Sitting of 16 May 1962

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (SIDMOUTH) BILL
  Read a Second time and committed.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  MINISTRY OF DEFENCE

    N.A.T.O. (Athens Meeting)
    Mr. Dribergasked the Minister of Defence if he will make a statement on the recent conference of North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Ministers at Athens; and if, in view of official statements issued in connection with this conference, he will reaffirm that it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government, agreed with the United States Government, that no United States aircraft based in Great Britain can be used without the joint decision of the two Governments.
    The Minister of Defence (Mr. Harold Watkinson): As to the first part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to my Answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) and to the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) on Wednesday, 9th May.
    Nothing that took place at the Athens meeting alters the agreement between Her Majesty's Government and the
    1304
    United States Government that the use in an emergency of bases in this country by United States aircraft is a matter for joint decision by the two Governments.
    Mr. Driberg: I welcome that reassurance, or restatement of an assurance given by the Prime Minister and other Ministers, but is there not some inconsistency between it and the recent statement that the President of the United States of America has the exclusive ultimate discretion on the use of any nuclear weapons anywhere?
    Mr. Watkinson: To be honest, I am not quite sure to what statement of the President the hon. Gentleman is referring. I can only stand on the known facts which I have set out in my Answer. As to the broader issue, of course, the President of the United States has the ultimate decision over all American nuclear weapons, but I think that he is also pledged to consultation as far as it is possible in the time available.
    Mr. Driberg: But is this "consultation as far as it is possible" the same thing as a joint decision by the two Governments?
    Mr. Watkinson: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was referring to the broad issue of nuclear weapons as a whole. If he is referring to the special question of the agreement between Her Majesty's Government and the United States Government, certainly this is a matter for joint decision.
    Mr. Wiggasked the Minister of Defence if he will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT a summary of the proposals tabled by the United States Government at the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation meeting in Athens, together with the text of the final communiqué issued by the conference.
    Mr. Watkinson: I will arrange for the text of the communiqué to be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT. In so far as proposals made by other N.A.T.O. countries are concerned, it would not be proper for me to go beyond the terms of the communiqué.
    Mr. Wigg: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to make available in some form to Members of Parliament and the public generally the admirable statement issued from the White House

    1305
    on 30th April, on the eve of the Athens conference, which set out in detail the policy of the American Government which was pursued at the conference and was quite clearly the view accepted by the Athens conference?
    Mr. Watkinson: I will consider that and, if it is proper, perhaps I can put it in the Library. May I say further—on this, I think, I am entirely in agreement with the hon. Gentleman, although I had not quite realised it last week—that we were all, I think, in great difficulty because I had not realised what a poor coverage had been given to the communiqué in the British Press. I imagine that most Members of the House had not the communiqué before them at Question Time last Wednesday.
    Mr. Wigg: I understand the practical difficulties of the right hon. Gentleman's Department, but does it not look as though his public relations people work at full speed on some occasions and they go into low gear on others, and that this difference between high and low gear rather depends on the political convenience of the Government rather than on considerations of defence?
    Mr. Watkinson: The simple answer is that it is not the duty of my Department to put out N.A.T.O. communiqués.
    Following is the information:
    TEXT OF N.A.T.O. COMMUNIQUÉ ISSUED 6TH MAY, 1962
    Following is the text of the final communiqué issued on 6th May, 1962, on the N.A.T.O. Ministerial Meeting:—
    "The regular Spring Ministerial Session of the N.A.T.O. Council was held in Athens from 4th-6th May, 1962. The meeting was attended by the Foreign Ministers of member countries as well as by the Defence Ministers, who had met separately on 3rd May.
    In their review of the international situation, Ministers discussed disarmament, and the problem of Germany and Berlin. In addition, various statements were made by Ministers on matters of particular concern to their countries.
    In reviewing developments at the Geneva Conference, the Council reaffirmed that general and complete disarmament under effective international control is the best means of ensuring lasting peace and security throughout the world. They noted with satisfaction the position taken by the Western Powers in Geneva in order to achieve this goal, and emphasised the importance and urgency of reaching agreement.
    The Council examined the Berlin question in the light of the basic commitments of N.A.T.O. in this regard. They took note of the most
    1306
    recent developments in the situation, including the fact that exploratory talks were taking place with the Soviet Union. They took the opportunity to reaffirm their attachment to the principles set forth in their Declaration of 16th December, 1958, on Berlin.
    The Council noted the progress which has been made in the direction of closer co-operation between member countries in the development of the Alliance's defence policy. In this respect Ministers welcomed the confirmation by the United States that it will continue to make available for the Alliance the nuclear weapons necessary for N.A.T.O. defence, concerting with its allies on basic plans and arrangements in regard to these weapons. In addition, both the United Kingdom and the United States Governments have given firm assurances that their strategic forces will continue to provide defence against threats to the Alliance beyond the capability of N.A.T.O.-committed forces to deal with.
    So that all member states may play their full part in consultation on nuclear defence policy, it has been decided to set up special procedures which will enable all members of the Alliance to exchange information concerning the rôle of nuclear weapons in N.A.T.O. defence.
    The purpose of N.A.T.O. is defence, and it must be clear that in case of attack it will defend its members by all necessary means. The Council has reviewed the action that would be necessary on the part of member countries, collectively and individually, in the various circumstances in which the Alliance might be compelled to have recourse to its nuclear defences.
    The Council noted the progress made during the last twelve months in the defence effort of the Alliance and, in particular, the quantitative and qualitative improvements brought about in the N.A.T.O. assigned or earmarked forces of member countries. Ministers noted with satisfaction the United States commitment of Polaris submarines to N.A.T.O.
    The Council is convinced that, if the Alliance is to meet the full range of threats to its security, the balance between the conventional and nuclear forces must be the subject of continuous examination. The contribution of member countries towards balanced forces for N.A.T.O. defence during the coming years is to be examined within the framework of the Triennial Review procedure which is already under way. The Council expects to consider a report on this question at its next meeting in December.
    At their separate meeting on 3rd May, the Defence Ministers discussed and approved a report from the Armaments Committee which reviewed progress made since their meeting in April, 1960 in sharing the burden of research, development and production of military equipment, and made a number of recommendations for improving this co-operation. While there had been certain initial difficulties, Ministers agreed that the programme of co-operative projects launched at that time had made a successful start. Further efforts should now be made to build on this foundation. To obtain speedier results from this co-operation Ministers decided to set up

    1307
    a high-level group to examine the existing machinery, and to make recommendations to the Ministerial Meeting in December, 1962 for any improvements necessary to achieve agreement on future military requirements and a better co-ordination of the resources of the Alliance. Meanwhile, special efforts would be made to take final decisions on projects ripe for joint development.
    The Council reviewed the development of political consultation within the Alliance. It noted the steady and encouraging progress made over the past twelve months in deepening and extending the process of consultation.
    The Council had before it a detailed analysis of the work of the Alliance in scientific and technical co-operation. They discussed the proposals for fostering international scientific co-operation put forward by a group of eminent scientists appointed by the Secretary General. Ministers requested the Council in Permanent Session to consider these proposals further with a view to making recommendations to member governments.
    Ministers noted that the Council in Permanent Session had discussed a report by the International Staff on Communist bloc activities in the economic field in less developed countries. It was clear from this report that by far the largest proportion of the aid received by these countries continued to be that contributed by the economically most advanced countries of the Free World, and that the aid extended by the Communist bloc was not only substantially smaller than the assistance contributed by the Free World, but was also closely tied to political purposes. Ministers noted with satisfaction the efforts the Free World is making to help developing countries to raise their standards of living while fully respecting their national independence and freedom, and emphasised the importance of continuing and intensifying these efforts.
    Ministers gave special attention to the economic development requirements of Greece and Turkey. Bearing in mind the contribution of Greece and Turkey to the defence of the Alliance and their continuing efforts to accelerate their economic development in order to improve the living conditions for their peoples, Ministers recognised the need for external assistance to these two countries. With a view to achieving the common objectives in this matter, they agreed that member Governments in a position to assist Greece and Turkey should examine urgently the manner of establishing, in an appropriate forum, possibly with other countries and appropriate international organisations, consortia to co-ordinate the mobilisation of resources needed to ensure the economic development of Greece and Turkey at a satisfactory rate. The Ministers also agreed to establish a Study Group to consider further the special defence problems of Greece.
    The next Ministerial Meeting of the North Atlantic Council is scheduled to be held in Paris in December, 1962."
    Mr. Wiggasked the Minister of Defence if he will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT the information which
    1308
    he gave to the special conference of defence correspondents, which he called so that he could outline the military aspects of the Athens North Atlantic Treaty Organisation conference, which met at 5 p.m. on Wednesday, 9th May, 1962, in Conference Room E, Second Floor, at the Ministry of Defence, and which was convened under the authority of Ministry of Defence letter, PRO/L(62)202, dated 8th May, 1962.
    Mr. Watkinson: I am glad to arrange for a summary of the main points of my statement to the Press of 9th May to be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I also propose to circulate the letter referred to in the hon. Gentleman's Question which makes it quite plain that any briefing of the Press was postponed until after I had answered Questions in the House of Commons last Wednesday. I think that when hon. Members have had time to study the summary, they will find that I said nothing that has not already been made available to the House.
    Mr. Wigg: Will the Minister give an account Ito the House of how it comes about that on the day before Questions are answered in the House his Department circulates to the Press a statement that he proposes, after his answers to Questions, to hold a Press conference to discuss the military aspects and then, when he comes to the House, he does not himself discuss the military aspects at all but gives, as it was, just a collection of words which mean little or nothing? How does it come about that in his Press conference at five o'clock he tells the Press that B.A.O.R. is to increase its strength to 55,000 in the short run and is to go up to 64,000 later, and that the figure of 75,000 is mentioned? Why does not the Minister tell the House when this proposal is to be carried out, how much it will cost and how the Government propose to get over the exchange difficulties which they have been making an awful lot of during the past few months?
    Mr. Watkinson: The hon. Gentleman is making quite unjustified allegations about what happened at a Press conference at which he was not present. I am issuing a very full summary of what I said. I do not depart from what I said in my original Answer. If the hon.

    1309
    Gentleman has the courtesy to study it and to study what I said both last Wednesday and in recent defence debates and what I have said in recent answers to Questions, he will find that I did not go beyond that in any way.
    Mr. G. Brown: Will the Minister confirm that he did at the Press conference indicate to the Press that the strength of B.A.O.R. was to be raised from 51,000 to 55,000? Will he confirm that he did not say that in the House? Further, will he confirm that that very issue was a central argument between us in the last defence debate? If he confirms those three facts, does he not think that he treated the House badly that day by not telling it what he proposed to go and tell the Press at five o'clock?
    Mr. Watkinson: The first answer to the right hon. Gentleman will be given if I read a short piece of the summary. I shall not trouble the House with the whole of it. The purpose of the conference was not to provide any new information but to try to deal with widespread misunderstandings in the Press that the N.A.T.O. conference was divided, that there had been divisions of view and that it was an unsuccessful conference. It is definitely my duty to try to put matters right if I think that there is a misconception. That, and nothing else, was the purpose of holding the conference.
    As to B.A.O.R., I stated what our treaty obligation was—which is well known to the House—and, when I was asked a question about when B.A.O.R. might be expected to reach its treaty figure, I said that I was not ready to give any target date at this stage.
    Mr. Wigg: Surely, the right hon. Gentleman realises that anyone who has studied the papers appreciates that the Athens conference was a successful conference and that the American view which was set out on 30th April prevailed. But is it not a fact that Her Majesty's Government have now brought themselves into line with American policy, but they have not told the House and the country how they will do it?
    Mr. Watkinson: No, that is quite wrong. If the hon. Gentleman would be kind enough to read what I said in
    1310
    the debate on the Queen's Speech on 1st November last year, he will see that I then said quite plainly that we supported General Norstad's new defence plan for the central front of Europe. It was as long ago as that that I made perfectly plain that we were in line with the Alliance on this particular matter.
    Following is the information:
    SUMMARY OF THE MAIN POINTS MADE AT A PRESS CONFERENCE HELD BY THE MINISTER OF DEFENCE ON 9TH MAY, 1962
    1. The Minister of Defence opened by saying that before the N.A.T.O. meeting in Athens, he had discussed N.A.T.O. defence policy and strategy over a long period with General Norstad and recently with the U.S. Secretary of Defense. He had found that there was a substantial measure of agreement between them including the role of conventional forces.
    2. The Minister drew attention to his speech on the Address on 1st November last, in which he had supported General Norstad's new Emergency Defence Plan, which was now being examined in N.A.T.O. The new strategy would take a considerable time to implement. He had no reason to believe that at this stage it called for a greater British force contribution to N.A.T.O. than was already required under the Brussels Treaty. Our obligation under this Treaty was to provide 55,000 men in B.A.O.R. which would mean an increase over present strength of about 4,000 men. At this figure, the 7 brigade groups would be reasonably up to strength and, in addition, adequate reserves were being built up in the United Kingdom.
    3. On the communiqué issued after the Athens meeting, the Minister drew particular attention to the N.A.T.O. Nuclear Committee, which he hoped would prove useful in bringing the non-nuclear members of N.A.T.O. more closely into the formulation of N.A.T.O. defence policy. He also referred to the Triennial Review which would enable N.A.T.O. to review the contributions of member countries with the aim of achieving the right balance between conventional and nuclear forces. He welcomed the American offer to commit Polaris submarines to N.A.T.O.
    4. In reply to questions:

    (a) on the cost of the implementation of any new N.A.T.O. strategy, the Minister made it plain that this was a very long-term operation and no early results could be expected. He refused to answer questions on the additional cost of the new strategy but said that if the Defence Budget continue to absorb about 7 per cent. of the G.N.P., this should provide something like £100 million extra a year for general defence spending.

    (b) on when B.A.O.R. might be expected to reach its Treaty figure of 55,000, the Minister said he was not ready to give any target date at this stage.

    (c) on a new N.A.T.O. M.R.B.M. force, the Minister said that Britain put the maintenance of the strategic deterrent and the re-equipment of conventional and nuclear

    1311
    forces before this project. The Minister also mentioned the importance of joint development and production of armaments for N.A.T.O.

    From: COLONEL L. G. LOHAN, M.B.E., T.D., DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC RELATIONS
    Ministry of Defence,
    Storey's Gate,
    S.W.1.
    PRO/L(62)202
    8th May, 1962.
    On the 4th May I sent you and your Editor a short Press release about Mr. Watkinson's return from Athens where he had been attending the N.A.T.O. Ministerial Council Meeting. I said he would arrive at 5 p.m. on Sunday, 6th May; but, as so often happens, at the last moment the arrival of his aircraft was put forward one hour. Although I asked P.A. to put this on the tapes, I know a number of Defence Correspondents were not informed and arrived too late to see the Minister.
    The Minister has a Parliamentary Question to answer about the Ministerial Council meeting tomorrow, Wednesday, and this restricts any briefing I might be able to give; however, the Minister has agreed to hold a Press conference at 5 p.m. on Wednesday afternoon, 9th May, in Conference Room 'E', Second Floor, at the Ministry of Defence. He will then outline the military aspects of the Council meeting and answer questions about them.
    I apologise for the inconvenience you may have been caused last Sunday and hope the arrangements we have made will make up for it. I look forward to seeing you and, since the conference is fairly late, I shall be glad to make telephones available if you want to file in a hurry.
    Mr. Masonasked the Minister of Defence what steps were taken by Her Majesty's Government to bring about closer co-operation between North Atlantic Treaty Organisation member countries referred to in paragraph 6 of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Council communiqué published in Athens on 6th May, 1962.
    Mr. Pagetasked the Minister of Defence what will be the effect upon existing arrangements for deployment, custody and potential use of nuclear weapons within Supreme Headquarters, Allied Powers in Europe, of the measures relating to nuclear policy and nuclear weapons referred to in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Council communiqué published in Athens on 6th May, 1962.
    Mr. Watkinson: As I said in the House last week, Ministers agreed at Athens to establish forthwith a special Committee, comprising all members of the Alliance, for the exchange of informa-
    1312
    tion about the nuclear defences of N.A.T.O. This was largely the result of a British initiative which, I hope, will led to a better understanding in N.A.T.O. of the problems of nuclear defence. I have no reason to believe that the setting up of this Committee or the assurances given by the United States Government and Her Majesty's Government will lead to any immediate changes in the deployment, custody or plans for the use of nuclear weapons in S.H.A.P.E.
    Mr. Mason: Could the right hon. Gentleman then explain briefly and clearly what is the escalator of weapons usage of the conventional and nuclear weapons at present adopted by N.A.T.O.? Secondly, in view of the fact that there are three independent nuclear Powers and that the rest of them are clamouring to obtain possession of nuclear weapons, how long does he think that this position can obtain?
    Mr. Watkinson: I am not going to disclose to the House the rules under which the Alliance will decide on the use of either nuclear or conventional weapons. Such a statement would certainly not be conducive to maintaining the strength of the deterrent.
    Mr. Mulley: I think everyone will agree that the Minister would be grossly wrong to disclose such rules, but can he at least assure the House that such rules exist?
    Mr. Watkinson: It is to look at all these rules and procedures that the Nuclear Committee has been set up.

    American Missile Stocks, United Kingdom
    Mr. Liptonasked the Minister of Defence whether, in relation to stocks of American missiles held in the United Kingdom, he is given full information by the United States Government as to their number, location, nuclear capacity and possible targets.
    Mr. Watkinson: I have full information about the Thor missiles in the United Kingdom. As for the Polaris missiles, I am satisfied with the information which I receive under the arrangements for the use of the Holy Loch by Polaris submarines.
    Mr. Lipton: Can the Minister give an assurance, with reference to the information referred to in the Question, that this country is not being treated as a junior partner but as an equal partner, and will he say also whether, and to what extent, the decision at Athens to receive and exchange information about N.A.T.O. nuclear defences increases the amount of information available to Her Majesty's Government?
    Mr. Watkinson: The answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is that we are treated as an equal partner. The N.A.T.O. Nuclear Committee is, of course, designed to give more nuclear information to non-nuclear members of the Alliance. I do not think that it is likely to increase the knowledge of the nuclear members of the Alliance.
    Mr. Mason: Has the Minister had recent conversations with the Americans regarding the gradual dismantling of the Thor missile bases?
    Mr. Watkinson: I have had no recent conversations on this subject, but I said in the defence debate, I think, that the future of these particular missiles must be reviewed from time to time.

    British Army of the Rhine
    Mr. Shinwellasked the Minister of Defence what pledge he has given to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation regarding the level of United Kingdom conventional forces for Germany.
    Mr. Croninasked the Minister of Defence what changes he intends to make in the British Army of the Rhine as a result of decisions reached by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation meeting in Athens recently.
    Mr. Watkinson: Britain's present commitment to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation is to maintain seven brigade groups in B.A.O.R. I have no plans for changes in these force levels at present.
    Mr. Shinwell: Are we to understand that that is a definite declaration on the part of Her Majesty's Government that we are not going to increase our conventional forces in Germany, and, if statements are made in the United States
    1314
    or elsewhere to a contrary effect, will they be denied by the Minister?
    Mr. Watkinson: I should be glad to put this as clearly as I can to the right hon. Gentleman. As he knows, our commitment to N.A.T.O. is seven brigade groups. That is spelt out by Western European Union in our treaty obligation as 55,000 men, as I am sure he knows. What I have said today is that that is our treaty commitment and our commitment to N.A.T.O. I wish—I have said this time and again in the House—to fulfil that commitment as soon as we reasonably can. Beyond that, I am not prepared to go.
    Mr. Cronin: Will the right hon. Gentleman reassure the House that in weapons and training much greater emphasis will be placed upon conventional weapons in B.A.O.R.?
    Mr. Watkinson: I agree with this, too. I think that B.A.O.R. and, if I may say this without appearing to criticise the Alliance, all the regular forces in N.A.T.O., badly need re-equipment with better conventional armaments. This is one of the reasons why we put forward our proposal for much more rapid progress in the N.A.T.O. armaments committee.
    Sir H. Legge-Bourke: While entirely agreeing with these commitments, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether it will be possible for any of the battalions in these seven brigade groups to be used as part of the strategic reserve?
    Mr. Watkinson: There is, of course, a general waiver in the W.E.U. Treaty—which, again, I mentioned in my speech in the defence debate—which allows us to take troops away from the N.A.T.O. area if we are facing a severe crisis elsewhere. In fact, we took some aircraft away from Germany at the time of the Kuwait crisis, although we took no ground forces. That has always been a clearly understood part of our treaty obligation and, therefore, the answer to my hon. Friend's Question is: yes, we really can do this if we are in great difficulties elsewhere.
    Mr. Paget: Is not our treaty obligation under the Brussels Treaty to provide four divisions or brigades, or 80,000 men? Does not the figure of 55,000 arise from an acceptance by our

    1315
    N.A.T.O. partners of what was, in effect, a fait accompli which they really had no option but to accept? Are we now to understand that the figure is going to breach at least that minimum—that is, from 51,000 up to 55,000—and if that be so, where is the right hon. Gentleman finding the troops?
    Mr. Watkinson: I thought that the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) was talking about 75,000. Perhaps I should explain what I have explained many times before; the original commitment to W.E.U. was, I think, 75,000 men; that is, four divisions or 75,000 men. There is a second waiver to the Treaty in addition to the one I mentioned in my previous reply. This says that if a country asks for a reduction in its Treaty commitment, and SACEUR agrees that this is something which he can tolerate and agree to, then SACEUR goes to W.E.U. and says "I agree to this." It was on that basis that we brought down our forces from four divisions, or 75,000 men, to three divisions, or 55,000 men. That was done perfectly correctly and honourably and implies no breach of the Treaty.
    Sir J. Maitland: Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that he has not entered into any commitments which will in any way reduce our effectiveness in the area of Aden and Singapore, where we hold a very important position?
    Mr. Watkinson: I have not entered into any commitment at all. The commitment which rests on us is the treaty obligation we have under the W.E.U. Treaty. I have entered into no other commitments and have no intention of doing so.
    Mr. Shinwell: On his return from Athens did not the right hon. Gentleman make a statement, which has been publicised, to the effect that before we increase our conventional forces in Germany he will expect some of the other allied countries to increase their forces? Suppose they increase their forces, are we going to enter into a further commitment with conventional forces?
    Mr. Watkinson: I am glad to answer that, too. I do not think I gave an answer in the terms used by the right hon. Gentleman. I said—and these are the facts—that the contribution to the
    1316
    build-up in forces, particularly on the N.A.T.O. central front, rests very heavily, for example, on the Germans, who have a commitment for twelve divisions to defend their own country. I hope that they will soon reach that figure, but that implies no extra commitment by Britain.

    N.A.T.O. (Eastern Atlantic Command)
    Commander Courtneyasked the Minister of Defence what changes will be necessary to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, Eastern Atlantic Command organisation as a result of decisions taken at the Athens meeting.
    Mr. Watkinson: SACLANT is considering whether any reorganisation in his Command is needed following the Athens meeting. It is too soon to say what changes, if any, may be required.
    Commander Courtney: Is it not a fact that in addition to the strike fleet, the Commander-in-Chief, Eastern Atlantic, will now have a force of Polaris submarines operating in his area in war over which he will have no command? Is that not an operationally unacceptable situation in war?
    Mr. Watkinson: I do not think the facts are quite like that. It really means, as I understand it—but this is being looked at—that this particular force is now an additional commitment and that, in time of war, it would be under N.A.T.O. and co-ordinated with the N.A.T.O. tactical plan.

    Nuclear Weapons
    Mr. Rankinasked the Minister of Defence what agreement he reached at Athens with the United States Secretary of Defence on the distinction between tactical and strategic nuclear weapons.
    Mr. Watkinson: It did not fall to the Athens Conference to discuss this question. It was to deal with this kind of problem that we wanted the N.A.T.O. Nuclear Committee set up.
    Mr. Rankin: Is it not the case that nowadays there is very little difference between the tactical and the strategic nuclear weapon? Was the American Secretary of Defence not rather perturbed, therefore, by the fact that the right hon. Gentleman was making the

    1317
    Army of the Rhine dependent on the tactical nuclear weapon? Did he not fear that that would merely encourage the claims of President Adenauer and President de Gaulle not only for the possession but also for the control of the tactical nuclear weapon which we are now going to attain when Blue Water comes along?
    Mr. Watkinson: The real truth of the matter is that all the members of the Alliance have, for a considerable time, been disturbed about the general kind of argument that goes on—in public and in private—about, for example, tactical and strategic nuclear weapons. I agree that the definition is more related to the target than to the weapon. We in N.A.T.O. feel that it is high time that we tried to bring greater precision into this and to tidy up this situation. That is why the N.A.T.O. Nuclear Committee was set up. I think that it can do a very useful job and I hope that out of this and the general discussions in the N.A.T.O. Council will come a much clearer line of action; for example, on the differentiation between the different types of weapons and on the best means of using the weapons themselves.
    Mr. Fletcherasked the Minister of Defence if he will now state the policy of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the control, direct or indirect, by West Germany over nuclear weapons or weapons with a nuclear capacity.
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Minister of Defence what is now the policy of Her Majesty's Government in regard to the control, whether directly or indirectly, by the West German Government over the use of nuclear weapons.
    Mr. Reynoldsasked the Minister of Defence what steps were taken or contemplated at the recent North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Council meeting in Athens to provide stocks of British or United States manufactured nuclear weapons to France, to the Federal Republic of Germany or any other non-nuclear power within the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.
    Mr. Watkinson: As stated by my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal on 18th December last year, Her Majesty's Government would, in accordance with the resolution for which the United
    1318
    Kingdom voted in the United Nations on 4th December, be opposed to the relinquishment of control of nuclear weapons to any non-nuclear State. No proposals for giving Federal German forces independent control of nuclear warheads are under consideration, and there are no proposals for changes in the present arrangements for providing N.A.T.O. forces with nuclear warheads.
    Mr. Fletcher: In view of the rather ambiguous statement the Minister made last week, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will now confirm that what he has just said means that Her Majesty's Government will not be a party to any proposal to give West Germany control, direct or indirect, over nuclear weapons?
    Mr. Watkinson: That is exactly what this Answer says.
    Mr. Allaun: But if the West German generals are now to be given, as I understand they are, details of where the weapons and the warheads are stored—and since their targets and also their use is, I understand, to be simplified in an emergency—is this not yet another step towards giving these gentlemen control over their use? Is the Minister aware that most people in this country would not trust these people with water pistols, let alone weapons of this kind?
    Mr. Watkinson: The hon. Gentleman is making an incorrect assumption of what N.A.T.O. is trying to do. As to nuclear warheads, they remain in the custody of the United States Government, under a well-recognised procedure. All that the N.A.T.O. Nuclear Committee is trying to do in an alliance of equal nations is to give every nation some reasonable knowledge about what part it should play in the nuclear defence side of the Alliance. This seems necessary in order to strengthen the Alliance.
    Mr. Reynolds: Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that that part of his statement which referred to nonnuclear Powers refers exactly to the Republic of France?
    Mr. Watkinson: I think that the hon. Gentleman must put that Question down if he wants a considered answer.
    Mr. Reynolds: It is exactly the Question I have down, which deliberately includes France.
    Mr. Watkinson: Well, I think that in this case—and I am not seeking to evade the issue—the House will understand that I must try to be careful and precise in answering on such an important matter. All I am saying is that if one judges that France is today a nuclear Power, then she would not be covered by my Answer.
    Mr. Grimond: While welcoming the Government's desire to limit the spread of nuclear weapons, may I ask whether they do not find it some embarrassment to them that while they are urging some countries not to have nuclear weapons they are themselves determined to remain an independent nuclear Power?
    Mr. Watkinson: I do not think that that follows at all, because one has only to take the current attitude of France to nuclear Powers—on which I do not propose to comment one way or the other—to see that any action by Britain would have singularly little effect or influence in this direction.
    Mr. Croninasked the Minister of Defence what arrangements he has made to employ British strategic nuclear weapons in the event of a threat to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation beyond the capability of North Atlantic Treaty Organisation committed forces to deal with, having regard to paragraph 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Press Release M1(62)4 for distribution 6th May, 1962.
    Mr. Watkinson: The assurance given by Her Majesty's Government to N.A.T.O. about the use of British strategic nuclear forces calls for no changes in our operational planning.
    Mr. Cronin: Could the right hon. Gentleman tell the House definitely whether he appreciates that this is a very dangerous doctrine which is implied in the communiqué, which advocates the use of strategic nuclear weapons when conventional forces are expected to contain a conventional attack?
    Mr. Watkinson: What the communiqué says is that an assurance has been given by the United States and by Britain that any nuclear targets which cannot
    1320
    be looked after by N.A.T.O. committed forces will be looked after by the strategic forces of those two countries. I entirely agree with that.

    West Germany (Military Forces)
    Mr. Warbeyasked the Minister of Defence what discussions have taken place in the defence committee of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation regarding the need for West German military forces to be increased beyond the limits laid down in the protocols to the Brussels Treaty.
    Mr. Watkinson: There have been no such discussions. So far as I know no official proposal of the kind has been made.
    Mr. Warbey: Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the limit on the size of the German armed forces laid down in the Brussels Treaty—the figure has never been officially published—is, in fact, twelve divisions? Can he give a further assurance that no member of N.A.T.O. has proposed that it shall be increased beyond those twelve divisions?
    Mr. Watkinson: I answered the second part of that supplementary in my original Answer, but I would like notice of the question if the hon. Gentleman wants me to disclose protocols to the Brussels Treaty.

    Defence Expenditure
    Mr. Rankinasked the Minister of Defence what will be the additional expenditure outside the sterling area as a result of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation defence plan agreed upon at Athens.
    Mr. Watkinson: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) on 9th May.
    Mr. Rankin: But rightly or wrongly, that Answer has been interpreted to mean that there will be no additional expenditure. Does the right hon. Gentleman still accept that interpretation, since the N.A.T.O. frontier will now be advanced almost to the Iron Curtain and that, therefore, there must be new barracks, new troops and new aircraft if this plan is to mature?
    Mr. Watkinson: I would remind the hon. Gentleman of my answer last week, when I said:
    "So far as it is possible to estimate at the moment, none of the decisions reached in Athens will involve increased defence expenditure for the United Kingdom."—[OFFCIAL REPORT, 9th May, 1962;Vol. 659, c. 438.]
    I also, when replying to the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), said that in the triennial review which starts and goes on for many, many months, all this new strategy will have to be examined. Not until all that examination is finished will we have any idea whether there will or will not be any extra cost.
    Mr. Rankin: Is it not fantastic that the right hon. Gentleman should engage in plans, when he evidently has no knowledge of the financial effects involved? Surely he can give the House, in view of the many commitments to which we are attached, some idea of what this is going to cost the Exchequer?
    Mr. Watkinson: The hon. Gentleman asked, as did the preceding Question, what was the increased cost of any new defence plan agreed upon at Athens. No new defence plan was agreed upon at Athens. This is a matter which has to be discussed in N.A.T.O. and in the triennial review and the details of this will take a very long time to formulate and work out.
    Mr. Paget: Do not let us quibble about this. The right hon. Gentleman has already told us that, whether it is a new plan or not, as a result of Athens we have agreed to perform our treaty obligation as he sees it and increase the forces in Germany by 4,000. Is he now telling us that the 4,000 additional men in Germany involve no additional expenditure outside the sterling area?
    Mr. Watkinson: With great respect, I do not think the hon. and learned Gentleman is up to date on what is happening. What is happening is, as I said, that we supported General Norstad's new plans. That is true. The new plans will have to go before the N.A.T.O. political Council to be approved, and they are not formally binding upon us till they are.

    Defence White Paper, 1958
    Mr. Mulleyasked the Minister of Defence to what extent the policy of Her Majesty's Government, as stated in paragraph 12 of the 1958 Defence White Paper, has been modified as a result of the recent meeting of the North Atlantic Council, and the strategic policy agreed there.
    Mr. Watkinson: The paragraph to which the hon. Member refers describes N.A.T.O. strategy at the time the White Paper was written. N.A.T.O. keeps its strategy under review. No changes have been announced since the date of the White Paper.
    Mr. Mulley: I asked the Minister a fairly simple Question. I asked him whether this paragraph still represents the Government's policy for which he is wholly answerable to the House. Is it still the Government's policy that the West will rely primarily upon the deterrent effect of this vast stockpile of nuclear weapons? Is it still his view that the allied defence forces in Europe will hold the front as long as is needed to bring the nuclear counter-offensive into effect? Will the right hon. Gentleman pay himself the compliment of repudiating the paragraph in the interests of defence policy?
    Mr. Watkinson: I hope that the hon. Member will pay himself the compliment of reading the communiqué, which says that
    "The purpose of N.A.T.O. is defence, and it must be clear that in case of attack it will defend its members by all necessary means."
    That is what the 1958 White Paper says.
    Mr. Mulley: I asked the Minister if he would be good enough to answer the Question I put down. I have asked about that paragraph. Will he say simply whether this is Government policy or whether it is not?
    Mr. Watkinson: Certainly it remains Government policy because it conforms to the present strategy of N.A.T.O. If it is decided to alter that strategy then we shall conform to the altered strategy as we do to the present one, providing that it is agreed by the N.A.T.O. Council.

    Air Trooping and Transport
    Mr. Mulleyasked the Minister of Defence to what extent air trooping and other air transport requirements of the Services have been restricted as a result of the recent decision of British United Airways to dismiss a large number of its personnel and thus curtail its activities.
    Mr. Watkinson: There has been no restriction in the services provided by this company to the Forces.
    Mr. Mulley: In view of the possible difficulties of a cut down in the availability of charter transport, is the Minister reviewing the transport requirements of the Services and considering whether a greater part of them could be the responsibility of the Royal Air Force?
    Mr. Watkinson: Royal Air Force Transport Command is increasing in size all the time. If there were an emergency—I mean, in the sense either of warlike operations or an acute defence emergency—then, of course, there are adequate aircraft to cope with any particular moves. The moves the hon. Member has referred to are normal trooping, a process which, of course, does not depend on accuracy to a day or two. I will certainly look into the whole problem. I am very anxious that people should not have their leave curtailed because there are not sufficient aircraft to move them on the due dates.

    Nuclear and Conventional Weapons
    Mr. Pagetasked the Minister of Defence what steps he is taking to assist in examining the balance between the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation's nuclear and conventional forces as recommended in paragraph 9 of the recent North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Council communiqué.
    Mr. Watkinson: As the communiqué states the N.A.T.O. Council will be considering a report on the contribution of Member Countries towards balanced forces for N.A.T.O. defence at its next meeting in December. As I said in the House last week the triennial review which deals with the level of conventional forces will shortly be doing this complicated work. The United Kingdom will take a full part in the usual way in the review which will form the basis of the report to the Council.
    Mr. Paget: When the White Paper says that the West relies for its defence primarily upon the deterrent effect of its vast stockpile of nuclear weapons and that the allied forces in Europe will hold the front for the time needed for us to bring in the counter-offensive, is that the balance of nuclear and conventional forces contemplated by the Government in this paragraph?
    Mr. Watkinson: The hon. and learned Gentleman knows perfectly well what the balance is. The balance is indeed recognised in the communiqué, and by the statement by the British and United States Governments. It partly rests on strategic nuclear weapons, partly on tactical weapons, partly on conventional weapons. It is a balance which always needs re-examination, and that is what the Answer says.
    Mr. Paget: Surely something has happened at Athens, and surely that something is a recognition that we can rely much less than we previously contemplated on massive deterrents or whatever it is, and that we have got to rely much more on conventional forces? Why will not the right hon. Gentleman face up to it and say so?
    Mr. Watkinson: I do not face up to it because it was not a decision taken at Athens. If the hon. and learned Gentleman will be kind enough to read my original Answer, he will see that the Alliance proposes to examine this problem.

    Polaris Submarines
    Mr. Reynoldsasked the Minister of Defence to what extent the commitment of five Polaris submarines to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation mentioned in paragraph 8 of the recent North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Council communiqué will affect existing arrangements for consultation on and control and command of the Polaris submarines.
    Mr. Watkinson: The existing arrangements for joint decision by Her Majesty's Government and the United States' Government on the use of Polaris submarines are not affected. The assigning of submarines to N.A.T.O. in war would mean that they would then in addition come under N.A.T.O. control arrangements.
    Mr. Willis: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these facilities were provided in 1960 and that he informed the House that they were provided on the basis that they were of very great importance for a limited period? As a result of the additional submarines, has any change been made of the length of time we can expect those facilities to be made available?
    Mr. Watkinson: No. I do not think the decision announced in Athens by the United States makes any difference to existing arrangements.

  ROYAL NAVY

    Fishery Protection Squadron
    Mr. Haymanasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty if he is satisfied that his fishery protection vessels are adequate for all the tasks they are called on to perform; and if he will make a statement.
    The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing): Yes, Sir. The Fishery Protection Squadron consists of four frigates and six minesweepers. Their duties range from the enforcement of national and international fishery regulations in home waters to helping our fishermen in the traditional distant-water grounds. The ships of the squadron are also fully trained for their primary duties as warships.
    There has been an increase recently in the number of arrests of foreign poachers in British territorial waters, and there should be a further increase if local reporting of illegal fishing improves.
    Mr. Hayman: Will the hon. Gentle-consult the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about the incident off Lundy Island when a Cornish fishing boat was fired on from the island so that, although the incident is not likely to be repeated there, such an incident will not be repeated elsewhere?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: Yes, I will certainly consult my right hon. Friend, but it is not a matter for the Fishery Protection Squadron. I think that irregular use of fire arms is a matter for the police. No doubt the hon. Gentleman's Question will draw the chief constable's attention to this matter.
    Mr. Prior: Is my hon. Friend aware that the fishing industry as a whole is very grateful for the wonderful work of the Fishery Protection Squadron?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: I am grateful for that tribute. The squadron operates much of the time in very unpleasant conditions. The fact that last year it arrested fifteen as opposed to nine foreign poachers shows that the squadron's work is reasonably satisfactory.

    H.M.S. "Caledonia"
    Mr. Willisasked the Civil Lord of Admiralty what change has been made in the proposed date of commencement of work on the rebuilding of the living accommodation of H.M.S. "Caledonia".
    Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: I regret that it has not yet been possible to make a start on this scheme. I have the whole question under review, but am not yet in a position to make a statement.
    Mr. Willis: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he told us that this was to be commenced this year? Does he still intend to keep to that arrangement?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: No. I am sorry to say that I am afraid that things have slowed down a little bit on the building work itself, although we are going on with the design, because of the priorities which have to go in other directions, so that it is unlikely to start now this year.
    Mr. G. R. Howard: Will my hon. Friend assure the House that although modernisation of the "Caledonia" is somewhat delayed, he is satisfied with the programmes of building at other schools?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: I can assure my hon. Friend that modernisation or new building is going on at a number of other schools—at "Excellent", "St. Vincent" "Ganges", "Fisguard", and a number of others as well.
    Mr. Willis: In view of the fact that the Admiralty seems not to be keeping its promises in connection with this now, will the hon. Gentleman consider reducing the period of time expected to be taken for this building?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: I will certainly look at this, but we have to give priority to urgent operational tasks and we also have to remember a number of other obligations which we have. I am sorry that in this particular case it has slipped a few months.

    Ships (Scrapping)
    Mr. Willisasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty which ships listed on page 6 of the Explanatory Memorandum, Command Paper 1629, are due to be scrapped during the current financial year.
    Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: It would not be in the public interest to give a breakdown of section D of the "Strength of the Fleet" even if it were practicable to foresee all the events which might change the categories in the list.
    Mr. Willis: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that section D of the memorandum is misleading and tends to give a false impression of the strength of our naval forces? Is it not true that quite a number of these ships are just waiting to be scrapped? Is it not misleading to suggest that they are all really of very great value as reserve ships?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: My noble Friend has gone out of his way to be more helpful and to expand this explanatory statement to give much more information than we gave ten years ago. We have expanded if from half a page to two and a half pages and four appendices. I do not think it would be very helpful to define the categories more exactly. There are five categories—reserve ships, long refits, modernisations, scrapping, and sales. They all come within these categories within a single year which this memorandum covers. If a ship met with a serious accident we might move it from the operational fleet to the reserve, and bring forward a ship to the immediately operational reserve. There is a degree of flexibility in this list, and it is, I think, desirable. Moreover, we do not want to give too much information to our possible opponents.
    Mr. Paget: Are not ships to be scrapped in the current year often offered to buyers? Do they have to be kept secret in those circumstances?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: I do not believe it is going to be in the long-term interests
    1328
    of the taxpayers to show what ships exactly we have on our list. That is another reason why we obscure the issue a little by grouping the ships together in a single list.

    H.M.S. "St. Vincent" (Dance)
    Commander Purseyasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty who was responsible for a dance being given on Saturday, 5th May, in H.M.S. "St. Vincent", at Gosport, Hampshire; how many guests attended; what was the cost to naval funds; and how many naval and Royal Marine ratings respectively were employed for the dance.
    Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: This was a private dance given by the Captain, H.M.S. "St. Vincent", to 350 guests. There were no costs to public funds, and no Service personnel were employed.
    Commander Pursey: I thank the Civil Lord for that reply which was practically the same as the second Press statement made by Captain Tufnell. I may have to put down further Questions. Are all naval establishments available for such large-scale personal functions as the giving of coming-out dances for daughters? If so, what is the effect on the private enterprise hotel industry which the Tory Party is always out to support because it pays rates and taxes? Do petty officers and ratings have similar facilities for their dances, wedding parties, and bingo parties?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: I must admit to the hon. Member that I did not expect a supplementary question about private enterprise restaurants to come from him. Petty officers have held three dances each year and the chief petty officers have held a dance each year and there have been 15 or 20 other social occasions. Wedding receptions are quite often held in such establishments and I hope that they will continue to be held there, provided that such functions do not fall to be paid for out of public funds. The captain leaned over backwards to make sure that every single thing, including even the hire of the hall and the cost of the electricity, was paid for by himself and not out of public funds.

    Greenwich Hospital
    Commander Purseyasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty when he will produce a revised version of the 1909

    1329
    Memorandum on Greenwich Hospital to give the present details of properties, investments, income and pensions; and what is the proportion in which the income is appropriated for pensions and other purposes and administration.
    Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: The publication of a memorandum on the lines of that issued in 1909 would be very costly in time and money and we do not feel able to justify it. We are however publishing this year an illustrated memorandum on the history of the Royal Hospital School to mark the 250th anniversary of its foundation and I will arrange for a few copies to be placed in the Library.
    I estimate that in the current financial year the income will be spent in the fallowing proportions: pensions 22·5 per cent.; Royal Hospital School 60·7 per cent.; estates 10·8 per cent.; and administration 6 ·0 per cent.
    Commander Pursey: Does the Civil Lord appreciate that Greenwich Hospital is a £4 million organisation, that some of the property is Crown property held by the Admiralty in trust for Her Majesty and the benefit of pensioners, that its estimates have been subject to scrutiny by the House for more than a century, and that it is essential for hon. Members to have full and up-to-date information fully to discuss the estimates this year, a debate which we expect will take a long time and which, unless arranged for early in the day, may go on all night?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: Yes, Sir.

    Submarines
    Commander Courtneyasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether it is intended to build any more conventionally-powered submarines before laying down a third nuclear submarine.
    Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: We announced recently at Chatham when the "Ocelot" was launched that a twelfth Oberon conventional submarine would be built there. There have been no other decisions on the submarine building programme.
    Commander Courtney: While we all appreciate that the continuing usefulness
    1330
    of conventionally powered submarines will last for many years ahead, may I ask whether my hon. Friend will agree that it is also a fact that, with the present rate of so-called progress, by the 1970s the Soviet Union will have a sizeable force of nuclear submarines to which we shall have virtually no answer whatever?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend that we must get on with this programme. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence and the Treasury and the Board of Admiralty are all closely concerned with this. I equally agree that the conventionals must form a very valuable part of the Fleet at least until the early 1980s.
    Dame Irene Ward: Can my hon. Friend say when these conversations among three Government Departments will result in some action?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: I am afraid that I am unable to tell my hon. Friend at this moment.

  BRITISH ARMY

    Scottish Regiments (Recruits)
    Mr. Hendryasked the Secretary of State for War what percentage of recruits to the Scottish regiments during 1961 came from outside Scotland; and what proportion of these men had family connections with the Scottish regiments.
    The Secretary of State for War (Mr. John Profumo): In 1961 about 8 per cent. of recruits to Scottish regiments came from outside Scotland. All will have had family or national connections with Scottish regiments.
    Mr. Hendry: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he not agree that that comparatively high figure is good evidence that these regiments form a most valuable magnet for recruiting to the British Army in this day and age, and that their identity should be maintained and that they should be declared a corps d'élite? Would he be good enough to remind the noble field marshal, who made a rather extraordinary speech recently in another place about tribal areas descending into

    1331
    the Midlands, that he should be very careful about checking his facts and that the Highland regiments who supported him so gallantly in the war are still of the utmost value to British defence?
    Mr. Profumo: I agree with what my hon. Friend has said in the latter part of his supplementary question. Recruitment in Scotland is going very well and is nearly 20 per cent. up this year on what it was last year. As the field marshal himself is of Scottish extraction, this seems to be a row between Pict forces in which I would rather not intervene.

    Battledress (Manufacture)
    Mr. Stratton Millsasked the Secretary of State for War what percentage of Army battledress blouses and trousers were manufactured in the Republic of Ireland during 1960–61 and 1961–62, respectively.
    Mr. Profumo: No battledress was manufactured in the Republic of Ireland during 1960–61. Just under 3 per cent. of the requirement for battledress trousers were manufactured there during 1961–62.
    Mr. Stratton Mills: On how many occasions during the last six years have forces and establishments of the Crown been attacked by members of the Irish Republic Army wearing British battledress? Will my right hon. Friend agree to consult on the security aspect with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department who is the Minister responsible for Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Profumo: I cannot say on how many occasions, but my hon. Friend can be fairly certain that we will account for every pair of trousers which we order from Southern Ireland before we pay for them.
    Mr. Stratton Mills: May I press my right hon. Friend about consulting the Home Secretary?
    Mr. Profumo: Yes. I will consult my right hon. Friend when he returns from Central Africa.

  SCOTLAND

    Hotels and Guest Houses (Tourists)
    Mr. MacArthurasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many tourists have stayed in Scottish hotels and guest houses in each of the last five years.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gilmour Leburn): As the Answer contains a number of figures I shall, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. MacArthur: If I am anticipating the figures correctly, I believe that they will show an encouraging increase in tourist traffic. Would not my hon. Friend agree that that demonstrates the importance of the growing tourist trade to Scotland's economy? Is it his view that any proposal which would appear to lessen Scotland's welcome to the visitor should be treated with the greatest caution?
    Mr. Leburn: I agree that the figures show an encouraging increase over the years. I think that my hon. Friend's second supplementary question would be more appropriate to Question No. 35.
    Following is the information:

    THE SCOTTISH TOURIST BOARD ESTIMATE THAT THE NUMBER OF PERSONS ACCOMMODATED IN HOTELS, BOARDING HOUSES AND APARTMENTS IN SCOTLAND DURING THE PERIOD 1ST OCTOBER TO 30TH SEPTEMBER EACH YEAR WAS AS FOLLOWS

    1957

    4,454,868

    1958

    4,746,067

    1959

    5,052,895

    1960

    5,073,217

    1961

    5,426,663

    Tourists (Tax)
    Mr. MacArthurasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has now received the views of the Scottish Tourist Board concerning the imposition of a tax on tourists; and what proposals he now has for introducing a levy on those who stay in Scottish hotels.
    Mr. Leburn: While the Scottish Tourist Board participated in the discussions which resulted in the proposals for a Scottish Tourist Fund, my right hon. Friend has not as yet received any expression of the Board's own views. We

    1333
    are carefully watching reactions; but no decision has yet been reached about implementation, which would of course require legislation.
    Mr. MacArthur: While more funds to improve tourist facilities are needed, does not my hon. Friend agree that proposals put forward recently are, to put it mildly, distasteful? Is it not true that the levy would fall particularly heavily on Scottish families who already have little enough money to spare for their holidays? Does he not agree that taxation is widespread enough without this added imposition?
    Mr. Leburn: I realise that the proposals have not been greeted with universal approval, but support for them has been expressed. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is watching the position carefully. I think that my hon. Friend will be encouraged to know that of the 5,426,000 visitors last year, some 3½ million came from England and Wales, 620,000 from overseas and about 1,300,000 from Scotland.
    Mr. Rankin: As we have just heard that the number of tourists coming to Scotland is increasing, will the hon. Gentleman assure us that he will take no action which would in any way disturb or impede that increase?
    Mr. Leburn: My right hon. Friend has made quite clear that he is awaiting the reactions and the views of the Scottish Tourist Board on this matter, and I think that it would be right for him to do so.

    Civil Defence (Dispersal Plans)
    Mr. W. Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his consultations with the chairman of the British Transport Commission relating to Government plans for the evacuation of the civilian population in the event of the outbreak of hostilities.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith): My right hon. Friend has had no such consultations.
    Mr. Hamilton: I am not at all surprised by that Answer. Does the hon. Gentleman recall that Dr. Beeching is now looking at the Scottish Railway system and is likely to cut out at least
    1334
    one-third of it, in most cases the unprofitable lines which run in the rural areas? Is he not further aware that it is precisely those rural areas which will be called on to take the evacuated people? How do the Government expect to evacuate people when there are no railways there?
    Mr. Galbraith: The hon. Gentleman had better wait until we see what Dr. Beeching's scheme is, but in any case of dispersal we would use to the best advantage whatever transport means existed.

    Schools (Teaching Machines)
    Mr. G. M. Thomsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what enquiries he is making into the possible use of teaching machines in Scottish schools, as a means of effective deployment of fully trained teachers.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. R. Brooman-White): The Scottish Education Department has kept in close touch with the experimental work being done in relation to programmed teaching and teaching machines, notably in the University of Aberdeen, and my right hon. Friend is considering with the interests concerned how this work can best be helped forward. It is too early to expect definite results, especially in relation to teacher deployment, but we are anxious to see all possibilities of this kind exploited.
    Mr. Thomson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that encouraging reply. Will he consult his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air about some interesting experiments in the Royal Air Force with teaching machines which show that the same results in certain mathematics courses can be obtained in half the time with the use of machines?
    Mr. Brooman-White: Yes, Sir.

    Herring Fishery (Scotland) Act, 1889
    Mr. John MacLeodasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will immediately enforce the Herring Fishery (Scotland) Act, 1889, as interpreted by the High Court of Justiciary in the case of Mortensen v. Peters, 1906, 5 Adam 121.
    Mr. Leburn: No, Sir. This could not be done without extending the United Kingdom's fishery limits. The question whether we should seek to extend those limits is under review.
    Mr. MacLeod: Why is the Scottish Office so coy about this? Is it not ridiculous that foreign ships can fish in waters in which our own fishermen cannot fish? Will the hon. Gentleman consult the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Agriculture about taking some action?
    Mr. Leburn: It is not a question of the Scottish Office being coy. I remind my hon. Friend that the Government must take account of the position in international law. I think that my hon Friend knows that the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury, replying to a Question as long ago as 4th March, 1907, said that the Act of Parliament as interpreted by the High Court of Justiciary was contrary to international law. It is for that reason that the prohibition has not hitherto been enforced on foreign vessels.
    Mr. Grimond: Can the hon. Gentleman say on what authority the Government take it upon themselves not to enforce the declared law of the country or, alternatively, to declare that that law is wrong? So far as I know, there has never been an appeal against this decision, or any instrument, either legislative or statutory, to alter the position.
    Mr. Leburn: All Governments since 1907 have held that this ruling was not in accordance with international law, and have acted accordingly.
    Mr. Hoy: As international law has changed considerably, especially in the last few years, can the hon. Gentleman tell us when we can expect a statement from the Government about British fishing limits?
    Mr. Leburn: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the matter is being kept under careful review.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE

    Black Drove Farm, Norfolk
    Mr. Bullardasked the Secretary of State for Air what has been the result of his investigation into the discovery of
    1336
    a recently dropped bomb at Black Drove Farm, Marshland St. James, Norfolk; whether the type and size of the bomb has yet been ascertained; when he expects to remove it; and if he will make a statement about the circumstances in which it was dropped from an aircraft.
    The Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Julian Amery): There is no evidence that a bomb was dropped at Black Drove Farm, where a hole has appeared in the marshland. If this hole was was caused by a bomb it would appear to be a 25 lb. or 100 lb. practice bomb and investigations have shown that it would be at least 16 ft. underground. At this depth, detonation of the small explosive charge would have little or no effect at the surface.
    In the circumstances I do not think further excavation would be justified.
    Mr. Bullard: Will my right hon. Friend do something to remove the mystery which surrounds this hole in the ground? Does he appreciate that it is not a very nice thing for a village to have a bomb dropped in the middle of it? As the first report which came to the local inhabitants was to the effect that it was a bomb and that it had definitely been located, will he have a further dig, and, if he will not have a further dig, will he make a positive statement that there is absolutely no danger to the people who live nearby?
    Mr. Amery: I am glad to say that there is absolutely no danger to the people who live nearby, in view of the depth at which any object, if indeed there is one, must be. It is at least more than 16 ft. We had at first thought that it might be a bomb casually dropped, but we have had a careful check, which shows that no bombs are missing. Mine detection apparatus at one time made contact with an object, but contact has since been lost. It is conceivable that it might have been a meteorite.
    Mr. Grimond: Has the Secretary of State for Air checked recently on the movements of the hon. Member for Farnham (Sir G. Nicholson).
    Mr. Amery: Yes, Sir. I am glad to say that no mine detection apparatus was needed to recover him from the sea.
    Mr. Mulley: Cannot the Secretary of State tell us whether any of his practice bombs are missing? Surely he keeps some records of what bombs there are in Air Force and what there are not. It seems that this mystery would be clarified if he assured us that none of his bombs was missing.
    Mr. Amery: I have said that none of our bombs is missing and that therefore we do not think this is one of them.

EUROPEAN ECONOMICCOMMUNITY (BRUSSELS NEGOTIATIONS)
The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Edward Heath): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement on the progress of the Brussels negotiations.
I hope that it will be for the convenience of the House if, on this occasion, I confine myself to general matters and, at the same time, publish a more detailed account in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
At the ministerial meeting in March I asked for a full report to be prepared jointly by officials setting out the positions of both the European Economic Community and the United Kingdom on each sector of the negotiations and the arguments put forward to support them, together with a summary of the work done by officials in exploring the differences that existed. This report was ready on time, on 14th April, and has since been studied by all the Governments concerned and the Commission.
My purpose in asking for this progress report was to enable Ministers to see clearly where we had established common ground and what the gaps were between our positions after five months of analysis and explanation. This was essential before we could proceed to the point of considering satisfactory solutions to the problems involved in our application.
Our principal task at the ministerial meeting in Brussels last Friday and Saturday was to consider fully this progress report. This marked the end of the first or exploratory stage of the negotiations. Over almost the whole field the issues have now been clearly defined. The way is now open for the negotiation of solutions.
1338
To facilitate the task of finding solutions, the British delegation tabled immediately before the ministerial meeting substantive proposals in three different sectors. First, we put forward a detailed plan for the treatment of exports of manufactures from Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Secondly, we submitted a general formula for the treatment of Commonwealth exports of temperate foodstuffs both in the short and the long term. Thirdly, we proposed detailed measures on various problems relating to United Kingdom agriculture.
At the ministerial meeting, a large part of which was in restricted session, Ministers had a preliminary discussion on the substance of these problems. We instructed our officials to work out possible solutions, within agreed terms of reference, which are to be reported to us in some sectors at our next meeting. In addition, the Ministers authorised the setting up of a working party to deal with particular aspects of horticulture in both the United Kingdom and the European Economic Community.
The Chairman of the Ministers of the Community informed the ministerial meeting that the delegations of the Six member Governments had accepted my request, made at the March ministerial meeting, that our objective should be to determine at least the main outlines of a possible agreement covering the whole field of problems by the end of July. That is, therefore, agreed between us.
There will, of course, be a great deal of work still to be carried out after this stage has been reached. But we have now entered upon the stage of negotiations proper. Many of the problems we have to solve are complex and difficult. The United Kingdom Delegation will pursue their solution with determination.
It was agreed that the next ministerial meeting should be held in Brussels on the 29th and 30th of this month and a further four-day meeting from 27th to 30th of June.
Mr. H. Wilson: I am sure that I speak for the House when I thank the Lord Privy Seal for making this statement after the first round of the discussions. Will he undertake that following each of the rounds of Ministerial dis-

1339
cussions a comparable statement, if possible more forthcoming, will be made to the House?
May I ask two questions? First, just before the meeting there were some important pronouncements by the German Chancellor and the French President. Was any reflection of those pronouncements and their effect on Britain's entry into the Common Market felt in the talks in Brussels? Will the right hon. Gentleman make it quite plain that as far as pronouncements of that kind are concerned, Her Majesty's Government will stand absolutely firmly to what they believe to be the minimum terms for Britain's entry and will not be pushed around by any statements made elsewhere?
Secondly, with regard to the proposals for the Commonwealth, the right hon. Gentleman referred to a general formula on agricultural commodities. Can he tell us a little more about this general formula, since there is a lot about it in the Press? Will he recognise that we on this side of the House, at any rate, feel that any formula which merely provides a temporary easement to the problems will not be regarded as satisfactory? The Commonwealth problem must be settled, if it is to be settled at all, on a basis which provides a permanent safeguard for the entry of Commonwealth goods into this country and into Europe and must not be bought off by temporary relief. Will he address his mind to that point?
Mr. Heath: I shall be very happy to make a further statement to the House after each Ministerial meeting. The right hon. Gentleman will find that in the detailed account which I am publishing in the OFFICIAL REPORT further information is forthcoming, but I think that he realises the problem of making a statement to the House, at the end of Questions, which is not too long or too detailed.
As far as the political statements from Bonn and Paris were concerned, there was no change in the atmosphere in the Ministerial negotiations in Brussels last week. I received an assurance from the leader of the German delegation that the policy of the Federal German Government is in no way changed and that
1340
they support and will work for our admission as a full member of the Community.
As far as the proposals for temperate foodstuffs from the Commonwealth are concerned—Canada, Australia and New Zealand—there are further details in the statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT. It deals with both the short term and the long term. It is a context into which can be fitted transitional arrangements commodity by commodity, when they are agreed upon, leading to a review of those arrangements and then arrangements for the long term or Common Market period. At the same time, the Government, as well, I believe, as the Commonwealth Governments, look to the time with the European Economic Community when worldwide arrangements may be possible in some commodities. In that case, of course, those arrangements would not be necessary.
Mr. H. Wilson: While we all look forward to that, will the Minister make it clear that no solution with regard to temperate zone foodstuffs can be regarded as satisfactory, whatever is done about short-term and long-term differentiation, which does not provide for the same volume of Commonwealth foodstuffs coming into this country and/or into Europe as we are getting at present, and as we should get if we remained outside the Common Market?
Mr. Heath: I have said that it is essential that there should be arrangements for comparable outlets in the long term.
Viscount Hinchingbrooke: For what reason did my right hon. Friend open the negotiations by offering an industrial tariff concession on behalf of Canada, Australia and New Zealand? Would it not have been better to open the negotiations by asking the Six what concessions they would make so that Britain and the Commonwealth could secure tariff reductions alongside each other?
Mr. Heath: The plan which we have put forward to deal with these manufactured goods, which excludes raw materials and manufactured foodstuffs, allows for the insertion of what is now known as the Kennedy Round, which will be the first round of tariff negotiations after the Kennedy proposals pass

1341
through Congress, if that proves to be the case, and the reason why the proposals were put forward was that in our judgment this was the best way of reaching a solution which we could put to the Commonwealth.
Mr. Grimond: The Lord Privy Seal's statement deals with the economic negotiations. Can he tell us anything about the political negotiations? Have the subjects been defined, have any negotiations gone on, or, if not, when is it intended to start them?
Mr. Heath: As I have said before, the political negotiations are not carried on in Brussels. The political negotiations are carried on by the six members of the Community themselves. Following the Bonn Declaration, in which the Heads of Government looked forward to a closer political arrangement between member countries, the Fouchet Commission prepared texts. It has now become the Cattani Commission: Signor Cattani, head of the Italian Foreign Office, is chairman. We have been kept fully informed about the nature of these texts. We have not asked to take part in that Commission because we are not members of the Community. We are not asking now to take part in that Commission.
In my speech to Western European Union on 10th April, I said that when there was general agreement between Ministers of the Six about the texts, but that before there was final agreement for a meeting of Heads of Government, we should wish to take part in discussions about that. I think that the whole House will support us in that because of their great importance both to Parliament and to the British people. Since the meeting in Paris on 17th April there has been no further discussion amongst the Ministers of the Six about the texts.
Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Will the Lord Privy Seal say whether, in referring to the whole field, he has included consideration of the possibility of a Customs union involving a common currency? Would he say what the developments have been since the summer of last year, when Professor Triffin, of Chicago University, advised the Finance Ministers on the possibility of a currency reserve pool?
Mr. Heath: In the negotiations we are examining with the Commission all the provisions of the Treaty of Rome referring to what is known as economic union—in other words, including common tariffs and common commercial policy and common agricultural policy. I understand that there has been no further movement in the Community itself towards a common currency and this matter has not entered into the negotiations.
Mr. Biggs-Davison: Since the overseas parts of the Commonwealth are no longer merely primary-producing countries but are industrialising, and since our great and vital markets in the Commonwealth overseas depend on our continuing ability to buy from them, may I ask whether the Lord Privy Seal is aware of the great concern at the widespread view which has been expressed in the Press and elsewhere that Commonwealth industrial imports to the United Kingdom are negligible and expendable?
Mr. Heath: I do not at all accept the view that these imports are negligible or expendable. They may be small in quantity in comparison either with our own trade, or with the trade of the possibly enlarged Community of the future, but they are of importance to the countries producing these industrial goods.
These goods are being examined in different groups: first, as I have already mentioned, industrial goods from the developed Commonwealth; secondly, industrial goods from the Asian countries of the Commonwealth; and, thirdly, industrial goods from those other countries for which we are seeking association, which are particularly the African independent countries and the Dependencies for which Her Majesty's Government are responsible.
Mr. Mendelson: In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has told the House this afternoon about the timing of these negotiations, does he agree, first, that this is now the second interim report he has given to the House? When he gave the first interim report he gave a promise that there would be a debate on the intermediary situation. Does he agree, secondly, that if there are some conclusions by the end of July, which would be shortly before the House adjourned for its Summer Recess, he should

1343
give an assurance to the House either that there will be a major debate before the House adjourns or that the House will be recalled during the Recess if conclusions have been reached?
Mr. Heath: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is aware of the request by the Leader of the Opposition last Thursday for a debate and is giving consideration to it. As to future debates, we are anxious to keep the House as fully informed as possible throughout these negotiations. As to what will be possible in the course of the negotiations later on, we must wait to see the timing of the objective, which I have outlined in my statement.
Mr. Deedes: On agriculture, can my right hon. Friend confirm that the retention of our Price Review system is one of the issues in the field for discussion to which he has referred? Does he accept the importance of this issue, at least during the transitional period?
Mr. Heath: Yes, Sir. I am in complete agreement with my hon. Friend on that.
Mr. Shinwell: I have two questions. First, the right hon. Gentleman referred to making submissions on the eve of negotiations which concern Canada, Australia and New Zealand. I am using the language of the right hon. Gentleman. Were these submissions in accord with the decisions of these Governments? Were these Governments consulted before these submissions were made preparatory to the negotiations? Secondly, will not these negotiations be over-shadowed by the somewhat derisory comments which President de Gaulle made about the United Kingdom in his speech yesterday, which was reported this morning?
Mr. Heath: As to the proposals which were put forward, both for the industrial products and for comparable outlets in the long term for Commonwealth temperate foodstuffs, full consultation was carried out with all the Commonwealth countries involved over a period of more than two months. I had two meetings with the Canadian Government in Ottawa. We had the visit of the Australian Deputy Prime Minister. We were able to carry out consultation with the New Zealand authorities through the
1344
High Commission offices. The Commonwealth countries wish to make their decision when they see the result of the negotiations as a whole. That is the basis on which the negotiations are being carried on.
Sir T. Beamish: Is my right hon. Friend aware that very many of us, no doubt on both sides of the House, attach the greatest possible importance to his suggestion that this country should be more closely concerned with the political discussions which are now going on? Since more than a month has now passed since he first made this suggestion, can he say when he hopes to have a reply from the six member Governments?
Mr. Heath: I think that we must await the next meeting of the members of the Community on political union. They have not yet fixed a date. At that meeting, I think that they will consider the final clauses of the texts on which they have to reach agreement. After that will be the time for discussions with ourselves.
Mr. Gaitskell: On the political issue, I wonder whether the Lord Privy Seal would clear up a certain amount of confusion about the relationship between these two sets of negotiations. Would he not agree that, supposing the Six were to reach some agreement making for further political integration, we would have very much to take this into account, whatever the state of the economic negotiations, before entering the Common Market? Can he throw a little more light on the relationship between these two things?
Furthermore, he will be aware that in the Treaty of Rome many decisions fall to be taken by the Council of Ministers by what is called a qualified majority, in the present case by a majority of 12 out of the 17 votes which are at present allotted. Has the right hon. Gentleman had any discussion so far about what the voting position would be if we were to enter the Common Market? If he has not, when does he think that this vitally important point is likely to be reached?
Finally, can he give us an assurance that it is the view of Her Majesty's Government that the same power of veto which any one of the three major Powers in the Common Market possesses

1345
with one smaller Power would continue to apply in the case of Great Britain together with one smaller Power should we enter?
Mr. Heath: To deal with the second point first, we have had no discussion in the negotiations up to this stage on the question of the voting rights and voting powers. For this reason, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, the other countries of E.F.T.A. are carrying on and will be carrying on individual negotiations with the Community, some for full membership—Denmark and Norway, in addition to the application from Eire for full membership—as well as those applying for associate membership. The pattern of voting at the end will depend on which of the other E.F.T.A. countries have full membership with ourselves. It was, therefore, thought best that we should leave this matter until later when we can see more fully the pattern of membership.
As to the relationship between these two sets of negotiations, the Six members of the Community are of the view that the full members of the Community should also be members of whatever political arrangements are agreed between them. It would, therefore, be essential for us to consider most carefully what the arrangements of a political nature should be at the same time as we consider the negotiated arrangements in the Treaty of Rome.
Mr. Gaitskell: In that case, is it not of the highest importance, as the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish) suggested, that if such talks take place we should be in on them at a very early stage, since otherwise all the work that the right hon. Gentleman is doing on the economic side could be completely frustrated by a political agreement made between the Six without our participation?
Secondly, does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that what constitutes a qualified majority is of the highest importance? Has he really had no informal discussions about this? Has he made it plain already, perhaps, to his colleagues in these negotiations that we should insist, broadly speaking, upon the same right of qualified veto, if I may put it that way, as France, Germany and Italy enjoy in the smaller Common Market which exists at present?
Mr. Heath: I agree absolutely with the right hon. Gentleman that it is a vital matter in the negotiations. Of course, we would take the view that the rights of the major Powers should be the same. After all, it was only a week ago that we knew that Norway was to apply for full membership. It is not possible to work out a new voting relationship until one knows exactly how many countries will be full members.
Again, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman on the vital necessity of expressing our views and taking part in discussions on the political arrangements. That was why I specifically made that request in my speech at Western European Union on 10th April. That request was acknowledged by the other Ministers there. The point at which we should take part in the discussions is a matter for arrangement between us and the Six. The Six have taken the view that it was better for them to work out the preliminary stages of this amongst themselves, knowing what our views were from the statements made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in the House from time to time.
I put our views again in my speech on 10th April. I think that in the way in which the political arrangements are working out there are no major differences between the views I expressed on 10th April and the views which are being expressed in the texts at the moment.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot debate this matter without a Question before the House.
Following is the detailed account:
Since my last report on the Brussels negotiations on 7th March the Deputies have continued to examine the various problems to which I referred. In particular, work has been concentrated on the problems of United Kingdom agriculture and Commonwealth exports of temperate foodstuffs to this country, and on the problems of the so-called Category 1 countries, India, Pakistan, Ceylon and Hong Kong.
At the ministerial meeting at the end of March it was agreed that our Deputies should prepare a comprehensive report covering all the matters under negotiation and setting out the position reached by either side on each of them.
As I have already told the House, consideration of this report was the main item on

1347
the agenda for the ministerial meeting last week. The present position with regard to the various problems under discussion is briefly as follows.
The general level of the common external tariff
There is broad agreement on this, but we have reserved the right to propose a review of the position at the end of our negotiations
Raw materials and semi-manufactures for which we have proposed a zero tariff
The Six had put forward no specific suggestions in response to our proposals in this field before the ministerial meeting, and after prolonged discussion it was agreed that our Deputies should examine the items product by product and produce solutions.
Manufactures from Canada, Australia and New Zealand
Before the ministerial meeting we put forward proposals under which the application of the common external tariff to this trade would be deferred pending negotiations in G.A.T.T., but that subject to the outcome of these negotiations and subsequent reviews the common external tariff should, with perhaps some exceptions, apply to the whole of this trade by 1970. It was agreed at the ministerial meeting that these proposals should be accepted as a basis for discussion, and that Deputies should report on the further consideration given to them at the ministerial meeting on 29th-30th May.
Category 1 countries (India, Pakistan, Ceylon and Hong Kong)
A Working Party which has been studying the trade problems of these countries has so far concentrated mainly on textiles. It was agreed that the Deputies should complete their work on textiles, put forward proposals for dealing with the other items of trade and examine more thoroughly than has so far been possible the problems raised by Hong Kong's trade.
Association and tropical products
A Working Party is already examining the problems of trade arrangements and tariffs for the main tropical products, and their report should be available for Ministers at their meeting on 29th-30th May. It was agreed that
1348
Deputies should carry further their consideration of other questions related to the association of Commonwealth countries with an enlarged Community.
Commonwealth wealth temperate foodstuffs
The proposals we put forward for discussion envisage specific arrangements for the Commonwealth countries concerned for specific periods and agreed machinery for reviewing how these arrangements should be extended thereafter having regard in particular to any international agreements which might be negotiated in the meantime. I emphasised at the ministerial meeting the very great importance we attach to this question and the fact that Commonwealth interests would not be met merely by agreement on transitional arrangements covering a specific period of years. It was agreed that the Deputies should give high priority to this matter with a view to submitting a report in time for consideration on 29th May.
United Kingdom agriculture
The two major problems in this field are:

(i) annual reviews and guarantees to farmers in an enlarged Community;

(ii) the length of the transitional period for the United Kingdom.

We have proposed amendments which we think will be necessary to certain of the agricultural regulations if the Community is enlarged by our accession and that of other European countries, and we have put forward views on the commodities for which the Community have not yet approved regulations. I undertook at the ministerial meeting to put forward further proposals as soon as possible on certain other commodities, notably meat and dairy products. All these matters will be further considered by Deputies before the next ministerial meeting and, in particular, a Working Party has been authorised to consider the problems of United Kingdom horticulture.
Economic Union provisions of the Treaty of Rome
Throughout the period discussion of these Articles and the regulations made under them continued with the Commission. So far, no serious problem has emerged and these questions were not discussed at the ministerial meeting.

LONDON HACKNEY CARRIAGE
3.55 p.m.
Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to hackney carriages in London, to impose restrictions on the use of radio communication for hiring vehicles and on the description of vehicles for hire, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid.
In 1869, Parliament in its wisdom passed the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act, which gave the Home Secretary power to license hackney carriages in London and to prescribe conditions for their construction, maintenance, and so on. It also gave power to the Home Secretary to license the drivers of such carriages and to lay down conditions about their training, examination, and so on.
Hackney carriages are defined in the Act as passenger vehicles which ply for hire on the streets. It is of the utmost importance to remember that the Act does not apply to vehicles which may be hired in other ways. The 1869 Act, virtually unamended, is still law. It is, in fact, the law governing London taxis, although it was passed before the invention of the internal combustion engine and radio. It is out of date and defective.
Stringent conditions have been laid down under the 1869 Act regulating the size, the turning power, safety conditions, and so forth, of taxicabs. Conditions have also been laid down governing the training, knowledge and character of licensed drivers. It has been said in the course of the discussions which have been prompted by notice of my intention to introduce the Bill that the conditions are too stringent. I say straight away that that question will not be affected by the Bill which I seek leave to introduce. Whether the conditions are too stringent or not stringent enough is a question which can be dealt with by the law as it now stands. The Home Secretary has power to deal with this by regulations.
Whatever those conditions may be, I think that everyone in the House will agree with me that it is monstrously unfair to impose heavy obligations on those who are in the trade, whether they
1350
are owners or whether they make their living as drivers, whilst, at the same time, allowing unlicensed owners and drivers to take advantage of gaps and uncertainty in the law and inadequate penalties which the law now inflicts.
That is what is happening in London today. I may be asked what evidence there is of it. It is always difficult to give evidence of gaps in the law. In the nature of things, one does not know, simply because the law is deficient. It is within my own knowledge that in a number of cases those who have broken the law have been prosecuted and have pleaded guilty. They have made a statement in mitigation abusing the prosecutor. They have been fined 10s., which they have gone out and earned in the next few hours. The result of this is that taxi owners are not investing money on renewing their cab fleets and the drivers are anxious. They are losing morale.
Mr. R. J. Mellish: They are angry.
Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: They are angry. This is affecting recruitment, and, as I think every hon. Member knows, the consequence is that we are not now getting the taxi service which we would like to see.
Those who seek to promote the Bill propose four things. They propose, first, to define the expression "plying for hire". Although this expression is used in the 1869 Act, it is undefined and its meaning is extremely doubtful. If leave is given to introduce the Bill, a definition will be forthcoming. Secondly, they propose to bring the penalties up to the modern level, bearing in mind the changed value of money. The law provides maximum penalties of £2 and £5 at present, and the Bill proposes to increase them to the modern levels of £20, and £50 for second and subsequent offences. The Bill's third purpose is to give the Commissioner of Police power to license the use of radio in hire cars as well as in taxi cabs. Fourthly, it proposes to prevent unlicensed vehicles from calling themselves taxicabs or using various combinations of the words "taxi" and "cab".
The Bill will not touch upon the question of the size of cabs, or anything of that nature, or the number of cabs which may be licensed; those are

1351
matters for regulations, and there is already ample power in the Home Office to deal with the matter by regulation. Nor do we intend to interfere with car hire undertakings. We are concerned only with cases Where vehicles are hired by arrangement between the persons who wish to take them and the persons in the cars—hiring on the spot.
A great deal has been said in the Press and elsewhere about minicabs. The word "minicab" is certainly not a term of art; it is used to cover many kinds of enterprise. I am informed—and I believe that it is true—that there are now about 29 minicab companies operating in London. No doubt they vary widely in character. To the extent that the word "minicab" means a small car hired from a garage, whether by telephone or otherwise, it is not our wish to interfere in any way. We are concerned only with vehicles which ply for hire or use modern mechanical aids for the purpose of dodging the provisions of the law relating to plying for hire.
The promoters of the Bill have sought to publicise their intentions in advance, because they wished these problems to be discussed. That is part of the object this afternoon. In this morning's leading article in The Times I received somewhat avuncular criticism, which can be summarised briefly in the phrase, "My boy, you are quite right; the law needs amending. But you are going about it in the wrong way."
Like all good uncles who give that sort of advice The Times has had to suggest what would be the right way of going about it. That is the most significant feature of the leading article. It is put briefly and succinctly. It says:
"A better way of proceeding would be to extend the area of regulation so as to bring in the sort of services minicab offer …"
That means that the alternative is to give a general power to the Home Secretary to make regulations governing all hire car services. That is the plain meaning of those words, and nothing else.
That suggestion is far wider and far more drastic than anything suggested in the proposed Bill. If I had brought forward proposals of that kind, I venture to say that I would have had opposition from every quarer of the House, and a
1352
thundering leading article from The Times. In fairness to all those engaged in the London taxicab trade, and for the purpose of enabling the industry to provide a satisfactory service to the public, I hope that the House will give me leave to bring in the Bill.
4.5 p.m.
Mr. Rubert Speir: As one who has promoted several Private Members' Bills, I fool that I ought to be the last person to oppose one. It is, therefore, with some reluctance that I rise to oppose the Bill. I ask the House to believe, however, that my hon. Friend's proposed Bill is not the innocent, harmless and helpful Bill which he has suggested. It is, in fact, a thorough-going "fuddy-duddies'" Bill. It is aimed almost entirely at minicabs and, worse still, it has been bred against a background of violence. I ask the House to consider whether, if it gives leave to introduce the Bill, it will not be condoning the use of strong-arm tactics.
Mr. Mellish: Most unfair.
Mr. Speir: As The Times says in the leading article which my hon. Friend has quoted, no one would quarrel with the suggestion that London's hackney carriage law stands in need of amendment. This is scarcely surprising, for the law and regulations on this subject were drawn up in Victorian days, nearly 100 years ago, when the motor car had hardly been thought of. The law was passed at a time when top hats were worn and carriages were drawn by horses.
Even today applicants for permission to obtain a licence to drive a cab have to fill in a form stating, among other things, whether they are applying for permission to drive a mechanically-driven or a horse-drawn vehicle. There are, too, all sorts of ridiculous rules and regulations about chassis and top hats.
Sir H. Lucas-Tooth rose—
Mr. Speaker: Our practice does not allow interventions in the discussion of an application under this Standing Order.
Mr. Speir: Anyway, I think that my hon. Friend would agree with me that it is high time that the wind of change

1353
blew through the Metropolitan Police Public Carriage Office. Although I have never had the pleasure of visiting that office, I can imagine what it looks like. It is probably festooned with cobwebs, strewn with horse bags, and with an all-pervading air of horse manure. Action is no doubt necessary, and legislation is certainly desirable, but I suggest that we do not want the piecemeal legislation which my hon. Friend is suggesting.
If my hon. Friend's Bill were allowed to proceed, far from helping London to get a better and more adequate taxi service, it would simply perpetuate the existing state of muddle and mismanagement, and would lead to London having an even worse taxi service than it has today.
Mr. Mellish: Nonsense.
Mr. Speir: But because I criticise London's taxi service I hope that the House will not think that I am "gunning" for all London taxi drivers, or that I am saying that the present minicab drivers are incapable of improvement, or that their service could not be better.
Without doubt, London's regular licensed taxi drivers are, for the most part, the best in the world, and there is no doubt that the minicab companies and some of their drivers would be better off with some form of official supervision and control. But the Bill would not bring about any useful type of supervision or control. It would simply hamper the operations of the better type of minicab company.
It is an extraordinary thing that in the second half of the twentieth century there should, in London today, be 1,500 fewer licensed taxis than there were thirty years ago. The result is that with an increased demand—with more tourists flocking into London and with more business people here—it is always a struggle to get a taxi. If the Bill were to become law the situation would become even more intolerable.
The House should be clear about this: the Bill is aimed at the small man. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It is designed to drive the minicabs off the street, and it would have that effect. The London taxi trade had a monopoly. It wants to maintain a scarcity of taxicabs. In these
1354
post-war years London's cab trade has had ample opportunity to get together and to plan a decent cab service for London, but all that it has done is to produce, publish and circulate, on a large scale, a booklet entitled, "The Case for the Stabilisation of the London Cab Trade". On page 6 of the booklet it has the presumption to say:
"The present number of cabs and drivers provides a satisfactory public service."
Mr. Mellish: So it does.
Mr. Speir: The hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) may think so, but the vast majority of Londoners certainly do not.
Mr. Mellish: The hon. Member has no right to speak for Londoners. He should go back to Hexham.
Mr. Speir: I trust that Parliament will not think so either, and will not allow the Bill to proceed.
Mr. Mellish: The hon. Member knows nothing about it.
Mr. Speir: I do not say that minicabs leave nothing to be desired, but I claim that they are worthy of encouragement. They are giving the public a service it wants. I can let the figures speak for themselves. One of the larger companies, although it has been operating for less than a year, has already completed over 600,000 jobs. Its vehicles have travelled over 12 million miles, and they have carried 1½ million passengers. It has done all this in under a year, and, I would remind the hon. Member for Bermondsey, in the face of the most bitter opposition from the hon. Member's union and from the worst elements in the London cab trade.
Mr. E. Partridge: And without any regulations.
Mr. Speir: This company—Welbeck Motors Limited—and its drivers have had to put up with the most scandalous persecution in this so-called free country, which prides itself on the maintenance of law. In under a year it has had over 100 windscreens broken—smashed by bricks or ball bearings and, in one case, so the police say, by a bullet from an air rifle. Ninety-six tyres have been slashed. Thirteen vehicles have been badly damaged, including three

1355
overturned, and one burned out. Its drivers have been intimidated and assaulted, and it has had its telephones put out of order day after day and night after night.
The House has other and more important matters to consider and I will not seek to trespass on its time any longer. I conclude by repeating that I hope that the House will not allow the Bill to proceed. What we require is
not piecemeal legislation, but all-embracing, comprehensive, modern legislation, introduced by the Government. We do not want a Bill which will perpetuate the vested interests of a few.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 12 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business):—
The House divided: Ayes 164, Noes 86.

Division No. 186.]

AYES

[4.13 p.m.

Aitken, W. T.

Holland, Philip

Oswald, Thomas

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Hollingworth, John

Paget, R. T.

Bacon, Miss Alice

Holman, Percy

Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

Beaney, Alan

Hopkins, Alan

Pargiter, G. A.

Benson, Sir George

Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)

Parkin, B. T.

Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

Paton, John

Bourne-Arton, A.

Hoy, James H.

Pavitt, Laurence

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

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

Bowles, Frank

Hulbert, Sir Norman

Plummer, Sir Leslie

Brockway, A. Fenner

Hunter, A. E.

Prentice, R. E.

Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

Hurd, Sir Anthony

Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

Bullard, Denys

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

Rankin, John

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

Jeger, George

Reynolds, G. W.

Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Robertson, John (Paisley)

Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

Castle, Mrs. Barbara

Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

Roots, William

Chapman, Donald

Kelley, Richard

Ross, William

Coulson, Michael

Kenyon, Clifford

Royle, Charles (Salford, West)

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver

King, Dr. Horace

Silverman, Julius (Aston)

Cullen, Mrs. Alice

Lawson, George

Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

Darling, George

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

Snow, Julian

Deer, George

Lipton, Marcus

Sorensen, R. W.

Delargy, Hugh

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

Spriggs, Leslie

Dodds, Norman

Loughlin, Charles

Stanley, Hon. Richard

Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

Stevens, Geoffrey

Edelman, Maurice

MacColl, James

Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

McInnes, James

Stones, William

Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

Mckay, John (Wallsend)

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

Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

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

Swingler, Stephen

Evans, Albert

McLeavy, Frank

Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

Farey-Jones, F. W.

Maddan, Martin

Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

Fernyhough, E.

Maitland, Sir John

Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

Fitch, Alan

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Thornton, Ernest

Forman, J. C.

Mapp, Charles

Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Galpern, Sir Myer

Marshall, Douglas

Vickers, Miss Joan

Gammans, Lady

Mellish, R. J.

Wainwright, Edwin

Ginsburg, David

Mendelson, J. J.

Wakefield, Sir Wavell

Gough, Frederick

Milne, Edward

Webster, David

Gower, Raymond

Mitchison, G. R.

Weitzman, David

Gresham Cooke, R.

Monslow, Walter

Wells, Percy (Faversham)

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

Moody, A. S.

Whitlock, William

Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

Morris, John

Wilkins, W. A.

Harper, Joseph

Moyle, Arthur

Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

Mulley, Frederick

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Hart, Mrs. Judith

Nabarro, Gerald

Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

Hayman, F. H.

Neal, Harold

Winterbottom, R. E.

Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)

Nicholls, Sir Harmar

Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

Hewitson, Capt. M.

Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

Zilliacus, K.

Hill, J. (Midlothian)

Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard

Hocking, Philip N.

Oliver, G. H.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Oram, A. E.

Sir Hugh. Lucas-Tooth and

Mr. Partridge.

NOES

Barlow, Sir John

Bishop, F. P.

Cary, Sir Robert

Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)

Black, Sir Cyril

Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

Biffen, John

Butcher, Sir Herbert

Cleaver, Leonard

Cole, Norman

Kerr, Sir Hamilton

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

Cooke, Robert

Kitson, Timothy

Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

Curran, Charles

Lambton, Viscount

Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)

Dalkeith, Earl of

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Seymour, Leslie

Dance, James

Lindsay, Sir Martin

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

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

Litchfield, Capt. John

Spearman, Sir Alexander

de Ferranti, Basil

Lubbock, Eric

Stodart, J. A.

Drayson, G. B.

McMaster, Stanley R.

Studholme, Sir Henry

Eden, John

Maginnis, John E.

Talbot, John E.

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

Markham, Major Sir Frank

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Emery, Peter

Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

Teeling, Sir William

Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

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

Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

Gammans, Lady

Mills, Stratton

Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

Gardner, Edward

Miscampbell, Norman

Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

Gibson-Watt, David

Moore, Sir Thomas (Ayr)

Wade, Donald

Gilmour, Sir John

More, Jasper (Ludlow)

Walker, Peter

Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)

Morgan, William

Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek

Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.

Neave, Airey

Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

Page, John (Harrow, West)

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

Peyton, John

Woodnutt, Mark

Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

Pilkington, Sir Richard

Woollam, John

Harvie Anderson, Miss

Pitman, Sir James

Yates, William (The Wrekin)

Hastings, Stephen

Pott, Percivall

Holt, Arthur

Proudfoot, Wilfred

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

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

Pym, Francis

Mr. Speir and Mr. van Straubenzee.

Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

Rawlinson, Peter

Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir H. Lucas-Tooth, Mr. Partridge, Mr. W. Edwards, Mr. G. Johnson Smith, Sir J. Langford-Holt, Mr. Mellish, Sir R. Nugent, Mr. Prentice, Sir W. Wakefield, and Mr. Webster.

LONDON HACKNEY CARRIAGE
  LONDON HACKNEY CARRIAGE
  Bill to amend the law relating to hackney carriages in London, to impose restrictions on the use of radio communication for hiring vehicles and on the description of vehicles for hire, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday and to be printed.[Bill 115.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  FINANCE BILL
  Further considered in Committee [Progress, 15th May].
  [Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

  FINANCE BILL

    Clause 6.—(PURCHASE TAX.)
    4.25 p.m.
    Mr. A. E. Oram: I beg to move, in page 7, line 31, to leave out "and" and to insert:
    "for any reference to a rate of twenty-five per cent. a reference to a rate of twenty per cent."
    This Amendment covers a wide range of important domestic equipment. It would seem that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is missing an opportunity, if he does not accept the Amendment, of lending a helping hand to home-makers who have been through a particularly "sticky" time recently. The House has frequently discussed the handicaps under which newly-married couples, seeking to make a home for the first time, are suffering from increased rents, increased mortgage charges, cost of living, and other things. I suggest that the Chancellor ought seriously to consider accepting this Amendment and taking at least one step in the opposite direction to relieve some of the burden on such people.
    The important list of articles covered by the present rate of 25 per cent. includes gas and electric water heaters, refrigerators, washing machines, vacuum cleaners, sewing machines, electric irons, light bulbs, stationery and toilet soap. I suggest that that is a list of articles which are very necessary for the effective running of a modern home. To tax them at the rate of 25 per cent. is unjustified. This modest Amendment, suggesting a reduction to 20 per cent., is entirely worthy of the support of the Committee.
    We are in a position this year of having to put down Amendments relating to whole rates of tax; we are not able to move to reduce in relation to specific items. Therefore, I readily recognise that my Amendment covers other articles which I would not claim are nearly so essential in the home as those I have mentioned. I claim, however, that this
    1360
    rate of 25 per cent. covers such an important number of commodities of an essential kind that it will not matter if by accepting it we allow some other articles which many of us would not be so keen about to get in.
    In discussing Purchase Tax we often make comparisons between one item and another. It is worth making one comparison between a set of articles which are entirely exempt from Purchase Tax, workmen's tools, and the set of articles to which I have referred, which are housewives' tools. Although, obviously, I very much welcome the fact that workmen's tools are exempt, I cannot see why the husband's equipment should not be taxed whereas the wife's equipment is taxed. I believe that a strong case could be made for the complete removal of Purchase Tax from some of the items to which I have referred, but we are not suggesting that.
    All we are suggesting is that the 5 per cent. reduction should apply to this range of goods as it applies to other ranges under the Chancellor's proposals.
    Take, for example, a vacuum cleaner. Surely that is an absolutely essential item of the housewives' equipment. It is taxed at 25 per cent. Spades and forks which husbands use in the garden are tax-free. I cannot see why one should be tax-free and the other taxed at this penal rate.
    4.30 p.m.
    Surely there is scarcely any item of domestic equipment which is more essential to every family than an electric iron, yet it comes within this range. If our Amendment were accepted, electric irons would be relieved of at least 5 per cent. of the tax.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to refrigerators in his Budget speech. Although, perhaps, it is not absolutely essential to the running of a modern home, a refrigerator is certainly a most desirable piece of equipment. The Chancellor should be considering how he can encourage people to incorporate refrigerators in their homes rather than tax them at the present rate.
    Water heating apparatus, although perhaps not as essential in the home as the other items to which I have referred, is essential in offices and shops, which are quite rightly required to install water

    1361
    heating equipment. Why require a small shopkeeper to install water heating apparatus by law and then impose a 25 per cent. tax on him for the privilege of conforming to the law?
    Another item in this list is the ordinary, electric light bulb, which is also taxed at 25 per cent. It seems to me that this is completely unjustified. There was a time when there was a window tax in this country. The light which came in from outside used to be taxed, and a long campaign was necessary before that absurd tax was finally removed. I believe that the time will come when people will look back and will think it just as absurd to tax the means of getting electric light which is necessary in the evenings as it was to tax the daylight which comes through the window.
    In this range of commodities is such an elementary necessity as toilet soap. We have a tax not only on light, but on keeping clean.
    All these are items which, I am sure, the Chancellor of the Exchequer should, to some extent, be able to relieve of Purchase Tax. The Amendment does not seek, as I think we might be justified in seeking, the complete removal of Purchase Tax from these commodities. I therefore hope that we shall have a sympathetic reply from the Treasury Bench and that the Amendment will be accepted. Clause 6 gives us the opportunity to make important changes in the Purchase Tax structure, and I think that it would be wrong if we let this opportunity pass without removing the anomalies to which I have called attention.
    Mr. Gerald Nabarro: I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will resist the Amendment for a number of reasons which I believe to be good and sound.
    The first is a revenue reason. I believe that the cost of an Amendment of this kind, which was rather underestimated in its importance by the hon. Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Oram), would be £33 million in a full year. That is a substantial part of the total revenue which my right hon. and learned Friend expects to derive from Purchase Tax in the full year 1962–63, which was stated in his Budget speech
    1362
    to be £576 million. It would represent the abandonment of about 6 per cent. of his total Purchase Tax revenue. I would, therefore, oppose the Amendment on that ground alone.
    But there is a second and, I conceive, a more important reason for opposing the Amendment, and that is from a fiscal point of view. No doubt it would be more appropriate broadly to deal with this aspect on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill". I content myself, on this Amendment, with saying that there is a powerful case for broadening the base of Purchase Tax to take in all manufactured articles which have in the past been subjected to this form of taxation and to add others, such as sweets, confectionery and soft drinks—and I would add general advertising—in order to achieve, after two consecutive Budgets, a low, overall, nondiscriminatory and uniform level of Purchase Tax which, in my opinion, should be 16⅔ per cent. of the wholesale price of the goods taxed, or a straight 2d. in the 1s.
    Tinkering about with the tax by trying to establish that certain articles are more necessary to householders than others, or tinkering about with the tax on the hypothetical basis that some articles contain a greater element of luxury than others, is a wholly wrong approach to the problem. Some people may argue that electric irons, electric fires, gas fires or refrigerators are essential articles in a household. Other people may argue that they are luxury articles in a household. It depends on one's philosophy.
    I should like to tax the hon. Member for East Ham, South with a valid and legitimate comparison. Why, after the Chancellor's proposals, are we still proposing to tax refrigerators at 25 per cent. and carpets at 10 per cent. when both articles are universally accepted as desirable in the modern household? I use that example at random. I believe that they are equal in their essentiality and that neither contains a substantial element which might be deemed luxurious in character.
    This underlines my point that all manufactured goods contribute in the broadest economic sense to two important desiderata. First, they employ British men and women and, therefore, contribute to the policy of full employ-

    1363
    ment. Secondly, they contribute, directly or indirectly, to our export trade, and it is extremely harmful and injurious to discriminate between manufactured article and manufactured article on the home market by differential rates of tax.
    Mrs. Barbara Castle: Am I to take it that the hon. Gentleman is in favour of carpets being taxed at 16⅔ per cent.?
    Mr. Nabarro: No. If the hon. Lady had listened, she would have heard me say that I am in favour of making progress towards a uniform and non-discriminatory level of taxation over a whole range of articles. I do not wish to make a speech which would be more appropriate on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill", because we are dealing with a relatively narrow issue. I promise the hon. Lady that I will deal comprehensively with her point later today if I catch your eye, Sir William.
    It is quite wrong to select motor cars, cosmetics, radios, television sets, gramophones and gramophone records and say that they are so luxurious that they must carry a 55 per cent. tax before this Budget or a 45 per cent. tax after this Budget but that a Savile Row suiting is so non-luxurious that it should only be taxed at 5½ per cent. before this Budget or 10 per cent. after this Budget. The same considerations apply to furniture, in which my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) is keenly interested.
    If the Chancellor accepted the Amendment it would, as I say, diminish the revenue from Purchase Tax by £33 million in a full year, which is quite wrong having regard to the needs of the Revenue and the apportionment to a form of indirect taxation of this kind of about 9 per cent. of our total revenue requirements. The second and much more powerful reason is that it would be ethically wrong when my right hon. and learned Friend is endeavouring in this Budget, and, I hope, in the next, to compress the Purchase Tax rates and make progress towards the principles which I have constantly enunciated over the years, of a single uniform rate of Purchase Tax at wholesale level. I hope
    1364
    that for these reasons my right hon. and learned Friend will consider in his wisdom that he should resist the Amendment.
    Mrs. Harriet Slater: The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) argues that we should not be tinkering about with an Amendment of this kind, but with this sort of Budget it is our only way of expressing our opposition to Purchase Tax on certain articles. The only other point that the hon. Member made means that he wants the Government to work towards a complete sales tax.
    Mr. Nabarro: No.
    Mrs. Slater: Yes.
    Mr. Nabarro: A sales tax means a tax at retail level on the American model. I do not want that. It would mean 650,000 collection points compared with 160,000 for a wholesale tax at wholesale level, which is Purchase Tax.
    Mrs. Slater: It is still a sales tax whether it is a collection at the retail or wholesale level, and the real purpose of the hon. Member's suggestion is that every single item should bear tax. I hope that housewives, and men, also, will notice the direction in which the minds of hon. Members like the hon. Member for Kidderminster are working and that they are really aiming at a tax on everything we buy.
    Mr. Nabarro: We are in Committee, but I apologise for intervening again. The hon. Lady really must not twist the words I used. I deliberately spoke, as she will find if she looks at HANSARD, of the application of a uniform level of tax to all manufacture articles currently attracting tax. I do not want Purchase Tax put on food, fuel or transport services. I am talking only about manufactured articles currently attracting Purchase Tax.
    Mrs. Slater: That is a little qualification, but it still means asking the Chancellor to work towards a tax on every manufactured article, because that is the logic of the argument. The articles which come within the Clause with which the Amendment seeks to deal are becoming almost hardy annuals with some of us, because in every debate

    1365
    on a Finance Bill we fail to relieve completely from Purchase Tax the tools used by the housewife.
    Sometimes one is led to believe that among some hon. Members opposite there is an objection and almost a resistance to women having some of these articles. We know that some hon. Members opposite think that, because they put that argument up as a case against old-age pensions on the ground that too many people have vacuum cleaners and electric washing machines.
    4.45 p.m.
    As one who does a fair amount of housework, I consider that every one of these articles is absolutely essential in the home. One has only to imagine a woman today having to do without an electric iron. She would have to put the old-fashioned iron on the gas stove, for there are today not many ordinary fires capable of warming the old-fashioned iron as they were warmed in our grandmothers' day. Again, if we are to have the carpets which the hon. Member for Kidderminster is anxious that every housewife should have, the vacuum cleaner is an absolute "must". Cleaning a carpet without a vacuum cleaner is not only hard work, but it ruins the carpet.
    This is the age of "do-it-yourself". Most men are persuaded by their wives to do jobs in the home, and for the woman the sewing machine is an essential article for the same purpose. The woman, with the aid of the sewing machine, makes clothes for the children and summer dresses and does the mending and patching. Anyone who has a sewing machine, particularly an electric sewing machine, knows what a difference it makes to jobs which otherwise would have to be done by the longwinded method of sewing by hand.
    The refrigerator trade is having a particularly difficult time at the moment. One has only to go round the shops to see how refrigerators are now being sold at much lower prices because the industry is going through a "sticky" period. I regard it as absolutely vital that every household should have a refrigerator. We hope that we shall have a good summer this year, and in summer, particularly, a refrigerator is a godsend. A woman who has one can do her
    1366
    shopping in one go. This is particularly an advantage to the woman who goes out to work. She is spared having to rush home from work to do the shopping.
    I hope that the Chancellor will say that he will look at these items again. These items have been a necessity in the households of hon. Members opposite for many years, but among many of the people whom we on this side of the Committee represent they are only beginning to be placed on the list of "musts" when young people get married.
    Mr. Nabarro: Rubbish.
    Mrs. Slater: It is quite true. It is not rubbish at all. If the hon. Member thinks that what I am saying is not true, it is apparent that he does not go into many homes and does not realise how many are without a refrigerator, for example.
    Mr. Nabarro: A bath.
    Mrs. Slater: It is not a farce. That is a typical comment from the hon. Member.
    Mr. Nabarro: I said "a bath" not "a farce".
    Mrs. Slater: All right. I do not want to have any fun with the hon. Member. With that smile on his face, he tries to "take a rise" out of people. It makes me feel like doing the school teacher on him and looking at him very severely.
    Mr. Charles Loughlin: It would not make any difference.
    Mrs. Slater: My hon. Friend must not be so sure.
    It is typical of many hon. Members opposite that they think that everybody in the country has these articles in the home. I am sure that when young people get married, even when both are working, it is a real problem for them to find the money to furnish their homes with absolute essentials without even bothering to consider some of these commodities. I hope that the Chancellor will not he as hard-hearted as Chancellors have been for a long time and that he will consider the Amendment favourably. It proposes a small reduction, but, nevertheless, it is a step in the right direction.
    Mrs. Castle: I should have been a great deal more impressed by the intervention of the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), in which he lectured us on the need to have a coherent philosophy and economic policy about Purchase Tax, if I had heard him, during the Budget debate, express his disapproval of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's announcement that Purchase Tax on carpets was to be reduced from 12½ per cent. to 10 per cent.
    Mr. Nabarro: The figure is wrong. The hon. Lady really ought to do her homework before she argues with me. Before the Budget, the Purchase Tax on carpets was 13¾ per cent., and, after the Budget, the Purchase Tax on carpets was only 10 per cent. The hon. Lady has got her arithmetic wrong.
    Mrs. Castle: I have done my homework a little better than the hon. Gentleman has. I have the Customs and Excise documents in front of me. Group 9 at 12½ per cent. is now down to 10 per cent.
    Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Lady forgets that the regulator was in force before the Budget and that the 12½ per cent. therefore became 13¾ per cent. and is now 10 per cent., a reduction of 3¾ per cent. Perhaps the hon. Lady will now withdraw her statement.
    Mrs. Castle: I shall not. I was talking about Purchase Tax and the regulator is not Purchase Tax.
    Mr. Nabarro: Do not be silly.
    Mrs. Castle: The fact that the hon. Member now wishes to add the regulator to Purchase Tax strengthens my point, because it means that the reduction that the Chancellor has made on his behalf is even greater.
    Surely the argument which the hon Member has just used against our Amendment applies with equal force against the Chancellor's reduction on carpets at 12½ per cent., or 13½ per cent., or whatever the hon. Member wants to call it, to 10 per cent. Is there not a loss of revenue involved in that reduction of Purchase Tax on carpets, and is not the hon. Member jeering at us for wanting a 5 per cent. reduction in tax on these groups on the ground that this would entail a loss of revenue?
    1368
    What is more, does not the second argument that the hon. Member used against the Amendment also apply to the reduction of tax on carpets? Has he not just told us that it is time that we all moved towards a unifrom rate of tax on all manufactured articles currently bearing tax? Has he not told us that the goal towards which we ought to be moving is a tax of 2d. in 1s., or 16½ per cent., and was not the Chancellor, therefore, taking a step in the wrong direction, according to the hon. Member's argument, when he reduced Purchase Tax on carpets to 10 per cent.? Is not the hon. Member's argument against our Amendment therefore completely invalid?
    When the hon. Member fails to protest against a reduction in tax on carpets and totally failed to answer my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater), I challenge him to say whether he believes that carpets ought to be included in this uniform higher rate of 16½ per cent. He was, of course, showing that he is quite prepared to philosophise at someone else's expense, but not at the expense of his own constituency's interests. It is very easy for the hon. Member to make a sweeping generalisation to the effect that what we need is a total lack of discrimination between manufactured articles, but he is very glad about tax discrimination in favour of his constituency's interests.
    I also want to suggest to the hon. Member that he is again being illogical because he carefully qualified his statement when my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North intervened to say that this would mean telling the people that the hon. Member was in favour of putting a tax of 16½ per cent. on a wide range of essential articles not now carrying it. This he denied. That, he said, was a grave distortion of his argument. He will not deny, I hope, that it would mean increasing the tax on a large number of essential articles—and increasing it quite substantially.
    Later, we shall protest at the increase of 5 per cent. to 10 per cent. The hon. Member does not think that that goes far enough. He wants an increase on a wide range of essential articles from 5 per cent. to 16½ per cent. He indignantly denied that he wished to

    1369
    include in the 16½ per cent. any manufactured goods not currently carrying tax. Surely that destroys the whole logic of the hon. Member's argument. He is saying that there is no basis on which he would discriminate between the validity of one manufactured article and another in its claim for preferential tax treatment, but what do we do in these Customs and Excise tables?
    We can read in every group a long list of exemptions—which the hon. Gentleman apparently wishes to continue—because we have decided in the past that there are some articles which are so essential in their purpose and have such a special use that they ought to be exempted. They include such things as children's clothing, babies' cots and fireguards. On what ground have we exempted these articles? We exempted them on the ground that there was an overwhelming social argument for them to attract preferential tax treatment.
    I am not surprised that the hon. Member for Kidderminster has ceased to listen to my argument, because it is totally unanswerable. It is part of his typical discourtesy, and a piece of untypical cowardice, for him to turn his back on me at the most telling point of my argument. I want the hon. Member to tell me quite categorically whether he is in favour of a 16½ per cent. tax on the following articles which are at present exempt: household brushes and brooms, mops, babies' high chairs, cradles, cots, playpens, invalid chairs, fireguards, children's clothes—I could go on indefinitely. Is it part of his philosophy that all these items, being manufactured goods between which no discrimination can be drawn, should carry tax at 16½ per cent.? Will he answer that?
    Mr. Nabarro: Certainly. My two speeches on this topic, relating precisely to the Nabarro plan of Purchase Tax, were on 3rd July, 1961, and 10th April, 1962. I recommend that the hon. Lady goes away and does her homework by reading those speeches. Therein is contained an encyclopedic range of detailed information concerning Purchase Tax and how it should be reformed.
    Mrs. Castle: It is not, thank goodness, compulsory homework on every Member of Parliament to have to read the hon.
    1370
    Gentleman's speeches. I am putting a simple question to him. Has he the courage to answer me now and say whether it is part of the Nabarro plan to put a 16½ per cent. tax on household brushes and brooms, mops, babies' high chairs, cradles, cots, playpens, invalid chairs, fireguards and children's clothes? Has he the courage to answer that categorically, or has he forgotten the content of his own speeches?
    5.0 p.m.
    Mr. Nabarro: That is a very impertinent suggestion. I must commend to the hon. Lady that she should do her homework with greater assiduity than she has in the past and read the two important speeches, both Parliamentary ones, to which I referred.
    Mrs. Castle: In other words, the hon. Gentleman is running away. Because of that I must make one of two deductions, and the Committee can decide which is right. Either the hon. Gentleman is in favour of putting a tax of 16½ per cent. on a wide range of articles which even this Government think are so essential that they are tax-free, or he is not desirous of doing so, in which case he is accepting the principle of discriminating between the claims of one article as against another. This being so, his whole case against the Amendment fails, because our case is that we have discriminated in the past and that we ought to go on doing so.
    There are many anomalies and injustices in the groups of Purchase Tax, and it is our duty every year to go through the different groups and decide whether, because of changed social conditions, the time has come to make changes here and there. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North said, the pattern of life in the home is changing all the time. Things that were not considered essential ten or twenty years ago are today part and parcel of every home, and this tendency ought to be encouraged.
    We say that by refusing to review this group which attracts a tax of 25 per cent. the Chancellor has failed to do his homework and has failed to continue to do his job of sifting the more essention articles from the less essential ones and giving them preferential treatment. Because of the way in which the Bill

    1371
    is drafted, we on this side of the Committee are compelled to move to reduce the Purchase Tax by 5 per cent. on this whole group of articles.
    If we had our way there are certain items that we would exempt from the 5 per cent. cut. For instance, I would exempt fur garments and precious jewellery from this cut but I would not exempt non-precious jewellery, which is now one of the most widely used decorative devices among my sex. There is a wide range of attractive and inexpensive jewellery, and young ladies in all walks of life ring the changes in their clothing and appearance by using it. Good luck to them. I hope that men will encourage women to look more attractive, and not try to discourage them from doing so.
    There are surprisingly few of what one might call luxury or semi-luxury articles in this group of goods which carry 25 per cent. tax. It is overwhelmingly a group of essential, and increasingly essential, articles. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North said, we live in a "do-it-yourself" age. I suggest to the men in the Committee that they go through this group carefully. If they do, they will find that it consists of an overwhelming number of "do-it-yourself" commodities.
    My hon. Friend referred to sewing machines. We know that today a large number of young women who have not a great deal of money to spend make a large number of their own garments at home. They ought to be encouraged to do this, because it helps to save money that would otherwise have to be paid by their husbands or parents, yet we tax the implements with which they make their own clothes. We tax sewing machines at 25 per cent.; scissors at 25 per cent.; electric irons, with which to press the garments, at the same figure; and a wide range of other articles which enable people to do things for themselves.
    Laundry bills are exorbitant, and increasingly the modern housewife is doing her washing at home. The difficulty is that washing machines are taxed at 25 per cent., and so are appliances for heating water. Are we entitled to continue imposing this level of taxation on these essential articles? Ought not we
    1372
    to make a 5 per cent. reduction on these articles and thus encourage the kind of domestic activity to which I have referred?
    Gardening implements also come within this group. We tax lawn mowers and rollers at this figure. These are implements of an essential form of domestic activity and are becoming of increasing importance in many homes. Catering implements carry this heavy tax, and so does everything from a vacuum cleaner to a gas poker. Today, it is almost impossible for a housewife to cater economically for her family unless she has a refrigerator. This is no longer a luxury and certainly ought not to be taxed at this rate.
    Feminine adornment is becoming of increasing importance to many young women today. Many young girls and young wives carry out their own hairdressing at home, yet we levy a tax of 25 per cent. on articles which are essential to them. On such elementary items as hairpins, hair grips, hair curlers, shampoo, brushes, combs and soap we levy a tax of 25 per cent. This tax is also applied to hair drying machines used at home, but if the young girl goes in for hair waving and curling, she is faced with 50 per cent. tax on the materials used. To levy this tax is to fail to realise that there has been a social revolution. Today a girl feels as inadequately dressed without a smart hair-do as she used to feel ten years ago without lipstick.
    Having a hair-do helps to boost women's morale, and this practice has largely done away with the wearing of hats. The tax on hats is 5 per cent., yet when a girl has a set and shampoo the implements for doing it are taxed at 25 per cent. I therefore say that this afternoon the Committee ought to look carefully at this group of taxable items, and having done so, and having done its job of once again weeding out those items which are more essential from those items which are less essential, should accept this modest reduction in the name of facing the social realities of today.
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Anthony Barber): The issue which the hon. Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Oram) raises in this Amendment is clear-cut. It concerns

    1373
    what is known as the standard rate of Purchase Tax.
    I ask the Committee to remember, first, something which is not immediately apparent from the terms of the Amendment. The hon. Member for East Ham, South said that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should give some relief to this category of goods, but in his Budget my right hon. and learned Friend has reduced the effective rate of Purchase Tax on the articles which are the subject of this Amendment from 27½ per cent. to 25 per cent., and he has done this at a cost of £12½ million to the Exchequer.
    In yesterday's debate there was a good deal of criticism of my right hon. and learned Friend for using the economic regulator last year and following it up in this Budget by consolidation. I should have thought that those hon. Members who criticised my right hon. and learned Friend yesterday would at least have given him some credit for what he has done in the case of Purchase Tax.
    Mr. Douglas Houghton: Is this not a classic Tory story? First, the Government put up the tax, and then they claim credit for putting it back to where it was before.
    Mr. Barber: If the hon. Gentleman would "hold his horses" for a moment I would remind him of one or two rates as they were a few years ago, which, in view of his observations, I think will surprise him.
    This Amendment seeks to reduce the 25 per cent. standard rate to 20 per cent. This proposal, considered in isolation, is most desirable, but when one considers, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) pointed out, that it would cost £33 million a year to concede it, it soon becomes apparent that it is quite impossible to consider it in isolation. To put it bluntly, it simply would not be "on" for my right hon. and learned Friend to accept an Amendment of this kind this year.
    I am sure that nobody in this Committee would accuse the Government of not wanting to reduce Purchase Tax—
    Mr. Ede: Good heavens.
    Mr. Barber: The right hon. Gentleman says "Good heavens". Perhaps I may remind him, as well as the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), of the great progress which the Government have made in the past ten years.
    I do not intend to go all through the Purchase Tax schedules, as the hon. Lady did. It is very easy to do that, and there is a considerable amount that one could say from the other point of view, too. I shall limit myself to a few of the articles which have been mentioned in the debate and which are the subject of this Amendment.
    In 1952—and the tax was no lower at the end of the period of office of the Labour Government—furs, jewellery, fancy Roods and even electric heaters were all taxed at 100 per cent. They are now taxed at 25 per cent. At the same time, in 1952, refrigerators, washing machines, vacuum cleaners and even gas fires were taxed at 66⅔ per cent. They are now taxed at 25 per cent. A host of other articles, including lighting fittings, stationery, bicycles and motor cycles were all taxed at 33⅓ per cent.—a rate which has now been reduced to 25 per cent.
    At least, I am sure of one thing, and that is that we shall have the congratulations of the hon. Lady on what has been achieved by successive Governments during these past ten years.
    Mr. Douglas Jay: If it is the Government's policy to bring down Purchase Tax, why are they raising the 5 per cent. rate to 10 per cent.?
    Mr. Barber: The next Amendment deals with that very point, and I shall be very happy to explain then the reasons for the change.
    The hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn referred to the difficulties of the housewife. It is perfectly true that if this Amendment were accepted it would involve a slight reduction in the cost of living, but I think that we should keep the matter in perspective. I myself was somewhat surprised to find that if the Amendment were accepted the consequence would be a reduction in the cost-of-living index of only one-tenth of a point. I am told that the average household spends about £1 a week on

    1375
    goods liable at this rate of 25 per cent. That includes 4s. Purchase Tax. It follows that this Amendment would benefit the average household by only about 9d, a week—in other words, 39s, a year for the average household, not even as much for each individual.
    The hon. Member for East Ham, South referred to what I think he called the housewife's tools. But I should remind the Committee that the goods which are taxed at 25 per cent. are by no means all necessities. I mentioned a few moments ago furs and jewellery, and there are cameras, pictures and so on. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster on something that I thought everybody knew, that there is no basic principle in the system of Purchase Tax that essentials should be exempt. This has never been a principle which has been held by either Labour or Conservative Governments.
    Mrs. Castle: On what basis were the items to which I referred exempted? Why exempt a fireguard except on the ground that it has a social importance and that we want to make sure that every home has got something which will prevent a baby from getting into the fire? Is that not the purpose?
    5.15 p.m.
    Mr. Barber: All I can say is that if the hon. Lady looks back over the years she will find that it is not a sustainable proposition that essentials are not liable to Purchase Tax. Many essentials have been liable to Purchase Tax right from the beginning. One or two exceptions have been made for various reasons, but they do not come within this particular group. It is not a principle of Purchase Tax that essentials should be exempt.
    Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: If one is trying to reduce the rate at which Purchase Tax is levied on certain articles, is it not reasonable to argue that there ought to be a basic principle of priorities and that certain groups ought to be treated in a certain way?
    Mr. Barber: There is also one other principle which has been adhered to by successive Governments, and that is that certain goods are placed in a category which involves a higher rate of tax than others because they are, in fact, very considerable revenue raisers. For ex-
    1376
    ample, one that comes to mind immediately is the motor car and the television set. I think that I am right in saying that there are 11 million television sets in this country, yet they are still taxed, even with my right hon. and learned Friend's reductions, at the rate of 45 per cent. In the context of this year's Budget, my right hon. and learned Friend could not contemplate, in addition to the reductions in Purchase Tax which he has already made, this further reduction at a cost of £33 million.
    I went over this particular ground at considerable length yesterday in the debate which we had on hydrocarbon oil duty—looking at the various Amendments in the context of the Budget, and I will not weary the Committee by going over it again. We had a useful debate marred only by the lack of any expression of a point of view by the Liberal Party.
    Mr. Nabarro: Where are the Liberals? Would my hon. Friend send for the Liberal shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer?
    The Temporary Chairman (Mr. F. Blackburn): Order. This Amendment does not deal with the Liberal Party.
    Mr. Nabarro: It was my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary who led me into that error.
    Mr. Barber: I apologise, Mr. Blackburn, and bow to your Ruling.
    No hon. Member of this Committee with any degree of responsibility would seriously suggest that this Amendment could be accepted this year. I therefore ask the Committee to reject it.
    Mr. Jay: The Economic Secretary has given a very poor and perfunctory answer to the arguments of my hon. Friends. The hon. Gentleman's first argument is that the Chancellor can claim credit because he has already reduced this rate from 27½ per cent. to 25 per cent. It is worth considering what he has done. He found this rate of 25 per cent.; he raised it by the regulator to 27½ per cent. He found a 50 per cent. rate and raised it to 55 per cent. He now drops the 55 per cent., rate to 45 per cent. and he drops this rate back to 25 per cent. where it was before. We finish up with the higher

    1377
    rate having come down and the lower rate staying where it was a year ago. If that is not tinkering about with the rates, I do not know what it is. The total effect is that proportionately this rate is higher than the other.
    I do not know why the Economic Secretary had to speak for the Labour Government, but he made the astonishing statement that it had never been the principle of any Government, Labour or Conservative, to exempt necessities from Purchase Tax. It was, of course, the policy and the practice of the Labour Government. The hon. Gentleman must know that the great bulk of clothing, boots and shoes and furniture were exempt as necessities.
    Mr. John Peyton: Would the right hon. Gentleman define what he means by "necessities"? According to his definition, we would live a very austere life indeed.
    Mr. Jay: I quite agree with what the present Colonial Secretary once said in one of these debates—that though the distinctions may be difficult to make, we all recognise them when we see them.
    The contribution of the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) was very interesting. He makes it perfectly clear that he is in favour of moving towards a general flat-rate tax on every manufactured article whatever.
    Mr. Nabarro: No. I do not say "every manufactured article whatever". I said every manufactured article which is currently attracting Purchase Tax. That is also one of the answers to the hon. Lady, who wanted to attribute to me a desire to put a tax on articles at present not attracting tax. What I said was that it should be a flat rate of Purchase Tax on all articles currently attracting Purchase Tax.
    Mr. Jay: This is interesting, because it means that the hon. Member for Kidderminster is in favour of exempting certain things altogether. Presumably, he is in favour of exempting because they are, in some sense, necessities, and, in that case, he will perhaps agree with us and not with the arguments of the Economic Secretary. At any rate, we have managed to get that clear.
    Mr. Barber: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view
    1378
    of what he says, he thinks that vacuum cleaners, electric heaters, oil heaters and lighting fittings were not essentials or necessaries. They were all taxed under the Labour Government.
    Mr. Jay: I take the view that in the long run, all these things should be exempt.
    What we are asking today, to show that we are moderate and realistic, is that this tax should come down from 25 to 20 per cent. There are two principal arguments for this. The first is that many of these articles now on the 25 per cent. rate are articles of ordinary household equipment, like electric fires, lamps, gas-fires, oil heaters and sewing machines. I remind the hon. Gentleman, who talks about these things having been taxed at very high rates after the war, that one of the reasons why high rates were imposed on electric fires and other such equipment was because there was a shortage of coal and oil, and it was desired to economise in the use of these fuels, with, as far as I remember, the support of the hon. Member for Kidderminster. There is no longer a shortage of these fuels, and, naturally, the argument no longer applies.
    Mr. Nabarro: It is a very valid point. In the conditions of 1950 and 1951, we had to use the fiscal weapon in this sense, but Tory Party good management over the last ten years has got rid of the fuel shortage and replaced it with an abundance of fuel.
    Mr. Jay: What got rid of the oil shortage was the Suez expedition, but I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman considers that good management or not.
    What I am arguing is, first, that it seems rather foolish, in addition to all the other burdens which the Government's policy imposes on householders, particularly on newly-married couples setting up house, in the matter of mortgage rates, high rents and all the other difficulties, to make things worse by imposing the tax on these articles of household equipment. Even if we admitted that the other two handicaps could not be avoided, I should have thought that the Chancellor would have done something here by imposing a lower rate of tax on these things, which hon. Members opposite apparently

    1379
    agree are necessities and have to be included in every household.
    The second argument is that, in addition to articles of household equipment, there are others which are common, normal necessities of life, some of which have not been mentioned yet, but which are included in this rate, and which all contribute a little, though not much, I agree, to the cost of living. For instance, there is soap, which has already been mentioned. The hon. Gentleman talks about taxes having been reduced by a Conservative Government, but I remember a Conservative spokesman saying, ten years ago, that it was iniquitous to have soap included in the Purchase Tax, and that a Conservative Government would wholly exempt it from tax. That was the present Viscount Chandos, but it is still taxed and now carries 25 per cent.
    There are certain other household requisites which have not been mentioned which, I am sure the hon. Member for Kidderminster will agree, are just as necessary in the home as refrigerators and washing machines. There are brushes, combs, scissors, knives, razors, razors, blades, razor strops, dry shavers, dry shaver heads, mirrors and sponges. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree that these are necessities. I would ask the Chancellor if it is
    sensible at present, after all the many other actions of the Government—it is not just this 0·1 per cent—which have been tending to raise the cost of living, particularly to the sort of households of which my hon. Friends have been speaking. We have had the Health Service charges, higher insurance contributions and higher rents, and all these things add up.
    Therefore, I think that the right way to look at an issue like this is to ask whether it is desirable to impose a further burden of tax at this rate on all these necessities of ordinary household use. Here, I should have thought that, whatever we think of the rest of the Chancellor's economic policy, there was a chance to lighten the burden and to restrain the rise in living costs which, despite the so-called anti-inflationary policy of the Government last year, is still going on.
    In view of the Government's failure to do that, and of the very casual and perfunctory reply of the Economic Secretary, I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will carry this Amendment to a Division.
    Question put, That "and" stand part of the Clause:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 246, Noes 179.

    Division No. 187.]

    AYES

    [5.27 p.m.

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    Carey, Sir Robert

    Finlay, Graeme

    Aitken, W. T.

    Channon, H. P. G.

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

    Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)

    Chataway, Christopher

    Freeth, Denzil

    Allason, James

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

    Atkins, Humphrey

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

    Gammans, Lady

    Barber, Anthony

    Cleaver, Leonard

    Gardner, Edward

    Barlow, Sir John

    Cole, Norman

    Gibson-Watt, David

    Barter, John

    Collard, Richard

    Gilmour, Sir John

    Batsford, Brian

    Cooke, Robert

    Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)

    Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

    Goodhew, Victor

    Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

    Corfield, F. V.

    Gough, Frederick

    Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Costain, A. P.

    Gower, Raymond

    Biffen, John

    Coulson, Michael

    Green, Alan

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

    Craddock, Sir Beresford

    Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

    Bishop, F. P.

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver

    Gurden, Harold

    Black, Sir Cyril

    Cunningham, Knox

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Bourne-Arton, A.

    Curran, Charles

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J.

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Dance, James

    Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

    Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

    de Ferranti, Basil

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

    Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

    Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

    Brooman-White, R.

    Doughty, Charles

    Harvie Anderson, Miss

    Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

    Drayson, G. B.

    Hastings, Stephen

    Bryan, Paul

    Duncan, Sir James

    Hay, John

    Bullard, Denys

    Eden, John

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    Hendry, Forbes

    Butcher, Sir Herbert

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

    Hiley, Joseph

    Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)

    Emery, Peter

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

    Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

    Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

    Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

    Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

    Farey-Jones, F. W.

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

    Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

    Farr, John

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Mawby, Ray

    Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

    Hobson, Sir John

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Spearman, Sir Alexander

    Hocking, Philip N.

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

    Speir, Rupert

    Holland, Philip

    Mills, Stratton

    Stanley, Hon. Richard

    Hollingworth, John

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Stevens, Geoffrey

    Hopkins, Alan

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

    Hornby, R. P.

    Moore, Sir Thomas (Ayr)

    Stodart, J. A.

    Hornsby Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.

    More, Jasper (Ludlow)

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

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

    Morgan, William

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

    Nabarro, Gerald

    Summers, Sir Spencer

    Hughes-Young, Michael

    Neave, Airey

    Talbot, John E.

    Hulbert, Sir Norman

    Nicholls, Sir Harmar

    Tapsell, Peter

    Hurd, Sir Anthony

    Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Noble, Michael

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

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard

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

    James, David

    Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

    Teeling, Sir William

    Jennings, J. C.

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Temple, John M.

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

    Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

    Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Joseph, Sir Keith

    Page, John (Harrow, West)

    Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

    Kerr, Sir Hamilton

    Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

    Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

    Kimball, Marcus

    Partridge, E.

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Kitson, Timothy

    Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Lambton, Viscount

    Percival, Ian

    Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Leburn, Gilmour

    Peyton, John

    Vickers, Miss Joan

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

    Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

    Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Pilkington, Sir Richard

    Wakefield, Sir Wavell

    Lindsay, Sir Martin

    Pitman, Sir James

    Walder, David

    Litchfield, Capt. John

    Pott, Percivall

    Walker, Peter

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

    Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

    Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

    Prior, J. M. L.

    Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek

    Longden, Gilbert

    Profumo, Rt. Hon. John

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn

    Proudfoot, Wilfred

    Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Pym, Francis

    Webster, David

    MacArthur, Ian

    Quennell, Miss J. M.

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    McLaren, Martin

    Ramsden, James

    Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

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

    Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

    Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

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

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

    MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    McMaster, Stanley R.

    Rippon, Geoffrey

    Wise, A. R.

    Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)

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

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard

    Maddan, Martin

    Roots, William

    Woodhouse, C. M.

    Maginnis, John E.

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Woodnutt, Mark

    Maitland, Sir John

    Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)

    Woollam, John

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    Seymour, Leslie

    Worsley, Marcus

    Marlowe, Anthony

    Sharples, Richard

    Yates, William (The Wrekin)

    Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest

    Shaw, M.

    Marshall, Douglas

    Shepherd, William

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.

    Marten, Neil

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Mr. Michael Hamilton and

    Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

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

    Mr. Ian Fraser.

    Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Smithers, Peter

    NOES

    Abse, Leo

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Herbison, Miss Margaret

    Ainsley, William

    Deer, George

    Hill, J. (Midlothian)

    Albu, Austen

    Delargy, Hugh

    Hilton, A. V.

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Dodds, Norman

    Holman, Percy

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Donnelly, Desmond

    Holt, Arthur

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

    Houghton, Douglas

    Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)

    Edelman, Maurice

    Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

    Beaney, Alan

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Hunter, A. E.

    Bence, Cyril

    Evans, Albert

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Benson, Sir George

    Fernyhough, E.

    Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

    Blyton, William

    Fitch, Alan

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

    Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

    Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

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

    Forman, J. C.

    Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

    Bowles, Frank

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Jeger, George

    Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

    Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

    Brockway, A. Fenner

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Ginsburg, David

    Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Gourlay, Harry

    Kelley, Richard

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Grey, Charles

    Kenyon, Clifford

    Castle, Mrs. Barbara

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Chapman, Donald

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    King, Dr. Horace

    Collick, Percy

    Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Cronin, John

    Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

    Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

    Crossman, R. H. S.

    Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Lipton, Marcus

    Cullen, Mrs. Alice

    Hamilton, William (West Fife)

    Loughlin, Charles

    Darling, George

    Harper, Joseph

    Lubbock, Eric

    Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

    Hart, Mrs. Judith

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Hayman, F. H.

    McCann, John

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwy Regis)

    MacColl, James

    1382

    1383

    McInnes, James

    Plummer, Sir Leslie

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

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Popplewell, Ernest

    Swain, Thomas

    Mackie, John (Enfield, East)

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Swingler, Stephen

    McLeavy, Frank

    Probert, Arthur

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

    Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Rankin, John

    Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

    Mapp, Charles

    Reynolds, G. W.

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

    Mason, Roy

    Rhodes, H.

    Thornton, Ernest

    Mellish, R. J.

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Wade, Donald

    Mendelson, J. J.

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    Wainwright, Edwin

    Milne, Edward

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Warbey, William

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)

    Weitzman, David

    Monslow, Walter

    Ross, William

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Moody, A. S.

    Royle, Charles (Salford, West)

    White, Mrs. Elrene

    Morris, John

    Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

    Whitlock, William

    Moyle, Arthur

    Short, Edward

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Mulley, Frederick

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Willey, Frederick

    Neal, Harold

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Williams, LI. (Abertillery)

    Oliver, G. H.

    Skeffington, Arthur

    Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

    Oram, A. E.

    Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

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

    Oswald, Thomas

    Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

    Paget, R. T.

    Small, William

    Winterbottom, R. E.

    Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Pargiter, G. A.

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Woof, Robert

    Parkin, B. T.

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

    Paton, John

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Zilliacus, K.

    Pavitt, Laurence

    Steele, Thomas

    Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Peart, Frederick

    Stones, William

    Mr. Lawson and

    Pentland, Norman

    Strachey, Rt. Hon. John

    Mr. Charles A. Howell.

    5.30 p.m.
    Mr. Houghton: I beg to move, in page 7, line 32, to leave out:
    "or of five per cent".
    The Temporary Chairman: The Chairman of Ways and Means said that with this Amendment there could be discussed the following Amendments: In page 7, line 32, leave out from "cent." to "and" in line 33 and insert:
    "a reference to a rate of ten per cent., and for any reference to a rate of five per cent., a reference to a rate of two per cent.".
    In line 33, at end insert:
    "for any reference to a rate of five per cent. a reference to a rate of two and a half per cent. and".
    In page 7, leave out lines 34 to 36.
    In line 38, leave out "Part II of".
    The Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu), in line 39, at end insert:
    (2) The foregoing subsection shall not apply to references to a rate of five per cent. in respect of Groups 6, 11 and 16 and for any such reference there shall be substituted a reference to a rate of one quarter of one per cent.
    The Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Cliffe), in line 39, at end insert:
    (2) The foregoing subsection shall not apply to references to a rate of five per cent. in respect of Groups 1, 2, 7 and 8 and for any such reference there shall be substituted a reference to a rate of one quarter of one per cent.
    1384
    In line 39, at end insert:
    (2) The foregoing subsection shall not apply to references to a rate of five per cent. in respect of Groups 6, 11 and 16 which shall be exempt.
    In Schedule 8, page 50, leave out lines 3 to 14.
    In page 50, leave out lines 5 and 6.
    In page 50, leave out lines 7 and 8.
    In page 50, leave out lines 9 to 13.
    The Chairman of Ways and Means also said that, if desired, a separate Division can be taken, when we come to them, on the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Edmonton and that in the name of the hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury.
    Mr. Houghton: The procedure which you have just announced to the Committee, Mr. Blackburn, is quite convenient to us, and we should wish, I think, when the time comes, to ask the Committee to take a decision on the two Amendments as you suggest.
    This Amendment is intended simply to reject the Chancellor's proposal to increase the 5 per cent. rate of Purchase Tax to 10 per cent. That is the narrow purpose of the Amendment though, of course, it has to be looked at in relation to accompanying proposals on Purchase Tax as a whole. What the Chancellor has done is to reduce the top rate of Purchase Tax, to leave the next highest rate of 25 per cent. as it was and to merge

    1385
    what were the 12½ per cent. and 5 per cent. rates into a new 10 per cent. rate.
    The right hon. and learned Gentleman has gone even further, of course, by introducing a new 15 per cent. rate which he is proposing to put on sweets, chocolate biscuits, soft drinks, and the rest, so that the pattern of Purchase Tax, if this Amendment is rejected, will be 45 per cent., the top rate, 25 per cent. the next rate, 15 per cent. the next rate, on the limited range of sweetmeats, and 10 per cent. the lowest rate. That will be the structure of the Purchase Tax as proposed in the Bill which we wish by the Amendment to change. What we want to do is to give the Committee an opportunity of rejecting the Chancellor's proposal to increase the lowest rate at 5 per cent. to 10 per cent.
    I wonder what the Chancellor's intentions are in this reconstruction of the Purchase Tax. I am sure that he takes no particular delight in doubling the Purchase Tax on clothing, footwear, head-gear, or furniture. I am sure that he has an underlying purpose in the proposal he makes. Perhaps we can see it from what he said in his Budget speech. He referred to grasping the nettle, and he said that
    "there must be unpleasant circumstances because some rates will have to go up, but I believe that we must begin to reform the structure of Purchase Tax, particularly if we are to go into Europe. I therefore intend to reduce the spread, or limits, of the rates."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th April, 1962; Vol. 657, c. 991.]
    The right hon. and learned Gentleman then proposed the changes which I have described to the Committee.
    In subsequent debates, the Chancellor was not very forthcoming as to how far or how fast he was proposing to move into the European pattern of indirect taxation. He was content to leave it at that. Yet most commentaries on that part of his Budget speech deduced from his remarks his intention to move towards a turnover or sales tax on the European model. At least, the Chancellor made no secret of his desire to flatten down the peak and to broaden the base of the tax at the bottom. That clearly seemed to be his intention.
    The effect of the Chancellor's proposal to increase the 5 per cent. rate to 10 per cent. has to be looked at not only in relation to the broad purposes which
    1386
    he has in mind, but in relation to the items which the increased tax will affect. The right hon. and learned Gentleman himself gave some examples in his Budget speech. He said that £100 worth of furniture would have its price raised by £2 17s. 6d. A £12 suit would go up by 7s. 6d. A £20 suit would go up by 12s. 6d. On the other side, he said that, with the reductions in Purchase Tax proposed, the price of a £600 car would be reduced by £34, the price of a £65 television set would be reduced by £3 5s., the price of £50 worth of carpets would go down by £1 3s., and £20 worth of cutlery would go down by 8s. 6d, There are, therefore, debits and credits in the merging of the 12½ per cent. rate with the 5 per cent. rate to make a consolidated 10 per cent. rate of tax.
    5.45 p.m.
    The increased tax covers a wide range of miscellaneous articles, a lot of them quite unexciting, many of them essential; but I think that they can be divided into two main groups: clothing, including footwear, and furniture, that is to say, articles in Group I of the classification and in Group II.
    It is very likely true—I cannot be absolutely certain about it—that the category of goods subject to Purchase Tax at the lowest rate of 5 per cent. has been yielding about £60 million a year. About £50 million of that £60 million comes from clothing. Clearly, therefore, the Chancellor's proposal means doubling the Purchase Tax on clothing and footwear, and the amount which those goods will yield to the Exchequer will rise from £50 million to £100 million a year. That seems to be the arithmetic. But, to be quite fair and to put the matter into perspective, I ought also to mention that the top rate of Purchase Tax has been yielding roughly £250 million a year. It has been contributing about one half of the total yield of the tax.
    If one looks at it as an instrument of taxation and considers the structure of the tax, it seems on the face of it out of balance that the top rate should yield so much and the lower rate relatively little towards the Purchase Tax. But we have to consider what type of goods we are taxing at the high

    1387
    rate and what type of goods we are taxing at the lower rate.
    In his Budget speech, the Chancellor said that the present Purchase Tax arrangements, by their disparity, implied a sort of moral judgment on what people should or should not buy. I do not think that there is any question of moral judgment in the matter at all. The Purchase Tax seems to me to be a tax on spending graduated according to individual desires for material things. Originally, it was a strong disincentive to the purchase of many things which people could do without in war time, or in a siege economy; but now the incidence of the tax is not so much a disincentive to the purchase of these desirable things as part of a contribution to national taxation which is made at the time of buying.
    I suppose that, on the whole, the Purchase Tax is based on the principle, the greater the joy of buying the higher the tax, which is not a bad principle, really and truly, when one comes to look at it from either a fiscal or a social point of view.
    Mr. Nabarro: What?
    Mr. Houghton: I say "on the whole". If one looks at the articles which are taxed at the highest rate and then at those which are taxed at the lowest rate, those at the highest rate are the nonessentials. I do not call them luxuries; they are desirable things, but they are not the necessities of life. What the Chancellor proposes to do is to step up the tax on the essential things, particularly clothing, footwear and furniture, and it is to this that we take exception.
    I suppose that one can discuss the principles of Purchase Tax and get bogged down in economic theory, getting nowhere in the end, because the Chancellor will always look at what sort of revenue he wants and how best he can obtain it. But I think that there is a problem in the Purchase Tax which will plague successive Chancellors for some time to come.
    Mr. Nabarro: Further reform will come next year.
    Mr. Houghton: We must enter repeated dissent from the approach to the
    1388
    matter frequently expressed by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro).
    In trying to see what was in the mind of the Conservative Party about Purchase Tax, I turned to an interesting little booklet, published at 9d, by the Conservative Political Centre, entitled "The Reform of Purchase Tax". In it is given the classic answer which was given to the House of Commons by a previous Chancellor, now Lord Amory, against the idea of a universal sales tax.
    Mr. Nabarro indicated assent.
    Mr. Houghton: The hon. Gentleman keeps nodding. Perhaps, one day, he will tell us what he is in favour of.
    Mr. Nabarro: I will tell the hon. Gentleman later, when I should be in order in doing so.
    Mr. Houghton: I will give the hon. Gentleman an opportunity in a minute. When my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) pressed him to say whether he envisaged the extension of some kind of tax to all clothing, including babies' clothing and babies' footwear, and an extension of it over the whole range of foodstuffs or services, the hon. Gentleman declined to answer. What is the hon. Gentleman advocating in the broader context of a tax of this kind?
    The Temporary Chairman: We must not start again, on this Amendment, what was out of order on the last Amendment. I hope that the hon. Member will not encourage the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) to try to get out of order.
    Mr. Nabarro: On a point of order, Mr. Blackburn. I have not been out of order at all while you have been in the Chair. Otherwise, you would have pulled me up. You did not pull me up.
    The Temporary Chairman: I shall have to pull the hon. Member up if he does get out of order.
    Mr. Houghton: I hope not to get out of order, whether the hon. Member for Kidderminster has been out of order or tries to get out of order.
    It is difficult to keep to the narrow issue, on an Amendment of this kind, without looking at the accompanying

    1389
    circumstances of its purpose and the context of the proposal made in the Clause as a whole. I shall do my best because there will later be an opportunity of discussing the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill", and that may be a more suitable time to look at the broader issues involved.
    Meanwhile, I wish to express dissent from the idea that a reformed Purchase Tax should embrace a wider and wider range of essential articles. It follows from that that we dissent from a reformed Purchase Tax which increases the tax on those articles at present attracting the lowest rate. Any move with the Purchase Tax to meet with satisfaction on these benches will have to be for the gradual exemption of more and more of the articles now taxed at the lower rate from the scope of the tax altogether. That is what we want.
    The Chancellor has been receiving many representations against the proposal to increase the 5 per cent. rate to 10 per cent. on essential clothing and footwear. I have here a copy of a letter sent to him in the last 24 hours from the British Footwear Manufacturers Federation and the Footwear Distributors Federation. They complain at the effect on their business and on the level of employment which even a small increase in tax of this kind will have, saying:
    "Whereas there may be approval of your plan to reform the Purchase Tax by moving towards a uniform rate, we are concerned that a distinction should be maintained between essential and non-essential goods."
    We subscribe to that in general principle; in other words, a reduction in the scope of Purchase Tax as a whole, retaining some measure of graduation by reference to common usage—to those goods which are essential to modest living as distinct from those which are symbols of an affluent society and which constitute an important feature of enjoyment and entertainment.
    6.0 p.m.
    If tax must be paid on goods and commodities people will pay it more cheerfully when buying the things they like and want than when buying the goods which they must have. I always feel that entertainment is something where more exploitation takes place compared with many other fields of
    1390
    social spending. When people are out to enjoy themselves, or when something is desirable, they are generally prepared to spend more to get it, and, incidentally, are prepared to pay some tax to get it. That, from the Chancellor's point of view, is a fairly good basis on which to work.
    Meanwhile, we must deal with the immediate issue of the rise from 5 per cent. to 10 per cent. on a wide range of goods which are so important, particularly to those living on small incomes. After all, nearly everything in the 5 per cent. range of tax represents goods which old-age pensioners and families with young children must have. The tax bears harder on them—the people who are struggling to live, to maintain decent standards and to do the best for themselves and their families than other sections of the community. That is why we object to it. We would like to see these things go out of the tax altogether.
    That seems to be the conclusion drawn in the Conservative pamphlet to which I referred. It states:
    "… the progressive simplification and reduction of this tax, as speedily as the inescapable needs of the revenue will permit, until by degrees we attain as nearly as possible the ideal of a flat-rate levy causing the minimum distortion to the allocation of our productive resources."
    There is nothing in that sentence about increasing Purchase Tax.
    My hon. Friends and I fear that this is only the beginning, especially since a flat rate of tax over the same range of articles now covered by Purchase Tax would have to be a rate of about 20 per cent. That was the percentage mentioned by Lord Amory, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Member has omitted to observe that by the means of bringing in additional articles this year—soft drinks, confectionery and sweets—it will now be possible for the rate to be a good deal less than 20 per cent. Lord Amory made the comments to which the hon. Member has referred about two years ago, so that the present level would be about 17½ per cent.
    Mr. Houghton: I was about to mention a figure concerning a flat rate of tax that I am sure that the hon. Member for Kidderminster will agree with;

    1391
    that it would certainly have to be substantially higher than 10 per cent.
    The Temporary Chairman: I think that the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) will agree that we are, once again, getting back to the subject of a sales tax. The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) said that he had not been out of order whilst I was in the Chair, but he is out of order now.
    Mr. Houghton: I was merely pointing out that my hon. Friends fear that the Chancellor's proposals to raise Purchase Tax from 5 per cent. to 10 per cent. is not the end of the story, but that it is really the beginning of a movement upwards affecting the lower ranges of Purchase Tax coming towards a flat rate which would be substantially higher than 10 per cent. If that is in the Chancellor's mind we must warn him once again about the dangers involved, because we would strongly oppose raising the Purchase Tax on the lower range of articles to achieve a flat rate of tax for Purchase Tax as a whole.
    That is our case against the proposed increase from 5 per cent. to 10 per cent. We are against the increase because of the articles that are affected by it, because of the people who must purchase the things concerned, because we fear that it is the beginning of a trend which we shall strongly oppose—that of a flat rate of tax over a large range of articles which will take it to above 10 per cent. In short, we consider that the whole thing is wrong in its immediate application and ultimate intention.
    Mr. John Hall: It is not very often that I find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), but I must confess that I have a great deal of sympathy with much of what he had to say. However, in my remarks, I wish to concentrate on a rather narrower group of goods, namely, furniture. The hon. Member for Sowerby referred to furniture as one of the necessities of life and I regret that he did not also include bedding, because even a golden bed is no use without some bedding and so the two go very much together.
    It is more than nine years since I had the privilege of making my maiden speech in the House and on that occasion
    1392
    I was concerned with the D Scheme affecting furniture. I made a strong plea then for a reduction of taxation and for the total abolition of the D Scheme. It was abolished a little later, but we have certainly not had the complete abolition of Purchase Tax. It seemed to have steadied itself at 5 per cent., but it now appears that the wheel has turned almost a complete circle and again we are pleading for a reduction of this tax on one of the necessities, on furniture, to prevent it going up into a higher rate.
    Tempted though I am to please my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), who is moved towards a flat rate of tax, I am still reluctant to see Purchase Tax go up to achieve that objective. Listening to my hon. Friend suggesting that the Tax should be increased and opposing any reduction in Purchase Tax is like listening to Satan rebuking sin—an unusual experience in this connection.
    Mr. Nabarro: With respect to my hon. Friend, that was not what I said at all. My hon. Friend tempts me to get out of order, but I will skate over the ice carefully. There might, of course, be an increase in the lower rate of Purchase Tax, but he must be fair and recognise that motor cars, cosmetics, radio and television, would come down from 45 per cent. to 16⅔ per cent., and electrical appliances, fur coats, etc., from 25 per cent. to 16⅔ per cent. That is of more importance to the nation's export trade than the furniture of High Wycombe.
    Mr. Hall: My hon. Friend tempts me to get even further out of order and to develop an argument about the contribution of the furniture trade to our exports. One of the problems which will face the furniture industry concerns its exposure to the competition of the Common Market, should we enter it. The industry must make certain that it is in a competitive position and an increase in Purchase Tax does not help that end at all.
    Over the last few years the industry has made great efforts to increase its exports and has not been unsuccessful in this attempt. But it is going to find itself at a slight disadvantage as a result of this increase. I do not want to be diverted into a discussion about the relative importance of certain sections of the

    1393
    economy or certain goods. I am talking about furniture and there are many other hon. Members who are much better qualified than I to stand up for their own pets—be they cars or carpets—and I will not infringe on their territory. I do not want to see furniture or, indeed, even carpets go up to 16⅔ per cent., which my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster has in mind.
    One of the unfortunate consequences of this recent increase in the tax is the way it gets through to the consumer, because it often bears little relation to the annual increase in Purchase Tax. In his Budget speech my right hon. and learned Friend mentioned that the increase would mean an extra £2 17s. 6d. per £100 of furniture sold. In fact, instead of that figure, the National Association of Retail Furnishers has made it clear that the additional cost to the customer for every £100 of furniture sold on a cash price basis is £4 per £100. On carpets it has been assumed that it would mean an increase of £3 for every £100 sold, but I gather that carpets have gone up in price rather than down following the Budget.
    If we are to have increases in Purchase Tax we should be able to ensure that retailers do not calculate their marked up prices on the Purchase Tax increment as well as on the cost of the goods. The Chancellor hoped that the Purchase Tax increase on furniture would amount to a total of 4½ per cent., but the figure is exactly 6½ per cent., and this is really disgraceful. On this basis the retailers should welcome every increase in Purchase Tax which enables them to add to their profit margins. This should be looked at by the Chancellor to see whether it is not possible for Purchase Tax to be isolated in the prices quoted in the shops so that only the actual Purchase Tax and the increase is added to the price and is not marked up along with the profit mark-up.
    Mr. Loughlin: I am in absolute agreement with the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall), but has he considered the difficulty that a retailer or manufacturer is entitled to put up his prices any time he likes?
    Mr. Hall: That is true, but at least the customer can see whether the increase represents an increase in the price
    1394
    of the goods or whether it is an increase in Purchase Tax disguised as an increase in the price of the goods. Many people are not able to calculate Purchase Tax variations and the effect they have on the prices of goods. It is easy for the manufacturer or retailer to say that the price has gone up but that Purchase Tax has also gone up recently. If it would not take me out of order I could quote a number of examples—quite outside the furniture industry—where this sort of thing has happened, where prices have increased far more than are justified by recent increases in Purchase Tax.
    Some manufacturers have endeavoured to persuade retailers not to put their mark-up on the Purchase Tax, and while they have found that some retailers have been prepared to co-operate they have also come up against an undesirable feature. In some cases they have been threatened—if that is not too strong a word to use—that if they supply retailers who do not put the additional mark-up on the increased Purchase Tax the retailers proposing not to act like that will cease to give their trade to the manufacturers in question. I do not think that "threat" is too strong a word to use in this context. The effect is that if one retailer gets out of line from the policy decided by the majority and agrees not to increase his prices by any more than is absolutely necessary as a result of increased Purchase Tax, the manufacturer who supplies him will be penalised by losing his trade with the others. I hope that this tendency will be looked into by my right hon. and learned Friend.
    It has been suggested by the Chancellor that although the Purchase Tax on furniture might slightly increase the cost, people setting up homes—the young married couples—will have the increase largely offset by a reduction in the Purchase Tax on floor coverings. This is really not true, because when setting up home one spends three or four times as much on furniture as one does on floor coverings. There is no Purchase Tax on houses, but one cannot turn a house into a home without furnishing it.
    As I say, furniture is a necessity and young people setting up home have enough problems to worry about. Apart from the cost of a house which, heaven knows, is high enough, the cost of furnishing it—with hire-purchase rates as

    1395
    high as they are and with interest on top of that—is most difficult for them. We really ought not to make it more difficult for young people to set up homes than it is already. My own Amendment to the Clause goes much further than the one we are now discussing. I should like to see the tax on furniture abolished altogether. I regard furniture as one of the necessities of life which should not be taxed at all.
    I am certain that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee would wish to support me, and therefore I do not want to take up more of their time, because I think I have made the point quite clear, but I should like to remind my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary, who, I imagine, will be replying to the debate, of a famous saying of Thomas Jefferson. I came across this saying in reading an article not long ago by Professor Parkinson. Professor Parkinson, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster knows only too well, is famous for the discovery of several important laws. I want to read this quotation which I came across in that article. Thomas Jefferson said:
    "I place economy among the first and most important of virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers to be feared. To preserve our independence we must not let our rulers load us with public debt. If we run into such debts, we must be taxed in our meat and drink, in our necessities and in our comforts, in our labour and in our amusements. If we can prevent the Government from wasting the labour of the people, under the pretence of caring for them, they will be happy."
    I draw my hon. Friend's attention to those words and I commend them to him.
    Mrs. Castle: I have been very interested in the speech of the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) and I am particularly glad that he drew attention to this device of an excessive mark-up which is taking place in the furniture industry. I myself do not represent a constituency with a furniture industry in it, but I have been sent by a furniture buyer—who asks that his name should be kept confidential, and who does not live in my constituency—a circular letter which is being sent out by Messrs. Staples and Company. It says on the increase of Purchase Tax:
    "We enclose copies of an amended retail price list which is calculated on a mark-up of 50 per cent. on the tax-inclusive wholesale price."
    1396
    This is just one example of the practice to which the hon. Gentleman has been drawing attention. Of course, we noticed on a previous occasion at Question Time that sweet manufacturers have been following exactly the same sort of principle. They have taken the increase in tax as an excuse for a mark-up generally in prices at the expense of the consumer. This shows us how very careful we ought to be in making any of these increases in taxation on essentials, not only because of the burden which the increases themselves put on the consumers but because they provide an opportunity for manufacturers and others to give another upward twist to the inflationary spiral and to pocket a little extra for themselves.
    It is really rather incredible that at this time, when the Government are trying to enforce an incomes policy of wage restraint, they should in so many directions be giving a greater encouragement to the rise in the cost of living by imposing through this Budget tax upon the essentials of life. We discussed the fuel tax yesterday and the effect on bus fares and other essential items, and now in discussing this series of Amendments to this Clause we are discussing a group of commodities which we would all agree are ones which have been classified as essential and non-luxury articles. I entirely endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) has said about the folly of increasing this range of tax from 5 per cent. to 10 per cent. He has been opposing the increase.
    6.15 p.m.
    In the Amendment in my name we want to go further. We want to reduce the existing 5 per cent. tax to one-quarter of 1 per cent. on a specific group of essential items, notably clothing, footwear, headgear, gloves, and certain minor articles of apparel like handkerchiefs, tissues and fabrics under 12 in. in width. We were all of us very alarmed when the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) welcomed generally the Purchase Tax proposals of the Government as being a contribution towards the levelling of Purchase Tax. He has welcomed this increase on the grounds that some part of the process of levelling has got to be by levelling up.
    Mr. Nabarro: Hear, hear.
    Mrs. Castle: He says it quite openly and he has justified this on the ground that there ought to be a uniform rate of tax, and that we ought to gravitate towards it.
    Those of us associated with my Amendment want to have the process of levelling in a different direction. We think that the time has come for an extension of the range of articles which are exempt from Purchase Tax altogether. I understand from the various rather confused and contradictory interruptions by the hon. Member for Kidderminster that he accepts the principle of exemption. He believes there is a case for exempting certain articles. I will give him an opportunity to correct me if I am wrong.
    Mrs. Slater: My hon. Friend is quite right.
    Mrs. Castle: He has contradicted himself. It is rather useful on occasions to do so, because one can then, as occasion necessitates, quote other statements one has made when certain statements are quoted against one. I have no doubt that at certain electoral moments certain of the hon. Gentleman's statements will be quoted against him and that he will be able to quote others which he has made. At any rate, he did say at one stage in this afternoon's proceedings that there should not be a tax on goods already exempt.
    So there is a case for exemption, and the question we are discussing on my Amendment is whether the time has come to add to the list of exemptions, or rather, getting to as near to that as we may, whether we should reduce the tax from 5 per cent. to one-quarter of 1 per cent. I do not need to explain to hon. Members that under the procedure of the Finance Bill we could not move for the total exemption because we should be out of order, and, therefore, we have to move as near to the point of total exemption as we are allowed to under the procedure, and that is to one-quarter of 1 per cent. The reason is that we think that the items covered by my Amendment clearly rank for exemption as strongly as a number of the articles which have already been exempted, and for the same reason, because they are items of
    1398
    an essential nature. This country has not gone nudist yet and we all have to wear clothing, footwear and gloves and use handkerchiefs and the rest.
    There is, of course, an additional argument here. The hon. Member for Kidderminster objects to our making moral judgments or social judgments about the imposition of a tax. I do not agree with him on that, but I should have thought, however, that even he would have agreed that we are entitled to make certain industrial judgments in the matter of the imposition of tax. From that point of view I want to make a very special plea here for urgently needed help to be given both to the textile and the footwear industries, and an obvious and very effective way of doing it by this Budget would have been to have abolished Purchase Tax on clothing and footwear and these others items altogether.
    Indeed, I think it is really typical of the Government's attitude to the textile industries in general and the cotton industry in particular that at the very moment when the cotton industry is going through one of its worst crises since the end of the war the Government should introduce a Budget in which they propose to increase the tax on clothing and certain other textile articles from 5 per cent. to 10 per cent. It is really adding injury to the endless insults which the cotton industry has suffered at the hands of this Government. Therefore, I am most strongly opposing the increase in tax—I am asking for it to be abolished altogether.
    The footwear industry is in a similar situation. I have a slipper factory in my constituency belonging to Messrs. Newman's. The firm has written to me pointing out most strongly the additional difficulties which this increase will place upon it at a time when it has been going through plenty of its own due to economic circumstances. It points out the effect which the recent recession has had on demand. It has lead to the accumulation of stocks. The firm says that buyers have been holding off ever since the autumn of 1961 and the weather has not helped. It never does help in this country. In addition, it, too, has been feeling the pressure of cheap

    1399
    imports from Hong Kong and from the Continent, and it points out:
    "It is generally felt that the situation will only be relieved by a good summer in 1962, a general fillip in the national prosperity, and the consequent running down of retailers' stocks. The increase in Purchase Tax in the 1962 Budget will be an added burden on the industry."
    I am not pretending that the Government can control the weather which we shall have in 1962, but they are directly responsible for giving a fillip to the national economy, on the one hand, and for placing additional burdens on particular industries, on the other.
    Of course, all these arguments apply with even greater force to the cotton industry. I had a most interesting letter the other day from a Preston firm which brought home the very real effect of the increase in tax. This is not hypothetical, and I hope that the Economic Secretary is not going to say that the consequence of this tax will be so minor that it will not have much effect. I want him to listen to this example which was sent to me by a firm dealing in men's wear and industrial overalls. It wrote as follows:
    "Our associated manufacturing company … who supply us and many other industrial firms received a phone call yesterday from a Liverpool laundry, who do a clean overall service, cancelling all orders for overalls. Our associates supply them with about £800 worth of overalls each month. We know that they also buy from three other firms of overall manufacturers. The reason for the cancellation is the increase in Purchase Tax on these garments. They say that this will increase their costs by about £3,000 per annum, and they have decided to supply in the future only Empire or foreign made overalls. These imported garments are, of course, several shillings less in price than those made in this country, and this will more than cancel out the new Purchase Tax rates. As you will probably know, we in Lancashire have been fighting this problem for some years. It is a heavy blow to us to find that this competition will be intensified as a result of the Governments action in raising the precentage of Purchase Tax on industrial overalls."
    In the light of that letter, I ask the Economic Secretary to listen most seriously to our plea for the exemption of clothing and these other minor textile articles and footwear from the tax.
    I am sure that he knows the desperate struggle which Lancashire is having to hold its own with cheap imports. It is madness for us to expect Lancashire in-
    1400
    dustrialists to meet this competition with one hand tied behind their backs, with the 5 per cent. tax, and for the Government now to tie their other hand behind their backs with an increase in that tax. On the contrary, I ask for its abolition.
    Is it not absurd that industrial overalls should carry Purchase Tax at all? The firm which I have mentioned points out that it used to be exempt under the Utility Scheme and says:
    "No man or woman buys or wears Industrial Overalls except from necessity and we feel that this is an imposition on Industrial Overall wearers and will be an additional incentive to wage increase demands. The tax on a Boiler-suit amounts now to about 3s. per garment and many wearers have to buy several in the course of twelve months. We think that there is a strong case for these garments to be exempt from this tax."
    Admittedly, this is a matter of only a few shillings here and there, and every time that we make a protest the Government say that the amount is minute. But all these things are cumulative and they are all in the same direction, the direction of imposing additional burdens on an industry or on an individual, with the net result that the problems of the industrialists are made more difficult and the cost of living for individuals is increased. This makes nonsense of the Government's incomes policy, and I hope that this afternoon they will make a more sensible approach.
    6.30 p.m.
    Mr. Geoffrey Hirst: My Amendment in page 7, line 32, to leave out from "cent." to "and" in line 33 and to insert:
    "a reference to a rate of ten per cent., and for any reference to a rate of five per cent., a reference to a rate of two per cent.".
    has been selected by the Chair for discussion and I say at once that it goes somewhat further than the Opposition Amendment. That was my contribution, so far as a back bencher can make a contribution, to making sure that this matter was discussed. But in order to close the ranks between Her Majesty's Opposition and myself, by no means an easy task, I am prepared to accept the basis of their Amendment and not worry too much about my own. Their Amendment seeks to leave the tax where it is. I know that they have other ambitions later, but we will leave it at that for the moment. I am ready to accept their

    1401
    Amendment, and if my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer can agree to it, I shall be perfectly satisfied and happy to withdraw any further opposition on this item.
    It always seems to be my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary who is on the Front Bench when I come here with my armour-piercing bullets. I am sorry about that and I hope that he appreciates that I do not make inquiries beforehand. It is just a coincidence and I trust that he is prepared to receive these bullets.
    I think nothing of this tax. There cannot be any excuse for it and I cannot find any in the Budget statement. My right hon. and learned Friend referred in his Budget speech rather jocularly to grasping the nettle. I do not know what that will profit him, because if he comes to the West Riding of Yorkshire, to my constituency of Shipley or to the neighbouring towns of Bradford or Leeds, which are concerned with the making-up end of the clothing trade, I can assure him that he will be "properly stung" on this matter.
    Let us get this matter into proper perspective, because I am the first to acknowledge that the actual amount per garment is not very great. But the effect is substantially greater than the figures show. No doubt my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary has come with a perfect brief on this matter, but I hope that he will appreciate that the argument about shillings and pence per garment begs many questions. The trade to which the Amendment refers and with which I am most closely associated is having a difficult time. All the sections of it are experiencing difficulty, including man-made fibres, let alone natural fibres. The same is true of the furniture trade, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) has said.
    But this is the time which the Government have chosen for this so-called tidying-up operation. It is a completely irresponsible choice. Trade and custom in this country cannot be treated in the manner of tidying up a kitchen when friends are coming to dine. This is not a tidying-up matter at all, but fundamental and serious. If there were some purpose in this Finance Bill connected with tidying-up operations and to implement heaven only knows how many of
    1402
    the vague statements about turnover tax and similar things to which it would be wrong to do more than refer in passing, there might be some excuse for this so-called tidying-up operation. But we have had no more than vague statements and there has not been a scientific study of a turnover tax or any other method to be used as an alternative to Purchase Tax.
    This blow has been dealt at a time when the wool textile trade is facing difficulties. The industry has a colossal export-earning record and has been one of the best industries in the matter of co-operation with all Governments, irrespective of party, in the export trade. It has been dealt a psychological blow. I am being careful not to use exaggeration. I know the figures per garment only too well and I do not want to have them quoted even from the Treasury Bench, unless that is essential, because they have no relevance.
    What has a relevance is the timing of the tax. It is that which many people do not understand. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden), with his knowledge of the trade, will confirm that people are saying that this is not the time to buy. The tax has been virtually doubled, although that has been done in a rather tricky manner with the use of regulators on and off!
    I know that the tax is still a matter of shillings and pence, and nobody need tell me that again. In fact, I shall almost cry if I am told it again. I am not interested in that. Let me kill that part of the Treasury brief stone dead before it is uttered. We shall get it because the ammunition has already been sent from the Department; it is travelling over the air; it is not on target, but it is in the air somewhere.
    But that has nothing to do with it. I am concerned with the psychological effect. People are saying that the tax has gone up and some say that it has doubled. Anyone who has any connection with these industries knows what has always been obvious—that the one thing which people can do without for a time is clothing. From our experience in the days of the war we have learned that one can do without buying clothes; one can make them last a little longer and be more shabby and cut down one's interest in fashion.

    1403
    But what happens to the export trade? The home base is further inflicted with the sort of damage which means that firms are unable to spread costs and so keep their prices down to the point where they can compete in overseas markets. This tidying-up process, this grasping of some irresponsible nettle which should not be there, for my right hon. and learned Friend should have stuck to the garden path and not gone into the labyrinth of the trees to find this nettle, is damaging our export trade. I can do nothing but pour scorn on this measure, which is one of the greatest pieces of nonsense which I have ever seen perpetrated in a long time. I could have expressed myself much more strongly.
    There is one other factor. I am not absolutely sure what liaison there is between the Treasury and the Board of Trade in these matters, although I am always hoping that it is fairly good—I keep my fingers crossed. I do not know whether anyone in the Treasury heard the whisper—my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary, who is a good, industrious Yorkshire Member, must have known and other members of the Government must have known—about what was going on in Yorkshire. My very good friend the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. W. J. Taylor), I am sure, will have conveyed the whisper to the Treasury.
    In Yorkshire we have been organising a wool promotion scheme to try to build up our section of the textile trade. It has been going for same time and it has taken some time to mount it. The scheme having been planned, along come the Government—I must use a suitable word—to mess it up with Purchase Tax. The whole background of the scheme went bang. This is precisely what has happened.
    I have been begging and praying people in the textile trade to get together in sales promotion for years. I have been selling for most of my life and I have been playing my part in pushing the bits and pieces of the textile trade into getting together in this purpose. But this is' not an easy industry to organise, because it has so many individualists. What I wanted was a higher level of salesmanship so that we could
    1404
    promote the use of wool. A magnificent campaign was started and then, as a sort of third edition of the campaign, we had a double lift in Purchase Tax. What a time to choose. What a time for no purpose at all to choose to pinch a bit more revenue from a place from which it should not be pinched in order to use it somewhere else. I am sure that the brief will refer to the revenue being used somewhere else. I am sure that I know that brief as well as my hon. Friend—although I should find it more difficult to use because I should not be so sure of its capacity and sincerity as my hon. Friend is. I should not believe a word.
    The time has come when I am not just prepared to be a speaker from this side of the Committee and not follow it to a conclusion. The point is absolutely clear. I am not in the least interested in the financial argument which I have heard repeatedly. I hope that some of us on both sides of the Committee will have convinced my right hon. and learned Friend of the necessity to "give the wink" to the Economic Secretary to give way on this Amendment, but I do not believe it for a moment. So much do I not believe it—and I am speaking perfectly clearly—that, my Amendment not having been selected for separate discussion, if the Labour Party presses its Amendment to a Division, I shall vote for it against the Government.
    Mr. Austen Albu: I only hope that there are other hon. Members opposite who feel as the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) does and who will carry their voices into the Lobby as he says that he will do.
    He has been too long in this game and is too long experienced to believe that in these matters of taxation, particularly in Purchase Tax, there is any liaison between the Treasury and the Board of Trade. I have long reached the conclusion that in matters of taxation which affect industries, manufacturing or transport, the Treasury acts in an extraordinarily independent way even though the taxation may severely affect the cost of transport, which concerns the Ministry of Transport, or industrial promotion, which concerns the Board of Trade.
    I am convinced that these taxes are adjusted in this way for Treasury

    1405
    reasons without taking account of their industrial and economic effects. On the other hand, there is a little more to it than a tidying-up operation to which the hon. Member referred. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) and others that there is a longer-term policy in this to which voice is given much more vigorously by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) than anybody else. That is the move of Purchase Tax towards some sort of sales tax or turnover tax at a flat rate. It is this policy of moving towards a flat rate to which we are opposed. It is, of course, only part of the argument with which we are supporting our Amendment.
    The hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) referred to the increased tax on furniture. A lot of furniture is made in Wycombe, but he will agree that a great deal more is made in the boroughs of North London, one of which I represent. There is a great deal of complaint not only about the raising of the tax but, as in so many consumer goods industries, of which there are some in my constituency, about the continual changing of the levels of tax. It is difficult for manufacturers to maintain a constant level of production if they never know from one year to the next whether the tax is going up or down, and over the last few years almost every year there have been changes in the level of taxation on consumer goods which have been very confusing to manufacturers. It is extremely difficult to see what argument the Government can have for doubling the level of taxation on necessary consumer goods.
    I make no apology for believing that one can distinguish some types of goods from some others. During the last few years the Government have altered the basis of direct taxation very much in favour of the better-off and against the less-well-off. The changes which are taking place now, however justified they might be at some other time, are only a further step towards altering the balance of taxation, I do not say in favour of the rich and against the poor but in favour of the better-off against the less-well-off. There is no doubt that the tax which is being put on clothing and furniture, which are essential articles, on the whole affects the less-well-off more than it affects those who are better-off.
    1406
    Arguments have been adduced many times about the effect of taxation on furniture. Furniture is bought largely by young couples setting up house for the first time, and they buy it is comparatively large quantities. They nearly always have to buy on hire-purchase arrangement, which means that not only is there the increase in tax but there is also the increase in the retailer's profit and the increase in hire-purchase charges which are piled on top of the increase in Purchase Tax. There is no other way in which these young people can set up a home, and the effect of this tax on them, buying furniture on hire-purchase, is much greater than it would be in the case of articles which are bought in small quantities one or two at a time, at the cost of a few shillings.
    The effects are particularly serious at a time when mortgage rates are high and are not being reduced even commensurate with the reduction in the Bank Rate. The cost for young people setting up homes is very high. It is extraordinary that at a time when the Government are trying to hold down wage increases they should take steps to increase the cost of living for young people—and it is the younger people who are likely to have the smaller incomes. It is almost impossible to understand why they do it at this time.
    I know nothing about the textile industry other than that which I have read, but I recognise that a tax on this industry at present might be disastrous. The industry is going through very serious difficulties. I have no textile industry in my constituency, but I have a furniture industry and other consumer goods industries, and they are particularly affected by the changes. It is not only the consumer but also the producer who does not know from one year to the next what the level of tax will be and what will be the level of demand. It is very difficult to do market research, to study the likely sales and to determine production plans if taxes are continually changed.
    There is a special point about furniture. I am glad that reference had been made to the insidious practices that are sometimes adopted by retailers, for retailers in this industry have not a very good reputation, and practices of the sort described by hon. Members

    1407
    have been going, on for many years. Because much furniture is bought on hire-purchase, it is difficult for the purchasers, who often do not have a great deal of business knowledge, to know what they are paying for the goods. I should have thought that the kind of practices which have been described would come under the survey of the Restrictive Practices Court, but of course they do not, because there is no written agreement, but there is no doubt that this is the sort of practice which should be condemned and on which legislation ought to be introduced, although I can hardly argue that now.
    I plead with the Government to reconsider the tax on furniture, the effect of which has been described eloquently during the debate. I ask them to bear in mind the likely effect on wage demands and on young people who are getting married. I sincerely hope that the powerful arguments which have been used on both sides of the Committee will lead to the acceptance of some Amendment on this occasion at any rate.
    6.45 p.m.
    Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: Most of us from time to time find it extremely difficult to be consistent over the years in all that we do, especially in matters concerning the Finance Bill. I am reminded of the Autumn Budget of 1955, which I have always called the "kitchen clatter" Budget, or the "pots and pans" Budget of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. The noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) and I trooped into the Lobby on the Budget Resolution which had the effect of putting Purchase Tax on those items, and the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) was, I believe, overheard to say that the Socialist Party on that occasion had the last of the Tories and the last of the Whigs with them, although they were not quite certain which was which.
    The one thing which the Government must keep in mind is that they are trying to operate a wage restraint policy. They must get it firmly into their heads, if they have not already done so, that they will not succeed with this policy or get the co-operation which they want for this policy over the long term unless they
    1408
    do their best to prevent prices from rising. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) for having done the arithmetic, because this has saved me from having to do it. Let us be blunt about it. This tax doubles a sum which has been running at £25 million a year. A sum of £50 million is to be raised from this tax, assuming that the rate is increased from 5 to 10 per cent.—and £50 million is a lot of money. It would more than cover the increase in nurses' salaries.
    The Government must be very careful about how they adjust levels of Purchase Tax. Of all the financial policies of the Labour Party, I find myself most in sympathy with their contention that direct taxation is better than indirect taxation. I say that because I like everybody who pays tax to know how much tax he is paying. The trouble with indirect taxation such as this is that few people know how much they are paying at the time of purchase.
    I accept the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) about furniture and some of the points made by the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu). This tax hits young, newly-married couples severely. But in this instance it is not the degree of the tax about which I am greatly worried but how many people who pay it yet do not know they are paying it. The Treasury has always had the reputation of trying to disguise as much as it possibly can that anybody is paying any tax and to get as many people other than the Inland Revenue to collect the tax, because it is cheaper for the Revenue if they do.
    Many of us feel that the rates of tax are already too high, but I will not develop that case because it is not relevant in detail to the Amendment. I want to see the Government aiming at eliminating all forms of indirect taxation, especially Purchase Tax. I want it to go altogether. I will not elaborate the arguments in favour of that, but I want to see a graduated Income Tax for everybody so that nobody pays none. I want to see the tax system simplified a great deal.
    This change proposed by the Chancellor is not a very bold step towards simplification, and I find it most inconsistent of the Government. They say

    1409
    that they are concerned about being accused of trying to exercise a code of morality concerning what is a good thing to buy and what is a bad thing to buy. But this change in taxation does not eliminate that. The Government are still in the position of taxing things which people buy; they raise the level of taxation on some things and lower it on others. It is an odd argument to say that they are doing it to avoid the accusation that they are trying to operate a code of morality over what people should buy and what they should not buy.
    Had I not been in Berlin on Budget day I might have been seriously inclined to vote against the Budget Resolution upon which hangs this part of the Finance Bill. But as I was there and as I have not heard my right hon. Friend speak on the subject, nor has he had an opportunity to argue in my presence the case for doing this, I shall wait until I hear the Economic Secretary's reply before I decide what I shall do. It may be that I shall have to do what my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) has said that he will do, if only to be consistent with what I have done in the past.
    It is nonsense to argue that this change is part of preparing to go into Europe. We are selling very successfully in Europe already, and exports are expanding month by month. We are in Europe already for trading. It is a very poor argument to say that this change is necessary as a preparation for going into Europe.
    Mr. Hirst: Does not my hon. Friend agree that our entry into the Common Market is made more difficult by this action?
    Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I entirely agree, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support.
    I want people to know the true price of things. I want to see us getting out of this shambles of indirect taxation which we have been in for too long. I pray in aid my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) and something which he said at Bletchley in Buckinghamshire on 16th March, which was reported on 17th March. He is reported as having said:
    1410
    "The party had been in office for eleven years and some of the leaders thought they were going to remain there for ever. They had become terribly smug and complacent about their behaviour and divorced from the realities of everyday life in their constituencies."
    I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I only wish he had agreed with me a little more in February along the same lines.
    Mr. Nabarro: What my hon. Friend said on the earlier occasion was that the Prime Minister should quit. What I said in the speech from which he has just quoted was that some of our leaders had become out of touch. That is a very different matter.
    Sir H. Legge-Bourke: At least my hon. Friend is at one with me in this. Both he and I have one great object, to try to stop inflation. I do not believe that we can hope to stop inflation, unless we get the co-operation of those whom we are asking to be restrained in their demands for wages. I do not believe that we shall get that co-operation unless we do what we can to prevent prices rising. It appals me to see the Government in this Clause, and against this Amendment, doing that very thing, raising £25 million more from an indirect Purchase Tax. This is quite out of keeping with the general aim which I think they are right to pursue.
    Mr. R. T. Paget: This is a debate in which I have had the rare experience of agreeing with almost every word that I have heard. The only disappointment to me so far has been the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro). He is one of my heroes in the House of Commons, a man who always speaks his mind. For him to hide behind the loose expression "some of my leaders", instead of pointing his finger at them and saying just who in the voice which we all know, is below his form. I am disappointed in him.
    Mr. Nabarro: It is not fair. The hon. and learned Gentleman is another member of the Opposition who does not do his homework. Only a few weeks ago I pointed an accusing finger at the Minister of Power and said that he was a weak, weak Minister and should resign. That is just one example.
    Mr. Paget: Is the poor Minister of Power some of our leaders"? Surely the hon. Gentleman can do better than

    1411
    that. We know. We can help him. Apart from that, there seems to be such happy agreement that I hope that when we meet later in the Lobby we shall be able to form a society for the abolition of indirect taxation on all-party lines.
    I want to deal with boots and shoes. We have had furniture. We have had textiles. I am not at all certain that the case for the boot and shoe industry is not the strongest of all. The industry is in very considerable difficulties. They are to a considerable degree difficulties which have been created by the Government. It is an industry which even in times of very full employment like this finds itself on part-time. To increase taxation here seems the oddest thing to do.
    7.0 p.m.
    I do not know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is everybody's favourite man, but he must at any rate be the civil servant's favourite man. Nobody who was not a civil servant, with the tidy-mindedness for which civil servants are well known, could give that priority to tidiness over every other consideration—over the question of who is hit most, over the question of where they look for capacity to pay and over the question of which industries are in difficulty and which are not. Over all these things this Chancellor gives priority to tidiness. I think it was a great Liberal Chancellor who said that the main function of Ministers was to tell civil servants what the people just would not stand. That is just what the Chancellor seems incapable of doing. He is always, at the behest of his civil servants, doing just the sort of things which the people ought not to stand. This is one such action.
    The boot and shoe industry is the principal industry in my constituency. It is not that we have been a bad industry. It is not that we have been a badly run industry. Our industrial relations are model. We have not had a strike in our industry since 1887. Our performance with regard to prices has been very good. As against before the war, our increase in prices is more than one-third less than the country's average. Our increase in prices since 1956 is 11 per cent., as against a national average of 16 per cent. Nobody can say that the industry is doing badly.
    1412
    It is also an industry which is not run at a low labour cost. Our product is just the sort of light consumer product in which, because we use a natural thing like leather, labour must always play a very considerable part. Leather comes from animals. It is not standard. No two skins are alike. Therefore, the extent to which the industry can be mechanised is limited.
    It is also an industry which especially appeals to the newly industrialised countries. It is pre-eminently the type of industry favoured in India and Japan. Before long Africa will be going into this industry. It is the type of industry which suits them. Because these countries are developing this industry themselves and protecting their own industries, we have found ourselves excluded from one market after another. It is not that we have not been doing well in those export markets in which the door is left open. It is precisely for the reasons which I have mentioned—they are very natural reasons and we have no right to complain about them; they are valid reasons—that we have been finding doors closed to us. This is one of the causes, for which we are not to blame, which bring difficulties on us.
    Another cause is European competition, which we should fairly meet. However, there is one factor in this competition which is very much resented. Leather is available to the European manufacturer cheaper than it is to the British manufacturer. On the whole, the best kids and calves are European. We can get those leathers only after paying a duty which is designed to protect the Commonwealth. The case for Commonwealth Preference may be quite a good one. However, there is a rather special consideration as regards leather, because Commonwealth leathers are not up to the standard of European leathers. In Africa there are the fly and thorn troubles. India, which used to produce good skins, is more and more using them herself. She is not allowing their export.
    The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Robert Grimston): The hon. and learned Member is going a little wide. I am trying to follow how he is relating this argument to the Amendment.
    Mr. Paget: I am pointing out that the Government are doubling the taxation

    1413
    on this industry just at a time when it is in trouble. I am trying to tell the Committee what the industry is suffering from. It is suffering from being excluded from the old Commonwealth markets, markets of relatively backward areas which are now industrialising themselves. We are suffering from European competition in which we are put at a disadvantage because we have to pay an import duty on the best leathers from Europe to protect Commonwealth leathers which are being less available to us. My case here is that the Government already put a discriminatory tax on leather. It is not right for them now to double Purchase Tax. That is my case, but I will now pass from the point.
    Another point is the very considerable threat that not only will the Japanese, particularly, go into our old markets but that they will be coming into this one. Some of the multiple stores which have been concerned in take-over bids appear to be negotiating in that direction. The industry is already in fairly serious trouble which it is not in a position to deal with itself. It is trouble which events have brought on to the industry.
    In addition to Government taxation preference putting up the price of our goods, the same preference puts up the price of our machinery. For instance, only the other day the biggest tanner in my constituency wanted to import French machinery. He satisfied the Board of Trade that it was at least 5 per cent. better than the competitive British machinery. The Board of Trade still would not release him from the tax on importing a French machine because although the British machine was admittedly less efficient there still was an alternative British machine. This is yet another effect of the tax. The same tanner tells me that he has had this year, for all these reasons, a 50 per cent. fall making it the worst year he has ever had.
    We have this admirable system of industrial relations. It is very largely because wages have been linked to the cost of living. The Government have put up the cost of living, with the result that they have put up the wages of the boot and shoe industry. By Government action again—through import duty on the leather, through import duty on the machinery and through increased wages—a heavy burden is put on the industry.
    1414
    The Government now take this action of increasing the Purchase Tax. It is beyond all rhyme or reason. And they do it for the sake of tidiness. Right through the ancient industry of the cobblers of Northampton when this is done to them and they go from short-time to unemployment—there is little difference between the two—all one can say to them is, "The Government did this to you because they are a tidy Government". It is a ludicrous thing to do and I ask the Government to have second thoughts about it.
    Lieut.-Commander S. L. C. Maydon: I think that all of us on both sides of the Committee object to any rate of taxation being increased, but I would not go with my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) in objecting to indirect taxation. It seems to me much more common sense, in order to steady the economy, to tax the spending rather than the earning. We are always trying to bolster up the nation's savings and if we were to tax earnings and not spendings it would seem to me to be the worst way of going about it.
    It is not so much to the rise in this rate of taxation that I object as to the existing anomalies which will be accentuated thereby. The class of goods formerly taxed at 5½ per cent. and now to be taxed at 10 per cent. include a fairly wide range of industrial protective clothing of various kinds. These will rise with the others with two exceptions, protective boots and protective helmets. This therefore will widen the gap between the industrial protective clothing on which the taxes will be increased and the exempted articles. This does not seem to me to make sense.
    I wrote shortly after the Budget to my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary and he, with his customary courtesy, replied on 4th May. I should like to read to the Committee one short passage from that reply. It is as follows:
    "The possibility of exempting protective clothing from tax has in fact received repeated consideration but successive Governments have been forced to the conclusion that it is impossible to devise a comprehensive definition which would cover all items of clothing of that description without eroding the tax."
    I quite see the point about eroding the tax and I entirely agree with it, but how

    1415
    can it be that protective boots and protective helmets do not erode the tax when other forms of protective clothing do so? This seems to me not to make sense.
    I understand that these two items have been exempted for many years but a class which I should like to see included with them is that of industrial safety gloves. It is difficult to see how this could be done without eroding the tax but these safety gloves are made for particular industries to precise specifications under the British Standards Institution. Firstly, therefore, it would be very easy to distinguish and define them from ordinary gloves or gauntlets.
    It could be argued that they might be used for non-industrial purposes. It is true that there are a number of types which could be so used. I suggest that to prevent this dangerous erosion of the tax only the types orded by a bona fide manufacturing industry which would require gloves specified by the British Standards Institution to protect its work-people in processes generally recognised to be carried on within that industry should be allowed a rebate on the tax for such protective clothing.
    7.15 p.m.
    I am not asking for exemption for this class of goods. In the first place, that would not be in order and secondly, and a far better reason, a rebate of tax is much more manageable a device than the exemption from tax of a wide variety of articles. All I ask the Economic Secretary to consider is that the company requiring the industrial gloves must establish that it is engaged in processes where its workpeople require the protection of the kind afforded by the gloves, secondly, that the number of gloves ordered by the company is not excessive, and, thirdly, that they should be of a type conforming to the B.S.I. specifications.
    This would mean that anybody who went to an ironmonger's store to buy gloves of such a type over the counter in one or two pairs at a time would not receive the rebate of tax. It would be granted only in cases where reasonably large orders were given by an industry to the glove-making industry itself. I am sure that this could be done and that it would be manageable to the Customs
    1416
    and Excise. I ask my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to reconsider this proposition.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: I have heard the whole debate on this subject and every speech I have heard has been one of objection to the proposition which the Economic Secretary is about to defend. The hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) seemed to know what was in the brief. I do not, but I hope that when the Economic Secretary speaks he will try to justify one of the assertions he made in an earlier debate which is apposite to this discussion.
    As far as I could grasp it, the hon. Gentleman's earlier argument was that there was no principle involved in the selection of articles taxed and that no principle had been laid down by the Labour Government or this Government. The hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) mentioned that some articles untaxed by previous Governments had been taxed for the first time in the autumn of 1955 and that he had objected to those proposals and had voted against them. He mentioned pots and pans and other domestic essentials which were brought into tax by that autumn Budget. That answers the Economic Secretary.
    At a time when the Chancellor of the Exchequer is talking about grasping the nettle, to dig up the past is relevant only in what one might argue about exemptions. It is pointless for the Government now to argue that they ought to receive credit for this, that and the other on the ground that they have altered the rates of Purchase Tax and made them simpler. The Government now derive over £500 million from Purchase Tax whereas when they came into power they received only £300 million. It is, therefore, hardly a matter of congratulation to them when they say that they are lowering and altering the various rates from time to time.
    I do not represent particular interests in industry but I want to protest as a consumer about the way in which these matters are moving. My hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) argued this at length. I should like to take up one point which has been taken up earlier and say that I am extremely dissatisfied that in rationalising these rates we should be going from a lower

    1417
    to a higher rate. I should have thought that the wiser thing to do was to have looked at articles within the lower rates, decided whether the taxes on them were still a valid proposition and then put them in higher categories. That would seem to me to be a more sensible way of going about it than by moving articles at present in certain groups from one percentage to another.
    The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Wells (Lieut.-Colonel Maydon) argued the case—I do not agree with his argument—for rebates. I think that would mean imposing a very large administrative apparatus, which I think would be quite unnecessary. I think that it would be better to have a clear exemption system. I could define the exemptions very precisely if it were necessary. I think that the rebate system is a non-starter. I think, however, that his general argument that we ought to have wider groups of exemption is a very sound one: This is what I do not like about the proposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the attitude of the Economic Secretary. I agree with the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) that the Chancellor has to make a rational case for what he is doing. We have had a most unscientific approach from the Chancellor to this whole proposition. If the nettle is to be grasped, we ought to have some explanation of how the Chancellor will grasp it in the future. I should like to ask him to justify the reason for keeping certain articles within the groups and not exempting them, and I should like him to tell us what he intends to do in the future.
    There is a number of anomalies within the present Purchase Tax system. One can understand why, for example, we tax hats but not protective headgear. No doubt other hon. Members could argue that there are certain forms of protective headgear in use which are not exempted items but which are used in certain industries and should be exempt. Similarly, in the case of boots. We have a tax on boots but we also exempt from tax certain protective boots. Are we certain that we have exempted them all? We exempt photographic paper used with x-ray plates but we tax photographic paper as such. Are we sure that taxation of all photographic materials is a wise proposition? I would not say
    1418
    that I or any other hon. Member has the right to lay down in this debate what things should be exempted. I think that, as far as one can, one should be objective about this matter. I do not suggest that hon. Members who represent constituency interests are necessarily lacking in objectivity, but it may be said that they are indulging in special pleading for particular items.
    I think that a Treasury committee or some independent body should advise the Chancellor about priorities of exemption on certain goods which are taxed at present. If we are to believe the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro)—there seems to be some contradiction about what he believed but no doubt he will expatiate at length on what he does believe on these matters—he is in favour of our having some general kind of turnover tax and perhaps that the Chancellor should make these three taxes into one.
    I would object to this because it would involve taking in all the present articles cited in the Purchase Tax booklet which we have here. The objection which I have, and which I should like the Treasury spokesman to answer, to raising the rates of tax on the articles which are now carrying 5 per cent. and putting them up to 10 per cent. is first on the ground that no attempt has been made to work out whether these particular items should not be exempted.
    Various arguments have been used against this in the past, and no doubt they will be used again in the future. In my own profession, we have Purchase Tax exemption for certain drugs. There is also a heavy tax of 25 per cent. on other drugs. There is no medical justification, in my opinion, for distinguishing between one set of drugs and another. I readily admit that one set of drugs is based on the National Formulary and has the blessing of the Cohen Committee, but that Committee would never suggest that other drugs do not have quite as good a pharmacological effect as the ones in the National Formulary.
    There seems to be little rhyme or reason about the present exemptions and far too many anomalies. If the Chancellor intends to reject the Amendment, I hope that he will promise to take a closer look at these anomalies and agree that these groups are not

    1419
    permanent. If he nationalises the Purchase Tax rate it means that we are moving towards a permanent system of taxation with these groups ever embodied in the system. I hope that he will make some statement about that.
    The hon. Member for the Isle of Ely said that he did not know whether he was one of the last of the Tories or the last of the Whigs, but he is the first of the single taxers.
    Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I know which I am.
    Dr. Mabon: Perhaps the hon. Member will tell his hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) what he is. The hon. Gentleman is the first of the single taxers. I cannot go with him that far. It seems to me that in these days it is very difficult to go as far as that. It is a direct contradiction of what the hon. Member for Kidderminster said about taxing earnings and taxing incomes. The basic defect of the Purchase Tax system is that it takes away money from those least able to afford it. It is a regressive tax unless it is imposed on items which are items of preference. Some items might be regarded as non-essential or as luxuries. But there are certain articles which the poorer family cannot avoid having to purchase. These, in my opinion, are essential things and ought not to carry any taxation.
    Lieut.-Commander Maydon: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that we all have a stake in this country and that the wider we can spread our responsibility for paying for the needs of the country the better we shall all be?
    Dr. Mahon: I am quite willing to concede that there should be a wider responsibility for supporting taxation, but I am old-fashioned enough to believe that we should tax only those who can afford to pay. If we have to tax everybody those with smaller incomes obviously should pay less.
    I do not believe that it is a good thing to have taxation on articles which one must purchase to live. If I were on the independent committee which I have suggested, I would include all the articles which were in that category and proceed from there to argue exemptions based on the standards of an affluent society.
    1420
    For example, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) said that it is economically necessary for every household to have a refrigerator. I cannot go as far as that, but there is no doubt a sense of logic in the argument based on the requirements of an affluent society. Apart from, in a sense, these exotic items, there are basic articles which are still taxed. I am frightened that, without anybody understanding this, these articles wil be permanently taxed under the system proposed by the hon. Member for Kidderminster to whom a lot of credit is given for this proposition, although it must not be forgotten that one of the main proponents of this, although he tends to hide its origins, is the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) who in a pamphlet called, "Let us get on with it", proposed a turnover tax of 16⅔ per cent. on the articles that are at present subject to Purchase Tax. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman will qualify that if he is called to speak—that is if we see him again.
    The Treasury spokesman should try to convince those who are against the taxing of these items in the 5 per cent. range—and indeed many in the 12½ and 25 per cent. ranges—that there is not to be a freeze on these groups; that the Chancellor will look again at the various items which might be exempted, so that Purchase Tax falls less heavily on those who are unable to pay it.
    7.30 p.m.
    Mr. Nabarro: How kind it is of you Sir Samuel, to call me immediately you arrive in the Chair.
    I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon). He had a lot to say about an analysis of the articles that we are discussing in the major Amendment and deciding which of those articles should be entirely free from tax, that is, reduced from 5½ per cent. to nothing and exempted, and which of the articles should be left at 10 per cent. or taxed at an even higher rate on the ground that they have some kind of luxurious, or, as he styled it exotic, element.
    We are talking about only two groups of manufactured goods—clothes and furniture—so I can only deduce from what he said that he would take each

    1421
    of these categories and sort out from each of them certain articles on which the rate should be raised, and certain articles on which it should be lowered.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon indicated dissent.
    Mr. Nabarro: If the hon. Gentleman shakes his head in dissent, what did he mean? He said that these articles should be analysed and the tax on some of them should be reduced and on others increased according to their element of luxuriousness or otherwise.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not apparently pay much attention to my rambling comments. I was arguing that within these two groups we should see again whether we could have further exemptions. I am not in favour of raising the tax on any of these items in the 5 per cent. range until that is done. I think that the Chancellor has to make a case why these items should remain in that range, and state whether he intends to keep them there.
    If the hon. Gentleman intends to be one of the authors of a turnover or sales tax, he had better, for the sake of his political safety, make sure that he exempts the basic articles from such a tax, otherwise he will earn a great deal of political unpopularity.
    Mr. Nabarro: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman threatens me with political unpopularity. I happen to be one Member of the House of Commons who is not in the least concerned with political popularity or unpopularity. So long as the electors of Kidderminster like to vote for me, well and good. When they stop voting for me there will be lots of alternative and equally useful things to do to sitting in the House of Commons listening to endless blurb about Purchase Tax.
    On this narrow Amendment I will not stray on to the general considerations of sales tax, turnover tax and Purchase Tax. If, later, I catch your eye, Sir Samuel, or that of your successor I shall deal comprehensively with all these matters in principle and in application at the proper time, which is on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    1422
    I am delighted that the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) has returned to the Chamber. I want to refer to a number of allegations that she made in her speech a couple of hours ago on this Amendment. I wrote down some of her words. It was a captivating speech for the hustings, but not particularly a scintillating one for the House of Commons. The hon. Lady said, among other things, that non-luxury articles such as clothes and furniture should be exempt from tax, and that it was folly to tax them.
    I fasten at once on the operative words "non-luxury". Are clothes non-luxurious in character? Are all items of furniture non-luxurious in character? The hon. Lady is beautifully and attractively garbed. I cannot see from this great distance, and my eyes are dim—
    Mr. Cyril Bence: The hon. Gentleman is courting popularity.
    Mr. Nabarro: I am not courting popularity with the hon. Lady. I am good and soundly married and have four lusty children, and my wife will arrive in a minute to listen to me.
    I cannot from this distance see whether the hon. Lady's dress is made of silk or very attractive cotton, but either way it is not a non-luxury article. To her it is an essential article in that it provides imperative covering for her body, but to say that it is a non-luxury article is manifest nonsense.
    Mrs. Castle: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman thinks I am attractively garbed. I assure him that I am non-luxuriously garbed. The hon. Gentleman is clearly out of touch with modern developments in the British cotton industry or he would know that this is an inexpensive cotton dress, which I assure him is no more highly priced because it happens to be attractive.
    Mr. Nabarro: Perhaps not. I would not for a moment suggest that any lady's garment made of cotton is unattractive because it is low in price, or the converse. Of course not. I said that the hon. Lady's attractive garb is not a non-luxury article. In my judgment it is a luxury article.
    If the hon. Lady takes exception to my talking about her dress, let me draw

    1423
    attention to my suit. Both the hon. Lady and I are wearing essential garments, but there is a great difference between the £12 suit talked about by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor in his Budget speech and the suit that I am wearing.
    Mr. Bence: That one cost £10.
    Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Gentleman is trying to be flippant about these things. I am trying to demonstrate that within the general ambit or definition of clothing there are very expensive items, there are less expensive items and there are cheap items. All are essential from the point of view of covering the body but some are very much more luxurious and higher in price than others.
    The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire East (Mr. Bence) is having fun sitting on the bench and muttering. If he wants me to give way I will do so, but if not, will he please allow me to make my speech?
    I am endeavouring to show that there is a great price range here, but administratively there is not a single member of the Committee who can say that the Treasury is in a position to distinguish among clothes or among items of furniture between those which are luxurious, those which are semi-luxurious and those which are non-luxurious, and then apply different rates of Purchase Tax. That would clearly be nonsense.
    Mrs. Castle: Is not the hon. Gentleman saying that his definition of an essential garment is an unattractive one? He can take it from me that this dress is in the lower price range, and therefore if price is the definition the garment that I am wearing—since the hon. Gentleman agrees that I must wear something in this place—is an essential item.
    Mr. Nabarro: I may have chosen one of the hon. Lady's unlucky days. I have seen her in very much more luxurious garments. I am not imputing anything to her for wearing them. I am saying that it is manifest nonsense for her to say that non-luxury articles such as clothes and furniture ought to be exempted from tax.
    There is, of course, a special constituency interest in all these matters. The
    1424
    hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) made a powerful plea for the boot and shoe industry centred in Northampton. My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) made a powerful plea on behalf of the furniture industry centred in Wycombe. The hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn made a powerful plea on behalf of the textile industry centred in Lancashire. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) made a powerful plea on behalf of the woollen and worsted industry centred in Yorkshire. On occasions, although I would be out of order in talking about it now—you will hear from me later, Sir Samuel—I have made a powerful plea, in the appropriate Purchase Tax brackets, for carpets centred for manufacturing purposes in the town of Kidderminster. I know all about these things.
    What I believe is that it is impossible satisfactorily, in an affluent society and where there is an abundance of all manufactured goods, for any Member of this Committee, backed by any amount of Treasury expertise, to differentiate between articles deemed to be luxuries and articles deemed to be non-luxuries in character.
    Mr. John Hall: Surely we do that very thing now in a range of goods which are exempted from Purchase Tax. At the moment we exempt from Purchase Tax a range of babies' clothing. There is a wide range from the cheapest to the most expensive babies' clothing. It is nonsense to say that we do not differentiate already. We do.
    Mr. Nabarro: I want to refer to the articles to which the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn referred as justifying exemption from Purchase Tax altogether. I have made my point. I passionately and fervently believe, as I have explained not only in this House on innumerable former occasions but elsewhere since all post-war shortages vanished, that it is fiscally wrong for the Treasury to try to decide upon a degree of luxuriousness for any manufactured goods. They should all be taxed at the same rate. The implications of doing that would mean that certain articles move up in the rates applicable to them. This year we have only seen the beginning of it. We are going to see more next year.
    Mrs. Slater: Is the hon. Gentleman going to be Chancellor of the Exchequer next year?
    Mr. Nabarro: I advise him closely in these matters. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend says "That is what is wrong with the Chancellor." I do not agree.
    Mr. John Hall: My hon. Friend misheard me. I said, "That is what was wrong with the Budget."
    Mr. Nabarro: No, it embraced a number of recommendations in connection with Purchase Tax and other matters which I thrust upon the Chancellor last year. I divided the House last year on Purchase Tax against my right hon. and learned Friend, as I did on Schedule A tax and the remainder.
    I want to deal for a moment with these exempted items. If a plan were adopted for a standard uniform, nondiscriminatory and single level of Purchase Tax at 16⅔ per cent., or 2d. in the shilling, there would then effectively be two rates of tax. There would be those at 16⅔ per cent. and those at nothing. I recognise that. Successive Governments—and I do not blame them for it—have yielded to powerful pressure groups for the exemption on a very narrow front of a number of individually important items.
    The first one which I name, because I had a lot to do with it myself five to seven years ago in concert with hon. Members opposite, was the exemption on crash helmets, or "skid lids", for road safety purposes, and that led to an equally clamant demand the following year for miners' helmets to be exempted. They are now so exempted. I am delighted to see my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance in the Chamber. He was the Financial Secretary to the Treasury at the time, and I am sure that he recalls those occasions. For individual reasons we agreed to exempt those articles.
    7.45 p.m.
    Now I come to the list given by the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn. She was perfectly correct. Household brushes, brooms and mops, under Group 11, are currently exempt. Babies' high chairs, cradles, cots and play pens, under Group 11, are exempt. Invalid
    1426
    chairs, under Group 11, are exempt. Fireguards, under Group 11, are exempt. Each of them has been the subject of special pleading in the House. But I remind the hon. Lady, who I know from a long association in controversial debates in this House and outside is a fair-minded woman, of this fact. I said it twice in earlier speeches. I would only apply the standard, uniform and non-discriminatory single rate of Purchase Tax to all those articles currently subject to the tax. I am not suggesting bringing into the ambit of tax these items which, for special reasons and subject to special pressures, we have in the past exempted from the tax.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: Would the hon. Gentleman explain this to me? Why does he think that 1961 is the final year for arguing for the exemption of these articles? Has he exhausted all his own arguments and does he, therefore, presume that no one else has any arguments?
    Mr. Nabarro: No. That is a very unkind thing for the hon. Gentleman to say.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: Will he say why, then?
    Mr. Nabarro: I will tell the hon. Member why—for the very good reason that we are discussing at the moment a relatively narrow Amendment.
    Mr. William Ross: I had not noticed it so far.
    Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) may not have noticed it, but he has only been in the Chamber for a short while. The fact is that when we come to the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," all these broad considerations may be debated and it would not be in order to debate them now. Therefore, I leave this topic of exempted items and turn my attention to my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall). My hon. Friend has felt aggrieved with my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor for raising the level of Purchase Tax on furniture from 5½ per cent. to 10 per cent.
    Mr. Bence: Quite rightly, too.
    Mr. Nabarro: No, I do not agree. Let me give a homely example which the

    1427
    hon. Gentleman could not fail to recognise and understand. Carpets are as much part of domestic furnishing as a sideboard, a bed, a bedstead or bedding that goes on it. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Hon. Members opposite who are saying "No" fortunately do not include the hon. Member for Kilmarnock, because the second carpet manufacturing centre of Great Britain, after Kidderminster, is Kilmarnock. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock will not take the view of many of his hon. Friends that a carpet is a luxury. He would take the view, as I take it, that a carpet is an essential piece of domestic furniture and is equally important in the home as a bed or the bedding that goes with it, or linoleum or any other article. [Interruption.] Of course, hon. Members opposite prefer to wallow in the atmosphere of fifty years ago, when the ordinary industrial worker in this country had linoleum on the floor, if he had any floor covering at all.
    As a result of eleven years of Tory rule and continuous improvement in living standards, the workers of this country overwhelmingly buy Kidderminster and Kilmarnock carpets to go on their floors. That is why employment in the carpet industry has remained at such a high level continuously since 1952, aided, of course, by the generous fiscal treatment of my right hon. and learned Friend and his predecessors who have successfully reduced Purchase Tax on carpets from 33⅓ per cent. when I started my campaign five years ago to 10 per cent. today. That is a pretty healthy rate of reduction.
    What I want to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe is that his furniture has always been taxed at 5 per cent. Now it has gone up to 10 per cent. It has gone to the same level as the Purchase Tax on carpets and on linoleum. Surely it is common sense and logical to require in our fiscal arrangements that furniture, bedding, carpets, linoleum and other essential domestic furniture, as opposed to appliances, should be taxed at one and the same rate.
    Mrs. Castle: Since the hon. Gentleman is applauding his right hon. and learned Friend for having reduced the Purchase Tax on carpets from 33⅓ to 10 per cent., why is he himself now propos-
    1428
    ing that the ideal level of such a tax should be 16½ per cent.?
    Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Lady is constantly making the same mistake, which she made five times in her last speech. She must be accurate. The level which I recommend is 16⅔ per cent., because, I am a purist in these matters and 16⅔ per cent. is the one-sixth part of a shilling—2d. in the shilling. I do not want any rates which are difficult to apply other than by comptometers and similar machines in the case of the goods to which the tax is to apply.
    Why do I want it? I want all Purchase Tax other than on a few exempted items, including pianos, placed on a flat rate of 16⅔ percent., and when we come to the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" I shall dwell on the advantages that would derive from the whole of this 45 per cent. bracket coming down to 16⅔ per cent. Perhaps the hon. Lady would like to go and talk outside to the workers at Rubery and Longbridge, Birmingham, and justify and continue to advocate a motor car rate of tax in excess of 50 per cent. She will not be very popular with the motor car workers if she does, and this is where the bulk of the Purchase Tax revenue comes from. This tax will be 45 per cent. if we pass the Clause; otherwise, it will be 55 per cent. The proper time to deal with all these matters is in the discussion on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," but I am not afraid of the political implications, and as I am going to West Derbyshire to inaugurate the proceedings next Monday, I thought I had better make reference to the simplification of the Purchase Tax and what can be done about it. [An HON. MEMBER: "More comforting."] It may be comforting to the Liberals, but at least I shall be going there as a pure and thorough-going Tory, not like some who sit here with Tory support calling themselves Liberals here and Tory Liberals in Bolton.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley had a good deal to say about clothing, and I sympathise with his point of view about the Purchase Tax on clothing in many respects. I believe that there are more important considerations here. Where I would dissent from him is when he says that there is a good deal of dissatisfaction in Yorkshire about the rate

    1429
    of Purchase Tax being increased to 10 per cent. By a curious coincidence, my speech last Friday evening at the 19th annual convention of the clothing manufacturers held at Ilkley—a good speech on this topic, which was widely reported next morning in the Yorkshire Post and other journals in that part of England—advocated a single flat rate of Purchase Tax right across the board involving, as it would do, an increase in the Purchase Tax on clothing, and there was no great dissent from my audience at all.
    Mr. John Hall: Perhaps they could not get a word in.
    Mr. Nabarro: My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe is now trying to get a word in, but I am dealing with my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley. I say to him that, on the contrary, there was a good deal of support for that point of view, because not all clothing manufacturers are afflicted by this particular increase. For a long time, many of the makers of luxury clothes have believed that their rate of tax should be brought into line with the rates of tax on other articles of comparable luxuriousness.
    Mr. Hirst: I have on another occasion addressed the same body, with an equal amount of publicity in the Yorkshire Post. I have lived in the area and know the trade, and these people are the fashion designers and are quite different from the mass makers-up who are not in favour of but very strongly against this tax. I really do know my own industry.
    Mr. Nabarro: All right, no doubt my hon. Friend does know the industry, but the president at last Friday's function was himself a clothing manufacturer and the majority of those present were clothing manufacturers and did not get cross with me. Of course, every trade which suffers from an increase in tax however small, will protest to the Chancellor. I have in my hand a letter of the Clothing Manufacturers' Federation of the 17th April addressed to the Chancellor, which expresses quite mildly opposition to any increase of the tax. However, there are much better reasons, in my judgment for stabilising the tax on clothing at 10 per cent. far the forth-
    1430
    coming year than those advanced by trade associations.
    Mr. F. A. Burden rose—
    Mr. John Hall: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. In order that I can get into my mind quite clearly and fully understand what he is suggesting, I gather that he favours a flat rate for all articles now bearing Purchase Tax, which might come out at something like 16⅔ per cent. Am I, therefore, to say to my furniture manufacturers, and to the young people who are buying their furniture and setting up house, that we are committed to the idea of increasing the cost of furniture from a Purchase Tax of 5 per cent., as it will be when we have finished with this Clause, to one of 16⅔ per cent.?
    Does my hon. Friend appreciate the very considerable increase in cost which this will impose upon young married people already living in a period of an over-stretched economy? Does he also appreciate that, where floor coverings are concerned, there is less demand or less need for them today than there was before? We have had eleven years of Tory good government, and today many new houses are being built with polished wood floors, which means that, very largely, people do not need floor coverings, but we have still not found anything to do away with the need for beds, chairs and tables which, as essentials, should be relieved of tax. If my hon. Friend would like to come to my constituency and talk about this great idea of a 16⅔ per cent. tax, he will get a very different reception from that which, apparently, he received in Yorkshire.
    Mr. Nabarro: There is a technical difficulty in answering that at this stage, but I shall not hesitate to answer it on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill". If I answered my hon. Friend thoroughly now I should be involved in talking about the present rates of 45 per cent. and 25 per cent., and he cannot be adequately answered without all these considerations being, brought in. However, I promise him that I will answer him. His interpretation of the position is exactly correct, but he will not lose his seat as a result. My hon. Friend will not be in any more trouble than I have been in on many

    1431
    occasions for advocating things that were parochially unpopular but nationally desirable. Does my hon. Friend wish to intervene?
    Mr. Burden: I do not wish to make a point now, because the one point I wanted to make would have been relevant earlier had I been able to make it. However, in view of the delay I hope to make it later in my own speech.
    Mr. Nabarro: My only comment on that is that it could not have been much of a point.
    8.0 p.m.
    Mr. Burden: My hon. Friend is usually arrogant and nearly always not accurate, but that comment ill becomes him—or perhaps we might expect it of him—but what he said was—
    The Temporary Chairman (Sir Samuel Storey): Order. I think we must get back to the Amendment.
    Mr. Nabarro: I am trying to keep to the Amendment, Sir Samuel. I apologise for causing a little hilarity in the Committee.
    Hon. Members opposite have grossly exaggerated the implications of increasing by such a small margin the Purchase Tax on clothes and on furniture. If these items of manufactured goods were entirely non-luxurious in character as well as being absolutely essential, then I might have a good deal more sympathy for what they say. But I cannot bring myself to believe that it is iniquitous to put a 10 per cent. Purchase Tax on a 60 guinea Savile Row suit or on a 400 guinea cocktail cabinet, all of which, prior to the Budget, were taxed at only 5½ per cent.
    If we took to the logical conclusion all the arguments advanced from the other side of the Committee, as well as some from my own side, this would lead to a division in both clothing and furniture whereby certain expensive items were taxed and certain less expensive items were untaxed. That would be an intolerable position, and, as there is no shortage of manufactured goods of any kind today, as there is an abundance of all kinds of manufactured goods and as we live in a society which is fully employed and highly affluent after eleven years of
    1432
    Tory rule, I do not regard it as damaging to the economy or iniquitous, politically or otherwise, to put a reasonable level of Purchase Tax at 10 per cent. on these goods for the forthcoming year. I go no further than that—[Interruption.] It might go up further next year on these classes of goods, if there were complete standardisation. For the forthcoming year, I do not think it unreasonable that a rate of 10 per cent. should be applied to all furniture and to all clothing, which are the only two items we are allowed to discuss within the bounds of order on this Amendment.
    Mrs. Harriet Slater: About twenty minutes ago, the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) looked at the clock and said that we had spent two hours talking blurb about the Purchase Tax. He has himself considerably contributed to that side of the discussion. Time and again, we have to listen to him boasting and bragging about the many Questions he has put about the Purchase Tax to Chancellors of the Exchequer over the years. The hon. Gentleman said that he was not afraid of losing his seat; he could find plenty of other jobs to do. Some of us could suggest jobs for him to do. If he thinks that he is a comedian in the House, he had better think again about the purpose of the business we are discussing today. One becomes absolutely weary of the hon. Gentleman's arrogance, his puffed-up attitude of mind, and his opinion that only he can advise the Chancellor and that the Chancellor will take note of his arrogant suggestions.
    I have no constituency interest in this matter, fortunately, because the tax on pottery has come down.
    Mr. Nabarro: Perhaps that is why the others have gone up.
    Mrs. Slater: I am not arguing about a constituency matter. I approach this question as a consumer and as a housewife representing consumers not in the class which possesses £400 cocktail cabinets or £40 suits.
    Mrs. Castle: It was a 60-guinea suit.
    Mrs. Slater: Sixty guineas, was it? I do not know how much the braces underneath the suit are worth. We see them quite often. They are red today.

    1433
    I am arguing on behalf of people in the low income groups. To suggest that for such people it is more important to have a carpet first is nonsense. In the lower income group, young people getting married do not think that buying a carpet is more important than buying a bed. What do ordinary people think of buying first?—the kitchen furniture, the table at which they will eat, the bedroom furniture, pots and pans, bedding and so forth. If they have not enough money, the carpet can wait. Not everybody has carpets today, because not everyone can afford the fabulous prices charged for some of them today. It is essential that the furniture which the ordinary young man and young woman needs to buy should not be subject even to a 5 per cent. rate of tax, let alone 10 per cent. It is an injustice to those who are setting up home.
    After listening to the hon. Member for Kidderminster, one would imagine that in our affluent society today there was no one earning less than £9 or £10 a week, yet, when we ask the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, we are told that there are many people who do not even qualify to come within the Tory Party's pension scheme because they earn less than £9 a week. Among people with the lower incomes, very often the woman has to go out to work in order to help to furnish the home when they get married. It is people of this sort that I am talking about, not the ones in the imagination of the hon. Member for Kidderminster. For a person earning £10, or even £20, a week, the 10 per cent. tax on furniture which he or she has to buy is a very much greater burden and injustice than it is to the hon. Member for Kidderminster in the manor house in which he lives.
    I have old-age pensioners also in mind. They are entitled to a new chair occasionally. They have lived with what they have for donkey's years, and occasionally they want a new chair. Why should they have to pay this tax out of their very small pension?
    In spite of eleven years of Tory rule—or because of it, in many cases—we have far too many people in the lower income group today. Ours is not the affluent society which the Tories would have us believe. In the country from
    1434
    which my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) comes, the cry one hears is that there is far too much unemployment. It is for those people, the unemployed in Scotland and poorer people everywhere, those who are having to suffer, that we are speaking. For them, a Purchase Tax rising from 5 per cent. to 10 per cent. is a very great injustice.
    I come now to clothing. The hon. Member for Kidderminster tries to argue that it is sheer nonsense to exempt some things. We do exempt some things now. We exempt fur coats. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) said that a fur coat is an essential.
    Mrs. Castle: No.
    Mrs. Slater: I thought that my hon. Friend had said that that was not a luxury. In my view, there is a real argument for taxing the mink coat. After all, there was a reduction of tax on such things.
    Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Lady the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater) has said that fur coats are exempt.
    Mrs. Slater: No, I did not.
    Mr. Nabarro: Then what did she say?
    Mrs. Slater: I said that the hon. Member for Kidderminster had argued that it was ridiculous to set about exempting certain things.
    Mr. Nabarro: I did not say anything of the sort. I said that I recognised that the articles in the list read out by the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) had been the subject of special pressures and for special reasons had been exempted, and I would not dissent from it.
    Mrs. Slater: All right. What I am saying is that even in regard to clothing we find that some sorts pay a higher Purchase Tax than 5 per cent. or 10 per cent. at present. I think that there is an argument for some of those paying the higher rate of tax.
    It is ordinary clothes which concern me. After the long holidays, the woman of the family has to rig her children out for school. She has to buy shoes, to mention only one item. I am thinking

    1435
    particularly of the older children of 14 and 15 years of age. How many girls today take a woman's size of shoe, and how many boys take a man's size?
    Mrs. Alice Cullen: And they last only a short time.
    Mrs. Slater: Yes, they last only a short time. Girls who are starting to go out to work have to be rigged out with shoes and clothes, and even only another 6d. per article presents a real problem. To people in the £10 or £12 a week group, it is a burden to have to pay Purchase Tax on such articles of clothing, and it is made worse by any increase.
    Old-age pensioners need warm underclothing. It is essential that they should have warm overcoats. It is thoroughly unjust to put the tax up from 5 per cent. to 10 per cent., and to do so is indicative of the Tory approach to the problems of the people whose need is still great today.
    Mr. Burden: I have been a Member of the House since 1950. Each year, I have seen the Purchase Tax used by successive Chancellors as a Budgetary yo-yo in the Finance Bill, and almost always the rising arc has been retained and there has been very little drop in the amount of tax at the other end. When there has been a lowering of one rate of tax, there has almost always been a compensating, or more than compensating, increase in others. I think that the public are growing very cynical about the so-called advantages of these changes in Purchase Tax, and I am certain that industry generally is thoroughly fed up with it. I shall be critical of my right hon. and learned Friend for his proposed increases and changes in the Purchase Tax.
    I shall confine my attention principally to clothing. I must declare an interest, for I am a clothing manufacturer. Because of that, I know how completely wrong my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) is when he says that clothing manufacturers would welcome the tax at 16⅔ per cent.
    Mr. Nabarro: I did not say that.
    Mr. Burden: Yes, my hon. Friend did.
    Mr. Nabarro: No, I did not.
    Mr. Burden: My hon. Friend should sit quiet and listen to other people for a change. He should show that he can take it as well as give it.
    Mr. Nabarro: I gave way to my hon. Friend once. I did not say it.
    Mr. Burden: I listened very carefully to what was said by my hon. Friend. He said that he had been in Yorkshire and, when he had made that proposal to an audience of people interested in clothing manufacture, there was not one word of dissent from the idea that the tax on clothing should be raised to 16⅔ per cent.
    Mr. Nabarro: I did not say that at all.
    Mr. Burden: Yes, my hon. Friend did. If he will look at HANSARD tomorrow, he will find what he said. A few seconds after making that statement, my hon. Friend quoted from a letter from the Clothing Manufacturers' Association, and then he said, "But, of course, they always bleat against rises in Purchase Tax on their particular commodities". So, for once, my hon. Friend was very inconsistent. I tried to put a question to him, and perhaps this may have accounted for his obviously unintentional rudeness when I said that I would put it off until later. However, I want, if I can, not to have a running commentary from my hon. Friend or anybody else trying to do the Economic Secretary's job for him in replying to the debate. I should prefer the Economic Secretary to do it rather than that my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster should attempt to reply to me when I am speaking.
    My right hon. and learned Friend had very considerable success with the wage pause. I had great sympathy for my right hon. and learned Friend. I believe that most people felt that it was intended to try to hold prices, to ensure that we retained competitiveness in the markets of the world and, above all, to hold down inflationary trends. But I cannot for the life of me see why, having attained so much success and, at a rather late date, having got the sympathy and understanding of so many people, he decided to increase the cost of living for the least-well-off members of our

    1437
    community, as happened when the Purchase Tax on clothing rose from 5½ per cent.—with the additional regulator of ½ per cent.—to no less than 10 per cent.
    8.15 p.m.
    I really cannot believe that my right hon. and learned Friend knew the full impact of what he was doing on the cost of clothing to people having the lowest incomes. For instance, a woman's suit of clothes or any article costing, say, £5 under the old rate paid 5 per cent. tax. Now when the stores price these articles the percentage increase is based on the cost of the article including the cost of the Purchase Tax. The stores' share generally would be a profit of £2 12s. 6d. on an article costing £7 17s. 6d. to the customer. As a result of the new Purchase Tax rise, that article will now cost £8s. 5s. 0d.—although I believe that it will cost £8 7s. 6d.—and there will thus be an increase in price, resulting from the rise in Purchase Tax, of another 7s. 6d. to the retail customer.
    That example applies not only to people to whom this will mean very little but to everyone, including those living on fixed incomes, to the old-age pensioners, and it will fall particularly hard on parents with young families. I urge hon. Members not to consider this matter in the same way as they consider furniture. Furniture is a durable article. Clothing is not. It is a non-durable essential and, leaving fashions aside, clothes wear out and, where children are concerned, they wear out particularly quickly. Unlike furniture, which is durable, clothes are not and they must be worn by us all every day of our lives.
    I do not understand why my right hon. and learned Friend should have selected this time to have increased the cost of living by so much to so many people who can so ill afford to pay the extra. Many of them are living on incomes which are based on the cost of living and I fear that there will be further demands for wage and salary increases because of these increases.
    We are told that this is a "levelling off" procedure; that the tax at the one end would be reduced from 13 per cent. to 10 per cent. and at the other end, increased from 5 per cent. to 10 per cent. The fact is that it is a very big levelling up because it is providing
    1438
    the Treasury with a further £25 million at least. In any case, was this extra money needed? If it was, why were we not told that? We should not have been told if it was just a very convenient method of levelling off in view of our entering the Common Market. Purchase Tax on this or any other level at home has nothing whatever to do with our possible entry into the Common Market, because every member country of the Common Market can impose whatever internal taxes it likes as long as its tariffs are not discriminatory against any of the other members.
    If this argument is to hold good in the matter with which I am dealing and if it was to be a levelling up process, and to eliminate Purchase Tax categories, why did my right hon. and learned Friend introduce the new rate of 15 per cent. on sweets and confectionery? The clothing manufacturers of this country have been going through a difficult time. Because of the extremely bad weather many of them have been left with heavy stocks on their hands, and it is already evident that the purchases for next season will be very much below those of past seasons. This trend reflects not only on the clothing manufacturers but on the woollen mills of Yorkshire and elsewhere. It will, of course, help to restrict our competitive power in overseas markets.
    Clothing manufacturers at home are making considerable efforts to extend their exports and the new rate of tax is not a particularly good way of thanking them for what they are trying to do and encouraging them to still greater efforts. As I said, I have had a great deal of sympathy for many of the things that my right hon. and learned Friend has tried to do. I have been steadfastly behind him on many of them. But I do not think that he has done anything to help his own case by this action or that this will do anything other than release a whole spate of demand for increased wages and salaries.
    I beg him, even at this late hour, to look at this proposal again. I am afraid that unless he gives some undertaking to do so I shall find myself unable to support the Government and I shall either abstain from voting or have to go into the Lobby against the Government.
    Mr. Barber: We have had on this series of Amendments a very full debate and it is right that we should have done so, because we are concerned with an important change in the rate of Surtax. I should, of course, have said Purchase Tax. The effect of the series of Amendments moved by the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) would be to reduce the rate of Purchase Tax on clothing and furniture from the figure of 10 per cent. proposed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to 5 per cent., the pre-Budget rate, exclusive of surcharge.
    In view of our previous debates on Amendments involving substantial sums of money I am surprised that there has been so little reference to the effect of this proposal on the Budget as a whole. I say that because although there has been criticism of individual aspects of the Budget, I believe that, generally speaking, outside the House, there has been general acceptance of the fundamental decision of my right hon. and learned Friend to maintain the general burden of taxation at about the same level.
    I must therefore, tell the Committee that to accept this series of Amendments would cost more than any of the Amendments we have so far considered in Committee. It would cost £66 million a year. My hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) mentioned that he was not here when we had the general debate on the Budget, as he was abroad at the time, that he had not had an opportunity of expressing his views on the Budget and that he was waiting to hear what I now had to say.
    I can say this straight away to my hon. Friend, because I believe that he has misunderstood one important consequence of the Clause. He said, in effect, that we were raising more revenue by the Clause. As I understood his comments, he argued that he thought that this was inconsistent with the incomes policy of my right hon. and learned Friend and that it was, therefore, not a sensible thing to do.
    Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I think that I understand why the Economic Secretary thought that that was what I had intended to say. Actually, I was trying to say that it is this group of goods
    1440
    which have been subject to a tax of 5½ per cent. and which are to be subject to 10 per cent. which will be a source of revenue of something in excess of £20 million extra. That is my criticism.
    Mr. Barber: Yes, but I hope that my hon. Friend will bear in mind that the effect of the various Purchase Tax proposals, taken together, will involve a reduction in Purchase Tax of £13 million in a full year. I assume that my hon. Friend—and hon. Gentlemen opposite—are not opposed to the reductions which my night hon. and learned Friend has suggested. If one takes into account that to keep those reductions and to accept this series of Amendments would cost in Purchase Tax no less than £79 million, one realises the full implications of the matter. I can only say to hon. Gentlemen opposite that if that is their policy in present circumstances, then it is fairly clear that they have abandoned all pretence of a policy to counter inflation.
    Mr. Houghton: In his opening sentence the Economic Secretary made a slip and referred to Surtax. That reminded me of something, because last year he made a forward debit on the revenue for this year of £83 million, which is more than the relief.
    Mr. Barber: The hon. Member surprises me. Some of his hon. Friends made slips and others do not always quite know what they are saying. The hon. Member knows very well, because it has been said time and again, that at the time when we provided the Surtax relief we also increased Profits Tax by a considerable amount which almost paid for the Surtax reliefs. That argument that is used by the hon. Member and some of his hon. Friends is, therefore, really invalid.
    If the hon. Member for Sowerby is speaking on behalf of the Labour Party in his capacity as a member of the Front Bench, is he saying that should the Labour Party get back to power it will annul all the Surtax reliefs which my right hon. and learned Friend provided last year? If so, will that not take us back to the position where our rates of taxation were far higher than our principal overseas competitors, Western Germany, for instance? I hope that he will have the courage now to

    1441
    stand up and say that that is the policy of the Labour Party, otherwise I hope that we shall not hear that sort of argument used in the future.
    Mr. Houghton: The Economic Secretary surely realises that I am not here to say what the Labour Party will do, when it becomes the Government, on Surtax or anything else. At least, we would not have Surtax reliefs at a time when we are still keeping taxation on the lower income groups at its present level.
    Mr. Barber: We can all draw our own conclusions from that.
    I now turn to the first point which was dealt with at some length by the hon. Member for Sowerby in his opening speech, his reference to the reform of the structure of Purchase Tax. The change we are considering in this series of Amendments is, of course, only part of the general reform of the structure. I do not suppose that it would be in order for me to deal with this subject at any length. It is, perhaps, more a matter for debate on the Clause as a whole. However, I do think that most hon. Members of the Committee will agree with me that at any rate there were many people who thought that the disparity between the highest and the lowest rates of Purchase Tax was far too great. Before this Budget this disparity amounted to this: the highest rate was ten times the lowest. Now, of course, the highest rate will only be four and a half times the lowest.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) and my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely and also the hon. Member for Sowerby referred to a reference which my right hon. and learned Friend made in his Budget speech to the possibility of our joining the European Economic Community. I would only say that this reform of the structure would, I believe, be an advantage if we were to do that, but it would be quite wrong to assume that my right hon. and learned Friend did not take the view that, even apart from that possibility, this reform of the structure was a highly desirable step forward.
    8.30 p.m.
    I should also like to draw the attention of the Committee to another fact which I believe to be very relevant. I hope
    1442
    that my hon. Friend will bear this in mind. I listened to him with great care when he made his speech. Last year, £1,800 million was spent on furniture and clothing and yet it brought in only £63 million in taxation. So that this modest increase from 4½ per cent. to 10 per cent. is not, I believe, unreasonable.
    Mr. John Hall: Would my hon. Friend split that figure up as between clothing and furniture?
    Mr. Barber: I cannot do that offhand. The total figure for the two is £1,800 million.
    Reference was made by several hon. Members, by the hon. Member for Sowerby, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham in his speech a moment ago, to the burden which this increase in tax would place on families. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Sowerby said that it would fall in the main on what he called the poorer families.
    The first thing I would say, with great respect to the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) and, I think, to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), is that they are really quite wrong in suggesting that this particular tax is a regressive tax. It is not so. I say that because I think that the hon. Gentlemen who have contended that it is regressive have overlooked the fact that the poorer families spend about the same and sometimes an even smaller proportion of their total outlay on clothes and furniture as do the better off. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Well, I should like to give the figures.
    If we take the case of a household with a gross income per week of between £8 and £10 the average expenditure on clothing, other than tax-exempt clothing, and furniture is 17s. 2d., that is 8·8 per cent. That is expenditure on that clothing and furniture as a percentage of expenditure on all goods and services. If we take the case of a household bringing in between £10 and £14, it is 8·6 per cent.; between £14 and £20 it is 9·3 per cent.; between £20 and £30—still for a whole household—it rises to 11·1 per cent.; between £30 and £50 it rises to 11·3 per cent.
    My hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely, as I understood him, said that he thought we ought to do away

    1443
    altogether with indirect taxation and rely solely on direct taxation. This was a proposal which was echoed by one or two hon. Gentlemen opposite. I think, therefore, that it is relevant, in considering whether or not what my right hon. and learned Friend is doing is fair, to bear in mind that the proportion which Customs and Excise revenue bears to total revenue in the forthcoming year is likely to be less than it was in the year 1950–51. In 1950–51, the proportion of Customs and Excise revenue to total revenue was 43·4 per cent. We expect that in this coming year it will be 41·4 per cent.
    Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Will my hon. Friend break that figure down and say how much is Excise and how much is Customs duties?
    Mr. Barber: No, I cannot. It relates, broadly speaking, I can tell my hon. Friend, to indirect taxation and direct taxation—
    Mr. David Weitzman: Does the hon. Member mean, by quoting these figures, that the poorer people are not to pay more as a result of the tax being increased? Otherwise, it is sheer nonsense.
    Mr. Barber: I was answering the point, made by several of the hon. and learned Member's hon. Friends at a time when he was not in the Chamber, that this tax on clothing and furniture was a regressive tax. I was only saying that if we look at the facts—and that is all I am asking hon. Gentlemen opposite to consider—which come out from the Family Expenditure Survey made by the Ministry of Labour, they prove conclusively that this is not so in respect of this particular tax on clothing and furniture.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) said that he hoped that in my reply I would not refer to the likely burden which this tax would have on families as a result of the increase in retail prices. I am afraid that I must do so. This is surely a highly relevant consideration.
    Mr. Hirst: It is not relevant at all.
    Mr. Barber: The fact is that the increase in retail prices attributable to
    1444
    this increase in Purchase Tax from 5½ per cent. to 10 per cent. works out at only a matter of pence in the £. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It is a fact—about 7d. or 8d. in the £. Anyone setting up home today would also have the considerable advantage from the reductions in Purchase Tax which my right hon. and learned Friend has made on other goods.
    Mr. Burden: This is all theory. No doubt my hon. Friend has been advised by Treasury officials, but if he had looked at the facts of life he would have found, as I said to him in my speech, that when Purchase Tax is accounted on the cost of the article, the percentage increase in selling price is based on the cost of the article plus Purchase Tax which has to be paid at the time it is received by the stores, with all the accounting which goes with it. It means they cannot get a rebate if they have to sell the goods at a low price at the end of a bad season, as now, and they have to account it.
    Mr. Barber: I know that my hon. Friend has considerable personal knowledge of this because he told us he had an interest in this matter, and I am not saying that this is necessarily how prices might end up. All I am saying is that the increase in prices attributable to the increase in tax works out at between 7d. and 8d. in the £.
    On the question of prices, I should like to deal with the point made at some length by the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall), who referred to the fact, as he understood it, that certain retail prices were being raised by an unnecesary amount. I say quite bluntly that my right hon. and learned Friend and I deplore excessive increases in retail prices which are not attributable to increases in Purchase Tax. [Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite may make these noises, but we do not have price control in this country, and when we had, when hon. Members opposite were in power, prices still continued to rise. That is something they should bear in mind.
    Mr. John Hall: I appreciate that we do not have and probably do not want price control, but I should have thought that it would be within our power and very desirable to insist that Purchase

    1445
    Tax was always shown as a separate item and accounted for separately in all prices charged to the consumer, as that would enable the consumer to check whether an increase in price was fair.
    Mr. Barber: I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend will take note of what my hon. Friends have said, but he would not expect me—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and nor would hon. Members opposite, on reflection, after Purchase Tax has been in existence for all these years without that having been an obligation on the retailer, to give my hon. Friend an "off-the-cuff" answer now.
    Various hon. Members referred to the state of the clothing and furniture industries. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley referred, in particular, to the clothing trade. I say at once that I appreciate his sincere and genuine concern. I know him well, because we come from constituencies which are not far apart. But nobody looking objectively at the figures would deny that the clothing and footwear industries taken together—I have figures only for the two—have been reasonably buoyant in recent years. There are exceptions in certain branches. The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) made some points about the circumstances of the boot and shoe industry, but the clothing and footwear industries taken together have been reasonably buoyant.
    I remind the Committee—and these figures are relevant—that the Index of Industrial Production over the past years shows that whereas the total for manufacturing industries rose from 100 to 114·7, the clothing and footwear industries rose from 100 to 122. I know that the furniture industry has not been doing as well as the clothing industry—there was a drop between 1959 and 1960—but here again the figures of the Index of Industrial Production, which is the best indication we have, show an improvement between 1960 and 1961.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley expressed considerable concern about the effect of the increase of tax on the clothing industry and particularly on exports. In fairness, I must frankly tell them that I do not follow their arguments. I am told that
    1446
    United Kingdom exports of clothing have been valued at between £40 million and £50 million in each of the last ten years while the size of the home market for clothing is enormously larger. Consumer expenditure on clothing in 1960 was more than £1,600 million. Comparing that enormous figure of home consumption with the £40 million or £50 million for exports, it is unlikely that exports will be materially affected by the very small increase in cost which would be brought about as the result of the new rate of tax.
    Mr. Hirst: Of course, we realise that some of these trades have been fairly buoyant over recent years. I thought that one of the things we wanted to do was to keep them buoyant and not have the Treasury deflate that buoyancy. It must be obvious that any civilised nation—and we are a civilised nation—will make most of its own clothes, but unless there is a good home base, cultivated and helped and assisted and not hindered by unnecessary tax changes, costs cannot be kept down so that the export trade can be increased. That is obvious.
    Mr. Barber: I can only repeat that if my hon. Friend is right the clothing industry must be in a fairly poor state if, with a home market involving £1,600 million a year, its exports of £40 million or £50 million are likely to be adversely affected by this increase in tax, which will work out in retail prices at about 7d. in the £.
    My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wells (Lieut.-Commander Maydon) asked whether it would be possible to exempt protective clothing as a class from tax. Hon. Members opposite who were concerned with this subject at the time of the Labour Government will recall that that Government considered it on a number of occasions, and it has since been considered by my right hon. and hon. Friends. Every time it has been concluded that it was not possible, in practice, to draw a sufficiently clear distinction between protective and other clothing. There are great difficulties. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wells made some constructive suggestions about the possibility of a rebate of tax in respect of this type of clothing. I will consider that suggestion, but I think that it would have major

    1447
    difficulties and I could not myself hold out any hope.
    Dr. Dickson Mahon: Do I take it that, quite apart from that item, the Treasury is not rejecting the idea of further exemptions from those articles presently subject to Purchase Tax but is willing to listen to special cases about different articles in different categories?
    Mr. Barber: It is most unlikely that we should be able to exempt any article on the ground that it was considered to be protective clothing. I say that because this has been considered so many times on previous occasions and we have always come up against practical difficulties, but if there is any particular type of clothing which the hon. Member has in mind, and he will let me have details, I shall be happy to look into it.
    8.45 p.m.
    To sum up, this is a very important matter on which strong feelings have been expressed from both sides of the Committee, but I do not think it right, in the context of this Budget, to accept an Amendment which would cost no less than £66 million a year. I should point out another factor which is surely highly relevant—that the two Amendments to insert subsection (2), on which the Opposition have said that they might wish to divide, taken together—and they are not mutually exclusive—would cost the Exchequer no less than £132 million a year. The only conceivable case for supporting Amendments like that would be that the Opposition had given up all hope of tackling the question of inflation. It seems to me to be inconceivable that they would put forward policies of that kind while, at the same time, welcoming the reductions in Purchase Tax which the Chancellor has proposed.
    Mrs. Castle: What would be the cost of accepting the Amendment in line 39, at the end to insert:
    (2) The foregoing subsection shall not apply to references to a rate of five per cent. in respect of Groups 1, 2, 7 and 8 and for any such reference there shall be substituted a reference to a rate of one quarter of one per cent.?
    Mr. Barber: The cost of accepting that by itself would be about £110 million.
    Mr. Hirst: The Economic Secretary is grouping these together. I understand that the first Amendment of the official Opposition leaves the tax where it is at 5 per cent. Presumably, the cost of that would not be more than £25 million.
    Mr. Barber: The cost of that Amendment and the others which are related to it, consequential upon it and necessary to implement it, is £66 million in a full year and £48 million this year. That is the Amendment which I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley has considered supporting. I hope that he realises that it would cost that sum of money.
    I remind the Committee that the overall effect of the Chancellor's Purchase Tax changes is a reduction of Purchase Tax by £13 million a year. I contend that in the context of this Budget an increase of tax from 5 to 10 per cent. is not unreasonable, and I ask the Committee to reject the Amendment.
    Mr. Ross: We did not expect a good speech from the Economic Secretary but, frankly, we did not expect one quite as bad as that. Turning to his hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst), the hon. Gentleman said that he hoped that he appreciated that the Amendment would cost £66 million a year. I hope that he appreciates that this is what it will cost the consumer. This is the extent of the increased taxation—£66 million. He may have justified all his figures in relation to the array of statistics about the Budget, but he did not justify increasing taxation on these categories by £66 million.
    Until we had a burst from an hon. Member whose constituency I shall not even name, this sounded very much like a protest meeting, and there was not one supporter of the Government's case. The Economic Secretary, with all the anger and austerity of which he is capable, told us that this is a tremendous bill, but the next moment he told us that it was a modest increase. We must make up his mind. We are prepared to take our Amendment on its merits as it stands, and I do not think that it will break the Budget. It compels me to tell the Economic Secretary exactly where we could get the money to make up the revenue. When we hear an hon. Member telling us about a 60-guinea suit which he is

    1449
    wearing and on another occasion, through the Press, he tells us about the five cars which he has, I think that there are ways in which the Chancellor could get the money.
    I do not think that the Economic Secretary appreciates the damage which he is doing. We are dealing with clothing, which includes footwear, and furniture. While within these categories there are fashion goods and some which may well be luxuries, in general they have one thing in common—they are essentials. Throughout all the debates we have had in the past we thought that we were moving towards the exemption of essential articles, but we are now £66 million a year further away from it. We have been told today, in effect, that this is only the start. It will be far easier to raise the tax to the 16⅔ per cent. about which we have heard than it will be to exempt the articles from tax. It is wrong in this day and age to tax essential items of furniture and equipment at the same rate as, say, motor cars or some other manufactured articles.
    The Chancellor told us that he did not want to make a moral judgment about what people should buy. He is bound to agree that in taking this action he is passing financial judgment on what he should tax. To my mind, he should not be doubling the tax on ranges of goods which we had expected would be free of tax before long.
    That is our judgment upon the Chancellor. Someone said—I think that it was the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden)—that people were getting cynical about Purchase Tax. They are getting very angry about what the Government have done in doubling Purchase Tax at the lower range and what they have done in relation to other items, but I should be out of order if I spoke about that. My hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) gave industrial reasons as well as social reasons why the Amendment should be accepted.
    I, too, shall advance some industrial reasons. Amongst the bluff which we got from the hon. Gentleman who sits below the Gangway opposite was the statement that people are fully employed and very prosperous. We had the implication, too, in the speech of the
    1450
    Economic Secretary that the clothing and footwear industries were buoyant. This just is not true. The footwear industry now employs fewer people than it did a year ago. Nearly 9 per cent. of those employed in the industry are at present on short time. The Economic Secretary should know very well that there has been much paying off and redundancy in this industry over the year. The industry is not as buoyant as he seems to think.
    The Economic Secretary should remember where parts of the industry are located. They are located in areas where it is very difficult to get jobs. That includes Scotland. In my part of Scotland there is a very well-known and highly respected branch of the industry—the Saxone Shoe Co. Ltd. This doubling of the Purchase Tax did not help us in any way. All that the trade unions seem to see in front of us is increased unemployment and short time. The industry has kept itself very efficient and as between employers and employees has done everything to increase productivity. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman realises this.
    In respect of this industry and other industries, to decide at this stage, for the sake of Treasury purity and getting the figures in a better progression, to double the tax is not good enough. It has industrial effects. Not all the shoes produced in Northampton, Kilmarnock and other places are fashion shoes. They are not all luxury items. They are not all shoes with stiletto heels and winkle-picker toes. In Ayrshire, there are what we call "kirk'n markets"—shoes for kirk and market. They are stout shoes. These are no more luxuries than the chair in the kitchen on which one sits on coming in from the fields or the factory. Why does the Chancellor go out of his way, in respect of these essential items, not only to make it industrially more difficult for the industry but also more expensive for the customers who are lowly paid and who are the general run of buyers?
    Why does the Economic Secretary say that it will amount to only about 8d. in the £. Which £ is he talking about—the £ which is worth only 14s. 8d. now? Whose £? Is it the £ of the old-age pensioner who has not got three of these £s? In measuring the cost of living of the old-age pensioner all these Purchase

    1451
    Tax changes will be lumped together. They will not mean very much because we now have a new cost of living index. The cost of motor cars will be there as well as the cost of boots and shoes and the essential items of furniture and clothing. The old-age pensioner is not buying a motor car. The lowly paid worker is not buying a motor car. In respect of their cost of living it is very much more than a penny or two in the £.
    The Economic Secretary should appreciate that. The arguments he advanced showed no justification for taking this action. Anyone who has been in the House of Commons for any length of time and sat through proceedings on Finance Bills sometimes thinks that this is a piece of political futility. The Government sit there having made up their mind. After the passage of a certain amount of time the Minister will rise and say, "No". The speeches may be very good. They may be very effective and persuasive, but we all know that the Government have already made up their minds.
    The debate would become a farce unless we had more speeches such as that made by the Member for Shipley, who said that he would follow this through to its logical conclusions. He said that the Government were wrong and that he was prepared to say so in the Lobby. This makes the reality of Parliament. This makes the reality of expressing the feelings of the people outside. The Economic Secretary seems to think that the Budget is popular. He cannot have seen recent by-election results. I am sure that future by-elections, particularly one in Scotland, will amply demonstrate that in Scotland, too, the Government are far from popular. Unless the Government appreciate that in raising revenue they must exercise
    great care and understand the social and industrial implications of what they do and their effect upon the whole nation, they do not properly govern in the interests of the nation. To increase by £66 million the cost of essential goods in clothing, footwear and furniture, and to put this down as something for which the Government should have support is asking for too much.
    9.0 p.m.
    Sir Wavell Wakefield: I would remind the hon. Member that in the Finance (No. 2) Bill on 8th June, 1948, Sir Stafford Cripps as Chancellor of the Exchequer raised Purchase Tax on all these items from 50 per cent. to 66⅔ per cent., which makes nonsense of everything that the hon. Member is saying.
    Mr. Ross: In 1948 I was only two years out of the Army. Some of my friends were still in the Army waiting to get out, and I can tell the hon. Member that the shape of the world and of the British Commonwealth and Empire was then slightly different from what it is today. We are talking about Britain in 1962, the Britain that never had it so good, a Britain to which the Leader of the House is going to give a new slogan, "We took you into the Common Market". Slogans, to be effective, must be short and slick and the right hon. Gentleman should take out the last three words and make it, "We took you in". We are dealing, with 1962 and it is regrettable that we should be finding ourselves increasing taxation with these disastrous effects. I sincerely hope that the Government will be defeated in the Lobby.
    Question put, That the words "or of five per cent." stand part of the Clause:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 221, Noes 143.

    Division No. 188.]

    AYES

    [9.2 p.m.

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    Black, Sir Cyril

    Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

    Aitken, W. T.

    Bourne-Arton, A.

    Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

    Allason, James

    Box, Donald

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Atkins, Humphrey

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J.

    Channon, H. P. G.

    Barber, Anthony

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Chataway, Christopher

    Barlow, Sir John

    Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

    Barter, John

    Brooman-White, R.

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

    Batsford, Brian

    Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

    Cleaver, Leonard

    Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

    Browne, Percy (Torrington)

    Cole, Norman

    Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Bryan, Paul

    Collard, Richard

    Biffen, John

    Buck, Antony

    Cooke, Robert

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Bullard, Denys

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

    Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

    Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

    Corfield, F. V.

    Bishop, F. P.

    Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

    Costain, A. P.

    Coulson, Michael

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

    Craddock, Sir Beresford

    James, David

    Rees, Hugh

    Critchley, Julian

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver

    Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

    Renton, David

    Cunningham, Knox

    Kerr, Sir Hamilton

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

    Curran, Charles

    Kimball, Marcus

    Robson Brown, Sir William

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Lambton, Viscount

    Roots, William

    Dance, James

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Litchfield, Capt. John

    Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)

    Deedes, W. F.

    Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

    Seymour, Leslie

    de Ferranti, Basil

    Longden, Gilbert

    Sharples, Richard

    Donaldson, Cmdr, C. E. M.

    Lubbock, Eric

    Shaw, M.

    Doughty, Charles

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn

    Shepherd, William

    du Cann, Edward

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Duncan, Sir James

    MacArthur, Ian

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

    Duthie, Sir William

    McLaren, Martin

    Smithers, Peter

    Eden, John

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

    Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

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

    Spearman, Sir Alexander

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

    MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

    Speir, Rupert

    Emery, Peter

    McMaster, Stanley R.

    Stanley, Hon. Richard

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

    Finlay, Graeme

    Madden, Martin

    Stodart, J. A.

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

    Maginnis, John E.

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

    Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

    Maitland, Sir John

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Gammans, Lady

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    Summers, Sir Spencer

    Gardner, Edward

    Marlowe, Anthony

    Talbot, John E.

    Gibson-Watt, David

    Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest

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

    Gilmour, Sir John

    Marshall, Douglas

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

    Goodhew, Victor

    Marten, Neil

    Teeling, Sir William

    Gower, Raymond

    Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

    Temple, John M.

    Grant, Rt. Hon. William

    Mawby, Ray

    Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

    Green, Alan

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Gresham Cooke, R.

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

    Thomas, Peter (Conway)

    Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.

    Mills, Stratton

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Gurden, Harold

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Morgan, William

    Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

    Nabarro, Gerald

    Vickers, Miss Joan

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

    Neave, Airey

    Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Nicholls, Sir Harmer

    Wade, Donald

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

    Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

    Warder, David

    Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

    Noble, Michael

    Walker, Peter

    Hay, John

    Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard

    Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward

    Orr-Ewing, C. Ian

    Webster, David

    Hendry, Forbes

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Hiley, Joseph

    Page, John (Harrow, West)

    Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

    Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

    Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

    Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

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

    Partridge, E.

    Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

    Hobson, Sir John

    Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Hocking, Philip N.

    Percival, Ian

    Wise, A. R.

    Holland, Philip

    Peyton, John

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Hollingworth, John

    Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard

    Holt, Arthur

    Pilkington, Sir Richard

    Woodhouse, C. M.

    Hopkins, Alan

    Pitman, Sir James

    Woodnutt, Mark

    Hornby, R. P.

    Pott, Percivall

    Woollam, John

    Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.

    Prior, J. M. L.

    Worsley, Marcus

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

    Profumo, Rt. Hon. John

    Yates, William (The Wrekin)

    Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

    Proudfoot, Wilfred

    Hughes-Young, Michael

    Pym, Francis

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Quennell, Miss J. M.

    Mr. Chichester-Clark and Mr.

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Ramsden, James

    Ian Fraser.

    NOES

    Abse, Leo

    Cullen, Mrs. Alice

    Gourlay, Harry

    Ainsley, William

    Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

    Grey, Charles

    Albu, Austen

    Deer, George

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Delargy, Hugh

    Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Diamond, John

    Hamilton, William (West Fife)

    Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

    Dodds, Norman

    Harper, Joseph

    Bence, Cyril

    Donnelly, Desmond

    Hart, Mrs. Judith

    Benson, Sir George

    Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

    Hayman, F. H.

    Blyton, William

    Edelman, Maurice

    Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwy Regis)

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

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    Herbison, Miss Margaret

    Bowles, Frank

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Hill, J. (Midlothian)

    Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

    Evans, Albert

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Brockway, A. Fenner

    Finch, Harold

    Holman, Percy

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Fitch, Alan

    Houghton, Douglas

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Fletcher, Eric

    Hoy, James H.

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)

    Hunter, A. E.

    Castle, Mrs. Barbara

    Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Collick, Percy

    Forman, J. C.

    Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Cronin, John

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

    Crossman, R. H. S.

    Ginsburg, David

    Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

    1454

    1455

    Jeger, George

    Morris, John

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

    Moyle, Arthur

    Spriggs, Leslie

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

    Neal, Harold

    Steele, Thomas

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

    Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

    Oliver, G. H.

    Strachey, Rt. Hon. John

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Oswald, Thomas

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

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Padley, W. E.

    Swain, Thomas

    Kelley, Richard

    Paget, R. T.

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Kenyon, Clifford

    Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

    Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Parker, John

    Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

    King, Dr. Horace

    Paton, John

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

    Lawson, George

    Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

    Thornton, Ernest

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Pentland, Norman

    Wainwright, Edwin

    Loughlin, Charles

    Popplewell, Ernest

    Warbey, William

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Weitzman, David

    MacColl, James

    Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    McInnes, James

    Rhodes, H.

    Whitlock, William

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Mackie, John (Enfield, East)

    Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)

    Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

    McLeavy, Frank

    Ross, William

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

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Royle, Charles (Salford, West)

    Winterbottom, R. E.

    Mapp, Charles

    Short, Edward

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Marsh, Richard

    Skeffington, Arthur

    Woof, Robert

    Mason, Roy

    Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

    Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

    Milne, Edward

    Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Small, William

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Monslow, Walter

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Mr. Allaun and Mr. McCann.

    Moody, A. S.

    Sorensen R. W.

    The Chairman: In calling the next Amendment in Clause 6, page 7, line 36, to leave out from "specified" to end of line 39, I should like to make it clear that this leaves open to the Committee the opportunity to vote if it so desires on the Amendment in page 7, line 39, at end insert:
    (2) The foregoing subsection shall not apply to references to a rate of five per cent. in respect of Groups 6, 11 and 16 and for any such reference there shall be substituted a reference to a rate of one quarter of one per cent.
    and in page 7, line 39, at end insert:
    (2) The foregoing subsection shall not apply to references to a rate of five per cent. in respect of Groups 1, 2, 7 and 8 and for any such reference there shall be substituted a reference to a rate of one quarter of one per cent.
    which have already been discussed, but which cannot be voted on until we reach them on the Notice Paper.
    I think that it would be convenient to discuss also the following Amendments: In page 7, line 35, leave out "Part 1 of".
    In Schedule 8, page 50, leave out line 3.
    In page 50, leave out lines 14 to 48.
    In line 22, leave out "15 per cent." and insert "12½ per cent.".
    In line 29, leave out "15 per cent." and insert "12½ per cent.".
    In line 34, leave out "15 per cent." and insert "12½ per cent.".
    In line 46, leave out "15 per cent." and insert "12½ per cent.".
    There could, if required, be a Division on the Amendment to Schedule 8, page 50, line 22, to leave out "15 per cent." and to insert "12½ per cent."
    Mr. Mitchison: On a point of order. Would not the Division come on the Amendment to page 7, line 36, to leave out from "specified" to the end of line 39, rather than on the Amendment in Schedule 8, page 50, line 22, leave out "15 per cent." and insert "12½ per cent."?
    The Chairman: The hon. and learned Gentleman is right. I had not intended to leave that matter in doubt. Certainly a Division can take place on the first Amendment to which the hon. Gentleman referred, but there is also starred on the provisional paper the second Amendment to which he referred, on which a second Division can be recorded if the Committee so desires.
    Mr. Mitchison: Thank you, Sir William, and the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu), and that in the name of the hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Cliffe) will come at the end of this debate in their order on the Notice Paper, and may be moved formally and divided on?
    The Chairman: That is so.
    Mr. Mitchison: I beg to move, in page 7, line 36, to leave out from "specified" to the end of line 39.
    In effect, the Amendment proposes to leave out paragraph (b) which relates to

    1457
    sweets, soft drinks and the like. There are consequential Amendments to this, but perhaps I need not go into them at this stage. The substantial point is whether or not the Chancellor ought to make what is the largest charge made in this Budget at all.
    9.15 p.m.
    The charge sought to be put on confectionery, soft drinks and ice cream is estimated to amount to £30 million this year and £50 million in a full year. If I may take something to compare it with, the amount of changes estimated for direct taxation comes to between £8 and £9 million. This is emphatically a Budget in which the Chancellor has chosen to put the heavy charges by way of indirect taxation, and this, as it happens, is the heaviest of all of them. I am not referring to the ones on tobacco and so on, which occur earlier in the table, because they are in effect counter balanced by removals of the regulator tax, if I may so call it. They are really equivalent items. But this is a new and very heavy charge, the heaviest charge in a Budget which itself leans on indirect taxation almost to the total exclusion, so far as the Revenue is concerned, of any direct taxation relief. In those circumstances, I suggest that the Committee is entitled, and indeed bound, to look very closely at what is being done.
    If I am told that the Revenue cannot afford it, I fall back on the arguments which we seem to have heard before in this Committee, that what we have to compare with the £30 million this year put upon confectionery, soft drinks and sweets, is the £83 million remitted to Surtax payers. I think that that comparison is perfectly sound on any broad view of what the object of taxation ought to be. Apparently the Tory Party, in all their majesty, fully armoured and equipped, are descending on the children and relying on confectionery, soft drinks and sweets, etc., to secure the national economy for another year. It is, at any rate, the largest matter upon which they rely. They will. I am sure, forgive me for saying, with all respect to their majesty and their opinions, that it is a little funny that they should come down in this way and look to this to keep us as good as we ever have been—or is it "better than we ever have been"? I forget the phrase
    1458
    that the Prime Minister is using at the moment. It appears that it depends mainly on getting a bit out of the kids in the matter of sweets and so on.
    I do not want to lead the Committee into a flood of sentiment, and I do not think I need say very much more about it. But it is quite real. A great deal of this stuff upon which this Purchase Tax is being put is sold in 1d. and 2d. packets over the counters of small confectionery shops all over the country, and I should have thought that the effects of a tax of this sort were bound to go well beyond the tax itself. I would suppose that it is obvious that dealers having to attend to the provision of this tax would add a bit more on. They always do. We had exactly the same point the other day when the Tory Party, not having yet suffered from by-elections, chose fireworks as a suitable item to tax. I suppose they are a bit more shy about fireworks now and they have come down at long last to soft drinks.
    What is the object of this? Is it in aid of the brewers, or what is it? Is it to secure provision for the next General Election? I thought the brewers provided the soft drinks themselves these days, so it cannot be that. What is the reason which, at this time of day, has led the Chancellor of the Exchequer to choose this extraordinary subject for his particular attention?
    I invite the attention of the Committee to the Eighth Schedule, on page 50 of the Bill, and to the words:
    "Chocolates, sweets and similar confectionery …"
    What is "similar confectionery"? It also includes—
    "drained, glacé or crystallised fruits); and chocolate biscuits"—
    I think somebody has a point about that—
    "and other confectionery"—
    and so on. Then, for the same reason,—
    "Chocolate couverture not prepared or put up for retail sale"
    is exempt, and the Committee will be glad to note that so are drained cherries and candied peels. What rhyme or reason is there in these extraordinary distinctions? I cannot find any. I am sure there is some quite good trade reason. If we interfere with people's

    1459
    business in a matter of this sort in which there is so much small dealing and distribution through countless points, there are sure to be points that arise, and I suppose these are included to meet them.
    We then get on to manufactured beverages—an enormous lot of them—and—
    "crystals or other products for the preparation of beverages,"
    This is the kind of thing that a small child goes into a shop and buys to drink when thirsty. Then, we come to—
    "Containers of gas for the preparation of carbonated beverages."
    For some reason or another, we omit a good many other things. I am not saying that they should be taxed, but a good many of them are breakfast table items. I should have thought that a tax of this kind was certainly going to cause a lot of trouble if we distinguish between one item and another, and that it was a bad way of dealing with the channels of trade in a form of commerce which depends on the distribution of very small quantities in countless places all over the country.
    It is not for me to advise the Government, but I should have thought that the amount of bad feeling which they create for themselves by this sort of tax is quite out of proportion to what the result would be, but I repeat that the result is pretty formidable. After all, it is £50 million in a full year, and I repeat that this is the largest item in the whole Budget. Taxing the kids' lollipops is the supreme achievement of the Chancellor in this Budget, but there it is.
    I should like to say something from another point of view. I know quite well that a good many seriously-minded people have been trying to give up smoking lately for good health reasons. They are quite serious about it. A good many of my friends have done so. They then start eating more sweets. This happens regularly. I am not saying that this is a kind of governing point, but it is a point of some importance, and the moment when it is in the interests of the health of the nation that people should give up the excessive smoking of cigarettes is not quite the moment at which to charge a tax on the very thing which many of them find is a good substitute.
    1460
    I have made my two points. There is not very much to be said about this matter, and I hope that it will not occupy the time of the Committee for very long. Repentance, I have always understood, is quite a sudden process. I should like to see the Chancellor stricken, not by a long array of arguments, but by a sudden flash of insight that it would be wholly ridiculous to start this and quite wrong to go on with it—to found his Budget on a silly tax like this, which would create a great deal of bad feeling and, if not actual hardship, a great deal of inconvenience. It is an unkind sort of tax, and for all these reasons I hope the Committee will turn it down.
    I add only one thing. I am puzzled why the rate of 15 per cent. has been selected. As far as I know, it does not appear in otter parts of the Purchase Tax Schedule, but it may. I do not guarantee to have read all through it, though I have noticed that there are a great number of odd things taxed under it. For instance, "piggy banks" are taxed, in spite of what the Chancellor should be trying to do—to encourage thrift in the young. He is taxing their drinks and their "piggy banks". Gut revivers are taxed, too. The party opposite needs some of these at the moment, and the Government ought not to be taxing them.
    I have not been all through the Schedules but I think I am right. Why 15 per cent.? Is this something to do with the Common Market? Has the Chancellor got up his sleeve a new tax which is to go on a whole lot of things? What is it? I wish that he would let us into the secret and tell us. Or is it just another example of what I suspect often happens in the Treasury? If the Treasury people are really puzzled about how to administer some of these taxes on logical lines, they go into a back room—they do not even have "Ernie" there—and they just toss up or draw lots out of a hat. I cannot help feeling that the tax on sweets, both as to the rate and to the object of it, is, no doubt, intended to produce revenue, but for that purpose it must have been drawn out of a hat by a Chancellor without too many human feelings at the moment.
    Mr. Nabarro: I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will resist the

    1461
    Amendment. This tax most certainly was not drawn out of a hat, as I conceive the situation.
    Mr. Mitchison: How does the hon. Member know?
    Mr. Nabarro: I will tell the hon. and learned Gentleman in a moment. I do not consider that it was drawn out of a hat. I trust and I hope that it is part of a developing pattern to rationalise our entire system of indirect taxation, notably the Purchase Tax. The Committee knows that I have devoted a good deal of attention at Question Time over the last few years to the quite ridiculous Purchase Tax anomalies which arise and the fact that the tax has not been levied on any consistent or rational basis over a wide field. On the Budget last year I asked my right hon. and learned Friend specifically to consider three aspects of the Purchase Tax in relation to items excluded from the tax which, in my view, ought to have been included. On the first occasion I said:
    "There are three great sectors of consumer expenditure which have, so far, escaped taxation. They are firstly, soft drinks, secondly, sweets and confectionery and, thirdly, advertising. I hope that they will all be brought within the general ambit of reformed indirect taxation in the next two of my right hon. and learned Friend's Budget statements."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th May, 1961; Vol. 640. c. 1021.]
    On the Report stage of the Finance Bill, on a proposal dealing with the general amendment of the Purchase Tax, I said:
    "I would bring the whole of general advertising, the whole of soft drinks and the whole of confectionery and sweets into the ambit of Purchase Tax on one of the lower scales. That is a proposition which should be acceptable to the Chancellor and would not be unreasonable or inequitable in respect of the industries concerned. Above all, it would not inflict any harm whatever upon the nation's exporting industries."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd July, 1961; Vol. 643, c. 1146.]
    I wish to direct attention for a few moments to this proposition for the taxation of sweets, confectionery and soft drinks in the context of the nation's great exporting industries. We all agreed about this last year. The entire Labour Party voted with me—[Laughter.] The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin), who is hooting with derision at that statement, should look up the record. He will find that I divided the House against my right hon.
    1462
    and learned Friend. The Labour Party voted with me on a proposal for the reduction of the Purchase Tax from the highest level of 50 per cent., notably on motor cans, the reason being the infinite damage done to the nation's export trade by the maintenance of taxation on cars at the highest level, an iniquitous level. In my Amendment and the Division I was warmly supported by, among others, the hon. Member for Birmingam, Northfield (Mr. Chapman).
    The only way in which my right hon. and learned Friend could reduce the existing level of taxation was by broadening the base of the tax and bringing into the taxation Schedules these items to which I have alluded, notably soft drinks, sweets and confectionery, and, I believe, advertising as well. I hope that he will include advertising next year.
    My right hon. and learned Friend made this perfecly clear in his Budget statement. The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) made no reference to this. It would have been fairer if he had referred to it.
    Mr. Mitchison rose—
    9.30 p.m.
    Mr. Nabarro: I will give way in a few moments. The hon. and learned Member should not be impetuous. My right hon. and learned Friend has said:
    "There is a strong case for broadening the scope of the tax by including some articles which most people would consider just as suitable for taxation as those which are already included."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th April, 1962; Vol. 657, c. 990.]
    That statement of policy and principle is an extension of what the previous Chancellor, Lord Amory, said in both 1958 and 1959, demonstrating consistency of policy on the part of successive Chancellors of the Exchequer.
    Mr. Mitchison: I did not refer to the Chancellor's speech because the Chancellor is here to defend himself and perfectly capable of doing it. I wished to be economical in my demands on the time of the Committee.
    Mr. Nabarro: I shall be equally economical if hon. Members opposite will allow me to proceed with my speech. Of course, the Chancellor can defend himself, but I happen to be a supporter of my right hon. and learned Friend in

    1463
    this important fiscal matter. He is doing what I asked him to do last year, the year before that, and the year before that, and, inasmuch as he is moving, by slow and faltering steps, in my direction, I am deeply grateful to him.
    The application of Purchase Tax to soft drinks, sweets and confectionery is sumptuary but not offensive to fiscal ethics, and I am not original in advocating it.
    For example, the Economist has stated for many years that a tax of this kind, if we are to have Purchase Tax, should be spread over the broadest possible field and, in my view, the broader the field it is spread over—while not touching food, for I do not classify sweets as food, or fuel or transport, which are dealt with under different tax headings—the more I believe we will reach a sound and equitable basis for taxation.
    The hon. and learned Member for Kettering called in aid the rather disingenuous argument that to discourage people from smoking cigarettes one should encourage them to suck sweets. Lung cancer may be a grievous ailment and may afflict a rising percentage of our population in their prime years of life. That is true, it grieves me and I am in sympathy with that proposition. I have endeavoured, like many others, to cut down my smoking as a result of the report of the appropriate medical bodies. But the right hon. and learned Gentleman might in fairness, also have quoted the views of the dental surgeons who have pointed out the grievous increase in diseases and ailments of every description arising from the appalling condition of children's teeth.
    I know that prevention is better than cure and I am aware of all the other arguments about the schools needing more dental surgeons and better dental services. But this nation is now consuming per 1,000 head of the population three times as many sweets in volume as they consumed in pre-war years and two and a half times as much "pop", or soft drinks, as pre-war. I do not mind them doing that, and I do not wish to arrest their natural desires in any way, but I do not think that militates in any way against my argument that these are essentially sumptuary articles should be judged as such and should be taxed
    1464
    in the correct taxation bracket, which, I believe, to be 15 per cent.
    Certainly, I do not discard the cigarette argument altogether in this context, and I should say that by putting a small tax on sweets, we could only discourage marginally the level of cigarette consumption, but the health benefits would largely be offset if the sucking and chewing of sweets, thereby engendered, led to a decline in dental health.
    Mr. Donald Wade: Why is the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) in favour of the figure of 15 per cent., thereby increasing the number of categories?
    Mr. Nabarro: I had intended to deal next with the 15 per cent. rate and why. The Chancellor has chosen wisely 15 per cent. because he will need only a very marginal adjustment—from 15 per cent. to 16⅔ per cent., or 2d in the 1s. Of course, we have four rates at present: 45 per cent., 25 per cent., 15 per cent. and 10 per cent. The Chancellor could have put the 5 per cent. rate straight up to 15 per cent. but that would have involved considerable trading hardships and I think that he was wise to do it in two steps—10 per cent. at first and then to reconsider the position next year.
    Thus, 15 per cent., if we are to tax sweets, confectionery and soft drinks, is probably the accurate level to adopt.
    Mr. Loughlin: Why?
    Mr. Nabarro: Because next year, when further reform of Purchase Tax might be carried out, any further changes would be less severe than if my right hon. and learned Friend had set it at a lower rate.
    I now refer, in a critical sense, to the behaviour of various traders in the handling of the imposition of tax on soft drinks, sweets and confectionery. [HON. MEMBERS: "Imposition?"] Do I hear hon. Gentlemen opposite chanting the word "imposition"? Of course it is an imposition. "Imposition" means putting a tax on. I recognise it as such, I admit it as being such and I support it as such. I deprecate the habits of some manufacturers of sweets and soft drinks in increasing their prices by very much more than the net increase in the Purchase Tax. The hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) was ques-

    1465
    tioning my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food last week about this very point and I supported her by saying that the amount of the increase in the price of sweets, confectionery and soft drinks was vastly in excess of the net amount of Purchase Tax imposed.
    I have with me a letter telling of something which I deprecate as a nefarious practice. The letter came to me yesterday morning from Exeter, enclosing a leaflet from a soft drinks distributor in that City. The letter draws attention to the fact that some of our most popular soft drinks are being increased in price from 9d per bottle to 11d. That represents an increase in the retail price of 22 2/9 per cent.—equal to an increase in the wholesale price of about 28 per cent. But the amount of Purchase Tax imposed on the wholesale price is only 15 per cent.
    It follows that this manufacturer and distributor has increased the price of his soft drinks by nearly twice as much—28 per cent. compared with 15 per cent. at the wholesale level—as the net amount of the Purchase Tax imposed on soft drinks. I regard that kind of thing as quite disgraceful. I regard it is as even more disgraceful the imputation that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is responsible for this increase. These are the words printed in the circular:
    "Dear Customer,
    You will note that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has found it necessary to impose a Purchase Tax on sweets and ice cream to take effect on 8th May, 1962. We are now advising our regular customers of the new price which will apply from that date."
    It follows, sparkling drinks 11d. For the reasons I have explained arithmetically the amount of the increase in price is double the net imposition of Purchase Tax. There is no reason given for this other than the imputation that the Chancellor is responsible for the price increase, and the firm concerned has been pertinent to conclude its notice:
    "We thank you for your valued custom in the past and look forward to bringing you a sparkle in the middle and a tickle at the top direct to your home for many years to come.
    Yours sincerely"—
    with the signature of the firm, Corona. I am conscious of giving the widest possible publicity to what is an entirely nefarious practice.
    Mr. Thomas Steele: What was the wholesale price?
    Mr. Nabarro: The margins normally worked on by a business of this kind are 33⅓ per cent., and the hon. Gentleman can work out for himself how I arrived at my figure. It is perfectly easy. I am not out of sympathy with many of the complaints made by his own side of the Committee. He should consult his hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), who was raising the same complaint in the context of sweets and confectionery.
    Mr. Steele: I am only trying to arrive at the facts.
    Mr. Nabarro: I have given the facts, and if the hon. Member examines them tomorrow I am sure that he will be almost entirely in agreement with them.
    I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend, while he cannot prevent, by Statute, this sort of thing from happening, because manufacturers can always plead other reasons for differences in price, the difference between net Purchase Tax and the total increase in price levied on the consumer—while I recognise the competitive element in any particular trade, be it soft drinks, sweets or confectionery—should be held in check and not go beyond that of the total increase.
    Still I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend or the Economic Secretary or the Financial Secretary, in replying to this debate, will express his view as being completely in sympathy with mine, that this kind of imputation, that steep price increases arise solely from Purchase Tax, ought to be refuted here in this Committee of the House of Commons and that traders are, in certain circumstances, taking an unfair advantage of the imposition of what is a relatively small margin of increase in the relative application of Purchase Tax to sweets, confectionery and soft drinks.
    I support my right hon. and learned Friend. This is a sumptuary tax, which is justifiable. I wholly support it, and I hope that the Amendment will be resisted.
    9.45 p.m.
    Mr. Oram: It grieves me to have to say that to a certain extent I agree with the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), not in welcoming the tax or the rate but in his interpretation of the tendency which is revealed in the Chancellor's mind in imposing this tax. I do not think that the rate of 15 per cent. was taken out of the hat in the Treasury. I think that the hon. Gentleman is probably right in thinking that there is more method in this than may appear on the surface.
    It does seem, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) pointed out, a little odd that a new rate should be brought into the scheme at a time when, in other respects, the scheme is becoming simplified, but I believe that the 15 per cent. rate is intended to be a precedent for a flat rate of tax to which we can—I will not say look forward—expect next year. I believe it to be the intention of the Chancellor—I hope that if it is not his intention he will take the opportunity of denying it—that we shall go next year still further along the road of a flat rate of tax of the 15 per cent. order and extended over a wider range of commodities than that to which the present Purchase Tax extends.
    There is significance, I believe, not only in the rate of 15 per cent. that has been chosen but in this new extension of Purchase Tax to a field which it has not hitherto covered, sweets and ice cream and the like. I would point out that it includes chocolate biscuits. Chocolate biscuits are very near to a definition of food. It may well be that this is a bridge to extend Purchase Tax still further to food. I am very much hoping that this is not the case, and I hope that the Chancellor will set my mind at rest, and the minds of my hon. Friends, when he replies, and deny that there is any intention on the part of the Government to extend Purchase Tax still further.
    I think that the hon. Member for Kidderminster is also right in saying that the Chancellor is moving in the hon. Member's direction in his thoughts on Purchase Tax. The hon. Member, naturally, welcomes this, but I think that it is deplorable. It is deplorable that there should be this tendency to close the gap between the lowest and the highest rates.
    1468
    We have examples in a number of provisions of the Bill and I suspect that, just as we have seen an increase from 5 per cent. to 10 per cent. this year, so next year, we will see the increase go to 15 per cent., if the Chancellor can possibly get away with it.
    That is the sort of thing which the hon. Member for Kidderminster welcomes. He wants the lowest rate to be stepped to about 15 per cent., but that would make this a far more regressive tax. My general objection to Purchase Tax is that it is far too regressive. It has certain features which commend it. It can be a fiscal planning instrument, but in its general effect upon the taxpayer it is regressive, and if it is changed in the direction which the hon. Member for Kidderminster wants, and of which we have more than a few hints in the Bill, it will become still more regressive and unjust.
    Sir Arthur Vere Harvey: In principle, I agree with this tax. I do not see why those who smoke and drink should pay the bulk of the tax. It is right that everybody should pay something.
    But I intervene in the debate to deal with a very small company in Bollington, in my constituency, which manufactures liquer chocolates. Many hon. Members will say that they are not necessities, and I am the first to recognise that they are luxury goods. This is a very small business into which a father and son put their life savings two or three years ago. There are only three firms making liqueur chocolates in this country, one in Bristol, one in London and one in Macclesfield. The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn) has told me that a firm in his constituency which makes the cartons into which the chocolates are packed has found that orders have now ceased pending the outcome of the debate.
    My constituents pay about 400 per cent. on the liqueurs inside the chocolates. This is a very complicated business, for practically all of the liqueur chocolates are made by hand, and now the company is to suffer an additional 15 per cent. tax. It is quite wrong that individuals or companies who pay 400 per cent. tax should be burdened with another 15 per cent. on the overall

    1469
    figure, and I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to have a look as this position.
    This is not a vital matter, but there are only three firms in Britain and I am told that their products are used at weddings, for presents and at Christmas. The trade is very seasonal. This small firm in my constituency converted a cinema to meet all the conditions required for food manufacture. It is very satisfying to see a father and son building up a business, but this measure may destroy what they have struggled to build up, and I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to see whether something can be done to help such firms.
    Mr. Loughlin: The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) said that he agreed with the tax in principle and saw no reason why if people who drank and smoked had to pay tax, those who ate sweets should not also make a contribution to taxation. Can he say whether in this context he is referring to children being taxed?
    Sir A. V. Harvey: The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) is deliberately trying to misunderstand what I was saying. I think that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee understood perfectly well what I meant. Of course, the children are paying the tax, but those of us with children do not mind. The children in this country eat far too many sweets. The people with whom I sympathise are the old-age pensioners who enjoy sweets. I think that the hon. Member was just trying to make trouble.
    Mr. Loughlin: I am surprised that the hon. Member should take some exception to my intervention. I want to be clear about his attitude. He said that in general he agreed with children paying a 15 per cent. tax. The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) said that the 15 per cent. tax should be extended and yet the hon. Member for Macclesfield appealed for the tax not to be applied to those who ate liqueur chocolates. That is the sort of double thinking we have in the Tory Party.
    The hon. Member for Kidderminster boasted a great deal during his long speech about the Chancellor's conversion to the point of view which the hon. Member has argued for a long time.
    1470
    One thing which I like about the hon. Member is his modesty, but he should have a little more sympathy with us. It is bad enough to have to listen to the hon. Member making his speeches, but for him repeatedly to quote long extracts from his previous speeches becomes a little intolerable.
    We are here dealing with a 15 per cent. tax the greater part of which, the greater part of £30 million in this year and £50 million in a full year, will be borne by the children.
    Mr. A. R. Wise: Children do not pay tax.
    Mr. Loughlin: The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. Wise), who has just made a sedentary interruption, says that children do not pay tax. Let me illustrate how they do. The average child receives from his parents a given amount of pocket money. I have a boy who receives 2s. 6d. a week pocket money. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I think that is the right amount. He is entitled to it—as much entitled to it as he is to the food and clothing which we supply for him. But although the Chancellor has put a 15 per cent. tax on sweets, my boy has not had an increase in his pocket money. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] In that sense he is paying the price of the Chancellor. I appreciate the barracking which I am having on this matter, but I put it seriously to hon. Members opposite that this is what applies in a large proportion of cases, and in that case the children are paying £30 million this year and £50 million next year for the Chancellor. It may well be that the hon. Member for Kidderminster is more generous in his approach in this matter, but the point which I make is that we are dealing with an action of the Chancellor and not an action of the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West. The amount of time which the Chancellor has spent—
    Mr. Ross: That is all that he has spent.
    Mr. Loughlin:—in producing this tax is beyond me. A few short weeks ago he brought into the House a Purchase Tax Order in respect of penny bangers, and then in his Budget he doubled up on sweets, which shows that he has not much sympathy with children.

    1471
    The hon. Member for Kidderminster referred to soft drinks. I am one of those hon. Members who in recent weeks have attempted to cut down cigarette smoking—many hon. Members are doing the same thing—and I have had a tendency to buy peppermints. The peppermints which I bought were normally retailed at 2d. Yesterday on Birmingham station I found that the purchase price of these mints—Polo mints—was 2½d., which was a 25 per cent. increase on the original price. This is happening in the case of Polo mints and Corona soft drinks and all types of sweets, chocolates, ice cream and soft drinks, which are all being increased by more than 15 per cent. in price.
    This is not unusual for private enterprise, which has constantly taken advantage of every circumstance to increase the profit. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about the co-operative societies?"] It is not my responsibility to answer for the co-operative societies. I am talking about private enterprise. The co-operative societies do not produce Polo mints or Corona soft drinks. The profit here is determined by Corona, according to the letter read by the hon. Member for Kidderminster. We cannot complain about the co-operative societies. Every time we have this kind of increase in taxation private enterprise will take full advantage of it. If we bear in mind that they exist only to make profits and that they have no moral scruples at all, we can understand their attitude.
    10.0 p.m.
    Mr. Charles A. Howell rose—
    Hon. Members: Let the Chancellor speak.
    Mr. Howell: I will let him speak when I have addressed a few words to him.
    To what extent is this tax a conspiracy? I am concerned that earlier in the week we were talking about the pay pause. I read in a newspaper that a young girl had written to the Chancellor bitterly complaining about this tax, which seems to create much hilarity on the other side of the House. She said that she gets 1s. a week pocket money but that she cannot now buy one
    1472
    shilling's worth unless she has an increase in pocket money from her father. The Chancellor is reported as having replied that it requires an increase of only 1½d. to give her the same purchasing value. That is a newspaper report, and I see that the Chancellor shakes his head about it. I read it, but it may have been amusing reporting, arising from the reporter's imagination. It shows the figure which they thought was in the Chancellor's mind.
    The hon. Member for Kidderminster is known for his opposition to nationalisation and State ownership. He does his best to advocate private enterprise against State ownership. But what would have happened if the State public houses had increased their prices of beer by twice as much as the increase in tax imposed by the Chancellor? This is not unusual. Hon. Members who were not present to hear last night's debate should read the report of the proceedings in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The Economic Secretary tried his hardest to exonerate the Chancellor for what he told us about sugar. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had told us that taking off the tax would reduce the price of sugar. The Economic Secretary tried to explain last night that what he took off sugar has now made it equal to what it would have gone up to. He could not possibly have known on that occasion that it would go up.
    The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) referred to soft drinks manufactured by Corona. Most ice cream firms have indicated that they are either putting up their 6d. bars to 7d. or are reducing the amount children will get for 6d. This is not confined to one "ginger pop" firm. Most private industry will take advantage of this. If the Chancellor had wanted to be honest with the country, he would have had the courage to come forward with 16⅔ per cent. so that he could have had the 2d. in the shilling rather than 1d. or 1½d. for himself and ½d. for private industry, unless he is hoping that some of it will come back, the same as the Surtax concession will come back, into Tory Party funds. The Institute of Directors will obviously recommend to its fellow directors where their contributions should go.
    In my opinion, this is a conspiracy. The report to which I have referred mentions the child saying, "If I want

    1473
    another 1½ from my father he will want an increase in wages". We shall then come up against the pay pause. I ask hon. Members to bear in mind the effect this will have on railway workers. Before I came to the House I represented thousands of railwaymen who were getting less, and are still getting less, than many hon. Members opposite draw each week in expense accounts. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I have seen it in print that it is extremely doubtful if there are any hon. Members opposite who have to live on their Parliamentary salaries.
    Mr. Nabarro: There are not many on the other side either.
    Mr. Howell: The hon. Member for Kidderminster, who makes these intelligent interventions, has fallen by the wayside, because he has been supplied with a booklet which tells him how many Members on this side live on their bare salary.
    Mr. Nabarro: Is it not the fact that the hon. Gentleman who has just confessed that he represents thousands of railwaymen, is subsidised by the N.U.R.?
    Mr. Howell: Yes, and I am quite proud of the fact that my union makes a contribution towards my expenses of £100.
    Mr. Nabarro: An expense account.
    Mr. Howell: I am being honest about it. That is more than I can say for the other side.
    The Deputy-Chairman (Sir R. Grimston): The hon. Gentleman is getting very far from the Amendment.
    Mr. Howell: I quite agree, Sir Robert, but it is very difficult, as you know, not to give an answer when one is asked a direct question. I am not ashamed to do that, but I apologise to you for transgressing the rules of order. These men who will have to pay their children's lollipop tax will now have the equivalent to a deduction in wages. There is no other prospect. Fifty million pounds must be found. It will not come out of the expense accounts. It will not come from the rich people—at least they will not notice if it is coming from the firm's accounts, apart from their expense
    1474
    accounts. Most of this tax will be paid by working men and women.
    To return to my theme, railwaymen, who are not the best paid people in the country, can least afford this tax. I see no reason why low paid railwaymen should have to deny their children lollipops and ginger pop, whereas others who may be earning more money can afford it. This is a discrimination against the children of the lower paid workers. It is nothing unusual for the Tory Party to do such things. What is usual for the other side is for it to support private enterprise. This afternoon we were told from the Government Front Bench that something was deplorable. When we asked, "What are you going to do about it?" we were immediately told, "But we are not in favour of price control".
    We have heard this before in Budget debates. The hon. Member for Kidderminster quoted his noble Friend who has gone to the other place. Lord Amory told us on two occasions in Budget debates that he would tighten things up and do something drastic if something was not done to stop the abuse of expense accounts. It has not been done yet. If the Chancellor had done that, as he threatened in his last Budget, this 15 per cent. on the children's lollipops would not have been necessary. In fact he would have reaped in much more if he had done that. There is not any doubt that he is doing this as a conspiracy to try to goad all the lower paid workers to ask for more increases in wages, knowing full well that the railwaymen and all those employed in the nationalised industries or by the State will come under his 2½ per cent. pay pause. He knows that this will cause friction. To what extent is he seeking to creat such friction between now and the next General Election?
    There is only one other thing that one can assume. This is the position of the man who is found bashing his head against a brick wall and who, when asked why he does it, says, "It is so nice when I stop." I can only assume that these oppressive and mean taxes on children are being put on now so that the Chancellor can have the credit of taking them off in the Budget before the next General Election. If that is what he is doing he has nothing to take

    1475
    credit for. I believe that he is a married man and that on reflection he will agree that this is a mean tax to put on children. If he cannot find a way of obtaining revenue to keep us from becoming bankrupt without taxing children, it does not say much for the imagination which we were given to understand he would show in the Budget.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): As this is a new area of taxation proposed to the Committee, I think that it is right that I should speak on it and defend it. I have a good deal of sympathy with much that has been said today. I think that all taxes are odious, but the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) asked me the reasons for this tax. The answer is money. It is to obtain revenue. If we did not put this tax on we should have to put some other tax on to obtain the revenue in another way.
    Mr. Mitchison: With respect, I offered the Chancellor the alternative of not remitting £83 million of Surtax.
    Mr. Lloyd: The hon. and learned Member cannot get away with that. He has been told again and again that the 2½ per cent. increase in Profits Tax was put on, broadly, to pay for the Surtax concession. I know only too well that this is never mentioned by any hon. Member opposite. All hon. Members opposite claim that any tax of any sort leads to a Surtax concession. The plain fact is that if I did not propose this tax on sweets and confectionery £30 million would have had to be raised in another way this year and £50 million in a full year.
    The reason why we have had to put taxes on is the expenditure pressed upon me from both sides of the Committee most of the time. I find the criticism of my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) much more tolerable because he at least is one of those who are always seeking to restrain and control public expenditure. Broadly speaking, the Committee is in favour of the policies and programmes to which we are committed. The money has to be found to pay for them and it is my duty to spread taxation as widely and fairly as possible. I submit that this proposal
    1476
    fits into the pattern of Purchase Tax which I have been seeking to establish.
    The rates of Purchase Tax in 1952 were 33⅓ per cent., 66⅔ per cent. and 100 per cent. In the autumn of 1955 they were 30 per cent., 60 per cent. and 90 per cent. In 1958, they went down to 5 per cent., 15 per cent., 30 per cent., and 60 per cent. In 1959 they were 5 per cent., 12½ per cent., 25 per cent., and 50 per cent. In July 1961, as a result of the use of the regulator, they were 5½ per cent., 13¾ per cent., 27½ per cent., and 55 per cent. The articles governed by those rates are now subject to 10 per cent., 25 per cent., and 45 per cent.
    This is a constructive attempt to get taxation in this field on a better basis, and within that conception and in the entirely new field with which we are dealing in the Amendment I submit that 15 per cent. is not out of line and not inappropriate. I was asked why it should be 15 per cent. The answer is that 10 per cent. would not have brought in enough money and that, in my view, 25 per cent. would have been too high a rate to fix in this area of taxation.
    As to the question of passing on, I do not know the facts of the particular case, but I agree with the proposition put forward on both sides of the Committee. I think that if reductions are made in Purchase Tax, the reduction should be passed on, and, if additions are made, the addition, and no more, should be passed on. As a general principle, that is a duty upon those who deal in these goods; and their representations for a reduction in Purchase Tax will have to be considered in a rather different light if when reductions are made those are not passed on.
    10.15 p.m.
    Coming to the merits of the tax on sweets and confectionery, my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) raised the question of liqueur chocolates. I am not quite certain how much sympathy one ought to give to consumers of liqueur chocolates, but I will look at that case to see whether they are subject to double taxation in any form. On the merits of the tax, I think that the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) was quite wrong in suggesting that it is only children who eat sweets. He did, in fact, state later that he himself was an addict to peppermints.
    Mr. Loughlin: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way, because I want to get this on the record. I said that the greater proportion of the tax would come from the children.
    Mr. Lloyd: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is right even about that. I do not think that children, as a rule, consume these luxury type of chocolates, expensive chocolates and things of that sort. I think that he will find that, in practice, a great deal of this tax affects goods which are consumed by adults.
    The health aspect has been mentioned. I think that we should face the fact that our consumption of sweets is the highest in the world. The United Kingdom consumes 8 oz. per person per week, the United States 5 oz. per person per week, and West Germany, 4 ozs. per person per week. It is just possible that there may be a healthy reaction from some dimunition of this consumption here.
    I think that the case for this new tax has been made by almost every speech in the debate today. Hon. Members have asked why we tax necessities. I agreed
    with a great deal that was said by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater). She talked about the articles in the 25 per cent. range which, by and large, are necessities, or which should be regarded as necessities for ordinary people. If they are to be taxed—if clothing, furniture, carpets, household utensils and all these things are to be taxed½is it not fair and reasonable that sweets, confectionery and ice cream should also bear their contribution?
    I think that the tax is common sense, that it is fair, and that it is reasonable. As long as we have these taxes on the necessities or near necessities, I think that it is entirely right and proper that this very large field of consumption, which is not absolutely essential consumption, should also bear its share of the national burden. I therefore commend this tax to the Committee.
    Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 203, Noes 143.

    Division No. 189.]

    AYES

    [10.19 p.m.

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver

    Hobson, Sir John

    Aitken W. T.

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Hocking, Philip N.

    Allason, James

    Dance, James

    Holland, Philip

    Atkins, Humphrey

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Hollingworth, John

    Barber, Anthony

    Deedes, W. F.

    Hopkins, Alan

    Barlow, Sir John

    de Ferranti, Basil

    Hornby, R. P.

    Barter, John

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

    Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.

    Batsford, Brian

    Doughty, Charles

    Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

    Biffen, John

    Drayson, G. B.

    Hughes-Young, Michael

    Biggs-Davison, John

    du Cann, Edward

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Bishop, F. P.

    Duncan, Sir James

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Black, Sir Cyril

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Bourne-Arton, A.

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

    James, David

    Box, Donald

    Emery, Peter

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J.

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Kaberry, Sir Donald

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Farey-Jones, F. W.

    Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

    Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

    Finlay, Graeme

    Kerr, Sir Hamilton

    Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Kimball, Marcus

    Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

    Gammans, Lady

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

    Bryan, Paul

    Gardner, Edward

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Buck, Anthony

    Gibson-Watt, David

    Litchfield, Capt. John

    Bullard, Denys

    Gilmour, Sir John

    Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

    Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

    Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)

    Longden, Gilbert

    Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

    Goodhew, Victor

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn

    Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

    Gower, Raymond

    MacArthur, Ian

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Green, Alan

    McLaren, Martin

    Channon, H. P. G.

    Gresham Cooke, R.

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

    Chataway, Christopher

    Gurden, Harold

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

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

    Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

    Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

    McMaster, Stanley R.

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon. N. W.)

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Cleaver, Leonard

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Madden, Martin

    Collard, Richard

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

    Maitland, Sir John

    Cooke, Robert

    Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    Cooper, A. E.

    Hay, John

    Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Marten, Neil

    Cordle, John

    Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward

    Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

    Corfield, F. V.

    Hendry, Forbes

    Mawby, Ray

    Costain, A. P.

    Hiley, Joseph

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Coulson, Michael

    Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

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

    Craddock, Sir Beresford

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Mills, Stratton

    Critchley, Julian

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

    Morgan, William

    Renton, David

    Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Nabarro, Gerald

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

    Vickers, Miss Joan

    Neave, Airey

    Roots, William

    Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

    Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Wakefield, Sir Wavell

    Noble, Michael

    Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)

    Walder, David

    Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard

    Seymour, Leslie

    Walker, Peter

    Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

    Sharples, Richard

    Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek

    Orr-Ewing, C. Ian

    Shaw, M.

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    Shepherd, William

    Webster, David

    Page, John (Harrow, West)

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

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

    Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

    Partridge, E.

    Smithers, Peter

    Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

    Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

    Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

    Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

    Percival, Ian

    Speir, Rupert

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Peyton, John

    Stanley, Hon. Richard

    Wise, A. R.

    Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

    Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Pitman, Sir James

    Stodart, J. A.

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard

    Pott, Percivall

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

    Woodhouse, C. M.

    Prior, J. M. L.

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Woodnut, Mark

    Profumo, Rt. Hon. John

    Summers, Sir Spencer

    Woollam, John

    Proudfoot, Wilfred

    Talbot, John E.

    Worsley, Marcus

    Pym, Francis

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

    Yates, William (The Wrekin)

    Quennell, Miss J. M.

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

    Ramsden, James

    Temple, John M.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Mr. J. E. B. Hill and

    Rees, Hugh

    Thomas, Peter (Conway)

    Mr. Gordon Campbell.

    NOES

    Abse, Leo

    Hayman, F. H.

    Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

    Ainsley, William

    Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)

    Pentland, Norman

    Albu, Austen

    Herbison, Miss Margaret

    Popplewell, Ernest

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Hill, J. (Midlothian)

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

    Holman, Percy

    Probert, Arthur

    Bence, Cyril

    Holt, Arthur

    Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

    Benson, Sir George

    Houghton, Douglas

    Rhodes, H.

    Blyton, William

    Hoy, James H.

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

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

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)

    Bowles, Frank

    Hunter, A. E.

    Ross, William

    Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Short, Edward

    Brockway, A. Fenner

    Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

    Skeffington, Arthur

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

    Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

    Small, William

    Castle, Mrs. Barbara

    Jeger, George

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Collick, Percy

    Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

    Snow, Julian

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Cronin, John

    Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Steele, Thomas

    Deer, George

    Kelley, Richard

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

    Delargy, Hugh

    Kenyon, Clifford

    Stones, William

    Diamond, John

    King, Dr. Horace

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

    Dodds, Norman

    Lawson, George

    Swain, Thomas

    Donnelly, Desmond

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Taverne, D.

    Edelman, Maurice

    Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    Loughlin, Charles

    Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

    Evans, Albert

    MacColl, James

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

    Fernyhough, E.

    McInnes, James

    Thornton, Ernest

    Finch, Harold

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Wade, Donald

    Fitch, Alan

    Mackie, John (Enfield, East)

    Wainwright, Edwin

    Fletcher, Eric

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Warbey, William

    Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)

    Mapp, Charles

    Weitzman, David

    Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

    Marsh, Richard

    Whitlock, William

    Forman, J. C.

    Mason, Roy

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Milne, Edward

    Williams, LI. (Abertillery)

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Williams W. T. (Warrington)

    Ginsburg, David

    Monslow, Walter

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

    Gourlay, Harry

    Morris, John

    Winterbottom, R. E.

    Grey, Charles

    Neal, Harold

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)

    Woof, Robert

    Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.

    Oram, A. E.

    Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

    Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

    Oswald, Thomas

    Hail, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Padley, W. E.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Hamilton, William (West Fife)

    Paget, R. T.

    Mr. Charles A. Howell and

    Harper, Joseph

    Pargiter, G. A.

    Mr. McCann.

    Hart, Mrs. Judith

    Parker, John

    Amendment proposed: In page 7, line 39, at end insert:
    (2) The foregoing subsection shall not apply to references to a rate of five per cent. in
    1480
    respect of Groups 6, 11 and 16 and for any such reference there shall be substituted a reference to a rate of one quarter of one per cent.—[Mr. Weitzman.]
    Question put, That those words be there inserted:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 139, Noes 206.

    Division No. 190.]

    AYES

    [10.29 p.m.

    About, Leo

    Herbison, Miss Margaret

    Pentland, Norman

    Ainsley, William

    Hill, J. (Midlothian)

    Popplewell, Ernest

    Albu, Austen

    Hilton, A. V.

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Holman, Fercy

    Probert, Arthur

    Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

    Houghton, Douglas

    Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

    Bence, Cyril

    Hoy James H.

    Rhodes, H.

    Benson, Sir George

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Blyton, William

    Hunter, A. E.

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

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

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)

    Bowles, Frank

    Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

    Ross, William

    Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Short, Edward

    Brockway, A. Fenner

    Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

    Skeffington, Arthur

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

    Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Jeger, George

    Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

    Small, William

    Castle, Mrs. Barbara

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Collick, Percy

    Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

    Snow, Julian

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Cronin, John

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Cullen, Mrs. Alice

    Kelley, Richard

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

    Kenyon, Clifford

    Steele, Thomas

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    King, Dr. Horace

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

    Deer, George

    Lawson, George

    Stones, William

    Delargy, Hugh

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

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

    Diamond, John

    Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

    Swain, Thomas

    Donnelly, Desmond

    Loughlin, Charles

    Taverne, D.

    Edelman, Maurice

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    McCann, John

    Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    MacColl, James

    Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

    Evans, Albert

    McInnes, James

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

    Fernyhough, E.

    Mackie, John (Enfield, East)

    Thornton, Ernest

    Finch, Harold

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Wainwright, Edwin

    Fitch, Alan

    Mapp, Charles

    Warbey, William

    Fletcher, Eric

    Marsh, Richard

    Weitzman, David

    Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)

    Mason, Roy

    Whitlock, William

    Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

    Milne, Edward

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Forman, J. C.

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Williams, LI. (Abertillery)

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Monslow, Walter

    Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    Morris, John

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

    Ginsburg, David

    Neal, Harold

    Winterbottom, R. E.

    Gourlay, Harry

    Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Oram, A. E.

    Woof, Robert

    Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

    Oswald, Thomas

    Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

    Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Coins Valley)

    Padley, W. E.

    Hamilton, William (West Fife)

    Paget, R. T.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Harper, Joseph

    Pargiter, G. A.

    Mr. Charles A. Howell and

    Hayman, F. H.

    Parker, John

    Mr. Grey.

    Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)

    Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

    NOES

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

    Farey-Jones, F. W.

    Aitken, W. T.

    Clarke, Brig, Terence (Portsmth, W.)

    Farr, John

    Allason, James

    Cleaver, Leonard

    Finlay, Graeme

    Atkins, Humphrey

    Collard, Richard

    Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Barber, Anthony

    Cooke, Robert

    Gammans, Lady

    Barlow, Sir John

    Cooper, A. E.

    Gardner, Edward

    Barter, John

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

    Gibson-Watt, David

    Batsford, Brian

    Cordle, John

    Gilmour, Sir John

    Biffen, John

    Corfield, F. V.

    Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Costain, A. P.

    Goodhew, Victor

    Bishop, F. P.

    Coulson, Michael

    Gower, Raymond

    Black, Sir Cyril

    Craddock, Sir Beresford

    Green, Alan

    Bourne-Arton, A.

    Critchley, Julian

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    Box, Donald

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver

    Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J.

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Gurden, Harold

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Dance, James

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

    Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Deedes, W. F.

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

    Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

    de Ferranti, Basil

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Buck, Antony

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

    Bullard, Denys

    Doughty, Charles

    Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

    Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

    Drayson, G. B.

    Hay, John

    Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

    du Cann, Edward

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

    Duncan, Sir James

    Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward

    Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    Hendry, Forbes

    Cary, Sir Robert

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

    Hiley, Joseph

    Channon, H. P. G.

    Emery, Peter

    Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

    Chataway, Christopher

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Hirst, Geoffrey

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

    Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Northwood)

    Hobson, Sir John

    Mille, Stratton

    Speir, Rupert

    Hocking, Philip N.

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Stanley, Hon. Richard

    Holland, Philip

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

    Hollingworth, John

    Morgan, William

    Stodart, J. A.

    Holt, Arthur

    Nabarro, Gerald

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

    Hopkins, Alan

    Neave, Airey

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Hornby, R. P.

    Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

    Summers, Sir Spencer

    Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.

    Noble, Michael

    Talbot, John E.

    Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

    Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard

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

    Hughes-Young, Michael

    Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

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

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Orr-Ewing, C. Ian

    Temple, John M.

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

    Thomas, Peter (Conway)

    James, David

    Partridge, E.

    Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

    Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Kaberry, Sir Donald

    Percival, Ian

    Vickers, Miss Joan

    Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

    Peyton, John

    Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

    Kerr, Sir Hamilton

    Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

    Wade, Donald

    Kimball, Marcus

    Pitman, Sir James

    Wakefield, Sir Wavell

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

    Pott, Percivall

    Walder, David

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Prior, J. M. L.

    Walker, Peter

    Litchfield, Capt. John

    Profumo, Rt. Hon. John

    Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek

    Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

    Proudfoot, Wilfred

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Longden, Gilbert

    Pym, Francis

    Webster, David

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn

    Quennell, Miss J. M.

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    MacArthur, Ian

    Ramsden, James

    Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

    Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

    McLaren, Martin

    Rees, Hugh

    Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

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

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

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

    Renton, David

    Wise, A. R.

    MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

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

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    McMaster, Stanley R.

    Roots, William

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Woodhouse, C. M.

    Maddan, Martin

    Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)

    Woodnutt, Mark

    Maitland, Sir John

    Seymour, Leslie

    Woollam, John

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    Sharples, Richard

    Worsley, Marcus

    Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest

    Shaw, M.

    Yates, William (The Wrekin)

    Marten, Neil

    Shepherd, William

    Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Mawby, Ray

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

    Mr. Chichester-Clark and

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Smithers, Peter

    Mr. J. E. B. Hill.

    Amendment proposed: In page 7, line 39, at end insert:
    (2) The foregoing subsection shall not apply to references to a rate of five per cent. in respect of Groups 1,2,7 and 8 and for any such reference there shall be substituted a reference
    to a rate of one quarter of one per cent—[Mrs. Castle.]
    Question put, That those words be there inserted:—
    The committee divided: Ayes 140, Noes 205.

    Division No. 191.]

    AYES

    [10.39 p.m.

    Abse, Leo

    Fernyhough, E.

    Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

    Ainsley, William

    Finch, Harold

    Jeger, George

    Albu, Austen

    Fitch, Alan

    Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Fletcher, Eric

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Ballenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

    Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)

    Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

    Bence, Cyril

    Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Benson, Sir George

    Forman, J. C.

    Jones, T. W. (Merloneth)

    Blyton, William

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Kelley, Richard

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

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    Kenyon, Clifford

    Bowles, Frank

    Ginsburg, David

    King, Dr. Horace

    Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

    Gourlay, Harry

    Lawson, George

    Brockway, A. Fenner

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

    Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Loughlin, Charles

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Hamilton, William (West Fife)

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Castle, Mrs. Barbara

    Harper, Joseph

    McCann, John

    Collick, Percy

    Hayman, F. H.

    MacColl, James

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)

    McInnes, James

    Cronin, John

    Herbison, Miss Margaret

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Cullen, Mrs. Alice

    Hill, J. (Midlothian)

    Mackie, John (Enfield, East)

    Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

    Hilton, A. V.

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Holman, Percy

    Mapp, Charles

    Deer, George

    Houghton, Douglas

    Marsh, Richard

    Delargy, Hugh

    Hoy, James H.

    Mason, Roy

    Diamond, John

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Milne, Edward

    Donnelly, Desmond

    Hunter, A. E.

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Edelman, Maurice

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Monslow, Walter

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

    Morris, John

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Neal, Harold

    Evans, Albert

    Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

    Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)

    Oram, A. E.

    Skeffington, Arthur

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

    Oswald, Thomas

    Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

    Thornton, Ernest

    Padley, W. E.

    Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

    Wainwright, Edwin

    Paget, R. T.

    Small, William

    Warbey, William

    Pargiter, G. A.

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Weitzman, David

    Parker, John

    Snow, Julian

    Whitlock, William

    Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Pentland, Norman

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Williams, LI. (Abertillery)

    Popplewell, Ernest

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Steele, Thomas

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

    Probert, Arthur

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

    Winterbottom, R. E.

    Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

    Stones, William

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Rhodes, H.

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

    Woof, Robert

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Swain, Thomas

    Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    Taverne, D.

    Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Ross, William

    Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Mr. Charles A. Howell and

    Short, Edward

    Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

    Mr. Grey.

    NOES

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)

    Mills, Stratton

    Aitken, W. T.

    Goodhew, Victor

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Allason, James

    Gower, Raymond

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Atkins, Humphrey

    Green, Alan

    Morgan, William

    Barber, Anthony

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    Nabarro, Gerald

    Barlow, Sir John

    Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.

    Neave, Alrey

    Barter, Joseph

    Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

    Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

    Batsford, Brian

    Gurden, Harold

    Noble, Michael

    Biffen, John

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

    Orr-Ewing, C. Ian

    Bishop, F. P.

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    Black, Sir Cyril

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

    Bourne-Arton, A.

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

    Partridge, E.

    Box, Donald

    Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

    Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John

    Hay, John

    Percival, Ian

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

    Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

    Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward

    Pitman, Sir James

    Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Hendry, Forbes

    Pott, Percivall

    Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

    Hiley, Joseph

    Prior, J. M. L.

    Buck, Antony

    Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

    Profumo, Rt. Hon. John

    Bullard, Denys

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

    Proudfoot, Wilfred

    Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Pym, Francis

    Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Quennell, Miss J. M.

    Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

    Hobson, Sir John

    Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

    Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

    Hocking, Philip N.

    Rees, Hugh

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Holland, Philip

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Channon, H. P. G.

    Hollingworth, John

    Renton, David

    Chataway, Christopher

    Holt, Arthur

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Hopkins, Alan

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

    Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

    Hornby, R. P.

    Roots, William

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

    Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.

    Ropner, Col, Sir Leonard

    Cleaver, Leonard

    Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

    Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)

    Collard, Richard

    Hughes-Young, Michael

    Seymour, Leslie

    Cooke, Robert

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Sharples, Richard

    Cooper, A. E.

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Shaw, M.

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Shepherd, William

    Cordle, John

    James, David

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Corfield, F. V.

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

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

    Costain, A. P.

    Kaberry, Sir Donald

    Smithers, Peter

    Coulson, Michael

    Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

    Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

    Craddock, Sir Beresford

    Kerr, Sir Hamilton

    Speir, Rupert

    Critchley, Julian

    Kimball, Marcus

    Stanley, Hon. Richard

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

    Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Stodart, J. A.

    Dance, James

    Litchfield, Capt. John

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Deedes, W. F.

    Longden, Gilbert

    Summers, Sir Spencer

    de Ferranti, Basil

    Talbot, John E.

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn

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

    Doughty, Charles

    MacArthur, Ian

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

    Drayson, G. B.

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

    Temple, John M.

    du Cann, Edward

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

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Duncan, Sir James

    MacLeod, John (Rosa & Cromarty)

    Thomas, Peter (Conway)

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    McMaster, Stanley R.

    Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

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

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Emery, Peter

    Madden, Martin

    Vickers, Miss Joan

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Maitland, Sir John

    Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

    Farey-Jones, F. W.

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    Wade, Donald

    Farr, John

    Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest

    Wakefield, Sir Wavell

    Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Marten, Neil

    Welder, David

    Gammans, Lady

    Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

    Walker, Peter

    Gardner, Edward

    Mawby, Ray

    Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek

    Gibson-Watt, David

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Gilmour, Sir John

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

    Webster, David

    1486

    1487

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Wise, A. R.

    Woollam, John

    Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Worsley, Marcus

    Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard

    Yates, William (The Wrekin)

    Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

    Woodhouse, C. M.

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Woodnutt, Mark

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Mr. Finlay and Mr. McLaren.

    Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
    Sir W. Wakefield: From time to time, the Government have exhorted industry and the country to increase exports so as to maintain and, if necessary, increase our standard of life. That is very right and proper. But it is one of the difficulties which face industry in increasing exports that Purchase Tax may sometimes prevent an industry from starting.
    The Government know as well as hon. Members that an essential requirement for a flourishing and expanding export trade is a firm home basis of sales. I am president of the Electric Vehicles Association, which considers that the industry could develop a useful export trade if only it had some home trade on which it could get started. It recently asked Customs and Excise what the Purchase Tax would be on a product if production were started.
    It was told that, provided a vehicle without a battery weighed 8 cwt. or less, the taxation classification would be 25 per cent. plus 10 per cent. surcharge and the Purchase Tax on the value of the batteries. The industry believes that it could produce a small urban electric passenger vehicle which, if there were reasonable sales in the home market, could be sold in quite considerable quantities abroad. Because of Purchase Tax, the cost of starting production is prohibitive, and this article will never be started while the tax is imposed.
    When one starts making a small vehicle such as this in comparatively small numbers the costs are larger than when production gets under way and the vehicle becomes popular and has a large sale. At the moment there is no revenue from Purchase Tax in this case because the vehicle does not exist. Will the Government please not put Purchase Tax on such vehicles? If they do not, production can start, a valuable export trade can be built up and much-needed foreign currency can be earned. If, at the same time, a valuable home trade could be built up, there would be an opportunity for the Chancellor to impose the appropriate Purchase Tax if he thought fit.
    1488
    If help were given by not imposing tax at the start, there would be an opportunity for an export trade and future revenue to be created.
    But that is not the only reason why it is desirable that such a small urban electric vehicle should be encouraged. It is silent, and we know the urgent need to try to reduce noise in towns. There is no emission of fumes, and we all know the increasing public anxiety about the effect of diesel and petrol fumes in urban areas.
    A third important reason for the production of such a vehicle is that it does not use imported fuel and that the batteries can be recharged at night when the Central Electricity Board urgently needs electricity to be used. Quite apart from the export trade, those are three other valuable assets which would be of advantage to the community if the Government give some encouragement for this new form of industry to start.
    While I do not expect a reply tonight from the Chancellor, I earnestly ask the Government to give an opportunity for this new industry to start, because it would bring benefits to the community and to our export trade. These advantages will surely arise if the opportunity is given to start the production of a small electric passenger vehicle to run about our towns and cities.
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury and Paymaster General (Mr. Henry Brooke): I had only a minute or two's notice of the fact that my hon. Friend was going to raise the subject, so I am sure he was sincere in saying that he did not expect a reply from the appropriate Minister this evening. I have taken note of what he has said. I have no doubt that Customs and Excise will have informed the would-be manufacturers of this vehicle what the position would be under the law as it stands. I will take note of it, but I cannot anticipate my right hon. and learned Friend's next Budget.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Eighth Schedule.—(PURCHASE TAX (AMENDMENTS OF LIST OF CHARGEABLE GOODS).)
    Mr. J. M. L. Prior: I beg to move, in page 50, line 46, after "Ice-cream", to insert "except dairy ice-cream".
    The purpose of this Amendment is fairly straightforward in that it is designed to exclude ice cream made with milk from the imposition of the 15 per cent. Purchase Tax. The reason why my hon. Friends and I have put down the Amendment is to draw attention to the importance of the manufacture of dairy ice cream to the fanning industry and to the milk producers in particular. Milk is a product produced mainly by small farmers—[HON. MEMBERS: "By the cows."] Milk is a product produced mainly by cows owned by small farmers of holdings of under 100 acres. These small farmers own 44 per cent. of the cows in the country.
    Here is a way in which we can help the small producers without at the same time costing the Government any money in subsidies. We already have the small farmers' subsidy and many other forms of subsidies. The milk subsidy has been reduced. Indeed, from now on, there will not be a subsidy on milk. This is a way in which we can give great encouragement to the small farmer to go on producing milk.
    There is very little else that the small farmer, particularly in the west of England, can produce satisfactorily and keep up his income. Any method by which we can encourage the small farmer in this direction and at the same time encourage the consumption of milk in the country should be supported by the Government.
    The consumption of ice cream made with milk has gone up steadily during the last two or three years. It went up from 5·9 million gallons in 1959 to 9·1 million gallons in 1961, at a time when the consumption of ice cream as a whole was falling slightly owing to the fact that the summers of 1960 and 1961 were very inclement. In percentage terms the rise was from 16 to 26 per cent. of total output.
    1490
    There is a very real possibility that the imposition of Purchase Tax may well check this rise in demand, not only because of the increase in price but also because some companies may charge a higher premium for dairy ice cream. I hope that when he replies to the debate my right hon. Friend will realise that this is largely an Amendment designed to help the small farmer, in particular, and that this is a way in which the Government can show that they intend to help the small man in business and that this can be done by this very simple definition of dairy ice cream. After all, dairy ice cream is a food, and a very popular food at that, and I think it is right that we should give it a favoured position over other forms of ice cream.
    I do not wish to press the matter at this time of night, but I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to give us some satisfaction if only by saying that the Government are aware of the problem and will examine it. I hope that we shall have a favourable reply from my right hon. Friend.
    11.0 p.m.
    Sir Henry Studholme: I support the Amendment. I am sure that everyone in the Committee, including the Chancellor, wants to do everything he can to encourage British agriculture, to help the small farmer in every way, and to boost the sale of home-produced milk.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior said, sales of dairy ice cream have risen considerably in the last year or two. There is no comparison between dairy ice cream and synthetic forms of ice cream. The public are realising more and more that this is a very agreeable, valuable and wholesome food. I appeal to the Treasury to make the alteration in the Schedule for which we ask so as to benefit dairy ice cream. It is not much to ask. None of us wants to discourage people from eating dairy ice cream, which is a very delectable concoction. Its consumption does not harm the nation's teeth, but is of great benefit to the home milk producer. I therefore hope that we shall have a favourable reply from the Treasury.
    Dr. Mabon: It is a great disappointment to me that no Scottish Tory Members have appended their names to this

    1491
    excellent Amendment. I thought that we should have heard from some of them, because there is no doubt that Scottish farmers have an interest. I do not want to speak on behalf of the farming community, but, once again, in a sense as a representative of the consumer. We heard some very specious arguments tonight about the tax on sweets. There cannot be much argument about the merits of dairy ice cream. Anyone who has attended an invalid and knows the value of dairy ice cream in diets knows that it can hardly be considered as a luxury or an article which should be taxed.
    It has been the Government's intention so far to try to exclude genuine foods from their Purchase Tax system. It would be regrettable if the Amendment were not accepted. Without doubt dairy ice cream is not only an essential food in itself. It is also a food widely used in convalescence and medicine generally to supplement treatments. I hope that before the Treasury representative speaks we shall hear a voice from the Scottish Tories in support of the Amendment, as well as asking the Minister to turn his attention to the grave concern which many of us have that Purchase Tax is fast becoming a tax on food. This, if it is not stopped, might be the very small thin edge of a very large wedge.
    Sir John Gilmour: Speaking for Scotland, I am glad to join the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) in stressing the interest of Scottish dairy farmers. I also support what my hon. Friends have said. It should not be overlooked that ice cream is the first food that a doctor advises a patient to take after an operation for the removal of his tonsils. The Chancellor should not put a tax on a food which is prescribed after hospital operations. This is a very topsy-turvy world. I recently went to Smithfield and saw many fat pigs hanging up in the market. I asked what was happening to the fats. I was told that they were going to make ice cream—not dairy ice cream, of course. If a tax is put on dairy ice cream and sales fall, the Minister of Agriculture will obviously have to pay out further subsidies on the fat pigs being produced to provide fat in other ice cream.
    1492
    This is a natural product which is doing good. It is very much better for children to eat dairy ice cream at suitable opportunities at schools than to chew sweets and then have to have their teeth extracted. I can see no sense whatever in the Chancellor levying a tax on dairy ice cream. I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider the Amendment with favour.
    Mr. William Yates: I would have thought that the Amendment would have appealed overwhelmingly to the Conservative Party. It occurs to me that here is a time when we have to face the problems of the agricultural world and, in particular, the difficulties which the smaller farmers are experiencing. I can speak only for my own constituency. I would not presume to speak for others. If whoever replies for the Government will be good enough to say that he will examine the Amendment and let us know, on Report, whether he will accept it, that will be satisfactory to me.
    In general, the majority of my farming friends think that farming was prosperous only under Mr. Tom Williams, as he was then, when he was Minister of Agriculture. This is an extraordinary myth of the past. There was, of course, then plenty of money to hand out to the farming community without any regard to the national interest. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] That is perfectly true. I think that I should be out of order if I pursued that point.
    Mr. John Mackie: Out of order and into difficulties.
    Mr. Yates: The hon. Member is very kind.
    I should have thought that, in general, an Amendment of this nature, would probably increase the consumption of milk. It would be better for children and invalids to take dairy ice cream than some of the things we find in ice cream. Therefore speaking only for my own small farmers, I am not prepared to allow the Government to let the Amendment go by without some promise of its consideration on Report. If I were to divide the Committee I should be anxious to know how many hon. Members opposite, who always pretend to be

    1493
    so keen on supporting the farming community, would do so when it came to protecting fanning interests.
    Mr. Ross: It is difficult to reconcile the words with which the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. W. Yates) concluded his speech with those with which he opened it, when he told the Committee that the Labour Government were far too generous to farmers. We are concerned that anything that can be done should be done. My constituency has suffered sufficient blows from this Budget. I have already appealed on behalf of the boot and shoe industry of Kilmarnock and the lace industry in the small burghs which make the fabrics on which Purchase Tax has been increased. I had not fully realised until now that another important industry in my constituency was equally affected.
    I represent about 200 square miles of agricultural land where milk production is basic to prosperity. Everyone knows that there has been concern about finding ways and means of increasing the consumption of liquid milk. As has been pointed out, attention has been turned to dairy ice cream and, in spite of changes in that industry, we have been fairly successful in securing an increased consumption of milk there. We are certainly concerned about anything which would reduce the sale of dairy ice cream.
    The best that can be said is that this tax will not help. The chances are that the 3d. cornet has disappeared and become the 4d. cornet, an increase not of 15 per cent. but of 30 per cent. If the same happens to dairy ice cream the marginal difference will be very much greater probably by the time adjustments are made and it may well be that we shall have a considerable reduction in the use of milk for making ice cream.
    I sisncerely hope that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is better briefed on this than he was on the previous Amendment. It came as rather a surprise to the right hon. Gentleman that something was to be raised. I am sure that this Amendment is no surprise to him, and after the fiery words of the hon. Member for The Wrekin I wonder whether we have a farming lobby tonight.
    I assure the hon. Gentleman that Ayrshire will be represented in the Lobby.
    1494
    I am sorry that Tory Members from Ayrshire are not present. I do not know where they are. The hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean), who has a considerable number of farmers in his constituency, is not here, and the hon. Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore) is not here, either, though his constituency takes in a considerable part of agricultural Ayrshire. The hon. Gentleman is seldom here after half-past three.
    After leaving the pasture lands of the prosperous valleys, one meets the small farmers on the hills around Loudoun, Craigie and Fenwick, to whom the sales of liquid milk are very much more important than they are to many other farmers. We should do everything that we can to make good the proclamations that we occasionally make about representing these small farmers. All the large farmers tend to base their demands on the Government on the prosperity of the small farmers because they know that once the small farmers go they may follow suit.
    I appeal to the Chief Secretary to discard the brief that he has been reading so anxiously and wondering how he can courteously turn down the Amendment and be true to what the party opposite says about its interest in the well-being of farmers small and large. Milk producers have not done too well out of the last two Price Reviews. I do not propose to lecture about standard quantities, and so on, as there will be an opportunity later to discuss that.
    We are serious about this Amendment, and I am sure that sooner or later the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) will be forced to rise to support the Scottish farmers. We are determined that the Chief Secretary shall be true to the things that the Government have said about their policy to support agriculture. We are not worried about the Common Market. We are worried about the market for dairy ice cream. We want to see the market extended considerably, and we see this tax on dairy ice cream as something that will restrict a very promising development in the consumption of liquid milk. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will do what I have suggested—throw away the prepared brief turning down the Amendment, and accept it.
    11.15 p.m.
    Mr. Edwin Wainwright: I support the Amendment which has been so ably moved by the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior). I regret, however, that he selected this item out of a number of others that could have been discussed.
    There is one point that we must always bear in mind when discussing matters of this sort. It is not only the usefulness of the article that matters. The quality of it is extremely important, and I hope that if the right hon. Gentleman accepts the Amendment he will bear in mind that we must have some safeguards to protect the quality of the product.
    It is essential to ensure that the quality of this type of food is such that it fulfils the requirements necessary to maintain health. Dairy ice cream is a lovely food. Other kinds of ice cream are quite nice, but sometimes they are not as healthy as they should be. It is because even dairy ice cream can be interfered with and its quality spoiled that I want the right hon. Gentleman to ensure that its quality shall be safeguarded. This means that certain conditions must be laid down.
    I am pleased to know that the acceptance of this Amendment would help the small farmer. I have an affection for the agricultural industry, but I have a greater affection for the small farmer than for the rich one. I hope the small farmer will take advantage of any encouragement which the Government may give him in this respect.
    This type of ice cream should be advertised more. It is proposed to increase the Purchase Tax on certain kinds of sweets, which children buy, and the Government have sought to justify this action. I hope that the Government will encourage the small farmer to advertise the high quality of dairy ice cream, as well as drawing attention to inferior ice cream which may be put on the market from time to time, because it should be of the finest quality if we are to promote the health of our children.
    Mr. A. V. Hilton: I, too, support this Amendment. This is a very important matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock
    1496
    (Dr. Dickson Mabon) referred to the importance of the food value of this type of ice cream, and there is no doubt that it is far superior to the mass-produced staff that is dished out by certain well-known manufacturers.
    Another point which has been made by various hon. Members is that this would be a real boon to the milk producers, especially the small producers. Only a few weeks ago there was much criticism in the House because 2 million pints of skim milk were being poured down disused coal mines. We are not discussing skim milk on this occasion, but much of the fresh milk, before it is skimmed, could be put to a better use in the production of dairy ice cream, which, I repeat, is far superior to the other manufactured type. We should do all we can to increase the sale of this very valuable commodity.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) said that we were not concerned about the Common Market—
    Mr. Ross: Tonight.
    Mr. Hilton: —but the small farmers in my constituency, many of whom are milk producers, are desperately concerned about it. This is one other ray of hope that we can give the small farmers who are so concerned about our entry into the Common Market.
    Mr. Ross: This is very important. I do not want to be misrepresented in my constituency. I did not say that we were not concerned about it. I have a very marginal constituency with a majority of only 10,000, and I have to be careful. [HON. MEMBERS: "Frightened of the Liberals?"] The last time the Liberals appeared in my constituency they did the same as the Communists. They lost their deposit, and they will do the same next time. Moreover, my majority went up considerably. What I said earlier was that we were not tonight concerned "with" the Common Market—not that we were not concerned "about" it.
    Mr. Hilton: I am sorry if I misunderstood my hon. Friend's reference to the Common Market, and I withdraw what I said. But I repeat that the small farmers, especially in Norfolk, are desperately concerned about it.

    1497
    My hon. Friend referred to the Liberals in a previous contest in his constituency. They may have been interested in trying to unseat him there, but they are not very interested in this most important Amendment that we are discussing tonight. I wish that the Liberals were here to lend their voice and support to it. I hope that the Government will give an assurance that they will favourably consider the Amendment.
    Mr. J. A. Stodart: The milk production case has been very adequately and competently covered. All I would say—it is not only because milk production is not a feature of my own agricultural unit—as the representative of an urban constituency is that I think that there is a very great chance here of the Government discriminating between something which is synthetic and something which is genuine and doing a tremendous amount of good to those who eat ice cream, as was said by the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon), who has very much greater medical knowledge than I have. It is for that reason that I support the Amendment.
    Mr. Barber: As my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) said in moving the Amendment, the effect of it is to exclude dairy ice cream from the new tax at 15 per cent.
    The first thing I want to make clear is that there would be no difficulty of definition in distinguishing dairy ice cream from other ice cream because the definition is already made in the schedules to the Food Standards (Ice-cream) Regulations, 1959.
    It follows—I want to be frank about it—that the Amendment raises a question of policy. While I see the attraction of the proposals to the small farmers in the constituencies of my hon. Friends, I hope that they will consider what I have to say not only from the point of view of their constituents, but also in the wider context of the trade generally and, indeed, of Purchase Tax generally.
    It is always tempting to accede to sectional interests, but I am sure that in this case it would not be right to do so. I suppose that the Amendment might be of some limited help to our dairy farmers, but there are two things I would say about that. In the first place, the
    1498
    manufacturers of dairy ice cream are under no obligation whatever to use home produced milk or butter to satisfy the definition of dairy ice cream.
    I am told that nearly half the total production of this ice cream comes from the larger firms, and they, of course, will buy their dairy products in the cheaper markets. This is what they are doing, in fact. Only a few minutes before the debate started, one of my hon. Friends told me that he knew very well that some of these manufacturers were, not long ago, using Polish butter. But even if this were not so, and if the whole of the butter or milk were produced at home, it is very doubtful whether this new tax would have any substantial effect on consumption.
    It may be, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock (Sir H. Studholme) said, that dairy ice cream is a better and more nutritious product than ordinary ice cream; but in the case of a tax which is imposed over the whole range of confectionery, soft drinks and ice cream, it plainly would not be right to exclude dairy ice cream on that ground. Same sweets, for instance, are more nutritious than others.
    I think that it was my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) who took the view that dairy ice cream was particularly desirable because it afforded some relief after one had one's tonsils out. I must remind him that it was made clear to the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), in the debate yesterday, that another product, which is of great medicinal value in the North of England, namely, black beer, is taxed at a high rate. I do not think that we can make any distinction on that score.
    There is another point of considerable importance. Whatever may be the motive of those who wish to exclude dairy ice cream from the provisions of the Schedule, one inevitable consequence of excluding it would be to relieve from tax the most expensive kinds of ice cream. I believe that if we were to do that, the poorer classes of consumer and those firms, mainly small firms, which make ordinary ice cream would have a justifiable grievance.
    I am told that total consumer expenditure on ice cream is about £75 million

    1499
    a year, of which about £20 million is thought to be accounted for by dairy ice cream. So, on that basis, the cost of the exclusion would be about £2 million a year.
    Mr. W. Yates: Is my hon. Friend saying that, even though it were classified as dairy ice cream, since dairy ice cream can contain milk or butter from abroad, the Amendment, if carried, would not help the smaller farmer in this country? Is that the point he makes?
    Mr. Barber: I was pointing out that, though the ice cream satisfied the existing definition of dairy ice cream which was accepted by the House of Commons in 1959, it would not follow that the ingredients in the ice cream would necessarily be ingredients produced by United Kingdom farmers. That was the only point I was making.
    It is fair to say that it is the general view of hon. Members on this side of the Committee that Purchase Tax should be widely based and that we should be very wary of making exceptions. I hope that my hon. Friends who spoke in support of the Amendment, and hon. Members opposite who took the same view, will see the force of the arguments which prompted us to include all ice cream in the Schedule.
    My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor reconsidered the matter when the Amendment appeared on the
    1500
    Notice Paper, but, having considered it again, he does not feel able to accede to the proposal which has been made. I hope that, in the circumstances, and having in mind the reasons I have given, my hon. Friends will not press their Amendment.
    Mr. Prior: In view of what my hon. Friend has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Schedule agreed to.
    Mr. H. Brooke: I beg to move, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
    We have now completed the Purchase Tax provisions of the Bill, and unless any hon. Member is passionately anxious to proceed at this hour to debate the standard rate of Income Tax, I suggest that we have done a good day's work.
    Mr. Mitchison: I have no difficulty in resisting the temptation to discuss the standard rate of Income Tax at this hour and would like to support the Motion.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

    Eighth Schedule.—(PURCHASE TAX (AMENDMENTS OF LIST OF CHARGEABLE GOODS).)

      ADJOURNMENT
      Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Finlay.]
      Adjourned accordingly at half-past Eleven o'clock.

MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  N.A.T.O. (Athens Communiqué)
  N.A.T.O. (Athens Communiqué)
  N.A.T.O. (British Projects)
  N.A.T.O. (British Projects)
  Blue Water Missile
  Blue Water Missile
BRITISH ARMY
  Fire, Denbury Camp (Inquiry)
  Fire, Denbury Camp (Inquiry)
  War Department Property
  War Department Property
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Thor Weapon
  Thor Weapon
  Selby Bridge
  Selby Bridge
ROADS
  Farnborough Way Experiment (Accidents)
  Farnborough Way Experiment (Accidents)
  Cardiff (Dual Carriageways)
  Cardiff (Dual Carriageways)
  Expenditure, Stoke-on-Trent
  Expenditure, Stoke-on-Trent
  Pedestrian Crossings, Stoke-on-Trent
  Pedestrian Crossings, Stoke-on-Trent
  Roundabouts and Two-level Intersections
  Roundabouts and Two-level Intersections
  Severn Bridge (Superstructure)
  Severn Bridge (Superstructure)
TRANSPORT
  Vehicles (Direction Indicators)
  Vehicles (Direction Indicators)
SHIPPING
  Cunard Company
  Cunard Company
RAILWAYS
  Victoria Line
  Victoria Line
EMPLOYMENT
  Unemployment (Persons over 50)
  Unemployment (Persons over 50)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Milk (Liquid Consumption)
  Milk (Liquid Consumption)
  Fowl Pest
  Fowl Pest
SCIENCE
  Tranquilliser Drugs
  Tranquilliser Drugs
BAHAMAS
  Andros Island (Lease)
  Andros Island (Lease)
EDUCATION
  Degree Examinations (Grant-aided Students)
  Degree Examinations (Grant-aided Students)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Coal Commission Stock
  Coal Commission Stock
HOSPITALS
  General Practitioner Hospitals
  General Practitioner Hospitals
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Local Government Act, 1933 (Section 249)
  Local Government Act, 1933 (Section 249)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Land for Buildings and Roads
  Land for Buildings and Roads
PAYMASTER-GENERAL'S OFFICE
  Pension Warrants
  Pension Warrants
COAL
  Former Coal Owners (Compensation)
  Former Coal Owners (Compensation)

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

THE LORD BISHOP OF LINCOLN
Kenneth, Lord Bishop of Lincoln—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

LORD TODD
Sir Alexander Robertus Todd, Knight, having been created Baron Todd, of Trumpington in the County of Cambridge, for life—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
The Marquess of Ailesbury—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

LIABILITY FOR DAMAGE BY ANIMALS
2.20 p.m.
THE EARL OF GAINSBOROUGH: 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 action they propose to take to implement the recommendations contained in the Report of the Committee on the Law and Civil Liability for Damage Done by Animals which was published more than nine years ago.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, I regret that the Government are unable to hold out any prospect of early legislation on this Report in view of the controversial nature of certain of the recommendations made by the Committee.
THE EARL OF GAINSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for his reply.

COMMON MARKET: THE AIR UNION AND COMMONWEALTH AIRLINES
2.21 p.m.
LORD CASEY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they believe that, if and when the United Kingdom joins the European Common Market, the entry of the airlines of the Common Market countries into the European Air Union will be hastened; and in this event, what would be the effect upon the current association between B.O.A.C., Air India International and QANTAS in the tripartite agreement on the London-Singapore-Australia air route.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD MILLS): My Lords, Air Union, as at present proposed, would be an organisation formally separate from the Common Market and the planned membership does not as yet include all the Common Market airlines. It is not, I think, really possible at this stage to assess the effect on Air Union if the United Kingdom joined the Common Market. Any question of our airlines' joining it or being associated with it would be an extremely complex one, to be examined very closely by all concerned before even tentative conclusions could be reached. British Overseas Airways Corporation's current associations with Commonwealth airlines, which are valued highly both here and, we believe, in the Commonwealth, are one of the important factors in this question, and I can assure the noble Lord that no steps would be taken in the directions he indicates without close consultation with the Commonwealth interests concerned
LORD CASEY: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mills, for his reply. In the light of his reply, perhaps I might be allowed to pursue the matter a little further on the same lines, and to ask whether he believes there is any substantial risk of eventual conflict between membership by a United Kingdom airline of European Air Union and membership of the existing tripartite agreement on the so-called Kangaroo

621
route. Further, would the noble Lord tend to believe that entry by the United Kingdom into the European Common Market would, or at least might, facilitate the entry of European airlines to, say, London Airport and so possibly onwards from London Airport to other points overseas—for instance, to New York or possibly on to the so-called Kangaroo air route to or towards Australia.
LORD MILLS: My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord's first supplementary question, so little is known about the conditions of possible United Kingdom participation in an alliance which is still not in being, that the question can be only a hypothetical one. It is much too early to assume that any Commonwealth civil aviation interests would be prejudiced. The answer to the noble Lord's second supplementary question is "No," my Lords. Civil aviation is outside the Treaty of Rome and membership of the Common Market does not in itself alter the civil aviation relations to the companies concerned.
LORD CASEY: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord.

STAMPING OF SHARE TRANSFERS
2.24 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether there are any administrative objections and, if so what they are, to extending to the stamping of share transfer certificates the same facilities recently granted to insurance companies to account in bulk for duty instead of having these documents separately stamped by embossment.]
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord's suggestion, but there would be serious administrative objections to this proposal. One of the principal advantages of the present arrangement is the comparative simplicity and cheapness of collecting
622
the duty. Any procedure under which the brokers accounted for the duty in bulk would involve regular inspections by the Inland Revenue of the brokers' books, and this would add considerably to the complexity and to the cost of administration.
Moreover, the Inland Revenue rely on company registrars to ensure (in accordance with the duty placed upon them by law) that the transfers presented to them for registration are properly stamped. Any procedure for accounting for the duty could at best apply only to Stock Exchange transfers. Transfers not passing through a Stock Exchange would have to bear an impressed stamp as at present. But the registrar would have no sure means of distinguishing Stock Exchange transfers from others. It might be suggested that Stock Exchange transfers should bear some distinguishing mark, but there would be opportunities for irregularities. The noble Lord will be aware that the duty on a single transfer may be very large.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his full reply, and for the obvious trouble he has taken to pursue this matter with the Inland Revenue. I hope he will be as courteous in the future if, when I have had the opportunity of studying his reply, I return to this subject with perhaps some suggestions for overcoming some of the difficulties he has so well enumerated.
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I shall be glad to have the opportunity of replying further to the noble Lord.

COMMON MARKET
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I should like to inform the House that my noble friend Lord Dundee will be making a statement on the Common Market at a suitable moment after half-past three.
RUNCORN DISTRICT WATER BOARD BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

ULSTER MUSEUM ORDER, 1962
2.28 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. The purpose of this Order is set out in the explanatory note, and I think it is quite clear. It is simply to add the Ulster Museum to the First Schedule to the National Gallery and Tate Gallery Act, 1954. This is being done at the request of the Government of Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland Government seek in this way to recognise the new status of this relatively small but admirable museum, since the First Schedule tends to be taken as a definitive list of the national collections of the United Kingdom. Apart from this, there is the practical point that promotion to Schedule 1, if I may use that term, will enable the Ulster Museum to benefit from transfers of works of art under Sections 3 and 5 of the 1954 Act.
When the National Gallery and Tate Gallery Bill was before Parliament, what is now the Ulster Museum was still the Belfast Museum and Art Gallery, administered and financed by the City of Belfast. This institution was not included in the First Schedule because it was virtually indistinguishable from other municipal collections. The United Kingdom Government appreciated the special place which the Belfast Museum and Art Gallery occupied in the life of Northern Ireland, but did not feel able to treat it as if it were a collection administered by the Government and financed from the Exchequer. It was therefore left out of the Schedule. Nevertheless the then Financial Secretary—now my right honourable friend the Chief Secretary—said, during the Committee stage of the Bill in another place [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 532, col. 1355]:
"If at any time a new situation arose and the gallery were transferred from the Belfast Corporation to the Government of Northern Ireland, we should all feel that a very strong case had been established for a Treasury order to be made … so that it could be included"
in the Schedule. That new situation has now arisen, my Lords, because under the Museum Act (Northern Ireland), 1961,
624
the Ulster Museum is created out of the old Belfast Museum and Art Gallery.
The new museum is to be very largely financed and administered by the Government of Northern Ireland. The United Kingdom Government, for their part, are therefore anxious to fulfil the promise made in 1954 and to meet the special request of the Government of Northern Ireland. That is our reason for seeking to make this Order, which I wholeheartedly commend to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Ulster Museum Order, 1962, be approved.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE TO UNIVERSITIES
2.30 p.m.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD rose THE EARL OF LONGFORD rose to move to resolve, That this House regrets the statement of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on March 14, concerning the future of Government assistance to the universities. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I rise to move that this House regrets the statement of Mr. Brooke, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, which he made on March 14 of this year about grants to the universities and related matters. Five years ago, as the House will remember, we debated university education on a Motion of mine, and two years ago we debated university and other higher education on the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Wythen-shawe, whom we miss so sadly this afternoon. In those debates we ranged widely over many of the most fundamental issues in university education. There are a number of noble Lords who intend to speak this afternoon who are exceptionally well-equipped to do so, and, of course, I am not presuming to restrict in any way their speeches, but I hope I shall be forgiven, and indeed approved, if I confine my own remarks, which I am afraid will hardly be brief, to the Motion on the Order Paper.
There is, however, one small exception to that. In the debate of 1960, in your Lordships' House I devoted my main argument to a single highly controversial topic. I urged then that the responsibility for sponsoring the universities

625
should be transferred from the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the Ministry of Education and I brought quite a hornets' nest about my ears. I do not mean to pursue that topic to-day, but I must at least say this. Events of recent months have made me more certain than ever that it is quite hopeless to leave the universities as now to the sponsorship of this new Minister, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who has, of course, appeared on the scene since our last debate and who is specially concerned with economy. The Principal of London University, for example, whose report we might all study with the greatest profit, describes the role of the new Minister as that of a Minister whose main duty is actively to discourage and, indeed, forcibly to restrain his colleagues from spending.
We can all admire—and I have very good reasons to admire from ancient days—the undoubted qualities of the present incumbent of this office, but we can all realise that universities may well feel towards him as Red Riding Hood felt towards the wolf disguised as her grandmother. We can imagine them saying, "What big teeth you've got. Sponsor". His reply is now history, "All the better to eat you with, my dear"—the action being suited to the words. But, as I say, that is not the issue to-day. The statement of the Chief Secretary should provide enough material for one speech and indeed for a number of speeches this afternoon. This is not a question, I perhaps need hardly say, of a personal attack or even of a political attack on one Minister. There is only one Latin quotation I think I am permitted in this House: Et ego in Arcadia vixit; and I can interpret that in my own case this afternoon as, "I, too, have worked in the Conservative Research Department under the Chief Secretary," although that was thirty years ago, and I know of old his moral fibre. He is perhaps the only man in public life who may have too much moral fibre; but it is a fault we may all copy from. I know of old his seriousness and public devotion. But certainly his statement has obtained an amazingly unfavourable reception.
The Leader of the Opposition in another place said it was discreditable in substance, dishonourable in presentation,
626
and deplorable in its consequences. The section of it dealing with salaries was at once described as an insult by Dr. Urwin, the Executive Secretary of the Association of University Teachers. I certainly wish to endorse those scathing comments myself, as will many noble Lords in various parts of the House. Noble Lords opposite, particularly Ministers, may affect to disregard these particular comments as unduly biased or interested, and may refuse to accept them, though The Times described the statement as "thoroughly disappointing" and it has had a very bleak reception in public discussion. But noble Lords opposite, even the most intransigent loyalists, can hardly disregard the remarkable, I would almost say unique, statement which was issued by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals on March 27. The Vice-Chancellors and Principals said that they were "profoundly disturbed" by the Government's announcement. I can remember nothing quite like this, and I doubt whether even the eldest Member of this House can; certainly not in the world of university policy.
The Leader of the Opposition in another place on April 5 naturally made much, as was his duty, of the Vice-Chancellors' statement and the House will indeed want to know how this very forthright criticism by the Vice-Chancellors was replied to by the two Ministers who undertook the task of defending the Government, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury himself and the Financial Secretary, a very gifted man. The answer to that of course is quite simple; neither of the Government Ministers so much as mentioned the statement of the Vice-Chancellors. Perhaps they were wise in their generation, but the House of Lords is entitled to draw the conclusion, which I myself certainly draw, that they were quite incapable of answering it.
But I am anticipating. The House will want to know what Mr. Brooke's statement of March 14 amounted to, to make so deplorable an impression. To put it briefly, he did two things. First, he indicated targets for university places in 1966–67 and 1973–74. The targets were 150,000 places for 1966–67 and 170,000 for 1973–74, against 111,000

627
places at the present time. That was one thing he did; he indicated targets. The other thing was this. He announced the financial provision that the Government were prepared to make for the purpose of achieving those targets. The non-recurring grants, the building grants, had already been announced. The recurrent grants, which cover, for example, salaries—though special additional grants are made for increases of salaries—were to rise from the present figure of £49½ million to £56 million in 1962–63 and by stages to £76½ million in 1966–67. The immediate increase in salaries was to be kept down to 3 per cent., which would add an extra £1 million to the £56 million in a full year.
We, on our side of the House—and I think we are joined by many others, and I hope and believe we are joined in most of these opinions by noble Lords of the Liberal Party—say two things. We say, first, that the targets are shockingly low; and second, that even these low targets, and more particularly the first (150,000 places by 1966–67), cannot be achieved with the financial aid offered by the Government or, at any rate, cannot be achieved without grave jeopardy to academic standards. We are equally convinced of both points, but the second, the fact that these limited targets cannot be achieved, is the one that the Vice-Chancellors are concerned with and, with the permission of the House, I will take that first.
The Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals say that they are profoundly disturbed (that is their expression) by the Government's announcement about the resources to be made available to universities during the coming quinquennium, and above all, by the fact that the advice of the University Grants Committee as to the grants required if the number of university places is to be increased to 150,000, has not been accepted.
May I break off to point out that this is the first occasion when a difference has publicly occurred between the Government and the University Grants Committee. I think I am right in saying—though these things are not revealed to us—that this is the first time there has been any serious difference between those two bodies. In our last debate in
628
1960, the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, who I am glad to think is winding up to-day, said he would like the University Grants Committee and the Vice-Chancellors to regard themselves as being responsible for providing what he called [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 223, col. 726]:
"a kind of running commentary on university problems. If they have a fault,"
he said (this was the noble Viscount during our last debate),
"it is that they are perhaps too conservative."
The Government at that time was talking in very expansionist language. On this occasion the Government, I am afraid to their own discredit, are finding these bodies a great deal too radical.
The Committee of Vice-Chancellors then go on to state their opinion (and here I am quoting),
"that the target cannot be reached by the date specified with the limited provision which the Government proposes to make."
There is grave danger that the effort to do so will produce What they call a wholly unacceptable deterioration of standards. They go on to emphasise three fundamental points which certainly ought to be before the Whole House to-day and, if I may say so with the utmost respect, particularly before any noble Lord Who is going to be present this evening when this matter is taken, as it will be, to a Division. This is what the Vice-Chancellors said, and I have taken the liberty of rearranging their three points. They said, in the first place, that even if the building grants were originally sufficiently large, they cannot cover the cost of the necessary building owing to the rise in prices since they were made. They go on
"The building programme, therefore, to increase the number of places to 150,000 cannot be completed by 1967."
According to the best information available to me—and there is obviously some room for argument here—the rise in prices which has occurred has already whittled down the value of the grants by about £20 million for the purposes of the next four years. That is the equivalent of about a year's building. I am told that, in practice, the harm is likely to be greater than that.
The Vice-Chancellors say, secondly, that it is "abundantly clear" (those are their words) that the grants for the first

629
years of the quinquennium will scarcely cover the increasing costs of existing commitments. They say it is "abundantly clear"—and this is really fundamental: if I can, so to speak, inject no other fact into the minds of noble Lords, this is the fact that I should like to be in the minds of everyone—that the grants for the remaining years do not make sufficient provision for the scale of expansion which a total of 150,000 places by 1966–67 would require. That is for the recurrent grants, which include provision for salaries apart from any additions to salaries.
I am not going to become involved in the detailed argument here. Mr. Gaitskell gave some figures and Mr. Brooke gave some further figures. If anybody is deeply interested, and has the time, perhaps the fullest explanation as to why the grants are insufficient can be found in the Report I mentioned just now, by the Principal of London, Dr. Logan, at page 7. I only point out that during that period, apart from ordinary development, there is to be the establishment of new universities (and I am particularly glad to think that the noble Lord, Lord James of Rusholme is to speak to-day), and there will be increasing provision for science. We must also expect rising prices. As I have said, I am not going to get involved at this stage in the details, because I have a great deal more to say. Leaving aside particular calculations, we rest our criticism on the broad conclusion that the Vice-Chancellors, who have every interest in standing well with the Government, would not lightly have published these most damaging findings. All the evidence suggests that the Vice-Chancellors, with their expert information, are much more likely to be right than the Government, who have produced no evidence whatsoever to support their bland optimism. The Government must not be surprised that no one—or no one that I have discovered—with any knowledge of universities believes in their side of the case.
Thirdly, the Vice-Chancellors declare that an aggregate increase of 3 per cent. in the bill for academic salaries is entirely unrealistic. They say that the increase in salaries, no matter how distributed, will not enable the universities to retain and recruit the academic staff for the proposed expansion. I should explain (I think I touched on this point
630
just now) that the recurrent grants which I mentioned include salaries as a whole, but an increase of salaries per head is treated as additional. For example, an increase of 3 per cent. in the salaries means an extra £1 million or so on the recurrent grant, and takes it that much beyond the figure of £56 million for 1966–67. An extra 17 per cent. or thereabouts, which it was reasonable to expect, would have added another £5 million or so.
Here there may be a danger, though I hope I shall not fall into it, of appearing to overstate the case. In another place, the Minister argued that university teaching staffs have been increasing recently rather faster than student numbers. There can be argument about that, which I leave to others; but I may be pressed to say whether I am quite convinced that the failure to increase university salaries by more than 3 per cent. this year must inevitably leave us short of university staff in these crucial years. If we are talking in global terms, we, the nation, will probably collect, somehow or other, the staff which, on paper, globally speaking, is adequate, though even on that basis a shortage of scientists, technologists and social scientists is seriously threatened. But if we are talking about quality—and I am sure the Government claim to be quite as much interested in quality as we are—there is no doubt (I have not found any doubt in the university world) that if we continue to underpay our university staff, and still more if we increase the differentials against them, we shall lose more and more of our best people to America or other countries, or shall fail to attract them in the first place. And this, indeed, is already happening. The policy of the Government is certain to aggravate the evil.
I have said that we are underpaying our staffs and that these proposals make the position worse. It may be asked what do I mean by underpaying? I agree that there can be no final demonstration in this matter, but few will accept what appeared to be the Chief Secretary's contention elsewhere that comparisons with other occupations are more or less impossible. He said, "there is nothing exactly like university work". Of course there is no work exactly like other work, but this blinding

631
flash of the obvious cannot really help us very much, and it can be dangerously obscurantist. The Chief Secretary explicitly sets aside the comparison with industry and also with the Civil Service. To be fair, he admitted the relevance of the rise of 17 per cent. in the salaries of those at the colleges of advanced technology; and he did not, I think, seek to set aside Mr. Gaitskell's comparison with the lecturers in technical colleges and those in teacher-training colleges. They received increases, running, I think, at 16 and 20 per cent. respectively, and these figures can reasonably be compared with the 3 per cent. for university teachers.
For my part—and I know there has been much correspondence about this in the papers—I have not come across a better summary of the whole situation than that given in The Times of Monday. April 23, by Mr. John Read of the Chemistry Department of the University of St. Andrews. I know that that will appeal to the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, who I am glad to see is to speak later. I quote the salaries attained in the seventh year after graduation in various occupations. These are the figures: in industry, £1,230; the Patent Office, £1,400; the Scientific Civil Service £1,460; schools, £1,250; technical colleges, £1,720; universities, £1,050-much the worst of the lot. That comparison, so far as I know, has not been refuted anywhere.
Even if we could for a few years rely on the prestige of the university career, and the devotion of the staff, to keep up the numbers, I am quite convinced that the country which pays its university teachers worse than other graduates as a whole will never get a proper proportion of its ablest men to go into university teaching. I am biased enough in favour of my old profession to believe that dons ought, on average, to be of exceptionally high intellectual character. Dons, we know, are extremely tiresome people, but the one thing one has always said in their favour is that they were clever. If we are going to finish up with a race of stupid dons, heaven help the nation! In the end, a country which went on doing what the Government propose to do might or might not get the right number of dons for university
632
teachers; but it would certainly get, and would deserve to get, a second-rate staff and it would finish by deserving to get third-rate students.
The Government therefore stand condemned by their own meagre estimates for the next five years, in the sense that they do not make provision even for their own limited purposes. They stand condemned even in relation to building grants, non-recurrent grants and the increase of salaries. Three times, as Sir Winston Churchill once remarked, is a lot. The triple failure, I am afraid, exposes a whole philosophy of negation. a mean and mingy scale of values, a sort of callousness towards university expansion, which has made the most painful impression on those who care for the universities in this country and elsewhere.
So much for the achievement of the targets. What of the targets themselves? We on this side, and many others, say that they are shockingly low. But here again there is admittedly the problem of the criterion: how are we to judge the lowness or otherwise of these targets? The noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the House faced this problem fairly and squarely in this House in 1960. He began by saying very clearly and well—and I am sure that he stands by this; I have never known him to go back on anything, even when he was wrong, so to speak, so I hope that he will not go back on this, because I am sure he was right:
"Speaking of quality, I have absolutely no doubt about the answer. Britain has never had an adequate core of graduates in point of numbers."
That is what the noble Viscount said, and truly said, last time we debated these matters. He went on to ask by what standards should we judge whether the number of graduates is adequate or not. He asked:
"Should we judge by the efforts of other countries?"
To which he gave the answer:
"No, I think not."
He went on to argue that the comparisons brought forward by a number of previous speakers, including myself, which showed Britain in a very poor light, were in fact invalid because they were not comparing like with like. As to

633
that, I would say that two conclusions would surely be reached by any dispassionate group of students who were trying to arrive at the truth rather than win an argument. They would agree, in the first place, that one must be very careful in drawing these comparisons, and one must certainly disregard a certain amount of the data which comes readily to hand. But some would surely agree—a dispassionate group would surely agree—that some comparisons are possible. Even following most austere lines of reasoning, one must surely agree with the present Minister of Education who said recently that we have the lowest proportion of our population going to universities of any highly developed country in the world. The present Minister of Education did not find it impossible to make this comparison; nor did he find the comparisons apparently irrelevant for some purpose. At any rate, he certainly made a comparison, and made it in a way that it has been made many times in this House.
I hope that I may lay this fact of great importance before the House. This is a quotation from the Minister of Education in another place. The Leader of the Opposition gave some percentages of young persons going to universities. In the United States it appears to be one in four; in Canada one in nine; in Australia one in nine; in France one in ten; in Russia one in twelve; in West Germany one in sixteen; and in Britain one in twenty-four. That is evidence that has been given before in this House. Allowances have certainly to be made for uncertainties in the statistics, as the Leader of the Opposition said; but no one would deny, as he also said, that this is, or appears to be, a shocking state of affairs.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury countered by claiming that the true comparative test is not the percentage of the whole relevant age group which goes to university, but the percentage which succeeds in graduating; and by that test the Chief Secretary claims that we are doing better than France, Holland and Belgium and also Germany. I cannot pursue that comparison now, but I would point out that he ignores the fact that in Germany, for instance, it takes much longer to graduate. I have been in touch with the German
634
authorities and I am informed that in Germany a graduate usually achieves that position between the ages of 24 and 26; so a comparison between graduates in Britain and graduates in Germany is an imperfect one. If the comparison produced by the Chief Secretary is so obvious, it is peculiar that it has taken so long to produce, that it was not produced two years ago.
I think I can say, too, that it has taken the Government five years to think this up with the help of an interesting and stimulating but very unpretentious book, which certainly makes no claim to expertness. But I do not wish to set aside the Minister's contentions altogether. I would rather say this to him. If we are talking about a comparison with Europe, the French, for example, are planning to increase the capacity of the universities and equivalent institutions from the present 220,000 places to 500,000 in 1970. In other words, they are planning to more than double them. The Dutch also are planning to double their capacity between 1959 and 1973. All this is far in advance of our plans. If we turn to the Commonwealth, no amount of quibbling can obscure the fact that today there are as many students in universities in Canada as there are in this country, in spite of our having three times Canada's population.
In the United States—and I know that the noble Lord, Lord Francis-Williams, will speak with special authority in this connection—a single State, California, is spending at least as much as our national total; and if in the face of all the evidence the elephantine argument is brought forth, that American universities are not by our standards universities at all (I hope the House will not allow themselves to listen to that or, at any rate, will support me in my argument to-day), let me remind the House that a child in the United States has three times the opportunity of going to a university that a child in this country has of going into the sixth form. Again, I do not think there is any disposing of that argument. I can well understand that the Government are determined to deny the possibility of international comparisons, but in no circumstances can it be right that they should get away with it.
I must return now to the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, of May 11, 1960. He asked:
"Can we judge the adequacy of our graduate numbers by reference to the talent in our schools?"
He said:
"Yes, I believe we can, but I would say now that the talent in our schools is something which we have consistently underestimated."
We agree with him wholeheartedly on both points. As regards the first point, the test of the talent available, it is a pleasure also to quote from what the Chief Secretary said (though he did not occupy that office at the time) when he was Minister, on November 1, 1956. Mr. Brooke said:
"It is the Government's desire that all those boys who have the mental and general ability to profit by university education should do so."
So I hope that the third point will be in the recollection of the House when to-day is over: that it is the Government's desire that all the boys who have the mental and general ability to profit by university education should do so.
So we are all apparently at one in our ultimate test of adequacy for graduate provision; but I would quote here in regard to this second point, the way in which the estimates of talent fluctuate, a sentence from the report of a conference promoted by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in 1961:
"The most striking single agreement that was arrived at in discussion was the ready abandonment of the pool of ability"—
that is the idea of a fixed pool of ability—
"as scientifically misleading and from the point of view of policy irrelevant."
The report went on to refer to the complex processes by which potential qualities are transferred (to use their slightly technical language) into recognised and educated performances. What they meant was that you cannot say at any one moment that only a certain proportion of the population will be capable of ever going to a university; that education at an earlier stage can make a tremendous difference.
The truth is, as was brought out last time in the speeches made by both Lord Dundee and Lord Hailsham (and I am sorry to refer to the noble Earl, Lord
636
Dundee, in his absence; I am afraid I was not able to give him notice of this, but I do not think the quotations I will make will be very damaging), that the improvement of our national system of education has revealed at every stage a much greater supply of young people qualified and anxious to proceed to universities than was previously suspected. The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, himself said last time that
"Between 1958 and the mid-sixties the sixth forms in this country, so far as I can tell, are going to double in size, and in my view at any rate there is no reason to believe that the increase will stop there. These sixth forms will yield a reservoir of talent"—
I call particular attention to this quotation, where he says they will yield a reservoir of talent—
"which at the moment undoubtedly exists and is going to waste."
That is the considered view of the Leader of the House. He forecast that the present proportion, the much larger number, of sixth-formers clamouring at the gates of the universities and trying to get in would be maintained.
How right he was! Every time estimates are prepared, for future sixth-formers and therefore university candidates, the numbers go up. Even the calculations of so wise and ardent an expansionist as Sir Geoffrey Crowther in his famous Report are now regarded as considerable underestimates. I hope I am not confusing the House with too many figures, but let me give just one set of figures from a recent statistical bulletin of the Ministry of Education. Take, for example, the number of pupils aged seventeen in maintained secondary schools. In 1950 there were 23,000; in, 1960, 46,000—twice as many. In other words, the number of pupils in the maintained secondary schools staying to the age of seventeen doubled between 1950 and 1960. In 1970 it is estimated that they will number over 80,000, or three-quarters as much again, and in 1980, on these estimates, they will number 183,000. Therefore, between 1950 and 1980 it is reckoned, according to Ministry of Education estimates—which are conservative as I hope to explain in a moment—that the total number staying on to age seventeen in these schools will have multiplied six times. That is the tremendous social and educational revolution that is taking place all around

637
us. It gives us some measure of the immense challenge and opportunity to which the Government are reacting in so lethargic a fashion.
It may well be true—I should hesitate to offer a dogmatic opinion here—that we cannot now improve on the 150,000 target, owing to the long delays and feeble grants, without a "crash" programme, which no one expects from this Government. As regards the aim of 170,000 by 1973–74, that seems on the whole rather less ambitious than that commended to the House by Lord Dundee in 1960. I do not want to go into that in detail, particularly in the absence of the noble Earl, but, if challenged, I would substantiate that point. It seems, as I have said, slightly less ambitious than what was held out to us at that time, and since that time the expectations of those available to take advantage of university education by staying on into the sixth form have appreciably increased.
The truth is that the immediate policy of the Government is concerned only to maintain the shamefully low proportion of our young people who go to a university. That is their programme for the next few years. Mr. Brooke made no bones about that in another place with reference to the period 1966–67. During the next five years, in other words, even the target—and as I have said earlier it seems unlikely that it will be achieved without lowering standards—makes provision only for the "bulge" due to the increase in the birth rate. It does not make any provision for the trend—that is the ever higher proportion of every hundred young people qualified for university education, the trend I indicated when I quoted the figures for those staying on in sixth forms. After 1966–67 some allowance in the Government's plans is admittedly made for the trend, but, as I was indicating just now, even so the Government seem to have gone backward rather than forward. Certainly our programme for the next twelve years looks very shoddy compared with much that is being planned in Europe, the United States and the Commonwealth.
I sum up, if I may, from the standpoint, which I think was shared by the noble and learned Viscount in 1960 (and I hope it is still shared by him to-day),
638
that our present provision falls much below what is required to cope with the numbers of suitable young people coming forward. The figures produced by the Ministry are what I would call conservative. For example, there is no allowance made in these Ministry calculations for any increase in compulsory school-leaving age which we on these Benches, and I am sure many others in this House, think is absolutely necessary. But even on these conservative figures it is estimated that there will be an increase of something over 60 per cent. in the numbers leaving school in the age group seventeen, eighteen, and nineteen, between 1961 and 1973—something over 60 per cent. in those coming forward, even on conservative figures. The Government set a target for an increase of something over 50 per cent. of places available. Already the competition to get into the universities is unfairly keen and damaging in all sorts of ways. It has shown that after twelve years of much vaunted progress planned by the Government the student suitable for university, of given ability and training, would find it very considerably harder to obtain a university place than he does at the present time.
Speaking from outside the Government, one cannot pretend to lay down precise objectives. Mr. Gaitskell mentioned a figure of 200,000 for the later sixties. I have no doubt that he would regard that, as I should, as a minimum. Of course, the Government should spend more on the universities than ever before; so also, so far as I know, does every other civilised country. I have reminded the House before that prior to the war in this country we were spending Jess than £3 million per year on university education. If we include building grants—and much is of course for obsolescence, and I should like to stress that point—non-recurrent grants and grants to students, which I have not been otherwise concerned with, it is reckoned that even under the limited provision of the Government we shall be spending out of public funds £155 million five years from now. But all this is part of a world-wide and long overdue development. California, a single State in America, is spending more than we are.
There is nothing in anything the Government have told us, quite apart

639
from the pay pause and their immediate economic muddles, which suggests that they have any conception of the onerous duty and, at the same time, the wonderful chance that has come to them. I mean the duty and the chance of providing university life and training for the mass of young people who are pressing forward in greater and greater numbers, clamouring—as the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Hailsham, has said, and I am sure would say again—at the gates of the universities and trying to get in.
Under pressure, intense pressure, almost unparalleled pressure in academic quarters, under all this criticism, the Government have promised reviews, definitely or hypothetically, in the main fields affected—in buildings, non-recurrent grants, and salaries. They must forgive us if we on these Benches, and other critics also, remain unexcited and unimpressed. I am sure that in their own way the Government are sincere in supposing themselves to be interested in university education, but what they mean is worlds apart from what we mean by a national system of university education which is worthy of all our people in general and the rising generation in particular. Between us and them there is a great gulf fixed.
This Motion, I repeat, is not in any way a personal attack on a single Minister. It is a severe vote of censure on the Government as a whole. While the Government continue to preach to us in the language of generous university expansion, and to practise a policy of narrow restriction, of stifling and strangling hope and faith, and of exploiting the charity and straining the devotion of a magnificent profession, there will always be this difference between us. At least, there will be no humbug on our side and there will be an abundance of it on theirs.
Moved to resolve, That this House regrets the statement of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 14th March concerning the future of Government assistance to the universities.—(The Earl of Longford.)
3.12 p.m.
VISCOUNT ESHER: My Lords, this, of course, is a financial question. No one is going to controvert the case which has been so ably put forward by
640
the noble Earl. But the Government will, I am sure, with the usual urbanity which the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Hailsham, shows, express a good deal of sympathy with the Motion and will then say that they are very sorry but they have no money. "No money for the things that matter" will be written on the tombstone of the Government.
Coming back after many months abroad, I find it very noticeable how seriously the Government and the Conservative Party have been buffeted by their own wind of change. The whole atmosphere of easy success and irreplaceable efficiency has gone, and a buoyant and hopeful Liberal Pasty has unexpectedly appeared on the horizon. Your Lordships will be familiar with the phenomenon that when one returns from going away for some time one sees in the faces of one's friends a sudden change, and the lines of anxiety, frustration and failure more deeply written on their faces. The Government have had a long lease of power but their old age has come upon them very suddenly. I expect they are surprised at their own unpopularity, but the explanation of it is easy enough.
I am not myself in the Establishment: I am only an ordinary member of the affluent society. But in spite of our affluence, we are disappointed. Our general view of the cold war that is being run by the Establishment is that if it is not an insoluble problem it is at any rate a static situation. The noble Earl, Lord Home, who everybody agrees is a very able Foreign Secretary, has
"… heard great Argument
"About it and about: but evermore"
comes out by that same door wherein he went. It reminds me of a book which I read recently, in which for 300 pages Sir Walter Raleigh tries to make Queen Elizabeth I marry him. I met an Ambassador the other day who said that he thought the policy of "keep them talking" was a good one and that it might last for 30 years. In his view, even if by chance we came to an agreement with Russia, the same trouble would begin again with the Chinese. Not a very promising prospect, my Lords, for those who are hoping for increased grants for universities.

641
We of the affluent society agree with the Establishment, that a war which nobody can win is very unlikely to break out. War in the old days was like a motor drive from London to Birmingham, a great strain on the nerves and the possibility of painful mutilation at any minute. But war nowadays is like flying over the Alps at 32,000 feet; it is much more dangerous but not at all alarming, because if there is an accident you are dead. So we are taking no precautions and not a hole in the ground is being dug.
As the months of verbal repetition go by, the voters have ceased to worry about the cold war, and they know that the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, will never be able to explain to them the meaning of the Common Market. But they do know that there are three things which spoil our affluent society, three problems which have to be solved before we have a civilised community in this country. Those three things are housing, traffic and education. It is no good being affluent with an outside lavatory; it is no good being affluent if you spend half your life in a traffic block; and it is no good being affluent with lots of leisure and an empty mind.
But the Government have no money for these things: no money to pay the nurses; no money to prevent young doctors and young teachers from seeking higher incomes abroad; no money for the patients waiting in a long list to go to hospital; no money for university grants or to make places for the long line of students who want to go there. We are taxed up to the hilt but we have no money to spare. And all because the obsolescent industry of armaments is so expensive. The Government keep a very wary and watchful eye upon other obsolescent industries that are on their way out. Unprofitable coal mines, for instance, do not get the tender consideration that the Services receive. An old friend of mine, the wife of a miner in the North, who writes to me two or three times a year to tell me what is going on up there, describes to me how sad is the closing down of the pits. She writes:
"A great many people travel to Darlington to work. As many as 50 buses leave here every morning taking people to Darlington, where they can get some work to do."
642
Now the unprofitable railways have been put into the powerful hands of Dr. Beeching, who, in addition to his vandalism over the Euston Arch, has no hesitation in relentlessly examining the increasing obsolescence of the railways and closing them down without regard to the comfort and convenience of those who use them. How very different from the Navy, who are actually building twelve obsolete submarines at £2 million apiece because we cannot afford to pay the £2ê million which a real submarine costs! How very different from the days of Lord Fisher and the "Dreadnought"! That is being done with the object of preventing the Chatham Dockyard from being closed: very different from the mines in Durham. Why should we not have someone even worse than Dr. Beeching, with an even larger salary, to cut out the obsolete from our armaments and use the money that we obtain from that for university grants, for the High Wycombe By-pass or for the Glasgow slums?
We know that we made bows and arrows for a hundred years after the invention of gunpowder; we remember, some of us, the wonderfully equipped cavalry who stood behind the lines of the trenches in 1914 and were never used. We know all that; and we are now spending £20 million a year on pretending that England can be defended against nuclear attack, and to give your Lordships four minutes' notice of the arrival of a nuclear attack. Some of your Lordships are not very active, and will not be able to do much during those four minutes. I am not very active myself, and I certainly do not think it is worth while the country spending £20 million on giving me that four minutes' notice. I grudge those £20 million, which would go a long way to making us an educated nation.
I believe that a super-Beeching, totally unconnected with armaments or the Services, could shave some £500 million a year off what is being wasted on armaments now. The revolution in education in that case would be immense. At present, our education is on a middle-class, commercial basis, seeking out always the clever fellows; stiff sets of examinations, leading up to a good job. If we had enough money, we could widen this closed shop and could let more

643
and more people know what it is like to be an educated man or woman. My Lords, it is the greatest fun to have a wide appreciation and understanding of the world and the wonderful things that it contains. That is the modern aristocracy. That is the secret class division that removes boredom from daily life. Surely, my Lords, we cannot increase too much, or distribute too widely, those who possess this enormous privilege.
3.27 p.m.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, I have no doubt that all your Lordships have enjoyed the racy speech which we have just heard from the noble Viscount, with almost all of which I find myself in agreement. At the outset of my remarks I have a piece of good news for your Lordships. I had intended to quote the unprecedented Report of the Committee of Principals and Vice-Chancellors almost verbatim; but the noble Earl, Lord Longford, has already done it; and so, by that amount, my speech will be mercifully curtailed.
The action of the Treasury in this matter has been, as usual, furtive, disastrous and dishonest; and I want to ask the noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the House whether he will answer two questions at the end of this debate, because I think we ought to be in possession of the information. The first is: what is the precise measure of the disagreement between the Treasury and the University Grants Committee? We do not know. We have never been told; they have kept it dark. It must be pretty considerable, because I have no doubt that in previous years there have been disagreements which have ultimately been reconciled; but this disagreement must be a very severe one for the University Grants Committee to have made the report they did. We have never yet been told exactly how much money is involved in this disagreement, and I think that Parliament ought to know. The second question I want to ask the noble and learned Viscount is this: what is the ultimate target of the Government? When he was himself Rector of the University of Glasgow——
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): I am now.
LORD BOOTHBY: Then in the early days of his Rectorship of the University of Glasgow, he talked gaily about a figure of 200,000 university places by the year 1970. He has been suspiciously silent on the figure ever since. He is on record as saying that the future of this country depends primarily on its higher education and technical skill. Does he really think that the decision of the Treasury which has now been announced is going to facilitate that, or improve it?
My Lords, this is a debate in which I think we have to be very accurate, because the noble Viscount knows a great deal about the subject, and it is no good slipping into mistakes, because I know he will catch one out. So I am going to make some quotations from people who really know what they are talking about; and just add a few savage sentences of my own at the conclusion of my speech. You cannot quite disregard Professor Rosenhead, the pro-Vice-Chancellor of Liverpool University, who has said:
"The cuts in university grants may well bring many departments to the verge of collapse. Academic staffs will not be available, and university buildings will not be available for instruction."
That is clear, and you know where you are.
But I have searched for information from other people who really know, and I turned, first of all, before this debate, to my old friend and I think an old friend of the noble Viscount, one of the most distinguished and effective Vice-Chancellors the University of Oxford has ever had, Sir Maurice Bowra. I asked Sir Maurice to let me know, on a single sheet of notepaper, his views about the policy of Her Majesty's Government. These are his views, expressed in characteristically terse language:
"Universities have been encouraged to make plans for expansion in numbers, and therefore in staffs, libraries, laboratories, etc. They have given much time and trouble to working out plans, which now they will not be able to put into effect.
"The refusal to raise salaries makes recruitment difficult, since other jobs, which call for less qualifications (technical schools, etc.) offer more pay and less arduous work.
"The new universities have been handed a large raspberry. At York there is not a single book. How can they get reasonable libraries?
"The expansion of science calls for a lot more new posts. These are not forthcoming.

645
"Lots of clever young men, who have been expecting them, will now go to the United States. I have heard of six here in the last week.
"It is impossible to create a new university without halls of residence. There is really no room in lodgings in York, Canterbury, etc. Where will the boys and girls live?
"Oxford and Cambridge have worked out very careful schemes of science expansion, for example, in nuclear physics in Oxford. These require both capital expenditure and jobs. Neither is forthcoming".
And the final sentence is very characteristic, very good, and really sums up the whole argument:
"If the Government really believe in the expansion of universities, they must pay for it. They don't."
I really have very little to add to that, because it is said with an authority far greater than my own, and which cannot possibly be disputed by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House; but I also asked the Principal of the University of which I have had the honour to be Rector during the past three years to give me a precise and factual statement of the effect of the Government's proposals upon the University of St Andrews. His name will be familiar to the noble Viscount who sits on the Woolsack, the man who was my predecessor. It is Sir Malcolm Knox. These figures are rather more impressive, because under these proposals St. Andrews is probably better treated in the immediate future than any other university in the country. He has said—and I must beg your Lordships to listen to this, because it is important:
"In 1959 we lodged with the University Grants Committee in accordance with its request our proposed building programme for the years 1960 to 1963 inclusive. This programme was approved but early in 1960 we were asked to provide an outline of the building programme which we would wish to carry through in the years 1964 to 1968"—
and these are the ones which we have been planning over the last three years.
"But we were told not to give any precise detail for the years after 1965. The grants actually intimated to us for the years up to and including 1965 fell short by about one-third of what we had asked. The result was that we had to readjust our building programme and this had the effect of postponing until after 1965 the building of more residential accommodation in St. Andrews."
And, of course, this applies, in greater measure, to every other university in the country.
646
"Our estimates of cost on which the grants intimated to us were based were estimates founded on prices ruling in 1960. The U.G.C. has admitted that building costs have risen by 12½ per cent. since then but have explained that only 5 per cent. of this increased cost is to be made available to us by way of grant. We have been told that we must make up the difference by postponing until after 1965 work that could otherwise have been carried out within the grants intimated up to that date. What we have been told to do is to make up any deficit in the 1962 costs by drawing on the 1963 allocation, to make up a deficit in 1963 by drawing on 1964, and to make up what is by this time an accumulated deficit in 1964 by drawing on 1965. The money available to us in 1965 will therefore be substantially less than what was originally granted to us for that year.
"The total effect of this procedure so far as we can foresee it at the present time is that in the second stage of the new Men's Residence in Queen's College we shall have to reduce the residence places by 30. We shall also have available for the first stage of the Chemistry Building in St. Andrews about £100,000 less than we had anticipated.
"At the present time we have no idea what capital grants are to be available after 1965, but it is of course clear from what I have said that our expansion programme will take longer to complete than we had originally expected.
"I must point out, however, that this deceleration of the expansion programme is most unlikely to have any effect on the number of students which we can admit during the quinquennium up to 1967, although we expect that in the year 1966–67 we shall have great difficulty in finding places for students to live in both St. Andrews and in Dundee. If. however, much larger capital grants are not forthcoming in 1966 and the following years, then indeed it will not prove possible for us to reach the figures of student numbers which we had expected to reach by 1970. What we must have in 1966 and the following years is a capital grant large enough not only to complete the necessary teaching buildings but to provide residential accommodation on a large scale as well.
"It is fair to add that this University is in a much better position than many others are because our recurrent grant has been generously assessed up to 1966–67. Other Universities may find themselves quite unable to raise their student numbers in the quinquennium of 1962–67 by anything like the amount which they had estimated in their quinquennial programme when it was drawn up last summer."
And drawn up, I might add, with the approval of the Government. These are fairly formidable statements from men who know what they are talking about, and I am wondering what the noble Viscount will have to say in answer to them. Because the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in another place made no reply to these criticisms at all.

647
I have already quoted Sir Maurice Bowra saying that he had heard of six people going to the United States of America from our universities—highly qualified teachers—in one week, but I do not know whether the noble Lord's attention was drawn to the letter in The Times by the scientific professors of London University a short time ago, in which they said:
"Our departments constantly receive requests from Universities in North America for the names of our best young men, who might be attracted to their teaching or research posts. We give one actual example of the effect of the recent announcement. A married man of 29 with a first-class honours degree, a Ph.D., two years' post-doctoral experience abroad, and the equivalent of three years as an assistant lecturer, received recently an offer of nearly $10,000 per annum, in an American university. His offer in this country was £1,100 as a lecturer, which included one increment above the minimum; for some time he has been waiting for the salary announcement before deciding what to do. What advice can we give him now?"
Three per cent. is the total salary increase allowed to the university lecturer! The letter concludes:
"We urge the Government to act upon the advice of its own University Grants Committee and of the Vice-Chancellors in regard to grants for the next quinquennium and university salaries. Even if an overall salary increase is refused, we consider that immediate increases of at least 20 per cent. at the lower end of the lecturing scale are essential if our best science and engineering teachers are to be retained in this country."
My Lords, I would say only this in conclusion. I believe this to be a major attack by the Treasury—which does not surprise me—upon higher education in this country, at the worst possible moment that it could come. Last October, 88 posts were left vacant in 14 British universities, and at the same time 144 of their staff left to go abroad. In Scotland, it has been accurately estimated, I think, that none of the universities which we have—and we are not to have another—will be able to meet its own calculations by as much as 33 per cent.; and the demand for university places is likely to exceed the supply by 9,000 in Scotland alone in the year 1970. The authority of the University Grants Committee, which has, on the whole, done a good job in this country, has been undermined; and, in particular, the authority of Sir Keith Murray. I do not think that he will ever be able to exercise again the influence he has done,
648
after the public rebuff he has received from the Treasury. In another place, Sir Edward Boyle promised a biennia review of recurrent grants. So far a: university education is concerned this is no good at all. University planning is long-term planning, or it is nothing. And we have now been reduced by the Government to reckless and helpless improvisation.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford quoted figures about university education in other countries, and, of course they can be used to reveal nothing or anything; but I think there is absolutely no doubt that university education, not only in Western Europe but in the United States and also on the other side of the Iron Curtain, is going ahead at a far faster rate than it is in this country. I know that the Treasury like to talk about the number of "graduates", but it is not only the number of graduates that matters. We are not going to run this country, or any other in the modern world, with a handful of star academic performers. It is the good second-rate students that constitute the essential core of any country.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: They are graduates, too.
LORD BOOTHBY: I dare say. I am not saying that they are not. I am only saying that one of the arguments of the Treasury is that we must concentrate on producing a small élite at our universities.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord is really stating what simply has no relation to the facts at all. My right honourable friend's point was that the test was the proportion of graduates as a function of an age group, and I really do not agree with the noble Lord that we are going to run this country on a core of failed B.A.s, which is apparently his argument.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, I never suggested that we should do that. The proportion of those failed, as the noble Viscount well knows, has fallen from 11 to 9 per cent. The noble Viscount cannot ride off on that. It is pure quibbling.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord mistakes the case. The

649
charge he was making against my right honourable friend was that he said we must concentrate on a core of élite, but the second-rate or ordinary run-of-the-mill student is every bit as important to university life. That is common ground between us. But when the noble Lord intervenes between the noble Earl, Lord Longford, and myself about whether the correct way of comparing foreign with British universities is to consider the number of those who matriculate as distinct from those who graduate, all I can say is that the only meaning I can put to his abjection is that the noble Lord thinks that those who fail are better than those who get through.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, all I can say is that I do not think that, and the noble Viscount well knows it. But I do not think that we are going to encourage higher education in this country by ruthlessly cutting down the student population of our universities, as is the present purpose of Her Majesty's Government. I do not know whether the noble Viscount has seen a study made in West Germany, and published only recently, which gives a table of the number of university students per 10,000 of the population for various countries. The figures are: Great Britain, 19; Norway, 21; Denmark, 29; Holland, 31; Germany, 32; Italy, 33; Belgium, 35; Switzerland, 36; Sweden, 39; Austria, 39; France, 47. And I can tell him, from personal experience, that they are concentrating on university education on the other side of the Iron Curtain to just as great an extent. I myself was at the University of Cracow in Poland not very long ago, and the noble Viscount knows very well what they are doing in the Soviet Union. The answer is that we are behind the lot.
As for the figures of the United States, the noble Earl, Lord Longford, said that California alone was spending more on university education than this country; and with over 3 million students a figure of 165 per 10,000 is not unreasonable, I think, to suggest. By 1970, if we reach our target of 170,000, we shall have 33 per 10,000. France, with a smaller population, is aiming at 600,000 university students by that date, or 140 per 10,000. These figures may give satisfaction to the noble Viscount, but I can
650
only say they give little satisfaction to me.
I am sorry if I have spoken a little heatedly, but I have been rather involved with university education for the last three years and I feel very strongly on the subject. I have sat watching successive Governments in this country for the greater part of my life with a highly dissatisfied eye; and I can only say that, with one exception, I think that this is the worst thing I have ever known any Government to do. The exception is the failure of the Government before the war to rearm this country, and implement Mr. Baldwin's pledge that in no circumstances would we allow our Air Force to fall below parity with that of any Continental Power. Apart from that, I genuinely think that this is a most wicked thing, because this is a race comparable in importance with the air race before the war. This is the race, above all, that we cannot afford to lose in the latter half of the 20th century.
Universities—and the nurses—do not possess an advocate of the power of Mr. Frank Cousins, but that only imposes a greater responsibility upon Her Majesty's Government. Your Lordships well know the views that I have always held about the Treasury. This is one of their blackest deeds. I am not condemning the Government as a whole; I am condemning that dreadful Department which has for so long been the root of all evil in this country. I would say to your Lordships before I sit down that here is an opportunity for your Lordships' House to fulfil its purpose, its responsibility and function, by voting against the Government tonight. You will not bring them down; but what you will do is to compel them to think again. After your Lordships have listened to the arguments so far in this debate, and to the rest, you must surely believe this to be your bounden duty.

PROGRESS OF COMMON MARKET NEGOTIATIONS
3.48 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, I am enormously tempted to intervene in the debate as originally arranged and reply to my noble friend, but, as things are, it is

651
my duty to ask your Lordships' permission to interrupt the debate for a moment to repeat a statement which was made about ten minutes ago by my right honourable friend the Lord Privy Seal in another place on the progress of the Brussels negotiations. I hope it will be for the convenience of the House if on this occasion I confine myself to general matters and at the same time publish a further statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT, as my right honourable friend is doing.
At the Ministerial meeting in March, the Lord Privy Seal asked for a full report to be prepared jointly by officials, setting out the positions of both the European Economic Community and the United Kingdom on each point and the arguments put forward to support them, together with a summary of the work done by officials in exploring the differences that existed. This report, which is secret, was ready on time on April 14 and has since been studied by all the Governments concerned and the Commission. The purpose in asking for this progress report was to enable Ministers to see clearly where we had established common ground and what the gaps were between our positions after five months of analysis and explanation. This was essential before we could proceed to the point of considering satisfactory solutions to the problems involved in our application.
The principal task at the Ministerial meeting in Brussels last Friday and Saturday was to consider fully this progress report. This marked the end of the first or the exploratory stage of the negotiations. Over almost the whole field the issues have now been clearly defined, and the way is now open for the negotiation of solutions. As the Lord Privy Seal has said before in another place, these problems have been grouped under a number of headings. The main ones are the level of the common tariff, the request we have made for zero tariffs on a number of items, in particular certain raw materials, exports of industrial goods from the developed Commonwealth, the products of the Asian countries of the Commonwealth, the association of Commonwealth countries and dependencies under Part IV of the Treaty of Rome, Commonwealth exports of temperate foodstuffs, the particular requirements
652
of British agriculture, and the Economic Union Articles of the Treaty of Rome. Ministers together examined each of these sections in turn.
To facilitate the task of finding solutions, the British delegation tabled immediately before the Ministerial meeting substantive proposals in three of these sections. First, they put forward a detailed plan for the treatment of exports of manufactures from Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Secondly, they submitted a general formula for the treatment of Commonwealth exports of temperate foodstuffs both in the short and the long term. Thirdly, they proposed detailed measures on various problems relating to United Kingdom agriculture.
At the Ministerial meeting, a large part of which was in restricted session, Ministers had a preliminary discussion on the substance of these problems. They instructed their officials to work out possible solutions within agreed terms of reference, which are to be reported to them in some sectors at their next meeting. In addition, the Ministers authorised the setting up of a working party to deal with the particular aspects of horticulture in both the United Kingdom and the European Economic Community.
The Chairman of the Ministers of the Community informed the Ministerial meeting that the delegations of the Six Member Governments had accepted the Lord Privy Seal's request, made at the March Ministerial meeting, and agreed that their objective should be to determine at least the main outlines of a possible agreement covering the whole field of problems by the end of July.
There will, of course, be a great deal of work still to be carried out after this stage has been reached. But we have now entered upon the stage of negotiations proper. Many of the problems to be solved are complex and difficult. The United Kingdom Delegation will pursue their solution with determination.
It was agreed that the next Ministerial meeting should be held in Brussels on the 29th and 30th of this month and a further four-day meeting from the 27th to the 30th of June.
[Following is the further statement referred to by the Earl of Dundee:
Since the last report which was made on the Brussels negotiations on the 7th of March, the

653
Deputies have continued to examine the Various problems to which I have referred. In particular, work has been concentrated on the problems of United Kingdom agriculture and Commonwealth exports of temperate foodstuffs to this country, and on the problems of the so-called Category 1 countries, India, Pakistani, Ceylon and Hong Kong.
At the Ministerial Meeting at the end of March it was agreed that the Deputies should prepare a comprehensive report covering all the matters under negotiation and setting out the position reached by either side on each of them.
As I have already said, consideration of this report was the main item on the agenda for the Ministerial (Meeting last week. The present position! with regard to the various problems under discussion is briefly as follows.
The general level of the common external tariff. There is broad agreement on this but we have reserved the right to propose a review of the (position at the end of our negotiations.
Raw materials and semi-manufactures for which we have proposed a zero tariff. The Six had put forward no specific suggestions in response to our proposals in this field before the Ministerial meeting, and after prolonged discussion it was agreed that Deputies should examine the items product by product and produce solutions,
Manufactures from Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Before the Ministerial meeting we put forward proposals under which the application of the common external tariff to this trade would be deferred pending negotiations in GATT but that subject to the outcome of these negotiations and subsequent reviews the common, external tariff should, with perhaps some exceptions, apply to the whole of this trade by 1970. It was agreed at the Ministerial meeting that these proposals should be accepted as a basis for discussion, and that Deputies should report on the further consideration given to them at the Ministerial meeting on 29th-30t:h May.
Category 1 countries (India, Pakistan, Ceylon and Hong Kong). A working party which has been studying the trade problems of these countries has so far concentrated mainly on textiles. It was agreed that the Deputies should complete their work on textiles, put forward proposals for dealing with the other items of trade and examine more thoroughly than has so far been possible the problems raised by Hong Kong's trade.
Association and tropical products. A Working Party is already examining the problems of trade arrangements and tariffs for the main tropical products, and their report should be available for Ministers at their meeting on May 29–30. It was agreed that Deputies should carry further their consideration of other questions related to the association of Commonwealth countries with an enlarged Community.
Commonwealth temperate foodstuffs. The proposals we put forward for discussion envisage specific arrangements for the
654
Commonwealth countries concerned for specific periods and agreed machinery for reviewing how these arrangements should be extended thereafter having regard in particular to any international agreements which might be negotiated in the meantime. The Lord Privy Seal emphasised at the Ministerial meeting the very great importance we attach to this question and the fact that Commonwealth interests would not be met merely by agreement on transitional arrangements covering a specific period of years. It was agreed that the Deputies should give high priority to this matter with a view to submitting a report in time for consideration on May 29.
United Kingdom agriculture. The two major problems in this field are:

(i) annual review and guarantees to farmers in an enlarged Community;

(ii) the length of the transitional period for the United Kingdom.

We have proposed amendments which we think will be necessary to certain of the agricultural regulations if the Community is enlarged by our accession and that of other European countries, and we have put forward views on the commodities for which the Community have not yet approved regulations. The Lord Privy Seal undertook at the Ministerial meeting to put forward further proposals as soon as possible on certain other commodities, notably meat and dairy products. All these matters will be further considered by Deputies before the next Ministerial meeting and in particular a Working Party has been authorised to consider the problems of United Kingdom horticulture.
Economic Union provisions of the Treaty of Rome. Throughout the period discussion on these Articles and the regulations made under them continued with the Commission. So far, no serious problem has emerged and these questions were not discussed at the Ministerial meeting.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, we must, as usual, thank the noble Earl for giving us the statement which has been made in another place, but I must say that it tells us very little. I do not know what sort of real information to Parliament this progress report is expected to convey. I must say that when one picks up the London Times of yesterday, and on the political side of the matter reads the statement of M. Spaak that they would be quite prepared to scrap any idea of this country's going into the Common Market if they could come to an agreement with France on certain matters, one just wonders where you are going. People in the country are gradually beginning to feel that we are being kept in the dark; that at the end we shall meet with something like a fait accompli, and then you gamble the future of 23 million insured workers of this

655
country. I really wish we could get some more information, stage by stage, from the Government. I feel very unhappy about it.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I would at once agree with the noble Viscount that this statement which I have just made does not tell us very much in detail, but we thought it would be a good thing to keep Parliament informed of the stage which we have reached. May I just mention one incidental point to which the noble Viscount referred in his question? I am informed by the Belgian Government that M. Spaak was not correctly reported in The Times in the statement to which he has referred.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Could we then have the correction? What was the statement he made? He certainly made some statement.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: That is for M. Spaak to make, and not for us, but I will do my best to find out what he did say, if the noble Viscount would like me to do that, and compare it with what was published, a copy of which I have not got at the moment.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether he could not have made a much briefer statement, such as, for instance, "Discussions continue on the Continent"?—for that is just about all we have heard this afternoon. When the noble Earl tells your Lordships that discussions are taking place, I would ask whether the time has not arrived when the Government might conceive the idea of perhaps letting your Lordships into the secret of what they are discussing.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, we are always in a dilemma about this. If we are not in a position to say anything detailed, we are always accused of withholding information; if we give all the information we have got, we are told that we have said nothing. If you have agreed on nothing, that is about all you can say. I entirely approve of the principle of short statements, but we felt that it would be right to inform Parliament of the general stage which the discussions have now reached.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, would the noble Earl get those responsible for this rather terrible piece of jargon to consult with the noble and learned Viscount, who has some very sensible ideas on clear English? This is about as unclear a piece of muddle as I have ever heard read out.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I would only say that I have heard a great many worse pieces of jargon.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I said that I felt very unhappy about this matter. We certainly ought to be thinking about a number of these subjects that are being considered. We get very little opportunity of information from the Government to be able to do it. I waited for weeks and weeks to get a copy in English of the Agreement which was arrived at on agriculture between the Six Members of the Community. I got the documents yesterday for the first time. When you come to look at them they tell you nothing. They really tell you nothing unless you are an expert on the staff of the Six and you have a large staff to go into a whole number of references to find out what it means. What we are being given is worth nothing at all to anybody who studies it. I must say that I am exceedingly disappointed at the manner in which the Government are treating the House.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I am aware of the noble Viscount's impatience, which many of us share, about the translation of the document prepared by the Six on agriculture. I would only mention to your Lordships that if this statement on agriculture, drafted by the Six Members who are in the Community already, means nothing, how can you expect a country which is only applying to join, and which has not yet joined, to tell you anything?
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, in the statement which the noble Earl gave us, he referred to a report which was ready on April 14. This was a progress report prepared by the officers and which set out the position which had been arrived at, how far we were in agreement, and the extent of disagreement. Could we be told a little more about that? This House and the country has no idea as to

657
how far we are in agreement with those with whom we are negotiating and the extent of the disagreement. All we are told in this statement is that a statement was prepared and ready on April 14.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, in order to anticipate the noble Lord's supplementary I took the liberty of inserting into my statement a word which was not contained in the Lord Privy Seal's statement, to the effect that this report of April 14 is secret and, therefore, I cannot refer to it. Whether if the secret were revealed to the noble Lord he would be much wiser is a matter I will not pursue.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I do not know who made it a secret or by whose decision it was made a secret, but is it not fundamental for our appreciation of the whole question that we should know what has been agreed between the parties and the extent of this agreement?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I do not think I can agree with that, my Lords. Surely the worst way of conducting negotiations is to publish to the world at every stage what you may have agreed on and what you have not yet agreed on?
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, it looks as if we shall have to wait for months and months while in all sections of industry there are thoughts that things may go this way, that way or the other way, and the country is being asked to go into a gamble in the future on the employment, happiness and business of everybody in it—a gamble which will not be made anything like clear to us until it is too late to do anything about it.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, I think my noble friend has really covered the ground as far as we can take it to-day. These matters are enormously complicated, as the noble Viscount has said himself, and we had to prepare a great many papers and give a great deal of preliminary consideration to the points which we would put into the conferences with the members of the Six. It was quite impossible really at that stage to make public the papers that we put in, or the
658
negotiating positions. We are still at the point, as my noble friend's reply tried to make clear—and I think it was clear if the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, would read it again—where we are beginnig to discuss the substances of the different matters; in other words, what might be the ingredients of agreement on agriclture or upon the conditions that we require for the Commonwealth on the import of industrial goods, or, for stance, on matters concerning the import of foodstuffs. I do not know how long or how far on the next stage we shall able to report to the House before the next Ministerial meeting on May 29, but the Lord Privy Seal's hope is that we shall make substantial progress in the next few weeks; and certainly Parliment will not be asked to rubber stamp a fait accompli. Parliament will be given plenty of opportunity to discuss these matters, but we cannot really profitably discuss matters which have not been taken far in their points of substance at the present point of time.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILL BOROUGH: My Lords, may I ask whether the latter part of what the Foreign Secretary said means that Parliament will be given that opportunity before the end of July and before the Government have a conference with the Commonwealth Premiers? Because if you are going to come to a decision at the conference with the Premiers where does Parliament come in, then, for a decision?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, we shall have to judge the progress that we can make, and nobody can forecast the moment on what points it will be useful and helpful to have Parliamentary discussions. But these are matters we shall discuss in the ordinary channels between the Opposition and the Government in both Houses.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILL BOROUGH: My Lords, I think the only thing I can say now is that we will make a closer study of the OFFICIAL REPORT which, I gather, will contain much more to-morrow morning than we have actually heard to-day. Is that so? Are we to have a much longer report in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow than is contained in the noble Lord's statement to-day?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, it may be a little longer, but I cannot promise that it will contain sufficient detail to satisfy the curiosity of your Lordships. With regard to the noble Viscount's last supplementary, may I just repeat what the Prime Minister said in another place on April 19? [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 658 (No. 101), col. 702]:
"Our duty is to continue negotiations to try to put the whole picture before the Commonwealth Prime Ministers and consider what they say, and, in the light of these discussions, to make … a decision which we shall announce and ask the House to support."
The Government abide by the terms of the Resolution of another place of August 3, that no agreement will be entered into until it has been approved by the House and after full consultation with other Commonwealth countries, by whatever procedure may be generally agreed.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, that looks like another thing to be put before the House to decide upon in the autumn of this year. But in any case the Government will have made their decision, apparently entered into commitments, and the country at large will never have been consulted at all.
LORD BOOTHBY: It never is.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: On a matter of such completely revolutionary importance as this?
LORD BOOTHBY: I say, not unless you fight a general election, which you cannot do under our Constitution.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I think we shall have to leave this statement from my noble friend and if we want to debate the matter later on at much greater length some kind of question should be put before the House. I suggest that we read to-morrow what my noble friend has actually said and that now we might proceed with our debate upon universities.

GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE TO UNIVERSITIES
4.8 p.m.
Debate continued.
THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH: My Lords, I must confess that I was somewhat relieved by the timing of the intervention for Lord Dundee's Statement, inasmuch as it came as something of a breather after the forceful, eloquent and persuasive speech of the noble Lord, Lord Boothby. I should like to begin with an apology, in that a long standing engagement means that I shall probably have to leave the House before the concluding speeches of this debate, and I shall therefore miss the reply of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and the noble Earl, Lord Longford. I am sorry that I shall be doing so.
In a letter which Lord Melbourne wrote to Queen Victoria—and I have substituted a fictitious family name for the one actually in his letter—he said:
"What's all this I hear about education? None of the Smiths can read or write, yet they do very well."
We have certainly moved beyond that position, though no doubt there are still many people who "do very well"—though not perhaps in the sense that Lord Melbourne meant—without much in the way of education. The vital importance of higher education to the life of the nation, to modern thought and culture and to the lives of those who benefit by receiving that education needs no declaration. But the question as to who should or should not receive higher education in a university is a more difficult matter than the one which is under debate this afternoon. The number who should ideally be receiving university education (and I am leaving out of account at the moment the capacity of the universities) can be estimated in three different, ways. First, by the number of young people leaving school who are available and deemed fit for a university education—and I should regard that basis as the most important one; secondly, by the national requirement for graduates, and thirdly by the amount of money available to pay for them. It is desirable, but improbable, that the figures produced on these three bases will be the same at a given time; and

661
although for each of them we have statistics available, one must, I think, be careful in interpreting them.
For instance, in considering the number of young people available and deemed to be fit for university education, one must admit that, in spite of the pressure on university admission, there is a great deal of wastage of those who are accepted. Some of them fail to complete their degree courses, and perhaps some kind of loss of that sort will inevitably and always take place. A good many more come out of the university with little to show for their time in it but a piece of paper which they themselves have been encouraged to cherish too dearly. They do not appear to have grown in the qualities that make their paper qualifications really valuable to the public, though they will find a place in the statistics of graduates produced.
However, in spite of a certain failure rate—and I believe that that failure rate is a serious and important issue for the universities; though it would be difficult to estimate its precise extent—and despite the fact that a great proportion of these failures may be due to mistakes made in admission, all the evidence goes to show that there are at the present time many more young people who are fitted for university but who fail to get a place. It looks as if this number will increase faster than the rate of growth for which provision is at present being made, or even for which provision is made on the basis of the University Grants Committee recommendations. This is a serious matter. It is a serious matter to bring young people to the point of readiness for higher education and then to submit them, after rigorous competition, to undeserved rejection. It is serious for them personally; it is serious for the country, and it is serious for the world at large when there is a famine of fully educated people.
When one turns to statistics or statements about national requirements for graduates, these provide a valuable guide, but they have sometimes led to a line of thought and argument which is misleading as to the nature of university education itself. The function of a university is not to produce to order a given number of graduates with this or that qualification, but to give to
662
young people capable of responding to it the time and opportunity to grow up in such a way that, among other things, they may choose a career or vocation based on thought, knowledge and judgment and on advice from their seniors which they have thought about and weighed. The choice of their course of study and the eventual choice of their career will, of course, be governed by the openings available, by the needs of the community, the national need; and it is, I would submit, in those terms that we should consider this factor.
When it comes to the question of the money available, or the money that ought to be made available, for the universities, this of course, as has been noted in the speeches that have been made already by your Lordships, is related to other demands on the National Exchequer and on the total amount of that Exchequer. But without indulging in arguments on the relative amount spent on armaments, for instance, or on other social services, or on the rate of taxation itself, surely university education should take a very high priority. Even in regard to appeals made for help to under-developed countries, in addition to the money they need—and they certainly need that—they also need, in particular, the assistance of educated men and women.
Like so many of your Lordships, I wish the university allocation for the next quinquennium could be larger and that a decision to make it so could be made very soon, not only because we are at the beginning of another quinquennium—and the importance of this particular point has been argued and presented—but also in view of the way in which this will affect the plans for new universities. Naturally enough, I have a special interest in the University of Norwich. If one is faced with a delay in university expansion up to the numbers calculated on the basis of the other two methods of assessing how many university places there ought to be, one is faced then with the grave alternative either of denying university education to more of those who are capable of benefiting by it or of leaving out of the life of those who go to the universities some of the things that a full university education should supply; and I should prefer to put it that way rather than

663
necessarily speak of it as a lowering of standards, though in fact that is what it comes to.
Among the universities, the nineteenth century foundations played a special part in emphasising the importance of research. It has been of enormous value in building up the corpus of knowledge on a given subject and recruiting to the work of doing so the able student and the young university teacher. It has helped greatly in establishing the status of universities which often had little encouragement from their older sisters. But it is now widely recognised that research was often done at the cost of teaching, that university posts went to men with large dossiers of off-prints from learned journals rather than to those with a reputation for endless patience or unflagging enthusiasm in the equally arduous work of teaching.
University teachers must, of course, do both. They must have time to teach and time to meet their students, and the conditions and accommodation which makes it reasonably possible for them to do so, and they must also be engaged in work of their own. Cuts in staff-student ratio, which is already low enough, in all conscience, means a weakening of the most important of all the relationships in higher education, the one on which the student's attitude to his work, and to much else, most markedly depends. Economies compelling, in particular, a drop in the staff-student ratio are the most false economies of all. But if we are to maintain them for the future we must provide now for the means for post-graduate work, and this is the most costly part of building expansion.
The staff-student ratio will not of itself guarantee that staff and students see anything of each other beyond their formal teaching. In too many universities (and, though one is sorry to say it, this is becoming true, owing to difficulties of accommodation, in Oxford and Cambridge at the present time) living accommodation for university staffs and their families is a really acute problem. Quite a number of dons live a long way from their work. The greatest discouragement to qualified men and women taking a university teaching appointment is not only or always, or perhaps chiefly, that
664
of salary prospects, but the fact that the conditions and environment available are not such as will enable them in the full sense to live a life and to do the work of a university don. The availability of resident accommodation for staffs and students close to the buildings for teaching and research is of the utmost importance.
The older of the newer universities (if I may use that phrase, because I wish to avoid that dreary word "red-brick") have a tremendous backlog in the way of residential accommodation and they need all the help they can be given in their anxiety to remedy this. The new universities have made this matter of residence on the campus an essential factor in their plans and are going all out for large sums of money for that purpose. The University of York—and I shall listen with great interest, to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord James of Rusholme—has already made its appeal, and the University of Norwich, with its splendid site at Earlham, is launching its appeal to-morrow. And both are greatly concerned in their plans to provide the type of community which a university really ought to have. These plans will inevitably be hampered if the money needed for the salaries to maintain an adequate staff-student ratio are not available.
The quality of higher education is what matters, and the total environment of university life and of the university as a community go a very long way to make the standards of university education. If a university is to fit its students with a mature background for their profession in later life it should also be a place in which they have an opportunity to form tastes in which they may continue in later life connected with or separated from their studies; tastes in the arts, tastes in all forms of culture, and interest in sport for that matter: and not least—for this is an issue which rightly and inevitably is of the deepest concern for students and their teachers—the consideration of all their studies and interests in terms of the end and destiny and objectives of man.
This atmosphere may or may not be more important to the breadth of university life than the degree of specialisation of the curriculum. It seems to me

665
that what is of vital importance is that, however specialised the syllabus may be, the students themselves are living in an atmosphere which stimulates interests of the widest kind which they can continue in later life. You cannot force culture in the fullest sense, but you can put the students in a setting where they have the opportunity to acquire it.
The quality of higher education is what matters. We cannot ensure quality in the present situation just by restricting numbers. The restriction in numbers of students below that which the universities themselves say they can accept may indeed be the way to destroy standards and quality. Too much restriction will drive the schools to even greater pressures. Our institutions of higher education will then be filled, not necessarily with the best students, but with those most able and willing to undergo pressure-cramming. I believe that expansion is an urgent requirement, and if the universities are to grow and expand we must keep the diversity of our institutions, with their different emphases and their suitability for different types of students. We must preserve and develop patterns which foster good teaching and good relationships. We must give a place within all institutions for a genuine engagement of minds and for a serious, as opposed to a casual, encounter with those forces in human life which give to it a sense of meaning and a sense of purpose, of which religion and the respect of and care for one's fellow-men are surely the chief.
4.22 p.m.
LORD STAMP: My Lords, as one of the few professors in your Lordships' House I feel that I should make some contribution to the debate this afternoon. I hope that in what I have to say I shall not seem to be indulging in special pleading for any particular university interests or exaggerating their importance. But I should like to speak as much as possible from personal experience which must be limited to my own field.
My Lords, I think it is difficult for the average person to understand fully with what anxiety and hope the universities awaited the Government's decision on financial aid that is being discussed to-day. To most people March 14 was just another day, and this was just
666
another Government announcement. To those responsible for directing the affairs of the universities, whether in faculty, school or department, it was of crucial importance. In the first place, it would indicate how far there was to be any relief from the constant anxieties of the past few years, and in particular this year—the last year of the present quinquennium.
Everybody knows that the universities have had a difficult time, but few outside the universities know how difficult it has been. Trying to make ends meet in an age of inflation, on budgets largely fixed on the basis of grants allocated years before, has led to cuts and economies in all directions. Important posts that have been established have been left unfilled, or no successor has been reappointed when a holder has left, possibly for a better post abroad; and I can assure your Lordships that emigration of university staff and leaders in research is a most serious matter, as other noble Lords have said. There can hardly be a head of a university department in the country, particularly those concerned with research, who does not know of such cases, either from his own experience or from that of his colleagues. Many are leaving, not for any reasons of financial advancement—though they certainly could not be blamed if they did—but because they can no longer put up with inadequate facilities, constant frustrations and anxieties about financing—an atmosphere which is sapping morale and destroying idealism. Some men are being forced to take advantage of offers from abroad.
May I give one example of this from my own experience? There is in my department at the Post-graduate Medical School, a young man who has been working for several years on some fundamental aspects of immunity and who has become an expert in the field. The importance of this subject in relation to infectious diseases has, of course, been recognised for a long time. But we are now beginning to appreciate that it has a great significance in at least two other areas of medicine—namely, the so-called "auto-immune" diseases, and also in the transplantation of tissues, as, for example, when the surgeon attempts to replace a diseased kidney with a

667
healthy one. Immunology may even contribute to knowledge as to the cause and progress of cancer. The subject is therefore a most important growing point in medicine.
Every medical school, however, is hampered by a great shortage of staff in this field. We have therefore been most fortunate in having the scientist I have referred to working with us. This has been possible only through a personal grant of several thousand pounds per year from American sources which has covered his own salary and nearly all the expenses of the work. This grant is now coming to an end, but it is understood that it would be renewed and increased, in view of the importance of the work, on the understanding that the scientist was given a salaried appointment on the school staff. Unfortunately, it has not been possible to promise this, in view of the financial position and the uncertainties of the future. He has recently received two invitations, to which answers could not be delayed, to go and work in a senior position in the United States. In both cases there are much greater facilities for research than he could hope to have here, and in both cases his salary would be two or three times what he could hope to receive here at present. In spite of this, he did not wish to leave, provided that his future could be made secure. As things are, he has had no alternative and will be going at the end of the year. A colleague in another department has lost three similar promising young academic Leaders in one week. In present conditions, the exodus of scientific staff from the universities looks like developing into a landslide.
Nor has the position with regard to capital expenditure been any easier. Many university schools have had to put up with completely inadequate buildings and accommodation. For some the position may be eased owing to the generosity of private benefactors, and perhaps also, as in the case of my own school, by appeals in this country and abroad. I helped in the launching of these appeals in South Africa and Canada—incidentally, hardly the sort of thing that a professor should have to be doing. In both these countries there was a most generous response. On these occasions I was frequently asked how
668
much the Government were doing to meet the needs of our university schools for new buildings. I must say that I found the question most embarrassing.
The problem of accommodation has, of course, been greatly aggravated by the ever-growing demands for university places, about which a great deal has already been said. Everyone who has a son or daughter who is trying to get into a university will know what this means. But the increasing pressure to enter our universities has come not only from students from our schools, but also from students from abroad, and particularly from the Commonwealth, many of whom have been encouraged to come by the Government's Commonwealth Scholarships Scheme. It is this aspect of the problem on which I should like to enlarge. To illustrate this, I should like, if I may, to refer further to the medical school with which I have been associated as a professor for many years, the Postgraduate Medical School of London.
Many of your Lordships will be familiar with the work that is being done there. It gives further training to qualified doctors in general medicine, surgery and pathology; in other words, it teaches them to be better doctors, and it is the only one of its kind in the Commonwealth. Over 14,000 students have studied at the school since it was opened nearly thirty years ago. More than two-thirds come from overseas, about half of these from the Commonwealth, many from the under-developed countries. On their return home many of them take up key positions in the medical services of their country; many also take up teaching and pass on to others what they have been taught. The influence of the School in raising medical standards everywhere is therefore very great, and it has acquired a world-wide reputation. Unfortunately though, three out of every four doctors applying for admission have to be turned away for lack of space. Only last week in my own subject, pathology, we were considering over 60 applications from students from 23 different countries for next year's course, for which only 16 places are available.
But the School has an influence far beyond the practice of medicine. By bringing together doctors from practically every country in the world to

669
learn each other's ways and outlook it plays a great part in promoting international understanding. Each on his return home becomes an ambassador for this country and, indeed, for the whole of the English-speaking world. In fact, of course, it is in such practical ways that international good will is most effectively promoted. It has been an inspiration to have watched the development of this great project, and one longs to see the concept as fully developed in other fields.
The Postgraduate Medical School is not, of course, alone in its international character and aims. It is only a part, though a major one, of the larger Postgraduate Medical Federation, which includes similar advanced training in the various medical specialties in different Institutes in London; and medical schools throughout the country also play a great part, at undergraduate level, in training doctors from the under-developed countries. The value of this is only too evident when one meets them at postgraduate level. With few exceptions they are in a class apart from the others from their own countries. Also, of course, the medical schools are only some of the many teaching institutes which regard the training of students from overseas as a most important part of their functions. The Imperial College of Science and Technology, with which also I am privileged to be associated, is a notable example.
It seems hard to visualise a more vital contribution that this country can make to the world than in the field of education, particularly in the training of those destined themselves to be teachers in schools and universities. The dividends that must accrue from helping to raise living standards and promoting good will in such ways are incalculable. While I do not intend to enter into any controversy over priorities, such a contribution is likely to be; a far more effective weapon in the fight against Communism than, for example, projects such as Blue Streak.
But it is not only from such angles that the role of our universities should be viewed. My mind goes back to a speech which the noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the House made a year or so ago—though not in your Lordships' House—in which he spoke of
670
the future of the universities. As I remember, he made the point that though this country might in some ways seem to have departed from its former greatness, it has an incomparable heritage in its universities that fits it to be a world centre of culture and learning. How right he was, and is—but how dim the prospects of promoting that ideal now seem!
My Lords, I have already referred to scientific research, which is an integral part of the activities of so many of our university schools. However important may be the contributions made by full-time research institutes or from industry, the university must remain the centre of research activity in the country. There, after all, is the future research worker fashioned from undergraduate material. There is the fully-fledged research worker most likely to retain a breadth of outlook as the result of regular teaching activities, often on subjects unrelated to his own research, and also through intercourse with those engaged in other disciplines. There, above all, has he the fullest opportunity to inspire others with his own vision. And if he does not do this, however brilliant he may be, he has only partially fulfilled his purpose.
Whatever lowers the standards of the universities as a whole, therefore, lowers the standards of scientific research, with all that this means for the country's future. All of us are most concerned at the ever-mounting cost of the Health Service, but it is largely by raising health standards through the fruits of research that it is likely to be kept within bounds and made more efficient. The conquest of tuberculosis alone is estimated to have saved the country £60 million a year in treatment costs and in productive capacity of young lives. Economies that affect our standard of medical research are, therefore, short-sighted, if only from a financial point of view.
My Lords, I have tried to add a little to the background and details of the picture that is being painted this afternoon of the role of our universities and the difficulties with which they are faced. I hope that when this picture has been completed it will be evident to everyone how utterly inadequate are the Government's proposals to meet their present needs and future obligations. In the circumstances, these proposals can be regarded only as a policy of attrition.

671
Such a policy, which among other things leads to the banishment of some of our best research brains on reaching maturity, in the early thirties—and, after all, these are among our greatest national assets—seems absolutely suicidal. We are told that the grants proposed are all that can be spared in this time of grave economic difficulty. All one can say is that the country must indeed be in desperate straits to justify this course of action—a course which, in the long run, can only leave it worse off than before. Certainly no one is entitled to feel the slightest grounds for satisfaction from any improvement in the economic situation if it is to be brought about in such ways as this.
4.37 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I am sure we all ought to be grateful to the noble Earl for giving us the opportunity this afternoon of turning aside from our normal politics to discuss the situation in our universities. During the course of his speech he referred to the Report associated with the name of Geoffrey Crowther, which was very much the topic of discussion in your Lordships' House some years ago, and he said that some of the targets mentioned there were out of date. I could not help thinking, especially when I saw the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, in his seat (he is now, as your Lordships know, the Chairman of another Commission—this time on higher education), that the largest part of the Crowther Report is yet awaiting implementation by the Government. Knowing something of the tremendous enthusiasm, energy and care which Lord Robbins and his Commission are putting into their researches into the question of higher education, I can only hope that when their report appears it will receive more satisfactory treatment at the hands of the Government. But what has been going on during these last few months does not really give one any sort of confidence that that will be so.
My Lords, it is no exaggeration to say that the universities of this country are at the present time seething with discontent. At this very moment, representatives from practically every university in England, Wales and Scotland are in the Lobbies outside the other
672
House, seeing their Members of Parliament on this very problem, and nothing of the sort has ever happened before in the history of the universities of this country. I submit to your Lordships that it is a very significant fact indeed that what is sometimes called mass-lobbying should be going on by university professors and teachers in the House of Commons at the present time.
This subject is quite obviously one of extreme national importance, and I was very glad indeed to hear the forthright speech of the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, who I think made that very clear indeed.
Our universities have played a very great part in the proud position which this country holds in the world to-day. When one thinks of the technological work which has been based on the researches of Newton, Darwin, Rutherford and others of our great scientists, one cannot but be proud of the contributions which they and our technologists have made. But never before have we stood in such dire need of such, and indeed, much fuller, contributions, and never before have we been starved to the same extent, in comparison with the work which is going on in other countries, countries which are our great rivals in the fields of industry and commerce.
Only within the last few weeks an important independent committee, which has been considering the problem of the expenditure required for the necessary developments, in our higher education, has underlined the importance of higher education to our community by choosing as the title of their Report the significant words, "Investment for National Survival". I submit to your Lordships that that is not too high a title to take for it, because it is our national survival which depends on the work which is going on in our universities at the present time. That document is a remarkable document which points out that we are rapidly coming to the end of our one time abundant mineral riches, that we lack many of the physical resources which are found in large quantities in other parts of the world, and that, indeed, our survival as a great nation depends on the manner in which we make use of our human resources. This is really the whole matter which is being put before your Lordships' House

673
this afternoon by my noble friend Lord Longford and others who are taking part in this discussion.
This committee makes it perfectly clear that the need for rapid (and I underline the word "rapid") educational expansion is altogether too urgent for the nation to accept the complacent satisfaction which, unfortunately, is characteristic of the speech of the Government spokesmen in the recent debate in another place. So far from being satisfactory, we now know from the Observer of last Sunday that the University Grants Committee were so upset by the reduction in the expenditure which they had proposed to the Government, that they seriously considered handing in their resignations to the Treasury. It might have been a good thing if they had, because that would have brought the matter home in a way which nothing else could have done.
Mr. Henry Brooke's speech was, if I may say so, in quite a number of respects definitely misleading. I have no doubt that he did not quite appreciate that it was so. No doubt the material was provided for him by people who did not really quite understand the situation as they ought to have done. But this has been made perfectly clear, again as appeared in the Observer only on Sunday last, by the Chairman of the University Grants Committee himself, Sir Keith Murray, in an address which he gave only a week or so ago to the Institution of Electrical Engineers. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury in his speech had stated that recruitment of teachers for the universities had recently been so good that the overall ratio of staff to students had much improved over that which existed before the war—which, incidentally, as I was involved, I can say was certainly not at all satisfactory.
However, Sir Keith Murray is reported in the Observer to have described this statement as "very misleading"; indeed, very misleading it is, because in the domain of natural science and technology, which is at present the absolutely vital part of the front, the ratio has in fact deteriorated, and deteriorated very substantially indeed, from 1 in 7·6 before the war to I in 10·7 now—a deterioration of something like one quarter. Mr. Henry Brooke's figures are therefore in fact misleading. It may be
674
that over the whole field something of the sort is true, but in order to get the picture accurately one has to make the analysis which Sir Keith Murray made in that speech.
Moreover, as I think the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Norwich pointed out, we are now very properly concentrating a great deal more on graduate work in the universities. The production of Ph.D. students, of course, requires that they shall stay at university longer and be given a great deal more individual attention on the part of the teachers. If one takes this into consideration, which one obviously ought to do, again one sees that the complacent statement made in the House of Commons is altogether misleading. I really wish, my Lords, to devote the main part of my argument this afternoon to one particular aspect of this matter, but I could not help making those remarks in the light of what I had heard earlier on.
The particular aspect of the matter which I wish to concentrate upon is the rejection by the Government of the recommendations of the Grants Committee in regard to the salary increments. At this point I suppose it is right that I should declare an interest, although I think that most of your Lordships have heard me say this before. I have for quite a number of years now been the Honorary General Secretary of the Association of University Teachers, which is the organisation which represents the teachers in their discussions with the Grants Committee and with the Vice-Chancellors' Committee.
I should like to say that it is exceedingly distasteful to most university teachers to find themselves involved in squabbles of this kind. There is nothing which they dislike more, because they want to get on with their job. Indeed, quite a few of them—mostly from Oxford and Cambridge, where conditions are noticeably better than in the newer universities—have written to The Times deploring what is going on; and, indeed, more than one of them have asked what right the Association of University Teachers has to speak for them. The right is the necessity in the modern world of having a negotiating body, a body which in fact includes almost three-quarters of the whole university

675
profession. University teachers do not ask a great deal from the community to which they are giving tremendous services, but they do—and I think they ought to—insist on a reasonable standard of life, because it is not only for themselves, but it is for their wives and for their families that they are concerned.
I think it may truly be said that in the great modern universities, in which after all much the largest number of university students are now being educated, the staffs have been inadequately paid from the very beginning. I think anybody who really knows about it must agree that that is so, and certainly in 1962 we have had a very serious setback. I hope, my Lords, that you will be prepared to listen to me for just a few minutes, while I narrate very briefly the actual facts of the last year or more in relation to this question of the salaries claim, because it is only by doing so that I can make clear that there is this feeling of despair—really that is the only word which describes it—among such large numbers of university teachers at present, and why they have come from all over the country and are now gathered outside this Chamber talking to their M.P.s.
The existing scales came into operation in January, 1960, although they were not announced until May of that year. This retrospectivity is more apparent than real, because that claim had been put in very much earlier, in 1959, and had been lying on the Chancellor's table at least from the beginning of that year. In parenthesis, I should like to say that this question of retrospectivity is a very sore one with university teachers, because, as a result of the rather difficult, complicated machinery that operates, it is never possible for a decision to be reached until quite a number of months—it may be six, eight or even nine months—after a claim is first put to the Vice-Chancellors for discussion with them. After discussions with them, we have to go to the Grants Committee and have discussions with them; then the Grants Committee have to have discussions with the Vice-Chancellors' Committee; and then the Grants Committee, after they have come to a conclusion, have to go to the
676
Treasury and have discussions with them. By the time all this has happened, as a result of the inflation which is going on all the time the original claim no longer reflects the actual situation. Then, when the Chancellor refuses, as he almost invariably has, to give any real measure of retrospectivity, there is great feeling among the university teachers that we have been cheated—and that is a very unfortunate thing.
I was saying that the existing scales came into operation in January, 1960, although they were not announced until May of that year. Now it is important to notice that the claim had been based on what is called "job comparability", under which, for the purposes of comparison, the Civil Service had been chosen, as it usually had been by everybody in this connection in the past, although I think Mr. Henry Brooke, in his speech, threw a little cold water on this practice. I need not go through the reasons for this, for it would take too long, but all the discussions with the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and the Grants Committee had taken place on that basis.
Therefore, it came as a tremendous shock to the university teachers when, only a few weeks after the announcement from the Treasury in May, 1960—that is to say, in July of the same year— it was announced that the principals in the Civil Service (the ones which were always equated with the lecturer grade in the university world) had had their maximum raised by no less than 25 per cent., and that that had been backdated, not just to the beginning of the year but right back to October, 1958. Now the officials in the Treasury must have been aware of this while all the discussion was going on between them and the Grants Committee during the early months of that year, and your Lordships can see why it was that, when this announcement was made, the university teachers felt that they had been "led up the garden path" and cheated. That feeling is still rampant among them, and it has not yet been explained by anybody in authority how that came about.
Naturally, the university teachers decided to put in a rectification claim, because the whole basis of their calculations had, in effect, been destroyed,

677
and they did that as soon as the Long Vacation was over, in October, 1961. But before the discussions about this had in fact been opened with the Grants Committee, in January, 1961, the Civil Service got a further advance of 4 per cent., making the comparative position even worse. Then when, at last, in April, 1961, we came to have discussions about our rectification claim with the Grants Committee, they told us that, in the light of the whole situation—the claims which were coming in from the colleges of advanced technology, the teacher training colleges and other places; the new situation created by the setting up of new universities; and the whole problem of university development—they felt that, instead of tinkering with salary increments, it would be better to look at the whole structure of the salary position in the universities and try to get a rational basis for it. They therefore said to us, "Will you take your rectification claim away, look at the whole situation again, and come back to us as quickly as possible with suggestions for a new salary structure?" (Well, working night and day, pretty well, we succeeded in doing that within a month and we put it into the Grants Committee in about the middle of May last year. I think the Grants Committee dealt with it very quickly, because, as I understand it, it was in the Treasury either by the end of May or the beginning of June. And there it was on the fatal day, July 23, when the pay pause began to operate.
My Lords, is the Grants Committee a Government Committee? Would it not have been only right and fair to say that, when a claim like that had been formally made to and by an organisation which the Government themselves had set up to deal with these matters, it should have been regarded as "in" on July 23, when the pay pause began to operate? And was it a fair and, indeed, an honourable position to take up, to say that it was too late, bearing in mind that it was accepted that claims which were in could be dealt with? I suggest that it was really a little in the nature of sharp practice to rule out this claim on that basis. If we had not taken it back as we had been requested to do by the Grants Committee (the Chairman of which is, ineffect,
678
a Government servant, and the Secretary of which is a civil servant seconded from the Treasury), it would no doubt have been dealt with, and, at any rate, we should have got something.
In view of that, one cannot really be surprised that there is this feeling in the university world that we have not really had a fair "do". That has been accentuated by the fact that during the following months a number of other sections of teachers in higher education have received very substantial increases in their salaries, which carry them altogether beyond the 2½ or 3 per cent. which the Chancellor of the Exchequer regards as proper under the pay pause. On the face of it, it looks like discrimination.
Now, my Lords, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, in a rather long speech in another place which I have read very carefully and which occupies ten columns in Hansard, devotes only one column to the question of salaries, although that was the gravamen of the attack which was launched against him by the Leader of the Opposition; and even in that one column from that long speech he nowhere tries to deal with the question which I have been putting before your Lordships about the unfairness of what actually happened in the summer of 1961. Nor did he deal with the discrimination which, on the face of it, appears to have taken place. Because recommendations were made in respect of the salary increases in the Colleges of Advanced Technology in November, long after July 23. They were dealt with very rapidly, and I believe it is right to say that the 16 per cent. increase granted operated from January 1, and that that was so not only for the Colleges of Advanced Technology but also for the Training Colleges, which are now looked after by the Pelham Committee. The Pelham Committee made recommendations, as I understand it, in November of last year, and that was followed by an increase in the salaries of the teachers in the Training Colleges, which again operated from January 1, this time of no less than 20 per cent.
I have given the noble Viscount who is to reply for the Government notice that I want to know why this is fair for them but not for us; how he explains that there is no discrimination in what has occurred; and why the Burnham

679
Committee can have its awards implemented while the Grants Committee cannot. Because, after all, all this money is coming from the Treasury, whether it is for Colleges of Advanced Technology or for Teachers Training Colleges, or whether it is Burnham money. In the universities we just do not know why we should have been put, so to speak, at the back of the queue while all the other people should have been treated in this way. It seems to me that it would not be inaccurate to describe the attitude which has been taken up by the Treasury in this matter as both doctrinaire and wooden, and you really cannot expect people to work happily, contentedly and well when they are labouring under treatment of this kind.
I should like to finish by saying that it is not only the teachers in the universities who are worried and upset at the present time. As has appeared from some of the speeches made earlier this afternoon, the authorities themselves in the universities are equally worried and uncertain. Quotations have been given by the noble Earl, Lord Longford, and by the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, which are very apposite to the point and which I do not propose to go over again. But I should like to refer for a minute to some of the observations of Sir Douglas Logan, Principal of the University of London, in his report for 1961–62. This is an annual document issued by the Principal of the University of London which has come to fill a very real place in the University world, so much so that it is read very carefully, not only in our own universities but by university people abroad. When I have been visiting foreign universities I have been told by the rectors that this is one of the "must" documents which they have to pay attention to, because it tells them in a very able way what is going on in England. I hope your Lordships will get this report and read it, because it is a most valuable document.
I should like to quote two or three short passages from it. At page 9 he says:
"A further cause for alarm and despondency is the inadequacy of the proposed increase in academic salaries."
That is a pretty strong expression coming from the Principal of the University of
680
London. On the next page he goes on to say:
"This latest salary decision puts the universities at a marked disadvantage in recruiting at home, and makes the retention of staff in the face of intense and international competition even more difficult than before.
That is a point which has been particularly rubbed in by the noble Lord, Lord Stamp, who speaks from his own personal experience. Sir Douglas Logan goes on to say that his academic staff are constantly receiving very tempting offers from abroad. He says:
"For example, in a single week last month one of our senior science professors received personal letters from colleagues in four Canadian and two American universities inquiring whether members of his department would accept appointments on their staffs."
He goes on to refer to the puny answers which were given in another place to the Question put down there in regard to this particular matter, in which it was said that officers of the Central Office of Information at the airports are asking people why they go abroad. He said:
"The answer ought to be crystal clear; they want reasonable remuneration and adequate facilities for teaching and research."
Surely that is the core of the whole matter, and unless and until the Government can see that that must be provided they cannot expect the universities to make the contribution to the life of this country, the industry of this country, and the progressive development of this country which they want to make, which they are really very capable of making, and which, indeed, only they can make.
5.5 p.m.
LORD JAMES OF RUSHOLME: My Lords, my interest in this subject is so obvious that I scarcely need to declare it. My job for the next few years must be to build, with the help of colleagues of various kinds, a new university, and, as I interpret it, to build a university as fast as possible if it is to make any impact on the critical time ahead. By far the greatest part of the finance for that institution must inevitably come from the State, and hence the attitude of the Government towards universities is clearly of deep personal concern to me. In so far, too, as I touch on salaries—and I shall touch on them very little

681
—I am clearly personally involved. But actually, my Lords, there are, I think, few of us in this House who have not an interest in this debate. For what we are really discussing to-day is not the prosperity of a small group of university teachers, or even the well-being of a group of students: what we are really discussing is the prosperity, the security and the health of the nation.
We have heard about the statement of the Committee of Vice Chancellors and Principals. That statement, I would emphasise, showed not only profound and unusual disturbance at the Government's announcement—and, on the whole, the Committee of Vice Chancellors is not what I would call, from my short acquaintance with it, a hysterical body. It went on to say that they believed the universities were being asked to do something impossible—to reach a certain target of numbers without lowering standards, yet with inadequate resources. Resources, it is important to note, judged to be inadequate, not simply by the Vice Chancellors, but also by that independent Committee charged by the Government themselves with the task of examining university finance, the University Grants Committee. Was this protest then simply the usual noise and dismay that anyone makes when he gets less than he asks for? Were the Vice Chancellors simply going through the routine motions of saying, "Not enough"? My Lords, I do not think so, and I will be as brief as possible in saying why.
The first and, to me, most important cause for real alarm about the Minister's statement concerns the position on the U.G.C. That body, as we all know, is charged by the Chancellor of the Exchequer with, among its other duties, that of assessing the financial needs of the universities and distributing the money that Parliament votes. The whole U.G.C. mechanism is one Which has the confidence of the universities, not because it is soft (I had the privilege of serving for ten years on the U.G.C. and, believe me! soft is the last word that one could reasonably apply to it) but because it is really knowledgeable. And what has happened now? We have set the universities a certain target of numbers. It is a target which involves expansion, but simply because, as we all know,
682
the number of young people in the population is increasing. The U.G.C. presents to the Chancellor the bill which we must meet to achieve this target. It is not what the universities themselves say that they need; it is what the University Grants Committee, knowing all the facts, believes that they will need—the very least with which it can be done without a decline in standards.
If the finances of the country have got into such a state that the money is not there, then clearly the universities cannot have it. No one disputes that. But in that case the Chief Secretary must surely say one of two things. He must say: "We cannot meet this target. Deplorable though it is, the boys and girls of 1965 will have less chance of going to a university than their elder brothers and sisters". Alternatively, he could say: "We will reach the target, although in doing so I am aware that in some ways standards must decline; that is the price we must pay." Either statement would, I think, be sad: the first one would be lamentable. But either would be comprehensible. In fact, he has not said either of these things. He has said that we can reach the target without lowering standards and with less money. In other words, the University Grants Committee is wrong. With what possible knowledge, on what possible advice, can he have come to that decision? That is the question that is worrying many of us in universities.
It worries us because the universities are in a curious position. The Minister who is responsible for them is the same Minister whose principal duty is to discourage expenditure. It is a system that can work only if the advice of the University Grants Committee is taken—not, of course, as to how much money the universities shall have, but as to how much is needed to accomplish certain objectives. The University Grants Committee is not, with all respect to what the First Secretary said in another place, quite on the same level as many Advisory Committees. I have sat oh other Advisory Committees—I was on the Crowther Committee—and our view was turned down. That is all right—one expects one's views to be turned down! But with the University Grants Committee one is dealing with something different.

683
Some of us believe that what the system needs is an overhaul. Some of us hope that when the Committee under the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, reports, they will favour perhaps a University Grants Committee working within some ministerial framework other than that of the Treasury. But what we are seeing now is a change in the relationship between the universities, the University Grants Committee and the Treasury which gives the universities the worst of all worlds, leaving them without the defence of a Minister to fight their battles in the Cabinet and with a University Grants Committee whose technical and considered judgment is overruled.
The second reason for this very genuine alarm in the universities is the belief that even to-day we have not grasped either the part that universities must play in our national life or the pressures that the wave of qualified candidates is going to put on them in the next few years. We are frequently reminded of the number of demands on our national resources. We must, we are told, take our places in the queue. Why should universities, after all, be in a privileged position compared with hospitals or roads? On the whole, university people are not altogether unreasonable, and they see the force of these arguments. But they are also aware that in dividing up the national "cake", or whatever other cliché one uses, qualitative as well as quantitative considerations must arise.
The kind of contribution made by the various competing interests and its effect on the actual income available has to be considered. It cannot be too often emphasised that many of the other candidates for the national income are simply not going to progress at all without the flow of knowledge, and still more the stream of educated men and women, that only the universities can provide. In another place, Sir Edward Boyle said that, because of the increase in student population, the teaching function, as distinct from research, may well have to be uppermost in the years ahead. Those of us who are most anxious to emphasise the educational aspects of universities may well deplore this curious association of a new stress on education with an economy measure.
684
Nothing could do more to make it appear of secondary importance. We may also well regard it as an extraordinary way to stimulate enthusiasm for teaching in universities, to give their teachers a 3 per cent. increase in salaries while other teachers receive 15 or 20 per cent.
But that is not the main point I am making. I am trying to emphasise the fact that a threat to university research is a threat to national prosperity and national security. Of course we all know that some researches are trivial. We all know that some university teachers make research an excuse for neglecting their educational job. But admitting all that, the broad fact remains that, without providing opportunities for research, we shall not recruit university teachers. And to-day that research is not simply one among a variety of activities that we may or may not be able to subsidise. It is often a prerequisite for those other activities to go on at all. If your Lordships discuss defence or health or agriculture, the discussion—I say this with respect—is utterly unreal unless it presupposes both a supply of university-trained people and a rapidly growing body of knowledge that arises out of university research. And if one says that much of this could be carried on in research establishments, as it is, where are the recruits to such places to come from, if not from university laboratories? If we view with equanimity the flow of scientists, not only to these institutions but also across the Atlantic, and say that such export is valuable, as it is, we still have to ask ourselves who is to train and educate the scientists before we can export them, if the university departments do not prosper. The truth is, my Lords, that the activities of universities in the modern world make them not simply members of a queue of applicants for Government generosity: they are vital prerequisites to economic advance.
The second general point I want to make, very briefly, concerns our plans for the future. Is our proposed rate of growth sufficient, even if it can be attained—and here I want to underline what the noble Earl, Lord Longford, said? Are we investing enough capital in our universities? In another place,

685
figures were quoted with some pride to show that the percentage of the age group going to universities will remain, if all is well, reasonably constant over the next few years and will then actually rise. But is that really good enough? In a race—and if we are to hold our own in the world to-day, higher education is a race—is it enough to say, "We are doing splendidly. We hope to be in about the same place in three or four years. Actually our expert advisers say we shall not even do that, but I am sure we will. Keep, running!"
If the best happens, we shall keep pace with the population bulge. But what about the tendency for more children to go on in school and become potential university material? Here we know that the Ministry of Education and the schools are the heroes, or, if you like, the villains, of the piece. They have been too successful, too persuasive, too good. They have encouraged more boys and girls to stay to go into sixth forms, and have provided sixth forms for them to stay in. They have sold higher education to social classes who never had it, and now, faced with these new resources of talent from which to draw, the greatest treasure that any nation could ever have; faced with this great national opportunity, are we to say, "Thus far and no farther. There are no places for you, well-qualified though you may be"? The Minister of Education is opening a door of opportunity. Do the Treasury wish to close it?
We are told that a somewhat greater population of our students actually graduate than in some European countries, but we are not told that this European graduation is the result of a five or six years' course and more closely corresponds with one of our higher degrees. In any event, these international comparisons are nearly always misleading: they are extremely technical. But if they are to be made, are we really to believe that our sense of urgency in approaching the next few years in higher education really compares with that of the United States or Canada or Russia? There are, of course, many in the universities who are to blame in this respect, in that they have been less than half-hearted in their approach to the opportunities given by our expanding sixth forms, talking about "scraping
686
the bottom of the barrel", and so on. But is the Government's attitude likely to vitalise them?
Because of the important question of principle involved, I have referred to the cutting back of recurrent grants below the University Grants Committee figure, but I think it is capital expenditure and salaries that will provide the more serious problems. Ever since the war the universities have received far smaller capital grants than they have needed. Even when larger grants are promised, the rise in building costs diminishes them by a figure that is quoted as 12½ per cent., and which we know is probably much more. And the universities are told that the greater part of this must be "absorbed". What does "absorbed" mean? What can it mean except build more slowly?
There is another shadow—the need for more residence. I am not speaking now of its educational value; that might well be sacrificed—and in some ways not unreasonably sacrificed—on the altar of national economic crisis. I am thinking rather of the fact that many universities will very soon be unable to expand at all, not only because of the laboratories, the lecture halls and the libraries being inadequate but because there will be nowhere at all for the students to live. If we are to meet the bulge, let alone the trend, we have simply got to look afresh, I believe, at our capital programme, and particularly our policy as regards residents.
A few months ago I mentioned international comparisons. It is sometimes pointed out that our staffing ratio is better than that of many countries. So it is, although it is illogical to make that comparison while at the same time pointing out that abroad some of the work done in universities really corresponds with that of our sixth forms. Can we economise in staff? If we are prepared to pay the price, we can. But it will be a heavy price. Such economy can scarcely be reconciled with a desire to foster the educational side of universities. Let us remember that our philosophy of university education differs from that of some other countries. We employ a generous staffing ratio to give a very good education in a short space of time to comparatively small numbers. Some other countries believe in giving

687
a less good, because less personal, education to a much larger number, and continuing it for the chosen, not for three years, but for five, six or seven years. The fear in our minds in the universities is that we are about to get the worst of both worlds; to be forced to worsen our staffing ratios without being given increased time; to compromise the standards of our universities without the justification of the vast numbers which some other countries can boast.
I have talked about buildings. Ultimately, as we all know, certainly if we have anything to do with education, the quality of what we do depends on the teacher. For years we have been saying this about the schools, sometimes unavailingly. It is no less true of universities. I have often in the past been critical of our universities, and I have often said that there was insufficient personal contact with the students and insufficient care for them. I still believe that in some departments in some universities a new wind must blow. But if we are to ask our staffs to work harder, if we are to urge on them the importance of teaching as well as—not instead of—research, if, for example, we want to make, as some of us do, a genuine tutorial system general, can we in honesty do it with people who are badly treated over their own salaries?
I know that nothing is more difficult than to fix the salaries of professional people who like their work and are doing a congenial job. But I also know that to treat university teachers in such a markedly different way from other teachers, without a rational justification, is going to lead to problems of recruitment and morale that may well jeopardise all our hopes and plans. If we are to expand, we must recruit a very large number of teachers. It may be that some special inquiry is needed into the methods of negotiating university salaries, and into their whole structure. I think myself it is. If so, then let us have one with all speed. What is intolerable is to go on in the present position—a position in which we have to expand our staff, in which we shall be calling for great efforts, in which, above all, we shall be demanding new ideas and a new vision from our
688
university teachers, and to do all this with men and women who are not unjustifiably disgruntled.
My Lords, in what I have said I have stressed simply what I may call the economic justification for giving greater support to universities. There are other arguments: the argument of justice that we shall be denying legitimate opportunity to thousands of able young people in the next ten years unless we plan and build and spend now; the argument of standards; that the community looks to its most able citizens for much else besides the means to economic advance. Those arguments I have not used, although I believe that few could be more sympathetic towards them than the noble Viscount who will reply to this debate. But I believe that for a very small sum of money—small, that is, compared with what we spend on defence or on agriculture, or on many other things—we are at this moment committing several wrongs. We are threatening a system of university control that is the envy of most other countries; we are frustrating a body of men and women, small in number, great in influence, or potentially great in influence; frustrating them to such an extent that we may fail to recruit their successors. We are threatening to weaken at their source the springs of advancing knowledge with all its hopes for economic and social advance. All these things are being done against the advice, not simply of people like myself who are involved as interested parties, not of idealists and visionaries and educationists, but of that body of experts charged by the Government itself with the task of being knowledgeable about university affairs. My Lords, on this issue is it really too much to ask the Government to think again?
5.26 p.m.
LORD FRANCIS-WILLIAMS: My Lords, it is with some trepidation that I enter a debate which has already mobilised so much academic manpower and has still more to mobilise, for I must confess that it was only last year, at what I suppose I must regard as my elderly middle-age, that I found myself for the first time in my life a professor, and even then only a temporary professor—and I should perhaps add, in view of some remarks on the subject which

689
were passed in an earlier debate in your Lordships' House, an American professor—when I had the honour to be invited by the University of California, Berkeley, to go to them as a Regents professor. Being a Regents professor is a very agreeable and pleasant occupation in which one is not required to do a great deal of work apart from a few lectures and a little graduate seminar, but in which one is primarily invited there to be, as they so nicely say, "around the place to exchange minds". So one's purpose is to talk to those members of the faculty to whom it would seem to be agreeable to talk, and to be there for them to come and talk to you.
It so happened that I arrived there at the culmination of a development which I found interesting, and which I believe may be regarded as relevant to this debate. For the University of California, under the direction of the President of the University, an admirable statesman educationist, a Dr. Clark Kerr, had been, in conjunction with the Congress of the State of California and the Governor of the State of California, as with the Regents of the university, trying to plan out what university education ought to be for the next fifteen years. It is only on the basis of a long-term detailed planning of that kind that one can hope to deal with the question of university education. You cannot, as the Government seem sometimes to think you can, just stand around hoping that when the moment comes you will be able to conjure educational rabbits out of non-existent hats. You must plan; you must determine what your aims and objectives are; and you must decide what you can spend.
The present student population of the University of California—and, as my noble friend the mover of this Motion said, the State of California, with a population of under 15 million, already spends more than this country on university education—spread over a number of campuses is, at present, 44,500; and the master plan which was agreed and is now being put into effect is to raise that total in the course of the next fifteen years, by 1975, to 119,000, and to set aside for the purposes of expenditure on building and equipment alone the sum of one billion dollars. They are doing this because they believe as the Commission which they set up
690
to investigate told them, that this is necessary if those of talent and ability in their State are to get the education which is necessary to their requirements and which is desirable for the future of the country. Indeed, they are making this enormous expansion not by any diminution in the standards of the University but the contrary, since accompanying it there is also to be a great expansion of State colleges and so on. In fact, the level of entry into the University is to be raised, and instead of taking, as now, some 15 per cent. of high-school graduates (and it is important to remember that only some 50 per cent. of those who go to high school in fact do graduate) they will take only 12½ per cent., in order that stress on quality and excellence shall go alongside this enormous expansion in numbers.
Although we sometimes tend to think of American universities as being extravagant, I am assured that there was no extravagance in this. Indeed, in this long-term planning a most careful bugetary Commission was set up, and it was set up not only because of the natural desire to avoid waste but also because the State Congress is well aware that it has to face its electors very shortly. The Governor of California, who is very much involved and approved this master plan, is also well aware that he is in an extremely vulnerable position, since he represents the first handicap on the first leg of the formidable Mr. Richard Nixon's attempt to race back to the White House. So you can be sure, my Lords, that all the figures and estimates of what wa9 necessary to meet the requirements of this community were most carefully examined. Already 43 per cent. of the student population of the University of California are concerned with graduate study—what we call post-graduate study—and that number is to be increased in the expansion, and the amount spent on research further expanded.
That is one aspect of that expansion, but there is another to which many noble Lords have already referred in this debate, the enormous attraction, the inevitable attraction, of the expanding American university to the talent among our university teachers. I asked those concerned with this great expansion plan for university education in California

691
where they hope to obtain the faculty members, professors, associate professors, lecturers and so on, to match this enormous expansion. They told me that they were hoping to draw to a considerable extent from the United States, but that they also hoped to draw particularly from the United Kingdom. They had the highest respect for British university teachers.
On three occasions while I was there I talked to young university students from over here who had had fantastic offers. I remember one, a young geography lecturer from King's College, London, who was at the Santa Barbara Campus of the University of California—and Santa Barbara, if any of your Lordships knows it, is a place where the sun always shines; where the University is on a promontory which sticks out into a beautiful ocean, and where the ratio of cars to families is four per family, which might be regarded as a kind of paradise of material wealth. This young lecturer in geography had been told that they wanted to set up an institute to study and do research in the particular branch of geography with which he was concerned, and that if he would stay he could have the job of creating that institute and of becoming its director, at a salary about four times that which he was getting in London.
Another young man came to me with an introduction from my wife's brother, who is on the staff of Imperial College. The young man, one of our most brilliant young experts in cybernetics had been offered a job at Berkeley, where all the possible kind of equipment in the world was spread out before him and the most fabulous and attractive offers placed before him to try to persuade him to stay. The third was a young Cambridge don who was assured that if only he would agree to stay he would be given a full professorship within two years. I am glad to say, my Lords, that in each of the three cases the young men refused and decided that they wanted to go back to England.
They refused partly because they found, I am glad to say, that on the whole England is a more agreeable country to live in, but also because, as they said to me, "We are obviously on the eve of a great expansion of univer-
692
sity education and research in England". They mentioned the statements that had been made by the Government and by the noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the House, and they, poor things! believed them. I have not seen these three men since, but I wonder what they are feeling now. And I wonder what all the other hundreds of university teachers, of the greatest talent and ability, who are going to receive offers of that kind from the University of California, and from other expanding universities in the States, are going to think, in the light of the decisions made by the Treasury.
On my way back I had the good fortune to visit with my wife a friend of hers, a Dr. Gardner who is the President of the Carnegie Foundation. He had just completed a book on a theme which was becoming one of the dominant themes of American education, a book which had as its sub-title the question Can we be equal and excellent too? Of course, American education has always thought in terms of an equal opportunity, but is now more and more thinking in terms of excellence and the necessary expenditure for excellence. When I came back I quoted this to a leading educationist in this country and he said to me, perhaps correctly, that he thought that here we might put it the other way round and ask, "Can we be excellent and equal too?" But whichever way it is put, surely there can be no doubt whatever that the needs of this nation require that we shall have the most excellent possible kind of university education available for the largest possible number of those who can benefit from it and they shall have an equal opportunity to secure it.
As has already been said in this debate, many of the great raw materials on which the strength and wealth of this country was built are no longer so important as they were. But we have this immense raw material of the talent and the ability of our people. Of course, all government is a matter of priorities. There is never the time or the resources, or perhaps the political wisdom, to do all that we need at any particular time. But surely the case against the Government in the light of this decision is that they have their priorities all wrong. The budgeting commission which was set up

693
to advise on this great plan for Californian expansion said this in its conclusion when it was putting forward its plan:
"More and more as we investigated the needs we were driven to the conclusion that the question we had to face was, not can we afford to have an effective education system but can we afford not to have the best possible education system to call upon the talents we need at this time."
Surely that question is equally appropriate to our condition.
5.43 p.m.
LORD COHEN OF BIRKENHEAD:My Lords, may I at the outset express my interest in this debate? I have, at the university of which the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, is Chancellor—a very distinguished and admired Chancellor—held a teaching post for forty years; for the last 28 years I have been head of a university department. It is, I think, significant—and I hope the Government will not lose sight of this fact—that every speaker in the debate so far to-day has deplored the decision made by the Chief Secretary in his statement on March 14. I should like to stress (and this confirms what the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, has said) that not only is there bitterness and resentment among Vice-Chancellors and Principals, because they believe that they have been deceived in this matter—let there be no doubt about that—but there is frustration and despair amongst the staffs of all our universities.
I witnessed, as indeed many of your Lordships who have spent some time in universities will have witnessed, the postwar expansion; that was an inevitable expansion; it was an emergency due to the return of our ex-Servicemen who rightly wished to enter a university. University teachers willingly accepted the much heavier burden which flowed from that expansion. In my own university, fortunately, lectures could be given in a theatre which held 350 or 400 students, but laboratory classes had to be duplicated and even triplicated because of the lack of laboratory accommodation. The present situation is not parallel to that. We have not in the immediate past had another world holocaust whose wreckage we are now seeking to salvage.
Just over two years ago the universities were asked if they would produce plans for expansion. My own university
694
agreed; and I think this was the view of all universities, certainly it was that of the older of the newer universities—for the sake of shortness I shall call them "red-brick universities". My own university agreed in these terms: on the understanding that all necessary assistance would be given by the University Grants Committee for the provision of the additional staff required, for new academic buildings, halls of residence and ancillary services. The Chief Secretary took note and, indeed, congratulated the universities because although ten years ago the target set was 102,000, they had in fact reached this year 110,000 students, and that due in part to the supplementary block grant which was made in 1959 to the universities, but also due in part to the fact that many universities used their own resources in order that they might make the opportunities for those who were clamouring at their gates.
The Government cannot disclaim knowledge of what the true situation was. The noble Lord, Lord James of Rusholme, has told us that the University Grants Committee, after careful deliberation on the applications of each university, made specific recommendations to the Government. In January of this year the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals met the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, and in a document which unfortunately is labelled "Confidential, for private circulation within the universities", but which I suspect many of your Lordships who are not in universities have read, the Vice-Chancellors and Principals, apart from the pleasantries which pass on these occasions, put a cogent and unanswerable case to the Government, to the Chief Secretary, regarding university education, not as an uneconomic luxury but to fit our students to play their optimum part in the life of the community. Expansion in university education has not principles which are a monopoly of expansion. If it is to be expanded, university education must expand on the principles of university education. That means that expansion must not lower standards; it must not be pursued to the detriment of the principles of university education.
Many noble Lords have this afternoon stressed the importance of research. This

695
is a fundamental concept of the university: that it exists not simply to transmit knowledge, but to pursue and advance knowledge; that it is not simply an institute of instruction, but is an educational instrument for those who are indeed the aristocratic minds of the community. It must be undertaken by teacher investigators who will imbue their students with a research spirit. We need not less, but more, research than formerly.
What do the Government suggest? The noble Lord, Lord James of Rusholme, has quoted the Financial Secretary to the Treasury emphasising that in increasing the student population the teaching functions of the university may well have to be uppermost. But the Chief Secretary to the Treasury also had views. He said:
"What is the right course for a Government to follow in the circumstances of expansion? Is it to go steadily for higher standards and not worry over much about meeting the needs of a generation which was caught up in the bulge? Or alternatively, is it to make a great effort to increase student places by 35 per cent. in five years, even if it means some crowding and some postponement of higher standards until the peak of the bulge has passed? The Government's hope is that universities will go for the latter course."
But there is a third course—namely, that we should provide for the needs and retain standards. This is what the Government have so far not done. Let me say at once that the suggestion that there will be a later ease by 1973 because the number of students then in proportion to the teachers might be less, when we shall have passed the bulge, takes no note of the trend which has been mentioned, and I think that the suggestion of an ease is illusory.
To achieve expansion what do we need? We need adequate staff. We need adequate facilities—laboratories and libraries. We need adequate residential accommodation for our students—I do not mean simply halls of residence; we need places where our students can live. This lodging problem, which is uppermost in the minds of a number of modern universities, has not been adequately tackled. May I give your Lordships some figures from my own university? In 1950–51, ten years ago, Mersey-side, which is the normal drainage area of the university, provided 32·5 per cent. of our students; in 1960–61 it provided
696
only 19 per cent. The rest of Lancashire and Cheshire—some of the students no doubt live within a travelling distance of the university—in 1950–51 provided 38·2 per cent. and in 1960–61, 334 per cent. But the remainder of the country, which means places well outside the daily travelling distance, have increased their numbers by 60 per cent. over the 1950–51 figures, and our halls of residence can accommodate 30 per cent., as compared with 24 per cent. earlier.
I do not propose to stress, as so many have, the real functions of the university in increasing post-graduate needs, the need for more teachers and more space. That has been done. But how have the Government approached this problem? I do not believe that we ought to speak in generalities, and I propose to quote some figures from the University of Liverpool. They may, of course, be provisional for the moment, but I think that little change is likely. The Government were warned, both by past history and by the Vice-Chancellor, of the significance of the transition from the end of one quinquennium to the beginning of another. Liverpool—and I suspect this reflects the position in other universities—required for the end of this last quinquennium, which is 1961–62, £2,104,150. They are its known commitments for 1961–62. For 1962–63 its commitments, with the expansion, will be some £2,482,000. That means that the commitments for 1962–63 require an additional £378,000 to be found. What have they been granted? They have been granted £29,850 for the additional commitments of 1962–63. It is true that in later years the percentage discrepancy narrows, but the actual amount of the deficit in the final year of the quinquennium, 1966–67, will still be £440,900.
It is true that the Chief Secretary has said—and I quote:
"It would be right to make a further review of the universities' financial situation in, say, two years' time, in the light of how the U.G.C. thought then that expansion was going forward, how prices and so forth were moving, and how the long-term economic outlook had developed."
But policy cannot be formulated in advance to a month or two, or even six months. Policy means that we must know the amount of our grant, so that we can in fact plan ahead. We know that a number of items—for example, the

697
wages of technical staff—will continue to rise during the next quinquennium. We know that there will be other erosions. I do not propose to discuss those. The University Grants Committee are in an unfortunate position. Let us recognise that the University Grants Committee has been virtually devastated by the response of the Treasury to its recommendations for the forthcoming quinquennium. What have the University Grants Committee suggested to meet the difficulties, the crisis in which the universities of to-day find themselves? First of all, it is said that we might adjust our programme. Adjusting the programme can only mean one of two things. It means that we reduce the size of our planned buildings—we are, as your Lordships know, constrained by certain recommendations of the University Grants Committee to be fairly economic in our buildings—and, secondly, that we postpone certain buildings. Surely this militates against expansion.
The second suggestion is that we might use our own resources. Universities have used their own resources. I owe my own department in medicine to the munificence of the late Sir Montague Burton, and there are many other people with large departments built through private generosity. But, your Lordships know, few universities of the red brick type have extensive resources. They are now utilising the income from those resources for current expenditure. If they sell their investments to provide money for expansion they will have carried out a once-for-all transaction, and even the money from their investments will no longer be available.
I am certain that the Government cannot be unaware of the widespread feeling that the contemplated expansion will not occur without additional grants. In the last three days, in addition to those observations which were quoted by the noble Lord,, Lord Boothby, and by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Manchester, Professor Mansfield Cooper has said this:
"In spite of an increased number of applications it is probable that this year's intake of students at Manchester would be pegged at last year's level."
698
The Vice-Chancellor of Oxford, whom Lord Boothby did not quote, said that the amount Oxford will receive from the U.G.C. for current expenditure in the five years 1962 to 1967 will not allow for expansion. And only a day or two ago, in The Times, the Principal of the University College at Swansea, Dr. J. H. Parry, is reported as saying that to try to expand on the grants to the promised rate would mean
"a serious decline in the standards of educational service we give to students".
My Lords, there is another point which I think it is fair to make—it was made to me, though I hope that it will not be generally made: that if the universities are unable to open their doors to larger numbers of students to meet the expansion which the Government have suggested, the fault will be laid at the universities' door, and the universities will be blamed for not being sufficiently resilient to absorb the students who wish to become undergraduates. That is opprobrium which I hope the universities will not have to face.
Another suggestion that has been made (and it was made by a very distinguished person) is that, after all, the universities are the servants of Government; they receive the vast amount of their support from the Treasury, and therefore the Government will force them to absorb these students. I do not think that anyone in this House would support any such suggestion, certainly not the noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the House, but I would remind this House that the universities are not the servants of the Government. The universities are partners with the Government in an enterprise which is ultimately to the national advantage. They are autonomous bodies; they have a legal independence which is conferred on them by their charters, and in this partnership they claim a responsibility for the educational aspects of University work.
They know, of course, that they have to work within the limitation of the size of grant which is imposed on them. They know, after University Grant Committee discussions with the Treasury, that there are certain broad policies which the universities must try to follow—for example, that they should have a greater proportion of science and technological students, and so forth. But

699
otherwise they are free agents; and this freedom is the very life-blood of a university. If the universities are to discharge their responsibilities to the best advantage, then this freedom must be maintained. My Lords, I pray that the Government will have second thoughts in this matter. As I said before, we are not dealing with an unnecessary luxury; we are dealing with a matter of vital concern to the future of this country.
Let me say at once that I do not share some of the criticisms which have been made of the Government to-day. I do not believe, as the noble Lord, Lord Boothby said, that this is a major attack on higher education by the Treasury. I do not believe, as the noble Earl, Lord Longford said, that this is a deliberate policy. I think it is a mistaken policy, but, after all, we make mistakes without being deliberately in error.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: May I interrupt the noble Lord? I do not think I accused the Government of being deliberately in error. That would be an extraordinary accusation to make against someone outside of a mental home.
LORD COHEN OF BIRKENHEAD: Nor did I, in fact, say so. What I said was that the noble Lord had accused the Government of following a deliberate policy, which was to keep down university grants. I do not believe this. I think that the Government are mistaken: that they are erring, not because they are deliberately trying to keep down university grants but, if one is to judge from the words of the Chief Secretary, because they are misinformed.
I think that Governments of all persuasions have made notable and impressive contributions to the educational life of this country. If I may speak from my own experience, in 1917, when I took a scholarship to the University of Liverpool from Birkenhead, there were then two scholarships—one for a boy and one for a girl—to the University of Liverpool from Birkenhead. The population of Birkenhead was 120,000. There were certainly 2,000 in each of the age groups 17 to 18, 18 to 19, eligible for universities. So that the provision of university places is nearly fifty times as great as it was some forty years or so
700
ago. The Butler Act of 1944, for which both Parties, I would hope, were responsible during the Coalition phase, opened wide the gates of education, and I believe that they have a responsibility to keep those gates open as the educational ladder is ascended.
My Lords, I do not think that we can ignore the trend; I do not think we can concern ourselves solely with the bulge. But let me say this: I doubt whether, even if universities are given adequate money, they can, in fact, do much more than meet the Government's suggested figures in the next quinquennium or in the subsequent quinquennium. Buildings have to be built, staffs have to be provided, and we ought during the next two or three years to be training the staffs who will take their place in the universities in seven, eight or nine years' time. This is where I see part of the tragedy of the present situation. We must not by temporary measures—and this is a temporary measure—ignore the true purpose of university education. I know that the noble and learned Viscount the Leader of this House has a great admiration for Disraeli, and I need not remind him that Disraeli regarded a university as "a place of light, liberty and learning." Well, my Lords, the lights in the universities of this country are dimming—indeed, in some of their departments they may well go out. An inadequate short-term policy will postpone, but will not replace, an enlightened long-term policy.
What the Government need, as many of your Lordships have said, is to review the priorities. Reference has been made this afternoon to Sir Charles Morris's book, Investment For National Survival, and there can be no better investment than in the aristocracy of minds which make up the talent, the skills, of this country. Unless the Government have second thoughts, those who come to universities, and who are given less than they need—as well as those who are prevented from coming because of an irrational parsimony—will, in twenty to forty years' time, when aspiring to help keep this nation at its proper level in the comity of nations, have reason to look back in anger.
My Lords, there is just one further point. I would hope sincerely that in his reply to this debate

701
Viscount Hailsham will make it clear that the Government are now prepared to have second thoughts. If the noble Lord is prepared to do that, then I will not follow the noble Earl, Lord Longford, into the Lobby. But, despite the fact that I should hesitate to vote for this Motion, I will certainly do so with conviction if the Government retain their present attitude towards the grants which they have so far made.
6.10 p.m.
LORD COHEN: My Lords, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, I do not find myself impelled by what I have heard to add to the remarks I had intended to make. On the contrary, I find myself in agreement with almost all that fell from the noble Earl, to whom I am very grateful for initiating this debate, and with all that fell from the noble Lord, Lord James of Rusholme and from the noble Lord, Lord Stamp. Agreeing as I do with them, I propose to curtail my remarks and to confine them to two points with which I have some personal connection.
To turn, first of all, to the current expenditure, let me explain my anxiety as to its adequacy by giving an instance from my own experience as Chairman of the College Committee at University College, London. My object in doing so is to illustrate the effect of inadequate recurrent grants in restraining growth. With a large supplement from industry, University College was able to erect the first stage of a new engineering building, designed when completed to double its output of graduate engineers. As soon as the first part of the building was completed in 1961, it was occupied and the engineering departments increased their intake of students for the current session by about 40 per cent. But we were not able to make a corresponding increase in the teaching staff. We have been able to provide only a very limited number of additional teachers—one lecturer in each department, and no additional post for the current session. Moreover, we could not provide in our current budget for the number of technicians necessary to maintain the expensive equipment installed in the buildings, and were able to deal with the emergency only by having recourse to a reserve which is not likely to recur.
The only other point to which I wish to refer is the question of salaries, which
702
is perhaps less delicate for me, as I am not a salaried officer of any university, than it has been for some of those who have addressed your Lordships to-day. I do not challenge the correctness of the statement in the White Paper Income Policy—The Next Step that the objective must be to keep the rate of increase of incomes within the long-term rate of growth of national production. But the rate of growth will not improve unless there is an increase in the number of available scientists and technicians, and their availability must depend on an adequate supply of teachers in our universities and technical colleges to train them.
Like one of the correspondents of The Times, I do not for a moment think that the main reason which draws people into the academic staff of a university is financial, but adequate salary is an important consideration to a man with a family. Moreover, justice requires a higher reward for the important work that the academic staff of a university perform. The Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, according to a quotation which I found in that invaluable document to which the noble Earl, Lord Longford, referred—namely, the Report by the Principal of London University—is reported as having said that
"He did not dispute that university salaries had fallen behind some of those with which they could justly be compared, but so had many others … If we are to hold out against inflation there must be temporary sacrifices and inequalities."
It seems to me, as it seems to many of your Lordships, that the staffs of universities have been made an invidious example for the latter part of the Chancellor's statement.
Moreover, the implementation of that document has already indicated one comparison that may be made by persons contemplating entrance to the teaching profession. Paragraph 2 of that pamphlet intimated, among other things, that, as from April 1, 1962, effect would be given to certain wage and salary increases in the National Health Services which had been agreed since July, 1961, and which had been held back for implementation on a date to be decided by the Government. Among the increases sanctioned pursuant to this paragraph has been an increase in

703
favour of technicians employed in hospitals. The increase is large, amounting on the average to about 25 per cent. I am not disputing the justification for their increases but the reaction of such a large increase on those who are being tied to the 2½ per cent. increase, or 3 per cent. in the case of academic teachers, mentioned in the Government White Paper is obvious. However, this afternoon I am concerned more with the effect of this increase on university finances.
In a medical school with which I am connected, we have technicians working side by side with technicians employed by the teaching hospital. Although the award does not directly bind the medical school, it is difficult to see how we can avoid keeping step with the hospital; if so, the increase in our wages bill will be some £11,000 per annum, and under existing arrangements there does not seem to be any supplementary grant to cover this additional charge, the cost of which we could meet only by abandoning planned academic developments. Let me say (I think one of the speakers who has already addressed your Lordships has referred to this point) that a comparison between the salaries of university lecturers and those payable in a College of Advanced Technology, or to Government scientific officers, is another source of potential discontent.
My Lords, having criticised the Government to some extent, let me say at once that I welcome, as I think all the speakers have done, the target which they have set up for the student population. My doubt is as to whether the Treasury have yet appreciated the inevitable cost of carrying it out, if it is to be carried out without a lowering of standards. I only hope that the noble and learned Viscount, when he replies to the debate, will be able to remove those doubts.
6.17 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I do not know that there is very much more to say in this debate, after what I think is one of the most devastating attacks I have heard in either House on Government policy, and furthermore, delivered by some very highly qualified individuals. I think that of the speakers only the noble Viscount, Lord Esher,
704
and myself have not actually been fellows or associate professors or holding some office at a university. I think even the noble Lord who has just spoken is an honorary fellow of New College. We have now lost the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Francis-Williams, who we gather is a Regents Professor. In looking around I can see two Chancellors of Universities, a Vice-Chancellor, and I do not know how many Lord Rectors. When we remember last week's debate on pressure groups, it might be thought that we had a very considerable one to-day.
But, my Lords, it has been a very sorry tale. We have again had the story that we know so well, argued with extraordinary force, as I am sure the noble and learned Viscount will admit. There have been the obvious things which those of us who have children know about so well, with the "rat race" of trying to get into a university. Here it is worth recalling that, certainly so far as Oxford and Cambridge are concerned, the admission standards are a great deal higher now than they were at the time I went there. This tragedy of no places is, as has been pointed out before, contributing continually to this pressure for early specialisation. At a school one hardly ever hears a parent whose boy or girl is going to try to go to a university, who does not lament, particularly if the child is at a public school, that the school is not doing enough to fit him or her for entry to the university. You hear references to the advantages of being at grammar schools, and so on. This is not the point: this is the tragedy of there not being enough places.
My Lords, this, I think, is pretty generally accepted, and I should like to refer briefly to certain particular points, most of which have already been covered in some way in the debate, because they are points on which the Government have taken their stand in defending—and, indeed, I will go further than to say "defending": in another place, in actually boasting about—the effective nature of the Government's policy. For instance, Mr. Brooke talked about five years ago. He said that the total public expenditure on university education then was £50 million, that to-day it is £100 million, and that

705
in five years' time it will be £155 million. This sounds very considerable as a figure, but, of course, so far as the next five years are concerned, it is a declining rate of increase rather than, as one might have hoped, an increasing rate.
It seems now to be pretty well established—and I hope that the Government will admit this in view of the opinions that have been expressed by so many people—that the hopes of reaching the chosen target of expansion of 155,000 by 1967 (I think that is the date) are not likely to be achieved; and it is no good the Government saying that they hope the universities will, if possible, achieve that target, because we know on all sides that it is no longer attainable. When we look at the figures, there is not really all that much to boast about, but I think we should be more inclined to accept the Government's good intentions if they were rather more frank in their explanation of these figures. I must confess that, reading Mr. Brooke's speech in another place, without imputing dishonesty in any way he certainly presented his case (as would be expected, of course, reasonably) in a way which was most favourable to the Government but one which has aroused an absolute storm of protest in academic circles; and it is on this ground in particular that the Government are open to censure.
My Lords, we have been told about the increase in the recurrent grant, and that there will be in 1962–63, I think, an increase of £6½ million; but it would surely have been reasonable for the Government to have pointed out that some of that grant—and the Principal of London University, Sir Douglas Logan, has estimated it as £1 million—is purely a transfer from D.S.I.R. to the University Grants Committee, and the figure is in fact considerably less than £6½ million or 13 per cent. We should like to have from the Government what they believe to be the real figure in purely monetary terms.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: The real figure for what? I am sorry; I was not attending.
LORD SHACKLETON: The real figure for the increase of the university recurrent grant in 1962–63. The noble Viscount, if he looks at Mr. Brooke's
706
speech, will see that he mentions the figure. He says [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol 657 (No. 91), col. 741]:
"In the first year of the new quinquennium starting on the 1st August, 1962, the increase will be from £49½ million to £56 million—£6½ million, not £5½ million, as the right honourable Gentleman inadvertently mentioned."
That was a mistake that Mr. Gaitskell had inadvertently made, though the Leader of the Opposition had in fact been more accurate than he realised, because that figure of £6½ million really needs to be diminished, in terms of increase in expenditure, by a figure which has been estimated by Sir Douglas Logan at £1 million, which is the element representing the figure which had previously been paid by D.S.I.R. and which has now been paid by the University Grants Committee.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I will try to get that information in time for me to give it to the noble Lord. I will send for it if I can, but it is a very detailed point, and if by chance I do not get it perhaps the noble Lord will put a Question down and I will try to clear it up in that way. I am bound to say that I am quite unprepared to deal with it on anything that I have at the moment.
LORD SHACKLETON: It is a point which has been made by the critics of the Government, particularly in Sir Douglas Logan's admirable speech, address or report to which we have all drawn attention. Perhaps it would be a mistake to go on pursuing this particular point here, but if the noble Viscount would also like the reference to it, it is on page 9 of the Report of the Principals.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I will send for it and see whether I can get it in time. The noble Lord has given me ample detail. What I am not sure about is whether I can get it in time. If I do not get it in time, he must put a Question down, and then I shall be very happy to answer it.
LORD SHACKLETON: It is, of course, a substantial point, and I should have thought that his advisers would have picked this out from the Report of the Principals.
My Lords, it is on ground of this sort that there is criticism of the Government in terms of lack of frankness; and when

707
we look at the cost of the new institutions, the rising price of goods and salaries, and at the fact that there is a back log of "carry-over" from the previous quinquennium, we find that the amount of money which is available for expansion is a great deal less than would be suggested by the bald figures. Here, again, it has been pointed out that in 1960–61 no less than £4,700,000 had to be devoted to meet erosion costs—costs which had gone up owing to rises in prices, and for which there was no contingency provision. Every university, so I am informed, ends the quinquennium with a deficit and with posts unfilled which are not themselves regarded as a commitment but as a development which has to be financed out of the new surplus. There has been reference to the statement by, I am not sure whether it was the Bursar of New College or whether it was in fact Mr. Norrington, the Vice-Chancellor of Oxford University, which makes it very clear that the amount of money available for further expansion is relatively small.
Again I should like to ask the Government a question, and it may be that this also will have to be answered later. I should have liked to know what is their own estimate of the effect of rises in cost upon university budgets. We know that there has been a great rise in the costs of certain equipment, particularly of scientific equipment; and in the allocation of the grants and in arriving at the figure they have taken these increases into account. Is there any precise budgeting in arriving at what is the proper figure? If they know these figures, it would be helpful if they could be revealed. I should like to give an example, again from the scientific field, where, in particular, the costs of equipment tend to be so high. A resistance box—this comes from a physicist—costing £14 in 1950 costs £40 now; and the calibrations by the National Physical Laboratory cost three times as much as they did four years ago. It is interesting to note that some of these increases have in fact occurred during the famous pay pause, when one hoped that at least some price stability might be achieved.
I should like to turn, briefly, to the non-recurrent grant, also, and here again we are on difficult ground because it is
708
so difficult to disentangle the figures. If I understand it aright, the present figure for the non-recurrent grants for universities in 1962–63 will be £25 million. The University Grants Committee have made their allocations, and their estimates in respect of the non-recurrent grants is a figure of £30 million. There is some suspicion among university heads and others that this figure of £30 million is not yet confirmed. It may be that I have missed it and that there is some Government figure, and that it could be argued that this is part of the internal negotiations between the Government and the University Grants Committee; but in the last resort these figures go into the pipeline and come out at the other end with detailed estimates and allocations, and it certainly seems to be apparent that the University Grants Committee have been operating on the basis of a figure of £30 million. As has already been indicated, this £30 million, if it is correct, is still not going to be enough to take account of the rises in costs of various kinds.
I should like to turn briefly to a matter which is very much Within the field of the noble Viscount, and that is the effect on the output of scientists. In our debate last November, the noble Viscount said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 235 (No. 9) col. 713]:
"It is the business of the Chancellor … to solve the present economic crisis. I am concerned to prevent one in 1975."
My Lords, it is in this way that we hope in fact to prevent it. It is in regard to the matter we are now discussing that we hope an economic crisis will be prevented. I should like to ask the noble Viscount whether in fact he hopes that the output target—and, after all, we debated it in these terms—mentioned in the Report of the Advisory Committee, of 27,000 by 1970 and 30,000 by 1975, is likely to be now attained. We know that the cost of training a scientist is likely to be more expensive, and it is more difficult to expand. You cannot pack in physicists and chemists in the same way that you can students of the humanities. They need equipment, and from some of the Vice-Chancellors and others who have been quoted, it is apparent that there will be a delay in the provision of much of the essential equipment.

709
I know that the noble Viscount is not very anxious to make comparisons with foreign countries, and I sympathise with him in his attitude because of the difficulties in doing so; but I think enough has been said to-day, even if we leave aside the direct comparisons with the University of California, of which my only knowledge was confined to a book I once read called Don Juan in America. I do not know whether it is the level which now prevails; I very much doubt it. But even if we discount some of what they are seeking to do—and it is very difficult to do so in view of the evidence put forward by my noble friend Lord Francis-Williams—it has already been acknowledged that American output is two to three times higher proportionately than ours, even accepting (and this is a well-accepted figure, which I think the noble Lord himself at one time accepted) that about 20 per cent. of this is at a lower level than ours. I think that this was in the Report of the Advisory Committee.
Against this we have had to-day some pretty devastating evidence of the loss of scientists. This has been talked about, off and on, over the last few years, and I fully accept the views that the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, has expressed—that it is obviously impossible for us to seek to match American standards or even to maintain standards in terms of income. This is simply not on. But there is the feeling, which has been so fully expressed, not merely by my noble friend Lord Chorley but by others, that they are not getting a fair deal from the community in which they live, which is leading to frustration. We know that this relates particularly to research facilities, but the pay issue has now become acute. I think we are faced with something which is much more serious than it has been in the past. Plenty of evidence has been put forward on this question. There was the evidence of what I think was called the Physics Society which was given to the Robbins Commission, and, looking through that, one finds that no fewer than 28 British physicists trained in British universities are now professors in America. We have to realise that in this respect we are competing in an international (league and that the pressure
710
from other countries to recruit British academicians is growing all the time.
I should have liked to say something about post-graduate teaching. This has also been a matter of pretty severe adverse comment. I would say only that it is rather depressing to think how badly we treat some of our post-graduate researchers in the matter of grants, as compared with the amount of money they could get if they went straight into industry. I fully accept that there are attractions of a kind in university life which are very great indeed; but there is a degree of criticism and complaint about now of a kind I have never encountered before among my friends in university circles.
There was also the issue, which has been raised by a number of noble Lords, about the relations between the University Grants Committee and the Government. We are confronted with a really unprecedented situation when we find that Sir Keith Murray, as my noble friend Lord Chorley made clear, is criticising the responsible Minister for the figures he gave in regard to staffing ratios. I am wondering whether the Government ought not now to face up to the fact that it is known that there is a conflict between the Government and the University Grants Committee, and arrive at some agreed statement so that it would be more easy for us to judge what is the situation. There is, indeed, an impression (this is no doubt unfair, and I am sure that my noble friend Lord Longford in no way suggested that the Government were deliberately seeking to repress university education; what the noble Lord said was that deliberate policy has produced this result) that the Government regard universities rather like girls' finishing schools, but with different subjects. Somewhere there is a breakdown in the liaison between the Government and the universities. I am quite sure that the noble Viscount's personal interest in science and his own standards are such that it would greatly improve the situation if these responsibilities, at present held by the Treasury—and I make no direct imputation against the Treasury—were transferred to someone like thte noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham. This is a matter which has led at the present moment to a degree of distrust and disillusionment in

711
the universities, and something has to be done to try to restore confidence.
My Lords, not all of your Lordships have heard all the speeches in to-day's debate—the references to the frustration, the distress, the despair; and the really strong language which has been used so effectively against the Government. There is no doubt that the Government have to-day, so far as the debate is concerned, taken one of the heaviest beatings which they could have taken. It used to be the custom of the Conservatives, when they were in Opposition, to criticise the Labour Government for damaging confidence in the business community. They have successfully destroyed confidence among a group of people who are not likely to be drawn as a body into politics. To have driven so many professors mad is a considerable achievement.
The time has now come when the Government should "come clean" a good deal more than Mr. Brooke did in the debate in another place. We know that all Government expenditure is limited by our economic performance, but it is tragic that our economic performance is not enough to let us compete in the way we believe, as many speakers have suggested, other countries are now able to do. The noble Viscount, Lord Esher, said that he had detected signs of frustration on the faces of the Government. As my noble friend Lord Longford said, our criticism is that they carry on, with bright optimism, to promise review and some action some time. What is needed is action now—not a review in two years' time. If we are to get near our -target by 1965, decisions have to be made in 1962. If they are not taken, the blame will be that of the Government.
A number of your Lordships have quoted from speeches of Vice-Chancellors and Principals of universities. The Principal of St. Andrews University, in particular, has been brought into the battle, and I would quote the final remarks he made on a public occasion recently, after describing the difficulties and the impossibility of meeting the target which the Government had had imposed on the universities and which they had gladly accepted:
"For the situation which I have described responsibility lies with Her Majesty's Government,
712
and the public should be left in no doubt of the fact."
6.42 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I am afraid that I am acquiring a reputation for making very long speeches, and I am sadly aware that this reputation is becoming not altogether unmerited. I am afraid that I shall do nothing this evening to merit a better reputation for brevity. For that I think the fault is not altogether mine. When one comes to reply for another Department, one has to attempt to find out, as honestly and as clearly as one can, what the argument is about, what is the true nature of the dispute, where the merits lie; and to try to identify, isolate and, if possible, reply to, the real bones of contention. But I must confess, having listened to this debate throughout its length, except, I am sorry to say, for a part of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Francis-Williams (though I was lucky enough, I think, to hear the greater part of it), I was altogether unprepared for the extent of the misconceptions which exist both about the situation and about the scope of this debate.
I do not believe that I can do much more than try to clear up some of the misunderstandings (I do not think that I can tackle them all) and point out the extent to which they are within or without the terms of the Motion. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, put down a Motion of censure on a statement of my right honourable friend on March 14. Curiously enough, there are some items of dispute which are genuinely within that statement. Salaries, for instance, are within the terms of the statement. It is so important a subject that I propose, in a later part of my speech, but not, I think, now, to devote some special attention to that question.
Building, however, is one of the most important issues for discussion, and that is altogether outside the statement which is the subject of the Motion. The dispute there—and I will come to it, despite its technical irrelevance, at a later stage of my remarks—is about the extent to which the rise in prices since the announcement of the building programme in January, 1961 (not Mr. Brooke's statement of March 14), will affect the practicability of our target of

713
150,000 students. That is altogether outside the terms of the Motion, but because it has been adverted to, and because, in my opinion, it is one of the most important matters of discussion, it is something to which I shall return.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I do not want to interrupt, but if I said nothing, the noble Viscount might think that I agreed with him that it is outside the terms of the Motion. I do not agree with him for a moment.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, the statement of the First Secretary dealt with three subjects: student numbers, university salaries, and recurrent grants. What I am saying is that one of the most important subjects we really ought to be discussing—and some speakers have done so: indeed, the noble Earl spent a little time on it—is the building programme. I should have thought that it is much the most important thing. Yet, curiously enough, the noble Earl so drafted his Motion, he was so keen to censure my right honourable friend, that this subject was left out. I was trying to say that the point of the discussion there is not about the adequacy of the target but about what the universities called "erosion": what I should prefer to call inflation of prices and how far that has rendered the target impracticable. This is very important, and I want to come back to it.
The second question which arises is the effect of the same process upon recurrent costs. These are obviously non-staff costs, because salary rises are outside the terms of the statement, and have been expressly provided for by assurances which have been given. Neither on this question nor on the building programme can a fair elucidation of the area of dispute be made a subject of censure, though there will still be a good deal about which to disagree. Nor are these questions on which my right honourable friend has adopted a "wooden", "inflexible" or "immovable" position. They are matters about which discussion is possible.
The third issue in dispute relates to the extent to which during the expansion of 35 per cent. in student numbers in five years we can do more than hold
714
the staff—student ratio at its 1961–62 level and hold the non-staff costs of recurrent grants. Here again there is an argument to be discussed. But I am bound to say to the House, in all seriousness—and I do not want to overstate my case in any way—that when the noble Earl comes here and uses epithets like "discreditable", "dishonourable", "disreputable", "meagre", "mangy", "callous", "humbug" and "a great gulf fixed", and all this rhetoric about Motions of censure, I do not think he helps. On the contrary, he has done his best, so far as I can see, to muddy the waters of controversy by the use of extravagant language which is designed to divert attention from the true issues rather than to elucidate them. When the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, with his masterly ebullience, talks about "reckless" and "hopeless" and the Treasury's being "disastrous" and "dishonest", all this is very fine in its way. It would be better on television than in the House of Lords, if he will allow me to say so, but we are glad to hear him. But it does not help the discussion very much, for it is rather important to discuss it soberly because, strange as it must appear to a visitor from Mars who might be looking in on our debates, the Government care just as much as do the Opposition or anybody else in this House for the well-being and expansion of the universities.
I would fully agree that there is no subject upon which I personally or, I think, the Government generally, would more welcome a debate than on the subject of the expansion of the universities. In my view—and it has been the view of many speakers—it is in fact the cardinal issue of education policy at the present time. I do not think I am over-stating the position in the least when I say that. Indeed, if I were to criticise the attitude of the Party opposite, I myself would regret that the Leader of the Labour Party, in a recent speech, endorsed by the noble Earl, Lord Longford, confused the issue of this cardinal question of the expansion of the universities by his references to the raising of the school-leaving age in the secondary modern schools. This was described in the Roman Catholic Weekly—to which I know the noble Earl pays attention—as being irresponsible. I think the cardinal view in education at the

715
present time is the expansion of the universities.
Nor in the least do I resent a criticism, either of the size or of the plans for expansion, although there I must claim a certain measure of agreement between the responsible bodies, including the University Grants Committee and the Government (although the noble Earl opted out of this unanimity), or of the financial provision made to implement them. Of course these things must be discussed. Nor has the level of university salaries, distasteful as it clearly is to all of us to have to discuss it, been immune from criticism, especially as the Government have promised to review the matter next year. These are very important issues, and there is deep feeling about them in the universities. Like all other subjects about which there is interest and feeling, I would say that the more discussion there is about them the better. But everything depends, surely, upon the spirit and the context of the discussion.
I think the peculiar disservice which the noble Earl bas done to this discussion is to cloud it from the start by a Party Motion of censure, in language which scarcely could be treated as moderate. Of course, I recognise the feelings of those in the universities. I cannot help thinking that the shrewd political judgment of the noble Earl—and he is one of the shrewdest Party politicians whom I have ever come across—has, on the whole, led him to seize a desirable prize, the capture of opinion in the universities, which are, after all, the core of the intellectual life of the country. I myself think it would be a great disaster, both to democracy and to the universities, if any Party obtained either a monopoly or a preponderance here or, indeed, if the universities themselves became the subject of bitter Party controversy. And I think this was a mistake on the part of the noble Earl.
I must make one other general observation, which I am afraid will take a minute or two of time. I really must do so, because the noble Earl went on in his opening to repeat a set of figures of comparison between this country and others which are almost wholly misleading. I want to deal with it partly because it sets this whole subject in its
716
true perspective, and partly because I do not think that a member of the Government, quite irrespective of the position of his colleagues, can allow to go unchallenged a set of figures and comparisons which are a gross libel on the state of further education in this country. It is really indefensible that the noble Earl should go on repeating them year after year, long after they have been exposed.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Viscount for one moment? I will try not to do so again. As I said, the Minister of Education, his own colleague, said in a recent speech that we have the lowest proportion of our population going to the universities of any highly-developed country in the world. Does the noble Viscount accept that statement?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My colleague was no doubt making the statement in its appropriate place and context but the noble Earl was misusing it.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No, no!
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: The object of what I am now going to say—I hope it will not be too lengthy; but it will be as long as it has to be for the purpose—is to discuss exactly how far the noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Boothby (my colleague as Rector), have really done a disservice to British education by going on with a point which really has no justification at all, making it clear, as I have always made it clear, that nothing I say by way of differentiation between this country and others qualifies in the least my belief that the expansion of university education is the cardinal educational issue for this country to face.
The first thing which the noble Earl will not face is that there are at least two, and I would say, three, characteristic ladders to the top in further education in this country. This is a salient feature of further education and higher education in Britain. Whether you take the Church, the Bar, the solicitors, chartered accountants, doctors, engineers, architects or chemists, any profession you like to choose, there are in Britain two ladders, whereas on the Continent the university is virtually the main

717
ladder up. There are two ladders at least in Britain, one of which leads through the universities, and one which does not. The relationship between the two ladders is extremely complex, and numerically the non-university ladder is at least as important as the university ladder.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, will the noble Viscount allow me to interrupt? I think that is absolutely untrue where medicine is concerned. Virtually no non-university students now qualify.
LORD CHORLEY: In law it is becoming obsolete, too.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I do not believe it is becoming obsolete in law, but I accept what the noble Lord said about medicine. At any rate, to take the engineers, it is somewhere between two out of three and three out of four who take the other ladder. I was making a statement about total numbers, and not about individual professions. My father, for instance, became Lord Chancellor of England, with some distinction, without a university degree in law or anything else until he became Lord Chancellor, when he was given a number of honorary degrees. He started his professional training far too late for him to go to Oxford or Cambridge. It is not good enough, when men of that intellectual eminence reach that kind of intellectual distinction in the life of the nation, simply to treat the universities as they are on the Continent, to the exclusion of all else.
But there is a second factor to which the noble Earl himself referred which wholly invalidates the comparison. If you take a thing, for instance, like staff-student ratio, about which a good deal has, quite rightly, been said this evening, the staff-student ratio in the law faculties of France is 1 in 62; in the sciences 1 in 20, as distinct from 1 in 10·7, about which the noble Lord, Lord Stamp rightly complained. And the other proportions are similar. The failure rate, if one can call it a failure rate, or the departure rate without graduation, is something like 70 per cent. And, my Lords, my right honourable friend, who has been so much abused this evening, was surely quite right in claiming with certainty that the true comparison is that of
718
graduations as a proportion of age groups. And when once that is taken, the comparison becomes favourable to Britain: 3½ per cent. to 4½ per cent. in Britain against 3⅓ per cent. in France; 2⅔ per cent. in Germany, and 1¾ per cent. in Holland. And to go on, year after year, making these outrageous comparisons which put us below the student population, I think, of Egypt, when they have no kind of relevance to the educational system, only betrays the ignorance and prejudice of those who make them.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, would the noble Viscount allow me to interrupt him? In the middle of his rather excited remarks he made some reference to staff ratios, but he did not deal with the point that several noble Lords have made—namely, that Mr. Brooke made an incorrect statement when he said that the ratio of staff in British universities was better than before the war. That has since been denied by the Chairman of the Universities Grants Committee.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I can deal only with one point at a time, and I felt that it was absolutely essential, in view of this wholly misleading passage in his noble friend's speech, that I should now deal with it as faithfully as I think it deserves to be dealt with. It is, of course, true that the noble Earl claimed that we had discovered these somewhat astonishing figures since the universities were last debated here. That, so far as I am concerned, is perfectly true. I did not know. And it may be that I should have done. But then neither did he—because I certainly would not accuse him of being so disingenuous as to know them and not refer to them. But, of course, whether I or he ought to have known them or not, they are true; and they are not only relevant but completely destructive of the validity of the comparison which was being made. What is less excusable is that the noble Earl should go on making the comparison long after it has been exploded.
But even that is not the end of the case. Even at the expense of being dull I must refer to two more of the simple facts of life concerning further education in Britain. The noble Earl said that he hoped I would not make

719
this point, and out of courtesy to him I will quickly pass over it. The standards of staff ratios and quality of teaching are much higher here, in the main, than elsewhere, particularly in North America as a whole. Though some of the most distinguished universities in the world are in North America, the pattern over the North American Continent as a whole is very uneven.
But that is not the point. What is, is that outside the statistics which the noble Lord quotes there are a great number of institutes of further education in this country that produce courses which are fully up to world standard of degree courses. I need only mention colleges of advanced technology, with 9,000 students, rising to 15,000 by the mid-1960s. To take another aspect, the series of educational institutions in London—most of which were founded by my grandfather—Regent Street Polytechnic, Woolwich Polytechnic, Chelsea Polytechnic and Northampton Polytechnic, are all London institutions with great numbers of students, a very great many of whom are taking what, in any other country, would be treated as degree courses. And there are teacher-training colleges, expanding very rapidly, with 40,000 students, all of them of degree standard, with three-year courses, instituted, incidentally, by myself when Minister of Education, and none of which the noble Lord thinks fit to mention when he makes this comparison. In addition, of course, there are numbers of other institutions, like colleges of art, music and drama. I mention these, my Lords, not in order to defend the Government, but because it is a little too much to hear speaker after speaker really insulting further education in this country when the figures upon which they base their insults are really without foundation or validity.
Indeed, I go on to say, the noble Lord having quoted a number of my statements in May, 1960, that to-day I stand by every one of those statements. In spite of this rhetorical talk about a great gulf being fixed, no humbug on one side and nothing but humbug on the other, the true difference between the Opposition and the Government in this matter is not—at least I hope and
720
believe it is not—a difference of purpose or even of diagnosis. It is based on the fact that the Opposition and Government critics tend to see, as they are well entitled to see, issues in isolation, and the Government is compelled by its very nature to treat them in relation to other Issues—contemporary issues in other matters; inflation, incomes policy, shortage of capital, the expansion of schools, houses, roads—and university issues in the light of their historical contact.
May I deal first with the last of these? In my judgment, at any rate, university education in this country is suffering literally from generations, even from centuries, of neglect. This neglect has been due to many causes, not least of which, I am sorry to say, has been the overshadowing influence—which to some extent still exists—of the two great centres of learning of Oxford and Cambridge.
My Lords, the process of expansion is extremely difficult. Amenity has to be improved in order to remove the overshadowing influence which I have been mentioning at the very moment when the most elementary teaching arrangements and equipment are still deficient. Staff has to be provided at a time when the professions, industry, schools and, not least, the Civil Service are clamouring for graduates of every kind. Teaching must be expanded at the very moment—as I think several noble Lords, not least Lord Cohen of Birkenhead, pointed out—when research has never been more important, either to teaching, or to industry, or to life generally. Above all, quantity is needed at a time when qualitative standards need also to be tightened and improved. And this has to be done—let us face it, because this is our responsibility, the responsibility of each side of the House and of the Government—in a free democracy when betting, bingo, and television are more highly regarded by many than scholarship and learning.
My Lords, let me say this to your Lordships, quite bluntly. I am not in this context ashamed of the record of my colleagues or myself. I am not satisfied, either. If I were satisfied in a situation like that which I have been trying to describe, I should be rightly condemned as complacent. But because the

721
noble Earl, with his partisan outlook and superficial knowledge, has been unjust, it is necessary that I should give credit where credit is due, and I should be disloyal to my colleagues if I did not attempt to do so. There has never been a time in the history of Government when the universities have been improving so rapidly, so continuously—in amenity, in crude size, in range of coures, in standing and prestige—as during the last ten years. The late noble Lord, Lord Dalton, to whose love of learning I paid tribute, rightly in my opinion, earned a just renown in 1946 when, in effect, he inaugurated a new period in the relationship between universities and Government. I do not seek to detract in the least from Lord Dalton's credit. He fully deserves it. He deserves it because his efforts at that time were in a real sense the efforts of a true pioneer. But, both relatively and absolutely, they were puny compared with what is being done now. I must now remind the House what at any rate I believe the figures have been.
As recently as 1951 the recurrent grants were as low as £17 million. By 1956 they had gone up to £28 million; in 1961–62 it is £49½ million; and, according to the plans which have come in for so much criticism, they will be £76½ million in 1966–67. All except the last figures, of course, would have to be corrected to take account of inflation. This is, of course, exclusive of building; it is exclusive of student awards, a system which I think I am right in saying is far more generous in this country than certainly others on the Western side of the Iron Curtain, and compares very favourably indeed with the standards provided elsewhere; it is exclusive of Research Council grants, which during my period as Minister for Science have multiplied by a factor of 3; it is exclusive of grants for heavy and expensive equipment, like computers, the NIMROD accelerator or inter-university nuclear reactors. I am not ashamed of that record, any more than I am satisfied.
Take building. As recently as 1954, three years after we took office, building starts were still as low as £3·4 million in the calendar year. In the current year they are £25 million, very nearly a factor of 8; they will not be allowed to fall below these figures, although they may
722
rise to £30 million by 1965. This again is exclusive of the enormous building which anyone can see going on in Imperial College, the provision of sites, computers, expensive equipment, and Research Council grants. The non-recurrent grants, which were annually only a little over £7½ million when we took office, will be over £40 million according to present plans for 1966–67. It must therefore be recognised that, tight as things are, the rate of expansion of a thing like a university, which depends on the provision of staff, buildings, and equipment of a certain quality, is limited by other things than mere money. I would defy anyone to claim that the rate of expansion shown in these figures to date has been significantly slowed down by mere financial considerations. It remains to be seen—and I shall endeavour to argue—exactly how far it can be claimed that finance will be the limiting factor in the coming quinquennium.
This brings me straight on to the quinquennial recurrent grant Which was the main subject of the statement by the Chief Secretary, which is the subject of the Motion to-day. The first thing, in my judgment at any rate, is to try to establish exactly what the argument is about and, having discovered that, to try to see whether it justifies the expressions of alarm and despondency to which the noble Earl has given voice. The first point I wish to make here is that the recurrent grants, of course, are broadly current expense, not capital, and they deal, according to the Motion and statement, with the five academic years beginning with next October. The first point which arises is the question of the size of targets, 150,000 in the five-year period. The noble Earl, with characteristic want of generosity, I thought, referred to it as "meagre aspirations" and talked of it as being Wholly inadequate. I must say I agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Cohen of Birkenhead, when he said he very much doubted whether, with all the money in the world, a much bigger rate of expansion could as a technical operation be undertaken by the universities without inadmissible lowering of standards.
Again, may I revert for a moment to the comparison with foreign countries? They are prepared to put up with this

723
vast student-staff ratio, even to put students in lecture rooms with closed circuit television instead of a lecturer. Of course, we could go much faster if we did that sort of thing, but does anyone seriously want us to? The fact of the matter is that I am informed nobody, no responsible person, regards the figure of 150,000 as otherwise than about right. And it is, in fact, whether it is right or wrong, an unprecedented rate of growth even for the period of growth to which I have been referring, 35 per cent. over five years. Of course, if in 1966 we had staff and buildings of unlimited capacity, I would be the first to admit (indeed, although I was talking about a slightly later date, the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, reminded me I toad been talking about 1970 in terms of 200,000, and I do not regret it at all) that if we were to meet the full demand, by which I mean available candidates of suitable quality, I have no doubt we could fill universities of this size, although there would be many people in the university field who would criticise me for saying so. But the limitations on the rate of growth of institutions of this kind are not purely financial or material.
I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cohen of Birkenhead, that the agreed figure is the right target to aim at. Whether it is right or wrong, it is an agreed figure; and the noble Earl opposite cannot really have it both ways. If we were wrong not to accept the opinion of the university authorities on other matters, we certainly cannot be wrong to accept it here.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Viscount one other question? Does he feel that it is quite in order to disclose the views of the University Grants Committee when it suits him to do so but not to disclose the figures which the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, asked for?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I was not aware I was disclosing the views of the University Grants Committee, although it appears that the noble Earl knows what they are. What I said was that this was virtually an agreed figure—and I think it is—as to what is possible.
Here I think it is important to point out that in calculating the sum of money, which is not the only limiting factor,
724
necessary over five years to cover expansion of this order, there are certain numbers of variables about which it is necessary to make assumptions; and, of course, one of those is the size of the building programme. This, as I have pointed out, is outside the terms of this particular Motion as it was of the Chief Secretary's statement. But the size of the building programme is, to my mind, the heart of the real subject we ought to be discussing this afternoon.
Whatever else may be said about the building programme, we may assume that only 18 months ago it was adequate to provide for the expansion I have mentioned—that is to say, when the building programme was announced—since the universities were allocated their projects after the announcement of the building programme in January, 1961, and they thereupon put in their programmes for recurrent grants based on an expansion of this order. It is fair to say that since then they have been asked to absorb part of the rise in costs. That, I think, is a legitimate subject of discussion. But I must, I think, make one or two general observations, which I hope may not be wholly unhelpful, about the way in which, over a period of quinquennium and looking in advance, a Government can be expected to discount in advance, in plans which it accepts in advance, the effects of any possible inflation; I think I shall carry the House with me when I say that it cannot be expected to do that.
The kernel of the present dispute is really this—and if we have misunderstood the dispute, nobody would be more happy to be put right than I would. At least in our calculations, keeping pace with the "bulge" we have assumed an increase of student numbers in the universities of 150,000; that is, 35 per cent. We have provided recurrent grants rising by 55 per cent. Can that objective be achieved? I deal first with the building programme because that is the most important, although it is outside the recurrent grants; the building programme is a four-year university programme again of unprecedented size, and now in its first year. There is no intention of cutting that. I know it has been said that it is cutting itself and that the allocations, large as they are, have already been eroded by the rising costs of building.

725
Some provision already exists because the programme itself contained a contingency allowance of 5 per cent. I think it is not unreasonable that universities, like other builders, should in their planning be conscious of the spur which rising costs must apply. But clearly there is a limit—and noble Lords have rightly complained that there is a limit—beyond which the universities cannot be asked to absorb increasing costs without imperilling their main objective. That is why my right honourable friend gave the asurance on April 5 last, that if further increases in building costs took place—and by that was meant ascertained increases in excess of 12½ per cent. or so (of course I know that the universities are afraid of an increase above that figure) above which it is unreasonable to expect the universities to absorb the cost—the Government would certainly consider sympathetically an increase in the programme figures. I can say quite clearly that my right honourable friend made it perfectly plain that it is the intention of the Government to carry out the university expansion.
Reverting to the effect of erosion on the recurrent grants, which unlike the non-recurrent grants on the building programme relate to non-staff costs in the quinquennium which is in front of us, I think one can, without being too precise, clear a good deal of misconception out of the way. I think the House would agree that one cannot, and indeed one must not, discount inflation in advance. One has to meet it if it comes, after having taken whatever measures are open to us to stop it, and deal with it then. If one tries to discount it one only finds one has to meet it in greater force later, because one has built (inflation into one's plans.
If you look in the past upon what has happened when inflation has taken place, you will see that the Government have shown, by interim grants during the present quinquennium that increased academic salaries are not left to be met out of the original recurrent grant. There is a specific pledge to review the next quinquennium after the next two years, when costs will certainly be taken into account with all the other factors. That seems to me to be the answer: to compare the increase in recurrent
726
grants over this quinquennium, when it is over, with all the compensation that had to be injected in inflation over the grant for the next five years. That seems to me to be the true position with regard to erosion and, as I say, I have taken a little trouble to try to find out what it is which is really worrying universities at the present time. I am fairly certain that I am near to the truth when I say that the fear of erosion of their building programme and of their non-staff recurrent grant comes very close to the centre of the issue.
My Lords, having reached that point, I come back to the variables. The implication of the present dispute on the variables is simply this: the building programme is one, and I have discussed that. Another is the target for the student places to be available. That is virtually agreed at 150,000. But there are two other variables which have to be taken into account. One is the present staff-to-student ratio; that stands now at 1 to 10·7. I recognise that this is far from comfortable. In the scientific disciplines, in particular, the unfavourable ratio is felt. That is the present ratio. In the scientific disciplines it compares with 1 to 20 in France and is vastly better. The question really is whether when we are seeking to expand at what I have, I think rightly, described as an unprecedented rate of 35 per cent. in five years, we can do much better than hold the present ratio whilst that expansion is going on.
It is not that we desire to make the target of students smaller—quite the reverse. Our calculations are based upon the target of 150,000, and no other. But it is recognised, of course, that whereas the universities have undoubtedly hoped, and would have been supported by the University Grants Committee, for an improved ratio—I could not give the actual figure, but a marginal one in the ratio over that period—the present calculation means that it cannot come during the period. I would candidly admit that it is most inconvenient in the scientific field, and a similar argument applies in relation to the non-staff recurrent cost, the overheads, as it were, of running a university. The calculation is based upon the present situation, which is far from comfortable; but the proposition is that in a period of expansion at this rate, with

727
a target for expansion of this order, it is not unreasonable to hold it rather than to improve it marginally as had been hoped.
That is really the limit of the dispute which has arisen. There are, of course, those who argue that the University Grants Committee is a highly expert and a highly responsible body, and that we ought therefore to do, to the last million, exactly what it wants. No one in the Government would dispute the claims that are made, both for the expertise of the University Grants Committee and for its sense of public duty and great distinction. I would go further and say that if one viewed the claims of the universities completely in isolation, we ought to do at least as much as they say. But, of course, that is exactly what no Government can do.
We are increasingly advised by expert bodies. I do not want to compare one with another. Some are more expert than others; some are more independent than others; but all are highly responsible. Some of them are completely independent of the Government, and some are Governmental organs. They all advise as to the minimum we ought to do in one field or another—the defence forces on which we are advised by the Chiefs of Staff, the roads, wages, professional salaries, schools, hospitals, houses and scientific research. Of course, if any one of them were given complete priority of money, men and material, it could get what it wanted. But in peace time this is not in practice what happens; nor is it what ought to happen. We are engaged in this country in a complete revolution carried out by evolutionary means into almost every facet of our national life. People ask why after ten years of our Government, we still have too few hospitals, schools, roads and universities. To that I reply that ten years is a comparatively short time in the history of a nation. We have done very well in ten years.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting my noble friend, but I think it would be most helpful for the House to know whether he can tell us what the University Grants Committee has said, what they have asked for, and what is the margin of difference
728
between what they have asked for and what the Treasury have agreed to give.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I do not think I ought to do that. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, was at me when he thought I was betraying their confidence before. I think it would be a betrayal of confidence of the relationship between the University Grants Committee and the Government to say what the figures were. But what I think I am entitled to say, and what I spent a great deal of time in trying to say, is that the area of dispute, apart from the effect of erosion or inflation upon the building programme and the non-staff grant, relates to the two issues of whether to hold the staff-students ratio at its present level and whether to hold the non-staff recurrent costs at their present level, or marginally to improve both. I think it is a relatively narrow area of dispute. It is possible that both the Government and the U.G.C. have made a mistake in calculation. But we are not, of course, to-day discussing mistakes in calculation because mistakes in calculation can be put right on more helpful occasions than the present.
What I am trying to say is that during the whole period of social revolution, which will certainly carry us into the middle of the 21st century, going at the best possible speed we can go, we shall have to scale down almost every assessment of needs by enthusiasts, or even by experts, until we have a balanced programme of expansion, the total of which is bearable in the light of limits of manpower, material or taxable capacity. The proportions are the legitimate subjects of debate, but hardly of censure. There is no great gulf fixed between one set of people and another, the sheep and the goats, as the noble Earl tried to say. That, therefore, is the greater part of the case.
My Lords, I promised to refer to the second main bone of contention arising from my right honourable friend's statement, and that was the question of university salaries—a matter to which the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, rightly drew attention and rightly devoted the major part, if not the whole, of his speech. I do not want to deal with it at quite such length as he did, but personally I consider it to be by far the harder part of the case to defend.

729
Indeed, I would not attempt to defend it out of the context of the present incomes policy, nor even within that context would I attempt to defend it, if it had not been for my right honourable friend's promise to review the question next year. But viewed in this light I do not think that it is out of line with other decisions which have had to be made. At the same time I think it is worth arguing exactly what is and what is not defensible about the present decision.
It is true, of course, that university teachers are recruited from the same grade of distinguished first-degree graduates that supply the administrative and scientific Civil Services, industry, some of the professions, and the higher ranks of other teachers. At the same time I am certainly not going to accept any exact doctrine of comparability. There are some things about university life (I think the noble Lord, Lord Cohen of Birkenhead, referred to this) which add to its attractions. There is greater intellectual freedom; there is the pleasure of extending the frontiers of knowledge, and there is the prestige, which is certainly great. I am not prepared to say that university teaching is exactly comparable either with teaching in a school or in a college of advanced technology; or, for that matter, acting as the principal private secretary to a Cabinet Minister—though very few people might think that that was an agreeable task.
My Lords, there are indeed some facts—not, as I say, conclusive facts—which indicate that, even with a slight differential against them, university teaching is more attractive than either. But I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, that the whole intake of the administrative Civil Service, with which he did seek to make a comparison, is about 50 a year, which can hardly be compared with the very much larger intake of the university teaching profession. So far as a comparison with the scientific Civil Service is concerned, about 7 per cent. of the newly-qualified scientists going into employment in recent years have been recruited to that Service. A similar proportion has been going to the universities. When it is realised that the scientific Civil Service employs about 10 per cent. of the total qualified scientific manpower in the country, while the universities employ only 5
730
per cent., it can be seen that the universities are, on that comparison, attracting their full share of the available supply.
My difficulties about defending the present 3 per cent. increase do not arise from statistical comparisons with other walks of life. They arise from two sets of facts—one of which seems to me to impose a moral obligation on the Government, and one of which seems to me to suggest a practical interest. The moral obligation arises from the fact that I do not think that fortune has favoured university teachers in recent pay increases. I do not attach the same importance as the noble Lord did to the dating of the last salary increase on January 1, 1960, although I know that it caused a lot of ill-feeling at the time. What gave rise to the ill-feeling was a comparison which was not analogous with the then position of the Civil Service. But their present claim, although I thought it went beyond what was justifiable, was certainly put forward with considerable restraint—and it was, to say the least, very unfortunate (I do not think that it would be in the least wrong to say this) that it was caught by the pay pause in July, unlike the comparable claim of the teachers.
If I may answer the specific point which the noble Lord put, the test of whether a claim was caught by the pause of July is not whether the claim was in, but whether the Government had committed themselves to meet it. In the case of the teachers such a commitment, although not quantified was recognised, and they received a substantial increase. Unfortunately, the university teachers did not, although some people might think——
LORD CHORLEY: May I just ask—
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Perhaps I may just complete the sentence. Although some people might think that this is a pure constitutional accident, that the teachers and the technical teachers are covered by Burnham and Pelham awards, the fact is that if you are going to impose a pay pause and have a criterion by which it is effected you must stick to the rules you have announced. I fully agree that it was an extremely unlucky thing that the teachers in the universities were on one

731
side of the line, while the teachers in the technical colleges were on the other.
LORD CHORLEY: Does the noble Viscount say that whatever the Pelham Committee recommended the Government were committed to carry out? Because while the U.G.C. put in a claim on behalf of the teachers in July, the Pelham Committee did not put in its report until November.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I think the noble Lord is mistaking what I said. I said that the Government had committed itself to some increase before July. The Burnham award quantified that of the school teachers, and Pelham was consequential and generally recognised as part of the Burnham award. I do not think that one should confuse the obligation of the Government and the negotiating machinery of the trade union body concerned with the award of the body, which is either administrative or advisory, as the case may be, as to amount. I think that is what the noble Lord has mistaken, if I may say so.
Now, my Lords, the second and to my mind, much the more serious of the arguments arises not from the moral point, which I think is a strong one, but from the programme of expansion to which we are committed. This involves the necessity for recruiting staff to keep the staff-student ratio at the present level during the expansion to 150,000 students by 1966–67. In a sense, of course, all these arguments have to be tested by the acid test of recruitment. In a profession of persons as sought after and of such high quality as university teachers, recruitment must remain a fairly accurate guide both of the acceptability of conditions and of the adequacy of rate. If people flock into its ranks there can be nothing seriously wrong with it. On the other hand, if the numbers are not recruited, no argument that conditions are acceptable will be found to be convincing.
What worries me about the 3 per cent. is not any argument from comparability, but the fact that, although the difficulty is as yet only marginal, two-thirds of the proposed expansion is scientific, and there is evidence that in science faculties there is difficulty of recruitment, both in numbers and in quality. To some extent, of course, this can be compensated
732
by concentrating the entire 3 per cent. on the recruiting grades. But, of course, this can be only a temporary expedient at best, and we Shall have to recruit more than another 3,500 academic staff by the mid-1960's to cope with the expansion. This means that the situation must, to say the least of it, be very closely watched; and, as I say, I would not defend the present levels except in relation to present income restraint, and except in the light of my right honourable friend's promise to review the matter next year.
I bad intended—but it is getting late—to say something in general about the relationship with the incomes policy, but I do not think that at this hour of the night I should be justified in inflicting this upon the House. There are only, therefore, two further points that I desire to raise. Three noble Lords, of whom the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, is the last, following the noble Earl, Lord Longford, and the noble Lord, Lord James of Rusholme, said that one of the lessons they drew from the present controversy was that the responsibility should no longer lie with the Treasury Ministers.
My Lords, especially with the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, on the Cross-Benches, I do not think that I ought to seek to anticipate what he may or may not say about that particular issue. Certainly, my colleagues could not allow me to anticipate what the Government might think in anticipation of what Lord Robbins may say. It is undoubtedly well within the terms of reference of his Committee and, if noble Lords feel strongly about it, they will of course, if they have not already done so, add to the very large numbers of those who have submitted evidence to it. I think there is something in the argument.
It is not—and I want to make it clear that it is not, because I think I owe it to my right honourable friends to say so—that the Treasury Ministers do not loyally put forward the claims of the universities in Government circles. I think it ought to be very generally known, that they do loyally put forward the claims of the bodies for which they are responsible as a spending Department—very loyally, indeed—within Government circles. But I agree that

733
it can be embarrassing, both to the University Grants Committee and to the Treasury Ministers, that it may be thought that they do not. Moreover, there are now a very large number of grant-aided bodies for which the Treasury is responsible, in the sense of being the sponsoring Department, which might like to review their position in the light of modern Government developments. That is outside the terms of this debate, but I would say that those are things which must be considered.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, can the noble Viscount give one undertaking: that it will not be handed over to the Minister of Education, and that he will do his best to get it for himself?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I think I had better not interfere with the noble Lord, Lord Robbins. But anyone who attended the debate here in May, 1960, will remember that when the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham (as I think he then was) suggested that it should be handed over to the Minister of Education, he met with considerable opposition. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, when he considers his Report, will be aware of the state of feeling on this issue.
My Lords, I would end by saying only this—and I must apologise again for being so long. If the noble Earl who moved this Motion believes, with our record and indeed with his, that my right honourable friends and we in this House are less solicitous for the well-being and expansion of the universities and their teaching staffs than is his own Party, I can only tell him that he is guilty of gross injustice and he suffers from a dangerous and unjustifiable illusion.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
7.45 p.m.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I think applause must be out of order. I heard someone clap his hands. I think that was a well-earned tribute. However, I do not think anybody—certainly I, least of all—would complain of the length of time taken by the noble and learned Viscount. Although he left out my remarks, which I understand must be attributed to a sort of mixture of cunning partisanship and superficial knowledge, and a lot of undesirable
734
traits, he still had a formidable array of speeches to which to reply. I do not think most noble Lords will feel that they have been replied to. I should doubt whether there is a speaker in the House who feels that the noble and learned Viscount has in fact answered his point. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Cohen—who, of all the speakers, was the only one who indicated any doubtfulness of attitude—feels that he has been replied to, but certainly I am sure no one else feels that he has been.
I should like to thank the noble and learned Viscount for the vim which he has imparted into his speech, and I should like to thank all the speakers who have supported this Motion. They will forgive me if I do not mention them by name; but I think about the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, because I believe he himself had it in mind to put down a Motion of this kind and he found mine on the Paper. No doubt he would have done it a great deal better, and I am only sorry that I was not in a position to back him up. I should also like, if I may, if it is not patronising, to thank those who have listened and are still awake. But particularly should I like, if I may, to thank the noble Field Marshal, Lord Montgomery of Alamein, who I believe has sat in the Chamber from the beginning.
VISCOUNT MONTGOMERY OF ALAMEIN: My Lords, I have listened with great interest to noble Lords all the afternoon, and the impression I gain is that, if you have not had a university education, you are not really any good. I do not know whether the noble Earl considers that I am no good because I did not go to a university. I am rather like the father of my noble Leader, who reached the top of his profession without a university degree and then received a number of honorary degrees. I have received honorary degrees from fourteen universities, one of which is the noble Lord, Lord Boothby's——
LORD BOOTHBY: I am delighted to know it.
VISCOUNT MONTGOMERY OF ALAMEIN:—which is in the tribal areas, of course. I would say that, if you had a count in this House of how many noble Lords (had been to university and how many had not, you would find that most——
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order !
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I was going to pay the noble Viscount the compliment of saying that he was the only strong, silent Field Marshal, but I was quite mistaken there.
There has been a tremendous onslaught on the Government, and I do not recall a debate in which expert opinion has been so unanimous in criticism of the Minister. I have been here fifteen years and I cannot recall such a debate. Others who have been here longer may have some dim recollection, but nothing at all like it comes into my mind. The only large group in this House—and they are a very large group—that has not of course been represented, has been the great body of Conservatives outside the Government. They sit there. I can see within a few yards of me at least two former Ministers of Education. Although we are told that the Minister of Education has to be careful about laying his hands on the universities, I am sure they would have had a lot to say.
However, the noble and learned Viscount and his colleagues have not been able to find a single Member—and I have no doubt many Ministers would have sprung forward to do their duty—outside Government stalwarts, who would say a word in their defence. That is the actual position, and it must give those who have listened to this debate, and those who have come in rather late, a good deal of cause to think. It must be an unprecedented situation. Not one word can be found to be said for this, except by the loyal colleague, the noble and learned Viscount.
I would add only one other general comment—and this, again, is for the benefit of those who perhaps have not been here all through the day. It is that the speeches made by great experts—gentlemen much more expert than I am; gentlemen whom even the noble Viscount, in his most ebullient moments, would hardly say were superficial in their knowledge of universities—were made when the House was thin, and those speeches were made in the knowledge of what was said in another place by the two Ministers there. I think that they would agree with me that the noble Viscount has added nothing to what was said by the other two Ministers. So they made their speeches well aware of those
736
replies. And yet they were prepared to substantiate their charges and their severe criticisms, in spite of the fact that those things could be said. I mention this only for the benefit of those who have not heard the whole discussion, and who may have just arrived and heard only the noble Viscount.
The noble Viscount made, as I said, a vigorous speech, and I am not going to try to reply to it now. I have heard the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor say that there is an old slogan at the Bar—not, I think, followed by all the best practitioners—which says that when you have no case at all, you abuse the other attorney.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, were the other noble Lords described as dishonest, disreputable and discreditable?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I did not use all those words.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I wrote them all down.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: Not in relation to any individuals. No; I laid the charge against the Government. The noble Viscount made a charge against me, but I do not take it very seriously, any more than I take the rest of his speech seriously. I regard it as something of a joke, really. He accused me, with a gaiety that I, at any rate, could not misunderstand, of "characteristic lack of generosity". Well, I suppose that might be thought to be a hard thing to say, if one did not know the noble Viscount. But when people know what he has said about me in the past, they realise that that is virtually a compliment. Luckily for my peace of mind, on the last occasion that the noble Viscount spoke in this House in relation to me, not very many weeks ago, he said that I showed—"habitually showed", I think—" considerable generosity, even towards my oldest friends." Now I suffer from a "characteristic lack of generosity". I know my character is deteriorating as the years pass, but I did not realise it was as fast as all that; I did not realise that my character had deteriorated so much in the course of the last fortnight. When I heard the noble Viscount pouring out words of that sort, which I do not think mean

737
much to him, I am afraid, I did not feel bound to take the rest of his speech very seriously.
On the other hand, we take the question of the universities very seriously, and we here have said, in essence—one with this emphasis, one with that emphasis—as I mentioned at the beginning, that the targets are shockingly low; and, as I have also said, that even those low targets, and particularly the first 150,000 places by 1966–67, cannot be achieved with the amount of help which is to be given by the Government. In various ways that has been developed by my noble friend Lord Shackleton and others, but in fact we have had no answer to either point. I am not going to become involved in comparisons with other countries. Twice this afternoon I have quoted Sir David Eccles, and I am beginning to think that he is out of favour, because apparently no attention is paid to him at all. He said that we have
"the lowest proportion of our population going to the universities o:: any highly-developed country in the world."
When the noble Viscount gets up and says that anybody who makes these comparisons is doing a grave disservice to education, or words of that sort, that leads me not to take his speech very seriously.
The other question is: shall we get there?—and here, of course, there is the expert opinion of the Vice-Chancellors that we shall not. I will not quote that again, but I must make it plain to anyone who has just arrived with instructions to vote, who has heard only the noble Viscount and who perhaps wonders whether he ought to find out if there is another side, that the Vice-Chancellors have come out solidly with the view that these targets cannot be attained with the amount of assistance that the Government are offering, and it seems very hard to put that opinion aside.
There is only one other point that I need mention at all, and I do this because I think there was a genuine misunderstanding by the noble Viscount of what the noble Lord, Lord James of Rusholme, said. The speech by the noble Lord, Lord James of Rusholme, will have made the deepest impression of all, I should think, on most outside
738
people. There was, I believe, a genuine misunderstanding there. The noble Viscount seemed to feel that some of us, and possibly the noble Lord, Lord James of Rusholme, were claiming that the University Grants Committee were so expert in every way that their opinion on the amount of money that the Government should provide must be accepted. The noble Lord, Lord James of Rusholme, did not say that. He said, if I remember rightly and if I took down his words rightly, that they are the experts, and the only experts really available to the Government, who can say how much money is needed to attain certain objectives. That is surely the important distinction.
LORD JAMES OF RUSHOLME: Quite.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: That is a very important distinction and I did not want any misunderstanding on that point. My Lords, it has been a memorable debate. Those who study the speeches will feel, I am sure, that they have not been replied to by the noble Viscount; but I do not think it was possible for him to make an answer. I once heard a speaker at a public dinner following a chess conference say, "When I see a great master polishing off some opponent and making a great display of his art, I recognise his genius but I am not particularly interested; but when I see the same man making a bad start, losing a pawn or two, getting into a hopeless position, and possibly" (I am afraid this must come out) "if he is a little bit drunk besides, and if he continues and struggles through and finishes somehow, even if he gets only a stalemate, then I say, 'Some player!'." I pay tribute to the noble Viscount for getting through somehow with a hopeless case.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, I should like to say that no one is here under instructions to vote, at any rate so far as the Government supporters are concerned.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I accept every statement of fact that falls from the lips of the noble Viscount, but I have never come across a statement from him which I have found it harder to

739
accept, in the true sense of the words, than this one.
Well, my Lords, the future of the universities is at stake, and I think the most relevant words at the moment are those from the noble Lord, Lord Boothby. No one who votes against the Government to-night will bring the Government down, but he will testify to the fact that this country insists on much
more generous treatment for the universities than they are being offered at the present time; and I believe that everybody in his heart to-night, including the noble Viscount, would like to see effect given to that policy.
On Question, Whether the said Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents 32; Not-Contents 49.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Francis-Williams, L.

Shepherd, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, V.

Henderson, L.

Somers, L.

Boothby, L.

Hughes, L.

Stamp, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

James of Rusholme, L.

Strang, L.

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Kenswood, L.

Summerskill, B.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Listowel, E.

Taylor, L.

Chorley, L.

Longford, E.

Walston, L.

Cohen, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Williams, L.

Cohen of Birkenhead, L.

Peddie, L.

Williams of Barnburgh, L.

Crook, L.

Rea, L.

Ypres, E.

Darwen, L.

Shackleton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ferrier, L.

Margesson, V.

Ampthill, L.

Forster of Harraby, L.

Merrivale, L.

Atholl, D.

Fortescue, E.

Mills, L.

Bathurst, E.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Molson, L.

Brentford, V.

Goschen, V.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Carrington, L.

Hailsham, V. (L. President)

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Chesham, L.

Hampton, L.

Newall, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Hastings, L.

Newton, L. [Teller.]

Colyton, L.

Home, E.

Radnor, E.

Conesford, L.

Horsbrugh, B.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Cork and Orrery, E.

Howe, E.

St. Oswald, L.

Craigton, L.

Hylton, L.

Soulbury, V.

Denham, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Devonshire, D.

Jellicoe, E.

Teynham, L.

Dundee, E.

Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Waldegrave, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Wolverton, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.

House adjourned at seven minutes past eight o'clock.