Sitting of 26 June 1962

Preamble
The House—after the Adjournment on 8th June, 1962, for the Whitsun Recess—met at half-past Two o'clock.
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
NEW WRIT
For Leicester, North-East, in the room of Sir Arwyn Lynn Ungoed-Thomas, Q.C. (one of the Justices of the High Court of Justice).—[Mr. Bowden.]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  MANCHESTER SHIP CANAL BILL
  Read the Third time and passed.
  REGENT REFINING COMPANY BILL
  As amended, considered: to be read the Third time.
  LONDON BRIDGE IMPROVEMENTS BILL [Lords]
  Read a Second time and committed.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Local Authorities (Loans)
    Mr. Fitchasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the difficulties caused to local authorities, he will reconsider the rates of interest which should apply to all loans advanced by them, as set out in Circular 30/62 from the Ministry of Housing and Local Government.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): The rates of interest charged on loans from the Local Loans Fund are kept in line with those ruling on the market for local authority borrowing. If the market rates fall, the rates which the Public Works Loan Board charges on these loans will be reduced also.
    Mr. Fitch: Would not the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that in the past when Bank Rate has fallen rates of interest on long-term loans to public authorities have also fallen? Why has not this happened in this case? Why does the Public Works Loan Board still charge 6¾ per cent. when the Bank Rate has gone down? Will not he use his influence to bring this high rate of interest down, thus helping would-be house purchasers to buy houses?
    Mr. Lloyd: The rates of interest of the Public Works Loan Board have decreased. The rate was 7½ per cent. for certain types of loan last August. But these rates are not associated directly with the short-term rate, which is the Bank Rate. I see no reason why the trend for long-term interest rates to fall should not continue. I remind the hon. Member that another factor affecting the costs of housing is that costs have gone up about 17½ per cent. during the last two years and that during that time earnings have risen by 17 per cent.
    Mr. Callaghan: While we appreciate that the right hon. and learned Gentleman wants an alibi, will he answer my hon. Friend's question? Before the Chancellor's emergency Budget last July the long-term rates for the local authorities were 6¼ per cent. They are now at 6¾ per cent. As Bank Rate is now down to 4½ per cent., why have these rates not declined also to the level of a year ago, in view of the very heavy burden placed on the local authorities and the work they are trying to do?
    Mr. Lloyd: These rates do not follow Bank Rate, which is the short-term rate. They follow the long-term rates, which are at present showing signs of falling. I see no reason why that trend should not continue.

    Civil Service (Pensions)
    Mrs. Emmetasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total number of Civil Service pensioners in receipt of a pension for full pensionable service of under £200 per annum; and what was the total numbers of pensioners with similar service in pension groups rising by £100 per annum.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: As the reply contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

    927
    The following are the figures:
    The table below shows the estimated number of Civil Service pensioners both industrial and non-industrial at 30th September, 1961, in receipt of pension in respect of 40 or more years' pensionable service.

    Pension Group

    Numbers of Pensioners

    Under £200 p.a.

    …

    …

    1,000

    £200–£299

    …

    …

    9,000

    £300–£399

    …

    …

    8,000

    £400–£499

    …

    …

    7,000

    £500–£599

    …

    …

    4,000

    £600–£699

    …

    …

    2,000

    £700–£799

    …

    …

    2,000

    £800–£899

    …

    …

    1,000

    £900–£999

    …

    …

    1,000

    £1,000 or more p.a.

    …

    …

    1,000

    Mrs. Emmetasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total number of non-industrial Civil Service pensions in payment on the latest date for which figures are available; and what was the percentage of these in which the total payment did not exceed £5 per week.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: On 30th September, 1961, the total number of pensions being paid to retired non-industrial civil servants was 137,000. Of these, 60 per cent. did not exceed £5 a week. But I would point out that about 90 per cent. of these pensions of below £5 a week are pensions paid to people who did not have a full career of reckonable service.
    Mrs. Emmet: Does not my right hon. and learned Friend think that, in spite of the 90 per cent., the remainder need to have their conditions fully looked into once again? Living on under £5 a week is surely a very great hardship in these days.
    Mr. Lloyd: I am aware of that fact. But my hon. Friend will also realise that 90 per cent. of these pensions are not in respect of full careers of reckonable service. This is a matter which is under review.
    Mr. Callaghan: As many of these people are suffering considerable hardship, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman is unable to undertake a review of the pensions, would not he reconsider the Income Tax burden on these lower income groups and introduce an Amendment on the Report stage of the Finance Bill to relieve people on that level entirely from taxation?
    Mr. Lloyd: That is an entirely different issue from the one raised in this question.
    Mr. Callaghan: With respect, that is not so. The question concerns how we can help people on small pensions. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman finds it too costly to raise the pensions, why cannot he do something to exempt them from Income Tax?
    Mr. Lloyd: The question asked for certain statistical information, which I have given.
    Mr. Jennings: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the very large number of public service pensioners who are living on pensions based on very low salaries of many years ago? These are the people who have been most hardly hit by the inflationary process. Will he now initiate positive action in order to alleviate the lot of these poor people?
    Mr. Lloyd: I am considering that matter.
    Dr. King: Is the Chancellor aware that over 150 hon. Members of all parties in the House have asked him to do something for the public service pensioners and particularly for the old public service pensioner whose pension has gone right out of step with the rising cost of living?
    Mr. Lloyd: I am aware of that fact and I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am considering this matter now.

    Organisation and Methods Staff
    Mr. Gresham Cookeasked the Secretary to the Treasury how many Organisation and Methods staff are employed in the Treasury; how many are employed in other departments; and whether he is satisfied that that number is sufficient for all purposes of investigation and re-organisation required by Government Departments.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Edward Boyle): Fifty-nine people above the grade of clerical officer are employed on Organisation and Methods work in the Treasury, and 456 in other Departments. I think that these are sufficient.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: Can my hon. Friend say whether 359 people are sufficient to look into the activities of nearly 500,000 civil servants, and would it not be advantageous to the Government in trying to achieve economy to bring in outside management consultants who have methods and organisation departments well-versed in these problems?
    Sir E. Boyle: I am very ready to consider any suggestion which my hon. Friend has to make. It is fair to say that the work of the Treasury Division was reviewed in detail by the inter-Departmental committee appointed in November, 1960, and by the Plowden Committee in 1961. If my hon. Friend will turn to the published version of the Plowden Committee's Report, Cmnd. 1432, paragraph 53, he will see quite a favourable reference. Of course, I will bear in mind what he has said.
    Mr. Snow: Without desiring in any way to be facetious, can the hon. Gentleman say who in his Department is responsible for the organisation and methods of the Organisation and Methods Department?
    Sir E. Boyle: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to put down a Question on that subject.

    National Economic Development Council
    Mr. Shinwellasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the terms of reference of the National Economic Development Council will enable that body to make recommendations on the reorganisation of industry on the basis of public ownership.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: It is open to the Council to consider any subject which it thinks relevant to the economic performance of the nation and, in particular, to its rate of sound growth.
    Mr. Shinwell: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman answer my question? Is it included in the terms of reference?
    Mr. Lloyd: No, the terms of reference are more general; I did in fact give them to the House in the course of my speech in one of the economic debates.
    Mr. Shinwell: Cannot the Council go outside the terms of reference and deal with this very important aspect of the reorganisation of industry?
    Mr. Lloyd: I specifically said when I started the work of the Council that I would not seek to veto any topic which it wished to discuss.
    Mr. Mathew: Will my right hon. and learned Friend state if the Council will be able to recommend denationalisation?
    Mr. Lloyd: That also will be open to the Council.
    Mr Fisherasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the National Economic Development Council will include in its studies the special problems of Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The Council's field of work covers the whole of the United Kingdom. The Director-General of the Council is in touch with the Economic Adviser to the Northern Ireland Government.
    Mr. Fisher: In view of the persistently high level of unemployment in Northern Ireland as compared with any other part of the United Kingdom, will my right hon, and learned Friend ask the N.E.D.C. to give special consideration to the possibility of establishing new industries in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Lloyd: The question of the level of employment in various parts of the United Kingdom will certainly be within the terms of reference of the Council.
    Mr. Mellish: Will the Chancellor note that Northern Ireland is in a special category because, in addition to the shipbuilding crisis which it has had for so long, there is now an appalling problem in the aircraft industry? Will he appreciate that this small country is part of the United Kingdom and is facing problems which deserve special attention?
    Mr. Lloyd: I agree with the hon. Member.
    Captain Orr: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that another committee is looking into the problems of Northern Ireland, namely, the Hall Committee. Can he tell us when its report will be available?
    Mr. Lloyd: Not in dealing with this Question, which is concerned with N.E.D.C.

    Civil Servants (Pay)
    Mr. Corfieldasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps sufficiently to reduce the number of civil servants so as to absorb, without increased charge to the Exchequer, the recent increase in Civil Service pay.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I am in sympathy with my hon. Friend's purpose. I am very ready to examine proposals for reducing the number of civil servants. I must however say that most suggestions pressed upon me by hon. Members on both sides of the House are likely to increase the number of civil servants required. My hon. and gallant Friend may be slightly consoled to know that apart from the Post Office there were 29,000 fewer civil servants on 1st April, 1962, than on 1st April, 1951.
    Mr. Corfield: While partially encouraged by that reply, may I ask my right hon. and learned Friend whether he does not agree that, if the doctrine of comparability on which Civil Service pay is alleged to be based is sound, any redundant civil servant would have no difficulty whatever in finding an appointment elsewhere?
    Mr. Lloyd: I think that the point is that which I made to my hon. Friend. The House is constantly passing Measures which impose more duties and civil servants are required to carry out those duties. That is why the number remains so high.
    Mr. Ridsdale: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say why the number of non-industrial civil servants has gone up by 37,000 since 1959, and the reason for the increase in the Post Office?
    Mr. Lloyd: One example is the graduated pensions scheme. That is a case where a very heavy additional burden is put on a Department as a result of an Act passed by the House. I will certainly see whether I can give my hon. Friend further information.

    Fishing Vessels (Overseas Orders)
    Lady Tweedsmuirasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is satisfied that the balance of payments
    932
    is sufficiently strong to enable grants and loans to be paid for fishing vessels built in foreign yards; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. B. Harrisonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what amount of foreign exchange will be required to purchase from foreign yards fishing vessels attracting subsidy under the Sea Fish Industry Bill.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I hope that prices quoted by British shipyards will be so competitive that no orders will be placed overseas. In which case no question of a strain on the balance of payments arises.
    Lady Tweedsmuir: Even if my right hon. and learned Friend hopes that no orders will be placed overseas, does he not think that, in view of his continued hope of conserving foreign exchange, it is most unwise to introduce this measure now, particularly as it has never been done before on the ground of balance of payment difficulties?
    Mr. Lloyd: I think that I can answer that in two ways. First, I do not think that it would be right to deny the British fishing industry the chance to buy the boats which they need and which are the tools of their trade at the cheapest possible price. Secondly, to maintain this restriction under present circumstances would, in my view, be a breach both of the G.A.T.T. and the E.F.T.A. Treaties.
    Mr. Harrison: Cannot the Chancellor get his right hon. Friend to have another look at this? It seems to me that he is laying himself open to a drain on our foreign currency, and does it not seem rather extraordinary that this should only have just been realised and that the subsidy should only have just been extended to foreign built vessels?
    Mr. Lloyd: I hope that our own shipyards will be able to quote prices which will mean that they will get the business. On the other hand, it is difficult to deny to the fishing industry the right to buy their boats at the cheapest possible price. The reason for doing this now is that new legislation is required and there are our obligations under E.F.T.A. and also under the old G.A.T.T. obligations.
    Mr Hector Hughes: Will the Chancellor give figures showing how much it

    933
    is open to him to pour into foreign shipyards workers and owners at the expense of British shipyard workers?
    Mr. Lloyd: If the hon. And learned Gentleman will put down a Question saying precisely what figures he wants, I shall try to give them.
    Lady Tweedsmuir: As it is possible for this country to apply for a waiver of the G.A.T.T., would my right hon. and learned Friend not think that that would be a wiser move?
    Mr. Lloyd: I am afraid that I cannot agree with my hon. Friend.

    Goya Portrait (Theft)
    Mr. Dugdaleasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when those recommendations of the committee of inquiry into the theft of the Goya portrait from the National Gallery, which Her Majesty's Government have accepted, will be put into operation.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: As soon as possible.
    Mr. Dugdale: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that while people welcome the fact that he supports the majority of the recommendations of the Bridges Committee, these recommendations cannot be carried out unless he gives sufficient funds for them? Is he further aware that he himself must take the main responsibility for the theft[Laughter.]—for allowing the theft to take place—of the Goya from the Gallery and for the deplorable conditions described in the Bridges Report because of the fact that he has not supplied sufficient money either to pay the attendants and wardens enough or employ enough attendants and wardens in spite of repeated requests to do so from the Gallery Trustees?
    Mr. Lloyd: Without going into the question of the allocation of responsibility, I can say that we shall carry out as soon as possible the recommendations of the Report.

    National Debt
    Mr. Boydenasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why the National Debt increased by £194,155,558 between 31st March, 1959, and 31st March, 1960, and
    934
    by a further £174,484,792 between 1990 and 1961.
    Sir E. Boyle: I am unable to recognise the hon. Member's figures. The National Debt increased by £356 million in 1959–60, and by a further £519 million in 1960–61, as stated in the Returns relating to the National Debt, which were presented to the House as White Papers (Cmnd. 1221 and 1574). The hon. Member will find details of the principal factors giving rise to these changes in these returns.
    Mr. Boyden: If the hon. Member cannot recognise those figures, perhaps he can recognise some simple ones. Will he agree that the National Debt has risen £2,000 million since 1951 and has gone up each year substantially, except for two years, since that date? What is he doing about that, and why is he so tolerant about the situation?
    Sir E. Boyle: One simple fact that I certainly recognise is that in the years in question a major element was the borrowing requirement of the nationalised industries, £574 million and £386 million, respectively. As the hon. Member and the House will be well aware, we have had an extremely low borrowing requirement in each of the last two Budgets.
    Mr. Boyden: Surely the hon. Gentleman is not claiming that the £2,000 million over the last eleven years can be attributed to the nationalised industries?
    Sir E. Boyle: All I am saying is that hon. Members opposite greatly underrate the effects of the borrowing of the nationalised industries, both on the increase in the National Debt in this period and also on the difficulties which we had in managing the monetary system.
    Mr. Callaghan: Are not the Government responsible for this? Is it not their liability and their responsibility? Does not the Financial Secretary recall the Prime Minister warning the country in 1959 that a vote for the Labour Government would mean an expenditure of an extra £1,000 million in the lifetime of the next Parliament?

    935
    Does he realise that he has already exceeded that figure in 31 years? May I congratulate him on that record?
    Sir E. Boyle: The hon. Gentleman need not be so rhetorical about this. Certainly we recognise responsibility. It is because of the figures which I have given to the House that my right hon. and learned Friend has introduced two successive Budgets, in 1961 and 1962, which have reduced the borrowing requirements to a very small figure indeed, as the House is well aware.
    Mr. Boydenasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why the management expenses of the National Debt during the three years ended 31st March, 1961, have been two to three times the cost of management in the year ended 31st March, 1958; and what was the cost of management and expenses for the last financial year.
    Sir E. Boyle: The management expenses of the National Debt, as defined by statute, include cash payments on conversion of stocks and Premium Savings Bonds prize money. These two items account for the substantial increase to which the hon. Member refers. The cost of management in the year ending 31st March, 1962, was £33·6 million. This included the expenses of the Post Office in managing National Savings securities which hitherto had been borne on the Post Office Vote.
    Mr. Boyden: Perhaps the Financial Secretary can recognise that this is 2½ times what it was the year before. Is he quite satisfied with the fact that the management expenses and the interest on the National Debt are now running at approximately £1,000 million?
    Sir E. Boyle: The hon. Member ought to recognise that the size of this item is not affected by interest rates and, secondly, that it is hardly unreasonable since even in 1961–62 the charge was less than per cent. of the total debt outstanding. I do not think that that is a figure to be ashamed of.

    European Economic Community
    Mr. Jegerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information has been obtained, in the course of current negotiations, concerning the income
    936
    which was derived from the six countries of the European Economic Community in Customs and Excise during the last complete year for which figures are available.
    Sir E. Boyle: About £40 million, on the assumption that the hon. Member has in mind the Customs revenue arising from the protective duties on imports from Common Market countries.
    Mr. Jeger: Has the hon. Gentleman taken into account the economies in national expenditure which will be required when that income is denied to us when we enter the Common Market?
    Sir E. Boyle: The figures I have given to the House are those in answer to the hon. Gentleman's Question. I must say that the figures I have given represent less than 1½ per cent. of the total Customs and Excise revenue and must be viewed in relation to all the other consequences which could follow from our membership of the Community.

    Council of Europe (Recommendation)
    Mr. Mathewasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been drawn to Recommendation 317 (1962) of the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe on the protection of private foreign investments in developing countries; if he will give an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will give full support to the international efforts being made to draw up a multilateral investment convention to provide such protection to investors; and if he will examine the possibility of instituting an international guarantee fund against non-commercial risks.
    Sir E. Boyle: I have seen the recommendation to which my hon. Friend refers and can assure him that Her Majesty's Government will continue to support the attempt in the O.E.C.D. to draft an international convention for the protection of foreign property. The question of an international guarantee fund against non-commercial risks is at present under consideration in the Development Assistance Committee of the O.E.C.D. and Her Majesty's Government is, of course, taking part in this consideration.
    Mr. Mathew: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Should either of these two international initiatives prove abortive, would he, together with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, support a purely Commonwealth initiative to give protection to private investors in Commonwealth developing countries against purely non-commercial risks?
    Sir E. Boyle: I would rather not go further than I have this afternoon. We have every reason to hope that agreement will shortly he reached on the text of a draft convention. But, in the event of what my hon. Friend says, of course we will consider that and any other reasonable proposal.
    Mr. Brockway: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this consideration is also covering the unequal distribution of investment, resulting in the fact that where there are profitable minerals investments are heavy, while other countries which need them most are being starved of investments?
    Sir E. Boyle: That supplementary question takes us rather wider than the Question on the Order Paper, but I should be glad to make any inquiries I could to help the hon. Gentleman with the information which he seeks.

    Building Society Investments (Australian House Mortgages)
    Mr. Fisherasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will introduce legislation to authorise British building societies to invest a small proportion of their surplus funds in Australian house mortgages, if they so wish, in order to aid British immigrants to Australia.
    Sir E. Boyle: No, Sir. It is still the Government's view that this would not be an appropriate way to meet the need which my hon. Friend has in mind.
    Mr. Fisher: Is my hon. Friend aware that permission to advance money in this way would be acceptable to some of the leading British building societies, would be very much welcomed by the Australian Government, and would be of tremendous assistance to British immigrants in Australia, some of whom have to wait more than a year before they even get on a housing waiting list? Why is the Treasury so reluctant to be
    938
    helpful when this could be done at no cost to the British taxpayer and could be done so easily through building societies, as we urged at the time of the Building Societies Act, 1960?
    Sir E. Boyle: I appreciate the feelings of my hon. Friend and other hon. Members on this subject, which can hardly he dealt with adequately by question and answer. The Government's views were fully stated by my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary during the debates on the Building Societies Act two years ago, and in the Government's view nothing has happened since to justify changing their policy.
    Mr. P. Williams: Would my hon. Friend like another Adjournment debate on this matter? Why is it not possible to do something? This proposal would be some way of meeting the needs of immigrants and of providing finance for housing, and is something which the Government should not shelve with Civil Service answers.
    Sir E. Boyle: There is a difficulty about having an Adjournment debate because of debating something involving legislation, but I do not want to ride out on that unfairly. If my hon. Friend wishes to talk about this, either my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary or I would be glad to discuss it with him and his hon. Friends.
    Mr. Elwyn Jones: If building societies have surplus funds, should they not be encouraged to use them to help those in desperate need of housing in this country to acquire their own houses?
    Sir E. Boyle: I do not want to debate the matter now, but the surplus funds of building societies are intended to be their liquid assets. That was the point of my hon. Friend's speech. But I do not think that we can pursue the matter much further today.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE

    County Durham (Crook Area)
    Mr. Ainsleyasked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to attract new industry to the Crook area, County Durham, to provide jobs for those who have lost their employment owing to pit closures; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Niall Macpherson): The Board of Trade will continue to make every effort to encourage industrial development in the Crook area. The facilities of the Local Employment Act are available for any firms willing to set up or expand in the locality.
    Mr. Ainsley: I am profoundly disappointed with that reply. Is the Minister aware of the ineffectiveness of the Local Employment Act in comparison with the degree of justice contained in the Distribution of Industry Act, which did seek to apportion industries to the needs of the population? Is the Minister aware that conditions in this area are worse than they were in the 1930s? Then there was a possibility that the basic industries would pick up, but those industries have now gone, and 2,500 of the population in this area are looking to the Government for work.
    Mr. Macpherson: I appreciate the difficulties and anxieties of the area. We have been doing our best to bring the firms there. In the last few months between 15 and 20 firms have been recommended to go to the area, and half a dozen have visited it. In the end, it is for the firms themselves to choose where they should go.

    Rotary Lawn Mowers (Engines)
    Mr. Gresham Cookeasked the President of the Board of Trade what steps are being taken to encourage the development of British engines for rotary type lawn mowers.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: None by the Government, Sir.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: Is my hon. Friend aware that when I went to the Chelsea Flower Show I was amazed to find that half of the British rotary lawn movers have American engines? What is the Board of Trade doing to help develop a British engine for these lawn mowers?
    Mr. Macpherson: This is primarily a matter for the industry itself to consider, but the Board of Trade will be quite willing to look into the question and to see the extent of the dependence on imported materials, if my hon. Friend wishes.

    Llanelly
    Mr. J. Griffithsasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will re-schedule the area of Llanelly and district under the provisions of the Local Employment Act, 1960, in view of the increase in unemployment in the area and the further increase consequent upon the closing of the Bynea steel works and the Royal Ordnance factory at Pembrey.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: Yes, Sir. In the opinion of my right hon. Friend, Llanelly is again threatened with high unemployment which is likely to persist. He has therefore decided, after consultation with the Minister for Welsh Affairs, to restore it to the list of development districts.
    Mr. Griffiths: Since some time must elapse between the re-scheduling of an area and the establishment there of new industries, will the hon. Member in the meantime take steps, with his colleagues the Secretary of State for War and the Minister of Power, to prevent or postpone the closure of the Royal Ordnance Factory, where, between now and the end of the year, 800 men will be made redundant, and the Bynea Steel Works, where 750 men will be made redundant? Will he bear in mind that in both cases half of those who will be rendered redundant are over 50 years of age, and that this is becoming one of the most urgent problems in this and similar areas where redundancy exists?
    Mr. Macpherson: I am aware of the problem of the factory at Pembrey, which has been discussed with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, but I am prepared to ask him to look at it again.
    Mr. Gower: Is my hon. Friend aware that the news of the decision that he has announced will be received with satisfaction in areas in South Wales which are not affected like Llanelly? They recognise that this area of Wales has a short-term problem, which we hope will be settled very shortly.

    Sunderland
    Mr. Willeyasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will

    941
    include Sunderland in the list of development districts eligible for assistance under the Local Employment Act.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: No, Sir. The employment prospects in Sunderland are such that my right hon. Friend would not be justified in accepting further applications for financial assistance.
    Mr. Wiley: Is the Minister aware that for five years we have had more than 5 per cent. unemployed, and that we still have that percentage? Is he further aware that no one in Sunderland can understand wily we have been divorced entirely from Government aid?
    Mr. Macpherson: A large number of firms are constructing there and taking on workers. There are more jobs in prospect there than there are unemployed.
    Mr. Willey: We shall have to wait until 1965 before we get this new employment, most of which will have been provided by the local authority. We are still awaiting aid from the Government. The prospects for our major industry of shipbuilding are such that we must expect more unemployment in the next few years.
    Mr. Macpherson: What the hon. Member says is quite untrue. These firms have received considerable aid from the Government.
    Mr. P. Williams: Is my hon. Friend aware that most of the people of Sunderland understand that the Government have done a lot for the town?

    Resale Price Maintenance
    Mr. Darlingasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will now make a statement on resale price maintenance.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: No, Sir. My right hon. Friend is still studying the subject.
    Mr. Darling: Can the Minister at least tell us when the Government intend to say something about their views on Section 25 of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act? Are we to take it, from the lengthy examination which is going on and from the Prime Minister's statement on Saturday, that the
    942
    Government are going to change their mind on that Section of the Act, passed only six years ago?
    Mr. Macpherson: I am afraid that I cannot anticipate the statement that my right hon. Friend may make.
    Dr. King: Is the Minister aware that British pharmacists are gravely concerned about this question of interfering with their present price system? Will he give serious consideration to their representations?
    Mr. Macpherson: Yes, Sir. Many interests are involved in this question—manufacturers, retailers and consumers. We are giving careful consideration to them, among other factors.

    Republic of South Africa (Supply of Aircraft)
    Mr. Brockwayasked the President of the Board of Trade what licences have been issued for the provision of Handley-Page bombing aircraft to the Government of the Republic of South Africa.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: It is not the practice to disclose details of export licences for the supply of defence equipment to other Governments.
    Mr. Brockway: Has the hon. Member seen the statement in the Press that licences have been given for the provision of these bombers? Will not the Government consider adopting a policy of ensuring that no more armaments will be sent to the Republic of South Africa while it continues its present policy of apartheid?
    Mr. Macpherson: I am not responsible for statements that appear in the Press. Questions of Her Majesty's Government's policy on arms exports to South Africa should be referred to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.

    Weights and Measures (Smokeless Fuels)
    Mr. Shepherdasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will introduce legislation to protect the consumer from short weight in smokeless fuels due to undersizing and excessive moisture,

    943
    as recommended by the Consumer Advisory Council of the British Standards Institution.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: My right hon. Friend is bearing this matter in mind in connection with the weights and measures legislation which the Government intend to introduce as soon as Parliamentary time permits.
    Mr. Shepherd: In view of the fact that these moisture contents are extremely high and cause a serious loss to the consumer, is there anything which my hon. Friend's Department can do, in conjunction with the Ministry of Power, to put an end to this abuse?
    Mr. Macpherson: My information is that the moisture contents are not particularly high. The B.S.I. specification for open fire gas coke is between 9 per cent, and 12 per cent. at the point of production. When complaints have been made it has been generally found that that percentage has not been exceeded.
    Mr. Darling: In view of the fact that we are never likely to get any weights and measures legislation from this Government, will the Minister bear in mind that what is needed here are standards, designations and specifications, which would hardly come within the provisions of weights and measures legislation, but which should come under his Department?
    Mr. Macpherson: The hon. Member is quite right, in that part of this subject deals with quality rather than quantity, but I do not accept his premise.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: Although B.S.I. specifications are laid down at the point of production, is it not true that this coke can sometimes lie about in merchants' yards and absorb a large quantity of moisture so that, at the point of sale, it has a moisture content very much higher than the 12 per cent. mentioned in the B.S.I. standard?
    Mr. Macpherson: I am informed that once it has been quenched at the works coke absorbs substantial amounts of water only when it is stored in small quantities, and particularly when it is exposed to rain or snow.[Laughter.] I get this information from my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power. A provision was contained in the Weights and
    944
    Measures Bill making it an offence for anyone to damp solid fuel with intent to deceive or defraud. It would be an extremely expensive business to provide covered protection for all solid fuels stored outside.
    Mrs. Slater: After that very profound statement, would not the hon. Member also bear in mind the fact that more and more local authorities are introducing smokeless zones and that, therefore, more and more people have to buy smokeless fuels? The cost of these fuels is already high. Is it not therefore essential that when people buy them they should at least know what weights they are buying? Should not the Government do something urgently at least to deal with this aspect of weights and measures legislation rather than to keep fobbing us off with a statement that we may have a Weights and Measures Bill this year, next year, some time, never?
    Mr. Macpherson: We have to have regard to what is practical both as regards time and as regards the possible content of legislation.
    Mr. Callaghan: Cannot the Minister go further? Has not he read the report which was circulated to all hon. Members last week on this subject showing the great variety in the value which the consumer gets for what he purchases? Has he no remedy when the moisture content might deprive him of between 10 per cent. and 20 per cent. of what he has paid for? Cannot the Government take action in advance of their ill-fated Weights and Measures Bill?
    Mr. Macpherson: It is not true to say that the consumer has no protection in any part of the country. There are a number of local Acts which cover the matter on the lines of the provision which was included in the Weights and Measures Bill.

    European Economic Community
    Mr. Jayasked the President of the Board of Trade what discussions he has had with the United States Government in regard to the tariff concessions proposed to be made by both the United States and the Common Market countries through a reciprocal agreement; and what representations he has made

    945
    to the United States Government and the Common Market countries in regard to an extension of the agreement to exports from the United Kingdom in the event of the United Kingdom not joining the Common Market.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: No representations to the Governments concerned are necessary. Under the most-favourednation principle of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, any tariff concessions exchanged between the United States and the European Economic Community are extended to our exports.
    Mr. Jay: Is it, then, the fact that if the United States were to make an agreement with the Common Market countries and the United Kingdom were not a member of the Community the tariff reductions made by the United States and the Common Market countries would be automatically extended to British exports?
    Mr. Macpherson: Yes, Sir.
    Sir C. Osborne: Then what is the point in joining the Common Market?

    Industrial Mergers and Monopolies
    Mr. Jayasked the President of the Board of Trade whether Her Majesty's Government has yet decided its policy toward industrial mergers and monopolies.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: No, Sir. As my right hon. Friend has already told the House, he doubts whether the comprehensive review of policy and legislation on monopolies and restrictive practices will be completed before the end of the year. He will also need time to study the results of the review.
    Mr. Jay: As it is now six months since we debated the question of I.C.I. and Courtaulds and the whole question of mergers, is not this a subject on which the Board of Trade can tell us how soon it will take a decision?
    Mr. Macpherson: No, Sir. I am not in a position to make a statement.
    Mr. Wade: While recognising that every industrial merger is not necessarily contrary to the economic interests of the country, will the hon. Gentleman agree that a number of mergers are tending
    946
    to create a monopoly and neither the Monopolies Commission nor the Restrictive Trade Practices Court are constituted to deal with this problem? There is a gap in the law, as I have pointed out before. Is it the intention of the Government to do anything about it?
    Mr. Macpherson: Those are precisely the questions which are being studied at present.

  UGANDA

    Constitutional Conference
    Mr. G. M. Thomsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the Uganda constitutional conference.
    The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Reginald Maudling): The conference is still in session. I hope that it will shortly complete its work and that I shall soon be able to report to the House on what has taken place.
    Mr. Thomson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if he is to take any initiative on the question of the lost counties?
    Mr. Maudling: I am doing my best to find a solution to this problem, but it is not an easy one.

  WEST INDIES

    Common Services Conference
    Mr. G. M. Thomsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when the West Indies common service conference will take place; and what arrangements will be made for representatives from the smaller islands.
    Mr. Maudling: The Interim Commissioner for the West Indies has convened this conference for Tuesday, 10th July, in Port of Spain. He has invited the Governments of all the unit territories of the former Federation to be represented, together with the Governments of the Bahamas, British Honduras, British Guiana and the British Virgin Islands.
    Mr. Thomson: While welcoming the expedition with which the conference has been called, may I ask if the Secretary

    947
    of State is doing all he can to encourage the smaller islands to present a common front and to give themselves the best possible start for a future federation?
    Mr. Maudling: I am all in favour of that.

  GRENADA

    Situation
    Mr. Healeyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the situation in Grenada.
    Mr. Maudling: I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement issued by the Colonial Office on the 18th June.
    I have taken this action with very great regret and only because the Chief Minister of Grenada left me with no alternative. Not only did he do all in his power to prevent the inquiry being held; but his comments on the Report also showed that he completely failed to appreciate the seriousness of its findings. The only conclusion I could draw, therefore, was that if he remained in office under the constitution then in force, the same financial malpractices and the same threats against the Civil Service would continue. This is a situation which I cannot accept as long as I am responsible for good government in Grenada and for the proper expenditure of United Kingdom moneys provided for the territory.
    I very much hope, however, that it will be possible to hold fresh elections in Grenada in the fairly near future and that the normal course of constitutional development can shortly be resumed.
    Mr. Healey: While deeply regretting the circumstances which have made the Colonial Secretary feel it necessary to take this action, may I ask what representations he has heard from other Governments of the projected Little Eight Federation concerning the action he has taken? Is he yet in a position to say when the elections may be held so that Grenada can revert to some form of constitutional government?
    Mr. Maudling: I have had protests from a number of Governments in the area. On the whole, I think that public opinion as reflected in the Press respects and understands the action we have
    948
    taken. As to future elections, there will be no unreasonable delay.
    Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: Can my right hon. Friend confirm whether or not the courts in the West Indies have yet decided on the legality or not of the original inquiry, which I believe was under consideration? Secondly, can he say whether or not it is intended to take any form of legal proceedings against any of those who have been implicated in these matters?
    Mr. Maudling: On the first point, we had a clear indication from the courts that we should proceed with the holding of this commission of inquiry. On the second point, I do not intend to take any other proceedings. I think that what we have done was both necessary and adequate.
    Mr. C. Royle: In view of the drastic steps the Minister has taken, the seriousness of the position and the difficulty of dealing with it by Question and Answer, will he talk to the Leader of the House to see if time can be devoted to a short debate on this matter so that there may be some real clarification?
    Mr. Maudling: Of course, I will talk to my right hon. Friend about that, but I thought the position was on the whole fairly clear.
    Following is the statement:
    The Grenada (Constitution) Order in Council, 1962, provides, with effect from today and until the next General Election is held in the territory, for the dissolution of the Legislative and Executive Councils and for the suspension of those provisions of the existing constitution relating to the Executive Council and to the functions of Ministers. During this period the Administrator will have the sole responsibility for the government of the territory. The Order in Council also provides that after the next General Election the constitution which came into effect on the 1st January, 1960 (the Grenada (Constitution) Order in Council, 1959) will be re-introduced subject to a number of changes. The main changes will be to give the Administrator wider reserved powers to act contrary to the advice of his Ministers than he possessed under the former constitution; and to empower the Administrator, acting in his discretion, to appoint an official Minister of Finance. It is hoped, subject to future developments, to arrange for a general election to be held within the reasonably near future.
    The Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Control of Public Expenditure in Grenada During 1961 and Subsequently was published as a White Paper on 22nd May. 1962

    949
    (Cmnd. 1735). This was an independent Commission. of which the Chairman was a West Indian Judge. Its main findings were as follows:—

    (1) The Minister of Finance (Mr. E. M. Gairy who is also Chief Minister) had disregarded and contravened the laws and regulations governing the control of expediture;

    (2) Expenditure had been incurred wastefully or unnecessarily through failure by Ministers to seek or refusal to accept the advice of the civil servants;

    (3) The Executive had deliberately destroyed the morale of the civil service by an undesirable interference with administrative duties and by improper threats against the security of office;

    (4) The Civil Service had been induced by this interference and these threats to commit or condone improprieties or irregularities in the expenditure of public funds.

    After considering Mr. Gairy's comments on the Report, the Secretary of State has decided that firm measures must be taken to remedy the situation. As a first step the Ministers concerned will be relieved of their offices and the existing constitution will be temporarily suspended. From now and until a new general election can be held the Administrator will have the sole responsibility for the government of the territory.
    It clearly will not be possible immediately after the next general election to restore the same constitution as existed before and under which these disturbing events occurred. There must for a trial period be adequate safeguards to prevent any future recurrence of the malpractices revealed by the Commission of Inquiry, in particular in regard to the expenditure of public funds. In the constitution which will take effect after the next general election, therefore, the Administrator will have a wider reserved executive power than he has possessed in the immediate past: he will be empowered to act contrary to the advice of his Ministers if he considers it necessary to do so in the interests of public order, public faith or good government. He will also be given a reserved power enabling him to ensure the enactment of legislation which the Legislative Council has failed to pass if he considers that its enactment is necessary in the interests of public order, public faith or good government. As already stated he will also be empowered to appoint an official Minister of Finance.
    On receipt of the Report, the Secretary of State found it necessary, as he had already announced in Parliament, to suspend any further issues of grant-in-aid or Colonial Development and Welfare funds for the time being. Now that the necessary constitutional safeguards have been introduced to ensure that proper control is exercised over the expenditure of public money, the issue of United Kingdom funds to the territory on the normal basis will be resumed.
    The Secretary of State regrets the necessity to take these measures, and he hopes that it will be possible to hold a new General Election in the island within a short time.

  SMOKING AND HEALTH
  Mr. K. Robinsonasked the Prime Minister if he has completed his study of the problem of smoking and health, with particular reference to cigarette advertising; and what action he proposes to take.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): I would refer the hon. Member to the Answers which I gave to Questions on this subject on 5th June and 17th May.
  Mr. Robinson: Can the Prime Minister say what the difficulty and delay is about? Is he aware that the Italian Government have succeeded in completely banning cigarette advertising and it is time that the Government did at least something on these lines?
  The Prime Minister: As I told the House on 5th June, certain steps have been taken by the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Minister of Education and the Minister of Health, and further steps are being considered.

  NUCLEAR TESTS
  Mr. Dribergasked the Prime Minister what steps he took, in accordance with his undertaking, to obtain facilities for Sir Bernard Lovell and other British astronomers to discuss the holding of high-altitude tests with the United States scientists responsible for these tests; and what recent information on these tests he has received from the President of the United States of America.
  The Prime Minister: Sir Bernard Lovell sent me a memorandum last month, in response to a request which I made to him, setting out his views on the high altitude nuclear tests. I arranged for his views to be communicated to the appropriate authorities in the United States.
  As regards the second part of the Question, I am kept informed of the progress of the current series of tests but I cannot at this stage add to the information which has already been published.
  Mr. Driberg: While thanking the Prime Minister for the action he has

  951
  taken in the matter, may I ask if he is aware that another eminent scientist, Sir Robert Watson-Watt, has more recently said that these particular tests are a breach of the ethical responsibility of scientists, since their consequences are beyond reasonable forecast and might prove irreversible? Would the Prime Minister be good enough to bring that opinion to the notice of the President?
  The Prime Minister: If the hon. Member will send any information to me I am, of course, always ready to forward it. I carried out what I undertook to do and wrote to Sir Bernard Lovell and asked for his views which I communicated to the American authorities.
  Mr. Gaitskell: While it is useful that Sir Bernard Lovell's views should be communicated in this way, is the Prime Minister aware of a proposal made, I think, by the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) that Sir Bernard Lovell should be brought together with the United States scientists concerned with this matter so that they could, as it were, argue the thing out together? Is that a possibility? Could the Prime Minister consider that?
  The Prime Minister: There are a great number of scientists who consider these matters. I thought I had done what I undertook to do. The memorandum sent by Sir Bernard Lovell set out his views in great detail and they have been communicated to the American authorities. This is not part of the Christmas Island tests. It is a matter entirely for the administration of the United States Government.
  Sir H. Legge-Bourke: In view of the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition, will the Prime Minister accept from me that Sir Bernard Lovell, in correspondence with me, indicated that he was very well satisfied with the Prime Minister's invitation?
  Mr. A. Henderson: Will the Prime Minister consider proposing to President Kennedy and Mr. Khrushchev a further meeting of scientists from the three countries in view of the advance that has been made in the possibility of verifying nuclear tests of all kinds since they last met four years ago, in 1958?
  The Prime Minister: Of course, that was dealing with another aspect of this question. As the right hon. and learned Member knows, this is a question of a particular type of high nuclear tests. The particular question of how we are to make a new effort to bring all this to an end is a separate matter on which I have answered Questions and on which. I am sure, we must at the appropriate moment make a further effort.
  Mr. M. Foot: Presumably the right hon. Gentleman also submitted Sir Bernard Lovell's memorandum on this subject to the British scientists who previously advised him that high-altitude tests were not dangerous. Would the right hon. Gentleman agree to publish the memorandum by Sir Bernard Lovell and the comments of the British scientists on the matter?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I do not think that would be the right thing to do. Sir Bernard Lovell's communication was sent through our British scientists.

  SCOTTISH DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
  Sir D. Robertsonasked the Prime Minister if he is aware of Scotland's unsatisfactory economic situation which has resulted in unemployment, emigration, depopulation, maldistribution of the population, and the misuse of land and resources; and if he will now set up a Scottish development authority with similar powers to those in Northern Ireland.
  The Prime Minister: I am aware that considerable efforts are still required to build up the right balance of production in the Scottish economy, and this remains a fundamental objective of Government policy. I am not, however, satisfied that a new agency—even if its powers, functions and responsibilities to Ministers and Parliament could be suitably defined—is the proper or necessary instrument to secure this.
  Sir D. Robertson: Does the Prime Minister realise that the only times in this century when Scotland enjoyed full employment were during the First and Second World Wars and for short periods thereafter? Is he aware that this

  953
  situation has become chronic and that unless some step is taken quickly to remedy it very serious unemployment will ensue?
  The Prime Minister: We are aware of that and we are trying to take steps. I am answering a particular Question whether setting up the agency which the hon. Member has in mind would be a useful instrument, and I cannot honestly say, with some experience of Government, that I think it would be.
  Mr. Grimond: If the Prime Minister is unwilling to set up an agency of this sort for the whole of Scotland, necessary though that seems to be, may I ask whether he will consider combining bodies which deal with these matters in the Highland area into a Highland development authority?
  The Prime Minister: I will consider that.
  Sir J. Duncan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that although there is a lot more to be done in Scotland, this picture of gloom and despair is not a true picture of Scotland today, and that if this sort of picture were publicised abroad it would discourage anybody from providing employment in Scotland?
  The Prime Minister: That is of the very greatest importance, and I would point out that while we should like to see lower figures of unemployment in certain areas, particularly in Scotland. compared with those in some of the great countries of the world these are still very low figures.
  Mr. G. Brown: Is the Prime Minister aware that his original Answer to the Question is completely at variance with the statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade as recently as last Friday to the Scottish Council of Industry, when the hon. Gentleman said that there were no problems in Scotland and no special help was required to overcome problems? Would the right hon. Gentleman have a word with his hon. Friend and get the respective replies into line?
  The Prime Minister: I think that it is all right because the Board of Trade gave me the Answer.

  COMMONWEALTH PREFERENCE
  Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Prime Minister on what occasions he proposed to other Commonwealth Prime Ministers that the Commonwealth Governments should severally or collectively move to modify the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, or take other action, so as to allow the adaptation of the Ottawa Agreements to changed conditions and secure the continuance of effective reciprocity in Commonwealth preferential arrangements and their reconciliation with European economic arrangements.
  The Prime Minister: None, Sir. But I would refer my hon. Friend to the final communiqué of the Commonwealth Economic Conference in 1952. This Conference was unable to support a proposal put forward by the United Kingdom Government to seek release from the "no new preference rule" in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: In view of all that has happened since, does my right hon. Friend not think that perhaps public opinion is now ready for such an initiative?
  The Prime Minister: This is, of course, a difficult question, but I think that my hon. Friend would be right to refer again to paragraph 16 and the unanimity with which the British Government's proposal was turned down.

  BRITISH INDEPENDENT DETERRENT
  Mr. H. Wilsonasked the Prime Minister what recent official communication he has received from the President of the United States of America concerning the maintenance of independent nuclear deterrents by members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and the related question of measures to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons to countries not at present in possession of them.
  Mr. Shinwellasked the Prime Minister what representations he has received from President Kennedy on the

  955
  subject of a British independent nuclear defence and the creation of a stronger conventional force in Europe.
  Mr. Zilliacusasked the Prime Minister, in view of the present United States Government policy with regard to the maintenance of national nuclear forces, what further discussions he has had with the President of the United States about the maintenance and use of British nuclear weapons within the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.
  Mr. Rankinasked the Prime Minister what modifications he has made in defence policy in so far as it affects possession of the independent nuclear deterrent by the United Kingdom as the result of representations which have been made by President Kennedy.
  The Prime Minister: The British independent deterrent is the creation of successive British Governments of both parties. The British Government of the day is, of course, constitutionally free to determine upon the use of this power. Nevertheless, as a matter of practice, there has been joint planning between the British and American authorities against any future emergency. What may be the ultimate development of European defence is a matter for consideration in accordance with changing circumstances.
  Mr. Wilson: Since we are told that, following some rather passionate diplomatic exchanges last week, the United States Government and the British Government are now agreed in condemning the idea of independent nuclear deterrents which are capable of operating independently, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman would say whether it is now the policy of Her Majesty's Government to have an independent nuclear deterrent capable of operating independently and whether they think they have got one?
  The Prime Minister: With regard to the second part of the question, I would not accept that as the outcome of these exchanges. It is for us to decide what we are to do, and we have to recognise, and I do recognise, that France is now a nuclear Power and is likely to remain one. There are, on the other hand, great problems which can be discussed as to the future. For the present we have this
  956
  independent deterrent, created, as I have said, after fifteen years' effort. There are very strong reasons for maintaining it, and we intend so to do.
  Mr. Shinwell: Would the Prime Minister say whether, as a result of representations made from the United States and as a result of conversations between the United States Secretary of Defence and our own Minister of Defence, it is the intention to increase our conventional forces in the West and whether there is any intention, as a result of these representations, of revising the nuclear position so that instead of having a British independent deterrent we have a nuclear N.A.T.O. deterrent?
  The Prime Minister: That is covered by the second part of the Answer. The ultimate future of what may be a European defence system must be adapted to changing circumstances. At the present time our position is well understood by our allies and accepted by them.
  Mr. Zilliacus: Is not the present position that the British independent nuclear deterrent is fully integrated with the American defence forces?[Laughter.] I apologise for my taste in ties being blue though my opinions are red. May I ask the question again? Is not the present arrangement that British nuclear defence forces are fully integrated with the Americans and therefore, although theoretically independent, the understanding is that they are not to be used except as part of operations approved by the United States and commanded by the United States?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir, that is not so. The American nuclear forces in this country are, of course, governed by special agreement, negotiated I think by the Prime Minister of the last Labour Administration, by which they cannot be used without the permission of the British Prime Minister and the Government of the day. That is because their forces are located in this country. Our forces in this country, although in practice the targets are discussed and arranged between us, are completely under our control.
  Mr. Rankin: Is the Prime Minister not aware that the Minister of Defence has repeatedly told us that the British bomber force is closely integrated into

  957
  the American nuclear force? In view of that, may I ask how it can be used independently? Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that the determination of France to have the bomb was promoted by our decision to have an independent bomb?
  The Prime Minister: With regard to the second part of that question, I do not think that is so. With regard to the first part, "integrated" is a very vague word. I do not know what is meant by that. What is decided is that the actual planning is, of course, a matter of practice agreed between us. The American forces in this country are under a special agreement. The sovereignty, the power of control, rests with Her Majesty's Ministers for the time being and the officers concerned would follow the instructions given to them by the Government of the day.
  Mr. Eden: Is it not a fact that the United States of America fully recognises the value of the contribution that the British V-bomber force can make and is now making to the defence of the West, and is it not a fact also that, when equipped with Blue Steel and, subsequently, with Skybolt, a weapon to be purchased by Britain, it will be a wholly independent force under independent political control should the need arise?
  The Prime Minister: It is, of course, a very strong and powerful force and is at present one of the main parts of the deterrent located in this part of the Western world. At the same time, these forces, although we with our allies make joint plans, are constitutionally under the sovereignty of the Government of the day. That is the point, and in that sense they are independent.
  Mr. Gaitskell: Is it not perfectly clear that Mr. McNamara made a very powerful attack upon independent use of nuclear weapons independent of the Western Alliance? Will the Prime Minister tell us exactly what the position is? If the British Government are free, as I understand he claims, to use the nuclear deterrent as they wish, how can this possibly be reconciled with Mr. McNamara's position?
  The Prime Minister: I am not responsible for what Mr. McNamara may
  958
  have said. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that in the debate in 1960 he gave—summing up the point better than ever before, I thought—the very strong reasons why it was desirable that we should have and continue to have an independent deterrent.
  Mr. Gaitskell: Will the Prime Minister answer my question? Is not he aware that there is here a very important confusion which ought to be cleared up? What exactly is the position of the British Government? Are they free to use their nuclear weapons as they think without consultation or agreement with the United States? If that is the case, how can it be held to be consistent with Mr. McNamara's position?
  The Prime Minister: As I explained, the British Government are free because the forces are located here, but the American Government are not free in respect of forces located here, under the Attlee agreement. There are then the American forces outside Europe. As a matter of practice, there is an understanding which I had with President Eisenhower and now have with President Kennedy that neither of us in any part of the world would think of using power of this kind without consultation with each other; but that does not take away the independent right of both the American and the British Government.
  Mr. Grimond: Does not the Prime Minister think that one of the greatest dangers facing the world is the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and does not he find it extremely difficult to bring pressure on other countries to forgo arming themselves with nuclear weapons so long as we insist upon maintaining this so-called independent nuclear deterrent?
  The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman may be right in that. France is a nuclear Power and, I think, is likely to remain one, and the British Government quite understand the reasons for French Government policy. I should not have thought that if we suddenly said, "All right; we will destroy all our weapons", we should put ourselves in a much better arguing position.
  Mr. Hastings: Will my right hon. Friend agree that it is in principle unwise to permit or encourage the concentration of ultimate military power, with

  959
  all that that connotes, in the hands of one member of the Alliance, and does not he think that the statement by Mr. McNamara accords somewhat strangely with professed American support for a strong independent Europe?
  The Prime Minister: I think that it would be very unwise for me to comment on this statement. People make all sorts of statements. What I do say is that we have a perfectly clear understanding. The American Government respect our position and we understand and respect theirs.
  Mr. Gaitskell: But are we to understand from the Prime Minister's reply to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) that the Government are indifferent to the danger of the spread of nuclear weapons? If not, how on earth can the Government take the line of saying that they must have the right independently to use the nuclear weapon and yet proceed to try to deny it to other people? If they do not try to deny it to other people, how are they to stop the spread?
  The Prime Minister: This is what we are trying to do through the disarmament arrangements and through some much wider plan. I remind the right hon. Gentleman of the statement which he made. He said—and I think that there is something in it—
  "The real case for our having our own independent nuclear weapons is fear of excessive dependence upon the United States … which might force upon us policies with which we did not agree, because we would be in such a weak position to argue."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st March. 1960; Vol. 618, c. 1136–7.]
  Mr. Gaitskell: Is not the Prime Minister aware that that, of course, was part of a very elaborate argument in which both sides of the case were carefully examined? Will he, please, return to the question put to him from this side of the House? What does he propose to do to stop the spread of nuclear weapons within the N.A.T.O. Alliance? If he is prepared to agree that there must always be consultation with the United States Government before any possible use of nuclear weapons, will not he go further and say that, in fact, it is his desire that neither side should independently decide to use nuclear weapons without the consent of the other?
  The Prime Minister: Of course, there are only the two Powers which have effective nuclear weapons at present. France will become a nuclear Power, but it is not yet so fully. That, of course, involves very difficult questions which we must all consider together. There is the ultimate purpose of abolishing all these weapons. We must not relinquish that. There is the other purpose, as the Alliance proceeds, of seeing that we make the best arrangements with each other. At the moment, as things stand, what I have stated to be the position of the British Government is, in fact, so and I think that there are powerful arguments against, prematurely at any rate, throwing away both this weapon and this arguing position.

B.O.A.C.-CUNARD MERGER
The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:
Mr. LEE: To ask the Minister of Aviation whether he will make a statement giving details of the financial arrangements under which British Overseas Airways Corporation-Cunard Ltd. will function; and what provision has been made in the agreement regarding the effects upon this company of a change of ownership of the Cunard Steam-ship Co. Ltd.
The Minister of Aviation (Mr. Peter Thorneyeroft): With permission, I will now answer Question No. 54. Yes, Sir. The decision of British Overseas Airways Corporation and Cunard to join forces has my full support.
Airlines on the Atlantic have suffered severe losses because of the setback in the growth of traffic and excess of capacity. The United Kingdom is facing fierce competition on these routes and by concentrating their capacity, maintenance facilities, sales effort and managerial experience, B.O.A.C. and Cunard should strengthen the British civil aviation effort in this vital area.
B.O.A.C.-Cunard Ltd. will have a capital of £30 million, of which B.O.A.C. will contribute 70 per cent. and the Cunard Company 30 per cent. Profits and losses will be shared in proportion to the holdings of capital. B.O.A.C.'s contribution to the capital of the company will not involve it in any additional borrowing from the Exchequer.

961
B.O.A.C. will operate the new company's aircraft on its behalf and charge the company a price to cover full costs. The financial results, so far as they affect the Corporation, will be presented to Parliament in the customary detail.
As regards any possible change in the ownership of the Cunard Steam-ship Company, Ltd., B.O.A.C. retain the right to call for the transfer to itself of the 30 per cent. Cunard holding.
Mr. Lee: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for making that statement, but is he aware that we on this side of the House are very dissatisfied with the way in which the announcement of the formation of this company was made? We are now discussing the matter after the company has begun to fly the route.
The right hon. Gentleman has just spoken about excess capacity. Will he explain what B.O.A.C. has to gain from capacity additional to the surplus capacity it already has, represented by two Boeings, from which, apparently, Cunard may get 30 per cent. of the takings?
From the point of view of the House, will the Minister say what Ministerial responsibility to the House he now has for this new company? In other words, do we treat it as a nationalised concern? Can we put down Questions or debate its affairs as we should those of B.O.A.C. as a nationalised concern? Further, since there have been losses by both these companies during the past year, and the North Atlantic routes are still showing losses, will the Minister bear the losses on Cunard, if this situation unfortunately continues?
Is it not obvious that the only reason why B.O.A.C. has done this is that it is afraid of the Air Transport Licensing Board and the licences which might be given? Will the right hon. Gentleman now tell us what Government policy is? We had, first, a public monopoly broken on the Atlantic by the Civil Aviation (Licensing) Act, 1960, in the interests of free competition. Now we have the Minister conniving at the creation of a monopoly, with the independents inside it, to ensure that we do not suffer the disadvantages of wasteful competition. What is now to happen to the Act of 1960?
Mr. Thorneycroft: Whatever else can be said about this arrangement, it is certainly not a monopoly. This company will be faced with fierce competition on the North Atlantic and my belief is—and this belief is shared by the Chairman of B.O.A.C.—that it will advantage B.O.A.C., which is a great public corporation, to share and pool its capacity, its managerial experience, its sales offices and the like in this sphere of operations.
The losses will be borne in proportion to the way in which the capital is being put up. Cunard, in this respect, will, of course, bear its own losses.
Mr. P. Williams: is my right hon. Friend aware that there are some hon. Members on this side of the House who still believe in a greater degree of competition? Although international airlines are going through what we hope are temporary difficulties, we should be able to take a long-term view and hope that these two concerns will, in future, be able to compete. If this was the object of the Civil Aviation (Licensing) Act of two years ago, why did we waste our time passing it if we now set about amalgamating these two concerns?
Mr. Thorneycroft: If my hon. Friend will study the Act and the debate on the Bill which took place at that time, he will see that my predecessor in no way said that every airline had to compete with every other airline. My predecessor said then that there were many instances in which co-operation was the better answer.
Mr. Rankin: Has the Minister forgotten that the competition to which he just referred was in existence before the Bill became an Act and that his predecessor was constantly reminded of that during the passage of the Bill? If B.E.A. now decides to take over incompetent private airlines, will the right hon. Gentleman give the same welcome to it as he has given to B.O.A.C. when it shows that public enterprise is a better form of organisation in the air than private enterprise?
Finally, can he assure the House that the wages and conditions of employees of Cunard who are being taken over will be raised to the same level as those operating in B.O.A.C.?
Mr. Thorneycroft: I will, naturally, judge any case on its merits as it comes forward. In my personal belief, a merger of public and private enterprise to anyone who is not completely doctrinaire in these matters may well serve a very useful purpose.

BRITISH TROOPS, B.A.O.R. (INCIDENTS)
Mr. Paget(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will make a statement on the incident involving British troops at Schneverdingen, on Sunday, 24th June, and the incident involving British officers at Putlos, on 25th June.
The Secretary of State for War (Mr. John Profumo): The hon. and learned Gentleman's question relates to two separate incidents.
According to the information at present available to me, the circumstances of the Putlos incident were as follows. On the evening of Saturday, 23rd June, after bathing and visiting a civilian holiday camp at Putlos, near Kiel, four British officers were going home in pairs when two of them were attacked by Some unknown assailants.
They were both knocked unconscious. I regret that one has a fractured skull, but is not on the danger list. The other was not seriously hurt. Their families have been informed. Inquiries, both military and civilian, are now in process.
The other incident occurred in the early hours of Sunday, 24th June, when damage was done to civilian property in the town of Schneverdingen, near Lueneburg Heath.
Eight men of 40 Field Regiment R.A., which was training in the area, are in close arrest, and others will be interviewed. Inquiries are being made to determine what disciplinary action should be taken. This will probably involve courts-martial and the unit has already been moved away.
As a result, I asked the Commander-in-Chief, B.A.O.R., to come and see me yesterday. He reassured me that this latter incident and others that have recently occurred have been caused by a small and irresponsible minority of troublemakers who do not reflect the
964
conduct of the British Army of the Rhine as a whole—I am sure that this is so.
However, in the interests of the good name of the Army, and because of our responsibilities to the individual soldier, General Cassels has decided—with my approval—that unmarried soldiers living in barracks shall not in future, normally, be allowed out of their barracks after midnight, unless they have a pass.
In administering this provision, latitude will be given to commanding officers so that sensible concessions shall be made to those who make reasonable requests to be out after that hour.
Mr. Paget: Is this not a rather unfortunate concession to what has really been a Press campaign? As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I have recently come back from Germany. The ill-feeling between the Germans and the British troops there was, as far as I could make out from fairly wide inquiries, something which they have read about in the Press, but have not experienced. Indeed, to some degree, is it not to the credit of the British Army of the Rhine that when the Press desired a campaign against the right hon. Gentleman all they could really discover was that in the early part of April some "Jocks" had beaten up a "honkey tonk" one night?
I do not know whether I am somewhat out of date, but in my day it would have been news if two months had gone by without "Jocks" doing something like that. On the other hand, this latest incident does appear to have been much more serious and, of course, if the Press does loudly and strongly enough tell people that there is bad feeling, bad feeling is apt to be created.
In these circumstances, is it not very unjust to punish the British troops? Is not the impression which the right hon. Gentleman creates one of weakness, subservience and surrender to a very unworthy campaign? Would it not be far better to refer this matter to the Press Council for investigation?
Mr. Profumo: I have very great sympathy for much of what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said, particularly since he has just come back from B.A.O.R. The measures which I have announced—which I have decided to take in consultation with General Cassels—are by no means punishment. They are designed to protect men from

965
the danger of wandering about in the early hours of the morning in a foreign country, when, as we have seen, unhappy incidents are likely to take place. Perhaps the House will recollect that this is something which has occurred throughout the history of the British Army and has only just been altered, in 1961.
I give the hon. and learned Gentleman the undertaking that it is only to protect our troops and that this will be administered in the fairest possible way.
Mr. P. Williams: Can my right hon. Friend say that the measure which he has announced is just temporary and will be, so to speak, a pause in these relationship's with the Germans and that it will be brought to an end as soon as possible?
Mr. Profumo: If I were to say that it was only a temporary measure, it would appear to be a punishment. I would not want anything to be permanent, but I should like to remind the House that all we are doing is to fall in line with the custom carried out by other troops in N.A.T.O.
Mr. Pentland: Is the Minister aware that 24 hours ago many hon. Members on this side representing North-East constituencies had consultations with the officers, the commander and other ranks of the D.L.I. in Berlin and that we were very pleased to hear from the men there that relations between the civilian population in West Berlin and the D.L.I. and Welsh Regiments stationed there were first-class? However, we were also given to understand by long-service N.C.O.s—sergeants and other ranks—who had spent many years in West Germany outside Berlin that a good deal of animosity by the German population against our troops prevails, and has prevailed for a long time. Therefore, will the right hon. Gentleman consider having a full inquiry by responsible people in West Germany in order to get to the bottom of what is happening there before further trouble arises?
Mr. Profumo: The hon. Gentleman is speaking about West Berlin rather than B.A.O.R. I should say that relations between British troops and the German population vary very much from place to place and that in some places, like Berlin, the relationship is very good indeed. I do not think that
966
this is a matter on which one can generalise and I am equally sure that this is not a subject into which we should have an inquiry at the moment.
Mr. Biggs-Davison: Have the Government any information suggesting that there has been provocation of British troops by elements in the neo-Nazi minority in the Federal German Republic?
Mr. Profumo: Up to the present I have had no information leading me to that conclusion. However, if I did get any information about provocation, I would immediately take it up with the German authorities.
Mr. Gordon Walker: My impression from a slightly earlier visit to B.A.O.R. was that the real need is to provide greater occupation, greater relaxation for men, particularly unmarried men, in barracks. Has the right hon. Gentleman inquired whether there has been a disproportionate involvement of retained National Service men in these incidents?
Mr. Profumo: I entirely agree with the first part of what the right hon. Gentleman says. We are always trying to see what we can do to make the leisure hours of the soldier serving abroad fuller and more interesting. If any hon. Member has any ideas, I shall be very ready to look at them—[Laughter.]—any ideas which I could fall in with.
On the second part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, as far as I can make out, there is no relation at all between the retained National Service men and these widely spaced incidents. The only case of a National Service man being involved in the cases under review is the one who may be involved in the latest incident.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: The Cameronians have one idea that they would like to give to the right hon. Gentleman, and that is that they want to be sent home. Can the Minister tell us anything about the so-called trouble makers? Is he aware that men who have been dismissed from the Army for causing trouble say that they are as pleased as Punch? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all the Cameronians would be as pleased as Punch if the Government brought them home?
Mr. Profumo: I do not share the hon. Gentleman's view in this matter, as in any other military matter.
Sir A. V. Harvey: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the regulations to which he referred do not apply to Royal Air Force personnel in Germany?
Mr. Profumo: I am speaking only for the British Army of the Rhine.
Mr. Shinwell: While agreeing with the Minister that nothing should be said or done which in any way disturbs or affects the prestige of the British Army, will not he agree that, irrespective of what has been said by some hon. Members about relations between the Germans and our troops, the impression has been created that it is the British soldier who has been at fault, while there has been a complete disregard of the attitude of many Germans in the West? Would the right hon. Gentleman therefore have a full inquiry on the spot conducted, not through a court-martial, but, if he would prefer it and since he has asked for ideas, by hon. Members from both sides of the House in order to ascertain who is really at fault?
Finally, the Minister should not in any circumstances impose further discipline on innocent troops simply because of the actions of a few.
Mr. Profumo: I do not think that there is any cause for inquiries other than those which are at present in train. Many hon. Members have been to B.A.O.R. and have just returned. I have no intention of imposing any discipline on innocent troops in B.A.O.R. These are protective measures, and I am content to leave the handling of discipline of B.A.O.R. to the Commander-in-Chief.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot debate this matter without a Question being before the House.

NEW MEMBERS SWORN
Jeremy William Bray, esquire, for Middlesbrough, West.
Aidan Merivale Crawley, esquire, for West Derbyshire.
Tam Dalyell, esquire, for West Lothian.

SUPPLY
[20TH ALLOTTED DAY]
Considered in Committee.
[Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1962–63
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a further sum, not exceeding £30, be granted to Her Majesty, towards defraying the charges for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1963, for the following services connected with Distribution of Industry, namely:—

CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1962–63

£

Class IV, Vote 1, Board of Trade

10

Class IV, Vote 3, Board of Trade (Promotion of Local Employment)

10

Class IV, Vote 6, Ministry of Labour

10

Total

£30

DISTRIBUTION OF INDUSTRY
4.1 p.m.
Mr. Douglas Jay: The two new hon. Members from Scotland and the North-East Coast who have taken their seats in the House this afternoon should be sufficient warning to wake up the Government, if nothing else can, to the anxious fears of underemployment and unemployment which affect so many of our industrial areas at the present time.
In West Lothian, and in most of Scotland, unemployment and depopulation axe realities, and are deeply felt and resented. In Middlesbrough, and, indeed, the rest of Tees-side, the iron and steel recession, directly caused, incidentally, by the Chancellor's measures of last July, and declining shipbuilding and ship-repairing work, are spreading the old anxieties and fears again. The results of this summer's by-elections are really a vote of censure on the policies of the Government which have allowed these unnecessary conditions to return.

969
Two actions of the Government have brought back depression to these areas. First, there is the panicky succession of fits and starts which the Chancellor has calls an economic policy, which now lies in such ruins that one waits with trepidation to see what he will do next. The right hon. and learned Gentleman based his Budget this year on the assumption that a continued American expansion would result in higher exports and further expansion for the United Kingdom.
That assumption has already been proved false, and I believe that, in consequence, the Chancellor's Budget has been proved too deflationary already. Normally, the present Chancellor's Budget calculations are proved wrong by July. This year, following his conversion to planning, his Budget has been proved wrong before midsummer. Already, the industrial production index has experienced yet another drop, and as the present Chancellor blunders on from one fiasco to another it is the under-employed areas which always feel the cold wind first. I should have thought that, in view of the present American situation, one thing the Chancellor should do is to make a further reduction in the Bank Rate forthwith—this week.
Secondly, the Government have utterly failed to use adequately the powers given to them by this House in the Local Employment Act, 1960, and other Acts, to check the flow of employment in this country from the North and West to the Midlands and the South-East. In particular, they have allowed the growth of office employment in Greater London to get completely out of hand. Therefore, we find that, quite apart from the under-employment which is very serious in a great many areas, the latest figures show that unemployment is 100,000 higher than in 1961 and that the actual numbers are nearly double the level of 1951 or 1955.
There are still acute differences between the favoured and the less favoured areas. The towns with the lowest unemployment percentages in the country at the moment are Oxford, with 0·5 per cent., and Cambridge, with 0·6 per cent. They are "all right, Jack". But Wales, as a whole, still has 3 per cent., the North-East Coast 3·4 per cent.,
970
and Scotland 3·7 per cent., that is to say, seven times the level of Oxford and some other parts of the Midlands. In parts of the North-East Coast and Scotland, there are areas like The Hartle-pools with over 6 per cent., and there are a deplorable number of areas in Scotland itself, such as Greenock, Port Glasgow, Bathgate and Broxburn, with over 7 per cent., and some, like the Peterhead and Fraserburgh area, as high as 10 per cent. at present.
There is no serious doubt now about the cause of the re-emergence of this economic disease, or about the measures necessary to cure it. The cause simply is that, given the unplanned, laissez-faire world in which hon. Members opposite really believe, there is an irresistible tendency for employment and population, with gathering speed, to move into the South-East corner of these islands, causing intolerable congestion and housing shortages there, and, therefore, leaving the North and West in a state of depopulation and under-employment.
The cure is the determined control of the building of all new places of employment in the congested areas, combined with the construction of factories and industrial estates by the Government themselves in the under-employed areas. If they did those two things decisively, they would succeed without having to do very much else. But if they do not do them, whatever else they do will certainly fail. That is proved incontestably by what was actually achieved in the six years after the war by the results of the application of these policies. Let us take Scotland. Compared with the 20 or 25 per cent. unemployment which Scotland knew at times in the 1930s, the percentage had been brought down to 2·0 by June of 1951. After another eleven years of effort by the present Government, it has now gone up to 3·7 per cent. In the North-East Coast, it was actually down to 1·8 per cent. in June, 1951, and is now back to 3·4 per cent. What an eloquent comment these figures are on the story of those years, and how well, evidently, they are understood by the electors of West Lothian and Middlesbrough.
Let us now look at the story rather more closely. The areas classified as development areas under the 1945 Distribution of Industry Act included

971
Scotland, the North-East Coast, Wales and elsewhere and about 15 per cent. of the population of Great Britain. Before 1939, they had been getting barely 5 per cent. of the total new factory space built. From 1945 to 1947, they got 45 per cent. of the new factory space, and through the whole of the six-year period from 1945 to 1951 they got 30 per cent. London and the South-East region, which got about 50 per cent. of the factory space before 1939, had its proportion cut to 12·3 per cent. in those years after the war. That turned the tide, hence the low unemployment percentages in Scotland and these other districts in 1951.
Then the era of Tory freedom began, and the old evil forces at once began to reassert themselves. London's percentage of new buildings had actually risen from 12·3 per cent. in 1951 to 21 per cent. by 1958. Worse than this, the development areas, which, incidentally, by the later years, had increased their populations from 15 per cent. to 18 per cent. of the national total, found that their own share had fallen to 18·6 per cent. by 1958–59. That is the main cause of the re-emerging muddle in which we now find ourselves, both in London and in the North-East. Do not let us forget that from 1957 to 1959, the present Ministers of Education and Aviation, when they were President of the Board of Trade, in effect suspended the working of the distribution of industry policy altogether. Some of those in Scotland and elsewhere who are now suffering should realise that they owe their troubles to the irresponsibility of those two Ministers.
Then we had the present Colonial Secretary, who is a little less doctrinaire. Under a great deal of pressure from this side of the House the right hon. Gentleman did rather better. He tried to put some control on London factory building, and did, in fact, persuade the great motor firms to go to Scotland and to Merseyside. I can assure the present Ministers at the Board of Trade that if they will take our advice, we shall always give them our support, as we did to the then Minister in that case.
The latest figures which I have—I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will have later ones—show that the percentages of approvals going to London and
972
the South-East Region fell from 21 per cent. in 1958, and 18 per cent. in 1959, to 12 per cent. again in 1960; and that the percentage going to the development districts, as they have now become, rose from 10 per cent. to 15 per cent. in 1959 and to 20 per cent. in 1960. That is some slight improvement, due, no doubt, to the spur of the General Election in 1959. But it is not nearly good enough. We have not yet got the development area share back to anything like the figure of 30 per cent. for pre-1951.
Mr. J. T. Price: When we are discussing the effect of Government restriction on the growth of factory development in London we ought also to remember that, while there has been a substantial growth in the amount of floor space available for factories in the London area, there has been more than a corresponding increase in the floor space allowed for office accommodation; and, that on balance, the amount of capital resources ploughed into London is greater than in the years to which my right hon. Friend has referred.
Mr. Jay: I am coming to that point, with which I shall deal at some length, but, I hope, at not too great a length.
I should like the Parliamentary Secretary, if he can, to give the House some corresponding figures for 1961. The first Report of the Board of Trade on the Local Employment Act shows that in all this it may well be misleading to consider only London and the South-East Region. For instance, in the year up to March, 1961, according to that Report, London's share of additional factory employment approved was barely half of London's share of the population. The shares of Scotland and Wales were considerably larger than their shares of the population. So far, so good. But I think that the House Should know that the Eastern Region—East Anglia and the Eastern outskirts of London—had a proportion which was double its population.
That, of course, is due to the new towns policy. The new towns are sucking industry and population rapidly into East Anglia. When new towns in East Anglia suck population and employment out of London, that is highly

973
desirable. But we must face the fact that if they are sucking population out of Scotland and the North that may not be so desirable. I do not believe that at present we are quite certain which of those things is happening. I suggest to the President of the Board of Trade that there are two practical ways in which we might see that the right thing is happening and not the wrong thing.
First, we ought to lay down that firms moving out of London into the new towns in the South, and building or taking on new factories in those new towns, should sell to the Government the factories which they have abandoned to be used for storage or to be removed to provide housing sites. In that way we should ensure that other firms do not come to London to replace those firms which have left. Secondly, I think that we should move much further towards a policy of allocating houses in new towns not just to anyone who can get a job and who may come from anywhere, but to people who are on the housing lists of local authorities in London and whom we know really need the houses. If we do this, we shall be doing much more to ensure that the new towns are helping to improve the situation and not making it worse.
The other deplorable failure of the Government was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price). It is their refusal to tackle the crucial issue of control over office employment. In 1945, it may or it may not have been excusable to have failed to foresee that new office employment would, in ten years, be as important as factory employment. But it is certainly inexcusable to have failed to realise since 1955 that office employment forms a very high proportion of the new employment being created; and that, therefore, its control is crucial in deciding the distribution of employment and population between the regions and, of course, the possibility of decent housing, town planning, transport controls and all the rest of it either in the congested or the underemployed areas. The failure of the Government to act on this, or even to understand it, seems to me to be the main cause of the present unhappy state of Scotland and the other under-employed areas. I believe that a very few figures will prove this.
974
Office employment in Central London alone is now increasing at a rate of over 15,000 people a year; and of the additional employment created in Greater London throughout the 1950s less than 20 per cent. was covered by industrial development certificates. So 80 per cent. of the new employment in the South-East is now outside the control of I.D.C.s and the Local Employment Act altogether. Surely this alone explains to a great extent the depopulation in the North and the scandal created by the housing shortage and inflated land values throughout the London area.
As a result of this, in the ten years up to 1958, planning permission—not I.D.C.s; they are not necessary—was granted for 44·4 million sq. ft. of new office space in Central London alone. That is sufficient to provide employment for 300,000 more people, or four times the total of the unemployed persons in Scotland. Altogether, in an area within 40 miles of the centre of London, where there is 27 per cent. of the population of England and Wales, some 45 per cent. of all the new jobs were created in the Whole of England and Wales between 1952 and 1959. It is as a result of this that once more, in the last ten years, the flow of population to the South-East set in irresistably.
What have the Government done on top of all this pressure of migration into the South-East? They committed the supreme folly of passing the 1957 Rent Act which had the effect of throwing on to the market rented housing in London which was previously controlled. This was partly achieved by means of evictions, and the accommodation was able to be bought up by people coming in from outside. Undoubtedly, by this means the Rent Act facilitated and speeded up the in-flow and made the unbalance worse. At present it has made insoluble the problem caused by the housing shortage in London.
In London 20,000 houses a year are now being decontrolled and, in this way, being made available for sale. As a result, new population presses on the inadequate stock of housing and, exactly as one would expect, the final effect of the whole muddle is that the rising residue of homeless families thrown on to London local authorities is vaster than they can cope with, by means of the facilities at their disposal.

975
That is one side of the picture, but I think that we must also remember the other side. As a nation, we cannot secure the maximum production and economic expansion which we should like from our economy until all the areas in the country are fully employed. The development of the under-employed areas is a first necessity in the efficient use of our whole economy. The Government often quote the labour force which comes from East Germany as one of the reasons for the economic growth of West Germany in the 1950s. But we have 500,000 workers in our own country who are not being used. If we could bring them into our productive machine, we should be able to expand much faster without being inhibited by the fear of inflation and shortage in the congested areas. That is the reason, it is an economic as well as a social cause, for a more vigorous policy to check the process now going on.
I do not think that I need describe the facts in any more detail. They are obvious enough and well known by now. What is needed is to draw the right morals and take the necessary action without further delay. First, I invite the Government to make the changes in new towns policy which I have mentioned. Next, the President of the Board of Trade must use more resolutely the distribution of industry powers that he has. He must hold down with industrial development certificates new factory expansion, including extensions, in the congested areas to the very minimum, and by this I mean something a good deal lower than what is being permitted at present. Then, when he has done that and has thereby made sure that there are plenty of expansion schemes coming forward looking for sites, he must push on boldly with a positive policy of building more advance factories in the worst hit areas—those where employment is running at 6 to 7 per cent.—with Government finance.
Next, and most important, Ministers must tackle the office building problem if they want their sincerity in this to be taken seriously at all. If we look at this problem, there are two major practical obstacles in the way of progress, and we must have the courage to face them. First, office building is Wholly exempt from due I.D.C. system and is, therefore,
976
not controlled by any national authority responsible for employment policy. This is the root of the trouble.
A legal right has been given—and I admit that this springs originally from the Labour Government's Act, but we should learn by our mistakes—to any owner, where no change of use is involved, to replace old office space with new in such a way as often to double, or nearly double, its employment capacity, or, if he is not given permission, to demand compensation on a level which local authorities find intolerable. The irony of it is that it is lack of control which pushes up values to levels which make it impossible to grant the compensation to regain control, as long as the responsibility is left with local authorities.
Offices normally employ more persons per square foot than any other form of employment; yet we have allowed a system to grow up in which offices are controlled by reference to cubic footage while factories are, in effect, controlled by the Board of Trade with reference to employment capacity. In addition, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman knows, the owner who proposes to build new office space is allowed an extra 10 per cent. on the cubic capacity of the old building unless compensation is paid to him for it.
I suggest that the Government should accept these proposals. If they do not, I hope that they will suggest some effective alternatives. First, the I.D.C. system in some appropriate form should be applied to office development. The Government's objection to this—and we have constantly put forward this suggestion in the House—is a purely bureaucratic one. They say that it is impossible to apply the I.D.C. system to office development, because, whereas factories are built for specific demands, offices are very often built speculatively to be let to anybody who turns up and asks for it.
That is not wholly true, because I am sure the right hon. Gentleman knows that a firm like Slough Estates has built factories speculatively for an unknown tenant. But even if it were true, it would be irrelevant. Even though an office block is built for an unknown tenant, it is possible to refuse permission to Mr. Clore to build an office block, just as it

977
is possible for the President of the Board of Trade to refuse the Ford Motor Company permission to build a factory. There is no substance in the Government's argument.
The Government must also tackle the question of the granting of planning permission for this office development, and with it the compensation problem. Here, at least, we ought to be sure—and I hope that the Government can assure us that this is so—that permissions are not now being given to build offices in the Greater London area where a change of use is involved. It is possible to refuse these permissions without compensation, and I hope we can be assured that that is being done.
Next, the law could well be amended to lay down that even where there is no change of use—I am sorry if this is complicated, but I think that this is the crux of the matter—compensation is payable only in the case of new office building employing no more than the previous one. If we could do that, it would enormously ease the pressure. That is what the law ought to have laid down anyway, but as it did not it seems to me time that it was amended. As the Minister of Housing and Local Government said in December that he was earnestly and actively considering this problem, I hope that the Government will say whether they propose to make a change in this additional 10 per cent. of capacity, which adds to the difficulties.
It is surely obvious that whatever else we do about the land values problem, the burden of compensation due to refusing permission for office development on grounds of national employment policy must be largely, if not wholly, shouldered by the Exchequer and not local authorities. After all, this will be done largely on national grounds, and not just on grounds of local town planning. This is a possible and practicable thing to do and if it is not done, this problem will never be effectively solved.
If the right hon. Gentleman says that all this is very complicated and difficult, and that it will take him his usual months and months of active and earnest consideration before he makes up his mind to do anything, I suggest a simple interim measure which would hold the line meanwhile. Why does not
978
he introduce building licensing for building schemes other than housing in regions other than Scotland, the North, the North-West, Wales and the South-West? Why does not he leave building free in the areas of under-employment and gain control over it at least in the South and East? If he did that, it would show that he meant business.
Finally, there will be no hope of success in the whole of this tough task—and it is a tough one because we are swimming against a very strong tide—unless the Government show a different spirit from that which they have shown lately. Let me give one example. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, who is more responsible for this than anybody else, at Question Time on 10th April, made this remarkable statement:
"I do not accept that increased office building … has had an effect on the distribution of industry …"
When it was pointed out to him that at least it had had an effect on employment, he made an even more memorable statement:
"Matters of employment are matters for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour."…[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th April, 1962; Vol. 657, c. 1121–2.]
The hon. Gentleman is the Minister most closely responsible for this policy. Can we wonder that the situation is what it is, or that Mr. Charles Clore has made £50 million out of this muddle over the last ten years? Surely the hon. Gentleman knows that the whole object of the distribution of industry policy is full employment and full production balanced over the whole country, and that even the employment policy White Paper of 1944 laid it down explicitly that the main responsibility for this rested on the Board of Trade? Does not he know that the Act introduced by his Government in 1959, and administered by his Department and by him—or supposed to be—is called the Local Employment Act? Yet he says in 1962 that employment has nothing to do with him and is a matter for the Minister of Labour.
It is remarks of that kind which are rapidly convincing not only my hon. Friends but the electorate that what we require are a new spirit, new Ministers, and a new Government.
4.30 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Niall Macpherson): The right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) has based his case largely on the statement at the outset of his speech, which he more or less repeated at the end of his remarks, that the Government had utterly failed to use adequately powers given in the Local Employment Act, particularly in relation to office building in London.
The distribution of industry is one of those subjects on which it is a good deal easier to agree on principles than upon the application of those principles in practice. We all agree that Government policy should be directed at retaining a high level of employment and at making the best uses of our manpower. In a free society, however, policy has to be framed against the background of free choice—free choice of the type of work, free choice of where to work and, within certain limitations, free choice of where to set up a factory.
There is a great danger of oversimplification. That employment is available is not enough. There are areas where employment is available and yet depopulation continues and factories are having to close or to move because employers cannot get the labour they need. There are other areas where depopulation has been going on for a long time—for example, Mid-Wales and the Highlands of Scotland. Generally speaking, there is a tendency for urban areas to grow in population at the expense of rural areas and for large towns to grow more than the small towns. Taking the North of England and Scotland as a whole, migration has been on a considerable scale in the ten years from 1951 to 1961. The Government are studying all these trends. The right hon. Member for Battersea, North said that if we used our powers adequately, all would be well. What concerns the Board of Trade particularly is to carry out the Government's policy of trying to bring industry to the areas of high unemployment. That is the duty that is laid upon us by the Local Employment Act. In what I have to say, I hope to show that our efforts have been by no means unsuccessful, in particular since the passing of the Local Employment Act.
980
Few would not agree in principle that it is essential for our industry to be as efficient as possible, for it to reduce its costs of production in every way acceptable to management and to workers, so that we may be able to compete successfully in world markets. That means that the final choice of location must rest with industry. The industrialist can, of course, be helped by receiving knowledge from the Government of the local facts about labour supply, transport and other factors in his economic equation. The industrial development certificate method and the machinery of the Local Employment Act serve between them to bring these factors to the knowledge of businessmen. My first point is that this service is available and that it is constructive and not simply negative in concept.
Only the man or the company which is setting up a new enterprise can find the right balance between the complex questions involved, such as availability of labour of the right type, the supply and cost of the necessary materials, comparative local costs, the costs of transport and distribution and relations with suppliers, customers and local authorities. If the Government insist upon an industrialist going where they want him to go, who will compensate him for the extra cost of production and who will assess it, and how?
In principle, we would also all agree that it is right not to allow an industry to start up or to expand in an area where there is a scarcity of labour when other areas have a surplus. Apart from the waste of manpower and the human tragedy involved in unemployment, this can be done only at the expense of other enterprises by bidding up the price of labour and raising costs of production all round. In theory, the efficient firms would take labour from the less efficient. In practice, it is apt to become a rat race. That is why, for the past fifteen years, one of the two powers on which the distribution of industry policy has been made effective is the power to grant or refuse an industrial development certificate. The other weapon is the power to offer inducements to an industrialist to go to one of the areas which need more industry.
Therefore, the questions which are bound to be put, and which have been

981
put by the right hon. Member for Battersea, North, are, first, whether the Board of Trade is exercising its power to grant industrial development certificates too leniently, as those who represent areas of high unemployment are apt to claim, or too stringently, as is asserted by those representing areas where labour is scarce; and secondly, whether the inducements offered are adequate and, even if they are adequate, whether special inducements should be given to areas which are said to have unique problems.
I take, first, the question of industrial development certificates. We have a duty under Section 17 of the Local Employment Act, in considering industrial development certificates, to have particular regard to the need for providing appropriate employment in development districts. In every case, we must, and do, first see whether the development in question could be steered to a development district. When I receive deputations from districts of high unemployment or visit such areas, I am told that the Board of Trade is granting far too many industrial development certificates to London and to the Midlands. In fact, for new ventures, hardly any industrial development certificates have been granted them in recent years.
It would be quite unreasonable, however, to prevent all development in those areas. For one thing, many applications are for extensions or new premises to replace old buildings by firms who are tied to their areas, such as, for example, industries which exploit local materials, extractive industries such as coal or gravel, or service industries, including bakeries, cold storage depots, and printers. For another reason, some applications for building development involve no extra labour or may result in a more efficient use of labour.
In any event, it is a strange way of promoting efficiency and progress in the economy as a whole to deny firms the opportunity to provide better premises and better working conditions. We could not say that any firm wishing to do so must migrate to a development district. If we did, we would get few applications for providing better premises and better working conditions.
The point I am trying to make is that we must keep a balance in this matter.
982
Industrial development certificates ought not to be refused lightly. We need industrial expansion coupled with greater efficiency. It would be foolish to prevent a firm from developing in a certain place if, on balance, the economy would be worse off as a consequence. It is the balance of advantage that we must try to assess and it is often difficult to do so.
Every time that a firm which is already established in a congested area comes to us with proposals for the expansion of its premises, we are faced with a dilemma. If we approve the expansion, we add to the demand for labour where it is scarce. That means either that other employers in the area will lose labour through the new project, or that labour will be attracted from other areas and increase the pressure on housing, transport and other services of the congested area. If we do not approve the expansion, we may lose valuable production, possibly for export.
What we have to do, therefore, is to consider whether it is possible for the development to be carried out elsewhere, if not in a development district, at least in an area where labour is not too scarce. If we refuse to grant the certificate, the firm has either to move elsewhere or abandon the development, as in some cases happens. Therefore, in considering the grant or refusal of industrial development certificates, it is not easy to see where the balance of advantage lies.
In operating such a policy as this, nobody can always he right. Our success is, however, reflected in the comparative rates of growth of employment in manufacturing industry in different parts of the country. In the two years since the Local Employment Act came into force, additional jobs arising from the grant of industrial development certificates in Wales represented an increase of 6 per cent. in the numbers employed in manufacturing industry. That area was at the top of the table. It was followed by 5·2 per cent. in the Eastern Region, 4·7 per cent. in the Southern Region, 4·5 per cent. in the Northern Region, 4·4 per cent. in the South-Western and 3·4 per cent. in Scotland. At the other end of the list is London and the South-East——
Mr. Percy Collick: What was the figure for the North-West?
Mr. Macpherson: I gave the figure for the Northern Region, which covers it, of 4·,5 per cent.
At the other end of the list is London and the South-East Region with 1·4 per cent., the East and West Ridings with 1·2 per cent., and the Midland Region with 1·1 per cent.
These figures need interpretation. The figures are high in the Eastern, Southern and South-Western Regions because places there included in the development lists under the Act tend to attract development more readily than remoter areas. In consequence, most of them have been taken off the list or have been put on the stop list. The same applies to South Wales. The new towns, of course, benefit from factories in clearance areas —factories that have been cleared out of London—with special ties to the South. They do not get industries which could go to development districts. If that has not always been the case, it is so now.
The result is that 11 localities have been removed from the list since April, 1960, and there are at present 17 on the stop list. On the other hand, 10 have been added to the list. When the Act came into force, development districts contained 12·8 per cent. of the total insured population of Great Britain. These were areas of persistent high unemployment. Last week, active development districts—those not on the stop list—contained 7·5 per cent. of the insured population. By any standard,That represents very considerable progress.
In 1960–61, London and the South-East Region, with 21·2 per cent. of the insured employees in manufacturing industry, got 9·9 per cent. of the total estimated additional employment arising from the issue of certificates. Scotland, with 8·6 per cent. of the insured employees in manufacturing industry, got 12·1 per cent, of the estimated additional employment, and the corresponding figures for the Northern Region were 5·1 per cent. and 7·2 per cent.
Before turning from the issue of certificates, I want to reply, to some extent, to what the right hon. Gentleman said about office accommodation.
984
He suggested that it should be controlled in much the same way as industrial premises are controlled, at least in London. I have considerable sympathy with the desire to do something to ease the traffic congestion in London, or at least to prevent it from getting worse, while, at the same time, bringing employment for office workers to areas where there is not enough of it. But I do not think that it is helpful to take the number of new office workers in a year, add together the figures for three or four years, and then say that this is equivalent to the whole of the unemployment of Scotland.
Assistance under the Local Employment Act can, of course, be given to anyone prepared to provide employment in offices no less than in factories. Indeed, the Board of Trade is actually building an eight-storey office block for Rolls-Royce at Hillington, Glasgow. The building will be 77,000 sq. ft. What is lacking is the negative power to refuse authority for office development in areas such as London. Nor would it be possible to prevent an applicant who was refused authority to build an office in London from building within 30 miles of Piccadilly, unless certificates for office building had to be obtained not only in London and other congested areas but throughout the country.
Mr. Jay: That is what we suggest.
Mr. Macpherson: That is not what I understood the right hon. Gentleman to put forward. I understood him to suggest particular control for London. If he is suggesting control for the whole country, then what I am about to say will show him how difficult that would be to operate.
Mr. Jay: The industrial certificate system applies to the whole country, but in under-employed areas they are readily granted. As I see it, the same would be true of offices.
Mr. Macpherson: It is easy enough to ask for control analogous with industrial development certificates. The right hon. Gentleman moved an Amendment to impose such control during the passage of the Local Employment Act, and that Amendment was negatived. He did not carry it to a Division.
Mr. Jay: It was steam-rollered.
Mr. Macpherson: It was not steamrollered. It was not divided on.
Offices are very different from industry. We have to consider whether such a power would really be practicable. There are no criteria to judge whether it is essential that a particular office should be located in London. How could the Board of Trade decide whether a Midlands manufacturer needed a London office for his exports sales, or whether a firm of accountants needed another 10,000 sq. ft. of office space? Offices in London are generally put up speculatively. They are often planned and completed before it is known who is to occupy them. It would be difficult enough to say who should have a new office in London. It would be impossible to control change of occupancy. One of the loopholes in the control of industrial development is that we have no control over the disposal of an empty factory. Offices change hands far more frequently than factories. There are far more of them and far fewer are purpose built. The fact is that control of office building is essentially a matter of local planning, for which responsibility rests with the local authorities. The right hon. Gentlement invited me to give answers about points which are really for the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. These are matters for the local authorities and that Ministry.
Mr. James Griffiths: Do not the figures available to the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Labour show that in this country, as in most industrial countries, the proportion of total population employed in manufacturing industry is declining while the proportion engaged in services, including offices, is increasing all the time? If, therefore, we neglect offices, then the purpose of the distribution of industry policy, whatever the means adopted, will be nullified. If serious consideration is not given to this problem we shall not solve it.
Mr. Macpherson: Serious consideration is given to it, but the industrial development certificate procedure is not applicable to offices. But that is not to say that the Government have not done what they can, both by advice and example.
Mr. Jay: I invite the hon. Gentleman to think seriously about this problem and not just turn it down with a few rather hackneyed arguments.
Mr. Macpherson: This question, like other problems, has not escaped the notice of the Government. They are studying it. But it is not possible to control office building by the same method, at any rate, as we control industrial building. That is certainly not to say that the Government are not doing, both by advice and example, what they can to encourage firms to establish outside London their main offices, as opposed to their head offices, which may have to be in London.
There is, for instance, the example of the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance offices at Newcastle, and the projected Past Office Savings Bank offices at Durham, the site of which I saw the other day. I have heard firms which have acted upon the Government's advice saying that they have found their employees healthier, happier and much more efficient away from the strain of London both on their nerves and on their purses. Again, the firms do not have to pay nearly so much for premises outside as in London.
On the other hand, the demand for offices in London reflects this City's importance as a financial and commercial center—an importance which may well increase if we go into the Common Market. I do not believe that to use a blunt instrument to keep out of London everyone who wants to set up an office here, whether essential or not, would really be in the national interest.
I now turn to the inducements. Are they adequate and proving successful? First, let me say this. People in different areas are apt to think that their case is unique and that they should have special treatment in the way of lower interest rates, more generous terms, bigger grants, and so an. In particular, such claims have been made for Scot land and for the North-East of England. I have also heard them made for other parts of the country. Representations have been made that the benefits of the Act should extend to a whole territory—to use a neutral word—for example, to Scotland as a country or to the North-East as a region.

987
But within these areas there are localities which are not in need of assistance. It is not necessarily true that development in one part benefits the whole area. The Local Employment Act is based on the conception of helping those localities which are in need of assistance, because in them there is, or there is expected to be, a high rate of unemployment which is likely to persist. Undoubtedly, if the same treatment were to be given to the whole territory some at least of the new ventures which would otherwise have gone to localities of high unemployment would go to places such as Edinburgh and Perth. While both the areas of the North East and of Scotland are suffering from closure of factories and pits and uncertainty with regard to the future of shipbuilding and the railways, and while both are severely affected by migration, the brute fact is that at any given moment there is only a certain amount of industry—not a constant amount—on the move.
It surely must be right to give all the localities where there is high and persistent unemployment, or the prospect of it, an equal chance of getting such industry as is on the move. Admittedly, the chances cannot be entirely equal. The needs and attractions of the localities vary, and it is no use saddling a place with an unsuitable industry, even if the industry were willing to go there. Secondly, it has been suggested that we should concentrate our assistance on growth points. As the Committee is aware, the Government are examining the recommendations of the Toothill Committee with regard both to Scotland and to its wider implications for the rest of the country. At present, I would only say that if assistance of this kind were to be concentrated on growth points, it would have to be accepted that many of the remoter places would not get industry at all and that people living in them would have to travel considerable distances to work or to move to the growth point.
Thirdly, it is suggested that the full benefits of the Local Employment Act should be made available to overspill receiving areas in the same way as the development districts, whether or not the over-spill receiving areas are in development districts. It is a proposal made particularly for Scotland and it is also
988
being studied. Again, my only comment at present is that it would be likely to result in the diversion of some industrial developments away from localities of high unemployment.
It was suggested that even if the inducements were adequate in 1960 they would not be adequate in the present situation, changed as it is by the more rapid closure of coal mines and the altered outlook in shipbuilding and the railways. That argument is quite fallacious. The 1960 Act was not passed to deal with the situation in 1959 or 1960. It was designed to deal with the inevitable ups and downs of economic life, including the rise and decline of industries, and to deal with just the kind of situation facing us now in some parts of the Kingdom. Where there is a prospect of higher unemployment through closure of pits in a particular locality, we are able to list it as a development district and make it eligible for the benefits of the Act. Indeed, we have done so recently with Seaton Delaval and Wingate in the North-East, and the Kirkcaldy-Glenrothes area, Lesmahagow and Cumnock in Scotland. Only today we have restored Llanelly to the development district list. We have also considered Bathgate where unemployment is persisting at a somewhat higher rate than at one time was thought likely. We have the shale mines there which are closing down and a coal mine there has already closed. On the other hand, the build up of labour by B.M.C. has been somewhat slower than expected and more of the workers have been drawn from outside the district. In all the circumstances, my right hon. Friend has decided to resume acceptance of applications for assistance in the Bath-gate and the adjoining Calders area of Midlothian.
Mr. Collick: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me what is the situation on Merseyside? Is it possible that the Minister w ill restore Merseyside to the list? We have now 4·5 per cent. unemployment, which is three times the national average, aggregating over 27,000 workers?
Mr. Macpherson: As against that there is a very great number of jobs in prospect in the area. We have to balance that in taking into account the prospective unemployment in the area. We have

989
to consider whether existing unemployment is likely to persist in the light of the jobs in prospect. That is why Merseyside, as having benefited very considerably, is at present on the stop list.
On the more general issue of the adequacy of assistance offered, it is at least doubtful whether high grants or lower interest rates would have resulted in more industrial development areas of high unemployment. In general, firms go to such areas either because they themselves find that they cannot get labour where they are or because they are refused industrial development certificates to expand where they are. Admittedly, some firms may be influenced by the higher inducements offered in Northern Ireland and Eire. It has to be remembered that the rate of wholly unemployed in Scotland and the North-East of England is 3·3 per cent. and 3·4 per cent. respectively, while in Northern Ireland it is 74 per cent.
The right hon. Gentleman raised the question of advance factories. On that point the Board of Trade has power, of course, to erect such factories and it has exercised its power cautiously. If we were to pepper the country with advance factories all at the same time it is very likely that many of them would stand vacant. What we have done is on two occasions to build one advance factory in each of the three countries—in England at Speke and South Shields, in Wales at Holyhead and Pembroke Dock and in Scotland at Coatbridge and Shotts. Unfortunately, there was some delay in acquiring a suitable site for the factory at Shotts, but it is now going ahead.
We have also converted an old Admiralty establishment at Carfin and six buildings there have been adapted for industry and have been let. Recently the Board of Trade acquired from the Admiralty some land and buildings at the old R.N.A.S. station at Donibristle. We have decided to convert the big engineering shop there into a factory for industrial use in advance of getting a tenant at an estimated expenditure of about £100,000. While it would be wrong to use the powers to build advance factories indiscriminately, I can tell the Committee that the Government are considering their future policy as
990
regards advance factories in the light of experience gained so far and of current and prospective conditions.
Mr. Jay: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether any are being built now and whether the ones previously built under the Act have been successfully let?
Mr. Macpherson: Four of the six factories in the two groups were successfully let. One is likely to be let in the near future and one is just starting to be built. Of the Carfin factories—there were seven of them—six have been converted and adapted for industrial use and have been let. At the moment, the only one that we have in mind, apart from that at Shotts, is the conversion of the factory at Donibristle. At the moment we are considering the policy for the future.
It is the results that really matter. In the first two years of the working of the Act, the total assistance offered by way of finance and the provision of Board of Trade factories, taken together, excluding offers which were declined, was £69 million for 300 projects to provide 70,300 jobs. This is a very considerable figure. The percentage of expenditure was 29 per cent. in England, 11 per cent. in Wales and 60 per cent. in Scotland. Of this total, some £25 million has been spent or committed on Board of Trade factories, ranging from the 450,000 square feet factory for Fisher and Ludlow at Kirkby down to the Southford Ltd. engineering venture at Bargoed.
In addition to all the concerns setting up or expanding in Board of Trade factories, there are many others building their own factories, some with Board of Trade financial assistance, others by raising the finance themselves. In the North East of England, for example, companies like Hepworth and Grandage, and James A. Jobling and Co, both at Sunderland, Airscrew-Weyroc Ltd. at Hexham, and Tube Investments Ltd. at Washington are transforming the districts in which they are establishing themselves or expanding.
In Wales, the establishment of factories such as that of Ferodo, at Caernarvon, provides another heartening example of co-operation between industry and the Government and a great improvement in employment prospects.

991
In Scotland, companies such as Skefco Ball bearings at Irvine, Standard Telephone and Cables Ltd., and Rheostatic Ltd., at East Kilbride, and Ferranti, with a new factory at Dalkeith, are all making very great contributions towards providing new jobs for workers in or from areas where unemployment is high.
The financial assistance which the Board of Trade has offered over the first two years of the Act has helped companies of all sizes and of very varied interests to establish themselves or to expand and to provide jobs for workers in the development districts. Excluding offers which have not been accepted, purely financial assistance of £43·8 million has been offered—£13·3 million in England, £2·7 million in Wales, and £27·8 million in Scotland. The Board of Trade has offered assistance to all kinds of projects, of a great variety and of different sorts. I have a note here of bakers and boatbuilders, canners and cabinet makers, distillers and die-casters, hoteliers and hackle-makers. That is an illustration of the great variety of assistance given.
Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: What percentage of that total has been accounted for by Section 7 help, that is, the provision of basic services such as transport and electricity?
Mr. Macpherson: That would be accounted for largely through the Votes of Departments other than the Board of Trade. Assistance has gone to large companies in industrial centres providing employment for thousands of workers and also to small firms providing a few much needed jabs in remote areas. They all have this in common. that, under the terms of the Act, they must be likely to be able to carry on successfully without further assistance from the Board of Trade and thus provide continuing employment.
These successes are real and substantial. They have been achieved by the combination of a tough but realistic I.D.C. policy on the one hand—I assure the right hon. Member for Battersea, North that it is a tough policy and that if he had the task of listening to deputations from people whose I.D.C.s are refused, as I have, he would realise that is so—and on the other hand of persuasion
992
and of providing information about the amenities of the development districts; of substantial Government aid and of the co-operation of industrialists and entrepreneurs on the success of whose ventures everything depends.
Naturally—and there has been some misunderstanding about this—not all the jobs have matured. After all, the Act has been working for only two years and two months. Some firms may not reach their estimates, but others may exceed them. All these are developments which are going forward in localities of high unemployment. Perhaps some would have gone ahead without assistance and some do, but the majority would certainly not have done so either on the same scale or at the same pace, if they had gone ahead at all.
As new threats to employment arise, the localities affected are added to the development district list. To be on the list is no guarantee that industrialists will decide to set up or expand in that locality, but at least those whose jobs are threatened can take courage from the fact that in two years 129 projects in England, 45 in Wales and 126 in Scotland have accepted offers of assistance under this enlightened piece of legislation.
I hope that no hon. Member will grudge the cost—most of it, in any case, will come back to the Exchequer—when he reflects that more than 70,000 new jobs have been created in areas which badly need them, 47 per cent. in England, 41 per cent. in Scotland and 12 per cent. in Wales.
Mr. Harry Randall: The hon. Gentleman refers to 70,000 new jobs, but is it not a fact that reference to the employment register shows only about 50 per cent. of that number?
Mr. Macpherson: The firms are only starting now and have, naturally, to work up to their peak. They apply for an industrial development certificate and state the number of jobs which they expect to provide when the building is completed without needing further extensions. That is the criterion on which one works. The firms could not have worked up to their peak within two years and two months. Some might never work up to that peak, while others

993
may expand beyond the existing I.D.C. and employ many more than they originally estimated.
I am not claiming that our present policy is so perfect that it cannot be improved in any circumstances. What I can claim is that it is a great improvement on what has gone before and that the Government are always prepared to consider further improvements and will consider those which the right hon. Gentleman has suggested today. I am also claiming that it has been and is being remarkably effective. It is designed to be fair to all parts of the country and to give help where help is needed. It is operated in the national interest in such a way as to be as fair as possible both to industry and to areas which need industry. The Government cannot please all industrialists or all areas, but at least they endeavour, with considerable success, to operate this policy sensibly and sympathetically.
Great credit is due to the Board of Trade Advisory Committee, which is entirely composed of business and professional men and one trade unionist, and which has handled 500 cases in the last two years and recommended assistance in more than 200 of them. I take this opportunity of publicly thanking the Committee for giving so much of its time as well as the benefit of its individual experience and its collective wisdom. The policy and the way in which it has worked merit the support of the House of Commons and the country because it has shown and is showing substantial results.
5.7 p.m.
Mr. A. Woodburn: I am sure that the Minister was very satisfied with the seemingly impressive figures which he reeled off. No one will deny that many of the things about which he told us have done some good, but although the figures seem impressive we are dealing with a population of 50 million in Britain, 5 million in Scotland alone. One essential figure which he did not mention was the number of jobs disappearing. Has he replaced the jobs disappearing in Scotland and the North-East coast, because if that is not done, the wastage will increase?
But the figures mean nothing unless they are related to human facts. The
994
depressing figures were not those which the hon. Gentleman gave. What is depressing is that jobs are disappearing and none are coming in to replace them. Every hon. Member on this side of the Committee was gratified to see the arrival of my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). His election is a victory for this side of the Committee, but there is something about the West Lothian result which is even more impressive than that victory. It is the fact that nine out of every ten votes were cast against the Government, not necessarily because the voters did not like the Tories—many of them would have voted Tory in past elections—but as an indication of their indignation at Scotland's raw deal. We can reel off all the statistics we like, but in Scotland the shipbuilding industry is disappearing, the coal industry is disappearing and the railways are being closed down because those industries are disappearing, and now the steel industry is shrinking. Much of the basic industry on which the population of Scotland has lived for generations is shrinking and withering away.
The Minister has said that there has been a shrinkage and wastage of population in Scotland for the last ten years. He is greatly under-estimating the position. This movement has gone on for the last hundred years. People are disappearing from the islands to the mainland, and from the Highlands to the towns. From the towns of Scotland they are disappearing to the Midlands of England and to London in order to find profitable employment.
The Minister has sought to narrow the debate to questions affecting the Board of Trade, but this is not a debate about the Board of Trade; it is about the location of industry; about where the populations of this country will live, and whether they will be able to get work where they live. It is a question which goes far beyond the Board of Trade. The hon. Member has told us about his limited powers of controlling the development of offices. But the Government control town and country planning. Why should they allow offices to be built in the centre of London if there is no justification for them? The Government will have to spend hundreds of millions of pounds in trying to solve London's transport problem—a problem which

995
they are aggravating. Part of that money could be used to send industry to other parts of the country. In this way, in due time, a good deal of expenditure would be avoided.
Towns in the north of England and in Scotland, on which £300 million or £400 million have been spent, may wither away, and the capital may be lost, merely because the Government think that they cannot guide or direct anybody to a particular spot. The idea of a free choice on the part of industry is nonsense. American firms have come to Scotland, as have Italians. Industries from England have come to Scotland, and from all these we have had reports that Scottish labour is splendid. On the aircraft on which I was travelling this morning a man told me that Scotland can produce goods with an efficiency which cannot be matched by the South. But because directors wish to live in or near London, industries must go there.
That is nonsense. Public capital was used to build the Great West Road and other arteries of transport, and industries have no right to receive public capital unless they are carrying out a public purpose. They should be located according to public requirements. Other countries can do this. Even Fascist Spain can establish industries where they are needed. This Government are starting to do it about twelve years after coming into office, not having foreseen the problems that would arise.
Why must we wait until there is high unemployment in an area? That is the situation that has developed in Scotland. The Government should foresee what is happening. It is an old Tory idea that children should be given food only when they show signs of malnutrition. After the harm has been done and the children are starving we start giving them food. This is nonsense. We cannot have healthy children unless we feed them when they require food, and we cannot have healthy industry unless we send it to areas where people are available. In areas of high unemployment the skilled men have already disappeared to the Midlands and to London, and only the unskilled workers are left.
This is not an academic question; it concerns the lives of men. All the figures that have been given have no effect on
996
people who fear that they will be unemployed next year, or even next week. The houses that they have spent money in purchasing may become liabilities instead of assets. People must be able to live where they want, and if we are not willing to direct industry we have no right to direct people. If we starve them in one area and force them out into the Midlands or into the South we are directing them just as much as any direction of industry which the Board of Trade carries out.
I know that many hon. Members want to speak, and I shall be brief. I can assure all hon. Members that Scotland feels that she is having a raw deal, and that her lifeblood is being allowed to drain away. The figures that have been given may sound impressive, but something more must be done if the confidence of the Scottish people is to be restored and they are to be made to feel that they will be allowed to carry on their lives in the way they want.
The argument always arises whether we ought to interfere with private enterprise. I do not object to private enterprise; I realise that at the moment there is no other machinery through which we can work. Hon. Members opposite believe in private enterprise, and today it is on trial. In Scotland it is failing. It is not delivering the goods. There are great areas of Scotland where private enterprise cannot live. What is the Government's reply to this problem? They cannot force private enterprise to go there because it cannot live there, and it would be unreasonable to expect it to make sacrifices. As the Minister rightly said, we would have to compensate it for its losses.
But the Government can do something if they believe in private enterprise. The first thing they can do is to send some orders to the North-East and to Scotland, instead of sending them to Oxford and Birmingham and the outskirts of London. Orders were sent there during the war and very efficient industries were built up by the Ministry of Supply because of that fact. I know that the Board of Trade cannot do it, but when I was at the Ministry of Supply I did my darnedest, against tremendous resistance from all sorts of farces.
One of the secrets is not to worry about getting new people to the area.

997
Never mind about Americans or anyone else; if the orders are given indigenous industries will flourish and grow. Because Government orders were given, towns in the north-east of Scotland have developed flourishing industries. Arbroath now has a flourishing engineering industry. Once industry starts developing a living is provided for the railways and other forms of transport, and lower subsidies will be required from the Secretary of State in order to keep the area alive. People will begin to live again because the means of life are being sent to them.
The next step is to induce industry to go to these areas. The Minister says that we cannot give industry special favours, but the Government did so in Malta. Why should Scotland be treated less favourably than Malta? Governments can give freedom from Income Tax and special subsidies to industry going to Malta. Why should not that policy be adopted in regard to Scotland? Industries should be established there to the maximum extent. The Government have been too late, and their policy has been too narrow. This has caused a feeling of despair to sweep over Scotland. The Secretary of State has an overall responsibility for Scotland and the Government an overall responsibility for the whole country. The Government do not seem to have any policy. Every Ministry acts on its own. We should have a comprehensive policy, so that the Government can decide how the whole country should be developed.
If we go into the Common Market we shall have to make plans. The Common Market is sending industries to the south of Italy and other parts of Europe where it is required. As a result, Italians who were working in Belgium and Switzerland have flooded back to the land of sun, where they would rather work, if jobs are available, than in the mists of Belgium. Italy is now becoming prosperous. Wages are rising. They are even becoming customers for our Commonwealth produce. Must we wait until we enter the Common Market before we get on with planning? If so, Scotland will be enthusiastic about going into the Common Market. Planning cannot come too soon for her.
I say to the Government, "Do not wait until we go into the Common Market; get busy now. Send orders to
998
places where they are needed. Enable people to live where they want to live and help to spread industry over the country." It is about thirty years since a great report on the location of industry was published. It seems to have been put on the shelf and forgotten. It is time that the Government got down to this problem. We do not want industry to be concentrated in the Thames Valley and around Birmingham. We want it to be properly located and spread over the country. As we spread the population we shall lower costs.
The idea about the difficulty of transport is so much nonsense. Americans who come to Scotland laugh about this. A thousand miles transport in America is nothing to them. The idea that people boggle at 100 or 50 miles transport is nonsense. Let the Government get down to this question and consider it as a whole and, if necessary, appoint a Minister for the location of industry. I am sorry that the Minister of Labour has left the Front Bench. He and his Ministry know far more about this question than those in other Departments. They should be inspiring the Government to discover where the black spots may develop. Before a black time comes, industry should be sent to those spots. The Government should be prepared to see that industry is provided before a slump comes. Then confidence would be restored.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollock (Mr. George)—who, I regret to say, has had to give up his post as Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power—said the other day that he had no objection at all to uneconomic pits closing, and that it was right that they should, but before they were closed there should be compensating industry in the area concerned so that there would not be unemployment. That, in a nutshell, is what we suggest the Government should do. We hope that they will get down to the job.
5.22 p.m.
Mr. Paul Williams: I am very glad to be able to follow the right hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn). I want to take up what he said about putting industry on the spot. The right hon. Member did a rather strange thing. He praised Fascist Spain.

999
I am not sure whether he was praising Fascism, planning, or Fascist planning, or all of them, but it seemed strange coming from the other side of the Committee.
Mr. Woodburn: Good roads and good houses and such things are needed whether they are provided by Fascist dictators, Communists or anyone else. I want good planning and roads. There is no reason why a democracy should not provide them just as well as Fascists.
Mr. Williams: I agree with the right hon. Member. It shows that tolerance is needed.
He made great play about office development. That, I agree, is something which is difficult and if possible we should guide it into certain parts of the country. But again, as in industry, there is a danger of direction and dictatorship. It may be, as my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary said, that in directing industry we could prevent suitable development. Encouragement and persuasion are more valuable.
It ill becomes the Opposition to criticise development of office building when hon. Members opposite, with hon. Members on this side of the Committee, are pressing for an Offices Bill to see that that development is improved. I should have thought that hon. Members opposite would be glad to see improvements in office development in Central London and would go further and express the hope that such developments should take place in other parts of the country as well.
Again referring to what my hon. Friend said, I think that we must maintain a reasonable degree of balance about this matter and see what in fact is passible. When we cast our minds back a very short time to pre-war years we find that figures of unemployment Which today we regard as intolerable would have been appreciated considerably in those years, especially in the North-East. That is not to say that everything is perfect—certainly not—but we have to get the matter into balance. Then we see that activity has taken place, partly during the war and since the war, under Governments of both parties. We must take a slightly more detached view of the matter.
1000
Before making two individual points on a wider front, I wish to pay tribute to the activities of the Board of Trade in the North-East. We know that there are individual parts of the North-East where problems still continue, and will continue. As my hon. Friend said, the Act has been operating for only two years and two months. We are not at the crest of the wave yet, but we are seeing a great deal of steady build up in the supply of jobs.
I have sometimes criticised the phrases "jobs in prospect" and "jobs in the pipeline". Those are phrases Which I dislike intensely and I hope that the new junior Minister of Power will be able to rub out some of these phrases in Ministerial language. Human facts
emerge as a result of this Act. For example, Sunderland is off the classified list for the first time in twenty-five years. I am glad that Sunderland can now look the rest of the nation straight in the eye and say, "We don't need a subsidy. We don't need assistance. We stand on our own feet."
I know that some moan about the situation and say that it is still delicate. The problem of 5 per cent. unemployed is substantial and real but how much better it is when a town, an area or a region is able to stand on its own feet. I regard Government policy on major economic affairs as the key factor in a town which needs industry to be attracted to it. It is the Government's policy which is the key factor, and the rôle of the regional controller for the Board of Trade is important. I pay tribute to the Board of Trade and its regional controllers. Those I have met are intensely human and they understand our problems. They know how to guide industry in the most helpful way.
The two points which I want to put to the Board of Trade are concerned with estate management. The Industrial Estates Corporation owns and rents out factories. Is that the right long-term policy? I have my doubts about it. I think that there is a danger in a development district of the State being forever the landlord. An industry comes in and rents a factory and then if perchance it falls on hard times it withdraws back to its firm base in its home area and abandons the development district. That may be bad or good, but it is a fact

1001
and the way in which human beings behave.
I should like the Board of Trade to adopt a policy of selling the factories in the industrial estates so that they could chain the new tenants to the area concerned. Someone who comes in and buys a factory is much more likely to sink lasting roots in the locality than if it rents a factory on the estate. I urge the Board of Trade to consider if it cannot be more positive in encouraging the managing corporation to sell factories and to take the initiative in selling. Then it could staple down the new tenants to the localities to which they move. I do not know what the policy of the management corporation is at the moment, whether it is positive or, as I suspect may be the case, naturally obstructive to selling factories.
Secondly, what about the possibility of selling whole trading estates to free enterprise corporations to operate profitably for the community, perhaps involving county councils and county borough councils in part of the financing? This seems to me a way of securing a much more local interest in trading estates than exists at the moment.
If the latter is not possible, may I return to the point about selling factories? One of the problems of the Board of Trade at the moment is finding the cash to build new factories. If it is not one of its problems then the Treasury is not doing its job. If it is one of its problems, here is a way of alleviating it by the sale of existing factories. The management corporations should gather in the receipts from that sale and go forward to provide further factories. This seems to me a way of internally providing finance for further development. No doubt there would be Treasury objections to that type of machinery but that kind of thing can be argued out internally. The first point, therefore, is to sell the factory so that the tenants have a more personal interest in the area and to use the cash from that sale for further development. Then the question of floating off individual estates as private undertakings might be a profitable line for the Board of Trade.
Mr. Collick: This is an extraordinarily interesting argument. It runs something like this—it became necessary for public money to be put up to start trad-
1002
ing estates, because private enterprise for one reason or another was unable to do so, and now, having successfully established the estates, we are to sell them back to private enterprise. It seems a queer sort of business to me.
Mr. Williams: It is not a queer argument at all. It is a perfectly natural thing to do. This may appear to the hon. Member to be a doctrinaire point of view but I do not regard the State as being the right landlord for this sort of operation. The job of the State is to prime the pump and, having done so, to float off the machine and let it operate as best it can. It is the job of the State to fill the gaps in the present situation. It seems to me a way of helping the economy nationally and of getting industry to develop itself on the right lines.
There should be a limited degree of praise for the actions of the Board of Trade thus far. Whatever criticisms were made of it when it was passed, this Act appears to be working satisfactorily. There are areas where it is criticised for not having worked fast enough. It is criticised for having encouraged development in certain areas and not elsewhere, but on balance I should have thought that it was working with a reasonable degree of competence and satisfactorily for areas of high unemployment and that the Committee should approve generally of this policy.
5.33 p.m.
Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: I hope that the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams) will forgive me if I do not follow in great detail his line of argument. He referred to areas which have been typified as a West Lothian kind of constituency. I want to speak of problems typified by the Montgomeryshire kind of constituency and by the constituency which I represent. I represent a town which was scheduled for assistance under both the Distribution of Industry Act, 1958, and under the Local Employment Act, 1960. I should like to examine whether the latter Act has been effective in attracting industry to the area and whether the Government have any discernible policy in this respect, and to make one or two suggestions on how they could improve their efforts.
We have gone a long way since we had problems of chronic unemployment

1003
to deal with which depressed areas were scheduled under the 1934 and 1937 Acts. I believe that the 1960 Act is wider and more flexible in its approach than were its predecessors, the Distribution of Industry Acts, 1945 and 1950. It is more flexible because the emphasis is no longer wholly on industrial employment and it recognises that two quite separate problems face any Government. There is the problem which relates to the declining industrial areas and there is the problem of non-industrial areas where no alternative employment is available. They are two quite different problems. I should like to touch upon the second one.
The first is a question of revitalising industrial areas where there are already basic services, where there is a pool of labour available and where there is already a market and a reasonable possibility that industrialists could be attracted because the basic ingredients are there. Then there are the non-industrial areas which I believe are the more intractable problem. These areas are largely the fringe areas of the country which depend to a large extent on agriculture and tourism. In these areas there is very little alternative employment and, in some cases, possibly only one industry or factory in a town. This in itself is an unhealthy state of affairs because if there is only one factory it needs only a recession in that particular industry for there to be widespread unemployment. If there is only one boss and a man has an argument with the boss, it is virtually impossible to find alternative employment. Every one agrees that it is preferable to have a variety of factories and industries not merely as alternative employment but because it is a healthier way of bringing about wage competition.
I make no apology for mentioning one town which is scheduled for assistance. It typifies many similar towns which hon. Members represent, including perhaps some hon. Members who would like to speak on this subject but who may not have the good fortune which I have had to be called to take part in the debate. This is the town of Ilfracombe which for four months of the year has unemployment which rises to approximately 10 per cent. of the working population and sometimes even higher. Our experience of the 1960 Act is that
1004
we have had 12 inquiries, and four firms have applied for assistance under the Act. Every single one of them has been rejected. The same 100 per cent. rejection was experienced under the 1958 Act. These were firms from as far afield as Birmingham, Southend, Stroud, Worcester and Blackpool. The only benefit that we have derived is a grant under Section 5 of the Act for the purchase and clearing of an industrial site.
As I indicated in my maiden speech on 10th November, 1959, I do not believe that the problem in areas of this kind is one of subsidising individuals or individual firms. The problem is to open up the area by improving communications and by improving the basic services there. If these basic services are not improved, I do not believe that any amount of financial inducement will persuade firms to open up in these areas. This is why I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade to say what assistance has been granted under Section 7 of the 1960 Act which empowers any Minister in charge of any Government Department to make adequate provision, if he thinks there is inadequate provision, for basic services such as roads, rail, air transport, light, heating and water.
We have now the fantastic situation that at a time when the Government, under the 1960 Act, are trying to attract firms to Ilfracombe the railway service from Taunton which leads to the town is under threat of closure. How can we expect to be able to attract industry through the medium of one Government Department when at the same time another Ministry is considering closing branch lines which lead to the area concerned? It is like giving a man a blood transfusion and cutting his arteries at the same time. There must be far more co-ordination. I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will let us know what assistance has been given by any of the Ministries under Section 7 of the Act for the provision of basic services.
The President of the Board of Trade must realise that it will be the smaller firms which will open up in these areas. Having studied the operation of the Act, I believe that the smaller a firm is the more difficult it finds it to obtain assistance under the Act. The President of

1005
the Board of Trade must be very much more flexible in his approach, realising that in these areas not only manufacturing concerns but industries ancillary to tourism, fishing, intensive agriculture and the like can be a means of providing alternative employment.
Applications must be dealt with by the Board of Trade more quickly. I have spoken to every industrialist in my constituency who has applied for assistance under the Act. We are spending public money and the public, therefore, has the right to be satisfied that the money is wisely spent—I concede that at once—but the industrialists to whom I have spoken complain, first, about the complexity of the application and, second, about the time it takes for the Board of Trade to reach a decision. We must streamline the method of dealing with applications so that, from the moment of application, no more than three months, or four months at the very outside, are allowed to pass before a decision is reached. I have known cases where there has been more than a year's delay and the firm has lost interest and gone elsewhere.
The fringe areas of which I am speaking not only have large-scale unemployment in proportion to their total population but, much more serious, there is large-scale rural depopulation. In Montgomeryshire and in my constituency one can find villages with populations smaller than they were 100 years ago. As the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) said, this process is adding to congestion in the towns to traffic problems and the problems with which the Minister of Housing and Local Government is trying to deal. They are problems in the solution of which the Board of Trade could do very much more.
We are entitled to have a little more information about the industrial development certificate system. I wish to refer to an instance which occurred very near my own constituency, though not within it. In judging the working of the industrial development certificate system, obviously one is only able to draw upon one's own experience and make comparisons. The case in question arose in Tiverton, and I told the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) that I intended to raise the matter. I am delighted to know that any town is to
1006
have a new industry providing alternative employment, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree, as I should agree, that we must, in arranging these matters, have regard to a system of priorities and we must put industry first in places where there is a high level of unemployment.
In Tiverton there is one main industrial employer, John Heathcoat and Company, a textile manufacturing company well known throughout the West Country. Lord Amory was, until his appointment as High Commissioner in Canada, one of the directors. It is a well-known firm with a long industrial tradition in the West Country, and it is the main employer of labour in Tiverton. There is in Tiverton virtually full employment. The figures for June showed that there were about 90 people not employed there but, according to the Ministry of Labour's statistics, they are in the main either old people or people not suitable for industrial employment.
In 1961, the sale of a site to the Charles Churchill Machine Tool Company of Birmingham was contemplated. In October, 1961, or perhaps before that date—these things take a little time,—the Churchill Company
applied for an industrial development certificate and was refused. It is quite understandable that the President of the Board of Trade and his advisers may well have thought that, in a town which had, comparatively speaking, a high level of employment, a case could not be made out for such expansion. I do not think that anyone would have been surprised by that decision. The Churchill company made inquiries also in my constituency to see whether there were possibilities for expansion there. It has now set itself up in the Isle of Wight.
We do not know what opposition there was in Tiverton itself. At a dinner in May, 1961, the deputy-chairman of the Heathcoat Company, so he was reported, said that if there was to be expansion in Tiverton obviously the established firms must have a prior claim on available labour. That is a perfectly reasonable claim but a claim which might lead one to believe, to put it at its lowest, that he would not be over-enthusiastic at having a competitor on Tiverton's labour market. Be that as it may, the Churchill application was turned down.

1007
In January, 1962, it was reported that an application had been received from a company which wished to purchase six acres of an industrial site in Tiverton. In April, 1962, the sale was confirmed. The directors were not named. The products which they would manufacture were not mentioned, and the name of the company itself was not given. It was indicated that the company was American, that it was 50 per cent. owned by Heathcoats, and that there would be advantages in combination and co-operation between experts in the two companies. A deputation led by some very distinguished people from the County of Devon, one of them the chairman of the county council, went to the Board of Trade. Five months or so after an I.D.C. had been refused to Churchills an I.D.C. was granted to this other company.
There are many people in the West Country who feel that this is, perhaps, according a high priority to the convenience of a local firm rather than interpreting in a regional or national sense the policy behind the Local Employment Act. There are many who question the wisdom of this particular move.
Perhaps the hon. Member for Tiverton is hoping to catch the eye of the Chair so that he may refer to this matter later. I mention it because it seems strange that in one county there should he a town which is scheduled for special assistance but which has had no success so far while in another a decision is taken which, in effect, completely reverses an earlier decision taken only five months before. Much of Ilfracombe's lack of success is, perhaps, attributable to a lack of basic services, such as communications, although the town itself has made great efforts in acquiring an industrial site and industrialists with whom I have spoken have expressed themselves as very grateful for the spirit of co-operation shown to them by the chamber of commerce, the town council and the trade unions.
Contrary decisions, such as the Tiverton case, taken in this way lead one to ask for a little more information about how the I.D.C. system works and about this particular case. I hope that the President of the Board
1008
of Trade will give us this information when he replies.
It may be said that for a firm to expand and to share experts in the way suggested is valuable as a matter of convenience, but this has not been regarded in the past as a sufficient or overriding consideration. We know of the steel strip mills, for instance, which were split up, different parts of the enterprise being allocated to different parts of the country. Various car manufacturers which have wanted to expand in the places of their first choice have had to go elsewhere. I want the right hon. Gentleman to explain a little more the operation of the system, particularly since the Parliamentary Secretary has said that he has to be a hard man turning down application after application when deputations come to him.
The non-industrial and rural areas have and are continuing to suffer from depopulation. They have little alternative employment and present a totally different problem from the declining industrial areas. The provision of basic services like water, drainage, electricity, better roads and improved communications by rail is more important to the future of these areas than the subsidising of firms which might wish to set up in them.
5.50 p.m.
Mr. Rupert Speir: Unfortunately, this is a short debate and since a number of hon. Members wish to speak, I hope that the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) will forgive me if I do not follow him in his remarks.
It may surprise the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) to hear that I speak as a great supporter of the Local Employment Act. I congratulate the Government on having introduced it and I thank the Board of Trade for the helpful way in which it has been operated in my part of the country. I say "surprise" in view of the song and dance which the right hon. Member for Battersea, North usually makes about the location of industry. It was a Conservative Government and not he and his right hon. and hon. Friends who introduced the Local Employment Act. That Measure has brought great advantages which none of the previous Acts contained. None of the previous Measures allowed the Government to anticipate

1009
trouble in threatened areas. They could only deal with the trouble once it had arisen and I am astonished that he and his right hon. and hon. Friends, when they were in power, did not introduce amending legislation to make such anticipation possible.
Mr. Jay: That is quite untrue, because the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945, empowered the Government to take account of the balance of distribution of industry and, in doing that, were able to consider the future as well as the present.
Mr. Speir: When I wrote to the Board of Trade I used to be told time and again that the existing legislation precluded the Department from taking into account threatened as opposed to actual unemployment areas. It is, therefore, somewhat amazing to think that it was left to a Conservative Government to introduce the necessary amending legislation. Time and again the right hon. Member for Battersea, North and his hon. Friends say that we Conservatives believe in a free-for-all and laissez-faire policy. I suggest that they address those remarks to the small number of hon. Members who sit, now and again, on the Liberal benches. The Local Employment Act gives the lie to that suggestion. Instead of the workers having to uproot themselves and their families and drift South—to the Midlands, London and the new towns—the Act has enabled the Government to look ahead and to take action in time.
I have no doubt that the new towns are extremely attractive. After all, we are spending about £400 million adding to those attractions. However, is it not time that we reconsidered this policy? The older towns, if they were allowed to spend £400 million, could make themselves attractive to industrialists who would wish to establish businesses in these areas. The older towns have all the traditions, as well as the churches, the clubs, the "pubs", the cinemas, the sewers—in fact they have the lot—and if they had a little more money to make themselves more attractive new industries would be attracted to them.
The Local Employment Act has worked extremely well in the short time it has been in operation. Already, it has very largely cured the unemployment problem in South Wales and it is
1010
doing the same on Merseyside. It is certainly helping to cure the problems of the north-east of England. In the Hexham division we have had two "designated" areas under that Act. They were depressed areas in pre-war days, and more recently, with the closures of mines and quarries, they could have become depressed areas once again. But the Government took action and as a result of the introduction of the Local Employment Act we have been able to do something which I do not believe we could have done under the old Socialist legislation—we have been able to look ahead.
The Board of Trade has been extremely helpful and has encouraged one industry after another to come to the Hexham area and to south-west Northumberland, where they have been welcomed with open arms by the local authorities and the local people. New ventures, industries and factories, have been, and are being, established in large numbers in south-west Narthumberland, and instead of being faced with the horrors of unemployment I am receiving letters from industrialists saying that they would like to expand but that there is a scarcity of labour in the area.
I admit that the situation in southwest Northumberland is, better, for one reason or another, than in other parts of the north-east of England. Perhaps the district has deserved its luck, for there is a true saying that the Almighty helps those who help themselves.
In any case, the situation in the North-East is not helped by those who paint an over-gloomy picture of the difficulties and who exaggerate the problems of the area. It is very encouraging to know that industrialists who have recently gone to this part of the country cannot speak too highly of the quality of the workers there. They are delighted with their work and are agreeably surprised with the labour relations that exist. One prominent industrialist, a newcomer to the North-East, told me recently, "You can reason with them in this area." Many others have spoken in a similar vein.
It is that kind of remark, that sort of reputation, which will help to solve the difficulties of the North-East and which will make the area more attractive to industrialists. That sort of reputation

1011
is probably more important than any amount of financial assistance or support from the Government. The North-East is establishing the reputation of being a sensible, reasonable and trouble-free area and I hope that all hon. Members who represent parts of the North-East, and who speak in today's debate, will do all they can to safeguard and enhance this reputation.
5.58 p.m.
Mr. Charles Grey: I entirely agree with the sentiments expressed in the latter part of the speech of the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir). Few, if any, hon. Members would disagree that the North-East, as an area, has to be projected properly. But I object to the first part of his speech. The hon. Member might even regret that he changed his mind and decided to fight the Hexham seat because, if he continues to make any more speeches containing the views expressed in the earlier part of his speech today, he has lost Hexham already.
I shall deal with the Local Employment Act later. The fact that we are having this debate proves conclusively that the distribution of industry policy of this Government has completely failed. When the Act was passed it was intended that industry would be spread more evenly throughout the country. That was the intention and it is well known how well this policy worked under the Labour Government immediately after the war. At that time a real attempt was made to send industry away from the South to the North-East, Scotland and elsewhere. It is only after eleven years of Tory rule that the problem has again arisen and the Act has ceased to operate as it should.
Mr. Speir: Which Act?
Mr. Grey: The Distribution of Industry Act. I said that I would deal with the Local Employment Act later. I intended to say that the distribution of industry policy being operated now is more unfairly balanced than at any time, compared even with pre-war days. I have no doubt that there have been one or two puny efforts made by the Government to put the situation right. One effort was the Local Employment Act,
1012
1960, which the hon. Member for Hexham tries to claim is a huge success.
Mr. Speir: Where are the Welsh Members today?
Mr. Grey: Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to make my speech without interruption, since I allowed him to do so.
Hon. Members opposite support the Government Front Bench in claiming that the Local Employment Act is a huge success.
Mr. Speir: Hear, hear.
Mr. Grey: If the Government and back bench Members opposite think that, I can show that there are thousands of people who think differently. At the moment, there are 45,000 people on the dole in the Northern Region. Will any one of them say that the Local Employment Act is a huge success?
We all remember the great hullabaloo that there was when it was decided to introduce this Measure. It was said that it would be the instrument which would search for and dig out pockets of unemployment. That was the intention. The Act was to be some magic box from which employment would flow to the development districts. But, like many other Acts of the Government and like many other boxes of the Government, it has a Treasury lock. The only man who could open that box today, Houdini, died years ago. No one can open that box today.
I repeat that the Local Employment Act is a "phoney" piece of legislation. As for the benefit which it is said the North-East has obtained from it, we would have been no worse off if it had not existed.
Mr. Speir: Nonsense.
Mr. Grey: That is true, and I will prove it.
I hope that when the Minister replies he will not try to prove how good the Local Employment Act has been in the North-East. It is deader than dead. The Parliamentary Secretary talked about the jobs in prospect. I believe he said that there were 35,000 jobs in prospect for England. Two or three weeks ago he was in Newcastle, where he said that there were over 22,000 jobs in prospect for the North-East. If there

1013
are only 35,000 jobs in prospect for the country, there will not be many left for other areas.
Even if it were true that there are 22,000 jobs in prospect for the North-East—we know that there are not, but even supposing that it were true—that is no comfort at all. This is no huge success story because that figure only takes care of the appreciable number of children leaving school. It does not take account of the contraction in the mining, shipbuilding and ship-repairing industries. Neither does it take account of the latest redundancies on British Railways. All this will add up to a formidable figure.
At present, there is a pool of skilled labour in the Northern Region. The proportion of unemployed to vacancies in the Northern Region is about ten to one compared with three to one in Birmingham and one to one in the London area. In Spennymoor, part of my constituency, the unemployment rate is about 5·3 per cent. The Minister should regard that as very serious. It will be worse in a few years' time, when there will be further redundancy in shipbuilding and ship-repairing, on British Railways and particularly in the collieries.
Naturally, we on this side become very angry when the Minister talks about jobs in the pipeline and then hides behind a load of platitudes. All that I can say about the jobs in the pipeline is that it is time that they saw the light of day. We are getting fed up with all this talk and it is about time that there was more drive behind the efforts of the President of the Board of Trade and of the Parliamentary Secretary.
I pay a great tribute to the Parliamentary Secretary for visiting the North-East. He visited sites, talked with many people and has been brought up to date with the very serious situation in that area. His journey will have been worth while if he has come back prepared to answer two questions which have been asked time and again by many hon. Members on this side and even by some hon. Members opposite.
The first question is what immediate steps he has in mind for reducing the number of unemployed. The second is what long-term plan is in contemplation to enable the region to stand the strain if an economic blizzard hits the country.
1014
Whenever there is economic stress, the Northern Region feels it, not worse than any other area, because Scotland and Northern Ireland feel it as well, but as badly as any other area. We are entitled to have answers to these questions. We do not want to be told stories about the Local Employment Act. We have heard them time and again.
If the hon. Member for Hexham can tell us about the number of people who have received grants under the Local Employment Act, I can tell him about the numbers of people who have applied for grants, but whose applications have been refused. At Hetton, in my constituency, a person applied for a grant to start a brick factory, but he was turned down. My hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North-East (Mr. Ainsley) has a similar case. Hon. Members representing north-east constituencies can bear out the fact that far too many applications for grants have been turned down. There is definite proof that more applications for grants have been refused than have been granted.
Mr. Speir: No.
Mr. Ernest Popplewell: Is it not correct that out of 57 applications to introduce new industry in the North-East only 18 have been granted and that the rest have been refused?
Mr. Grey: That proves my point. If the President of the Board of Trade does not do something about this matter now, there may well be a good deal of unnecessary hardship and poverty.
I know that we have not the massive unemployment which we had in the 1930s. But do the Government really believe that they make a success of things if they prevent them from getting as bad as they were in the 1930s? I do not believe for one moment that we shall ever return to those days.
Mr. William Baxter: May I draw my hon. Friend's attention to what has happened in certain parts of Scotland, especially in Bonnybridge and Denny? I met people of that area last night and we set up an industrial committee. The conditions there are worse than they were in the 1930s, and it is time that something was done about them. There are areas in

1015
which conditions are not as bad as they were in the 1930s, but they are very much worse in parts of Scotland. Does my hon. Friend expect the crowd of nitwits opposite to do very much about them?[HON. MEMBERS: "Do not be offensive."] It is time that someone was offensive about this situation.
Mr. Grey: What my hon. Friend says emphasises my point. If conditions in some parts are worse than they were in the 1930s, they must be bad. However, I do not believe that the North-East will ever get back to the conditions of the 1930s.
The Government cannot pretend that this is a success story by claiming that conditions are better than they were in the 1930s, because we shall not return to those conditions, in spite of the Government.
I believe that the crime of the Government is that, with all the modern means at their disposal and with all the legislation at their fingertips, they are still allowing by their deliberate acts certain areas of the country like the North-East, Scotland, Northern Ireland and even Wales, to be infinitely worse off than any other areas in the country. No doubt, Scottish and Northern Ireland hon. Members will support that point of view, as well as Welsh Members.
I want to emphasise the discrepancy between the North and the South, which is the chief fault here. There ought to be greater effort made to spread industry more evenly across the country. The Northern Region now has 3·5 per cent. unemployment, which is about three times the national average. We on this side of the Committee are angry about it, and we are getting fed up, because we feel that nothing has been done. What we want now is a real spirit and drive for the proper distribution of industry, and we say that if the Government themselves will not do it they should get out and let somebody in who will.
6.12 p.m.
Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: I should like to draw particular attention to one of the points just made by the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Grey)—the position of Northern Ireland.
In Northern Ireland, during the past twelve months, unfortunately, we have
1016
had increasing unemployment. We are experiencing difficulty at the moment in attracting new industries, because of the uncertainty which precedes the entry of the United Kingdom into the Common Market. As a result, not so much industrial development has been taking place in the past six months as in the years preceding that period.
I noted with interest the Question asked at Question Time today by my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson), who wanted a Development Council to be set up in Scotland to match that over which Viscount Chandos presides in Northern Ireland. In spite of all the great efforts which have been made by the Northern Ireland Development Council, the Ministry of Commerce in Northern Ireland and the assistance of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and his Department, we are facing unemployment which has risen from 7 per cent. to just over 8 per cent.
The shipbuilding industry in my own constituency has suffered particularly from the recession in shipbuilding in the United Kingdom and in the shipping industry as a whole. Over 12,000 men have been laid off at Harland and Wolff's yard and in the past fortnight, the chairman of another large and important firm—Short Bros. and Harland—has forecast that unless new orders come from the Government for the Belfast air freighter, there will be redundancy in that factory. The Chairman of the Development Corporation, Lord Chandos himself, has pointed to the difficulties to be faced during the coming year in finding new industries willing to set up in Ulster.
It was with these fears in mind that the Ulster Unionist Members in this House spoke during the debates on the Local Employment Act, 1960. We were assured at that time that the Board of Trade would use its influence in areas covered by the industrial development certificate to attract or to direct industries to Northern Ireland. This need is greater today than it has ever been since the war. Therefore, I should like to draw particular attention to the needs of Northern Ireland in this debate, and to ask my right hon. Friend whether he will give the same undertakings are were given during the progress of the Local

1017
Employment Bill through the House of Commons, namely, that any firms in overcrowded areas which are looking for a development certificate in other areas in which the use of industrial development certificates is not desirable because of the great pressure of industry there will have their attention drawn, first, to the needs of Northern Ireland, simply because of the unemployment which now exists there and the other difficulties which we are experiencing at present.
We hive in Northern Ireland many very skilled engineers who have been trained in such exacting industries as shipbuilding, and who are experienced not only in general engineering, but in all forms of machine engineering and electronic engineering. Many of them have been trained in apprenticeship schools and are now engaged in producing advanced electronic computers and machines of that category. For this reason, and for the others which have already been expressed in the debate—that where there is a pool of unemployment it is for the economic good of the country as a whole that work should be sent to those areas in order to take the maximum advantage of our labour force—I make this plea to my right hon. Friend. This applies particularly to Northern Ireland, where there are many middle-aged men who have reached an advanced degree of efficiency but who now find themselves unemployed owing to the recession in the shipbuilding industry, after spending many years working in that industry.
I suggest that it is not reasonable to expect such men to be prepared to break their family ties and seek work in Britain. These are men who are in middle age, with young families and houses, who are settled in that area, but who find themselves unemployed. They feel that they are justified in asking that the policy of the Imperial Government should he to direct industries to such areas, where they will be able to continue to give of their best. These men are known for their hard work and their industry, and for the lack of industrial disputes. The trade unions have a fine record of co-operation and of conscientious working with management in order to avoid industrial disputes. Therefore, I press this point most strongly.
1018
My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, in his opening speech, referred to the "rat race" which occurs in areas in which there is over-employment, and in which wages are forced up from one firm to the next, and in which it is not always the most economic firm which offers the best wages. A race like that can only do harm to industry and to the United Kingdom when engaged in competition with countries abroad. If industries are sent to areas of high unemployment, we do not get the same disproportion in wages and salaries as between one part of the country and another.
Finally, I should like to ask my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to consider, along with his colleagues in the Government, what other work which is in the direct control of the Government can be attracted or directed to Northern Ireland; work such as that in Ordnance Factories and that referred to in a recent Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) concerning the manufacture of clothing for the British Army. Work like that has been sent to the Irish Republic, when it could equally well be done at the taxpayers' expense in the clothing and making-up industries of Northern Ireland. There is scope here for an inquiry in order to find out whether ordnance work and work of this nature is being properly shared out throughout the United Kingdom as a whole.
These are the points which I am particularly glad to have the opportunity of making in this debate, and to which I hope I shall be able to receive an answer from my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.
6.20 p.m.
Mr. James Boyden: I have considerable sympathy with the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. MacMaster), and I am sure that he will vote with hon. Members on this side of the Committee in the Lobby tonight.
This is how the so-called success of the Local Employment Act looks to people in my constituency. The unemployment figure at the time of the General Election was just under 2,000. Today, it is 2,500 with a percentage rate of 5·3. Although there have been slight dips from time to time, unemployment

1019
has steadily mounted and has reached nearly 2,500 every month this year. On several occasions the Parliamentary Secretary has spoken to members of local councils in my constituency. He has spoken to the North-East Development Council and has expressed good will. But the fact remains that the good will have not led to action. We are told about jobs in the pipeline, but the unemployment figure rises.
When the Parliamentary Secretary came to Newcastle recently he surprised me by saying that the Board of Trade did not have adequate time to take action when collieries were closed and that there was room for improvement. I hope that in the fortnight which has elapsed since he visited Newcastle the hon. Gentleman will have furbished up his administration and that now he will be able to tell us that when the Coal Board contemplates closing collieries the Minister of Power passes full information to the President of the Board of Trade so that immediate action may be taken.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to tell the Committee that he can take action in advance of unemployment which may be caused in that way, that action can be taken about two years in advance of pit closures. Otherwise, how in heaven's name can it be expected that factories will be developed to take up the unemployment caused when collieries are closed unless action is taken eighteen months or two years in advance?
The hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Mr. Ainsley) and myself spend our time with this problem. It is up to the Board of Trade to take the matter far more seriously and to initiate action rather than express pious sentiments. The President of the Board of Trade knows the situation regarding the railways is precarious. There are 2,300 people employed in the Shildon workshops and some of my constituents are employed in Darlington railway shops. When we ask what factory development has taken place in Shildon the answer is, none. It is true that Shildon has been put in a local development district and the name of the place has been written down on a piece of paper, but nothing has happened.
1020
The district council has taken an interest in one particular 12-acre site and has tried to draw industry to it, but nothing has happened. The Bishop Auckland Council is trying to develop a large area at Fielden Bridge, about which I have spoken to the Board of Trade, to attract industry. The only result has been that one industrialist "nibbled" but went away and there is no prospective development there at all. The Barnard Castle Rural District Council is concerned with the same problem and has discussed with all sorts of people what could be done. They showed the Parliamentary Secretary a site at Evenwood but nothing has happened. The Barnard Urban District Council is in the same position and as the area about which the hon. Member for Barnstaple spoke—[HON. MEMBERS: "North Devon."]—when the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe); I suppose that we shall not see him in this Chamber after the next election——
Mr. Thorpe: The hon. Gentleman should not be so certain.
Mr. Boyden: We do not see any of his colleagues in the Chamber at the moment.
An Hon. Member: They may be in the two Standing Committees.
Mr. Thorpe: They cannot be in three places at once.
Mr. Boyden: In rural areas like those on either side of the Tees, the rural districts of the North Riding and Durham, although the actual unemployment figure is not above the national average we know from experience of the incredible difficulties facing girls who wish to get office jobs and young men who wish to take up apprenticeships. It may mean travelling from areas far up the Tees to Darlington and Middlesbrough, which is an inhuman demand to make of young people.
There is a considerable amount of under-employment which is not shown in the figures. Many women who would wish to work are unable to do so. Many alder people over 60 who would like to work cannot do so. I think that the migration from my constituency is higher than the figures show, but census figures give the migration to be at the rate of 600 a year——
Mr. P. Williams: They are coming into my constituency at the rate of 2,000.
Mr. Boyden: That is very fortunate for the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams), but perhaps he would have greater success at the Board of Trade than I have.
The census figures of migration for my constituency from 1951 to 1961 is 5,900. In the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North-West the figure is 5,000. I think it fair to say that the actual figure of unemployment for Bishop Auckland is 2,500, to which should be added another 1,000 migrating or not on the insurance books but desiring work, to make a total of 3,500 needing jobs. This gives a percentage of about 7 or 8 per cent.
In discussions with officials we are frequently told that some areas of the country are unattractive to industry. It is beyond the capacity of the local councils which I have mentioned and of the Durham County Council on their own to remedy the industrial neglect of years by tidying up the pit heaps, cleaning the rivers and dealing with land which industrially is derelict. They cannot refurbish some of the very good villages in which people want to live because of the industrial and social economy from which we suffer. It is up to the President of the Board of Trade, in collaboration with the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, to ensure that a great deal more money is spent not only on industrial improvement but on social amenities so that industrialists will be attracted to the area. That social problem is as serious as the need for money to be spent industrially in the area.
I hope that the Minister will talk to his colleagues in the Government about the need which exists in my constituency and other Durham constituencies in this respect.
6.27 p.m.
Mr. R. E. Prentice: Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have naturally dealt with this problem from a local point of view. I wish to try to draw together some of the conclusions which we may reach about the national picture. Hon. Members on this side of the Committee
1022
who have taken part in the debate have shown a sense of urgency regarding the level of unemployment. But it seemed to me that the only speaker from the other side of the Committee who shared that sense of urgency was the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. MacMaster). In view of the appalling rate of local unemployment in Ireland, I hope that he and his hon. Friends who represent constituencies in Northern Ireland will vote with us in the Division Lobbies.
The speech of the Parliamentary Secretary and those of the hon. Members for Hexham (Mr. Speir) and Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams) were essentially complacent speeches. I was amazed that the hon. Member for Sunderland, South should devote most of his speech to talking about whether factories should be owned by the State or by private enterprise when the rate of unemployment in Sunderland is 4·5 per cent. I should have thought that the hon. Member would have been obsessed with that figure.
Mr. P. Williams: May I quote some figures to prove the success of the Local Employment Act? At Hepworth and Grandage there are 1,000 jobs; at Jackson the Tailor, 1,000 jobs; at James R. Jobling, 1,200 and at Steels Engineering, David Brown and Ericsson's there are 1,185. At Perdio there are 1,000, and there are another 200 expansions. So the Act is working.
Mr. Prentice: We would all agree, I think, that there have been new jobs provided by the Act and that there are jobs in the pipe-line. But the relation of those figures to the problem is something about which I wish to speak in a moment.
Let us start with the Hay figure for unemployment, which is 423,800. Full employment is a relative term. A year ago the figure was 299,276. Under Governments from both sides of the House the figure for unemployment since the end of the war has been below the 300,000 mark. But figures such as we have at present include at least 100,000 unnecessary cases of unemployment. For those 100,000 people and their dependants the problem is urgent and we should have regard to the frustration and hardship involved.

1023
As was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden), the figures always underestimate the actual amount of unemployment involved in particular regions. In the areas of local unemployment retired people are not able to stay on at work and do not register for employment. Married women do not register for employment. Also, there is a good deal of short-time working in various industries, and therefore the problem of unemployment and under-employment in the areas about which we have been talking is much worse than the figures show, and I suggest that the figures themselves should give us cause for concern.
This is only part of the problem affecting those areas. The tragedy is the way in which so many young and enterprising people from Scotland, Wales and the North East have had to leave their families and friends and go to other areas to find work. Some areas of the country are, relatively speaking, in decline.
Perhaps I might refer to the other side of the problem, the effect on those areas which are already overcrowded. I represent a constituency in the Greater London Area. I put it to the Government that in Greater London, in the Birmingham area, and in the other crowded areas, every social problem with which the Government and local councils have to grapple is aggravated by more people coming into an area which is already too small to hold them. Housing progress made by local councils is cancelled out by more people coming in and demanding homes. The cost of land goes up, whether it is to be used for public purposes or for industry. Indeed, industrial costs are increased because of the rising cost of land on which to build factories, offices, and so on. There is a scarcity of open space for every public purpose. There is more and more congestion of traffic and people have to spend longer and longer travelling to work. Recently I saw some figures which suggested that in the Greater London area the average worker would have to spend between 2½ and 3 years of his life in rush-hour travel because of the way in which some areas are becoming congested, resulting in people having to live further away from their work. Some town planners have
1024
held out the prospect that one day everybody in Great Britain will live in a great, elongated city, probably called Londbirm, stretching from London to Birmingham, with the rest of Great Britain becoming a desert.
It is against that tendency that we have to consider whether the Government's policy is adequate. Hon. Gentlement opposite talk as though this all started with the Local Employment Act, 1960. In fact, hon. Gentlemen opposite have been in office since 1951, and it is their policy since then which is being debated today, and on which the country will wish to record a verdict.
When hon. Gentlemen opposite say that there are so many thousands of jobs in the pipeline, might I remind them that during the fifties—that is, taking the period from the beginning of 1951 to the end of 1960—the number of people in civil employment went up by nearly 200,000 every year. Nearly 200,000 new jobs were created for most of those people. Over half of those new jobs were in the three regions centred on London—London and the South East, the Eastern Region, and the Southern Region. Almost one-quarter of those new jobs were in two Midland Regions, and the other quarter were in the remaining six regions of the country. It is against that hind of process that we have to consider the figures given to us this afternoon by the Parliamentary Secretary.
I suggest that several things are happening at the moment which are likely to make the position even worse. One thing is that the industries and services which on the whole exist in the South, the East and the Midlands, are expanding, and on the whole it is the older declining industries which are to be found in the North, in Scotland, and in Wales. The pace of change is quickening all the time. This is something which in itself we welcome. Technological change is speeding up. The pattern of trade is changing. If this country enters the Common Market, this will encourage the faster development of expanding industries and will present greater challenges to older industries which are having a struggle to exist. For these reasons there will be more people moving, or wanting to move, from the older industries to the newer ones, or from the older areas to the expanding ones.

1025
London, and to a lesser extent Birmingham, are commercial centres in which people work in offices, in professions, and so on. We know that the pattern of work has changed, in the sense that fewer people work at the bench and more do jobs in offices. The figures show that in recent years 15,000 new office jobs a year have been provided in central London. All this produces a snowball effect on smaller industries. It produces firms which do not come within the scope of the Government's control. It produces service industries. Bakeries, laundries, and that sort of thing go where there is a market and people move into London because jobs are available. This in turn leads to other industries moving in because there is a market, and so the snowball effect continues. A policy that is inadequate now will be even more inadequate in terms of the challenge with which we shall be faced in the next few years.
I promised to speak for only a few minutes, but I should like to reiterate briefly the constructive points we put forward. We all recognise that this is a national problem of great difficulty and complexity. We all supported the 1960 Act, although we said that it did not go far enough. We recognise that some things have been done under it, but not enough has been done. We say that the whole of this policy depends on a policy of economic growth. The Parliamentary Secretary says that it all depends on how much industry is on the move; that it depends on how much industry wants to move. I therefore think that the first requirement of this policy is to create a situation in which firms are eager to expand and will therefore respond positively to the controls which the Government exercise. Secondly, the Government should make more drastic use of both the positive and negative side of the Local Employment Act.
I do not want to repeat what my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) said about this problem of office development, but I take up what the hon. Gentleman said about the difficulties of controlling it. The hon. Gentleman produced two excuses. He said that it would be difficult for the Government to decide whether or not to grant permission for new office accommodation because they had no criteria
1026
on which to work. This seems to me to be about the most feeble excuse that could be advanced. Of course, it would be a new problem, just as the control of industry was at one time a new problem, but surely the Government could start from the point that anyone who wanted new office accommodation in London or in Birmingham would have placed on him the onus of proving why it should be there rather than somewhere else? How this onus of proof would be balanced could be worked out by the experts, but if the Government started from that point most of us feel that a good deal of office accommodation could be put up in other areas.
The other point made by the Parliamentary Secretary—and I think that in a sense it is a valid point—was that as offices are built speculatively and that those who build them do not know which firms will occupy them. But surely it is not beyond the wit of the Board of Trade and whichever Department handles this to devise a system of permits whereby those who want to occupy offices must get permission to do so, and those who want to build offices must show that there are enough people with permits to occupy the offices which they will build. This might in the first instance lead to delay in the provision of new office accommodation in London and these other crowded areas, but that would not be a bad thing.
Surely the difficulties could be overcome if the determination were there? We put it to the Government that as more and more people move into commercial and professional jobs and away from the factories the whole policy of being able to control the distribution of industry will depend on the Government taking this further step towards controlling office building, and that if they do not take such a step a future Government will have to do so.
What we need is far more co-ordination in the Board of Trade, in the Ministry of Labour, in the Ministry of Transport and in the Ministry of Housing and Local Goxernment, to produce a major strategy for the distribution both of industry and population in this country. It is absurd that the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) should have to tell us that at a time when one of the major obstacles

1027
to creating new employment in his constituency is the lack of transport facilities, British Railways should be considering closing down the railway line which leads to that area. There must be more co-ordination and a real strategy to deal with the whole problem.
When the 1959 General Election campaign was in progress, the then President of the Board of Trade, now Minister of Education. said:
"We intend to tackle unemployment with the methods of mobile warfare."
The only adequate comment on the success or failure of that intention is the comment which has been made by the electors of West Lothian and of West Middlesbrough in the last few weeks. We shall back them up in the Division Lobby later this evening.
6.42 p.m.
The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. F. J. Erroll): The hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) and I both agreed to restrict our winding-up speeches to a short time to allow as much time as possible for back-bench Members to make their contribution. I suggest that that decision was an entirely right one, because in consequence we have been able to have an interesting debate with a number of different points of view put forward.
At the time of the passing of the Local Employment Act, 1960, four main areas were in need of new industrial development: South Wales, Merseyside, the North-East Coast and Scotland. In the short space of two years, two out of the four are now virtually free of development district status. That is the measure of the great progress which has been made. It is also significant that in this debate today, no Welsh Members have been present.[Interruption.] I beg pardon of the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths). No Welsh Members have spoken today, nor, apart from an intervention, did anyone speak in regard to Merseyside.
Mr. J. Griffiths: My only comment is that the time for debate has been limited. I restrained myself because many of my hon. Friends wanted to speak. Before the debate began, however, an area in South Wales had to be re-scheduled.
Mr. Erroll: I said "virtually free" from development district status. I do not want to arouse hon. Members' anxieties.
I was going on to make the point that that state of affairs shows that we have satisfied two out of the four main problem areas. I was grateful that two of my hon. Friends, the Members for Hexham (Mr. Speir) and for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams), should have taken a little of the time of the Committee to point out the success of the policy which we have pursued in the regions of their constituencies.
Mr. Collick: The Minister will, I am sure, readily agree that I made the point that one of the areas, Merseyside, still has 4.5 per cent. unemployment, which is three times the national average.
Mr. Erroll: Yes, but there are many more jobs in prospect—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and they will become realities.[Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite laugh about jobs in prospect, but they never admit when those jobs become realities. In a serious matter of this sort we should have a serious debate. We try to give as much information to hon. Members as possible about what is in prospect, but, naturally, these jobs take time to mature, but they do mature, nearly all of them. They certainly have done in South Wales and a great number of them already have on Merseyside.
I welcome this debate on the distribution of industry policy because I believe that we have a very good story to tell. It is by no means complete, but we are making good progress. I remind the Committee particularly because the hon. Member for East Ham, North made the point that we should not simply think of progress since the passing of the 1960 Act, that all the main Acts have been passed by Conservative Governments.
There were the Special Areas Acts before the war, the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945, was passed into law by the Conservative Caretaker Government, then we had that highly effective and useful but small piece of legislation the Distribution of Industry (Industrial Finance) Act, 1958, and, finally, the Local Employment Act, 1960. Taken together these Acts, particularly the last one, have been a great success.

1029
[Interruption.] That intervention comes ill from the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon), where a large new dock is going up.
Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: But where unemployment runs at 8 per cent.
Mr. Jay: The Minister has made a debating point. He knows well that the 1945 Act was introduced into the House by the late Mr. Hugh Dalton, of the Coalition Government, and not the Caretaker Government.
Mr. Erroll: And we saw it through on to the Statute Book.
The Acts have been forcefully administered while, at the same time, it has been recognised that only a minority of industrial development is mobile. One of the facts of life which we must recognise is that a firm which has existing works and continues to employ about the same number of people is not a candidate for being moved. It is established in its own place and there is nothing to be done about it. All that one can hope is that when the firm is expanding it may be prepared either to move in toto or to set up a separate subsidiary factory in a place of our proposal.
Many factory extensions cannot be hived off, because to attempt to hive off the extension would be to cut the enterprise in half. As distinct from worms, one cannot cut private firms in two and expect both halves to go on wriggling. It is a serious decision for a firm to decide whether to hive off the extension to another part of the country, perhaps several hundred miles away from its headquarters, or to go in toto to another part of the country. However generous may be the assistance which the Government can give, the full cost and risk of a false decision rests upon the firm itself.
I was interested to listen to the many percentage figures which the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) quoted in his speech. He referred to figures which appeared in his book, which I enjoyed reading, that the development areas got 30 per cent. of new factory building between 1945 and 1951 but got only 18½ per cent. between 1953 and 1958. It is necessary to break down
1030
the earlier percentage figure a little more, because, in fact, development areas got 45 per cent. of a smaller total of factory building in the three years 1945 to 1947 but got only 19 per cent. in the four years from 1947 to 1951. Therefore, the change in the percentage going to the development areas came about not with a Conservative victory, but with the appointment of the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) to the presidency of the Board of Trade.
Mr. Jay: It was because so many factories were started in the first two years that fewer would have been finished if that amount extra had been started some years afterwards.
Mr. Erroll: I call that a model of explicity.
In a debate like this, we have to face the fact that the two sides of the Committee are arguing from opposite premises. The Opposition do not like the free enterprise system or the way it works. It is against that background that I make the point that the Opposition say that they would control industrial development certificates more strictly. What would they do when firms decided not to expand rather than to move where they were told to go?
1 suppose that it would be said that they were failing the nation, which, of course, would mean that they would then be nationalised. Are the Opposition prepared to go as far as that in applying a policy which, they say, they would apply more toughly than we would? I assure them that there is no way of doing more than we are doing within the ambit of the free enterprise system and the right of a man to set up a business where he wants to do so.
If they were good boys and went where they were told, the firms would probably still be nationalised, because they would then be in receipt of State aid for going to a development district; and according to Labour's pamphlet Signposts for the 'Sixties, they would be nationalised through the receipt of subsidies or loans because it was part of the policy of the party opposite to nationalise firms engaged in receiving State money. While it is, naturally, quite proper for the Opposition to criticise what we are doing, it is hollow of them

1031
to suggest that they would be able to operate a tougher policy without encountering difficulties of the sort which I have described.
During the few minutes remaining, I should like to say something about office building in London. I know that this is a problem, but the important thing to realise is that a concentration on the problem of London offices is no substitute for getting on with the job of securing a proper distribution of industry. I listened with great interest to what the right hon. Gentleman had to say on this subject, because I know that he has made a close study of it. He said that we were failing to control office employment. Does he mean that we should limit the number of office workers—because that is office employment—or does he mean that we should control the office blocks or the people who wish to rent offices?
The great difference between control of industry by means of industrial development certificates and control of offices by a somewhat similar system is that with the one we have one works, one occupier, whereas in one office block there may be a couple of dozen occupiers. The sort of control which the hon. Member for East Ham, North outlined struck me as being one which would be extremely cumbersome and tedious to operate in practice and would probably lead to a severe reduction in the amount of essential office building which ought to be going on.
Do right hon. and hon. Members opposite really propose that the number of office workers in the South-East of England should be limited? If office building is limited it merely means that office workers must work in bad or over-crowded offices, and businesses would be forced to use residential property as offices, which would still further aggravate the housing shortage. That took place in West London through the delays in rebuilding the City.
Do not let us forget that invisible exports are still worth about £2,000 million a year, and many of these exports —such as insurance, banking, tourism, shipping, and other services—are run from offices. I do not think that a bank or insurance company would be able to compete with the best in Europe from
1032
the depths, of Wales or Scotland. Offices in the suburbs are a help, but they do not deal with the main question. Again a large firm might not be able to recruit mainly from a particular suburb.
It was the select Committee on Estimates which criticised the division of the Admiralty offices between London and Bath, when the Government tried in a practical way to give effect to the decentralisation of offices from the capital. It was done to restrict the growth of offices in Whitehall, but we were strongly criticised for the £39,000 per year spent on travelling and the 26,000 bags and packages which had to be transported between the two. We were criticised for waste of time, energy and efficiency.
Where we can move office accommodation as an example to industry, we do so. The Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance Offices at Newcastle have been mentioned, and there are the Premium Bonds administration office at St. Anne's-on-Sea and the Post Office Savings Bank on the north-east coast. In view of the time we have spent on offices in this debate, I would remind right hon. and hon. Gentlemen that, in discussion on the Local Employment Act, although a lot was said about extending I.D.C. control to offices, the Opposition did not bother to divide the House when the opportunity came. They did not feel very strongly about it and the problem was much the same then as it is now.
It is often said that the Government have the powers but do not use them. In fact, however, we make full use of them. We have been refusing industrial development certificates in the southeastern area. I have made a special analysis of the 46 schemes of over 50,000 square feet approved in London and the south-eastern area last year. Eight Were for non-manufacturing industries, 31 were of the type essentially tied to their present districts. Only 7 were new projects—and all these were successfully moved out of the central area.
Nobody likes to be refused. Every industrialist seems to think that he is a special case, but we argue patiently with each firm. I was grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams) for his generous remarks about the work of Regional Controllers. I accept that local

1033
authorities usually want industrial expansion in their own areas and support the firms. The local Member of Parliament, of: whichever party, usually enters in support and local branches of trade unions, without regard to the needs of their unemployed fellow members in other parts of the country, usually press their local interest as well.
I would like to have had time to deal with the interesting case raised by the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) about the development at Tiverton, but surely it was right that the firm from Birmingham—not the Churchill Machine Tool Company which is, I remind him, in my constituency, but a subsidiary of Charles Churchill and Company, Ltd., which wanted to build boats should have gone to the Isle of Wight, which is a development district. The proposed development the mentions was only granted on condition that the firm set up additional employment in Cornwall snore than equal to the amount of additional employment we are getting in Tiverton. We are getting two for the price of one, which is a very good bargain.
Mr. Thorpe Mr. Thorpe rose——
Mr. Erroll: I cannot give way, for I have very little time left.
Under Section 7, in the twelve months ended 12th March, 1961, grants totalling approximately £250,000, and in the twelve months ended 12th March, 1962, grants totalling over £1 million were made for water, sewerage and road schemes. We continue to do our best to steer firms to development districts. We like to offer a migrant firm a choice of locations in different development districts, because whichever district it chooses helps to reduce unemployment equally. As circumstances change we change the list, but we do resist having too many new places on it if possible, because we prefer to concentrate on the districts most greatly in need.
I was glad that my hon. Friend the Member far Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) was able to make the case for Northern Ireland. I endorse what he said. We will do our best to encourage migrant firms to go to Northern Ireland, though I cannot go all the way with him on Government contracts.
We try to encourage not only British firms, but also firms from overseas, particularly the United States. We have set up an office in New York so that we can contact American firms interested in setting up in this country. One of my officers there—an excellent man and, incidentally, a Scot—spends a great deal of his time on pressing the advantages of the development districts. He is a most devoted official, determined to bring new industry to the right places in Britain.
We can be proud of the results of this policy. In the first two years of operation of the Act, assistance totalling almost £70 million has been offered and accepted for three hundred projects estimated to produce over 70,000 new jobs. I admit that there is a lot to be done in Scotland and on the North-East Coast, but as proof of our determination I mention what has been achieved in South Wales and what we are achieving on Merseyside. These successes are real and substantial. They have been brought about by a tough but realistic industrial development certificate policy. We have secured the co-operation of private industry, which is essential in a matter of this kind, and have brought thousands of jobs to those in need of them. I ask the Committee to endorse this policy.
Mr. Jay: In view of the unconvincing nature of the right hon. Gentleman's reply, I beg to move that Item Class IV, Vote I (Board of Trade), be reduced by £5.
Question put:
The Committee divided: Ayes 206, Noes 263.

Abse, Leo

Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

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

Ainsley, William

Bence, Cyril

Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)

Albu, Austen

Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

Bowles, Frank

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Benson, Sir George

Boyden, James

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Blackburn, F.

Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

Awbery, Stan

Blyton, William

Bray, J. W.

Bacon, Miss Alice

Boardman, H.

Brockway, A. Fenner

Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)

Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

Brown, Thomas (Ince)

Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

Randall, Harry

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

Jeger, George

Rankin, John

Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

Reid, William

Callaghan, James

Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

Rhodes, H.

Chapman, Donald

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Cliffe, Michael

Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Collick, Percy

Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

Robertson, John (Paisley)

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)

Cronin, John

Kelley, Richard

Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)

Crosland, Anthony

Kenyon, Clifford

Royle, Charles (Salford, West)

Dalyell, T.

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

Darling, George

King, Dr. Horace

Short, Edward

Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

Lawson, George

Silverman, Julius (Aston)

Delargy, Hugh

Ledger, Ron

Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

Diamond, John

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

Skeffington, Arthur

Dodds, Norman

Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

Donnelly, Desmond

Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John

Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

Small, William

Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

Loughlin, Charles

Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

Edelman, Maurice

Lubbock, Eric

Sorensen, R. W.

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

Soskice, Rt. Hon Sir Frank

Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

McCann, John

Spriggs, Leslie

Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

MacDermot, Niall

Steele, Thomas

Evans, Albert

Mclnnes, James

Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

Fernyhough, E.

Mackie, John (Enfield, East)

Stones, William

Finch, Harold

McLeavy, Frank

Strachey, Rt. Hon. John

Fitch, Alan

MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)

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

Fletcher, Eric

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

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

Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

Manuel, Archie

Swain, Thomas

Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh

Mapp, Charles

Swingler, Stephen

Galpern, Sir Myer

Marsh, Richard

Taverne, D.

Ginsburg, David

Mayhew, Christopher

Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

Mellish, R. J.

Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

Gourlay, Harry

Mendelson, J. J.

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

Grey, Charles

Milne, Edward

Thornton, Ernest

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

Mitchison, G. R.

Thorpe, Jeremy

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Lianelly)

Monslow, Walter

Tomney, Frank

Gunter, Ray

Moody, A. S.

Wade, Donald

Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

Moyle, Arthur

Warbey, William

Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

Mulley, Frederick

Watkins, Tudor

Hannan, William

Neal, Harold

Weitzman, David

Harper, Joseph

Oliver, G. H.

Wells, Percy (Faversham)

Hayman, F. H.

Oram, A. E.

Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

Healey, Denis

Oswald, Thomas

White, Mrs. Eirene

Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (RwlyRegls)

Owen, Will

Whitlock, William

Herbison, Miss Margaret

Padley, W. E.

Wigg, George

Hewitson, Capt. M.

Paget, R. T.

Wilkins, W. A.

Hill, J. (Midlothian)

Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

Willey, Frederick

Hilton, A. V.

Pargiter, G. A.

Williams, D. J. (Neath)

Holman, Percy

Parker, John

Williams, Ll. (Abertillery)

Houghton, Douglas

Parkin, B. T.

Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)

Pavitt, Laurence

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

Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

Winterbottom, R. E.

Hoy, James H.

Peart, Frederick

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Pentland, Norman

Woof, Robert

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Popplewell, Ernest

Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Prentice, R, E.

Zilliacus, K.

Hunter, A. E.

Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

Probert, Arthur

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

Proctor, W. T.

Mr. Ifor Davies and Mr. Redbead.

Janner, Sir Barnett

Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

NOES

Agnew, Sir Peter

Black, Sir Cyril

Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)

Bourne-Arton, A.

Cleaver, Leonard

Allason, James

Box, Donald

Cole, Norman

Arbuthnot, John

Boyle, Sir Edward

Collard, Richard

Ashton, Sir Hubert

Braine, Bernard

Cooper, A. E.

Atkins, Humphrey

Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

Balniel, Lord

Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

Barber, Anthony

Bryan, Paul

Corfield, F. V.

Barlow, Sir John

Buck, Antony

Costain, A. P.

Barter, John

Bullard, Denys

Coulson, Michael

Batsford, Brian

Bullus, Wing-Commander Eric

Craddock, Sir Beresford

Bell, Ronald

Burden, F. A.

Critchley, Julian

Berkeley, Humphry

Butcher, Sir Herbert

Crowder, F. P.

Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)

Cunningham, Knox

Bidgood, John C.

Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

Curran, Charles

Biffen, John

Cary, Sir Robert

Dance, James

Biggs-Davison, John

Channon, H. P. G.

d'Avigdor-Goldsmld, Sir Henry

Bingham, R. M.

Chataway, Christopher

de Ferranti, Basil

Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

Digby, Simon Wingfield

Bishop F. P.

Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

1036

1037

Doughty, Charles

Lagden, Godfrey

Quennell, Miss J. M.

du Cann, Edward

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

Duncan, Sir James

Leather, Sir Edwin

Rees, Hugh

Eden, John

Leavey, J. A.

Renton, David

Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

Leburn, Gilmour

Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

Elliott, R. w. (Nwcaste-upon-Tyne, N.)

Lilley, F. J. P.

Ridsdale, Jullan

Emery, Peter

Lindsay, Sir Martin

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

Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

Linstead, Sir Hugh

Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.

Litchfield, Capt. John

Roots, William

Farey-Jones, F. W.

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

Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

Fell, Anthony

Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

Russell, Ronald

Fisher, Nigel

Longbottom, Charles

Scott-Hopkins, James

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Longden, Gilbert

Sharples, Richard

Forrest, George

Loveys, Walter H.

Shaw, M.

Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

Lucas, Sir Jocelyn

Skeet, T. H. H.

Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

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

Gammans, Lady

McAdden, Sir Stephen

Smithers, Peter

Gardner, Edward

McLaren, Martin

Spearman, Sir Alexander

Gibson-Watt, David

McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia

Speir, Rupert

Gilmour, Sir John

Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

Stevens, Geoffrey

Glover, Sir Douglas

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

Stodart, J. A.

Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)

McLean, Neil (Inverness)

Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

Goodhew, Victor

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

Storey, Sir Samuel

Gough, Frederick

McMaster, Stanley R.

Studholme, Sir Henry

Gower, Raymond

Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)

Summers, Sir Spencer

Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.

Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

Tapsell, Peter

Green, Alan

Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Gresham Cooke, R.

Maddan, Martin

Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)

Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

Maginnis, John E.

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

Gurden, Harold

Maitland, Sir John

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

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

Teeling, Sir William

Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

Markham, Major Sir Frank

Temple, John M.

Hare, Rt. Hon. John

Marshall, Douglas

Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

Marten, Neil

Thomas, Peter (Conway)

Harris, Reader (Heston)

Mathew, Robert (Honiton)

Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)

Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

Mawby, Ray

Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

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

Tilney, John (Wavertree)

Harvie Anderson, Miss

Miscampbell, Norman

Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

Hastings, Stephen

Montgomery, Fergus

Turner, Colin

Hay, John

More, Jasper (Ludlow)

Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

Morrison, John

Tweedsmuir, Lady

Hendry, Forbes

Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

van straubezee, W. R.

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

Nabarro, Gerald

Vane, W. M. F.

Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

Neave, Airey

Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John

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

Nicholls, Sir Harmar

Vickers, Miss Joan

Hirst, Geoffrey

Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

Walder, David

Hobson, Sir John

Noble, Michael

Walker, Peter

Holland, Philip

Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard

Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek

Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Wall, Patrick

Hornby, R. P.

Orr-Ewing, C. Ian

Ward, Dame Irene

Hughes Hallett Vice-Admiral John

Osborn, John (Hallam)

Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

Hughes-Young, Michael

Page, Graham (Crosby)

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Hulbert, Sir Norman

Page, John (Harrow, West)

Whitelaw, William

Hurd, Sir Anthony

Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Peel, John

Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

Iremonger, T. L.

Peyton, John

Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

James, David

Pike, Miss Mervyn

Wise, A. R.

Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

Pitt, Miss Edith

Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

Woodnutt, Mark

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Woollam, John

Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)

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

Worsley, Marcus

Kerby, Capt. Henry

Prior, J. M. L.

Yates, William (The Wrekin)

Kerr, Sir Hamilton

Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

Kershaw, Anthony

Profumo, Rt. Hon. John

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Kimball, Marcus

Proudfoot, Wilfred

Mr. Chichester-Clark and

Kirk, Peter

Pym, Francis

Mr. Finlay.

It being after Seven o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair, further Proceeding standing postponed until after the consideration of Private Business set down by direction Of THE CHAIRMAN
1038
OF WAYS AND MEANS under Standing Order No. 7 (Time for taking Private Business).
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER resumed the Chair.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL (by Order)
As amended, considered.

New Clause.—(AMENDMENTS AS TO APPLICATIONS FOR STREET TRADING LICENCES ETC.)
(1) The following subsection shall be substituted for subsection (1) of section 21 (Annual licences) of the Act of 1947—
"(1) A person requiring an annual licence or the renewal of an annual licence shall make application in writing to the borough council and shall in such application state—

(a) his full name and address;

(b) the nature of the articles or things which he intends to sell or expose or offer for sale under the authority of the licence if granted or renewed;

(c) the place if any at which the articles or things will be stored by him at all times while they are not exposed or offered for sale;

(d) the street or streets in which he intends so to sell or expose or offer for sale and the nature and type of any receptacle which he intends to use in connection with any sale or exposure or offer for sale;

and may specify the name and address of a relative of his who is associated with or dependent upon the business of street trading in respect of which the application is made and to whom he desires the licence to be granted in the event of his death"
(2) In subsection (2) of the said section 21 for the words "following subsection" there shall be substituted the words "two following subsections".
(3) After subsection (2) of the said section 21 there shall be inserted the following:
"(2A) (a) When the holder of an annual licence who has specified the name and address of a relative to whom he desires the licence to be granted dies the borough council shall not (except as provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection) grant an annual licence in respect of the position or place in a street at which the deceased licencee was entitled to sell or expose or offer for sale articles or things under the authority of his licence until the expiration of ten days from the date of the death of the licencee.
(b) If during the said period of ten days the person specified by the deceased licencee. when making application for the licence, as the relative to whom he desired the licence to be granted in the event of his death makes application for the grant of an annual licence in respect of the position or place available in the street the borough council shall, save as provided by the next following subsection or by subsection (5) of section 24 (For preventing interference with traffic) of this Act. grant an annual licence to that person".
(4) After subsection (7) of the said section 21 there shall be inserted the following:
"(8) For the purposes of this section a person shall be treated as being related to another if the latter is the wife, husband, father, mother, grandfather, grandmother, stepfather, stepmother, son, daughter, grandson, granddaughter, stepson, stepdaughter. brother, sister, half-brother or half-sister of the former and shall be deemed to be so related notwithstanding that he is so related only through an illegitimacy or in consequence of an adoption".—[Mr. Chataway.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
7.10 p.m.
Mr. Christopher Chataway: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
This Clause is intended to deal with a serious injustice to street traders which is caused by the L.C.C. (General Powers) Act, 1947. The Bill as originally introduced to the House by the London County Council also sought to deal with this injustice. The inequity a rose, as many hon. Members will be aware, from a decision in 1960 in the case of Stepney Borough Council v. Schneider. The effect of that case was to deny to metropolitan borough councils any effective say in distributing licences to street traders.
Subsequent to the Stepney Borough Council v. Schneider case, a borough council is virtually required to give a street trading licence to the first person who applies for it. Previously, borough councils had thought that they had a good deal of discretion in granting these licences, but the present position is first come first served. This leads to a number of anomalies, but the most serious is in the case of a street trader's near relative, who may have been carrying an the business with him.
To my knowledge, there have been four cases recently when a street trader has died and when his close relative, who has been involved in the business with him, has not got to the town hall first and has consequently been deprived of his livelihood. This is the injustice which the Clause seeks to remedy. Not only has there been the instance of Schneider in Stepney, but in a case in Fulham a close relative found himself out of a job and deprived of his livelihood simply because somebody else applied to the town hall first. There is another case, that of Mr. Rose n from

1041
Rupert Street, Westminster, and in my own constituency a case involving a Mr. Porritt.
Nine out of ten street trading businesses, I am assured, are carried on by families. They are not one-man businesses but the licences can be held by only one person, although the business may be a source of livelihood to a man and his wife and perhaps his son and his family. It is my contention that the law should take account of that and should give some safeguard to relatives.
Clause 25 of the original Bill would have given borough councils power to decide which applicant should be granted the licence, and that would have got around the difficulty. The Federation of Street Traders' Unions agreed to that Clause and in return was given an undertaking by the Metropolitan Boroughs Standing Joint Committee that borough councils would be recommended by that Committee to produce a form upon which a street trader could place the name of a relative whom he wished to succeed him in the event of his death. The undertaking went on to say that borough councils would be recommended to give the most serious consideration to that relative in the event of the death of the licence holder.
In a debate initiated in February by the hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. W. Edwards), the principle of attempting to help the relatives of deceased street traders met with general approval, but after Second Reading of the Bill the Home Secretary reported on the original Clause 25 in these terms:
"The Secretary of State sees objection in principle to conferring on local authorities with no right of appeal wide powers of discretion to grant or refuse a licence on which a trader's Livelihood may depend and he recommends that this Clause should not be allowed in its present form."
The Federation of Street Traders' Union had not appreciated that the right of appeal to the magistrates was being withdrawn under the provisions of Clause 25. I do not subscribe to any allegation that they were deliberately misled by the promoters of the Bill, but the fact remains that the street traders did not appreciate that the right of appeal to a magistrate, which they regarded as important, was being withdrawn. As the Home Secretary reported in those terms, the Federation withdrew
1042
its support for Clause 25. The promoters of the Bill, the London County Council, then withdrew the Clause altogether and did not put forward any alternative. That is the reason for this Clause.
7.15 p.m.
In a limited way, the Clause attempts to meet the anomaly about which all are concerned. Its effect would be that the street trader in applying for a licence or a renewal of his licence would be enabled to place on the application form the name of a relative whom he wished to succeed him in the event of his death. When a licence holder died, the borough council would be required to hold open his site for ten days. For ten days the borough council would not be allowed to grant his licence to anybody else and during that time the relative would be able to apply for the licence.
This fairly closely follows the advice given in the Secretary of State's Report, in which he says:
"The Secretary of State understands there have been cases of hardship arising from the requirement that a licence must be issued to the first applicant. He understands that the widow of a licensed street trader was unable to obtain a licence to trade in the pitch previously allocated to her husband because another application for the licence was received by the council before hers. The Secretary of State suggests that the proper way of dealing with cases of this kind would be to amend Part IV of the Act of 1947 by the addition of a provision enabling the borough council on the death of a licensee to grant a licence to his widow or next of kin if application was made within a reasonable time of his death."
It is this that we have attempted to do, and the form of the new Clause follows fairly closely the agreement reached with the Metropolitan Boroughs Standing Joint Committee prior to the introduction of the Bill.
As I understand it, there are two main objections to the Clause. First, the promoters argue that the Standing Joint Committee has not had time to consider the Clause and that it should therefore be deferred to another year. The street traders do not feel that they would be wise to wait for another year. I feel that this is the right opportunity to carry through this rather minor reform. The Clause does no more than meet the point of the original proposal. It also seems difficult to understand why the borough councils have not had time to consider it, because it was submitted to the

1043
Parliamentary Agents of the promoters on 21st April.
Furthermore, up till a few days ago there has been no satisfactory assurance from the promoters or from the Standing Joint Committee that a serious attempt would be made to introduce reforms. The best that the street traders could get was a statement from the Parliamentary Agents of the L.C.C. to this effect:
"Consideration, if desired, can be given to the Clause in connection with possible future legislation."
It is true that during the last ten days a more forthcoming assurance has been received from the London County Council, but this does not get the street traders very much further. If a new Clause is to be introduced into the L.C.C. (General Powers) Bill next year, it must be agreed by July. This is the time table followed by the L.C.C. Moreover, there is inevitably a feeling, at a time when London's local government is being reorganised, that in a year or two's time there may be much more important matters to deal with.
All in all, therefore, I feel that this minor Amendment should be accepted. I hope that I carry the House with me in this.
Dr. Barnett Stross: The hon. Member has given one reason why there is objection. Is he now going to give a second?
Mr. Charaway: Yes.
Dr. Stross: I am sorry.
Mr. Chataway: The second objection is that the introduction of this new Clause on Report introduces an undesirable principle. I do not know whether that was the point that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) had in mind. It is argued that it would be wrong for the promoters to be forced to accept a Clause that they do not want. It is argued that in Committee it is the invariable practice that if a Clause is amended in such a way that the promoters are no longer satisfied with it they are able to withdraw it. It is argued that that is impossible on Report. It is also contended that the introduction of a new Clause on Report means that the promoters and other
1044
interests affected by the Bill have no opportunity of petitioning.
I do not claim to be an authority on these procedural matters, nor can I claim to look back over many years of Private Members' Bills, but I believe that those who object to the new Clause on this ground will cite the Bolton Corporation Bill of 1949 as an occasion when an attempt rather akin to this was thrown out by the House because it was felt undesirable that the promoters should have forced upon them on Report a Clause with which they were not satisfied. I suggest that that precedent deals with a very different case.
Without going into details, in its Bill of 1949 the Bolton Corporation sought authority to erect an hotel. Subsequently, brewers told the corporation that they wished to erect an hotel. The corporation was entirely happy with the suggestion and told the brewers that it would withdraw the Clause. In those circumstances the brewers did not petition against the Bill. It was against that background that, on Report, a Member nevertheless sought to recommit the Bill to the Committee with an Instruction that the original Clause be inserted.
In those circumstances, it was not surprising that the then Chairman of Ways and Means—Major Milner—had this to say:
"I should inform the House that there would not appear to be any precedent for Amendments proposed by an hon. Member of this House which would force powers upon art unwilling promoter in breach of an understanding given in good faith."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 4th May, 1949; Vol. 464, c. 1105.]
I suggest that there is no analogy between that case and this one. If there were such an analogy the Chairman of Ways and Means would presumably have seen fit to give advice to the House.
Dr. Stross: Does not the hon. Member agree that if the promoters wish to withdraw the Bill altogether this House ought not to have the power to prevent them? Surely, too, if they wish to withdraw a Clause the House should not prevent them. Is not the same principle involved here? The hon. Member is forcing upon the promoters a Clause the like of which they have already abandoned.
Mr. Chataway: In my view, it is the duty of the House of Commons to legislate as it sees fit. As I understand it, there are a number of precedents for forcing a promoter to accept a Clause that he would rather withdraw. I have not been able to carry out any extensive research into these instances, as I did not appreciate that this would be a major matter of consideration in the Bill, but I am aware of the London Midland and Scottish Act of 1935, where the promoters, who sought to rebuild Coventry station, were required to keep their Clause in the Bill although such conditions were imposed upon them that they would have preferred to withdraw it. It is certainly the case that a promoter can withdraw an entire Bill if he is dissatisfied with it. It is argued by some that a promoter should also have the right to withdraw a whole section if he is dissatisfied with its final shape, but I believe no one will contend that the promoter has the right to withdraw one Clause although there may be other Clauses dealing with the same subject. In this case Clause 25 is not the only Clause dealing with street traders. Clause 32 also deals with them and no application has been made by London County Council to withdraw Clause 32.
7.30 p.m.
Mr. Herbert Butler: If I understand the hon. Member's argument, he is proposing to introduce into this London County Council General Powers Bill an obligation on twenty-eight Metropolitan boroughs, and possibly the City Corporation, to do something which they do not want to do. Is the hon. Member suggesting that that should be within the province of this House?
Mr. Chataway: I certainly think that is within the province of this House. If this House requires Metropolitan borough councils, county councils, or any other councils to do anything, evidently the House has the power so to require. In this instance I am not pretending that my Clause would require borough councils to do something they did not wish to do. I believe that a number of them have not taken up sides on this issue. Very few have declared themselves on it.
I would not accept the suggestion that this is making a new imposition of any
1046
importance on the borough councils. That is not the case. At the moment borough councils are required to give a licence to the first corner subject to a number of very minor exceptions. This proposed Clause would limit them no further. The relative who may apply within ten days could be refused a licence on exactly the same terms as a licence can be refused at the moment to any applicant.
Mr. Eric Fletcher: Will the hon. Member explain why the position should he different in London from that in the rest of the country? If street traders have a grievance, is it not desirable that the general law of the land should be changed so that there should be uniformity throughout the country? Is not that more a matter for public Bill legislation than for private Bill legislation?
Mr. Chataway: I am in no position to speak about street traders throughout the country, but I understand that the granting of licences to street traders is governed by private legislation I believe that London street traders are more strictly regulated, because of the London County Council General Powers Act, 1947, than street traders in a number of other parts of the country. It is quite wrong to argue that the L.C.C. or the borough councils have not had the opportunity to petition. Any party which objected to the ideas incorporated in this Clause could have petitioned after the Home Secretary's report upon which the Clause is modelled.
I therefore hope that the House will see fit to support this new Clause. If it does not there may be a number of years before any action is taken. In London a large number of street traders suddenly find themselves threatened by the law as it stands. Wives of street traders who have worked with their husbands for many years and regarded the business as a joint property face the possibility that if their husbands were to die tomorrow complete outsiders might be first at the town hail. Then they would lose their livelihood. That is the issue.
Dr. Stross: I have listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Chataway), who put his case well and very moderately.

1047
The hon. Gentleman said that a question of principle is involved, which is that local authorities do not wish to see this new Clause imposed on them. Their declaration, I understand, is that in view of the past history of private legislation this would create a precedent. I do not wish to weary the House, but the Association of Municipal Corporations has made it very clear to some of us who are interested in that organisation that it would create an undesirable precedent because we are dealing not with public, but with private, legislation. All the precedents of the past have been against the imposition of a new Clause against the wishes of the promoters.
A predecessor of yours, Mr. Speaker, made observations on this matter in 1902, when he ruled that a Motion to recommit a Bill—the London United Electric Railway Bill—would be out of order on the ground that a Private Bill was the property of the promoters and that the House could not compel them to proceed with it against their wish. The reference is Erskine May, on page 993.
In a question, which the hon. Member answered most courteously, I put to him that what he is doing by attempting to force this new Clause on to the promoters does not differ in principle from forcing promoters to accept a Bill they wish to let go altogether and be rid of. When the hon. Member was replying to me I think that he said that the House has frequently forced conditions in a particular Clause and added to a Clause when it has been dealt with in Committee. Although the promoters did not want those conditions they were compelled to accept them. That is perfectly true, but if the promoters declare that they would do without the Clause entirely, as I read it, they would not have to accept the conditions when an attempt was made to impose them.
Mr. Chataway: I have had time now to glance at a note about the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Act, 1935. It was then the case that the railway company attempted to withdraw a Clause. The Committee decided that the Clause should be retained. That Clause became Section 4 of the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Act, 1935.
Dr. Stross: There may be some point in that. The case I quoted from 1902 was quite clear and Mr. Speaker of that time ruled very definitely on the matter. I assure the hon. Member that London County Council is now raising objections against having to adopt this Clause on the whole question of principle and not on any detail.
Sir Barnett Janner: Unfortunately, my lips are rather sealed, because I happen to have acted in this matter and advised the people who are producing this new Clause. Having declared that fact, I want my hon. Friend to realise that, if I may say so with respect, he is talking entirely wrongly. I, too, am associated with the Association of Municipal Corporations. What principle is involved if there is an injustice which ought to be put right? Is there a principle that we must not use a procedure which is open to the House to put it right? That is the question.
Dr. Stross: I am discussing the whole of the principle. Now my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner) says that the principle involved here is a matter of justice or injustice and that he has advised one of the parties in the matter. The Law Committee of the Association of Municipal Corporations has also looked at this matter very carefully. I am not a lawyer and my experience in medicine does not entitle me to quarrel with either my hon. Friend or with the Law Committee of that Association. Nor am I able to say which of them can give an opinion with the greater weight.
I have known my hon. Friend longer than I have known the Association and its Law Committee and, therefore, naturally, I am affectionately involved with my hon. Friend. Outside this Chamber I have no doubt that I shall have something else to say to him on this matter. I have pointed out, however, that the Association is rather nervous about the effect of this proposal on private Measures in future. The Association may be wrong in its fears, but it is my duty to express them as I have been asked to do.
Mr. Richard Marsh: It is impossible for us to have in mind all the precedents on this subject, but if it were shown to my hon. Friend that there was no strength in his case that this

1049
constitutes a new precedent would his main objection to the proposed Clause vanish?
Dr. Stross: I believe that it would, but it may well be that the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department will have taken advice on this matter and will give us his views. The highest advice on a matter of this kind, I should have thought, was Mr. Speaker's, if he would wish to advise us on the best way in which the House should be guided. But I have given the point of view which I have been asked to express. I have tried to do so as best I could and I shall listen with great interest to what is said further on the point.
Mr. Marsh: This is an important debate and the two parts of the argument have been very ably put forward by the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Chataway). The first of the arguments is on the merits of the proposed Clause. There is great weight in the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner) that if an injustice is being perpetrated as a result of legislation the House has it within its power to right that injustice. In that event, I should have thought that the House would want to take any steps it possibly could to right the position.
One of the most interesting things is that there has been little argument about the merits of the proposed Clause. Most people believe that factors a rose which were unexpected and people now wish that there were slightly different methods of dealing with this problem.
Dr. Stross: If I may be allowed to intervene, in order to have it on the record I should like to quote one sentence from the paper I have in my hand. It reads:
"This new Clause is not acceptable by the Metropolitan Boroughs Standing Joint Committee as they are not prepared to deal with the problems which confront them in the manner provided in it."
Therefore, there is another point.
Mr. Marsh: Again, with respect, that is not an argument about the treatment of the people who are involved in this Clause. The fact that the London County Council may find it inconvenient or may wish that the problem were dealt
1050
with in some other way is one thing, but there is, first, the basic point whether the present procedure is satisfactory or not. I should have thought that there was a wide measure of agreement, as a result of the recent legal actions, that it is inadequate and unsatisfactory at present.
The first point is the position of the people involved, the street traders themselves. I will answer that briefly, because, clearly, it is not a big issue in this debate. To these people the site of the place where one places the barrow is of more value than the barrow itself. It is a good will, built up over a long period of time, and if a man cannot leave to his next-of-kin the ability to trade on that site, all he can leave is a barrow which is worth very little. Enormous hardship is imposed on these people when parents die and they are left with nothing because somebody else gets in first and the local authority is bound to give that person the site.
7.45 p.m.
Mr. H. Butler: I should like to know the authority upon which my hon. Friend bases the statement that a local authority granting licences to trade in the street markets has to apply the "first come, first served" principle and ignore any claims of relatives to take up the stall which the deceased trader had occupied. My experience is that consideration is always given to the relatives of those who have been trading. I should like my hon. Friend to give the authority whereby local authorities have to ignore that consideration.
Mr. Marsh: The whole point and the whole authority which has given rise to this Clause is the specific case of Schneider v. Stepney Borough Council.
Mr. Butler: How many?
Mr. Marsh: Do we judge injustice by the quantity? This seems an extraordinary doctrine whereby Parliament should decide whether a thing is just or unjust.
Mr. Chataway: Subsequent to the case of Stepney Borough Council v. Schneider it is obligatory on borough councils to give the Licence to the first corner. They are not in a position to consider whether or not the applicant is a relative.
Mr. Michael Cliffe: It seems to me that all sorts of statements are being made which are strictly not in accord with what local authorities do. The number of stalls selling each commodity is laid down and even if a man has been for years on the list of applicants it does not follow that when there is a vacancy he is considered. The schedule of stalls selling the commodity which he wishes to sell might be full. There is a discretionary power to the local authority to take the name at the top of the list of those wishing to sell the commodity which the previous occupant of the stall sold.
Mr. Marsh: I do not want to pursue this matter too far. This is a question of fact and presumably we shall have an intervention from the representative of the Home Office in due course and with customary skill he will be able to make the matter crystal clear to us. I am not a lawyer. I am not boasting, but that is my only claim to having led a decent life.
I understand that the whole of this controversy arises out of a specific case in which there was personal hardship to certain people. The intention of the promoters of the new Clause is to prevent that situation arising in future. As far as I know, there is no argument at all that what happened in the Schneider case was regretted and unforeseen, and most people would like to have at some stage a change in the law to provide that it cannot happen again. A curious feature of the matter is this. I should have expected petitions to be presented on these lines at an earlier stage, but this has not been done.
I do not want to labour the point, because there is not very much between everyone involved in this issue at this stage. In my view, it is right that security should be given to the dependants and near relatives of a street trader in the continuation of the family business. This is what we seek to establish. If it is argued that this is not the way to do it or that it cannot be done in this way, let us hear the argument. No such argument has, to my knowledge, yet been satisfactorily or clearly advanced.
1052
The second question, which is the one which has aroused most of the feeling, is whether or not this House has a right to impose upon the promoters of a private Bill a Clause which they themselves do not like and may violently oppose. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) has said that what is proposed here would involve a new principle or new precedent. In the first place, I think that Parliament ought not to be very worried about introducing new precedents. We can do with quite a number of them. My hon. Friend said that he found this an undesirable precedent. I understand that there is already a precedent for this procedure. It occurred in 1935. As a result of a petition by the Coventry Corporation, the promoters of a Bill then were left with a Clause which they did not want, but which subsequently became Section 4 of the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Act, 1935.
Mr. H. Butler: Was what was done then right?
Mr. Marsh: We cannot have it both ways. We cannot start by saying we should not introduce a new precedent and then, when a previous precedent is produced, say, "Yes, but we do not want to continue precedents which we find inconvenient". One can have it one way or the other but, in all decency, one cannot have it both ways at the same time. If there is a precedent in 1935 for the procedure suggested here, then the argument based on precedent goes. This is not, in fact, creating a new precedent.
Is it desirable that Parliament should do what is proposed here? Clearly, everyone, whatever his interest, wants his rights to be protected as much as possible but, subject to constitutional convention—and if the precedent is already established there is no constitutional convention to break—the supremacy of Parliament in doing what it will must be defended. One cannot accept that, because the London County Council objects to Parliament doing something which the London County Council find unpleasant or inconvenient, Parliament, if convinced that a change is desirable, has no right to make it. Any hon. Member may object, but whether other

1053
people like it or not is neither here nor there. For about 900 years Parliament has had the final say in these matters, and I hope that it will go on in that way for the next 900 years. It has worked very well so far. Perhaps that is not a very radical reason for supporting an argument, but I hope that it carries some weight.
I submit that what is suggested here does not introduce a new precedent, because there is already ample precedent for the promoters of a Private Bill being forced to accept something which they dislike. Secondly, even if the promoters of a Private Bill themselves wish to withdraw a Clause, having come to the conclusion that it no longer suits their interests and they no longer wish to be associated with it, they can withdraw it even then only by permission of the Committee. They have no right to carve up a Bill. They can withdraw the Bill in toto if they wish, but, while the Bill is in Committee, they can withdraw parts of it only with the permission of the Committee. There is, I suggest, ample precedent for the promoters of a private Bill being forced to accept provisions which they find undesirable.
Dr. Stross: Does my hon. Friend recall the Wallasey Corporation Bill in 1947? In that case, the promoters were given leave to withdraw a Clause in an omnibus Bill after the Clause had been amended by the Committee, in spite of the fact that the withdrawal was opposed by the petitioners against the Bill and the withdrawal was, apparently, against the inclination of the Committee which, nevertheless, felt unable to refuse?
Mr. Marsh: What my hon. Friend says supports my point. The petitioners can put forward their case and can object to the withdrawal of a Clause, and, if the Committee withholds its permission for the withdrawal of any Clause, the Committee carries the day. Parliament makes the decision. A private Bill or any other Bill is the property of Parliament while it is before Parliament, not the property of the promoters. Anything else would be a novel and very dangerous constitutional doctrine.
The arguments I put are these. First, I suggest that the merits of the case are generally accepted. If there is injus-
1054
tice, as I understand is generally accepted——
Mr. H. Butler: Generally accepted by whom?
Mr. Marsh: Presumably, by those who have known about the proposed Clause for some time, have known about the Home Office recommendation, and have made no objection. One is entitled to assume that people who disagree violently with something while a Bill is in progress through the House will state their objections before Amendments are discussed on Report.
If, in fact, there is injustice—it is certainly very arguable that there is, even if it is not yet accepted by everyone—and if it is within our power to remedy the injustice, we should do so. I submit that what is proposed here creates no new precedent. The precedent in 1935 disposes of the argument about precedent in this case.
Thirdly, if it is argued that the rights of Parliament are circumscribed in relation to a Bill before it, as this Bill is, because there are people outside Parliament who have a prior interest in the Bill, then I strongly submit that that is a highly dangerous doctrine that it would be most dangerous to entertain.
Dr. Alan Glyn: For once, I find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh). The matter is really quite simple. It arises out of the very unfortunate legal decision in Stepney Borough Council v. Schnieder. All we seek to do by the new Clause is to rectify what I had assumed most people regarded as a very great wrong done to, admittedly, a minority of people. A street trader's business is very often run by the family, by the father, the son and the mother, with sometimes a close relative also taking part. It might be difficult to employ other people to run these businesses. They are extremely individual concerns more suitably run by families.
The proposed new Clause seeks to put right an obvious injustice. While I agree that it affects a minority of people and that certain interests in the councils do not want to see it adopted, that is no reason why we in Parliament should give up our right to be paramount on this

1055
issue. After all, Parliament is paramount and if we think that this is going to cause inconvenience, difficulty and hardship to certain local authorities I do not see that that is any reason why we should not agree to accept the Clause and bring justice to a small section of the community who, by virtue of an unfortunate legal decision—and that is all it was—should suffer this injustice.
8.0 p.m.
Mrs. Freda Corbet: I speak tonight on behalf of the L.C.C., which is promoting the Bill, and it does so partly in respect of the council's needs and partly in respect of the needs of others.
The original Clause in the Bill was promoted to suit not only the needs of the metropolitan borough councils but also those of the street traders. It was proceeded with entirely on the understanding that there was complete agreement between all the parties concerned. Had there not been that agreement the original Clause would not have been in the Bill and the House would probably not have considered it proper to have inserted one along the same lines. The precedents would appear to bear that out.
But whether or not precedent declares that the House cannot accept the proposed new Clause is somewhat immaterial. The main point surely is whether the House should make the change proposed by the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Chataway). In any case, the precedents would appear to be doubtful. The case quoted by the hon. Member for Lewisham, North does not alter the position and the attention of the House should be called to the fact that the Select Committee, after examining the original Clause, decided on its retention.
The proposed new Clause, on the other hand, has had no examination. it was not possible for a petition to be put against it, since the last date for petitions was 30th January. The Secretary of State's Report appeared on 12th March so that it has been impossible for the situation to be examined in detail by the Select Committee. If the proposed new Clause were inserted it would mean that that had been done without any serious consideration having been given to it by
1056
the Select Committee and without hon. Members knowing whether it would stand up to thorough investigation.
It has been said that not much attention has been given to the merits of the Clause as originally drafted. I would make it clear that the Metropolitan borough councils, on whose behalf the L.C.C. is operating, and the street traders were in complete agreement about the injustices suffered by the relatives of street traders and were anxious to cure them. At the same time, the Standing Joint Committee of the Metropolitan borough councils felt that the whole situation was unsatisfactory and that if it was to promote a Clause at all the whole problem would have to be cleared up in one go. The Metropolitan borough councils thought, first and foremost, that the position was unsatisfactory if the law insisted on them being nothing more than rubber stamps. They did not want that to happen. They did not want their position regarding the allocation of pitches to be different from that concerning the letting of shops on housing estates. They wanted complete discretion to allocate pitches in the interests of all concerned.
When the matter was debated in February great stress was placed on the amount of so-called fiddling that took place in the sale of pitches. The hon. Member for Lewisham, North strongly objected to that practice and he should realise that his proposed new Clause would not deal with that problem. The borough councils are anxious to deal with it and have given an undertaking that the position of the dependants of deceased traders will be properly considered. The view of the councils on this matter has been explained on numerous occasions and there should not now be any misunderstanding about their attitude.
As I have said, the whole thing was done on a basis of agreement. It was following the earlier debate in the House and the Secretary of State's decision that it was not desirable to give complete discretion to the borough councils that the street traders objected to the original Clause. It would appear that they objected to the fact that a certain limited right of appeal would be foregone. In other words, regarding the allocation of new pitches, there would be no right of

1057
appeal to the magistrates. This is something on which the borough councils have strong feelings. They spend many hours carefully selecting the right applicant only to be over-ruled by a magistrate who has before him only two persons—the grantee of the licence and the aggrieved applicant—whereas the borough council probably has a large number of applicants from whom to select one.
It is for these reasons that the borough councils object to the proposed new Clause which would deal only with the hardship of the deceased's dependants and not with the whole situation. It is essential to clear up all the problems including those involved by redevelopment—and this was gone into in great detail by my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) on a previous occasion—in one fell swoop. There are other problems, too, such as the provision of better positions for existing street traders so that might have better pitches.
Mr. Chataway: I entirely agree that the proposed new Clause is not sufficient and that further reforms would be necessary. Is that a reason for throwing out a small reform; because it is not a large one? Is there anything wrong with this small one?
Mrs. Corbet: The Metropolitan Boroughs Standing Joint Committee is not sure if a change in the law would ever come about if the proposed new Clause went through. The Committee has offered to give an undertaking that it will immediately pursue arrangements by which a new Clause could, by agreement, go into next year's Bill. The hon. Member for Lewisham, North gave the House to understand that it would not be possible because of the date, July, by which the L.C.C. would have to consider the terms of such a new Clause. To some extent he is right, but it is possible to suspend the Standing Orders of the L.C.C. That is frequently done and would be a satisfactory way of overcoming this difficulty if the terms could be agreed by October. The Metropolitan borough councils are very anxious that the matter should be settled properly. I appeal to the House to accept not the new Clause but the undertaking given by the bodies concerned that they
1058
will endeavour to get agreed legislation promoted at the next opportunity.
While I have not overstressed the precedent, some of us feel that it is very unfortunate that a promoter should have legislation to which he is opposed forced upon him.
In this case the Metropolitan borough councils, although they wanted legislation, received representations from the street traders before they embarked on it, and they did this at the instance of the street traders. Surely it is reasonable to apprehend that if anyone who wishes to promote legislation has reason to believe that, by doing so, he will have forced on him legislation of a kind which he does not feel he can accept he will be rather laggard in undertaking legislation. The House would be wise to keep to the principle that, if promoters desire legislation and then find that it is not possible to have it more or less as they require it, the option to decide Whether they should proceed with it should be left with them.
Mr. H. Butler: I wish to deal first with the very important point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross). If the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Chataway) feels that the Government should have power to instruct the Metropolitan boroughs on how they should operate street markets, surely the Government should introduce legislation to that effect. The L.C.C. has put forward a general powers Bill embodying all sorts of things, including a request from the street traders to take certain decisions arising out of a court decision. The L.C.C. decided to put Clause 25 in the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Stepney (Mr. W. Edwards) made a powerful case with which I entirely disagreed, but nevertheless it was reasonable and it stood up to examination. However, eventually he agreed to withdraw his opposition to the Clause in order that it should be re-examined.
What happened? As I understand it, one of my hon. Friends said that he legally advised the street traders in this matter. If so, and if they were wrong, I do not complain.
Mr. Chataway: In fairness to the hon. Member concerned, the hon. Gentleman is referring to a previous occasion.
Mr. Butler: Then I must have misunderstood my hon. Friend's intervention, but, as I understand it, the street traders were advised and proceeded on certain lines.
8.15 p.m.
In the previous debate, I said that if I were given the job of examining applications for street trading licences—and I was a member of the local authority far nearly forty years—I should feel that I was competent to decide the people who should get them, having regard to the number of people who sold bananas, nylon stockings and even linoleum and having regard to the public requirements. I thought that to allow a Metropolitan magistrate to decide such a matter was entirely wrong. If I were a member of a local authority and if that were the law, I should have said to the Government, which I believe many Metropolitan borough councils did, "If you regard me as a rubber stamp, then you get on with the job".
We have a very big market in Ridley Road in my constituency, and I pay tribute to the people who stand out in all weathers selling all sorts of goods. My hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) on a previous occasion did not say that they were altruistic. They like to make a profit, like everyone else, but they lead a hard life. However, someone must regulate the situation.
The new Clause says that when a street trader dies the pitch must automatically be transferred to his relatives, even if they are illegitimate. Hon. Members must learn the facts of life. Street trading is not confined to families who live in a particular area. Street traders travel from London to Southend, Wick-ford, Billericay and Romford. It is fantasy to believe that old-established families stay in one market all the time. How do hon. Members think that Petticoat Lane, Middlesex Street, is made up?
Street trading is a legitimate form of trading which adds colour to London's life, but it is wrong to believe that the wife of a street trader who has died is scared about getting a living. Many traders have to stop trading because they are sick. This new Clause does not deal with them. Sometimes a man cannot put his stall out and do business because
1060
he has contracted a disease, and the local authority must decide what should be done in his case. This new Clause does not deal with such a man. He may be away from his stall for three or four months, and the street markets committee must decide what should be done with his pitch.
If hon. Members assume that ordinary people who live in the area concerned do not know the difficulties which arise when a street trader dies, then they are living in a world of fantasy which has no relation to fact. Members of the street market committees know the people with whom they are concerned. They know the people who occupy the stalls.
Mr. Chataway Mr. Chataway indicated dissent.
Mr. Butler: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. At eleven o'clock this morning, after I had been sitting on the bench, I consulted the town clerk in my area about whether the committee considered passing the licence of a deceased person on to the relatives of the deceased.
Mr. Chataway: What does the hon. Gentleman think that the decision in the Schneider v. Stepney Borough Council case meant if it did not mean that the "first come, first served" rule does not apply?
Mr. Butler: I am privileged in this House, and I think that the man who made the decision in that case did not know what he was talking about.
Mr. Marsh: Assuming for the sake of argument that what my hon. Friend says is correct, has not the decision of the magistrate in that case, however ill-advised, had the practical effect of deciding the situation?
Mr. Butler: I have no aspirations to be on the Front Bench, but if I am not very careful I shall get a reputation for loquacity. I do not want that. The House will remember that my hon. Friend the Member for Stepney took a certain view about this matter, and I do not want to put into his mouth again the views which he then took. The decision in the Schneider case laid down a certain course of action, and all I am saying is that if both hon. Gentlemen examine what goes on in the 28 Metropolitan boroughs they will find that the

1061
Schneider decision has not influenced the Committees in any way.
Mr. Fletcher: Am I not right in thinking that the decision in the Schneider case was the decision of a Divisional Court and that therefore it is the law of the land and binding on all local authorities and magistrates? It is because we all agree with the hon. Member that the decision is unfortunate and regrettable that we want the law of the land changed.
Mr. Butler: I should get into real trouble if I were to start arguing with lawyers. All I am saying is that, in regard to the local authority with which I have been connected for a considerable number of years—and I have been connected with the Metropolitan Boroughs Standing Joint Committee for a number of years—and as far as my own experience tells me, together with the knowledge which I have gained only today, the Metropolitan boroughs themselves are not in the position with regard to this matter which apparently the hon. Gentlemen who are supporting this Clause seem to think. Therefore, I hope that the two hon. Members will not press this matter to a Division.
I am sure that a very important Bill like this London County Council Bill, which involves so many important items, should not be delayed upon a matter which can be dealt with by the Metropolitan borough councils themselves, without getting involved in this controversy. I would also include the hon. Member for Clapham (Dr. A. Glyn), who comes here on Fridays to make contributions to various subjects, but who, in this case, does not know anything about the subject at all. I hope he will not try to impress this House with the story of this terrible widow or somebody who diedx2014;—
Dr. Glyn: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that today is Tuesday and not Friday?
Mr. Butler: That is why I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is here.
I hope that my hon. Friend will not press this Clause but will let the Bill proceed to do the job which we think it ought to do.
Mr. Fletcher: Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. H. Butler), I hope that those who put down this Motion will press it to a Division. It seems to me to be essentially a matter on which this House should express an opinion, whichever way the vote may go. I think it raises a very interesting and very important constitutional question, and a vital question of Parliamentary procedure, on which the House should come to a conclusion.
I listened with great care to the speeches of both my hon. Friends—the hon. Lady the Member for Peckham (Mrs. Corbet) and the hon. Member for Hackney, Central, and I think that it is important to keep the salient facts in the issue clearly before us. Whatever we may think of the decision in the Schneider case, surely it cannot be the fact, as one hon. Member said, that local authorities and magistrates will ignore it.
It may well be that the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Chataway) knows much more than a great many of us about what the practice of issuing of licences has been in the past, but the serious matter that has arisen is that, by the decision of the Divisional Court in the Schneider case, local authorities are no longer entitled to go on doing what they have been doing, quite sensibly, no doubt, but in future must act upon the principle of "first come, first served". Therefore, they no longer have any freedom——
Mr. H. Butler: When my hon. Friend says "first come, first served" what does he mean? Does he mean that somebody walks in to the town hall at ten minutes past nine and says, "I am first"? Is that what my hon. Friend means? If so, it would not be much use, because there is no one there until half-past nine.
Mr. Fletcher: That may well go to show the absurdity of the situation. Because hon. Members who put down this Motion are so impressed with the absurdity of the situation they want it changed. In a sense, as the hon. Member said, it is only a minor change and deals with one aspect of the whole subject of the granting of licences for street trading.

1063
The burden of the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central, who put the views of the London County Council and the Metropolitan Boroughs Standing Joint Committee, was that, ideally, there should be some other Clause and that this Clause does not deal with the whole problem. If there were plenty of time, we could have further consultations and draw up a code for the benefit of the metropolitan boroughs stating how street trading licences should be granted in the future. That might be a sensible thing to say, but I do not consider it a valid argument for opposing this Clause, the whole purpose of which is to correct, either temporarily or permanently, what, in the Schneider case, has been revealed as a patent injustice.
There is nothing whatever to prevent the London County Council, or the Government, from passing further legislation in the future. I cannot believe that the acceptance today of this Clause and its inclusion in the London County Council (General Powers) Bill will in any way inhibit the Council from introducing a wider measure in a General Powers Bill next year to deal with the whole subject, or prevent the Government, if they desire to do so, from legislating through the Home Office, with regard to street trading in the country. I still do not understand why there should be one law on this matter for London and, presumably, a different law for other parts of the country. On that aspect, on the merits of the case, I am wholeheartedly in favour of the Clause. It seems to me that all the arguments on merit lead in that direction.
As was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) there is an equally vital issue regarding precedent and principle. We should be clear about this. It is one thing to talk about precedent and another to talk about principle. I also have had communications from the Association of Municipal Corporations, of which I am a vice-president, and to whose representations I always listen with respect. But on the issue of precedent it was suggested by one of my hon. Friends that this is a matter with which Parliament could not deal. But surely that argument must be resisted at the outset.
1064
If this Clause were not in order, we should not be having this debate. Therefore, there can be no doubt about the matter. It seems a platitude to say that this House is competent to insist, if it wishes, on this Clause being inserted in the Bill. That is the case, as my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh) observed, whether there are precedents or not.
Now let us come to the question of principle. This is a very important matter and it ought to be fully analysed. It is said that if a Bill is promoted this House ought not, as a matter of principle, to insert in it some Clause to which the promoters object. But I cannot accept that doctrine for a moment. Were it accepted, or even thought to be accepted, it would undermine completely the sovereign authority of Parliament. Let us remind the London County Council, and all municipal authorities, that they are the creatures of Parliament.
8.30 p.m.
They are subordinate bodies which very often have duties thrust on them whether they like it or not. They can be abolished by this House. In fact, some of them are to be abolished whether they like it or not. Their powers and duties can be changed by this House. It is, therefore, not for any local authority—not even the London County Council, and certainly not the metropolitan borough councils—to have the final say as to what it wants to do or what should be the law of the land. That is the duty of this House, and it is one of the functions of this House to cure injustices.
Mr. H. Butler: Does my hon. Friend consider that a Private Bill, or a Bill promoted by the London County Council, should be the measure by which further powers should be either taken away from, or forced upon, the Metropolitan boroughs?
Mr. Fletcher: I will deal with that point, because it is important. It is important to observe this. In some respects Private Bills promoted by local authorities stand in a different category from Private Bills promoted by other persons or undertakers or individuals, and this distinction should be borne in mind.

1065
It may well be the case that in respect of certain Private Bill promoted for some purely minor local interest it would be unreasonable—and Parliament would not dream of doing it—to insert in a Bill something contrary to what the promoters wanted, and, of course, in that case the promoters would have their remedy because they could withdraw the Bill.
The position of local authorities, and particularly the London County Council is slightly different. It is not quite true to say of them that they need not promote a Bill, and that they can withdraw a Bill, because experience shows that if the London County Council is to carry out responsibly the statutory functions imposed on it by Parliament it has, as a matter of course year by year to ask Parliament to give it certain additional powers to do various additional things which have arisen as a result of experience over the years.
Therefore, it is right to observe that one cannot, in fairness, say to the London County Council, "If you do not like this new Clause"—which I hope Parliament will insist on being inserted in the Bill—"you can withdraw the Bill", because the County Council might then sensibly say that to do that would be acting irresponsibly and would be depriving it, and through it the people of London, of certain powers given in other Clauses of the Bill which are for the general interest.
But that does not conclude the matter. The fact that the London County Council has not that right, which other promoters might have, of withdrawing the Bill, does not conclude the matter. That is no reason why Parliament should not insist, if it wants to, on inserting a Clause to cure injustices, and for this reason. Local authorities promote Bills which they think are in the interests of the public. Parliament revises, amends, considers and either approves or disapproves those Bills because Parliament has the final say as to whether those Clauses are requisite for the protection of the public or not.
Parliament also has the right to say to any local authority—and amendments have been moved to the City Corporation Bills to this effect—" Parliament will not give you the powers which you are seeking in your General Powers Bill
1066
unless you also take steps to do things which Parliament thinks you ought to do for the protection of the public in other respects, including such respects as curing an obvious injustice".
That seems to me the issue of principle, that Parliament must assert its right in a General Powers Bill promoted by a local authority to insist on a Clause being inserted if Parliament thinks it is necessary to insert it to cure an injustice. This seems to me additionally important in a sphere in which the promoters of the Bill have themselves, in their original Bill, recognised that this is a branch of the law which requires some amendment.
It may well be that this year they could not get the agreement which ideally they would have liked, and they may be able to get it next year let us hope that they will—but that cannot be a reason for their asking Parliament to resist this minor, modest Measure which we think is urgently necessary to remove an admitted injustice which has been revealed by a decision of the Divisional Court. I therefore hope that the House will support the new Clause.
Mr. Walter Edwards: I made my position clear during the Second Reading debate in February on the London County Council (General Powers) Bill, but I want to correct some of the statements made by hon. Gentlemen opposite about the case of the Stepney Borough Council v. Schneider. I think that those who have listened to the debate will have got the impression that what was being asked for today was something which was being done in the 28 Metropolitan boroughs before the Divisional Court gave its decision in the case to which I have just referred. This is not so. This is something which is brand new in street trading legislation. If there had been no Stepney Borough Council case, the relatives of street traders would be in the same position as they were before this decision was taken.
Let me repeat what I said during the Second Reading debate. The Stepney Borough Council dealt with this problem by withholding the granting of a new licence once it knew that the street trader had passed away. I want to make it clear that this is something new.
Mr. Marsh: Is not my hon. Friend saying that the Stepney Borough Council case revealed a facet of the law not known before and that the local authorities are now able to get round the law by this device?
Mr. Edwards: I do not want to repeat my Second Reading speech, when I referred to this. Not all the boroughs were involved, but the Metropolitan boroughs had the impression that they had to go through a list, sometimes of 100 or 200 people. In many cases there were 40 or 50 people from Petticoat Lane. Occasionally one found that the aggrieved applicant would go to the police court and that the magistrate would decide that a wrong decision had been taken and that it should have been made in favour of the applicant. Stepney did not like the idea of traders being able to go to the magistrates' court and to obtain a decision contrary to that of the borough council. Because they wanted the law clear, the matter was taken to the Divisional Court. But that decision took nothing away. We have applied the Divisional Court ruling in Stepney. I am sure that the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Chataway) has had no case from Stepney in which the relatives of the deceased trader have been den6ed the licence.
Mr. Chataway: But would many people say that this is because the Stepney Borough Council is behaving illegally? I am glad that they are, but they are ignoring this Schneider case.
Mr. Edwards: Stepney Borough Council is not behaving illegally. This judgment does not mean that the applicant who puts in his application at 9.5 a.m. or 9.35 a.m. must be successful. The Stepney Borough Council has decided—and I think that it is within the law in so deciding—that the pitch is not vacant until the Council declares it vacant.
A pitch is not vacant until the Stepney Borough Council declares it vacant. After all, the council is responsible for the upkeep of the street and is entitled to rights in regard to the letting of market pitches. Once the Stepney Borough Council declares a pitch vacant, however, the council can offer it to the relative of the deceased trader.
1068
That is how we have overcome the situation. I do not think that we are breaking the law. We are not using any device. No law states that a local authority must meet on a day when a pitch becomes vacant and decide that day who is to have it. It is necessary to wait until such time as the appropriate committee is able to meet and the officials of the council have been able to send out to members of the council all the details in connection with these cases.
The hon. Member for Lewisham, North is asking for something completely different which has no connection whatever with the Stepney Borough Council and the Schneider case. I have every sympathy with genuine street traders' relatives who are dependent upon having the pitch, but I must not say too much because I feel that some of them are not really genuine. The vast majority may be. Nevertheless, I have the greatest sympathy and I am pleased that there is no complaint against the Stepney Borough Council since the Divisional Court ruling with regard to the granting of licences to these persons.
The hon. Member for Lewisham, North must have undertaken a lot of research with my hon. Friend who is dealing with the case legally. We can rest assured that my hon. Friend would know of every case which existed, but there have been only four since the Divisional Court ruling.
I wonder whether there really is the great injustice which has been mentioned and whether some hon. Members appreciate that it is necessary to have people serving on local authorities. It is all very nice to get up in this House and to say that Parliament is paramount and can tell the local authorities what to do, but how would the country carry on but for the people who serve on local authorities?
8.45 p.m.
Parliament itself could not run it, and if Parliament, by legislation of this description, which forces upon a responsible authority Clauses which it does not consider desirable at this moment, Parliament will not stand in a very good position in the general picture of our democratic institution. I have served on a local authority for a long time. If I am to be told by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher)

1069
exactly what I have to do when I belong to a council, he can go on it instead of me.
Mr. Fletcher: Is my hon. Friend suggesting that Parliament should never impose any duties on local authorities unless they are first accepted by local authorities?
Mr. Edwards: I am not suggesting anything of the sort. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. H. Butler), I do not belong to the legal profession and I am not going to answer legal questions. All I say, quite plainly, is that I am sure that most people who serve on local authorities feel that Parliament should interfere with them only if it is found that they are lacking in their duty. There is no such lacking in duty on the part of the London County Council. The London County Council brought a proposal forward at the request of the Street Traders' Union, but the street traders afterwards said that they did not want what was proposed but wanted a new Clause.
Is Parliament to act in that way with all local authority general powers Bills? If so, what is the good of bringing them forward? Hon. Members have a right to say that they do not want a certain Clause, but if Parliament is to mess about with local authority general powers Bills in the way that the hon. Member for Lewisham, North is trying to do, it will be very difficult for local authorities to carry out their job properly.
The hon. Member has overstated his case. There is very little suffering. All that is required is a little common sense on the part of local authorities with regard to the administration of their markets committees, and then hardly anybody would suffer. But here we have a fundamental issue. If Parliament is to tell London County Council, Manchester City Council and Liverpool City Council that they must administer their markets committees in the way Parliament wants, where will it end? Will Parliament next say "You must carry out your housing allocations as we want you to"? Parliament has not told the London County Council that Mr. A. or Mr. B. must be given accommodation.
Mr. Fletcher: Parliament has given the relatives of deceased tenants certain
1070
rights which are binding on all local authorities.
Mr. Edwards: Parliament has done that to a certain extent, but there is an end to that situation. There is no end to this one. The provision in this case is not confined to close relatives—widow, daughter or son. It goes on for ever. Once the pitch is let, on reallocation as a result of a death in a family, the local authority has no more control over it. Must local authorities work under these conditions? It is hard enough now to get good people to give up their time to serve on local authorities. But if this is the way in which members of the London County Council are to be treated, I fear that the quality of its membership will suffer as a result.
It is for these reasons that I feel that the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Mrs. Corbet) should be met. The hon. Member for Lewisham, North mentioned four cases in two years. I wonder how many cases of this so-called grave injustice will happen in the next six months. Could this matter not be dealt with as it was last year? Then, the London County Council met the street traders and the Standing Joint Committee and all those interested. It would be far better to accept the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham that the matter should be reconsidered so that the Council, in its general powers Bill next year, could come forward with something acceptable to all the local authorities.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke): We have enjoyed the debate, particularly the defence made by the hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. W. Edwards) of his local authority. He gave an interesting description of the benevolent interpretation of the Schneider case that is adopted in Stepney. Nevertheless, I think that he would agree that maybe some of the other metropolitan boroughs do not adopt such a benevolent construction, and, also, that there is, at the very least, some confusion and vagueness about the rights and duties of the metropolitan boroughs in this matter since the Schneider decision.
It seems, from the careful, moderate and persuasive speech of my hon. Friend

1071
the Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Chataway) that in some boroughs, at any rate, the view that he who gets to the town hall first gets the pitch is the one that is adopted, and that the ability to sprint—not merely the ability to run a mile or three miles—is an essential if one is to get hold of one of these sites, which are extremely valuable, as the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh) showed.
It is obviously an unsatisfactory position, as we indicated, and, indeed, as the London County Council has very fairly indicated in its statement which we have all had. I think that, on the merits, the general consensus of the debate must be to support what the L.C.C. says about the effect of the Schneider decision. It says that the decision led to an undesirable position whereby traders intending to give up pitches could obtain substantial sums of money for telling would be licensees the exact time when they would be notifying the Metropolitan borough council of their intention.
One can imagine all sorts of dodges which this decision might lead to. Certainly, the hon. Lady, who speaks with such authority for the L.C.C., never for one moment attempted to defend the consequences of the Schneider decision and the injustice which will continue from day-to-day so long as the decision remains. We have to bear that in mind when we are urged to let this run for another year, because it would mean that during the course of the year, or whatever the period may be, at least in many boroughs that take a rather more rigid view of the Schneider position than perhaps Stepney does, this injustice might continue and that the families of deceased traders would be denied the goodwill of a very valuable site.
Having said that, I will attempt to summarise the view which has been put best by the hon. Lady against accepting this new Clause put forward by my hon. Friend. It is said that precedents are against imposing upon the promoters something which they do not want in the case of Private Bills. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) invited me, as speaking on behalf of the Home Office, to give the House some guidance on this question. I cannot accept that flattering invitation. The procedure of the House in these matters
1072
is not really within the office of the Home Office. The Home Office is, of course, a mighty mother, but it is not quite as mighty as that. The procedure of the House is really in the charge of this House and this House alone. In so far as there are precedents, that must be a matter for you, Mr. Speaker, rather than the Home Secretary.
All that I can say about it is that we certainly accede to the view that there is a strong tendency, to put it no higher, against imposing on the promoters of Private Bills Clauses and conditions to which they strongly object. Therefore, it is a very difficult balance that the House must decide tonight, and it is one which it would not be proper, in view of this difficult and delicate balance, for anyone speaking at this Box to attempt to dictate. If the merits of the case were in dispute, that is to say, if the London County Council strongly objected to the substance of this Clause altogether, I think that the scales would overwhelmingly come down on the side of rejecting the Clause, since this is private legislation. But that, of course, is not the position. The substance of the case is conceded by the London County Council. It is a procedural objection by the Council.
Owing perhaps to the unfortunate history of the matter, it was not until a fairly late stage that this Clause was drafted in proper shape. As the hon. Member for Peckham (Mrs. Corbet) so rightly said, the Committee has not examined the Clause. It has come here now at this relatively late stage. That is true. But I have to remind the House that no one in this debate has criticised the drafting of this Clause or anything about it. I have to tell the House that so far as the Home Office examination of the Clause is concerned, we think that it is in proper form, fit for its purpose, adequately safeguarded, with all the definitions of the word "relative" and matters of that sort in proper order, and, therefore, there can be no objection to it from the drafting point of view and no one has attempted to say that it is in any way inept.
The hon. Member for Peckham says that it does not go far enough. That may well be true, but I must remind the House that there is no objection to either private or public legislation going further at any time it chooses, and, therefore,

1073
the force of that argument is somewhat diminished. Concerning public legislation, the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) asked why this was done piecemeal and only for London, and why there was no governmental move in these matters.
My answer is that street trading is governed by a host of local Acts and the Government have never considered that it is their task to harmonise those Acts beyond certain basic considerations of natural justice. It would be a task which I do not think the country, the traders themselves, or the localities would wish us to undertake. This must be a matter for the local authorities, particularly for the Metropolitan boroughs.
Therefore, I fully recognise the desirability of getting the agreement of the Metropolitan Boroughs Standing Joint Committee in the way that it has not yet, unfortunately, been obtained. Whether that consideration, that constitutional propriety, should be considered sufficiently weighty to outweigh the undoubted merits of the Clause, which may, in the course of the next year or so, remedy what might otherwise cause serious injustice to an important band of the commercial community in this city, is a matter which the House must decide.
Are we to preserve, on the one side, the purity of the constitutional steps at all costs, even though the merits and the substance of the matter are agreed on all sides, or virtually agreed, or are we to take a plunge, a dramatic plunge, and say that this is what we want and what everybody wants? This Clause may not go as far as it might, but it goes a long way. The House must decide and I can say no more.
9.0 p.m.
Mr. Michael Stewart: Like the Under-Secretary, I think that our better course at this stage is to accept the Clause. I do not often disagree with the London County Council, which is an excellent authority, and, far reasons which I shall show, I think that it has been very hard done by in this matter. I am influenced by what the result will be if we accept or reject the Clause.
If we reject it, we leave the situation with regard to street traders as it is as a result of the decision in the case of
1074
Stepney v. Schneider. There is no doubt what that decision means. It means that when a site is vacant the first person who applies for it has a legal right to it. I must congratulate Stepney Borough Council on the way it has handled that decision. But if a site in Stepney becomes vacant, say, through the death of the stall-holder, or through his notifying the council that he is giving it up, and within ten minutes of that vacancy occurring an application is made and half an hour later another application is made by a relative and the Stepney Borough Council, meeting a week later to consider the two applications, gives the licence to the relative, on the argument that the vacancy had not occurred until the committee began to meet, and if it chooses to regard the relative's application as prior in time, if the other applicant then goes to the court, although I am not a lawyer, I will bet that the result will unquestionably be that the other applicant will get it.
The extraordinary thing is that nobody wants that situation. The Metropolitan brough councils, quite rightly, dislike it because it turns them into rubber stamps. It does not make sense, and it is a shockingly arbitrary rule. The street traders do not like it because, apart from anything else, it rules out the claim which the relative has in natural justice. Everybody thinks that the position is unsatisfactory, but that is the position which we perpetuate if we do not adopt the Clause.
On the other hand, if we adopt it, there is only a slight improvement. The Clause operates only in the case of the death of the stall-holder. If the stall-holder is permanently disabled, Stepney v. Schneider still operates.
Mr. Chataway: If the stall-holder is permanently disabled, he can determine the moment at which he will hand in his licence and therefore enable his relative to get the licence.
Mr. Stewart: But what is to prevent him in that situation from selling the information as to when he will notify the vacancy to the borough council as, it is alleged, some do now?
Mr. Chataway: He does not want to.
Mr. Stewart: I thought that part of the objection to the present situation

1075
was that the stall-holder could do that very thing—sell the information. The only way in which he is stopped from doing that is by his being obliging enough to die. This does not give certain protection in the event of that possibility, or in what is perhaps the more usual case, where a man reaches an age at which he feels that he can no longer carry one. This provision is not a very great improvement, but it is some improvement on the present situation, which is so profoundly unsatisfactory, and I feel that we ought to accept it.
In the course of putting forward what I believe to be the right answer to the question I shall explain what I meant when I said that the L.C.C. has been hard done by. The right answer is to give borough councils a discretion in the matter. This ought to be a matter within their discretion. It is the kind of matter that their representatives are elected to judge. It is not the kind of matter which magistrates are elected to judge.
Mrs. Corbet: If my hon. Friend believes that borough councils should have this discretion, should he not hesitate to agree to a Clause which will fetter borough councils even more than does the Schneider decision? The whole object of the original Clause was to leave out from the Bill all these considerations. All this was to be worked out between the Metropolitan boroughs and the street traders. None of these categories was to be mentioned in the Bill. The Metropolitan boroughs will have all the facts before them. In these days, when so many people travel by motor car, it may easily happen that although a husband has nominated his wife to succeed him both he and his wife are killed in the same motor accident. What provision is made then? A number of similar cases could be referred to. I hope that my hon. Friend wild not be carried away by the appearance of the Clause but will look at the solid substance underneath.
Mr. Stewart: I share my hon. Friend's admiration for the original Clause, but unfortunately it is no longer before us. If the Bill goes forward, with or without the Clause, the discretion of borough
1076
councils will be hopelessly fettered. We cannot get away from that.
The right answer is to provide that this matter should be within the decretion of borough councils, provided that, in natural justice, in exercising that discretion they should have regard to the claims of relatives. That is what the L.C.C. sought to do, and that is why I say that it has been hard done by. It reached agreement with the Federation of Street Traders in the matter, and it is a little feeble for the federation to say, "We did not realise that there is nothing in the provision about an appeal to the magistrates' court". One does not have to be an expert lawyer to observe whether a provision of that kind is in a Clause. I am sure that the federation is not composed of innocents who are likely to be misled by any complications of drafting.
The L.C.C. sought to arrive at this solution, but it has been unable to do so, through no fault of its own, but through the ineptitude of the federation and what I regard as the unsatisfactory comments of the Home Office, which waded in and said that it did not approve of the idea of giving discretion to borough councils. We are now in the unhappy dilemma when no choice is the right answer before us, and we have to choose which, on the whole, seems to be the better of two rather unsatisfactory situations.
Since what the L.C.C. sought—namely, the absolute discretion of borough councils, subject to an undertaking to respect the rights of relatives—is not possible, and since the Government have pronounced against it, cannot we say that the right answer is probably to bring in a statute giving discretion to borough councils, subject to certain clearly laid down exceptions, one of which would refer to the rights of relatives.
There are plenty of parallels to that in statutes where Ministers, local authorities and other bodies are given the right to decide certain things but are required by statute when making a decision to take certain things into account. If they fail to take them into account their decision can be challenged in the courts. I still think that the simplest way to have got that would have been to give in law absolute discretion to the local authority on a clear understanding that

1077
it would act in the way in which the L.C.C. said it would act. Since that course is not to be followed by the Government, would not the right thing be to have a Clause giving discretion to borough councils subject to certain limitations which could be agreed between the local authorities and street traders?
That would be the right answer. Is it absolutely too late to get that into the Bill? This Bill has to go to another place. The procedure on Private Bill legislation is something which I think I may say without fear of contradiction only a few of us are expert about unless we have taken the precaution of looking up the particular points during the previous hour or so. I therefore took the precaution of ascertaining that there is no technical impassibility of having this Bill amended in another place, although of course such an Amendment, as in the case of any Bill, would have to return to this House for approval.
I am told, and I am quite willing to accept it, that it may be a somewhat lengthy process to get agreement of the Metropolitan boroughs, the L.C.C. and the Federation of Street Traders, but is it absolutely impossible? Could not the Government lend a hand in trying to bring the parties together and possibly even suggest the form of Amendment which would get the right result? I think the. Home Office has some responsibility in this matter, because it was its remarks, adverse to the L.C.C.'s original Clause, which helped to produce this situation.
Mr. Marsh: Is there anything in the Amendment my hon. Friend is suggesting which could be objectionable to an extent that it could not possibly wait until next year rather than rush it through by an Amendment to this Bill?
Mr. Stewart: I do not see why it should be impossible to get an agreed Amendment before the Bill finishes its course in another place. I think that would be the best solution. If it is impossible to agree on the Amendment I accept that we would have to wait another year, but I do not see why we should accept that counsel of despair from the start. Although I think the Bill would be better with this Clause than without it, I do not think it is very good because, apart from this Clause, the case of Stepney v. Schneider
1078
still operates and the discretion and rights which boroughs should have still seem to be the right answer. Whether there is a chance of achieving it in this Bill is, I agree, doubtful, but I do not think it should be assumed to be impossible.
In the meantime, faced with these two unhappy choices, I think we should do better to accept the Clause. I think it odd and inconvenient that matters like this should come under Private Bill procedure. The kind of things we have been discussing, the powers and duties of local authorities and how they should be exercised, are in their nature part of the public law of the land. This ought to be dealt with by some kind of public committee. We ought to have a kind of committee analogous to the Scottish Committee which would deal with legislation particularly that affecting London. After all, we are dealing with not far short of as many people in London county as there are in Scotland.
A great many of our difficulties tonight have been due to the fact that we have been dealing with what should be public law in this specialised Private Bill procedure. If the Government must interfere with the local government of London, that is one of the things they might at least look at while they are on the way.
9.15 p.m.
Mr. Ede: I hope that some weight will be given to the suggestions which my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) made at the end of his speech. I am inclined to reach the opposite conclusion on the Clause, because if we have this admittedly inadequate Clause put into the Bill we shall not be able to remedy the major injustices for a good time to come. I can think of nothing more ridiculous than that we should put a Clause in the Bill this year and have a new Clause next year to repeal this one and then lay down the wider considerations which we ought to have before us.
It is evident from the confessions made and the statements made on behalf of certain Metropolitan borough councils this evening that many things which are not in accordance with the law, quite apart from the question of the Schneider case, are going on and that it would be

1079
as well if we had the whole matter settled on some such line as my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham suggested. It is surely ridiculous that it is now the law of the land that if a licence lapses for any cause the licensing authority is bound to give the licence to the first customer who puts in an application. It must lead to a lot of connivance when these valuable licences can be passed from one to another in some of the ways which have been explained to us tonight.
I hope that the hon. and learned Under-Secretary of State will take the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham and try to get the authorities together. I hope that if it is possible to amend the Bill in another place we can have this year a Clause which will not deal with the establishment of a new hereditary caste in this country of people who have the right to succeed to a pitch in the market place merely because they are near relatives of the person who holds it at present.
I can see this becoming a considerable factor in the London marriage market and people saying, "Marry the girl. Her father has a pitch in the market place. She is the only daughter and he is not going to live much longer. With a little judicious help from you, of an unsympathetic nature, before you know where you are you will be the proprietor of a licence and will have your fortune made. When you have got it, get rid of the girl. It is yours and you can sell it in the black market," a black market which we have had so graphically described to us this evening.
It is ridiculous that this state of affairs should exist. It will be ludicrous this year to insert in the Bill this inadequate Clause, pointing the way to fresh abuse, and then next year to have another Clause in front of us to repeal this one and to deal with the matter on a wider basis. I hope that the Under-Secretary will report to the Secretary of State the suggestion made by my hon. Friend and I hope that in that way we may be able to deal with the situation satisfactorily this year.
Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—
The House proceeded to a Division:—Mr. CHATAWAY and Mr. MARSH were
1080
appointed Tellers for the Ayes, but no Member being willing to act as Teller for the Noes, Mr. SPEAKER declared that the Ayes had it.
Clause added to the Bill.
Bill to be read the Third time.

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL (By Order)
Order for consideration, as amended, read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill, as amended, be now considered.
9.23 p.m.
Mr. John Harvey: I beg to move, to leave out "now considered" and to add:
"recommitted to the former Committee in respect of the provisions relating to Epping Forest which appeared in the Bill as originally deposited"
instead thereof.
I am aware that, by moving this Motion, I am asking the House to adopt a procedure which is very rarely invoked. I assure the House that hon. Members on both sides who have put their names to the Motion have not done so lightly, but with a full sense of responsibility for the course which we ask the House to adopt.
On 3rd April last, the Bill was given an unopposed Second Reading by the House of Commons. The Committee has so amended the Bill as to delete Part II. Having regard to the comment made by the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. N. Stewart) on the London County Council (General Powers) Bill, with which the House has just dealt, I should make clear that the deletion by the Committee of Part II of this Bill is not something which the House can allow another place to deal with in due course, because the Bill would now go to the other place without Part II appearing in it. There would be no circumstances in which Part II could be considered unless we adopt this procedure of asking the House to recommit the Bill.
Part II strikes out from the Bill what most hon. Members who have constituency interests in its contents would regard as the whole essence and purpose of the Measure. Without Part II the Bill is emasculated. While I accept that

1081
committees inquiring into Private Bills have considerable powers, I would remind the House that far the greatest part of the time taken on Second Reading was concentrated on Part II.
When the House gave the Bill an unopposed Second Reading it did so fully cognisant of the importance of Part II to all the interests concerned. On this ground alone one can only feel that there has been some misconception by the Committee of the attitude of the House to the Bill which they should be afforded an opportunity of reconsidering. The Committee has not dissented from the view that cattle straying from Epping, Forest into the streets and gardens of adjacent suburbia cause a nuisance and danger on the road. Not one witness called before the Committee seriously sought to deny either nuisance or danger.
What seems principally to have concerned the Committee is the practicability or otherwise of tethering cattle as a solution to this problem. The City Corporation admitted that it doubted whether tethering was practicable and Mr. Gerald Gardiner, for the promoters, said on the first day:
"It is not impracticable to tether a horse or the individual cow, but, so far as these herds are concerned, we would accept the fact that it will probably be impracticable, and that is why the compensation is being provided."
Mr. Gardiner went on to say:
"Our recommendation derives from considerations which stem from the desirability of making no more alteration to the ancient rights than the necessity of the case requires, commensurate with a practical alleviation of the current problem."
In other words, the provision of tethering meant that the City Corporation was seeking to avoid the abolition of commoner's rights The rights of common would be preserved for the future and for the benefit of smallholders and owners of horses and ponies, which are invariably tethered at the present time. In other words, without abolishing the general rights of common, the stipulation in regard to tethering was expected to prevent the current method of grazing beef cattle which has been the cause of all the trouble in the area.
Compensation provisions were inserted in the Bill to enable the losses of the active commoners to be measured. Any other method of limiting the free rang-
1082
ing of cattle would cause difficulty in regard to compensation and might restrict the business of the active commoners without giving them any opportunity of recompense.
The House may ask what other methods there would be except those provided in the Bill. It is important to recognise that the principal alternative method available, if the Bill or Part II of it is lost, is one which the Committee could not possibly have envisaged and which, in my submission, calls for its further consideration. On the second day Mr. Gardiner told the Committee:
"The cattle owner is in fact committing a criminal offence when he allows his cattle to be unattended on the highway. That is before it can get to the householder's garden. They are not strictly permitted to have cattle unattended, and indeed it would be a criminal offence to do so anywhere outside the green land."
The "green land" was an area on a map shown to the Committee. Mr. Gardiner went on:
"It would, of course, be possible to stop all this either by so identifying them that everyone who suffers damage could sue them, which no doubt would make the whole thing uneconomic; or by prosecuting every time they are found outside the green land. It would be another way of stopping their common rights because they would have to have herdsmen which they cannot afford and again they would get no compensation."
9.30 p.m.
Mr. Ronald Bell: Mr. Gardiner, from whom my hon. Friend has been quoting, was simply counsel for the promoters. That was said in argument and by way of contention.
Mr. Harvey: Certainly, and what he said was not disputed by any other counsel there and is not capable of being disputed because it is fact.
The local populace has never been told what Mr. Gardiner so clearly stated, that a criminal offence is committed when cattle roam unattended on a highway if that highway is not part of the forest. More and more, therefore, if local people who feel aggrieved as the situation at present stands are denied Part II of the Bill, they will tend to pester the police to take action. More and more the police will have to prosecute until the whole business of grazing cattle in this way becomes impossible for any commoner. He may find himself

1083
unable to common cattle and unable to benefit from the generous compensation offered in the Bill. I cannot think that that is what the Committee intended.
In terms of civil law, too, the Committee stage brought out the fact that some commoners insure themselves against damage done to property, but is is clear from the evidence that this insurance is based on the fallacious assumption that local residents have a duty to fence against the forest. That they have no such duty is now abundantly clear.
How this may affect future claims against the commoners or the future attitude of insurance companies remains to be seen, but one thing is abundantly clear, namely, that the active commoners themselves would rather have the Bill, the whole Bill, and its entitlement to compensation. The commoners are not among the petitioners against the Bill. The petitioners against the Bill are the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, the Commons, Open Spaces and Footpaths Preservation Society, and the Wanstead and Woodford Borough Council.
Worthy bodies though they are, it is worth bearing in mind in the context of the Bill that the Council for the Preservation of Rural England has a national membership of approximately 5,000, including some local residents, that the Commons, Open Spaces and Footpaths Preservation Society has a national membership of 2,300, including some local residents, and that the Wanstead and Woodford Borough Council serves a population of 61,000. Against this, 630,000 people reside in the areas of the local authorities of East Ham, West Ham, Walthamstow, Leyton, Chingford, Chigwell urban district, Epping urban district, Waltham Holy Cross urban district, and Epping and Ongar rural district, all supporting the whole Bill.
I have received a letter from the Town Clerk of Walthamstow, who tells me that the finance and general purposes committee of his council on 20th June, passed a resolution stating:
"That a Petition be presented to Parliament against alterations in the City of London (Various Powers) Bill in so far as it deals with Epping Forest, that the Common Seal of the Council be affixed to the Petition, and that the
1084
Town Clerk take the necessary steps to implement the object of the Petition, including the engagement of Parliamentary Agents."
I understand that similar action has been taken by the county borough of West Ham. I have reason to believe that other local authorities concerned are prepared to act similarly and to seek to appear before the Committee if the Bill is recommitted. The reason that they did not act earlier was that they had left the matter in the hands of the Corporation of the City of London and they could not believe, after the debates in the House in February, 1959, and April, 1962, that the Bill could possibly be emasculated as it has been in Committee. I would urge that this constitutes another very good reason why the House should recommit the Bill tonight, since a whole body of new evidence can be put before the Committee in this way.
One suggestion was made before the Committee that I might perhaps mention. It is that grazing might be limited to the summer months. Such a limitation was, in fact, tried in the winter of 1960–61, and the commoners found it utterly uneconomic and were not prepared to repeat the experiment in the subsequent winter. There is, therefore, no reason to believe that such a solution would be generally acceptable to the commoners today, but even if, as has been suggested, this solution were to mitigate the nuisance and damage to property aspect of the problem, it would hardly help at all the road traffic aspect, since it is in summer, and particularly during summer weekends, that traffic into and out of the forest is at its peak.
In the Second Reading debate in April, I drew attention to the fact that upwards of 23 accidents occurred every year directly involving cattle; that is to say, about 10 per cent. of all the animals grazing in the forest are involved in a road accident every year, so that, if nothing is done for, say, a further five years, the House will be condoning that there should be at least another 100 accidents, every one of which could be avoided by taking action now.
The Chairman's Report to the House said:
"The Report of the Minister of Transport contained no recommendation".

1085
This is so simple a statement of fact as to be utterly misleading, because Mr. G. A. Barry, of the Ministry of Transport, appeared before the Committee on the fourth day on which it sat, and he said this about the attitude of the Ministry of Transport:
"My Minister's position is that his sole interest in the Bill is road traffic and safety matters, but in view of the fact that a good deal of evidence was produced as to the seriousness of the accidents and the question of who was to blame I think perhaps I should clarify the basis on which this Report was made. II rests on a very simple proposition, which is that there are undoubtedly occurring a fair number of accidents involving cattle. If some measure such as that suggested in the Bill is introduced, whereby the cattle are restrained from wandering on to the roads, that will automatically eliminate a certain class of accident entirely. To that extent, the Minister views this as a good thing from his point of view of road safety. We think it would be desirable, even if it is only making a small contribution to road safety, and I think that is all there is to report."
All there is to report? Is there any Member of the House who dissents for a moment from the contention that if a certain class of accident can be eliminated entirely, this House and its Committees have some duty to take this possibility seriously?
Let me say this final word. The Corporation of the City of London has endeavoured to act as an honest broker in all this, reconciling in the best possible way the various interests involved. If this attempt fails, it can see no other way in which it can resolve the problem. These conditions must worsen, either for the general public or for the commoners, or both, in all the various ways which I have endeavoured to explain. I have sought to show that the introduction of tethering need not be regarded as a serious reason for rejecting Part H of the Bill. If it would help the House, I understand that the Corporation would be prepared to add the words
"tethered or otherwise adequately restrained"
into a filled Bill to be presented to the Committee. It is my hope that this suggestion might help the House and the Committee out of any difficulty that remains over recommittal.
I hope that the House will agree that I have adduced sufficient reasons for asking the Committee to give further thought to the not unimportant problems involved in the Bill.
Mr. Carol Johnson: Tonight the House is having a debate of a rather unusual character as has been indicated by the hon. Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. J. Harvey). It is as well that hon. Members should appreciate fully what they are being asked to do by the Amendment. Whatever it may be in farm, the Amendment is an attempt to treat this House as a court of appeal against the decision of a Committee of the House constituted by the House for the express purpose of considering the Private Bill referred to in the Amendment. The Committee examined the alleged facts on which the Bill is founded and in the light of the evidence submitted to it decided that the allegations had not been duly proved.
The first point on which I take issue with the hon. Member for Walthamstow, East relates to the importance which he attaches to the fact that in April last this House gave an unopposed Second Reading to the Bill. I wish to direct the attention of the hon. Member to the exact significance and importance of that decision. The hon. Member has misled
the House as to what it implies. The position is clearly set out on page 945 of Erskine May, 16th Edition. If bon. Members wild permit me, I will read it, because it is against this background that the Amendment should be considered:
"The second reading of a private bill corresponds with the same stage in other bills, and in agreeing to it the House affirms the general principle, or expediency, of the measure. There is, however, a distinction between the second reading of a public and of a private bill: a public bill being founded on reasons of state policy, the House, in agreeing to its second reading, accepts and affirms those reasons; but the expediency of a private Dill, being mainly founded upon allegations of fact, which have not yet been proved, the House, in agreement to its second reading, affirms the principle of the bill conditionally, and subject to the proof of such allegations before the committee."
When we turn to the findings of the Committee, we discover that in the conclusions of the Committee the Chairman dealt specifically with the aspect of the matter relating to Part II and Epping Forest. He said that the Committee
"find that so much of the Preamble as relates to Part II, Epping Forest. has not been proved."

1087
It is against that decision that the hon. Member for Walthamstow, East and those associated with him are appealing to the House.
I would remind the House that that decision was arrived at by a Committee which sat for four days and heard eighteen witnesses as well as representatives of Government Departments, and which was assisted by counsel for the promoters and for the petitioners. I think the last point important, for it cannot be argued that the Committee was not fully informed on the legal aspects of the matters contained in the Bill. In fact, one of the members of the Committee put this point specifically at one stage by saying:
"Can I be quite certain that if either Counsel misleads us on law the other one challenges?"
That was apparently agreed. It cannot therefore be argued either that the facts were not fully before the Committee or that there was any misdirection on the law relating to them.
In those circumstances, there appears to be no case in support of the Amendment, and there is no precedent in recent years which can be called in aid. The position seems to be completely covered by the statement in Erskine May where on page 986 with reference to Private Bills it says:
"This course, however, of recommitting a bill of which the committee have reported the preamble 'not proved'"—
which is the case in relation to the City of London (General Powers) Bill—
"is unusual and requires a strong case to be made out for its adoption."
I submit that the hon. Gentleman has completely failed to produce any such strong case.
Moreover, even if the House were to agree to a recommittal, this would not in itself achieve any useful purpose, for in the absence of any specific direction to the Committee, the Committee presumably would come to the same decision as before, but it would have this unfortunate effect from the point of view both of the promoters and the petitioners against the Bill, that they would be put to a good deal of additional expense.
The petitioners took pains to see that all the available evidence was before
1088
the Committee, and one would surely be entitled to assume that the City Corporation did the same. From remarks made by the hon. Gentleman this evening, it appears that that they have had second thoughts and now wish to submit other considerations, but surely it is not for this House to provide them with that facility.
9.45 p.m.
Mr. J. Harvey: It is not the City of London Corporation which has had second thoughts and wishes to submit further evidence, but other local authorities.
Mr. Johnson: If that is so, this would surely be a never-ending process? It seems to me that the solution is to be found in the words used by the Chairman of the Committee. He indicated clearly the way out for the promoters. When announcing the decision of the Committee, after referring to the findings of the Committee that the Preamble relating to Epping Forest had not been proved, he said:
"The Committee recognise the situation in which the City Corporation find themselves but are compelled to have regard to the fact that the only solution afforded in the Bill refers to tethering and that other possible solutions have not been sufficiently considered and discussed with the interested parties"
In that connection, one of the witnesses for the petitioners—and the hon. Member for Walthamstow, East omitted to say that one commoner was opposed to the Bill and gave evidence against it —made a number of constructive suggestions dealing with the problems raised by the Bill. These should certainly be looked at. When this has been done and the consultations suggested by the Chairman of the Committee have taken place, the City Corporation might like to consider coming to Parliament again with a Bill drafted on different lines and one which will not arouse the opposition which the present Bill has done. This cannot be done this Session, however, and the promoters should not be encouraged to believe that if they dislike the findings of a Committee of this House, they can come and ask that the Committee should be instructed to have second thoughts or consider something that the promoters failed to put before the Committee in the first instance.

1089
I hope, therefore, that for all these reasons the hon. Member will withdraw his Motion or that, if he does not withdraw it. the House will show its confidence in the Committee by refusing to create a precedent which can only undermine the whole of the present system for dealing with Private Bills.
Mr. Ronald Bell: I rise to express the same point of view as has been put by the hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. C. Johnson). I listened with some surprise to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. J. Harvey). He dealt—I am sure, with the utmost sincerity—with the question of merit as to whether the tethering of these cattle was a good or bad thing or the right or wrong solution to the problem which one finds in Epping Forest.
That is not a matter that we ought to go into in any way tonight. The issue surely arises on a clear question of principle and procedure. Like the hon. Member for Lewisham, South, I am a member of the Commons, Open Spaces and Footpaths Preservation Society, which lodged a petition objecting to these Causes in conjunction with the Council for the Preservation of Rural England and the Wanstead and Woodford Borough Council. I took no part in the Second Reading debate, however, because I did not think that my view on the tethering of cattle in Epping Forest was of great value to the House.
This is precisely the sort of matter which, under our Private Bill procedure, is properly left to decision in Committee after the hearing of evidence from witnesses, arguments from counsel and all the rest, by a semi-judicial procedure. I thought that the Commons Society had decided rightly, like the other objectors, to make its objection through counsel and witnesses before the Private Bill Committee.
I shall not say anything tonight about the merits. This House sets up a procedure for Private Bills and says to people, "This Bill does not go through Committee of the whole House or a Standing Committee. it is no good writing to your Member about this. We have appointed four of our number and you must lodge a petition in a formal way and come before those Members
1090
on a certain day with your counsel and witnesses, and they will listen to everything which you have to say and decide on our behalf upon these detailed points Which arise on a Private Bill".
That is what happened here. The parties came and incurred great expense. The hearing lasted four days, with leading counsel on both sides. Eighteen witnesses were called and the whole matter was thrashed out by people who had local and expert knowledge of the issues raised. At the end of that process, when our colleagues to whom the matter has been remitted decide in our name that one side has prevailed and the other has failed, is it to be decided to sweep all that aside and to cancel the proceedings for no other reason than that the result is disagreeable to those who have failed, possibly unexpectedly for some of them?
What way is it to treat petitioners and objectors by saying, "Of course, if you incur this expense and trouble and fail, the proceedings shall stand, but if you go through this process and succeed, we will set it aside without hearing evidence. We will not hear the witnesses or the arguments, but we will simply set it aside upon a debate held at ten o'clock at night in a rather thin House". Is that the way to carry on our Private Bill procedure? I ask the House to consider whether this is a responsible process upon which we are asked to embark tonight.
Mr. R. W. Sorensen: May I ask the hon. Member this simple question? Am I to assume by his argument that, automatically, whatever comes from a Committee must be accepted quite blindly by this House?
Mr. Bell: If the hon. Member had sat on and listened, that was obviously the next point in my argument to which I was coming.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, East is not asking us to do something that has never been done before in the history of this House, but is asking us to do something which has been done only on the rarest of occasions. As far as I know, judging from Erskine May, it has not been done since 1913—and never for this sort of reason. The only time that the House in the past

1091
has recommitted a Bill from a Private Bill Committee has been for some quite special reason and never upon the ground that it was surprised by or did not agree with the result.
May I tell the House the sort of occasion upon which this has been done? The last occasion was in 1913 when, owing to the lateness of the Bill in the Session the promoters decided to withdraw it and the Private Bill Committee therefore reported that the Preamble was not proved. The House then recommitted the Bill, giving the Committee power to split it into two Bills, one containing the unopposed provisions and the other containing the opposed provisions, so that it could pass a Bill containing only the unopposed provisions in the short time left in the Session and stand the others over for some later procedure.
There was another occasion in the same year where the Committee itself, having before it the interesting question whether East Ham should be constituted a county borough, decided that this raised novel and important questions of general principle and invited the House to discuss them and to recommit the Bill, if it thought fit, for further consideration by the Committee. The initiative was taken by the Private Bill Committee saying to the House, "We should like the reinforcement of a public debate in the House on this issue."
The occasion before that was in 1902, when the Committee reported that the Preamble was not proved and the House picked out some unopposed Clauses of the Bill and said, "We will recommit the Bill to you in respect of the unopposed parts and you can pass that, but where you have found against the promoters and in favour of the objectors, that will remain cut out".
There are only about another six precedents in the whole history of the House, and on every occasion all that the House has done has been to let unopposed Clauses go through by a process of recommittal where it felt that the Bill was separable and the Private Bill Committee had rejected the whole Bill but the House thought that some of the unopposed parts might go through on their own.
1092
That is the history of this procedure. The House is being asked tonight to do something which it has not done for the last 100 to 120 years—to cancel the proceedings before a Private Bill Committee in which the objectors have succeeded and to tell them that they have wasted their time. If this Bill went back to the Committee, without instruction, in respect of these Clauses, I suppose that the whole process would have to be gone through again, with counsel and 18 witnesses. It would be impossible for the objectors to recover their costs because the Clause has been struck out, and if it were put in again it would not be put in for the protection of the objectors and it would, therefore, fall outside Parliamentary Costs Acts. That is the sort of hardship which occurs if one starts to monkey about with well-established and understood procedure.
That being the background, what are the reasons which my hon. Friend put forward why we should take this dramatic and outrageous step? The Walthamstow Council and one other borough——
Mr. J. Harvey: Several others.
Mr. Bell: That makes it worse. They did not realise that the objectors might succeed. They knew that petitions had been lodged by the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, the Commons Society, the Borough of Wanstead and Woodford——
It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
Proceedings on the City of London (Various Powers) Bill set down for consideration at Seven o'clock this evening by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House). —[Mr. Vane.]
Question again proposed.
Mr. Bell: They knew that these substantial and important bodies had lodged their petitions, would be represented by distinguished counsel and would call their witnesses. But they thought, apparently, that there was no chance of their succeeding, and so they did not bother to come along and support the Corporation of London. Now the House is asked to take this extraordinary step so that they may come

1093
along and give some evidence which they had every chance of giving before but did not bother to give. That is the essence of the matter.
The City of London called five witnesses. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthaingtow, East also attended as a witness in support of the Bill and these Clauses and, I believe, read letters from constituents about what the cattle had done to their gardens. If that was not hearsay, I should like to know what is. If those letters could not be cross-examined, they were indeed what the soldier said. I was not present, but I have heard—this is hearsay too—that the other witnesses for the City of London also took it a bit in their stride and thought that it would be a romp, and the result was that they did not prove their Preamble. So now they come to the House and say, "Please give us another chance to go through it again. We can do better this time."
I ask the House to treat this Motion on that ground, and that ground only. as one affecting almost the decency of our procedure. It would be an outrage, a most deplorable precedent and complete departure from our long-established practice if this were to be done in this case and for these reasons. I therefore ask the House to reject the Motion and to affirm its support of those hon. Members who, on the Private Bill Committee, have discharged the function which the House entrusted to them.
Mr Sorensen: Nothing said by the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) alters the fact that the House is the final authority and that whatever deliberations the Committees may have had and whatever conclusions they may have reached, good or bad, in the end they have to be endorsed or rejected by the House.
It may well be—I do not know—that the various authorities which have been mentioned tonight have not fulfilled their obligations as they should have done. Maybe the hon. Member is correct about that; I do not know. All I can say is that the Bill, originally promoted by the City of London authority, concerns not really the City of London but our constituents—the constituents of my area, of Walthamstow where I live, and
1094
of other adjacent areas. It seems monstrous and almost fantastic that the overwhelming opinion of thousands of citizens in those urban areas should be put on one side, in the interests of either administrative nicety or of bodies with ulterior purposes.
Mr. Ronald Bell: I must ask the hon. Member to explain what he means by "ulterior purposes". That is a most opprobrious phrase.
Mr. Sorensen: Impatient as 1 was with the hon. Member, I will enlighten him in due course. Before I explain what I mean by "organisations with ulterior purposes", I would stress again the fact that although my name is not attached to the Amendment, that is not because I lack any sympathy with it. It was through an oversight that my name was not given in. I also recognise that the hon. Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. J. Harvey) and my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Redhead) have borne the brunt of the struggle.
I return to the fact that we have this astonishing position that, irrespective of whatever the City of London may desire, the overwhelming majority of citizens in all the areas named tonight, with the single exception of Wanstead and Woodford, want this restriction imposed on the cattle.
I have said that there are bodies with what I think are ulterior motives. I turn now to those who have made a statement about this Bill. The statement is on behalf not only of Wanstead and Woodford Corporation but also on behalf of the Council for the Preservation of Rural England. When I spoke of ulterior motives, I meant it in an inoffensive sense. I would remind the Council that my constituency is not rural, nor are any of the constituencies represented here tonight in this House. They are all urban areas, and, that being so, I want to know what business the Council has with purely urban areas.
Mr. C. Johnson: If my hon. Friend would cast his mind back 100 years he would find that had it not been for such preservation societies there would be no forest at all today. It was they who saved it.
Mr. Sorensen: I have every admiration for such bodies when they do the right job, which is for rural areas and not for urban. Many organisations perform great service not only in my area but in other areas. But that does not justify their intrusion into a province which is not properly theirs. That is one of the reasons why I allege innocent and well meaning ulterior motives in this case. They are misapplying their intentions in this matter.
Let these bodies get on with the task of preserving Epping Forest itself. No one is more anxious to do that than I am. I look at the forest almost every day I am at home. I am glad to be able to see it from my study window. It is on the fringe of my constituency. But the greater part of the 90,000 people in Leyton and the 100,000 in Waltham-stow do not live in an area with rural amenities but in an urban area. That is why I spoke of ulterior motives. What has the Commons, Open Spaces and Footpaths Preservation Society to do with this Bill?
Mr. Bell: It is interested because Epping Forest is a common.
Mr. Sorensen: We are not discussing the forest as such but the intrusion of cattle from the forest into urban areas. I have no objection to the cattle remaining in the forest, for that is where they belong. But I object when they come out straying into gardens and leaving behind horrible messes in areas not meant for them.
I ask those hon. Members who are opposed to us in this matter, and whose energy and interest I appreciate, to realise that if they were living adjacent to the forest, as do many of us and our constituents, their policy would be very different from that which they are pursuing tonight. They would have studied some other plan to get on with the excellent work of preservation of footpaths and of the cattle in the forest, while at the same time recognising that there is a situation now which did not exist even fifty years ago, because the urbanisation of these areas has proceeded largely in the last half century, although it began well before then.
Under these circumstances, a sense of proportion is needed much more than a
1096
blind opposition with external motives misapplied. I hope that that explains what I meant by the phrase "ulterior motives"—in other words, other motives which I believe are misapplied in this matter.
Everyone knows that the wandering of the cattle in this way is an anachronism. As I have said before, the sight of these bovine creatures wandering about is pleasantly rural at a distance, but when they stray into areas quite unsuitable for them, causing mischief and danger, then their freedom to do so becomes anachronistic.
I submit again to the hon. Members opposing this recommittal to have a sense of proportion and to realise that we are not opposed to the cattle in the forest but, that, owing to circumstances which did not exist many years ago, there should be provision for preventing the dangers which are now present. However earnest and sincere the hon. Gentlemen may have been who sat on this Committee, frankly, I do not have confidence in their judgment. We are entitled to say that they have not sufficiently appreciated all the circumstances. It may very well be that those who bore witness did not do justice to their case, and it may be that the various authorities did not do all that they could in this matter; but that should not impose injustice on our constituents. Our constituents are entitled to be heard and the weight of the judgment of probably 250,000 people, through their representatives, is entitled to be heard in a way that it apparently was not heard when the Committee sat for those four days
If, for instance, the deer in Richmond Park were to wander through Richmond and the deer at the other end of Epping Forest should ever be induced to come to our area and wander on our roads or in other parts adjacent to London, railings would be put up to prevent the animals from wandering through the streets and those who have spoken on behalf of these admirable societies would then begin to see reason. We plead that hon. Members and the members of the Committee should appreciate the great weight of public opinion in every adjacent area except one, and even there, I believe, there was a very serious difference of opinion.

1097
For these reasons, I strongly support the submission made by the hon. Member, who represents the district where I live, that the House should depart from precedent—sometimes that has been done in order that justice may be done—and return this Bill to the Gentlemen who sat on the Committee or to others who might sit on the Committee, so that they could reconsider the whole matter in the light of that submission.
10.15 p.m.
Mr. Harold Gurden: I was Chairman of the Committee which the House appointed to consider the Bill. I do not intervene tonight to discuss in any way the merits of the Bill, neither to be drawn into any discussion nor even to vote. The official record shows the action of the Committee and the voting of the Committee. I intervene merely to say that it is on record that all the members of the Committee were not unanimously agreed on every single point. Speaking for the other three members of the Committee, I say that it was a very competent Committee that did its job very diligently and carefully and took into account the whole of the evidence placed before it. Those are very important words in view of what has been said tonight—"the whole of the evidence placed before it."
No fault can be found with the Committee which did its job so well, whatever the House may think of its decision at the end of the day. It showed no bias at any time. None of the Members on it had any interest at stake and did not live in or serve the areas concerned. I am in a position to say that the hon. Members concerned feel so unbiased and wish to be helpful in this matter that the Committee is quite willing to accept whatever decision the House may reach tonight, even if that necessitates further deliberation.
It is for the House to judge whether there is sufficient or fresh evidence to lay before the Committee, because if there is nothing new and nothing which the House thinks warrants consideration, it is only fair to assume that the Committee might well reach the same conclusions. If the House feels that there is good and sufficient reason why the Committee should reconsider this matter, then the Committee is at the service of
1098
the House. It is for the House to consider whether there are good and sufficient reasons.
Mr. R. E. Prentice: I support the Motion for recommittal and I do so as a representative of the County Borough of East Ham, which clearly has an interest in this matter. We all appreciate the spirit in which the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden) has just spoken. It is because of the way in which Committees, such as that over which he presided, deal with these matters and the care with which they do their work and the impartiality which they show that it is very rare for the House to recommit a Private Bill in this way. Equally, it is clear that the House has the right to do so, and no one has disputed that. There are few precedents. I was interested to learn that one of them concerns the County Borough of East Ham, on whose behalf I wish to add a little to the discussion.
The views of important local authorities which surround this area and which among them represent more than 600,000 people should be an important consideration in deciding whether this matter should go back for further consideration by the Committee. Last Wednesday evening, the finance and general purposes committee of the East Ham Borough Council considered this matter and made a decision similar to that made by the other two local authorities which have been mentioned. It decided to combine with other local authorities in the area to present a petition and to brief counsel to put its views in the event of the Bill being recommitted.
It may be asked why the council did not do that earlier, and perhaps it should have done so. But it was at least reasonable for it to assume that the City of London would put a point of view which would largely represent what East Ham Council had in mind. Secondly, because Part II of the Bill had been debated so thoroughly on 3rd April, and because it was in the light of that discussion that the House gave the Bill a unanimous Second Reading, it was reasonable for East Ham, West Ham, Leyton, Walthamstow and the other authorities to assume that Part II would not be deleted in this way.

1099
It was to their surprise that it was deleted, and in view of that they are asking for the right now to put their own view and to brief counsel themselves on the very important points that they have in mind. East Ham has two interests. First, it represents people who live on the border of Wanstead Flats. The town clerk has told me that in eighteen months he has had reported to him ten instances of cattle straying into the gardens of people living in East Ham but on the borders of the Flats. Those were only the incidents reported, and no doubt there were many others which occurred but which were not reported.
Secondly, the borough of East Ham has an interest, as landlords of the people living in the Aldersbrook Estate, which is in the borough of Wanstead and Woodford. They have suffered greater nuisance still. The estate is an area with a narrow entrance, and if cattle once get in it is difficult for them to find their way out again. On the night of 23rd-24th January of this year, 25 cattle were in the area of the estate for some hours and did a considerable amount of damage.
I have a great deal of sympathy with the Council for the Preservation of Rural England. I speak as an enthusiastic walker. I love the countryside, and I appreciate that people who live in my constituency, in a built-up area, derive a tremendous amount of pleasure from walking in Epping Forest. I am always disposed to support the views of the Council on the various things that it takes up, but it seems to me that there are occasions—and this is one—when it goes to a rather absurd extreme. In preserving the amenities of the countryside or of rural areas we must have regard to the rights of people living in or on the edge of those areas. In this case we must also have regard to the question of road safety. The number of accidents referred to by the hon. Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. J. Harvey) which have occurred because of straying cattle should be an important consideration in the case.
For all these reasons I submit that this matter should be sent back to the Committee, especially because local authorities representing over 600,000
1100
people are asking that it should be reconsidered, and their views ought to be respected by the House.
Sir Godfrey Nicholson: I am sorry to detain the House at this late hour, but the questions at issue tonight far transcend the merits or demerits of these proposals. What is really at issue is the question whether the House should go back upon a procedure that has stood for scores of years and that the Bill should be recommitted to the Private Bill Committee in respect of the provisions relating to Epping Forest.
The question has often been debated in the House, and the House has nearly always come to the conclusion that it would be a mistake to go behind proceedings that have taken place in the Private Bill Committee. I remember taking part in a debate on 4th May, 1949, when the Bolton Corporation Bill was before the House. The view that I then expressed was supported by the House in the Division. The procedure laid down by the House permits full access to the Committee by objectors, through counsel and witnesses. This Motion would strike at the very roots of this procedure. I beg the House earnestly to consider seriously not merely the merits of the proposal, on which varying views may be held, but the principle of the matter.
I am sure that it would be a mistake to support a proceeding which would tend to wreck the procedure laid down by this House and followed by us for so long in dealing with Private Bills.
Mr. Elwyn Jones: The constitutional objections to the Motion are serious ones. Nevertheless, they carry no more weight than this, that the House should engage in the exceptional procedure that the Motion asks it to embark upon tonight only in circumstances which are exceptional. The burden falls upon those who seek recommittal to establish that there is, for instance, as I believe to be the case, a body of fresh evidence which was not available to the Committee and which might well lead it to come to a different conclusion.
The Chairman of the Private Bill Committee, who has addressed the

1101
House tonight, has spoken with due prudence but in a mood and manner which hold out some encouragement that if there is a body of fresh evidence available it may well induce the Committee to take a different view next time.
Mr. Gurden: I was careful not to commit any member of the Committee. What I said was that the Committee simply wishes to offer its service to the House if there is indeed fresh evidence to lay before it. but I said how important it was that there should be something more on which the Committee could deliberate. I would not for a moment wish to commit the Committee. or any member of it.
Mr. Elwyn Jones: The hon. Member is perfectly right. What he said does not in any way commit the Committee, but, if there is available to the House evidence that there were fresh matters, not canvassed last time but which are now available, I submit that the House should give due consideration to those fresh matters. I rise, not on behalf of anyone, but in the light of representations from West Ham Council in this matter. The contents of the letter I have received from the town clerk certainly indicate that there is information which would now be represented, no doubt with vigour, energy and ability, from West Ham, information which was not available before the Committee at the appropriate time.
It is not for me, least of all, to consider why perhaps greater energy was not previously applied to this matter, but the information available to me—and it has been spoken of from other sources as well— is that, for instance, with respect to the nuisance caused by the straying of cattle far more information is available now than was placed before the Committee. Secondly, in the matter of danger further statistical evidence is available that the straying of cattle causes serious danger to the life and limb of pedestrians and motorists and, incidentally, a great deal of danger to the animals themselves.
Some of those animals have been maimed and killed by reason of the excessive use and exercise of the rights of common made by those few whose interest in this matter—let us face it
1102
frankly—is commercial and has little to do with the preservation of rural England.
Mr. Ede: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Mr. Elwyn Jones) said that fresh evidence is now available. Was it not available when the Committee considered this matter? Is this not another way of saying that the various local authorities backed the wrong horse at the time and now they would like representations which they could have presented before—at some cost to themselves, let us admit? That would have been presented on a petition which they would have paid for and they would have to brief counsel, and so on.
If it was available, then is it not rather late in the day to -ay that this much-advertised Bill —which had to be advertised in the local papers and went through all sorts of preliminary proceedings in which its contents were made very well known in the area—should be held up because they decided it was not worth while spending their money on it?
Mr. Elwyn Jones: My right hon. Friend will not expect me to agree that West Ham would ever back the wrong horse. On this occasion the simple fact remains, according to my understanding, that there is now additional information available which should be tested, both in regard to the extent of the nuisance and of the danger.
10.30 p.m.
I also admire the public spirit which the Council for the Preservation of Rural England applies in these matters. But if the sight of indignant and angry householders chasing, tattle from their gardens and indignant and angry sportsmen chasing the wandering cattle from the playing fields of Wanstead, which have been developed at great expense and are a great amenity to the public, if that sight of public anger confronted with this abuse of ancient privilege represents a picture of rural England that ought to be preserved, it is not my idea of an England that ought to be preserved.
There is otherwise a good deal of attractive zeal in this matter. I am not necessarily saying that 600,000 people

1103
cannot be wrong, but: there is a considerable body of feeling and opinion behind this matter. As there is evidence, according to my information, that a further consideration of it by the Committee could well result in the reversal of its previous decision, it is proper that the House should take this step. The House is the master of its own decisions. The House is supreme. The Committee, to which consideration of the matter was referred, is the servant
1104
of the House and not its equal. It is a delegate of the House. In all these circumstances, although I appreciate that these exceptional steps should indeed be regarded as exceptional, I cannot help feeling that we are in the presence of an exceptional case.
Mr. Ronald Bell: How many innings does the hon. and learned Member think it ought to have?
Mr. Elwyn Jones:I think that a second innings would be enough.
Sir Colin Thornton-Kemsley: I ought to explain why I, a Member for a Scottish constituency, seek to catch Mr. Speaker's eye at this hour of the night. I was born in a house in Epping Forest. I lived in a house in a very lovely part of the forest for the first 25 or 26 years of my life, and ever since I can remember I have spent parts of each weekend walking or riding in the forest. I am sure that I love the forest as much as does anyone in this House and that I know it almost as well as anyone who has spoken in the debate.
But I cannot help feeling that the subject we ought to be debating tonight is not whether cattle should be restricted or tethered in Epping Forest. What we are asked to consider is whether the House should carry the Amendment which seeks to recommit Part II of the Bill to the Committee of the House which has already considered it so thoroughly. I am sure that the right line was taken by those hon. Members, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Bell), the hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. C. Johnson) and indeed my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Sir G. Nicholson) who counselled the House that we should be very unwise to go against long-established precedents in this matter.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. J. Harvey) has made it quite clear that it is his intention that the matter should be referred to the same Committee. Indeed, that is the case. A reading of Erskine May makes it quite clear that the reference is a reference back to the same Committee and not a reference to a new Committee. This is the Committee which, as various hon. Members have reminded us, considered the evidence offered to it by 18 witnesses, a Committee which sat for four days and the deliberations of which covered over 100 pages of closely typed foolscap, most of which I have read with the greatest interest. I should be very happy to debate with anyone in the House whether or not cattle should be tethered in Epping Forest, whether tethering is kind to cattle, a good thing for cattle, or
1106
a good thing for pedestrians or anyone else. But that is not what we are discussing tonight. We are discussing whether there should be a reference back.
Erskine May makes perfectly clear the grounds on which there can be a recommittal in cases such as this. On pages 986 and 987 there are various examples, some of which were quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South, where Bills have been recommitted. I shall not weary the House with further examples now. I am not a lawyer, but I think it is clear from Erskine May that the sort of cases where recommittal might be justified are, for instance, cases where evidence which was not available at the time has subsequently become available. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, East has said that a whole body of new evidence could be put before the Committee. The hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Mr. Elwyn Jones) suggested that there is new evidence in the case. No one has said what this new evidence is. No one has made clear that there is any evidence available now which was not amply available previously and which could not have been put before the Committee if only people had taken the time to present it.
Recommittal of a Bill might be justifiable if the Committee wrongfully refused to hear evidence, or if it made its decision before hearing one or other of the parties who had a right to be heard. Recommittal might be justifiable if the Committee was misdirected as to a point of law. None of these circumstances arises here, and no one has suggested that it does. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South that if promoters of a Bill or Members of Parliament are able to secure a recommittal merely because they disagree with the findings of a Committee, this cannot fail to result in undermining confidence in the Committees of the House.
That is the case in brief. In my view, we should resist the Motion. To summarise it, being anxious to be as brief as possible, I put the argument in this way. First, I say that we should deny recommittal on the ground that it would serve no useful purpose. The movers

1107
of the Motion do not seek to give any instructions to the Committee. In my view, the Committee could only come to the same conclusion as it reached after hearing evidence for so long and examining the matter very carefully. It is worth noting also that any solution to the problem other than the tethering of cattle would be outside the Preamble of the Bill, so no one can come forward with a new solution. The decision must be on the question of tethering which the Committee has already considered.
Mr. George Brown: I am following the argument with the greatest interest. I was not born in Epping Forest, and I neither walk nor live in Epping Forest. I am listening to the discussion and trying to make up my mind about what should be done. As I understand his argument, the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley) says that the House ought not to recommit the Bill simply because it disagrees with the Committee. If that doctrine be right, does it not make the Committee sovereign over the House? If the House, which is sovereign, disagrees with the Committee, is not that a ground on which we ought to send the Bill back to the Committee?
Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: With respect, I do not think that that is the right doctrine. As the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, this House follows precedent established by long practice and enshrined in Erskine May. The Parliamentary practice is quite clear. There are precedents for over a hundred years. No Committee of this House has a matter of this kind recommitted except on special grounds. Erskine May makes the point clearly:
"… when a committee have resolved that the preamble of a private bill has not been proved, and ordered the chairman to report, it is not competent for them to reconsider and reverse their decision, but that the bill should be recommitted for that purpose. This course, however, of recommending a bill of which the committee have reported the preamble 'not proved' is unusual and requires a strong case to be made out for its adoption."
My hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South, who spoke When the right hon. Member was not in the Chamber, referred to several cases quoted in Erskine May where new circumstances
1108
have arisen. But no one has suggested tonight that there are new circumstances.
I think that it would be wrong for the House to do this. It would break the precedent and no useful purpose would be served. In the absence of a new direction the Committee could only come to the same decision. Recommittal would lead to additional costs. It would be contrary to the practice of the House and undermine confidence in the Committees of the House.
Mr. E. C. Redhead: I have listened to the debate with great interest, and I wish to make abundantly clear that those who have subscribed their names to this Motion have done so in no spirit of disregard for the amenities of Epping Forest. We all represent constituencies where the constituents have a passionate regard for the preservation of Epping Forest, and it would be quite wrong to attribute to us a desire to destroy its real amenities. Neither are we opposed in principle to the exercise of the ancient rights of the commoners. We complain that in the exercise of those rights there is an intrusion into the rights of house holders and the users of the highway to their danger and damage. That is the simple issue of this Bill.
Sir Godfrey Nicholson: Is the hon. Gentleman arguing the case which was put before the Committee, or is he producing new evidence? I think it only fair that he should state why he is asking the House to depart from precedent. Surely the only serious basis for doing that is that there is new evidence. This is a serious constitutional point. If the Committee came to the same conclusion again, would the hon. Gentleman make this speech again?
Mr. Redhead: If the hon. Gentleman will be patient, I think he will see that it is my intention to address myself to the purpose of the Motion and not to reargue the whole of the merits of the Bill.
Reference has been made to the peculiar interests of those who have petitioned against the Bill, and whose petition, so far, has been successful. I am equally entitled to point out that those who dissent are not opposed to the fundamental aspect of preserving the amenities and beauties of Epping Forest.

1109
What we are asking has been said to be unusual and without precedent. I agree that that is so. But I wish to submit, with all humility, that because it is unusual is no reason why, if the House is competent to do what we ask, it should not do so. I believe that there is a good case for the Motion.
10.45 p.m.
It is not correct, as has been suggested in the debate, that what the Committee is being asked to do is to cancel and set aside all its proceedings to date. What it is being asked to do is to take further consideration of factors which, in the opinion of those responsible for the Motion, have not been fully appreciated by the Committee, either because the evidence which we believe to be available was not available to the Committee——
Sir G. Nicholson: Why not?
Mr. Redhead: —or because no opportunity was afforded to the promoters of the Bill to apprehend that such evidence would be required by the Committee.
I do not want to argue the merits of the Bill again, but I am entitled to point out that Part II of the Bill, which has been struck out by the Committee, was the real substance of the Bill. It was only after a full debate directed almost exclusively to that part of the Bill, in which every speaker—six in number—with a constituency interest and an intimate knowledge from personal acquaintance of the difficulties and problems that had arisen of straying cattle, had spoken in that debate in support of the Bill that it was given a Second Reading.
It has been suggested that it would be wrong of this House to set aside the considered view of the four Members of the House who were appointed to consider this matter as a Committee. I respect those Members. I do not dissent from the fact that they judged the evidence adduced before them with great care and diligence and, as they saw it, with great objectivity.
I understand the sensitivity about setting aside the judgment of those who, however tong they sat, sat for only a brief time considering this problem while others of us have had it with us for years in our constituencies. Those of us who have been concerned in this problem as a constituency matter are equally
1110
entitled to ask the House not to set aside our opinion as lightly as some would argue purely on some pedantic view of precedent and constitutional legalism.
Mr. C. Johnson: Would not my hon. Friend agree that the obligation upon the Committee was to see whether the Preamble was proved by evidence and that the Committee was prepared to sit as long as any evidence relevant to that matter was put before it? Therefore, it is unfair to suggest that the Committee curtailed the evidence. The promoters could have brought in everything to which reference has been made tonight.
Mr. Redhead: If my hon. Friend has patience to hear me out, I will deal with that point.
I make the point also that in the Second Reading debate, only one speech was directed in opposition to this part of the Bill and that it came from an hon. Member who lives far from Epping Forest and, as far as I am aware, has no constituency interest and, therefore, had no personal local knowledge of the subject. The Second Reading was accorded by the House without a Division in the knowledge that five local authorities had indicated their support of the Bill to the City Corporation and only one affected area had opposed it. That one, it was able to be shown before the Committee, had at an earlier date expressed great concern about the nuisance and the problem arising from the very complaints which have been made by the live local authorities who supported the City Corporation in its Bill.
Considerable play has been made of the quotation from Erskine May that in circumstances of this kind it is unusual to have a Bill recommitted and that it requires a strong case to be made for this to be done. I submit that in the circumstances which I have outlined it is no less important that a vital and substantial part—indeed, the main part of a Bill of this character—should not be thrown out, nor should the House acquiesce in its being thrown out, unless there is a demonstrably strong case for so doing, and I submit that on balance the case is not strong.
I have read very carefully all the minutes of the Committee. As a test of the strength of that evidence, I venture

1111
to ask whether the opposition to this part of the Bill, and the evidence offered in support of that opposition, was so strong as to lead the Committee to a unanimous decision to throw out this part of the Bill? We do not know what happens officially among the Committee. Was there no doubt, no hesitation, in their minds? With great respect, I suggest that the readiness with which the Committee now offers, through its Chairman—and I appreciate his position—to hear further evidence, if the House so desires, indicates that in the minds of the Committee there is not a unanimous conviction that the decision was right and that all the evidence has been presented to the Committee and has been evaluated by it.
It would be wrong for the House to acquiesce in throwing out these important provisions, particularly in the light of the knowledge that we now have that three of the important local authorities which are affected have decided to lodge petitions against alterations to the Bill. It has been asked, fairly enough, why these local authorities did not do this before. Hon. Members ought to appreciate the peculiar circumstances of this Bill. Epping Forest lies within the area of local authorities who have no jurisdiction over or responsibility for its management. By purely historical circumstances, that responsibility is vested in the City Corporation. It follows, therefore, that any legislation to deal with a problem of this kind comes best and, in the minds of all of us who gave consideration to the problem over the years, most adequately and most fittingly from the body which is charged statutorily with responsibility for Epping Forest. But it is not true to say, as has been said in the debate, that the local authorities which have taken this action did not bother previously to come forward and to support the Bill. That is quite erroneous. Every one of the five to which I have referred specifically recorded by resolution its wholehearted support of the Bill and fortified the City Corporation with that information, which I believe I am correct in saying, if not brought to the notice of the House on Second Reading, was made known to the Committee during its deliberations.
Was anyone to anticipate the kind of attitude which we have heard expressed
1112
tonight? I do not think that anyone can be blamed for not apprehending that the Committee would take the line which appears to be inferred from the minutes of the proceedings and which has been expressed by an hon. Member tonight—that a whole list of correspondence received, for example, by the hon. Member for Walthamstow, East, or a whole schedule of complaints of incidents concerning accidents on the road put in by the police, would be discounted because evidence was not available to prove, as would be required in a court of law in a criminal case, the actual nature of the incident in every case. Surely everyone was entitled to believe that the Committee would be sensitive to the fact that a whole schedule of complaints and a whole list of incidents compiled over the years by responsible and authoritative people would at least be accepted as evidence of a very real problem and a very real burden of complaint and nuisance in the area.
I suggest with all due respect that some distinction must be drawn as between the proceedings of a Committee of this House in such circumstances and what is properly required in the way of individual proof of a case in a court of law, and that it is wrong to dismiss that kind of evidence as being no more than hearsay.
In view of the Second Reading debate, the nature of that debate and the decision in the circumstances at it was taken, surely the local authorities who are intimately concerned in this matter, within whose area the Epping Forest lies, were entitled to believe that they could rely upon the resources of the City Corporation, the promoters of the Bill, to see it through the Committee and this House without the necessity for them to incur expense on what at that stage, after all, would appear to be no more than the unnecessary negative procedure of lodging a petition against alterations to the Bill.
Be that as it may, I submit that the fact that they have now decided so to petition in the knowledge of all the evidence that has been adduced before the Committee must surely be taken as indicative of the fact that they have further evidence of direct character apart from local knowledge, for otherwise, believe me, they would not risk

1113
the displeasure of the ratepayers in incurring expense at this stage in order to make a mere demonstration before the Committee; and if they have such evidence—as a member of one of the authorities concerned, and without wishing to anticipate what I believe is the right course, which is that the Committee should have opportunity to consider that evidence, I believe such evidence exists—in those circumstances I believe that the local authorities should have the opportunity to put it.
I am asking the House not to dismiss this Motion merely on some pedantic ground of precedent, but to look at it from the point of view of the broad public interest of thousands of people in the area affected, for if this recommittal does not take place, if there is no further opportunity at this stage for second thoughts about the issue, the only alternative is that the problems about which those of us who are concerned with the matter have complained persistently over the last few years will not only be perpetuated but are likely to grow.
I would charge hon. Members to say —indeed, I would put it to the members of the Committee to answer on reflection—whether we are right to contemplate having it upon our conscience that we are insisting upon another 20 accidents a year which by this Bill could be prevented. Surely the toll of the highways is already sufficiently appalling that we would grasp for any opportunity to minimise it even to that extent?
The only alternative to meet this problem short of legislation—and if the Bill goes out now there can, clearly, be no prospect of legislation for some time to come—is for the City Corporation to introduce new byelaws which will fortify the average citizen with the means of apprehending those who have caused damage, of suing in the civil courts, of harassing the commoners in the process of doing so and of creating, in view of the legal opinion expressed unchallenged before the Committee, a burden which would be truly intolerable for the police, for once that opinion is widely known in the locality the police will have a very busy time indeed responding to the demands of aggrieved citizens who call upon them to enforce the law as we now understand it to be.
1114
11.0 p.m.
For all those reasons, there is a strong case at least for asking the Committee to look at this matter again. In all fairness and in all justice, whoever was responsible and whatever criticism can be advanced in respect of those who now wish to be heard and who neglected to do so before, they should now have the opportunity to be heard. They can be heard only if the Bill is recommitted. For those reasons, I urge the House, as a matter of common sense and ordinary justice, to agree to the Motion.
Mr. William Roots: A number of aspects have been mentioned in the course of this interesting debate, but it is of some importance to look at the matter from the point of view of the promoters, as it is then apparent that there are unusual circumstances. The promoters, the City Corporation, have no direct interest in the matter. They have an interest as a responsible public authority and they would not wish what is undoubtedly a serious nuisance to emanate from the Epping Forest of which they are the conservators. We have heard no sort of denial that there is a serious nuisance caused in districts round about. On the other hand, as conservators of the forest they have an important duty to the commoners.
As has become apparent, they have sought to exercise their duties by giving protection to householders by Part II and by giving commoners the serious benefit of a chance for compensation as they lose part of their rights—as they will. It is clear from the experience of many hon. Members who know the district that the rights involve considerable nuisance, but are to be given up by one means or another. The advantage of the Bill, as I think, rightly, is that some compensation for the loss of these rights would be provided.
It is apparent from the decision of the Committee that the nuisance would not be stopped and the compensation, which is of real benefit, would be lost. There has not been a single speech to suggest that anybody will benefit from the present situation before the House. It must be extremely unusual for the promoters to be in this position and for no one to be able to think of any single benefit resulting from the Committee's decision. The common rights are quite

1115
unaffected. Footpaths are quite unaffected, as various hon. Members opposite have pointed out. This has nothing to do with commons or footpaths which will not be affected in any way.
It is now apparent that to let the present situation continue is only to cause disadvantage and I remind the House of the undoubted public disadvantage in terms of accidents, quite apart from local residents and commoners. Surely, in that event, the only reason for not carrying through this procedure is that the House does it only in unusual circumstances. Can we say that there is all that on one side of the scales and, on the other, simply that
Main Question put and agreed to.
Bill considered accordingly; to be read the Third time.

SUPPLY
Again considered in Committee.
Original Question again proposed.
this is a rare procedure and that, for that reason, we are to produce a result which pleases no one and produces a rather farcical situation?
It seems almost impossible to believe that the Private Bill Committee, if given an opportunity to find a suitable better solution to the problem, perhaps by revised wording, will not be able to do so. At any rate, it is worth while allowing it to try to escape from the rather ridiculous position which now obtains.
Question put, That "now considered" stand part of the Question:—
The House divided: Ayes 39, Noes 22.

Division No. 218.]

AYES

[11.6 p.m.

Barlow, Sir John

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

Maginnis, John E.

Batsford, Brian

Gilmour, Sir John

Mathew, Robert (Honiton)

Biffen, John

Glover, Sir Douglas

More, Jasper (Ludlow)

Bingham, R. M.

Goodhew, Victor

Pitt, Miss Edith

Box, Donald

Hastings, Stephen

Prior, J. M. L.

Bullard, Denys

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

Russell, Ronald

Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.

Sharples, Richard

Chichester-Clark, R.

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

Studholme, Sir Henry

Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

Hughes-Young, Michael

Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

Cleaver Leonard

Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

Vane, W. M. F.

Cooke, Robert

King, Dr. Horace

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Corfield, F. V.

Lilley, F. J. P.

Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

McInnes, James

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

McLaren, Martin

Mr Carol Johnson and

Sir Godfrey Nicholson.

NOES

Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)

Redhead, E. C.

Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

Cliffe, Michael

Kershaw, Anthony

Roots, William

Delargy, Hugh

Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

Shaw, M.

Finlay, Graeme

Mawby, Ray

Sorensen, R. W.

Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

Parker, John

Thornton, Ernest

Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.

Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

Prentice, R. E.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Mr. Oram and Mr. Elwyn Jones.

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

EXMOUTH HOSPITAL
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Finlay.]
11.15 p.m.
Mr. Robert Mathew: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the question of the future of Exmouth Hospital and to express the strongest possible protest against the proposal contained in the Hospital Plan, the Blue Book, to change the status of this hospital from a general hospital to a hospital specialising in the care of old people, from acute to geriatric.
This decision has been greeted with almost universal dismay in Exmouth. There can be scarcely an intelligent person in the area who does not regard the proposal as utterly wrong. Protests have been registered by the Exmouth Urban District Council, the Lympstone Council, the Withycombe Raleigh Women's Institute, the Red Cross, St. John's Ambulance, the Exmouth Branch of the Business and Professional Women's Association, and, I may add, for the benefit of hon. Gentlemen opposite, the local Labour Party.
In addition, the medical staff committee disapproves wholeheartedly and is convinced that the loss to the local community would be irreparable, and the Exmouth Hospital House Committee takes the same view, as do the Friends of Exmouth Hospital League who, as my hon. Friend knows, have done a great deal of work for this hospital.
The preface to the Blue Book states:
"Hospitals are for people and exist to serve the public."
May I point out to my hon. Friend that here an attempt is being made to rationalise the hospital service, and among those to be rationalised is a large body of patients who will be put to a great amount of trouble to obtain a service which they have previously enjoyed very much more easily.
The plan appears to cut right across the policy of the British Medical Association, as recommended in the Platt Report, that there should be more, and not fewer, general practitioner beds, where the general practitioner has the opportunity of looking after his patients
1118
throughout the whole course of the illness, with diagnostic facilities for doing so. It is apparent that the family doctor welcomes his increased responsibility. There is no doubt that it raises his morale, his stature, and, indeed, his status in the eyes of his patients. Should it become possible to include beds for general practitioners in the new district hospitals, it can only affect and help those in the immediate neighbourhood of this hospital, and it would be impossible to replace for many others amenities now enjoyed by family doctors in the general practitioner hospital.
I should like to remind my hon. Friend that the President of the Royal College of Surgeons recently said that if British medicine is to remain British medicine it must not pay lip-service to the general practitioners, but give genuine admiration and support. It has been stated with great emphasis by many consultants that where the doctors had a local hospital wherein they could look after their own patients themselves there was a far higher standard of general medical practice, and the fact is that there is no substitute for the general practitioner. No hospital plan can ever replace the family doctor as the centre of medical care. Any objection that may be made that small hospitals can be uneconomic or inefficient may in certain cases be economically true, but it is not true at all in terms of human needs.
I need not stress to my hon. Friend the fact, of which she will be aware, that Exmouth is a rapidly growing town, and a very prosperous one. The population is now about 20,000, and is growing. There is a high illness incidence, and I should point out that the population may be nearly double during the five months of the holiday season. If Exmouth Hospital ceases to be an acute hospital, or general hospital, many hundreds of people will have to travel a considerable distance to obtain the attention they now receive, both acute medical and surgical, in their own town, and in the care of their own doctor. In those conditions, the general practitioner is his own house officer, and is glad to be so.
I think that my right hon. Friend will concede that this is a first-rate hospital, of which everyone in the area is justifiably exceedingly proud. It may well be —in fact, I concede at once—that there

1119
is need for more geriatric beds, but I submit that those should be in addition to the present facilities. There are already a number of convalescent homes, eventide homes, homes for the aged, residential homes, homes for the blind and private nursing homes in the area, and there is a case for an increase in the number of geriatric beds. There is also a case for an extension of the maternity services in this hospital. I shall submit that the eventual plan should envisage both geriatric and maternity wings, with a total of about 70 beds in the hospital.
The views of the consultants working in the hospital have been sought and, without exception, they view with grave disquiet the proposal to turn the Exmouth Hospital into a geriatric hospital. Apart from the great deal of major and intermediate surgery—which, together with minor surgery, has amounted to more than 600 cases a year—there is a greater and equally important amount of acute medical work, and a heavy load of geriatric patients.
I would point out that the local position will not be made any easier if the Minister's plan, or possible plan, to do away with the Budleigh Salterton Hospital is also carried out. Budleigh Salterton is only a very few miles away, and this intention has caused further indignation. I will, in due course, submit to my right hon. Friend the strongest possible case for the continuation of that hospital, but the whole situation will be exacerbated if both proposals are carried out. If one takes the whole future situation into account, the large number of cases I have cited, together with those appearing in the casualty, X-ray and physiotherapy departments, I submit that in this particular case the district hospital may well be completely unable to cope with the growing number.
My hon. Friend will no doubt say that the distance to Exeter is only about 11 miles but, in fact, because the Exmouth hospital services cover a very much larger area it could be anything up to 17 miles. During the height of the holiday season, on overcrowded roads, I have little doubt that the ambulance service would be strained to breaking point, valuable time would be lost, and the general practitioner denied the opportunity of looking after his patient during the whole course of the incident.
1120
Apart from the approaches made to me and to the Minister from my constituency—which, incidentally, includes a petition that has already been signed by a very large proportion of the whole population—approaches have been made to me and, I think, also to the Minister, by a number of organisations and people outside my constituency who are alarmed at his proposal. I submit that this is really a calamitous proposal, and I urge the Minister to have second thoughts before it is too late.
I often feel that such decisions are arrived at in Whitehall—or, in this case, in Savile Row—by experts who regard the whole United Kingdom as one vast conurbation, but what is suitable and practical in the London suburbs or in the Birmingham area is totally impracticable in rural Devon. Exmouth is not a very large town but it is a considerable centre. The police headquarters for the division and a number of other things of that sort make it comparably a much larger and more important centre than its population would indicate in the overcrowded areas of the Midlands or in the neighbourhood of London.
I put it to my hon. Friend that the voice of the people of Exmouth has spoken in unmistakable terms. The Minister has received a number of petitions and appeals already, and I ask my hon. Friend to act. I suggest that this action should be that, first, the Exmouth Hospital should be put back on the acute list immediately—and by all means let this decision be reviewed in five years' time. Secondly, the hospital should be enlarged and a very necessary geriatric ward added. I suggest also that there should be a maternity unit. There is great need for it in the area and there is no place more suited for a 12-bed maternity unit than Exmouth. I appeal with some confidence to my hon. Friend to recognise that there has been a wrong decision and that this wrong policy decision should be righted before it too late.
11.26 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Edith Pitt): First, I should like to assure my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Mathew) that those of us who work at the Ministry in Savile Row and who represent in Parliament areas in the

1121
Midlands know and love the West Country.
My Lon. Friend has raised as a constituency matter an issue—the future of the small hospitals—which will arise in many parts of the country as we go forward with the development of the hospital service foreshadowed in the Command Paper which was published on 23rd January last. This subject was touched upon by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and other hon. Members in the debate on 4th June on the Hospital Plan, but I think it useful, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend, to have another opportunity of putting before the House the broad principles which arise, and that we should consider the application of those principles in a particular case.
The proposals set out in the Command Paper are based largely on the concept of the district general hospital. This is not a new idea, but rather represents the result of a process of evolution. There has been an increasing realisation in recent years that we shall have the full benefit of the resources of modern medicine in treatment and diagnosis only if we concentrate them in hospitals which offer the full range of treatment, except perhaps for those specialties, sometimes called super-specialties, such as radiotherapy, neuro-surgery and plastic surgery, which need a relatively large catchment area and which would be provided only at certain hospitals.
The district general hospital will normally be of 600 to 800 beds, serving a population of 100,000 to 150,000. Some might be larger and some smaller, but few would be of less than 300 beds. Clearly, the development of district general hospitals must have its effect on the pattern as a whole and, in particular, on existing small hospitals.
We have suggested in the Command Paper how we think that this is likely to happen. There will be cases where the provision of a district general hospital quickly attracts the acute cases which would previously have gone to small hospitals not very far away. In other cases, it may be agreed that an existing small hospital could more usefully serve for older patients who have no acute condition, but who need prolonged hospital care and can best receive
1122
it in the area with which they are familiar. My hon. Friend spoke of the need for this care and for more geriatric beds in Exmouth, and I think that he will agree that, of all cases, these, which are frequently long-term cases, are in a special category calling for treatment in their own home area and their own surroundings.
Mr. Mathew: I agree that that is so, but the suggestion is that that must be, additional, without destroying the great tradition built up around the general practitioner which is so valuable to the local community but which will be utterly destroyed by the district general hospital.
Miss Pitt: I am coming to the general considerations, but I wanted to make clear that the provision of local geriatric beds does make a special call on local facilities.
In other cases, these small hospitals may be retained as maternity units, and some, in the more remote areas or where isolated towns receive an exceptional influx of seasonal visitors, may continue to receive medical emergencies which do not require specialist facilities. For the main part, however, we believe that the provision of comprehensive services in district general hospitals will be readily accepted by the people as the best and most practical means of placing the full range of hospital facilities at the disposal of the community; and we believe that people will also readily accept that this outweighs the disadvantage of longer travel for some patients and their relatives.
It is a matter of balance, I think. If we wish to provide the widest range of medical and surgical facilities, with all the equipment to serve them, to attract the best consultants to the service and to give consultants the opportunity of contact with other members of their profession—and this with one idea only, that is, providing to the people who receive the service the best quality that we can obtain—then, on balance, we must come down in favour of the district general hospital. I believe that that would be the approach of all those concerned when thinking in terms of obtaining service for those of their relatives

1123
who have to go into hospital, even though it might involve longer travelling.
The Devon and Exeter area, with a population of 529,000—expected to rise to 549,000 by 1975 is at present served by a total of 55 hospitals, 36 of which are of less than 50 beds. As is stated on page 196 of the Command Paper, it is the policy to concentrate services so far as possible in district general hospitals at Exeter, Torquay and Barnstaple, retaining small hospitals where circumstances make this necessary. My hon. Friend is particularly concerned about Exmouth, which is only about 11 miles from Exeter, and he mentioned also Budleigh Salterton which, if my knowledge of local geography serves me aright, is about three miles away. Both raise the same point about a small hospital which has given good service to the community.
At present, acute work in Exeter is carried on in the Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital and the City Hospital, with the West of England Eye Infirmary and the Princess Elizabeth Orthopaedic Hospital making their special contribution and, of course, serving a wider area. Plans are, however, under consideration for a new district general hospital at Wonford, on the outskirts of Exeter, which will not only permit but will demand a rethinking of the shape of hospital services in this part of the area.
Exmouth Hospital, like many others in the West Country and elsewhere, owes a great debt to the service given by local general practitioners, and I am very glad to join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the part they have played. We look forward to continued and strengthened association of the general practitioner with the hospital service and this is made quite clear in the Hospital Plan. It was also repeated at some length by the Minister in the debate on 4th June, to which I have referred, when my right hon. Friend stressed that it was perhaps right that the last words in that debate should be concerned with general practice and with the patient as an individual and a human being. I feel that that emphasises the importance which we attach to the continued contribution of the general practitioner to the hospital
1124
service and, indeed, to the community service.
I wish also to mention that among the plans for the Wonford development is a medical centre, to be financed by a local trust, where doctors from the surrounding area can meet their hospital colleagues and thus keep in touch with their cases referred to hospital. I do not propose at this stage to argue in detail what should happen in the case of any particular hospital likely to be affected, because no final decisions have been made. But I should like to draw the attention of my hon. Friend to three matters.
In the first place, it is stated in the preface to the Command Paper—and this was underlined by Government spokesmen in the debate on 4th June—that the intention is that the proposals of the Command Paper shall be reviewed annually. Secondly, as my right hon. Friend stated in the same debate, the Command Paper makes clear that except where specific decisions have already been announced, it does not finally commit the individual details of closure, change of use, or of new building but, as and when the time comes when each executive decision has to be taken by regional hospital boards, the boards will be anxious to consider the views of informed local opinion and indeed will usually take the initiative in so doing. Thirdly, I would point out that the first ward blocks at the new Wonford Hospital are not likely to be in operation until the second half of the decade and it will thus be 1970 or later before we shall be able to judge the effect of the new hospital on other hospitals in the area.
My hon. Friend asked for an assurance that there would be no change for five years and that the Exmouth beds shall remain designated as acute for this period. I can say that the beds at present are acute and will remain so for at least five years. There is, as I hope I have made clear, provision for annual review of the plan and for local discussion and consideration of local views before any decisions are finalised. At this stage, therefore, the question of review, as has been said by my right hon. Friend, is primarily a matter for regional hospital boards, because they are responsible for planning in the area. No doubt my hon.

1125
Friend will be glad to know that representatives of the South-Western Regional Hospital Board have arranged to receive representations from the urban district council on 10th July, and I have no doubt that the council will be fully informed so as to represent all the local views, which my hon. Friend has listed tonight, about developments in Exmouth.
1126
I hope that that will go some way to satisfy my hon. Friend that local consideration is a very live and important part of the developments in the hospital field.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes to Twelve o'clock.

NATIONAL FINANCE
  Bankruptcy Petitions
  Bankruptcy Petitions
  Income Tax and Surtax
  Income Tax and Surtax
  H.M. Stationery Office (London Mail Order Department)
  H.M. Stationery Office (London Mail Order Department)
  Long-Term Interest Rates
  Long-Term Interest Rates
  Industrial Production
  Industrial Production
  Social Services and Defence (Expenditure)
  Social Services and Defence (Expenditure)
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
  Hydrocarbon Oils
  Hydrocarbon Oils
MINISTRY OF WORKS
  Trafalgar Square (Meeting)
  Trafalgar Square (Meeting)
  Royal Parks (Catering Contracts)
  Royal Parks (Catering Contracts)
  Horse Guards Parade (Car Parking Arrangements)
  Horse Guards Parade (Car Parking Arrangements)
  National Assistance Board Offices, Liverpool
  National Assistance Board Offices, Liverpool
POST OFFICE
  Capital Expenditure
  Capital Expenditure
  Da Vinci Cartoon (Special Stamp)
  Da Vinci Cartoon (Special Stamp)
WIRELESS AND TELEVISION
  Wireless Licences (Portable Sets)
  Wireless Licences (Portable Sets)
  Advertising (Cigarettes)
  Advertising (Cigarettes)
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Kiosk, Swinhope (Takings)
  Kiosk, Swinhope (Takings)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Sewer Scheme, Sunderland
  Sewer Scheme, Sunderland
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Courts-Martial
  Courts-Martial
  Policy
  Policy
BRITISH ARMY
  Hilden Camp, Germany
  Hilden Camp, Germany
MINISTRY OF POWER
  Steel Industry
  Steel Industry
HOSPITALS
  Rubery Hill Hospital (Inquiry)
  Rubery Hill Hospital (Inquiry)
  Drugs
  Drugs
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Thalidomide
  Thalidomide
  NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES (PRIVATE ENTERPRISE SHAREHOLDINGS)
  NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES (PRIVATE ENTERPRISE SHAREHOLDINGS)
  COMMONWEALTH PRIME MINISTERS MEETING
  COMMONWEALTH PRIME MINISTERS MEETING
  ROYAL COMMISSION ON THE PRESS (REPORT)
  ROYAL COMMISSION ON THE PRESS (REPORT)
ROYAL NAVY
  Royal Marine Band, Plymouth
  Royal Marine Band, Plymouth
  Admiralty Offices, Bath
  Admiralty Offices, Bath
  Admiralty Staff, London and Bath (Travelling and Subsistence)
  Admiralty Staff, London and Bath (Travelling and Subsistence)
  Airfield, Lee-on-Solent
  Airfield, Lee-on-Solent
  Wykeham Hall, Lee-on-Solent
  Wykeham Hall, Lee-on-Solent
  Erwarton Hall, Shotley
  Erwarton Hall, Shotley
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Potatoes
  Potatoes
EDUCATION
  Teachers (Married Women)
  Teachers (Married Women)
  G.C.E. Results (Survey)
  G.C.E. Results (Survey)
  National Association of British Manufacturers (Memorandum)
  National Association of British Manufacturers (Memorandum)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Boys and Girls (Remand to Prison)
  Boys and Girls (Remand to Prison)
  Diesel-Engined Road Vehicles (Fumes)
  Diesel-Engined Road Vehicles (Fumes)
  Police (Administration)
  Police (Administration)
  Indictable Offences
  Indictable Offences
TECHNICAL CO-OPERATION
  Indian Economic and Social Progress (Exhibition)
  Indian Economic and Social Progress (Exhibition)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Exports to Commonwealth Countries (Tariffs)
  Exports to Commonwealth Countries (Tariffs)
  Development Projects, Sunderland
  Development Projects, Sunderland
  Western Cameroons (Commonwealth Preference)
  Western Cameroons (Commonwealth Preference)
  Exports
  Exports

Preamble
Reassembling after the Whitsun Recess, the House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chester

SOUTH AFRICA AND COMMONWEALTH CONFERENCE
2.36 p.m.
LORD GRANTCHESTER: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether an invitation will be extended to the Government of South Africa to send an Observer to the Conference of Commonwealth Prime Ministers to be held on September 10 next.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE): No, my Lords.
LORD GRANTCHESTER: My Lords, I thank the noble Duke for his reply. Am I right in assuming that the South African Government are conducting their own negotiations with the European Community and with the Six. If so, may I take it that the South African Government are keeping Her Majesty's Government informed, as I believe the South African Government will be kept informed by Her Majesty's Government, of their respective negotiations? May I also take it that the South African Government will be kept informed of the discussions with the Commonwealth Prime Ministers, so that our mutual interests which remain will not be overlooked?
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, as the noble Lord will probably be aware, the South African Minister for Economic Affairs has recently had very full discussions with members of Her Majesty's Government. As for the second part of the noble Lord's supplementary question, no doubt a full view
812
of South Africa's trade concerns which would be affected should we enter the European Community was considered in these talks. But I must remind the noble Lord that South Africa is no longer a member of the Commonwealth.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, with reference to the conversations which the South African Minister has recently had with Her Majesty's Government, may we take it that in future South Africa will be in no better position than any other foreign country?
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: Yes, my Lords.

UNITED NATIONS AND SOUTHERN RHODESIA
2.38 p.m.
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether Article 2(7) of the Charter of the United Nations is still binding upon member States and, if so, what right have the General Assembly to debate the internal affairs of Southern Rhodesia.]
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, Article 2(7) of the Charter is certainly still binding upon members of the United Nations. Only a fortnight ago, on June 12, our Permanent Representative in New York, Sir Patrick Dean, said:
"Members of the Assembly will be aware that my Government believes that a debate in the United Nations about Southern Rhodesia not only exceeds what is permissible under the Charter, but at the present stage particularly could do harm in that territory."
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, while thinking my noble friend for his very clear and firm reply, may I ask him whether it is not a fact that the Steering Committee have now violated the established rules of procedure of the United Nations in order to get this item down on the Agenda? Secondly, in all the circumstances, would it not be more dignified, as well as more in conformity with British interests, if our delegation were to withdraw altogether from these proceedings?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, on the procedural point, we were led to believe that, so far as the inscription of the Southern Rhodesian item on the Agenda was concerned, a two-thirds majority would prevail and that that would be the rule which would be applied to any discussion. Halfway through the discussion, the rule was changed. That is not the kind of thing that gives confidence in United Nations proceedings.
So far as withdrawing from the discussions on this or on any other colonial question is concerned, my feeling is that, although we have been very often unfairly attacked in these matters, nevertheless, Great Britain ought to make her case known in the United Nations wherever that is necessary, and, therefore, that we should not withdraw from the Committee of Information or from the Committee of Seventeen. That is my present feeling.

KATANGA AND THE UNITED NATIONS
2.41 p.m.
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they received any report that the United Nations authorities in the Congo are again seeking to send forces to the towns of Jadotville and Kolwezi in Katanga.]
THE EARL OF HOME: No, my Lords.
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, will my noble friend instruct our representatives at the United Nations to warn the authorities there of the danger of formulating any such demands as were formulated, as we know, in February? These demands, which, if pressed, would inevitably lead to further fighting, would also defeat the whole purpose of the presence of the United Nations in the Congo by making the Katanga a State which could not contribute in any way to the economy of the Congo.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I do not disagree with what my noble friend has said, but the Question I was asked was: Had I
814
"received any report that the United Nations authorities in the Congo are again seeking to send forces to the towns of Jadotville and Kolwezi in Katanga."
And my answer was, No. I have no such report and, indeed, I have no reason to think that this is proposed.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I should like to ask my noble friend if he will make inquiries as to whether there is any substance in substantial rumours of which I have heard that such is the case.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I have never answered a question in your Lordships' House without first making inquiries.

SHELLFISHERMEN'S EARNINGS
2.44 p.m.
LORD WISE: 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 a subsidy of one shilling per stone would amount to per annum on the individual landings of whelks, shrimps and crabs in Norfolk harbours on the basis of the landings of such shellfish in 1961.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL WALDEGRAVE): My Lords, a subsidy at this rate on these landings would amount to £13,474 per annum.
LORD WISE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Earl for that information, which shows a very small percentage on the £5 million of subsidies which may have to be paid for the fishing fleets, may I ask him if he is still satisfied with the earnings of the shell-fishermen generally? In our debate a few weeks ago there seemed to be no information as to what the earnings were, and from the Government Benches it was almost suggested that this particular branch of fishing was prosperous. Since that time I have been able to obtain figures for eight fishing areas, covering 48 vessels and 106 men, and I find that the average earnings in 1961 were £471 a year; in 1959 they were £451—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
LORD WISE: May I ask the noble Earl, in view of these figures, whether the Government are satisfied with the position in regard to subsidies?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, the Government are satisfied that it would not be right to introduce a shellfish subsidy at this time.
THE EARL OF HADDINGTON: My Lords, does the noble Earl realise that the gear used by shellfishermen is the most expensive to maintain and the most liable to loss by damage from storm?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I have no doubt that some of the gear used by shellfishermen is expensive to maintain. But this question hardly arises as a supplementary to the original Question, and I am satisfied, as I said on the Second Reading of the Bill, that a shellfish subsidy would not be justified.

DARTMOUTH CADET'S DEATH
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I ask a Question of which I have given Private Notice: namely, to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a statement about the death of cadet Jones at Dartmouth?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, cadet Jones was drowned after the dinghy in which he was sailing cap-sized during a race at Dartmouth on Thursday, June 21. A Board of Inquiry has been convened, and its report will be considered by the Admiralty in due course. I should like to express my deep sympathy to cadet Jones's parents.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I hope that the report of this inquiry may be delivered fairly soon. I live in the district from which this cadet comes, and the Press reports have given people serious concern about what happened, as to the lack of equipment and so on. I hope that these things will be brought out and proved or disproved at the inquiry.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, that is what the Board of Inquiry is
816
for. But I think I ought to say, in view of what the noble Viscount has said, that the reports on the accident which have reached the Admiralty do not show that there was anything wrong with the safety arrangements.

BRITISH PRISONERS IN LAOS
LORD HENDERSON.: My Lords, I beg to ask Her Majesty's Government a Question of which I have given them Private Notice: namely, whether they have any further news of the British prisoners in Laos?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I regret that we have no recent news of the two doctors who are prisoners in Laos, either as to their welfare or their whereabouts. Her Majesty's Ambassador at Vientiane has been in constant contact with Prince Souvanna Phouma, and also with Prince Souphanouvong and his military commanders, from whom the units holding the prisoners are understood to accept orders. He has also spoken to the Soviet Chargé d'Affaires and to the Polish Commissioner on the International Control Commission for Laos. Although the Ambassador has been assured that there is no cause for concern and that delays can be accounted for by difficulties of communication, it has been impossible to establish any direct contact with the prisoners or their captors. At my request the Ambassador has now delivered a personal message to the new Prime Minister of Laos, Prince Souvanna Phouma, in which I have requested him to give very urgent attention to the matter. He has promised me an early reply.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, while thanking the noble Earl for his reply, am I not right in saying that the doctors have been under arrest for at least four weeks, and the two diplomats for nearly three weeks? Are we not in friendly relations with the Laotian Government, and is it not time that they bestirred themselves and took urgent and immediate action to bring about the speedy release of these four British subjects?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I agree with every word that the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, has said. We

817
sent a member of the Embassy to find the doctors and to make contact with the commander of the particular unit, and the only result has been that the member of the Embassy also is now a prisoner. It is true that we are in friendly relations with Prince Souvanna Phouma. He has only lately taken over authority in Laos, as the noble Lord knows, and has lately become Prime Minister. But I must make it clear that I would expect from him a favourable reply about the release of these prisoners.
LORD REA: My Lords, is it possible for the noble Earl to say at what date his message was sent and at what date he hopes to receive a reply?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, my message was given at the end of last week. I cannot say when I hope to receive a reply, but I should hope that it will be very rapid, because I must emphasise that this is a matter of serious concern to Her Majesty's Government and to the relatives of the doctors and the member of the Embassy staff.

SHIP MORTGAGE FINANCE COMPANY BILL
Read 2a, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL
Read 2a, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

CENTRAL TREATY ORGANISATION (IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES) ORDER, 1962
2.51 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, there are two humble Addresses which I have to move. As the Orders are both concerned with immunities and privileges, I think it might be for your Lordships' convenience if I said a brief word about both of them before moving the first. The first one is concerned with CENTO, and this is necessary in order to enable the
818
Government to ratify the Central Treaty Organisation Statutes Agreement which was signed in November, 1960. I think we are all inclined—certainly I am often inclined—to be a little critical, and perhaps even a little resentful sometimes, about the number of persons who are accorded diplomatic and fiscal privileges who are not actually connected with Embassies but are engaged on work with some international organisation in London. Of course, we get reciprocal privileges in other countries. But I would submit to your Lordships that both these Orders are fully justified.
So far as the first one is concerned, CENTO has its headquarters in Ankara. It is extremely unlikely that any branch will be established in London, or that any officials connected with CENTO will ever come here, unless there should happen to be a CENTO Conference temporarily convened in the United Kingdom. If that should happen, except for the Secretary-General and the Senior Deputy Secretary-General, both of whom possess normal diplomatic immunity under this Order, the officials of CENTO would be liable to legal proceedings in respect of all acts performed by them in their private capacities. They would be personally answerable in just the same way as any of us or any of your Lordships would be answerable at the present moment for all misdeeds, motoring offences or more serious crimes, which were committed outside the sphere of official duties.
Perhaps I might say a word about the other Order affecting the International Wheat Agreement and the International Wheat Council. I do not think it is necessary for me to mention the advantages of our belonging to the International Wheat Council. I know that most of us were concerned when the Government felt obliged to leave that Council in 1953, and I think most of us were glad when we rejoined it in 1959. These humble Addresses, and the Order which I am asking your Lordships to approve, do not affect individuals, because in 1954, although we were no longer members of the International Wheat Council, the headquarters of the Council continued to be in London, and a special clause was put into the Finance Bill, 1954, dealing with the position of officials of the Council who happened to be in London. We are not concerned

819
now with the Finance Act; we are concerned only with this Order which affects the Council in its corporate capacity.
What it does is to exempt the Council from payment of rates in so far as the Council are not benefiting by the services to which the rates apply. I think that is not a very large or unjustifiable privilege. I am not, as your Lordships know, anxious to extend these privileges unnecessarily. I would only remind your Lordships that the privileges which British subjects get on organisations like the Food and Agriculture Committee, in Rome, and elsewhere, are often more extensive than those which we give to foreigners residing here. I think that if we want to go on co-operating in military affairs, such as are concerned with CENTO, of economic affairs, and the very important question of putting, if we can, a floor into world commodity prices by such means as the International Wheat Council, we must give these small concessions to one or two people who are residing in London. I therefore beg to move the first humble Address which stands in my name.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Central Treaty Organisation (Immunities and Privileges) Order, 1962, be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on the 30th of May last.—(The Earl of Dundee.)
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, it is certainly always necessary to do something about exemptions of this kind when you are getting completely reciprocal treatment—and I understand that in most of these matters, at any rate, that treatment is entirely reciprocal. On the other hand, we have had various comments in the last two or three Parliaments. I remember that my late friend Lord Jowitt, who used often to perform the duty the noble Earl is carrying out to-day, always spoke with some regret, and when he was in Opposition he sometimes stated a case against the extension. Could the noble Earl give me any idea of how many persons are likely to be involved in this general grant of immunity?
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, before the noble Earl replies I should like to interject one sentence. I was immensely
820
encouraged to hear the remark of the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, about the necessity for putting a floor under commodity prices for such commodities as wheat; in other words, for having world commodity price schemes for stabilising world commodity prices. I should like the noble Earl to say in his reply that Her Majesty's Government will continue relentlessly to pursue that aim.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, in reply to the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition, so far as the first of these two Orders is concerned, it would affect only two individuals, the Secretary General and the Deputy Secretary General of CENTO, on the rare occasions When they might happen to come to London if a CENTO Conference happened to be held here. In respect of the second Order, as I have explained to your Lordships, individuals are already dealt with by the Finance Act, 1954, passed when we were not a member of the International Wheat Council; and now that we have become a member again it is not necessary to do anything more except to continue the appropriate section of that Act. In reply to the "unscrupulous intervention" of my noble friend Lord Boothby, I do not in any way resent At, because I have often tried to represent to your Lordships that the world economy cannot be put on a right basis until there is a proper equilibrium between commodity prices and other prices. I am putting these Orders to your Lordships on the broader basis, because they will help to make it more possible to have a rational system of world prices.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, would the noble Earl say that, where exemption is granted as regards payment of rent, the local authority in question will be reimbursed by the Government?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I do not think that in these Orders there is any question of rental at all. It affects only rates. The noble Lord said "rent". That affects only the International Wheat Council as a corporate body; it does not affect individual members of the Council. I do not know whether the Government reimburses the local authority in these cases—I do not think it does—but the rebate of rates is given under this Order only when the local service on which the rates are spent

821
does not benefit the International Wheat Council. They will have to pay rates for services from Which they derive benefit.
LORD LATHAM: Will a general service derived from a local authority be regarded as not entitling the organisation to exemption?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: They are reimbursed in those cases where the rates are remitted, but they are not remitted in all cases. The organisation will have to pay rates When it is considered they will benefit. I do not think your Lordships Will want me to go into great detail, but they are required to pay rates for services from which, as a member body, they are benefiting but have exemption in respect of services which are nothing to do with them.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, may I take it that as the International Wheat Council will be responsible for its own buildings in which it works, and whether, if it pays the expenses of living accommodation for its members or servants, it will be granted any rebate of rates in respect of those places?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: No; it will pay rates. It is the local authority who is reimbursed, not the International Wheat Council.
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Address to be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

INTERNATIONAL WHEAT COUNCIL (IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES) ORDER, 1962
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the International Wheat Council (Immunities and Privileges) Order, 1962, be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on the 30th of May last.
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Address to be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

SEA FISH INDUSTRY BILL
3.4 p.m.
Report of the Amendment received (according to Order).
Clause 3:
Extension of powers of White Fish Authority and Herring Industry Board to make grants
3.—(1) The powers conferred on the White Fish Authority by section one of the White Fish and Herring Industries Act, 1953, and on the Herring Industry Board by section six of that Act (which sections respectively empower the Authority and the Board to make grants in respect of the acquisition of new fishing vessels and new engines for fishing vessels, but limited in each case to vessels not exceeding one hundred and forty feet in length) shall be extended and shall have effect in accordance with, and subject to, the following provisions of this section.
(2) The expenditure in respect of which grants may be made in pursuance of a scheme made after the commencement of this Act under either of the relevant sections shall be expenditure incurred in the acquisition of any vessel to which that section applies, or in the acquisition, installation, modification, renewal or replacement of any part of a vessel to which that section applies, or of an engine, or any part of an engine, of or for such a vessel, or of any relevant equipment required for, or installed or used on, such a vessel:
Provided that no grant shall be so made in respect of expenditure incurred in the acquisition of any secondhand vessel, engine, part, equipment or apparatus, or for the acquisition of a vessel, engine, part, equipment or apparatus built outside the Commonwealth.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM)THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM) moved, in the proviso to subsection (2), to leave out "or for the acquisition of a vessel, engine, part, equipment or apparatus built outside the Commonwealth". The noble Viscount said: My Lords, before I move the Amendment, may I say how glad we are on this side of the House to see the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, back in his place. It is certainly a great pleasure to us and I hope he is now fully restored to his customary vigour and health. The purpose of the Amendment which I now rise to move is to restore the Bill to the condition in which it was when your Lordships received it from another place and before the carrying in Committee, by one vote, on June 5, of the proviso to subsection (2) of Clause 3 of the Bill in the words:
"or for the acquisition of a vessel, engine, part, equipment or apparatus built outside the Commonwealth".
The effect of passing this Amendment is not merely that of restoring the Bill to the condition in which it was when we received it from another place but of restoring the same wording which every similar Act of Parliament from 1944 onwards has employed.
My Lords, I would not ask the House to reverse its previous decision without very careful consideration or without giving full and careful reasons for the course I propose. I do not, however, think it is altogether irrelevant to point out to your Lordships that the decision of which we now seek the reversal was arrived at by the comparatively modest majority of one in a House of 89 actually voting.
I do not rely on the fact—for which I can only apologise to your Lordships—that on the occasion in question I myself and my noble friend the Duke of Devonshire were both absent electioneering in West Derbyshire, and that my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack was performing functions of great public value in Virginia. These are idle regrets, if indeed they be regrets, but they do add force to the proposition that the issue, warmly contested, could easily have been decided the other way. Therefore it is not inappropriate, I think, that the House should be given another opportunity of considering the matter.
I am fortified in this belief by the conviction I have that, quite apart from the merits of the case, which I will seek to discuss in detail, the House was, in two particulars, seriously misled—although of course entirely innocently and in the best of good faith—by two of the noble Lords who supported the Amendment, Lord Williams of Barn-burgh (whom we are all so delighted to see back in good health and taking such a vigorous part in our debates) and the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, who supported him. Both noble Lords attempted to lead the House to believe, and, indeed, I am advised, with some success, that there was something sinister and improper—
LORD BOOTHBY: There was.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: —in the announcement by my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in another place on May 18 of a change in the terms on
824
which grants, both under the previous Bill and under the present Bill, would be made available as soon as the new schemes were made under the present Bill—we hope in July of this year.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barnburgh, spoke of a "constitutional irregularity or impropriety", of which he "did not recall anything quite like it". He spoke of a "conspiracy of silence" and "cool calculated deception". The noble Lord, Lord Boothby, used even more extravagant language. He said that the Government were guilty of "trickery", and that the Government were not "honest with Parliament" at any stage. I am bound to say that if I took them entirely seriously I should resent these attacks upon my colleagues and upon the honour of the Government; and, in any event, I consider that they ought not to have been made.
My Lords, I shall endeavour to show that these charges are without foundation of any kind and, indeed, that the smallest reflection would have persuaded both noble Lords that this was so. I can remember that when I was a very young man the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, obtained great fame and just popularity with his constituents by standing on a barrel of red herrings in Milan or Turin seeking to sell the products of his constituency to the descendants of Scipio Africanus and St. Ambrose. He never stood on a bigger barrel of red herrings than when he made these charges in your Lordships' House.
My Lords, the subsidies to which the section relates have been part of the law of the land since 1944 and have been enacted from time to time, the last time being, I think, in 1953. In each case the language of the Statute has been identical with the language proposed by the Government here; and, because it contains no words discriminatory against foreign vessels or engines, this form contains nothing in it which is contrary to our international obligations. The only relevant point at which the present Bill differs from previous Bills is in the size and type of the vessel attracting the grant. The most recent limitation of size written into the Bill was, I believe, one of 140 feet, written into a Bill in 1953. The purpose of the present Bill is simply to remove the

825
limit of size to enable grants to be given for processing and transport vessels, as well as catching vessels, and to extend the time for which grants are available. It also removes (although I think this is irrelevant) a distinction which has hitherto existed between a working and non-working owner. The Bill has never contained, nor has any of its predecessors, any mention of discrimination against foreign vessels.
The actual administration of the subsidies has been by delegated legislation or by administrative arrangements. The statutory schemes of grant under the 1953 Act, which this Bill amends, have to be passed by both Houses of Parliament by Affirmative Resolution. Therefore, no change can take place in these schemes by stealth or without the fullest discussion in both Houses of Parliament. That is the form which Parliament has decreed that the schemes should take, and though there are, of course, both advantages and disadvantages in delegated legislation, I am bound to say that I have not so far heard it suggested that this was an inappropriate use of it. In fact, the schemes so passed by Parliament have hitherto contained a prohibition against the use of grants for foreign vessels. No alteration in this provision can be made without bringing a new scheme to Parliament. The prohibition dates from 1944 and was based, so I am informed, on the conditions then ruling and subsequently on balance-of-payment considerations.
In 1947 we joined GATT, and the prohibition became technically contrary to our obligations under it. However, it seems to have attracted no protests at first, partly because only the smallest vessels were then included, and, of course, there is a high degree of built-in protection in the provision of these smaller types of vessel. At all events, the prohibition lingered on until March, 1960, when inquiries by the Swedish Government indicated that the prohibition might he open to challenge after our adhesion to EFTA, which has since taken place, since this Treaty also contains provisions against discrimination in addition to those of GATT. This challenge would be an unanswerable one, and would of course become serious when the grants become available, as they will under this Bill, without limit of size or type. Accordingly, it was
826
decided to remove the prohibition from the new schemes when they were announced in July of this year, and because a reasonable period of notice to the trade was thought necessary it was eventually decided to make our intention plain on May 18 this year.
It so happened that this was immediately after the Second Reading in this House, and in time to give an opportunity for debate in Committee. I offer no apology whatever for the first and I claim no virtue whatever for the second. From the point of view of the Bill the explanation of the announcement was unnecessary and it became necessary for the purely extraneous reasons which I have sought to explain, and this is the whole truth about this matter. The selection of a date might be criticised by one of our more censorious and enthusiastic supporters on the grounds that it afforded the supporters of what some of us think a wholly unmeritorious Amendment an adventitious and totally irrelevant support to bolster an otherwise unconvincing case. But it can hardly lie in the mouth of the Opposition to the Government to criticise us on this ground. The effect of our action has been to increase the opportunity of Parliamentary discussion beyond even that which Parliament has provided.
Though most noble Lords opposite—I think the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, was one—sought to discover a constitutional point behind what was done, I would have said, with respect to the noble Lord, who is a master of such subjects, that this point was even more empty. Parliament has decided that power to pay these grants should be available for a period of ten years, and that schemes under the Act embodying changes among other things covering this purpose can be made by means of Affirmative Resolution at any time during those ten years. Unless it is going to be argued seriously that when Parliament said this it meant the opposite, and that the financial provisions of the scheme could not be altered at any time after the Bill had passed the House of Commons, there can be neither rhyme nor reason in this so-called constitutional argument. It is a mere figment of the ingenuity of noble Lords opposite. The plain fact is that if we had wanted to withhold information of the change till the scheme was launched we should

827
have been fully within our rights, and that by announcing it in May before your Lordships' Committee stage we voluntarily provided the Opposition with an argument which they would not otherwise have had but which has no relevance to the merits of the Amendment they were seeking to support.
I now come to the policy of the noble Lords who criticised the Government themselves. Of course, the House will, as I have explained, have yet another opportunity of discussing the policy when the scheme comes before it by way of a Motion for Affirmative Resolution. But whatever the merits of the policy of discrimination against foreign vessels may be, it is surely unarguable, I would have said, that the House should seek to insert in an Act of Parliament a provision not merely permitting but requiring the Government to break our Treaty obligations. It is also to my mind clear—and I would submit it was clear enough—that the policy of Her Majesty's Government in this regard is not merely the only policy which we can honourably defend as signatories of GATT and EFTA and prospective signatories of the Treaty of Rome, of which such an eloquent supporter last year was the noble Lord, Lord Boothby—
LORD BOOTHBY: Can the noble Viscount point to any provision in the Treaty of Rome which requires one participating country to subsidise the industries of another?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I can point to a provision of the Treaty of Rome preventing discrimination of the kind the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, has been supporting in this case, and that must be well within the noble Lord's own knowledge. But it is not only on these Treaty grounds that I would support the course we are asking the House to follow; it is the only rational policy to pursue in the interests of this country.
We still give a number of subsidies in this country. We give subsidies to farmers for ploughing and for building and other capital improvements. We give subsidies to the cotton industry for re-equipment with new machinery. We give a somewhat involuntary subsidy to the railways and the mines for their capital investment. We do not say to the farmer, "You must not use foreign
828
steel in your grant-aided building. You must not have an American plough." We do not say to the cotton manufacturer, "You must not buy Swiss or Swedish machinery". And, in point of fact, they often do. We do not say to the railways or mines, "You are confined to British goods". I do not doubt it is true when the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, says, as he did, that the British yards (I think he mentioned the Scottish yards) are efficient. If so, they have nothing to fear. They have the in-built protection of neighbourliness, convenience, proximity and national sentiment, which certainly in Scotland is not lacking. I am informed that in the class of un-subsidised trawlers out of 70 orders only about 7 went abroad, and that largely owing to difficulties of delivery, which no longer exist. But when it is sought not merely to remove competition but to remove also the chance or any possibility of competition, I would say myself that restrictiveness has gone too far.
The noble Lord, Lord Boothby, did quite certainly go too far when he said in his speech, which I will quote [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 241 (No. 90), col. 493]:
"I have a certain experience, extending over quite a long period, of the fishermen of this country, and they are passionately opposed to it."
He certainly went too far then. His speech in your Lordships' House received an immediate and "dusty" answer from the fishermen of Buckie, who wrote the very next day in support of the Government's policy. The material part of their letter read as follows:
"The Government proposal is simply that fishermen should be allowed to go abroad to have their boats built. If the North-East Shipbuilders are competitive they would still get our orders; but, judging from the prices being charged today, many of us feel that it is about time that some outside competition was introduced. Why should Buckie fishermen have to shop in the dearest market?"
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, that was a disgraceful statement and one which could have come only from Buckie.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I am afraid that I have two more "disgraceful" statements emphatically to read to the noble Lord, Lord Boothby. Although in perhaps less rumbustious

829
language than the other fishermen they express exactly the same view. I now have a message from the Clyde fishermen, who have said:
"There has been a very definite feeling amongst our members, rightly or wrongly, that the prices quoted by British yards would have been a good deal cheaper had it not been for the grants and loans scheme."
Only to-day I was shown a letter from the Federation of English and Welsh Inshore Fishermen, who have a certain importance, as well as the Scots. The writer of this letter says:
"Having some knowledge of the proposed Common Market I feel that this Federation is not against the Government's proposals in their present form."
So much for Lord Boothby's accuracy, in his claims for the fishermen of the country who are passionately on his side!
I would say that subsidies nearly always need some justification. They are not always in the public interest. Where they are in the public interest it is surely when they promote efficiency and competitiveness. The supporters of the restriction appear to want subsidy irrespective of efficiency, and even where it would interfere with competitiveness. Of course the Government do not wish to encourage a perverse preference for foreign yards. Hence the provision which we have announced, which requires that British builders must be given an equal chance and also be invited to tender in cases where a tender from a foreign yard is sought; and hence, also, the statement of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in another place with regard to subsidised yards. Since what he then said may go far to remove some of the anxieties of noble Lords opposite I shall quote it later.
It is said that between 1947 (when we became parties to GATT) and the present day, the schemes contained a prohibition against foreign yards. As a fact, as I have already explained, that is true, although the schemes were then confined to the smaller boats. If this were to be used as a criticism of the Government for having remained in technical breach of our treaty obligations for so long, I would understand its relevance. But what I do not, with respect, understand is the attempted use of the argument in favour of perpetuating the
830
breach after it has been drawn to our attention.
Noble Lords may be perfectly certain that, after the publicity which the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, has attracted to this matter, eager eyes will be seeking to see what happens to this Amendment. I wish that noble Lords who support the Amendment would really apply their minds to the great damage to this country such an insistence on a continued breach could be, not merely as throwing doubt upon our willingness to keep our promises, but as cutting the ground from under our feet when we seek to enforce these promises against others. On balance, we suffer from discriminating practices more than most countries. How can we protect our own exports against foreign discrimination if, whenever a lobby can be found that thinks itself aggrieved, this House of Parliament is to be persuaded to insist on the Government breaking its obligations in order to gratify them? We are an exporting nation. Among other things we have exported, and wish to export, ships. Our interest is to end discrimination, and to build up a shipbuilding industry which can retain its rightful place in the international field. How can we do this if the policy which is being pressed upon us is followed?
There is another and more pressing argument. Obviously, where British builders are in the field and are competitive we want the work to go to them. But one of the main purposes of extending grants to ships of all sizes—that is, to distant-water trawlers—was expressed to be to help the owners of these fishing boats to break with tradition and to equip themselves with new types of vessels, such as freezer-trawlers which are larger and more expensive than the conventional distant-water trawler, and are not always available in British yards. Surely it is obvious that, while nobody wants these orders to go abroad, to restrict the use of subsidies or loans in the way proposed could have the effect of interfering with the very policy which the Bill is designed to encourage.
The noble Lord, Lord Boothby, as I have said, made great play at the last debate of speaking on behalf of the fishermen. I have already adverted to the accuracy, or want of accuracy, in the first part of the statement. So far as the

831
boat builders for whom he also claimed to speak are concerned, I should prefer the views of one of a deputation which came to see my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport about this very matter—quoted in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: On what date?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: On June 5, 1962. It was a report appearing in the Scotsman. It says that a deputation of of the Shipbuilding Conference and the Ship and Boat Builders National Confederation called on the Minister of Transport to protest. Their comments afterwards ranged from "fairly satisfactory" to "a very good meeting indeed". There was the further comment which I should like to quote:
"As one member of the deputation put it later, All we want is a fair crack of the whip and not to be put at a disadvantage by foreigners' … lest there is any misunderstanding about consultation with the shipbuilding industry I want to make it quite clear that this matter was dealt with in the meeting with the Minister."
The fact is that those who support this prohibition are doing a poor service to British boat-builders by the suggestion implicit in their case that British builders will not be able to compete on equal terms for this business with foreign yards. As my right honourable friend pointed out in another place, orders from foreign yards by British shipowners have now dropped to a trickle. Nearly half the orders recently booked in British yards have been export orders. The smaller yards have, in addition, the immense advantage of local convenience and sentiment to which I have referred.
There is only one other point I would add. Fears have been expressed about unfair competition from foreign yards which have been subsidised. On this my right honourable friend gave an unequivocal assurance in another place on June 8 in these words:
"I can most certainly assure the House that we can and will ensure that our grants will not be used in such a way that the competitive position of British yards will be prejudiced by competition from yards abroad which can be shown to be in receipt of a material element of subsidy. I want the House to realise that this is an assurance which we can give quite deliberately and categorically, and I think it
832
should meet the fears expressed by my honourable friends who have dealt with this matter so cogently."
My Lords, I should have thought that this was an assurance which should set at rest many of the doubts which were sincerely expressed on the last occasion.
In those circumstances, I would beg the House to have second thoughts about this matter. I do so without doubt and for the following reasons. It is surely derogatory to the honour of this country to compel it by Act of Parliament to break its international obligations (in EFTA and GATT, and its prospective obligations under the Treaty of Rome). Surely the maintenance of these obligations is essential to the trading interests of the country as an exporting nation and not least to the shipbuilding industry itself. Surely adequate safeguards are given by the Government in the shape of assurances that British builders will be, to quote again the member of the deputation:
"given a fair crack of the whip and not to be put at a disadvantage by foreigners."
It is not, I believe, to the interests of British industry that it should be taught to rely on import restrictions and not on competitive efficiency for the sale of its products. It is to the interest of the fishing interests that they should use the financial advantages given by the Bill with due regard to national pride and patriotism but also in the purchase of equipment which will keep them in the forefront of efficiency against their own foreign competitors. My Lords, this is a relatively small matter. But small matters can often be of importance as testing our resolution to carry out a sane economic policy. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 40, leave out from ("apparatus") to end of line 42.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
3.30 p.m.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: The noble Viscount was kind enough to let me know that he might deal rather critically with my speech of June 5. I have to thank him for his "soft glove" attitude towards anything I may have said. It could be an ordeal to follow the noble and learned Viscount, if he had not worn gloves, but to have a threat hanging over one's head for two or three weeks as to what may be coming is rather more than a very

833
nervous young politician can bear. He certainly has been very slightly critical, but much more of my noble friend Lord Boothby than of me. I thank him again. Of course, the noble Viscount, as is usual, has used all his undoubted talents to persuade the boys of his own brigade from joining the wrong department, but I think to-day he has failed to justify the case for which he stands. In my humble opinion he has failed completely to provide adequate answers to the many submissions made on June 5, submissions that were provoked through lack of information and far too much secrecy on the part of the Government. I cannot blame the noble Viscount for that for, as I understand it, he knew little or nothing about it. He knows a little more about it to-day because he has read the same speech that I read, made in the House of Commons on June 8. But what the noble Lord succeeded in doing in his speech was to compel us to re-emphasise what we felt on June 5—and that was to undo what his Ministerial colleagues had done, or the opposite way round. He could not possibly have justified their inept muddle-headedness in handling this particular problem.
To-day the noble and learned Viscount, in a very short speech for him, really made three speeches rolled into one. At one moment he was prosecuting counsel, with the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, in the dock, and I beside him. At the next moment he was defending counsel, defending his colleagues; and, of course, he had to try to justify the Amendment. It is sometimes a very great pleasure to sit here and watch the noble Viscount enjoying "the exuberance of his own verbosity", and noble Lords opposite scarcely realise what they miss on odd occasions. We ought to pay for our seats here, since we get all the fun. To-day's performance was not quite the usual one, but was still worth seeing—a sort of mixture of self-inflicted physiotherapy and verbal jumping crackers. Quite obviously, the noble Viscount has decided to follow his own advice. If he cannot lead the Conservative Party from the front, well, he thinks it is better to whip them up from behind with all the Whips available. But it is a merciful blessing that not all noble Lords opposite are the patient
834
oxen that perhaps the noble Lord thinks they ought to be. In any case, with such special pleading as we have heard this afternoon, I think he failed to secure a conviction against those who voted for the Amendment on June 5.
I think he was unsuccessful also in defending the Government for their inexplicable fumbling with this minor problem, which could now be a major problem. Indeed, I fear that if the noble Viscount were paid on to-day's results he would be in debt. But if I exaggerated the force of what was expressed on June 5 (which I deny), or used intemperate language, it was entirely due to lack of information which only the Government could have supplied. But as they chose silence on this matter, they must accept responsibility for what happened on that occasion and for what I hope will be repeated here again this afternoon. I cannot accept the assumption of the noble Viscount that we were not entitled to reach conclusions and to express them, especially when they were based upon reasons which were fully and frankly explained to the House. Those conclusions may have been wrong, but they may have been right. At least we are entitled to express them as freely as the noble Viscount expresses his views on almost every occasion.
But let me restate the position as briefly as I can, as I see it. The noble and learned Viscount was, as your Lordships know, trained to see both sides of a case, and he can usually put both sides of a case, too, particularly the one that best suits him. But to listen to the noble Viscount on occasion one would imagine that my noble friends and some noble Lords opposite had been indulging in a conspiracy against the Government. Well, nothing could be further from the truth. What was the origin of the difficulty to the Government that occurred on June 5? Nothing for which my noble friends could be blamed, or, for that matter, any other Party. The Bill was welcomed in another place in November of last year; it received an unopposed Second and Third Reading on November 14 and on May 1 this year; on May 17 it received an unopposed Second Reading in this House. So far not a ripple on the waters: all were for the Bill, so far as they understood it, and there was no alteration.

835
After June 17 the chances were that the Bill would have been on the Statute Book to-day, but the Government had to intervene, and I will deal with that point in a moment.
To show the feeling of my noble friends and other noble Lords, I may point out that there are 38 clauses in this Bill and 12 closely printed pages of Schedules, yet only two Amendments were put on the Order Paper for discussion on June 5. This shows that Members in all parts of the House wanted the Bill; they welcomed it and promised to help it to the Statute Book as soon as possible. So there was no chicanery or conspiracy against the Government. But all this time, six months in all, members of all Parties were under the impression that grants and loans were for shipping vessels and engines built in the United Kingdom—merely an extension for ten years of what had been happening since 1944, except that, as the noble and learned Viscount said this afternoon, deep-sea trawlers exceeding 140 feet in length are now excluded.
Then, on May 18, the very day after the Bill received its Second Reading in your Lordships' House, the Government announced a new policy. And how did they announce that new policy? Not in the ordinary way, by recommitting the Bill to Committee so that a discussion could take place and an explanation be given, such as was supplied on June 8 in another place, and as we have had again this afternoon. Honourable Members of another place were not only astonished but utterly confused about the procedure that had been followed. The noble Viscount said this afternoon that it was the normal procedure. I am going to try to show that there was nothing normal in it at all.
During the six months that the Bill was passing through all its stages and securing its Third Reading in another place, and its Second Reading in your Lordships' House, not one word had been uttered about the new policy of providing grants and loans for ships and engines produced in foreign countries. Now the Bill had left another place and—this, my Lords, is very important—unless an Amendment was moved and carried in your Lordships' House, there could be no discussion in another place
836
on the new policy introduced by the Government. Whether the new policy was good, bad or indifferent is not in question at the moment. What I am concerned about is to show the procedure followed by the Government. The noble Viscount implied it was the right procedure, the proper procedure, the usual one, which I do not think is the case.
The Amendment was moved and carried, which made it possible to have a debate on the new policy in another place. Noble Lords are now invited this afternoon to pass an Amendment, which the noble Viscount moved, to prevent a discussion in another place on the new policy. That is what we object to. All we learned on that Friday when the announcement was made, after practically all Members had gone to their homes, arose from two Answers to Questions put in another place. One indicated that there had been no consultation with shipbuilding interests, because the Minister in answer said that there was no need for consultations. It is true, as the noble Viscount has said this afternoon, that there was a deputation to see the Minister of Transport, but only after the door to discussion had been closed in another place, when there was no possibility of receiving an explanation except on an Adjournment Motion, which took place on June 8 in another place. The second point was that the new policy was in the interests of our fishermen, and the observance of our international obligations. But there was no discussion, no explanation, and honourable Members in another place, as well as your Lordships, were in a state of confusion, because there had been no discussion at all.
I said in an earlier debate that the Government are quite entitled to amend any Bill in any way they like, so long as they secure a majority in favour of the Amendment. But what we deny is the right of the Government to withhold essential information from either House of Parliament, until it is too late to discuss it or amend it, should amendment be necessary. As I see it, it is a violation of normal Parliamentary practice. That is exactly what the Government did, and that is the real origin of this dispute. It was nothing that was done by my noble friends; only what

837
was not done by the Government itself—not providing facilities for discussion where the discussion should have taken place, and that is in another place. No discussion was possible at all.
If a change of policy was really necessary on economic grounds, or inevitable on international grounds, why did the Government not take Parliament into its confidence, explain the reason, rely upon the loyalty and good sense of Members, and recommit the parts of the Bill back to a Committee in another place? Why leave Members of both Houses of Parliament in ignorance of what the possible consequences of the new policy might be, either for good or ill? That is just what the Government did. They left Members of both Houses of Parliament in ignorance, no full statement having been made, until a Division had taken place in this House. What were the Government afraid of?
The noble Viscount passed by very gently the secrecy and the silence. I do not see why the Government should have been hesitant or afraid to tell the full story. After all, they have a majority of 100 in another place—and sometimes they have a majority in your Lordships' House. Were they therefore afraid of the Orpingtons, Middlesbroughs and lost deposits, and what might follow? It seems to me that the Government had everything to gain from telling both Houses of Parliament the full story, the story we have heard this afternoon, which was no more full than it really ought to have been. After all, to act in this manner is not government by the courageous and confident. It seems to me to be more government by the timid, doubtful and furtive, and the longer they linger in a state of dither the more West Lothians they are likely to get.
My Lords, I should like to say one word about the Amendment. If it is carried this afternoon there can be no realistic debate in another place. There can be no realistic debate in the sense that, following a discussion, there could be an Amendment. I repeat that if it is carried there can be no debate, and that was our charge on June 5 on the Committee stage, for that is what this Amendment this afternoon is designed to achieve: to prevent discussion in
838
another place. That is what noble Lords are invited to vote for, to create a gag in another place, which is supposed to be the place where the money is found. Despite what the noble Viscount said this afternoon, I still regard the procedure pursued by the Government as very doubtful Parliamentary practice, having regard to all the circumstances. As noble Lords are aware, an Affirmative Resolution must be passed by both Houses of Parliament, and there can be a debate. However, there can be no Amendments, whatever the House may feel about it; and to oppose the new policy would involve my noble friends, and perhaps many other noble Lords, in opposing something with which they agree up to 95 per cent.
I realise that this is supposed to be the normal practice, and that the words of this Bill are no different from the words of any other Bill of its kind. But this is not a normal case; I think it is abnormal in every sense of the word after what has happened over the last six months, when Members of another place have had no opportunity of discussing on Second Reading, Committee, Report or on Third Reading the new policy that was announced on May 18. To allow a precedent of this kind to be established could lead to every conceivable kind of political "jiggery" and "pokery", and the noble Viscount, whom I regard as a great Parliamentarian, is the last person in your Lordships' House whom I should expect to agree with this procedure. I remember an occasion many years ago, when the coal owners of Yorkshire and the miners were in conflict. The miners had the temerity to expect higher wages for abnormal work. Piece rates were always fixed for what was regarded as the normal coalface, but geological conditions can change rapidly. What to-day is normal can become abnormal to-morrow. In the High Courts in London, after a lot of legal argument backwards and forwards, the president of the Yorkshire Miners' Association was finally called into the witness box and was asked a very simple question: how would he interpret an abnormal place? The president of the Yorkshire Miners' Association said: "A place that is not normal"—and the case was over. The miners won their extra pay because it was abnormal, not

839
normal. This case is not normal, either. A Bill has been roaming around in another place for five and a half months, comes here and gets its Second Reading, and the door is closed to any discussion in another place. To that extent—whatever the words of the Bill may be—it is still an abnormal situation. I am afraid that if the noble Viscount had to justify his stand this afternoon in a court of law, he would be a failure. However, the noble Viscount seems to imagine that there is nothing abnormal in the procedure over the last six months. In my view, everything has been abnormal.
One final word about international obligations. I would ask of the noble Viscount the question that was put in another place: why change it at this particular moment? We have been in open breach of Article III of GATT for many years, presumably for balance-of-payments reasons. In another place the Secretary of State said on the 8th of this month [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 661 (No. 130), col. 851]:
"It is true that, as yet, there has been no formal complaint against us under either the G.A.T.T. or the E.F.T.A Convention in regard to this matter. Nevertheless, there have been inquiries …"
If the inquiries had gone further, could we not have applied for a waiver if it was felt necessary so to do? Or are we to take it that our balance-of-payments troubles are all at an end? And, if that is so, how does the noble Viscount still justify the pay pause and other painful restrictions, such as the 15 per cent. tax on toffee apples and ice cream? Surely the Government cannot expect to have it both ways.
The noble Viscount started this debate in a mood highly critical of some of the things that were said on June 5. He nearly bubbled over with righteous and unrighteous indignation; but I think he failed to sustain his attitude by logical and reasonable arguments for holding to the belief that there is nothing abnormal about the Parliamentary procedure adopted by the Government over the last few weeks. He failed, in my opinion, for one simple reason: because he had been given an impossible task. He was trying to cover up the inept, fumbling, dithering attitude of his colleagues. He was trying to defend a very dangerous Parliamentary precedent; and at the same time he was supporting a policy that
840
could be extremely damaging to some of our smaller shipbuilding yards. No, my Lords; I see no reason at all for retracting one word uttered on June 5, when the Government were defeated by that vast majority of one. To-day, I am more convinced than ever that we were perfectly right in our judgment on June 5, and we have no alternative but to proceed to the Division Lobby to register our protest here this afternoon.
3.54 p.m.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, at the outset of the few remarks I propose to make perhaps I might be allowed to add a word of very warm welcome from the Gross-Benches to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, on his return to this House fully restored to health.
My Lords, one of the few pleasures left to me in life is to listen to my noble friend, the noble Viscount who leads this House, when he is in a mood of high moral indignation. Some time ago I listened, fascinated, to him when he made a call for stern personal self-sacrifice at a moment when the "television boys", whose good fortune I myself could only envy, were raking in millions on a scale which had not been known in this country since the South Sea Bubble. To-day he has brought us sternly back to the course of duty with a reminder that we must abide by our international obligations, which the Government that he adorns have been happily breaking for at least ten years. There has been no change at all in the policy of Her Majesty's Government—and, indeed, of the Government which was its predecessor—since the grant and loan scheme was originally introduced. We never heard anything about GATT obligations—and we have been a member of GATT for twenty years; we never heard anything about EFTA obligations. I do not believe there has been any complaint from the Common Market countries about anything that we are going to do, or that there would be. This is a sudden invention: suddenly we have to stand by our international obligations. Well, if these obligations exist—and the noble Viscount has not convinced me that they do—no doubt we may have to do so. But I would say only that this grant and loan scheme, with which I am very familiar, has continued unchanged since the war without

841
any regard for GATT or for EFTA, and I do not believe that, if the truth is known, any specific complaints have ever been made by either.
Now, my Lords, what has happened? This Bill was passed through all its stages in the House of Commons without a word being said about the change of policy on the part of Her Majesty's Government. Five months elapsed. It was then given a Second Reading in this House, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barmburgh, has pointed out, again without a word being said. I want to submit to the noble Viscount (who is, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barnburgh, has said, a great Parliamentarian) that the House of Commons has been denied an opportunity to pronounce judgment upon this question. Now I want to tell my noble friend the Leader of the House what charge will have to be met by those Members of Parliament supporting the Government in the fishing constituencies. They will have to meet the charge that Her Majesty's Government, of their own free will, are using the taxpayers' money to subsidise foreign boatbuilding yards, particularly in Sweden, Holland and Germany, at a moment when our own—
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord for a moment? Did he say that the Government would have to meet this charge from the fishermen? Surely it will be for the fishermen to decide whether the yards can produce what they want. There is no reason for them to go abroad.
LORD BOOTHBY: I was mentioning only the charge that Members of Parliament would have to meet from the fishing industry generally. The noble Lady knows as well as I do that at the moment there is great unemployment in the boat-building yards all around the coast, and particularly in Scotland—around the coast of Fife, right up to Aberdeenshire, and beyond. I could name fifteen to twenty places where the boat-building yards are empty now. They have not got anything; and they see these grants and loans made available for the construction of trawlers and of drifters in foreign yards.
It is a sharp change. If our own yards were bursting with activity and
842
prosperity and employment, I would say that it was not nearly so hard. But they are not. Our own boat-building yards are in a very bad way; and I repeat what I said on the last occasion: that it is not due to their alleged inefficiency. I do not think they are bad at all. They certainly view this proposition with very great concern and alarm; and it is certainly a question which these honourable Members in another place who represent, I will not say fishing constituencies, but constituencies on the coast, will have to face—and it will be a rough one to face. I can only submit to your Lordships, with unwonted humility, that this is a subject upon which the House of Commons should have the right to pronounce an opinion. They have not been given an opportunity to pronounce an opinion at all; they have been given no chance to face this charge.
The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, was so persuasive that I will withdraw the charge of trickery against Her Majesty's Government, and I will substitute the words, "devious tactics". I think that is what they have used in order to get this Bill through Parliament, without proper consultation with the House of Commons. Because I would repeat to your Lordships that the other place has never had an apportunity to discuss or pronounce its verdict or opinion upon this matter—and it is basically a financial question which, in my submission, it is their constitutional right to discuss. I therefore venture to suggest to your Lordships (I am not going into the merits of the argument again, because they are well enough known) that it is the constitutional duty of this House to give the other place an opportunity to pronounce a verdict upon this matter; and I shall then not hesitate to suggest that we should abide by the verdict of the other place.
LORD REA: My Lords, may I say a few words in support of the last part of the noble Lord's speech? It seems to me that the debate this afternoon has very much divided itself into two. The merits and the demerits of the Amendment which was carried by the Opposition, in general, are quite apart from the merits that we are discussing to-day. Perhaps I should disclose some interest, in that I am a director of a shipyard on the East coast of Scotland, and

843
therefore my political and my financial interests are rather sorely divided. But I am concerned not with the merits of this matter as they appear in the Bill, but with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Boothby; that this matter has not been decided, and should have been decided, by the other House.
The Amendment was put to this House, quite properly, in Committee, where the Government happened to be beaten by one vote. The noble Viscount who leads the House told us why he could not be present; why the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, could not be present, and why the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor could not be present; but he has not really explained why any of his 800 other colleagues could not be present. Therefore, this decision having been come to, quite properly, in Committee, it is really rather dangerous that this procedure should be followed; that, because a decision did not suit the Conservative Party, the matter should be brought up again and perhaps 800 Members brought down to deal again with the same question and reverse what this House has already decided.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I did not understand the noble Lord's argument. Is he suggesting that neither on this occasion nor on the last occasion should the merits of the case be considered?
LORD REA: I think the merits of the case are irrelevant to the constitutional point.
LORD JESSEL: My Lords, could the noble Lord tell us whether the Liberal Party still believes in Free Trade?
LORD REA: My Lords, in a word of one syllable, Yes.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I have not gone round to find out the opinions of the fishermen in my part of the world, but such notices as have reached me have assured me that the fishermen are whole heartedly behind Her Majesty's Government in this matter. With regard to what the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barnburgh, the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, and also the noble Lord, Lord Rea, said about the constitutional issue, it seems to me that it is the duty of your Lordships, as a responsible House
844
of Parliament, to decide on the matters brought before it on their merits. It would be extremely undignified, and I think rather base, if your Lordships were to stultify yourselves in order to produce the effect asked for by noble Lords opposite. If the Government want to know, or other people want to know, what are the opinions of the Members representing fishing constituencies on this matter, surely they can arrange a debate on the subject in another place before the last stage of this Bill, or something like that.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, would the noble Lord forgive me? Does he not think that the real basic issue here is that we want to know what is the opinion of the House of Commons on this matter?
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I realise that. In conclusion, I should like to say that I do not share the opinion of the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, of the people of Buckie, or of any of the Banff or Aberdeenshire ports, among whom I have been brought up and with whom the best part of my work still lies.
4.4 p.m.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, the situation is worse than the noble Lord Who has just sat down thinks. It has been established by my noble friend Lord Williams of Barnburgh, as it was, indeed, in the previous discussion, that the obvious inference is that it was not until after the Third Reading of the Bill in another place and not until after the Second Reading in this place that it was announced, not verbally, not orally, but in answer to a Question for Written Answer on a Friday, that the course would be taken which is the centre of this dispute. So, my Lords, every precaution has been taken by Her Majesty's Government to sidestep and to cheat Parliament of its rights, and especially to cheat another place of its financial rights. Every elaborate precaution has been taken in order that that should be done; and I hope another place is appreciative of the action taken by your Lordships' House on that Amendment, with its majority of one, in order that the question could be raised.
Now the Government propose to reverse that decision in order, again

845
deliberately, elaborately, and with malice aforethought, to prevent another place from exercising its rights to control public finances—its exclusive rights to control public finances. That has been done deliberately. Listening to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, to whom I always listen with interest if not always with agreement, I must say that he made an able and forceful speech. In fact, he nearly convinced me that he meant what he was saying, it was so well and so persuasively delivered. But this is the situation in which we find ourselves: that if your Lordships, unwisely, as I think, carry the Amendment that has been moved by the Leader of the House, then the subject-matter will not be in the Bill when it reaches another place, and the Members there will not be able to discuss it. I think that is really a terrible thing.
But there is a still clearer point. If this Amendment is carried, then the Bill will pass this House in all respects exactly as it left another place, for no other Amendment has been carried. Therefore there will not be any question before another place that "This House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment." If there had been, I have sufficient confidence in the capacity and resource of another place to believe that Members there would have found some means of discussing this matter. So this is another fraud, and this is known: that the Government do not want this Bill again to be seen at all in another place.
My Lords, I really think that this is a scandal, and I still say that it is a constitutional scandal. For it is constitutionally not playing the game to take these elaborate and malicious steps to prevent the House of Commons, as the guardian of public finances, from having any voice in the matter at all. And now the Whips Department have been elaborately whipping up noble Lords who were not here before to vote on something about which they—or many of them—have heard no previous discussion. I would invite those noble Lords to examine their consciences as to whether they ought to stay. They were not here during the previous discussion; why should they be dragged here, by their necks, or their hairs, whatever it is, to reverse a decision in which they took no part previously? This is one of the things which used to bring
846
the House of Lords into disrepute, and I think it is a very great pity.
This House was nearly deprived of its rights, and it would have been if it had not been for the initiative of noble Lords on this side of the House. The House of Commons has been, up till now, completely deprived of its rights on this financial matter. It is said by the Leader of the House that we gain from the consideration of being non-discriminatory in these matters. But it is a new aspect of non-discrimination that we have to pay a subsidy to foreign shipyards in order to make them more effective in competition with us. Because that is what is being done. It is one thing to be equalitarian and non-discriminatory in the matter—though that is arguable—but if, in addition to the so-called nondiscrimination, we have to pay money into the pockets of foreign shipbuilders, this is a new brand of patriotism to come from the Conservative Party. I wonder what the late Joseph Chamberlain would have thought about this. He wanted protective tariffs to keep out foreign goods. This Government want to give money to foreign producers to bring ships into this country. It is a funny Government. I think it is a suicide club. It is a most extraordinary institution. I must confess I do not understand it.
The noble Viscount the Leader of the House said that this was reciprocal; that other countries had undertaken to be non-discriminatory as well. But have other countries agreed to pay subsidies to British shipbuilders to build ships in competition with their own production? Could somebody tell us that? I would give way, if anyone could give us an answer to that now. The noble Viscount does not answer. I do not blame him. There are some times when silence is golden.
This is more a straight-forward constitutional issue than it is a Party political issue. It is a question of the decent treatment of Parliament. It so happens that, in this instance, the House of Commons have a greater grievance than this House, because of their authority over public finances. I would appeal to noble Lords opposite to take the wider constitutional issue into account. This House has been getting on reasonably well with the House of Commons for

847
quite a few years and various noble Lords have the right to take credit for it. Surely, at this stage, we do not want to open up a constitutional issue of some significance, that is liable to cause trouble between this House and another place. For this Amendment must have the effect of preventing the House of Commons from having any voice on this financial matter. That is the purpose of the Amendment. I appeal to noble Lords opposite to think twice before they go into the Lobby in support of the Amendment which has been moved by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House. I even urge them, if possible, to come into the Lobby against this Amendment, in the interests of Parliamentary fairness and constitutional rectitude.
4.13 p.m.
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN: My Lords, I must join issue with the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, in calling this a constitutional scandal. No such thing as a constitutional scandal is possible. One must change the Constitution, if one thinks it is behaving in a scandalous manner. It is perfectly constitutional. That does not mean that I necessarily like it. I know that the noble Lord is a great Parliamentarian. In the past, we have been together for many years. But a constitutional scandal is a novelty to me—and a scandalous novelty. The noble Lord must change the Constitution, that is all. I would have spoken earlier, but owing to noble Lords sitting in front of me I was partly obscured, and there was the noble Lord's loquacity. As for the Government's being a suicide club, I do not think that the noble Lord is the right person to complain. I am the sort of person who ought to complain, because I wish they would stop cutting their own (something) necks. I am going to back the Government on this issue. As I said on June 5, I do not like giving money to foreign shipyards. If Parliament agreed to subsidising the building of a new Cunarder in a foreign shipyard, there would be considerable feeling.
I should like to ask again what I asked on June 5, and I should be obliged if whoever replies for the Government could help to enlighten me. Clause 1 extends the white fish and herring subsidies to vessels engaged in processing
848
and transporting white fish. Salmon are not white fish. Therefore, is it right and proper that our own boats should receive subsidies in order to drift net for salmon, which is not the purpose of the Bill as explained in paragraph 2 of the Explanatory Memorandum of the Bill.
4.16 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, when I spoke briefly on this matter on Committee stage, I confessed that I was not particularly knowledgeable on that aspect which relates to procedure. I cannot make the same claim to-day, after the noble Viscount has spent the first fifteen minutes of his speech defending the Government against the charge which the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, has now reduced to one of "devious tactics". Though I ought to be more knowledgeable, I remain quite confused as to the merits the Government are claiming for their attitude. The noble Viscount said that he did not claim any merit for the fact that a statement was made in time to enable this House in Committee to discuss it. Perhaps it was just as well that he did not claim any merit, because he is objecting strenuously to the Committee's having exercised the right to debate it in the only way we could, by tabling an Amendment to alter the provisions of the Bill.
That the Government did not particularly anticipate that any discussion was to take place was obvious when the Amendment was discussed, because the Minister who then spoke for the Government was unable to give any information about whether representations had been made by any foreign Government against the procedure presently existing, or whether any representations had been made from fishermen anywhere in the country. The best he could do was to say that information would be available at the next stage of the proceedings in the House. It was obvious that the Government neither anticipated nor prepared for any discussion at that stage in your Lordships' House.
The noble Viscount said that it would be quite derogatory to the honour of this country deliberately to write into a Bill a provision requiring us to break our international obligations. Only two things can arise from that statement.

849
First, that from 1951 to 1960 the Government were breaking our international obligations because they were not aware of their existence. I cannot believe that a Government which includes so many distinguished Parliamentary figures are going to suggest seriously that from 1951 to 1960 they did not know what our obligations were. If they did not know, then the Government are laying themselves open to the second and. I think, the greater charge, that while it may be derogatory to the honour of this country deliberately to write into a Bill an intention to break an international obligation, there is nothing derogatory about doing it by stealth. In other words, the crime is not to do the thing; it is to be found out. Then, if I heard him properly, the noble Viscount said that the representation had been made by Sweden in 1960. I am not absolutely certain, but I think he said 1960. Am I right about that?
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Yes.
LORD HUGHES: If that be the case, would it not have been more in keeping with the point of view expressed by so many Members of your Lordships' House, if the Government knew as far back as 1960 that they were, in fact, in breach of their obligations, and that representations had been made against them or questions had been submitted which were going to compel them to alter their policy, if they could have informed Parliament of their intention to make an alteration any time after 1960, and certainly not wait until May 18, 1962, to make the statement?
The noble Viscount spent a great deal of the second part of his speech in answering the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, and he said that the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, had received a very "dusty answer" from the fishermen of Buckie. That, I think, is perfectly true. But the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, is not the only person who gets "dusty answers"; and some of us do not have to go to Buckie to get them; some of us get them here in your Lordships' House. In a debate on May 21, on a Scottish problem, when I raised the question of the unfair treatment which was being given to the North of Scotland in relation to transport matters, I received an answer from
850
the noble Lord, Lord Mills, which I would characterise as being a pretty "dusty answer". In fact, as we say in Scotland, I "got my nose cut" from the noble Lord, Lord Mills, when, in answer to my complaint about the treatment, he said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 240 (No. 81) col. 822]:
"… I have become a little case-hardened over these unhappy pictures of Scotland. I meet them in so many connections. My own experience is that the Scots are very well able to look after themselves."
Later on in the debate I said that I thought the noble Lord, Lord Mills, had been a little unwise to admit to this feeling. Many of us had suspected that Members of the Government are case-hardened to Scottish problems but it was the first time that any of them had come out openly and said that that was how they felt. But he proved he was right when he said that the Scots were well able to look after themselves, because the very first opportunity the Scots got after that was the West Lothian by-election. And what did they do?—they fined the Government £150.
I was a Scot before I was a politician, and if I regarded it as being important to support my Party, rather than to support my country, I should be perfectly happy that the Government should go on doing things like this, because it would be the quickest way of getting them out. But, after all, it is obvious that the Government are not going to hold a General Election any earlier than they find it convenient to do so; and I do not think it is a fair price that I, as a Scot, should connive at the Government doing this sort of thing to the boat-building industry in Scotland and elsewhere just because it will get them out a bit faster. I would much rather have this matter put right at this stage.
I am still in the position that I am not so concerned about the procedure that is being adopted, although I have certainly had a lot of enlightenment about that in these two days. I am more concerned with the merits of the proposal, and I think the noble Viscount who leads the House is being less than fair to your Lordships when he says that the proper procedure is to deal with the matter when the order comes before Parliament, and reminds us that the order will be subject to an Affirmative Resolution. He might have gone a

851
little further and told us what is likely to happen if we seek to have the order altered at that stage. We should then be told—and we shall be told if we seek to do so: "You will lose the whole order. You must take it or leave it; and if you seek to have it altered you risk throwing out the whole question of grants to the fishing industry." Because, as I understand it, the order cannot be amended; it has to be taken or rejected in its entirety. So I do not think the noble Viscount is offering a fair alternative to discussion by either House of Parliament on this issue.
It seems to me that this country and the northern part of this country (if that is a way of putting it which commends itself to those of your Lordships who do not come from Scotland), have enough to contend with these days without the Government going out of their way to make things more difficult. At one stage the Government spokesman suggests that the shipyards have nothing to fear from fair competition from yards abroad, and then the noble Viscount quotes as justification for his answer the letter which came from the fishermen of Buckie suggesting that the boatyards of Scotland are getting the business by gross overcharging and the fishermen are not having a fair deal. You cannot have it both ways; they cannot be paragons of virtue and, at the same time, pirates.
If there is a real international difficulty, I am sure that there are other ways of getting round it, and of getting round it in a proper fashion. Surely the best opportunity of finding that out is to permit this Bill to go back in the state that it presently stands to another place, so that they, with the financial responsibility and financial power, can decide whether they wish, in the knowledge of all the facts as they are now available, to restore the Bill to the condition in which they sent it to your Lordships' House. If they decide to do that, then I am perfectly certain that none of us on these Benches will seek to overturn the decision of another place. If, on the contrary, they think, as so many Members of your Lordships' House think, that they would not have sent the Bill in this form if they had had all the information, then I feel they are entitled to have the opportunity of saying so.
852
Finally, I would say that I thought it a bit unfair of the noble Lord, Lord Rea, to twit the noble Viscount the Leader of the House for not giving an explanation of the absence of some 800 of his colleagues. After all, looking from here at the Benches opposite one must admit that either the noble Viscount or somebody else has done his best to remedy the situation this afternoon.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, before the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, speaks on the subject, I should like to say a word. I was one of those who was prevented from attending the House when the Amendment was carried against the Government, but I do not mind saying that I should have voted against the Government on that occasion. But before I go further, am I not right in saying that, if this Amendment today is not carried, the Bill will go back to another place, and that the provisions in it which affect salmon cannot then come into effect in September? Perhaps when the matter is further referred to I may be made clear on that point.
My own feeling is that a bit of political manœuvring is going on. I cannot believe that all these accusations of malice, and the like, can really hold water; that Members of another place have had the wool pulled over their eyes, and that sort of thing. I propose to vote for the Government to-day for the reason that, although I, like a great many other Members of your Lordships' House, do not like the idea of subsidies going to shipbuilders abroad, whatever ships they may be building, we must face the fact, as the noble Viscount the Leader of the House brought out, that subsidies in fact do place orders on the order books of foreign manufacturers in other industries. Although I do not like it, the fact remains that this is what happens. It has a good effect upon the efficiency of industry in this country, and also upon the design of machines in this country. I suggest that this is rather a storm in a teacup. If it is a constitutional problem, which I doubt, then I, for one, will vote with the Government if only for the reason that, by doing so and passing the Bill in the form in which they wish, it will enable the provisions controlling drift-netting to come into force at the earliest possible moment.
4.31 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, looking round the House, it does not seem likely that many more Peers want to speak, and perhaps we ought to bring this debate to a conclusion because other business is to follow. I have listened very carefully to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, and I did not hear a single argument that I could honestly say would convince me of the Tightness of the position of the Government in this matter. I have been perhaps outspoken on a previous occasion. I do not make any apology for that, but I want to face up to one or two simple things.
The first is this. In my last intervention in the House on this matter I said that it was an insult to the shipbuilding industry of this country to pass such a measure and to send money outside to assist the building of ships in foreign countries. That remark was rather looked down upon; I seem to have hurt somebody's feelings in this House. But when I come to look at the debate in another place I find that on June 8 the Secretary of State for Scotland had to admit that, on the transport side of the matter at least, his right honourable friend—evidently meaning the Minister of Transport—had something of that kind in his mind. At the bottom of column 854 of the OFFICIAL REPORT for that date he said:
"It is true that at one time my right honourable friend was anxious about the ability of British builders to compete with certain foreign yards, but he has asked me to say that great change is taking place."
I think that shows that the transport side of the matter, and action in this matter, sprang from the Ministry of Transport and, as the Secretary of State for Scotland said on June 8 quite specifically to the House of Commons, the Government had not been approached by either EFTA, by the shipbuilding industry or by the fishing industry. It was an act of Government. Upon whose recommendation? From this statement by the Secretary of State for Scotland, I find that it came from the Ministry of Transport. But, after all, he would be acting upon Cabinet authority and under instruction.
As I read through the debate, the speeches of noble Lords seem to bring
854
in every now and again that what is really wanted is a competitive industry and, therefore, if we put these subsidies abroad as well as at home we are likely to make the British industry more competitive. I hope that that argument is not going to be maintained this afternoon. What sort of an answer is it to the trade union case in the conference sitting on the East coast this afternoon?—the enginering industry, plus all the shipbuilding industry employees? What sort of case is that? I hope the Government are going to think over that again.
It was argued by the Secretary of State for Scotland in another place that of course completely normal procedure had been followed; that there was nothing unconstitutional, because quite normal procedure had been followed. Let us look at that argument. Under the appropriate sections of the Act of 1953, as under the 1944 provisions, in actually moving to a decision on what policy should be, and how much should be given, and when, you proceeded by statutory order. Therefore, it was said, because that was the case also in this Bill it was not necessary to inform Parliament what the policy was going to be. I must say that I can find many Statutes in which there is general provision for a certain financial policy to be undertaken and expressed by statutory orders. But never have I heard of a clause like this being put in a Bill without an argument in favour of the financial policy arising out of it. That is what happened in both Houses.
I put this point especially to the Leader of the House of Lords. There was not the slightest word in the House of Commons at any stage that there was to be any variation from the financial administration that was followed under the appropriate section in the Act of 1953. If you look at Clause 3 of this Bill it is fairly clear to me at any rate. Clause 3 (1) says:
"… shall be extended and shall have effect in accordance with, and subject to, the following provisions of this section."
There is nothing in this clause which could have drawn the attention of any Member of the finance-controlling House to any change in financial policy, and there is nothing in any of the following subsections which would have justified that. Yet we are now told that a

855
statutory order is to be the process of doing it.
I wonder whether any learned former Member of the House of Commons in this House of Peers can remember a case in which grants, loans, financial gifts, call them what you like, have been administered by a Government on one of their own Bills passed into law, where what was proposed to be done was not given in detail to the appropriate House of Commons before any Statutory Order was issued. What are you going to do now? You will send this Bill back to the House of Commons, only to be ready for Royal Assent. There will be no Business done upon it. There will be no change to bring before the House of Commons. So it is a deliberate attempt, it seems to me, by going behind the decision of your Lordships' House itself to prevent any further discussion on the Bill arising in another place. I do not think that can be disputed. That is what arises out of any decision taken to-day to defeat the Amendment which was passed by your Lordships' House only two ox three weeks ago.
The third thing I want to say to your Lordships is this. I agree with my noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth that of late years there has been a considerable improvement in what I call relationships between the two Houses of Parliament. I attribute a great deal of the changed attitude on a number of questions and matters which arose first during the wax, and afterwards during the reign of a Labour Government, to the very conciliatory attitude adopted on both sides of the House, both by my respected and noble friend Lord Addison, and the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury. Undoubtedly, in the difficult circumstances of that time, if there had been any sort of attempt to rush things, one way ox the other, without the proper financial authority of the House of Commons, there would not have been the progress that has been made in the relationships between the two Houses of Parliament.
I beg this House of Peers not to give what I heard again from my colleagues in the House of Commons when I was discussing it with them; that is, the opportunity of being able to say: "What has happened means that there
856
is a great change in the administration of a financial policy in a particular industry upon which we were never consulted in the passage of the Bill—no influence given—and upon which you in the House of Lords deliberately prevented us from having an Amendment before us which would give us a proper opportunity of debating it and casting our decision." I believe that that will be fatal to the development of future decent relationships between the two Houses of Parliament, and I beg all those who supported us last time to do so again; not now solely upon the point of the provision of our Amendment but upon the point of maintaining good relationships with the representative House and ourselves and giving them an opportunity to debate the matter afresh.
4.30 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I do not think it would be desirable for me to speak at any length in exercising what I believe is the right of reply, as I moved the Motion.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, would the noble and learned Viscount advise me from his better knowledge? As this is an Amendment, I do not know that the noble Viscount has the right to reply.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I moved a Motion, and everybody in this House has a right to reply to the Motion which he himself has moved. Of course, if the House did not wish me to reply I would not do so, even though I have the right. But I have the right, because I proposed the Motion, and therefore it is appropriate that I exercise the right of reply, unless the House does not wish me to do so.
I am fortified, I think, in a desire to be extremely brief, because no really serious attempt has been made to answer the case which I sought to make in opening. It was attempted to be said that there was either the desire or the effect behind this Amendment to deprive the House of Commons of the right to discuss the policy. My Lords, that is precisely the opposite of the truth. The fact of the matter is that Parliament has provided that the financial policy under this Bill should be dealt with by an Affirmative Resolution of both Houses, and the policy will in fact be discussed

857
again in this House, but presumably first in the House of Commons at the appropriate moment provided for by the Act of Parliament.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, if the noble Viscount will excuse me, I really cannot allow this to go on. Anyone would think that nobody but the noble and learned Viscount had any brains. What he is overlooking is this: that when the statutory order comes up, all one can discuss is the Order itself, accept it or throw it out. Nothing else. You are depriving the other place, the finance controlling House, of an opportunity to be able to move this Amendment and to carry it in the finance controlling House, when this sort of policy is announced, and not be left to the single issue upon the statutory order. The noble and learned Viscount knows that quite well.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: The noble Viscount is getting very indignant; perhaps he will allow me to continue the argument at the point where I was expounding it. It is precisely contrary to the truth to say that debate in the House of Commons on the policy is being prevented by this Amendment. A debate is necessary in the House of Commons on the policy before it can become law, a debate in the form in which Parliament of both Houses has laid it down in successive Acts, going over a series of Governments. Of course it is true, as the noble Viscount has reminded us in his interjection, and as noble Lords have said in the course of the debate, that an Affirmative Resolution should not in fact be amendable. It so happens that Parliament in this case has laid down that as the appropriate procedure. Personally, I am always unimpressed by the point whenever it is made, because most of us who have experience of Parliament know quite well that if a particular alteration in an Affirmative Resolution is made or desired by a House of Parliament it is perfectly competent to that House to make it clear that the Affirmative Resolution in the form proposed is unacceptable and why it is unacceptable. This is a pure piece of pedantry and there is no substance in it at all, and I can only describe it as a wholly misguided and even irresponsible attempt to try to blow up a constitutional issue between the two
858
Houses on a point which is plain almost beyond argument.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, the noble and learned Viscount keeps trying to overlook what was the procedure in the House of Commons on this Bill. He says that this has been settled by this Bill and the previous Act. But the Government did not give information on their changed policy, although they could have done so easily when the Bill was in another place, where Members could have moved an Amendment to the Bill and had it discussed. That opportunity will never be given to the House of Commons now unless you oppose the Amendment to-day.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I can assure the noble Viscount that I have overlooked nothing. He has now said three times that there was not the information available to the House of Commons and I have already explained three times that the reason for that is that this is dealt with by regulation and has been dealt with under successive Governments by Affirmative Resolutions when they are proposed.
LORD CITRINE: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Viscount but I genuinely want to understand the point. I do not know the procedure under a statutory instrument in the House of Commons, but the noble Viscount told us in opening that the purpose of this Amendment was to avoid discrimination against foreign yards. I think that is quite good. Would the House of Commons be in a position to debate that issue of discrimination on a statutory instrument?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Most obviously that would be when an Order was before their House. I had hoped that I had dealt with that point. I must not overlook the extraordinary case of Liberal logic that we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Rea. He is himself a free trader, because his Party is notoriously, and has been for generations, a free trade Party. It follows, of course, that nothing could be more abhorrent to him than the policy which is contained in the Bill if it is not amended back to the form in which we received it. However, I think it went to his heart—because, of course, he is a

859
free trader—to support a protectionist Bill. He says, "Although I hate the policy, I am going to vote for it in order to give the House of Commons an opportunity to discuss the matter, which it would have in future under the Affirmative Resolution".
LORD REA: My Lords, I am not quite sure what the noble and learned Viscount means by that. I explained my personal dilemma, Which is why I did not support the Amendment.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: If I misunderstood the noble Lord I can only apologise to him. I certainly understood from his speech this afternoon that he was proposing to vote against the Government on this Amendment.
The only other thing I want to say on the policy is that nobody has controverted the policy. Nobody has in fact suggested that this Amendment, if it were retained in the Bill, does not controvert our international obligations. It may be that we should be blamed for not putting the matter right before, but this can hardly be an argument against putting it right now. No one has really controverted the proposition that we are an exporting nation. Among other things, we wish to sell our ships abroad, and the effect of the policy of noble Lords opposite would be to make it impossible for us to prevent discrimination against ourselves. Nobody has really tried to controvert the argument
that I seriously presented, that it is a very poor service to British industry to try to make out that it can rely for the future not upon efficiency but upon artificial restrictions on foreign yards.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, will the noble Viscount tell us which foreign yards are to be subsidised?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: The noble Lord knows perfectly well that we are not subsidising foreign shipyards by this policy. On the contrary, we hope and believe that the immense majority of orders will come here and that they will deserve to come here. I cannot help reminding the noble Lord of the complaint by fishermen, for whom on a previous occasion he claimed to be the spokesman, that a number of builders in this country depend on using the subsidy not for the purpose for which we are urging the Amendment but for helping them to boost their prices under cover of an artificial protection. It is for that status quo that the noble Lord has devoted this afternoon his undoubted Parliamentary talents. I must confess, frankly, that I consider this as a straight issue of intellectual integrity. There are no arguments I have heard to controvert the case I put before the House earlier.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 116; Not-Contents, 48.

CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Ferrier, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Chesham, L.

Feversham, E.

Albemarle, E.

Coleraine, L.

Foley, L.

Aldington, L.

Colgrain, L.

Forester, L.

Allerton, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Forster of Harraby, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Conesford, L.

Fortescue, E.

Ampthill, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Fraser of North Cape, L.

Ashton of Hyde, L.

Coutanche, L.

Freyberg, L.

Auckland, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Goschen, V.

Baillieu, L.

Craigton, L.

Gosford, E.

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Crathorne, L.

Grenfell, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Davidson, V.

Guest, L.

Barnby, L.

Denham, L.

Hacking, L.

Bathurst, E.

Derwent, L.

Hailsham, V. (L. President.)

Beauchamp, E.

Devonshire, D.

Hampton, L.

Blackford, L.

Dormer, L.

Harris, L.

Bossom, L.

Dudley, E.

Hastings, L. [Teller.]

Boston, L.

Dundee, E.

Hawke, L.

Brecon, L.

Dynevor, L.

Hereford, V.

Brentford, V.

Ebbisham, L.

Home, E.

Bridgeman, V.

Effingham, E.

Horsbrugh, B.

Buccleuch and Queensberry, D.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Exeter, M.

Howe, E.

Carrinigton, L.

Falmouth, V.

Hylton, L.

Cawley, L.

Ferrers, E.

Iddesleigh, E.

Ironside, L.

Merrivale, L.

Saltoun, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Mersey, V.

Sandford, L.

Jessel, L.

Mills, L.

Sinclair, L.

Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Milverton, L.

Sinclair of Cleeve, L.

Lambert, V.

Molson, L.

Somers, L.

Lloyd, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Soulbury, V.

Long, V.

Mount Edgcumbe, E.

Spens, L.

Lothian, M.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Luke, L.

Newton, L.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Lyle of Westbourne, L.

Rathcavan, L.

Swinton, E.

MacAndrew, L.

Reading, M.

Teynham, L.

Mancroft, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Waldegrave, E.

Margesson, V.

St. Oswald, L.

Waleran, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Salter, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Faringdon, L.

Shackleton, L.

Airedale, L.

Geddes of Epsom, L.

Shepherd, L. [Teller.]

Alexander of Hillsborough, V.

Greenhill, L.

Sinha, L.

Amulree, L.

Henderson, L.

Stonham, L.

Amwell, L.

Hughes, L.

Summerskill, B.

Archibald, L.

Kenswood, L.

Swanborough, B.

Attlee, E.

Kilbracken, L.

Taylor, L.

Boothby, L.

Latham, L.

Uvedale of North End, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Lawson, L.

Walston, L.

Carnock, L.

Lindgren, L.

Williams, L.

Champion, L.

Listowel, E.

Williams of Barnburgh, L.

Chorley, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Williamson, L.

Citrine, L.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Wilmot of Selmeston, L.

Colwyn, L.

Meston, L.

Windlesham, L.

Crook, L.

Morrison of Lambeth, L.

Wise, L.

Darwen, L.

Peddie, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.

HEALTH VISITING AND SOCIAL WORK (TRAINING) BILL
5.2 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Newton.)
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Functions of Council for the Training of Health Visitors
2.—(1) The Council for the Training of Health Visitors—
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL BARONESS SUMMERSKILL moved to add to subsection (1):
"( ) may make training grants or allowances to persons considered suitable for training".
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move the first Amendment standing in my name and that of my noble friends.
862
May I in the first place recall the Second Reading of the Bill and remind your Lordships—
LORD NEWTON: I wonder whether the noble Baroness would agree that it might be convenient to the Committee that with the Amendment she is now moving we should also discuss Amendments Nos. 5 and 6, which are also in her name?
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: Yes, certainly. The same principle is involved I would remind your Lordships that the function of these workers, the health visitor and the social, worker, is such that if we amend this Bill and in so doing increase their numbers and facilitate their entry into this service, we shall indeed be reinforcing the whole National Health Service. Time after time at this Box in dealing with health matters I have emphasised the point that the most important part of the National Health Service to-day is possibly the domiciliary service. Perhaps that is an overstatement, but at least I would say it is a most important part, for this reason. We are an aging population. Among us are many people with chronic ailments. These people do not necessarily need the advice and frequent

863
visiting of a doctor, but they do need a comprehensive domiciliary service which contains skilled, well-trained, efficient men and women of integrity. If your Lordships agree with that proposition, then surely you will agree that health visitors and social workers form a most important part of this service, and we should do everything in our power to recruit more.
I should say that I would never presume to try to influence the policy of any professional body, indeed of any body of workers, unless they themselves had asked me to move Amendments in a Bill of this character. These Amendments which I have put on the Order Paper are there because the social workers and the health visitors themselves would like to see the Bill amended in this way. These people are of great importance, and if we are to relieve the pressure on our hospitals we must increase their numbers. The whole purpose of the Amendment is to ensure that there shall be a grant available immediately for the women—these people are mostly women—who offer their services. At the moment the position is that they would have to apply to the local authority. The local authority might be a niggardly authority. The local authority might not attach so much importance to this as we do here, or indeed as the community does, and therefore these grants would not be forthcoming.
I would remind your Lordships that paragraph 743 of the Younghusband Report, dealing with training and the provision of adequate grants, suggested that this is the whole crux of the Bill, and on this will depend how we shall be able to retain suitable candidates once they have made application. I have not to remind your Lordships, I think, to-day what a demand there is for young, energetic, idealistic women of integrity in all fields. If these recruits offer their services and a local authority delays making a decision then they will go elsewhere; they will be snapped up in the many other places to which they will be able to go, in many other jobs. Therefore, I attach the greatest importance to a central grant. I realise that the terms of the financial resolution are drawn in such a way that in this House I cannot amend it—I certainly cannot
864
increase it; and for constitutional reasons, of course, one cannot demand that an Exchequer grant should be forthcoming. It therefore precludes one from asking for a direct Exchequer grant. But of course, if your Lordships think that further finance should be forthcoming, the Council could make a grant, and this could be reimbursed from the Exchequer.
I am not asking for anything unusual because these grants are made for the probation service and for the child care service, and I would remind your Lordships who come from Scotland that in Scotland direct Exchequer grants are made for trainees. Indeed all I am asking for this afternoon is precisely what Scotland has had for many, many years. How else shall we establish uniformity in this country, if we do not recognise that this work if of such a value that the Exchequer should come into the picture? How can we ensure that a local authority will be sufficiently generous? I would ask your Lordships to consider your own area, and to ask yourselves whether you are sure that if a number of young women apply for a grant from your local authority for this work it would immediately be granted, or whether there would be some delay while the whole matter was being discussed, and whether, during that very important period, these young women would go elsewhere.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 20, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Baroness Summerskill.)
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: I rise to support the noble Baroness on these two Amendments which we are discussing. She has enormous experience of the health visiting service while my experience has been more in the social work service, and I am certain that she is entirely right in what she has just said. If we want to deal as speedily as possible with the shortage of these people, if we want to get the best people we can, if we want to make it possible for local authorities to undertake their responsibilities, which are continually increasing in the world of health visitors and social workers, then we have to regard this as an urgent matter.
There is another Amendment on the paper concerning another form of finance which we can also discuss. But

865
the present Amendment is far and away the quickest and most direct way of helping to get these young women—and men, too—to train for these services. It seems to me very strange that the Minister of Education (who is a very forceful person, and who has speedily got together a group of people in the Youth Service to be youth leaders, whose training he has organised directly under the Ministry of Education, for which work he has secured direct grants because it is urgent and important in the service of youth) should now be saying that in the case of the social worker—who is just as urgently needed as the youth leader—this very much slower method, of operating it through local authorities, is adequate.
I am chairman of our local education committee at home, and only yesterday I was being very much put through the mill by the finance committee because I was asking for more money for certain aspects of education. I am quite sure that it would be extremely difficult to get the local education authorities, particularly those in the less well-off areas, such as the one I represent, to put aside money for this purpose. It would take a long time before anyone who wanted money from the local authority actually got it. As the noble Baroness has said, there are so many claims for the type of person who would train to make a really good social worker that, if they cannot get into that side of the profession, they will go into another in which they can get direct grant and start right away. I therefore beg the Minister, and the noble Lord who is going to reply, to see whether it is not possible to introduce this system of direct grant for those urgently needed women and men to train for these two branches of this vital service.
LORD AMULREE: When this Bill was discussed on Second Reading I said that there was a great deal about this Bill I did not like; and, indeed, that is still the case. I do see, however, that if the Bill is going to be passed and become law, which it obviously is, it must be made to work. I would therefore support the Amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, because, unless some kind of provision is made to provide grants for training people, the Bill will not work and the workers will not come forward. There are various
866
measures which have already been passed, such as the Mental Health Act, which I feel will be in serious jeopardy if we do not get the personnel to work them. I think we must attract these young women, but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, has said, the competition for their services is heavy. If we do not attract them they will not come forward and this Bill will become derelict or, what is worse, practically unworkable. Therefore, I support the Amendment.
LORD SALTOUN: If this Bill is going to work, I agree that something like the Amendment that has been pressed by the noble Lady ought to be added to it. In regard to the constitutional position, if I may say so, I do not think we need worry about it too much. I think we do our work a great deal better if we are not always casting our eyes over our shoulders at the House of Commons. Probably the noble Lady does not know (though I expect the noble Lord does) that since the Parliament Act, 1911, was passed we have amended the Finance Bill; we have passed financial resolutions; we have done everything that is guarded against under that Bill. What happens then is that when the Bill goes downstairs it goes through the machinery, and anything unconstitutional is cut out. But, as a matter of fact, if the Government want to get a financial Amendment into a Finance Bill it can quite easily be put in in this House, so long as one can be certain the House of Commons will accept it at the other end. If the noble Baroness will accept my advice—which I very much doubt—I would tell her to go ahead on financial matters quite freely, without worrying about the House of Commons. It will take care of itself.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: I never thought that I should come here and be turned into a revolutionary by the noble Lord opposite!
5.17 p.m.
LORD NEWTON: I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, that it is important that if this Bill is enacted it should then work; and I believe it will. I am also in entire agreement with both noble ladies who have spoken that it is important that suitable candidates for training as health visitors and social

867
workers should receive appropriate grants. But those of your Lordships who were present in this Chamber during the Second Reading debate, or who have read the Report of the proceedings in Hansard, will not be surprised when I tell your Lordships that I am unable to accept any of these three Amendments put down by the noble Baroness, for the reasons which I gave when replying to the Second Reading debate. I will rehearse them again, if I may.
First of all I will deal with the position of health visitors. I do not honestly think there is now any difficulty in this regard, or that there will be any difficulty in the future, because almost all health visitor students are either seconded or sponsored by local health authorities, and only a few receive the grant or local education authority award that is available to new recruits taking the new general training in social work. In other words, the vast majority of health visitor students either receive a salary from the local health authority while being trained, or receive a grant from the local health authority. The only difficulty now, as the noble Baroness knows, is the question of contracts of service. This question is being looked into, and my right honourable friend's Department is now about to seek the advice of interested bodies on what guidance he should give on this matter. I am quite sure that when this problem of contracts of service is straightened out there will be no real difficulty in the future about the method under which grants are made to the health visitor students.
On the general issue of principle, of whether or not a council should be in a position to make training grants, I would point out, first, that there is the objection that it would create a source of grants alongside that which already exists in the local education authorities, and would thus tempt local authorities not to face their responsibilities. It would probably result in the kind of unsatisfactory situation which exists now in the field of grants for almoner and psychiatric social work students. In this field, the Ministry of Health grant bursaries to students who have been unable to obtain a local education authority grant for the professional part of
868
their training, which follows the social science course. Here in this field experience has shown that some local authorities refuse no grants, precisely because the reserve power exists, while others refuse to give grants or give inadequate grants, on the ground that the present system penalises the more generous local authorities.
The reason for the existence of this reserve power in the case of almoner students and psychiatric social work students is that these students on their courses have generally already had a local education authority award for their social science studies which came first. Local education authorities have not always been willing to give grants for further training to students who have already had grants, in much the same way as local education authorities are sometimes unwilling to give grants to university students for more than one first degree course. But the point is that candidates for the new general training in social work will not normally have had a previous grant from a local education authority, and therefore this particular consideration will not apply in their case. As I told your Lordships in the Second Reading debate, there is, in the view of the Government, every prima facie reason why this form of further education should be treated in the same way as other branches of further education, and why local authorities should exercise their responsibility in respect of students on these courses and on other courses. That is the view of the Government.
If we were debating to-day the provision of training grants for, say, chemists or electrical engineers, and your Lordships said to me that their grants should be paid from some central source, although I might not agree with your Lordships I should see the argument—for this reason: that the local education authorities, or indeed the local authorities as a whole, who under the existing system provide grants for the students, might say to themselves: "We are not going to employ these people eventually, so of what particular interest are they to us?" But we are not debating grants for electrical engineers or chemists. At this moment, we are primarily debating grants for social workers who will be employed by the local authorities when

869
they have completed their training. So I should have thought there was every reason for saying that if the local education authorities are likely to be biased in favour of any particular type of students, it is precisely those whom we are discussing this afternoon.
I am convinced, and the Government are convinced, that the local authorities are alive to the need for developing the community care services with trained staff, and we believe it is right that the students should be financed in the way laid down in the Bill. Therefore, I would ask your Lordships—as I asked your Lordships on Second Reading—to remember that this position will be watched very closely, and that, if necessary, guidance will be given to local authorities by my right honourable friend the Minister of Education, who will be ready to help should any cases of difficulty arise. We should see how the scheme works, before trying to write into the Bill what really would be a case quite different from the normal ways in which students on further edu-
cation courses receive their grants. I hope, therefore, that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her Amendment.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: I am very sorry, but I am afraid that the noble Lord has not convinced me. This is not a complicated matter. Everybody knows that there is great pressure on the services of these young people, and that, as I have said, they can get jobs elsewhere. It is an entirely wrong policy at this stage, to say that we will wait and see. That is what the noble Lord has told the House. He has said: "We will see how it works out." We all know precisely how it will work out. They will wait; they will not be given this grant, and then we shall lose them. In view of the urgency of the matter, I must ask noble Lords to support the Amendment in the Division Lobby.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 39; Not-Contents, 86.

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Feversham, E.

Rea, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, V.

Geddes of Epsom, L.

Saltoun, L.

Amulree, L.

Greenhill, L.

Shackleton, L.

Archibald, L.

Henderson, L.

Shepherd, L. [Teller.]

Attlee, E.

Hughes, L.

Sinha, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Iddesleigh, E.

Stonham, L.

Carnock, L.

Kenswood, L.

Summerskill, B.

Chester, L. Bp.

Kilbracken, L.

Swanborough, B.

Chorley, L.

Latham, L.

Terrington, L.

Colwyn, L.

Lawson, L.

Walston, L.

Crook, L.

Lindgren, L.

Williams, L.

Darwen, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Williams of Barnburgh, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Peddie, L.

Williamson, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Grenfell, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Hailsham, V. (L. President.)

Aldington, L.

Conesford, L.

Harris, L.

Allerton, L.

Coutanche, L.

Hastings, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Craigton, L.

Hawke, L.

Ampthill, L.

Crathorne, L.

Hereford, V.

Baillieu, L.

Davidson, V.

Home, E.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Denham, L.

Horsbrugh, B.

Barnby, L.

Devonshire, D.

Hylton, L.

Bathurst, E.

Dundee, E.

Ironside, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Dynevor, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Blackford, L.

Falmouth, V.

Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Bossom, L.

Ferrers, E.

Lloyd, L.

Boston, L.

Ferrier, L.

Long, V.

Brecon, L.

Foley, L.

Lothian, M.

Brentford, V.

Forester, L.

Luke, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Forster of Harraby, L.

Lyle of Westbourne, L.

Buccleuch and Queensberry, D.

Fortescue, E.

MacAndrew, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Fraser of North Cape, L.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Carrington, L.

Freyberg, L.

Mancroft, L.

Chesham, L.

Goschen, V.

Margesson, V.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Rathcavan, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Merrivale, L.

Reading, M.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Mills, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Swinton, E.

Milverton, L.

St. Oswald, L. [Teller.]

Teynham, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Salter, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Mount Edgcumbe, E.

Sinclair of Cleeve, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Soulbury, V.

Waleran, L.

Newton, L.

Spens, L.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3:
Functions of Council for Training in Social Work
3.—(1) The Council for Training in Social Work—

(a) shall promote training in such social work as is required in the health and welfare services by seeking to secure suitable facilities for training persons in such work, by approving courses as suitable to be attended by persons engaged or intending to engage in such work and by seeking to attract persons to such courses;

(b) if it appears to them that adequate provision is not being made for further training in such work, shall provide or secure the provision of courses for this purpose;

(c) may conduct or make arrangements for the conduct of examinations in connection with such courses as are mentioned in the preceding paragraphs; and

5.37 p.m.
BARONESS SWANBOROUGH BARONESS SWANBOROUGH moved, in subsection (1) (a), after "persons", where that word first occurs, to insert:
"(including persons already engaged in and having considerable experience of the said services)".
The noble Baroness said: In moving the first Amendment standing in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, and myself, I am very anxious to put before your Lordships a point which I think is very important indeed. It is an inclusion which would allow an individual, be it man or woman, who has worked systematically for a laid-down number of years in social service, whether in a paid or in a voluntary capacity, to sit as a late entrant for a test and to qualify alongside the person who starts his or her career by working for a diploma. I feel this should be an arrangement available at all times, and not a temporary arrangement just to accommodate those people who are working in social services at the present time and are already holding welfare posts. As we examine the training that
872
we want for people qualifying for social service posts, it seems to me that the training is in fact the offering to the student of the wealth of experience agglomerated by the teacher, and it is this experience that I am very anxious to see safeguarded.
I believe that the scheme for training as envisaged in the Bill is excellent, and I hope very much that more and more people will qualify and will be available to the country in order to serve in this manner. But there are problems which arise, and which I think we should look at ahead of time. One of the problems which arise in countries where a programme of social work training is very prevalent is that again and again, through lack of foresight, people who have experience are not allowed to work at the same level as those social workers who have a paper qualification, and the experienced volunteer is therefore lost in the effort which he might be able to make.
If my Amendment were agreed to, it would provide for people who had done a specific number of years in the work and had been trained by doing the work—who, indeed, in many cases, have evolved the system of working as it is to-day, since so many of our social services have started through the efforts of either experimental agencies or voluntary services. If we could agree that these people should be recognised, after test, alongside those who have not had as much practical experience, the qualification of the academic and the qualification of the experienced side by side will result in a large number of social workers of a high standard being available to the country. The trained social worker and the experienced volunteer working constantly side by side have each got a great deal to offer the other; and I should like to see this collaboration well preserved.
But even to-day voluntary work is not generally recognised as a qualification for the training and for the posts which are available. I should like to quote the

873
case of a girl who applied for a grant from a local authority for a social science diploma course, for which she had been accepted. One of the local authority conditions was that the applicant must have done social work for one year. This girl had done three months of her year as a full-time voluntary residential worker in a children's home run by one of the recognised voluntary societies. The local authority refused the grant because she had done three months in a voluntary, and not in a paid, capacity. These are the sort of anomalies that I feel we ought to watch ahead of time, rather than get into the difficulty which may come through our being unaware of them.
In another case, a member of my own Service who has had years of experience of administration—actually, I think, seventeen years—in a very responsible welfare job, applied for a post as an assistant home help organiser. She was told that if she got the job the starting salary would be £520, and found that another applicant in her early twenties would start at £950 because she had passed a local authority examination. The anomaly that arises through this sort of thing could be cleared up by an early envisagement of a late-entrants scheme, and I hope vary much that your Lordships will consider this.
I am not in this case arguing because of payment, but because of output. The person who is going to be looked after does not require merely a clinical diagnosis by a person who has had academic education; the particular person is in distress, and in nine times out of ten in extreme trouble, and therefore needs to have, in addition to the knowledge and the know-how of the social worker, understanding, compassion and sympathy, and also the authority of a human being who, through experience, has graduated in the field of life to reach a standard of understanding, as well as a poise in dealing with such matters.
The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, and I have put forward this Amendment because of the experience we have both had, not only with voluntary workers but with those at the receiving end of the work of various social service workers. In this connection, I feel that it is of paramount importance that those who
874
have the extra qualification of experience should not, because they have not at the start of their working life undertaken the academic qualification, be precluded from taking part in the direction of such a service, as long as they can show—and I emphasise this particularly—that they have attained the requisite standard.
The persons at the receiving end—the mother of a family, the ageing man, the not-so-young—find themselves for the first time faced with a serious dilemma. They are not members of a body, professional or otherwise, which is organised and which can present their case. They are not in any way banded together so that they can approach a spokesman to put their views. It is on their behalf that I plead. I ask your Lordships to consider my Amendment because of the many social workers, paid and unpaid, who could, if this Amendment were considered, be admitted to the hierarchy envisaged by this Bill in order that the services to the consumer may be of the best possible order. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 31, after ("persons") insert ("(including persons already engaged in and having considerable experience of the said services)").—(Baroness Swanborough.)
5.45 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHESTER: Before I speak to this Amendment, may I, on behalf of the Bench on which I sit, convey to the noble Lords opposite our delight at having seen Lord Attlee back again in this House.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHESTER: We have watched his courageous fight for recovery with great sympathy, and we hope that he will have many years to enjoy the health that he has recovered.
I support this Amendment, because I believe it stands for something very important in the whole spirit of this measure and of the system which is being set up. Obviously, its success will depend, in the main, upon the highly-trained and qualified worker, who will be, so to speak, the foundation of all the work that is being done. Of that there is no question whatsoever. But there is also a very large pool of available experience which ought to be brought

875
into this system but which will be largely denied the opportunity if it is expected that those people should do a full two years' course. There are many people who have had experience of personal relationships in a wide variety of work and who may later on wish to come into this specific type of work, but for whom it would be unreasonable that they should be expected to do a full two-year course. Therefore, I hope that this Amendment will be carried in order to make those people available for this important work.
I know that there may be misgivings among some that this may lead to a dilution of the efficiency of the service, or indeed that it will give entrance to those well-meaning "do-gooders" who have nothing other than their good intentions to offer. But I do not see that this is a real danger to the system; and, indeed, in a comparable case which I would put before your Lordships, it has not proved to be so. The Church of England has had a very long experience in selecting and training mainly women in the work of moral welfare, and what used to be called the Board of Moral Welfare is now called the Council for Social Work. Great care is taken in the selection and training of full-time workers. Some do a three-year degree course; others go to Josephine Butler House in Liverpool for a two-year course, and they are doing splendid work in this particular department. But that Council has also found that it can make very great use of women who have had wide experience in comparable services, simply by giving them a specific short-time training whereby they can come into this particular work; and so those who are trained in the nursing services, those who have been trained as teachers, those who have worked in the Y.W.C.A., and so on, can all come in, and with a six months' course can become efficient and useful at an age when it would be totally unreasonable for them to have to undergo a two-year course.
Moreover, in much of this work it is surely going to be very valuable to have people who have in their own experience been able to run a successful home and know what that means; and, with the general trend of social custom, with earlier marriages, and with women at
876
the age of, say, 40 having completed their family responsibilities, there should be a great opening for those people who, as a result of a shortened training course, could bring so much to bear. So I hope that this Amendment will be carried, both because it will make available a large and important source of recruitment, and also for something else which it is so difficult adequately to express without giving misunderstanding. In all these things, surely in this country in particular we have a genius for combining the professional and the true and best amateur, and each reacts on the other to the benefit of both. In this service we shall want the true professional who brings all the expertise of his or her training, but we want to avoid what is known as professionalism, with the deleterious effect which that can so often have, especially in the realm of personal relationships. Again, we want the true amateur, with the dedication, the love, the care, while avoiding at the same time the dangers of amateurishness. I believe that if this Amendment, which has been moved so lucidly by the noble Barnoness, is carried, we shall bring back into the system something which is particularly of value in this country—both the fully-trained professional and the trained amateur—to the benefit of the whole system.
LORD SALTOUN: I support the noble Baroness wholeheartedly in her Amendment, but since what I should like to say about it, and other points, ranges rather widely, I will, with your Lordships' permission, say what I want to say on the Motion that the clause stand part.
LORD NEWTON: Under Clause 3 (1) (a) of the Bill, the Council for Training in Social Work are to promote training by seeking to secure suitable facilities for training persons in social work in the health and welfare services. The persons for whom training facilities are to be sought are not specified, but the noble Lady and the right reverend Prelate may be assured that it is the Government's intention—and it was clearly the intention of the Young-husband recommendations—that the Council shall, in fact, seek to secure facilities for training the kind of persons they have in mind, altogether irrespective of their age.

877
I am advised that, in the context of Clause 3 as it is at present drafted, the duty laid upon the Council in subsection (1) (a) to approve courses as suitable for persons engaged in such work makes it unnecessary for any words to be added in line 31 to give the clause the desired effect. Subsection (5) makes it clear that the duty of seeking to secure training facilities and provide courses applies as much to those engaged in similar services provided by voluntary organisations as it does to those engaged in the local authority services. We fully recognise that a comprehensive social service is made up of many elements, in which people with different experience, Whether statutory or voluntary, have important parts to play, and we cannot envisage a time when the contribution of the worker without formal qualifications, particularly in the voluntary field, will not be required. There is nothing to preclude the Council from promoting training facilities for those without formal qualifications who wish to secure some training at a later stage than the normal. We expect that training facilities will be available for suitable workers in voluntary organisations with the appropriate experience, in the same way as for local authority staff and new recruits, so that the Amendment, which the noble Baroness, Lady Swanborough, and the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, have put down, adds nothing to what is already in the Bill. On the other hand, under the Bill as it now stands it will be possible to do What they and the right reverend Prelate want. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lady will withdraw her Amendment.
5.55 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: I do not know what view my noble friend will take of the reply that the Minister has given to the Amendment which we have jointly sponsored, but I find his answer both disappointing and unsatisfying. The noble Lord said that it was the Government's intention that the Council shall seek to secure training for people of all ages such as we have in mind. That is a comforting assurance, but it is by no means a reason why these words should not be added to the Bill. They would make our intention—and presumably the Government's intention—very plain indeed.
878
I do not think that the noble Lord has given sufficient consideration to the kind of circumstances which will arise unless special attention is drawn to this very point. No doubt he himself has experience as a member of a selection board or appointments committee and will know that often a committee have to work within certain limits, one of which is the nature of the qualifications of the applicant. Although members of the committee may be well aware of the great value of experience in social work, it may not be possible for them to make an appointment of a person without suitable academic qualifications. There may be the still greater difficulty, which my noble friend pointed out, of differences in salary, from a possible £500 a year offered to an experienced person to £920 offered to an inexperienced girl merely because she had satisfied a local authority examination. I should be the last person to scoff at training and qualifications, and I do not do so now. Obviously, it is desirable that everyone should be qualified. But anyone who has any experience in social work knows that the most vital qualities are those inherent in the person and the experience gathered in actual case work. These are irreplaceable. It may well be that in matters of this kind the £920-a-year girl of 20 may be an absolute "clot" (if I may use that expression) and may still be appointed because the selection committee could not do anything else about it. These are cogent reasons.
I do not think that the Government have given serious consideration to the great need for workers of this kind. At the present time, we have one health visitor for every 9,000 of the population; and of the health visitors—wonderful women, noble women—95 out of every 100 are the type of dedicated spinster, women who are fast disappearing in this country and who are almost irreplaceable. Women are getting married very much younger. They are not being brought up in the same tradition of service as those who are now occupying posts in the Health Service and similar services. The staffs we have will be ever more difficult to replace, unless we are absolutely determined to avail ourselves of every opportunity to secure the services of persons of experience with the necessary qualities—indeed, with the

879
necessary dedication. There is nothing new about suggesting that an unqualified person should be recognised as able to do qualified work. When the Dental Register was set up, a large number of dentists who had never passed an exmination were admitted to the register, and some of them are still practising, in the National Health Service and in private work, on terms of equality with their brethren who are qualified by having passed the most important examinations. And there are other precedents of this kind.
I submit that there is a clear case for the Government accepting this Amendment, so that when town clerks, medical officers of health and others who have a part in making appointments of this kind, pick up this Act and read the instructions, they will see clearly delineated the intentions of Parliament. I think the feeling and intentions of the Committee in the matter are perfectly clear, and they call for the inclusion of these words and the acceptance of the Amendment. I hope the noble Lord will have another look at it, because I do not think his answer was satisfactory.
LORD FERRIER: In the circumstances, I would urge the noble Lady and the noble Lord to withdraw this Amendment, for the reason that, if it were to be tested at this moment, certainly from this side there are hidden reserves in dead ground which would settle the matter, and there the matter would end.
LORD STONHAM: Did the noble Lord say that there were hidden reserves in dead ground, or dead reserves in hidden ground?
LORD FERRIER: I said hidden reserves in dead ground. The noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, has said that he will speak on the matter later. I do not propose to say more; in fact, there is little more to be added to what has been said by the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lady, who have established in my mind, and no doubt in the minds of other noble Lords, that this is a suitable Amendment for the Government to consider carefully. I urge that the Amendment should be withdrawn now, in order that it might not be destroyed, and so that we may have the opportunity of debating it again at a later stage.
LORD NEWTON: I want to reply to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, because I do not think there is really anything between us in what we want to achieve. I am afraid it must have been my fault, in that I did not explain the Government's position sufficiently clearly to the noble Lord. What I intended to say quite clearly, and reasonably shortly, was that the intentions of the Government are those of the noble Lady and the noble Lord who put down this Amendment. I have to speak to the Amendment as it is on the Marshalled List, and not to the words which the noble Lord utters when he addresses the Committee. I am advised—and I assure the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, that I went into this most carefully—that these words in the Amendment add nothing to what is already in the Bill. In other words, as the Bill is drafted, it will be possible for the Training Council to do precisely what those who put down the Amendment want. The noble Lord says: why do I then not accept the Amendment? It is for this very good reason, which I think is known well to Parliamentarians: it is never wise to insert unnecessary words in a Bill, because there is always the risk of the effect that this could, by implication, have on other parts of the Bill, and in other parts of the Statute. I should have thought that I had given the noble Lady everything she wants by telling her that it is unnecessary to add anything more to achieve the purpose she has in mind.
BARONESS SWANBOROUGH: I am no Parliamentarian, but I would join issue with the noble Lord who talked about one of the greatest resources of the Restaurant Committee as a dead place, in saying that the hidden reserves of the Government were in a dead place. I thought the noble Lord who answered for the Government gave me a full assurance that my points were covered and, being no Parliamentarian, I not only accept what he said, but I also accept it in what I take to be the spirit in which the assurance was given. I feel strongly that the undertaking in this Ball is definitely one of good will and readiness to work one with the other, but I felt it necessary to put down the Amendment because of the tragedies I have seen in other countries, and the fact that unless one looks at this situation ahead

881
of time one might be precluded from having a late entrant accepted. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
BARONESS SWANBOROUGH BARONESS SWANBOROUGH moved, in subsection (1) (b), after "courses" to insert: "including, in appropriate cases, shortened courses". The noble Baroness said: In moving this Amendment I have in mind the same group of people who have had years of experience in social work and particularly in a voluntary capacity. The experienced voluntary worker of to-day has of necessity a wide knowledge of the social services, not only as they exist on paper, but also as they operate to help people in their locality. He or she as a voluntary worker knows only too well the snags, the problems and the overlappings, where to turn for the many different kinds of help, and, in addition, knows a great deal about the series of courses available to fit one to do the job. Such courses are nearly always dealt with by the organisation or the body to which the volunteer belongs. In order to train herself to translate this knowledge, acquired in various and often in hard ways, she needs to be, so to speak, "topped up" to stand up to an examination or to have a more national outlook. I feel that it would be very desirable for a short course to be available, so that such a person could qualify through attendance at a short course and be able to be graded according to test. I apologise for moving this Amendment now, because I think the noble Lord who is to reply for the Government has already answered the question in what he said previously, but not being good at procedure, I felt that I must move the Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 37, after ("courses") insert the said words.—(Baroness Swanborough.)
LORD NEWTON: The Council's duty under Clause 3 (1) (b), to provide or secure the provision of courses and further training services if it appears to them that adequate provision is not being made, does not prevent them from providing shortened courses. Indeed, under the Bill as it is at present drafted, the Council are free to permit shortened courses leading to their certificate, since
882
the length of course is not specified. Your Lordships may recall that the Younghusband Report makes various recommendations for courses for older officers with various lengths of experience other than the two-year full-time training which is the main pattern of training recommended for new recruits, and the Council will no doubt have these recommendations in mind in considering what sort of facilities they will provide. Once again I am in the position of being able to assure the noble Lady that her Amendment is not necessary to achieve her purpose, and, being a charitable man, my pleasure is not dimmed by the mortifying recollection that, during the Second Reading debate, she indicated that I would be incapable of doing social work without first being given the full two-year treatment.
LORD STONHAM: Without having any desire to give the noble Lord the full treatment, I hope he will not say on this occasion that the inclusion of the words of the Amendment in the Bill would add nothing to the Bill, because they would at least make it clear that there is the intention that there should be shortened courses. I would agree with the noble Lord that in Clause 3 (1) (b) there is nothing to prevent the Council from providing shortened courses; if they have to provide adequate training courses for the persons concerned, then they can be long or short. But there is a great difference between nothing to prevent them doing a thing and an instruction that they shall do it. Although it may well be that they will provide courses of varying length and varying content, I really cannot see that there is any reason at all why this Amendment should not be accepted, because it does help to make the intentions that much clearer. I should be grateful if the noble Lord would deal with that point.
LORD NEWTON: I am afraid that I cannot even agree about that. I am advised that it would not make it any clearer, and that the necessary powers for the Council which the noble Lord and the noble Lady want are there. For the same reasons which I gave when we were discussing the earlier Amendment, I would advise your Lordships that it is never a wise thing to insert unnecessary words into a Bill. I feel certain that those lawyers who are

883
present will agree with me about that. I hope that once again the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw this Amendment.
BARONESS SWANBOROUGH: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.11 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD SALTOUN: I shall trespass on your Lordships' time for only a brief moment. It is a long time since I had anything to do with this work, and if I am behind the times I hope your Lordships will forgive me. These clauses seem to me to set up a cumbrous machine, and probably a very expensive machine, to provide for the social services. I am inclined to agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, said on the Second Reading, that there are probably not enough people available to provide a sufficient number to carry out these services properly. I think the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, was very much of that opinion, and said that we are going to be very short of people to do this work. My own personal opinion is that people have to do both sides and fulfil both tasks. After all, that has been done in the past quite successfully, and, I think, without an enormous degree of preliminary training. I think it is desirable that that should be done, so far as possible, because your Lordships' experience will tell you that it is much easier for one visitor to obtain the confidence of a family than it is for more than one. It seems to me that the confidence of the patient is a very important matter.
This Bill sets up machinery for the education of people who undertake this work, and, of course, that includes registration. There must be a register of some kind of people who obtain these qualifications. It seems to me that the Government are a little premature in this, at least according to the ideas of the past. The Report from the Select Committee appointed in 1935 to consider the registration and regulation under the Osteopaths Bill laid down what was then the time-honoured rule in these matters. They said:
884
"In all comparable cases of vocations for which a statutory register has been authorised, three conditions have been fulfilled, viz.:—

(i) The sphere or territory within which the vocation operates has been clearly defined.

(ii) The vocation has already been long in general use.

(iii) There has been already in existence a well-established and efficient system of voluntary examination and registration."

I freely give Her Majesty's Government, the second of those, but, after all, the sphere or territory is what ills the flesh is heir to. I do not call that a definition. A definition must define, and there is no definition and no limit to the tasks which the social services have to undertake. As a definition, I submit to noble Lords opposite, who are considering carefully and perhaps a little anxiously their relationship with the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that it resembles far more those definitions that he propounds to us in speech and tantalises us with in some of his later books. I do not think that there is in existence a well-established and efficient system of voluntary examination and registration. Therefore, the Government are breaking entirely new ground in this matter, and it behoves us to consider it very carefully.
Some time ago now, I remember the welfare officers asking me whether I did not think they should have, as it were, a chartered society, with examinations and degrees, or a register. I replied that I thought that was quite unnecessary. I thought the first thing their young people should do was to learn absolutely thoroughly the law of the Welfare State. That would give them the tools of their trade; and after that the thing they could get was experience, experience and more and more experience. That certainly was my experience when I was doing that kind of work. I think it is an extremely important thing, and it seems to me that in this Bill no account has been taken of the extraordinary value of long experience. For that reason, I do not view this Bill with great enthusiasm, although I hope that it will work a great deal better than I feel it may.
LORD NEWTON: My noble friend has ranged fairly widely, as he told me he was going to do. We have listened to his views with interest. I hope that his fears will not be realised, and that the

885
Bill will work out better than he seems to think. He spoke about the association which exists between the work of health visitors and social workers. That is certainly the case, and it is recognised in the Younghusband Report, and in the Bill.
LORD SALTOUN: I am much obliged to the noble Lord.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
6.17 p.m.
LORD AMULREE LORD AMULREE moved, after Clause 4, to insert the following new clause:
Pooling arrangements in respect of expenditure on social work training
". As soon as may be after the passing of this Act the Minister shall make regulations in pursuance of paragraph 1 of Part IV of the First Schedule to the Local Government Act, 1958, to establish pooling arrangements in respect of expenditure by local health authorities on grants for training in social work, and accordingly the said paragraph 1 shall be amended by the addition at the end of sub-paragraph (4) thereof of the following:—
'(f) in the training of persons in social work',"

The noble Lord said: The purpose of the new clause which I propose to insert is to make it possible to extend the pooling arrangements which already exist to include social work training for both health and welfare services. Supposing this were to occur, I am sure it would immediately transform the whole prospect for the recruitment, for the grants to students, and for the setting up of courses about which we have been talking. The plan would not cost the Government any money, but it would at the same time stimulate the laggard local authorities and not discourage the keen ones. I think the scheme before us now is one which would appeal only to the most progressive and the most wealthy local authorities. They are probably the people who would do the job in any event. But it would not encourage the poorer ones, or the less interested ones.
At the present time, the local authority pays the cost of each student's training, even though that student may move on and go on somewhere else. The pooling scheme works well for the health visitors, for the training of probation officers and for child care. It has been said that health visitors get seconded by the local authority, but I do not think they do. I
886
think many of them are sponsored to the local authority, which is not quite the same thing, and do not get employed by the local authority until their training has been completed. That again is why it seems anomalous that the health visitors will be trained under some kind of pooling arrangement, whereas the social workers, with a closely linked and parallel council, do not get training. Where I think that is a bad thing from another point of view is that it has always been my hope—indeed, as I said on Second Reading—that the two councils might one day be joined together. If they are to be treated in a different way, it will make that desirable project much further away Chan it is now, which is one of the reasons why I put down this Amendment. So far as I am aware, the local authorities would have no objection at all to the pooling arrangements, and therefore I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 4, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Amulree.)
6.20 p.m.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: I strongly support the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Amulree. It is quite clear from the reply that was given by my right honourable friend the Minister of Health in another place, and by the noble Lord, Lord Newton, in his reply on behalf of the Government in the Second Reading debate in this House, that it was very unlikely that the Amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, with regard to the necessity of central grants would receive any consideration. But I see no reason why this Amendment suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, should not have the very careful consideration of Her Majesty's Government at this stage of the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, has pointed out, it does not infringe any commitment to which my right honourable friend has aligned himself in connection with this Bill. Nor does it evoke antagonism to the principle of restriction of Government expenditure from the centre, because finance would be provided by local authorities by placing a requisite amount into a pool.
The noble Lord, Lord Newton, might well claim that in his reply to the noble

887
Baroness, Lady Summerskill, he has in the main answered the points arising out of this Amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Amulree. I do not think that is the case. I have listened with very great attention to the reply which the noble Lord gave to the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, and so far as I can see the only new statement that emerged was that in the case of the category of social worker with whom we are now dealing they would not previously have applied to the local education authority for a grant, whereas the psychiatric social workers and other categories, such as probation officers, might have done so by taking a social science course. I do not think that that, on the face of it, is a complete answer.
In the first place, this is a new service and it is clear that local education authorities, in the sequence of arguments enunciated by the noble Lord, are already committed to pay great sums of money under the further education grants to existing or old-established services. The question is: are the local education authorities likely, under the present procedure of a block grant, to increase the level of further education grants for new services? Quite clearly in rich and more progressive local authorities we shall see great advances; and doubtless numbers of persons wishing to obtain training will receive it. But I doubt whether that will be the case in the poorer areas, or in the areas of the more unenlightened local authorities. It came to my notice that, as in York, a social worker applied to his health and welfare committee to take a course. This was denied him. The only way that he was enabled to take the course was to resign from his occupation under the local authority and, having resigned, then apply to the further education committee.
The noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, said in the Second Reading debate that the Younghusband Committee Report emphasised that a total of 5,700 persons were required for this category of social worker under this Bill. There are approximately 3,000 persons employed now, leaving a deficiency of well over 2,000. There can be no doubt whatever that unless the Government show greater sympathy for the point that
888
we have insistently raised throughout all stages of this Bill—that is, that some pooling arrangement or central grant should be provided—the provisions of the Mental Health Act as regards community care will be virtually a dead letter.
It is all very well for the noble Lord, Lord Newton, with the best possible intentions, to inform your Lordships' House that we shall see how this provision of the grant under further education will operate. But I am not speaking on behalf of a limited specialised pressure group emanating from one particular organisation or society; I am speaking as a layman concerned for thirty years with the whole range of social work, having been engaged in this kind of activity long before the concept or the implementation of the idea of a Welfare State. The need for some pooling or central grant is universally recognised, both centrally and locally, by the people in the field who have to do the work.
We have not heard from my right honourable friend the Minister of Health, or from the noble Lord, Lord Newton, any statement to show your Lordships why the Department they represent have come to the conclusion that the claim we make is an irresponsible one. From what source does the noble Lord, Lord Newton, obtain his information in support of his claim that social workers engaged in health and welfare departments, or who are required to be recruited in those departments, will, in fact, get the degree of training that is required under the provisions now contained in the Bill? Is it from the representatives of local authorities, both on municipal and county level, that that information has been provided? Is it from those who are responsible for administering the Acts from the centre? I claim that, without any question whatsoever, the number of people who are required, first, to be recruited for training and, second, to be engaged in the service at the present time, will not materialise unless this system of pooling is very carefully gone into. Therefore, I would appeal at this late stage to the noble Lord, Lord Newton, not to give the official reply but to say that he will inquire again into this question and perhaps report at a later stage to your

889
Lordships' House upon the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Amulree.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: I cannot resist supporting both the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, and the noble Earl, Lord Feversham, on this particular matter of financing the students. I supported the noble Baroness in the hope that we might get something in the way of a direct grant. Obviously that is not going to happen. Now we are offering, under this Amendment, a different method, and one which, as Lord Feversham has pointed out, meets a great many of the criticisms put forward by the Government on the direct grant plan. This pooling system has been in the Home Office now for a considerable number of years; I do not know how many years, but a long time. It works very well. It works on the training of probation officers; it works on the training of child care officers. It is acceptable to local authorities; it is acceptable to the central authority. If something works very well in one category of training, why should it not work in another, which, although it is different in the sense that people are being employed for different types of social work, is in fact in many ways identical because we are dealing with the identical people coming into the profession.
It has been said here—I think the noble Lord, Lord Newton, said it in reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill—that local authorities would be quite adequate in this, and he also instanced that local authorities would be the employing bodies and so on. That is perfectly true; local authorities would be the employing bodies. But the fact is that in the smaller local authorities, where the need is great but not as pressing as it is in the great areas where the populations are so very large, there might be quite a number of very suitable candidates who would like to be trained, who would be good in the profession, but who would not be supported by their local authorities because the local authority might say, "We cannot employ you. We want only three or four and we already have three or four, and we cannot therefore offer you a job".
Most local education authorities will give grants for further education, teaching, whatever it may be, only if the
890
trainee guarantees to give some work in the county when he or she has finished training. It is therefore necessary to satisfy that particular aspect of grant giving, if it is to be through a local education authority before they allow the person to go and take training. That is very limiting indeed, especially when we want, as the noble Earl, Lord Feversham, reminded us, at least 2,000 new people in this field. I wish we could persuade the Minister to have a second look and see whether or not it is not possible to use the method the Home Secretary uses which is so very successful and which meets the criticisms which are levelled against the central grants system.
I do not think we can hope to get the personnel required for the responsibilities that are being put on the local authorities unless we can make a real recruiting drive. The noble Earl, Lord Feversham, has reminded us that the Mental Health Act, the latest of the responsibilities being put on local authorities, is only now coming into effect, and we are only now beginning to see what our responsibilities as members of local authorities are going to be. I can promise your Lordships that there are very few local authorities in the country who, faced with these added responsibilities, can undertake them in what I would consider any adequate manner because they simply have not got the personnel; it just is not there. I would hope that the Minister would really consider this. After all, this new Mental Health Act, which was an immensely important Bill which he himself put through the House in another place and which we have had through this House, is something of tremendous importance, and we are not going to be able to handle it from the local authority angle unless we can get more people.
There is one other point I should like to make to the Minister in connection with this question of getting grants through local authorities. The difficulty is that you have to satisfy a great many interests, a great many committees; you have to time your application so that it comes in at the moment at which these various committees meet to pass these grants forward, and local authorities do not meet every week; some committees do not meet every month; some meet every two months. It must

891
all be synchronised with the question of when the university training courses are beginning, at what time they may join in—it is immensely complicated—whereas, if you had the control of selection and finance in your own hands through a central department it would be very much easier to meet the demands when they came from the trainees and the demands from local authorities throughout the country. I would beg the Minister to consider this plan. He does not like a central grants system, but this pooling plan, which is a plan which works so extremely well in the Home Office, might be applied in this department to this type of trainee so urgently needed to-day.
6.35 p.m.
LORD NEWTON: My two noble friends have taken the opportunity, which I do not believe the mover of the Amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, intended should be taken, of having yet another debate on the merits of having grants paid from some central source or by the local education authorities. My two noble friends have once again demonstrated their lack of confidence that the local authorities will do their duty and live up to their responsibilities. We have debated this question this afternoon. We debated it on Second Reading. I explained why I believe that the local authorities will discharge their responsibilities, and I really do not think there is anything more about that which I can usefully add to-night.
LORD AMULREE: I am bound to say that what the noble Lord has said is not very encouraging, and, indeed, is rather disappointing. I think while quite a number of local authorities will do their duty, and do it extremely well, there are always some bad local authorities. One found it a long time ago, when one was working with local authorities; where permissive powers were given, they were used by some but not by others. In the same way, I think that in this matter, if it is not made simple for the not very progressive local authorities to get money, the training will not be done. I think we have got to make this Bill work; we have got to get these people.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: Before my noble friend continues, perhaps I might be permitted to dissociate myself from the general observation he made, that I am a party to demonstrating a lack of confidence in the acumen and sense of obligation of local authorities. That is not the case. I would, however, make clear that in almost every branch of social service, apart from the one under discussion, the grant or pooling arrangement is available, and therefore this provision that does not give it is a disincentive to many local authorities. All the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, and I are asking is that the Government should not give a disincentive to local authorities, but an incentive that has been given under other Acts and adopted by other Government Departments over a number of years.
LORD NEWTON: I am very grateful to my noble friend for giving the assurance that his object is not to demonstrate lack of confidence in local authorities. I am bound to say that the purport of the speeches he has made so far did make me feel that might be the case, and I am glad to know that I was wrong. If I may turn to the actual Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, has moved, it refers only to the expenditure of local health authorities, but of course the expenditure of welfare authorities is equally relevant. In the view of the Government, in neither instance is there a sufficient case for pooling arrangements. I will try to explain the reason for that view. Although employing local health authorities incur substantial expenditure in sponsoring nurses for health visitor training, local authorities will not incur the same order of expenditure on seconding staff for social work training.
As I explained while we were debating an earlier Amendment this afternoon, the normal mode of entry to the health visiting profession is for the qualified nurse-midwife to be sponsored or seconded by a local health authority for the further training needed for the health visitor certificate. The expense which thus falls on employing authorities is pooled. Some 500 health visitors are trained under such arrangements each year, and the Jameson Working Party

893
recommended that this rate of recruitment should be doubled. This represents a continuing burden on employing authorities.
In the case of social workers, on the other hand, the Younghusband recommendation is that some 500 people should be recruited annually, and this will consist, in the large part, of people who with the assistance of a local education authority grant have already completed their general training in social work. Although authorities will no doubt continue to second for this training people who are already in their employment—for example, welfare assistants—the continuing burden which this represents will not be at all comparable with the corresponding burden in the health visitor field. In the case of social workers the financial burden will fall, in the main, on the local education authority as part of its expenditure on further education grants, as the Bill provides. As for the training of existing staffs—that is to say, the training of those already being employed as social workers—the Younghusband Working Party envisaged that only 250 serving officers would need to be seconded from their existing employment for full-time training, and that most of these would be seconded for only one year. The financial burden on employing authorities which this represents, spread over a period of ten years, as is envisaged, would not in the view of the Government justify elaborate pooling machinery.
There is just one further point that I should like to make. Some local health authorities, in addition to meeting the cost of individual health visitor students, themselves run training courses for them. In so far as these are run at a loss, it would be unfair for the local health authority concerned to shoulder the whole cost. It is not, however, contemplated that local health and welfare authorities will run courses, apart from in-service training, for social workers. The courses will be run by the local education authority as part of their normal further education activities. Those are the reasons why the Government do not feel that the provisions of the noble Lord's Amendment are justified, and I hope that he will be satisfied and feel able to withdraw.
LORD AMULREE: I cannot say for one moment that I feel satisfied, but I certainly do not propose to take this Amendment to a Division. Before I sit down, I should like to thank the noble Baroness and the noble Earl for the support they gave me, and at the same time to express my great disappointment that the Government have not been able (to give me a better answer. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 5 to 7 agreed to.
First Schedule:
CONSTITUTION, ETC., OF COUNCILS
2. The Privy Council shall appoint one person to be chairman of both Councils.
3. The other members of the Council for the Training of Health Visitors shall be appointed as follows:
(a) fourteen by the Health Ministers;
8. The members mentioned in sub-paragraph (b) of paragraph 4 of this Schedule shall be appointed after consultation with such universities and other bodies concerned with the training of social workers as the Health Ministers and the Minister of Education think fit.
6.44 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL BARONESS SUMMERSKILL had given Notice of several Amendments relating to the constitution of the Councils, the first being, in paragraph 2, to omit "one person to be chairman of both Councils" and to substitute:
"the Chairman of each Council and may appoint the same person to be Chairman of both Councils."
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name and that of my noble friends. On the first Amendment I said that the views I expressed reflected the attitude of the social workers and the health visitors towards this Bill, and I must confess that having listened to this debate I have been forcefully struck by the dedication, the self-effacement and the modesty of the women who have been responsible, indirectly, for wording the Amendments that have come before us. I think your Lordships will agree when I explain this Amendment to you, that it is, in the Parliamentary world, the supreme example of a modest approach to a Bill. In fact, I have never before moved anything which in my view should be

895
accepted immediately by the Government out of gratitude to these magnificent women.
Line 10 of the First Schedule provides for one person to be appointed by the Privy Council to act as chairman of both Councils. I understand that it has been suggested that that person should be Sir John Wolfenden. On the Second Reading of this Bill I said that Sir John Wolfenden must be the most overworked chairman of this decade. I personally have nothing to say against him, and I understand that the nurses have accepted the proposal. I would remind your Lordships that these two important Councils will be concerned with an increasing amount of work. Surely it might be desirable, in the years to come, to have two Chairmen of these Councils, so that, if necessary, the Councils' work can be conducted simultaneously. That seems to me to be a quite modest request. At the same time, it is thought that if this Amendment were accepted those who are responsible for choosing the Chairman might be able years hence if necessary, to change their mind and to have two Chairmen instead of one. The Amendment therefore suggests that for "shall" we substitute "may". That is all these women are asking for: that in the years to come they might change their minds and have two Chairmen instead of one.
To me this Schedule is an anachronism. I must not say how I feel about it. I want to put gently the views of these excellent women. I am glad that the noble Lord is smiling sympathetically. If I had moved an Amendment of my own I might have moved to delete this part of this Schedule altogether. I realise that in this Committee I am speaking to noble Lords who have taken a personal interest in this work. The two Councils which are being set up will be composed, in the great majority, of women. In fact, the health visitors of this country are almost wholly women. Yet they are prepared to accept a man as their Chairman. I recall that 30 years ago, when I started in politics, I was co-opted onto an urban district council (in those days women were never elected to an urban district council) for the purpose of serving on the maternity and child welfare committee. I recall that
896
in those days women were rarely elected, and so the Government of the day felt that if women were to voice their views on maternity they would have to be appointed, because their chance of being elected was nil. I remember that, as a young woman, I went to my first meeting of the maternity and child welfare committee and found in the chair a man of 80. I think this was a remarkable thing. But that was many years ago.
Here, in this Bill, these fine, dedicated, self-effacing women are prepared, in 1962, to accept one Chairman of both Councils; and in this Amendment they are humbly coming to you to ask if you will change "shall" to "may", so that perhaps in the future they might have two Chairmen—and dare I whisper, in case I shock some noble Lords, that perhaps the Chairmen might be women? But they have not even asked for that. They have not even said, "Perhaps your Lordships will allow a woman, in the years to come, perhaps in the 70s, to preside over the health visitors of this country." They have not gone so far as that. They have asked for this simple method, and surely the noble Lord who represents the Government is not going to rise and say that he does not see his way to accept this simple Amendment—that is the least he can possibly do. Surely simple courtesy, compassion, respect for these wonderful people will cause him to say: "Well, we at least will accept this." I ask the noble Lord, if he has been briefed to say "No," to get up boldly and say, "I will not obey my masters this time. I will take it back and think about it."
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 9, leave out from ("appoint") to end of line 10 and insert the said new words.—(Baroness Summerskill.)
LORD AMULREE: I would just briefly say a word on this Amendment, though I do not want to follow the noble Baroness in the talk she gave on the male and female members. I should like to support the Amendment because I think it might, in time, be necessary or convenient for the Council to have a separate chairman, and, supposing that was not possible because of this Bill, it would need amending legislation to bring it in, which might be embarrasing for the Minister in charge. On the other hand, supposing the Amendment proposed is

897
accepted, there is no reason at all why the Minister should not continue to appoint a single Chairman; but, if he wished to make a change, he could. Therefore, from a purely practical point of view, I believe there is a lot to be said for this Amendment, and I should like to support the noble Baroness.
LORD NEWTON: I hoped that the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, when he got up to speak, was going to support what is in the Bill already, in view of what he said during the Second Reading debate: that in his view, far from there being two Councils with one or two chairmen, there ought to be one Council for both health visitors and social workers. You could not then have two chairmen for one Council. Apparently the noble Lord has changed his mind.
LORD AMULREE: I have not changed my mind. What I said was that there should only be one Council, and therefore only one chairman. If you are going to have two Councils, for heaven's sake have two chairmen.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: One man and one woman.
LORD NEWTON: That is going as far as you can on an association between the two sets of workers. With all respect to the noble Lord, it represents a very substantial change of position. The noble Baroness is always at her most beguiling when speaking on feminist subjects.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: No—the injustice of men.
LORD NEWTON: That is the noble Baroness's way of putting the same thing, Which I have defined in a slightly different manner. It is very beguiling and very charming and, as a mere man, it puts me in a rather embarrassing position. I should not dream of expressing an opinion about the extent of the sacrifice women make when they find themselves, shall I say, under masculine authority. Perhaps I might just say that I have known women who rather like being bossed by men. Perhaps they are not women known to the noble Baroness.
This is really a question of achieving the right relationship between these two Councils. There are two extreme views: one, that there should be two completely
898
separate Councils, and the other that there should be one Council for both groups of workers. The solution propounded by the Government in this Bill represents a position half way between those two. We believe, as did the Younghusband Report, that there is, and must be, association not only between the workers concerned but between the Councils. I should like to read to you a few sentences from the Younghusband Report on this subject. I quote from paragraph 126, on page 27:
"The functions of health visitors in providing health education and social advice inevitably bring them into contact with a variety of social problems. Similarly social workers are frequently concerned with families where there is a health problem. These two field workers, each trained in different professional disciplines, should complement each other, and should each know enough about the other's field to recognise the point at which referral is indicated. There is a necessary overlap of knowledge between health visitors and social workers. An overlap of function may also occur when social workers are either not available or are not adequately trained."
Well, those are very strong arguments for there being association between the Councils, which is accepted by the Government. The Government further believe that the arguments for the association of the Councils are arguments which have permanent validity, not just validity at the moment when the Councils are about to be set up, and that the best guarantor of permanent validity is a single Chairman.
Health visitors and social workers both do their jobs largely in people's homes; both work on their own, in co-operation with others, in an environment which is personal to the individual they are helping. These conditions of work will continue to prevail. Health visitors and social workers have complementary duties, and will prepare cases for one another according to the nature of the help required. This close working relationship will continue. It is therefore surely right that their training should be co-ordinated. Moreover, there are common elements in the two kinds of training, and this will continue to be the case.
The Government regard the association of the Councils as settled policy and, as I have said, a single chairman is the main guarantor of this. To leave the matter open—which is what the noble Baroness is asking me to do in her

899
Amendment—would, in my view and in the view of the Government, lead to argument and conflicting pressures, not all of them perhaps as beguiling as the noble Baroness has been this afternoon: but pressures would be there which would not be in the interests of the sound development of the work of the Councils, or in the interests of the workers themselves. The training of social workers on this scale and on these lines is new, and we want it to start on the basis of a right relationship, and to continue so; we do not want it to start properly and then to fall apart.
My right honourable friend the Minister said on this matter in another place [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 659 (No. 106), col. 155]:
"I admit that this is a matter of judgment and balance, but it seemed to me, and I respectfully advise the House, that on balance there is greater advantage in spelling out in the Bill that these two Councils are to have a common chairman."
It is the same advice as I am respectfully giving to your Lordships this evening.
Perhaps I could just add in conclusion that although Sir John Wolfenden is to be the first Chairman of the two Councils if the Bill is enacted and when they are set up, I see no reason why at some time or another there should not be a woman as chairman of both Councils.
LORD STONHAM: T think the noble Lord, Lord Newton, has made very heavy weather of this and has not dealt with the point at all. There are in fact two points. The Bill says that the Privy Council "shall appoint one person to be chairman of both Councils," and my noble friend's Amendment suggests that the Privy Council shall appoint the chairman "of each Council and may appoint the same person to be chairman of both Councils." So we are on this quite narrow point, but it is an important point in the view of the people mainly concerned. We want to leave the way open, without the need for further legislation, for two different persons to be the chairman of these two Councils if later it should be found advisable. The noble Lord put it the wrong way round. He said that if we were to lay it down didactically now, that would prevent pressures in the future. I should have thought that was entirely wrong.
900
Leave the matter fluid in that one single sense now, and if pressures arise—and they will not arise without reason—then they can be accommodated by the appointment of two separate chairmen.
The noble Lord's other point was that there must be co-ordination, which of course is quite right. The work of health visitors and social service workers is so closely related that there must be this co-ordination. But as I see it, there are going to be two large Councils. The only co-ordinating factor is the single chairman of both Councils. I do not know how the details will finally be worked out, but I think it is highly probable that these two Councils will meet in the same building and, inevitably, they will work closely together whether they have one chairman or two.
Hard by Paddington station in Eastbourne Terrace is a very large building, which no doubt has a frequent visitor, and it has four floors. Each floor accommodates the headquarters of a Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board, and it is very necessary for those four Hospital Boards to correlate their work, but they all have separate Chairmen, separate regional committees and, indeed, separate officers, and no difficulty arises in that regard at all. In fact, as my noble friend suggested, this is an extremely modest Amendment, characteristic of the people who have put it forward. The noble Lord has not really introduced one sound reason at all why it should be refused, except one which may seem to him to be overriding, and that is that his right honourable friend has made up his mind that he will not give way. But in my submission that is not a sound reason at all, and I still hope that we shall have another look at it.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: May I point out an argument for some degree of elasticity in this matter, afforded by subsection (3) of Clause 3, which reads:
"Her Majesty may by Order in Council make provision for conferring on the Council for Training in Social Work such functions in relation to other social work as are conferred on it by subsections (1) and (2) of this section in relation to the social work therein mentioned; and, in connection therewith, for making such modifications in the constitution of that Council, as she may deem expedient."
I understand that in that subsection we are envisaging a great and expanding

901
future for the Council for Training in Social Work. Further matters may be made to come within its purview; it is expected that it will develop into a more and more important Council, and therefore Her Majesty's Government are very properly taking power to modify the constitution of that Council.
Is it not evident that, if this Council does becomes a greater and more important body, it will immediately be affected by this Bill; the chairmanship may very possibly become a whole-time job, and you may lose the services of a really suitable chairman, because he will say, "I am afraid I have not time to take on the health visitors. I should have been happy to take on the social workers"? By insisting that he shall have this dual function we may be depriving ourselves of the possibility of employing a first-rate man. In view of the fluidity of the work of the Council for Training in Social Work, I beg Her Majesty's Government to reconsider the matter, and to see Whether it is really sensible to tie for all time the hands of future Ministers of Health.
LORD NEWTON: I do not really think there is very much more that I can say about this. The noble Baroness told us, when moving the Amendment, that she was putting it forward on behalf of one of the interested parties, which she is perfectly entitled to do. What the Government have to do, as I understand it, is to consider the points of view of all interested parties on matters of this kind—and, indeed, on any matter—and then make up their mind What they believe to be right in the general interest. That is what has been done with this Bill, after considering the representations of all who are interested. It is a matter of judgment, as I said when I was concluding my last speech, and now it is for the judgment of your Lordships.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: I find the noble Lord's explanation, or half-apology, most unsatisfactory, but I have no intention of pressing the matter. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL BARONESS SUMMERSKILL moved, in paragraph 3 (a), to leave out "fourteen" and insert "sixteen". The noble Baroness said: I think most noble Lords
902
who have spoken will agree that this Amendment does concern a legitimate grievance. The purpose of it is to ensure that health visitors have adequate representation on the Council. I would remind the noble Lord of the Bill dealing with professions supplementary to medicine, which I think was amended later on in the Report stage, because the women concerned, as well as some men, felt that they did not have adequate representation on the bodies which had been set up. Here, again, these excellent women—and I do not really like the expression "interested parties" which the noble Lord has used; it almost suggests that they had some ulterior motive—who are going to serve the community in this field, should quite rightly have adequate representation on these bodies. I shall explain to your Lordship just what the representation is but, in the first place, I would say that it is now weighted in such a manner that it does not fulfil the undertaking which the Minister gave in another place, as the noble Lord will recall, that a slight majority would be given to the health visitors representative of the professional and educational interests. The noble Lord will recall that was recommended in the Jameson Report in paragraph 374.
I should not be doing my duty if I did not put on record what these figures are, and I am hoping that in this case the noble Lord will consider this again, in order that he might move an Amendment on the Report stage. He will agree with me that if this grievance is perpetuated it will mean inevitably, with the long discussions that will take place on these various Councils, that there will be a waste of time and there will be some fruitless argument, because the women there feel that they are not adequately represented. As the Bill stands there will be a Council of 32 members, of whom fourteen are to be appointed by the Health Ministers, and six by the Health Ministers and the Minister of Education. The remainder of the Council consists of representatives of local authorities and one appointed by the Governor of Northern Ireland. Of the Health Minister's appointments, thirteen are to be appointed as follows: after consultation with associations appearing to represent health visitors, eight; after consultations with the

903
B.M.A. and the Society of Medical Officers of Health, three; after consultation with the General Nursing Councils for England and Wales and for Scotland, two, making thirteen in all.
LORD NEWTON: Sixteen.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: It is thirteen. The noble Lord cannot count. It is not sixteen. This leaves one of the Minister's appointments unidentified, to be allocated as he likes; and that makes fourteen. Surely, professional representation should be by the representatives of health visitors, which number only eight—the first eight I gave the Minister. With the six educational representatives referred to, the total becomes fourteen.
The noble Lord will recall that in another place the Parliamentary Secretary replied to a question on this subject, and in the Parliamentary Secretary's calculations she achieved what she described as "a slight majority" by including the General Nursing Council representatives and the unidentified seat. Now the General Nursing Council does not represent the specific health visitor, and the representatives of the General Nursing Council are concerned only with the nurse-training content of the integrated courses. The General Nursing Councils are not concerned with the specific health visitor training. Those of your Lordships who have served on various organisations will agree with me that often there are representatives of other bodies, but when it comes to voting only the people who are concerned with a matter which is of interest to their own body are certain to vote one way: they can never be sure that they will have the support of representatives of the other body. The same will happen, of course, in this assembly.
I agree that, to a lay person, the name of the General Nursing Council sounds as if it is representative of the nursing world. One might say also that the General Medical Council is representative of the doctors: but, of course, the general practitioner and the specialist would reject that immediately. The General Medical Council, as so many noble Lords know here, is concerned with discipline and with all kinds of matters quite removed from the work of
904
the doctor. It is precisely the same way in the world of nursing. These health visitors do not feel that the General Nursing Council represents their attitude, or will necessarily support them on some matter which is concerned with health visitor training. That is why they have asked for this whole matter to be reconsidered. While the present Minister of Health may say that his intention is to fill the unidentified seat with a representative of the health visiting profession, I doubt whether he can commit his successors; and in any case, of course, if the noble Lord counts these figures up he will see that they need two more places for professional and educational interests to achieve even parity with the other representatives.
Now I ask the Minister to consider this, because it is a serious grievance. Again I would remind him that if these Councils start off this work without the important people, the health visitors, feeling they have proper representation, inevitably there will be a waste of time; and it is quite wrong at this stage, if one sees that a grievance can be removed, not to remove it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 13, leave out ("fourteen") and insert ("sixteen").—(Baroness Summerskill.)
LORD NEWTON: The Amendment which the noble Lady has just moved is, in fact, a paving Amendment to the next one, and in her speech she was principally concerned with the next Amendment. Therefore, if I may, I will discuss them both together. I can assure the Committee that very great care has been given to trying to strike the right balance of representation, not only on this Council but on the other one as well. It has not been at all easy, because there are parties—the noble Baroness does not like the word "party", but it is a perfectly harmless word—who are naturally interested in matters of this kind. It is perfectly right and proper that they should be. They all have their points of view, and the Government have to try to strike what they believe to be the right balance. I have to tell your Lordships to-night that, in the view of the Government, there is no justification for an increase in the health visitor representation for which the noble Lady is asking.

905
The Jameson Report recommended a slight majority of numbers covering professional and educational interests, and that is what the Bill provides. The total of professional and educational interests represented is sixteen, which is why I used the figure sixteen when the noble Lady was speaking. That, of course, includes the two members of the Council appointed after consultation with the General Nursing Councils. The noble Baroness did not seem to think it appropriate to include the General Nursing Councils among the professional and educational interests, but the General Nursing Councils are educational bodies, and they have an interest which is very near to the health visiting profession. So the position is that, as recommended by the Jameson Report, the professional and educational interests will have a slight majority on the Council even if neither of the remaining two members—that is to say, the member appointed by the Governor of Northern Ireland and the member appointed without consultation—belongs to the professional and educational group. So we have in fact provided in this Bill what the Jameson Report recommended, and I hope that the Committee will think that that is the correct thing to have done.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: Again I must record that I think the Minister's reply is most unsatisfactory and will be received by those who are closely concerned with the administration of this Bill, which will become an Act of Parliament very soon, with certain despondency, because this is the moment when we could have changed and altered it in such a way as to make it acceptable to them all. However, at this late hour I will not press it. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.18 p.m.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM moved, in paragraph 8, after "consultation with" to insert:
"the Joint University Council for Social and Public Administration and"
The noble Earl said: This is a comparatively small but none the less very important Amendment. It was moved in exactly the same terms in another place but was rejected, although the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry
906
of Health gave an assurance that the Joint University Council would be consulted under paragraph 8 of the First Schedule. The purpose of my moving the Amendment now is to get the assurance embodied into the Bill. I am not at all impressed with the reply given on behalf of Her Majesty's Government in another place: that it is inappropriate to single out the Joint University Council alone on the face of the Bill because the Government intend to consult and cover all educational interests. If your Lordships will turn to paragraph 10 of the First Schedule, you will see that it is specifically mentioned there that the British Medical Association and the Society of Medical Officers of Health should be consulted. Why not the Joint University Council in paragraph 8? Anyone who has read, as many of your Lordships have done, the full Report of the Younghusband Committee will have seen that the evidence given by the Joint University Council provided (in my opinion, at least) for the main concept: the creation of a training council for social workers. Their experience and knowledge is admitted on all sides to be of the highest standard. There is every reason why they should be specifically mentioned in the Bill.
It would seem to me that if the noble Lord, Lord Newton, rejects this Amendment, he is giving undue deference to the wishes of the Parliamentary draftsman. Before the last war, when I served for at least seven years on the Bench which he is now occupying, I often had occasion to use words that he has himself employed during the course of this debate: that it is never wise to insert unnecessary words in the Bill. We have the assurance under paragraph 8 that the Government will consult the Joint University Council; but the Joint University Council and others wish this to be specifically mentioned. It is not analogous to the case to which the noble Lord referred. I do not think that these words are unnecessary, and I very greatly hope, this being the last Amendment to this Bill, that for the first time the noble Lord will find it appropriate to accept it.
I am not very accustomed nowadays, as I used to be, to taking part in the Committee stage of Bills in your Lordships' House. I have had great experience of similar work in the past, and in

907
those days it was quite customary, with a Bill of this character, for one or two Amendments—not major, substantial, Amendments—to be accepted by the Government. I cannot understand whether it is his right honourable friend the Minister who gives an edict that in no circumstances will any Amendment be accepted, or what are the causes which enable the noble Lord, Lord Newton, to ride, with great politeness, but with a certain roughshod element, across the path of noble Lords and Ladies, who I think are well qualified to speak on the subjects which have engaged us this afternoon. Therefore, I do ask the noble Lord, Lord Newton, to accept this Amendment, which I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 14, after ("with") insert ("the Joint University Council for Social and Public Administration and").—(The Earl of Feversham.)
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: I should like to add one word on this matter, because I feel very strongly about it. This is a training Bill; it is a Bill which sets standards for training in social work. This is a Bill in which we are hoping to gat the very highest professional standards, comparable to the standards which obtain in many other professions—teaching, nursing, and so forth; and the universities are the people who set those standards. They are the people with the experience and with the trainers, and they are the people who can really bring these standards into effect. To leave them out, and to say simply that they will be consulted, is, to me, an insult to the most important body concerned in this particular work.
I entirely agree with Lord Feversham that the Minister seems to be impervious even to the great blandishments of the noble Baroness opposite, which I am unable to emulate to the same extent. But, because one feels tremendously strongly about this matter, and because the noble Lord may not even be prepared to accept the Amendment or to say that he will consider any of these points, it seems to me an exceedingly depressing state of affairs. I cannot imagine that in any other Council for the training of a particular profession, whether it is the medical profession, or whatever profess-
908
sion it is—the university medical schools, for instance—they would be omitted. I cannot imagine that one would try to organise training for a particular profession of any kind without bringing in the most important people who are responsible for that training. Here, in this long list of people on the Councils, we have all the employers of these social workers in large numbers. We have a great many other people, to whom Lady Summerskill referred, in connection with her most modest plea, and I thought that these Schedules might be altered. Yet there is no sign of any movement on the part of the Government (towards taking into account any of our efforts to improve these Schedules.
I think that to omit the Joint University Council on this occasion is most unwise. I am sure that it would greatly improve and help the Councils themselves if they were assured of representation from this most important body, which is responsible for advising on the training of practically all these people whom we are hoping to got into the service.
7.26 p.m.
LORD NEWTON: I find the blandishments of both my noble friends very appealing, but I am afraid, even so, that I am not able to accept this Amendment, although, of course, it would have been very agreeable for me to be able to accept one, at any rate, during the course of our proceedings this afternoon. But I would assure my noble friend Lord Feversham that the reason I cannot accept the Amendment has nothing whatever to do on this occasion with drafting considerations.
The Joint University Council for Social and Public Administration provides a most valuable forum for the exchange of views of university social science and public administration departments, and it is in these departments that a body of knowledge on social work has grown. Because of this, Ministers will certainly consult the Joint University Council, as my noble friend knows already, before making their appointments to represent the educational interests.
We also recognise that, partly as a result of the work done in these departments, and partly as a result of the efforts

909
of trained social workers in many spheres, social workers have become increasingly aware of themselves as belonging to a profession with a unified body of knowledge, recognised standards of professional skill, and an ethos of its own. We fully appreciate that, if it were not for this, the development of this new two-year training proposed in the Younghusband Report would be an idle dream. We welcome the manifestations of this growing professional awareness, and we have such bodies as the Joint Training Council for Social Work, which was set up in October, 1959, and the National Institute for Social Work Training, which was set up two years later, in October of last year, both of whom we propose, incidentally, to consult in many appointments; and, indeed, the Council for Training in Social Work, which this Bill will set up, will carry social work further along this path.
Nevertheless, this does not mean that those organisations which have been working towards this end should be named in the Bill. The Government do not think that the rôole of any single body in the social work field is established in such a way as to warrant singling it out for special mention in the Bill. It would also be objectionable to pick out a particular university body and give it representation separate from that of the universities generally who are specified in the Bill. So they are the reasons why I am unable to accept this Amendment. But my noble friend—
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: Might I interrupt the noble Lord?
LORD NEWTON: Might I just finish?
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: I do not want him to finish.
LORD NEWTON: My noble friend has exactly what he wants. He has been told by me to-night, as was said in another place before, that this body will, in fact, be consulted. I imagine that if it is not consulted, he and others would soon want to know the reason why. I thought that the assurance which I have given him was a pretty good one.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: Perhaps I may be permitted to ask the noble Lord, as he did not want to mention in
910
the Bill any single organisation or body because it might prejudice other bodies not mentioned in the Bill, why, in paragraph 10, there is a mention of the Society of Medical Officers, which on the question of training social workers has not in the past been a particularly qualified body to give an opinion? Why are they specifically mentioned?
LORD NEWTON: I suppose it would be perfectly reasonable to argue that they should not have been put into the Bill.
7.30 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: I hope that the noble Baroness and the noble Earl, Lord Feversham, will not think that our silence on this side in any way indicates a lack of support for the Amendment. We regarded it as a strategic silence, in the hope that the pure and unsullied stream of oratory and wisdom which came from them would have its effect. We are extremely sorry that that has not been the case. We are quite unconvinced by the arguments of the Minister, if only for the fact that, if these words had been written into the Bill, it would have been in an Act of Parliament and would not have relied on the assurances of a Minister of a Government whose life is of uncertain duration. Therefore, I assure the noble Earl that whatever course he wishes to take about this Amendment, we will support it.
LORD NEWTON: I would ask the noble Lord whether he is now saying that an undertaking given by me, as a representative of this Government, would be dishonoured by a Government of another complexion.
LORD STONHAM: I am not saying anything about dishonour. What I am saying is that undertakings given by the Minister now are undertakings given by a Minister of this Government and there are precedents for indicating that they are not binding on another Government, probably of a different political colour, in another Parliament. That is another reason for suggesting that these words should go into the Bill.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Newton for at least providing me with a half-assurance that Her Majesty's Government will consult the bodies he has

911
named. Although such consultation is not embodied in the terms of the Bill, at least we have on record that a great number of educational and other institutions will be consulted on the appointment of personnel to the Council, and I am grateful for that assurance. I do not think that the terms that have fallen from the noble Lord in reply are quite logical or clear, but at this late stage I have no intention of taking this issue to a Division, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
First Schedule agreed to.
Remaining Schedule agreed to.
House resumed.
Bill reported without amendment: Report received.

CARRIAGE BY AIR (SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS) BILL
7.33 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, the background of this Bill begins with an International Convention which took place in Warsaw in 1929, when a large number of States agreed to introduce a system, the basic principle of which was that liability for death or injury of passengers carried by aeroplanes or injury to or loss or delay of their luggage or other goods consigned in aeroplanes should be limited, and that, in return for this limitation of his liability, the carrier should automatically be liable to pay the requisite sum without proof of negligence, except where there was wilful negligence or misconduct on his part.
This was acceptable all round, because it gave the carrier a limit, which was then expressed in terms of notional gold francs and worked out at about £3,000—although in special cases the two parties might contract for a higher limit—and passengers or owners of goods damaged or lost would not have to prove neglect and would be saved a lot of time and
912
money. About 50 States ratified this agreement and it came into force in their domestic law, thereby setting up a pattern of similar domestic law all over the world for the benefit of people using aeroplanes.
In 1955, there was a further International Convention in the Hague, as a result of which a protocol was produced which amended the original Warsaw Convention and brought it up to date. For one thing, it raised the upper limit from £3,000 to £6,000. Whereas the Warsaw Convention was put into force in this country by the Carriage by Air Act, 1932, and the Hague Convention was dealt with last year by the Carriage By Air Act, moved by my noble friend Lord Abinger in this House, so far, the 1955 Convention has not yet been brought into operation because only about 25 out of the necessary 30 States have ratified it. Therefore, although in this country it could at any time be brought into force by Order in Council, it is not yet the domestic law of this country or of any other country and we still rely on the 1932 Convention.
There was a third meeting last September at a place which I am reliably told is pronounced Guadalajara, Mexico, which dealt with a small lacuna found in the provisions of both the 1932 and the 1961 Acts, as they now are. This is really all that the present Bill deals with. The lacuna which was found was that the liability in both the original Conventions fell upon the person who is described as "the carrier" and nobody has decided whom this meant, whether the person who actually had the aeroplane and carried the passenger or, for instance, some agency who arranged tours and included air travel which was contracted for directly with customers. It had been thought, though in fact there had been no litigation, that there would be differences in the interpretation in this country and America as against other countries in Europe. In this country, the carrier would be the actual aircraft owner but on the Continent it might be the contractual carrier. Although this particular failure to clarify the matter had been pointed out by the Brazilian delegate, to his credit, in 1929, this is the first time that anything has been done to put the matter right. It has been a subject of some

913
confusion to aircraft owners and insurers.
There is only one difficulty about this Bill—that is, that the 1961 Act, which will provide a new code when it comes into force and entirely replace the 1932 code, has not come into force itself. Therefore, this Bill has to cope with a dual position: first of all, the transitional period under the 1932 Act and then, When the Hague Convention is ratified, the transfer to the provisions of the 1961 Act. This really is what makes it a little complicated. I do not know whether this particular trouble will arise, because it is possible that the 1955 Convention will be ratified first, but there is a race going on between them and we must provide for this eventuality. Other countries are introducing legislation to deal with the Guadalajara Convention, and I think that it is to our credit that we seem to be the first off the mark, largely through the efforts of my honourable friend the Member for Abingdon in another place.
As your Lordships will have looked at this Bill, I am afraid that you will not allow me to get away with what I have already said, because of the very complicated provisions, and, as quickly as I can, I will go through what it says. The first clause makes the Convention, set out in the Schedule to the Bill, the domestic law of this country. This has been done in this particular form, rather than by enacting the whole thing as a substantive law in the main part of the Bill, so that there is no doubt whatever that we are getting exactly the same law as all other countries who ratify the Convention.
Then it is provided that where there is any inconsistency in the texts, of which there are three in this Convention, the French text shall prevail. Your Lordships might think this a little strange, but the reason for it is that the original Warsaw Convention was written entirely in French and there were no other texts, and ever since for these Conventions the French text has prevailed. This enables the courts in this country to use these texts if there is any inconsistency; but, so far as I know, no inconsistency has occurred. Nevertheless, it is a strange procedure which I thought your Lordships would like to have explained. It is also interesting that this is by no
914
means the first time that we have had a French content in an Act of Parliament, because there is the precedent in the old days of Norman French Acts, the last of which was passed by your Lordships' House in 1439.
The second clause starts by defining the Warsaw Convention, and it does so in substitution of Article 1 (a) of the Convention itself. The reason why it is done in this fashion is because of the transitional scheme which I explained to your Lordships, so that the Bill, as it stands, will apply, first of all, to the 1932 Act before the Convention scheduled to the 1961 Act comes into force, and when that Convention is ratified and comes into force in this country, then the "Warsaw Convention" will mean the Schedule to the 1961 Act. But in that transitional process no rights or liabilities will be affected by the change if they have been incurred before the change takes place.
Then, subsection (2) of Clause 2 is a provision which concerns the provisions of Article 7 of the Convention in the Schedule. It is a small point, but it had to be provided that arbitrators should be brought within the general context of this Bill, whereas the actual text of the Convention mentions only courts. While I am talking about Article 7, it has turned out that there will need to be small changes in the rules of the courts of Scotland and of Northern Ireland in order to deal with it. However, these matters do not have to be in the Bill, but can be dealt with administratively Subsection (3) is merely a matter of Scottish phraseology.
Clause 3 looks most alarming. It is, however, again a matter which can be explained fairly simply by the extension of the definition of "carrier". Whereas before there perhaps would have been only one body or corporation that could be sued as the carrier, now under this new Convention there may well be two in any particular case. It has therefore had to be provided, first of all, that where the limit of £3,000 or £6,000 is sued for, this shall be the aggregate of the limit of the money which can be claimed from any of the contracting carriers or the actual carriers. Secondly, in subsection (2) the servants of either of the carriers can be protected in the way that the 1961 Act protects them;

915
that is to say, by allowing them the same limitation of liability as their employers. There was a small difficulty about this, but it has now been put into this form in the Bill so that all the servants of all carriers will be protected and be given the same limit of liability as their employers have.
Then the third subsection brings in the possibility that two foreign States might both be involved, one as an actual and one as a contracting carrier. Without their express submission to the jurisdiction of the courts in this country the courts have no power to deal with them at all, and it was provided in the Convention that if they signed the various conventions they would be deemed to have submitted. Now there may be the necessity of bringing in an extra foreign State and provision is made for it.
Clause 4 is again interim, but as the law stands at present, if this Bill becomes law before the 1961 Act comes into operation in this country, there might be situations where the servants or agents of a carrier would not enjoy the limit that their employers have, whereas other servants and agents would enjoy it. This clause has been drafted to take away that possibility.
Clause 5 enables the British Government to extend by Order in Council the provisions of this Bill to overseas territories. Your Lordships will see that it does not apply now to trust territories, and this is because with the independence of Tanganyika we have none. I wonder whether perhaps my noble friend Lord Denham will be able to say if this is intended to be done by Her Majesty's Government, and how quickly. The second subsection of this clause provides again that Her Majesty's Government may by Order in Council extend the provisions of this Bill, as they have done the provisions of other Acts, to the varieties of carriage by air not covered by the Conventions themselves. One of these, for instance, is what is called non-international carriage. That for some extraordinary reason does not mean what it says at all, but means, for instance, a trip between this country and Turkey, because Turkey has never ratified the 1929 Convention.
None the less, there was in 1952 a statutory instrument which brought
916
within the scope of these Conventions and the various agreements in them such carriage as that; and there is also the possibility of bringing in the sort of carnage which is done by Her Majesty's Government, for instance, when they take your Lordships in a delegation abroad by Transport Command. There was some mention of this variety of carriage in another place, and the phrase occurred, which to me seems an unpleasant one, but is in common use, of "blood chits". These are some variety of document which your Lordships might have to sign which would exempt the Crown from liability in the case of an accident. It seems to me that it would be a very good idea if this sort of carriage by the Crown were to be brought within the general ambit of this Bill. I wonder, again, whether the Government have any views or any plans in this particular respect.
Clause 5 of the Bill comes into force before the rest of the Bill is brought into operation by Order in Council and this will enable the Orders to be laid, so that I hope that, at the same time as the Bill comes into force in this country, its provisions may also be extended to our Colonies and other dependencies. The Act will bind the Crown, but not until the 1961 Act comes into force. This is because under the 1932 Act the Crown is not bound, and it has been thought better that where the binding of the Crown is to be brought in it should be brought in all at one time and not possibly, first, under this Bill, and secondly, under the 1961 Act.
Clause 7 is self-explanatory, and I think I need only draw attention to the actual provisions of the Convention in two particular respects. First of all I have to explain why Article 1 (a) is not reproduced. Its substance appears in Clause 1 (1) of the Act itself. Secondly, there is nothing sinister in the fact that the eleventh to eighteenth Articles have been left out. They are purely internal machinery for the Convention itself.
Finally, Article 10 allows what seems to me to be an important provision in this particular respect: it allows the various companies or firms which are dealing in this particular field, for instance a travel agent who arranges tours and the aircraft firm he employs to take his passengers on it, to arrange

917
between them indemnities, so that the liability in law need not fall too hard on the one or on the other. These indemnities are allowed under the Convention, and Article 10 makes this quite clear. This will be for the protection of genuine travel agents and others who arrange tours and whose passengers perhaps unfortunately suffer some mishap through no fault of their own. I am afraid this is a complicated Bill. I have attempted to explain it to your Lordships, and if in any respect I have failed I will try to answer any questions that your Lordships may have. But otherwise its purpose is simple. It is to supplement the previous law, as it says in its Short Title, and I hope it will receive the approval of your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
7.52 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Viscount on the clarity with which he introduced what may be a simple proposition, though it is extremely complicated because of the fact that this is an amendment to a Convention which we have already amended in certain respects. All I want to say is that clearly we should welcome this. It shows once again the difficulties we get into with these international Conventions, and it shows the danger of putting into effect Conventions which it is not possible to subject to quite the sort of scrutiny as that to which we subject our own legislation. It is perhaps a surprising thing that we have had to wait all these years for this particular gap in the Warsaw Convention to come to light—the fact that it was not picked up at the later one at The Hague, and that one had to go to Mexico to get it straight. I do not know how we are going to solve these problems in the future. Clearly, there will be an increasing flow of Bills, with probably French and other Schedules, and the question of the definitions of "the carrier" or the "transporteur" or "transporteur de fait" will, in fact, be the same in both languages. But I can see difficulties in the future. We shall no doubt have to be not only lawyers, like the noble Viscount, but also linguists as well.
There is only one question I should like to ask the noble Viscount or,
918
perhaps the Government. It is the question of Clause 6, and the fact of actually binding the Crown. I quite see that that was necessary in regard to the earlier Carriage by Air Act. But, as I understand it, this Bill is primarily concerned with this problem of the contracting carrier, to bring him into the picture as well as the actual carrier. I suppose it is visualised that in certain circumstances the Crown may be a contracting carrier. I am sorry that we have to wait for the abolition of the "blood chit". With regard to the provision in either of the Acts which binds the Crown, we have still to wait for ratification of the earlier Convention. I do not know whether the Government can give us any later news on what the state of the ratification is, and whether the United States have succeeded in overcoming their anxieties in this matter. I hope that the Government will continue to press, as I am sure they have already done, to ensure that these highly desirable Acts come fully into force. I would make only one small protest. This is a more respectable Bill for a Private Member's Bill, but it is still, I should have thought, the Government's duty, rather than that of public-spirited noble Lords, to see that Conventions are ratified.
7.55 p.m.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, may I start by congratulating my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross on the excellent way in which he moved the Second Reading of this Bill? It is, as your Lordships will have perceived, very much a lawyer's Bill, and I thought my noble friend succeeded in making its provisions admirably clear. So much so, that there is little left for me to say, except to deal with one or two points that have been put to me. I will come to those in a moment.
The Bill is needed, as my noble friend said, to enable the United Kingdom to ratify a Convention which was adopted by a diplomatic conference under the auspices of the International Civil Aviation Organisation in September, 1961, known as the Guadalajara Convention. The reason for the Convention, as my noble friend has explained, was an ambiguity in the Warsaw Convention of 1929, and also in The Hague Protocol

919
of 1955, which contained no clear indication whether the carrier therein referred to was the person who contracts to carry or the person who performs the carriage, when those two persons are not one and the same. To remove this doubt, which affects passengers and consignors of goods as well as air carriers and their insurers, the Guadalajara Convention applies the rules of the Warsaw Convention to both the person who contracts to carry and the person who performs the carriage.
Forty States took part in the drawing up of the Convention, which may be taken as some measure of the importance which is attached to the point. But for the Convention the plaintiff's lawyer would be unable to say with certainty which carrier the plaintiff is entitled to sue without bearing the burden of proving negligence, and the defendant's lawyer would be unable to say with certainty whether the particular carrier is entitled to the limitations and defences of the Convention. The removal of this uncertainty will decrease the risk of costly litigation to the benefit of all parties.
The point about the "blood chit" which my noble friend passed on to me, though a small one, can be most intricate. The position, as I understand it, is this. This Bill, like the Carriage by Air Act, 1961, which it follows, will bind the Crown. However, the Convention itself—the amended Warsaw Convention, or the unamended Warsaw Convention—applies only to international carriage, which is either carriage for reward or gratuitous carriage by an air transport undertaking. The Convention itself will not apply to non-international carriage or to gratuitous carriage by the Crown or by any other person who is not an air transport undertaking. Gratuitous carriage by the Crown itself is the context in which at present the so-called "blood chit" is necessary—a document exonerating the Crown from any liability for an accident involving the person who signs it. It has been established in the courts that a carrier cannot contract to limit his liability to the dependants of a passenger who is killed, although he can, and often does, contract out of all liability.
Section 10 of the 1961 Act (which is applied by Clause 5 (2) of this Bill)
920
enables the Government by Order in Council to apply the Convention to carriage to which the Convention does not otherwise apply, and it also enables the Order to make exceptions and modifications in so applying the Convention. The intention of the Government is at a future date (it is impossible at the moment to say exactly what this date will be) to exercise this power in relation to gratuitous carriage by carriers who are not air transport undertakings. That category includes the Crown.
In so applying the Convention it may be necessary to make certain exceptions. As at present advised, I do not know what those exceptions may be; I am simply making a reservation on this point. But when an Order is tabled by the Government to this effect it will be subject to the Negative Resolution procedure, and can then be debated. The upshot is that "blood chits" are at present still necessary, but when such an Order has been passed they will become unnecessary. Thereafter "blood chits" will not be further used by the Crown acting as a carrier by air, although that is not to say that they will not be used at all, because the Crown is not the only air carrier in the category of gratuitous carrier.
My noble friend Lord Colville of Culross asked me if I could give any indication as to whether Her Majesty's Government would extend the Act to British possessions and other territories under Clause 5 of this Bill. In the view of Her Majesty's Government it is desirable that the maximum uniformity of the laws of different countries in relation to carriage by air should be achieved, and it is expected that the provisions of this Bill will, after any necessary consultation with the Governments of the territories concerned, be applied to British possessions and other territories by an Order in Council made under Clause 5 (1) of the Bill so far as international carriage is concerned; and so far as non-international carriage is concerned by an Order in Council made under Clause 5 (2). But Her Majesty's Government will, of course, consult with the territories concerned.
The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, asked one or two questions, some of which are not really matters for me to give an answer to on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, but my noble

921
friend I am sure will deal with them afterwards. The present state of ratification of the Hague protocol which is dealt with under our 1961 Act is that 25 States have to date ratified the protocol. As the noble Lord will be aware, the protocol comes into force when 30 States have ratified it.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves that point, can he tell us any more about the state of opinion of the American Goverment, where, I believe, the difficulty is at the moment?
LORD DENHAM: No, I am afraid I cannot. I understand there is not a great deal of change at the moment on that point. The noble Lord also said he thought it was rather a pity that this and other Bills dealing with the ratification of International Conventions should be left to a Private Member's Bill. But I would put to him this point: that it is a very good thing if we can ratify these Bills as soon as possible, and when it so happens that a private Member is kind enough to take on a Bill of this kind that will save time and can therefore be got through to the point of ratification more quickly, I am sure the noble Lord will agree that the Government are right to take this course.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am sorry, but may I interrupt the noble Lord? This defence of this action seems to me to make it very much worse. The noble Lord himself realises that it is a tremendous source of complaint which is well known to noble Lords who have been in another place that private Members get a very raw deal, and here is private Members' precious time being taken up on what is admittedly Government business. This is a Bill which, I take it, is drafted by Government draftsmen. The noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, may not agree with me, but in another place they would.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord will not expect me to follow him into a discussion of the
922
business of another place. I will not add anything further to what I have said except that my honourable friend the Member for Abingdon is, I am sure we all agree, a very suitable Member to have initiated this Bill in another place. It only remains now for me to say that in the view of Her Majesty's Government the Bill is a useful one which deserves a fair wind and I hope it will receive a Second Reading this afternoon.
8.6 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I thank your Lordships for your reception of this Bill. I really think that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, need not worry about this particular point being dealt with by private Members' legislation. It so happens that my honourable friend the Member for Abingdon has a great deal of experience and expertise in this matter. He chose to take this up in order to get it more quickly into law, and there is nothing objectionable which one could see about that. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Denham for What he says are the Government's plans. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will get on quickly with their various Orders in Council so that the maximum uniformity, not only in territorial extent but also in the types of carriage which are intended to come within this form of the Convention, may be achieved as quickly as possible.
I am afraid that I made one slight error in describing clauses in this Bill which I ought to put right at this stage. Subsection (2) of Clause 3 exists for the benefit of the servants and agents of all carriers—the time limit of two years during which time only they are liable to damages under the various Conventions—and I think I ought to make that clear as I did not do so before. With those remarks, and with my thanks to your Lordships for your reception, I ask that this Bill be now read a second time.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (RECORDS) BILL
8.9 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Elliot of Harwood.)
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE EARL OF BUCKINGHAMSHIRE in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Short title, saving, commencement and extent]:
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "which is contained in" and to insert "made by or under". The noble Baroness said: This Amendment arises out of some comments which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, made on the Second Reading of this Bill. The noble Lord said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 241 (No. 88), col. 271]:
"It is also important that, whereas in some cases it is obligatory on the part of the local authorities to permit searches and inspections of documents to be made, in other cases it is quite optional. What the legal profession is concerned about is that it should not be an arbitrary act on the part of local authorities as to whether or not they refuse to permit inspection."
This Amendment has been drafted in order to meet the anxiety of the Law Society, for which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, was the spokesman on Second Reading.
The Amendment secures that any searcher or legal inquirer who already has a right of access to a statutory instrument shall have that right preserved. Right of access is preserved to any document that is required and is available, and to which people already have a right of access. Further, this protection extends to the Rules of the Supreme Court; that is to say, any court of law, including the House of Lords sitting in its judicial capacity, as well as to regulations made under Act of Parliament. Therefore, the clause is, in effect, a non-interference clause, leaving the decision as to whether or not a document called for is a privileged document to the dis-
924
cretion of the judge, where it already belongs.
The practical effect of this legislation will be that more documents deposited, let us say, by a private individual will be available to searchers and others, but that there will be no change in the right of access to any document or record where the right already exists. This covers, of course, local authority documents and records as well. I hope that this Amendment, and the assurance that I have given to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and through him to the legal authorities, will satisfy them. The noble Viscount, Lord Brentford has an Amendment down on the Paper, which my Amendment really covers, because my Amendment is couched in wider terms than his, and I hope mine may meet the requirements for which he is asking. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 40, leave out "which is contained in") and insert "made by or under").—(Baroness Elliot of Harwood.)
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: I should like, first of all, to express my appreciation to my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood for having taken the initiative in introducing this Amendment. I think your Lordships will appreciate that everyone who has spoken upon any step since this Bill first came to birth is strongly in favour of the principle which it contains. We want to help it in every way we can. But as my noble friend was indicating just now, there is one particular aspect which has caused us a certain amount of anxiety; that is the provision in Clause 9, as printed, under which the right of people to have access to, and to take copies of, documents are
"without prejudice to any provision … contained in any other Act"
of Parliament—"other", of course, meaning other than in this measure. It seemed to us that that was insufficiently comprehensive, and the point was taken by my noble friend, who has very kindly sought to meet it by the introduction of the Amendment she is now moving.
If the Amendment fulfils all that she claims for it, I shall be perfectly happy, and I have no doubt that everybody else will be perfectly happy. But quite candidly, I am by no means sure that it does. I should like to congratulate

925
my noble friend on the skill with which she has sought in her drafting to meet the particular point; and in parenthesis may I say that if she is out of a job at any time, and would like to come to my office as a professional draftsman, I should be delighted to accord her an interview. But she did claim very definitely that her Amendment was wider than mine.
If I may, with your Lordships' consent, and in order to save time, make a brief reference to my Amendment, which in the circumstances I may well not move, I would point out that her Amendment, the one which we are discussing, deals with those provisions which are "made by or under" any Act of Parliament. I must confess that I am not quite certain what in fact a provision which is made "under" an Act of Parliament really means, and how one would so define it. I appreciate that it is obviously intended to cover delegated legislation of all sorts. My noble friend claims that it does, in fact, cover the Judges' Rules. That is a very important point, that it should do so. But I am not quite convinced that my noble friend is quite correct in saying that. The way in which I seek to achieve the same abject must, I think, be wider, because my Amendment provides that
"… nothing in this Act shall prejudice or affect any duty or obligation whether arising under any such Act or Measure or otherwise. …"
I do not believe one could get anything wider than that. I shall be very grateful if the noble Baroness will reconsider the question of there being some merit in my Amendment, even though her Amendment has the supreme advantage of brevity and of being much shorter than mine.
I have not stressed the importance of eliminating any possibility of ambiguity, because I think your Lordships are already seized of that; it was brought out in the Second Reading debate. But, so far as I can see (and of course I am also speaking upon the advice of those who are much more learned than I am in these matters), the Amendment which we are now discussing leaves open certain ambiguities which I know it is the wish to my noble friend to avoid. If my noble friend would allow an opportunity before the next stage of the Bill for reconsideration of the exact phraseology I should be very grateful,
926
and certainly in those circumstances I should not move the Amendment which stands in my name.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: I hasten at once to disclaim any expertise on drafting legal Amendments which would compare with that of the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, but this particular Amendment has been considered by very high authorities, and I am told that it does cover all the points which the noble Lord has raised. On the other hand, of course, there is absolutely no reason why, if this Amendment is accepted, we should not, between now and Report stage, discuss further with the Law Society and the legal interests whether they are completely satisfied. It is my intention and (as this is a Private Member's Bill) the intention of the mover in another place, that this point which has been raised should be adequately and properly covered. I would therefore give the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, the assurance that if the Committee will accept my Amendment to-day, which I think covers all the points the Law Society require, then if, between now and Report stage, it should be revealed that in fact they are not satisfied, we can put forward another form of words on Report stage. But I hope very much that the discussion between the Law Society and the noble Viscount and myself may reveal that the width of the drafting of this Amendment may indeed be greater than his, and that the greater will therefore contain the less. I would also say that I shall be happy further to discuss the matter at a later stage in the Bill.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with an Amendment.

NORTHERN IRELAND BILL [H.L.]
8.21 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Consideration of Commons Amendments read.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, on behalf of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, I beg to move that the Commons Amendment be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendment be now considered.—(Lord Denham.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[The reference is to Bill [71] as first printed for the House of Commons]
Clause 8, page 11, leave out line 33.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, Clause 8 (3) of this Bill as it went to another place, was in the following terms:
"The powers of the committee may be exercised by the chairman thereof and not less than four other members thereof of whom two are judges of the Supreme Court".
In another place the subsection was amended by leaving out the words
"of whom two are judges of the Supreme Court."
The effect of the Amendment here is simply to provide that the quorum of the Committee is the Chairman and any other four members. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Denham.)

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (HISTORIC BUILDINGS) BILL
8.23 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, I am afraid that when we consider this Bill we shall have none of the fireworks which we have had so far to-day. Nevertheless, if your Lordships pass this Bill it will, I think, fill a gap in the historic buildings legislation. I can promise your Lordships that at this late hour I will be quite brief. If any noble Lord would like to read about this Bill at much greater length he can consult Hansard of another place for February 9, and can read several excellent, but excessively long, speeches on the subject, their verbosity being justified, I believe, not so much by the subject matter under consideration as by the desire of the speakers concerned that the subsequent business on the Order Paper should not be reached. We do not have such rules in our House, so there is no fear that,
928
due to my verbosity, the noble Lord opposite will not be able to put his Question and receive some sort of reply from my noble friend.
LORD SHEPHERD: Some sort of reply!
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: Before coming to the actual provisions of this Bill, I think I should give a little of the historical background to the ancient monuments and historic buildings legislation. The first Act in this line of country was the Ancient Monuments Protection Act, 1882, under which the Ministry of Works were given power to acquire certain ancient monuments which were specified in the Schedules, to punish people who defaced them, to appoint inspectors to look after them, to become guardians of monuments, and to maintain them. This Act gave no power of any sort to local authorities.
The present power of local authorities to take an interest in ancient monuments dates from the Ancient Monuments Consolidation and Amendment Act, 1913, and the Ancient Monuments Act, 1931. Under Section 11 of the 1913 Act certain local authorities have the power to make grants and to contribute to the upkeep of ancient monuments. In practice, although the 1931 Act defines "monument" as
"any non-ecclesiastical building, structure or other work, whether above or below the ground,"
and an ancient monument as a
"monument or group of monuments of which the preservation is, in the opinion of the Commissioners"—
who were the predecessors of the Ministry of Works—
"a matter of public interest by reason of the historic, architectural, traditional, artistic or archæological interests attaching thereto,"
the preservation powers have been applied to remains and ruins rather than to dwellings which are inhabited by people or used for any purposes.
There is considerable doubt as to whether the interpretation of an ancient monument in the 1931 Act will in fact hold water; and, even if it does, the whole procedure for a local authority's giving a grant to a house that is actually inhabited, other than by a caretaker, is cumbersome and has so far been little

929
used, if at all. The reason why it is cumbersome is that, before they can act, they have to consult a body called the Ancient Monuments Board which at the moment is virtually non-existent, and, I gather, has been so for many years. This Act also suffers from the snag that it permitted only county and borough councils to give grants to historic buildings; it did not allow other local authorities to do so.
Parallel with this we must consider the Town and Country Planning Acts, which of course culminated in the Act of 1947. One of the main features of this Act was to require the Minister to list buildings which were of historic or architectural interest. These buildings are now on one of two lists—either the statutory list, in regard to which, before an owner can do any major alterations to the building, he must give the local authority concerned two months' notice; or the supplementary list, which has no legal significance at all and is purely a guide to the local authorities and the owners concerned. Out of the 1,474 local authorities in England and Wales, up to March 31 of this year 1,010 had produced full statutory lists based on surveys, and 246 of them had produced incomplete statutory lists based on works of reference only. This left some 210 to produce any list at all. All the areas that had produced full statutory lists had also produced a supplementary list. So far there are 81,586 buildings on the statutory list and 88,660 on the supplementary list. Therefore, I think it is reasonable to assume that eventually there will be about 100,000 buildings on each list.
With this Act must be coupled the Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments Act, 1953, which was brought in as the result of the Gowers Report. This set up the Historic Buildings Councils for England and Wales and for Scotland. The Council for England has only some £400,000 to spend each year. The one for Wales, and the one for Scotland, have about £75,000 each. Of course, this is entirely inadequate to give grants to all the buildings on the statutory list, let alone on the supplementary list, which need them. It is therefore thought desirable that local authorities should be able to help where the Historic Buildings Council does not feel in a position, owing to lack of funds, to do so.
930
Perhaps I can now sum up the position as it is at the moment. With the exception of a small number of county councils and county boroughs who have taken special powers in local Acts (for example, Gloucester County Borough took special powers in 1958, and Buckinghamshire County Council in 1961), a county council or county borough in England or Wales could theoretically give a grant to an historic house provided they got the permission of a virtually non-existent body, the Ancient Monuments Board, and provided that they took the view that "ancient monuments" covered buildings actually occupied and used. Urban and district councils could not do anything towards giving grants for historic buildings as they have never been included in any of this legislation. The Historic Buildings Council have powers to give grants to buildings of outstanding interest, but, owing to shortage of money, they interpret "outstanding" very narrowly, quite rightly, and therefore cannot give grants to buildings which are in their opinion deserving of grants but not sufficiently deserving as to qualify for some of the £400,000 available. This they make perfectly clear in their reports each year. In practice also they tend not to give grants to groups of buildings which, although in themselves of no great interest, as a group are of exquisite beauty and value.
In Scotland the position is somewhat different, as under Section 339 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947, local authorities are given powers which are more generally available and less cumbersome than the powers under the Ancient Monument Acts. For this reason this Bill does not apply to Scotland. But I regret to say that Scotland has been rather neglectful in this regard, and I think there are only three examples where local authorities have actually given grants to historic buildings in their area. These are Stirling Town, which has given £5,000 for the toll booth: Falkirk, which has given £3,000 for the restoration of the town's steeple; and Lanarkshire County Council, which has given £1,750 for David Livingstone's house. Other than those, these powers do not appear to have been used in Scotland, and I am hoping that, although this Bill does not apply there, it may remind some of the local authorities that

931
they have these powers and can use them.
I should like very briefly to consider the clauses of the Bill. Clause 1 (1) enables local authorities to give grants or loans to the owners of historic buildings which are in their area or in their immediate vicinity. Under paragraph (a) of that clause they can give them to any building that is on the statutory list without consulting the Minister of Housing and Local Government, but under paragraph (b) of the same clause if they wish to give a grant to a building that is not on the statutory list, they must consult the Minister of Housing and Local Government. They are also allowed to give a grant towards the upkeep and maintenance of the garden to which a grant-aided house is attached. Clause 1 (2) defines the terms upon which local authorities can make loans. These terms are drawn as widely as possible and allow them to make loans which are interest-free, and to waive repayment of the loans if they feel so inclined. Clause 1 (3) gives the local authority power to insist on the house being open to the public if they give a grant, but not if they give a loan. Clause 1 (4) defines "building" as in the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, and "local authorities" down to district councils, but excludes the London County Council and the City of London—not because they are such Philistines that it was thought not worth while to include them, but because they already have the powers in Section 15 of the City of London (Various Powers) Act, 1954, and in Section 156 of the London Government Act, 1939.
Clause 2 enables the local authority to recover any grant (either in total or in part) if the owner of the house sells the house at a profit within three years of receiving the grant. This was put in because it was considered undesirable that owners of houses should benefit from public money and make a capital profit. Clause 3 is purely financial, and is the usual provision for any increase in the rate deficiency grants, which are expected to be so small as be virtually nonexistent and so are of no great concern.
My Lords, I do not expect this Bill to have the effect of immediately restoring to their former glory all the 100,000-
932
odd statutory scheduled buildings in this country, but I think that it will provide a useful means for some of them to be preserved in a state which will be both a credit and an advantage to the country. I also think that it may have the effect of making local authorities take a greater interest than they have heretofore in many of the very fine buildings and structures which are situated in their area. My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Duke of Atholl.)
8.35 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, I do not feel that I need detain you long, as the case for this Bill has been extremely ably deployed by my noble friend. Twelve years ago, when dealing with houses of historic or architectural interest in this country, the Gowers Committee stated in their Report—and I quote:
"These houses represent an association of beauty, or art, and of nature—the achievement often of centuries of effort—which is irreplaceable, and has seldom, if ever been equalled in the history of civilisation."
Fortunately, many such houses have been saved as a result of the Historic Buildings Act, 1953, but there is a limit to the expenditure of Government funds, as anyone conversant with the Reports of the Historic Buildings Council knows very well. Consequently, as my noble friend has pointed out, many buildings of merit—indeed, the bulk of those listed under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947—fail to qualify for assistance under the 1953 Act.
In their latest Report the Historic Buildings Council note that they have managed so far to keep within their annual ration of £400,000. But—and I quote the words of the latest Report:
"This has only been possible by refusing the claims of a number of buildings which we should truly have liked to help."
Such buildings may not rank with the Blenheims, but they may, in their own modest way, be very fine and add much to the beauty and dignity of our national landscape—as indeed do their gardens, which I am glad to note have in fact

933
been brought within the scope of this Bill. It is, perhaps, all the more important that the local value of such buildings should be even more fully recognised to-day, and local interest in them increasingly stimulated, when development of one sort or another—often vary desirable in itself—could mar the character of many of our towns and villages.
Be that as it may, there is surely a part for local authorities to play in supplementing the assistance given from central funds. Some of them, it is true, already do so under the provisions of the Ancient Monuments Acts or of local Acts, but this Bill, as my noble friend has explained, will be valuable in conferring a clear and simple power on all local authorities in England and Wales. I am sure, too, that there is every advantage in leaving some real measure of initiative in this matter to local authorities, and that noble Lords will, therefore, particularly welcome the provision in the Bill that, where a building is listed, a local authority should be empowered to offer assistance without an affirmative wink from Whitehall's all-seeing eye. I think this Bill was generally welcomed on both sides in another place. In that place it had a youthful and skilful pilot. If I were that Bill myself, I would deem myself lucky to have found in your Lordships' House another such pilot.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, I should just like to thank my noble friend very much for the kind reception he has given to this Bill, and hope that your Lordships will give it a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

B.O.A.C. and CUNARD-EAGLE LTD.
8.42 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD rose LORD SHEPHERD rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they approved the arrangements announced on June 6, 1962, between British Overseas Airways Corporation and Cunard-Eagle Ltd., whether they are satisfied that the terms are in the interests of B.O.A.C, and whether they will make a statement. The noble Lord said: My
934
Lords, I beg to ask the Question that stands in my name on the Order Paper. Perhaps on reflection the House may well regret the action that it took earlier in regard to legislation on the Sea Fish Industry Bill, in which we saw the might of Tory strength in this House used to upset a carefully considered decision on the Committee stage. I would not have mentioned this if I did not feel it was my duty to draw it to the attention or this relatively thin House. Many of us feel that again the Government have treated Parliament with the utmost contempt in relation to the matters about which I have placed the Question on the Order Paper.
My Lords, in the afternoon newspapers of June 6, the chairman of the British Overseas Airways Corporation and the chairman of Cunard announced their agreement to the creation of a new limited company, to be known in future as B.O.A.C.-Cunard Ltd., in which B.O.A.C. would have 70 per cent. of the capital and Cunard 30 per cent. The House rose on June 7. Both Houses of Parliament were, therefore, precluded from considering what was a major change of Government policy, because the announcement that was made came into effect last Monday. It came into effect during a period of Parliamentary Recess, when both Houses of Parliament were unable to consider the matter or even to question the Minister on policy. In fact, it is only to-day in another place, and here by my raising the question this evening, that Parliament has had the opportunity of having a statement from the Government as to whether they approved of this agreement, as to whether it was the Government's view that this agreement was in the interests of the British Overseas Airways Corporation—a public corporation—and about the manner in which this agreement will affect future policy.
As I understand it from the little information that is available, we have this new company, 70 per cent. B.O.A.C, 30 per cent. Cunard, which is to be the Flag carrier. It is to replace the statutory body on the Atlantic route, from the United Kingdom to the east coast and central part of North America, the Caribbean and the northern part of South America. We have the position that Cunard, a private company, is now going to participate in what was a

935
nationalised monopoly, but we have very little detail. The purpose of asking the Government this Question is, first, to find out from them how this decision, with their approval, will affect future Government policy. The Government may well say that this agreement has been brought about because it would not be possible for B.O.A.C. to operate with a competitor on this route. This competitor was brought in on the route, or could be brought in on the route, by the Government Act of 1960.
B.O.A.C. are operating—if my information taken from the timetable is correct—27 flights a week from the United Kingdom to the United States, 5 down to the Caribbean and 5 down to South America. Like all other airlines, they are having a very difficult time. At present Cunard are operating three services a week into the Caribbean, but under the 1960 Act they had made application for a service to the United States. That application was refused by the Minister, because he felt, as he said in his statement, that an added service would seriously affect the capacity and ability of B.O.A.C. With this agreement, obviously, the element of competition has been dismissed.
What I want to know from the Government this evening is whether they have agreed with the new Flag carrier—B.O.A.C. and Cunard—that there will be no other competitor on that service. If that is the case, as I suspect, then what the Government did not like by way of a State organisation having a monopoly of that service, they are prepared to tolerate when a private operator is integrated and taking part of the risks and advantages that may come from that service. Can the Minister say whether this agreement that has now been made means, in effect, that no other private operator will obtain a licence to operate this service and that, therefore, the service of the Flag carrier—B.O.A.C. and Cunard—will maintain the monopoly?
My Lords, this is very important because it makes one wonder how it was that the Government decided that Cunard should participate in this service. We know that Cunard made this application to fly to the States; we know that it was accepted by the Air Transport Tribunal; and we know that they
936
invested a very large sum of money in the purchase of two Boeing 707s and spent close on a million pounds in providing facilities and for the training of crews. It would look very much as though the Government have accepted this situation to compensate for the disastrous position the Cunard company have probably got themselves into because they obtained this licence only to have it then rejected; because obviously the aircraft that they have would be quite unsuitable and certainly would not be profitable to them operating purely on the Caribbean service.
I want to ask the Minister how the percentage of this new company was decided upon—B.O.A.C. at 70 per cent., Cunard at 30 per cent. Was it based upon what assets the Cunard company were prepared to put into the new company? We know that the Cunard contribution, basically, will be these two Boeing 707s that they have, and possibly £2 million in cash. Or was it a division based upon the flights, the services, that are provided? I can hardly believe that that is the case when one looks at the large number of daily and weekly services that B.O.A.C. provide in comparison with those of Cunard.
My Lords, I should like to know if the Minister can tell us whether this division of capital was based upon the revenue that the two companies could put into the service. Can the Minister say what proportion of revenue B.O.A.C. are sacrificing to this new company, and what Cunard are putting in? Obviously there must be some basis upon which the two chairmen decided how these shares should be allocated. We have very little information; but it seems to me extraordinary that Cunard, by providing £9 million capital, made up of aircraft and cash, should be able to buy in and acquire, basically, 30 per cent. of all the goodwill, of all the capital—public money—that has been put into the Atlantic services in the last ten, twelve or fifteen years. This is an extraordinary thing, and I think that Parliament is entitled to know on what basis this shareholding division was made.
I should also like to ask the Minister: what is going to be the future position of possible losses? Are Cunard going to share in those losses which at the present moment all airlines are suffering

937
on the Atlantic route? Are they going to bear their 30 per cent. share of the losses that will be involved? I wonder whether the Cunard Company, with all its difficulties, its genuine difficulties, in sea transport, will be in a position to bear some of the very heavy losses that are being borne to-day on the Atlantic route. And what of the future? We know the cost of new aircraft. The Boeing 707s will shortly be obsolescent; they will shortly be replaced, we hope, by the V.C.10s. It is questionable whether the £30 million capital of this new company will be able to buy the aircraft to operate these large areas, these large services. Are Cunard in a position, are they willing, to provide 30 per cent. of the new money that will be required to put these aircraft into operation? Or is it, as one can well imagine from the sort of mixture of arrangements that are being made—with aircraft being handed over to this B.O.A.C.-Cunard company; then being leased to B.O.A.C., B.O.A.C. having to maintain them and operate them and then charge the new company for their use, for the actual flights that are made—that in the long term B.O.A.C. will have to bear the heavy burden of these new aircraft? Because I cannot imagine that, on their capital of £30 million, this new company will be in a position to buy the equivalent number of aircraft to replace the Boeing 707s.
My Lords, there are many things about which we shall need to know from the Government, but the main thing which worries us is that the Government, without any announcement, without any statement in Parliament, without any indication that their policy has changed, appear to have agreed to what is nothing more than the denationalisation of a third of the B.O.A.C.—and let it be on record that it is what will be, in the future, the most lucrative side of the British Overseas Airways Corporation. What are these shares? This B.O.A.C.-Cunard company will be a limited company, and 70 per cent. of its shares will be held by B.O.A.C. But we may well wake up one morning to find that the B.O.A.C. board, with the agreement of the Government opposite, have agreed to the sale of their shares in this new company. It may be another case of W. G. Brown. My Lords, can
938
the Government say whether this new company will be regarded as a subsidiary of B.O.A.C.; whether the shares that are held by B.O.A.C. will be regarded as statutory, so that they cannot be disposed of without an Act of Parliament? I think the House is entitled to know what is at the back of this extraordinary policy of Her Majesty's Government.
It is not only B.O.A.C. that we must consider to-day. We may well find that B.E.A. have been put into a similar position; that a new company has been created in which they share some of the main routes, the most lucrative routes, to Europe with British United Airways; and then we may find that the shareholding of this limited company has suddenly been sold without any approval of Parliament, and that Parliament has never been in a position to say "Yea" or "Nay". My Lords, I think we have embarked, in the late stage of this Government's life, upon a very serious course. The Government appear to be able, they appear to be willing, to change their policies without announcement in Parliament, denying Parliament the opportunity to discuss and approve. The nation has put a great deal of money into B.O.A.C. Its most lucrative routes, the most expanding routes, will be across the Atlantic. The Government appear, for an investment of £9 million, to have given to a private corporation 30 per cent. of a monopoly.
My Lords, I do not like monopolies of any sort, but if there is to be a monopoly, let it be a State monopoly answerable to Parliament. I think it is quite wrong that, behind the scenes, representatives of a private board have made this arrangement with a public corporation. In fact, I would suspect that what they have done is quite contrary to what Parliament understood of the Act when it created B.O.A.C. and B.E.A., and I am certain it was not in the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Mills, when he advocated and piloted the 1960 Act which gave greater freedom to transport. I do not think he ever contemplated that by this Act a private operator would be put into such a position that a public board would decide that it would be convenient to make this deal. This is possibly only the beginning.
The hour is late, but I hope the noble Lord, Lord Mills, will give us a full and frank statement as to why the Government have decided on this agreement, and how it will affect future policy. Because I must remind the noble Lord that the chairman of the board has stated that he looks to this agreement as being on one side; that he would not be averse to any other suggestions from a shipping company or an air line company for a similar operation to be made. We must face the fact—the Government may welcome it—that our air lines, our statutory bodies, are in fact being denationalised. If that is the Government's intention, then let them be honest to Parliament.
9.2 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD MILLS): My Lords, I must say that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, in asking his Question, has betrayed a very suspicious mind. He has not seen that this is just a business arrangement of a type which was foreseen, and which B.O.A.C. were fully empowered to make under Section 3 (4) of the Air Corporations Act, 1949. He need not look at the Act of 1960 and say that that is the reason for it.
I think it might be helpful, my Lords, if I first explain the nature and the origin of the agreement between the British Overseas Airways Corporation and the Cunard Steam-Ship Company. This was an agreement which was freely negotiated between the two companies. It so happened that the agreement was reached on June 6. On June 7 my right honourable friend the Minister of Aviation informed Parliament about it. I do not think there is anything in that to which the noble Lord could say that any discredit attaches. It was the obvious thing to do. As soon as the companies reached agreement, the Minister informed Parliament. It is true of course that it was on the eve of the Recess, but things do happen like that.
On June 6 these two companies announced their decision that it would be in their mutual interests to pool their resources on certain trans-Atlantic air routes, mainly between this country, the United States, and the Caribbean, and that they had therefore set up a joint subsidiary company in the United
940
Kingdom for that purpose. This, I repeat, was a commercial agreement made between these two companies, and—let me repeat this too, because it is important—the agreement was one which B.O.A.C. were fully empowered to make under Section 3 (4) of the Air Corporations Act, 1949. There is no provision in that Act requiring them to seek the approval of the Government to agreements made under this section. However, it is customary, and I think right, for the Corporations, especially where questions of investment and other major issues of public policy are involved, to consult the Government before entering into agreements of this kind.
When the Corporation informed my right honourable friend the Minister of Aviation of this proposal, his first responsibility was to decide whether or not it was against the public interest, or whether or not there was any overriding objection to it. As he said in another place, he was able to inform the Corporation that the Government had no objection to the proposal which, moreover, they considered might well be of benefit to the British civil aviation effort in this important area.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has told us what was the essence of the agreement: that it was to form a company with a capital of £30 million, 70 per cent. of which was to be provided by B.O.A.C. and 30 per cent. by Cunard. The noble Lord asked me on what basis that was decided. Well, the answer is a very simple one: it was decided because it was felt by B.O.A.C. that Cunard must have a sufficient stake in this joint enterprise to keep and sustain their interest in it.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, there is no relation, then, either to revenue or to flights, but purely to what was of interest to Cunard?
LORD MILLS: My Lords, purely the appreciation by B.O.A.C. of what it was necessary Cunard should bring to this company in order that B.O.A.C. might benefit from what Cunard had to offer. It is quite true that the routes which were being covered consisted of what have been the most competitive, yet potentially the most profitable, in the world. The noble Lord knows that recently there have been losses, and I

941
have no doubt very heavy losses, on the part of operators concerned. British operators are in competition on the Atlantic route with nearly 20 international air lines, including two major United States air lines who are themselves understood to be considering proposals for a merger. The new B.O.A.C.—Cunard arrangement should open up new opportunities for increased efficiency and economy in operating British aircraft on these routes, because both companies, whatever else they have done, have earned a fine reputation for service, reliability and safety.
The new company will take over all this good will, and they will be able to achieve economies by rationalising their operations, their sales, their maintenance arrangements and so on. As regards sales, in particular, the experienced and widely spread sales organisation of Cunard should bring considerable benefits to the new company. I think that there should be benefits for both companies. I am sure that the two companies have a lot to offer each other and that, working in collaboration in the way they have decided, they have a lot to offer in the future to the British civil aviation effort.
What was the alternative? It was that they would have to continue to light each other and I cannot see that that would have brought any benefit to British civil aviation.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, did the Government correlate this with the 1960 Act?
LORD MILLS: My Lords, in the 1960 Act, the Government did not insist on competition for the sake of competition. Indeed, the Minister of Aviation said during the Second Reading of the Bill that it should not be assumed that the Corporations and the Independents would always be in conflict with one another, and that he saw no reason why genuine pooling arrangements should not be made between them on certain routes.
The noble Lord asked me how this position would affect future Government policy. I do not think that it affects it at all. This is a commercial arrangement made between two companies, one of which is a nationalised company, which saw benefit in it for both. The
942
noble Lord asked whether the Government have given an undertaking that there will be no future competition on this route. Again I think he asked that question because he has a suspicious mind.
LORD SHEPHERD: Certainly.
LORD MILLS: My Lords, the answer quite categorically is that the Government gave no such undertaking. Anyone is free to apply for a licence to the Air Transport Licensing Board, which would consider the application under the procedure laid down in the 1960 Act.
LORD SHEPHERD: So this arrangement has not eliminated the fear of competition which, from the Minister's statement, was obviously the cause for the creation of this company.
LORD MILLS: It has eliminated a certain competition. It is always open to anyone under the Act, if he is so bold, to apply for a licence. This arrangement has done nothing to make that impossible. The noble Lord asked what was going to be the future position about the apportionment of losses. That is quite clear from the financing of the company; that is, roughly one-third by Cunard-Eagle and two-thirds by B.O.A.C. The noble Lord may believe what he says, that the capital is insufficient. Time will show. For the moment the parties to the agreement think that it is the right capital they ought to have.
The noble Lord asked me if the new company would be regarded as a subsidiary of B.O.A.C. It is a subsidiary of B.O.A.C., which has the majority of the capital. On the question of who will provide new money, if new money should be required for replacements or for any other purpose, the noble Lord has sufficient experience of business to know that that is a matter which will have to be considered when the case arises. There is nothing in the agreement to anticipate that. I think it is quite right that they should determine the amount of capital they need to operate on this line and decide the proportions which they are both going to have. That is just ordinary common-sense business.
I should like to reply to the noble Lord's statement about denationalisation. It is not denationalisation. Let us keep

943
a sense of proportion here. The capital of B.O.A.C. is £150 million; the shareholding of Cunard-Eagle will be £9 million. That is not denationalisation. I would read to your Lordships a paragraph from the Spectator of June 15, dealing with this question of nationalisation. This is what they said:
"B.O.A.C.'s interest in the Cunard organisation, especially in the United States, goes back a long way. For some years the B.O.A.C. management has been trying to get Cunard to collaborate in sales. Now they are getting much more than this: they will be combining their sales offices, parading each other's slogans and hammering the American and West Indies markets with the doubly familiar name of B.O.A.C.-Cunard.
"Criticism is coming from believers in pure nationalisation (though they might take comfort from the disappearance of a separate airline in favour of a mere minority holding) and those who fear monopoly. There is so little to be said about nationalisation these days that its advocates cannot be blamed for making the best of an irrelevant job."
There is no question here of denationalising anything. It is a purely commercial agreement, which I believe has been wisely arrived at. The Times of June 7 said this:
"It is to be welcomed as a sensible practical arrangement".
And so I present it to your Lordships. It should be of very great benefit not only to the Cunard Company but particularly to B.O.A.C, whom I am sure we all wish well.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, he did not deal with one point which I think is very important: the question of B.O.A.C. shares in the new company. Can the Minister undertake to say that it is not the Government's intention to agree to the sale of these shares in this new company to any other organisation, even if it is the Cunard, who may wish to increase their shareholding in this company? Can the Minister give that undertaking?
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I wish to be careful about what I say here. There is a provision which your Lordships will see from the announcement by the two companies that if Cunard changes hands the shares must be offered to B.O.A.C. at their asset value. There is no intention that these shares should be offered
944
on the market, and the Government would make it their business to take steps if there were.
9.21 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, we are obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Mills, for having said as much as he has to-night about this agreement. Certainly it has become a little more intelligible to me than could have been possible in the circumstances in which we adjourned before the Whitsun Recess. The noble Lord says that my noble friend Lord Shepherd must have a suspicious mind to take this matter up in this way. But surely the noble Lord does not think that anybody on this side of the House can be less suspicious, having regard to the policies of the Government in relation to nationalised industries in the last ten years. Here is a great Corporation which has always been a public Corporation, and we get this sudden announcement that an agreement has already been made. Whether the Ministerial colleagues of the noble Lord like it or not, the general comment in commercial, as well as in ordinary, society about this matter seems to be that this, if anything, was much more a question of getting Cunard-Eagle and the Cunard Steam Ship Company out of difficulties in the hope that this would create new business for them by the generosity of the agreement with B.O.A.C. This is not just something springing from my noble friend Lord Shepherd and myself; it has been canvassed in many quarters.
Everybody knows what the latest report of the Cunard Company is in general and of their difficulties; and I sympathise with them, because I want to see our shipping companies prosperous. Nobody can say that so far they have received an enormous amount of help in their overall difficulty from the Cunard-Eagle. However, if there is any other report to be made in that connection, we shall be glad to hear it, because it will help to relieve suspicion. But I think that in these matters Parliament ought to be informed much more in the open and with full details as to what has taken place. The statement in another place on June 7, just before the Recess, escaped the attention of a large number of Members of Parliament. I hope the noble Lord will not mind if I say that

945
we ought to be furnished with a Government White Paper as to what was the reason for their approval, what is the agreement, and what they are pledged to for the future.
I will not challenge any of the statements made by the noble Lord, Lord Mills, on this point to-night, at short notice, but perhaps he would agree to recommend to the Government that they issue a White Paper giving not only Parliament but the public full details. After all, the noble Lord can speak with some pride; and so do we feel some pride, because we were the initiators of B.O.A.C. That Corporation has a capital of £150 million, but a large part of it, if not all of it, came from public money. The whole nation is interested in B.O.A.C. When you come to break out into this sort of agreement, then surely Parliament and the public ought to be given the fullest possible details. My noble friend Lord Shepherd quoted a case of a much smaller transaction in which I was personally interested as First Lord of the Admiralty during the war, when we were forced by circumstances to take over the Brown firm; and from its nationalisation onwards it became a very profitable concern. But what do the Conservative Government do? They sell it, just at the point when the public were perhaps getting some little set-off in one company which was taken over, reorganised, brought to profit-bearing and might have been at least some help in paying interest on war damage. No; sell it; let private enterprise have it! We have had the same thing in regard to the railways. The railways now, instead of being maintained as a public service, are to be cut to pieces in order to provide a profit without giving a proper service to the public. We never know what will be the next move of the Government in these matters. We think this is a very sad state of affairs. If the Government are going to allay the kind of suspicions which the noble Lord attributed to my noble friend Lord Shepherd to-night, then I think they should give us a full, detailed White Paper; and I hope that this will be done.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, I will not detain your Lordships for more than a couple of minutes, but as the noble Viscount the Leader of the
946
Opposition said that there is perhaps a feeling abroad that B.O.A.C. have rather come into this agreement at the coat-tails of Cunard, I should like to read to your Lordships an extract from B.O.A.C.s own newspaper to its staff. It is an extract of a statement made to them by the Managing Director of B.O.A.C. He ends in this way:
"This"—
that is the agreement—
"is good for B.O.A.C.—otherwise we should not have done it. It is good for Cunard—otherwise, presumably, they would not have done it either. It is good for British Air Transport, in that it rallies the best brains and experience in the trans-Atlantic business against foreign competition. It is good for the travelling public and freight shippers, in that it offers them the combined facilities of two great British undertakings with unrivalled reputations for service."
That does not sound to me like an unwilling B.O.A.C.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: That sounds to me like well-written propaganda to a stall without any facts at all. It is just a propaganda statement to the staff to persuade them to work well, with no facts at all behind it. I still think that is not a substitute for a White Paper from the Government.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: I hope I shall be forgiven for interrupting again, but I said that it was only an extract. At this late hour I could not read the whole item. But if the noble Viscount would like to see it, I will let him have it.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: What I want is that the public should have it.
LORD MILLS: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to add just one word. I do not think the noble Viscount would want me to start debating the merits of nationalisation or denationalisation, what has happened in the past or what is likely to happen in the future. But I should like to say this to the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition, who is always so courteous: that if he wishes to take the matter further, perhaps he would have a word With me and we will see what can be done.

BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION BILL
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: the Orders made on May 28 and 31 discharged, and Bill committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

DARTFORD TUNNEL BILL
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition
948
to the Bill was withdrawn: the Order made on May 9 discharged, and Bill committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

MANCHESTER SHIP CANAL BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes past nine o'clock.