that the Home Secretary has met the hon. Member for Ashford and his hon. Friends at any rate half-way. When the constitution of the Advisory Council which the Home Secretary has promised us is drawn up. will he be willing to make it something a little wider than merely to deal with welfare?
    There are, occasionally—and undoubtedly there will be in the future—other questions on which such an Advisory Council could usefully proffer advice, and it would be a pity were it to be confined solely to welfare. That would not give the Home Secretary of the day very much elbow room. I therefore hope that the right hon. Gentleman will allow the constitution of any body which is set up to be wide enough to include advice on other matters.
    Mr. Deedes: I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for his response to this proposal, and in view of the nature of his reply I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
    Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause.—(APPLICATION TO MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT.)
    This Act shall not apply to the admission or re-admission of members of either House of Parliament of the United Kingdom.—[Mr. B. Harrison.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. Brian Harrison: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
    I must, first, declare my interest. I am a Commonwealth citizen and, although I am a British subject, I travel on an Australian passport. I am not alone in that. A number of hon. Members travel on Canadian passports, and at least one travels on a New Zealand one. There is even a wider range in another place, where there is an Australian, a Rhodesian and an Indian—all, presumably, travelling on their own country's passport but able to sit as Members in the United Kingdom Parliament. It is to look after their privileges that I have tabled this new Clause.
    Some will say, "You are fully entitled as a resident of the country to
    1214
    have an ordinary British passport", but a number of us, in the same way as do Welshmen and Scotsmen, take a certain pride in being able to remain Australians, Rhodesians, Indians, or whatever it may be.
    I have an additional reason for liking to retain my Australian passport—I find it such tremendous fun when travelling across America. When one arrives in North America the immigration officials say, "Oh, yes, Mr. Harrison, you are, going off to Canberra?" I reply, "No, I am going to Australia, but I am returning to Westminster". They say, "But you are travelling on an Australian passport". I answer, "Yes, but I am a Member of the United Kingdom Houses of Parliament". By that time they are so confused that they just cannot work out how somebody can be at once an Australian and a Member of the British House of Commons. They then either get their superior officer to interrogate me, or throw up their hands and give it away as something that only the mad British can understand.
    The Committee will recall that each Session we pass a Sessional Order
    "That the Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis do take care that during the Session of Parliament the passages through the streets leading to this House be kept free and open…"
    and that there are no obstructions. A Clause such as this would make it possible to widen that principle to entry or re-entry into this country—
    Mr. S. Silverman: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the Committee whether he voted for the Second Reading of this Bill? If he did, why does he claim to be exempt from its provisions himself?
    Mr. Harrison: There are times when Members of Parliament do have special privileges. I have given the example of the Sessional Order that the House passes at the beginning of each Session—though one has noticed that there have been unfortunate occasions when the Metropolitan Police have not assisted at all Members of Parliament in, possibly, the way they expect.
    There have been cases where hon. Members have been recalled to this country to take part in important Divisions. A not benevolent Government

    1215
    might—although I do not suggest that a Government formed by any parties present in this House of Commons would do so—use this Measure to delay some hon. Member coming in—
    Mr. John Diamond Mr. John Diamond (Gloucester) rose—
    Mr. Harrison: The time is so short that the hon. Gentleman must excuse me.
    An hon. Member would first have to prove that he could support himself and, on the salary that Members of Parliament get, some hon. Members would say that that would be difficult. I understand that certain representations have been made on that score. Whether or not a noble Lord would be able to prove that he could support himself is a matter that is open to doubt, unless he carried an accountant's certificate. One would have to prove that one was coming to take a job. Presumably, being a Member of Parliament is regarded as a job, but it might be open to dispute. Owing to the shortness of the time available, I cannot take this very much further, but I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider very carefully whether this new Clause should not be included in the Bill.
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Sir Robert, my hon. Friend—
    Mr. Diamond: On a point of order, Sir Robert. Is it not within the normal rules that speakers are selected alternately from either side of the Chamber?
    The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Robert Grimston): It is, but as the time is so short I thought that it might be for the convenience of the Committee to hear what the Government had to say.
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: I shall try to take only two minutes and leave two minutes to the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond). Because of the Amendment in Clause 2, my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. Harrison) and others like him will be in no danger of having to submit to the controls of this Measure because residents, as they are, are to be admitted freely, even though they carry an Australian or Canadian passport, or whatever passport it may be. Since all Members of Parliament are resident, and
    1216
    as, presumably, all Members of Parliament pay the taxes of residents, and so on, they get exemption by the Amendment moved by my right hon. Friend at an earlier stage.
    There are one or two Commonwealth peers who are not residents, but it will be seen from the instructions that are to be published in the White Paper that immigration officers will be instructed to admit without question any Member of either House of Parliament. I therefore think that my hon. Friend's important design, which has been put forward with such fervour, is sufficiently covered by the Amendment to Clause 2, or will be by the instructions. It is not usual to exempt by Statute Members of Parliament from our ordinary law, and I do not think that we need go further than that.
    Mr. Diamond: First, everyone will agree, I am sure, that it is most objectionable that Members of Parliament should be denied the opportunity of understanding what their constituents and other people have to undergo. One of the best ways to help us discharge our duty is that we should undergo what every one else has to undergo.
    Secondly, the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Harrison) has not demonstrated why his blood is different from that of other members of the Commonwealth, in the ordinary sense, and why, when he goes to Pakistan, he is incapable of contracting smallpox or anything else as is alleged of others. Further, will he, as a member of the Conservative Party, be able to demonstrate to the immigration officer that she is not suffering from mental disorder?
    Mr. B. Harrison: In view of the nature of the reply I have received, Sir Robert, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
    Hon. Members: No.
    Question put and negatived.

    First Schedule.—(SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS AS TO CONTROL OF IMMIGRATION.)
    8.0 p.m.
    Mr. MacColl: I beg to move, in page 15, line 14, after "information", to insert "in his possession".

    1217
    We come now to what is really an extremely unpleasant part of the Bill. We have been having a pleasant and congenial discussion on the subjects of unversity education in Britain for Commonwealth students and the care and welfare of immigrants, and so on. But now we come right down into the sordid atmosphere of what I think, is in danger of becoming a police State. It is the atmosphere of finding oneself lined up in miserable queues being quizzed by an official before one can come into what one has regarded as being one's own country. All this is happening while the boat train is liable to go at any moment and, amid this atmosphere of rush and tension, one is suddenly asked all sorts of awkward questions to which one does not happen to have the answers.
    The first part of the Schedule deals with the obtaining of information from intending immigrants and states that
    "…it shall be the duty of every such person to furnish to an immigration officer such information as that officer may require for the purpose of his functions under this paragraph."
    The hon. and learned Gentleman the Minister of State, who is a distinguished lawyer, will no doubt say that it is possible for a person to apply to the divisional court possibly for a prerogative writ to prevent the immigration officer from asking for information on the ground that the officer does not require it for the purpose of his function.
    It is not in this atmosphere that these matters are discussed. An immigrant in the position I have described does not discuss whether he might go to the Divisional Court, for the boat train might be waiting to leave and he desperately wants to know whether or not he is to be allowed into the country. Thus, we want to make it absolutely clear that it is not possible for an immigration officer to delay a person by asking for information which that person does not have. Naturally it is reasonable for him to ask for information which the person has, but obviously to seek information which he does not have is not reasonable.
    While the Amendment is short it is by no means unimportant. I am asking that the words "in his possession" should be included after the word "information".
    Mr. Renton: My advice to the Committee is to accept the Amendment. There can be no harm in making it clear in the Bill that no one should be required to produce information which he does not possess.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Wade: I beg to move in page 15, line 14, after "may", to insert "reasonably".
    I hope that this Amendment will meet with the same excellent result as did the previous one. At present, the Schedule reads that
    "…every such person to furnish to an immigration officer such information as that officer may require…"
    The addition of "reasonably", as suggested in the Amendment, would make those words read:
    "…every such person to furnish to an immigration officer such information as that officer may reasonably require…"
    The purpose of the Amendment is to add the word "reasonably" concerning the information which the immigration officer requires. This word is not unknown in our legislation and it would indicate that the officer should carry out his duties as fairly and reasonably as possible. It would help in the application of the duties required of him as a result of the Bill if the word "reasonably" were inserted.
    It is unnecessary for me to pursue this further, because if the word is not inserted one can foresee circumstances where the immigration officer—perhaps being rather tired towards the end of the day—might act somewhat unreasonably. For the protection of immigrants this word should be included.
    Mr. S. Silverman: It seems that this is not a purely verbal Amendment, because it is enacted in the Bill that to refuse information which the immigration officer requires is an offence. If the word "reasonably" is not inserted a defendant charged with such an offence would have no defence whatever once it was established that the immigration officer had, in fact, required the information.
    If the Amendment is accepted the prosecution will have to prove that the immigration officer was not acting arbitrarily but reasonably. It is, therefore, a substantial and necessary Amendment.
    Mr. Raymond Gower: Would this not be covered by the phrase,
    "…for the purpose of his functions…"?
    Mr. Silverman: The question is whether he is reasonable or not reasonable in thinking that it is for those purposes. The point is just the same.
    Mr. Renton: My advice to the Committee is also to accept this Amendment. I think that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) has made a point that is worth repeating, for this is not merely a drafting matter.
    It is inconceivable that an immigration officer would ask a question which was not relevant to his functions under the Bill, but there could be a dispute as to whether or not a particular question was strictly relevant to those functions. By adding the word "reasonably" we enable the courts to decide the matter more easily. For the reasons advanced by both the hon. Gentleman the Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) and the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne it is right that we should make the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Fletcher: I beg to move, in page 15, line 19, after "required", to insert "in writing".
    It is satisfactory to know that we are steadily improving this Schedule, although we have not made much improvement to the remainder of the Bill. I hope that the Government will feel disposed also to accept this Amendment.
    The scheme of the Schedule is that the immigration officer may presumably examine anyone who comes in and then, if he wishes to, pursue a more detailed or more thorough examination. In this case he must, within 24 hours of the time when the immigrant landed, tell the immigrant that he proposes to submit him to further examination. Various consequences flow if the immigrant does not comply with such a demand.
    To avoid any possibility of doubt arising, the object of the Amendment is to ensure that if the immigration officer is not satisfied and does not pass the immigrant at first sight—and wants to detain him for a period of more than 24 hours—he should tell the immigrant
    1220
    so in writing. Let there be no doubt about it. Let there be a formal notice so that the immigrant knows precisely where he stands, what he must do, where he must go and for what purpose he is to be examined.
    It is not good enough to lay down by Act of Parliament that, provided a person is passed within 24 hours, he is free, subject to the conditions imposed, to stay as long as he likes but that someone else told to stand for further examination can be left in doubt about his position. There should be no doubt. He should be given a specific notice in writing telling him that he is supposed to stay behind, why he is supposed to stay behind and where he should go.
    Mr. Renton: I am glad to advise the Committee that in our opinion this Amendment should also be accepted.
    Clearly, if there is to be any dispute about whether or not someone was detained for further examination, then it is right from the practical point of view and possibly from the point of view of proof later on in the event of the matter coming to court that it should be put in writing. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the suggestion.
    Mr. Chapman: I do not wish to delay the Committee, but I feel that the hon. and learned Gentleman might have been more forthcoming and said also that we wish to be sure that any immigrant who is detained at our ports in this way is not left at the end of a bureaucratic string for 24 hours not knowing why he has been detained. One good reason for having this put in writing is that anyone kept waiting will be fully informed, able to understand why it is done and what redress he may have at the end of it.
    Mr. Renton: The reason for a person being detained for further examination will in any event have been explained by the immigration officer with his usual courtesy and understanding. Here we are dealing not merely with courtesy and understanding but with a specific power which may be important from the point of view of formal proof. We feel that, if somebody is to be detained in this way, it is right that the matter should be put in writing.
    Amendment agreed to.
    8.15 p.m.
    Mr. Wade: I beg to move, in page 15, line 21, to leave out sub-paragraph (3).
    The Deputy-Chairman: Together with this Amendment we may discuss the following further Amendments:
    In page 15, line 34, to leave out subparagraph (4).
    In page 15, line 41, to leave out from "inspector" to the end of line 44.
    In page 15, to leave out lines 42 to 44.
    A Division will be called only on the Amendment which the hon. Gentleman has moved.
    Mr. Wade: This is more than a probing Amendment. We are anxious to know the reasons for sub-paragraph (3). We have now made the major decisions on the Bill. We know that there will be control of immigration by Commonwealth citizens, but we are concerned with the procedure and we are anxious to know how it will work.
    As I understand it, an immigrant will he called upon to show that he is entitled to enter He will be asked for his passport, for his voucher to show that he has a job, or for such other evidence as is required to satisfy the immigration officer. If the immigrant does not satisfy the immigration officer, presumably he will not be admitted, but I cannot understand why this further examination should take place. Why should he be called upon to declare
    "whether or not he is carrying or conveying any documents"?
    It is not a reference to documents relevant to the question whether the person is an immigrant who should be allowed to enter; the reference is to any document of any kind. Further, it is provided that
    "the power to examine any such person shall include power to search him and any baggage belonging to him or under his control with a view to ascertaining whether he is carrying or conveying any documents".
    This is a very wide power of search. We assume that these immigrants are not criminals. If they are suspected criminals, other factors come into play. They are not persons who, for security reasons, we think should not be allowed to enter.
    1222
    We are dealing with the ordinary case of a Commonwealth citizen from 'the West Indies or wherever it may be who wishes to come to this country. For some reason or other, he does not satisfy the immigration officer that he has the proper papers. Why, for that reason, should the immigration officer have the right to call upon him to declare what documents of any kind he has in his possession and follow that up by searching all his baggage as if he were someone trying to evade the Customs? We are dealing here not with the evasion of Customs but with immigration. The Minister of State should give an explanation of the very wide powers which seem to be granted here.
    Mr. Gower: It seems to me that there is a strong case to answer here. As the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) has said, the powers provided for seem tremendously wide. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will be able to do without them in their present form or, alternatively will be able to give us a very powerful reason for their retention.
    As the hon. Member said, the people to whom these powers will be applied are merely people seeking to come here, presumably, to take employment and reside here. They are not to be compared in any way with other persons who may come from foreign countries. The case seems to me to be very strong and, superficially at any rate, the wording is far too wide for the purpose for which I assume it to be designed.
    Mr. S. Silverman: This is not merely a wide power, though I agree that it is that. Even if it were a narrow power, it would still be thoroughly objectionable. It is impossible to understand what documents the immigration officer would be looking for. Presumably, if a would-be immigrant has a passport, he will be glad enough to produce that himself. The same applies to a visa or a labour voucher. This power, presumably, will be used by the immigration officer only if he suspects that the immigrant has other documents, and if he has begun with that suspicion it is inconceivable that he would be content to accept a denial. We may, therefore, take it for granted that in every case, or in almost every case, where this power is used it will be followed by a search.

    1223
    I am sure that the Minister of State will agree that of all the humiliating things to which authority can submit an individual the power of physical search is the most humiliating and the most objectionable. Unless there is a very good reason for having such a power, the Committee should reject it. What overwhelming reason can there possibly be for it?
    I hope that the Minister of State will not talk about security reasons. A spy does not carry his credentials with him in his baggage. If he comes here for some nefarious or sinister purpose he will be very careful to ensure that nothing in his baggage, not merely documents, will tend to disclose his design to the lynx eyes of the immigration officer of Customs officer. I do not say that reasonable precautions should not be taken on security grounds. The fact that a man comes from the Commonwealth should not exempt him from loyalty and does not exempt the authorities from the duty of ensuring on reasonable grounds that in his case, as in the case of an alien, or in the case of any of us, that there is not some purpose of the kind. But how in the world this provision will enable a Customs officer to find out who is a spy and who is not I am utterly unable to understand.
    This provision seems to have been put in the Bill almost automatically. It was known that Customs officers would be concerned with the Bill, and Customs officers can search for dutiable goods. But documents are not dutiable goods. As Customs officers were to act as special immigration officers for the purposes of the Bill, the Government had to look round and consider what powers they should give him. They decided on a power of search. This should not be the first thing of which one thinks. It should be the last. I therefore hope that the Government will accept the Amendment.
    Mr. Fletcher: I support the Amendment. I hope that the Minister of State, who has already accepted three Amendments to the Schedule, which is indicative of how ill-considered, ill-digested and ill-prepared the Bill was, will also accept it.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman)
    1224
    said, there can be justification for a power to search immigrants. The Bill has been introduced, according to the Government, because they want power to control the number of immigrants. It is supported by Tory back bench Members for a lot of other reprehensible reasons.
    Mr. Diamond: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Fletcher: On no count can a demand that immigrants should be searched be justified.
    Can the Minister of State tell us what he thinks would have been gained from immigrants who have come to this country in the last year if there had been a right of search? What does he think the country has lost in the last twelve months by not having had in out legislation the power of search for which the Government now ask? The Bill deals with the control of the numbers of immigrants. Most individuals who come here as immigrants presumably bring very few documents with them. Such documents as they bring with them in future will be in the nature of credentials which they will inevitably wish to produce themselves.
    Mr. Gower: Obviously, anyone coming into this country, including citizens of the United Kingdom who have been abroad for a holiday, is subject to the right of the Customs officer to ask him whether he has any goods which are subject to duty. We are all subject to that right. As the hon. Gentleman knows, power already exists under the Acts which empower Customs officers, to ask any of us to be searched in order to acquire that information.
    Mr. Fletcher: I entirely deny the proposition that a Customs officer has the right to stop any British subject from coming into this country whenever he wishes. I entirely deny that he has the right to search any British subject. I assert that any British subject has the absolute right to come into this country whenever he likes at any time as a matter of common law without being subject to search. The same right has hitherto belonged to any Commonwealth subject.
    Here the Government are asking for the right to search for documents. Documents are not contraband. They are not

    1225
    things which interest the Government except in so far as the individual bringing the documents will voluntarily produce them in order to show his credentials. Obviously he will not bring incriminating documents with him. Obviously no amount of documents which he may carry will affect the housing problem, which might be influenced by the fact, that according to the Government, we shall have too many immigrants. No document can affect the character of a person when he gets here. Surely the Minister cannot say that an immigration officer, in deciding whether an immigrant should be admitted or not, will form an opinion about his character by reason of the documents which he is carrying.
    It seems to me that there is no possible justification for this provision and I hope that the Minister, since he has started to accept our Amendments with a view to improving the Bill, will follow that course and will accept this Amendment.
    Mr. Renton: To have any immigration control is distasteful. We have made that clear from the beginning. But I doubt very much whether there is any immigration control in the world which is properly exercised in which these powers are not taken from the local legislature and used occasionally, as reserve powers at any rate.
    We are discussing three powers on these four Amendments—the power to demand documents, the power to detain them, if necessary, only for a short time, and the power to search for them. I should have thought that it was obvious that these powers were needed.
    With regard to the power to demand documents, we must draw on the experience that we have had with the aliens control. There is no reason why we should not draw on that experience from which this country has gained a reasonable reputation for fair dealing. It is found quite often that people try to evade the aliens control by putting forward a particular reason why they wish to come here, whereas their real reason is quite different. Their real reason is often disclosed by documents in their possession. Therefore, there needs to be a power to demand documents.
    Mr. S. Silverman: It is quite true that, if an alien presents himself and asks for admission, even if he has a visa, he has to give a reason for coming. But there is nothing in the Bill to empower immigration officers to ask a colonial immigrant why he is coming. That is not among the grounds for prohibition, except in so far as it is defined in the Bill. It is not a general power. The Bill does not say to an immigration officer, "If you are satisfied let him in; if you are not satisfied keep him out."
    Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman has overlooked the fact that, in order to get himself in on the grounds listed in Clause 2, the intending immigrant, or a person who wants to come here for a particular time, may put forward a story which, on the face of it, appears to the immigration officer to be untrue in itself. It may even be patently untrue. Rather than refuse the man straight away, the officer may say to him, "Have you any documents?" The officer therefore has the power to demand documents.
    That is a reasonable power in itself, and is not any kind of an oppression. There may be other cases in which the immigration officer asks a person to produce documents not merely to support his story but because the officer has reason to believe that the story is false. In such cases there should equally be a power for documents to be demanded.
    8.30 p.m.
    The power to detain documents arises for a rather special reason. Unfortunately, even at present, and long before this Bill was introduced, we have had experience of a great many people coming here from Commonwealth countries on forged passports. These forgeries can be detected very often by means of an ultra-violet examination. It is necessary to detain the documents—it may be only for a short time, but it is technically a detention of the documents. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), with his knowledge of the law, will understand what I am getting at. This needs to be done in order to decide whether a passport is forged or not. The power is needed.
    The power to search, on the face of it, appears to be a more stringent power, but fundamentally, of course, it is a necessary ancillary to the power to

    1227
    demand the documents because, if we say that there is to be power to demand documents—if somebody may be prosecuted for failing to produce documents on demand—then unless there is the power to search one cannot see whether the demand for documents has been complied with. That is the main reason why we need power of search.
    I will avoid discussing the security reasons, as the hon. Member rightly asked me to. I do not rest my case on them, although, of course, we at the Home Office cannot ignore that factor. But there is the question, also mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, of the criminal who comes here. The hon. Gentleman suggested that criminals do not bring incriminating documents with them. I do not want to give too much publicity to the fact that they do, but it is remarkable the extent to which known criminals do bring incriminating documents with them.
    We are often alerted to the fact that they are coming, and without the power to demand documents and to search for them a process of criminal detection might well be impeded. There is a good deal of crime which can be rightly described as international, and I am sorry to say that it takes place not only between this country and foreign countries but between this country and Commonwealth countries. This is a power which I must ask the House to let us have.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. Chapman: I beg to move, in page 15, line 25, at the end, to insert:
    "relevant to his admission to the United Kingdom under this Act".
    This small Amendment arises because there is, in my view, uncertainty about the extent to which the immigration officer can go in demanding documents under paragraph 1 (3) of the Schedule. My Amendment would insist that, if he demands any documents, he can only demand those relevant to the question of whether the person concerned should be admitted to the United Kingdom. The reply may be that the power of the immigration officer to demand documents is anyway covered by the limiting of his purpose under paragraph 1 (1) of the Schedule; that is, that the immigra
    1228
    tion officer shall have the power under paragraph 1 (1) of the Schedule to—
    "examine any person…for the purpose of determining what action, if any, should be taken in his case under the said Part I;"
    In other words, to some extent, therefore, the officer's power to examine at all is limited to discovering whether, under Part I, the immigrant is eligible for admission to this country. To that extent, there is this overall control over the power of the immigration officer to examine at all. However, it seems to me not at all clear, when one comes to paragraph 3, whether, in disputed cases, he shall be strictly limited and not generally limited to demanding documents which are relevant to that person's admission to the United Kingdom.
    We are not, in this part of the Bill, dealing with the reasonable application of the Bill by humane Governments and humane immigration officers. We are dealing with the exceptional case which might arise, against which Parliament always has to provide, where immigration officers may be unreasonable and acting under unreasonable and tyrannical instructions from the Government. We want to be sure, as far as we can, that no Government and no immigration officer can usurp the power and demand things which should not be demanded for any reason at all. That is why we wish written into the Bill every possible safeguard that we can provide as we go along.
    I am glad to say, to confirm what I had intended to convey earlier, although the hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to regard it a little doubtfully, that I believed that our immigration officers are humane and act in a courteous way, and that we have every reason to be proud of the scenes at our ports in respect of the courtesy which intending visitors to this country have extended to them when they arrive. I am second to none in my admiration of that courtesy.
    I am concerned that, in any extreme circumstances, no petty tyrant, no Government or immigration officer shall be in any doubt whatever as to how far these powers go. I therefore request the Government to write in at this point a particular and definite restriction of the powers, which may not be clear enough under the general restriction of powers in paragraph 1 of the Schedule.
    Mr. S. Silverman: I do not want to detain the Committee very long over this. I sympathise very much with what my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) has said about the advisability of putting in any kind of restriction on the power to do objectionable and unnecessary things. I should like, however, to point out to the Committee how little that restriction is.
    My hon. Friend said that we are not dealing with the case of a reasonable immigration officer or a reasonable Government. We are dealing with the possible case of an unreasonable Government or an unreasonable officer—an oppressive, malicious and vindictive officer. In such a case, what will he do if my hon. Friend has his way and the Amendment is accepted? Instead of, Have you any documents?" he would say, "Have you any documents relative to your application for admission?" During the course of his consideration, the immigrant would say, "No." When the immigrant says, "No," the immigration officer either says, or thinks, or acts as if he believes, "I do not believe you." He says, "I do not know about that; you say 'No', but I shall exercise my power of search", which we have just given him, deciding not to vote against it.
    If he has once got the power of search and proceeds to exercise it, what will he do when he searches? Will he exclude from his search any documents not relevant to the application for admission? Of course, he will not. Once he searches, he will find, and what he finds he will take, and what he takes he will look at, and what he looks at he will use for any purpose which seems to him legitimate, useful, or profitable to him. Whether the Government accept the Amendment or not, the restriction which my hon. Friend thought that he was introducing on the power to demand documents seems to be very limited.
    Mr. Chapman: I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). We need not go as far as that. There is an intermediate stage between an immigration officer easy to deal with and the one who goes the whole hog and has searches and everything that he can
    1230
    think of. The intermediate stage is the stage at which he demands the production of documents. We must put a check on petty tyrants at that point by saying that they have the right to ask only for some documents and cannot tell everyone who comes to the ports to empty his pockets on the table, as he might otherwise have power to do. That is what I want to prevent.
    Why, at that intermediate stage, should someone have to empty his wallet, show personal papers, and empty his brief case on to the table? At this intermediate stage, the officer should have power only to ask for documents relevant to the immigrant's admission.
    Mr. S. Silverman: Does my hon. Friend say that if the immigration officer wants to exercise the power of search the wallet and pockets will be excepted?
    Mr. Ede: I express doubts about any legal opinion expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) with very great diffidence, but I do not yet think that we have yet granted the power of search. I think that that is covered by an Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) in page 15, to leave out lines 28 to 31. That is where the power of search is to be found.
    I generally support the Amendment, but I hope that on this occasion the Minister of State, who has been accepting views from this side of the Committee very readily, will not accept the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne that we have already granted the right of search. I can think of no other occasion on which I would ask him to ignore the advice tendered by my hon. Friend, but that advice seems dangerous on this occasion.
    Mr. David Weitzman: Despite the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), I hope that the Amendment will be accepted. I was very alarmed, during the discussion on the last Amendment, to hear as justification for the right to search the statement that a criminal carries papers and that the right to search ought to be available to discover if a man is a criminal. I had gathered

    1231
    that the object of the Bill was not to discover whether an immigrant was a criminal, but to do what is set out in the Bill in respect of the rights of immigrants to enter this country.
    If there is to be a right of search, it must be completely and absolutely limited to the one end—to relevant documents. I would strongly object to any right of search, but if there is to be such a right it must be strictly limited to the objective of the Bill, and, therefore, merely to documents which are relevant.
    Mr. Renton: The hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) has missed a very important point. There may be a criminal who is on the run from a Commonwealth country and subject to the Extradition Acts. The hon. and learned Member said that he hoped that the Bill would not be used to intercept such a person, but he must have forgotten the provision in Clause 2 (3), which says:
    "if the immigration officer has reason to believe that he has been convicted in any country of any crime, wherever committed, which is an extradition crime within the meaning of the Extradition Acts…".
    Two points arise. We have Extradition Acts with all the Commonwealth countries and it is only right that immigration control should be used as one means of fulfilling our obligations under such Acts. The second is that if someone has been convicted of a crime in certain circumstances—not all circumstances, as was explained earlier—that will be an obstacle to his immigration to this country. I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman not to dismiss as utterly irrelevant to the purposes of the Bill the question of whether or not a person should be asked to produce documents which may be relevant in a criminal context.
    8.45 p.m.
    Mr. Weitzman: Then it is a relevant document and comes within the Amendment?
    Mr. Renton: I agree, and I will come to that, but I wanted to clear up that point first, which, in a sense, is subsidiary to the main point raised in the debate.
    1232
    The point raised by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) is one with which I have a great deal of sympathy, and I give him an undertaking to consider the point that he has raised with a view to putting down Amendments on Report. I think that the paragraph as drafted is a bit wider than it need be, and needs to be tightened up in the way envisaged by the hon. Gentleman. I am advised that he has not got it quite right, but do not let us discuss drafting matters. These are the things on which it is best for us to take the appropriate advice.
    I give the undertaking that I will bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman said to ensure that this power to demand documents—and the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) is right in saying that that is all we are after at the moment—is restricted to documents which may be relevant to the questions which arise on the decision as to whether or not a person should be admitted or refused admission, or admitted subject to conditions in accordance with the Bill.
    In view of that undertaking, perhaps the hon. Gentleman may not wish to press the matter.
    Mr. Diamond: The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to criminals being on the run from a Commonwealth country to this country. Can he say what powers the Government have at the moment for enabling security to be satisfied with regard to criminals on the run? Is he saying that without these powers he is powerless to protect the security of the country?
    Mr. Renton: I am in a very difficult position. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press me too much. Perhaps I was incautious in jumping to the bait of the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North. All that I think I should say in answer to the hon. Gentleman is that it seems absurd to be passing through Parliament a Bill dealing with immigration without ensuring that in that Bill we take such powers as are necessary to enable us to fulfil our obligations to other members of the Commonwealth where criminals are concerned.
    Mr. Chapman: I am obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman, and I intend to withdraw the Amendment, but I am a little alarmed about what he said just now. After all, the purpose of the Bill is not to discover for the purposes of extradition criminals who are on the run. The purpose of the Bill is to discover whether anybody who wishes to be admitted to this country is a criminal on the run. That is the only reason why we wish to give the Government the right to search for documents. It would be irrelevant, and outside the purposes of the Bill, to introduce anything else.
    It may be that on the spur of the moment the hon. and learned Gentleman used a phrase which he did not intend to use, and that I am more dumb than anybody else and have not understood the position. This can be sorted out when we reach the next stage of the Bill and the hon. and learned Gentleman's own Amendment is put down. Then we can pursue this matter a little further. I am most grateful to him for what he said. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Diamond: I beg to move, in page 15, to leave out lines 28 to 31.
    These are the lines in the Bill which give the power to search a person and to search baggage. Searching is the greatest form of indignity, and I am asking that these powers be withdrawn because I want to do what I can to lessen the damage that is being done by the Bill and to deny to others the right of saying: "Here are the first elements of a police State creeping in under the pretext of a Bill to control immigrants from the Commonwealth". I shall not be satisfied—let me make this point clear straight away—by any unproved, detailed allegation that this power is needed for security.
    Quite obviously, the State does not rely exclusively on this power to protect itelf. We do not know, and we do not wish to know, the detailed methods by which criminals are apprehended. We want to know that people who are not proved to be criminals have the rights under normal justice of any other person and to be absolutely satisfied that this indignity is not imposed unnecessarily.
    1234
    Supposing that it were alleged that it this Amendment were accepted one undesirable person would get into this country. I still say that on balance of advantage it is immensely more important to see that human beings are not subjected to the indignities of a personal search, being stripped and left in the most powerless and embarrassing condition that any human being can be put in, just because they want to come to the Mother Country. On balance there would have to be absolute justification for that in far more cases than indicated by the hon. and learned Gentleman. I say quite specifically that we should have these offending lines removed, particularly when it is borne in mind that the immigrant generally is a newcomer, coming here for the first time from a different country, different customs, often with a different coloured skin, feeling great uncertainty and with no confidence in himself or herself.
    What on earth is to happen to this newcomer when the first thing that he or she is subjected to is close questioning, followed possibly by a search? The search of a person of a different coloured skin on coming into this country exposes him to the utmost sensitivity—I do not mean physically but psychologically. Therefore, I would do anything that I could to persuade the Government not to retain this power of searching. I repeat that it cannot be on grounds of security that this is proposed. It is only in television shows that all the criminals carry secret documents in the lining of their baggage or in the heels of their shoes. This is puerile stuff on which we do not want to waste time.
    I want to direct the attention of the Government to the words of paragraph 1 (3), before the proviso:
    "with a view to ascertaining whether he is carrying or conveying documents."
    Once this provision is passed there will be nothing to prevent an immigration officer searching an individual as a result of any whim or fancy on his part. He does not have to satisfy anybody else that this is the purpose of the search; it is the purpose in his own mind. This provision gives carte blanche to any immigration officer to say, "Come here and strip."
    Surely this power is not required. Assuming that we must have some control of immigration but want to undo

    1235
    the damage done by the introduction of the Bill, the Government must surely want to help in that regard. I therefore appeal to them to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. Renton: I cannot believe that the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) was in the Chamber when we discussed an earlier Amendment dealing with the power to demand documents and to detain and search. I believe that the view I then put forward quite fully was accepted. At any rate, the Amendment was not pressed. If the hon. Member had heard my speech on that occasion I do not think that he would have made the speech to which we have just listened. I explained that, so far as we have been able to find out, these powers are contained in every immigration control scheme in the world, and it is inconceivable that we should have such a scheme without these powers, however distasteful they may be.
    The Amendment is concerned only with the power to search, and that power is necessary for at least three reasons. First, the power to demand documents would be made useless without the power to search. A person could be prosecuted for refusing to produce a document on demand, but unless he had been searched we would not be in a position to show whether or not he was able to produce it. That is a purely technical but nevertheless valid reason.
    Secondly, it is essential to have the power to cover criminal cases and security cases. As I said earlier, I do not want to go into these matters at all deeply, or to base my arguments solely upon them.
    Thirdly, and more commonly, although hope the power will be regarded only as a reserve power and very rarely used, our experience in the administration of legislation with regard to aliens—and we have no reason to believe that this experience would not sometimes be repeated in the administration of the provisions of the Bill—shows that people tend to put forward one reason for gaining admission to the country when they have a fundamentally different reason for doing so, which documents in their possession would show.
    Further, as I explained earlier, the power to demand documents is some
    1236
    times necessary to enable a person coming in to confirm his story, when it is obviously desirable that it should be confirmed. It is also sometimes necessary because the story seems to be quite inconsistent, or patently untrue. If the documents in the person's possession are revealed the immigration officer is able to show beyond doubt that the person concerned is not telling the truth. In the circustances, he has justification for refusing admission. I am sorry to bore hon. Members by repeating the speech that I made on an earlier Amendment, but it is essential to bear these matters in mind.
    9.0 p.m.
    Mr. Weitzman: I have heard the Minister say on two occasions that there is no country with immigration laws where this power of search does not exist. That is supposed to be a justification for having the power here. The Minister should remember what we propose to do by the Bill. For the very first time we are denying to people the right to come to their Mother Country. For that reason we are placing certain restrictions upon them. I agree that this is one of the most disgraceful powers and one of the worst humiliations which could be placed upon an individual, to search him in this way and impose that indignity upon him. It is not justified by the Minister saying that he had explained matters during the discussion on a previous Amendment.
    The Minister purports to advance certain reasons as justification for this. Let us examine them. He says that there is a power to demand documents which is made useless unless we have the right to search. I am against the right to demand documents, but, even were there such a right, what is it for? Suppose an immigrant comes to this country and the immigration officer is dissatisfied about whether he has established his right to enter the country. The immigrant is asked for documents which he refuses to produce. What is the right of demand for? Is it to make the immigration officer see whether he can, by force, establish a case on behalf of the immigrant? If the immigrant has documents and wishes to produce them, he will do so. What right has an immigration officer to go through the baggage of an immigrant to search for documents? That reason is entirely absurd.

    1237
    The second reason, apparently, is that we must establish whether the immigrant is a criminal or should be refused admission for security reasons. As was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond), and as I am quite sure the Minister knows, there are plenty of powers under which an individual and his documents could be examined, apart from any powers which it is proposed to insert in the Bill, which is not designed to find out whether a person is a criminal or should be refused admittance for security reasons. I deprecate that reason being advanced as a justification.
    The third reason is extraordinary. The Minister says that we have had great experience under the Aliens Order and have found the power useful there. I do not care whether that is so or not. We are not here dealing with aliens, but with immigrants. Why should we expose them to this disgraceful indignity for that reason? It is too bad of the Government, having introduced this disgraceful Bill, to impose a further humiliation on people wishing to visit the Mother Country. I suggest that the Government should look at this matter again. I emphasise that it is disgraceful and humiliating. I can hardly think of words sufficiently strong to condemn it and I hope the Government will see reason and decide to dispense with this disgraceful power.
    Mr. Ede: The real reason the Minister has given us for this provision is that everyone else has done it and, therefore, we should get in at the tail of the queue. I have always thought, with Milton, that it is the duty of this country to show other nations how to live. This is one of the occasions in which that can be done.
    Mr. Renton: I did not say that I put this forward because everybody else had done it. I said that I did not conceive that it was possible for any immigration control in any civilised country to be made effective without these powers. I may have added that I presume that every other country has done it, but the great point is that no control could be effective, in our opinion, without these powers.
    Mr. Ede: I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will read some of
    1238
    the things he has said this evening. Then he will find that I did not misinterpret what he said.
    Mr. Edwin Wainwright: I wish to say a few words on this Amendment. The Minister is forgetting very important facts. This is an immigration Bill, not a Bill to search out criminals. If we required such a Measure it would be because we had had many more criminals in this country than has been shown by records up to the present.
    The Minister and the Government ought to realise that this is a Bill which will be put into operation in the not too distant future. It will have a very damning effect on our nation in the eyes of every country in the world. I cannot see why the Minister should demand that this search should take place. If the person before the immigration officer is a criminal, the Government have other ways and means in the existing laws of making certain that he can be detained and searched.
    Although probably the majority of immigration officers are the best type of person in the world, and capable of doing their job well, we may have the vicious type of officer who tries to show his authority. He would have power to create the impression among all immigrants that he was the kind of officer generally to be found in this country. That could do great harm to relations between this country and the Commonwealth and Colonies.
    I beg the Minister and the Government to realise that every little action taken against the coloured people who belong to this Commonwealth is something which will damn us for ever. The future of the world may be greatly affected by actions of this kind. It would not be difficult to write this Amendment into the Bill. The Government should realise that the greatest problem in the world, far the greater than problems as between the Communist and the democratic systems, is racial relationships between nations. Every pin-prick of this kind will make it far more difficult to improve those relationships. I hope that the Government will accept the Amendment.
    Mr. Fletcher: There are a number of other Amendments we are anxious to discuss before the Guillotine falls.

    1239
    Therefore, I do not propose to prolong this discussion. I merely register my extreme dissatisfaction with the Minister's reply and I hope my hon. Friends will support this Amendment in the Division Lobby.
    Mr. John Wells: I think that we all respect the legal opinion of the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman). We were impressed by the point made by the hon. Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Wainwright), but the fact remains that if we are to have an efficient immigration control we must have this sort of power. Although hon. Members opposite have made their point—we appreciate it—we must have an efficient immigration service.
    The hon. Member for Dearne Valley cast slight doubts on the quality of our immigration officers. I must take him up on that, because in my view our immigration officers are very fine men. They do a very difficult job in an honourable, efficient and kindly manner. I therefore hope that the Committee will support the Government in rejecting the Amendment, because if our immigration officers are to be fully supported they must have an efficient system behind them.
    Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 223. Noes 177.

    Division No. 86.]

    AYES

    [9.11 p.m.

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    Drayson, G. B.

    Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

    Aitken, W. T.

    Duncan, Sir James

    Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)

    Arbuthnot, John

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    Joseph, Sir Keith

    Aahton, Sir Hubert

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

    Kerans, Cdr. J, S.

    Atkins, Humphrey

    Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

    Kitson, Timothy

    Barlow, Sir John

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Leather, E, H. C.

    Barter, John

    Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.

    Leavey, J. A.

    Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)

    Farey-Jones, F. W.

    Leburn, Gilmour

    Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

    Farr, John

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

    Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

    Finlay, Graeme

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Berkeley, Humphry

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

    Lilley, F. J. P.

    Biffen, John

    Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Lindsay, Sir Martin

    Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

    Freeth, Denzil

    Linstead, Sir Hugh

    Bishop, F. P.

    Gammans, Lady

    Litchfield, Capt. John

    Black, Sir Cyril

    George, J. C. (Pollok)

    Longbottom, Charles

    Bossom, Clive

    Gibson-Watt, David

    Loveys, Walter H.

    Bourne-Arton, A.

    Gilmour, Sir John

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J.

    Goodhew, Victor

    McAdden, Stephen

    Brewis, John

    Gough, Frederick

    McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia

    Bromley-Davenport. Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

    Gower, Raymond

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

    Brooman-White, R.

    Grant, Rt. Hon. William

    MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

    Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

    Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.

    McMaster, Stanley R.

    Buck, Antony

    Green, Alan

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Bullard, Denys

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    Maginnis, John E.

    Bullus, Wing Commander Erie

    Gurden, Harold

    Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

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

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

    Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

    Marten, Neil

    Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

    Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

    Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

    Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

    Mawby, Ray

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Channon, H. P. G.

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

    Mills, Stratton

    Chataway, Christopher

    Hay, John

    More, Jasper (Ludlow)

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Morgan, William

    Clark, William (Nottingham, s.)

    Hendry, Forbes

    Morrison, John

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

    Hiley, Joseph

    Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

    Cleaver, Leonard

    Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

    Nabarro, Gerald

    Cole, Norman

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

    Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

    Collard, Richard

    Hocking, Philip N.

    Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

    Cooke, Robert

    Holland, Philip

    Osborn, John (Hallam)

    Cooper, A. E.

    Hollingworth, John

    Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

    Hopkins, Alan

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    Corfield, F. V.

    Hornby, R. P.

    Page, John (Harrow, West)

    Costain, A. P.

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

    Partridge, E.

    Coulson, Michael

    Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

    Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

    Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

    Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

    Peel, John

    Craddock, Sir Beresford

    Hughes-Young, Michael

    Percival, Ian

    Curran, Charles

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Peyton, John

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Pilkington, Sir Richard

    Dance, James

    Jackson, John

    Pitman, Sir James

    Deedee, W. F.

    James, David

    Pitt, Miss Edith

    de Ferranti, Basil

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Pott, Percivall

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    Jennings, J. C.

    Prior, J. M. L.

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

    Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

    Proudfoot, Wilfred

    Doughty, Charles

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Pym, Francis

    Quennell, Miss J. M.

    Speir, Rupert

    Turner, Colin

    Rawlinson, Peter

    Stanley, Hon. Richard

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

    Stevens, Geoffrey

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Rees, Hugh

    Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

    Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Stoddart, J. A.

    Vickers, Miss Joan

    Renton, David

    Stoddart-Scott. Col. Sir Malcolm

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

    Storey, Sir Samuel

    Walder, David

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)

    Walker, Peter

    Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

    Talbot, John E.

    Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek

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

    Tapsell, Peter

    Wall, Patrick

    Russell, Ronald

    Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)

    Webster, David

    Seymour, Leslie

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

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Sharples, Richard

    Temple, John M.

    Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

    Shaw, M.

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Wise, A. R.

    Skeet, T, H. H,

    Thomas, Peter (Conway)

    Woodhouse, C. M.

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

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Woodnutt, Mark

    Smithers, Peter

    Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

    Worsley, Marcus

    Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

    Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

    Spearman, Sir Alexander

    Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Mr. Whitelaw and Mr. McLaren

    NOES

    Ainsley, William

    Hayman, F. H.

    Popplewell, Ernest

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Healey, Denis

    Prentice, R. E.

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Awbery, Stan

    Herbison, Miss Margaret

    Probert, Arthur

    Baird, John

    Hewitson, Capt. M.

    Proctor, W. T.

    Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)

    Hill, J. (Midlothian)

    Randall, Harry

    Beaney, Alan

    Hilton, A. V.

    Rankin, John

    Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Holman, Percy

    Redhead, E. C.

    Benson, Sir George

    Holt, Arthur

    Rhodes, H.

    Blackburn, F.

    Houghton, Douglas

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Blyton, William

    Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Boardman, H.

    Hoy, James H.

    Robinson, Kenneth(St. Pancras, N.)

    Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W.(Leics, S. W.)

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Ross, William

    Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Royle, Charles (Salford, West)

    Bowles, Frank

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Short, Edward

    Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

    Hunter, A. E.

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Brockway, A. Fenner

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Skeffington, Arthur

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

    Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Jeger, George

    Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

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

    Snow, Julian

    Callaghan, James

    Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Castle, Mrs. Barbara

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Chapman, Donald

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Craddock, George (Bradford, s.)

    Kelley, Richard

    Steele, Thomas

    Cronin, John

    Kenyon, Clifford

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

    Cullen, Mrs. Alice

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Stonehouse, John

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Ledger, Ron

    Stones, William

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Symonds, J. B.

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Deer, George

    Lipton, Marcus

    Delargy, Hugh

    Loughlin, Charles

    Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

    Dempsey, James

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Diamond, John

    MacColl, James

    Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

    Dodds, Norman

    McInnes, James

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

    Donnelly, Desmond

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Timmons, John

    Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

    Mackie, John (Enfield, East)

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    Edelman, Maurice

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

    Wade, Donald

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Manuel, A. C.

    Wainwright, Edwin

    Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

    Mapp, Charles

    Warbey, William

    Evans, Albert

    Mason, Roy

    Watkins, Tudor

    Fitch, Alan

    Mayhew, Christopher

    Weitzman, David

    Fletcher, Eric

    Mendelson, J. J.

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)

    Millan, Bruce

    Whitlock, William

    Forman, J. C.

    Milne, Edward

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Mitchison, C. R.

    Willey, Frederick

    Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Morris, John

    Williams, D. J. (Neath)

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    Moyle, Arthur

    Williams, LI. (Abertillery)

    George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn)

    Neal, Harold

    Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

    Ginsburg, David

    Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

    Willis, E. C. (Edinburgh, E.)

    Gourlay, Harry

    Oram, A, E.

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

    Grey, Charles

    Oswald, Thomas

    Winter bottom, R. E.

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Owen, Will

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Padley, W. E.

    Woof, Robert

    Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.

    Parker, John

    Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

    Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

    Paton, John

    Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Pavitt, Laurence

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Hamilton, William (West Fife)

    Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

    Mr. Charles A. Howell and

    Hannan, William

    Peart, Frederick

    Mr. Lawson.

    Hart, Mrs. Judith

    Pentland, Norman

    Mr. D. Foot: I beg to move, in page 15, line 35, to leave out "such time as he thinks proper" and to insert:
    "a period not exceeding thirty days".
    The effect of the Amendment is perfectly clear. Instead of giving the immigration officer unlimited discretion to hold documents for as long as he chooses, the Amendment puts a time limit on it. I do not propose to argue the merits of the Amendment at any length, because it speaks for itself. Assuming that we must give powers to the immigration officer, they should not be unlimited powers. If we give him the power to take documents, the time during which those documents may be retained should not be so extensive to amount to confiscation of them, because that is what is meant if no time limit is inserted. The Amendment goes quite a long way and proposes that a lengthy time limit of 30 days shall apply, but we are also saying that after the lapse of those 30 days the documents should be handed back.
    Mr. Renton: The Amendment appears to us to be acceptable in principle for the reasons given by the hon. and learned Gentleman but, as drafted, would enable the immigration officer to detain documents for much longer than is really necessary in most cases for examining them. Thus, what we consider is needed is an Amendment which combines the merit of the phrasing of the Bill and the merit of the phrasing of the Amendment so that we would have something which reads somewhat as follows: "An immigration officer may examine and may detain, for such time not exceeding 30 days as he thinks proper, for the purposes of examining any documents produced."
    If the hon. and learned Gentleman would agree to withdraw his Amendment—and I am grateful to him for moving it—we will see to it that an Amendment is tabled on Report which, as I say, combines the merit of his views and ours.
    Mr. D. Foot: In view of the hon. and learned Gentleman's assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Harold Garden: I beg to move, in page 15, line 41, after "inspector", to insert:
    1244
    "and shall include power to examine a person by X-ray for medical purposes, and also to make an examination for the purpose of ascertaining whether vaccination for smallpox has been successful".
    The idea behind this Amendment has been put to me principally by the British Medical Association, which has been worried for some time about the number of immigrants suffering from tuberculosis, many of them, unfortunately, having the disease in an advanced stage. The difficulty is not so much that they cannot be dealt with. The difficulty is in identification. We do not know how many people have come into the country suffering from tuberculosis. This is the trouble. If they were all identified, good medical advice could be given to them and they could be directed for medical attention.
    Medical officers of health also have emphasised to me the seriousness of the situation. For some years, the medical officer of health for chest diseases in Birmingham has been concerned, and he told me that as many as 8 per cent. of immigrants from Asian Commonwealth countries suffered from tuberculosis. Recently, of course, there was the very sad case of a girl who arrived in this country suffering from the disease in an advanced stage. Without the provision which the Amendment contains, these people, as I see it and as the British Medical Association sees it, will continue to come into the country, though there will be no power of examination to identify the sufferers.
    We have included words covering vaccination against smallpox. Most of the people who came in recently were, we hope, identified, but here again we are not quite sure how many came from Pakistan and other places without being properly vaccinated. When I visited the airport I found that the medical officer was not aware of the powers which he has or, at least, the powers which the Home Office tells us exist at present. He was, of course, doing grand work and matters were quickly put right, but on questioning him I found that he was not sure what the law was. We hope that the Amendment will be accepted to clear matters up.
    Mr. Denis Howell: Which airport?
    Mr. Gurden: London Airport. I am glad to see the hon. Member here, because he has made clear in correspondence that he supports the health protection aspects of the Bill. I hope that we shall have his support and the support of other hon. Members opposite for the Amendment.
    I am glad to see the hon. Member present for another reason. He has been absent for a considerable part of our debates and Divisions, yet he went out of his way to point out that I was not here for part of a debate the other day at a time when I was having a meal. His remarks were widely reported, much to his delight, no doubt. I have, in fact, been here for all our debates right from the beginning. We are glad to see the hon. Gentleman here now and we look forward to receiving his support on this Amendment.
    9.30 p.m.
    I do not think that there can be much argument about the Amendment, except perhaps, its drafting. It appears that even those people who have considerable opposition to the Bill as a whole, which I quite understand, seem to be in no doubt that they would lend support to a Measure which afforded health protection and certainly one, at any rate, which caused people to be identified if only for the sake of treatment.
    Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: The hon. Gentleman said that the authorship of the first part of his Amendment came from the British Medical Association. Will he confirm that the second part of it is not sponsored by the Association?
    Mr. Gurden: I am not responsible for the first part, but I should have thought that the second part was sponsored by common sense.
    Mr. Denis Howell: I am grateful for the opportunity of being almost invited to participate in this debate by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden), whose dinner hour, I now observe, takes a considerable time, in view of his lengthy absences from our deliberations. I do not begrudge him a hearty appetite. [HON. MEMBERS: "Get on with it."] I intend to get on with it, but if I have many interruptions from hon. Members opposite I shall take twice as long.
    1246
    In presenting his information to the Committee, the hon. Member for Selly Oak omitted to give the figures for tuberculosis in Birmingham. It is an inconvenient fact that the city has now broken down the nationalities of people in our hospitals suffering from this disease. It is an inconvenient fact that last year Irishmen were at the top of the list. Unfortunately, 97 Irishmen are now in Birmingham hospitals suffering from this disease. People from Asia were next on the list, but people from the West Indies were a long way down the list. In fact there were only 20, or under 20, people in Birmingham hospitals suffering from the disease.
    Although I am in favour of health checks, like my hon. Friends, I am not in favour of health checks which discriminate in the way suggested by the Amendment. We are in favour of health checks which apply to everybody. As the Amendment and the Bill, on the showing of the Government, are not to be applied to the Irish, it is clear that X-rays for medical purposes will not be applied to the people from the country most affected, namely, Southern Ireland.
    Mr. Gurden Mr. Gurden indicated dissent.
    Mr. Howell: The hon. Member for Selly Oak shakes his head, but that must be the case. If the Bill is not to be applied to the Irish, this particular part of it will not be applied to the Irish. On his own showing, the hon. Member for Selly Oak is prepared to allow to come into this country without health checks the people on whom they should be made.
    The same applies to vaccination. I agree very much with the hon. Member for Selly Oak that the Ministry of Health has been very recalcitrant in this matter. When I examined the situation in Birmingham, I found that no information about it has been sent to medical officers in the various cities. I tried to question the Minister of Health the other day in the House about an aeroplane which was diverted to Elmdon from Manchester carrying passengers from a part of Europe seriously affected by the recent smallpox epidemic.
    There were no preparations at Elmdon Airport for the reception of those passengers. The matter was left purely

    1247
    to the initiative of a Customs officer who rang up the medical officer of health of Birmingham and said, "Do you think anything should be done about these people who have just arrived? Should I let them in or not?" The medical officer of health turned out on a Saturday afternoon and said, "I will come down. Keep them there".
    On the aircraft, he found a Chinese gentleman who had travelled across the world, as far as one could find out, visiting every place affected by smallpox. The medical officer of health said to him, "You do not come a yard further until you have been immunised". The gentleman was courteous and cooperative and agreed to be immunised. But the medical officer told me later, "I did not know what power I had to insist that he was immunised, but I did insist".
    The Ministry of Health had no machinery at all. The Royal Dermatological Survey, with a weekly record of figures, showed that in November and December last year there were 300 cases of smallpox and 30 deaths a week in Karachi. That information was never drawn to the attention of any medical officer of health. It was not until the medical officers themselves drew the Ministry's attention to this disturbing information that they received any help or guidance from the Ministry. Then the Ministry woke up and steps were taken which made this Amendment unnecessary, because the kind of information the hon. Gentleman wants is being asked for at the ports of entry now.
    Whilst I support the ideals which he has in mind in this respect, I do not think that this Amendment is the way to tackle the problem. In any case, to tackle the problem on the basis of this Bill will exclude from the provisions of such medical checks the very nationals who should be most subject to such safeguards.
    Mr. Renton: This Amendment would do two things. It would give power to a medical officer to examine a person by X-ray for medical purposes, and it would also give power to make an examination to ascertain whether a vaccination for smallpox had been successful.
    It has always been our intention that medical officers should have the oppor
    1248
    tunity of examining people by X-ray in cases where it seemed to be desirable. To that extent, in order to put the matter beyond doubt, we are prepared to accept, in principle, the part of the Amendment which deals with that aspect. I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden) will not mind my saying that his drafting does not quite suit the occasion, but we will be glad to consider a suitable Amendment for the Report stage which will cover the point.
    It is not necessary to put anything down about examination to ascertain vaccination in the terms suggested by my hon. Friend because, under public health legislation, medical officers already have power to carry out just this sort of examination.
    Mr. Fletcher: Is there similar power to examine, by X-ray, aliens when they arrive in this country?
    Mr. Renton: It is very much a question of how one interprets the present Aliens Order. Aliens have been examined by X-ray in pursuance of the medical officers' general power to examine for health purposes under the Aliens Order, but we feel that it is better to put the matter beyond doubt and accept my hon. Friend's suggestion of a specific power written into the Bill.
    Mr. Fletcher: May we take it that, as a result of what the hon. and and learned Gentleman is to do in this matter, there will be greater powers in this respect over Commonwealth immigrants than there are over alien immigrants?
    Mr. Renton: I would not be prepared to say that. But as a matter of fact we are dealing with this Bill and it is right that we should get it correct. I would prefer to have notice of the hon. Member's question, in order to be able to give the answer with surety.
    Mr. Denis Healey: Can the Minister say whether the Home Secretary proposes to introduce legislation to ensure that aliens are covered by the same regulations as he proposes for Commonwealth citizens? As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) has pointed out, the problem of tuberculosis probably arises more with aliens than with Commonwealth citizens.
    Mr. Renton: We are dealing here with Commonwealth citizens, and I would remind the Committee that there are very wide powers under the public health legislation for examining anyone arriving in this country, even someone normally domiciled and resident here.
    Dr. Donald Johnson: My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden), who sponsored this Amendment, and myself welcome very much my hon. and learned Friend's acceptance of the Amendment in the terms in which he made it. I am quite sure that my profession as a whole will welcome the step that he proposes to take by introducing some specific powers this Bill, first, so that medical officers at the ports will know exactly what their powers are, a matter which appears to have been in some doubt recently over smallpox entries, and secondly, because of the problem created throughout the country by these cases.
    I hope that I will not appear to detain the Committee if I try to impress the point by giving particulars of one or two cases, which have been supplied to me by the medical officer of health in Carlisle, which I think should be on the record of this Committee while we are debating it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because in Carlisle, while we have possibly had immigrant problems in the past in the city, we have not been seriously affected by this particular one. In fact, I imagine that we had no problem at all until I received a lettter from my medical officer of health drawing my attention to three cases in the city.
    Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of order. Is it right that when the principle of an Amendment has already been conceded, when there is a guillotine Motion in operation and when we are getting very rapidly towards the time when the Guillotine falls, an hon. Member should take up the limited time we have in order to push at an open door?
    The Temporary Chairman (Dr. Horace King): It is not a point of order which the hon. Member refers to me. It may be a point of substance, but it is not a point of order.
    Dr. Johnson: I will be as brief as possible in giving the particulars of these cases. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] There are three cases. First, a Chinese, aged 20, who had four months previously arrived from Hong Kong and who was found suffering from extensive disease of the right lung. He was employed as a waiter in a restaurant frequented by many young people in the City. The second case, as a result of contact examination, was that of a Chinese cook aged 44, who had been——
    The Temporary Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman must be aware that this is the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill and that the Amendment is to deal with Commonwealth citizens.
    Dr. Johnson: Surely, if Hong Kong is in the Commonwealth—[HON. MEMBERS: "But a Chinese?"] Yes, from Hong Kong. I should hope that hon. Members opposite are aware that most of the population of Hong Kong is Chinese—of Chinese race.
    This second case also came from Hong Kong. He was employed at the same restaurant as the previous patient and was also found to be suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis. The third case, an even more pointed one, was that of a Pakistani who was referred to the chest clinic by his doctor, and was found to have extensive disease of both lungs. He had been in the United Kingdom since October, 1961, a matter of three months, and had been employed as a weaver in a local factory which had been the subject of regular surveys by a mass miniature radiography unit. In the days before this patient was engaged, the unit had paid one of its periodic visits, but there were no cases at the factory. As the result of this man's employment, some 200 employees at the factory are now having to be examined as contacts.
    I think that this last case makes the point in particular, because I was talking to our medical officer in Carlisle, who emphasised the fact that whereas before this factory was quite clear of tuberculosis and only needed visiting perhaps once a year by the unit, he would now have to visit it every three months for the next couple of years to examine for contacts. We do not have the resources in our Health Service to cope with that kind of thing. The hon.

    1251
    Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) said that there were no figures for Birmingham, but if we have instances like that in Carlisle—
    9.45 p.m.
    Mr. Denis Howell: I do not want to interrupt, but I gave the figures for Birmingham.
    Dr. Johnson: I apologise if I am wrong. I understood that the hon. Member said that there were no figures for Birmingham which separated Commonwealth citizens from others. If these are instances in Carlisle, where the number of immigrants can almost be counted on the fingers of two hands, what must be the position in Birmingham and Nottingham and other places where Asiatics have come in comparatively large numbers? That is why I thank my hon. and learned Friend for accepting the Amendment. I am glad to have had the opportunity to place these facts on record.
    Mr. Gurden: I very much appreciate the remarks of my hon. and learned Friend and I see the difficulty about the drafting of the Amendment. Despite the opposition from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell), I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Hon. Members: No.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. D. Foot: I beg to move, in page 16, line 6, after "writing", to insert:
    "which shall set out the reasons for such refusal."
    I hope that the purpose of this Amendment will be clear on the face of it. Pursuant to Clause 2, an immigration officer can refuse admission to the United Kingdom and does so by notice in writing. The Amendment provides that the notice shall set out the reasons for the refusal. My hon. Friends and I have tabled the Amendment because it seems to us to raise an important point of principle. When a Commonwealth citizen comes to this country and is denied the right, which up to now he has enjoyed, of free entry into the country, he is entitled to know the reasons for the refusal.
    The Amendment takes the Committee back to Clause 2 and I ask hon. Members to remind themselves of what that Clause contains. Subsection (1) contains
    1252
    a general power to refuse any immigrant the right of admission to the United Kingdom. It is true that certain rights are given under subsection (2) and that if a man wishes to enter the United Kingdom for the purpose of employment and has a voucher, or is in a position to support himself, he is entitled to be admitted. But he is entitled to be admitted only if he can satisfy the immigration officer of one or other of those conditions.
    The matter still remains in the discretion of the immigration officer from whose decision there is no kind of appeal. If the immigration officer says that he is not satisfied that the immigrant's purpose in entering the United Kingdom is for employment here, or if he says that he is not satisfied that the immigrant is in a position to support himself, that is the end of the matter. The immigration officer does not need to say so. All he needs to do is to give a blank refusal and all that the immigrant will know is that his application for admission has been turned down.
    Then we go on to subsection (3, a):
    "if it appears to the immigration officer, or to a medical inspector, that he is a person suffering from mental disorder…"
    He may not be suffering from mental disorder. The immigration officer may not be competent to judge mental disorder, but he is to be made the judge in this case, and if it appears to him—whether it is well founded or not—that the man is suffering from mental disorder, that is the end of it.
    The subsection is even wider, because it goes on to say:
    "or that it is otherwise undesirable for medical reasons that he should be admitted."
    What is the test of undesirability? We do not know whether it has to be a contagious disease, or a serious disease, or what the test is to be. In each case the immigration officer will apply his own standard. We were told earlier today when we were dealing with the question of ex-Service men who had fought in the war that immigration officers would be instructed by circular to deal sympathetically with such cases, but there is no means of finding out how they will carry out their instructions, because in each case it is the immigration officer who will be the final judge, and I repeat that there will be no appeal from his decision.

    1253
    I go on to paragraph (b), which says:
    "if the immigration officer has reason to believe that he has been convicted in any country of any crime, wherever committed, which is an extradition crime within the meaning of the Extradition Acts…"
    It is conceivable that there may be a mistake. The man may not have been convicted at all. It may even be a case of mistaken identity, but who is to know, because the immigration officer does not have to give particulars? He does not have to give his reasons. All that he has to do is to issue a notice in writing refusing admission.
    It ought to be observed also, that even then the immigration officer can apply his own standard. He is not bound to keep out an immigrant because he has been convicted of an extraditable offence. The subsection says that the immigrant may be refused admission, and it is for the immigration officer to satisfy himself not only that an extraditable offence has been committed, but to apply some tests of his own to decide whether that offence which he believes to have been committed is such as to justify exclusion from the United Kingdom.
    I go on to what, in my view, is even more serious, because paragraph (c) says:
    "if his admission would, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, be contrary to the interests of national security."
    As I observed on an earlier Clause, the Secretary of State does not proceed on his own knowledge. He has to proceed on a report which is presented to him, a report which may be drawn from all kinds of sources, some perhaps reliable, and others perhaps unreliable. It may be that the Secretary of State, or the officer who advises him, will be misled, and those who have had anything to do with security matters know how easy it is to make a mistake. One is not dealing with certainty but with reports that come from all kinds of sources, and some of them may be rather doubtful sources.
    Here is this test as to security, because paragraph (c) continues:
    "contrary to the interests of national security."
    Suppose that the report which is laid before the Secretary of State is misconceived. Suppose that it is based on false information. The immigrant has
    1254
    no means of knowing. He has no opportunity of making an answer at all, and, therefore, we may do a considerable injustice simply because no reasons are given. All that we have is the fiat of the immigration officer, and that is the end of the matter.
    If the Amendment is accepted, as I hope it will be, it will enable the immigrant to have some kind of safeguard. He will be able to say, "Your grounds are misconceived", or, "I am not suffering from this disease", or "I was not convicted of this offence", or "Your sources of information are misleading". He will be able to say that provided the reasons for refusing him admission are furnished to him. He will be able to come to a Member of Parliament who will be able to pursue the matter, but it will not be possible to deal with the case if no reasons are given. I suggest that this provision runs contrary to the whole trend of our modern legislation.
    Only a year or two ago we passed the Tribunals and Enquiries Act, which was the culmination of a struggle that had gone on for a good many years in this House, dating from the early 1930s—the struggle to make Ministers give reasons for their decisions. The Departments resisted over a very long period of time. They resisted when it was first proposed in the days of the Committee on Ministers' Powers, but they did not resist quite so strongly in the days of the Franks Report, and eventually we passed legislation through this House saying that where Ministers took decisions as the result of an inquiry and those decisions affected the rights of individual citizens, the Minister must give reasons for what he did. That was, I believe, a very considerable advance.
    The decisions referred to in Section 12 of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act are mostly decisions affecting property rights. Here we are dealing with something that is even more important than property rights, we are dealing with the rights hitherto unchallenged of a Commonwealth citizen to come here, to make his home here, and to earn his livelihood here. We say that is no less important, and, indeed, more important than the kind of right which was contemplated under the Tribunals and Inquiries Act.

    1255
    It seems to me that what we are doing is to give an almost unfettered discretion to an official. If we do that, at least his mental processes ought to be revealed, and, as a matter of elementary justice, if a man is told that he cannot come into this country, he ought to know the reason.
    Mr. Weitzman: I support the Amendment moved by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. D. Foot) for the reasons that he has given. It is extremely important to note that nowhere in the Bill is there any obligation on the part of an immigration officer to communicate to the immigrant the reasons for refusal. It is important to have these reasons, and that is why I support the Amendment.
    Mr. Fletcher: I support the Amendment for reason in addition to the weighty reasons given by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. D. Foot) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman). It is important to remind the Committee and, in particular, the Attorney-General that it is open to the immigration officer to refuse an immigrant permission for none of the reasons given by my hon. and learned Friend and, indeed, for no reasons relevant to the immigrant himself, but to something totally different. Last week, on 6th February, the Attorney-General said:
    "In many cases"—
    not an isolated case—
    "permission may be refused not on account of any personal idiosyncrasies of the individual, but because sufficient numbers have already been admitted to the country for that particular time."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th February, 1962; Vol. 653, c. 354.]
    Surely it is only just that if an immigrant is refused admission through no fault whatever of his own—nothing to do with a criminal record, or a security risk, of medical reasons, or because he has not a proper voucher, but because sufficient numbers have been admitted for that particular time—he should be told why he has been refused admission.
    This is the most monstrous injustice created by the Bill. The immigrant will not be told why he has been refused admission. He will not be told whether
    1256
    it is because of some personal idiosyncrasy on the part of the immigration officer, or because some quota fixed by the Government, the terms of which may or may not have been communicated to the immigrant's home country, or to the House, has been filled.
    It is unjust that the immigration officer should have power to refuse entry on these grounds. It is doubly unjust when the immigration officer does not have to communicate to the immigrant the reason why he is not being permitted to enter. For these reasons I hope that the Amendment will be accepted.
    10.0 p.m.
    Dr. Mabon: Many patients come to doctors' surgeries full of anguish because, after applying for a certain position, they have been turned down because they have not passed a medical test, and because no medical reasons have been given them. I have had that experience many times myself. These people come to their doctors seeking advice about a condition from which they did not know they suffered. It is one of the most agonising experiences anyone can go through, especially if there is a long interval between the examination and refusal, and their seeking advice to find out what has to be cured.
    I suggest that when persons appear in this country for the first time, having travelled long distances, and are then turned back without any reason being given them, it causes them a great deal of unhappiness. It seems wrong that we should not admit these people for treatment here, although that may be a sentimental and unpractical point. Nevertheless, some explanation should be given to these people. They should be told whether they are suffering from a severe form of tuberculosis, or whatever it may be, and given some kind of certificate describing the findings of the medical men who have carried out the examination.
    It seems rather pointless to spend a great deal of money at the ports providing facilities for medical men to arrive at certain conclusions if we are then unwilling to tell the unfortunate wretches who fail to pass the examinations that they are suffering from certain diseases and that the sooner they are

    1257
    treated at home the better. As I say. it seems a pity to me that they should be sent back home and not allowed to take advantage of our excellent Health Service. These people are not foreigners; they are our own people, from the Commonwealth.
    The Attorney-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller): I have listened with interest to the debate and to every word uttered in support of the Amendment. The hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Mr. D. Foot) made reference to the Tribunals and Inquiries Act, and I am glad that he recognised that it was a good Measure, introduced by this Government.
    I am sorry to disappoint hon. Members opposite, but I must tell them that it would not be right to accept the Amendment. It imposes a general obligation in all cases to set out in writing the reasons for the refusal of admission. I can think of cases where that would not be desirable. They may form a small minority, but I do not share the hon. and learned Member's view that it is desirable to provide information even if the refusal is on the ground that admission would be contrary to the interests of national security.
    There may be other cases where it is not even desirable in the interests of the immigrants. This may be so in the case of mental disorder. The Amendment provides that it should be a statutory obligation to provide that information in writing on every occasion. I hope that the Committee will not think that it follows from the argument that I am advancing that an immigrant who is refused admission by an immigration officer will never be told for what reason the officer finds it impossible to admit him. I am advised, and it is my belief, that in the vast majority of cases that information will be supplied. To that extent the substance of the hon. and learned Member's point will he met. But it would be going too far, and would be wrong in the circumstances, to accept a statutory obligation to be placed on every immigration officer to give those reasons in writing in every case. For those reasons I cannot but advise the Committee to reject the Amendment.
    Mr. Weitzman: Would it be possible to insert some provision in the directions
    1258
    given to the immigration officers that, unless they are given instructions to the contrary, reasons in writing ought to be given to the immigrant?
    The Attorney-General: I do not think I can go so far as to say that. If we gave reasons in writing in some cases and not in others it might point to the reason in the other case. But I will consult my right hon. Friend to see whether some guidance can b:: given to immigration officers to give reasons orally wherever possible. I know that that is not likely to satisfy all hon. Members opposite. But I think that it goes some way to meet the, hon. and learned Member for Ipswich who was wrong in suggesting, or in thinking, that immigration officers would, as he said, have almost an unfettered discretion. In fact, they will be given guidance by their superior officers at the Home Office.
    Miss Jennie Lee: I have listened with astonishment to the reply of the Attorney-General. Obviously, the right hon. and learned Gentleman found himself in rather a difficult situation. He had listened to arguments about the situation of someone who might be rejected because the quota had been filled. He listened to arguments about the unhappiness and worry which might be caused to someone who was given a vague answer that there might be something wrong with his health.
    The right hon. and learned Gentleman has listened to all kinds of arguments, and the only one he singled out was that it might be that the immigrant was suffering from some form of mental disorder. Surely, therefore, we are being asked to believe that in other circumstances an immigrant will be told the reason why he cannot enter. Anyone who is not told the reason will think that he must be suffering from some form of mental disorder. I have never heard such a flimsy excuse for rejecting a very reasonable Amendment.
    Mr. S. Silverman: I should have thought that the reasons given by the Attorney-General for rejecting the Amendment added force to the argument of my hon. and learned Friend to conduct it to a Division. I can imagine nothing more mischievous or damaging than to say that a man should be told

    1259
    orally the reasons for his rejection, but should not have the right to have those reasons put into writing or to have any evidence of them. A man sent back to his country after having made all arrangements might find it regarded as a reflection upon him when he arrived home that he was refused admission. It might be thought that it was for some reason involving some moral culpability or guilt.
    Surely such a man is entitled to be able to produce evidence from the officer who rejected him to show that the rejection was through no fault of his own. But to tell him orally, and not enable him to prove it when he gets back home, is a monstrous argument.
    Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: I wish to support what has been said by the Attorney-General. There are additional points which I should like to make, and the first is that there is such a diversity of reasons for which this administrative decision is taken.
    There may be policy reasons for refusal or personal reasons. Personal reasons might be in relation to the character of the individual or the medical standard of the individual. There might be security reasons or, on grounds of policy, reasons entirely having regard to the numbers concerned. They may even relate to the age of the person, admitting those who are students and not those who are older. There is a diversity of reasons, and it seems unsatisfactory that they should be given in writing. It would impose an undue burden on the immigration officer for there might be a mixture of a number of these reasons given at one and the same time. That might lead administratively to the officer giving a compendious reason which would not be what those putting this Amendment forward would want.
    I think it better to give an oral reason. I entirely dissent from the view of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) that any question of a moral stigma will attach to a person not achieving entry to this country. I think there is a clear line of demarcation between the question of entry on a purely administrative matter and the conduct of Ministers responsible to Parliament.
    1260
    There is a distinction between that and what I might call the matters upon which evidence was given in great detail before the Oliver Franks Committee and then adopted. The Franks Committee never suggested that there should be any change in the ordinary position regarding aliens.
    It is true that this is a new Bill, but we have little doubt that had it been before that Committee it would have included this within the ambit of its considerations. If this were included and reasons were given there would surely be great pressure for the same to be carried into the Aliens Orders. I think it would be very unsatisfactory in Aliens Orders. I do not think that every time someone is refused at the port of entry for policy or other reasons the matter should end in a debate in this Chamber. For all these reasons, I support the Government in this matter.
    Mr. Roderic Bowen: I intervene only because of the observations just made by the hon. Member for Isle of Thanet (Mr Rees-Davies) and the reference to the Franks Committee. To the best of my recollection we never considered on that Committee the position under aliens orders. I am certain that the Franks Committee would not have appreciated this argument that the person affected by these regulations and refused permission should be told orally the reasons and the immigration officer should not be prepared to commit those reasons to writing.
    It seems utterly ridiculous if it is envisaged that the immigration officer should give the reasons orally but not be required to give those reasons equally in writing, if it were only to avoid any possible confusion between the potential immigrant and the immigration officer as to what had precisely transpired between them. I could understand an argument in support of saying that in the circumstances the immigration officer should not be required to give reasons, but I would not support him. I could understand that argument from an administrative point of view, but I do not support it.
    Mr. Rees-Davies: I do not think the hon. and learned Member for Cardigan

    1261
    (Mr. Bowen) was present when the point was dealt with by the Attorney-General.
    Mr. Bowen: Yes, I was.
    Mr. Rees-Davies: I should therefore correct him. There is no requirement to give oral reasons or to state anything. No doubt in circumstances where a dispute might arise no such reason would be given, but if reasons are given purely informally that is quite different from their being given legal sanction.
    Mr. Bowen: The hon. Member is quite incorrect. I was present and heard what the Attorney-General said. The Attorney-General will correct me if I am wrong. He said that it was envisaged that, in general, reasons would be given orally. If that were the general practice, I fail to understand what conceivable objection there is to those oral reasons being put in writing and supplied to the person involved.
    10.15 p.m.
    Mr. Pavitt: It is intolerable that we have to discuss such an important question as the freedom of the individual under the shadow of the Guillotine. I shall not delay the Committee any longer. The whole weight of the State and the law is to be put on a poor little immigrant. One of the things on which the Commonwealth has prided itself is the fact that we have been able to preserve the rights of the little man against the huge State. This is one of the things which will cease to be true, unless the Amendment is accepted. Unless we in the House of Commons are able to show that justice is done, and able to show it to the indvidual concerned, I cannot see how we can sustain our high standards in this respect.
    Question put, That those words be there inserted:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 170, Noes 228.

    Division No. 87.]

    AYES

    [10.16 p.m.

    Alnsley, William

    Calpern, Sir Myer

    MacColl, James

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn)

    McInnes, James

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Ginsburg, David

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Awbery, Stan

    Gourlay, Harry

    Mackie, John (Enfield. East)

    Baird, John

    Grey, Charles

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

    Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Manuel, A. C.

    Beaney, Alan

    Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.

    Mapp, Charles

    Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

    Mason, Roy

    Benson, Sir George

    Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Mendelson, J. J.

    Blackburn, F.

    Hamilton, William (West Fife)

    Millan, Bruce

    Biyton, William

    Hannan, William

    Milne, Edward

    Boardman, H.

    Hart, Mrs. Judith

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Bowden, Rt. Hn, H. W.(Leics. S.W.)

    Hayman, F. H.

    Morris, John

    Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)

    Healey, Denis

    Neal, Harold

    Bowles, Frank

    Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)

    Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

    Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

    Herbison, Miss Margaret

    Oram, A. E.

    Brockway, A. Fenner

    Hill, J. (Midlothian)

    Oswald, Thomas

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Hilton, A. V.

    Owen, Will

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Holman, Percy

    Padley, W. E.

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Holt, Arthur

    Parker, John

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Houghton, Douglas

    Pavitt, Laurence

    Callaghan, James

    Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)

    Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

    Castle, Mrs. Barbara

    Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

    Peart, Frederick

    Chapman, Donald

    Hoy, James H.

    Pentland, Norman

    Cliffe, Michael

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Prentice, R. E.

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Cronin, John

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Probert, Arthur

    Cullen, Mrs. Alice

    Hunter, A. E.

    Proctor, W. T.

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Randall, Harry

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Rankin, John

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Janner, Sir Barnett

    Redhead, E. C.

    Deer, George

    Jeger, George

    Rhodes, H.

    Delargy, Hugh

    Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Dempsey, James

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

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Diamond, John

    Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Dodds, Norman

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Ross, William

    Donnelly, Desmond

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Royle, Charles (Salford, West)

    Edelman, Maurice

    Kelley, Richard

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Kenyan, Clifford

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Skeffington, Arthur

    Evans, Albert

    Lawson, George

    Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

    Fitch, Alan

    Ledger, Ron

    Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

    Fletcher, Eric

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)

    Lewis, Anthur (West Ham, N.)

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Forman, J. C

    Lipton, Marcus

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Loughlin, Charles

    Steele, Thomas

    Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

    Stone house, John

    Wade, Donald

    Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

    Stones, William

    Wainwright, Edwin

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

    Strachey, Rt. Hon. John

    Warbey, William

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

    Symonds, J. B.

    Watkins, Tudor

    Winter bottom, R E.

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Weitzman, David

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    Woof, Robert

    Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Whitlock, William

    Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

    Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

    Wilkins, W. A.

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

    Willey, Frederick

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Timmons, John

    Williams, D. J. (Neath)

    Mr Sydney Irving and Mr. Short.

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    Williams, LI. (Abertillery)

    NOES

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    Gammans, Lady

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Aitken, W. T.

    George, J. C. (Pollok)

    Mills, Stratton

    Arbuthnot, John

    Gibson-Watt, David

    More, Jasper (Ludlow)

    Ashton, Sir Hubert

    Gilmour, Sir John

    Morgan, William

    Atkins, Humphrey

    Goodhew, Victor

    Morrison, John

    Barlow, Sir John

    Gower, Raymond

    Nabarro, Gerald

    Barter, John

    Grant, Rt Hon. William

    Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

    Bell, Ronald

    Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.

    Osborn, John (Hallam)

    Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

    Green, Alan

    Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

    Berkeley, Humphry

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    Biffen, John

    Gurden, Harold

    Page, John (Harrow, West)

    Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

    Bishop, F. P.

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

    Partridge, E.

    Black, Sir Cyril

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

    Bossom, Clive

    Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

    Peel, John

    Bourne-Arton, A.

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

    Percival, Ian

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J.

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

    Peyton, John

    Brewis, John

    Hastings, Stephen

    Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

    Brooman-White, R.

    Hay, John

    Pilkington, Sir Richard

    Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Pitman, Sir James

    Bryan, Paul

    Hendry, Forbes

    Pitt, Miss Edith

    Buck, Antony

    Hiley, Joseph

    Pott, Percivall

    Bullard, Denys

    Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

    Prior, J. M. L.

    Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

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

    Proudfoot, Wilfred

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

    Hocking, Philip N.

    Pym, Francis

    Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

    Holland, Philip

    Quennell, Miss J. M.

    Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

    Hollingworth, John

    Rawlinson, Peter

    Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

    Hopkins, Alan

    Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Hornby, R. P.

    Rees, Hugh

    Channon, H. P. C.

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

    Rees-Davies, w. R.

    Chataway, Christopher

    Hughes Hallett, vice-Admiral John

    Renton, David

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Hughes-Young, Michael

    Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

    Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

    Irvine, Bryant Codman (Rye)

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

    Cleaver, Leonard

    James, David

    Roots, William

    Cole, Norman

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Russell, Ronald

    Collard, Richard

    Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Cooke, Robert

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Seymour, Leslie

    Cooper, A. E.

    Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

    Sharples, Richard

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

    Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)

    Shaw, M.

    Corfield, F. V.

    Joseph, Sir Keith

    Shepherd, William

    Costain, A. P.

    Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

    Skeet, T. H. H

    Coulson, Michael

    Kerr, Sir Hamilton

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

    Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

    Kitson, Timothy

    Smithers, Peter

    Craddock, Sir Beresford

    Leather, E. H. C

    Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

    Critchley, Julian

    Leavey, J. A.

    Spearmon, Sir Alexander

    Crowder, F. P.

    Leburn, Gilmour

    Speir, Rupert

    Curran, Charles

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

    Stanley, Hon. Richard

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Stevens, Geoffrey

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Lilley, F. J. P.

    Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

    Dance, Jameg

    Lindsay, Sir Martin

    Stodart, J. A.

    d' Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Linstead, Sir Hugh

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

    Deedes, W. F.

    Litchfield, Capt. John

    Storey, Sir Samuel

    de Ferranti, Basil

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

    Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    Longboottom, Charles

    Talbot, John E.

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

    Loveys, Walter H.

    Tapsell, Peter

    Doughty, Charles

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)

    Drayson, G. B.

    McLaren, Martin

    Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)

    Duncan, Sir James

    McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia

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

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

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

    Temple, John M.

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

    MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Errington, Sir Eric

    McMaster, Stanley R.

    Thomas, Peter (Conway)

    Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Farey-Jones, F. W.

    Maddan, Martin

    Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

    Farr, John

    Maginnis, John E.

    Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

    Finlay, Graeme

    Manningham-Buller. Rt. Hn. Sir R.

    Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    Turner, Colin

    Forrest, George

    Marten, Neil

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

    Vane, W. M, F.

    Freeth, Denzil

    Mawby, Ray

    Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    1264

    1265

    Vickers, Miss Joan

    Wall, Patrick

    Woodhouse, C. M.

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Woodnutt, Mark

    Wakefield, Sir Waved (St. M'lebone)

    Webster, David

    Worsley, Marcus

    Walder, David

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Walker, Peter

    Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.

    Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek

    Wise, A. R.

    Mr. Whitelaw and

    Mr. Michael Hamilton.

    Mr. Fletcher: I beg to move, in page 17, line 12, at the end to insert:
    Provided that the costs of complying with any directions under this sub-paragraph shall be defrayed by the Secretary of State.
    We now find ourselves in this position. There are five minutes to go before the Guillotine falls. The Government have already accepted four Opposition Amendments to this ill-conceived, ill-digested Schedule to this ill-considered Bill. There are several other Amendments which would be discussed if time permitted and which, no doubt, would be accepted by the Government in order to improve their Bill. But there is only time to discuss this one Amendment.
    This Amendment is designed to qualify the position with regard to the cost of sending back to his own country the immigrant who arrives here and who is refused admission by the immigration officer. Consider, for example, the case of the Chinese laundryman from Hong Kong cited by the hon. Member for Carlisle (Dr. D. Johnson) who has spent his savings coming here and who is found upon medical examination to have tuberculosis.
    Or what about the person who—and according to the Attorney-General there will be several of them—is sent back and refused admission by the immigration officer, not through any personal idiosyncrasy or ineligibility of his own, but because the quota has been exhausted? In such cases who will pay the cost of sending him back? The Amendment suggests that it should be paid by the Secretary of State. There is a similar provision in a later part of the Schedule and I hope, in fairness, that the Amendment will be accepted.
    Mr. Renton: I am glad that the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) has drawn attention to the fact that at a late stage in our proceedings—on this the last day of the Committee stage—the Opposition have put down
    Amendments which, at last, we have been able to accept. Their efforts on the earlier parts of the Bill were not so successful.
    The reason why we make the shipping or aircraft company take people back who are refused admission is that without a financial sanction of this kind there would be nothing to stop them from bringing here immigrants who had neither vouchers nor entry certificates or valid reasons for coming. The carrying companies understand this position perfectly well, even if the Opposition do not.
    Without labouring the point, I am afraid that this is a proviso which we could not accept. There was one later Amendment which we were prepared to accept and perhaps we shall be able to deal with that on another occasion.
    Mr. Fletcher: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman explain how what he has said applies to the immigrant who has a perfectly good reason for coming here and who is refused admission through no fault of his own but because the quota is exhausted?
    Mr. Renton: If the quota had been exhausted a person would not get a voucher. But if a person has obtained a voucher then he is to be admitted by the immigration officer, subject only to questions of health and criminal record which can quite well be found out before he considers journeying to this country.
    Amendment negatived.
    It being half-past Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to Orders, to put forthwith the Questions necessary to bring the Proceedings in Committee to a conclusion.
    Question put, That this Schedule, as amended, be the First Schedule to the Bill:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 224, Noes 167.

    Division No. 88.]

    AYES

    10.30 p.m.

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    Ashton, Sir Hubert

    Barter, John

    Aitken, W. T.

    Atkins, Humphrey

    Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

    Arbuthnot, John

    Barlow, Sir John

    Berkeley, Humphry

    Biffen, John

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

    Pilkington, Sir Richard

    Bishop, F. P.

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

    Pitman, Sir James

    Black, Sir Cyril

    Hastings, Stephen

    Pitt, Miss Edith

    Bossom, Clive

    Hay, John

    Pott, Percivall

    Bourne-Arton, A.

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Prior, J. M. L.

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J,

    Hendry, Forbes

    Proudfoot, Wilfred

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Hiley, Joseph

    Pym, Francis

    Brewis, John

    Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

    Quennell, Miss J. M.

    Brooman-White, R.

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

    Rawlinson, Peter

    Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

    Hocking, Philip N.

    Redmayne, Rt, Hon. Martin

    Bryan, Paul

    Holland, Philip

    Rees, Hugh

    Buck, Antony

    Hollingworth, John

    Rees-Davies, W, R.

    Bullard, Denys

    Hopkins, Alan

    Renton, David

    Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

    Hornby, R. P.

    Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

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

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

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

    Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

    Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

    Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

    Hughes-Young, Michael

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

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Roots, William

    Channon, H. P. G.

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Russell, Ronald

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    James, David

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Seymour, Leslie

    Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

    Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

    Sharples, Richard

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Shaw, M.

    Cleaver, Leonard

    Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

    Shepherd, William

    Cole, Norman

    Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Collard, Richard

    Joseph, Sir Keith

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

    Cooke, Robert

    Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

    Smithere, Peter

    Cooper, A. E.

    Kerr, Sir Hamilton

    Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

    Kitson, Timothy

    Spearman, Sir Alexander

    Corfield, F. V.

    Leather, E. H. C.

    Speir, Rupert

    Costain, A. P.

    Leavey, J. A.

    Stanley, Hon. Richard

    Coulson, Michael

    Leburn, Gilmour

    Stevens, Geoffrey

    Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

    Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

    Craddock, Sir Berestord

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Stodart, J. A.

    Critchley, Julian

    Lilley, F. J. P.

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

    Crowder, F. P.

    Lindsay, Sir Martin

    Storey, Sir Samuel

    Curran, Charles

    Linstead, Sir Hugh

    Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Litchfield, Capt. John

    Talbot, John E.

    Dalkeith, Earl of

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

    Tapsell, Peter

    Dance, James

    Longbottom, Charles

    Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmld, Sir Henry

    Loveys, Walter H.

    Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, moss Side)

    Deedes, W. F.

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn

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

    de Ferranti, Basll

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Temple, John M.

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    McLaren, Martin

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

    McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia

    Thomas, Peter (Conway)

    Doughty, Charles

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

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Drayson, G. B.

    MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

    Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

    Duncan, Sir James

    McMaster, Stanley R.

    Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

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

    Maginnis, John E.

    Turner, Colin

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Farr, John

    Marten, Nell

    Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

    Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

    Vickers, Miss Joan

    Forrest, George

    Mawby, Ray

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

    Freeth, Denzil

    Mills, Stratton

    Walder, David

    Gammans, Lady

    More, Jasper (Ludlow)

    Walker, Peter

    George, J. C. (Pollok)

    Morgan, William

    Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek

    Gibson-Watt, David

    Morrison, John

    Wall, Patrick

    Gilmour, Sir John

    Nabarro, Gerald

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Goodhew, Victor

    Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

    Webster, David

    Gower, Raymond

    Orr-Ewing, C. Ian

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Grant, Rt. Hon. William

    Osborn, John (Hallam)

    Whitelaw, William

    Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.

    Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

    Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

    Green, Alan

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    Wise, A. R.

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    Page, John (Harrow, West)

    Woodhouse, C. M.

    Gurden, Harold

    Partridge, E.

    Woodnutt, Mark

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

    Worsley, Marcus

    Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

    Peel, John

    Hams, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

    Percival, Ian

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Peyton, John

    Mr. Finlay and

    Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

    Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

    Mr. Gordon Campbell.

    NOES

    Ainsley, William

    Blackburn, F.

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Blyton, William

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Boardman, H.

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Awbery, Stan

    Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W.(Leics, S.W.)

    Callaghan, James

    Baird, John

    Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)

    Castle, Mrs. Barbara

    Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)

    Bowles, Frank

    Chapman, Donald

    Beaney, Alan

    Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

    Cliffe, Michael

    Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Brockway, A. Fenner

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Benson, Sir George

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Cronin, John

    1268

    1269

    Cullen, Mrs. Alice

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Davies, Ifor (Cower)

    Janner, Sir Barnett

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Jeger, George

    Ross, William

    Deer, George

    Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

    Royle, Charles (Salford, West)

    Delargy, Hugh

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

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Dempsey, James

    Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Diamond, John

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Skeffington, Arthur

    Dodds, Norman

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

    Donnelly, Desmond

    Kelley, Richard

    Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

    Edelman, Maurice

    Kenyon, Clifford

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Lawson, George

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

    Ledger, Ron

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Evans, Albert

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Steele, Thomas

    Fitch, Alan

    Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

    Fletcher, Eric

    Loughlin, Charles

    Stonehouse, John

    Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Stones, William

    Forman, J. C.

    MacColl, James

    Strachey, Rt. Hon. John

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    McInnes, James

    Symonds, J. B.

    Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    Mackie, John (Enfield, East)

    Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

    George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn)

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

    Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Ginsburg, David

    Manuel, A. C.

    Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

    Gourlay, Harry

    Mapp, Charles

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

    Grey, Charles

    Mason, Roy

    Timmons, John

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Mendelson, J. J.

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.

    Millan, Bruce

    Wade, Donald

    Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

    Milne, Edward

    Wainwright, Edwin

    Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Warbey, William

    Hamilton, William (West Fife)

    Morris, John

    Watkins, Tudor

    Hannan, William

    Neal, Harold

    Weitzman, David

    Hart, Mrs. Judith

    Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    Hayman, F, H.

    Oram, A. E.

    Whitlock, William

    Healey, Denis

    Oswald, Thomas

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rly Regis)

    Owen, Will

    Willey, Frederick

    Herbison, Miss Margaret

    Padley, W. E.

    Williams, D. J. (Neath)

    Hill, O. (Midlothian)

    Parker, John

    Williams, LI. (Abertillery)

    Hilton, A. V.

    Pavitt, Laurence

    Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

    Holman, Percy

    Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

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

    Holt, Arthur

    Peart, Frederick

    Wilson, Rt. Hon, Harold (Huyton)

    Houghton, Douglas

    Pentland, Norman

    Winterbottom, R. E.

    Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)

    Prentice, R. E.

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Woof, Robert

    Hoy, James H.

    Probert, Arthur

    Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Proctor, W. T.

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Rankin, John

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Redhead, E. C.

    Mr. Sydney Irving and Mr. Short.

    Hunter, A. E.

    Rhodes, H.

    Second and Third Schedules agreed to.
    Then The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report the Bill, as amended, to the House, pursuant to Order. [25th January.]
    Bill reported, with Amendments: as amended, to be considered Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 65.]

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Proceedings on the Reports from the Committee of Supply of 29th January and 12th February exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr Iain Macleod.]
  SUPPLY [29th January]
    CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1961–62
      CLASS V

        VOTE 5. NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE, ENGLAND AND WALES
        Resolution reported,
        That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £16,546,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1962, for the provision of national health services for England and Wales and other services connected therewith, including payments to Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man, medical services for pensioners, &c., disabled as a result of war, or of service in the Armed Forces after the 2nd day of September, 1939, certain training arrangements including certain grants in aid, the purchase of appliances, equipment, stores, &c., necessary for the services, and certain expenses in connection with civil defence.

        VOTE 10. NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE, SCOTLAND
        Resolution reported,
        That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,122,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1962, for the provision of national health services for Scotland and other services connected therewith, including medical services for pensioners, &c., disabled as a result of war, or of service in the Armed Forces after the 2nd day of September 1939, certain training arrangements, the purchase of appliances, equipment, stores. &c., necessary for the services, certain expenses in connection with civil defence, and sundry other services.
        Resolutions agreed to.

  SUPPLY [12th February]

    CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1961–62
    Resolution reported,
    That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £78,162,500, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1962, for expenditure in respect of the Services included in the following Civil Estimates, viz.:

    CIVIL ESTIMATES, SPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1961–62

    £

    Class VIII, Vote 2 (Agricultural and Food Grants and Subsidies)

    65,209,000

    Class VIII, Vote 11 (Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland)

    12,953,500

    Total

    £ 78,162,500

    Resolution agreed to.

WAYS AND MEANS [12th February]
Resolution reported,
That towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st March, 1962, the sum of £96,830,500 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.
Resolution agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Sir E. Boyle.

CONSOLIDATED FUND
Bill to apply a sum out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending on the thirty-first day of March, one thousand nine hundred and sixty-two, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 64.]

SCOTLAND (WELFARE FOODS)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. E. Wakefield.]
10.45 p.m.
Mr. A. C. Manuel: I consider myself lucky to have secured the Adjournment debate, and I wish to take this opportunity to spotlight the serious decrease in the consumption of welfare foods since the prices for them were increased after 1st January, 1961. The price for codliver oil is now 1s. a bottle. Previously it was free. Vitamins A and D tablets which are now 6d. were previously free. Orange juice is now 1s. 6d. a bottle and previously was 5d.
From a Question to the Secretary of State for Scotland on 31st January regarding the decrease in the consumption of orange juice and cod-liver oil in the County of Ayr, I discovered that over a 12-week period before and after the price increase the decrease in consumption was 78·2 per cent. for orange juice and 70·9 per cent. for cod-liver oil. That is a very substantial decrease. The medical officer of health gave a report to the Ayr County Council showing that the average weekly decrease since the price increases was 80 per cent. for orange juice and 84 per cent. for cod-liver oil. The county council has protested to the Secretary of State—the Joint Under-Secretary will have a letter—and to the five Members of Parliament who represent Ayrshire constituencies. It has also asked the County Councils Association to take up the matter with the Secretary of State.
I received the following letter from the county council along with other relevant data:

SCOTLAND (WELFARE FOODS)

  WELFARE FOODS
  Dear Mr. Manuel,
  "I enclose a copy of a letter which the County Council have sent to the Secretary of State protesting at the effect of the new prices of welfare foods have had on the uptake of the foods in the County Council's area, as illustrated by the figures contained in the letter. The County Council have also agreed to refer this matter to the Association of County Councils in Scotland asking that the Association take the matter up with the Secretary of State."
  We have clear proof that the county council is concerned. From the
  1274
  Questions which have been asked by many of my hon. Friends we have proof that this decrease in consumption is not confined to Ayrshire but is apparent throughout England and Scotland. The figure in England is about 75 per cent. and in Scotland about 80 per cent.
  Arising from my Question on 31st January, the Joint Under-Secretary said that he was neither worried, shocked nor ashamed about the decrease. The hon. Gentleman will not be allowed to forget those words. I hope that he has had a change of heart from that flint-like, unthinking attitude. His hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health does not take that view. In fact, she has given a pledge that these prices would be reviewed if there were an appreciable decrease. In a debate on these price increases, my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) said:
  "The hon. Lady has paid a tribute to the value of these welfare foods. She says that the Government intend that the distribution shall continue at the present level. If we are right and the Government are wrong and the take-up falls, will the Government reintroduce the free service?"
  The hon. Lady replied:
  "I do not expect to see any change. If in fact there were such a change one would certainly wish to consider it, but I shall be very surprised indeed if there is any."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 19th April, 1961; Vol. 638, c. 1339.]
  The Government are naturally concerned about the decrease. They wanted to unhold the opinion of the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary. They have been conducting a great publicity campaign throughout the country by articles in women's journals, in the Press generally, in Ministry of Labour offices and on the B.B.C. and I.T.V. Despite the fact that that has been going on since 1st June, the decrease has continued and the downward trend is now unmistakable.
  I quote from HANSARD of the debate on 19th April, 1961. With reference to the publicity the Government are trying to put over to the country, the Parliamentary Secretary said:
  "One other way in which we intend to press for concentration on the hard core is education to encourage mothers to take advantage of these foods. In this connection the National Health Service leaflet on maternity

  1275
  care is being revised. This leaflet is sent by National Insurance offices to all expectant mothers, along with milk tokens It is also available in maternity and child welfare clinics. It is available to general practitioners and to hospitals in their maternity and children's departments. The revised leaflet will not be sent out until June, but early next month a special one-page leaflet on the changes and the values of the food and on the National Assistance Board arrangements will be issued with the existing leaflet and widely distributed to those people who already have the present leaflet. We propose also to enlist the aid of the women's journals and the Press, the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. Our public relations division will give information on the changes and on the supplies available."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th April, 1961 Vol. 638, c. 1338.]
  All that is going on. Every publicity media they could gather to their aid has been asked to propagate the value of these foods, yet still we have this very steep decrease in consumption. I quote from an editorial on this matter which appeared in the Guardian on 27th December, 1961. It said:
  "The Minister of Health in one of his Parliamentary replies on this issue"—
  That is the welfare foods—
  "said there were many ways in which the nutrition of the population could be watched. No doubt, but almost all improvements and deteriorations in public health are the result of barely perceptible changes taking place over a long period and a miscalculation on the scale of Miss Pitt's does not inspire confidence in the Government's sensitivity to these changes and its willingness to act upon them. At least the £1·5 million a year saved by the abolition of the welfare food subsidies should enable the Ministry to concentrate research and assistance on those families whose children are known to be poorly nourished."
  This is all to save £1·5 million. Having made the cut, the Government are trying to recover the position. In view of the ministerial promise when the question of these foods was debated, that if in the unlikely event of a falling off in demand the matter would be reconsidered, can we now have a promise from the Government Front Bench that the promise will be honoured? This matter of the health of our children and of nursing mothers is of far too great moment—it includes handicapped children—to brook any delay in waiting until the facts are clearly demonstrated by illness and disease occurring in these sections of the population.
  10.55 p.m.
  Mr. William Ross: This is indeed a strange and regrettable contrast. Yesterday we discussed the effect
  1276
  of subsidies amounting to £344 million. Tonight we are considering the consequences of the withdrawal of a subsidy of just over £1 million. Yesterday a supporter of what was being done by the Government, claiming the importance of agriculture, said that it amounted to one penny per meal for every member of the population. If that is true, what we are considering is the effect of a saving of one three hundred and forty-fourth part of a penny per meal.
  It is incontrovertible that there has been a fall in the uptake of these foods since 1st June last when the Government started to make this saving. From 23,000 bottles of orange juice in the twelve weeks from 4th July, 1960, it has fallen in Ayrshire—I take these facts from figures supplied by the Government—to just over 5,000 in the twelve weeks from 4th September, 1961. The take-up of cod liver oil has fallen from nearly 4,000 bottles to just over 1,000 bottles for the same period.
  The fall is not controvertible. The value of the foods and the service being given are equally incontrovertible. In many cases it cannot be replaced. What we are discussing tonight—cod liver oil, orange juice, and vitamin tablets—are irreplaceable for expectant and nursing mothers, babies under 2 and children under school age, and handicapped children.
  The Ministry issued a leaflet containing the heading,
  "Why you should buy vitamin supplements",
  which states that orange juice, which is concentrated vitamin C, cannot be obtained in any other way. It has a very high content of vitamin C.
  "A bottle contains about as much vitamin C as seven average oranges and costs much less…orange drinks at present sold in the shops contain little vitamin C and are therefore not an adequate substitute."
  This is the point. It is said that people can get this from oranges, green vegetables and potatoes, but can children under 2 have a diet like that? This is the proper way to give this vital vitamin to babies. If it is not being taken up, the babies are suffering. This is the point the Government must face.
  Vitamins A and D, which are concentrated in cod liver oil, help the growth of the child and its resistance to diseases

  1277
  of the ear, throat and chest. My hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire is right. In the face of these facts, it is incredible that the Under-Secretary should say:
  "I am neither worried, shocked nor ashamed…"[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st January, 1962; Vol. 652, c. 1080.]
  The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith): Read on.
  Mr. Ross: I intend to read on. I do not think that this is hard or cruel. I think it is utterly silly. It is a tragedy that we should have in the Scottish Office Ministers who are prepared to make such statements. The hon. Gentleman went on to say that there was no evidence that health was affected. Of course there is no evidence that the health is affected, but when will this tell on the children—not tomorrow, not next year. It will tell in their eventual inabilty to resist disease. Is it worth doing this in order to save £1½ million?
  I sincerely hope that the Under-Secretary will redeem himself tonight, and will ensure that immediate steps are taken to provide these things free, as they were, or at a reduced rate, because—let us face it—if we are here seeing the loss of the mothers' habit of going to the clinics to take up these foods we can before long say "goodbye" to an increase in the take-up, in spite of all the advertisements. The Government did a terrible thing, there was no justification for it, and I think that their meanness will be paid for very dearly in the future health of our people in Scotland.
  11.1 p.m.
  Mr. Emrys HughesI ask the Minister to take a different view from that which he expressed the other day at Question Time. As one who represents him in the House, and as a citizen of Ayrshire, I ask him to think of the effects of this particularly mean little act of economy on the people amongst whom he lives. It has been said that he will reply that there are not likely to be any ill-effects. How does he know? Can he brush aside the opinion of the medical officer of health of Ayrshire and the opinion of the health committee there? I served for many years on the health committee of the Ayrshire County Council, and I
  1278
  know that its members take their duties very seriously. They are concerned, as is the hon. Gentleman, and as the Government are concerned, to curtail any unnecessary public expenditure, but they believe that this is a necessary public expenditure and wish the Minister to change his view of it.
  This is something which bears very heavily on the people with the lowest incomes. A very large number of people in our villages have very low incomes indeed. At the same time, they are having to pay extra rent, and the housewives have to work on a very low margin. The medical officer of health and the health committee of the Ayrshire County Council would not have taken the trouble to have urged hon. Members representing Ayrshire divisions to raise this subject had they not first given it very serious consideration, and had they not believed that to do so was in the interests of the people they represent. I urge the Minister to give a more sympathetic reply this evening than the one he gave at Question Time the other day.
  11.4 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith): When the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) raised this matter at Question Time almost a fortnight ago we had some rather heated exchanges. That was, perhaps, inevitable, because the subject of these welfare food vitamin supplements is one about which there is a lot of feeling. I hope, however, to be able to show tonight that that feeling is misplaced and comes from what is perhaps a misunderstanding of what the Government are trying to do. For that reason, I welcome the debate, and I hope that in clearing up various misunderstandings it may serve a useful purpose, not only in this House but in the country.
  To get the matter into proper perspective it is necessary to go back some way and to consider when this scheme for the provision of orange juice, cod-liver oil and vitamin A and D tablets began, and why it was introduced. As the House probably knows, the scheme was started early in the war when there was rationing and a shortage of foods containing these vitamins. The object of the scheme was to protect the health

  1279
  of expectant mothers, nursing mothers and young children by making available in concentrated form the vitamins which they needed and were otherwise difficult to obtain.
  One interesting feature about the scheme which may have been forgotten by hon. Gentlemen opposite is that it was not at that time free. A bottle of orange juice cost 5d. while a bottle of cod-liver oil cost 10d.—much dearer in real terms than the present prices; packets of vitamins A and D, which cost 10d. each, were much dearer in real terms than the present price of 6d. a packet. So until July, 1946—when the party opposite made cod-liver oil and vitamin tablets available free of charge—we had in operation an orange juice, cod-liver oil and vitamins scheme at costs not out of line, taking into account the fall in the value of money, with those that obtain today. In view of all that has been said about costs this is an important point to remember.
  I turn now—because this is a point on which there is considerable misunderstanding—to the health aspect and the contribution which welfare vitamin supplements have made to nutrition. The interesting thing is that the consumption of these supplements in peacetime has always been about one-third of the entitlement. That is to say, two-thirds have not been taken up. This is true even of the immediate post-war years when supplies of other sources of vitamins were much scarcer than they are today. What happened since then is that other sources of vitamins gradually became more plentiful, families became better off and the consumption of welfare foods fell even below the normal low level. In Scotland, in the last six months of 1960, the take-up of orange juice was just over 29 per cent., of vitamins A and D about 19 per cent. and of cod-liver oil about 9 per cent. The figures for Ayrshire—with which all the hon. Gentlemen who have spoken have been concerned—show that in the same period a somewhat similar trend to that of the rest of Scotland prevailed there. About 30 per cent. took their orange juice, 18 per cent. took vitamins A and D and 10 per cent. took their cod-liver oil.
  It may be argued that although only a minority took these welfare foods, the
  1280
  food was going to those who needed it the most.
  Mr. Manuel: That is the point.
  Mr. Galbraith: But hon. Gentlemen opposite do not seem to appreciate that surveys which have been carried out show that the consumption of welfare foods was the lowest among the social classes four and five. They are the very people who, it might be thought, would need these welfare foods the most. Yet they were, in fact, taking them the least. These facts show plainly that the beneficiaries have not had to rely on welfare foods alone as their source of vitamins. A great many people, particularly among those who are worst off, have relied instead on natural foods and, perhaps, also on the various proprietary preparations that are available in the shops and sometimes at clinics.
  Throughout the period 1950–1960, when only about one-third of the welfare food vitamins available were being taken up—and when the poorer classes were taking up even less than this—what was happening to the health of the mothers and young children? This is the crucial aspect of this question, because the actual consumption does not really matter. What matters is the health of those for whom the vitamins are being made available. I am glad to be able to say that the story of health is very good indeed. In Scotland, the infant mortality rate per 1,000 live births, which was only 38·6 in 1950 had dropped to 26·4 in 1960. The maternal mortality rate per 10,000 births fell from 10 to 3 in the same period. Meanwhile scurvy and rickets had become very rare diseases.
  Mr. Manuel: That has been the trend all over Europe.
  Mr. Galbraith: Nevertheless, this is an encouraging picture. The point which I want to stress is that this improvement has been achieved despite the small up-take of these welfare foods.
  Reference has been made to the remarks of my hon. Friend. The best answer I can give is to refer the House to what the Minister of Health said when he was asked about the same point. He then said that the problem was one of individual and particular families and that it did not require a

  1281
  general subsidy. That is the view of the Government, and it has been borne out by our experience.
  The House will be aware that the Cohen Committee was concerned with the supply of welfare vitamin supplement for those people who had an inadequate diet. Let us consider how far our new scheme meets this requirement. The basic plank of the scheme is that those worst off—that is, those at or about the National Assistance level—will continue to get free of charge what they need. Up to date there have been some encouraging results. From mid-June to mid-September, 1961, free issues of orange juice were over 38,000, compared with a figure of less than 7,000 for the same period in 1960. This is not due to the fact that more people were receiving National Assistance; in fact, it is the other way round. There are fewer people on National Assistance now than there were in the period immediately preceding the change in prices. The reasons for the increase in up-take seem to be partly the simplified procedure and partly the good publicity given about the availability of these foods for those living at or about the National Assistance level.
  For those above it, vitamin foods are available more cheaply than they are available elsewhere. To take an extreme example, the case of an expectant mother with three children under five years, it will cost only about 2s. 6d. a week for her to buy all the vitamin supplement to which she is entitled; which is less than 2s. more than she would have had to pay before. But it is, of course, up to the mother to decide whether she will buy our welfare foods or the proprietary pro
  1282
  ducts; or she can have the natural sources of vitamin which are now in abundant supply.
  The important thing is to notice that while the total up-take of these foods has declined it never was more than about one-third. One of the beneficial results of the changes made last year is the increase in the up-take by the poorer people.
  To sum up, welfare foods originally supplied at cost in wartime, have not in peace time been a main source of vitamin. In the 1950s beneficiaries used less than one-third of the quantity to which they were entitled and yet health and nutrition improved. Consequently, the fall in up-take since June is not in itself a reason for any alarm.
  The group whom it is important to provide with welfare foods is that which may be in danger of not getting enough vitamins because they cannot afford to buy enough of the proprietary preparations. This group is protected under the new scheme and is taking up more welfare foods than before. For the rest, welfare foods are available as part of the local health authority services for mothers and young children at prices which are cheap and are good value for money. As I stated at Question Time a fortnight ago, the Government will continue to keep a watch on the—
  The Question having been proposed after half-past Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at fourteen minutes past Eleven o'clock.

NATIONAL FINANCE
  University College (Cumberland and Westmorland)
  University College (Cumberland and Westmorland)
  Civil Servants, London
  Civil Servants, London
  British Forces, Germany
  British Forces, Germany
  Supplementary Estimates
  Supplementary Estimates
  Incomes Policy
  Incomes Policy
  Housekeeper Allowances
  Housekeeper Allowances
  Manufacturing Industry (Investment)
  Manufacturing Industry (Investment)
  Honours List
  Honours List
  Opera
  Opera
  Royal Ballet
  Royal Ballet
  Tobacco Duty
  Tobacco Duty
  National Economic Development Council
  National Economic Development Council
  Pool Betting Duty
  Pool Betting Duty
  Schedule A
  Schedule A
  Bank of England Building, Bristol
  Bank of England Building, Bristol
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Anglo-Canadian Trade
  Anglo-Canadian Trade
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Cotton Imports
  Cotton Imports
  Cleveland
  Cleveland
  River Plate Conference
  River Plate Conference
  Unemployment
  Unemployment
  Cigarettes (Sales)
  Cigarettes (Sales)
  Indonesia
  Indonesia
  Consumer Protection
  Consumer Protection
  Merchandise Marks (Country of Origin)
  Merchandise Marks (Country of Origin)
  Japan
  Japan
  Industrial Site, Donibristle
  Industrial Site, Donibristle
SCIENCE
  Advisory Council on Scientific Policy (Report)
  Advisory Council on Scientific Policy (Report)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Local Government Reorganisation, London
  Local Government Reorganisation, London
  Outdoor Advertising
  Outdoor Advertising
  Homeless Families, London
  Homeless Families, London
  Office Accommodation, London
  Office Accommodation, London
  Caledonian Market Site
  Caledonian Market Site
  Cultural Activities
  Cultural Activities
  Transitional Receipts
  Transitional Receipts
  Air Pollution (Hull)
  Air Pollution (Hull)
HOUSING
  Leasehold Reform
  Leasehold Reform
  Smokeless Fuel Appliances
  Smokeless Fuel Appliances
  Slum Clearance
  Slum Clearance
  Rents
  Rents
MINISTRY OF WORKS
  Construction Industries
  Construction Industries
POST OFFICE
  Giro System
  Giro System
  Satellite Communications System
  Satellite Communications System
  Post Office Engineering Union (Dispute)
  Post Office Engineering Union (Dispute)
WIRELESS AND TELEVISION
  I.T.A. (Adult Education Programme)
  I.T.A. (Adult Education Programme)
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Blyth
  Blyth
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Fishing Industry
  Fishing Industry
PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Retirement Pensioners
  Retirement Pensioners
SHIPPING
  Shipbuilding (Engineering Strike)
  Shipbuilding (Engineering Strike)
  TELEVISION NEWS BROADCASTS (CRIMINAL TRIALS)
  TELEVISION NEWS BROADCASTS (CRIMINAL TRIALS)
EDUCATION
  School Dental Service (Hickley)
  School Dental Service (Hickley)
HOSPITALS
  Oakwell Hospital, Birstall
  Oakwell Hospital, Birstall
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Police Headquarters, Durham
  Police Headquarters, Durham
EMPLOYMENT
  Training Allowances Scheme
  Training Allowances Scheme
  Shipbuilding Industry (Engineering Strike)
  Shipbuilding Industry (Engineering Strike)
HOUSING
  Local Authority Houses (Economic Rent)
  Local Authority Houses (Economic Rent)
SCOTLAND
  School Dental Services
  School Dental Services

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

LORD BRAIN
Sir Walter Russell Brain, Baronet, having been created Baron Brain, of Eynsham in the County of Oxford—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

FOOD POISONING IN H.M.S. "GANGES"
2.10 p.m.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what was the cause of the poisoning of members of the crew of H.M.S. "Ganges"; and what steps are proposed to prevent similar incidents in future.]
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (LORD CARRINGTON):
My Lords, I am sorry to say that it has not so far been possible to establish the cause of the outbreak of food poisoning in H.M.S. "Ganges" at the beginning of December. The immediate investigation carried out by the medical staff of H.M.S. "Ganges" failed to reveal any evidence of bacterial infection. This, and the pattern of the outbreak, led to the preliminary conclusion that the illness was caused by apples which were issued at supper on the evening of December 1. The report of a local analyst lent support to this conclusion. A thorough investigation has since been made both by the Government Chemist and by the Chemical Defence Experimental Establishment at Porton, and no evidence has been found that the illness was caused by the presence of spray residues on the apples. It is not certain whether or not the apples were the cause of the out-
356
break, but as a precautionary measure while these investigations have been proceeding, all apples issued in H.M.S. "Ganges" have been washed before being eaten. Since the cause of the food poisoning is still unknown, I cannot yet take any special steps to prevent similar incidents in the future.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, could the noble Lord say what was the source of the apples? Were they home grown or imported?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the apples were English grown on a farm in Kent; they were wrapped and crated, and had been obtained by H.M.S. "Ganges" from N.A.A.F.I., who had purchased them from Spitalfields Market.

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM AND PARLIAMENTARIANS' CONFERENCE
2.13 p.m.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I propose to make a personal statement. I have been invited to lead the British delegation to a Conference of United States Congressmen and Canadian and British Parliamentarians which has been arranged by the British-American Parliamentary Group and will take place in Bermuda from February 20 to 24.
The purpose and activities of the British-American Parliamentary Group are well known to your Lordships. There is, however, one matter of special interest about this forthcoming Conference which is, I think, worthy of mention. The Conference will be attended not only by Parliamentarians from this country and from the United States, but, for the first time on an occasion of this nature, by delegates from the Canadian Houses of Parliament, led by Mr. Fleming, the Minister of Finance in the Canadian Government. I am sure that your Lordships will share my pleasure in this and my confidence that our discussions will substantially benefit from the presence of Mr. Fleming and his fellow delegates.
The British delegation, which I have been asked to lead, will include, I am glad to say, the right honourable Gentleman, Mr. Gaitskell, the Leader of the

357
Opposition in another place, and my noble friend Lord Dundee. The arrangements for this Conference will involve my absence from your Lordships' House during next week's sittings. If your Lordships will give me this leave of absence, I am sure that I shall take with me the greetings from all quarters of your Lordships' House to the delegates from the United States Congress and from the Canadian Houses of Parliament, and your Lordships' good wishes for the success of our deliberations. My noble friend Lord Mills will be available during the week of my absence.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will treat this tradition, if it can be so called, with their usual unanimity, and we hope the Leader of the House will have a very successful conference. Having read a certain Sunday newspaper, I could suggest to him some subjects for discussion, but I will not do so now.
LORD REA: My Lords, may I endorse what the noble Viscount said? Of course, the House will not be itself next week, but it may return to its natural self the week after, I hope.

YORKSHIRE WOOLLEN DISTRICT TRANSPORT BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and referred to the Examiners.
KENT QUARTER SESSIONS BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
SCOTSWOOD BRIDGE BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed to a Select Committee.
ROYAL RUSSELL SCHOOL BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and referred to the Examiners.

ARMY RESERVE BILL
Brought from the Commons on Friday last and printed (pursuant to Standing Order 44A).
Bill read 1a.

STATUTORY ORDERS (SPECIAL PROCEDURE) ORDER, 1962
2.17 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion for an humble Address, standing in my name on the Order Paper. I hope that your Lordships will agree that the purposes of this Motion and the reasons for it are clearly outlined in the White Paper (Cmnd. 1610) which has been presented to the House. The White Paper contains a draft of the Order in Council which it is proposed to make.
Your Lordships may wish to be reminded briefly about the background, to this Motion. Your Lordships may recall that his matter arises from a debate on April 22, 1959, on a Motion moved by my noble friend Lord Jesse, concerning an Order made by the then Minister of Housing and Local Government under the Public Health Act, 1875. The Order was designed to amend the local Acts of Leicester Corporation. A number of your Lordships, including the Lord Chairman of Committees and the noble Lords, Lord Latham and Lord Greenhill, expressed concern, not so much about the merits of that particular Order as about the procedure under which it was being brought before Parliament. As a result, my noble friend Lord Dundee, speaking on behalf of the Government, promised that an inquiry into this procedure would be undertaken.
The Government have now made a very thorough and detailed examination of Special Parliamentary Procedure, in which they have had the benefit of much assistance from the Officers of both Houses. The subject is not entirely without its complexities and the inquiry necessarily took a longish time. The result was announced by my noble friend the Leader of the House in a statement to your Lordships on August 1 last. This statement is set out in the White Paper to which I have referred. In brief, the Government fully accept the criticisms which were made of Special Parliamentary Procedure during the Leicester debate so far as Orders, like the Leicester Order, made under Section 303 of the Public Health Act, 1875, are

359
concerned. They agree that Special Parliamentary Procedure is inappropriate for Orders of this extensive nature, and that they should be subject to the same sort of scrutiny as a Private Bill.
The proposed Order in Council will produce that result by applying once more to Orders made under Section 303 of the Public Health Act, 1875, the Provisional Order Procedure under which they came before Parliament up to 1949 —that is to say, until the operation of the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) (Substitution) Order of that year. This reapplication to these Orders of the Provisional Order Procedure means that in future they will be treated in many respects in the same way as a Private Bill. In particular, it means that they will be submitted at Committee stage to precisely the same sort of scrutiny by the Lord Chairman—and by an opposed committee, if there are petitions to be dealt with—who will have the same powers, as in the case of Private Bills, to amend them or recommend their rejection. As will be seen from the last paragraph of the White Paper, it is also proposed to convert back to Provisional Order Procedure, Section 297 (5) of the 1875 Act, which contains a complementary power to amend Provisional Order Confirmation Acts and Special Parliamentary Procedure Orders. For the most part, this means Orders which have already been made under Section 303.
I should perhaps mention that there is one small reservation to this, again not entirely without its complexity. Section 297 (5) is also the power under which Provisional Orders made under Section 279 of the Public Health Act for setting up joint boards may be amended. Although Section 279 has now been repealed and replaced by Section 6 of the Public Health Act, 1936, there are still in existence sixteen joint sewerage boards set up under the old provision. The modern Orders made under the 1936 Act can be amended by Orders made under Section 9 of that Act which are subject to Special Parliamentary Procedure. We see no reason why the Orders made under the 1936 Act should not remain subject to that Procedure. If that is accepted, it would be clearly right that Orders made under Section 297 of the older Act, to amend any of
360
the old Provisional Orders setting up joint boards, should also be subject to the same procedure—namely, Special Parliamentary Procedure. The draft Order in Council therefore excludes any Orders of that nature from the proposed conversion to Provisional Order Procedure.
Your Lordships will, I assume, not wish to embark at this stage on a general debate on Special Parliamentary Procedure. But I should perhaps emphasise that the Government, as a result of this detailed re-examination of the procedure, have come to the firm conclusion that it is entirely appropriate to the great majority of Orders to which it applies. Indeed, in these cases it has, in the Government's view, substantial advantages over Provisional Order Procedure. The great majority are in fact Orders of comparatively limited scope whose purpose is the application to local circumstances of a general policy formulated within a framework determined by statute. Such Orders are quite different in character from those made under Section 303 of the Public Health Act, 1875. As is made clear in the White Paper, the Government feel, however, that certain modifications might be made to the procedure with the object of making it easier for petitions against Orders to he presented and dealt with. These modifications will require legislation. They will be considered further by the Government as soon as a suitable opportunity presents itself.
In conclusion, I would merely refer to one other suggestion that emerged from the inquiry. It has been suggested that it might be helpful to the House if its attention could be drawn to any particular points raised by a Special Parliamentary Procedure Order. I am glad to inform your Lordships that the Lord Chairman of Committees has very kindly intimated that he would be prepared to undertake this additional responsibility.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the provisions of the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, 1945, cease to apply to the following orders under the Public Health Act, 1875, that is to say—

(a) any order made under section 303 of that Act;

(b) any order made under paragraph (5) of section 297 of that Act

361
other than an order for the repeal, alteration or amendment of an Act confirming a provisional order made under section 279 of that Act.—(Earl Jellicoe.)

LORD LATHAM: My Lords, the very clarity with which the noble Earl has explained the complexities of this Order indicates how complicated things can become when procedural matters are under consideration. I recall, somewhat faintly perhaps, the debate which arose on the Leicester Corporation Bill, when it appeared that an anomaly—indeed, an anachronism—existed, and an undertaking to remove that was given by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee. That apparently has been done, but I confess that I cannot say whether or not it has been done, having regard to the complexity of the provisions which were quite properly referred to by the noble Earl. But I think we can with a reasonable measure of safety, approve the Order which is now submitted by the noble Earl.
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Address to be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

NORTHERN IRELAND BILL [H.L.]
2.25 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, in rising to move that the House do resolve itself into a Committee on this Bill, may I say one word? At a quarter-past-one I was told that it would better suit the members of the Opposition, and especially the noble Viscount who leads the Opposition, if this Committee stage were postponed. My Lords, I confess that it is impossible—all the arrangements have been made, and there are other reasons which are obvious to your Lordships—for the Committee stage to be postponed beyond to-day. But I at once suggested that I should be prepared, after the House went into Committee, to move that the debate be adjourned until the conclusion of the debate on Agriculture, if that would suit the convenience of the noble Viscount better. I gather
362
there are further difficulties which have arisen. I am quite prepared to take the course that suits the noble Leader and the Opposition best, but I think you; Lordships will appreciate that, with a Bill of this kind, it would be impossible for me to have the Committee stage adjourned beyond to-day.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, I am sorry to trouble the House with this matter. We gave notice last December that we should like a debate on Agriculture arising out of questions and answers at the time, and therefore we wanted a day of reasonable length at a convenient time. We were not able to get what we asked for, but we agreed, in negotiation, that we would take it to-day after Government business, which would not be long. Now I fear that the business may be long, unless the House can restrain itself, and I have no special right to ask for that. I believe the situation is now that the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack would be willing to take the Committee stage later in the day, but that is not convenient for the people who want to move the important Amendments to the Northern Ireland Bill. So I am in a difficulty. I should have liked further time to think it over, but if it is so essential that the Committee stage be taken to-day, may we ask for the gracious help of your Lordships, to see that it does not last long? I make a special appeal to the movers of the Amendments and I hope that they will be restrained in length. I hope, too, that the same restraint will be displayed by those who do not agree with the Amendments.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for the manner in which he has taken this, and I bear him good news: the Lord Chairman tells me that the first two Amendments standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Craigmyle are not going to be moved. I hope that we shall meet the noble Viscount's suggestion with the greatest possible speed.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 12 agreed to.
Clause 13:
Relaxation for certain purposes, of restrictions on diversion of property of religious or educational bodies
13.—(1) Such of the restrictions imposed by subsection (1) of section five of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, and Article 16 of the Articles of Agreement for a treaty between Great Britain and Ireland set out in the Schedule to the Irish Free State (Agreement) Act, 1922, on the power of the Parliament of Northern Ireland to make laws as preclude it from making a law so as directly or indirectly to divert the property of a religious denomination or educational institution shall cease to extend so as to render void, in relation to the property of a religious denomination (other than the fabric of a cathedral church) or the property of an educational institution, a law made by that Parliament in so far as it provides or enables provision to be made for—

(a) the compulsory acquisition (on payment of compensation) of land for the purposes of housing or slum-clearance, or the development or redevelopment of any area; or

(b) the control of the use of land

(2) In this section "land" has the same meaning as in section forty-five of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland), 1954.
LORD CRAIGMYLE LORD CRAIGMYLE had given notice of his intention to move, in subsection (1) to leave out "(other than the fabric of a cathedral church)". The noble Lord said: My Lords, my purpose in putting down this Amendment was, if I may use the phrase, to "show willing". I do not think that Clause 13, if your Lordships keep it in the Bill, is incapable of amendment, but I do not want at this moment to get bogged down in discussion of details. I would much rather confine myself to following the noble Earl opposite in discussing the principle of Clause 13 on Amendment No. 3. With your Lordships' permission, therefore, I will not move Amendment No. 1 or Amendment No. 2.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD THE EARL OF LONGFORD moved to leave out Clause 13. The noble Earl said: I do not think I need take up the time of the Committee for very long to-day, because there will be at least one other opportunity here, I suppose, and there should be many opportunities in another place. But this is a matter of great significance, and, whatever business followed it, I should find it very difficult, in so far as I had any power,
364
to agree to give this some kind of secondary place. May I call the attention of the House to a leading article which appeared in The Times yesterday? It contains these phrases:
"Among the religious guarantees included in the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, is one restricting the compulsory purchase of property belonging to religious bodies to the purposes of roads, railways, and public utilities".
The Times goes on:
"It is now proposed"—
that means, proposed under the Bill before your Lordships—
"to extend powers of compulsory purchase of this kind of property to the purposes of 'housing or slum clearance, or the development or re-development of any area'".
The article continues:
"At the same time the Northern Ireland Government is to be given power to impose controls on land use without payment or compensation".
That brings us to the next clause, which I will leave to the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken. But I hasten to say that I support very strongly what he is going to say. I have no doubt that he will say, as he has done in a letter to The Times this morning, that for once the most famous newspaper in the world has not summarised the Amendment quite adequately.
But let me go back to Clause 13. It will be recalled that, on Second Reading, I asked the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor whether there were any adverse reactions from the interested parties, such as the religious bodies, to the proposals in Clause 13. Let me repeat that the clause would give power to the Northern Ireland Government to obtain property, for slum clearance and other matters, from religious bodies on payment of compensation. The noble and learned Viscount, who is always so extraordinarily helpful and fair, replied as follows. He said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol, 236 (No. 31), col. 1147]:
"So far as I know—I asked for information after he was good enough to give me notice —there has not been any reaction from the religious and educational bodies on this point that has come to the knowledge of those who have been preparing the legislation. Of course, if I hear of any I shall tell the noble Earl at once. They know of none".
In fact, when the noble and learned Viscount heard of a reaction which I shall mention, he was, of course, quick

365
to write and tell me so, as, naturally, we should all expect of him. In other words, when this matter came up before, I asked whether there was any reaction, and I was told that, so far as those concerned with preparing legislation were aware, there was no reaction.
That being so, it may have surprised some students of affairs, including Members of this House, to see a column in the Home News of The Times for this Monday headed:
"Grave Disquiet over Ulster Bill: Catholic Bishops' Fear of Abuse".
So, in fact, there has been a very strong reaction, as perhaps might have been forecast, because The Times itself has called the process involved in Clause 13 "Diluting a Guarantee". Those to whom a guarantee is given very seldom welcome its dilution. Therefore, I think it is of no surprise that there has been an extremely adverse reaction from some of those concerned. On paper, it does not affect only one particular denomination, and there may be other protests; but all that I have been informed about are the protests of the Catholic Bishops in Northern Ireland.
The Times went on in this excellent leading article to refer to "a sharp and tardy protest"; and I felt it necessary to write a letter, which The Times was kind enough to print to-day, pointing out that, although in fact the protest was late in time, it could not have been made earlier. I know this story very well, because two of the Catholic hierarchy came over to London last Friday and, after seeing me, were courteously received at the Home Office. I suppose that most Members of the House would have assumed that, in a matter of this kind, the interests most affected, or the interests affected as much as any others, would be consulted. I think everybody would have assumed that at least they would have been informed; but the first that the Catholic hierarchy knew of this clause was what they read about it in the papers. Then, things being what they are in that part of the world, it was not possible for them to obtain a copy of the Bill at all quickly. Here in this country one would telephone some Government Department and one would receive a copy of the Bill within an hour if, by an oversight, one had not been informed earlier—this is rather relevant
366
to consideration of the clause—but the Catholic Bishops over there had to apply to the Ulster Stationery Office and order a copy.
It may or may not have been due to the postal "go slow" that it took from January 24 to about February 4 or 5 for a copy to reach them; and so, if they have been tardy, the tardiness has not been their fault. These things are rather important, I think, because they bear on the question whether they can place implicit confidence in a Government which treats them in this way. At any rate, they received a copy of the Bill and were very much disquieted; and they duly came over to London and made their protest to the Home Office.
I am not going to labour the argument at this moment, because I know that the noble and learned Viscount will want to say something, and, of course, there will be other chances in this House and certainly chances in another place; but I myself must emphasise that, if this goes through, it will be a departure from the guarantee which was given to the minority in 1920. I am not going to argue law, certainly not with one of the great lawyers of to-day, but am going to talk in terms of moral obligation. I would say that, at that time, a moral obligation was entered into, and that, if this clause goes through without any kind of qualification, that moral undertaking will be betrayed. Therefore, at this stage, in order to promote discussion and clarification, I move the rejection of the clause.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 13.—(The Earl of Longford.)
2.37 p.m.
LORD CRAIGMYLE: The noble Earl opposite has put before your Lordships' Committee very clearly the objections which he sees to this clause; objections of principle, that the thing is ill-considered. We are being asked in this clause, and in Clauses 14 and 15, to amend the Constitution of Northern Ireland. Amending a Constitution is rather like marriage: it is not to be taken in hand lightly, unadvisedly or wantonly. Here, we are being asked, at a few days' notice, to amend the Constitution of Northern Ireland. Moreover, Section 5 of the Government of Ireland Act is what might be called in some circum-

367
stances an "entrenched clause"; a clause put there for the specific purpose of protecting minorities.
The minority which the noble Earl had in mind, and which I also have in mind, is the Roman Catholic minority, and that brings straight to the forefront the very awkward position of the religious controversy in Northern Ireland. It is a tragedy—and I am afraid it appears to me, from what I have heard, as if it is true—that the progress towards greater understanding between denominations in Northern Ireland has been far slower than it has been in the last 40 years in this country, and there are aspects of life in Northern Ireland which are to this day utterly dominated by the religious question. Therefore, if now at so short a notice we are to attempt to amend Section 5 of the 1920 Act, as we will be doing by Clause 13 here, and so hastily, we shall be doing a grave disservice to the people, the majority as well as the minority, in Northern Ireland.
LORD KILBRACKEN: I wish to rise very briefly to express my support of the noble Earl, because I think it may be helpful to show that it is not only Irishmen of the noble Earl's religious persuasion who oppose this new Bill.
LORD RATHCAVAN: I think it is perhaps rather unfortunate that the noble Earl, Lord Longford, should have raised this religious issue. It seems to me a very simple thing. Under Section 5 of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, the Northern Ireland Parliament were forbidden to make any laws discriminating against any religious bodies, with this exception:
"except for the purpose of roads, railways, lighting. Water, or drainage works, or other works of public utility …"
In other words, the Parliament had power to take land from religious bodies for any of those purposes. All this Bill does is to add to those exceptions:
"land, for the purposes of housing or slum clearance, or the development or redevelopment of any area".
I believe that the only reason why it has been necessary to put this into the Bill is that the courts ruled that the definition in the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, of "a public utility" did not include housing. It is merely proposed to bring housing within that definition of
368
public utility, and to make housing and slum clearance very necessary in the development of the community, and to put them on the same footing as railways, roads, water or drainage works under the Act of 1920.
LORD DUNLEATH: In supporting the noble Lord, Lord Rathcavan, and without wishing to take up any more of your Lordships' time than I can help, I should just like to say that I think it is not altogether surprising that any property owner should show a certain amount of concern when legislation is being proposed which is likely to affect his rights. But at the same time, although the Roman Catholic Church, which has been referred to, is in a minority in Northern Ireland, I should like to put it to your Lordships, as someone who lives in Northern Ireland, that we do have better things to think about in Northern Ireland to-day than religious discrimination. The old contentions which did so much to drag down Ireland, both North and South, in the past are being grown out of. I believe this is so, and I pray God that it is.
This does not mean that we in Northern Ireland are any the less loyal to the Crown; far from it; but we have more exciting things to think about today than religious bigotry. Such issues as slum clearance, which is the purpose of this clause, providing houses which are reasonable for industrial workers to live in, pleasant surroundings in the cities with open spaces and facilities for car parking, developing new industries to provide employment, providing adequate schools and hospitals throughout the Provinces, and building roads capable of serving our expanding economy—these are what we are thinking about in Northern Ireland to-day. I can assure your Lordships that the spirit of this Bill is entirely in keeping with those thoughts, and not in any way intended to prejudice the position of any minority of any denomination.
2.45 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): I am very grateful to my noble friends, Lord Rathcavan and Lord Dunleath, for making these points, because I think we have to consider this matter both from the point of view of

369
the pledge and also from the point of view of the social conditions in Northern Ireland, which are a matter irrespective of Party and of religion.
On the question of the pledge, I think it ought to be made clear that the section of the Act to which the noble Earl referred is in three parts. First and most important is the provision which prevents the Northern Ireland Parliament from enacting legislation which discriminates on religious grounds. If your Lordships will bear with me, I should like you to have the words in mind. Section 5 of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, prevents the Northern Ireland Parliament from legislating.
"so as either directly or indirectly to establish or endow any religion, or prohibit or restrict the free exercise thereof, or give a preference, privilege or advantage, or impose any disability or disadvantage, on account of religious belief or religious or ecclesiastical status …"
Now, that clear and wide provision is not affected at all. It is left in the Bill, and is left as a limitation on the legislating power of the Parliament at Stormont. That is part I, and it is in no way affected by Clause 13. It will continue to provide, I think your Lordships will agree, a comprehensive safeguard against legislation which would offend.
The second object of Section 5 was to restrict the diversion of the property of religious denominations, even on payment of compensation, to certain listed purposes, as my noble friend Lord Rathcavan pointed out. These purposes (and your Lordships will remember that we are dealing with an Act passed in 1920) are:
"roads, railways, lighting, water, or drainage works, or other works, of public utility".
Under the pledge, it is perfectly permissible to take church property, with the exception of the fabric of a cathedral church, for these purposes. So, on the question whether there are not certain public purposes for which church property can be taken under compensation, the Act of 1920 says that there are: there are what one might call generally public utility purposes. This is quite beyond any Party. It has always been a matter recognised by all Parties that, for purposes of that sort, this provision is necessary. Even great private interests must give way to the general public interest, which is on the principle of
370
providing decent living conditions and amenities for all people.
The question on this Amendment is whether that should be extended to the fields which I have mentioned. I think everyone, including the noble Earl, will agree that since 1920 there has been considerable social development; and if I may take town planning, I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, will bear me out on this, because I am trying to put it completely objectively. In 1920 the only planning legislation we had was the Act of 1909, which was a very embryonic essay in town and country planning. It was not until 1932 that we really began to make some progress in the control of land use, as all Parties recognise it should be controlled to-day. The Government of Ireland Act, 1920, was passed twelve years before our Act of 1932. My submission is that housing and slum clearance, development and redevelopment, are accepted as important functions of government, and our legislation Great Britain provides for the compulsory acquisition of property for these purposes.
In Northern Ireland, however, it has not been possible to extend the corresponding legislation to the property of religious and educational bodies. Your Lordships appreciate why I emphasise the word "property"; it does not mean only the church, or the schools, or the presbytery; it covers also a street of houses owned by a church. If such a street of houses has been left by some devoted parishioner to the church or the parish priest, it cannot, under the Act, be touched. I do not want to overstate the position, but that, of course, is a difficult situation. The fact that in Northern Ireland it has not been possible to extend their legislation has in recent years caused increasing difficulty, particularly because of the very wide interpretation which the courts have placed on the meaning of the word "property". As I have already explained, in the case of a religious body that includes purely secular land which happens to be in the ownership of the religious body.
After the war, Northern Ireland's housing effort, like our own, was first of all directed to building new houses. And when you are looking for a new housing site you have room for

371
manœuvre. If a particular field is owned by a Roman Catholic body, say, you can, broadly, go to the next field; and in that way there is not the same difficulty when dealing with outskirts and periphery property as when dealing with property in the middle of a city. It is true, however, that some good housing sites have had to be abandoned because the land sought did belong to a church, and other schemes have been delayed for anything up to twelve months while negotiations have taken place.
At the moment—and this again is a matter of history—the Northern Ireland Government are concentrating more and more on schemes of slum clearance and redevelopment. There is a very large number of unfit and unrepairable houses in Northern Ireland, particularly in Belfast. Here the difficulties are much more intractable, as such schemes cannot simply be carried out somewhere else. The slums are there and they must be cleared. In Belfast alone the Corporation have listed 30 acres for slum clearance. The second of these areas has been found to include some church property, and the difficulty this has caused has up to now prevented this important scheme from being carried forward. I am not going to mention names, but I have examples in mind. Difficulty and delay may also be caused even where church and educational owners are willing to sell their property in a slum clearance area. For instance, in one case confirmation of a slum clearance order had to be refused because a church interest was involved, even though the church was willing to comply.
As slum clearance in Northern Ireland proceeds, difficulties of this sort are bound to recur, and there is a serious danger that, unless the Act is amended by extending the purposes, as is done by this Bill, the progress will be gravely hindered. I do submit, and I ask the noble Earl and those interests he is representing to consider, that it would be most unfortunate if the efforts to improve the housing of the people of Northern Ireland were to be impeded in this way. Whether an area is a slum area is not a matter of the religion of the people there: it is a matter of looking at the houses. It is possible to see whether it is a slum area; and this is a
372
question of dealing with 30 acres in Belfast alone.
I put it to your Lordships that the Act as it exists to-day leaves untouched the principle (I read out the words and they are there for your Lordships to see) on the question of discrimination, in the real sense. I asked whether there was in the last 40 years any case in the courts (because your Lordships appreciate that the matter can be taken to court if this section is infringed) of religious discrimination ever being raised. I was told that there was one case, which concerned a joint board of twelve, in which there were nine Protestants and three Catholics, and the Catholics raised the question as to whether this did not affect their position. That is the only case of a joint board that has come to the courts in 40 years on that first part of Section 5; and the first part will be left there.
My second point is that there is no innovation of principle, because we are merely extending the purposes for which compulsory acquisition may be authorised, on payment of compensation, to include not only public utilities but all housing, planning and slum clearance. So far as local authorities are concerned, the Northern Irish legislation is modelled on our own: there are provisions for public inquiry and the like; and they are subject to regulations. I asked especially about housing, because we all have so much experience of these troubles, and I was told that the Belfast Corporation do, as most corporations I know of here do, allocate their houses on a points system.
Your Lordships may have seen the statement made by the Roman Catholic Bishops. They say that this extension is unnecessary because they would in any case co-operate. I am sure they would do their best to co-operate, but in my experience (your Lordships will decide whether it is a usual one) I have always found that in slum clearances there have been two views hotly held; and the interesting thing (I do not know whether the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, is the same as mine) is that in inquiries it is not only that the slum landlord objects but also, in many cases, that the slum tenant comes forward and says: "I do not want to be moved". I have seen that happen, and I am sure other noble Lords have.

373
I quote that only to show that, where there are differences of view between the people involved, there must be some method of deciding it in the public interest.
Moreover, there will be all the safeguards of legislation. There are the safeguards under the Act itself, to which I shall refer again, that, if necessary, the Government of this country can advise that the Royal Assent be withheld. Our Parliament retains concurrent powers. If there was an Act passed that we thought was wrong and unjust, we could legislate to repeal it. They are not exclusive powers but, as I say, concurrent powers. I hope that I have not broken my pledge to the noble Viscount who leads the Opposition by going on for too long, but I wanted to show that this is an important matter from the point of view of the living conditions of the people. For the reasons I have given, I ask the noble Earl not to press the Amendment.
LORD SILKIN: On the Second Reading of the Bill I personally strongly supported Clause 13 for the reasons which the noble and learned Viscount has just given us; and after hearing him to-day, I am sure that every Member of the House will agree that a provision of this kind is absolutely necessary if we are to have something to remedy the conditions in Belfast and other areas in Northern Ireland. But the noble and learned Viscount has not really replied to the question which my noble friend put, as to why there has been no consultation. I believe that if there had been consultation with those ecclesiastical authorities concerned with this clause, and the explanation which the Lord Chancellor has given to the House had been given to them, they would have accepted the position and been ready to acquiesce in the passing of the clause.
After all, this is a breach of a Treaty that was made in 1920, or an extension of it, and it is only right that people who are affected should be consulted before legislation is introduced to interfere with their rights. In this case, if my noble friend is right—and I accept what he says—they have not been consulted. It reminds me of another Bill which we discussed a few days ago where the same kind of thing happened. A body intro-
374
duced legislation interfering with the rights of others without adequate consultation with those people. Undoubtedly it creates bad feeling. In this case, as I say, I have every reason to believe that, if they had been consulted before the Bill was introduced, they would have appreciated the need for a provision of this kind.
This is a matter on which I think our own Government, as well as the Government of Northern Ireland, appear to be at fault. This is a British Bill introduced in the British Parliament, and it has waited a very long time. It could have waited another week or two in order to provide this consultation. I should be grateful if the noble and learned Viscount would consider, even at this late stage, entering into discussions with the authority concerned, with a view to getting their goodwill in this matter, rather than passing it in the face of opposition from them.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am a great believer in consultation. I think it is part of a modern legislative programme. There is always the difficulty, which perhaps one should do more to avoid when work and discussions are going on about a Bill, that people do not know about it. That problem is complicated here by the difficulties of getting a copy of the Bill. But I think the response I can make is this. The general principle for which I have argued is one which the noble Lord has said he approves, but I shall certainly be most prepared to meet or discuss with anyone who has any representations to make regarding how they would like it to be dealt with, or how their own position should be improved. For example, I should be perfectly prepared to examine the line of thought that my noble friend Lord Craigmyle put forward as to whether it would be possible to extend the exceptions in that way. As the noble Earl said, there are other stages here and in another place, and I should be prepared to consider that point. But I must make it quite clear that I could not consider something that would prevent slum clearance and redevelopment. It would simply be idle to do it.
LORD SILKIN: I hope the noble and learned Viscount will not.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: No, I will not. But if there are any protections, I undertake to give them my consideration, and if the Roman Catholic Bishops or anyone else would care to see me and make suggestions I should be very happy to meet them myself, and I am sure that could be done. As I say, I could not prevent this general principle from going forward, especially when public utilities were covered before and this is really an extension of social thought and justice which everyone expects to-day.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: The noble and learned Viscount has said that he is determined that nothing shall be done to stand in the way of slum clearance. That, I am sure, is the attitude of the Bishops. They said that in their statement—I am talking of the Catholic Bishops of Northern Ireland:
"The Bishops feel it scarcely necessary to emphasise the full measure of support which they always give to social development schemes designed for the public good."
We were given to understand that in about thirty areas they are apparently blocking the way. I find it very hard to accept that as an adequate account of what is going on, if they are not even informed of a Bill of this sort. If they cannot obtain in Northern Ireland a copy of the Bill, I do not believe the Northern Ireland Government are trying to make contact with the Bishops. I cannot accept it on the facts before us.
I do not want to arouse any more feeling. There will be another stage. I am totally unconvinced by the argument of the noble and learned Viscount. I must not seem to suggest that there is any special concession available on the side of the Bishops. I am grateful for the suggestion of the noble Lord. Lord Silkin. I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for agreeing to see those who are affected. I think the best thing I can do is to withdraw the Amendment, not because I think the arguments against it have prevailed. I came here wondering if there were any arguments on the side of the noble and learned Viscount, and I now realise that they hardly exist. Nevertheless, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment at this stage, and we live to fight another day.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 [Abolition of prohibition of making of laws taking property without compensation]:
3.7 p.m.
LORD KILBRACKEN LORD KILBRACKEN moved to leave out Clause 14. The noble Lord said: The only positive effect of Clause 14, which I am moving to delete, is simply and solely to enable the Parliament of Northern Ireland to take property without compensation. If I may make a brief excursion into history, the relevant passage in the 1920 Act which at present precludes such legislation, is the result of an Amendment moved in your Lordships' House which was strongly supported by no less a constitutional authority than the late Lord Bryce. The reference is Vol. 43, col. 44, of the OFFICIAL REPORT. I commend Lord Bryce's speech to your Lordships' subsequent attention. I do not imagine that I could do any better, and I will not quote from it at length. He admitted that a provision of this kind had given rise to "a good deal of litigation" in the United States, but was to be found, as he put it, "in the very large majority of the Constitutions" of the States of the Union. Of course, it is also in the Federal Constitution, in Article 5 of the Bill of Rights.
When Lord Bryce sat down in your Lordships' House, the then Lord Chancellor, Lord Birkenhead, who had previously given a luke-warm reception to these proposals commented (col. 48):
"After what the noble Viscount has said I shall certainly not put your Lordships to the trouble of a Division."
The wording that was then agreed in this House was:
"or take any private property for public use without just compensation".
That is virtually word for word identical with the corresponding phrase in the Bill of Rights, which has remained unchallenged in America, if my recollection of dates is right, for 170 years.
It may perhaps be asked: why is such a prohibition necessary? I think I should make clear here that the principal intention in 1920 was to give added security to small landowners, especially farmers; and that this was quite irrespective of religion. It was made especially clear in another place

377
that this provision was not due to any fears of religious discrimination. Whether it is necessary or not, I prefer to refer your Lordships to a standard work rather than to give my opinion, and therefore I quote from The American Federal Government, by Professors Ferguson and McHenry. I have to go outside these islands for comparisons because, of course, there is no written Constitution here. When discussing this point, the book says:
"Both the Federal and State Government …may compel private owners to transfer property to them if deemed necessary for the public welfare.…Such great authority is susceptible to abuse. Accordingly, the Fifth Amendment states that Congress shall not take private property for public use without just compensation and States have a similar limitation placed upon them by the Fourteenth Amendment and their own constitutions".
I ask your Lordships, then, to consider for a moment the position of a citizen of the State of Massachusetts. He is protected three times over, by Article V of the Bill of Rights, by Article XIV and by his State Constitution, against legislation which takes property without compensation. Are we to suppose that the Legislature of the State of Massachusetts is three times more acquisitive, or that the citizens are three times more suspicious, than those of Northern Ireland? I suggest that the reverse is more likely to be the case.
I have referred to another standard work, that of Amos Peaslee, entitled Constitutions of Nations. This shows that at least thirty countries—I could read your Lordships a list, but I know that the farmers are "rarin' to go "on the next Motion—from Monaco to Mexico and from Lebanon to Lybia, and including Germany, Italy and Spain, Uruguay and Venuzuela, have a strictly comparable provision in their Constitutions. I submit that this is no more than a normal safeguard of the rights of an individual in countries which have a written Constitution.
If I may go back briefly to the history of this, your Lordships' Amendment was itself amended in another place to its present form—" nor take any property without compensation"—on the motion of the Minister and it was agreed without a Division (vide OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 136, col. 797). As the then Lord Chancellor pointed out to your then
378
Lordships subsequently [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 43, col. 396]:
"The House of Commons, though in form purporting to amend one of your Lordships' Amendments, has really added to the security which it was the object of that Amendment to introduce."
I consider it most remarkable that in a highly contentious Bill, one of the most contentious Bills of that decade, if not the most contentious, this particular clause was accepted in your Lordships' House and in another place without ever being put to a Division.
On the Second Reading of the present Bill, the noble and learned Viscount who normally sits on the Woolsack told us that this prohibition
"goes further than might at first sight appear, for it can be construed so as to prevent the imposition of restrictions on the use of property "
so that much legislation is "always open to challenge". But this has not been found an insuperable difficulty in the United States or in the thirty other countries which have a provision of this kind in their Constitutions. I am not setting myself up as a lawyer—God forbid!—but it seems to me that there must be a major difference between actually taking property and imposing restricttions on it.
What is the result when such legislation is challenged? When I expressed my apprehension on Second Reading, the noble and learned Viscount under took to send me a reference to recent cases of litigation which had arisen through the claim that legislation was unconstitutional and which had come to your Lordships' House in its judicial capacity. He has now kindly done so, but in both the cases of which the noble and learned Viscount has sent me details, your Lordships' House, in its wisdom, held that the legislation was valid, and they therefore do not indicate that Stormont's legislative powers had been in any way impaired by the offending subsection. In his letter to me, the noble and learned Viscount says that
"the Parliament of Northern Ireland can be relied on not to pass confiscatory legislation."
It may be so. I am not attacking Stormont in any way. But if this is the case, what is the point of Clause 14? I suggest that Stormont is certainly no less likely to pass such legislation than are the Parliaments of a great many of

379
those States and countries whose people insist, and have for hundreds of years or for decades insisted, upon keeping such a safeguard in their constitutions.
We must keep in mind also that there is an important minority in Northern Ireland with a greatly disproportionate political representation. A constitutional amendment of this kind in the United States, I need not tell your Lordships, would require a two-thirds majority of the electorate by a direct vote, not a bare majority, or no vote at all, in what I can only describe as a largely alien Legislature. In another place, there are only twelve representatives from the Six Counties, and, as we all know, they are all Unionists, so that 35 or 40 per cent. of the population of the Six Counties has no representation whatsoever in another place. But it is on the vote there and in your Lordships' House that this vital constitutional matter will be decided. I do not believe that an important denial of rights of this kind should be smuggled through in this way, and it is for this reason that I beg to move my Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 14.—(Lord Kilbracken.)
3.18 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, will allow me one point, which may partake of levity, no one would imagine that he himself had suffered from living under a Constitution by which the Legislature can take property without compensation, as is the position in this country to-day. The noble Lord's argument is: if you have an unwritten Constitution, you can have an omni-competent Parliament and you leave it to Parliament to see that legislation is valid; if you have a written Constitution, you cannot give Parliament these powers. I do not see the logicality of that argument. However, I should like to go into it a little more deeply.
If the words covered expropriation, and if they prohibited expropriation, then the provisions of the Bill would be unnecessary. What I have tried to make out—and obviously I have not made it clear—is that they cover a great deal more than the expropriation or taking of property, in the ordinary sense; or passing a Bill saying, "I will take that
380
house or land without compensation." As I explained on Second Reading—I thought almost to the extent of being wearisome—interest in property, or the restriction on the use or enjoyment of property, may count as a "taking". I gave a simple example. Supposing you desire to impose a Rent Act, to control rents, you are then liable to the attack that you have taken the landlord's property, because you have taken the interest in his property which accrues to him through his ability to command a higher rent. If you do the reverse process and decontrol, then you are equally subject to attack, because you may be removing from a tenant the interest in his property—namely, his right to have a lower rent.
Your Lordships may have thought that that illustration was far-fetched, therefore, may I give you facts, very shortly, in the last case which dealt specifically with this point; Belfast Corporation v. O.D. Cars, Ltd. The limited company, which was registered in Belfast, owned land. In February, 1954, the company applied under the Planning (Interim Development) Act, Northern Ireland, 1944, to Belfast Corporation for permission to erect industrial or commercial buildings comprising shops and factories or warehouses. In March, 1954, the Corporation refused the application on the grounds, as to the shops (I will ask the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, to note this point, and I will show why in a moment), that the height and character of the development would not be in accordance with their requirements for the site, which were that development was to be of shops, with dwellings over them, of a minimum height of 25 feet. As to the industrial or commercial use of the remainder of the site, the site was zoned as residential, with which zoning the proposed development was incompatible. In view of the refusal of the application the company claimed compensation for injurious effect under a section of the Act of 1954. It was suggested that the restriction on the development in order to meet the Corporation's view of the building plans was the "taking" of property and was, therefore, contrary to this section.
It is true, as the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, said, that your Lordships' House, sitting judicially, did not accept that contention. But what the noble

381
Lord had failed to notice was that the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland, which is the Supreme Court in Northern Ireland itself, had accepted that contention and their decision was reversed. That means—and this is a very good illustration—that in any piece of planning of that sort which it can be argued affects not only property, in the ordinary sense that one would understand it, but an interest in property of the refined character that I mentioned, can be subject to attack.
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has had that Ministry, and he knows that it is now eighteen years since we first discussed planning. In fact, it is not dissimilar from the position of a local authority in regard to pubic utilities in 1944. Imagine trying to do your planning and control of land use with that hanging over you all the time; that you may be "shot at" under this clause. I do not want to repeat what I said on the last occasion, but may I just mention some of the new problems? This is what makes it so difficult. It is thought necessary to have power to require developers of new office and factory property to lay aside some space for staff car-parking, which is a very reasonable matter. Must such a decision carry a right to compensation, or can it fairly be said to be a reasonable restriction in the interest of the community? Similarly, loading bays for commercial lorries: if a developer is required to leave aside land, are you taking away the property from him because he is losing valuable building space?
New access to important traffic roads poses a similar problem. Or take the case of the man who wants to build a colony of houses for which at the moment there are not the proper water, sewerage or schools but only country lanes—something that comes up every day in our town and country planning. Is the State thus taking his property because you say to him that he must wait until the proper services have been developed—which of course is the right thing to do? This is done every day in this country. It is not a question of Party; it is a question of proper planning administration. You are taking away from him for two years the right to develop his property and get rents. That is the sort of thing that has hap-
382
pened. I want your Lordships to know that I considered it very carefully; and in the case I mentioned, my colleagues—I was not sitting on it myself—drew a distinction between regulation and confiscation which I thought might be helpful.
Then, in another case in which I was sitting, the Northern Ireland Government tried to regulate bookmakers shops. The question there was what was the position of someone who had admittedly—the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, will realise the difficulty here—a large illegal section to his business and a very small legal section. There was the question of how the Acts bit on that. But the difficulty is that any regulation driven to excess can be confiscation, and therefore my noble and learned friend Lord Radcliffe, in the last case, pointed out that these are not exclusive categories, and therefore you cannot do it in that way. I was very tempted when considering this Bill to say it will not be a "taking" if it is under a regulation, but, of course, in view of what my colleagues have said one can slide into, one cannot say that. Moreover, my noble and learned predecessor, Lord Birkenhead, pointed out in the debate which the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, has quoted that a provision of this sort had been the source of most exasperating and continual litigation. It is true he gave way in this to the noble Lord, Lord Bryce, for when the author of the standard work on the American Constitution gets up and says something otherwise, even Lord Chancellors find it a difficult situation.
But I think we ought to look at the situation as it exists today. Is it fair that there should be a prohibition against the control of land use? The second point is this—and I am empowered to say this on behalf of the Northern Ireland Government—it is the firm intention of the Government of Northern Ireland, in bringing their planning legislation up to date, to bring it into broad conformity with the present law on town and country planning in force in Great Britain. This statement of intention does not, of course, tie them to follow our legislation in every detail, but I am authorised to give an assurance that in the essential matter of the

383
acquisition of property and the regulation of the use of property the Government of Northern Ireland will deal with each and every property owner in a manner no less favourable and on a financial footing no less generous than would be enjoyed by persons having an interest in property in Great Britain, and that the legislative and executive action of the Government will he firmly aimed at ensuring that these principles are observed throughout by local government and other relevant sections of public services in Northern Ireland.
That is a categorical assurance, and your Lordships have not only that assurance but, as I mentioned to your Lordships on the last occasion, the Northern Ireland Parliament is not a fully Sovereign Parliament. Under Section 12 of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, the Royal Assent to Northern Ireland legislation may be withheld if United Kingdom Ministers consider this essential; and secondly, the United Kingdom Parliament retains the power to legislate for Northern Ire land on any matter whatever. The United Kingdom Government do not expect that the Northern Ireland Parliament are likely to expropriate property, but if it could be argued that a safeguard was needed against the possibility, those safeguards exist. I am very anxious that we shall legislate as well as we can. If the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, on reconsideration can think of any safeguard, if he will go through the more modern legislative enactments, the Convention on Human Rights or any of the others, and if he will give me any suggestion by which I can do the two things—first, remove his fears of the Bill, and, secondly, retain the powers to do proper planning and control land use without a perpetual fear of being brought to court in cases like the one I have mentioned—I shall be only too happy to consider it.
But control of land use and planning have come to stay, and I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, on reflection, would say that the Northern Ireland Parliament should not have the power to take a course in that regard which we enjoy in this country and therefore to secure amenities for
384
the people of Northern Ireland that are secured here. Therefore, I would ask him not to press this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Remaining clauses and Schedules agreed to.
House resumed.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, may I say, in view of the discussion and my own invitation, I do not intend to move that the Report be now received. I take this course so that we may have a Report stage and noble Lords may consider it.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I am very much obliged, as I am sure the House is, to the noble and learned Viscount.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS, ETC.) (SCOTLAND) BILL
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

AGRICULTURE
3.37 p.m.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH rose to call attention to the state of agriculture; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is not my intention this afternoon to cover either a wide range of agricultural problems or a wide range of commodities, or to speculate about the ins and outs of the Common Market. Less still shall I attempt to deal with the millions of figures that were used in another place yesterday. Rather shall I confine myself more or less exclusively to meat and the marketing of that commodity, which has received such a wide and varied publicity during the last few weeks. There have been loud and sustained whispers about who got away with the missing millions on the meat account. Wholesalers and meat traders and butchers have all been under fire. It does not seem to me to matter very much who got the millions, since they got away anyhow, and I shall not deal with any of the figures of prices, output and that kind of of thing, because I have no doubt in my

385
mind that the results were foreshadowed and were known well in advance, ever since the Government of 1953 laid the foundation of their new so-called agricultural policy. I shall try to explain why I feel that way.
Your Lordships will recall that, during the war and well afterwards, to ensure fair shares in food supplies not only had we rationing but also prices were fixed. By the end of 1953, however, increased output in our home country and increased output all over the world brought the end of rationing very near, and brought to an end not only rationing but also a certain form of marketing and distribution which had served its purpose very well during that period. Therefore alternative means of marketing and distribution had to be introduced in the new circumstances of nearer plenty. But of course there were certain new factors which had to be taken into account. Our home farmers were already, by 1953, producing 50 per cent. more food than they were pre-war; secondly, to fulfil the conditions of the 1947 Act, guaranteed prices had to be fixed and the form of deficiency payments arranged within the new marketing scheme. Whatever the difference between the guaranteed price fixed at the February Price Review and the market price, called deficiency payments, the Treasury had to meet the bill.
Therefore the Government's proposals on marketing and distribution were eagerly awaited, I should think, in your Lordships' House as well as in another place. We were hoping for, and were entitled to expect, something as far seeing, or more so, as the production policy embodied in the 1947 Act. But we were in for a shock—and the shock has been reverberating throughout the Houses of Parliament ever since. The proposals emerged first in a speech in November, 1953, by the then Prime Minister, and secondly in more detail in a White Paper, Cmd. No. 8989, of November 3, 1953. I must make a quotation from the then Prime Minister which was made in another place yesterday, for this was the beginning of a new agricultural policy for this country. The Prime Minister said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 520, cols. 26–7]:
"The House knows that it is our theme and policy to reduce controls and restrictions as much as possible and to reverse, if not
386
abolish, the tendency to State purchase and marketing which is a characteristic of Socialist philosophy. We hope instead to develop individual enterprise founded in the main on the laws of supply and demand and to restore to the interchange of goods and services that variety, flexibility, ingenuity and incentive on which we believe the fertility and liveliness of our economic life depend."
I need not remind your Lordships whose statement that was. That was the new Conservative Party marketing policy—I repeat, individual enterprise, the laws of supply and demand, flexibility, ingenuity, incentive, fertility, liveliness, a "free-for-all," no controls, but boom and slump.
That really was the basis of the policy that broke down in 1961. I am not going to attempt to blame either the meat retailers, the butchers, or indeed anybody else but the Government and their successors, who laid the foundation for this perpetual breakdown, thanks to the old auction mart system. We thought that this was not only not a policy, but just a doctrinaire onslaught on planning and controls, and "damn the consequences!". That was how we and the farming community saw it at that moment, and agriculture, with the rest, was now back in the cockpit of Party politics with a vengeance. The statement at that time appeared to me as both ill-considered, half-Liberal, half-Conservative, and absolutely half-baked, especially as applied to agriculture. Instead of the well-thought-out, constructive proposals for a new marketing scheme especially for meat, comparable with the productive capacity and efficiency of agriculture as it was then, we were presented with a grand new policy resurrected from 1860—free markets, no controls, the law of supply and demand, a complete retreat from the planning and essential control which had done so much for agriculture and the nation.
That is the simple explanation for the much discussed Supplementary Estimate over these last two months. How does it arise? Because the size of the deficiency payment to be met by the Treasury is determined not by the Treasury, the February Price Review, the House of Commons or your Lordships' House, but on the auction mart, and there is no possible safeguard for the Treasury if the system breaks down, as it has done frequently. The producer

387
gets nothing out of it, the consumer is little better off; but the Treasury has to pay.
Noble Lords may wonder whether this system was an accident, a gamble or an act of faith. I do not know. The Government were warned, however, of the weakness in this—indeed, they were aware of it, for paragraph 14 of their White Paper, Cmd. 8989, reads as follows:
"The Government recognise that the pre-war fatstock auction system was unsatisfactory in certain respects."
If it was unsatisfactory in pre-war years —and it certainly was—how much more unsatisfactory is it in post-war days, when the Treasury is so deeply involved? But they still persist with this unsatisfactory system, and there is no point therefore in setting up inquiries or employing a Sherlock Holmes to try to discover where the missing millions went. The Government must know where they went; they must have known that it was inevitable that they should go. So long as there is a modest surplus to immediate requirements of any commodity, then their beloved law of supply and demand comes into operation. Then prices fall and Treasury payments simply rise.
It is true that the Minister in another place yesterday said that the 1961 breakdown was unfortunate, but it was due to a combination of circumstances that caused this Supplementary Estimate: there were too many lambs; there were too many pigs at the wrong time, and the weather was good when it should have been bad—all very trying, of course. But the Minister admitted that the increase of supplies amounted to only about 4 per cent., which shows how delicate the free marketing mechanism is; and he has no power to control or influence the timing of home or imported supplies. Indeed, the Minister said in another place yesterday that what had happened this year was that a number of circumstances, all of which could lead to bad estimating had combined together, as they had done not infrequently in years gone by. So what happened last year has been happening almost ever since 1954. Nobody blames the individual Minister—it was beyond his power to prevent this outsize Supplementary Estimate—but there is a break-
388
down of the auction marts. This system has been operating for eight years.
But I am more concerned with the producer than the Treasury, because the producer gets nothing out of these periodic crises except nearly all the blame, and he knows that the system of guaranteed prices is always in danger because the public is never given all the facts relating to the cost of a Supplementary Estimate. In 1953 the then Minister of Agriculture promised—to use his own words:
"If anything of this kind does develop the Government will certainly take special steps to deal with it."
Later on the same Minister went on to say:
"If such a situation does materialise—that is the absence of real competition in the auction marts—the Government have given the House the assurance that they will deal with it."
But noble Lords will remember that they have not been dealt with, nor have any of the last three Ministers of Agriculture, following the right honourable gentleman who was Minister in 1954, been able to deal with this thing.
The simple fact is that neither one Minister nor all four of the Ministers of Agriculture could deal with it effectively without suitable powers of control, especially over the timing of supplies. They have been as successful with this problem as their Government was in sealing the hole in the housewife's purse several years ago. Their auction mart system has failed; they have dodged the column and left the producers to bear the odium. Not only that, but once or twice they have threatened them with dire consequences at the Price Review. Well, they put that right yesterday because they found they had no alternative —that they cannot inflict those dire consequences on producers, at least until the next Election. In regard to the policy pursued by the Government, I think that they, and they alone, stand condemned for this new large Supplementary Estimate.
Noble Lords will recall that this is not by any means the first breakdown. On one occasion they asked for a million more pigs. To their astonishment the pigs arrived the next year. But, unfortunately, the Government had done

389
nothing about marketing the pigs intelligently. The inevitable result was a collapse of prices, and chaos, with tens of thousands of pig producers going out of production. This is not continuity, nor does it lead to prosperity. The only difference between 1954 and 1961 was in regard to beef. What might the deficiency have been if imports of meat last year had been normal, instead of being 10 or 14 per cent. down? We should have required at least another "little Budget".
My Lords, what of the future? I approach this matter without either political or ideological bias; perhaps more in hope than in confidence. In view of the dramatic changes that have taken place since the war, in view of the enormous increase in output, the allover increase in efficiency (rated by Conservative Ministers of Agriculture as being worth £25 million a year), and remembering the capacity of the industry to respond to any call made on it, whether it be in relation to pigs, or sheep, or cattle, is it too much to hope, even at this late hour, that the Government have now learned their lesson? Is it too much to hope that they are now prepared to drop their ancient inhibitions and doctrinaire frustrations and to provide an efficient marketing scheme, especially for fatstock, one that might well compare with the productive capacity and efficiency of the industry to-day? After all, they have had ten long years to think this all out. They remind me of the Parliamentary candidate who was just arriving at his second or third meeting. He was just rushing up the steps into the hall, when someone stopped him and asked: "What does the candidate think about …?" And the candidate turned round and said, "I have no time to think. I have to talk!" For ten years the Government have been talking, but have been doing very little thinking.
I know I am asking quite a lot when I ask the Conservative Party to give reasonable consideration to the question of marketing, for I remember very well that in 1931, the Conservative Party voted solidly against the Agricultural Marketing Bill of that year, and their hostility to marketing is implicit in the Prime Minister's statement which was quoted to us. Many of the rank and file of the Conservative Party are ahead
390
of their leaders an this theme of marketing, and it would be a fascinating spectacle 'to witness the leaders trying to catch up with their followers. But if they were to take their courage in both hands, it would be of great value both to the nation and to the industry.
In the White Paper (Cmd. 8989) it was estimated that the value of home-produced and imported meat was round about £500 million. The Minister said in another place yesterday that the retail value of that meat to-day is worth round about £1,300 million. That is very big business. But can any noble Lord claim that we are employing the most modern business techniques in marketing this vast quantity of meat? Certainly, the delegates at the recent agricultural conference at Oxford did not think so; neither did the delegates at the National Farmers' Union Conference a few weeks ago. The marketing of meat was their main theme.
Whilst there is room for every point of view as to how we ought to approach this matter and its solution, I personally am still unconvinced that a producers' statutory meat marketing board could, or would, fulfil all the conditions. Imported meat, for example, is an important factor. Some form of integration between home and imported supplies must 'be found, and the timing of supplies must be correct. I doubt whether Parliament would entrust this to a purely producers' board. Not that I am against a users' board, but I am convinced it could not do the whole job since imports of meat constitute quite a large part of our supplies. I ventured to suggest in another place some eight years ago that nothing short of a fatstock marketing authority or commission, acting for the Government, would be effective for this purpose, and I still hold that view. It certainly would involve a number of factory abattoirs and more refrigeration space, both 'of which would be of great assistance to retail butchers in helping the housewife to get the meat of her choice.
Noble Lords may say, "But that might be costly". Well, so is this Supplementary Estimate costly—for which we get absolutely nothing. But I would repeat my opinion that it is the only kind of body with the tools for the job that could safeguard the Treasury, the producer and 'the consumer, and at the same time

391
avoid booms and slumps, largely by sensible negotiation with the importing countries.
If the Minister is in doubt about the wisdom of or necessity for controls to allow such an authority to be effective, then I would advise him to reread the Second Report of the Estimates Committee. Certainly, his higher officials are in no doubt about the need for such controls. I should like to quote from the Estimates Committee's Report—at Question 84, page 12, for those noble Lords who wish to follow it:
" (Q) Has the Minister or the Government any powers on the timing of imports?
(A) Absolutely none, absolutely no powers.
(Q) So one of the effects of the absence of powers is that imports can come in at such a time as will do most damage to the deficiency payment scheme?
(A) That is certainly so."
Then, at Question 142:
"(Q) Are you satisfied with the substantial controls of imports in so far as they affect this whole position?
(A) No, indeed, I am not. Merely from the selfish point of view of trying to keep our subsidy payments under control, there is nothing I would like better than a system of import controls."
Then the witness explained that imports were not to blame for the 1961 result, because imports were actually well down. The Estimates Committee sum up their views in paragraphs 16 to 21 of their Report, which I will not at this moment quote.
The Conservative Party have been in office now for ten years; their auction mart system has operated for some eight years. It has been well tried and found wanting. Instead of producing a marketing system worthy of the industry and the nation, they are now going to hide behind a committee—a committee which can only tell the Government what the Government already know. Whatever information it applies for will have to be secured at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. It is the oldest fraud in politics but they hope it may get them through the next General Election. My Lords, it deserves to fail. I said in another place in November, 1953 [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 520, cols. 617–8];
"This doctrinaire onslaught on planning and controls could cost the country and the producer very dearly indeed."
392
The results are now there for all to see. I hope that the Government, even now, at this last moment, will swallow their pride, if they still have any left, step from the 19th into the 20th century, and establish a fatstock marketing authority with all the powers necessary to make marketing and distribution in agriculture as efficient as it now is in production—or at least make way for a Party that will. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
4.2 p.m.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: My Lords, I am sure we should all like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barnburgh, on introducing this Motion. He spoke with such a wealth of knowledge and experience that I am sure great attention will be paid to everything that he said. The terms of the Motion are very wide, but the noble Lord has concentrated on a fairly narrow field. It is true that we had a general debate on agriculture after the last Price Review, and presumably we shall have another one after the next Price Review.
I think there is general agreement that on the production side the industry is doing extremely well. Whether or not the industry is getting a fair reward for its increased efficiency is more open to argument, and no doubt we shall discuss those points, certainly after the next Price Review. It seems to me that the two main worries of the industry at the moment are, first, that the present system of price support is under attack not only from the noble Lord who has just spoken but in other fields as well, as he will realise from an article which appeared yesterday in The Times entitled "A System under Sentence"; and the second worry is the possibility of entering the Common Market. I am going to speak first about the system of agricultural support, which is the policy that the noble Lord has condemned so roundly. But of course even the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barn-burgh, admitted at the beginning of his speech that the policy that had preceded it would have had to be changed in the new circumstances, so the question is not whether we should pursue the old policy but whether the new policy is the right one or is doing its job.

393
The main objects of the policy, as we all know, were to allow the consumer to buy the widest possible range of goods at reasonable prices, and to take advantage of the abundant supplies from all over the world; and, at the same time, to give reasonable prices to the producer. Obviously, too, any policy must be fair both to the consumer and to the producer as taxpayers. It is, as we all know, not a perfect scheme and it has been modified very considerably at successive Price Reviews. But usually the result has been to minimise the effect of market variations on the receipts of the producer. It is possible that in some ways we may have gone too far in that direction.
But how well has it achieved its objects? Certainly, the consumer has the widest possible variety of choice, and there has certainly been enormously increased consumption. If we take meat alone—that is, pigs, cattle and sheep—the increase has been some 919,000 tons, or roughtly 40 lb. per head of the population. In addition, in the last two years people have been eating an extra 100,000 tons of poultry, which has also added to the difficulties. It is always extremely difficult to decide how much effect the subsidies have had on prices. The President of the N.F.U., speaking the other day, quoted some figures for meat, which I think were for sirloin. He said that the United Kingdom price was 5s. 5d., and he quoted prices in other countries, such as Canada, Belgium and so on, all of which were at least 2s. a lb. above the United Kingdom price. But one always has to take those figures with caution, because we sell our meat with the bone, whilst in some countries the butcher does more to the meat. Therefore, the prices are not always comparable.
What about the producer? During the last ten years production has gone up by 40 per cent. Of the 919,000 tons of extra meat which has been consumed, no less than 546,000 tons. or well over half, has come from our own farms, which, apart from anything else, has had a considerable effect on the credit side of our balance of payments. Certainly, the producers think that it is a good system. May I quote only one person, who speaks with a certain amount of
394
authority, the President of the N.F.U.? He said at the annual general meeting:
"Our British system is admitted to be the best-designed method of agricultural support in the world…"
This is the system which the noble Lord has just condemned as completely half-baked.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord would not like to misinterpret what I said. It was the marketing proposals implied in the ex-Prime Minister's statement on November 3, 1953, that I was condemning as half-baked; not the system embodied in the 1947 Act, which I helped to create.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: My Lords, I must admit that I had understood it as meaning the system which is now in force—which, after all, involves developments from the system which we all acknowledge from the noble Lord. But, in fact, the noble Lord said that the new system was "half-baked".
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: No.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: Or the system that was being introduced.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord would like us to get this straight. I should not like to misinterpret any other noble Lord. I was referring to the new proposals by the then Prime Minister for agricultural marketing and distribution, not the production policy and the payment policy embodied in the 1947 Act. I am sure that that is what I said.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: I will not labour the point. The President goes on to say:
"…and it should be remembered that all industrialised countries have agricultural support systems of one kind or another, usually based on import control."
He then goes on to mention the difficulties due to imports and dumping. But certainly this system—which, after all, has been modified by the Government for the last ten years—is still considered by the N.F.U. to be the best in the world.
However, it has two weaknesses. The first is that, so far as the Treasury is concerned, there has to be, to a certain extent, a blank cheque—and the noble

395
Lord quite rightly referred to that. Secondly, there are the difficulties of estimating correctly what will be the cost in the next year—and, certainly, if a market collapses, the taxpayer can bear a very heavy liability. It is true, too, that the estimates are prepared with three unknown factors: the results of the Price Review, the quantity of production, and what the market prices will be. One would therefore say that they were very largely guesswork.
My Lords, I think we must keep our sense of proportion over this, although I am in no way trying to minimise the size of the Supplementary Estimate of £78 million. But there were no complaints in 1955 and 1956, and in 1958 and 1959, when there were savings in each case of over £50 million. If one takes the first six years together—that is, excluding this year—and a total estimated cost of all guarantees of £1,022 million, the cost was in fact £53 million less. If we take the whole seven years, and an estimate of £1,288 million, the excess of expenditure over the estimated expenditure is £25 million. Although it may be guesswork, taking the swings and the roundabouts, one commodity with another, the guesses have not worked out badly in total. I do not think we have had sufficient evidence to make us wish to scrap the whole system. By that, I do not mean that this is an excuse for doing nothing, but I do think that it is a pity to condemn this system (which has at least the confidence of the producer and which, I think, on the whole, has worked fairly well for the consumer) just at the moment when we are starting, negotiations for entry into the Common Market; and certainly one gathers that, if it were possible, the producers would like many of the elements of this system to be adopted by other countries, and for them to become policy within the Common Market.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, will the noble Lord excuse my interrupting him? He says that, on the whole, this has worked well for the consumer, and certainly a support price was intended to cushion the consumer to some extent, but would he think that the consumer had been cushioned when beef was at 98s. 6d. per
396
hundredweight instead of 160s. or 150s. or 170s.? Did the consumer get the benefit then?
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: I know there is a certain amount of dispute about how much of that went to the consumer, and I will admit to the noble Viscount that there have been various theories put forward. I understand that it varied very much between butcher and butcher and between joint and joint. Very much less came off the top-grade joints, but I believe that in some cases the lower-grade joints went down very considerably indeed. But obviously the Government are not satisfied with the system, and with what has happened this year. As the noble Lord has said, we have not been dealing with an excess of imports; we have been dealing with a fairly small increase in home production coming, as he said, on to a very sensitive market. It seems to me that what we should do—this is what we should be thinking of—is to see how we can make that market slightly less sensitive, so that we can deal with the periodic surpluses that we are bound to get from our home production. The producers, certainly, are well aware of this problem, and a great deal of the time of the recent National Farmers' Union Conference was devoted to the problems of marketing.
Obviously, this is a highly complicated problem of how much the sale should be by deadweight and grade and how much it should still continue to go through the market (obviously, with deadweight and grade there is less of a gamble; the product is more accurately assessed); of whether we should limit the number of slaughterhouses, which have increased at an enormous rate (I think there are over 3,000 now, whereas there were only 600); and of how much could be done by processing all meat to make the smaller joints which are more in demand, particularly for pre-packing, and also to help the smaller butcher in time of glut. The smallest quantity of beef that a butcher can order is about 160 lb., whereas with lamb it is somewhere under 50 lb., and by having facilities for the further processing of the meat, it might make it more reasonable in time of glut for the smaller butcher to reduce his prices to sell a little more meat; whereas at the

397
moment, if he has to take another 160 lb., it would probably be more difficult.
The other question is this. If we agree that there should be more processing of meat, who is to do it? At the moment, the F.M.C. is proposing to do a considerable amount in that way, and a great deal more meat has been going through the Fatstock Marketing Board during the last year. After all, our problem is not that of dealing with a vast quantity of meat; it is to try to help take off the market the smaller surpluses which arise from time to time, and to prevent the market from breaking. After all, a market breaking is of no benefit to anybody, including the home producer or the importer. But, apart from meat, I am quite certain that the present system has done a great deal to keep down prices, particularly, say, in cereals, which has allowed us to have comparatively cheap feeding stuffs for our cattle.
My Lords, I have tried to argue that, although the present system has a considerable number of defects, they are all defects which can be quite reasonably, and, we hope, comparatively easily remedied, and that it would be unwise at the moment to make a complete change.
4.23 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords I think I have had the pleasure over the last four years of hearing every speech which the noble Lord, Lord Amherst of Hackney, has made on agriculture, and they have all been of the kind which have enabled his noble friend to speak of them as constructive. Therefore, it is quite a shock, and a measure of the censure which the Government's agricultural policy has now so richly earned, to find that the noble Lord has felt able to say that the present system has a considerable number of defects; that it is not altogether perfect; that the Government may have gone too far; that the system has two weaknesses. This, coming from the noble Lord opposite, is criticism indeed.
He has even gone so far as to say that the present system, and his approval of it, is no excuse for doing nothing. But, my Lords, the Government have not a clue as to what to do, because the only possible honourable, sensible thing for them to do is for the Minister
398
to come to the Box and to say: "We admit that we were wrong in 1953; that our policy is an abject and costly failure". Of course, for understandable political reasons, they do not feel able to do that, so they do not know what to say, and no one on that side, either in this House or in another place, is able to say anything sensible at all.
I think it was the Duke of Cambridge, or one of the sons of George IV, who was somewhat of a weather expert and was very interested in farming. It is also said that he had the peculiarity of making very audible comments at awkward moments. He was in church one day when there was a prayer for rain, in which he joined. Then when he rose from his knees, he was heard to say, "Not a bit of use while the wind is in the East". The trouble with the Minister of Agriculture is that he does not know what kind of weather to pray for. For if it is good growing weather and there is a good crop, then there is a very large bill for the taxpayers; if it is bad growing weather and there is a poor crop, then there are higher prices for the housewife to pay. So the Government just do not know what to do.
The noble Lord, Lord Amherst of Hackney, need not have bothered when he said that there is no excuse for doing nothing, because yesterday the Minister of Agriculture specifically declared in another place that the Government have no intention of doing anything. He indicated, for example, that, according to the Act under which we are now operating, the Government could not make any change because they had given a pledge to that effect during this Parliament. The other announcement he made was of the appointment of a Committee of Inquiry; and, as every noble Lord is aware, that ensures that the Government will have a valid excuse, in their opinion, for doing nothing during the life of this Parliament.
My Lords, I do not think the House can be in any doubt about my views on this subject, because I have expressed them frequently, probably dozens of times, over the last four years. I think that the Report of the Estimates Committee is at least four years overdue, because, as some of your Lordships, at any rate, will know, I have produced time and time again these same figures

399
and facts as are now disclosed by the Select Committee, and I have drawn the same conclusions—the only ones which could be drawn. And all that time the noble Earl and his noble friends have obstinately shut their eyes and have refused to acknowledge facts which, to my mind, were as obvious as the bristles on a pig's back. And all that time, while the Government have been pouring hundreds of millions of pounds down the middleman's drain, the farmer's prices have been going down and the housewife's prices have been going up. I should be very interested to hear later whether the noble Earl will challenge any one of those statements.
The country has lost the cost of 30 ground nut schemes in a lottery, a lottery in which there are no prizes if you are a farmer, a taxpayer or a housewife. Everyone, of course, can make mistakes; but in persisting with the deficiency payments system the Government have made a mistake. I am not talking about support for agriculture—let me make that absolutely clear. I had the privilege of serving with my noble friend Lord Williams of Barnburgh on the Standing Committee which devised the 1947 Act, and no one can deny that throughout my political life I have firmly supported a healthy and prosperous agricultural industry. Certainly I voted for Part I of that Act, whereas if any noble Lords now opposite were in another place at that time they voted against Part I of the Act. But by persisting in the deficiency payments scheme, which, as the evidence proves, noble Lords opposite have for long known to be wrong, the Government are exposed as unworthy to be custodians of the public purse.
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN: My Lords, would the noble Lord allow me to intervene for a moment? He said earlier that this Government were wrong in 1953. I was a member of the Government in 1953. Is it not a fact that they were at that time pursuing the policy of the noble Lord opposite, Lord Williams of Barnburgh, and the Government of 1947?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am not prepared to accept that. If I may make my position clear to the noble Viscount— I am prepared to develop the
400
argument again if he wishes—I do not regard the system of deficiency payments as a substitute for the guarantees which the farmers had under the 1947 Act. They cannot possibly be a substitute, and the evidence is now before us.
The Government cannot plead, as Mr. Soames tried to plead yesterday, that this meat shambles is exceptional. The noble Lord, Lord Amherst of Hackney, said that in some years, due to some things being better than others, the net difference was not very much; but 100 per cent. errors in estimating are quite common and have been going on all the time. So much was admitted by the Committee. The fault lies in the estimators. It is not the civil servants who are at fault here. They have been given a task which is admittedly impossible.
I have no wish to hit anyone whom I regard as a defenceless opponent, but in view of the cynical disregard of the many detailed arguments which have been put from these Benches over the years, I must point out, before I leave the Report of the Select Committee, that it proves that successive Tory Ministers of Agriculture have deliberately evaded the duty placed on them by Statute: to secure a supply of food to the consumer at minimum prices—and I am now quoting the Report of the Select Committee. They do not make the point about successive Ministers of Agriculture, but they do make the point that it is a statutory duty of the Minister of Agriculture to see that consumers get a supply of food at minimum prices. If the noble Earl is looking for my reference, I would refer him to the Report from the Estimates Committee, paragraph 17, under the heading "Dual Responsibility of Minister", where it states:
"The Minister has a dual responsibility: first towards the producers, whose standards of living he is bound by statute to protect and secondly towards the consumer for whom under statute he is to secure the supply of food at minimum prices."
I say that since 1953 successive Conservative Ministers of Agriculture have deliberately evaded that duty.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL WALDEGRAVE): My Lords, Of course, the noble Lord is perfectly entitled to take that view, if he wishes to

401
do it. I am glad that he quoted the actual paragraph in the Report, because I should not like it to go out from this House that the Report took that line at all: that successive Administrations had failed in their duty. I would remind the House that the Committee say, in their conclusion:
"Parliament must be assumed to have intended to give this blank cheque when the Acts were passed."
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, the noble Earl is entitled to put what interpretation he wishes on the Committee's remarks, and I am equally in that position. But before I sit down, I shall prove beyond any dispute that the Minister of Agriculture has deliberately forced prices up against the consumers as an act of policy. It is no use for the noble Earl to try to say otherwise, because the Committee say—I now quote from paragraph 17:
"His duty towards the consumer became more important when in 1955 he assumed the residual responsibilities of the Minister of Food. Your Committee assume that the policy implied in the Estimates for deficiency payments is designed to meet these requirements."
I am going to prove that it has not met that particular requirement.
Your Lordships will be aware that at £350 million the cost of farm support is approaching the 1951 level. Parliament has thus furnished the Minister with all the money necessary to enable him to discharge his obligations to farmers and consumers under the Act. But, despite this enormous sum, farmers' prices have dropped dramatically since 1951 while consumers' prices have rocketed to record heights. For example, wheat has dropped from 30s. to 19s. a cwt., but bread has gone up from 6d. to 1s. 1d., or more. There is the example of pigs, for which farmers are getting £4 to £5 less per pig, while pork prices have doubled. It is the same story throughout the piece.
The Permanent Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture told the Committee:
"We dislike intensely the fact that the benefit has not gone as far as we would have wished in the form of a drop in retail prices."
Though the Minister disliked it intensely, he did not do anything about it. I dislike intensely having to pay the same amount of taxes and double the amount for food; and I dislike it still
402
more when the Minister ignores the facts and refuses or does not fulfil his statutory duty to protect the consumer. Indeed, far from protecting the consumer, he has, as an act of policy, raised the price against them. The price of potatoes to the housewives was increased to reduce the drain on the Exchequer, and this was considered a matter for con gratulation. The Permanent Secretary told the Committee that he was
"entitled to take satisfaction from high market prices which reduce the amount of our calls on Parliament."
The Government changed to this system of marketing potatoes with their eyes wide open and in the face of what I described as strong opposition from the Potato Marketing Board and the National Farmers' Union. In the debate in your Lordships' House on November 25, 1958, I protested against the arrangements to use guarantee payments in the purchase of potatoes when market prices were weak. If I may, I will repeat what I said then—I stand by it now. I said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 212, col. 820]:
"Surely this is a scandalous and unprecedented misuse of the taxpayer's money. In effect, it means that money willingly furnished by the taxpayer as a means towards a prosperous agriculture is to be used to force prices up against him. In effect…his pocket is being picked twice, once willingly and once unwillingly. I cannot believe that Her Majesty's Government can have foreseen this possibility when they devised these new arrangements. I ask them to think again…"
My Lords, I said that 3½ years ago, when these arrangements were going to be made, No one can deny—it is there in the Committee's Report—that that is what the money was supposed to do; and the effect of spending the money in that way has admittedly—it has been admitted by the Permanent Secretary, who has congratulated himself upon it—forced prices up against the consumers.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I am sorry to keep on interrupting the noble Lord. I hoped that he was quoting what was said in another place yesterday. I would remind your Lordships, as my right honourable friend reminded Members of another place, that the Consumers' Committee, which was set up under the Agricultural Marketing Act, examined this very problem of support for potatoes last year and gave it as their opinion that it was right and that

403
in the long run consumers would not suffer.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I do not have to repeat the speeches which the Minister of Agriculture made in another place yesterday. May I keep on making my own speech and drawing my own conclusions? It does not matter what he thinks; it is a fact beyond any question or dispute that it was an act of policy—namely, using public money taken from the Treasury to buy potatoes on the market-550 tons of them, some of which were sold for cattle food and some dumped—to take them off the market in order to get a high market price. The Parliamentary Secretary knows that this is right. In other words, the taxpayers' money is being used to force prices up against him. That is exactly what I said in 1958 would happen; and it has happened.
If your Lordships do not agree with me (because the Government did refuse to "think again", and continued with that policy), let me read what the Committee say—and, after all, it is an all-Party Committee of Members of the other place, who only present their opinion on the facts and evidence put before them:
"When the crop is better than average the consumer finds the market price is artificially maintained and he has to pay a higher price."
I would sooner take the verdict of a Committee in another place than of any other body. Is the noble Earl going to repudiate that statement of the Committee? It is a fact. The Committee then say:
"When the crop is substantially below average he may expect to be charged high prices on the grounds of scarcity."
So the Government's policy towards the housewife is, "Heads we win, and tails you lose!" And Mr. Soames, instead of carrying out his statutory duty of ensuring minimum consumer prices, has adopted a policy, as a matter of policy, which has increased prices. I should like to know when it is going to stop. When is the noble Earl going to face up to and acknowledge the facts, and tell us whether he agrees with what the Select Committee say on the facts and evidence they had before them?
In that same 1958 debate to which I have referred, the noble Earl said this:
404
"Our system is to provide a safety net of guaranteed prices for the producer, with freedom f the consumer to buy at the market price. This keeps down the cost of living".
Does the noble Earl still say that, now that we have an official admission that prices have been forced up? In the face of disregarded warnings and the unnecessary loss of hundreds of millions of pounds, I would ask the noble Earl whether he is still, as in 1958,
"quite unrepentant about our policy",
and whether he is as sure now as he was then that
"the real safeguard against excessive margins in the food trade is not controls but competition",
even when the Government rig the market against the consumer, which is what is happening. I hope that in the light of events the noble Earl will be a little more forthcoming than he was in March of last year, when he dismissed the case and the facts which I had carefully put forward by saying that the first time I made that speech, three years earlier, it had worried him, but it did not worry him any longer. I think the noble Earl should begin to worry a little now, because the Price Review discussions are in progress and, as I understand it, under the present arrangements £15 million is the maximum cut that can be made in the guarantees.
According to the Minister of Agriculture in another place yesterday, the Government intend to ignore the Estimates Committee and carry on as if nothing had happened. If that is so, then we may be presented with another £350 million bill next year, plus low prices to the farmer and high prices to the housewife. I should not have the slightest objection to the taxpayer paying £350 million or £400 million if it could be seen that the farmers were directly benefiting from it and that the consumers were also benefiting by means of lower prices. I should like to see a system where both those things happen, or, at least, where one happens, so that the money is going into a channel that we can see benefit from. The system we have now demands of the taxpayer almost as much as the £400 million that was demanded in the days of the late Sir Stafford Cripps, yet it is impossible to say that either the farmers or the housewives are benefiting.

405
I would mention that the Select Committee met on December 19, and one day later, when I should have thought the noble Earl would have a shrewd idea of the trend of events, he may remember that I put a Question to the Government. I asked [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 256 (No. 25) col. 725]:
"Whether they will implement the guarantees to farmers by abandoning support subsidies and substituting minimum prices, supported, when necessary, by Government buying and control of imports? "
The noble Earl gave me a firm "No" in reply to that Question. I should like to repeat the question to-day; and if, as seems not unlikely, he gives the same answer when he comes to reply, I should like to know why the Government will not consider that proposal and what alternative they have in mind. Would the noble Earl bear in mind that his right honourable friend said yesterday in another place that if we join the Common Market considerable changes in the present system of price support will have to be made? With that 1 entirely agree. But if considerable changes have to be made a year hence, why not now? We could be gaining some experience.
I should like to know, also, whether the Government will reconsider their refusal to set up machinery for regular inquiry into the wholesale and retail prices of meat. Six years ago, as the noble Earl will probably be aware, the Interdepartmental Committee on Social and Economic Research recommended the compilation and publication of an official series of farm wholesale and retail prices of a number of food products. That is a different thing from the special Committee which the Minister is now setting up. I want to see regular machinery, so that we shall know these things and not have this speculation all the time as to where the money is going and everyone blaming everyone else. I submit that it is fantastic that although the public spend nearly £1,500 million a year on meat and bacon products, the Government still profess official ignorance of the prices they pay. It seems extraordinary for the Government to say they do not know what prices they pay. I think it is high time they found out.
We should also be told whether the Government have yet decided, at least in principle, in favour of orderly marketing.
406
After all, farming opinion, as my noble friend Lord Williams of Barnburgh pointed out, is overwhelmingly in favour of a Meat Marketing Board. I do not know whether or not it was at the request of the Government, but the N.F.U. leaders have managed to fob them off for another year. I submit that if instead of 3,400 slaughterhouses we had a system of central abattoirs and a statutory marketing board, with full powers over production, distribution and marketing, us, indeed, was asked for by the National Farmers' Union of Wales, this present costly farce would be no more, and housewives and taxpayers would get a fair deal.
I would suggest that anyone who has any lingering doubts of the imperative need for such a board should read a research pamphlet called Meat Marketing Margins in Britain by Mr. George Houston, of the University of Glasgow. which was published on December 18 last. It concerns an investigation in Glasgow, and it gives figures for the break-down of prices and total realisation of a 300 lb. side of bullock or heifer. It shows that, on top of his costs, the retailer added nearly 60 per cent. in arriving at his retail price—a fantastic margin. This was in the autumn, 1961. Of course, Mr. Houston draws the conclusion that a large part of the fat stock subsidies might well be debited to the retail trade.
More recently, in an article published in a Glasgow newspaper, Mr. Houston commented on the Minister's statement that consumers had a £35 million bonus, which was 5½per cent. of consumers' expenditure on all meat in 1961–62. My Lords, 5½ per cent. on £600 million does not work out at £35 million. The Minister has ignored, apparently, all imparted meat, because the consumer consumed more than doable £600 million worth, and I think that is as faulty as the other reasoning. Then, too, on the basis of figures that he has produced, Mr. Houston thinks that the retailers' bonus was more like £30 million. But, above all, is it the fact, as is said in this article, that the request for background information is "being treated as a matter of parliamentary politics"?
Here we have a situation where a mistake of £78 million has been made—an

407
unavoidable mistake, so far as the estimators were concerned. It is our money. There is an argument about who has benefited, and the Minister says, "We don't know", and we get all kinds of fantastic answers. I submit that we should be put in a position of knowing. There should be this investigation, not just the once-for-all inquiry that we are to have, and these statistics should be made available. I think they are essential if we are to get down to sensible marketing. I believe that the final conclusion in that research pamphlet is unanswerable. It is this:
"The basic weakness in the present system of guarantees is that we have what is virtually a support price system for fatstock, without an essential clement of such a scheme—a buyer of last resort. One cannot talk of a 'free' market when, for institutional reasons, supplies are virtually unaffected by price falls below a certain level."
It is unquestionable, my Lords, that the Government's farm policy lies in ruins. It stands condemned by every section of informed opinion throughout the country. Though individuals may do so, it does not lie in Governments to apologise. I believe that, if the present Government have the least pretensions to be considered a Government, we shall hear from the noble Earl tonight that this question of deficiency payments is being seriously investigated and considered and that in their place we shall have a return to the 1947 Act, modified as necessary in accordance with present conditions, but with firm prices related to specified quantities, with control of imports, and with a powerful, vigorous, marketing board for each of the staple commodities. If the Government cannot promise that, they will, in my opinion, have forfeited the right to speak to, or for, the British agriculture.
4.55 p.m.
EARL. FERRERS: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said that over the past four years he has listened to every speech that the noble Lord, Lord Amherst of Hackney, has made. I think I in turn can say that over the past four years or so I have listened to nearly every speech the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has made. One sometimes gets used to the things people say, and the way they say them. One is used to the noble Lord making rather sweeping statements. I confess that I am filled
408
with alarm at speaking this evening, having been told that nobody on this side of the House is capable of talking any sense at all. Those kind of things are sometimes rather dangerous, because they land back at one's own feet. I am reminded of (I think it was) the present Leader of the Conservative Party, who, in another place, said, "Why is it that when the Opposition have the choice of weapons they always choose boomerangs?"
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, if the noble Earl will allow me to say so, I was confining my remarks to the dilemma in which, as I see it, the Government now find themselves, and to the fact that no sensible suggestion had come from the other side for a way of getting out of it.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I thought the noble Lord's enthusiasm possibly carried his logic away for a few minutes. However that may be, I did not intend to say much on the question of meat subsidies, but I should like to say one or two things in order to clear the air a little. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barnburgh, mentioned, as have many people, the little phrase "the missing millions". I remember when I first heard that phrase somebody said, "A lot of money has gone astray here". Of course, when we look into it we find there are in fact no missing millions at all, because, as noble Lords know perfectly well, if a farmer sends a beast to a market he receives the market price and the Government make up the difference between the market price and the guaranteed price. Where the market price is lower the guaranteed price is higher.
In this instance, £35 million more than was expected has been paid to farmers on account of beef. Can we get this point straight first? There is no question of any missing millions, because the millions have been paid to the farmer. The butcher and the wholesaler have had cheaper meat; and I am with the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barnburgh, when he asks "Who has had the benefit of the £35 million?" Certainly it would appear that the butchers have had the benefit if they have received cheaper meat and yet have sold it at a higher price. But there is no question of millions having gone

409
astray, as it has now been blown up to appear to the eyes of the public. In fact, the millions have been paid out to the farmer.
I have come here this afternoon hoping to be a little more constructive as opposed to destructive, and looking a little towards the future rather than at the present, because I think, without question, there is a feeling of anxiety in the agricultural industry not created solely by Governent policy, as noble Lords opposite would have us believe—although Government policy receives about 95 per cent. of the blame—but created by sheer economic facts. Costs have gone up and continue to go up, and prices have come down and show every likelihood of continuing to come down. Somehow, within this general framework, the farmer has to secure a reasonable income, both now and in the future. There are two ways in which he can do this. Either he can reduce his costs or he can increase his output. If he increases his output he may well be subscribing to over-production; and to reduce his total costs, when each individual cost is rising, is very difficult without running into either over-mechanisation or over-capitalisation. It is small wonder therefore that the farmer, the small farmer in particular, is worried. On top of this place the mantle of the Common Market, with all its unknowns, and indeed its loose talk, and it is hardly surprising that one finds farmers apprehensive about the future. I do not share their alarms to the full, although I think I appreciate them to the full; and I would say first that I would beg the Government not only to understand the farmer's problems but to be seen to understand them. Too often the Government is credited, wrongly in my view, with not fully appreciating the fears of agriculture and in being about to enter into some commitments which will
permanently damage agriculture. I believe the Government understand these, and understand them fully, but the farmer wants to be aware that that is so.
In all these deliberations over agriculture I should like to see the Government and the industry tackling the problem together and facing the unknown together, because it is the fear of the unknown that is the root cause of all
410
the trouble. It is for this reason that I was sorry at the last Annual Meeting of the National Farmers' Union that a Resolution was passed saying they would support entry into the Common Market only if Annual Reviews and guaranteed prices were kept, and horticulture and a producer-controlled marketing supported. I thought it a great pity the industry should take this intransigent view and I trust the Government will not be unduly affected by it.
My view is that if we go into the Common Market farmers should feel that agriculture will be protected; and that the Government have pledged. That is, after all, the strategy of the operation, but the tactics of the operation are how that support is to be offered; whether by Annual Reviews, guaranteed prices, tariffs or what-have-you. In this immense field, into which we are moving, we must first and foremost make the right decision on strategy; shall we go into the Common Market and, if so, shall our agriculture be supported? Having taken that decision, we should then take the decision on tactics; and we must let tactics result from the strategy and not determine it.
I myself hold no fixed views over the advisability of continuing Annual Reviews and guaranteed prices should we enter the Common Market. Certainly I should like them. Under the existing circumstances they suit us well. We have come to know them, we have become used to them and we like them; but if we go into the Common Market conditions will be totally different, and our existing machinery for the protection of agriculture may well prove inadequate, impractical or unsuitable for these different circumstances. As an industry, therefore, we must be sufficiently flexible to allow our organisations to be altered, if need be, and to realise that machinery must be made to fit conditions and not try to make conditions fit the machinery.
The Common Market is a subject of such great complexity that I tremble to mention it in your Lordships' House. It is one about which everyone talks and thinks and about which, because of its very complexity, the majority of people, in which category I include myself, are only partially and barely informed. But a decision whenever it is taken, and whichever way it is taken, is going to

411
affect each person and each industry deeply, and possibly agriculture more than most. I used to think that if the prospect was worrying for agriculture it was very much more worrying for an industry that depends on a 33 per cent. tariff for its support. I was talking to somebody the other day who is high up in the motor manufacturing business, and he told me, "We are all ready to have a go". I thought then that if that is the view of the motor manufacturing industry and they are ready to take the plunge, then so, indeed, it ought to be of agriculture.
In the simplest of terms—and I realise the danger of reducing a very complex and difficult argument to simple terms—if industry is prosperous, then the country will be and then agriculture can be, although it does not necessarily mean it will be. If industry is not prosperous, then the country will not be prosperous, then certainly agriculture will not be. If agriculture is to depend on a prosperous industry, then, indeed, it is up to us to encourage a prosperous industry. Should it be considered, and wisely considered, that by joining the Common Market industry will be enabled to be more prosperous, then I feel that agriculture should be prepared to support it. In fact, I would even go one step further and say that I myself would be prepared to support entry into the Common Market, if I thought it right for industry, even though agriculture might be adversely affected by it.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, it is a very interesting line that the noble Earl is putting up. May I ask him whether he thinks that all the industrial part of the nation, in every trade, takes the view of the motor car industry with regard to going into the Common Market? Is there a difference of opinion throughout the industrial production side of the country? Why should agriculture have to suffer?
EARL FERRERS: I was endeavouring to look at the scene from a rather wider angle. As the noble Viscount knows, I am engaged in agriculture myself, and I do not wish to see agriculture suffer. I was trying to enable agriculture to look at the wider context rather than look at entry into the Common Market from
412
the standpoint of agriculture solely. As I was about to say, I should be prepared to support entry into the Common Market if I thought it were going to aid the industry of the country in general, even if agriculture itself might appear to be adversely affected, because if we did not join and industry as a result suffered, agriculture in the long run might find itself far worse off outside the Common Market, with a sick industry, than it would have been inside the Common Market with a thriving industry. But that, I realise, is looking on the black side. I feel that agriculture should be prepared to accept the challenge willingly, and we must remember that the challenge is not the challenge of entering the Common Market; it is merely to take a decision to explore the possibilities of doing so. There are seven countries, each of whom fears for its agriculture in some shape or form, and it would appear to me there must be some common denominator other than fear to which these countries can hold to ensure that their agriculture and, indeed, their country as a whole, prospers. I cannot believe that patience and time will not uncover it.
Whatever decision is taken in that respect, one thing I feel sure is that we are bound to see great increases in the size of units, whether the unit is a herd of cows, a holding, a machinery syndicate or anything else. In my opinion, we have hardly scratched the surface in this direction. It is a trend which personally I deplore and it is a trend which the Government will not acknowledge, but nevertheless I feel we must accept the fact. Machinery syndicates, for instance, must grow in size and number. I remember saying in your Lordships' House about a year ago that I thought the machinery syndicates would not have a great future because, although they were economically sensible, practical farmers do not like co-operating; and for that remark I got a rap on the knuckles from the noble Earl who speaks for the Government, and I believe, in retrospect, he was right.
Since then, not, incidentally, because of his strictures upon me, I have changed, or rather modified, my views. I still think that machinery syndicates are economically sensible; I still think

413
that farmers instinctively do not like them, but I still further think that farmers have jolly well got to use them because otherwise they will find themselves out of business. Machines get more and more expensive and can be justified only by being used on large areas. In East Anglia the use of sugar beet harvesters has increased enormously, and one finds farmers, sometimes next door to each other, farming 15 or 20 acres, each using his own beet harvester. Clearly these implements are used for only a quarter of their capacity; and that this type of thing should happen is little short of stupidity. But farmers will have it that way if they can, as with other methods of co-operation, for one reason only, and that is that they value their independence. I would only say that independence is becoming not only a very expensive commodity but a very expensive luxury.
I think we must see co-operation not only in machinery but in every other aspect of farming, even in breeding. The days are passed when the leading pedigree breeders could afford to buy a bull on its pedigree and its looks. The advent of artificial insemination and deep freezing of semen has altered that. Big pedigree breeders will have to amalgamate, and again forgo some of their independence, and employ a competent geneticist to conduct their breeding policy. To conduct any genetic policy which is not to have chance and guesswork as two of its principal ingredients, large numbers are essential. If the pedigree breeders are not prepared to put large numbers at the disposal of the geneticists then they can expect no great advances, either in performance or in uniformity of their stock. What is more, they will find themselves rapidly outstripped and ousted from the position of leading the world in pedigree breeding. Because already a group of farmers in America have done this; they have joined together and employed a geneticist to control the breeding policy, and he has some 20,000 cattle under his control. The time may well come when a bull will not be fully used until after he has died and has been proved successful, and then he will be used by using semen which was taken from him during his lifetime and frozen. These may seem unlikely possibilities, but I
414
believe it is merely a question of time before we see them in operation.
The poultry industry has already adopted this principle of calculated genetic breeding, with outstanding results, and the improvement in poultry strains in the last ten years has been amazing. It may be a more simple problem with poultry than with bigger animals, but the principle is there. If we are to make use of science and genetics, then our pedigree breeders must be ready to forfeit their independence, to amalgamate and adopt an overall policy controlled by a geneticist. If they fail in this respect they will be left standing at the starting point whilst others overtake them. I realise that agriculture faces vast obstacles in the future which will require intelligence and initiative as well as care and, indeed, foresight to overcome. One can only hope that the Government and the industry together, and not apart, will be prepared to meet these obstacles and overcome them, which in turn will benefit not only agriculture but the country as a whole.
5.15 p.m.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I am sure that all your Lordships are most grateful to my noble friend Lord Williams of Barnburgh for having inaugurated and initiated this debate. I think we are also particularly grateful to those two courageous and noble Lords—one might almost say gallant Lords—who have been found on the opposite Benches to speak in this debate. I am only sorry that they did not have more reinforcements from the wealth of agricultural experience which certainly normally is sitting there. I can only imagine that they found the task of defending this present agricultural situation beyond either their skill or their conscience.
So far, and very properly, in my opinion, this debate—with the exception of the speech of the noble Earl who has just sat down, which I must say I found extremely interesting and with a great deal of which I agreed on the purely agricultural side—has concentrated on the question of meat prices and the Supplementary Estimate. It seems to me that that is quite right, because, after all, the object of any agricultural policy must, in the final analysis, be the welfare of the consumer.

415
Any agricultural policy which is based solely upon the farmer or the farmworker or the landowner or on the middleman is bound to fail. The criterion must be not only: "Does it give fair rewards to all those engaged in producing and distributing food?" but, "Does it succeed in giving the consumer the food which he wants at prices which are right and proper?" Therefore, I am glad that this debate has so far concentrated on this particular aspect. But perhaps it has stuck just a little too closely to the immediate topical problem of meat. It is an important one, it is perfectly true, but it is not by any means the only one. What has happened to meat in the last twelve months is not the only criterion by which to judge the success or failure of the Government's policy.
I would ask your Lordships to look back over the last ten or eleven years, because we have there quite a long period of time in which to see how the Government have succeeded in ensuring that the people of this country have enough food, good food and cheap food. My noble friend Lord Stonham has quoted some figures which are very relevant to this aspect, and I hope your Lordships will bear with me if I give you a few more, presented in a somewhat different fashion.
Since October, 1954, in the last six years up to October, 1960, according to the official index the price of fat cattle has risen by 11 per cent.; the index of retail prices of beef has risen, not by the same 11 per cent. but by 35 per cent., a larger spread on the retail side than on the farm side. During the same period, mutton and lamb prices fell by 23 per cent., but instead of there being a corresponding fall in retail prices those retail prices over the same period rose by 12 per cent. That, I believe, ought to make one think and look round to see whether it is happening elsewhere, or whether it is confined to fat cattle, beef and mutton.
If your Lordships look at a few other important commodities the picture is interesting. Look, for instance, at butter— imported butter, not home-produced butter. Here you will find that between 1950–51 and 1961–62 the wholesale price of New Zealand butter, taking the former year as 100, has dropped to 86, whereas the retail price of butter in the same
416
period has risen to 113. The price of milk to the farmer has risen by 4 per cent.; the price of retail milk has risen by 55 per cent. Remember, my Lords, retail margins for milk are fixed by the Government. The price of bacon pigs has, as my noble friend pointed out, dropped in that same period by 10 per cent. The price of imported Danish bacon, which constitutes the major part of our imports of bacon, is virtually the same—it is, in fact, 102 per cent., in place of 100 per cent. But in spite of that, in spite of what is on weighted average, a slight drop in the price of bacon, the retail price has not remained the same; it has risen by 62 per cent. in that same period.
Finally, what about wheat? In the case of home-grown wheat, again emphasising what my noble friend has just said, the guaranteed price to the farmer is now 4 per cent. less than it was eleven years ago. The figure for imported wheat is 10 per cent. less than it was eleven years ago. By now your Lordships will not expect me to announce that there has been any reduction in the price of flour or of bread. In fact, the price of flour to-day is 64 per cent. higher than it was eleven years ago, and the price of bread 145 per cent. higher than it was eleven years ago. There must be some answer to this problem. The Government must give us some answer to it. They cannot sit back and say "Our agricultural policy has succeeded" when those figures, taken from official sources, show without any question of doubt whatever that in many cases the price to the farmer, both at home and abroad, has fallen, and in every case the price to the consumer has risen; and even where the farm price has risen somewhat, the retail price to the consumer has risen out of all proportion. That is clear proof of the absolute failure of this attempt by the Government to combine freedom for importers and businessmen and, to a certain extent, to farmers, with, at the same time, security for farmers. Freedom and security are both admirable things, but, like champagne and caviare, they are very expensive things indeed and it will require an extremely rich uncle—far richer than Mr. Selwyn Lloyd has any chance of ever becoming —if we are going to live on such a costly diet.

417
There have been criticisms of this system, and I would add my own criticism. Because it really is, my Lords, if you look at it from any distance at all, a cock-eyed system. Just imagine yourself in the, shall I say, enviable position of the noble Earl the Parliamentary Secretary in his office in the Ministry of Agriculture one morning when his private secretary comes in with his face long and sad because he has just heard news that the lamb crop has been an all-time record; that we have produced more lambs than ever before in this country. Of course that is no cause for rejoicing at all. All it means is increased Supplementary Estimates. And where is the money to come from?
I have never had the privilege of sitting under the noble Earl's desk and listening to this, but we can imagine it happening: imagine a few months later that he is approached by one of his officials with a beaming face because the latest reports show that the drought has so stricken the barley crop that it will be the lowest for the last ten years. There will be rejoicing in the Ministry of Agriculture and in the Treasury, because they will save in Supplementary Estimates, and perhaps thereby get away with the increased Supplementary Estimates that they ought to put forward for these tiresome lambs. This is the way this system is supposed to work. And it cannot work. We see that it does not work. We see that it is illogical and unreasonable. We hope that the Government may accept that and, before it is far too late, may do something about it.
Let us now look a little towards the future. I know that it is easy to criticise, and particularly easy to criticise what has been going on in the last ten years in agricultural politics. It is not always so easy to be constructive. With your Lordships' permission, I will be bold and try to be a little constructive. I emphasise that such constructive ideas as I put forward—if indeed they are constructive—are entirely personal; they are in no way the official policy of my Party. We have now emerged—many years ago we emerged—from the prewar situation of agricultural shortages. Then it was essential for us in this country and in all European countries to produce all the food we could to feed a
418
starving world. It was with that background that my noble friend Lord Williams of Barnburgh, when he was Minister of Agriculture, created his admirable and famous agricultural policy. It was based on two things: on security and on the need for rapid expansion. Those days have now passed. There is still a world food shortage. There are still many people in this world who are starving.
I should like to see the time come when there is evolved a system whereby the food surpluses of the New World, and such food surpluses as exist here, were put at the disposal of the starving millions elsewhere. But I am afraid that at this moment that is not practical politics, and it is certainly not a practical solution to our present situation; although I hope that we shall continue, with the Government and internationally, to strengthen our efforts to increase the purchasing power of the people who need the food that we want to produce and which is, when we do produce it, such an embarrassment to us. But, as I say, we cannot rely on that; we have to look elsewhere for a solution.
Before coming to that, I want once more to emphasise the second point of my noble friend's 1947 Act, which was security. We, as farmers, must have security—I think that is accepted by everybody to-day. The reason for the need for that security is not in order to increase our own incomes as farmers: it is to enable us to do our job properly; to make the necessary investments without which it is impossible to farm efficiently, and without which it is impossible to bring about any long-term reduction in the price of food and at the same time compete, as we want to compete, with industry in paying higher wages to those who actively do the work and produce the food. So security must be the underlying keynote of any agricultural policy.
But this security, because we no longer have the overall need in this country for increasing food, must not be in the form of an open-ended guarantee which gives a fixed price regardless of the quantity that is produced. In my opinion, it must be for limited and agreed quantities. That, I suggest, is best carried

419
out by some system of long-term contracts, principally, though not invariably, operating through producer boards. I should like to go into far more detail on this, but the time is late and I will not detain your Lordships with any more details of this form of scheme, details which you can fill in for yourselves. But that should be the basis of our agricultural policy; and, in my opinion, if we enter the Common Market such a system, based on long-term contracts, will fit in in a most desirable way with the system which ought to arise on the Continent as the Common Market develops.
But if we are going to have this situation, where unlimited expansion is held up, where we are not encouraged to produce all we can, where production in some cases is even restricted and curtailed, and if at the same time we want to maintain our own standard of living and to pay a higher wage to the farm worker (which not only do we want to do, but the sheer force of competition with industry will force us to do), there is one inescapable conclusion which we must have both the logic to draw and the courage to face. It is an unpalatable one. It is this: we cannot have on the land so many people as there are to-day. My Lords, that is what is, in fact, happening; the sheer force of economic circumstances is bringing that about. We talk of the drift from the land; we talk complainingly about it as if it were a bad thing. We talk about the shrinking number of farmers and the growing size of farms. It is happening in this country to-day, in the United States, and all over Europe, and is bound to happen. In my opinion, my Lords, the fewer people that any country has engaged in producing its essential food, the higher the standard of living that country is likely to enjoy.
So I see nothing to complain about when this drift from the land takes place. But when I do complain is when it takes place in an uncontrolled, uncoordinated manner, causing grave hardship and great suffering to many people who have devoted their lives to producing food and who are denied the opportunity of looking for their living elsewhere—denied those opportunities by reason of their geographical situation, or their former education. But,
420
above all, because of their age: they are too old to move to some other industry.
There, my Lords, is where Government policy should come in. Government policy should not sit, like Canute, trying to keep the tide from wetting its feet. The tide is inevitable; it will advance. It is the job of any forward-looking, honest Government to see that people are not harmed and hurt by the advancing tide. I suggest to your Lordships that we shall do far greater good and deserve far better from the farming community if we face this fact than if we say that we must maintain our agricultural structure as it is and do our best to put the clock back. In the long run, that can result only in far greater hardship to those involved than would a policy of accepting this and looking forward to it.
There again, without going into any detail, I suggest to your Lordships that the right answer to this problem of having a smaller labour force on the land and a smaller number of farmers, a larger unit producing more efficiently, is to be found not only in the suggestion of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, of co-operative use of machinery (with which I am in complete agreement), and other forms of co-operation, but also in other ways. It lies in an actual incentive to what we can call the marginal farmer to remove himself from farming by receiving a down cash payment, an annuity or a pension, in return for which he will either give up his land and receive his cash payment, or his pension, if he wishes it, or retain his land and the house in which he lives (which is often more important than the land) until his death, receiving, in exchange for his offer to the Government to hand over his land to a Land Commission at his death, an annuity to carry him on until that time.
That is the proposal which I think a forward-looking agricultural policy should make, and which I suggest to your Lordships will do far more over the next 20 years to make our agriculture—I will not say efficient, because it is to-day efficient, but to help it to retain its place as one of the most efficient agricultures in the world, and at the same time to ensure that those who have devoted their whole lives to the industry do not in their declining years suffer

421
hardship from the inevitable squeeze of prices that is bound to come.
My Lords, this, as I say, is only a very brief and inexpert exposition of the way in which minds should be working at the present time, and I do urge upon the Government that they should have the courage to-day to admit that their attempt to combine security with freedom has failed and has proved a disastrously costly policy to the country, to the taxpayer, to the consumer; that they should draw a veil over an unhappy episode in their past and should courageously look forward to what the true facts of economic and agricultural life show in the future; and that they should base their policies upon that future, instead of harking back to those bad old days which have been only too well described by the figures which noble Lords have quoted.
5.37 p.m.
LORD WISE: My Lords, I want to intervene for just a few moments in this debate, but, before I do so, I should like to endorse what the noble Lord has just said about the noble Lords who are taking part in this particular debate. Looking through the list, I see there are three from Norfolk, one from Suffolk, one from Cambridgeshire, and one from Essex. That is a very good example of East Anglian life. Let me tell the Government that if East Anglia rises up against them, well, they had better look out, because we in East Anglia are a very united and stubborn race. I intervene only because it seems to be the usual practice in our agricultural debates that I should say a few words from this side, and that the noble Lord, Lord Amherst of Hackney, should always represent the Government on that side. Well, we are true to form to-night. And I also include my good friend Earl Ferrers, who is also from Norfolk.
I think this discussion has come at an opportune time. I do not want to go into a lot of facts and figures, nor do I want to deal with the Report of the Committee, but I wish to say a few things more or less from the point of view of the ordinary farmer. We have spoken many times from this side on the question of marketing. I think in no discussion on agriculture has the question of marketing and the need for
422
the revision of marketing conditions not been brought to the notice of the Government. We have given various warnings year by year, but these warnings have apparently always been in vain. At long last, however, there is a sign that the Government are taking some notice. Farmers are now beginning to realise the uncertainties and the vicissitudes of their industry. Present events are touching their pockets. They are not only assessing their falling stock and crop values, but taking note of their profit and loss positions. I speak in that respect of general farm practice as operated by probably 90 per cent. of our farming community.
There may of course, for one reason or another, be exceptions among those farmers who are possessed of great wealth—some of them are—acquired in other industries, by inheritance or by the fact that they are owner-occupiers of their land. Opportunities are open to farmers of those types which are denied to others. In the ordinary run of life of a British farmer rising costs, lower returns and depreciating values have made him appreciate the precariousness of his business. He has been caught up in its uncertain activities, its outmoded systems and the difficulty of meeting his financial commitments.
My noble friend a moment ago mentioned the question of freedom. The idea of freedom, so readily promised in some quarters, no longer touches the farmer's imagination or raises any enthusiasm in him. He has at long last become aware that promises are often spurious and cannot be implemented. He has come up against hard economic facts. He has been passing through a period of drastically fluctuating prices, changing week by week for no reason whatsoever so far as he is concerned, but almost invariably to his detriment. He has heard of high borrowing rates, of credit squeezes, of pay pauses. He can feel the effects of these upon himself and on the ability of the consuming public to purchase home products from his neighbours or from his own farm.
The economic health or sickness of the nation can be judged in no small way by the prosperity, or lack of it, of those engaged in the basically important industry of agriculture. In health it can proceed upon customary ways and feel

423
all right, but in sickness remedies must be tried and, so far as farming practices and procedures are concerned, speed of application is now essential. None can say at the moment what will be the outcome of the consideration which is being given to the February review. We cannot yet say what far-reaching decisions, if any, regarding British agriculture will be taken in connection with the Common Market. Discussion on the Common Market will naturally follow later. But whatever our views may be arising from the scanty information on this matter which is before us, we must unfortunately just wait and see. I think, however, it is quite fair to say that throughout the farming industry there is much hesitation in expressing any favourable comment on the wisdom of amalgamation, such as may be contemplated. I cannot bring myself to believe that amalgamation with France at the present time would be acceptable to this nation.
I mentioned a few days ago in your Lordships' House that in the last year 19,000 farm workers had left the land. This drift from the land is not singular to any recent year; it would seem to have been continuous. I cannot entirely agree with what was said a moment ago by the noble Lord, Lord Walston, behind me. Personally, I am sorry to see the men leaving the land. It is not fundamentally a question of modern machinery and methods supplanting manual labour and simplifying production and harvesting; it is economic; it is tied up with the financial structure of the industry. Admittedly, some workers may have left the countryside in the hope of receiving higher wages with better prospects for advancement in the cities or the towns. Some may have gone to the Commonwealth. However, it is my experience that farmers do not readily dispense with the services of their workers willy-nilly; it is generally with regret that they cannot afford to employ the same number of men as hitherto. Loss of labour on the land is no sign of a healthy industry; it is a sign of creeping decay.
It is interesting to hear that the Government are taking steps to consider reorganisation of the fatstock marketing system. Reorganisation, however, should
424
not stop at fatstock marketing. This Government awakening has been a long time coming, and may be owing to the recent improvement of marketing conditions within the industry itself. If it is, then I congratulate those who have brought about some realisation on the part of the Government that our present system of fatstock marketing is still open to the operation of manifold abuses, gambling and malpractices.
It is said that a Committee will be appointed, and the setting-up of the Committee has already been criticised. But I hope that they will arrive at a decision without delay that our marketing systems, whether in respect of stock, crops or any other agricultural or horticultural products, should now be carried out on sensible and fair lines. An investigation into other aspects of agricultural selling and buying would be just as appropriate at the present time. The marketing of cereals is carried on in the most haphazard and unsatisfactory manner, with the odds against the producer. It is the merchant's wits and knowledge against the farmer's overdraft worries. Those who had to sell barley directly after the harvest unjustly suffered and will bear this out.
I want the people on the land, who work twelve long, weary months producing our home-grown food, to have a fair deal and a fair price for their products. There cannot be any justification for the violent fluctuations in the prices that farmers receive for these products. They do not occur in the articles —machinery, feeding-stuffs, manures et cetera—which farmers have to buy. It is time the idea ceased that the farmer is easy game for easy money. I hope that time has now arrived.
Apart from fatstock marketing, there are many matters in farming practice which could well be investigated and set right, to the advantage of those who obtain their livelihood from tilling the land. I particularly stress tilling the land, as I am more concerned with them than with others who possibly take some part in the industry. I need not refer again to rural amenities—housing, village developments and suchlike. We spoke of them a few days ago. But there are one or two things of which I think the Government should take notice in assessing the industry right through,

425
so that possibly some improvement might be effected in these directions. Access to the land is denied to many young men wishing to farm, by reason of the abnormally high price of farming: the capital outlay involved in entering the industry; the scarcity of small farms and smallholdings to let; heavy borrowing charges; heavy costs of machinery, implements and repairs; the letting of farms by tender rather than by agreement at a fair rent; transport and contractors' costs, and the measure of profits and basis of costings and discountings of merchants and manufacturers. All these are matters which have their effect upon the prosperity of the industry, and ones of which, in my view, the Government, through the Minister, should take note if the farmers and farm workers are to be assured of a steady and satisfactory livelihood.
5.52 p.m.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD:
My Lords, I intervene for only one moment, and through the kindness of the noble Viscount, who has said he would not object to my saying just a few words, because I am a farmer and am deeply interested in this debate. I apologise for not being here at the beginning, but I was in fact at the Home Office engaged on my Committee. Because of that, I was unable to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barnburgh, but I shall read his speech with immense interest because he is extraordinarily knowledgeable and so very helpful. I have been stung into rising by reason of the fact that, as has already been said, this debate has been between Norfolk and East Anglia, and the noble Earl who is going to wind up farms in the South of England. I farm in Scotland, and if I might say one word from that part of the world I think it fits into the picture because agriculture is one of the very important industries in Scotland.
I should like to add only one or two things to the debate. In the first place, I do not entirely share the strictures of Lord Stonham and one or two others from the Opposition, although no doubt all farmers have a grumble—and I have my grumbles, too. But, before I relate my grumbles, I should like to say to the Minister that I think there are one
426
or two excellent policies which Her Majesty's Government have been pursuing in the last years for which I, for one, should like to say "Thank you". In Scotland, we are a great country for breeding both cattle and sheep. I think we probably produce the best beef and the best mutton in almost any part of the United Kingdom. We have a very big hill-farming area, and I should like to thank the Government for the effects of the Hill Farming Scheme which has now been in operation for, I think, nearly ten years. I have not the statistics, but I am quite sure that, if the statistics were available, your Lordships would be delighted with the enormous amount of improvement which has been made in hill-farming under the Hill Farming Scheme—the improvement in drainage, in cottages, in access to far-away shepherds' houses by roads and so on. All that has made the running of great farming areas in this way very much easier, and that has added greatly, I think, to the efficiency of the production of cattle and sheep.
I should also like to thank them for the grants which have been available for things like hill draining, land draining, for help with fertilisers and so on, all of which has improved the quality of our land, our grass and our hills. I should like to say "Thank you" to the Government for all that and for a highly successful Scheme which I trust—and this I say with some feeling—will not be abandoned in the future if we have to make any alterations due to changes in our position in the European Market. But I think we have a really efficient and good breeding stock industry, certainly in Scotland, and, I think, in other parts of the United Kingdom, although I know much less about what is happening in England in these ways.
The question of efficiency is of vital importance; and, unfortunately, as the noble Lord, Lord Wise, has said, it very often means the replacement of manpower by machines, because that is one of the ways in which you can reduce your costs and get greater efficiency. However, in the particular section of the industry in which I am interested, the livestock industry, it is more difficult to get efficiency by that method than by any other, because, in fact, you cannot replace shepherds and stockmen by

427
machines. They just are not interchangeable. Therefore, you must keep your shepherds, you must keep your stockmen, you must pay them good wages, and you must give them good conditions. Then, at the end of the day, the amount of the product you have does not depend on anything except the fact that the breeding of animals is controlled by forces outside your influence.
One may be lucky and get a lot of twin lambs; one may, on the other hand, be not so fortunate. But, whatever you do, you can get them only in the breeding cycle, and you cannot increase that, make it any faster or anything else. So your efficiency and your product is controlled, to some extent, by conditions outside your own control. Therefore, the price at which you sell your product is a matter of great importance; because while the wages go up—and I am the last to grudge any shepherd or agricultural worker a good and proper wage—whereas in some sections of the industry you can economise and thereby reduce your costs, in the matter of hill-farming and of producing livestock (storestock, this is, not fatstock) it is very difficult to reduce your costs in the way of manpower. What we get in the market is really the only way in which we can recoup ourselves for any additional costs. Prices, therefore, are of very great importance indeed to us.
There is one other point, which I do not know if anybody has yet mentioned, on this question of costs. Not only is there the question of economy in manpower, but, once you get (as you do in arable farming) a tremendous amount of machinery, then one of your big costs is that for diesel oil. I think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer occasionally looks upon oil as a taxable commodity because it represents people running about in motor cars or motor buses, and he does not realise that it enters into the cost of farming very much indeed. I hope that possibly, at some period, that will be considered as something of which we might be relieved, or that the tax will be brought down at any rate in the farming industry.
At this point, my Lords, I am not going to enter (nor could I) into this question of Common Market or no Com-
428
mon Market, or whatever is going to happen, but I am concerned about a certain Report which was published in Scotland the other day about the economic condition of Scotland at the present time, and which is known as the Toothill Report. It got immense publicity. I think it was a very remarkable document. I have not had the courage to wade through its 500 or 600 pages, but I have seen some of the summaries. Not one single word in that Report was given to agriculture—not one. This was a Report on nothing except urban and industrial conditions. I feel very disappointed about that, and I hope that the Minister who is going to wind up will pass on to the appropriate authority in another place the fact that in Scotland, where agriculture is a very large part of our economy, we have had a Report on the economic condition which never mentioned the word "agriculture" in all its hundreds of pages.
The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, mentioned a subject which for many years has been on the agenda of Ministers of Agriculture. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barnburgh, inherited it from his predecessor; and I can remember when my husband was Minister of Agriculture before the war, and it was on his Agenda then. It concerns the best method of slaughtering cattle. There are those who are strongly in favour of central slaughtering. I once had the very doubtful experience, while in Sydney, Australia, of being taken to see the central slaughtering arrangements of that city. I am afraid it put me off central slaughtering for ever and ever. They conveyed hundreds of cattle to these vast abattoirs during the war —although they may have changed now. To begin with, it is a horrible job on a very large scale for the men working there, and these men were perpetually on strike. When they were on strike no one slaughtered the animals or fed the animals, and consequently, they became thinner and thinner. Finally, when they were slaughtered, their flesh was not comparable to anything which we would consider good meat over here. I think that before we embark on a policy of central slaughtering, we must consider whether or not the wonderful fresh meat which we can get in this country, which is slaughtered as near as possible to the place where it is bred, is not the

429
result of a good method. I am not defending the existing arrangements for slaughtering in this country; they could be very much improved. It is now the duty of local authorities to take responsibility for slaughtering and slaughtering arrangements, and I should hope that we might press them to exercise their authority and to see that the slaughtering arrangements are good arrangements, rather than to embark upon central slaughtering, which I am sure would not give us anything like such good results as the results we have at the present time.
When the Minister replies, I hope that we shall have some assurance about what is in the mind of the Government at the present time in regard to our agricultural policy in the future. I echo the uncertainty which Members on both sides of the House have expressed today, although I have great confidence, as we have been assured many times by leading Ministers of the Government that they have no intention of letting agriculture down, that we shall be safe from that point of view. However, there were just one or two points which I felt I must make, particularly as no one has spoken about this aspect of our industry—the breeding of livestock, particularly in Scotland—and I ask the Minister to consider one or two of these points I have made, and to pass them on to the Minister of State, Scottish Office, if he thinks that is the right thing to do.
6.4 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am sure that we on this side of the House welcome the sudden invasion of the debate, as it were, by the noble Baroness who has just spoken. It is good to hear of her interest in farming still, and to listen to her references to her late husband's interest in agriculture while he was living. I turned one thing over in my mind as she spoke about Scotland, and its pre-eminence in this and that. Yesterday I bought some Scottish Condor oat seed, and the seedsman assured me it was very much better value than I could get in England. I am not sure whether he was right or not, but that is what he said. He also said that the marvel is that it could be produced in Scotland with the weather
430
conditions they have to face; that Scotland could still produce oats or barley or wheat of such quality. I hand that on a plate to the noble Baroness, and I will tell her more about it in six or seven months' time, when I see how it turns out.
We have had an interesting debate, but not nearly as interesting as it ought to have been. This subject is so urgent in the minds of farmers themselves—and it was obviously very much in the minds of Parliamentarians yesterday in the other place—that we cannot quite understand how it is that, when the Opposition puts down a Motion of this kind, it produces on the list of speakers only two Members representing the Party which has always reckoned that it was the principal agricultural Party in the State. It is not as if there is nothing to debate; the Minister of Agriculture showed clearly yesterday just how very much there was to debate. The lack of interest shown on the Conservative side to-day seems to me quite remarkable.
The position which was laid before us this afternoon by my noble friend Lord Williams of Barnburgh, subject to what the noble Earl says presently (I have to wait and hear what he says), has certainly not been answered in the debate to-day. There is no answer, so far as I can yet see, to the general case that he has put. First of all, there is the culpability of the Government, and the Government alone, through its policy, in the situation which was debated yesterday in another place, which is only one of the immediate aspects of the state of agriculture. My noble friend clearly showed that in 1953 the attitude of the Party to which he and I belong to the proposals to change the marketing system which had been operating up till then, by reintroducing free auction marts, and similar provisions, was that this would lead to disaster.
But in the Labour Party we were not alone in this matter. I have to-day looked up the debate in this House in 1953, which was introduced by my noble friend the Lord Listowel; I remember I wound up the debate. He quoted at the time this article from the Sunday

431
newspaper, the Observer, with regard to livestock marketing:
"A closer examination suggests that this is a stop-gap scheme open to serious criticism on several grounds. It revives the absurd guessing game of livestock auctions, and underwrites them with an unlimited Treasury guarantee, thus throwing the meat market open to the speculators, dealers, and price rings which battened on to the industry before the war. Such a scheme can only discourage the much-needed expansion of our livestock industry, and would be likely to put such a burden on the Exchequer that ultimately the whole conception of stable prices for farmers might be discredited."
That is a quotation from the Observer in 1953.
So often it seems to be assumed by very good thinking Conservative agriculturists that it is only we wicked Socialists who thought these things about marketing and its effects both upon the farmer and upon the consumer. That is not so. These consequences were widely forecast by many economists—not that I am very much in love with economists, as a rule —and by many others who think, speak and write about public policy. In that detailed argument submitted to the House to-day by my noble friend Lord Williams of Barnburgh, it has been proved to have been an absolutely uncertain, repeatedly failing, system compared to the system which we have had in operation and which we had, in principle, in mind in the forming of the 1947 Act, and which we should have been willing to bring into proper perspective, still maintaining the same objective, when the time for ending food rationing came.
What was the principle behind the decision of the Government in 1953? The Government would have nothing to do with anything which they thought smelt of State trading. You will see it specified in the White Paper of 1953. Read the speeches made at the time. There is a tremendous fear of any kind of trading which might be in public ownership and not in private competitive hands. So the Government changed it. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Amherst of Hackney, that there have been different experiences in different years since then, but some failures came through alternately as the years went by, to the great cost of the taxpayer and without bringing a corresponding benefit to the consumer.
432
Nobody who goes to markets can escape seeing what goes on in the auction ring. I suppose it varies a good deal in different areas. I mentioned this last year. Although I do not go to market often, I have been there recently, and it seems to me that there is no question at all that the public auction does not produce the appropriate price for an animal that it ought to bring, except against an actual shortage. People who ought to be able to make long-term contracts under any decent system of marketing have to spend money and time journeying to provincial markets. Those who supply London, for instance, have to go to Chippenham, Ipswich and Norwich in order to get supplies. And once they get to the provincial markets, they find that there is an arrangement between dealers. This is the system Chat Government policy has put back into operation and we are paying the price for it in these Estimates, which have caused so much criticism. It is having its effect everywhere.
It is amazing to find that there is still the feeling in the minds of Conservative politicians and businessmen that there is something hallowed, sacred and certain in saying that competition is the life of trade. I say again that in my view just the opposite is true. Competition is death. It is the law of the jungle. Only co-operation is life. When we come up against any problem which is the result of capitalist competition in the world and the pride and graspingness of other people as well as of ourselves, in the end we have to look to co-operation. When there is war and we are faced with great problems, we look for national co-operation. The problems facing our country and the world population in regard to food cannot be cured by competition. They have to be cured by collective action and by co-operation.
I wonder how many of us have troubled to read the last Report of the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. It shows that 60 per cent. of the population of the world are underfed. Yet we have a movement in the United States to damp down food production. It is becoming too expensive to support farm prices with all this hullabaloo about space research and its cost, perhaps backing up a new form of nuclear deterrent in the future.

433
We have this damping down of agriculture or, on the other hand, production on a cheaper basis by fewer men and more machines.
It is sixteen years since we set up the United Nations Organisation, which was going to be better than any body for collective action which we had before. In this country, we tried to tackle agriculture on a collective, co-operative basis. We all talked with suave approval of schemes of co-operation, such as that in machinery, which the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, mentioned. He was right and I agree with him. All over the country to-day we find effective agricultural co-operative societies, with a large throughput, with a share capital owned by the farmers themselves, which are not only merchants for supplying other people's goods to farmers but also producers in their own mills and works for treating seed and the like.
I find the most fantastic nonsense being written about this matter by sections of what is called "leading farming thought". A capitalist society is always driven back upon itself when it comes up against a failure and has to have co-operation with other people to get it out of the difficulty. A big new trading organisation is now going to be set up. I must not call this one a cooperative society. This must not be something like a farmers' co-operative. It must be a big capitalist concern, operated by the National Farmers' Union and some association of agricultural cooperative societies. A big leader of industry and capitalism must be brought in to take the chair. But the purpose is to create a great collective body. Would it not be more reasonable, in the end, if the Conservative Government could say that they are working on the principle of collectivism? We are having this now. But it is an argument which neither the Conservatives nor the Liberals can accept, because they could not go into an Election and say, "We are the friends of the little man". They are all saying that that day has gone and is past. Everything has to be big; everything has to be collective. And the only great question to be settled is, who is to own this collective organisation? For whose benefit will the surpluses and profits be made; and how will they be
434
spread? That is the situation, and I would challenge anybody to deny it.
When we come to look at agriculture itself, what do we find? The system which had perforce to be put into operation during the war was expanded after the war through the Agriculture Act. I was glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, referred to the great benefit to Scottish agriculture of the hill farming scheme. She was so thankful to this Government and praising them. I suppose that the noble Lady forgot all about the 1946 Hill Farming Act, which provided for new benefits and opportunities on no fewer than 23 sections of agriculture. That is part of the way in which we were turning over to the new mutuality and helpfulness, which was first a desirable practice during the war, something that had to be done in order to save us from losing the war, and later in trying to reconstruct for the future. Anywhere I go and talk to agriculturists, they all turn to me, in the end, after arguing about this and that, and say: "We have to admit that Tom Williams was the best Minister we ever had." And you can easily judge of that by the manner in which he presented the case to your Lordships' House, with so few Conservative noble Lords to receive his views and his message.
Then what happened? The 1947 Act came in when we were trying to climb out of national bankruptcy. We had a terrific task to face. But agriculture went ahead. How different from 1920 and 1921! No talk about deflation with a Labour Government in control. We just wanted to keep down inflation as much as we could, with no talk of deflation. We listen now to the Tories in all that is going on in the so-called financial reconstruction of to-day; the new policy of Mr. Selwyn Lloyd; the pay pause, with reduced incomes for everybody, as he says there must be—we shall have to wait and see how that works out. All this is going on, and in the future incomes or wages are to be settled only according to the amount of increase in production.
What is happening to us in the farming industry? Let us just look at that. Is Mr. Selwyn Lloyd's principle working there? If your Lordships look at the reports, which come from so many

435
sources, on the condition of British agriculture you will find that what the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said is right: that the big farm, the big machine ownership, manages to get by. But there are over two-thirds of the farms which are of less than 150 acres; and, as has been said over and over again, the kind of capitalisation, either in building or in machinery—and I admit that in the last few years there have been Government aids towards doing something in that direction—is not within the scope of the ordinary farmer; he cannot do it to such an extent as to be able to make a real success, in the light of current Government policy, let alone any other factor.
Look at the principle of the Review of Prices every year. If there is a subsidy being paid, it is right that there should be a Review. But how should it be handled in the details of the Review? It is necessary to look at the condition of the farmers, and especially the two-thirds who are below 150 acres. What has been the result of the Reviews? The result has been, according to all reports of economists who have made detailed farm studies, that the farmer with below 150 acres is far less well off than he was ten years ago. Many of the farmers with 100 acres and less, where the man works and toils all the time he can possibly put in, when he looks at the return upon his capital and everything else, is not receiving, in some cases, even the wage under the now standard of wages of the farmworker. That has been proved again and again from the university studies which have been made. Where is Mr. Selwyn Lloyd's principle? You have your Annual Review, and you make a charge upon farmers for improved efficiency, which is reasonable in principle, though it should never be allowed to get out of hand. Or where is the reward to the farmer; where is the inducement or the attraction for him to produce more? As I say, two-thirds of the farmers are worse off now.
Some interesting figures were given by my noble friend Lord Walston, and although I am not experienced in some of them as a farmer, perhaps I may take the case of milk as an example. It has been greatly helped by the special arrangements and inducements to adopt the clean milk herd; to eradicate bovine tuberculosis and the like. Bonus has
436
been paid for four years as a minimum up to about two or three years ago for any new entrants. Let me put to the House my own experience. I had the T.T. bonus in my first milk herd in 1950, and, if I take December and January as the peak winter months' price, it was that year 4s. a gallon. This year, having eradicated tuberculosis in our county, like so many other counties, I am thankful to say, that no longer counts. However, the price for December and January this year was not 4s. but 3s. 2d. Wages have advanced by 70 per cent. since 1950; but the milkman's price is down, even if you eradicate the 4d. T.T. bonus, by at least 6d. a gallon.
How do you manage costs in these matters? Many of my old friends, if they had been here, would know that I have some knowledge about distributing expenses. The Milk Marketing Board brought stability into the general milk marketing and distributing business. But they could not do without the extraordinary network of distributors that exists to-day. You have a yearly review in milk distribution as you do in farming. But what a different basis; and with what a different result! In the milk distributive business you have your review, your costs admitted, your accountant's report; and always at the end you arrive at an agreement which maintains on the average—I would not say with every distributor—a net profit from 2⅛d. to 2¼d. per gallon. There is no such guarantee to the farmer. And the distributor could say, with truth, today that if you did not get him a price of that kind, and either reduce the price of milk to him from the farmer, or give him a little extra cut in the Price Review, he would not be able to get the men or women who distribute the milk. That is the position.
I feel that in the last eight years since 1953 the Government have been exceedingly fortunate that the basis of their method of carrying this on has not failed them before. This year it stood out a mile. The farmer at large has been suffering also from the same desire of the Government to cut him down. I have mistrusted since its inception the Working Party in barley, wheat and oats. I have never seen any improvement in prices to the farmer as a result of this body—none at all; only a desire

437
to see that the merchants and the people in the trade will set the price, not by what the British product is worth, but by what they settle in advance shall be their gambling prospects of the price of the imported grain. That is not good marketing, because in the end it will discourage entirely the man in this country whom you want to see making an honest living, and who has as much right to an expanding living as any other section of the community. That is the position we face with regard to the state of agriculture.
I was rather disturbed by the arguments of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, to whom I have always listened, as he knows, with great interest on agricultural debates, in his references to the Common Market. I cannot help thinking that he would be wise to take a look for a moment—though I do not say that I agree with every word of it—at one of the most centralised arguments, almost the epic of journalism by Lord Beaverbrook on the front page of the Sunday Express last Sunday. He pointed out briefly that they had argued with the Conservative Party for years about having an Empire policy, a Common Market in the Commonwealth. It was rejected by his own Party, the Conservatives, because it involved what was called a "stomach tax". Now, apparently, the position is that we reject the Commonwealth, but we hasten and hurry to enter a Common Market with an external tariff on food which surely can have only the same label, a "stomach tax". I wish the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, would get the Sunday Express, if he has not seen it, and read it, so that I could put it to him better.
EARL FERRERS: I certainly read the article; but I confess that I was impressed with its journalism rather than with its facts.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER of HILLSBOROUGH: I was impressed with both, because sometimes in those past years I myself often opposed his arguments. Now the years go by. As the noble Earl said to-night, time passes on, and I have come to see the strength of the argument which is in that leading article, although, as I said, I do not say that I agree with every word in it.
My Lords, what we need to make up our minds about in this country is this.
438
If the world is so rapidly changing, it will not be possible for the Government to get the workers in the world, and the workers in this country, to accept a situation in which they can gradually be translated into a great mass organisation of industry of any sort, and take, lying down, the sort of treatment that may be handed out to them. I would say to the Government: if that is the most you can get to in your Conservative policy and your Liberal policy of, "Every man for himself and the devil take the hindmost" then you will not have achieved the permanent freedom of a Socialist democracy. You will be passing it over to the same mass of dictatorial control of a Soviet State under the name of capitalism. That is your danger, and if you think it out carefully you will find that I am right. I wish I could always be right. I am very often wrong, but on that principle I am right. If you think you ace going on for the next 50 years with a system of competition being the life of trade and the life of agriculture, you wild find you are wrong. You had better hurry up to get into the kind of spirit and the kind of scheme that we started in 1946 and 1947, and let whoever may take the credit if, in the end, they can get the results and still maintain the principle of co-operation and freedom with it.
6.37 p.m.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, your Lordships' House has a great reputation for agricultural debates, and like the noble Viscount who leads the Opposition, I am sorry that it is not a fuller House. I was delighted, as I am sure we all were, that this debate was opened by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barnburgh. Ever since his first period in office as Parliamentary Secretary, he has been held in great affection by farmers and the people who worked for him. I myself was chairman of one of his war agricultural executive committees. I hope that your Lordships will believe me when I say that I find no pleasure in having to say to you now that I hope you will reject his advice—not merely because I sit on this side of the House and he sits on the other, but because I cannot conscientiously believe that the argument he has used is sound in to-day's circumstances.
I hope the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, who leads

439
the Opposition, will forgive me if I do not follow him entirely in speaking about Socialism, about which he has spoken to us this afternoon with passionate sincerity. I think for me to answer him would call for a different occasion.
I feel that the problems which faced the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barn-burgh, when he was himself Minister of Agriculture, were, as he has stated, so fundamentally different that they almost have no common basis with the problems which face my right honourable friend as Minister to-day. He had to face the problems of shortage and we have to face the problems of plenty. But the common objective we are both attempting to achieve is the same, and it is enshrined in the 1947 Act. It could be paraphrased very simply in this way. This objective is to promote and maintain a stable and efficient agricultural industry, capable of producing the food we want as cheaply as possible, provided that we can get a proper level of remuneration for the people who work in the industry and an adequate return on the capital invested in it.
The speech of the noble Lord seemed to me to imply that, because we were not using exactly the same methods to implement that objective, therefore the objective itself was in doubt. I cannot accept this argument. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barnburgh, I am delighted to recall, opened the debate with a quotation from the Prime Minister in 1953. I think that we all like to be reminded of the wisdom and the wonderful language of that greatest of men. It was in 1953 that he made the speech that was quoted, and I have looked it up to see its complete contents. I have no quarrel with it, and I do not believe your Lordships will have any quarrel with it. The Prime Minister did not make many agricultural speeches, but this was the agricultural section of his speech in the debate on the Address. He said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 520, col. 26]:
"We hope instead to develop individual enterprise founded in the main on the laws of supply and demand and to restore to the interchange of goods and services that variety, flexibility, ingenuity and incentive on which we believe the fertility and liveliness of economic life depend."
I have no quarrel with that. Later in his speech he was interrupted on one
440
point and said, in a characteristic answer to the interrupter:
"Honourable Members want the good without the evil; that is often very difficult to solve."
He went on:
"Moreover, the gap must not only be bridged in the industry as a whole by maintaining average returns but we must also, in the case of what are called fatstock—a technical term covering a very considerable field—provide safeguards for individual transactions where necessary."
I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barnburgh, reminded us of that great speech because I would prefer to base my thoughts on agriculture today on that speech rather than on the quotation that was given to us by the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough. He said that competition is death. I do not know where the quotation comes from.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: John Ruskin.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I stand corrected. I am an uneducated man. This is a deep philosophical problem and I myself am quite content to take my stand on this speech by the Prime Minister. In the last ten years the differences between then and now are so tremendous that you will not want me to go into any detail. I will mention only two differences.
British farmers in 1950–51 were producing about 1,¾ million tons of barley; in 1960–61, ten years later, they were producing about 4¼ million tons of barley. Over these last ten years the gallonage of milk has gone up by 460 million gallons. In those days the noble Lord was engaged on trying to find fats in Africa because of the dreadful shortage that then existed. We are now engaged at the G.A.T.T. in Geneva in trying to regulate the almost unlimited flow of butter into this market. I do not want to go into this in any greater detail, but I should like to say with all the emphasis I can command that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Amherst of Hackney, and also with the noble Lord, Lord Ferrers, that this system of support has not broken down.
This is the time of year when we hold our Annual Review. We have our consultations with the farmers' unions.

441
They are, in fact, at the moment in progress. In accordance with the usual procedure, we are exchanging views about the many factors which must be taken into account before we can make a determination which will be fair both to the industry and to the nation. We shall have full and free discussions with the unions, and we shall be dealing with the points where our interpretation of the evidence differs from theirs. But it is only fair to say that one of the factors we must take into account this year is the mounting cost of Exchequer support for agriculture. The Review determinations must take into account the need to bring Government expenditure into a proper relationship with the resources available.
Our determinations for the coming year will, of course, be governed by the long-term assurances contained in the 1957 Act. The Government stand by their pledge that these assurances will be maintained unchanged for the lifetime of this Government.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Until the Election.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: No Government can give a pledge as to what other Governments will do in the future. These assurances, by setting limits to the reductions that can be made in the
individual guarantees and in their total value, are of great worth to the farmer. They safeguard not only his returns from individual lines of production but also the net income of the industry as a whole. I should like to remind your Lordships again that the policy that was set out in the White Paper (Cmnd. 1249) issued after the talks between the Farmers' Unions and the Government in 1960 still stands. I think that we should remind ourselves of what was in the White Paper, and I quote from it:
"In 1947 there was virtually unlimited scope for expansion in the national as well as in the agricultural interest. To-day the very success of farmers in increasing their output, coupled with an easing in the general overseas supply situation, has meant inevitably that there is more difficulty in getting a profitable outlet for all farm produce."
A profitable outlet for all farm produce: this is a problem that faces farmers in every developed country.
We must be realistic and recognise that to produce more of any product than
442
you can sell or the market can absorb is of no use. Production is not concerned only with producing larger quantities. Production must increasingly be concerned with producing better quality and what the consumer wants. The matter does not end here. As in every modern and successful industry, increasing attention must be given to marketing. There is enormous scope here. The "take it or leave it" days are gone. Goods need selling. Food is no exception. It is not sufficient for the seller to be passive and wait for the active buyer to come along. Presentation, packaging and standardisation are becoming ever more important. There are new types of shops, new types of selling, and those, in turn, need new types of production. Some farmers may have been a little slow to realise this. I think that many of us were still selling wheat in four-bushel sacks weighing 2¼ cwt. and getting our men ruptured in the process while we expected fertiliser merchants to be supplying their wares to us in ½-cwt. paper bags. These points are of great importance, particularly in the horticultural industry. We must grade and package our fruit attractively and conveniently for the shopper. It is by these methods that we shall be able to increase demand, and that is what we hope for.
If I may, I will quote again from the White Paper (Cmnd. 1249):
"It makes no sense to produce in such quantities as create a surplus for which there is only a weak market or no market at all. But it does make sense to do everything possible to stimulate an increased demand."
Have the Government done nothing about this? Noble Lords have forgotten that we introduced the Horticultural Improvement Scheme. They have forgotten the Horticultural Marketing Council and the Covent Garden Market Authority. There was a Bill on Covent Garden in your Lordships' House, which I do not think your Lordships will have forgotten.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, if those are the examples I cannot say I am very impressed. If, on the other hand, it is a slow, progressive conversion, then I approve. But I remember the Conservative Party voting dead against the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1931. I remember the late Mr. Walter Elliot

443
bringing in amending legislation afterwards of a very different character, and we perhaps have been all the slower in progression in consequence.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I do not know whether it is more relevant that I should remind your Lordships of legislation passed in the last year or two or that the noble Viscount should remind your Lordships of what happened in 1931. As we said last year, we hope it will be possible as part of the Review settlement to make available some funds for an experimental period to support marketing research and development rather than production. Noble Lords would not expect me to anticipate in what way we may encourage farmers to pay more attention to market requirements. But there is no question but that we consider this of first importance. We have already taken action to improve our basic knowledge of some of the factors that influence quality. For instance, the Government have approved proposals by the Agricultural Research Council to establish a Meat Research Organisation which will undertake new studies into factors affecting meat quality.
If I may turn now to meat marketing, which so many noble Lords have talked about to-day and which was the subject of the debate in another place yesterday, at this late hour I do not want to go through again the reasons for the increase of £67 million over the original estimate of the cost of fatstock support by the taxpayer. But it is really a concatenation of circumstances which no estimator (and I see that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barnburgh, nods his head in agreement) could have avoided. There were increased home-produced supplies of meat coming on to the market, one after the other, first cattle and then lambs and then pigs.
The point I want to make is that it is the object of the deficiency payment arrangements to guarantee producers' returns if the market price falls. That is what they are there for. That is what the insurance policy, as it were, is for; and this year, when market prices were low, farmers did less well out of the market but the increased payments from the Exchequer maintained their returns at the guaranteed level. I know that
444
your Lordships will not mind if I reiterate again that there can be no mistake about this: the money that was paid out from the Exchequer and for which we have had a Supplementary Estimate has gone to the farmer. It has gone nowhere else. I was very glad that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said there are not any missing millions. It is a point that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has often made (I will come to his remarks in a moment), that the money has, as it were, been lost. But that is not so. The money that is paid out in the guaranteed payment as a deficiency payment goes to the farmers.
This is a point I should like to make clear. The general difficulty of estimating would be the same whatever Government, of whatever colour, were in power. If noble Lords opposite say that they do not like this present system of deficiency payments, they are quite entitled to their opinion. They would prefer to have commodity commissions, managed markets, bulk buying, regulation, control, "what-have-you". They could plan those controls or their arrangements only by first of all making just this kind of estimate. They would have to estimate how much the farmer was likely to produce and how much the overseas producer was likely to want to sell here, so that they could know how much they would need to regulate supplies. They would need to have forecasts of the weather, lambing averages and all the other things we have now. When they had those facts they would have to apply them to any system which they put into operation, in exactly the same way as we do.
But I would suggest to your Lordships that if we were to have this Socialist system of controls and State buying, as there would have to be, of all the produce from the farmer and from the overseas supplier, in times when the estimates were wrong—and they would be wrong sometimes, because it is impossible to tell what is going to happen to the weather or whether the lambs will be drowned or the potatoes flooded in the ground—then something would have to give. And who would give?—the taxpayer.
LORD STONHAM: He does now.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: He does now and he would then. This is no cure.

445
If you are going to guarantee the farmer, and your figures are wrong, and if you are going to uphold your insurance policy, you could do that. But the way in which it was done might be a very much more unpleasant way. I can think of cases in which, owing to an honest miscalculation, there were very large surpluses. What are you going to do about them? They are going to be issued. You are not going to have surpluses of this kind on Government account and have everybody buying poultry instead. The housewife is going to have to buy the meat you have obtained. That is the kind of difficulty you might be in.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: But there is the other side. The present Government's policy brought to an end State trading of a kind which included long-term contracts with the Dominions which were of great benefit to the Dominions and of great benefit to the British exporter to the Dominion market. They were good all round, and enabled us to have an arrangement for mare level delivery from them, as we could then arrange for more level delivery from this country. That actually happened. You brought it to an end. You could have had your Common Market in the Commonwealth. You broke it up.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I think that probably I had better try to proceed and keep the thread of my speech. Long-term contracts were certainly made in those days and that is just what I am worried about. Under this kind of State trading of course you made the contracts, because the figures showed that you were going to be short of meat. So you made long-term contracts with Australia to pay them deficiency payments—contracts which still exist. Luckily the Australians found another market and have lately been sending meat to America. Otherwise the British taxpayer would have a heavy bill to meet to honour that long-term contract. The best thoughts of the Government at that time were that there would never be any fats. We had to spend these enormous sums of money on having not only fats from monkey nuts in Africa but also eggs from Uganda. Now we produce 97 per cent. of our own
446
eggs. State planning is not any easier, as can be seen by the examples of what happened then.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the noble Earl. What he is saying about these long-term contracts is very interesting. Would he agree that this would also apply to the present system of buying sugar beet, which is a long-term contract on a fixed basis at fixed prices? If his strictures against long-term contracts are applied in general, why do Her Majesty's Government continue with the long-term contracts for sugar beet?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, one of the great beauties of the system we are now operating is its great flexibility; and we are not doctrinal about it. In milk we have control of the market all the way through. We have a sugar régime which is a special régime. We have support buying in potatoes. We do not have it in meat. We try to operate the policy which will best suit the particular commodity, and we are not going to take a doctrinaire line and say that what we do for one commodity in one set of circumstances is necessarily good for another commodity in another set of circumstances.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, the noble Earl will agree, will he not, that long-term contracts have their use for certain commodities in certain cases?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: Long-term contracts and short-term contracts both, of course, have their uses in certain circumstances. On this matter of meat, we believe that a thorough, efficient and impartial look at the entire régime of meat marketing ought to be undertaken. Noble Lords will know that in another place my right honourable friend announced the terms of reference of the Inquiry that he is going to set up—namely:
"To investigate the organisation of the marketing and distribution of fatstock and carcase meat in the United Kingdom and the existing facilities and present methods employed; to consider whether changes are desirable; and to make recommendations."
We cannot rely on the recommendations of Committees that have not been implemented, whichever Government appointed them.

447
The Lucas Committee was set up by the Government of noble Lords opposite, and they did not implement that Committee's recommendations. There was a Commission set up before the war, and there has also been the Linlithgow Committee. We cannot go back to Commissions or Committees which have been set up in entirely different circumstances, and take something out of a pigeon-hole, though that would be a simple thing to do. My right honourable friend has therefore said that, conditions having so radically changed, we must set up an inquiry into the conditions which are relevant to-day. We need an up-to-date investigation based on conditions which exist to-day.
The noble Viscount who leads the Opposition, clearly, from what he says, loathes the auction market system. He may be right in his view, though I should doubt it. I know that he does not curry popularity, but he will not be popular with the farmers if he tells them that the auction market is the root of all evil. But this Committee will, of course, be looking at this point to see whether the noble Viscount may be right. They will have a number of administrative points that they can look into in regard to the working of the system now. They will not be dealing with import policy, but they will be free to take slaughtering facilities into consideration, and they will also be free to consider—indeed, they will have to consider—a Meat Marketing Board. On slaughtering they might concern themselves with the views of the noble Baroness on central slaughtering; they will certainly read what she said in the House to-day.
In addition, the National Farmers' Union have announced support for the commercial development of meat marketing by a producers' organisation, and the Chairman of the Fatstock Marketing Corporation has referred to the Corporation's proposal to expand by normal commercial means. This approach by the industry itself is greatly to be welcomed. My right honourable friend has also had a discussion with the President of the National Farmers' Union, and entirely agrees with the Union's conclusion that the pros and cons of a statutory meat marketing scheme ought to be examined, but that
448
before any decision is taken on this proposal a great deal more study should be made of all the problems involved. Examination of this question will be within the terms of reference of the Committee, and the industry will, I am sure, be greatly helped by the result of the investigation.
It will be some time before we get the Committee's Report, but meanwhile the Government will do what they can to get greater stability in the meat markets—
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Is it proposed to issue the Report before the Election?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, meat imports have been lower this year.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: And Election promises, apparently.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: Meat imports have been lower this year, but it will not be in the interests of either the overseas exporters who send meat to us, or of ourselves, that the bottom should fall out of the meat market. Therefore, the Government have looked ahead and have approached all the major meat-exporting countries and asked them to take full account of the state of the market when planning their exports to us in this coming year.
At this point may I come to the defence of the distinguished civil servant who gave evidence before this Committee. He has been quoted to-day, and I think it only fair to say that when he replied to Question No. 84 and to Question No. 142, which have been referred to, what he was saying was strictly circumscribed. What he said in regard to Question No. 142 was:
"Merely from the selfish point of view of trying to keep our subsidy payments under control, there is nothing I would like better than a system of import controls."
That is no more and no less than the Foreign Secretary saying, "My foreign policy would be much easier if there were not any Russians." Sir John Winnifrith, in answering that question, was putting his comment on import controls on the basis that if he was simply looking after the Treasury, there was nothing he would like better than a system of import controls, because he

449
would know exactly what he was going to get.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: Will the noble Earl kindly quote Questions Nos. 84 and 85 and the answers?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: Certainly. I know this by heart. Question No. 84 is:
"Has the Ministry or the Government any powers on the timing of imports?"
And his answer was:
"Absolutely none."
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: And Question No. 85.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: Question No. 85 is:
"So one of the effects of the absence of powers is that imports can come in at such a time as will do most damage …?"
And he said, "Certainly", because one question surely follows from the other, and that second question began with the word "So". The Government do not control imports.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: The noble Earl will know the point I am getting at. I do not want to detain him. Question No. 142 is closely tied up with Questions Nos. 84 and 85, and is it not correct that the Permanent Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture was really saying that there is no power either over imports or over timing imports?—timing, perhaps, more than restricting.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: We can all draw what deductions we like, but I think it would not be fair to judge remarks except in the context of the questions which he was asked and the answers he gave. I think that this has been exaggerated, not in your Lordships' House but it may be outside, into a report that here is the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry saying that we ought to have import controls. That is not what he was saying. I wanted to establish that point.
My Lords, many points of great interest have been made in this debate. I should like to be able to answer them all, but I am afraid that I have not the time to do that. Before I say a word about the Common Market (I think I owe that to the noble Viscount who leads the Opposition, and to my noble friend Lord Ferrers, who made
450
such an excellent speech), I would say "Thank you" to the noble Baroness for saying "Thank you". I am sorry that it had to be only Scotland which said "Thank you", but still, thanks from any quarter are most acceptable. Of course I shall pass on to the Secretary of State the indignation expressed at the fact that, in some Report, the name of which I did not catch, Scottish agriculture was not mentioned. Scottish agriculture should always be mentioned.
May I now turn for a moment to the question of the Common Market?
I was very grateful for the notable and courageous speech of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. The noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, is obviously sincere—everything he says is sincere —in his doubts as to whether the United Kingdom has a chance of securing adequate safeguards for our agriculture and horticulture in the European Common Market. And he prays in aid a noble Lord who seldom attends your Lordships' House, Lord Beaverbrook. I should like to remind your Lordships that the agricultural objectives of the Treaty of Rome are closely similar to the objectives of our own agricultural policy. The Six are fully committed, as we are, to the maintenance of a stable, efficient and prosperous agriculture. In his opening speech to the Six on 10th October—and I think we should be reminded of this—my right honourable friend the Lord Privy Seal said, in paragraph 55 of the White Paper (Cmnd. 1565):
"Our purpose in our discussions with you will be to gear what has already been achieved for our own farmers into the general aims and framework of the Treaty. I would hope that, in harmony with the Treaty provisions, we could establish with you arrangements which will enable us to assure our farmers that the development of the common agricultural policy will effectively protect their standard of living."
We are often told that the great difficulty will be on horticulture, and on that aspect, he said this:
"The problem of the removal of our tariffs on imports from the Community countries cannot be considered in isolation from your own existing arrangements and from those which may be made for these producers in the common agricultural policy. We shall therefore need to devise, in consultation with you, arrangements for the different horticultural products which will enable the United Kingdom Government to continue to implement its pledges to horticulture."

451
My Lords, I am sure there is no misunderstanding among the Six Governments, or indeed in this country, about the determination of the Government to secure adequate safeguards for the interests of our agriculture and horticulture. Precisely what form the safeguards will take, and how they will work, will depend on the outcome of the negotiations. Discussions are to open with a meeting of Ministers on the 22nd of February. But we have for some time been working on the various proposals of the European Economic Commission for the common agricultural policy, and we are now studying the texts—provisional texts—of the decisions which the Council of Ministers have reached.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, the noble Earl said "proposals". Does he not mean "agreement"?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: No, if the noble Viscount will forgive me. We have for some time been studying the proposals. These proposals—I admit that they have now solidified into decisions—have been before us for some time. We have certainly been in constant touch, as the Secretary of State said on 1st February, with the representatives of the farmers, the landowners and the agricultural workers, and we are very alive to the views they hold about, the detailed objectives we should pursue in these negotiations.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Have they been furnished with an English text of the Farm Agreement of the Six?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: No, my Lords. If the noble Viscount will allow me to develop my argument, I intend to come to that point in a moment. I do not think it will be an exaggeration to say that none of the problems which will face our negotiators will be more difficult, or more important, than those connected with the common agricultural policy and its effect on United Kingdom and Commonwealth farmers. But we really must not think that we are the only people to face difficulties. The basic problems are worldwide, and the Six themselves have had prolonged discussions within the past year about their own common agricultural policy. The decisions reached on 14th January were
452
the result of many days of intensive negotiations. The Six reached agreement because they were determined to do so—and in spite of national interests pulling in different ways—because they recognise the value to them all of a common policy for agriculture. We also recognise the value of a common policy for an enlarged Community, and we also will enter the negotiations with the will to succeed.
But the noble Viscount seems to feel that the decisions which have recently been made by the Six will reduce our chances of reaching an acceptable agreement with them. My Lords, I should take a more hopeful view. First of all, let me say that at this stage we do not yet have the definitive texts, and when these are available they will, of course, be placed in the Printed Paper Office and made available to everybody. As I said before, what has happened is that the proposals with which we have long been familiar have now, as it were, solidified into decisions, and the extent to which this will affect our negotiations remains to be seen. We have always recognised that adjustment of methods would probably be necessary if we are to enter the Community. We can afford to be flexible on methods provided that our objectives are secured, and provided always that the changes are made gradually.
Lord Walston spoke of quantitative restriction, and 1ong4erm commodity agreements. He also put forward the suggestion that there should be fewer people on the land, and that each of them should enjoy a higher standard of living. I do not think noble Lords on that side of the House were all in corn-plate agreement with him on that point. The noble Lord also had doubts as to what sort of methods would be suitable for adaptation to a common agricultural policy. My Lords, we shall not know until the negotiations are well advanced what may be the final arrangements that may be acceptable to us. We must recognise that the decisions of the Six have been hammered out by them in the face of very great difficulties.
At the same time, we do realise that adaptations will be necessary. These are agreements reached by the Six for the Six, and it does not necessarily follow that they will be equally applicable

453
to an enlarged Community including the United Kingdom—still less to one that included Denmark, the Irish Republic and possibly others. As these decisions stand, they do not even cover all the aspects of a European common agricultural policy, and, of course, I am not even going to suggest what changes we should like to see in these decisions. This is a matter to be made clear in the confidential negotiations in Brussels. But we shall never lose sight of our fundamental objectives to safeguard the interests of agriculture and horticulture.
One final word about this matter. Both the noble Viscount who leads the Opposition and the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, spoke with great thought on this Common Market problem, and deserve an answer. I think we could well close our thoughts on this matter by referring again to the statement made by the Lord Privy Seal. I should like to quote paragraph 24, when he said that there were
"three major problems"—
and this was early in his statement—
"posed by the particular circumstances of the United Kingdom for which we have to seek solutions together. As you all know, these problems are those of Commonwealth trade, of United Kingdom agriculture, and of the arrangements which could be made for our partners in the European Free Trade Association."
Now, my Lords, if we are to join the Community we must find these solutions. I am hopeful that, with the will to succeed, we shall achieve what the Six themselves achieved by the labours concluded on January 14—the reconciliation of many diverse interests into a common policy for the benefit of all.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, what I should like to know is: what is the guarantee to the farmers as a whole if Mr. Heath first says, "I do not require any amendment of the Treaty of Rome", but then we have to cross our fingers against the event that in the course of years, by criteria other than the Treaty of Rome, our policy becomes subject to majority rule? My Lords, that is a serious matter.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, we will consider very seriously everything that the noble Viscount has said on this matter. But I cannot be drawn, and I am sure that your Lordships do
454
not want me to be drawn, in these points I am making which are relevant to an agricultural debate, on the whole question of the policy on negotiations on these very formidable and important matters.
Before I sit down, there is just one small point that I should like to make, and which I should have made before. I wanted to mention a remark that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Walston. I have too much affection for him, and too much respect for his judgment, for it to be on record that he said without any qualification that "freedom is like champagne. It is all very well, but it is too expensive for most of us."
LORD STONHAM: It has to be paid for.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, he did not say that. I took it down; and what he said was that it is too expensive.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I think if you refer to the final written Report you will find that I said that freedom and security together were like champagne and caviare, which were too expensive for us to afford. Freedom alone we can manage; security alone we can manage. But get the two together and they become extremely expensive.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: Well, my Lords, I am still not very happy about this. I wanted to give the noble Lord a chance to correct it.
The noble Lord also mentioned a lot of extremely interesting figures—he always produces extremely interesting figures—of the variations in prices, and how the primary price had gone up by a certain percentage while the retail price had gone up by a greater percentage. The noble Lord will not expect me to go into these figures in detail now, but surely it will be agreed that there are a great many services—quality, presentation and so on—which the public demand to-day, and for which they have to pay. It may not be the whole answer, but it is a great part of it. It is misleading to put those figures flatly down, and to imply that the merchant, the retailer, has nothing to do but take the product and pass it on, so that therefore the margin of retail trade is too high.

455
I leave to the end, because, with no malice aforethought, I turned over two pages of my notes, the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham. I am afraid that I am quite unrepentant, and I am going to say what I have said before. There were so many contradictions on the other side. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barnburgh, and the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, surely are not on the same wavelength, because the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, mounted a severe attack on the support buying of potatoes which, he said, was a deliberate policy of the Government to force up the price against the consumer. But any kind of commodity commission, any kind of support buying which is inherent in much of the thinking of noble Lords opposite, or any kind of import control, will force up the price against the buyers, if it is to stabilise the market.
I can only assume that this is really full-blooded, splendid, theoretical Socialism—that competition is death; that "business" is frightful; that what we have to do is to pay high prices to the farmers (which we will agree is what they deserve and what they must have) and therefore we will settle how much they are to produce, what they are to produce, and also pay a massive subsidy to the consumer, because we think that food, like houses in Dunbartonshire, should be a social service.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, would the noble Earl allow me to interrupt before he gets on to a housing debate, and would he answer the point I made? My previous point was that the taxpayer's money was being used to buy potatoes in order to force up the price of potatoes against the taxpayer. Would he deal with the point that the Permanent Secretary agreed that the operators of the deficiency payments scheme like high prices? From that I deduced that the prices were forced up. Would the noble Earl deal with that point precisely?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I cannot deal with so misleading and tendentious a point as that at this late hour in this debate. The deficiency payment could be paid on potatoes. You could have it one way or the other. You could let the market go to pieces.
LORD STONHAM: Let the consumer pay less.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, you could let the market go so that the farmer got very little indeed, because the potatoes are in surplus and glut. Then the Exchequer would pay a very high deficiency payment, because there is the guaranteed price for potatoes which is paid through the Marketing Board. What Sir John Winnifrith was saying in evidence before the Committee was that if you introduce support buying as well, so that you can control the price, and do not let the price go to the absolute bottom, it may on balance—and it certainly did in this year—redound to the benefit of the Exchequer. We paid out less by a mixture—by the addition to a small deficiency payment of a small support buying programme—than we should have paid out if the market had "gone to pot", and we had had to pay out a large deficiency payment.
LORD STONHAM: But the housewife paid a lot more.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, this point was raised in another place. As I said to the noble Lord before, it is very misleading to say that this is a method of diabolically forcing up the price against the consumer.
My Lords, I think I have said enough. I have tried to answer those points, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barnburgh, for having initiated this debate.
7.30 p.m.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: My Lords, I do not think I ought to attempt to detain your Lordships' House for more than one moment. The first thing I should like to do is to congratulate the noble Earl for having dodged most of the important questions, to which, apparently, he did not have any answer. I forgive him instantly, of course; he knows that. I thought he was a first-class chairman of a county agricultural executive committee. He helped to increase our yields of almost everything by the sort of increases that the noble Earl told us of to-night. I think he was much more successful as a county agricultural executive committee chairman than as the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

457
However, I should just like to answer one or two points very rapidly. First, my opinion is quite opposite to that of the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood. I think that the factory abattoirs, sited properly over the country, could be of enormous value, first to the producers of meat, secondly to retailers, thirdly to butchers, and, finally, perhaps, to the housewife. 1 except those canning firms Which will obviously step in later to meet the new kind of shop that we are seeing opened all over the country. I think the possibilities of the factory abattoir are unique if only the Government will take their courage in their hands and come out of the nineteenth century and into the twentieth. We are all as delighted as is the noble Earl to see the increases in agricultural output. Indeed, that is what we were working for in 1946 and 1947, and the foundations we laid provided the conditions that made this present 70 per cent. increase in output possible.
The noble Earl also referred to the question: what is the point of producing foods we cannot sell? It is a pity the noble Earl could not have been in the House of Commons in 1947, when the Conservative Members of the Standing Committee voted against Part I, because there was some sort of implied limitation on production. Then he put a question to my noble Leader about whether it is more important to think in terms of the 1931 Marketing Act, which the Conservative Party voted against on Third Reading, or to think in terms of a more modern Marketing Act—or, in any case, of more modern references on marketing. If the noble Earl will look again at the ex-Prime Minister's statement that he has quoted in his speech, he will see that the first long sentence finishes [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 520, col. 26]:
…to reverse if not to abolish the tendency to State purchase and marketing which is a characteristic of the Socialist philosophy."
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I assume that Sir Winston Churchill meant, "State purchase and State marketing". They surely go together. He cannot have been against marketing. You have to market anything.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: Why should he not be? The whole Conservative Party voted solidly against the Agricultural Marketing Bill of 1931. Now it does not seem to me that the Conservative Party have come on very far, since it is only eight years since that statement was made. None the less, we welcome the apparent enthusiasm of the Conservative Party for agricultural marketing these days, but we should like to see them do something about it.
The only other thing I would say is this. The noble Earl reminded us that things have changed over the last sixteen years. Of course they have changed. We are always ready to welcome changes, and to try to adapt our policy to meet these changes. I have never claimed that the 1947 Act was the last word in worldly wisdom. and that no changes should ever take place from then onwards. What I said in my speech here this afternoon, or what I tried to say—perhaps I was utterly ineffective, and that is my fault—was that we wanted the Conservative Government not to adopt for marketing the same methods as we adopted for production. We never sought that at all. What we had hoped for—and I said so in my speech—was this. If our production policy in the 1947 Act was successful, we should have liked to see the job completed, because my noble friend and I, and the others, had not the time to do it: that is, for there to be as good and efficient a marketing system in the new circumstances as the production programme was under the 1947 Act. That is all I said that I hoped, or we hoped, and what we were entitled to expect—something on those lines. I did not carry the paint further, and I do not carry it further now.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord—I may be very much out of order? If we are to market as well now as we produced in war time, that is what we all wish. That is the objective of us all. Nobody denies the excellence of the production during war-time, during the emergency. Now we must bend our efforts to marketing.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: My Lords, I am a "young boy" in this House, as your Lordships well know, and I was not aware that I was called upon to withdraw the Motion, but I really beg to do so, despite the fact that the noble Earl has so few answers to our questions.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

ASSAY OFFICES BILL [H.L.]

  ZINC CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
  Committed to Unopposed Bill Committees.

  —

  Fatal

  Non-fatal

  Imported

  Non-Imported

  Imported

  Non-Imported

  (1) Number of smallpox cases

  2

  5

  3

  11

  (2) Number vaccinated at any time

  2(b)

  1

  3(b)

  7(a)

  (3) Number vaccinated more than once (included in (2))

  1(b)

  0

  3(b)

  2

  (4) Number vaccinated in last seven years (included in (2))

  2(b)

  0

  3(b)

  4(a)

  (5) Number whose vaccination state is not known

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Note

  (a)Includes 4 vaccinated after being in contact with smallpox.

  (b)Possession of a valid International Certificate has been treated as evidence of vaccination.

CLOSING OF TREASURY PASSAGE
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether Treasury Passage from the Horseguards to Downing Street is a right of way and whether it has not been a right of way for a few centuries; and, if this be so, by whose authority it has been closed and why; and will Her Majesty's Government give a clear undertaking to re-open it next week?

  SMALLPOX VICTIMS AND VACCINATION
  SMALLPOX VICTIMS AND VACCINATION